Case without a number

The well-known so-called "Dyatlov Group Case" has been published in book form and has become an open and publicly accessible source that can be referenced, acquired, and researched at one's own discretion and level of expertise.

Therefore, it makes sense to analyze the materials of this "case without a number" from the perspective of forensic science and Soviet criminal procedure law, in order to clear up the misconceptions and illusions prevalent in dyatlovedenie *.

1. Materials of the case without a number"

1.1. Grounds for Dismissal of the Case

Let's start from the end.

As is well known, there is a deep-rooted belief in dyatlovedenie that Ivanov dismissed the "case without a number" by citing some "overwhelming force", which in dyatlovedenie has been completely groundlessly subsumed under the legal term "force majeure". There is no mention of "force majeure" in the decision to dismiss the case.

In fact, this is not the case.

When dismissing a criminal case, the investigator is obliged to state the legal basis for its dismissal. This is a specific clause of a specific article of the Criminal Procedure Code. Because a criminal case can only be dismissed if the grounds listed in the relevant articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR are present, and this article of the Criminal Procedure Code must be cited in the decision, along with the reasons for its application. It is impossible to dismiss a criminal case "simply" by citing some "act of God" without specifying the legal basis for terminating the case.

Ivanov cited Section 5 of Article 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR (page 387) as the legal basis for terminating the "case without a number."

Here is the text of Section 5 of Article 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR, which was in effect at the time:

"5. In the absence of corpus delicti in the actions attributed to the accused."

As can be seen, when dismissing a case on this basis, a specific person(s) must be identified in whose actions the investigator found no corpus delicti. It is against this person(s) that the investigator dismisses the criminal case.

Ivanov indicates these persons on page 387. These are UPI Director Siunov, Party Bureau Secretary Zaostrovskiy, UPI Trade Union Chairman Slobodin, City Union of Voluntary Sports Sports Chairman Kurochkin, Union Inspector Ufimtsev, and the Chairman of the Board of the Gordo Sports Club.

Ivanov further states that "there is no causal connection between the actions of the above-mentioned individuals, who committed deficiencies in organizing sports activities, and the death of the group of hikers." Therefore, no criminal offense is found in this case.

That is, Ivanov dismissed the case against Siunov, Zaostrovskiy, Slobodin, Kurochkin, Ufimtsev, and Gordo under Section 5 of Article 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR, finding no criminal offense. And not because of some "act of God," as is commonly believed in dyatlovedenie. "Acts of God" is mentioned in the decision to terminate the case, but it has nothing to do with the termination of this case on the grounds of paragraph 5 of Article 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR.

1.2. Resolution on Initiating a Case

This is file p. 1-v. The resolution is dated February 26, 1959. It must be drawn up on the day the criminal case is initiated.

The text of the resolution on initiating a "case without a number" cites circumstances that became known no earlier than February 27. This means only one thing: the resolution was drawn up not on February 26, but later, i.e., "retroactively".

There is no copy of the resolution in the supervisory proceedings. But there should be.

The supervisory proceedings are not in the hands of the investigator, as is commonly believed in dyatlovedenie (where Ivanov was made the "master" of the supervisory proceedings), but rather in the hands of the prosecutor overseeing the preliminary investigation. The supervising prosecutor initiates a supervisory proceeding for each criminal case and files copies of all the key procedural documents related to the case under investigation, supplied by the investigator, into this supervisory (or supervisory, which is the same thing). Moreover, the investigator may never see the materials of the supervisory proceeding unless the prosecutor deems it necessary to show them to the investigator.

The resolution initiating the case was drawn up on the letterhead of an investigator from the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor's Office. This is a rather remarkable fact. Tempalov in Ivdel should have had different forms: forms from the district/city prosecutor's office. The exclusive forms of the investigator from the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor's Office should not have been supplied to Ivdel. This fact, given that the resolution was drawn up retroactively and that there is no copy of this resolution in the supervisory proceedings, raises the suspicion that it was drawn up by Tempalov not in Ivdel, but in Sverdlovsk, at the regional prosecutor's office.

1.3. Resolution on extending the investigation period (case file 340)

The investigator begins extending the investigation period even before it expires. He or she is required to submit a copy of the resolution to the supervising prosecutor, who then files this copy in the supervisory proceedings.

In this case, there is no copy of this resolution in the supervisory proceedings. And the resolution itself, as is evident from its text, was issued on April 30, 1959, after the investigation period had already expired. This is not permitted in a normal criminal investigation.

Furthermore, Ivanov states the following in the text of this resolution:

"The case regarding the students' deaths was opened on February 28, 1959, and the investigation period expired on April 28, 1959."

The investigation period is extended until May 28, 1959, i.e., until the date of the resolution terminating the "case without a number".

