Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are there surviving photographs, X-rays, or forensic reports of the Soviet-held skull and jaw, and where can researchers access them?
Executive summary
There is documented reporting that Soviet (and later Russian) authorities preserved fragments and dental remains alleged to be from Adolf Hitler — including a skull fragment and jaw/dental matter — and those items have been examined by outside researchers at least once (e.g., DNA testing by U.S. researchers and examination by Professor Nick Bellantoni) [1]. However, access to the physical items and full Soviet forensic reports has been restricted, and the provenance and identification of the skull fragment remain contested between Western researchers and Russian authorities [2] [3] [1].
1. What surviving material is reported to exist — skull fragment, jaw/dental pieces, photographs
Contemporary and later reports state that Soviet investigators recovered human remains outside Hitler’s bunker in 1945 and that Moscow retained items described as a skull fragment (bearing a bullet hole) and dental remains used to match Hitler’s dental records; photographs and “trophy” items were shown to some visiting experts and included in Russian archives [1] [4]. U.S. researchers obtained at least one photographed skull fragment for DNA testing in the 1990s, and the press has reproduced images connected with those tests [2] [1].
2. What forensic work and testing have been published or reported
American forensic work reported in 2009 asserted a skull fragment held in Russian archives was from a woman under 40, following DNA analysis performed at the University of Connecticut, and that testing involved samples taken during a brief inspection of the Moscow-held material [1] [2]. Russian authorities (the FSB) later defended the authenticity of Moscow’s skull fragment and insisted that Soviet/Russian forensic identification — especially the dental match — supports the conclusion that Hitler died in the bunker [3].
3. Where researchers have accessed items or images so far
Reporting says at least one U.S. academic (Professor Nick Bellantoni) was allowed a short, supervised inspection in Moscow and took DNA swabs and viewed photographs of the bunker evidence, including what were described as bloodstains and fragments preserved in the Russian State Archive [1]. The 2009 UConn DNA tests were based on samples reportedly collected under those limited circumstances [1].
4. Are there publicly available forensic reports or X‑rays?
Available sources do not provide full, freely accessible Soviet forensic autopsy reports, nor do they point to a public repository of original X‑rays released in full; reporting notes that Soviet post‑mortem work was performed behind closed doors and that some records and fragments remain in Russian state archives, access to which has been tightly controlled [1] [3]. Declassified or recently publicized Russian documents and footage have been cited in press accounts, but sources do not show a complete, unredacted forensic dossier being available to independent researchers in the public domain [4] [1].
5. Conflicting interpretations and institutional positions
U.S. researchers who sampled the skull fragment concluded it was likely from a woman, casting doubt on the fragment’s attribution to Hitler [1] [2]. The Russian security service (FSB) publicly maintained that the Moscow fragment is authentic and pointed to the dental remains and Soviet procedures that identified Hitler’s jaw as confirming identity [3] [1]. Historians quoted in reporting caution that even without a definitive skull fragment, dental evidence and witness testimony have long been central to the identification [1].
6. Practical guidance for researchers seeking access
Current reporting indicates researchers have sometimes been granted tightly supervised, brief access in Moscow (one hour visits are described) and allowed to take samples or photos under strict conditions [1]. Forensic scholars seeking primary material should expect to consult the Russian State Archive holdings referenced in reporting, and to pursue formal archival requests or curated access through institutional partnerships; however, available sources do not outline a transparent, routinized process for independent researchers to obtain full forensic files or X‑rays [1] [3].
7. Wider context and limits of the evidence
Journalists and forensic specialists note that Soviet handling of remains in 1945 occurred in a politicized, secretive context — Soviets moved and reburied remains multiple times and undertook closed‑door examinations — which complicates the chain of custody and interpretation of any surviving bones, photographs, or reports [2] [1]. Separate examples of post‑Soviet forensic exhumations and the manner in which skulls and records are handled in Russia and former Soviet states show both scientific work and political pressure can shape outcomes; reporting on mass grave exhumations highlights routine photographing and analysis of skull trauma, but that reporting is distinct from the Hitler bunker materials [5] [6].
8. What remains uncertain and how reporting frames future inquiries
Sources do not provide a definitive public catalogue of surviving X‑rays, full forensic reports, or an open archive entry point; they instead record limited inspections, contested DNA results, and official Russian affirmations of authenticity [1] [3]. Researchers should therefore treat assertions about specific skull fragments with caution, pursue archival requests in Russia where feasible, and weigh dental record evidence and contemporaneous witness testimony alongside the contested bone fragment analyses [1] [2].