Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Geoprofiling Moves Into The Limelight 300

Posted by Hemos from the hunting-the-hunter dept.
circletimessquare writes "Interesting and timely. A short piece at CNN talks about the software helping to track down the sniper currently terrorizing the Washington DC area. It was the doctoral thesis of a cop, Kim Rossmo, who developed it while walking the beat in Vancouver and reading about the hunting patterns of African lions. Googling, I found an older but deeper piece which mentions more of the tech behind the software, called Rigel. That led me to the website of ECRI, the company that makes Rigel. More good tech there."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Geoprofiling Moves Into The Limelight More

Geoprofiling Moves Into The Limelight

Comments Filter:

  • saw this on TLC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by twiggy ( 104320 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @07:52PM (#4420634) Homepage
    There was a great special on this software on TLC not that long ago. Basically, they were able to calculate the odds of the suspect living and/or acting in a certain area based on where the crimes were, etc.

    They ended up catching the killer, and he was a cop!

    From discussions I'm seeing about these shootings, it may very well be a cop or someone in the armed forces. The ballistics of the gun/ammo being used just don't fit right since people are saying they don't hear the shots, or don't hear very loud shots, so people are theorizing that there's special subsonic rounds being used to minimize noise - not easy to find with these types of bullets, from what I gather.. But I dont' know a lot about guns, so.. yeah...

    Anyhow if I remember the name of the TLC special I'll post it here, it was on recently enough that it will probably be on again soon.

    • Re:saw this on TLC (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:00PM (#4420670)
      Subsonic bullets would negate the entire reason for the .223, namely the extra powder charge. The point of the rifle bullet is to fly very fast. Most likely they didn't hear loud shots because the urban environment is actually very noisy.

      • Re:saw this on TLC (Score:4, Informative)

        by NeoSkandranon ( 515696 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:40PM (#4420840)
        There is no such thing as a subsonic .223 round, but not because of the reason you gave. The long .223 case means that if you lessen the charge any (which is what is done to produce subsonic ammo) then the powder can move around in the case, thus causing problems iwth ignition and firing. There is a solution, which uses a necked down .338 case which is shorter, but that's further offtopic. Also, making a subsonic .223 round does NOT negate its purpose, as then you have a subsonic projectile that still has good armor piercing ballistics (as opposed to a subsonic 9mm or .45 round, which would literally bounce off body armor)

        • Re:saw this on TLC (Score:2, Informative)

          by Disoculated ( 534967 )
          Actually, they DON'T decrease the powder charge to make a round subsonic, they increase the mass of the bullet. Force=Mass*Velocity. That way the energy being delivered is the same and the firearm action still cycles properly (if you decrease the energy of the system, the mainspring will prevent the bolt from moving far enough back to cycle the action, and the firearm will malfunction). At least that's the way it is for commercial/military weapons.


          But, of course, ANY round you think of probably exists on some wildcatter's bench somewhere, as well as a gun to make to do something you wouldn't expect. Many .45 and 9mm (and .22, and .50, and .30, etc etc etc) silencers use baffles to drop the speed of the otherwise supersonic round to subsonic, and there's no reason a similar device made in anyone's garage can't be used on a .223. There's also no reason that a home reloader can't make an underpowered load and use it in a bolt action or put a silly-weak mainspring in his gun. Saying there's no such thing as a subsonic .223 is silly, they almost certainly exist somewhere.


          However, since the whole concept of the 5.56mm as a military round (as compared to .223 commercial) is a high-velocity, high-accuracy round that tumbles when it goes below the speed of sound (resulting in awful terminal ballistic performance, but wonderful energy transferral to a target), I'd have to say that you can't fault the original poster all that much. Guess they weren't specific enough. Then again, it's impossible to be specific enough when talking about guns... no matter what you say someone will always point out that in circumstances X your case Y will be incorrect. Like I'm now doing to you and you did to the original poster.


          Noteable also that a 9mm or .45 subsonic will do just as well at going through body armor as they normally do, which is poorly. The energy in the system is still the same as when using higher velocity, lower mass rounds, which also happens to be the amount of energy that a kevlar vest is designed to absorb. Rifle energy loads, either high velocity or high mass, will still usually zip right through them.

    • Re:saw this on TLC (Score:2, Informative)

      by Hawthorne01 ( 575586 )
      since people are saying they don't hear the shots, or don't hear very loud shots, so people are theorizing that there's special subsonic rounds being used to minimize noise - not easy to find with these types of bullets, from what I gather

      If the shooter was a fair (300 yards+) distance away, the sound would be less, due to the distance. As well, I would imagine the clutter associated with an urban area would play havoc with the echo. As well, the bullet would arrive before the gunshot sound unless it was a subsonic round, which I have never seen, and agree that they must be more difficult to find, especially in the caliber the shooter is using, .223, a round that relies on high velocity to be effective.

      • Re:saw this on TLC (Score:5, Informative)

        by spoonist ( 32012 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:19PM (#4420745) Journal
        It is possible to put a suppressor [gem-tech.com] on a .223 rifle. This would make it much harder to identify, by sound, from where the shot originated. BTW, you don't have to "find" subsonic .223 rounds, you can just reload [leeprecision.com].

        • Dont need subsonic with suppressor (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          having witnessed a Gem-tech supressor on a .223 at the defcon shoot ( http://www.23.org/dcshoot/ ) if you have an effecttive suppressor you really dont need subsonic rounds.

          all you will hear is a "zip" or a "crack" type sound (depending on how close you are and what angle) from the supersonic shockwave. unless you have heard it before you probably wont pick it out in the middle of a noisy street.

    • Not subsonic with a .223 (Score:5, Funny)

      by typical geek ( 261980 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:11PM (#4420712) Homepage
      That's a real small bullet, about as big as a .22 we all grew up with. In order for it to be lethal, it needs to be shot at about 1000 mps (Mach 3 ish).

      It's probably a disaffected, over intellectual loner in high school or college with an M-14 or a bolt action .223 hunting rifle with a scope, who's taking out his feeling of inadequacy and powerlessness against random people. Needless to say, he's never been laid, either.

