Brain Fingerprinting
Post on 08-Nov-2014
27 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Presented by
AJALA OLUSOJI ADEWURA
Submitted to
FEMTECH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE
{FITI}
221 UMAR SARO ROAD, SAWMILL, ILORIN.
(IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE AWARD OF DIPLOMA IN
COMPUTER DATA PROCESSING.)
SUPERVISED BY
ALE BABATUNDE RAPHEAL
FEBRUARY, 2013
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
TABLE OF CONTENT
Certification........................................... page 3
Dedication.............................................. page 4
Acknowledgement................................. page 5
Abstract.................................................. page 6
Section one
1.0 Introduction.................................... page 7
1.1 history.............................................. page 7
1.2 defination......................................... page 7
Section two
Features of brain fingerprinting............. page 9
Application of brain fingerprinting........ page 9
Additional areas of application............... page11
Section three
Advantages
Disadvantages
Section four
Summary............................................... page 22
Recomendation...................................... page 23
References.............................................. page 23
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 2
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the research project on brain fingerprinting has been read and
approved as having met the basic requirement for the award of computer data processing under our
supervision.
ENGR. ABIOYE EMMANUEL SIGNATURE/DATE
ALE BABATUNDE RAPHEAL SIGNATURE/DATE
PROJECT SUPERVISOR
EXTERNAL SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE/DATE
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 3
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
DEDICATION.
This prolect is dedicated to god almighty who saw me through. Also to my
parents who gave me all i needed to become somebody in life.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 4
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my gratitude my supervisor, who guided
me through and gave me several useful advise which i will not forget.
Also my sincere love and thanks goes to my parents and siblings
who supported me in all areas needed. Lastly, to my frinds who
throughout our studies where all good and understanding.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 5
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
ABSTRACT.
Brain fingerprinting is based on finding that the brain generates a unique brain wave
pattern when a person encounters a familiar stimulus Use of functional magnetic resonance
imaging in lie detection derives from studies suggesting that persons asked to lie show different
patterns of brain activity than they do when being truthful. Issues related to the use of such
evidence in courts are discussed. The author concludes that neither approach is currently
supported by enough data regarding its accuracy in detecting deception to warrant use in court.
In the field of criminology, a new lie detector has been developed in the United States of
America . This is called "brain fingerprinting". This invention is supposed to be the best lie
detector available as on date and is said to detect even smooth criminals who pass the
polygraph test (the conventional lie detector test) with ease. The new method employs brain
waves, which are useful in detecting whether the person subjected to the test, remembers finer
details of the crime. Even if the person willingly suppresses the necessary information, the brain
wave is sure to trap him, according to the experts, who are very excited about the new kid on the
block.
Brain Fingerprinting is designed to determine whether an individual recognizes specific
information related to an event or activity by measuring electrical brain wave responses to
words, phrases, or pictures presented on a computer screen. The technique can be applied
only in situations where investigators have a sufficient amount of specific information about an
event or activity that would be known only to the perpetrator and investigator. In this respect,
Brain Fingerprinting is considered a type of Guilty Knowledge Test, where the "guilty" party is
expected to react strongly to the relevant detail of the event of activity.
Existing (polygraph) procedures for assessing the validity of a suspect's "guilty" knowledge rely
on measurement of autonomic arousal (e.g., palm sweating and heart rate), while Brain
Fingerprinting measures electrical brain activity via a fitted headband containing special
sensors. Brain Fingerprinting is said to be more accurate in detecting "guilty" knowledge distinct
from the false positives of traditional polygraph methods, but this is hotly disputed by specialized
researchers.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 6
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
Section one
Topic: BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Introduction:
Brain Fingerprinting is a controversial proposed investigative technique
that measures recognition of familiar stimuli by measuring electrical brain wave 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 suspect's reaction to the details of an event
or activity will reflect if the suspect had prior knowledge of the event or activity. This test uses
what Farwell calls the MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted
Electroencephalographic Response") response to detect familiarity reaction. One of the
applications is lie detection. Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell has invented, developed, proven, and
patented the technique of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, a new computer-based technology to
identify the perpetrator of a crime accurately and scientifically by measuring brain-wave
responses to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen. Farwell Brain
Fingerprinting has proven 100% accurate in over 120 tests, including tests on FBI agents, tests
for a US intelligence agency and for the US Navy, and tests on real-life situations including
actual crimes..
