"Experts can not be blamed for anything!"

Alina, the administrator of the taina.li forum, asked me to contact Igor Olegovich Makushkin, even strongly advised, informing that Igor Olegovich, the son of that same expert in the Dyatlov case, Churkina, Genrieta Eliseevna, had just registered at the forum and might want to talk about topics of long interest to us about the participation of his mother in the investigation of the mysterious death of Dyatlov group. Igor Olegovich responded to my letter, though not immediately, answered only a few questions, also not right away. It’s necessary to understand that he’s a busy person, he is teaching, moreover, Igor Olegovich simply didn’t know the answer, explaining that Genrieta Eliseevna signed a non-disclosure of the secrets of the investigation in Dyatlov case, which she had access to as a forensic expert, and under no circumstances violated it.

I would like to acquaint with his answers all those interested in revealing that distant tragedy. Legend in the intewrview:

IOM - Igor Olegovich Makushkin, the son of the same expert on Dyatlov case - Genrietta Eliseevna Churkina
MP - Maria Piskareva

MP: Dear Igor Olegovich! I am very glad that you agreed to talk about your mother and answer some burning questions.

IOM: Of course, I in no way object to our communication, especially since it concerns my mother.

1962 Genrietta Eliseevna Churkina (Makushkina) at her desk

My mother, Makushkina (Churkina) Genrietta Eliseevna (12 Nov 1930 - 02 Feb 1999), was born in Sysert, Sverdlovsk Region, in the family of a lawyer (judge) and teacher. In 1954, having graduated from the Sverdlovsk Law Institute, she was hired as an expert in Sverdlovsk forensic research laboratory. During the period of her work there she conducted many examinations, including on the most “high-profile” cases of those years (the death of Dyatlov group, the case of Korovin brothers gang, etc.). She was an expert in the field of trace examination, forensic handwriting analysis, technical and forensic examination of documents.

Since 1967 Genrietta Makushkina is a lecturer in the Department of Forensics, Sverdlovsk Law Institute, since 1973 - candidate of legal sciences, associate professor of the same department. She had more than hundred scientific and educational publications, was the author of three "Forensics" textbooks. Until the last days, she was devoted to the one thing she loved in life - forensics. Her heart didn't stand the third heart attack.

I also followed my mother's footsteps. For many years he worked as a forensic expert in the same laboratory, and then became a Professor of Forensic Science. Now I’m 50, I am the head of a non-governmental expert organization, I also teach at the department at the Law Academy in Yekaterinburg.

MP: Did Genrietta Eliseevna shared with you her thoughts and assumptions about the case?

IOM: Of course, I heard about Dyatlov case since I was young. Mom told me how they flew to the north of the Sverdlovsk region to inspect the scene of the incident, how she was present at the autopsy of the dead along with the forensic doctor Boris Vozrozhdenniy, whom I myself later got to know when I started working as an expert.

In my mother’s home archive there is a second copy of the tent examination (the first copy is in the case file, and a fragment of it is published on the Internet).

After reading the numerous published materials, I realized that I did not have any additional information. Everything, it seems, has already been said... About the cuts from the inside of the tent, and about the unusual coloring of objects at the scene and the clothes of the victims, and about the inexplicable lack of tongue in one of the members of the group ...

I also know that my mother signed a non-disclosure of the information that became known to her in connection with the investigation in this case. I don't think she shared everything she knew. I think she took something with her.

MP: Igor Olegovich, I would like to clarify some details about the strange ancense of the tongue of L.Dubinina. After the appearance of the book by A.Gushtin, "The price of state secrets is nine lives", information spread that it was the expert Genrietta Churkina who suggested that the tongue split off when transporting the frozen body. In a conversation with S. Kuleshova at the Radio Svoboda studio in Yekaterinburg, A.Gushtin so bluntly says that "especially the trauma with the loss of the tongue of Dubinina shocked everyone and was not explained for a very long time. However, expert Churkina - Makushkina, who was talking a lot about this event, literally said the following, that they immediately told the forensic expert Vozdvizhenskiy (mistake - ed.) that, most likely, the corpses of the students, when they were scattered, were already dead and frozen, and when the corpses were dumped into one pile, apparently Dubinina hit the ground so hard that her tongue split off as a piece of ice. That's the only explanation, it seems to me, that somehow puts everything in its place."

