Rushita beladiya.pdf

NAME: RUSHITA BELADIYA

BRANCH: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

ENROLLMENT NO :130210116003

TOPIC:CASE STUDY ON BRAIN FINGER PRINTING

A DOCUMENTRY MAKING REPORT

BRAIN FINGER PRINTING

GUIDED BY SUBMITED BY

PROF. SEEMA JOSHI ENROLLMENT NO :130210116003

RUSHITA BELADIYA

SUBMITTED TO

GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE,BHAVNAGAR

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE,BHAVNAGAR

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

CERTIFICATEDate: 30\12\2013

This is to certify that RUSHITA BELADIYA OF B.E 1St Semester Information

Technology Department Enrollment No :130210116003 has Satisfactorily

compeleted his team work of subject (case study making) during the academic

year 2013 and submitted on

Date:30\12\2013

Staff in charge Head of Department

PROF:SEEMA JOSHI PROF:D R KERALIYA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to be thankful to the principal and college for providing the necessary

resources and facilities and also for their support, courage and cooperation.

Having completed this report,looking back, I realize the importance of the people

without whom this report would have not been complete. I am indebted to my

H.O.D Prof S B PATEL, and my lecturer Miss Seema joshi for their guidance and

commitment towards the preparation of the case study making report without

which I would have not been able to complete in such a short period.

Yours sincerely,

Enrollno.130210116003

Name:Rushita Beladiya

CONTENT

1. Introduction 1

2. Abstract 2

3. History 3

4. technical aspects 5

5. background and terminology 7

6. current uses and research 8

7. limitation of brainfingerprinting 11

8. future applications and rearch 15

9. Conclusion 23

10.

Refrences 24

LIST OF FIGURE Pg.no1. HOW TO ATTECH WITH MAN 6

2. DIAGRAM FOR TECHNIQUE 7

3. FIGURE FOR ANSWERE 9

4. USE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION(1,2,3) 12

INTRODUCTION:

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 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.

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”.

Brain fingerprinting is a controversial forencik science technique that uses electoencephalography to determine whether specific information is stored in a subject's brain. It does this by measuring electrical brain wave responses to words, phrases, or pictures that are presented on a computer screen .(farewell,smith,Richardson.)

History:

Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that the brain processes known and relevant information differently from the way it processes unknown or irrelevant information. The brain's processing of known information, such as the details of a crime stored in the brain, is revealed by a specific pattern in the EEG. Farwell's brain fingerprinting originally used the well-known P300 brain response to detect the brain's recognition of the known information. Later Farwell discovered the P300-MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response"), which includes the P300 and additional features and is reported to provide a higher level of accuracy and statistical confidence than the P300 alone. Farwell and colleagues report less than 1% error rate in laboratory research and real-life field applications. In independent research William Iacono and others who followed identical or similar scientific protocols to Farwell's have reported a similar low level of error rate and high statistical confidence. Farwell's standards for brain fingerprinting tests are specified in Farwell 2012 .

Brain fingerprinting has been ruled admissible in court and applied in a number of high-profile criminal cases, including the exoneration of Terry Harrington after he had been convicted of murder.

Brain fingerprinting technique has been criticized on a number of fronts. Although independent scientists who have used the same or similar methods as Farwell's brain fingerprinting have achieved similar, highly accurate results, different methods have yielded different results. J. Peter Rosenfeld used P300-based tests incorporating fundamentally different methods, resulting in as low as chance accuracy as well as susceptibility to countermeasures, and criticized brain fingerprinting based on the premise that the shortcomings of his alternative technique should generalize to all other techniques in which the P300 is among the brain responses measured, including brain fingerprinting.

Four phases of Farwell 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.

Technique:

The technique uses the well-known fact that an electrical signal known as P300 is emitted from an individual's brain beginning approximately 300 milliseconds after it is confronted with a stimulus of special significance, e.g. a rare vs. a common stimulus or a stimulus the subject is asked to count. The application of this in brain fingerprinting is to detect the P300 as a response to stimuli related to the crime or other investigated situation, e.g., a murder weapon, victim's face, or knowledge of the internal workings of a terrorist cell .Because it is based on EEG signals, the system does not require the subject to issue verbal responses to questions or stimuli.