Defination.
Brain Fingerprinting is designed to determine whether an individual recognizes specific information
related to an event or activity by measuring electrical brain wave responses to words, phrases, or pictures
presented on a computer screen. The technique can be applied only in situations where investigators have a
sufficient amount of specific information about an event or activity that would be known only to the
perpetrator and investigator. In this respect, Brain Fingerprinting is considered a type of Guilty Knowledge
Test, where the "guilty" party is expected to react strongly to the relevant detail of the event of activity.
Existing (polygraph) procedures for assessing the validity of a suspect's "guilty" knowledge rely on
measurement of autonomic arousal (e.g., palm sweating and heart rate), while Brain Fingerprinting
measures electrical brain activity via a fitted headband containing special sensors. Brain Fingerprinting is
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 7
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
said to be more accurate in detecting "guilty" knowledge distinct from the false positives of traditional
polygraph methods, but this is hotly disputed by specialized researchers.
Technique:
The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that
measure the electroencephalography from several locations on the scalp. In order to calibrate
the brain fingerprinting system, the testee is presented with a series of irrelevant stimuli, words,
and pictures, and a series of relevant stimuli, words, and pictures. The test subject's brain
response to these two different types of stimuli allow the testor to determine if the measured
brain responses to test stimuli, called probes, are more similar to the relevant or irrelevant
responses.
The technique uses the well known fact that an electrical signal known as P300 is
emitted from an individual's brain approximately 300 milliseconds after it is confronted with a
stimulus of special significance, e.g. a rare vs. a common stimuls or a stimulas the proband is
asked to count. The novel interpretation in brain fingerprinting is to look for P300 as response to
stimuli related to the crime in question e.g., a murder weapon or a victim's face. Because it is
based on EEG signals, the system does not require the testee to issue verbal responses to
questions or stimuli.
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.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 8
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
Phases of Brain Fingerprinting:
In fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting, evidence recognized and collected at the crime
scene, and preserved properly until a suspect is apprehended, is scientifically compared with
evidence on the person of the suspect to detect a match that would place the suspect at the
crime scene. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting works similarly, except that the evidence collected
both at the crime scene and on the person of the suspect (i.e., in the brain as revealed by
electrical brain responses) is informational evidence rather than physical evidence. There are
four stages to Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, which are similar to the steps in fingerprinting and
DNA fingerprinting:
1. Brain Fingerprinting Crime Scene Evidence Collection;
2. Brain Fingerprinting Brain Evidence Collection;
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 9
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
3. Brain Fingerprinting Computer Evidence Analysis; and
4. Brain Fingerprinting Scientific Result.
In the Crime Scene Evidence Collection, an expert in Farwell Brain Fingerprinting
examines the crime scene and other evidence connected with the crime to identify details of the
crime that would be known only to the perpetrator. The expert then conducts the Brain Evidence
Collection in order to determine whether or not the evidence from the crime scene matches
evidence stored in the brain of the suspect. In the Computer Evidence Analysis, the Farwell
Brain Fingerprinting system makes a mathematical determination as to whether or not this
specific evidence is stored in the brain, and computes a statistical confidence for that
determination. This determination and statistical confidence constitute the Scientific Result of
Farwell Brain Fingerprinting: either "information present" – the details of the crime are stored in
the brain of the suspect – or "information absent" – the details of the crime are not stored in the
brain of the suspect.
Applications:
Counter terrorism:
Brain fingerprinting 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.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 10
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
Brain fingerprinting 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.
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.
Criminal justice:
A critical task of the criminal justice system is to determine who has committed a crime.
