Googling the Trail of a Serial Rapist

theodp writes "Innovative Interactivity has a behind-the-scenes look at the Washington Post's On the Trail of a Serial Rapist series. Information Designer Kat Downs details her experience designing and building the impressive interface for the series, including the use of Google Maps to track the rapist. Wary, perhaps, that it might encourage vigilantism, the WaPo stopped short of allowing readers to add their own input to the maps and urged anyone with additional information to contact the police."

Comments

Some black guy...

[will.perdikakis]

He was 21ish and 5'7" in 1997 and 6'1" and in his 40s now?

I understand the DNA links, but the other cases?

Re:Some black guy...

[AnonymousClown]

Anything can happen in America! Why Michael Jackson was born a poor black boy and died a very rich woman - or close to it.

Re:Some black guy...

[Enderandrew]

He wasn't measured at 5'7" and then measured at 6'1" later. The victim's statement described the attacker as 5'7" in one case, and another victim many years later described the attacker as 6'1".

If you only look at cases with DNA evidence, two cases right next to each other in 1997 have a victim describing the attacker as 5'6", and the next case has a victim describing the attacker as 5'10". DNA says this is the same person.

It would seem that either the DNA evidence is completely flawed, or the victim's guesses at the attacker's height is flawed.

Re:Some black guy...

[feepness]

He was 21ish and 5'7" in 1997 and 6'1" and in his 40s now?

Time flies when you're having fun.

Re:Some black guy...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a fan of Jackson's music, just not my thing, but have a little sympathy:

1) The burns he suffered during that pepsi commercial left him nearly as disfigured as darth vader - he had to wear wigs and get plastic surgery on his face to attain a semblance of normalcy.

2) He's not white out of choice - he had vitiligo - the trademark white glove was actually used to cover up the first signs of it that could not be concealed by regular clothing. The whole thing about him sleeping in an oxygen chamber was him trying to cure the vit, its a common (but mostly ineffective) treatment. I know a girl who was similarly depigmented and even though she turned out to be the most exotically gorgeous woman I have ever met, the 20 years or so that it took for the disease to kill most of her melanin were psychologically brutal and left her emotionally scarred and she didn't even have to deal with all the extra baggage of being famous and a role model for millions of underprivileged kids.

So, cut the guy some slack. I don't know anyone who would trade all the shit he ended up going through for the financial success his musical talent brought him.

I'll take

[Anonymous Coward]

Therapist for $400

Vigilantism

[girlintraining]

Tracking people in this fashion is unethical, even if it is a rapist. Leave it to the authorities -- this is vigilantism, nothing more. And that's not something that we can tolerate in an information-saturated society. Anytime a person is tracked electronically like this by someone with a personal agenda, it's wrong. There should not be exceptions, because the moment we allow that line to be crossed, we damn all of us to the potential to have our privacy invaded under false pretext.

You want to help? Volunteer your services to a responsible authority like the local police. Work with them and follow their ethical guidelines. Believe me, they want citizens to come to them and the system functions best when done under professional and ethical oversight by a disinterested party. This kind of behavior, however well-intentioned, harms those efforts and undermines the entire system of justice.

Re:Vigilantism

[bluefoxlucid]

If somebody has maliciously assaulted you, tracking them down is not unethical. If somebody has made a habit of maliciously assaulting people at leisure, tracking them down is a service to mankind.

Re:Vigilantism

[Anonymous Coward]

And if we allow random individuals to each make their own judgments about who deserves to be hunted down, then we've reverted to anarchy. That's the trade-off of living in a modern civilization: you agree to give up your right to randomly hunt down whoever you think deserves it, in return for being assured that nobody else can randomly hunt you down to satisfy a grudge, either. The police exist for exactly this reason, and the occasional (and even occasionally systemic) abuses aside, they do a reasonable job of it.

Re:Vigilantism

[girlintraining]

If somebody has maliciously assaulted you, tracking them down is not unethical. If somebody has made a habit of maliciously assaulting people at leisure, tracking them down is a service to mankind.

Speaking as someone who was sexually assaulted, yes, tracking the person responsible down is unethical. In my case, they filed it under miscellany and never interviewed him, and less than a month later, three more cases turned up and the guy skipped state. The police never followed up, and so he's very likely still out there. I did the responsible thing and contacted the authorities once I got out of the hospital. Granted, I did it while staring at the floor, stuttering, and being held by a friend, but I did do it.

