CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO BRAIN FINGERPRINTING

1.1 Introduction:

Brain Fingerprinting was developed and patented in 1995 by Lawrence A. Farwell,

Ph.D., chairman of the Brain Wave Institute in Fairfield, Iowa, and former Harvard University

research associate. Brain fingerprinting is based on the theory that throughout any action, the

brain plans, records, and executes all of the actions. Such details, all concealed within the brain,

can now be revealed through brain fingerprinting. This technique measures how brain waves

respond to specific words or pictures flashed across a screen. Pictures, both relevant and

irrelevant to the actions, are shown. The relevant images should trigger memories of subject.

1.2.Definition:

"Brain Fingerprinting" is a controversial forensic science technique that determines

whether specific information is stored in a subject’s brain by measuring electrical brainwave

responses to words, phrases, or pictures that are presented on a computer screen. Brain

fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that the brain processes known,

relevant information differently than it processes unknown or irrelevant information.

Brain fingerprinting involves measuring the MERMER paradigm EEG response during

interrogation. MERMER is Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted

Electroencephalography Responses. The brain print is based on the P300 complex, a series of

well-known brainwave components that can be measured. The technique is said to be more

effective than a lie detector test.

1

CHAPTER 2

TECHNIQUE

The technique uses the well known fact that an electrical signal known as P300 is emitted

from an individual’s brain beginning approximately 300 milliseconds after it is confronted with a

stimulus of special significance, e.g. a rare vs. a common stimulus or a stimulus the subject is

asked to count. The application of this in brain fingerprinting is to detect the P300 as a response

to stimuli related to the crime or other investigated situation, e.g., a murder weapon, victim’s

face, or knowledge of the internal workings of a terrorist cell Because it is based on EEG signals,

the system does not require the subject to issue verbal responses to questions or stimuli.

Fig 2.1 The person undergoing Brain Fingerprinting

The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that measure the

EEG from several locations on the scalp. The subject views stimuli consisting of words, phrases,

or pictures presented on a computer screen. Stimuli are of three types:

1) “irrelevant” stimuli that are irrelevant to the investigated situation and to the test subject,

2) “target” stimuli that are relevant to the investigated situation and are known to the subject,

3) “probe” stimuli that are relevant to the investigated situation and that the subject denies

knowing.

2

Probes contain information that is known only to the perpetrator and investigators and not

to the general public or to an innocent suspect who was not at the scene of the crime. Before the

test, the scientist identifies the targets to the subject, and makes sure that he/she knows these

relevant stimuli. The scientist also makes sure that the subject does not know the probes for any

reason unrelated to the crime, and that the subject denies knowing the probes. The subject is told

why the probes are significant (e.g., “You will see several items, one of which is the murder

weapon”), but is not told which items are the probes and which are irrelevant.

Since brain fingerprinting uses cognitive brain responses, brain fingerprinting does not

depend on the emotions of the subject, nor is it affected by emotional responses. Brain

fingerprinting is fundamentally different from the polygraph (lie-detector), which measures

emotion-based physiological signals such as heart rate, sweating, and blood pressure. Also,

unlike polygraph testing, it does not attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying or

telling the truth. Rather, it measures the subject’s brain response to relevant words, phrases, or

pictures to detect whether or not the relevant information is stored in the subject’s brain.

By comparing the responses to the different types of stimuli, the brain fingerprinting

system mathematically computes a determination of “information present” (the subject knows

the crime-relevant information contained in the probe stimuli) or “information absent” (the

subject does not know the information) and a statistical confidence for the determination. This

determination is mathematically computed, and does not involve the subjective judgment of the

scientist.

A suspect is provided with information as follows :

Information the suspect is expected to know ___________________

Information suspect shouldn’t know _________________

Information of crime that only perpetrator would know ______________

3

Fig. 2.2 Not Guilty

Fig. 2.3 Guilty

4

5

CHAPTER 3

ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY

3.1 About:

Electroencephalography (EEG) is the measurement of electrical activity produced by the

brain as recorded from electrodes placed on the scalp.

Just as the activity in a computer can be understood on multiple levels, from the activity

of individual transistors to the function of applications, so can the electrical activity of the brain

be described on relatively small to relatively large scales. At one end are action potentials in a

single axon or currents within a single dendrite of a single neuron, and at the other end is the

activity measured by the EEG which aggregates the electric voltage fields from millions of

neurons. So-called scalp EEG is collected from tens to hundreds of electrodes positioned on

different locations at the surface of the head. EEG signals (in the range of milli-volts) are

amplified and digitalized for later processing. The data measured by the scalp EEG are used for

clinical and research purposes.

3.2 Source of EEG Activity:

Scalp EEG activity oscillates at multiple frequencies having different characteristic

spatial distributions associated with different states of brain functioning such as waking and

sleeping. These oscillations represent synchronized activity over a network of neurons. The

neuronal networks underlying some of these oscillations are understood (such as the

thalamocortical resonance underlying sleep spindles) while many others are not (e.g. the system

that generates the posterior basic rhythm).

6

3.3.EEG vs fMRI and PET

EEG has several strong sides as a tool of exploring brain activity; for example, its time

resolution is very high (on the level of a single millisecond). Other methods of looking at brain

activity, such as PET and fMRI have time resolution between seconds and minutes.

EEG measures the brain's electrical activity directly, while other methods record changes

in blood flow (e.g., SPECT, fMRI) or metabolic activity (e.g., PET), which are indirect markers

of brain electrical activity.

EEG can be used simultaneously with fMRI so that high-temporal-resolution data can be

recorded at the same time as high-spatial-resolution data, however, since the data derived from

each occurs over a different time course, the data sets do not necessarily represent the exact same

brain activity. There are technical difficulties associated with combining these two modalities

like currents can be induced in moving EEG electrode wires due to the magnetic field of the

MRI.

