Who killed: significant features of the generalized portrait of the murderers of the group Dyatlov.

Who killed: significant features of the generalized portrait of murderers based on the alleged behavioral model.


What about the killers, based on the details of the crime recorded by the investigation and the conclusions drawn above?
   Let's go in order:
   - The killers were not members of Igor Dyatlov's group, otherwise the concerted actions of the group would be ruled out. Meanwhile, "dyatlovtsy" retreated from the tent all together, in one direction and with at least a voice contact. In the future, we see coordinated actions under the cedar and in the ravine;
   - The killers were few - 2, maximum, 3 people - as these people experienced obvious difficulty with the control of the entire group of tourists. It was their inability to fully control the entire group that provided Zolotarev and Thibault Brignoles with the opportunity to secede at the very beginning of the attack and save clothing, shoes, hats;
   - The assassins were armed with firearms, because without it they could not achieve the obedience of a group of 9 people with at least 3 axes, 5 knives and 2 ski poles. It is the overwhelming force superiority of the enemy that has forced at least seven adults, adequate and experienced enough to obey the absolutely wild at first sight requirements to remove headgear, gloves and shoes. Without firearms, the enemy could not suppress the will to resist to such an extent; a group fight would inevitably begin, a dump, and on the bodies and clothing of the deceased, specific damage would result;
   "The assassins were clearly not pretending to be what they were. This explains the underestimation by some members of the group of the degree of threat created by these people. Their aggressive actions were perceived by the Dyatlovtsy (at least at the first stage) as a robbery. And this caused a calming part of the group, inclined to the idea that it was enough to wait out the night (or even a few hours), and then return to the tent - and that's all the trouble will end;
   - The enemy initially set himself the task of completely destroying the group Dyatlov. However, the destruction of this should not leave a trace of apparent violence and seem to be the result of some spontaneous impact of an uncertain nature. Therefore, the enemy, threatening the "Dyatlovtsy" with weapons, did not let weapons act and did not intend to let it act. Even when the last members of the group had to be killed (so to speak, killing forcibly) this was done without the use of weapons;
   - The attackers did not belong to the power structures of the Soviet Union (ie, the Armed Forces, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the KGB). Whoever killed Igor Dyatlov's group, these people were very afraid of an investigation that could follow after the discovery of the bodies of the disappeared tourists. The murderers understood that the dead will be searched and will certainly be found. And if on the bodies of the victims there are traces of wounds from a gunshot or a cold weapon, then this can be fatal for them (ie, murderers). It was the fear of a possible investigation that prompted the intruders to act in a suboptimal way, that is, to kill without the use of weapons. Moreover, we should not forget that "non-optimal" in this case means not only the costs of unnecessary time and effort, but also a serious risk, since at least two of those who left the Lozva Valley had knives. The presence of this "fear factor" is a weighty argument in favor of the fact that the killers were in no way connected with the power structures of the USSR;