The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that measure the EEG from several locations on the scalp. The subject views stimuli consisting of words, phrases, or pictures presented on a computer screen. Stimuli are of three types: 1) "irrelevant" stimuli that are irrelevant to the investigated situation and to the test subject, 2) "target" stimuli that are relevant to the investigated situation and are known to the subject, and 3) "probe" stimuli that are relevant to the investigated situation and that the subject denies knowing. Probes contain information that is known only to the perpetrator and investigators, and not to the general public or to an innocent suspect who was not at the scene of the crime. Before the test, the scientist identifies the targets to the subject, and makes sure that he/she knows these relevant stimuli. The scientist also makes sure that the subject does not know the probes for any reason unrelated to the crime, and that the subject denies knowing the probes. The subject is told why the probes are significant (e.g., "You will see several items, one of which is the murder weapon"), but is not told which items are the probes and which are irrelevant.

HOW TO ATTECH WITH MAN:

Diagram for technique

Since brain fingerprinting uses cognitive brain responses, brain fingerprinting does not depend on the emotions of the subject, nor is it affected by emotional responses. Brain fingerprinting is fundamentally different from the polygraph (lie-detector), which measures emotion-based physiological signals such as heart rate, sweating, and blood pressure. Also, unlike polygraph testing, it does not attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying or telling the truth. Rather, it measures the subject's brain response to relevant words, phrases, or pictures to detect whether or not the relevant information is stored in the subject's brain .By comparing the responses to the different types of stimuli, the brain fingerprinting system mathematically computes a determination of "information present" (the subject knows the crime-relevant information contained in the probe stimuli) or "information absent" (the subject does not know the information) and a statistical confidence for the determination. This determination is mathematically computed, and does not involve the subjective judgment of the scientist.

Background and terminology:

"Brain fingerprinting" is a computer-based test that is designed to discover, document, and provide evidence of guilty knowledge regarding crimes, and to identify individuals with a specific training or expertise such as members of dormant terrorist cells or bomb makers. It has also been used to evaluate brain functioning as a means of early detection of Alzheimer's and other cognitively degenerative diseases, and to evaluate the effectiveness of advertising by measuring brain responses.

The technique is described in Dr. Farwell's paper "Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal", published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences in 2001 by Dr. Farwell and FBI Supervisory Special Agent Sharon Smith of the FBI, and in other peer-reviewed publications.

These papers describe tests of brain fingerprinting, a technology based on EEG that is purported to be able to detect the existence of prior knowledge or memory in the brain. The P300 occurs when the tested subject is presented with a rarely occurring stimulus that is significant in context (for example, in the context of a crime). When an irrelevant stimulus is presented, a P300 is not expected to occur.The P300 is widely known in the scientific community, and is also known as an oddball-evoked P300 .While researching the P300, Dr. Farwell created a more detailed test that not only includes the P300, but also observes the stimulus response up to 1400 milliseconds after the stimulus. He calls this brain response a P300-MERMER, memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response. The P300, an electrically positive component, is maximal at the midline parietal area of the head and has a peak latency of approximately 300 to 800 milliseconds. The P300-MERMER includes the P300 and also includes an electrically negative component, with an onset latency of approximately 800-1200ms. According to Dr. Farwell, the P300-MERMER includes additional features involving changes in the frequency of the EEG signal, but for the purposes of signal detection and practical application the P300-MERMER is sufficiently characterized by the P300 and the following negative component in the brain response .

Current uses and research:

Brain Fingerprinting has two primary applications: 1) detecting the record of a specific crime, terrorist act, or incident stored in the detecting a specific type of knowledge, expertise, or training, such as knowledge specific to FBI agents, Al-Qaeda -trained terrorists, or bomb makers . The seminal paper by Dr. Farwell and Emmanuel Donchin reported successful application of the technique in detecting knowledge of both laboratory mock crimes and real-life events, with no false positives and no false negatives.

In a study with the, Dr. Farwell and FBI scientist Drew Richardson, former chief of the FBI's chem-bio-nuclear counterterrorism unit, used brain fingerprinting to show that test subjects from specific groups could be identified by detecting specific knowledge which would only be known to members of those groups. A group of 17 FBI agents and 4 non-agents were exposed to stimuli (words, phrases, and acronyms) that were flashed on a computer screen. The probe (situation-relevant) stimuli contained information that would be common knowledge only to someone with FBI training. Brain fingerprinting correctly distinguished the FBI agents from the non-agents.

