I am sure we all have heard much about serial killers and the aftermath of the terror they caused, but what exactly happens to their victims? A great majority of serial killers rape their victims, but what they do after that results in the victims death is sometimes too gruesome and, I suppose, insensitive for the reporters to bring to light after the body is found. In the following blog I will discuss several serial killers and what their victims went through during the murder.
       First we have a well known modern serial killers, Theodore Robert Cowell, otherwise known as Ted Bundy. He used his charm and good looks to lure women to him, but most of his victims were obtained by abduction. Once he had them he would rape them and continue by murdering them by strangulation. He would also not only engage in the taboo of cannibalism, but he would also engage in necrophilia before and even after dumping the bodies. But how does the body tell us how they died? Well, with strangulation there are two many ways of finding out if this was the cause of death. The first way is to see if there is discolouration. This discolouration either can be bruising or ecchymosis (internal bleeding). Although this alone cannot make a case if the material that was used to strangle was not the hand. When the hand is used strangulation requires much strength and for an extended period of time. Once the body has stopped moving this just means they have lost consciousness, it does not mean they are dead. To fully stop the flow of blood and air, it requires a few minutes, not seconds. With all this force to the neck the second way to know if strangulation was the cause of death is the fracture of the larynx (voice box) or a horseshoe shaped bone, the hyoid (image below of one fractured). Ted Bundy's victims were numbered 14+. 

       Next we have Edmund Emil Kemper, also known as The Co-ed Killer. His murderous tendencies started at a young age. He would torture and kill animals. And his mother did not help him when she realized there was something wrong; she was afraid that he would molest his sisters and thus locked him in the basement at night. If this was not bad enough, she suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder, and would frequently beat him. At the age of 15, Kemper was eventually sent to live with his grandparents and his first victim was his grandmother then when his grandfather arrived home he killed him as well. When asked why, he said that he just wanted to know how it felt to kill his grandmother, and when asked then why kill his grandfather, he answered that he knew he would be angry at him for what he had done. Once he was older he would pick up hitchhikers and ensue to rape and murder them. But the way he would murder them was much different from Bundy. He would beat, rape, decapitate, and ensue to having sex with his headless victims. But he would keep the heads long after he got rid of the bodies. Now it is easy to tell if someone has been decapitated, but the actual act of decapitation is not as easy. We have seen in movies or comics when the head just falls off after being swung at with a knife or some of the sort. The truth is a knife could not do the job, and if there was one sharp enough, it would take a while. The instruments that are prime for the act of decapitation are ax, chain saw, anything more powerful than a knife. Reason being is the muscles in the neck are rather thick, also there is the cervical vertebrae that needs to be severed along with the veins in the vertebral artery. Another reason that an instrument that does the job quickly is the amount of blood; after all the jugular is in the neck. The Co-ed Killer's victims were numbered 10.

       The next and last serial killer I will address was not in anyway shy of blood. This one goes by the only name we can call him; Jack the Ripper. He may have gone the way of the boogie man, but in 1888 he was very real to the inhabitants of Whitechapel, London, England. He was by no means a prolific serial killer, but what he did to his victims was enough to carry his name more than 100 years since his last victim. His first and third victims, Mary Nichols and Elizabeth Stride, the bodies had not been mutilated, but some theorize that he did not have an opportunity to work on Stride. This theory seems to hold water because the same night Stride turned up dead, is the same night Jack the Ripper's fourth victim was killed and mutilated; Catherine Eddowes. His second (Annie Chapman), fourth, and fifth (Mary Kelly) victims all had been mutilated and had an organ missing. The uterus from Chapman, the left kidney and most of the uterus of Eddowes, and Mary Kelly was the worst; all her organs, sans the brain, were taken from her (image below). The first injury he most likely gave his victims was a slash to the throat. When slashing the throat, the most effective and fastest way of getting blood out would be to cut the jugular, which is the thickest vein in the neck measuring 14-16 cm in circumference. What came next was more gruesome than what the previous serial killers did; he cut a huge gash in their abdomen. This is where the theory Jack the Ripper was a doctor comes in. Reason being is to get to the organs he had taken, he needed to know where to look. To get to the kidneys he had to take out both small and large intestines, or at had to move them aside. The kidneys were not in plain sight, and as for the uterus, in 1888, only a doctor and women would know where it was. 