- The attackers did not belong to the marginal layers of Soviet society - criminals, "black artel" (prospectors), exiles, etc. The killers clearly checked the property that was in the tent, since they had a lot of time from the moment of the expulsion of the group and until the appearance bonfire code of the cedar, which prompted them to move to the Lozva Valley. But they were not flattered by the values. Recall that the total amount of cash that was at the disposal of Igor Dyatlov's group was approaching 2 thousand rubles. To make the reader comprehend the idea of ​​its commodity equivalent, we will report that the price of a bottle of vodka was then 22-26 rubles. (depending on the variety), the nurse earned 450 rubles per month, the junior lieutenant of the Armed Forces - 1100 rubles. The doctor of the accelerated (so-called "military editions" of 1941-45) training - 770 rubles. And the doctor with "Full" diploma - 900 rubles. per month. One year at the university (the training was then paid!) Cost 400 rubles. But the cost of men's shoes in the store fluctuated around 150-200 rubles. The prisoner in ITK could receive transfers for the amount of not more than 300 rubles. in a month (in this artful case there were some nuances, but they are not interesting for us, just the order of numbers is important). In general, 2 thousand rubles. were then not that very large sum, but decent, we will tell so. No "Urka" would neglect such riches. But in addition to money from tourists there were cameras, and watches, and alcohol! However, nothing was lost. Why? The answer can only be one - all this stuff did not have the slightest value for the attackers;
   - Although the previous paragraph (that the killers were not marginalized) seems well founded and generally reliable, nevertheless, it may not fully explain the indifference of criminals to the money of the people they killed. Unlike watches, sweaters or cameras, whose personal identity in general is not difficult to establish (and thus to convict criminals in case of their capture), the personal belonging of money under any circumstances could not be established. So, the killer who took them, did not risk anything. Nevertheless, the criminals neglected this prey. Why? On the one hand, in this we see a manifestation of strict discipline, uniformity of actions, if you like, the unanimity of a group of criminals. But this explanation is not enough. Refusal of money can be explained by disregard for deeply personal motives (religious, ideological, political). If the killers were treated not as a criminal act, but as an act of, say, religious-mystical, or civil confrontation, then the victims themselves and all their property caused them an unconditional and irreconcilable antagonism. A person experiencing hatred of this intensity will not rob a victim simply because it disgraces himself. It is appropriate to compare with a good soldier who knows that an enemy can and should be killed, but marauding is unacceptable. This assumption allows us to look at an unexpected angle on the motivation of criminals - they acted as if they were at war. But what kind of war was it? whom with whom or against what? - we have to return to these questions a little later;

The way some of the members of Igor Dyatlov's group were killed allows us to conclude with full right that the attackers had excellent skills in hand-to-hand combat. In general, the answer to the question "how were bodily injuries caused to Lyudmila Dubinina, Semyon Zolotarev and Nikolai Thibault Brignol?" Is one of the easiest in this matter, it does not require complicated explanations and does not need to involve some supernatural forces as a source of influence . The whole discord of opinions around him is explained by the naive-literal interpretation of words from the conclusions of forensic medical examinations, in which Doctor Renaissance, explaining the cause of the traumatic impact, pointed to "a great force with a subsequent fall (body), throw or bruise." The notorious "great power" so much struck the unmotivated imagination of many "woodpecker" that they were ready as its source to imagine anything from auto-trauma to falling from a height - except for the obvious in the context of a particular kick environment. And more precisely - the knee. A little later we will describe in detail the method of applying these blows, since the traumas of the deceased are truly "talking". But now we will not delve into this topic and only limit ourselves to the conclusion that the killers were in good physical shape and had very good skills in hand-to-hand combat;
   "The fact that the attackers managed not to leave obvious traces of their stay on the slope of the Kholat-Sahyl and further movement in the cedar areas shows, on the one hand, their scarcity, and on the other, indicates the presence of inventory that does not leave long-living recognizable traces on the snow . It could be like wide skis, like Mansiysk (so-called kamus skis), and skis lined with fur (found in some peoples of the north and the Indians of the USA and Canada). In addition, snowshoes are also not recognizable traces. In those days they were already well known, in the domestic books of the 30-40's. you can find descriptions in which snowshoes appear under the name "ski-rockets" (ordinary narrow skis were called "running"). An obvious advantage of snowshoes is that it is almost impossible to break them on snowy virgin soil, in addition, they can easily be made from improvised material, in contrast to real skis. There were, however, significant drawbacks: the speed of the person's movement on snowshoes was significantly lower than the skier, and energy costs - higher. In addition, it should be noted that a person with snowshoes on his legs can strike knee strikes, while a skier - no.
   Having considered this chain of inferences, we will try to formulate, as far as possible, a more specific answer to the question, with whom exactly did the tourists encounter on the slope of Holatchahl in the afternoon of February 1, 1959? It was a small group of people (2-3 people) armed with firearms, most likely automatic, with developed survival skills in a wild, uninhabited area. The group was disciplined, and this testifies to the existence within it of a rigid hierarchy. These people possessed excellent physical data and possessed very specific methods of hand-to-hand combat, the age of the members of the group hardly exceeded 40 years. They had no problems with equipment and food shortages. For some reason, the members of the group experienced a strong dislike and even hatred for the group of tourists they met. Since group hatred is not spontaneous, it is quite possible that dislike was a secondary feeling, which resulted from suspicion and fear.