EEG can be recorded at the same time as MEG so that data from these complimentary

high-time-resolution techniques can be combined. Magneto-encephalography (MEG) is an

imaging technique used to measure the magnetic fields produced by electrical activity in the

brain via extremely sensitive devices such as superconducting quantum interference devices

(SQUIDs), These measurements arc commonly used in both research and clinical settings. There

are many uses for the MEG. including assisting surgeons in localizing pathology, assisting

researchers in determining the junction of various parts of the brain. neuro-feedback. and others.

3.4 Method

Scalp EEC, the recording is obtained by placing electrodes on the scalp. Each electrode is

connected to one input of a differential amplifier and a common system reference electrode is

connected to the other input of each differential amplifier. These amplifiers amplify the voltage

between the active electrode and the reference (typically l.000—100,000 times, or 60—100 dB

of voltage gain). A typical adult human EEC signal is about 10µV to 100 µV in amplitude when

7

measured from the scalp and is about 10—20 mV when measured from subdural electrodes.

In digital EEC systems. the amplified signal is digitized via an analog-to-digital converter, after

being passed through an anti-aliasing filter.

Since an EEC voltage signal represents a difference between the voltages at two electrodes, the

display of the EEC for the reading encephalographer may be set up in one of several ways.

8

CHAPTER 4

P300

4.1 About:

The P300 (P3) wave is an event related potential (ERP) which can be recorded via

electroencephalography (EEG) as a positive deflection in voltage at a latency of roughly 300 ms

in the EEG. The signal is typically measured most strongly by the electrodes covering the

parietal lobe. The presence, magnitude, topography and time of this signal are often used as

metrics of cognitive function in decision making processes. While the neural substrates of this

ERP still remain hazy, the reproducibility of this signal makes it a common choice for

psychological tests in both the clinic and laboratory.

The P300 signal is an aggregate recording from a great many neurons. Although typically

non-invasive, parts of the signal may be sampled more directly from certain brain regions via

electrode (hence, the medial temporal P300 or MTL-P300). This methodology allows for

isolation and local recording of one area without the noise from other signals acquired through

scalp electrodes [4]. In practice, the P300 waveform must be evoked using a stimulus delivered

by one of the sensory modalities. One typical procedure is the 'oddball' paradigm, whereby a

target stimulus is presented amongst more frequent standard background stimuli. A distracter

stimulus may also be used to ensure that the response is due to the target rather than the change

from a background pattern. The classic oddball paradigm has seen many variations, but in the

end most protocols used to evoke the P300 involve some form of conscious realization or

decision making. Attention is required for such protocols. No subjects have been noted to have

from control over their P3000.

9

CHAPTER 5

THE ROLE OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING

IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

The application of Brain Fingerprinting testing in a criminal case involves four

phases: investigation, interview, scientific testing, and adjudication. Of these four phases, only

the third one is in the domain of science. The first phase is undertaken by a skilled investigator,

the second by an interviewer who may be an investigator or a scientist, the third by a

scientist, and the fourth by a judge and jury.

This is similar to the forensic application of other sciences. For example, if a person

is found dead of unknown causes, first there is an investigation to determine if there may have

been foul play. If there is a suspect involved, the suspect is interviewed to determine what role,

if any, he says he has had in the situation. If the investigation determines that the victim may

have been poisoned using ricin or cadmium, two rare and powerful poisons, then

scientific tests can be conducted to detect these specific substances in the body. Then the

evidence accumulated through the test, the investigation, and the interview are presented to a

judge and jury, who make the adjudication as to whether a particular suspect is guilty of a

particular crime.

In such a case, the science of forensic toxicology reveals only whether or not specific

toxins are in the body. It does not tell us when or where to look for toxins, or which toxins to

look for. We must rely on investigation to provide the necessary guidance on these issues. The

science of forensic toxicology also does not tell us whether a particular suspect is innocent or

guilty of a crime. The question of guilt or innocence is a legal one, not a scientific one, and the

adjudication is made by a judge and jury, and not by a scientist or a computer.

10

5.1 Phase 1: Investigation:

The first phase in applying Brain Fingerprinting testing in a criminal case is

an investigation of the crime. Before a Brain Fingerprinting test can be applied, an

investigation must be undertaken to discover information that can be used in the test. The is

stored in a specific person’s brain. It detects the presence or absence of specific

information in the brain. Before we can conduct this scientific test, we need to determine what

information to test for. This investigation precedes and informs the scientific phase which

constitutes the Brain Fingerprinting test itself.

The role of investigation is to find specific information that will be useful in a Brain

Fingerprinting test. As with any scientific test, if the outcome of the Brain Fingerprinting test is

to be useful evidence for a judge and jury to consider in reaching their verdict, then the

information tested must have a bearing on the perpetration of the crime. The job of the

investigator is to find features relevant to the crime that have the following attributes.

1. They are salient features that perpetrator almost certainly encountered in the course of

committing the crime (e.g., the murder weapon or the escape route).

2. The suspect has not been exposed to them in some other context, i.e., interrogation or court

proceedings.

These features of the crime will be used in the Brain Fingerprinting test as probe stimuli.

If the suspect knows these specific features of the crime, and has had no access to this

information other than through committing the crime, then this will provide evidence of his

involvement in the crime. If the suspect lacks this knowledge, this will provide

evidence supporting his innocence. Brain Fingerprinting tests for the presence or absence of this

information stored in the suspect’s brain.

