Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Bees Help Detectives Catch Serial Killers

Posted by kdawson on Sun Aug 17, 2008 05:12 AM
from the geographic-profiling dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "The way bumblebees search for food could help detectives hunt down serial killers — because just as bees forage some distance away from their hives, so murderers avoid killing near their homes, says a University of London research team. The researchers' analysis describes how bees create a 'buffer zone' around their hive where they will not forage, to reduce the risk of predators and parasites locating the nest. This behavior pattern is similar to the geographic profile of criminals stalking their victims. 'Most murders happen close to the killer's home, but not in the area directly surrounding a criminal's house, where crimes are less likely to be committed because of the fear of getting caught by someone they know,' says Dr. Nigel Raine. Criminologists will fold this insight into their models using details about crime scenes, robbery locations, abandoned cars, even dead bodies, to hone the search for a suspect."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by timmarhy (659436) on Sunday August 17 2008, @05:14AM (#24633351)
    we've known this for a long time sherlock...
    • If only the FBI had watched Silence of the Lambs, they would have known this in advance.

      CLARICE
      "Desperately random." What does he mean?

      ARDELIA
      Not random at all, maybe. Like there's some pattern here...?

      [later...]

      CLARICE (CONT'D)
      Maybe he lives in this, this Belvedere, Ohio, too! Maybe he saw her
      every day, and killed her sort of spontaneously. Maybe he just meant

      • What does he do? He covets. And what do we Covet? We covet what we see...

        I do believe it is most likely first-time killers DO kill close to home because it is their buffer zone. Then they start to spread their wings.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      The problem with going public with this kind of information is also that the nastiest serial killers - they who plan their killings - actually takes notice and makes sure that their pattern is weird enough to mess up any logical conclusions from their pattern.

      Of course - sooner or later they are probably making a mistake that leads to their downfall, but by creating a offbeat pattern they can lead investigators down several blind alleys.

      This is however not limited to serial killers, but also other kinds of

      • True but unless you are dealing with the really really insane murder tends to be a crime of passion. You are generally not all that passionate about people you dont know. The majority of murder victims do have a relationship to the killer.

        Just because you know something about the pattern of where the real nut jobs select their victims does not mean you have control over where yours is. So the information is not helpful to most would be killers. The real wack jobs who could use the information are pretty

  • Two ways? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JohnnyKlunk (568221) on Sunday August 17 2008, @05:19AM (#24633357)
    If read and understood by a sane serial killer (assuming these things exist). Could they then pattern their kills around a location other than where they live? Hence leading police to profile the wrong location based upon these kind of patterns?
    • Re:Two ways? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lukas84 (912874) on Sunday August 17 2008, @05:24AM (#24633373) Homepage

      Yes, of course.

      If you kill a random person at a random location, with the only value that influences your choice of victim being the chance of getting away with it, the chances of getting away with it, if properly executed, are almost 100%.

      But that's not how it works in the real world - most murders happen for a reason, even those be insane or sane serial killers.

    • by drmofe (523606) on Sunday August 17 2008, @06:10AM (#24633551)
      Yes. 1. Find a known serial killer. 2. Commit crimes around their home. 3. ??? 4. Profit.
    • Re:Two ways? (Score:4, Informative)

      by will_die (586523) on Sunday August 17 2008, @07:19AM (#24633787) Homepage
      First off this behavior is also used by thieves, murderers, arsonists, basically any type of serial criminal activities, and was used is solving poisoning back in the 80s.
      The basis around most of this geographic profiling is that people put a bubble around the places they live or work so they are not to close while at the same time they don't want to be so far away that they don't feel safe or unfamiliar with the area or they don't have an explanation of why they are in that area.
      So yea someone could setup another base but you then increase the chance that you will be seen as unfamiliar in that area or if you don't know the area a good chance there is a chance you will make a mistake and the fear of making that mistake is what causes people to create that original bubble in the first place.
      There are a few pieces of software that are already being used by police and the I recently read an article where they are using this software in Afghanistan and Iraq to figure out possible locations of bomb building and enemy safe houses.
      • they are using this software in Afghanistan and Iraq to figure out possible locations of bomb building and enemy safe houses.

        yeah, and how's that going? I bet if we use these models we could find those WMD too!

        give me a break.

