The Green River Serial Murder Case and the Rise of Forensic Archaeology

Figure 1: Victims Linked to the Green River Killer

 

Forensic sciences have been of public interest for several decades in part due to various television series, including CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and Bones.  These shows are based on real work that is conducted by a variety of forensic investigators who dedicate their time and expertise in aiding in criminal investigations and solving crime.  The methods of forensic anthropology and forensic archaeology have been previously discussed on this blog, but today’s blog post will actually discuss one of the cases that led to the inception of forensic archaeology, specifically the Green River Serial Murders case.  This blog post will briefly discuss the case and victims for the purposes of addressing how the unique aspects of this case led to the need for forensic archaeology and the contributions of William Haglund, a medical examiner turned forensic anthropologist, who may be one of the pioneers of this applied anthropological field of study.

 

On July 15, 1982 a couple of boys were walking on a bridge in King County in Washington state when they happened upon a gruesome discovery: the body of a young woman floating in the Green River.  Over the next few weeks four other women’s remains were discovered in or along the Green River.  All were young women who had been brutally murdered.  The press immediately coined the name of the serial murderer: The Green River Killer.  This, however, was a premature nickname as this serial murderer’s remaining victims were not found in or around the Green River, instead being discovered throughout wooded areas in King County, nearby counties, and several in and around Portland, Oregon.  It is believed that Gary Ridgeway, who was tried and convicted as the Green River Killer, killed up to 80 women over the span of 20 years (Figure 1).  His case is characterized by not only the brutality of his actions but also the length of time it took to bring him to justice, making this one of the longest serial murder investigations in American history.

 

The majority of Ridgeway’s victims were adolescent or young adult women who largely worked as prostitutes, were involved in drugs, and/or were transitory in nature.  It was this combination of their occupations, ages, and nomadic behaviors that made it difficult to initially realize that a crime was occurring.  Many people do not pay attention to prostitution because of its unseemly reputation, making prostitutes easy targets of various crimes, and those involved in this illegal activity are reluctant to seek assistance from law enforcement for fear that they will be arrested, tried, and convicted rather than assisted as victims of crime.  Because these women moved around a lot, particularly the adolescents, many of whom were runaways, no one considered their disappearances as anything abnormal-they simply picked up and left as they were expected to do.  This allowed Ridgeway to conduct his crimes for a number of years without notice, interruption, or interference. 

 

It was not his victims were discovered in the Green River that he finally caught the attention of law enforcement, who were already a great deal of time behind on their investigation.  Because the five victims recovered in and around the Green River were not badly decomposed, they were easily identified.  The remaining victims, however, were dumped in secluded wooded areas and often were not discovered for days, weeks, and sometimes even years after they were killed.  The woods were specifically chosen because they were infrequently visited, but these locations also caused various impediments to the investigation that were not immediately clear.  First, these isolated locations allowed a variety of scavenger activity to occur to the bodies, which scattered and destroyed evidence.    Second, the general environment of the Pacific Northwest hastened decomposition-bodies can become completely skeletonized within a month.  This, too, made it difficult to identify victims and recover evidence, particularly related to cause of death.  Lastly, as many of the victims were adolescents and biologically immature their remains were already going to be difficult to identify in the best of circumstances, and the taphonomic processes of the soil eroding the bones, the advanced and hastened decomposition of soft tissues, and the scavenger activity separating the bones made an already difficult situation even more so.  Taken together, the medical examiner’s office and law enforcement agencies, who were already experienced with serial murder investigations (i.e., crimes related to serial murderer Ted Bundy), faced new challenges that they were ill equipped to handle.

 

Medical examiner William Haglund realized that the advanced state of decomposition of the victims’ remains was beyond the scope of his expertise, and rather than bungle the investigation he teamed up with Daris Swindler, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Washington, to help identify the victims.  Through their partnership on the Green River Serial Murder investigation Swindler encouraged Haglund to pursue a Masters degree in Forensic Anthropology, which he did.  The knowledge and skills he gained through his graduate work led him to not only learn how to identify human remains but also recognize further gaps in his and Swindler’s expertise. 

 

These gaps were specific to the recovery, not the identification, of the human remains.  Haglund turned to the forensic science literature and found it lacking in the specific recovery methods required for these cases.  He then turned to the archaeological literature and found that the archaeological methods for surveying, excavating, and documenting sites were optimal for the Green River Serial Murder investigation.  This led him to promote interdisciplinary and interagency cooperation among law enforcement agencies, medical examiner’s offices, forensic anthropologists, and individuals who are specifically trained in archaeological recovery and interpretation techniques.  He identified necessary equipment and tools that should be on hand for these types of investigations, as well as the need for specific site boundary identification and security of those boundaries in order to limit access to the site to avoid contamination and destruction of key evidence.  He also established the requirements for identification, documentation, and collection of human remains and associated evidence.  All of this resulted in Haglund establishing the first procedures and protocols that would eventually be established as those followed by forensic archaeologists and law enforcement agencies who require their expertise and skills. 