      Hmm, I just described half of Slashdot. I hope you have your alibis

      • You mean Mini14 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Wee ( 17189 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:30PM (#4420789)
        That's a real small bullet, about as big as a .22 we all grew up with. In order for it to be lethal, it needs to be shot at about 1000 mps (Mach 3 ish).

        For anyone curious, the .223 is about the same diameter as a .22 LR, but there the similarity ends. The .223 weighs in between 50 and 64 grains and travels at 2700-3300 fps. I think the .223 NATO round is 55 grains and moves at like 3100 fps. A .22 LR is 40 grains and travels at around 1050 fps. I might be a little off in my numbers, so don't quote me. The two are night and day as far as lethality and ballistics go, however.

        It's probably a disaffected, over intellectual loner in high school or college with an M-14 or a bolt action .223 hunting rifle with a scope, who's taking out his feeling of inadequacy and powerlessness against random people. Needless to say, he's never been laid, either.

        The M14 is .308, not .223. You mean a Mini14.

        But I get your point. Feet first into the mulcher is too good a fate for this ass clown. Shooting old men and children and women. In the back. I'm having a hard time coming up with suitable retribution...

        -B

        • Re: You mean Mini14 (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:45PM (#4420859)


          > Feet first into the mulcher is too good a fate for this ass clown. Shooting old men and children and women. In the back. I'm having a hard time coming up with suitable retribution...

          I'd go for ordinary imprisonment. Sure, this and lots of other crimes merit worse, but unfortunately our "justice" system is actually a "conviction" system, and doesn't appear to be batting too high an average on hanging the right guy.

        • Re:You mean Mini14 (Score:5, Funny)

          by scott1853 ( 194884 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:57PM (#4420916)

          3100 fps *drool*

          Need... new... video... card... 8P
          • FPS is feet per second here, for all of you who are confused by the term.

            Not that I wouldn't like a video card capable of 3100 fps, though I think it's well beyond overkill...
        • Feet first into the mulcher is too good a fate for this ass clown. Shooting old men and children and women. In the back. I'm having a hard time coming up with suitable retribution...

          Arms off at the elbows, spinal cord cut at the waist. Let him try changing his own diapers with his hooks.

        • Re:You mean Mini14 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by kubrick ( 27291 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @10:48PM (#4421474)
          Shooting old men and children and women.

          Something I've wondered in this case... why is it worse to shoot "old men and women and children" than it is to shoot anyone else? Are 35-year-old men some sort of second-class citizen, not worthy of sorrow? Sure, they may be more able to defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat, but that's not going to do them a lot of good when a sniper shoots them in the middle of the suburbs...
          • why is it worse to shoot "old men and women and children" than it is to shoot anyone else?

            That's a good point, but the fact seems to be that our culture-- maybe all cultures for all I know-- places a higher value on the lives of the very young, the very old, and women than on the lives of adult men.

            But you're absolutely right. From a thousand feet away and on the wrong side of a rifle barrel, a 35-year-old white man is just as defenseless as anybody else.

            • Re:You mean Mini14 (Score:3, Insightful)

              by kubrick ( 27291 )
              the fact seems to be that our culture-- maybe all cultures for all I know-- places a higher value on the lives of the very young, the very old, and women than on the lives of adult men.

              I can understand that... I just noticed this when the police chief said that shooting children was "crossing over the line". I'd like to think that I'm on the same side of the line as the children, i.e. that shooting at me is unacceptable. (I don't live in the US... maybe common-or-garden public shootings occur often enough over there that this is no longer a reasonable expectation?)

              35-year-old white man

              I wasn't talking about colour here -- that would fall into that standard pro/anti-reverse discrimination line of argument, and I'm more interested in discussing people's ingrained notions of degrees of fairness/unfairness.

              The average serial killer profile in the US is often white middle-class male, isn't it? Are there any useful statistics on this?

          • Something I've wondered in this case... why is it worse to shoot "old men and women and children" than it is to shoot anyone else?

            It's worse. At 900 yards, everyone is defenseless. Yet this bottom feeder chooses to shoot the young or the weak... in the back. Almost as an insult. It's almost... dishonorable (as if there is even the hint of honor in what he is doing). It's like he knows that he's killing the innocent, the weak, the "normally defenseless".

            He's making a point. And it's a bad one.

            -B

            • I agree with what you're saying, but I find debating the relative levels of dishonour of "shooting someone in the back from 900 yards" and "shooting someone traditionally defenseless in the back from 900 yards" both macabre and pointless.

              He's already so low that this particular choice doesn't really surprise me, it just reinforces the need to catch the bastard quickly. :/

              • I agree with what you're saying, but I find debating the relative levels of dishonour of "shooting someone in the back from 900 yards" and "shooting someone traditionally defenseless in the back from 900 yards" both macabre and pointless.

                I agree. But my point was that I think that he is making a point by what he is doing. He is targeting certain people, and shooting them in certain ways. There's a reason why he is killing the people he is killing in the way he is killing them.

                I didn't mean to say there was anything close to honor about the way that he is doing what he is doing. I just wanted to point out that there's a reason why he's doing it. And it's not even close to honorable.

                He deserves to die in ways more horrible than humans can imagine.

                -B

        • Re:You mean Mini14 (Score:3, Interesting)

          by EricTheMad ( 603880 )
          I think the .223 NATO round is 55 grains and moves at like 3100 fps. That's the old round. The one that is currently in use is 62 grains. The 55 grain round spins when it enters the target. This increases the lethality of the round. The 7 grain increase was made to cut down on the spin. The idea being to wound the target instead of kill. While at first glance it may seem like a bad idea, it actually makes a lot of sense. It is, as Baldric would say, "a cunning plan". The theory behind it is this: If you kill the target, you've removed one soldier from the battle. But if you only wound your target, you've taken at least two people out of the battle. Your target and his buddy, who now has to take care of him.
          • Cutting down on the tumbling when it hits also eliminates the argument that some have made that the .223 violated the spirit of the Geneva Convention banning dum-dum rounds, even if technically legal.