The CIA has also funded Farwell's research In a study funded by the CIA, Farwell and colleagues used brain fingerprinting to detect which individuals had US Navy military medical training. All 30 subjects were correctly determined to have or not to have the specific information regarding military medicine stored in their brains. In another CIA-funded study, brain fingerprinting correctly detected which individuals had participated in specific real-life events, some of which were crimes, based on the record stored in their brains. Error rate was again 0%; accuracy was 100%. Dr. Farwell collaborated with FBI scientist Sharon Smith in a further study in which brain fingerprinting detected real-life events that was published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences.

Dr. Farwell's recent studies, many conducted with former FBI scientist Dr. Drew Richardson, have mostly involved detecting real-life information in field conditions. Farwell and Richardson applied brain fingerprinting in detecting information regarding actual crimes with real-world judicial consequences, including multiple murders .In one study they tested brain fingerprinting in detecting information unique to bomb makers (experts in improvised explosive devices, IEDs), for application in national security and counterterrorism. Error rate was 0%; that is, 100% of subjects in these studies were correctly detected Dr. Farwell has also offered a $100,000 reward for beating a brain fingerprinting field test.To date, no one has ever succeeded in doing so.

Use in criminal investigation:

Dr. Lawrence Farwell conducts a Brain Fingerprinting test on Terry Harrington.

Dr. Lawrence Farwell conducts a Brain Fingerprinting test on serial killer JB Grinder.

Farwell's brain fingerprinting has been ruled admissible in court in the reversal of the murder conviction of Terry Harrington .Following a hearing on post-conviction relief on November 14, 2000, an Iowa District Court stated that the fundamental science involved in Dr. Farwell's brain fingerprinting P300 test was well established in the scientific community. For a range of reasons, however, the court dismissed the defendant's petition for a new trial.

In order to be ruled admissible under the prevailing Daubert standard established by the US Supreme Court, the District Court required proof that brain fingerprinting 1) has been tested and proven, 2) has been peer reviewed and published, 3) produces a known (and low) error rate and is systematically applied, and 4) is well accepted in the relevant scientific community. In ruling the brain fingerprinting test admissible as scientific evidence, the Court stated the following:

"In the spring of 2000, Harrington was given a test by Dr. Lawrence Farwell. The test is based on a 'P300 effect'."

"The P-300 effect has been recognized for nearly twenty years."

"The P-300 effect has been subject to testing and peer review in the scientific community."

"The consensus in the community of psycho-physiologists is that the P300 effect is valid."

"The evidence resulting from Harrington's ‘brain fingerprinting’ test was discovered after the fact. It is newly discovered."

As the Iowa District Court clearly stated, the results of the brain fingerprinting test on Harrington constituted "evidence" that the court admitted. Dr. Farwell's testimony as an expert witness and the testimony of the other two expert witnesses in the case also were admitted as evidence. The Iowa court admitted the brain fingerprinting evidence and Dr. Farwell's testimony on it under the Daubert standard.

Several authors of law articles have examined the admissibility of brain fingerprinting evidence in the Harrington case in depth and detail, and summarized the outcome as follows.

"The Judge in Harrington ruled Brain Fingerprinting admissible under Daubert after conducting a day-long hearing featuring three expert witnesses, each renowned in his field."

"In Harrington, the court admitted Dr. Farwell's testimony on brain fingerprinting and stated that it satisfied the Daubert test."

"The [Harrington] court admitted Brain Fingerprinting evidence based upon the P300 effect…"

The court noted the distinction, however, between admissibility and weight. In light of the circumstances of a particular case, admissible evidence does not always have sufficient weight to produce a verdict in favor of the side which proffers the evidence. Although the court ruled brain fingerprinting admissible, the court ruled that the weight of the brain fingerprinting evidence and other evidence proffered by Harrington would probably not have been sufficient to change the verdict in the original trial.

"The court determined that Brain Fingerprinting was new evidence not available at the original trial, and that it was sufficiently reliable to merit admission of the evidence; however, the court did not regard its weight as sufficiently compelling in light of the record as a whole as meeting its exacting standard, and thus it denied a new trial on this and the other grounds asserted by Harrington.”The court ruled in Harrington's favor on two major issues, but nevertheless denied him a new trial. The court ruled brain fingerprinting and the testimony of the expert witnesses on it were admissible, and also admitted the recantation testimony of the only alleged witness to the crime, yet nevertheless denied Harrington's petition for a new trial. Regarding this rather complicated ruling, one commentator opined that "[t]he Harrington court avoided a clear ruling on admissibility" of the test.