       Now two out of three serial killers were caught and it should come at no surprise who is the one who was not caught and we do not even know who he was; Jack the Ripper. Serial killing is not only a messy thing to do, but also a cruel and inhuman thing to do. I cannot begin to image how it feels to have a knife to my throat, nevertheless the feeling of being abducted. The scariest thing is that the United States has the highest amount of serial killers, and as I am typing this, there are most likely a few hundred out there right now; a boy torturing a cat or a woman with a prolific list of kills. It is terrifying to think that you can know when you are living next to a child molester, but, as an adult, a serial killer may look and act like a normal neighbour. Ted Bundy and the Co-ed Killer were seen as “nice” young boys; the Co-ed Killer even had a van with the university mark that allowed him to go in and out of the premises whenever he so wanted. As for Jack the Ripper, I believe the only one who will know of his identity is Jack the Ripper.
       Please feel free to comment on what you thought of the blog, or other physical anthropological subjects you would like me to cover. 

       Or to use the anthropological jargon, adipocere. This a fatty wax substance that the body creates when it is decomposing in a certain way. In the following I will explain how this happens, give examples of this naturally occurring, and an example of someone who had actually made human soap. The bodies that undergo this chemical change have to be exposed to moisture, a pond, a cave, a bog. “...it consisits of fatty acids formed by the hydrolysis and hydrogenation of body fats,” states Dr. Ubelaker in his book, Bones. Although the body does give off a substance similar to soap, it sometimes, depending on conditions it resembles that of leather.
       An example of this leathering of the body can be found in bog bodies. A bog has so many chemical factors in which to assist in the sort of mummification of the body. When a bog body is found, no matter what the persons skin colour was before, it takes on a dark brown appearance. Now, unlike the mummies of Egypt who are dried out, most bog bodies, when discovered look like they are sleeping (image below). The others that do not look so peaceful, look like shells of what they used to be. This is most likely caused by the ratio of water and air in a blog. Most, if not all, bog bodies are a cause of sacrifice or murder. The image below, named Tollund Man, was found with the rope used to kill him still around his neck. On the subject of death, let us step into murder. I was going to address the Nazis and how they made humans into soap, but this is still classified as an urban legend. I will continue with something that sounds as if it was invented for a crime novel, but, sadly this is entirely true.  

       Leonarda Cianciulli, also know as The Soap-Maker of Correggio, did just that, but as you can guess she used humans. Her victims were three middle aged women who had come to her for help. The first victim, Faustina Setti, came to her for help finding a husband. On the woman's first visit Cianciulli convinced her to send all members of her family letters saying that she was okay when she arrived to another city in Italy. But before Setti left, she visited Cianciulli, at which Cianciulli offered Setti wine, which was drugged. Once Setti was incapacitated, Cianciulli killed her with an axe.
       The second victim, Francesca Soavi, did not come to Cianciulli for help, instead she called her to come because she had news for a job at a school. Just like Setti, Cianciulli told Soavi to write letters, and on the day she was said to leave, she was murdered in the same way Setti was. Her final victim, Virginia Cacioppo, was a former soprano, and just like she, Cianciulli, did with Soavi, got her to come because she had found her work. She, like the other women, was told not to tell anyone where she was headed to. But this request of Cacioppo, had made her sister in law suspicious when the last time she saw her was when she was going into the home of Cianciulli. With this she was finally caught. What Cianciulli said about her last victim,
      “She ended up in the pot, like the other two...her flesh was fat and white, when it had melted I added a bottle
         of cologne, and after a long time on the boil I was able to make some most acceptable creamy soap. I gave 
         bars to neighbours and acquaintances. The cakes, too, were better: that woman was really sweet.”
       I know what you must be thinking, what made her snap? Well, her son was set to go off to fight in WWII and she sent him the soaps she had made from the victims. In her own way she thought that the deaths of these women were sacrifices to help her son come home safe. That said, many other serial killers do not seem to have the well being of others in mind when they commit their murders, but that is subject for another blog.
       Please feel free to comment on what you thought of the blog, or other physical anthropological subjects you would like me to cover. 