            (Note that most police ammunition violates that spirit -- the cops want hollowpoint so that the bullet tends to stop when it hits something, rather than travelling on through and endangering bystanders.)
      • M-14's not .223, it's 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester). I think you may be thinking of M-16, which does fire 5.56 NATO. The Mini-14 (which you also might have confused the M-14 with) is also a .223 rifle, but not nearly as accurate as a sniper would need. I'd vote for some variant of Remington 700, for accuracy's sake. However, an accurized AR-pattern rifle might well do the job. Were this sniper using an M-14, there'd likely not be the survivor that there is - the 7.62 round is much more lethal.

      • Re:Not subsonic with a .223 (Score:4, Funny)

        by Lord Omlette ( 124579 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:44PM (#4420855) Homepage
        Nonono, this is clearly the work of some godless hippie liberal who hates America. Clearly the only solution is to invade Iraq!

    • He's just very far away (Score:3, Informative)

      by Wee ( 17189 )
      I thought he was using a .308, not a .223, but the point is the same: He was probably very far away, not using subsonic ammo. .223s move really fast (~3200fps). Making them subsonic makes them ineffective (since they don't have a lot of mass, then need a lot of velocity). I don't think they even make subsonic .223 rounds. He might be using a silencer, but again, this is only slightly practical since it slows the bullet down somewhat, and can affect accuracy. You'd have to get closer to the target either way. I don't know if you'd have to get so close that you'd be louder than if you simply stayed very far away and used normal rounds. Even a subsonic round, or one coming out of a silenced weapon makes a noise (I've shot both, but not together; and they were pistol rounds, not rifle rounds, but still...).

      No, I think he's just got a lot of "stuff" around him (grass, bushes, etc) and is pretty far off. Cities are loud places, much more so than out in the woods. You'd be very surprised how quiet even a big hunting rifle is from a couple hundred yards off. And sound can echo off things fairly effectively in a city (although I've never shot a gun in a city, I've shot quite a few of them in the country, so I'm partially guessing here). If the victim was hit a second or two before the shot was heard, that confuses things even more. You'd pretty much have to see the impact to know where it came from.

      Whatever he's using, I can't think of a fate bad enough for this guy. There's a special place in Hell for those who shoot women and children in the back. I just hope he's found soon.

      -B

    • Re:saw this on TLC (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Happy go Lucky ( 127957 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @10:33PM (#4421398)
      From discussions I'm seeing about these shootings, it may very well be a cop or someone in the armed forces. The ballistics of the gun/ammo being used just don't fit right since people are saying they don't hear the shots, or don't hear very loud shots, so people are theorizing that there's special subsonic rounds being used to minimize noise - not easy to find with these types of bullets, from what I gather..

      Easy enough to make, though. It's not uncommon for hunters or competitive shooters to load their own ammunition at home. To make a slower bullet, just use less powder. (Okay, it's a tiny bit more complex than that, but you see the general idea.)

      Also, it's not hard to mistake the sound of a gunshot for something else, and especially not in an urban area. A month or so ago, I took a complaint of a guy whose truck had been shot. With some sort of .30-caliber solid-construction bullet, original weight above 200 grains, and probably faster than 2700 feet per second from the muzzle based upon the deformation. If you don't know what that means, that's a damn loud round. I try and shoot an elk with a round like that every year, and thank god for Peltor earmuffs. Anyway, almost nobody in the neighborhood remembers a gunshot. However, everybody remembers a car backfiring fairly loudly. Coincidence? Maybe, but I don't believe in them.

      So, you see where I'm going with this? It's easy to mistake the sound of a gunshot for something else if you don't know much about them. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that people in an area where private firearm ownership is almost nonexistant (like much of the DC area) may not know what they did or didn't hear.

  • If only life was like UT2003... (Score:5, Funny)

    by davidstrauss ( 544062 ) <david.davidstrauss@net> on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @07:52PM (#4420636)
    we'd have a trail from every shot of the sniper.

  • Ruining the Model (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @07:55PM (#4420649)
    Doesn't awareness of the geoprofiling model by the suspect make the model less accurate, or is there something built into it that takes this into account?

    • Re:Ruining the Model (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bjohnson ( 3225 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:04PM (#4420683)
      No. This is based on the theory that most criminals (this technique is most often used with property crimes like burglary or armed robbery) like to work in familiar territory.

      Forcing them into unfamiliar territory to screw up the profiling them loses them the advantages of commiting crimes on known ground and makes it more likely they'll be seen/caught.
    • I'll paraphrase an expert I saw on tv (god, I feel ignorant saying that!): "There is a balance between the criminal's desire to remain anonymous and his desire to operate in his comfort zone." A knowledgeable criminal may try to "game" the profile, but it seems to me that he would still need to operate within his comfort zone. If he strays too far away, that causes other problems for him: he's an outsider, he generates hotel bills, he misses work, he's away from his family, etc.

      • Re:Ruining the Model (Score:2, Insightful)

        by kbielefe ( 606566 )
        There was a quote on this same story on the news last night that said something to the effect of "The criminal's trying to be unpredictable is exactly what makes him predictable". In other words, humans attempt unpredictability in predictable ways.

        My theory on the criminal mind is that people who would be smart enough to indefinitely outsmart detectives in a crime are generally smart enough to reason themselves out of committing the crime in the first place. And most of the "criminal geniuses" become to cocky for their own good.

        This sniper's weakness is that he is going to do it again. And every time he does, we will get closer to catching him. People without the willpower to stop themselves from doing it the first time certainly don't have the willpower to stop themselves subsequently.

        Unplanned murders are generally messy and planned murders are done by people not entirely in their right mind. That is why this guy is going to be caught.

        • I think this guy will basically be caught in the act. Sooner or later someone will hear or see him take the shot. We may see a big mob chase like what happened with the Night Stalker in California in the 80's. This assumes, of course, that he keeps killing.

