Brain Fingerprinting

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


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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P300_(Neuroscience)


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;



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 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%



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



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.


http://images.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://www.brainwavescience.com/images/Image4.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.brainwavescience.com/HarringtonForensicReport.php&h=480&w=640&sz=10&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=rTClyiGrPGwUPM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpictures%2Bon%2Bbrain%2Bfingerprinting%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN


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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BrainFingerprintingFarwellGrinder.jpg


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


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/innovation/experts_qa8.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_fingerprinting#PBS2004


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



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



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 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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_fingerprinting#GAOReport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_fingerprinting#GAOReport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_General_Accounting_Office


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:



"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"



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



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.



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



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



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



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.


http://www.boozallen.com/media-center/press-releases/48399320/40587323

http://www.boozallen.com/media-center/press-releases/48399320/40587323

http://web.archive.org/web/20060722001256/http:/www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~issues/spring03/brainfinger.html

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=127983&page=1


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.


http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=16&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&p=1&S1=5,406,956&OS=5,406,956&RS=5,406,956

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=17&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5,363,858&OS=5,363,858&RS=5,363,858

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=17&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5,363,858&OS=5,363,858&RS=5,363,858

Brain Fingerprinting

Documents

social policy question

computer data processing

director justice issues

free innocent suspects

brain fingerprinting laboratories

dna samples match

brain fingerprinting testing

traditional polygraph methods