CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO BRAIN FINGERPRINTING

1.1 Introduction:
Brain Fingerprinting was developed and patented in 1995 by Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D.,
chairman of the Brain Wave Institute in Fairfield, Iowa, and former Harvard University
research associate. Brain fingerprinting is based on the theory that throughout any action, the
brain plans, records, and executes all of the actions. Such details, all concealed within the
brain, can now be revealed through brain fingerprinting. This technique measures how brain
waves respond to specific words or pictures flashed across a screen. Pictures, both relevant
and irrelevant to the actions, are shown. The relevant images should trigger memories of
subject.
1.2. Definition:
"Brain Fingerprinting" is a controversial forensic science technique that determines whether
specific information is stored in a subjects brain by measuring electrical brainwave
responses to words, phrases, or pictures that are presented on a computer screen. Brain
fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that the brain processes
known, relevant information differently than it processes unknown or irrelevant information.
Brain fingerprinting involves measuring the MERMER paradigm EEG response during
interrogation.

MERMER

is

Memory

and

Encoding

Related

Multifaceted

Electroencephalography Responses. The brain print is based on the P300 complex, a series of
well-known brainwave components that can be measured. The technique is said to be more
effective than a lie detector test.

CHAPTER 2

TECHNIQUE
The technique uses the well known fact that an electrical signal known as P300 is emitted
from an individuals 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, victims face, or knowledge of the internal workings of a terrorist cell Because it is
based on EEG signals, the system does not require the subject to issue verbal responses to
questions or stimuli.

Fig 2.1 The person undergoing Brain Fingerprinting

The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that measure the
EEG from several locations on the scalp. The subject views stimuli consisting of words,
phrases, or pictures presented on a computer screen. Stimuli are of three types:
1) Irrelevant stimuli that is irrelevant to the investigated situation and to the test subject,
2) Target stimuli that are relevant to the investigated situation and are known to the subject,

3) Probe stimuli that are relevant to the investigated situation and that the subject denies
knowing.
Probes contain information that is known only to the perpetrator and investigators and not to
the general public or to an innocent suspect who was not at the scene of the crime. Before the
test, the scientist identifies the targets to the subject, and makes sure that he/she knows these
relevant stimuli. The scientist also makes sure that the subject does not know the probes for
any reason unrelated to the crime, and that the subject denies knowing the probes. The
subject is told why the probes are significant (e.g., You will see several items, one of which
is the murder weapon), but is not told which items are the probes and which are irrelevant.
Since brain fingerprinting uses cognitive brain responses, brain fingerprinting does not
depend on the emotions of the subject, nor is it affected by emotional responses. Brain
fingerprinting is fundamentally different from the polygraph (lie-detector), which measures
emotion-based physiological signals such as heart rate, sweating, and blood pressure. Also,
unlike polygraph testing, it does not attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying
or telling the truth. Rather, it measures the subjects brain response to relevant words,
phrases, or pictures to detect whether or not the relevant information is stored in the subjects
brain.
By comparing the responses to the different types of stimuli, the brain fingerprinting system
mathematically computes a determination of information present (the subject knows the
crime-relevant information contained in the probe stimuli) or information absent (the
subject does not know the information) and a statistical confidence for the determination.
This determination is mathematically computed, and does not involve the subjective
judgment of the scientist.
A suspect is provided with information as follows:
Information the suspect is expected to know ___________________ (RED)
Information suspect shouldnt know _________________

(GREEN)

Information of crime that only perpetrator would know ______________ (BLUE)

