Errors of investigation at the initial stage

What the investigators did not see. Bugs of the initial stage of the investigation
   At the same time, it should be noted that from the very beginning both the investigation and the search engines working on the slope of the Holat-Sahyl allowed a number of flaws and failed to clarify the important points that are very important for understanding what happened to the group of Djatlov. The mistakes made at the very beginning of the investigation led to the fact that many important conclusions can be justifiably questioned and these doubts eventually led to the formation of a huge number of (several dozen) versions, which completely differently described the process of the death of the group.
   Let's enumerate in brief those defects of the investigation, mentioned above, so that the reader will understand what is being said:
   1) Prosecutor Tempalov and prosecutor-criminalist Ivanov carelessly reacted to such an important task of the investigation as the forensic-operational shooting of the crime scene. Meanwhile, this was one of the most important goals of their stay in the search area at the end of February-March 1959. In the case, there are practically no orienting photographs that make it possible to clearly define the position of corpses, clues and significant objects of the environment (stones, pits, etc.) .) against the backdrop of landmarks. In the case also there are no detailed photographs that transmit forensically significant properties and attributes of objects. Those photos, which were made by prosecutors, belong to the category of so-called. "Nodal", those can not be limited when photographing a corpse at the place of detection. Each of the bodies should have been imprinted from at least three points - the top and two lateral ones, both in the snow and after snow removal. Especially important are detailed photographs of the bodies of the deceased and their clothes, since the verbal description in the protocol often does not record many important details. Nothing was done. At some point, the investigators apparently understood the apparent lack of photographic materials included in the case, so they added photos as search-and-operative photos made by ... search engines. The latter had a very low forensic value and could only be considered as illustrative material. Meanwhile, by the end of the 30-ies. in the USSR, forensic science developed the basic rules for taking photographs in the interests of the investigation and the forensic-operational photographing ceased to be exotic.
   2) Completely unsatisfactory was the fixation of tracks on the snow by photographing. The footprints observed on the lower part of the slope of the Holat-Sahyl for more than half a kilometer, could tell a lot about the nature of the people's departure-how many were there, whether there were dragging of bodies, falls, exactly how the group moved (by step, by run) place moving forward sideways or back (such a way of retreat could indicate the presence behind the group of threat, next on the heels). Important for understanding what happened could be the study of how the girls moved, because in the event of a prolonged danger on the slope, young people would surely surround them; if the girls moved on the periphery of the group, then the immediate danger during the descent did not exist. In general, the traces left on the snow carried a lot of extremely valuable information about the behavior of the members of the group and the safety of the tracks was an exceptional success for the investigation. However, prosecutors' employees did not take advantage of this. In forensic science, there are certain rules for photographing tracks in the snow - pictures should be taken through yellow or orange light filters, if there is a track, it must be removed either in perspective or by a linear panorama method; It is also necessary to take detailed photographs of the most characteristic single prints. In order to reduce the harmful effect of scattered light, "lubricating" the details of the track on the snow, special screens are used, and the shooting is performed both in direct light and in oblique light. Since there were people with very different foot sizes in the group, photographing with a ruler and measuring the size of the prints, it is quite possible that the trace tracks of individual pairs of legs could be associated with specific people, which would immediately remove (or, on the contrary, confirm) certain versions. But it is necessary to talk about this in the subjunctive mood, since the proper fixation of the traces of retreat through photography was not carried out. All that we know about the traces are oral descriptions of search engines, often directly contradicting each other, and a couple of little informative photos from which one can understand only the fact of the existence of traces in the form of columns of snow;