The key difference between a guilty party and an innocent suspect is that the perpetrator of the
crime has a record of the crime stored in their brain, and the innocent suspect does not. Until the
invention of Brain Fingerprinting testing, there was no scientifically valid way to detect this
fundamental difference.
Brain Fingerprinting testing does not prove guilt or innocence. That is the role of a judge
and jury. This exciting technology gives the judge and jury new, scientifically valid evidence to
help them arrive at their decision. DNA evidence and fingerprints are available in only about 1%
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 11
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
of major crimes. It is estimated that Brain Fingerprinting testing will apply in approximately 60 to
70% of these major crimes. The impacts on the criminal justice system will be profound. The
potential now exists to significantly improve the speed and accuracy of the entire system, from
investigations to parole hearings. Brain Fingerprinting testing will be able to dramatically reduce
the costs associated with investigating and prosecuting innocent people and allow law
enforcement professionals to concentrate on suspects who have verifiable, detailed knowledge
of the crimes.
Medical :
‘Brain Fingerprinting’ is the patented technology that can measure objectively, for the
first time, how memory and cognitive functioning of Alzheimer sufferers are affected by
medications. First generation tests have proven to be more accurate than other routinely used
tests, and could be commercially available in 18-24 months.
The 30 minute test involves wearing a headband with built-in electrodes; technicians
then present words, phrases and images that are both known and unknown to the patient to
determine whether information that should be in the brain is still there. When presented with
familiar information, the brain responds by producing MERMERs, specific increases in neuron
activity. The technician can use this response to measure how quickly information is
disappearing from the brain and whether the drugs they are taking are slowing down the
process.
Additional 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
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 12
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
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.
Case studies :
The biggest breakthrough, according to Farwell, was its role in freeing
convicted murderer Terry Harrington, who had been serving a life sentence in Iowa State
Penitentiary for killing a night watchman in 1977. In 2001, Harrington requested a new trial on
several grounds, including conflicting testimony in the original trial.
Farwell was faced with an immediate and obvious problem: 24 years had passed since the trial.
Evidence had been presented and transcripts published long ago; the details of the crime had
long since come to light. What memories of the crime were left to probe? But Farwell combed
the transcripts and came up with obscure details about which to test Harrington. Harrington was
granted a new trial when it was discovered that some of the original police reports in the case
had been missing at his initial trial. By 2001, however, most of the witnesses against Harrington
had either died or had been discredited. Finally, when a key witness heard that Harrington had
"passed" his brain fingerprinting test, he recanted his testimony and the prosecution threw up its
hands. Harrington was set free.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 13
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
In Macon County, Mo., Sheriff Robert Dawson learned about the method from his
secretary, who had also seen it featured on television. In 1999, Dawson ordered a test on J. B.
Grinder, accused of raping and murdering a 25-year-old woman. Grinder had admitted and
denied the allegations so many times that, according to Dawson, "We didn't know what to
believe anymore." Confronted with the test results, which seemed to confirm one of Grinder's
many confessions, Grinder pled guilty to the charges and also admitted to killing three other girls
in Arkansas. When another murder investigation ran into problems earlier this year, Dawson
turned again to brain fingerprinting. He refrained from discussing the details of the case with the
suspect and with the media so that the P300 probes would be valid. While the suspect denied
knowing anything about the case, Farwell's test suggested otherwise.
Comparison with other technologies:
Conventional fingerprinting and DNA match physical evidence from a crime scene with
evidence on the person of the perpetrator. Similarly, Brain Fingerprinting matches informational
evidence from the crime scene with evidence stored in the brain. Fingerprints and DNA are
available in only 1% of crimes. The brain is always there, planning, executing, and recording the
suspect's actions.
Brain Fingerprinting has nothing to do with lie detection. Rather, it is a scientific way to
determine if someone has committed a specific crime or other act. No questions are asked and
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 14
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
no answers are given during Farwell Brain Fingerprinting. As with DNA and fingerprints, the
results are the same whether the person has lied or told the truth at any time.