This statement by Aleksander Gushtin was picked up by many people and spread on the Internet and the press, as the opinion of expert Churkina. Which led and still leads to great bewilderment of all sane people who have a concept of the anatomy and structure of the human oral cavity. Sorry, but a forensic forensic expert cannot say that! It seems to me that the usual disinformation is going on here, which is characteristic of such a mysterious case. After all, A. Gushtin admitted that he wrote his book precisely by the order of the deputy Prosecutor of the region V. Tuflyakov: "Let me give you the case, you will study it, then we will give you our comments, and you will write them down. Of course, he pushed me. And then it was not so easy to research the matter. It was necessary to formally submit a request, wait a while, then he gave me everything right there. And moreover, he connected me with experts who later gave me very valuable, I think, comments that really convinced me of my version." It turns out that it was a kind of state order for allegedly revealing state secrets, how paradoxical it is to hear it, but few people pay attention to this fact. After all, no one before you could refute these words. And everyone will believe the words of her son. Tell me, did your mother really think that the tongue broke off like a piece of ice?

IOM: I have never heard such a version from my mother. This is made up! I myself was extremely surprised that I read on the forum that "the tongue broke off like an ice..." This is rubbish!!!

For a forensic expert of such a high level as my mother - Genrietta Eliseevna Makushkina (Churkina) to expresses such an absurd version - this is nonsense! I myself have been engaged in forensic examinations all my life, so I spoke to my mother not as amateurs, but as an experts. In fact, I have repeatedly heard from my mother various information about the facts of the forensic examination in Dyatlov case.

There was no specific explanation for the missing tongue and eyes of Dubinina. Mom stated only the fact of the presence of these injuries. The mechanism of formation and the cause of the damage has not been clarified by anyone.

MP: Thank you so much for refuting this lie about the missing tongue (all the more, the autopsy report mentions that there is no mouth diaphragm), which was spread on the Internet supposedly as a recollection of criminal expert Genrietta Churkina! I am the administrator of a large social media group on the topic of the tragedy, there are more than 7 thousand people in our group. And I try to keep less rumors and outright lies on this topic, especially when the “experts” from Komsomolskaya Pravda and Channel One took up the topic of the tragedy, and the cult for the dead Dyatlov group reached its peak.

IOM: Maya, I am very grateful to you for the initiative and work on organizing the site and the forum dedicated to Dyatlov group. Yes, there are a lot of forums, and they write and invent whatever comes to mind. The programs of Channel 1 surprised with their superficiality and oversights. Malakhov’s goal is rating, to the detriment of content. I wrote to the program, but they did not answer me. Apparently, there is no interest. Objectivity is not needed!

MP: Igor Olegovich, they’re just airheads! As you noticed, people unprepared for the topic missed a person like you, but on the other hand, they invited complete strangers of an exotic orientation to the program who could express more delusional versions and fabricated intrigues, and thereby increase the channel’s rating without worrying about quality of information and lowering the bar of professionalism of journalists. I am sure that the continuation will follow, and they will remember about you, sooner or later they will come to their senses.

Igor Olegovich, if you can, please comment on the following: there were also rumors in the internet about how your mother said that the clothes of the hikers found in the ravine in May after drying had a lilac hue, is this true or not, and was there such a thing at all? You see, people immediately have a counter question: if the experts noticed the unusual color of the clothes on the bodies found in the stream, they should have examined the cause of this discoloration of the clothes of the dead. But as we know, in the case file there are no results of such examination. And people began to blame the experts Boris Vozrozhdenniy and Genrietta Churkina for everything, that’s why they didn’t do the tests, they didn’t check...