  • media and the software (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SeanWithoutPants ( 593762 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @07:59PM (#4420665)
    I'd be somewhat curious if letting the media know that they're currently using this technique to catch the sniper is a good thing. It seems like this guy (or gal) loves the media attention and would certainly hear of this-although given how many times he has shot people in the last few days, I'd imagine it would still be very helpful. Would "security through obscurity" be a good thing here?

    • Re:media and the software (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jnik ( 1733 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:08PM (#4420704)
      Would "security through obscurity" be a good thing here?
      Questionable. As with any technique designed to discover patterns in human nature, the focus already is on the aggregate, on how people tend to behave. There's going to be deviation no matter what. A good model accounts for this. A good detective understands the nature of the model and its limitations.

      Take a look at the second article: Rossmo puts emphasis on certain locations based on his psychological assumptions about the quarry. At the same time, he discards or discounts other locations that he believes might skew his findings. This is just one tool in his arsenal: an important one, but other tools feed data in and yet others interpret what comes out. Sounds like the way to go.

      • he discards or discounts other locations that he believes might skew his findings

        When they first announced the use of this system for this case, reporters asked over and over "But won't the shooting way down in Virginia skew the results?" They obviously thought it was some simple formula computing a centroid or something. The cop didn't want to give away details, but anyone with an ounce of sense could see that the Virginia shooting was a statistical anomally (not that they would rule out the possibility that that was the ONE shooting near the shooter's home, either.) It's just a tool, folks.
        • I love reporters and their idiocy sometimes. Some of them have should have skipped one of those journalism classes and taken a stats course. Its called outliers folks, statistical anamolies, all experiments have them. Any program, formula, or experiment that does not compensate for them are worthless in the first place. Yea, this dude could go somewhere else, but their is no such thing as complete randomness; models will always return to some pattern.

  • Will it work when everybody knows... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by f97tosc ( 578893 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:00PM (#4420668)
    Clearly the principles of the software are very sound - and the product has been used successfully in the past.

    However, now media is writing extensively about the software and the algorithms involved. A shrewd killer could use such information. He could think again about where to act, perhaps selecting sites at random, or selectively so that they would mislead the program.

    Tor


    • > However, now media is writing extensively about the software and the algorithms involved. A shrewd killer could use such information. He could think again about where to act, perhaps selecting sites at random, or selectively so that they would mislead the program.

      I think picking random sites would actually provide more information, though I can imagine other spoofs that (might) work.

      Think of it as an optimization problem.

      • I think picking random sites would actually provide more information

        Randomness is the opposite of information. If the sites are truly selected at random, then nothing can be infered from it (other than possibly that the killer is using a randomizing algorithm).

        Of course, if the algorithm is 'a random place within 10 miles of my house', then it does not work, because then the locations are not very random.

        Tor


        • > Of course, if the algorithm is 'a random place within 10 miles of my house', then it does not work, because then the locations are not very random.

          Precisely. And s/he can hardly operate without some such constraint, eh?

          Attempts at randomness might not yield anything more than a false sense of security.

  • It's a fine theory... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cryptochrome ( 303529 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:00PM (#4420669) Journal
    but don't brag about it until/unless it helps you crack the case.

  • The pattern stops here... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:03PM (#4420681)
    It all sounds good, but when i read this "Currently, Rigel runs only on a Sun Microsystems UltraSparc workstation. But ECRI is reprogramming it for use on Windows NT workstations and servers".

    It all lost it's beauty.

    You're running low on virtual memory, pick a smaller town, fewer crimes or reboot yur machine

  • A Computerized Profiling technology I'll Support (Score:5, Insightful)

    by doc_brown ( 73383 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:05PM (#4420688) Homepage
    There has been alot of talk and show these days about all those new computerized profiling technologies. (Face recoginition, et al.)

    Finally, here is one that I think is right on the money.

    Here is one that makes the computer just another tool in the policeman's tool box. This is in sharp contrast to present trends. For now the computer is helping solve the crimes and prevent future crimes, but it's not laying the blame on people who have yet to commit a crime.

    I know this is mostly due to how the creator uses his experience, but (IMHO) that's what makes this soo nice.

  • More links (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:05PM (#4420690)
  • Geo-profilers claim their methods have helped detectives solve about half of the 450

    How many of those would have been solved without the program? I'd like to see a head-to-head, although I assume most police forces don't have the manpower to devote 2 seperate teams to the same crimes.

    • How many would have been solved in the same length of time without it. Thats the real question.

      If using the software increases the amount of time to solving an otherwise solvable case then the software is flawed. If it reduces the time to solve it enough to save 1 person then the software, in my mind, is worth it. Even if it only helps solve 10% of such investigations, As long as it does not further hinder others.

    • Re:But how good is it? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by NickB2 ( 246115 )
      > How many of those would have been solved
      > without the program? I'd like to see a
      > head-to-head, although I assume most
      > police forces don't have the manpower to
      > devote 2 seperate teams to the same
      > crimes.

      I don't think an increase in the proportion of crimes solved is neccesarily the goal. The goal is to solve crimes more quickly. After all, this is just a more sophisticated version of the pegboard shown on every cop show.

      Faster solutions to serial murder and rape cases mean fewer victims, which is a good thing. They also mean that the same detectives can solve more crimes in a year, even if the rate of closed cases stays the same. So this software makes a city safer, and makes its police more efficiant; even if the proportion ofr crimes solved remains the same.

  • Now that the word is out, potential serial killers just need a perl script that generates structured lat/long pairs that mislead the FBI. I guess they're counting on most serial killers to be to crazy to think things out that much.

  • But what if the sniper has the software too? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:14PM (#4420727)
    Could he profile himself and then know where NOT to go to find his next victims?

  • Hmmm, maybe it was seeing Red Dragon (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:25PM (#4420763) Homepage Journal
    But I've been thinking of Lecter's advice to Clarice in Silence of the Lambs: this looks a little too random.

    Ever since I first saw the movie I've always wondered how often that is the case: serial criminals who commit the first crime locally, realize it, and then make a point of trying to be "random".