Admissibility of Brain Fingerprinting in court:
The admissibility of Brain Fingerprinting in court has not yet been established. The
following well established features of Brain Fingerprinting, however, will be relevant when the
question of admissibility is tested in court. 1) Brain Fingerprinting has been thoroughly and
scientifically tested. 2) The theory and application of Brain Fingerprinting have been subject to
peer review and publication. 3) The rate of error is extremely low -- virtually nonexistent -- and
clear standards governing scientific techniques of operation of the technology have been
established and published. 4) The theory and practice of Brain Fingerprinting have gained
general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. 5) Brain Fingerprinting is non-invasive
and non-testimonial.
Limitations of brain fingerprinting
Both the strengths and limitations of brain fingerprinting are documented in detail in the
expert witness testimony of Dr. Farwell and two other expert witnesses in the Harrington case as
well as in Farwell's publications and patents. The limitations of brain fingerprinting described
below are also summarized in PBS 2004, PBS Innovation Series.
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
finger printing 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
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 15
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
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.
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.
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. 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.
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
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 16
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 17
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
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.
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. 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 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.
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 FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 18
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
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.
A report by the United States General Accounting Office (now called Government
Accountability Office) in 2001 reported that the scientists it interviewed (including Farwell,
Iacono, Richardson, Rosenfeld, Smith, Donchin, and others) all had expressed a need for more
research to investigate brain finger printing’s application as forensic science tool. (Initial Pre-911
GAO Report) While they were unanimous in their support of more scientific research, scientists
and others expressed widely varying views on the social policy question of whether brain
fingerprinting should continue to be applied to bring criminals and terrorists to justice and to free
innocent suspects while this research continues.
The initial GAO report was completed before the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. At that
time, the primary interest of federal agencies in detection methods was for employee screening,
rather than detecting terrorists. (As discussed above, brain fingerprinting is not applicable in
general employee screening.) The initial, pre-911 GAO report stated that most of the individuals
in various federal agencies interviewed at that time did not see brain fingerprinting playing a
major role in their then-current operations. The report did not examine the science of brain
fingerprinting; the published research at the FBI, the CIA, the US Navy, and elsewhere; the
successful application of brain fingerprinting in criminal cases; or the success of brain
fingerprinting in being ruled admissible in court. Since it was produced before the attacks of
9/11/2001, this initial report did not examine the application of brain fingerprinting in national
security in the post-911 world. It did not discuss the application of brain fingerprinting in present-
day criminal investigations and law enforcement.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 19
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
Consequently, Senator Charles Grassley, who commissioned the initial report, has
asked the GAO produce a new report that examines the value of brain fingerprinting in
counterterrorism and criminal investigations in the post-911 world in light of published scientific
research on the application of the technique in the laboratory and the field. The initial GAO
report was entitled "Federal Agency Views on the Potential Application of ‘Brain Fingerprinting.’
It was essentially a sampling of opinions of individuals associated with the polygraph in the
federal government prior to 9-11. (It was completed before 9-11-2001 and issued shortly
thereafter.) It reported that most such individuals did not see the need for brain fingerprinting in
their pre-911 operations over a decade ago.
Individuals interviewed noted that their primary interest was general screening
applications such as applicant screening and periodic employee screening, where the
interrogator does not know what information he is seeking. Some individuals interviewed noted
that they were satisfied with the performance of the polygraph for this purpose. Since brain
fingerprinting detects information stored in the brain, not lies or deception, it is only applicable
when the investigators have some idea what information they are looking for. For example, brain
fingerprinting can detect the details of a specific crime stored in the brain, or the details of
knowledge unique to FBI agents, or bomb makers, or Al-Qaeda-trained terrorists, or members of
a particular terrorist cell. It is not applicable, however, in general screening situations, where the
investigator has no idea what specific activities or crimes a person may have committed or what
specific information is being sought. Before 9-11, the primary requirement for federal agencies
was a general screening tool. The individuals interviewed by the GAO noted, correctly, that brain
fingerprinting is not such a tool. Therefore, most of the individuals interviewed generally did not
see brain fingerprinting as being useful for their primary purposes under the prevailing conditions
prior to 9/11/2001.