The combined circumstances raise the suspicion that this resolution extending the investigation period was drawn up in order to accommodate the investigation period to the resolution terminating the case. Ivanov was unaware that in the resolution initiating the case, Tempalov indicated February 26, not February 28, as Ivanov wrote in the resolution extending the investigation period.

1.4. Case Number

As is well known, cases have no number. This is a very important circumstance. The number is usually indicated on the order initiating the case. This is because a criminal case often lacks a cover and may consist of only a few sheets of paper held together with a paper clip. In this case, the order initiating the case does not indicate the case number.

Also, the very first column (in the upper right corner) of all "prosecutor's" interrogation report forms is blank: "D. No. __________________ 195." This column should contain the case number and the date it was initiated.

Usually, this column is left blank by an investigator executing another investigator's investigative order (Article 126 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR of 1923), if they are not aware of this information.

1.5. Documents beyond the investigation period

The investigation period for this case is from February 26, 1959, to May 28, 1959. In a normal criminal case, there should not be a single procedural document with an execution date beyond the investigation period.

The "case without a number" contains the following documents with execution dates beyond the investigation period.

Interrogation protocol on page 48 of February 6, 1959

Histological examination reports on pages 358-361 of May 29, 1959

Radiological examination report on pages Cases 372-377, May 29, 1959

Interrogation minutes on pages 378-380, May 29, 1959

The minutes on pages 48 and 378-380 bear all the hallmarks of interrogation minutes conducted in the execution of investigative orders (Article 126 of the 1923 Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR).

The following conclusions follow.

The "case without a number" was compiled after its procedural termination had been formalized. Therefore, the materials of the "case without a number" include documents with execution dates extending beyond the investigation period.

1.6. Photographs

The entire materials of the "case without a number" comprise 387 sheets included in the inventory. This criminal case ends with the final page of the decision to dismiss the case. Anything beyond page 387 is no longer considered criminal case material.

And outside the criminal case are all the photographs, which in dyatlovedenie are referred to as "photographs from the criminal case." In fact, this is not true. Only those items that the investigator has attached to the criminal case, are found in the criminal case materials, and are included in the inventory of the criminal case can constitute criminal case material. In this case, the 387 pages of case materials do not contain a single photograph, and, moreover, there is not a single reference to the inclusion of any photograph in the "case without a number."

Even the photo tables from the expert report on the tent, which are integral parts of the expert report and should be filed with the case along with the expert's report, are located outside the "case without a number."

This never happens in a normal criminal case, in which a real investigation is being conducted.

The archival certifications allow us to determine when all these photographs were added to the "case without a number" and the observation proceedings (which in dyatlovedenie is completely unreasonably called the "second volume of the criminal case"). It turns out that the photographs were added to the case materials and the observation proceedings between May 24, 1974 and February 6, 1996. That is, while the "case without a number" and the supervisory proceedings were kept in the archive.

In order to supplement a dismissed criminal case with any materials, it is first necessary to overturn the decision to dismiss the case and reopen the preliminary investigation. Only then will the additional materials become case materials. There is no other way. Without overturning the decision to dismiss the case, you can attach anything you like to the criminal case stored in the archive, but the result is always the same: none of these materials will ever become case materials.

In this case, no one overturned the decision of May 28, 1959, to dismiss the case, so anything located outside of page 387 and not included in the inventory is not considered case material.

Therefore, the "case without a number" materials do not contain a single photograph. This does not happen in a real criminal case.

1.7. Source of the Photographs

There is no information about the origin of the photographs. The cover letter mentions an "album."

It can be assumed that these photographs were stored separately from the "case without a number" materials, in some "album." There is no mention of this album in the case materials. If this album were an integral part of the case materials, it should have been attached to the case materials by the corresponding procedural document. This is not the case in this case. Therefore, this "album" could not have been part of the "case without a number."

In a normal criminal case and during a real investigation, this does not happen: the case is separate, and the photographs in this case are in some separate "album."

Photographs are usually pasted onto photo tables and, in this form, filed with the case materials. If it is necessary to add a photo album to the case file, the investigator issues a ruling adding the album to the case file and files this procedural document with the case file.

This is not the case in this instance.

All of the above is essential for determining what the "case without a number" actually is, which in dyatlovedenie is considered the "Dyatlov group case" — the materials used to investigate the cause of the death of the Dyatlov group.

2. Forensic Evaluation of the "Case without a number" Materials

2.1. Time and Place of the Incident

When ordering an expert examination in a criminal case, the investigator is obligated to indicate in the ruling, for the expert's information, what he has established regarding the case at the time of ordering the expert examination. Moreover, he must provide only information that is reliably established.

In the resolution appointing an expert examination of the tent dated March 16, 1959 (p. 301), Ivanov stated the following for the expert's information:

"On the evening of February 1, 1959, a group of nine hikers died on the slope of height "1079."

