In October 2002, local, state, and federal authorities from the Washington, DC area joined in an unprecedented cooperative effort to capture the individuals charged with a series of shootings that paralyzed the National Capital Region. John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo were apprehended following a 3-week shooting spree that brought together uniformed and investigative law enforcement personnel and communications resources from across the region. The extensive response and investigative effort required intelligence that was shared among hundreds of law enforcement officers from a variety of jurisdictions and levels of government.
There were attempts to geographically profile the killers, that is, predict where they would kill next based on the killer's spatial pattern or signature. Geographic profiling brings the science of geography, criminology, mathematical modeling, statistical analysis, and environmental and forensic psychology into the realm of criminal investigation. Below is a news report about Dr. Kim Rossmo's geographic profiling: [1]
By Jeordan Legon (CNN) (Source: http://www.criminalprofiling.ch/sniper.html [2])
Police Foundation Director Kim Rossmo says geographic profiling "provides an optimal search strategy."
(CNN) -- Software is leading the way for investigators trying to pinpoint a Washington-area sniper. Geographic profiling, developed by former Vancouver, British Columbia, police detective Kim Rossmo, tries to zero in on the suspect by using computers to track the mass of data flooding investigators' desks -- location, dates and times of crimes. The program then matches the information with what criminologists know about human nature. Rossmo told reporters his software can help police determine where a suspect lives within half a mile. "In effect, it provides an optimal search strategy," Rossmo said. Rossmo, director of the Washington-based Police Foundation, started assisting investigators in the sniper case last week. Calculating the path,his software, which was developed by a commercial vendor and named Rigel, carries out millions of mathematical equations to give investigators a better sense of a killer's "hunting area" and where he is likely to live. Rossmo said he relies on what psychologists term the "least-effort" theory. Crimes typically happen "fairly close to an offender's home but not too close," he said. "At some point, for a given offender, their desire for anonymity balances their desire to operate in their comfort zone," he said. Rossmo's system has been used by Scotland Yard, the FBI, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and dozens of police agencies worldwide. Rossmo developed it while walking the beat in Canada and reading widely -- including a book on the hunting patterns of African lions. The geo-profiling technology was his doctoral thesis. Methods help solve serial murders Geo-profilers claim their methods have helped detectives solve about half of the 450 cases they've studied -- everything from serial rapes to serial murders. "It's the high-tech version of the pin map," said Richard Bennett, a professor of justice at American University. "The concept is simple. But you can put a lot more information in. ... It's what you do with the information that is key." Bennett said nothing takes the place of good, old-fashioned detective work but computerized geo-mapping techniques help. "The advantage is you're using computer science and computer analytic abilities to solve a crime," he said. " You don't have a big city police chief out there who isn't using some form of this mapping."
For geographic profiling to produce accurate profiles, the serial offenders must follow a predictable spatial model (or pattern). There is good reason to believe serial offenders do. Research has repeatedly shown that the majority of serial criminals travel relatively short distances from home to commit their crimes. Research has also demonstrated that the home location of many serial offenders' crimes literally surrounds their home; referred to as a marauding pattern. These are the primary reasons for the effectiveness of geographic profiling when applied to "typical" criminals. When serial offenders behave in ways that contradict these behaviors, such as terrorist activity, geographic profiling will typically be ineffective (Bennell, 2007 [3]). For more general information read Forecasting the Future of Predictive Crime Mapping [4]. Specifically look at the section on "The Role of Theory in Predictive Mapping."
There are significant differences between a “factoid question,” which are most common in Geospatial Intelligence, and an “analytical question.” A factoid question seeks a piece of information that would can be answered with a corresponding true statement. For example:
Question: “How many miles are between two shooter events?”
Answer: “There are 5 miles between events.”
In general, a factoid question usually has just one correct answer that can be easily judged for its truthfulness. Answers tofactoid questions are important as evidence but are not the focus of an analytic effort. Data foraging provides factoids (or evidence), small but potentially important bits of information.
In contrast to a factoid question, an analytical question has a less certain relationship with expected answer. For example:
Question: “Who is the DC Shooter?”
Answer: “The shooter could be a foreign terrorist or a serial killer.”
The geospatial aspects of the DC Shooter actions can still help to answer our question as part of a bottom-up process (from data to theory) or top-down (from theory to data). The bottom-up process converts raw information into knowledge of our killers. The top-down process provides evidence to support or disconfirm the assumed spatial signature of the killers. The question we have asked is, who is the DC Shooter (based on the total evidence we have included their spatial profile)?
Referring to the case study [5], the DC Beltway shooter attacks took place during three weeks in October 2002, in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. Ten people were killed and three others critically injured in various locations throughout the Washington Metropolitan Area and along Interstate 95 in Virginia.
There are several important definitions we will use. These are:
Maps of the shootings and ballistics information can be found on the Washington Post web site [6].