In some cases, the investigation will reveal no information about the crime that would be known

only to the perpetrator and to investigators. For example, in the case of a

disappearance, investigators may not even know if a crime has been committed, and if so, what

were the specific details of the crime. In some sexual assault cases, there may be agreement

between the alleged victim and the suspect as to all of the events that took place, but

11

disagreement as to the intent of the parties. Investigators may have made the mistake of

revealing to the suspect all that they know about a case. In such cases, no probe stimuli can be

developed that will provide evidence relevant to the discrimination between a person who

participated in the crime and one who did not, and no Brain Fingerprinting test will be

conducted.

The investigator must use his skill and judgment in discovering and

evaluating information to be used in the Brain Fingerprinting test, and any other

evidence he uncovers. There is always a degree of uncertainty in this process. If the

investigator finds a gun lying by the body of a person who apparently died of gunshot wounds,

he may conclude that it is the murder weapon. There is always a possibility, however, that it is

not. For example, perhaps the perpetrator shot the victim with one gun and planted another gun

to frame someone else. Ultimately, the evidence accumulated by the investigator will

need to be weighed by the judge and jury for its bearing on the guilt or innocence of the suspect.

Criminal investigation is not science. Investigation does involve a high degree of skill

and expertise. The details uncovered by investigation are used as evidence in virtually every

trial. Expert testimony by investigators in criminal trials is very common. When found to be

relevant and based on reliable methodology, such evidence and testimony are universally

accepted as a viable part of the proceedings in court. This still does not mean, however, that

investigation is science. Unraveling the case and determining what is significant and

relevant will always depend on the skill of the investigator. Each case is different, and there

is an infinite variety of information that may be available to be discovered. There are

no standardized algorithms or procedures that will solve every case. There will never be a

time when we can simply feed all of the facts about a case into a computer, and the computer

will tell us what is significant or how the case is to be solved. Although investigation is not

science, investigation contributes substantially to legal proceedings, and the evidence and expert

testimony provided by investigators will continue to be a valuable part of the process.

Some research scientists have expressed the view that if we just conduct enough research,

and define and study a nearly infinite panoply of parameters, someday the process of

investigation will become a scientific process that can be accomplished by applying a set

algorithm which does not depend on the skill and judgment of the investigator. There is no

12

reason to believe – or to hope – that this will ever happen. It is our view that science will not,

and should not, take the place of skilled criminal investigation. The infinite variety of factors

in a crime, and the intimate involvement of human beings in every aspect of the crime, insure

that the judgment and skill of the investigator will always be a necessary ingredient in

criminal investigations. Science will never make skilled investigators obsolete, and should

not attempt to do so.

The process of determining which items to use as probe stimuli will always depend on

the skill and judgment of the investigator, and will never be accomplished just by applying some

set scientific algorithm in the absence of human judgment. Ultimately, the judge and jury will

decide whether the evidence uncovered by the investigator and embodied in the probe stimuli is

convincing regarding the guilt or innocence of the suspect.

5.2 Phase 2: Interview of Subject:

Once evidence has been accumulated through investigation, and before the

Brain Fingerprinting test is conducted to determine if the evidence can be linked to the suspect, it

can in some cases be very valuable to obtain the suspect’s account of the situation. For example,

if an investigation shows that specific fingerprints are found at the scene of a murder, a suspect

can be interviewed to determine if there may be some legitimate reason that his prints are there.

If the suspect’s story is that he was never at the scene of the crime, then a match between his

fingerprints and the fingerprints at that scene would be highly incriminating. If, on the other

hand, the suspect’s story is that he was at the scene for some legitimate reason just before the

crime, then fingerprints must be interpreted differently, particularly if there is corroborating

evidence of the suspect’s presence at the scene before the crime.

The interview with the suspect may help to determine which scientific tests to conduct, or

how to conduct the tests. For example, a suspect may say that he entered and then left the room

where a murder was committed a short time before the murder, and that he never saw or

handled the murder weapon. In this context, a finding that the suspect’s fingerprints

matched the fingerprints on the doorknob would have little value, but a finding that

his fingerprints matched those on the murder weapon would provide incriminating

evidence.

13

Prior to a Brain Fingerprinting test, an interview of the suspect is conducted. The suspect

is asked if he would have any legitimate reason for knowing any of the information that is

contained in the potential probe stimuli. This information is described without revealing which

stimuli are probes and which are irrelevants. For example, the suspect may be asked, “The

newspaper reports, which you no doubt have read, say that the victim was struck with a blunt

object. Do you have any way of knowing whether that murder weapon was a baseball

bat, a broom handle, or a blackjack?” If the suspect answers “No,” then a test result

indicating that his brain does indeed contain a record of which of these is the murder weapon can

provide evidence relevant to the case.

The suspect may have been exposed to information about the crime through an error on

the part of interrogators in previous interrogations, through familiarity with the scene or the

victim that has nothing to do with the crime, through hearsay from people directly or indirectly

involved, or through any number of other channels. It is vital that the suspect be given a chance

before the Brain Fingerprinting test to disclose any familiarity he may have with the crime, so

that any probes that he knows about for a legitimate reason can be eliminated from the test.

Recall that the probes contain crime-relevant information that the suspect has no way of knowing

except through having been present at the crime.

The targets are also discussed in the interview. Recall that the targets

contain information about the crime that the suspect knows whether he committed the crime or

not, and are used to establish a baseline brain response for information known to be

significant to this subject in the context of the crime. For example, if media reports

known to the suspect have disclosed the location of a murder (e.g., “behind Newton

Stadium”), then the location of the murder could be used as a target stimulus. In the interview,

the interviewer makes sure that the suspect does indeed know the information contained in the

target stimuli.