IOM: Regarding the change of the color... I remember that it was only about the skin of bodies. Mom said that the color of the skin was closer to  orange . I do not remember anything said about the purple shade of the belongings. This is only lately that the case gets such attention, back then... it was just one of her cases she worked on and nothing more. Now, if we could ask my mom now! She was at the scene, and was present during the examination of the corpses. You could say that almost all the material on the case went through her hands.

You say that people begin to blame the experts Boris Vozrozhdenniy and Genrietta Churkina for everything... Experts can not be blamed for anything! An expert is a bonded person who must solve only the issues indicated in the resolution of the investigator. There is, of course, the concept of “expert initiative”, when the expert himself can answer questions that are not posed to him, but, according to the expert, are significant. This is not the case! The case was kept secret, non-disclosures were signed, work was done with constant control "from above", the desire to close and forget was clearly expressed, and so that with the least publicity. Mom was surprised that at least these examinations were carried out. Vozrozhdenniy - he was generally afraid of his own shadow during these examinations. The investigation pressured and did not allow to take a single step to the side, limiting only to the most necessary and essential for the procedures. The goal was rather to close the case, "without noise and dust".

MP: Igor Olegovich, I want to express my gratitude to you for clarifying some of the behind-the-scenes sides of expert life, unknown to the public. Indeed, some people don't say it, but sometimes I had the thought that the experts were in collusion with the investigation, and some even accused the experts of incompetence. Your story clarifies a lot by refuting these allegations.

You see, some kind of vicious circle arose here: investigator Korotaev accused the party chiefs and criminal investigator Ivanov of concealing evidence and falsifying the investigation, investigator Ivanov in the mid-90s began to accuse the party authorities of pressure on the investigation, you write that the investigation put pressure on experts. I wonder who then pressed the party organs? Of course, this is a joke, I understand that someone pressed and pointed at every specialist related to that investigation. It’s now from the side all people who are not involved in the matter can criticize the investigation and experts, presenting themselves as bold and courageous. But experts had families, a career could have collapsed, if anything went against the instructions of higher authorities. Therefore, every remark of witnesses, every word of truth, clarifying the events that happened then in the investigation and covered over the years with a layer of untruth and unfair accusations, is valuable.

I also want to note that knowledgeable people, professionals, and doctors see the work of forensic expert B.Vozrozhdenniy very well, as he tried to walk along the razor's edge, display at least some truth in his brief autopsy, and treat him with respect.

Igor Olegovich, another question that worries many researchers. For some reason, the autopsy reports do not have the signature of your mother, although her last name is indicated. Was she present as a witness, or in some other capacity? Can the autopsy report be considered a valid document where there are no signatures of other people present during the investigation of the body, but there is only the signature of the medical examiner Vozrozhdenniy, who conducted the examination?

IOM: Mom - she devoted her whole life to forensic examinations and the teaching of forensic science. By type of activity, of course, she cooperated quite well with forensic doctors, and with some I was on friendly terms, and I personally knew Vozrozhdenniy. Yes, I know this fact and the Vozrozhdenniy himself told.

The fact that the Autopsy report does not have the signature of expert Churkina is true. Mom did not conduct an examination, but only attended the study.

This practice is common. I myself, as an expert, often attended court medical examinations. For example, I, as a forensic expert, are presented with clothes with gunshot injuries and weapons, and the corpse, of course, is examined at the forensic bureau. Conversely, forensic doctors are present when examining clothes from a corpse or weapons in a crime lab. When related examinations take place in one case, the experts communicate, they are present during the examination, but do not conduct the examination themselves, so there can be no signatures.

By the way, I had a hand in the examination of the remains of Nikolai II and his family. Maybe it's going to come up one day... maybe...

MP: Igor Olegovich, who developed the films from the Dyatlov group cameras on your opinion? There could be a film. Could your mom be developing the films? Did she tell you anything about film from Dyatlov’s cameras?

IOM: No, Maya, didn't hear anything about developing films from Dyatlov group. If it were, I think I would know, because I myself was professionally involved in photography and a fact like this fact, I believe, I would have heard.

I myself have worked in the same laboratory for over 10 years. For all these years I can’t recall a single appeal from the investigating authorities or the prosecutor’s office regarding the processing of photographic materials.