As discussed previously, there were attempts to spatially "model" the Shooter's behavior. Here is another article about the geographic profiling:
With no solid leads in their hunt for a sniper who has gunned down eight people in the Washington, D.C., area, investigators have turned to a relatively new technological tool: geographic profiling (Source: http://www.criminalprofiling.ch/sniper.html [2])
(Court TV) -- Barring a lucky break, the technology currently seems like the police's best chance to find the shooter, who has killed six, left millions on edge, and single-handedly lowered the attendance rate in Maryland suburban schools.The technique, first used in 1990, operates on the assumption that a serial murderer (or rapist) balances his desire to kill far from home to avoid being recognized with his desire to be in familiar territory. The tension between these two desires usually means that serial killers kill close to home, but not too close, leaving a "comfort zone" around their home that can be detected mathematically, according to Dr. Kim Rossmo, the technique's pioneer.
Investigators into the Maryland shootings have good cause to be hopeful about geographical profiling's potential. A software program that Rossmo developed called Rigel -- the only professional geographic profiling software currently available -- has in past cases pinpointed a criminal's home within a few blocks. On average, according to Rossmo, the program narrows the police's target area by 95 percent. But while geographic profiling could help the investigation, it can't point directly to the perpetrator. Even Rossmo warns against seeing geographic profiling as a solve-all investigative device. He has described it as an information management tool that gives police a way to better allocate their time and money. Rossmo has explained that geographic profiling can never solve a case alone. It can only help focus the investigator's search by pointing them in a direction most likely to produce tangible evidence or leads to the criminal.
Rigel works best when used by an experienced geographic profiler on a serial criminal who fits a specific profile. According to Ian Laverty, an engineer who helped develop Rigel and president of Environmental Criminal Research Incorporated, the firm that produces it, the software specializes in "hunters" -- criminals who leave their home base already planning to find a victim."A hunter works from a home site and travels out with a purpose of finding a victim and a location to commit the crime," said Laverty. "So [to best use Rigel] we must look at the nature of the crime and see if it is a hunter pattern." But not all serial killers are hunters. In his textbook on geographic profiling, Rossmo, now research director of the Police Foundation in Washington D.C., defines four other types: trappers who lure their victims to them; stalkers who follow their victims; poachers who travel away from home to hunt; and trollers who perpetrate crimes opportunistically while in the midst of other activities.
While not enough is publicly known about the Maryland shooter to determine his methodology, Rossmo believes that all criminals commit their first crimes close to home, only leaving the areas that they know as they gain confidence. By this logic, even if the shooter at large now modifies his behavior and expands his target zone, his first six shootings, all of which occurred within a five-mile area in Maryland, probably point toward his home. Of course, by the time the profile emerges, the killer could have moved. But if geographic profiling leads to the location of his former base of operations, even that would be a huge boost to the Maryland investigation.
In the summer of 1998, Rossmo assisted an investigation of a Lafayette, La., serial rapist who had attacked as many as 15 women in the area over a period of 11 years. After reading an article on geographic profiling, Maj. Jim Craft of the Lafayette police, who led the task force devoted to the criminal, invited Rossmo to help out. His geoprofile, which he sent to Craft after one or two months, allowed police to narrow the areas they patrolled. "It was helpful to prevent further attacks," Craft said. "Previously there was a pretty large area that we had to focus on to make sure we didn't have any further attacks. As a result of that profile we were able to narrow down our geographic area and focus our resources from an area of 60,000 people to a location with about 30,000 people in it." Although the geoprofile accurately predicted the killer's home area, the information did not end up helping them capture him. The case was solved when the police received an anonymous tip with the rapist's name. At the time of his arrest, the rapist had moved outside the area Rigel predicted. Still, Craft and the Lafayette Police Department were impressed with geographic profiling. "It's not going to specifically identify a perpetrator but it will help you focus your investigative efforts and narrow down or eliminate information from other areas," Craft said.
Whether Rigel will help in finding the Maryland shooter remains to be seen, but some proponents think it can be useful for more than serial murders. Says Laverty, "The technique itself is applicable to all types of serial crimes like robbery, burglary and arson."
Dr. Maurice Godwin suggests that Rossmo's geographical model (See Rossmo's description [8]) was wrong and offered another spatial model [9] for the shooter's behavior. Research findings also indicated that there is a strong relationship among the locations of the terrorist incident, terrorists’ preparatory behaviors, and where these terrorists reside. Research in terrorist geospatial patterns and behavior is found in Geospatial Analysis of Terrorist Activities: The Identification of Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Preparatory Behavior of International and Environmental Terrorists [10]. Based on this information and other profiling efforts, here are some of the inferences and speculations offered about the DC shooter prior to the arrest of the two suspects (http://www.corpus-delicti.com/prof_archives_profiles.html [11]):
Weighing the validity of sources is critical thinking that the confidence of any analytic judgments ultimately rest upon. Analysts should review the quality of their information and refresh their understanding of the strengths and weaknesses. This is part of becoming grounded in the problem. Without understanding the context and conditions under which critical information has been provided, it will be difficult for analysts to assess the information’s validity and establish a confidence level in an intelligence assessment.