 

Haglund’s and various other scholars work pioneered the field of forensic archaeology, as well as other advances in forensic anthropology and other forensic science fields.  The unfortunate circumstances of the Green River Serial Murders provided the foundations for forensic archaeological research that have been important in various other investigations, including mass genocide cases and other murder investigations both domestically and abroad.  While these methods cannot prevent crime they can aid in expediting the investigative process and bring justice to the victims’ families by providing them closure and providing necessary evidence to lead to a successful prosecution.

 

Author’s note: While Gary Ridgeway was tried and convicted for his crimes the process of identifying all of his victims continues.  If you have any information about any of his victims please contact the King County Sheriff’s Office in Washington State.

 

Bibliography

Beary, M. O., & Lyman, R. L. (2012). Taphonomy in Forensic Anthropology: Past Trends and Future Prospects. In D. C. Dirkmaat, A Companion to Forensic Anthropology (pp. 499-527). West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.

Haglund, W. A., Reichert, D. G., & Reay, D. T. (1990). Recovery of Decomposed and Skeletal Human Remains in the "Green River Murder" Investigation. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 11(1), 35-43.

Haglund, W. H. (2001). Archaeology and Forensic Death Investigations. Historical Archaeology, 35(1), 26-34.

Rothwell, B. R., Haglund, W., & Morton, J. T. (1989). Dental identification in serial homicides: The Green River murders. Journal of the American Dental Association, 373-379.

 

  

Using Indigenous Knowledge to Better Understand and Survive Climate Change

 

Indigenous populations have not only survived but thrived for thousands of years without the assistance or reliance on modern technology.  They have managed this by developing a keen understanding of their environments, utilizing that knowledge to understand how and when weather changes occur, transitions of the seasons, the best times to plant versus harvest, and more, by observing cyclical patterns of natural change within their surroundings.  Unfortunately, fluctuating climatic conditions have disrupted these typical patterns, shifting the natural balance and disrupting Indigenous populations ways of life.  The modern contexts facing Indigenous populations is not new as climatic changes have happened throughout history, although not the scale or speed that they are happening today, but Indigenous populations have weathered these changes and are adapted to do so now.  Why?  Because they have passed on their cultural historical knowledge through the generations to ensure their population’s continued survival.  Scholars interested in understanding not only climate change but how to best survive it are recognizing the need to collect, survey, and understand Indigenous knowledge, which is the topic of discussion for this blog post.  This post will cover what Indigenous knowledge is, the populations it is derived from, and the benefits this knowledge can provide in the fight against climate change.

 

Indigenous knowledge is defined as the awareness, beliefs, ideas, and practices of Indigenous populations from around the globe.  This knowledge was developed over the duration of the populations cultural history, and it is typically passed down from generation to generation, either through written communications or oral histories.  This record often contains the cultural histories of the people, but it also acts as a record of environmental and social information, disasters/failures, survival and resilience, and so much more. 

 

Indigenous knowledge is derived from Indigenous populations, who account for 4% of the world’s populations (around 350 million people).  Historically, these populations have only used 22% of the world’s land surface, demonstrating their ingenuity and practicality in not exhausting the Earth’s natural resources.   Many Indigenous people continue to practice their traditional ways of life despite interventions from modern, Western populations who feel that their traditional means are inferior.  Often, they continue to practice their culture as they always had because it is environmentally impossible to change (e.g., the Inuit of Canada and the United States cannot adopt agriculture because they live in the Artic).  It could also be that due to discrimination they are not welcome into the mainstream societies they exist in and are better off maintaining their traditional ways of life.  More importantly, however, it is their culture, and they desire to keep living it because it is theirs.  No one should be forced to give up something that is part of who they are, although historically such actions have taken place throughout history (e.g., boarding or residential school systems or forced removal of children from their families). 

 

Despite the attempts to assimilate or eliminate Indigenous populations they have preserved and continue on today.  Their existence, however, remains under threat, particularly from climate change.  As many of their ways of life are intertwined with the natural environments they exist in disruptions to those patterns threaten their very existence.  It is clear that they will be the first and hardest hit by climate change, but other modern populations are not without risk or danger from climate change.  The difference between the two distinctly different groups-Indigenous versus modern populations-is that Indigenous populations may hold the keys to surviving and adapting more effectively and efficiently.  This is why there has been a push by various scholars and organizations (e.g., the United Nations) to incorporate Indigenous knowledge into scientific discourse on climate change.  One such scholar who is involved with this research is Dr. Karim-Aly Kassam out of Cornell University.   With his cultural anthropological background he is promoting the notion that in order to better understand and combat climate change we need to understand and embrace Indigenous knowledge.  He specifically wants to record how Indigenous populations track natural phenomenon to guide their everyday practices, from farming and harvesting to hunting and gathering.  The goal is by reaching this understanding one can better understand the impacts of climate change and identify real ways of adapting to those changes, particularly if they are irreversible. 