Notable exceptions to this opinion were the only two FBI scientists who had actually
conducted scientific research on brain fingerprinting and/or participated in its successful
application in solving crimes, Dr. Drew Richardson and Dr. Sharon Smith. They both expressed
the opinion that brain fingerprinting was highly valuable in FBI investigations.
Reflecting the views of most of those interviewed over a decade ago, before 9-11, the
report stated:
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 20
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
"Officials representing CIA, DOD, Secret Service, and FBI do not foresee using the brain
fingerprinting technique for their operations because of its limited application. For example, CIA
and DOD officials indicated that their counterintelligence operations and criminal investigations
do not usually lend themselves to a technique such as brain fingerprinting because use of the
technique requires a unique level of detail and information that would be known only to the
perpetrator and the investigators. These officials indicated that they need a tool to screen
current and prospective employees, which as indicated above, involves questioning a subject
about events unknown to the investigator. Further, a Secret Service official indicated that the
agency has had a high success rate with the polygraph as an interrogative and screening tool
and therefore saw limited use for brain fingerprinting."
The report noted, however, that the US government scientists interviewed who had
conducted research on brain fingerprinting was convinced that it would be useful in FBI
investigations.
The report did not include an account of the scientific research on brain fingerprinting or
its successful use in court. The report did not discuss the value of brain fingerprinting for other
applications other than general screening, for which it does not apply as discussed above. The
GAO did not evaluate or opine on the effectiveness, accuracy, or validity of brain fingerprinting.
The report stated:
"…we did not independently assess the hardware, software, or other components of the
technology nor did we attempt to determine independently whether brain fingerprinting is a valid
technique."
The report concluded that in general the federal officials involved with the polygraph who
were interviewed did not see an immediate application for brain fingerprinting in their general
screening operations before 9-11. Specific quotations to this effect follow.
Federal Agencies - "CIA, DOD, FBI, and Secret Service do not foresee using the Brain
Fingerprinting technique for their operations because of its limited application."
DOD - "Overall, DOD officials indicated that Brain Fingerprinting has limited applicability
to DOD's operations"
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 21
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
CIA - "From their experiences with the developer's research between 1991 and 1993,
CIA officials concluded that Brain Fingerprinting had limited applicability to CIA's operations.
Accordingly, CIA decided that it was not worth investing more funds to continue the developer's
research." Secret Services - "The Service subsequently concluded that the technique had
limited application to Secret Service activities."
Signed Letter from John E, Collingwood, Assistant Director, Office of Public and
Congressional Affairs, to Mr. Paul Jones, Director Justice Issues, Washington. The letter states
(as quoted) - “In conclusion, the report fairly reflects the FBI's belief that this technique has
limited applicability and usefulness to FBI investigative and personnel security matters. The FBI
continues to support the view that this technique has limited utility. We also think it is important
to point out that the rest of the federal community shares the FBI's view the Dr. Farwell's "Brain
Fingerprinting" has very limited applicability and usefulness."
Signed Letter from Jack L Johnson, Jnr, Special Agent in Charge, to Mr. Paul Jones,
Director Justice Issues, Washington. The letter states (as quoted) - “Dr Cantu has recently
briefed me on this technology and the underlying scientific principals [sic], which purportedly
support its accuracy and validity. Following this briefing and a review of the information related
to this technique, I must concur completely with the opinion of Dr Cantu. The "Brain
Fingerprinting Technique" has very little applicability to the overall Secret Service mission, and is
a technology that has not been completely validated as of this time."