    This entire scenario it doesn't look like the case: the first and fifth shooting were very close together and the entire field of action seems to be very localized. But still these sort of things always make me think of that quote. Guess because it was so imporant in the movie.

  • sniper anagrams (Score:4, Interesting)

    by recalci ( 615076 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:26PM (#4420771)
    The DC sniper left a "Death" tarot card with the words:

    "Dear Policeman, I am God"

    written on it.

    Some anagrams for "dear policeman i am god"

    go and implode America
    Laden doom pig America
    impaled good American
    magic doomed airplane
    megalomaniac drop die
    an imperial dogma code
    good, an epidemic alarm

    Some anagrams for "dear policeman i am god death"

    imperial hated and good came
    imperial death and good came
    I'm a degraded emotional chap
    I'm delegated macho paranoid
    homicidal dead eager top man
    Peter, a homicidal dead man go
    dead homicidal game not rape

  • programs response (Score:5, Funny)

    by UniverseIsADoughnut ( 170909 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:26PM (#4420773)
    It's Mrs. White in the library with the revolver

  • Better CNN article (Score:3, Informative)

    by mbrubeck ( 73587 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:30PM (#4420785) Homepage
    The Law section on CNN.com has a more detailed article [cnn.com] which is also more accurate in most respects.

    Note: I work at ECRI, but I'm not speaking for my employer. I will answer basic questions in the comments here, though I can't always go into detail.

    • Re:Better CNN article (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:39PM (#4420833)
      Please provide details about how the system works, and how a criminal could circumvent the profile to throw police off the track. I need this information ASAP.

  • The "Deeper" Piece Seems to be Slashdotted: (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ribo99 ( 71160 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:30PM (#4420787) Homepage Journal
    GEO-PROFILING: POTENT NEW POLICE TECHNIQUE
    Cracking the Toughest Serial Criminal Cases
    Dec. 31, 1998

    By Jim Krane

    SAN DIEGO (APBnews.com) -- Picture a small city in eastern Canada whose residents were rarely touched by violent crime. Then, startlingly, a serial rapist began attacking women, injecting a dose of fear into a normally tranquil community.

    By the time the assailant sexually assaulted his 11th victim, police were desperate. They compiled a list of 300 possible suspects and prepared to conduct expensive, laborious DNA tests on each one, hoping to match DNA residue taken from victims.

    Vancouver Police Detective Kim Rossmo
    That's when Det. Kim Rossmo got a call.

    Rossmo, a detective inspector with the Vancouver Police Department, developed an investigative technique called geographic profiling. Using geo-profiling, police try to trace a serial criminal to his home or workplace by computing distances with geographic clues he's left -- such as dead bodies, sites of attacks and other known locations the lawbreaker visited.

    Rossmo explained geographic profiling to attendees at the International Association of Crime Analysts here recently, giving criminal analysts a window into one of law enforcement's newest and least-known investigative techniques.

    Rossmo's methodology would come in handy on the serial rapist case and many others.

    Valuable search tool

    As part of his doctoral research at British Columbia's Simon Fraser University, Rossmo developed an algorithm -- a mathematical model of repeated calculations -- that targets serial criminals by the spatial patterns they produce.

    Since then, Rossmo's algorithm has been computerized, allowing it to make hundreds of thousands of calculations that pinpoint a criminal's hideout within a fraction of the crime site area.

    Priority: danger

    Rossmo most often gets a call when a serial criminal is on the loose. Since many agencies -- in Canada, the United States and Europe -- seek his services simultaneously, Rossmo said he gauges which community is most at risk.

    In the eastern Canadian sexual assault case -- Rossmo didn't want to divulge the location -- his geographic profile turned out to be remarkably accurate. With 300 suspects on their hands, the local police could only look forward to a lengthy period of laboratory testing.

    The red peaks in this image identify the probable location of an offender's residence in Vancouver, British Columbia.
    But Rossmo's geo-profiling technique helped the police get their man much more quickly. The Vancouver detective visited crime scenes, read reports, and talked to victims and investigators. He analyzed the data using his computerized algorithm and found a neighborhood hot spot to focus on.

    Seventh time's a charm

    Instead of hauling suspects in alphabetically by last name, police matched suspects' addresses against Rossmo's findings and tested those who lived nearest the hot spot's peak. The seventh suspect lawmen tested was a positive DNA match. Police arrested the man and cracked the case.

    "If they didn't have geographic profile prioritization, they might've started with Archer and ended with Young," Rossmo said.

    Lazy to a fault

    Despite its complicated mathematical calculations, geographic profiling is based on a simple theory. Criminologists say most humans -- criminals included -- are inherently lazy. Just as a person will shop in the grocery store nearest his or her home, a predatory criminal usually picks his victims in familiar areas -- except for a small buffer zone around his home, says Rossmo.

    Thus, when an arsonist sets a series of fires, police can estimate his whereabouts (usually a residence) by dumping the addresses of buildings burned into the computer and calculating the location most central to the crime scenes.

    Crime as topography

    In reality, Rossmo's crime-busting technique is more complex. He walks through crime scenes, conducts interviews and reads police reports. With years of investigative experience under his belt, Rossmo puts emphasis on certain locations based on his psychological assumptions about the quarry. At the same time, he discards or discounts other locations that he believes might skew his findings.

    Rossmo then keys his data into the computer. The machine converts street addresses into latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates and creates a three-dimensional "jeopardy surface" or topographical model of the data. The jeopardy surface looks like a mountain range, with colored bands of peaks and valleys that show where the addresses converge -- the peaks -- and where they don't -- the valleys.

    When Rossmo superimposes the jeopardy surface onto a street grid, the result isn't an exact map to the killer's house, but it's something close to it.

    Method used in 80 cases

    Since 1990, Rossmo has used his geo-profiling technique in more than 80 cases, representing 1,800 crime locations. He believes his work helped crack about half of those cases.

    But Rossmo doesn't measure his success only by cases cleared. He's interested in geographic accuracy.