 

Unfortunately, colonization and the actions therein have disrupted the transmission of cultural historical knowledge between generations, producing gaps in necessary knowledge that could not only help Indigenous populations but all human groups globally.  This presents a challenge to both Indigenous populations and climate scholars in fully understanding how best to approach and resolve the issues surrounding and derived from climate change.  Additionally, the historical and current distrust between modern populations and Indigenous groups sometimes inhibits appropriate and productive working relationships between Indigenous populations and climate scholars.  It will take time to build trust between these two groups.  Indigenous populations need to feel comfortable and confident in sharing their knowledge, which will also require scholars to be culturally relativistic and respectful of what is shared.  If and when these bridges between these groups are made then it is believed that a fruitful relationship will blossom in order to identify and implement real solutions that will help all of humanity.

 

Works Cited

Gashler, Krisy. "Climate change adaptation requires Indigenous knowledge." Cornell Chronicle 6 October 2021. Electronic.

Petzold, Jan, et al. "Indigenous knowledge on climate change adaptation: a global evidence map of academic literature." Environmental Research Letters (2020). Electronic.

Raygorodetsky, Gleb. "Why Traditional Knowledge Holds the Key to Climate Change." Article. 2011. Electronic.

UNESCO. "Indigenous Knowledge and Climate Change." 2021. UNESCO. Electronic. 8 December 2021.

 

 

New Year, New Look: Recent Discoveries Concerning Australopithecus sediba

 

Figure 1: Newly discovered lumbar vertebrae of Australopithecus sediba (Image Credit: Williams et al., 2021)

Paleoanthropologists focus their research on understanding the biological and cultural adaptations of our hominids (early human) ancestors.  Paleoanthropologists are responsible for providing a variety of information concerning who our hominid ancestors were (and were not), as well as how they evolved both biologically and culturally over time.  One popular research question among paleoanthropologists has concerned adaptations from quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion.  Paleoanthropologists have been clear about what specific morphological features were required for bipedal locomotion, but what remains unclear is how long the transition from quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion took place.  Evidence from Ardipithecus ramidus supports the long standing idea that our early human ancestors transitioned from climbing in the trees to bipedal walking, but until recently there was no evidence between Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensis, a full biped, on any additional transitional fossils.  A discovery announced in late November 2021 provides us with more evidence of the locomotion transition, and this blog post will provide you with the information of that discovery.

 

Australopithecus sediba was initially discovered in 2008 by world renowned paleoanthropologist Lee Berger’s son.  The initial discovery near the Malapa Cave site in South Africa yielded two individuals: a juvenile and adult female.  The analysis of the adult female’s remains were incomplete, but they did yield strong evidence that she was mostly arboreally adapted, meaning she spent a lot of time living in the trees.  This was very similarly to Ardipithecus ramidus, who was also arboreal.  The adult female Australopithecus sediba remains demonstrated weak evidence of potential bipedal locomotion, which was found in the knee and ankle bones, but scholars were very reluctant to confirm this species’ bipedal abilities. 

 

That was until the discovery of additional lumbar (lower spine) vertebrae that were discovered adjacent to the original place of discovery (Figure 1).  These lumbar vertebrae were articulated, meaning the bones were found together where they would have existed in the body, and they were matched up to the original adult female Australopithecus sediba specimen.  They matched, leading the new team to conclude that they may have belonged to that individual.  Through extensive reconstructions of the original bones and subsequent rigorous testing it was concluded that the curvature of the spine would have undoubtedly allowed for Australopithecus sediba to bipedally locomote.  This means that much like Ardipethicus ramidus Australopithecus sediba was a transitional species that was both arboreal and bipedal!

 

The team that made this discovery note that this new evidence only confirms the previous evidence, which already reached that conclusion, but their discovery is monumental in doing just that-confirming that which had been previously suspected but not fully realized.  It also provides greater insights into understanding the length of time it took to become fully bipedal, specifically transitioning out of the trees to fully walking on two legs on land.  As Australopithecus sediba is a species that existed between Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensis the timeline and the morphological evolutionary changes are becoming both clearer.

 

Bibliography

Marshall, M. (2021, November 23). New Australopithecus sediba bones suggest extinct hominin was bipedal. New Scientist.

Williams, S. A., Prang, T. C., Meyer, M. R., Nally, T. K., Van Der Merwe, R., Yelverton, C., . . . Ostrofsky, K. R. (2021). New fossils of Australopithecus sediba reveal a nearly complete lower back. eLife.