Theoretically, this, of course, is possible, but ready-made materials are provided for the examination, on which the expert has to work. And present for processing the film taken from the scene? An expert is not a photographer, this does not fall into his competence. An investigator can ask as a favor, but then how to process this? Assign a darkroom...? - also not an option. What the expert himself filmed during the inspection of the scene is, of course, his business, but other materials practically do not come across.

MP: So, the films from the cameras of the Dyatlov group were developed some place else.

I will give you the recollections of a student as he talked about these films. Therefore, I had a question, but where did they appear before they got to investigator L.N. Ivanov.

Boris Bychkov: "Having returned from the trek, we learned about the tragedy. By that time, they had not yet found all the dead, only at the cedar and on the slope...

The next day, E. Chubarev told me that they were waiting for us at the regional prosecutor’s office at Malysheva St, 2b. In addition to Zhenya and me, Yuri Yudin was invited, one who, having left the route due to illness, avoided a sad fate. We met L.N. Ivanov. He introduced himself, brought us to the darkroom and explained the task: we should print as many photos as possible from the films of the dead members of the group in order to distribute the pictures to the families of the deceased, as well as to our friends and members of the UPI sports club. To our question: "why?", Lev Nikitich said a strange, as it seemed to us, phrase: "Someone wants to portray what happened as a result of improper leadership and disagreement in the team."

In the darkroom there was equipment familiar to us: a magnifier, baths, a red lamp, tweezers, developer and fixer paper packs, as well as packages with format 9х12 photo paper. Y. Yudin did not work with us for long, only the first run of all films. We printed the photos for two full days.

On some films, after the photographs of the hike, there were frames of corpses made by those who found the dead. We did not reproduce these frames in many copies, only - two - three. Unfortunately, there are no frames left in my memory about which V. Yakimenko writes in his article. Neither I nor Zhenya Chubarev paid any attention to them, for us they were "ruined" frames.

The pictures were the hiking days. Here they are, joyful, posing during the breaks. Here they walk with their backpacks. The latest photographs show how, already at dusk, they level the site and set up a tent..."

Igor Olegovich, in connection with the foregoing, I have an amateur question, I would very much like to clarify this point: although you said that for 10 years you have not dealt with photographic materials, but hypothetically, according to the instructions, if the materials arrived, undeveloped, to the laboratory accidentally, the expert can make a test shot of the camera on that film that is in the camera? Just click in the lab before you take it out of the camera and start developing? Or is it not supposed to follow the instructions? For some reason, I thought that forensic experts are also involved in the examination of photographic materials, and the photographic materials coming from the scene with a resolution of the investigation for development and examination, designed as evidence.

IOM: Maya, if the film is a material evidence, then, of course, the expert cannot shoot anything on this film, because does not have the right to modify the object of study. The Criminal Laboratory of the Ministry of Justice system is not a photo studio where investigators carry processing photo materials.

If the photo-technical expertise is related directly to photographic materials, as an object of study, then it's a different story. For example, "whether a photograph was taken by this photo camera", "photographs were printed from this film", etc.

Within the framework of a trace, handwriting or other type of examination, an unprepared object is NEVER presented to an expert. What is the task of examination? Develop a film and see what is shot there?

The examination solves the specific issues specified in the investigator’s resolution. The investigator’s decision to develop the film, as you wrote, does not happen. At least, in the expert institutions of the Ministry of Justice, where my mother worked, and then I did - such a practice has never been and never is.

The experts of the Ministry of Justice have no operational work, no duties, no trips to the scene. These experts are stationary. It is extremely rare and in exceptional isolated cases that these experts are involved in observation and other operational activities.

In the ECC Ministry of Internal Affairs - there is a completely different specificity. They are created for operational action. Present from arrival (inspection of the scene, accident, search, etc.) and process the collected materials, develop and print photos, make photo robots, etc.

This is to say that in the expert institutions of the Ministry of Justice they have never been engaged in this kind of activity and are not doing it to this day. So, expert Churkina could not have developed the films from the scene.