In the interview, the suspect is also given a list of all of the stimuli to be presented in the

test, without disclosing which stimuli are probes and which are irrelevants. The suspect is asked

to identify any stimuli that are significant to him for reasons that have nothing to do with the

crime. If any stimulus is significant to the suspect for reasons having nothing to do with the

crime, then that stimulus is eliminated from the test. For example, if the suspect claims to know

14

nothing about who committed the crime and to be unfamiliar with any of the other people who

are suspected of being involved, one of the probe stimuli may be the name of a known

accomplice. If that name also happens to be the name of the suspect’s brother-in-law, then the

stimulus would be significant to the suspect for reasons unrelated to the crime, and this stimulus

would be eliminated from the test. In this way, the interview sets the stage for later

interpretation of the test. If the suspect has just told investigators that none of the stimuli are

significant to him for any reason, and then the probe stimuli are revealed through Brain

Fingerprinting to be significant to the suspect in the context of the crime, this scientific finding

provides evidence relevant to the suspect’s involvement in the crime.

A frequently asked question is, “What if one of the probe stimuli is significant to the

suspect for the wrong reason?” The interview serves to eliminate this potential confound, as

described above.

Things are significant to a person in context. The context of the probe stimuli in relation

to the crime is established in the interview, and prior to the Brain Fingerprinting test.

Immediately before each test, the context of the probe stimuli is established, and the probe

stimuli are described without being specifically named. For example, the subject is told, “In this

test, you will see several items, one of which is the murder weapon.” Then several different

stimuli are presented, including the murder weapon (e.g., “baseball bat”) and several other

options that would be equally plausible for an innocent person not familiar with the crime (e.g.,

“broom handle”). We all have some familiarity with baseball bats and broom handles, but in the

context of the murder in which the baseball bat was the murder weapon “baseball bat” will be

significant for the perpetrator and not for an innocent suspect who does not know what the

murder weapon was.

In some cases, the interview will reveal that the suspect is already familiar with all of the

information that might be used to structure probe stimuli, for some reason unrelated to

committing the crime. For example, interrogators may have mistakenly revealed to the suspect

all that they know about the crime. In such a case, there is no remaining information

to be used to structure probe stimuli, and a Brain Fingerprinting test is not conducted. If a Brain

Fingerprinting test were conducted to test whether or not a suspect knew details of a crime that

had been told to him by investigators, the test would result in an “information present” result,

15

which would be correct. The probative value of such a result with respect to committing the

crime, however, would be nil. Such a test would only reveal, correctly, that the suspect knows

the information. Since the investigators already know for certain that the suspect knows the

information – because they told it to him – this result would not provide any useful

evidence with respect to solving the crime. This is why a test is not conducted under such

circumstances. Note that this is a limitation only on when Brain Fingerprinting can be usefully

applied, and not a limitation on the scientific accuracy or validity of the technique. As with

DNA, fingerprints, and every other science, there are situations where a correct Brain

Fingerprinting result is simply not useful in solving a particular crime.

In short, Brain Fingerprinting determines scientifically and accurately what information

is stored in a person’s brain. It does not determine how that information got there. In order for

Brain Fingerprinting to be useful in identifying a perpetrator – that is, in order for a correct

“information present” Brain Fingerprinting result to be useful evidence regarding a

suspect’s participation in a crime – investigators must first discover information that

would be known to a perpetrator but not to an innocent suspect, and ensure that the subject in

question has not obtained that information through some means other than participation in the

crime. The interview contributes to this process.

Science is useful only when applied appropriately and intelligently. If the aim is solving

a crime or informing a judicial decision, then it is not useful to conduct scientific testing in a

vacuum, absent any consideration of what the results will mean in the context of the crime. A

test must be structured that will provide relevant and useful results. Also, once the results have

been obtained, they are useful only if they are interpreted in the light of the other available

evidence, as in the above example regarding fingerprints. Brain Fingerprinting is like all

other sciences in this regard.

The interview serves to refine the selection of stimuli so that the test results will provide

useful and relevant information, to establish the relevance of the stimuli, to eliminate

potential confounds in the scientific test, and to provide a background for interpretation of the

test results once they are obtained.

16

5.3 Phase 3: Scientific Testing with Brain Fingerprinting:

It is in the Brain Fingerprinting test where science contributes to the process.

Brain Fingerprinting determines scientifically whether or not specific information is stored in a

specific person’s brain.

Brain Fingerprinting is a standardized scientific procedure. The input for this scientific

procedure is the probe stimuli, which are formulated on the basis of the investigation and the

interview. The output of this scientific procedure is a determination of “information present” or

“information absent” for those specific probe stimuli, along with a statistical confidence for this

determination. This determination is made according to a specific, scientific algorithm, and does

not depend on the subjective judgment of the scientist.

Brain Fingerprinting tells us the following, no more and no less: “These specific details

about this crime are (or are not) stored in this person’s brain.” On the basis of this and all of the

other available evidence, a judge and jury make a determination of guilty or innocent.

It has been proven in the scientific arena, and also in court, that the science of Brain

Fingerprinting has the following attributes:

1. This science is testable and has been tested;

2. This science has been peer reviewed and published;

3. This science is accurate, has an error rate extremely close to zero, and has standard

procedures for its application;

4. This science is well accepted in the relevant scientific community.

These facts have been discussed extensively elsewhere, and will not be further elaborated

here. In legal proceedings, the science of Brain Fingerprinting may play a central role, but not

an all-inclusive role. The Brain Fingerprinting test is preceded by an investigation

and followed by a legal determination, both of which fall outside the realm of science.