That is, Ivanov, as expected, indicates the exact time (the evening of February 1, 1959), location (the slope of height "1079"), and circumstances of the incident (the simultaneous death of a group of nine hikers). This is despite the fact that on March 16, 1959, the fate of the four hikers was still unknown, and there was no information that they all died on the evening of February 1, 1959.

Also, the materials of the "case without a number" as of March 16 contain no information that could lead one to conclude that the group died on the evening of February 1, 1959.

From all this, the conclusion follows: Ivanov had another, reliable source of information about the Dyatlov group incident.

2.2. Witness Interrogation Records

The Dyatlov group incident took place on February 1, 1959. Therefore, according to the rules taught to future investigators in forensic science classes, an investigator investigating an event that occurred on February 1, 1959, must begin the interrogation of each witness with the question: "What does the witness know about the event that occurred on February 1, 1959?"

If the witness knows something, the investigator records the witness's testimony in the record. If the witness knows nothing, the investigator records their response in the record something like this: "I know nothing about what happened on February 1, 1959."

But nothing like this is found in any of the witness interrogation records in the "case without a number." These records contain information about events that occurred at other times, but not on February 1, 1959.

The only mention of February 1 is in the interrogation record of witness Krivonischenko (p. 273), and even then, not as a response to a specific question, but rather "in passing", among other information.

This (when interrogation records contain all sorts of unnecessary information, but no answers to witnesses' questions on the merits of the case) should not occur in a normal criminal case investigating an incident that occurred on February 1, 1959.

2.3. Information on witness interrogations from other sources

Witness interrogation records for the event that occurred on February 1, 1959, existed.

Evgeniy Okishev, deputy head of the investigative department of the Sverdlovsk Oblast prosecutor's office in 1959, told Komsomolskaya Pravda journalists that in 1959, an Ivdellag employee was identified and interrogated. He and his wife were returning home after a film screening on the evening of February 1, 1959, and they saw flashes in the direction where the hikers died. These interrogation reports are not included in the "case without a number".

Investigator Korotaev (in publications from 1990 and 1991) reported that he identified and interrogated approximately a dozen witnesses who witnessed the event that occurred on the day of the Dyatlov group's death. He passed the interrogation reports to Tempalov, who then passed them on to Urakov, who had arrived from Moscow. Korotaev received a commendation from the Deputy Prosecutor of the RSFSR for these interrogation reports.

2.4. Information Received from Evgeniy Okishev

In his book "Letters from Ivdel," Oleg Arkhipov, on pp. 442-443, presents information obtained from Evgeniy Okishev. The information is brief, but very significant. From what Okishev reported, it follows that in 1959, the USSR Prosecutor's Office investigated a case related to a man-made disaster. Okishev declined to say what kind of disaster it was. He (Okishev) and Ivanov were included in the investigative team, signed non-disclosure agreements (regarding state secrets), and tasked with collecting materials on the deaths of nine hikers.

Conclusions

"Case without a number" is not the material used to investigate the deaths of the Dyatlov group.

The incident involving the Dyatlov group, as a separate incident, was investigated in the criminal case reported by Evgeniy Okishev, which was investigated by the USSR Prosecutor's Office. This case was classified, and until this classification is removed, no one will receive any information about it.

The Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor's Office did not conduct its own investigation, separate from the USSR Prosecutor's Office. The Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor's Office carried out investigative assignments for this case and collected materials on the deaths of nine hikers for the case, which was being investigated by the USSR Prosecutor's Office.

All materials of evidentiary value regarding the event that occurred on February 1, 1959, were sent to the USSR Prosecutor's Office.

Materials that were no longer needed by the USSR Prosecutor's Office remained in Sverdlovsk.

From these materials, an "case without a number" was compiled for subsequent archival transfer.

After the expiration of the archival storage period, all these materials were to be destroyed. But external circumstances changed, and instead of being destroyed, the "case without a number" was handed over to Dyatlov researchers.

They handed over the "case without a number" to Dyatlov researchers because they didn't see anything significant in the materials that could point to the real cause of the Dyatlov incident.

Literature

1. "Discontinued Criminal Case on the Death of Tourists in the Otorten Area of ​​Ivdel, Sverdlovsk Region" edited by Yuri Kuntsevich, Yekaterinburg, 2017
2. Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR of 1923 (as amended in 1958)
3. Uralsky Rabochy newspaper. "The Mystery of the Fireballs," June 8-12, 1990
4. The newspaper "Na Smenu". "The Cause of the Tragedy? Ask the Central Committee!", February 14, 1991
5. Oleg Arkhipov's book "Letters from Ivdel." Tyumen, 2021

* dyatlovedenie - designation of a subculture of researchers and enthusiasts engaged in the study and interpretation of the circumstances of the death of the Dyatlov group.