Can I say I'd do it the same way if it happened again? No, not really. It was a traumatic experience and I won't sit here and say if given half a chance I wouldn't have returned the favor at the time. But I don't think two wrongs make a right, and feeding this guy to a woodchipper because the police wouldn't do their job, while maybe emotionally fulfilling, isn't right. So I have to stand by what I said -- vigilantism is not a public service. A public service would be my day in court, along with the others who that son of a bitch hurt. So I do understand the motivations behind such behavior on a very personal level. I don't agree with it.

Re:Vigilantism

[Shakrai]

If somebody has made a habit of maliciously assaulting people at leisure, tracking them down is a service to mankind.

Putting them out of our collective misery would be an even bigger service to mankind but some people frown on such notions.....

Re:Vigilantism

[Moridineas]

Really? Are you advocating a criminal-victim right of confidentiality or something? As a criminal, I have the right to privacy of my crimes?

I get the core of what you're saying--vigilantism can be bad--but I see absolutely nothing wrong in this case. The police (and other shows like America's Most Wanted) regularly share far more information about ongoing cases than is on this webpage. It's a neat little mashup sure, but that's all. Who knows if more victims will come forward after recognizing something in the description, or a friend/acquaintance of the rapist realizes something is going on, etc?

Re:Vigilantism

[MozeeToby]

The only tracking that they're doing is tracking where the crimes took place. Go look at the site, all that's there is a timeline, with a Google map, street view, and text blurb for each attack. It isn't like they've followed the guy on the subway and found out where he lives, they're simply organizing all the data that was doubtlessly available from other sources into a single, easy to follow graphical representation.

Re:Vigilantism

[pclminion]

How is determining a person's location equivalent to vigilantism?

Re:Vigilantism

[guruevi]

The authorities have no duty to protect anyone: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

The best thing to do about crime is to stop it yourself whenever you see it going on. If you have the nuts for it, you can become a bounty hunter and hunt people down yourself for a living.

Re:Vigilantism

[megamerican]

There is nothing wrong with being vigilant. It has often been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

In many places around the country the police force is either being used to collect fines to make their budget and/or their force is being cut. In fact, an Ohio county Judge has urged its citizens to buy guns, be vigilant and set up community watches.

Judge Alfred Mackey of Ashtabula County Common Pleas Court advised residents Friday to be vigilant and arm themselves because the number of deputies has been cut about in half because of a tight budget. He also urged neighbors to organize anti-crime block watch groups.

Sure, people can take being vigilant too far, but so can authorized police.

Even with a modern police force they need all the help they can get.

A few years ago I helped the police catch a person who stole a disc golf basket from a local park. A yahoo news group was alerted to an ebay posting of a disk golf basket without a pole, which means it was probably stolen. I knew a basket had recently been stolen from rarely played course. I googled the ebay user name, found his myspace page with pictures of him playing at that same course. The information I gathered was forwarded to the police and within a week the person was arrested.

If I had just filed a police report that the basket had been stolen the person would have never been caught. Using the newsgroup as a sort of open-source intelligence resource made a huge difference in catching the thief.

Re:Vigilantism

[Archangel Michael]

A person, continuing to violate laws and harm people doesn't have rights. They don't have a right to trial, to remain silent or anything else.

Rights are only established once they've been apprehended and in safe custody. However, someone shooting people from a tower has no rights, because they don't care about other people's rights.

This is the problem with our society today, we are too emasculated to actually state what is obvious, for fear of offending those that need to be offended.

You know those High Speed Car Chases? Those would end as soon as police were allowed to shoot to stop/kill the assholes putting everyone else's lives in danger, just the same as they are allowed to shoot someone wielding a gun and shooting it randomly into the air.

I'm sorry, but not catching a bad guy because we might, just might, hurt their "wittle feewings" (awww) or our sense of "fairness" or whatever is just as evil as the bad guys raping girls and killing people.

If they surrender immediately upon contact with law enforcement, great, if they try to get away so that they can continue their crime spree, then fuckem, all bets are off.

Re:Vigilantism

[girlintraining]

Why? You explained your circumstances, but I don't understand your reasoning. If anything, it's the police who ignore you who are unethical. It's not unethical to do their job when they won't.