       Have you ever caught yourself cursing out your computer, beating the keyboard, but then a bit after said to it that you are sorry? If you have, then you have anthropomorphized the computer. In layman terms, you have bestowed on your computer the personification of a human. Do not feel weird or think that it is only you; anthropomorphizing has been a practice throughout history and even more so in the modern era. I will begin with how this has played a part in ancient times in ways that is still practiced now then to how the modern culture practices anthropomorphism.
       One of the most well know form of anthropomorphism is the way it takes place in the religion of Christianity. If you are Christian or know someone of that religion, you know how much the crucifix is valued. It is treated as though a miniature Jesus is at their disposal. When things get out of control or just thanking the Christian God for life events, the crucifix is spoken to, cried on, prayed to, as if the crucifix is not only a symbol or Christianity but as if Jesus was actually right there. There is another example of anthropomorphism in Christianity through the host. In a Catholic mass the observers go up to the altar to receive the “body and blood of Christ.” This is an extreme form of anthropomorphism or actually seeing the bread and wine as flesh and blood.
       Although, Christianity is not the only religion that uses anthropomorphism. Another is Hinduism, but they do it in a slightly different way. When a statue of one of the gods, Lakshmi for example, is prepared to be the host or consternation of a new temple, once the statue is completed they pray to the Lakshmi, not the statue, to lend a part of her spirit to inhabit the statue. After that ceremony is completed, then and only then, is the statue prayed to. Then for as long as the temple stands the Hindus in the area treat this statue as if it were a person, a god; putting flowers on them, make up, helping the god celebrate with things that correspond with the Hindu holiday. And sometimes if they want to rebuild the temple or relocate it, they have to burn , or just destroy the statue. Why? Because when they prayed to the god they want to inhabit the statue, they ask them to be connected to this specific temple. But they cannot just destroy it. Just like the making of the statue, the destruction of it has its own ceremony. They, in short, tell the god that they no longer are needed in that form, thank them for watching over that specific temple, then after that ceremony are they able to destroy the statue. Once that ceremony is done, the statue is not just that, a statue, there is nothing that makes it holy anymore. Both Christians and Hindus still observe these forms of anthropomorphism, but we, partake in this without really realizing it.
       The most famous anthropomorphized being is a mouse named Mickey. He has such human attributes, clothes, shoes, a voice, that we forget he is a mouse. Almost all the non-human characters in the Disney universe are anthropomorphized; even if they have not clothing or do not speak. Although, it is not only Disney. Most all of children shows have one form of anthropomorphization in one form or another; Big Bird, Arthur, Franklin. Anthropomorphism is not limited to children shows. Some video games, such as in Sly Cooper or Sonic the Hedgehog, all the characters are an example of anthropomorphism, Also, in commercials there are hamsters, hearts, and a whole bunch of other beings that can walk, and in the case of the hamsters, drive. But why do we humans have the tendency to anthropomorphize things that are not human living in a world that is full of humans?
       I think that this is a left over from our childhoods. When children are growing up and are playing with their toys, whether it be a stuffed bear or a doll, they speak to it and have it speak back. Having this stimulous at such a young age, when can it stop? Should it stop? I, and this is my opinion, do not think it should. As we get older, we take on having pets as companions when there is no one around to talk to, and give them personalities. Sometimes this is all it takes for them to stay sane and avoid depression. Even as young adults, this is not my opinion, we tend to do this, very much, and modern adults, young and old, usually do it towards electronics. Be it a computer (laptop or desktop), a cellphone, if we drop it, or get angry at it, we feel bad after. Or we try to bargain with them to work or to hold on if their batteries are dying. Anthropomorphism looks like just another normal stage of life that does not seem to be leaving the human race anytime soon. Whether it be Mickey, Captain Komamura (image below), Sonic, a random commercial anthropomorphism, a laptop, or a cellphone, we sometimes forget they are not human; then we see them as ones who we can relate to, see them as equals...as...human.
       Please feel free to comment on what you thought of the blog, or other physical anthropological subjects you would like me to cover.  
       Is the example of anthropomorphism below adorable? Do you not just want to hug him or have him read a story to you? <---- that is an example of an anthropomorphism state of mind. 