Fig. 2.2 Not Guilty

Fig. 2.3 Guilty

Figure 2.4 Using Brave Waves to Detect Guilt

CHAPTER 3

ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY
3.1 About EEG:
Electroencephalography (EEG) is the measurement of electrical activity produced by the
brain as recorded from electrodes placed on the scalp.
Just as the activity in a computer can be understood on multiple levels, from the activity of
individual transistors to the function of applications, so can the electrical activity of the brain
be described on relatively small to relatively large scales. At one end are action potentials in a
single axon or currents within a single dendrite of a single neuron, and at the other end is the
activity measured by the EEG which aggregates the electric voltage fields from millions of
neurons. So-called scalp EEG is collected from tens to hundreds of electrodes positioned on
different locations at the surface of the head. EEG signals (in the range of milli-volts) are
amplified and digitalized for later processing. The data measured by the scalp EEG are used
for clinical and research purposes.
3.2 Source of EEG Activity:
Scalp EEG activity oscillates at multiple frequencies having different characteristic spatial
distributions associated with different states of brain functioning such as waking and
sleeping. These oscillations represent synchronized activity over a network of neurons. The
neuronal networks underlying some of these oscillations are understood (such as the
thalamocortical resonance underlying sleep spindles) while many others are not (e.g. the
system that generates the posterior basic rhythm).
3.3. EEG vs FMRI and PET
EEG has several strong sides as a tool of exploring brain activity; for example, its time
resolution is very high (on the level of a single millisecond). Other methods of looking at
brain activity, such as PET and fMRI have time resolution between seconds and minutes.

EEG measures the brain's electrical activity directly, while other methods record changes in
blood flow (e.g., SPECT, fMRI) or metabolic activity (e.g., PET), which are indirect markers
of brain electrical activity.
EEG can be used simultaneously with fMRI so that high-temporal-resolution data can be
recorded at the same time as high-spatial-resolution data, however, since the data derived
from each occurs over a different time course, the data sets do not necessarily represent the
exact same brain activity. There are technical difficulties associated with combining these
two modalities like currents can be induced in moving EEG electrode wires due to the
magnetic field of the MRI.
EEG can be recorded at the same time as MEG so that data from these complimentary hightime-resolution techniques can be combined. Magneto-encephalography (MEG) is an
imaging technique used to measure the magnetic fields produced by electrical activity in the
brain via extremely sensitive devices such as superconducting quantum interference devices
(SQUIDs), These measurements are commonly used in both research and clinical settings.
There are many uses for the MEG. Including assisting surgeons in localizing pathology,
assisting researchers in determining the junction of various parts of the brain. neurofeedback. And others.

3.4 Method
Scalp EEC, the recording is obtained by placing electrodes on the scalp. Each electrode is
connected to one input of a differential amplifier and a common system reference electrode is
connected to the other input of each differential amplifier. These amplifiers amplify the
voltage between the active electrode and the reference (typically l.000100,000 times, or 60
100 dB of voltage gain). A typical adult human EEC signal is about 10V to 100 V in
amplitude when measured from the scalp and is about 1020 mV when measured from
subdural electrodes. In digital EEC systems, the amplified signal is digitized via an analogto-digital

converter,

after

being

passed

through

an

anti-aliasing

filter.

Since an EEC voltage signal represents a difference between the voltages at two electrodes,
the display of the EEC for the reading encephalographer may be set up in one of several
ways.
7

CHAPTER 4

P300
4.1 About:
The P300 (P3) wave is an event related potential (ERP) which can be recorded via
electroencephalography (EEG) as a positive deflection in voltage at a latency of roughly 300
ms in the EEG. The signal is typically measured most strongly by the electrodes covering the
parietal lobe. The presence, magnitude, topography and time of this signal are often used as
metrics of cognitive function in decision making processes. While the neural substrates of
this ERP still remain hazy, the reproducibility of this signal makes it a common choice for
psychological tests in both the clinic and laboratory.
The P300 signal is an aggregate recording from a great many neurons. Although typically
non-invasive, parts of the signal may be sampled more directly from certain brain regions via
electrode (hence, the medial temporal P300 or MTL-P300). This methodology allows for
isolation and local recording of one area without the noise from other signals acquired
through scalp electrodes [4]. In practice, the P300 waveform must be evoked using a stimulus
delivered by one of the sensory modalities. One typical procedure is the 'oddball' paradigm,
whereby a target stimulus is presented amongst more frequent standard background stimuli.
A distracter stimulus may also be used to ensure that the response is due to the target rather
than the change from a background pattern. The classic oddball paradigm has seen many
variations, but in the end most protocols used to evoke the P300 involve some form of
conscious realization or decision making. Attention is required for such protocols. No
subjects have been noted to have from control over their P3000.