3) Surprisingly inattention of investigators to the situation around the tent, found on the slope of Holat-Syahyl. Prosecutors were not there during the detection of the tent on February 26, but Tempalov flew to the helicopter pass the next day and had to carefully record all traces and evidence near the tent and take steps to clarify their origin. What are we talking about?
   First of all, about a single trace of urine in the snow. About him it is known only that such a trace really existed and seems to be at a distance of 1 m from the tent. Who owned this trace - a member of the group Dyatlov or someone from the search engines - so plainly and unclear. By default, it is believed that for a small need descended someone from the "dyatlovtsev", but polling search engines, in order to make sure otherwise, Tempalov did not realize. Meanwhile, Slobtsov, who discovered the tent on February 26, honestly admitted that he did not remember the trace of urine in the snow.
   The situation with a fragment of a skis found in early March on a horizontal platform on which the tent of Djatlov's group was installed is similar. What kind of ski was it, did it belong to the search engines and if not, then to whom? so it remained unclear. About the ski is generally known only by the memories of the search participants - in the case of mentioning this there.
   Similarly, there is no mention in the file of a very unusual detail of clothes found at the airport of Ivdel, among the things disappeared tourists brought by the helicopter from the pass. We are talking about the military winding - a strip of greatcoat about 1 m long with ties at one end, used by the Red Army soldiers in the pre-war time to protect the shins from the cold. With the spread of boots and boots, the windings went out of use in the armed forces, but in the 1950s, they could still be seen from the GULAG escorts and cons. Yuri Yudin, who participated in the identification of things "dyutlovtsev" at the airport, told prosecutor Ivanov that the winding did not belong to the members of the missing group; she did not get into the inventory of things compiled by the investigator, her identity was not established and the fate of the strange detail of clothing is now unknown.
   Also, plainly nothing is known about the things of Dyatlov (slippers and socks, wrapped either in a shirt-kolobyku, or in a storm-it, by the way, was not exactly established!) Found at some distance from the tent. At what distance and in what direction these most important clues were found, how exactly they were wrapped up (and whether they were wrapped up altogether) remained unclear.
   There is not even a clarity on such an important issue, how many skies did a group of 9 people have? In one protocol available in the case, it is reported about 8 pairs of skis laid under the base of the tent, in the other - about 9. If you add a couple of skis, found near the tent, and left in the lab, and a fragment of an unknown ski near the tent, it turns out too much a lot of.
   In addition, it is unclear, in what position was a pair of skis, found near the tent. There are testimonies in which it is categorically asserted that these skis at the time of detection by the search engines were connected and lay in the snow in front of the entrance. If this is the case, then it turns out that the tent's horsehock was very sagging and the rope-braces were not wound in a loop sewn into its central part. And so, the installation of the tent was not completed by the time when a threatening event prompted the members of the tourist group to leave the parking lot and go to the Lozva Valley;
   4) Information in the case is completely inadequate for understanding what the site looked like under the cedar, where the first corpses were found (Krivonischenko and Doroshenko). It is known that the tree stood about 70 m from the forest boundary, that is, in general, far from the edge, but this place was blown by the wind, since it rose noticeably above the creek (one of the tributaries of Lozva) . The cedar was in direct line of sight from the tent, suggesting a fire for a light signal, but the bonfire was directly behind the tree trunk, which obscured the fire when viewed from Mount Holatchahl. This circumstance clearly reduced the visibility of such a signal. The bodies of the dead tourists lay in such a way that the fire was between them and the cedar. It seemed that the fire was extinguished not because the firewood was over, but because they stopped putting it. There are memories according to which Georgy Krivonischenko's body lay on dry branches, crushing them with its mass, as if the deceased fell on harvested wood from some height and did not rise any more. But in the official protocol of the crime scene inspection nothing is reported about this; there are no photos that can shed light on this very important nuance. Again, from the memories of the participants of the search operation it is known that around the fire there was a lot of dead wood, which was logical to use for breeding and maintaining fire. However, the victims for some reason climbed on the cedar, breaking its branches, ripping off the skin from their hands and leaving traces of blood on the bark of the tree.

That cedar (the photograph was taken in March 1959). The fate of the tree is not known exactly, there are indications that the cedar was destroyed in the spring of 1959 by the search engines themselves in order to prevent it from turning into a place of pilgrimage for tourists. At the same time, the participants of the last expeditions to the Diatlov Pass claim that they managed to find this tree and all the stories about its destruction are nothing more than a legend.

Tent in the place where it was on the slope. Сircle marked the place of the cedar

1 - the valley of the river Auspii, 2 - the pass of Dyatlova, where there is an obelisk on the rock, 3 - the approximate place of installation of the tent,
4 - the valley of the Lozva River, where the woodpeckers "retreated" and where the cedar is located.

Part of the young trees - fir and birches - growing around the cedar, was cut off with a knife. The investigators did not bother to ask where the cut trees had gone. or rather, they simply bowed to the most unpretentious answer, deciding that they were thrown into the fire. At the same time, the venerable law enforcement officers were not embarrassed by the senselessness of such an explanation. The investigators did not even count the number of trees cut off by knives, which, it would seem, anyone who thought could have done in their place. In addition, the stems of cut young fir were found and at some distance from the campsite, about 50-70 m, and the cut trees themselves also disappeared in an unknown direction. However, even in this case, the investigators showed an unpardonable disregard for fixing as yet incomprehensible, but potentially very important traces. There were no photographs left of them, no instructions on the map or diagram, nor any intelligible description of this place. It will be quite a long time before the fragmented fragments of the charade, codenamed "events under the cedar," will begin to form in a holistic, though incomprehensible to the end picture.

Photos from the last campaign of the group Dyatlov.

Left photo: Yuri Doroshenko at halt. Picture on the right: Georgy Krivonischenko examines the signs of Mansi hunters. Dyatlovites in the valley of the Auspiya River for some time followed the tracks of the hunter-Mansi and images of the original inhabitants of the Urals, apparently, they occupied a lot of the imagination of tourists. In the travel diary of Zina Kolmogorova there were Russian transcriptions of several Mansi words and expressions, and Georgy Krivonischenko was photographed next to the Mansi "runes". There was no deep meaning in this inscription, in fact, it says that three mansi-hunters with three dogs passed there and the tribal belonging of the first.

The list of the flaws of the investigative work can be continued, but there is no special meaning in this. Written is quite enough to understand what the numerous conspiracy versions, which were popular with a considerable part of the researchers of the history of the death of the Djatlov group, were feeding on. These versions ascribe to the law enforcement agencies the intention to conceal the true causes of the tragedy that happened on the slope of Holat-Sahyl. Conspirologists believed and believe now that there was no objective investigation at all, there was only his imitation, such an "Italian strike" of the investigators of the Soviet prosecutor's office. But, running a little forward, still I want to say that the Soviet prosecutor's office does not need to hang unnecessary sins, our prosecutor's office is already sinful. In this essay we will try to prove that there was no intent to conceal or distort facts investigators Ivanov Tempalov had, they really tried to understand the mystery of history, but only did so as they could, very mediocre.