The initial GAO report constituted a reasonably accurate opinion poll of federal
employees involved with the polygraph over a decade ago, before 9/11, in a much different
world. Note, however, that even at that time the FBI scientists who had relevant expertise and
had actually conducted research on brain fingerprinting and used it successfully in field cases
expressed the opinion that brain fingerprinting was valuable for FBI investigations. In any case,
the opinions of non-expert federal employees over a decade ago are not relevant to the current
applicability, validity, value, accuracy, or scientific merit of brain fingerprinting, or to its value in
present-day national security and law enforcement operations.
Consequently Senator Grassley, who commissioned the original GAO report, has asked
the GAO to develop a new report. He asked the GAO to discuss the potential applications of
brain fingerprinting in criminal investigations and counterterrorism in the post-911 world. He also
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 22
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
asked the GAO to include the views of experts well versed in brain fingerprinting and P300-
MERMER technology, and to include the successful brain fingerprinting research at the FBI,
CIA, and US Navy.
Future applications and research
After Dr. Farwell invented Brain Fingerprinting, he withheld it from the public for 15 years
while he, his colleagues, and other, independent scientists tested it in the laboratory and in the
field. Farwell's decision to apply this science in real-life situations has been controversial. In the
years since Dr. Farwell first began applying the technology in the real world, proponents,
including other scientists who have successfully applied the technique such as FBI scientist
Drew Richardson, and those who have been freed or otherwise helped by brain fingerprinting,
have advocated continuing and expanded application of the technology in the real world. Critics,
including some scientists, and those whose criminal activities have been thwarted by brain
fingerprinting have advocated further delay in applying the technique.
According to sworn testimony by Dr. William Iacono, an independent expert unaffiliated
with Dr. Farwell who has conducted extensive research in the area, the science underlying brain
fingerprinting has been published in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles in the scientific
literature, and the specific application of this science in detecting information has been published
in about 50 studies. (For more information on the science and its acceptance in the scientific
community, Although the science is well established, opinions among scientists and others on
the social policy question of how and when this science should be applied vary widely. Dr.
Farwell's decision to apply this science in bringing criminals to justice and freeing innocent
suspects is controversial). Various other attempts to apply this science in the detection of
concealed information have varied in accuracy and efficacy, depending on the scientific
procedures used.
Farwell and colleagues as well as other, independent scientists who have precisely
replicated Farwell's research or used similar methods (e.g., Iacono and colleagues, , have
consistently obtained error rates of less than 1% in both laboratory and field conditions.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 23
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
Different scientific methods, however, have yielded different results. In P300-based tests
using different experimental methods, different brain responses, different stimulus types,
different data collection methods, different analysis methods, and different statistics from those
used in Farwell's brain fingerprinting, Rosenfeld reported accuracy rates close to those obtained
by chance, even without countermeasures. Moreover, Rosenfeld's alternative technique proved
susceptible to countermeasures.
Controversy has arisen over the best explanation for the fact that Farwell and others
who use similar scientific methods have consistently achieved less than 1% error rate (or in fact
0% error rate) and high statistical confidences, while Rosenfeld's alternative method yielded
more than ten times higher error rate, sometimes as low as chance, as well as statistical
confidences averaging chance (50%) for subjects lacking the relevant knowledge tested.
Farwell, FBI scientists Drew Richardson and Sharon Smith, and other brain
fingerprinting experts claim that one cannot necessarily expect to obtain the same accuracy as
brain fingerprinting without following standard brain fingerprinting scientific protocols or similar
methods, that Rosenfeld's failure to achieve accuracy rates comparable to those of brain
fingerprinting is the result of the substantial differences in scientific methodology between his
alternative technique and brain fingerprinting, and therefore the fact that Rosenfeld's alternative
technique is admittedly inaccurate and susceptible to countermeasures is no reflection on brain
fingerprinting.
Proponents advocate continuing the use of brain fingerprinting to bring criminals and
terrorists to justice and to free innocent suspects, while at the same time more research is
continuing. Dr. Farwell and former FBI scientist Dr. Drew Richardson are among the scientists
who advocate continuing the use of brain fingerprinting in criminal investigations and
counterterrorism, without delay, as well as ongoing research on the technology.