Brain Fingerprinting determines scientifically what information is stored in a person’s

brain. It does not determine how that information got there. In order for a determination that

certain information is (or is not) stored in a suspect’s brain to be useful to a judge and jury, the

significance of this finding with regard to the crime must be established. This is accomplished

17

by the investigation and the interview, not by the Brain Fingerprinting test itself. Brain

Fingerprinting is similar to other sciences in this regard. For example, as discussed above, a

fingerprint test can determine that a suspect’s fingerprints match the fingerprints found at the

scene of the crime, but the fingerprint test does not tell us whether that was because

the suspect is guilty or because he was at the scene for a legitimate reason before the

crime.

Science can only provide scientific data – in the case of Brain Fingerprinting,

a determination of “information present” or “information absent” regarding specific details of a

crime in a specific brain. Science, no matter how accurate and valid, is only useful in the context

of an effective investigation. For example, the investigator must determine whether or not there

is some innocent, legitimate reason why a suspect’s fingerprints are at the scene of the crime in

order for the scientific finding of a fingerprint match to have value in legal proceedings. In the

absence of adequate investigation, science – no matter how accurate and valid – may have

little weight in the judicial process. Brain Fingerprinting is no exception. The

investigation and interview that precede the scientific Brain Fingerprinting test are

necessary to provide the information to test, and to provide a background as to the

significance of the test vis-à-vis the crime once the scientific results are obtained. The

weight of the Brain Fingerprinting evidence, and its value to the judge and jury in

making their determination, depend in part on the effectiveness and skillful execution

of the investigation that precedes the scientific testing.

The science of Brain Fingerprinting does not tell us what information to test for. This is

determined according to the skill and judgment of the investigator – which is in the end

evaluated by the judge and jury.

Brain Fingerprinting does not test whether a person is guilty of a crime. This is

adjudicated by the judge and jury. The question of guilt or innocence is a legal determination to

be made by a judge and jury, not a scientific one to be made by a scientist or a computer. What

Brain Fingerprinting does is to provide evidence that can be weighed by the judge and jury in

making their determination of guilt or innocence.

18

5.4 Phase 4: Adjudication of Guilt or Innocence:

The final step in the application of Brain Fingerprinting in legal proceedings is the

adjudication of guilt or innocence. This is entirely outside the realm of science. The

adjudication of guilt or innocence is the exclusive domain of the judge and jury. It is not the

domain of the investigator, or the scientist, or the computer. It is fundamental to our legal

system that decisions of guilt or innocence are made by human beings, juries of our peers, on the

basis of their human judgment and common sense. The question of guilt or innocence is and will

always remain a legal one, and not a scientific one. Science provides evidence, but a judge and

jury must weigh the evidence and decide the verdict.

5.5 The Role of Science in Legal Proceedings:

In legal proceedings, the scope of the science of Brain Fingerprinting – and all other

sciences – is limited. The role of Brain Fingerprinting is to take the output of

investigations and interviews regarding what information is relevant, to make a scientific

determination regarding the presence or absence of that information in a specific brain, and thus

to provide the judge and jury with evidence to aid in their determination of guilt or innocence of

a suspect.

As with the other forensic sciences, the science of Brain Fingerprinting does not tell us

when to run a test, whom to test, or what to test for. This is determined by the

investigator according to his skill and judgment, and evaluated by the judge and jury. Recall the

case of the possible murder by poisoning discussed above. All the science of forensic toxicology

tells us is that there is or is not ricin or cadmium in specific cadaver. Science does not tell us to

look for these specific poisons in this specific case. This is determined by the investigator

according to his skill and judgment.

Similarly, the science of Brain Fingerprinting does not tell us what information to test for.

Again, this information is accumulated by the investigator according to his skill and judgment.

Brain Fingerprinting tells us scientifically whether or not this specific information is

stored in a specific person’s brain.

19

In the poisoning case mentioned above, science does not tell us whether a

particular suspect is guilty. This is determined by the judge and jury according to their

human judgment and common sense. The same is true of Brain Fingerprinting, and every other

scientific procedure.

Again, the science of Brain Fingerprinting does not tell us if a particular suspect is guilty

or not. Only a judge and jury can make a determination of guilt or innocence, and they make this

determination according to their human judgment, taking into account all of the scientific and

other evidence. It is our view that science, whether it be Brain Fingerprinting or any

other science, does not and should not seek to infringe the realm of the judge and jury in making

a determination of guilt or innocence.

Nor is science a substitute for skillful and effective investigation. Science depends on

investigation, which is outside the realm of science, to determine when to test, whom to test, and

what to test. The evidence provided by science and by investigation ultimately must be weighed

and evaluated by the human beings who are the judge and jury, on the basis of their human

judgment and common sense, in reaching their verdict regarding the guilt or innocence of the

accused.

It is fundamental to our legal system and essential to the cause of justice, that the judge

and jury must be supplied with all of the available evidence to aid them in reaching their verdict.

Brain Fingerprinting provides solid scientific evidence that must be weighed along with other

available evidence by the judge and jury. In our view, it would be a serious miscarriage of

justice to deny a judge and jury the opportunity to hear and evaluate the evidence provided by

the science of Brain Fingerprinting, when available, along with all of the other available

evidence. In the case of a suspect presenting Brain Fingerprinting evidence supporting a claim

of innocence, such a denial would also be unconscionable human rights violation.

Brain Fingerprinting is not a substitute for the careful deliberations of a judge and jury. It

can play a vital role in informing these deliberations, however, by providing accurate, scientific

evidence relevant to the issues at hand.

20

CHAPTER 6

CURRENT USES AND APPLICATIONS:

The various applications are as follows:-

1. Test for several forms of employment, especially in dealing with sensitive military and

foreign intelligence screening.

2. Individuals who were “information present” and “information absent”

3. A group of 17 FBI agents and 4 non-agents were exposed to stimuli.

4. To detect symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, Mental Depression and other forms of

dementia including neurological disorders.