MP: Igor Olegovich, I have a question, what kind of powder and what color is usually used by experts when dusting for fingerprints at the scene? I am interested in what kind of powder could was used in 1959?

IOM: In past years, there was no particular variety of fingerprint powders. Magnetic powders of various colors, as now, for example, Malachite, Opal, Topaz, etc., did not exist then.

Before there were:
gas soot - black
zinc oxide - white
reduced iron powder - dark gray

In addition, chemical detection methods were used on porous surfaces (paper, cardboard) - these are 2% solutions in acetone: Ninhydrin (turns purple), Alloxan - in red-orange and nitric acid silver (lapis) - a solution in distilled water (painted in gray-blue color. Like a lead one might say). It was also treated (mainly paper) with iodine vapor (tan).

MP: I was very interested in a certain orange powder, which the sister of the deceased Yuri Doroshenko, Irina Rashevskaya, mentions: "Then mother brought Yuri's things. And what was there? Not much. We lived very poorly. For 4 years of study, mother somehow managed to get him a coat because all he had was a jacket. This is in the freezing Sverdlovsk. Unthinkable. And she sent him a coat. And this when Yuri was no longer alive. How did mom cried. I remember that she was telling and showing a sweatshirt and a sweater, both ruined. Tinted with orange powder."

Why did things end up in some kind of weird powder. I am trying to figure this out by excluding versions. The first version - the powder was left by experts. The investigator told me that, basically, they always look for traces of sweat (fingerprints), but these traces do not last long on things, so there was no point in looking for them. They could look for microparticles and microfibres in clothes - this is more relevant. Maybe, in addition to clothes, there were paper or cardboard or plastic covers in the backpack, and then they were treated with the same alloxan and iodine vapor to find fingerprints, and thereby accidentally stained clothes. The bodies of Y. Doroshenko was first confused with that of the body of S. Zolotaryov. If confusion with the identifications began there, then they could fingerprint the corpses in the morgue and compare the obtained fingerprints with the found fingerprints in backpacks on personal belongings of Dyatlov group, some boxes, cases, and the cameras. But the investigator may still have doubts and the experts may have looked for traces on Y. Doroshenko personal effects and dusted a few items with this mysterious powder.

You, as an expert, what can you say about this unidentified powder?

IOM: I can’t explain this orange powder with which such voluminous objects were processed. If they are looking for fingerprints, no one will dust the whole object with powder. In those years, there were no methods for identifying sweat marks on clothing (cloth, knitwear, etc.). Dusting such objects cannot result in anything. Only somewhere in the mid-80s, a technique for detecting fingerprints on leather products was introduced, and to this day it is not used on fabrics and other similar materials.

The expert dusts each item with powder separately, selectively and thoroughly, and does not powder the entire item.

If it came to fingerprinting, then who did the examination? If mom did the trasology on the tent, then where were the other examinations assigned and were they any? Logically sequentially and, as practice shows, examinations in one case are assigned to one place, and not scattered across different expert institutions. I do not think that the presence of powder on clothing is the work of an expert.

By the way, traces detected by iodine vapors remain visible for about 15 minutes, so you need to have time to fix them with restored iron. The yellow color from iodine vapor disappears immediately.

MP: So, experts could not leave any orange powder on Yuri Doroshenko's clothes. Most recently, Irina Rashevskaya, the sister of Yuri Doroshenko, made a new statement about the orange color: "There was no talk about any powder. It was just that some things were kind of "stained" with  orange ."

Also, new information appeared on the orange color from Vladimir (ВэйС), who visited the slope of Kholat Syakhl. Here is what he said: "On June 18 this year, moving along the snowfield, approximately in azimuth 230-240 degrees from the location of the tent and at a distance of 700-800 meters we found an orange-red spot located right on the surface of the snow and penetrating deep into the firn by about 8-10 mm The spot was not plaque-like, as it happens when tree pollen falls on the snow, the snow itself was colored evenly, without spots, on an area of ​​about 300x250 mm... We slightly dug up the spot, measured it, all this was done without gloves. Returning to the camp we discovered that this substance stains the clothes quite visibly and persistently and could be wash out only after the second even third time.