       We all know what makes a human and how to differentiate humans and monkeys on sight. In fact monkeys, apes, and humans are all under the title anthropoids. That said, it was not til recently we began to separate what makes a monkey and what makes an ape. It should be as obvious that a tail makes a monkey, but is that it? In the following blog I will address the differences between ape and monkey and why the tail does not make the monkey.
       I am sure that we are all familiar with “Curious George,” who has always been labeled as a monkey, but he is an ape; a chimpanzee to be exact. Chimpanzees have to be the most well known primate, but are always addressed as monkeys. Reasons may be because of how they act and how we humans interact with them. The most probable reason why they were seen as monkeys is because in circuses they are put in situations that we have come to see doable by monkeys alone (ex. “monkey on a bike). But the situations we put chimpanzees in does not change the fact that it is an ape. There are several physical traits that make an ape an ape. First up is the way the face looks. For apes they have a broad nose, while monkeys have a narrow nose. Then there is body size. Apes generally have a larger body; you have never seen a gorilla mistaken for monkey. This trait you can see right away, but the next one you have to pay very close attention. That is the length of the trunk. Apes have a shorter trunk, but some, the gibbon for example, have longer arms than legs. Now one way that apes are very different from monkeys is their behaviour. It is a more complex behaviour, similar to our own. Let us go back to the chimpanzee. These apes use tools to obtain food such as a stick for ants, or a rock to break open nuts. Unlike many other apes whose diet is exclusively made up of fruits, vegetables, and leaves, the chimpanzee, who does not only share much of their genetic makeup with us humans, they are also omnivores, meaning they also eat meat. Now, if just using tools does not make them complex enough they also prepare some of their food. “They chew some fruits to form little fruit-balls, called “wadges,” and then dip them in water before sucking out the juice.” The chimpanzee also form “lifelong attachments” with other chimpanzees they see as family and friends. With chimpanzee mothers and their young they are, again, much like us humans. Reason for this is because the period of infancy is increased so their offspring are dependent on not only their mother, but the group, for food and protection. But this fact is true for all apes; whether they be chimpanzees or gorillas or orangutans. 
       Now do you see how silly it was to call apes monkeys? So you would think that to tell monkeys apart you would just have to take the opposites of the ape traits. This is true, but there are two classes of monkeys. One is old world monkeys and the other new world monkeys. Even though these two are called monkeys they are completely different. I will start with old world monkeys. These monkeys are the most distributed. They inhabit the area from west Africa, to India, to Indonesia, to the Philippines, and Japan. Most of these are quadrupedal and arboreal and some have adapted in a way that they can live comfortably on the ground. This is a reason why Old World monkeys have hardened skin on their buttocks that serve as sitting pads. They also have pouches in their cheeks to store food, which are mature leaves. If you remember that chimpanzees are...family oriented, Old World monkeys have one of two social structures. In one they live in small groups with one or two adult males, the other is a large group of several adults of both sexes and offspring of many ages. In these Old World monkey groups monogamy is not common. With New World monkeys their social make up is of mixed sex group and some form monogamous pairs in which they live with their offspring. Also unlike Old World monkeys New World monkeys almost never get to the ground, they live in the trees. And, of course, when living in the trees they have to be light, so many, if not all, New World monkeys (capuchin or squirrel monkey) are much smaller than Old World monkeys (baboons). Also because they have not any access to the ground their food are mostly fruits and nuts. New World Monkeys inhabit half of Mexico, all of Central America, and most of South America. Throughout these differences between Old and New World monkeys, the fact is...they are all monkeys. Saying that I mean is the trees equals home for them.
       As I said at the beginning of this blog, the tail is a main difference between apes and monkeys. Apes have no tail while monkeys do. But, as I said, does the tail make the monkey? There is a species of macaque, the Barbary macaque, that has no tail, but other macaques are under the label of “monkey.” Should not having a tail make this species of macaque an ape? This is still under dispute. As a matter of fact, there are some humans with either an elongated or angled coccyx (tail bone), which gives them a look as if they have a tail. So should those humans be marked as monkeys? But all in all, whether it be an ape, a monkey, or a human we are all under the same family called primates.
       Please feel free to comment on what you thought of the blog, or other physical anthropological subjects you would like me to cover.