5. Criminal cases.

6. Advertisements (researches are being carried on).

7. Counter-Terrorism.

8. Security Testing.

6.1 Medical Applications:

The incidence of Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia is growing rapidly throughout

the world. There is a critical need for a technology that enables early diagnosis economically and

that can also accurately measure the effectiveness of treatments for these diseases. Research has

now demonstrated that analysis of the P300 brainwave can show dementia onset and progression.

MERMER technology, developed and patented by Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, includes

the P300 brainwave and extends it, providing a more sensitive measure than the P300 alone.

Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories is now developing diagnostic and monitoring systems for

Alzheimer’s using this exciting new technology.

21

With early diagnosis, the progression of Alzheimer's symptoms can often be delayed

through medications and dietary and lifestyle changes. Using the very precise measurements of

cognitive functioning available with this technology, pharmaceutical companies will be able to

determine more quickly the effects of their new medications and potentially speed FDA

approval. The non-invasive nature of P300/MERMER testing technology and the simplicity of

its administration will allow primary care physicians to monitor the progress of their patients in

their own offices and adjust treatments accordingly. An accurate, inexpensive and easy to

administer test for Alzheimer’s and dementia will improve the healthcare process dramatically,

and will also help to improve the quality of life for millions of people.

6.2 Advertising Applications:

How do we know what information people retain from a media campaign? There is a

new technology that allows us to measure scientifically if specific information, like a product

brand, is retained in a person’s memory. Brain Fingerprinting testing adds a whole new

dimension to the methods of measuring advertising effectiveness, going well beyond subjective

surveys and focus groups. The implications for the advertising Industry are very exciting! Here

are some of the possibilities:

1) What specific information do people retain from advertising?

Do they remember the product, the company, the retailer, the website, pricing and

promotional information, etc.?

22

2) What specific elements in an ad campaign have the most impact?

What do people pay attention to or respond to the most in an ad — what gets their

attention?

3) Which type of media is most effective?

If an advertising campaign uses TV, radio, magazine, web banners, billboards,

newspapers, email and direct mail, which of the media have the most effect on which client base

and how do those results vary with demographics?

4) What commercial is the most effective for a single product?

In an advertising campaign that uses multiple commercials or multiple printed messages,

which version is the most effective at reaching the target audience?

5) How effective is the product branding strategy?

Does a person or group of people remember the specific brand being advertised? If so,

how does its recognition compare with other brands? Which branding campaigns are most

effective for both new and established brands?

6) How effective is an ad campaign in different parts of the world?

If the same advertising campaign is run in various parts of the world, how does its

effectiveness vary from area to area? What specific aspects of the message are retained by people

in different countries? Do some areas respond differently to types of media?

7) What is the correlation between the campaign and the point-of-sale?

How do the various campaigns and the types of media affect awareness at point-of-

product with potential buyers in a superstore? How does this media type and frequency vary in

effectiveness with potential buyers on-line or with catalog users?

8) How do the effects of campaigns vary with the influence of time?

How does the specific information retained by an individual or group of people vary over

time? At what rate does the impact of an advertising campaign degrade or have diminishing

23

impact? For example, a specific advertising campaign may have a strong impact short term,

while another campaign causes the information to be retained over a longer period of time. How

do these results vary with multiple types of media, product types and demographics?

6.3Security Testing:

Brain Finger-printing technology can play a significant role in Security Testing when

investigators know specific details of a crime, training or group affiliation. It can also determine

if a person has specific "classified" or confidential information stored in their brain. Typical

applications include:

1) Visa Applications2) 2nd Level Testing3) Polygraph "False-Positive"4) 2nd Level Testing5)

Corporate Security6) Insurance Fraud7) Security Clearances8) Computer Hacking

6.4 Counter-Terrorist Applications:

Brain Finger-printing technology can determine the presence or absence of specific

information, such as terrorist training and associations. This exciting new technology can help

address the following critical elements in the fight against terrorism:1) Aid in determining who

has participated in terrorist acts, directly or indirectly. 2) Aid in identifying trained terrorists with

the potential to commit future terrorist acts, even if they are in a “sleeper” cell and have not been

active for years. 3) Help to identify people who have knowledge or training in banking, finance

or communications and who are associated with terrorist teams and acts. 4) Help to determine if

an individual is in a leadership role within a terrorist organization.

One fundamental difference between a terrorist and an innocent suspect is that the

terrorist has detailed knowledge of terrorist activities and an innocent person does not. A terrorist

has committed a crime, received training in terrorism or worked with others in planning terrorist

attacks. The innocent suspect does not have this type of information stored in his brain.

24

Brain Finger-printing technology is based on the principle that the brain is central to all

human acts. In a terrorist act, there may or may not be peripheral evidence such as fingerprints or

DNA, but the brain of the perpetrator is always there, planning, executing, and recording the

crime. The terrorist has knowledge of organizations, training and plans that an innocent person

does not have. Until the invention of Brain Fingerprinting testing, there was no scientific way to

detect this fundamental difference. Brain Fingerprinting testing provides an accurate, economical

and timely solution to the central problem in the fight against terrorism. It is now possible to

determine scientifically whether or not a person has terrorist training and knowledge of terrorist

activities.

Brain Finger-printing testing can determine quickly and accurately whether or not

specific knowledge is present or absent in an individual. In a Brain Fingerprinting test, words,

pictures or sounds relevant to a crime, terrorist act or terrorist training are presented by a

computer, along with other irrelevant images and sounds. Electrical brain responses are

measured non-invasively through a patented headband equipped with sensors. A computer then

analyzes the brain responses and determines whether or not the specific information is stored in

the brain of the suspect. The results are not affected by the willingness of the person being tested

to tell the truth. By testing for specific information, Brain Fingerprinting technology can

accurately distinguish between a trained terrorist and an innocent person who may have

knowledge of certain locations, people and events for legitimate reasons.