Using the DC Shooter scenario, perform a brief quality of information check as part of your grounding. Specifically:
Example Quality of Information Check Results:
The following geospatial evidence could have been useful given more time and resources:
Corroboration of the locations with the text were as stated:
Level of confidence you have in the sources, which are likely to figure in future analytic assessments.
Our initial evidence includes:
A matrix with hypotheses across the top and evidence and arguments down the side is developed. Note that your evidence and arguments may or may not be geospatial in nature.
Evidence/Argument | Michael's Employee | Foreign Terrorist | Serial Killer | Domestic Terrorist |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Conforms to the geospatial model of a serial criminal | ||||
2. All DC-area kilings occured within 30 days | ||||
3. The majority of the shootings were at or near shopping centers | ||||
4. Shootings were all on major highways or interstates | ||||
5. There was only one shooting per location and often occured at gas stations | ||||
6. Sighting of a blue car with two black men | ||||
7. Sighting of a white van with two individuals at one killing | ||||
8. Military caliber weapon(5.56mm) | ||||
9. Noise heard but shooter never seen |
Work down the evidence column and across the rows of the matrix, examining one item of evidence at a time to see how consistent that item of evidence is with each of the hypotheses. Make a notation C, I, and N/A standing for consistent, inconsistent, or not applicable. In this example, the evidence is weighted by using combinations of CC, II, C, and I.
Evidence/Argument | Michael's employee | Foreign Terrorist | Serial Killer | Domestic Terrorist |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Conforms to the geospatial model of a serial criminal | I | C | I | C |
2. All DC-area kilings occured within 30 days | C | C | CC | C |
3. The majority of the shootings were at or near shopping centers | I | CC | C | CC |
4. Shootings were all on major highways or interstates | I | CC | CC | CC |
5. There was only one shooting per location and often occured at gas stations | I | II | CC | CC |
6. Sighting of a blue car with two black men | I | I | I | I |
7. Sighting of a white van with two individuals at one killing | I | C | C | C |
8. Military caliber weapon(5.56mm) | C | C | C | C |
9. Noise heard but shooter never seen | I | I | CC | CC |
Analyze the "diagnosticity" of each piece of evidence. We discover that the evidence of the rifle's caliber is not very helpful because it is consistent with all hypotheses. Refine the matrix by reconsidering the hypotheses and delete evidence and arguments that have no diagnostic value. In the case, I deleted the "Military caliber weapon (5.56mm)" evidence since it offered no diagnosticity.
Evidence/Argument | Michael's employee | Foreign Terrorist | Serial Killer | Domestic Terrorist |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Conforms to the geospatial model of a serial criminal | I | C | I | C |
2. All DC-area kilings occured within 30 days | I | CC | C | CC |
3. The majority of the shootings were at or near shopping centers | I | CC | CC | CC |
4. Shootings were all on major highways or interstates | I | II | CC | CC |
5. There was only one shooting per location and often occured at gas stations | I | II | C | I |
6. Sighting of a blue car with two black men | I | C | C | C |
7. Sighting of a white van with two individuals at one killing | I | C | C | CC |
8. Noise heard but shooter never seen | I | I | CC | C |
Examine each the hypothesis one at a time by looking down the column to consider each hypothesis as a whole. Draw tentative conclusions by trying to disprove the hypotheses. Look at the “I”s to indicate evidence that may be inconsistent with a hypothesis. Generally, the hypothesis with the fewest “I”s is probably the most likely one. The hypothesis with the most “I”s is probably the least likely one.
Evidence/Argument | Michael's employee | Foreign Terrorist | Serial Killer | Domestic Terrorist |
---|---|---|---|---|
Summary | I=8 C=0 |
I=5 C=7 |
I=-1 C=10 |
I=-1 C=11 |
The evidence leads us to believe the acts are either a foreign or domestic terrorist whose motivations are either unclear or are being concealed from the law enforcement authorities. There is also a preponderance of evidence to imply that there is actually a team committing the crimes and that it is not a single individual.
The analysis has lead us to the mostly likely hypothesis that the attacks were carried out by a terrorist with only a thin line between Domestic or Foreign. The milestones that would lead us to one or the other would be:
Links
[1] http://www.txstate.edu/rising-stars/kim-rossmo.html
[2] http://www.criminalprofiling.ch/sniper.html
[3] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/sgam/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.sgam/files/file/DC_Sniper/criminal_profiling.pdf
[4] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/sgam/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.sgam/files/file/Lesson_04/Predicting_Crime_groff.pdf
[5] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/sgam/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.sgam/files/file/DC_Sniper/DC_Sniper_Case_8June09.pdf
[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/oct02/snipershootings.htm
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beltway_sniper_map.gif
[8] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/sgam/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.sgam/files/file/Lesson_04/krossmo.pdf
[9] http://www.investigativepsych.com/snipergeoprofile.htm
[10] http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222909.pdf
[11] http://www.corpus-delicti.com/prof_archives_profiles.html