       Or your father's smile. How many times have you heard of being compared to a parent or a grandparent? The answer lies in this one phrase: heredity. Nowadays this factor is not discussed much, but just when it was being studied it all the rage. Especially for the man who made this his life's study; Gregor Mendel. He was a monk in the Czech Republic who lived at the same time as Darwin. Before Mendel's research many, even Darwin, thought that traits were a result of blending. For example if you take red and white you would get pink. But Mendel worked out how some traits were passed on from one generation to the next. He did this with plants.
       Being a monk he had resources for plants, and this factor was fortunate both for him and the scientific community. Reason being is that plants, even though have a short life span, can reproduce quickly, have many offspring, and the most important factor in Mendel's experiments, he could control how they bred. The plants he used were pea plants. These were perfect for his experiments because the different traits pass independently from one to another. He started with ones that shared the same traits; tall bred with tall, short with short. As these reproduced he would take the results and cross them; tall with short. When he has the new one from this cross between tall and short which gave him tall he would continue to create these tall ones that came from the tall and short cross. Once he had tall he would cross the new tall ones that had both the possibility to be tall or short. At the end of this he had 20,000 second generation peas. He would get more tall than short; 3 to 1. Below is a Punnett square with an example of how the traits are passed on.
(Capital T's represent tall and lower case t's represent short)

       When speaking of heredity there is one factor we can see from the get go. This is called phenotype. It is the observable physical characteristics of an organism. Like the pea plants, the phenotype, which has our genetic coding, tall is the dominant trait. Also, being human, you know how different we can look. Let us say you see someone with dark hair, but green eyes, one parent most likely had blue eyes with is the universal recessive trait. When it comes to ethnicities, the dominant is African, but it really does depend on the mixture. With a Caucasian and African couple, if they reproduce, their child will have dark skin. If a Caucasian and Asian couple, the child comes out looking more like their Caucasian parent.
       Some of these phenotypes happen mostly in females, these are called X-linked dominant. Reason it is X-linked is because this trait is passed on through the X chromosome, and because of this it is more common in female. Females have a chromosome make up of XX while males have one of XY, and if you remember the Putnnett square from above, this is why these X-linked dominants happen mostly in females. While the X-linked dominant is, well, dominant, there is another but this one is x-linked recessive. As such, this one is more common in males because of the one X chromosome they have. The lower case “x” illustrates that it is indeed recessive. But there are other traits that are no sex linked, by this I mean they can happen to males and females equally. Let us start with the Autosomal (not sex-linked) dominant. These only need one copy of the coding allele (alternative form of a gene) to see the trait that it will become. Because it only needs one these are more commonly seen (dark hair, brown eyes). These do not skip generations and if you remember my example of a dark haired green eyed person, only one parent has to be the carrier. Now to a dominant there is a recessive. Unlike the Autosomal dominant the Autosomal recessive needs 2 copies of coding allele. Also unlike the dominant this recessive are more rare because of the fact that they are recessive (light hair, green eyes). These, unlike its dominant counterpart, can skip generations.
       In this blog I hope that I have shed some light to why people look how they look. No matter if you have a common trait, such as brown eyes, do not feel that you are not special, you are the dominant. And for those who have recessive traits, such as green eyes, do no dismay, you may be the recessive, but that is what makes you special. Everyone has something to add to the human race, whether it be brains, brawn....brown eyes, green eyes. I, who have known this for a while, still feel it is cool how much genetics have to do with what makes us different, what makes us similar, what makes us...us. If you would like to read a list of dominant and recessive traits here is a link: http://www.blinn.edu/socialscience/ldthomas/feldman/handouts/0203hand.htm.
       Below is a side by side comparison of a daughter (in colour) and her mother (in black and white), to drive the point of how much heritage plays a part.
       Please feel free to comment on what you thought of the blog, or other physical anthropological subjects you would like me to cover.