Dr. Farwell was interviewed by TIME magazine after he was selected to the TIME 100:
The Next Wave, the 100 innovators who may be "the Picassos or Einsteins of the 21st Century."
He said, "The fundamental task in law enforcement and espionage and counterespionage is to
determine the truth. My philosophy is that there is a tremendous cost in failing to apply the
technology." Critics of brain fingerprinting claim that the inaccuracy and susceptibility to
countermeasures of Rosenfeld's alternative technique also cast doubt on all P300-based
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 24
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
information-detection techniques, including brain fingerprinting. Critics agree with proponents
that ongoing research on brain fingerprinting is valuable and desirable. Unlike proponents,
however, critics advocate a discontinuation of the use of brain fingerprinting in criminal and
counterterrorism cases while this research is continuing.
Proponents of the continued use of brain fingerprinting in criminal and counterterrorism
cases cite the peer-reviewed research on the accuracy of brain fingerprinting in the laboratory
and the field, the fact that it has been ruled admissible in court, the vital counterterrorism
applications, and the benefits of bringing criminals such as serial killer JB Grinder to justice and
freeing innocent convicts such as Terry Harrington. They emphasize the established science,
the proven accuracy of brain fingerprinting when practiced according to standard brain
fingerprinting scientific protocols, and the fact that brain fingerprinting is voluntary and non-
invasive. They advocate continuing to use brain fingerprinting in criminal investigations and
counterterrorism while research on the technique continues.
Critics cite the inaccuracy and susceptibility to countermeasures of Rosenfeld's
alternative technique, and suggest that this casts doubt on brain fingerprinting as well. They
emphasize the uncertainty of applying new technology while it is still being researched, and
advocate discontinuing the use of brain fingerprinting in criminal and counterterrorism cases until
more research has been completed.
Those personally affected by brain fingerprinting have expressed divergent views as
well, particularly on the issue of delaying the application of brain fingerprinting in criminal cases.
Terry Harrington, for whom brain fingerprinting provided exculpatory evidence that was ruled
admissible in court, and who was subsequently released from prison after serving 24 years for a
murder he did not commit, has advocated continuing to apply brain fingerprinting in criminal
cases while the research continues.
JB Grinder, whose 15-year string of serial rapes and murders was cut short after
Farwell's brain fingerprinting test detected the record of the murder of Julie Helton stored in his
brain, would have strongly preferred that applications of the technique in criminal investigations
be delayed indefinitely.
In the case of Jimmy Ray Slaughter, an Oklahoma court ruled that exculpatory evidence
from a brain fingerprinting test conducted by Dr. Farwell was "untimely" and had been obtained
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 25
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
too late to be used in his appeals. Despite the "untimely" exculpatory evidence – which also
included exculpatory DNA evidence, an FBI report discrediting key forensic evidence that had
been used against him at trial, and the sworn testimony of the original chief investigator on his
case, who became convinced that Slaughter was innocent – Slaughter was executed. Until his
execution, Slaughter strongly opposed any delay in applying brain fingerprinting in criminal
cases on the grounds that any delay would cost more innocent lives, both of murder victims and
of falsely convicted people – as he claimed to be himself – who could be saved by brain
fingerprinting only if it was applied soon enough.
Before Slaughter was executed, when it appeared that brain fingerprinting and other
exculpatory evidence may have arrived in time to overturn his conviction, Farwell said, "When
Jimmy Ray Slaughter came to me for help, he had a life expectancy of about 90 days. I had to
say yes or no. I couldn't say 'wait'. I said yes, and I believe this was the right decision for me. If
my already well-proven invention can save innocent lives while still more research is going on, I
believe it is my responsibility as a scientist to make it available."
Dr. Farwell told Mike Wallace in an interview on CBS 60 Minutes, "Brain Fingerprinting is
a scientific technique for determining whether certain information is stored in the brain or not by
measuring brain waves, electrical brain activity. The fundamental difference between an
innocent person and a guilty person is that a guilty person, having committed the crime, has the
record stored in his brain. Now we have a way to measure that scientifically."