        I am fully in favor using all tech at our disposal to be better at law enforcement (while still respecting civil rights of course), but what scares me is the underlying theories behind how they use this data. They actually think that all human behavior is quantifiable and that if we ca

    • I would say no. To be a serial killer it implies that you murder more then one person, generally have the same Modus Operandi and some times your victims carry similar traits or are the same in some way. I would think if you kill around your home a pattern would emerge in a very tight area and police would catch on. The only thing you would accomplish is having them profile you as someone who kills spontaneously and has little or no self control, which would be the opposite of what you are trying to accompl
    • From my extensive knowledge gained by watching "Diagnosis Murder" and "Murder She Wrote", there's always a false lead; the obvious suspect at the 20 minute mark is never ever the real culprit.

      So that would be a yes.

  • doing their serial killing far away, bombing countries half the world away. While just imposing embargoes on those next door, to reduce the risk to the hive. You don't need Bee theory, forensics or the CSI team to figure out who is doing the killing though.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2008, @06:21AM (#24633581)

      doing their serial killing far away, bombing countries half the world away. While just imposing embargoes on those next door, to reduce the risk to the hive. You don't need Bee theory, forensics or the CSI team to figure out who is doing the killing though.

      Riiight. So please explain Russia invading Georgia, China invading Tibet, Indonesia invading East Timor.

      Look, if you want to pick on the USA, please go ahead. There are many good & bad things about US foreign policy. But meaningless new-age psychobabble doesn't accomplish anything except making you look like an anti-American kook.

  • RFID (Score:2, Insightful)

    TFA mentions that they are also tracking the bees by glueing RFID tags to their backs. I wonder if any politicians reading this might start thinking of a more direct way to use this work to catch criminals...
  • by Bromskloss (750445) on Sunday August 17 2008, @05:38AM (#24633429)

    The insight that killers don't kill too close to their homes help detectives. It has nothing to do with bees, really. Bees just happen to behave in the same way.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      And it's not biotech as someone tagged the story! Scheesh!

    • The article uses the word murderers, which do in fact kill near their 'home turf', and by and large kill people they know, per known statistics. Though being a serial killer really isn't a crime itself, it's just a subtype of murderer that performs multiple instances.

      Though, the fact that this subject matter is of high interest to selling movies, tv shows, and newspapers, then the real insight might be that a reporter is exaggerating this 'killer' relationship in order to gain readership to what many may
    • by OriginalArlen (726444) on Sunday August 17 2008, @07:09AM (#24633741)

      The buzz I've heard is that they're setting up a sting operation. Using a honey-pot.

      Thanks, mine's the white boilersuit with the veil and hat on the next peg.

      • Thanks, mine's the white boilersuit with the veil and hat on the next peg.

        The Register's thattaway, son, and we don't have any of them thar fancy Paris icons and smileys either!

    • RTFA. The article makes the point that the researches hope that future research on the behavior of bees can be used to improve on crime solving techniques. That's why bees are relevant.
  • by Hektor_Troy (262592) on Sunday August 17 2008, @05:44AM (#24633453)

    Use one program to select the town of your victim at random.
    Find a written phonebook from the area and pick a page at random using ten sided dice.
    And use the same dice to pick a person at random from that page.

    Now you have your victim - it could be you (start over), your neighbour, your boss - doesn't matter all that much.

    Next you pick a method of execution at random as well.

    If you have no modus operandi, they can't really catch you. See Richard Kuklinski [wikipedia.org]

    But learn from his mistakes - if you're using a freezer to keep the time of death obscured, thaw them before you dump them.

    • If you have no modus operandi, they can't really catch you. See Richard Kuklinski

      Not really - in fact, from the article you link to [emph mine]:

      Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski was a convicted murderer and notorious contract killer.

      • And if you read a bit further down, you'll notice that one of the reasons they knew they were dealing with something suspect in one of his cases, was because they found a FROZEN body in the middle of summer. That was his modus operandi.

  • by dreamchaser (49529) on Sunday August 17 2008, @05:46AM (#24633457) Homepage Journal

    ...it would really sting knowing that they were caught because of a bee.

  • DAMN IT. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2008, @05:48AM (#24633471)

    I was honestly hoping they discovered a way to manipulate bees to hunt down serial killers and "catch" them.

    oh well, back to my plans for the beezooka.