Harrington appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. The reversed the trial court and granted Harrington a new trial.The supreme court did not reach the brain fingerprinting issue, and decided the case on other grounds. "Because the scientific testing evidence is not necessary to a resolution of this appeal, we give it no further consideration."

Although the Iowa Supreme Court did not rule on brain fingerprinting, they allowed the law of the case established by the district court to stand, implicitly including the district court's finding regarding the "newly discovered" "evidence" "resulting from Harrington's Brain Fingerprinting test”.Due to a constitutional rights violation, specifically a Brady violation, by the State of Iowa in the original trial, the Iowa Supreme Court awarded Harrington a new trial. The only alleged witness to the crime, Kevin Hughes, recanted

when Dr. Farwell confronted him with the "information absent" results of the brain fingerprinting test on Harrington. Without its star witness, the state subsequently dismissed the murder prosecution without prejudice for lack of evidence due to witness recantations and the passage of time.

The State of Iowa had argued unsuccessfully in trial court that the brain fingerprinting results should not be considered admissible "evidence," whether "newly discovered" or not. After the Supreme Court reversed Harrington's conviction and granted him a new trial, the Iowa Attorney General's Office issued a press release restating this position, and also restating the fact that the Iowa Supreme Court did not rule on brain fingerprinting.

"With one Justice dissenting, the Supreme Court reversed Harrington's conviction on the ground that the failure to disclose police reports denied defendant a fair trial. The Court ruled that withholding the reports compromised Harrington's defense at trial that he was not the person who shot Mr. Schweer."

"The Court also declined to rule on the admissibility or credibility of the "brain fingerprinting" evidence offered by Harrington. In its brief and argument to the Court, the State argued that brain fingerprinting is "junk science" that has no track record establishing its reliability. The State argued that the technique has been tested in the lab with fewer than 200 persons and has been used in the field in only a handful of cases. The State argued the technique should be treated similarly to lie-detector tests, which are inadmissible in Iowa and most other states. The Iowa Supreme Court did not determine the reliability of brain fingerprinting and did not rule on the admissibility of brain fingerprinting in Iowa courts."

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: Ask the Experts".

Brain fingerprinting detects information-processing brain responses that reveal what information is stored in the subject's brain. It does not detect how that information got there. This fact has

implications for how and when the technique can be applied. In a case where a suspect claims not to have been at the crime scene and has no legitimate reason for knowing the details of the crime, and investigators have information that has not been released to the public, brain fingerprinting can determine objectively whether or not the subject possesses that information. In such a case, brain fingerprinting could provide useful evidence.

If, however, the suspect knows everything that the investigators know about the crime for some legitimate reason, then the test cannot be applied. There are several circumstances in which this may be the case. If a suspect acknowledges being at the scene of the crime, but claims to be a witness and not a perpetrator, then the fact that he knows details about the crime would not be incriminating. There would be no reason to conduct a test, because the resulting "information present" response would simply show that the suspect knew the details about the crime – knowledge which he already admits and which he gained at the crime scene whether he was a witness or a perpetrator.

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.

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 fingerprinting's application as forensic science tool 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.

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 were 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

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."

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.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.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 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.

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. (For scientific and methodological differences between Farwell's brain fingerprinting and Rosenfeld's alternative technique.

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 Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012. 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 Extensive criticism of brain fingerprinting is contained in Rosenfeld 2005. Dr. Farwell's brief response is contained in a peer-reviewed paper published in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, Farwell 2011a "Brain Fingerprinting: Corrections to Rosenfeld". A more comprehensive version of this paper that contains extensive documentation and references

to independent sources where the facts can be verified is "Brain Fingerprinting: Comprehensive Corrections to Rosenfeld in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice" These issues are reviewed in more detail, with reference to all research published to date in English, in Farwell 2012.

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.

CONCLUSION:

It would be inappropriate to generalize to result of the present research because of the small sample of objects.

But the 100% accuracy and high confidence level of the results ,however ,provide futher support for results from previous research using brain MERMER testing

REFERENCES:

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.

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 [332].

Druckman, D. and Lacey J.I. (1989). Brain and cognition: some new technologies. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.