Upon returning to Yekaterinburg, photographs and a description of the spot were handed over to specialists of the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who easily classified this raid as Watermelon snow (Chlamydomonas nivalis), green unicellular algae. Below is reference from Wikipedia: Chlamydomonas nivalis - unicellular freshwater green algae with red pigment (carotenoid) astaxanthin (in addition to the green pigment chlorophyll), which causes unusual snow color - red or pink ("snow bloom"), the opposite of thermophilic (thermophilic) algae. Known for its ability to exist at low temperatures. In addition to it there are still more than 350 species of such algae. Once in the atmosphere when water evaporates, they color the snow in shades of black, brown or yellow.

The algae can develop on the surface of water, snow and ice. It blooms after the darkest and coldest period of winter, with a slight heating of the water, which turns green and, as the weather clears, turns pink or turns red. Temperature of +4C is already deadly.

Thanks to protection from ultraviolet radiation, which is dangerous for other organisms at heights, it can reproduce at an altitude of up to 3.7 km above sea level. Latin name is Chlamydomonas nivalis (Bauer) Wille"

IOM: This is really interesting. I did not understand a bit... At a positive temperature, these organisms die without a trace? Or, having died, are able to leave stains for a long time? If they don’t even wash off immediately, then this is probably the case.

MP: Yes, it is, microorganisms die and leave a color that does not immediately wash off.

Here is another testimony from the slope, Denis Milkov: “Last year, with KAN, in the cedar area between the streams, we found bright orange puddles. In the area of the alleged search camp on Lozva, our assumptions were based on several sawn trees (height 1-1.5 m.) We took one such puddle for rust protruding from the ground. But then Dmitriy came to us and said that he saw the same orange puddles on the slope, going down to the cedar. "

So far, this version still does not convince me to the end. After all, the algae itself turns red, and the puddles are orange. It is necessary to conduct an experiment by staining dark things in this algae to find out if the red color turns to orange over time, and in what form and color it is stored on dark clothes. If dark cotton clothing is stained with orange, then this issue can be considered closed. It will be one secret less.

IOM: Maya, yes, this is very curious!

A memory somehow pops up... Yes, indeed, I heard from my mother about  orange  color of the snow. Red - orange - these are all shades of red. Perhaps, under the influence of natural factors, a slight change in shade occurs. Or maybe the time factor somehow affects the preservation/change in the degree and intensity of the discoloration.

About the color of the snow, no versions, as I recall, were ever discussed. It was attributed to the general mystery of the incident and the degree of secrecy in which this case was built. If they rushed it from above, then this is unfair. There was the version about testing a new weapon, of course. Changes in the colors of objects were attributed to this from the effects of some substances. Chemical expertise, as far as I know, was not appointed. The goal was to close the case as soon as possible, with minimal publicity.

My mother had health problems, so in discussions about possible causes she mentioned this case from expert practice. She thought, she was exposed to some radiation, or effected by toxic substances. After all, nobody checked anyone after a trip there. No tests, no radiation contamination test... Nothing!

MP: Igor Olegovich, I find very interesting your remark about your mother mentioning the orange snow! And about the possible radiation contamination on the slope.

You know, Abram Kikoin, a well-known physicist, flew to the slope as the head of a search group. He taught at UPI. But according to the memoirs of student P. Bartolomey (now an academician and one of the leaders of the Dyatlov Foundation), Kikoin soon left the slope, according to him, almost the next day after his arrival, leaving the group. And he flew there with an unknown experimental device, walked along the slope and took some measurements. His son Konstantin Abramovich Kikoin also spoke about this fact.

Now P.I. Bartolomey is trying to find the person who gave this experimental device to Kikoin. This man is alive. And if P.I. Bartholomey finds him, then we will have some information about what was measured there and how much the readings were.