Brain Fingerprinting testing detects whether or not specific information is stored in a

person’s brain, not truth or falsehood. In fact, no questions are asked and no answers are given

during a Brain Fingerprinting test. Brain Fingerprinting testing cannot be used for general, non-

specific testing, something for which no reliable facts exist against which to compare the

subject’s answer. For example, a general question like “Are you a terrorist?” is not something

that can be addressed by Brain Fingerprinting technology. However, the recognition of specific

information from terrorist training or of individuals at a training camp can be detected.

Investigators must have reliable, factual details from which to draw the information that will be

used to structure the Brain Fingerprinting test.

25

Any known legitimate means through which a subject may have encountered crime or

terrorist-relevant information are examined prior to conducting a Brain Fingerprinting test.

Standard protocols ensure that the individual has a chance to reveal any circumstances through

which he may have had legitimate access to the crime-relevant information in question. Any

information the suspect has obtained through legitimate means is eliminated from consideration

before the test is administered. A suspect is tested only on information that he has no legitimate

means of knowing, information he denies knowledge of, and for which he has no legitimate

explanation if it turns out that the information is indeed stored in his brain.

With the Brain Fingerprinting system, a significant scientific breakthrough has now

become a practical applied technology. A new era in security and intelligence gathering has

begun. Now, terrorists and those supporting terrorism can be identified quickly and accurately.

No longer should any terrorist be able to evade justice for lack of evidence. And there is no

reason why an innocent individual should be falsely imprisoned or convicted of terrorist activity.

A Brain Fingerprinting test can determine with an extremely high degree of accuracy those who

are involved with terrorist activity and those who are not.

6.5 Other Applications:

In advertising, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will offer significant advances

in measuring campaign and media effectiveness. Most advertising programs today are

evaluated subjectively using focus groups. We will be able to offer significantly more advanced,

scientific methods to help determine the effectiveness of campaigns and be very cost

competitive with current methodologies. This technology will be able to help determine what

information is actually retained in memory by individuals. For example, in a branding campaign

do people remember the brand, the product, etc. and how do the results vary with

demographics? We will also be able to measure the comparative effectiveness of multiple

media types.

In the insurance industry, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will be able to help reduce

the incidence of insurance fraud by determining if an individual has knowledge of

fraudulent or criminal acts. The same type of testing can help to determine if an

individual has specific knowledge related to computer crimes where there is typically no witness

or physical evidence.

26

CHAPTER 7

LIMITATIONS OF BRAIN FINGER-PRINTING

The limitations of this technique are discussed with examples (in crime scenarios) as follows:

1) Brain fingerprinting detects information-processing brain responses that reveal what

information is stored in the subject’s brain. It does not detect how that information got there.

This fact has implications for how and when the technique can be applied. In a case where a

suspect claims not to have been at the crime scene and has no legitimate reason for

knowing the details of the crime and investigators have information that has not

been released to the public, brain fingerprinting can determine objectively whether or

not the subject possesses that information. In such a case, brain fingerprinting could provide

useful evidence. If, however, the suspect knows everything that the investigators know about

the crime for some legitimate reason, then the test cannot be applied. There are several

circumstances in which this may be the case. If a suspect acknowledges being at the scene of the

crime, but claims to be a witness and not a perpetrator, then the fact that he knows details about

the crime would not be incriminating. There would be no reason to conduct a test,

because the resulting “information present” response would simply show that the suspect

knew the details about the crime – knowledge which he already admits and which he gained at

the crime scene whether he was a witness or a perpetrator.

2) Another case where brain fingerprinting is not applicable would be one wherein a suspect and

an alleged victim – say, of an alleged sexual assault – agree on the details of what was said

and done, but disagree on the intent of the parties. Brain fingerprinting detects only

information, and not intent. The fact that the suspect knows the uncontested facts of

the circumstance does not tell us which party’s version of the intent is correct.

3) In a case where the suspect knows everything that the investigators know because he has been

exposed to all available information in a previous trial, there is no available information with

which to construct probe stimuli, so a test cannot be conducted.

27

Even in a case where the suspect knows many of the details about the crime,

however, it is sometimes possible to discover salient information that the perpetrator must have

encountered in the course of committing the crime, but the suspect claims not to know and would

not know if he were innocent. This was the case with Terry Harrington. By examining reports,

interviewing witnesses, and visiting the crime scene and surrounding areas, Dr. Farwell was

able to discover salient features of the crime that Harrington had never been exposed to at

his previous trials. The brain fingerprinting test showed that the record in Harrington’s brain

did not contain these salient features of the crime, but only the details about the crime that he had

learned after the fact.

4) Obviously, in structuring a brain fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoid including

information that has been made public. Detecting that a suspect knows information he obtained

by reading a newspaper would not be of use in a criminal investigation, and standard brain

fingerprinting procedures eliminate all such information from the structuring of a test.

News accounts containing many of the details of a crime do not interfere with the development

of a brain fingerprinting test, however; they simply limit the material that can be tested. Even in

highly publicized cases, there are almost always many details that are known to the investigators

but not released to the public, and these can be used as stimuli to test the subject for knowledge

that he would have no way to know except by committing the crime.

5) Another situation where brain fingerprinting is not applicable is one where the

authorities have no information about what crime may have taken place. For example, an

individual may disappear under circumstances where a specific suspect had a strong

motive to murder the individual. Without any evidence, authorities do not know whether

a murder took place, or the individual decided to take a trip and tell no one, or some other

criminal or non-criminal event happened. If there is no known information on which a suspect

could be tested, a brain fingerprinting test cannot be structured.