  • by jovius (974690) on Sunday August 17 2008, @06:36AM (#24633637)
    Is this what they call a sting operation?
  • I, for one, welcome our Hymenoptera overlords, and should like to inform them that as one with a knowledge of both Latin and Ancient Greek, I could prove invaluable to them in tracking down the ancient lost nectar mines.

  • I see two major flaws with applying this behavior to crime...

    First, bees live in an essentially homogenous environment - They generally travel less than a mile, and have a more-or-less equal chance of finding something yummy in any direction from the hive. Most humans tend to live in population clusters (aka "cities"), with those preferring (or needing) solitude (ie, serial killers) tending toward the outskirts of the cities. Thus, their "hunting ground" would have a strong bias toward the city, with li
  • If you know where the killer's house is in order to draw this donut around it, why not just go there and arrest them? If you're arguing that the killing is in a donut, there are an infinite number of donuts that a killing could belong to, so I don't see how that helps you find the killer's house if you have any less than 3-4 body(ies) in different location(s) that are actually arranged in a donut around a central location.

    • If you know where the killer's house is in order to draw this donut around it, why not just go there and arrest them? If you're arguing that the killing is in a donut, there are an infinite number of donuts that a killing could belong to, so I don't see how that helps you find the killer's house if you have any less than 3-4 body(ies) in different location(s) that are actually arranged in a donut around a central location.

      Mmm..... donuts.

      OMG!!!!! Homer Simpson is our serial killer!

  • by jabithew (1340853) on Sunday August 17 2008, @08:05AM (#24634025)

    "University of London" is a loose federation and should be treated as such, not all colleges are equal. This story should have been reported as originating from Queen Mary's College, University of London.

    UL contains world-class institutions such as UCL, Kings and LSE, but it also contains places like Heythrop College, essentially a seminary in all but name.

    This is exactly the issue that made my alma mater leave last year. When evaluating the quality of research, "University of London" is not a useful label.

  • Brave bees help track down a serial killer! Find out more about these adorable heroic bees in the news at 11 o'clock tonight!

  • It would be nice (especially for the subsequent 99) for the police to catch a murderer after the first one, not wait for 100 or so and then run a analysis on the distribution.

  • So uh, anyone seen Muhammad Ali lately ?

    He's been kinda quiet, a little too quiet.
    • by Cillian (1003268) on Sunday August 17 2008, @05:44AM (#24633451) Homepage
      That's the problem with psycological theories and profiling. As soon as the subject knows the model, they probably stop following it.
      • by that IT girl (864406) on Sunday August 17 2008, @07:53AM (#24633969) Journal
        Actually, it's pretty interesting how they don't. It's like they can't help but follow it. A subconscious thing. Doesn't make logical sense to me, but their minds don't work like the rest of ours so it's hard to understand why they behave the way they do.
        • The behavior of most people doesn't make logical sense to me. But then their minds don't work like mine.

          Subconscious impulses affect the behavior of everyone, whether they accept it or not.
      • Seems to me that there are two kinds of serial criminals, first the more common instinctual that has a profile behavior pattern and is locked into acting it out psychologically. This one is the easier to catch because the behavior eventually becomes predictable. The second one is rarer and is either going to change the MO at apparently random times after using it for a time or is completely erratic and unpredictable. The second kind is usually either not caught or caught through serendipity.

    • It is indeed an old concept. I've been watching Law & Order for years and they've used that premise several times. And if it's been aired on a show like that, you can bet it's been in the police's knowledge database for even longer.
    • I wasn't aware that serial killers formed colonies?

      Then, I wasn't aware that Bumblebees did either (although they are pretty small, and they break up over winter while the queen buries herself, and I am buggered if I would call it a colony, but there it is in bold print on the Sex for vegetables [quicksilver.net.nz] website.).
      • I wasn't aware that serial killers formed colonies?

        Okay it was a very weak joke. But I have thought about this and it seems that Hannibal Lecter was the most insightful saying "you should look at what they covet". I guess like protecting any asset, whether it is network security, data , military bases, or people, the easiest way is to protect it at the target and prevent it at the origin. The path between seems as it would be virtually infinite in possible convolutions.