In an interview with Charles Gibson on Good Morning America, Dr. Farwell stated, "We
showed not only in the laboratory but in over 100 actual real-life situations that the technology
was effective. And to date we have never gotten a wrong answer."
summary
At the time of this first field application, Dr. Farwell's successes in the scientific
laboratory with his invention were already well known. In collaboration with FBI scientist Dr.
Drew Richardson, Dr. Farwell achieved 100% accuracy in using Farwell Brain Fingerprinting to
identify FBI agents based on their brain responses to words and phrases only an FBI agent
would recognize. Tests conducted by Dr. Farwell for the US Navy in collaboration with Navy
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 26
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
LCDR Rene S. Hernandez, Ph.D., also resulted in 100% accurate results. In research on
contract with a US government intelligence agency, Farwell Brain Fingerprinting achieved 100%
accuracy in proving the presence or absence of a wide variety of evidence stored in the brains of
individuals involved in over 120 cases. Dr. Farwell has published extensively in the scientific
literature and presented his research to many scientific and technical audiences throughout the
world . Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has been subjected to rigorous peer review under US
government sponsorship, and has been found scientifically viable as well as revolutionary in its
implications.
Recomendation.
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.
References:
ABC-TV Good Morning America: Charles Gibson interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell
"Mind-Reading Technology Tests Subject's Guilt -- Brain-Reading Technology Becomes New
Tool in Courts," March 9, 2004
Abdollah, T. (2003). "Brain Fingerprinting – Picture-perfect crimes," Berkeley
Medical Journal Issues, Spring 2003. Accessed July 20, 2008.
Allen J.J.B. and Iacono W.G. (1997). "A comparison of methods for the analysis
of event-related potentials in deception detection." Psychophysiology 34:234-240.
Booz Allen Hamilton (2008). "Brain Fingerprinting Technology and Indoor
Tracking Solution Win the American-leg of Global Security Challenge." Accessed January 16,
2012.
CBS 60 Minutes: Mike Wallace interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell, December 10,
2000.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 27
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING 2013
Dalbey, B. (1999). "Brain Fingerprinting Testing Traps Serial Killer in Missouri."
The Fairfield Ledger. Fairfield, Iowa, August, 1999, p 1.
Dale, S.S. (2001). "THE BRAIN SCIENTIST: Climbing Inside the Criminal Mind."
TIME Magazine, Nov. 26, 2001, pp 80-81.
Denno, Deborah (December 2002). "Crime and Consciousness: Science and
Involuntary Acts". Minnesota Law Review 87: 269–389.
Druckman, D. and Lacey J.I. (1989). Brain and cognition: some new
technologies. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Erickson, M. J. (2007). Daubert's Bipolar Treatment of Scientific Expert
Testimony -- From Frye's Polygraph to Farwell's Brain Fingerprinting.’’ Drake Law Review 55’’,
763-812.
Farwell L.A. (1992a). "The brain-wave information detection (BID) system: a new
paradigm for psychophysiological detection of information" (unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Urbana-Champaign (IL): University of Illinois.
Farwell, L.A. (1992b). "Two new twists on the truth detector: brain-wave detection
of occupational information." Psychophysiology 29(4A):S3.
Farwell L.A. (1993). "Brain MERMERs: detection of FBI Agents and crime-
relevant information with the Farwell MERA system." Proceedings of the International Security
Systems Symposium, Washington, D.C.
Farwell, L.A. (1994) "Method and Apparatus for Multifaceted
Electroencephalographic Response Analysis (MERA)," U.S. Patent #5,363,858, Nov. 15, 1994
Farwell, L.A. (1995a) "Method and Apparatus for Truth Detection," U.S. Patent
#5,406,956, April 18, 1995.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BY AJALA OLUSOJI A.[Type text] Page 28
top related