6) Similarly, brain fingerprinting is not applicable for general screening, for example, in general

pre-employment or employee screening wherein any number of undesirable activities or

intentions may be relevant. If the investigators have no idea what crime or undesirable act the

individual may have committed, there is no way to structure appropriate stimuli to detect the

telltale knowledge that would result from committing the crime. Brain fingerprinting can,

28

however, be used for specific screening or focused screening, when investigators have

some idea what they are looking for. For example, brain fingerprinting can be used to detect

whether a person has knowledge that would identify him as an FBI agent, an Al-Qaeda-trained

terrorist, a member of a criminal organization or terrorist cell, or a bomb maker.

7) Brain fingerprinting does not detect lies. It simply detects information. No questions are asked

or answered during a brain fingerprinting test. The subject neither lies nor tells the truth

during a brain fingerprinting test, and the outcome of the test is unaffected by whether

he has lied or told the truth at any other time. The outcome of “information present” or

“information absent” depends on whether the relevant information is stored in the brain,

and not on what the subject says about it.

8) Brain fingerprinting does not determine whether a suspect is guilty or innocent of a crime.

This is a legal determination to be made by a judge and jury, not a scientific determination to

be made by a computer or a scientist. Brain fingerprinting can provide scientific evidence

that the judge and jury can weigh along with the other evidence in reaching their decisions

regarding the crime. To remain within the realm of scientific testimony, however, a brain

fingerprinting expert witness must testify only regarding the scientific test and information

stored in the brain revealed by the test, as Dr. Farwell did in the Harrington case. Like the

testimony of other forensic scientists, a brain fingerprinting scientist’s testimony does not

include interpreting the scientific evidence in terms of guilt or innocence. A DNA expert may

testify that two DNA samples match, one from the crime scene and one from the suspect, but he

does not conclude “this man is a murderer.” Similarly, a brain fingerprinting expert can testify to

the outcome of the test that the subject has specific information stored in his brain about the

crime (or not), but the interpretation of this evidence in terms of guilt or innocence is solely up to

the judge and jury.

9) Just as all witness testimony depends on the memory of the witness, brain

fingerprinting depends on the memory of the subject. Like all witness testimony, brain

fingerprinting results must be viewed in light of the limitations on human memory

and the factors affecting it (Harrington v. State, PBS 2004). Brain fingerprinting can

provide scientific evidence regarding what information is stored in a subject’s brain. It does

not determine what information should be, could be, or would be stored in the subject’s

29

brain if the subject were innocent or guilty. It only measures what actually is stored in the brain.

How this evidence is interpreted, and what conclusions are drawn based on it, is outside the

realm of the science and the scientist. This is up to the judge and jury. It is up to the prosecutor

and the defense attorney to argue, and the judge and jury to decide, the significance and weight

of the brain fingerprinting evidence in making a determination of whether or not the subject

committed the crime.

10)Like all forensic science techniques, brain fingerprinting depends on the evidence-gathering

process which lies outside the realm of science to provide the evidence to be scientifically

tested. Before a brain fingerprinting test can be conducted, an investigator must

discover relevant information about the crime or investigated situation. This

investigative process, in which the investigator gathers the information to be tested from the

crime scene or other sources related to the crime, depends on the skill and judgment of the

investigator. This process is outside the scientific process; it precedes the scientific process of

brain fingerprinting. This investigative process produces the probe stimuli to be tested. Brain

fingerprinting science only determines whether the information tested is stored in the brain of the

subject or not. It does not provide scientific data on the effectiveness of the investigation

that produced the information about the crime that was tested. In this regard, brain

fingerprinting is similar to other forensic sciences. A DNA test determines only whether two

DNA samples match, it does not determine whether the investigator did an effective job of

collecting DNA from the crime scene. Similarly, a brain fingerprinting test

determines only whether or not the information stored in the suspect's brain matches the

information contained in the probe stimuli. This is information that the investigator

provided to the scientist to test scientifically, based on the investigative process that is outside

the realm of science. In making their determination about the crime and the suspect's possible

role in it, the judge and jury must take into account not only the scientific determination of

"information present" or "information absent" provided by the brain fingerprinting test; they

must also make common-sense, human, non-scientific judgments regarding the information

gathered by the investigator and to what degree knowledge or lack of knowledge of that

information sheds light on the suspect's possible role in the crime. Brain fingerprinting

is not a substitute for effective investigation on the part of the investigator or for common

sense and good judgment on the part of the judge and jury.

30

CONCLUSION

Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new scientific technology for solving crimes,

identifying perpetrators, and exonerating innocent suspects, with a record of 100% accuracy in

research with US government agencies, actual criminal cases, and other applications.

The technology fulfills an urgent need for governments, law enforcement agencies,

corporations, investigators, crime victims, and falsely accused, innocent suspects.

31

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1]. Farwell LA, Donchin E. The brain detector: P300 in the detection of deception.

Psychophysiology 1986; 24:434.

[2]. Farwell LA, Donchin E. The truth will out: interrogative polygraphy ("lie detection") with

event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology 1991;28:531-541.

[3]. Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for multifaceted electroencephalographic

response analysis (MERA). US patent 5,363,858. 1994 Nov 15.

[4]. Farwell LA. Two new twists on the truth detector: brain-wave detection of occupational

information. Psychophysiology 1992;29(4A):S3.

[5]. Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for truth detection. US patent 5,406,956. 1995

Apr 18.

[6]. Picton TW. Handbook of electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology: human

event-related potentials. Amsterdam: Elsevier, Vol. 3, 1988.

[7]. www.brainwavescience.com

[8]. www.searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/

32