    In cases where an arrest has been made, Rossmo's been able to estimate the location of the offender's home within the top five percent of the search area. That means, if police believe the offender lives somewhere within a 10-square-mile area, Rossmo can tell investigators which half-square-mile section to search.

    In some cases, he's more accurate. In the Canadian rapist investigation described above, Rossmo's suspect lived within the first 2.2 percent of the area searched.

    The more a criminal strikes, the more clues Rossmo can enter into his computer. Theoretically, that makes his predictions more accurate. But Rossmo's computer doesn't spit out a name and address. After the computer does its thing, Rossmo writes a report suggesting strategies for capture.

    "It's the investigator that solves the case. Our role is to support him or her," Rossmo said.

    Cops, meet Rigel

    Rossmo's algorithm has been incorporated into a software program called Rigel, manufactured by the Vancouver firm Environmental Criminology Research Inc. (ECRI). Rossmo is a member of ECRI's board of directors and acts as the company's chief scientist.

    Currently, Rigel runs only on a Sun Microsystems UltraSparc workstation. But ECRI is reprogramming it for use on Windows NT workstations and servers.

    The software isn't cheap -- ECRI president Barry Dalziel priced a copy at $70,000, which includes some training and help with installation.

    Rigel, emphasized Dalziel, isn't perfect. For best results, it should be used by a police investigator or crime analyst who undergoes a year of training, some of it under Rossmo's personal tutelage.

    "If it sends them off on a wild goose chase, police investigators aren't likely to use the system again," said Dalziel.

    It's a Canadian thing

    Besides Rossmo's Vancouver Police, two other agencies have been trained in geographic profiling with Rigel: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada's national police force, and the Ontario Provincial Police. Rossmo said the British National Crime Faculty, another national law enforcement agency, will be certified in 1999.

    No U.S. law enforcement agencies are on Rossmo's training list -- even though he's been invited to help crack dozens of cases in the States.

    The real Robocop

    If its geo-profiling uses weren't enough, Dalziel said investigators will be able to use a new version of Rigel to predict a serial criminal's next crimes, including dates and crime locations.

    And cops will be able to predict and monitor the likely "hunting grounds" of paroled sex offenders by plotting past crime data and behavioral traits into Rigel, said Dalziel.

    "Say there were crimes in that area that matched [a parolee's] M.O., his name would pop up," Dalziel said.

    Jim Krane is APB News staff writer (jimk@apbnews.com).

  • Kim Rossmo (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:34PM (#4420809)
    Kim Rossmo was also one of the first to suggest vancouver had a serial killer [robert pickton,pig farmer],which the VPD dissmissed promptly.The VPD also drummed Rossmo out via the old boys network because of interdept politics/powerplays.

  • Other uses (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by guttentag ( 313541 )
    I heard Jack In The Box is working on similar software that can determine where you work and how large your cubicle is based on the hours and locations you visit them. They insist they'll only use it to help them staff their restaurants more efficiently during the graveyard shift...

  • How effective are probability toosl on anomalies? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ted_Green ( 205549 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:45PM (#4420862)

    When one has already shown them self to be a anomaly how effective is any given method of prediction/profiling?

    Let's face it, you don't go killing people as a habit. Any results from a given "profile" are not the best answer, they are merely a suggested solution to a given set of criteria, some of which we've yet to know.
    If the person meets the criteria of a given profile, then yes, they are more likely to be in X place or be X person.

    But we *must* keep in mind people can do other than what they would be expected to, even if we know nearly everything about them. And if they've already broken the social and moral bounds of killing their fellow man, seemingly without cause I'd say then that they are even less likely to fit a given profile.

    True, they are likely to meet some criteria and be "standardized" in that aspect, but we can never know which criteria are the ones that fit their profile.
    With that said we can *never* rely on just one method for a single case. We need to use many methods, often contradictory, in the hopes that one of those profiles is the correct one.
    In this kind of case over confidence in our methods literally becomes a killer.

    *shrug* look at people like the Uni-Bomber. If I recall correctly, the only reason he was eventually found was because his brother turned him in after recognizing his style of witting reading the manifesto.

    Sorry if this isn't more eloquent. This case is actually pretty close to home for me (both geographically speaking and emotionally.) People who go out of their way to try and kill children... I really want this person gone.
  • This technique was demonstrated in "Badge of Deceit" - The Randy Comeaux Case, a "Forensic Files" episode on CourtTV [courttv.com].

  • Some background on this guy.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by puppetman ( 131489 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @08:57PM (#4420913) Homepage
    I live in Vancouver, where Kim Rossmo got his Ph.d and started his geoprofiling.

    He was very successful, and it led to his rapid advancement in the Vancouver Police Department. But like most police departments, it's still old-boys, and alot of them resented an educated individual rising through the ranks so quickly.

    Finally, they told him they weren't extending his contract when he was promoted too far. He sued. During the trial, the senior VPD members were made to look like fools for lying under oath [vancourier.com].

    One of the interesting things that came out was that he suspected (back in June, 2001) that a serial killer was involved in the disappearance of 20 to 30 Vancouver women [canoe.ca]. Well, he was right [cbc.ca]. The Vancouver police are conducting a huge investigation at a pig farm in the Vancouver area, and Robert William Pickton is now Canada's most prolific known serial killer with 16 or so charges in the works, and more pending as they find more DNA at the farm.

    I don't know much about the technology (or psychology) involved, but I do know that when he applied his software to some of Canada's other serial killers (Paul Bernardo, Cliffard Olsen, etc) his software picked a 4-block area which included the killer's home. It was also used to catch a killer in Abbotsford.

    Thanks to a bunch of fat old men who's ego has extended past their intelligence, Vancouver has lost what appears to be a top-rate talent.

  • How this thing works - an explanation (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How does this work?

    Alittle bit about geographic profiling works. Essentially, what this software does is it assigns a weight to different attributes of a crime and based upon past crimes determines a probability that the crime was commited near someone's home or an area they know. Throwing in some additional variables such as where an individual works, what route they probably take to work, etc, helps identify a person's individual daily path.