I can't (nor should I be allowed to) assume police powers because the person or group that has them doesn't want to excercise them. That's lunacy. If I want to track this guy down privately, using lawful channels, and the police are willing and able to prosecute -- it's a win for everyone. But if they don't, my only lawful recourse is to go to the media (weren't interested), protest (one person with a sign didn't exactly make an impact), write letters (got form letter replies and courteous brush-offs), and try to help the other victims to find him and build a case against him (only found one of the three I knew about, and that person didn't want to rehash an old wound).

Don't kid yourself -- I tried. I did more than this website did, and with less fanfare. But I never crossed the line of going public. The risk of someone being misidentified and harmed by that isn't one I am willing to take, then, now, or ever. I want him as bad as anyone else who's ever been raped. That doesn't give me the right to endanger innocent lives to correct that injustice.

Re:Vigilantism

[Shakrai]

in return for being assured that nobody else can randomly hunt you down to satisfy a grudge, either.

Except that you are given no such assurance. The only assurance you are given is that the police will try to track down the person who hunted you down after the fact. The police in the United States have no legal duty to protect you. The Supreme Court has said as much.

The police exist for exactly this reason, and the occasional (and even occasionally systemic) abuses aside, they do a reasonable job of it.

Tell that to all the rape/murder victims out there. The sad reality of the situation is that you are the one who is ultimately responsible for your own well being. The police sure as hell aren't.

Re:Vigilantism

[corbettw]

And what happens when a DA declines to prosecute you and the guy's family decides his fate was undeserved and comes looking for you for vengeance? Where does it end?

Part of living in a civilized society is giving up your "right" to vengeance and letting the authorities take care of the problem. If they don't, the solution is to get better authorities, not to take the law into your own hands.

Re:Vigilantism

[Hatta]

But if they don't, my only lawful recourse is to go to the media (weren't interested), protest (one person with a sign didn't exactly make an impact), write letters (got form letter replies and courteous brush-offs), and try to help the other victims to find him and build a case against him (only found one of the three I knew about, and that person didn't want to rehash an old wound).

Just because it's not lawful doesn't mean it's unethical. When the law itself (or those enforcing it) is unethical, the only ethical action may be to break the law.

Re:Vigilantism

[Shakrai]

For example, inciting a riot or encouraging criminal activity is not covered.

I fail to see how repeating information that is already in the public domain constitutes incitement to riot.

"John Q. Rapist moved into the neighborhood at 123 Main St. Keep your kids away from him" <--- free speech
"John Q. Rapist moved into the neighborhood at 123 Main St. Let's go burn his house down!" <--- not free speech

Re:Vigilantism

[girlintraining]

Just because it's not lawful doesn't mean it's unethical. When the law itself (or those enforcing it) is unethical, the only ethical action may be to break the law.

I don't believe the police were acting in an unethical fashion, I simply think they have limited resources.

Re:Vigilantism

[Shakrai]

But, as an intelligent, rational person I'm also aware that pedophilia is a disease, one that takes control of the person

That's bullshit rationalization. Human beings are one of the few (the only?) animals with the higher brain functions to override our primal instincts. I don't ascribe to the theory that someone is forced to molest children. That person made a choice and if caught will have to live with the consequences.

The problem is, that's not how you build a JUSTICE system, it's how you build a REVENGE system.

Why do you assume I was advocating vigilantism? I'd actually like to see rape made into a capital offense, as it used to be. Then the state could put these lowlifes out of our collective misery after according them due process of law as required by our Constitution.

Re:Vigilantism

[Shakrai]

so that householders aren't required to run from their premises in the case of intrusion

Move to the United States. In virtually all American states (even the left-leaning ones like New York or California) you aren't expected nor required to flee from your home in the face of a violent intrusion into it. I find it absolutely despicable that there exists systems of government that require people to flee from their homes in the face of violence.

Break into an occupied home in the United States and you have a decent chance of being shot. Perhaps this explains why the United States has a lower rate of "hot" burglaries (burglaries where the home is occupied) than many other countries?

Re:Vigilantism

[Hatta]

As long as there's a single pot smoker in jail, "limited resources" has no pull whatsoever.

Re:Vigilantism

[ozbird]

Break into an occupied home in the United States and you have a decent chance of being shot. Perhaps this explains why the United States has a lower rate of "hot" burglaries (burglaries where the home is occupied) than many other countries?

Nice cherry-picking. Compare homicide, armed robbery etc. statistics with other countries and you'll find that things aren't so rosy. (No, you can't pick Somalia.)

Re:Vigilantism

[david_thornley]

I've never understood why murder is regarded as a capital offense but rape is not

For one thing, this provides a little incentive to leave the rape victim alive. If I'm committing a capital offense already, why not eliminate any witnesses?