MP: Please allow me to disturb you again, for this reason. I read a new interview with the journalist A.Gushtin, he says the following: "Anatoly Gushtin: In the late nineties I had the opportunity to repeatedly communicate with a very important witness of those events - Genrietta Eliseevna Makushkina (in 1959 she had a different surname - Churkina). She did the examination of Dyatlov group tent, which is believed to be cut off by hikers with a knife when, in a panic, scared to death of something or someone, barely clad fled from it down the slope of the Otorten mountain, where then everyone died...

Genrietta Eliseevna was sure that the tent was cut not with an ordinary knife, but with a special one, clearly made of cold steel, but, on the other hand, she perfectly understood that this truth was contraindicated and could even be dangerous. Therefore, she recorded in the examination exactly what was required of her."

Igor Olegovich, maybe you know what your mother said about the blade? What were her assumptions?

As I see from the case materials, the knives were not sent for examination, the expert had nothing to compare the cuts of the tent with and whether it was cut precisely by their knives.

But maybe in the family circle, your mother could express her doubts about the blade, what was it like?

IOM: Maya, it’s embarrassing for me to listen to your apology at the expense of my concern. I am glad to communicate with you, I am glad that at least with a small certainty I can bring clarity to some controversial issues.

About the blade. There was no talk about this. I think that if there was such a topic, it would be discussed more than once. There were always enough knives in the house, including some very interesting specimens. As a rule, experts have a certain amount of such "stuff".

There were cut damages on the tent, not stab cuts. By cut damage, it is not even possible to determine the shape of the blade. Only the presence of a cutting edge - the blade. You can’t even say if it was double-edged blade (a dagger having 2 cutting blades), or it was a knife. And as for cold weapons - this, in my opinion, is a far-fetched and given special significance. Cold weapons are only the presence of certain properties on the weapon, which are mainly characteristic of causing bodily harm. In the classical sense, cold weapons should not have household and industrial purposes. Very controversial issue. There are special knives, for example, medical or used for slaughtering cattle and carvinf meat. Despite the special conditions of use, such knives will never be considered cold weapons. It is impossible to determine the type of knife from the cuts in the tent.

MP: Igor Olegovich, it seems, there was evidence that your mother was on a slope. Former student searcher Yuri Blinov told Evgeniy Zinovyev that "... The search group with dogs was abandoned on the first flight, a helicopter. And the second flight, we flew with Maslennikov ... on the 28th, to the place. I, a radio operator, some kind of correspondent was the newspaper "Na smenu" a woman I think was a local investigator." (film 15). As you know, women, even as newspaper correspondents, were not allowed on the slope. In search of the Dyatlov group there were only two journalists - Yuri Yarovoy and Gennadiy Grigoriev.

After I sent this material to Igor Olegovich for review and editing, I received an answer from him: "Maya, I am very grateful to you for your work and initiative. To be honest, I was even surprised that someone else was dealing with this issue, and not just to dig up the "fried facts", but seriously, with a sincere desire to sort it out and present everything objectively.

Yes, of course, I fully approve of the material that you set out on the basis of our correspondence. I made some minor amendments, see them, please.
Thank you!

P.S. I apologize for the fact that I don’t reply immediately to your messages, but now I’m busy with other things, and I don’t always have the ability to quickly respond to mail.
Sincerely, Igor Makushkin. "

Afterword

I really wanted Igor Olegovich to tell someday about what impressions his mother had after she visited the scene. After all, no one knew about this, that forensic expert Genrietta Eliseevna Churkina was at the scene of the tragedy, and, according to her professional duties, studied the footprints found in the snow. In the Criminal Case, there is no information that the traks were studied by professionals. And this caused new bewilderment about the work of the investigation. Now I understand that the work on the slope was carried out, moreover professionally, but not all the results of the work done by the experts were included in the criminal case known to us, as well as other very important documents.

I would also like to get answers on questions about the physical and technical examination of Dyatlov group tent, and read the notes of Igor Makushkin on the so-called "royal examination" - identification of the remains of the family of Nikolai the Second.

With deep respect to Igor Makushkin, Genrietta Churkina and the entire glorious team of forensic experts,
Maria Piskareva.