    Throw in a couple more factors like how far most criminals go from home to comit a crime - i.e. bank robberies tend to happen at banks individuals don't know, further from home, though rapes and murders happen in areas people are more comfortable - near an area they know - so that if discovered they know where to run (read: no unexpected dead end roads, good alleyways etc). Without getting into the whole theory of why this is - basically its because someone near their home doesn't stand out, they've probably been seen on the street before, maybe a neighbor knows them, they dont pose a threat - and dont' look out of place. Think about yourself - if you had to go walking around alleyways to stake out a location to dump a body or commit a rape, would you feel more comfortable (and look less shady) in an area you know, or some place out of town?

    So take some basic variables - what was the crime? when was the crime?

    Now, take the location of your crimes and cross-reference it with just the areas that would match given crimes. You end up with an area of probability that usually circular in nature around each crime... as these areas intersect, you get "blotches" of red, yellow, orange, etc..

    That done, start to take other factors into consideration. You probably don't have a database with everyone's job, route to work, schedule, etc - what you probably do have is income ranges and general demographic information for specific areas. (Ok so I mentioned all this stuff about individuals above, I'm getting there).

    Using that data, you can modify the predictions futher. For example, something like a string of gang shootings... There are several areas (chicago for one, im sure you can think of one near you) that have affluent or up-and-coming areas near or next to ghettos. For chicagoans, think near west side vs. cabrini greens. For those who don't know, 2 bd 2ba condos in near west side go for about $300,000 to $500,000. Go about five or six blocks down the road though and you'll run into section-8 housing. I'm getting to a point here, bear with me.

    Having run your first analysis, you may find that there was a gang shooting in the "nicer" area, but it isn't really likely the shooter is from there... more likely than not, he's from the crummier side a few blocks away. Up to this point, the system knows nothing about Street Y vs Street X. Street Y might be a few blocks from Street X, but STreet Y might be primarily a six figure area... This information exists - if not directly, it can be found through housing prices and general crime level.

    Ok, so now what? We have a big red blob that winds around. Feed the system the data on population type, ethnicity (yup. Not too PC, but its there), income, average age... etc. With this new info, it starts to eliminate or decrease the red areas, building a smaller search section.

    Now I'd talked about all those individual factors - I'm finally getting to them. Remember those? Where does person A work? Person B?
    What does this person do? (Truckers and transients dump bodies far away, most employeed people dump them near work or home) .... etc.

    Usually in cases like these you have hundreds of leads. Everyone is followed up - some are easy to eliminate some don't really lead anywhere. Some sound like good potentials. Say you get a tip that joe shmoe did this crime. A quick check reveals he has no alibi for the time in question... does he fit the (geographic) profile?

    Obviously, you are going to go see joe shmoe. You ask some pretty basic questions that sound pretty boring... where do you work? You drive to work? Take the bus? What time do you leave? Do you eat lunch at work or outside? Simple stuff. You bring it up in conversation like nothing was - and for the most part it isn't anything.

    Pretty soon, you've got a list of 50 individuals who could all be involved. None of them have alibis, and you need to figure out who to focus on. Here we go again.

    Your now narrowed red area can take into account what these people do, where they work, how do they get to work, etc. Put those in and usually, you end up with 10 individuals who fit the geographic pattern. Those are the ones you go see again. And again.

    The rest? They don't fall off the radar, but you are no longer dedicating half your team to them. It's a game of probabilities. Now with your 10 "likelies", you've got the resources pointed in the right direction.

    Combine this with an FBI Profile of an individual and you've taken your 10 and shaved off 3 or 4. Now, you've got a handful of people to really focus on. At this point, you've got your search warrant if you want it - no alibi, meets the profile, fits the area, etc.

    The search warrants usually lead to a few more clues and narrow it down to one guy. Then you just got to figure out how to prove it was him. :)

  • How this works (Score:3, Informative)

    by rhymez0r ( 524721 ) <dtpianon@@@hotmail...com> on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @09:08PM (#4420948)
    How does this work? Alittle bit about geographic profiling works. Essentially, what this software does is it assigns a weight to different attributes of a crime and based upon past crimes determines a probability that the crime was commited near someone's home or an area they know. Throwing in some additional variables such as where an individual works, what route they probably take to work, etc, helps identify a person's individual daily path. Throw in a couple more factors like how far most criminals go from home to comit a crime - i.e. bank robberies tend to happen at banks individuals don't know, further from home, though rapes and murders happen in areas people are more comfortable - near an area they know - so that if discovered they know where to run (read: no unexpected dead end roads, good alleyways etc). Without getting into the whole theory of why this is - basically its because someone near their home doesn't stand out, they've probably been seen on the street before, maybe a neighbor knows them, they dont pose a threat - and dont' look out of place. Think about yourself - if you had to go walking around alleyways to stake out a location to dump a body or commit a rape, would you feel more comfortable (and look less shady) in an area you know, or some place out of town? So take some basic variables - what was the crime? when was the crime? Now, take the location of your crimes and cross-reference it with just the areas that would match given crimes. You end up with an area of probability that usually circular in nature around each crime... as these areas intersect, you get "blotches" of red, yellow, orange, etc.. That done, start to take other factors into consideration. You probably don't have a database with everyone's job, route to work, schedule, etc - what you probably do have is income ranges and general demographic information for specific areas. (Ok so I mentioned all this stuff about individuals above, I'm getting there). Using that data, you can modify the predictions futher. For example, something like a string of gang shootings... There are several areas (chicago for one, im sure you can think of one near you) that have affluent or up-and-coming areas near or next to ghettos. For chicagoans, think near west side vs. cabrini greens. For those who don't know, 2 bd 2ba condos in near west side go for about $300,000 to $500,000. Go about five or six blocks down the road though and you'll run into section-8 housing. I'm getting to a point here, bear with me. Having run your first analysis, you may find that there was a gang shooting in the "nicer" area, but it isn't really likely the shooter is from there... more likely than not, he's from the crummier side a few blocks away. Up to this point, the system knows nothing about Street Y vs Street X. Street Y might be a few blocks from Street X, but STreet Y might be primarily a six figure area... This information exists - if not directly, it can be found through housing prices and general crime level. Ok, so now what? We have a big red blob that winds around. Feed the system the data on population type, ethnicity (yup. Not too PC, but its there), income, average age... etc. With this new info, it starts to eliminate or decrease the red areas, building a smaller search section. Now I'd talked about all those individual factors - I'm finally getting to them. Remember those? Where does person A work? Person B? What does this person do? (Truckers and transients dump bodies far away, most employeed people dump them near work or home) .... etc. Usually in cases like these you have hundreds of leads. Everyone is followed up - some are easy to eliminate some don't really lead anywhere. Some sound like good potentials. Say you get a tip that joe shmoe did this crime. A quick check reveals he has no alibi for the time in question... does he fit the (geographic) profile? Obviously, you are going to go see joe shmoe. You ask some pretty basic questions that sound pretty boring... where do you work? You drive to work? Take the bus? What time do you leave? Do you eat lunch at work or outside? Simple stuff. You bring it up in conversation like nothing was - and for the most part it isn't anything. Pretty soon, you've got a list of 50 individuals who could all be involved. None of them have alibis, and you need to figure out who to focus on. Here we go again. Your now narrowed red area can take into account what these people do, where they work, how do they get to work, etc. Put those in and usually, you end up with 10 individuals who fit the geographic pattern. Those are the ones you go see again. And again. The rest? They don't fall off the radar, but you are no longer dedicating half your team to them. It's a game of probabilities. Now with your 10 "likelies", you've got the resources pointed in the right direction. Combine this with an FBI Profile of an individual and you've taken your 10 and shaved off 3 or 4. Now, you've got a handful of people to really focus on. At this point, you've got your search warrant if you want it - no alibi, meets the profile, fits the area, etc. The search warrants usually lead to a few more clues and narrow it down to one guy. Then you just got to figure out how to prove it was him. :) (reposted since I did it as anon by accident)
  • Police organizations also regularly hire psychics and check out their "revelations" on cases that go cold. I'm also kind of dubious about psychological profiling, but what do I know.