You would have to do your own survey on whether rape victims would prefer to have been murdered also. Personally, I would bet on "no".

Re:Vigilantism

[syousef]

Tracking people in this fashion is unethical, even if it is a rapist. Leave it to the authorities -- this is vigilantism, nothing more.

In the absence of an effective and well staffed police force what you're advocating is that people do nothing.

And that's not something that we can tolerate in an information-saturated society.

Yes it is. We can tolerate private detectives and have for a long time. We can tolerate the citizenry being involved in policing. (Ever heard of a citizen's arrest?). What we can't tolerate is people ignoring the law then they track the person down, or once they've found the person. Collecting information intelligently and presenting it to the police is to be commended not condemned. Furthermore we're not talking about tracking anyone for any purpose. This is tracking down someone who has committed a crime.

When I read the lines you have written above I have to wonder what personal agenda you have?

Anytime a person is tracked electronically like this by someone with a personal agenda, it's wrong.

No it's not. If you have an argument to present, go ahead, but just stating it is wrong does not make it so.

There should not be exceptions, because the moment we allow that line to be crossed, we damn all of us to the potential to have our privacy invaded under false pretext.

If the information is already public, there should be ZERO expectation of privacy. Collating facts should not be illegal.

You want to help? Volunteer your services to a responsible authority like the local police. Work with them and follow their ethical guidelines.

The police can be part of the problem. They can be corrupt. They can be complacent. They can simply be overworked and underfunded. Often they don't want help that requires even more effort. But if they are presented with collated facts and evidence that can lead to the quick conviction of a dangerous criminal, it's hard to justify not acting.

Believe me, they want citizens to come to them and the system functions best when done under professional and ethical oversight by a disinterested party.

You act as if police, both individuals and organisations are all good and have no agenda of their own. This is a dangerous and naive view to hold. There are plenty of incidents in recent history that show the Police aren't always the wonderful pillars of society we wish them to be. That isn't to say all Police are corrupt or bad. There are some awesome people there. But the nature of the job has a way of selecting for bullies and power maniacs, and of taking even the best of people and overworking them while showing them the worst side of humanity. Believing in a fairytale Police that is good and pure is harmful.

Then there's the legal system itself. An antiquated collection of rules of law that are so complex that no individual can ever learn them and so strew with holes that criminals can and do often get off on "technicalities". Harsh sentences tend to be handed down for trivial crimes "to make an example" of someone for a political agend, and soft punishment can be dealt out to violent criminals. Expecting someone to see a rapist get away with a couple of years in prison, when someone else gets up to 5 for copying a damn DVD is ridiculous. Suggesting that I trust you and that such a system is good and fair is equally ridiculous. "It's not perfect but it's the best system we had" is good for fairytale style cop shows but useless in the real world.

This kind of behavior, however well-intentioned, harms those efforts and undermines the entire system of justice.

No it doesn't, and the solution is not to make it illegal for public citizens to present collated facts to the Police.

Re:Vigilantism

[element-o.p.]

I'm undoing a lot of moderation to post this, but I just have to. Here goes...

A person, continuing to violate laws and harm people doesn't have rights. They don't have a right to trial, to remain silent or anything else.

Agreed. Unfortunately, only God (if you accept His existence) and the perpetrator knows who that is. Everyone else has a best guess. It might be a really, really good guess, but ultimately, that's all it is.

Rights don't exist to protect the scumbag who hurt someone else. Rights exist to make sure that we don't punish the innocent for things they didn't do. Right not to be forced to testify against yourself? Yeah...England (and lots of other places) used to torture suspects to extract a confession. Turns out it didn't work so well, if justice is your goal (if straight conviction rates are your yardstick, it's the bees knees, however). You see...torture someone for long enough -- whether or not they are really guilty -- and they will confess to anything just to make the pain stop. Right to trial? That's so we can at least go through the motions of hearing whether or not the case against the accused stands up to reason. Mistakes happen, but this is the best thing we've found so far for making sure that you don't end up in jail simply because someone accused you. Right to a jury? Well, I, for one, don't like the idea of having the only people listening to my side of the story being a part of the same "good-ole-boy" network. If the cop, the judge and the prosecutor are all drinking buddies, what are the odds of me convincing the judge that I was framed (assuming I really didn't do it)? So we pick twelve (hypothetically) unbiased people to decide whether or not I'm guilty before the judge gets to sentence me. Right to a lawyer? Ever have someone twist everything you said to make it look like you're saying the exact opposite of what you really mean? I had a friend in high school who was really good at that. If she were to cross examine me on the stand, she could probably convince a jury that I was the one who shot JFK, even though I wasn't even born yet. So, everyone accused of a crime gets the right to level the playing field a little by hiring someone who professes to that skill as well. Right to remain silent? There are a lot of dumb things you can say to build a case against you, even if you aren't guilty, under the stress of being arrested. This right guarantees that, if you are smart enough to keep your mouth shut, you can have your lawyer filter what you say in questioning.

