January 23, 2005
The real Numb3rs

We now officially live in the age of the
forensic cop show -- where police rely not
on brass knuckles to bring down perps, but
on science. Ever since
CSI swept prime time, networks have
stumbled over each other to produce ever
more procedural dramas where police
scientists squint into microscopes and
deliver mind-numbing lectures on the how the
curl of human hair relates to the ovoid
shape of its cross-section. Real-life cops
and scientists have a love-hate relationship
with these shows, because of two problems:
a) The shows create an unrealistic sense of
how accurate and easy-to-use these
techniques are, and b) juries now expect to
be treated to explanations as pat and simple
as those in the shows, accompanied, bien
sur, by lavish CGI animations.
Anyway, I was intrigued to hear about the
premise of CBS's new procedural thriller
(and 1337-speak titled) Numb3rs.
According to
the New York Times:
Charlie looks at a water sprinkler and
has an Archimedes moment: he realizes
that the same mathematical principle
that allows him to track the path of
drops to determine their point of origin
could be applied to the distribution of
crime scenes on a map. "Are you saying
you can tell where the killer is?" Don
says slowly and ponderously. His partner
drills in the point, saying wonderingly,
"If it works we have a whole new system
of investigating criminal cases."
When I read this, a bell in my head went
off -- because I realized this is
"geographic profiling", a technique invented
in 1990 by Vancouver police officer Kim
Rossmo (pictured above). In the 80s,
criminologists Paul and Patricia Brantingham
had proved that serial criminals tend to
stick close to home when they commit their
crimes. Rossmo
took this concept a step further, as a
writeup on a criminologist web-site notes
...
Rossmo reasoned that if the serial
criminal operates close to where he
lives, it may be possible to approximate
the location of his home by analyzing
spatial patterns of the attacks. To test
the theory, he wrote a program using
proprietary algorithms and statistical
analyses of serial crime data collected
over several years. The program also
incorporated a hunting typology of
serial criminals based on the research.
When later reviewing George B.
Schaller's authoritative work, The
Serengeti Lion, Rossmo found
startling similarities in the hunting
patterns of African lions and
city-dwelling predators.
"Schaller's typology of how lions
hunt matched almost perfectly with the
hunting typology of the serial killer.
Lions look for an animal that exhibits
some indication of weakness -- the old,
the very young, the infirm, the
vulnerable. They will go to a watering
hole and hang out because they know it
is a draw for their potential targets.
We see that all the time with criminal
offenders; they go to target-rich
environments to do their hunting.
Spatial patterns are produced by serial
killers as they search and attack. The
system analyzes the geography of these,
the victim encounter, the attack, the
murder and body dumpsites."
Cool, eh? Which is why I was surprised to
find that of the
nearly two hundred stories written about the
show in the last week, only one actually
mentions Rossmo and his work -- and that was
the
New York Post quoting an observation
in an online chat room.
Posted by Clive
Thompson at January 23, 2005 02:37 PM |
TrackBack
Here's another pattern that I think is
pretty unpredictable. How come all these new
shows are on CBS? Wouldn't you expect other
networks to want NCIS or Num3ers as a
challenge to CSI?... & wouldn't you expect
CBS to want a couple of other non-forensic
dramas on their books? Is every show on CBS
going to involve DNA?
Clive, I'm surprised that you're surprised!
Perhaps the show's producers, in
developing the new show, didn't purchase any
one criminologist's life rights, or didn't
hire Rossmo as a consultant, so his name
wasn't in the press kit.
With so many cop shows on right now,
every police procedural has to have a
promotable special skill (this cop's blind!
this cop's in the Army! these cops are
high-tech crime scene scientists!)
this week, the cop's a MATH GENIUS.
gimmick! i suppose we should be grateful
there are no shows about private
investigators with talking cars...this year.
Dude,
Knight Rider so rocked.
I recognized the show as a gimmick when I
first saw the preview clips, but something
about it caught my imagination, so I watched
it anyway. and I enjoyed it! Of course, they
treated math pretty much like they treat
science in the CSI flavors--it looked a lot
easier than it is. (Though how's this for a
cover-your-asses excuse for how easy it was:
he's a GENIUS. A GENIUS, I TELL YOU.)
I
was kind of excited about how he got it
wrong at first. It's rare that any formula
(whether you're talking math or cooking)
works out perfectly the first time.
And then he re-worked the formula to come
up with two locations, but one was still the
original location. This, of course, freaked
me out, because I can't imagine that
happening in real life. It's simple
relativity: you can't ask the formula to
find another possible location without
expecting the first location to change.
And then (though I really did enjoy the
show overall and I'll watch it again) it
turns out that the first location was indeed
correct, and the genius didn't get it wrong
the first time. It was nice and catchy, but
I was sad that the show lost the idea that
it's okay to be wrong once in a while. Even
if you're a GENIUS.
I really gotta see the premier episode.
Thanks for the recap!
My favourite of the New Criminalistics show
is MEDIUM, where lovely Patricia Arquette
rejiggers the scary modern day equilibrium
of spirituality and science by solving
horrifying crimes through the use of her
psychic powers.
Jonathan, I'm with you. I think some of the
ideas are pretty goofy, but I like how the
show is written. And Arquette's character
has a nice human-ness about her.
Jonathan, I'm with you. I think some of the
ideas are pretty goofy, but I like how the
show is written. And Arquette's character
has a nice human-ness about her.