  • Is it just me? (Score:4, Funny)

    by PerryMason ( 535019 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @10:13PM (#4421300)
    who developed it while walking the beat in Vancouver and reading about the hunting patterns of African lions

    Is it just me or does anyone else think they might have more chance of catching the guy if cops dont walk the beat reading a book!!

  • If I was an investigator.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @10:15PM (#4421306) Journal
    ...I would select 10 of the USMC's and Army's best snipers, give them intel of the area, and let them hunt the sniper down. Skilled and experienced snipers should theorectically be able to deduce the most favorable target locations - geography-wise any ways. You let these 10 snipers scope out the most favorable areas in the DC and Maryland area and camp them.
    • snipers should theorectically be able to deduce the most favorable target locations

      Unless the sniper is choosing targets first and locations second.

      I would tend to agree the sniper is choosing the locations first (i.e. the guy who had just walked out of the store) but that still leaves millions of possibilities. Personally, I think his residence is centered somewhere inside the initial five shootings and he has slowly spiraled out around the DC area since the heightened media coverage.

      I also think that most people are overestimating the sniper's education. After all, I became proficient firing a .22 in Boy Scouts (and several higher calibers later in my teens) without the need for a high-power scope. Go an hour north or west of Montgomery County and you're in a typically more rural area where shotgun/rifle proficiency isn't so unusual.

  • Research Report, Mapping Crime: Principle and
    Practice by Keith Harries Ph.D. December 1999:

    www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/178919.htm

    ('lots of other research reports are there for
    cost-free downloading, too; including one into
    RH Linux 7.1's GNU dd as a disk imaging tool.)

  • I have worked on this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SheldonYoung ( 25077 ) on Wednesday October 09, 2002 @11:18PM (#4421647)
    I was part of the team that implemented an early version of the Rigel software used by Kim Rossmo.

    At least in the early version, the algorithm was very simple. It was so simple you would have though it would never be useful. The beauty is that the algorithm doesn't need to pinpoint the house, just the neighborhood. It was much better to have a simple and easily provable algorithm than get another half a block of accuracy.

    The available databases to convert from street address to spatial locations sucked. To me a big part of the magic was converting addresses where a crime occured to a UTM coordinate.

    Most importantly, the magic of Rigel and Kim Rossmo is not the geoprofiling algorithms, but the marketting and public relations.
  • i like software titles that have a double meaning and at first i didn't "rigel"... regal... king... lion...

    thats clever.

  • Happy that someone's listening to him (Score:5, Informative)

    by Stephen Samuel ( 106962 ) <samuel@bcgre e n . com> on Thursday October 10, 2002 @04:44AM (#4422561) Homepage Journal
    Although Rossmo developed his software in Vancouver, it didn't get a very good reception here. Rossmo used his software to conclude that 50+ women missing in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside weren't a coincidence. Unfortunately for him, the missing women were mostly low-rent prostitutes, and the Downton Eastside includes the postal code with the lowest average rent in Canada. It wasn't the mayor's highest priority by far.

    Vancouver's Mayor had more police manpower directed towards a high profile pot shop in the area than the case of the 50 missing women. Rossmo's thesis was pooh-poohed and he was demoted and effectively run off the force [cbc.ca].

    The missing prostitute case continued to be a willfully low priority of the Vancouver police department until it recieved some publicy (including, I believe, being featured on "America's Most wanted" -- "Vancouver's a great place to be a serial killer -- cops cry '50 missing and all's well!'"

    A little over 2 years later, they've charged a guy with killing 15 of those missing women, and are searching for more remains on his pig farm.

    From what I've been able to piece together, he abused them, killed them, ran their bodies through a meat grinder (or branch grinder) and buried the ground-up bits on his farm.

    In the meantime, Downtown Eastside residents who were formerly unwilling to report mysterious disappearances of friends to the cops have now brought the number of missing women into the 60 person range.

    More info on the missing women case can be found on the CBC website [www.cbc.ca].

Slashdot Top Deals

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Close