You can mock those rights all you want, but in the end, it's not about "hurting their wittle feewings". It's about making sure that the bad guy you put in jail really is the scumwad who was "raping girls and killing people." I want HIM in jail (or the electric chair; I don't care), not some poor sap who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Witness unreliable

[aepervius]

The problem is that at the best of the case , the witness are unreliable. In a stressful situation like rape this is much worst. So 5'7'' or 6'1'' could be the same guy. Really. Now tehre are still problem with DNA matching, as it seems that collision over a huge population can happen (so you can't try to match against a whole database), so I would not trust that too, unless it is to ground a case when the suspect is shown to also have been at the place.

Re:Witness unreliable

[thesandtiger]

I'm 5'7" - a little on the tall side, I guess, for a woman my age.

I have had co-workers - people I have worked alongside for *years* guess my height at anywhere between 5'4" and 6'. As for age, I'm 38 but I have people who're older than me guessing I'm in my early to mid-20's, while people who are in their mid-20's guess I'm in my early to mid 40's.

I've had people tell me they were "shocked" to hear me describe myself as brunette because they thought my hair was black, or blonde, depending on the time of year. And people have also said I look either Italian (read: dusky) or Irish (read: freckles and pale) again depending on the time of year.

Given that people who work with me 20-40 hours/week have such a hard time describing me, I am actually impressed that the height and age-range of the attacker in question is so narrow.

Re:Looks like it'd make a great tool for LEO

[zero0ne]

I imagine they already do this...

You know those license plate scanners the police cars have now? I can guarantee those things are going in a database as such:

[License plate ID][Time & Day of scan][GPS coordinates]

They could then go and use that data to prove or disprove you were or weren't in a certain area at a certain time.

Hell with enough of that data, they could probably generate reports of your driving habits.

Assuming parent is not trolling (u never know..)

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to "it is better 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent gets punished"?

Who are you to judge who is guilty or not, and maybe you and your family should be murdered, if you make a wrong judgement in your vendetta for revenge and blood?

Blood-feuds is a mark of less advanced societies. Violence breeds violence. They can last for generations, and usually develops to become worse and worse with time and violent events, not better.

It is not necessary EVERY crime gets punished. But that notorious criminals gets locked up, and get time to rethink their strategies in life. Sometimes they get educated in prison and become better human beings after a few years. Sometimes not.

Your own lust for revenge does not count in this context. You should learn to deal with your own emotions, or you might get stuck in a vicious violent cycle yourself! Wether you are police or criminal, you will be no better than your counterpart then. Not a very wise move..

This is a real problem.

[elucido]

As long as there's a single pot smoker in jail, "limited resources" has no pull whatsoever.

The police spend a greater portion of their money solving drug crimes and paying off drug informants than they do trying to catch rapists. If they want to catch rapists where are the informants? Somehow they have an endless supply of informants who will rat you out for smoking a joint but nobody when it's time to catch a real criminal?

Typical.

Re:Assuming parent is not trolling (u never know..

[elucido]

... which has nothing to do with rapists. On the other hand, you have a point - for decades there was a problem of well-connected, powerful Japanese men molesting women on subway trains that, despite the efforts of the police, was covered up by the (ashamed) women.

This is why the Yakuza exists. These men can pay the gangsters and keep their lives, a portion of the money can be transfered to the victims. Yes this is extortion but that is street justice.

As a libertarian

[elucido]

As a libertarian, this scares the hell out of me.

As a process improvement professional, this sounds like a damned cool thing to have access to!

Libertarian isn't the same as "anarchist". Libertarian means you want to maximize liberty for people who don't harm anyone. The legalize drugs, prostitute, line of thinking is not the same as thinking rape or violence crime should be legal.

The best we can do as libertarians is design technology which promotes freedom for the user.