CHAPTER 5

THE ROLE OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING

IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
The application of Brain Fingerprinting testing in a criminal case involves four phases:
investigation, interview, scientific testing, and adjudication. Of these four phases, only the
third one is in the domain of science. The first phase is undertaken by a skilled investigator,
the second by an interviewer who may be an investigator or a scientist, the third
by a scientist, and the fourth by a judge and jury.
This is similar to the forensic application of other sciences.

For example, if a person is

found dead of unknown causes, first there is an investigation to determine if there may have
been foul play. If there is a suspect involved, the suspect is interviewed to determine what
role, if any; he says he has had in the situation. If the investigation determines that the victim
may have been poisoned using ricin or cadmium, two rare and powerful poisons, then
scientific tests can be conducted to detect these specific substances in the body. Then the
evidence accumulated through the test, the investigation, and the interview is presented to a
judge and jury, who make the adjudication as to whether a particular suspect is guilty of a
particular crime.
In such a case, the science of forensic toxicology reveals only whether or not specific toxins
are in the body. It does not tell us when or where to look for toxins, or which toxins to look
for. We must rely on investigation to provide the necessary guidance on these issues. The
science of forensic toxicology also does not tell us whether a particular suspect is innocent or
guilty of a crime. The question of guilt or innocence is a legal one, not a scientific one, and
the adjudication is made by a judge and jury, and not by a scientist or a computer.
5.1 Phase 1: Investigation:
The first phase in applying Brain Fingerprinting testing in a criminal case is an
investigation of the crime. Before a Brain Fingerprinting test can be applied, an

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

in a specific persons brain. It detects

the presence or absence of specific

information in the brain. Before we can conduct this scientific test, we need to determine
what information to test for. This investigation precedes and informs the scientific phase
which constitutes the Brain Fingerprinting test itself.
The role of investigation is to find specific information that will be useful in a Brain
Fingerprinting test. As with any scientific test, if the outcome of the Brain Fingerprinting test
is to be useful evidence for a judge and jury to consider in reaching their verdict, then the
information tested must have a bearing on the perpetration of the crime. The job of the
investigator is to find features relevant to the crime that has the following attributes.
1. They are salient features that perpetrator almost certainly encountered in the course of
committing the crime (e.g., the murder weapon or the escape route).
2. The suspect has not been exposed to them in some other context, i.e., interrogation or court
proceedings.
These features of the crime will be used in the Brain Fingerprinting test as probe stimuli. If
the suspect knows these specific features of the crime, and has had no access to this
information other than through committing the crime, then this will provide evidence of his
involvement

in

the crime.

If

the suspect

lacks

this knowledge,

this will provide

evidence supporting his innocence. Brain fingerprinting tests for the presence or absence of
this information stored in the suspects brain.
In some cases, the investigation will reveal no information about the crime that would be
known only to the perpetrator and to investigators. For example, in the case of a
disappearance, investigators may not even know if a crime has been committed, and if so,
what the specific details of the crime were. In some sexual assault cases, there may be
agreement between the alleged victim and the suspect as to all of the events that took place,
but disagreement as to the intent of the parties. Investigators may have made the mistake of
revealing to the suspect all that they know about a case. In such cases, no probe stimuli can
be developed that will provide evidence relevant to the discrimination between a person

10

who participated in the crime and one who did not, and no Brain Fingerprinting test
will be conducted.
The investigator must use his skill and judgment in discovering and evaluating
information to be used in the Brain Fingerprinting test, and any other evidence he
uncovers. There is always a degree of uncertainty in this process. If the investigator finds a
gun lying by the body of a person who apparently died of gunshot wounds, he may conclude
that it is the murder weapon. There is always a possibility, however, that it is not. For
example, perhaps the perpetrator shot the victim with one gun and planted another gun to
frame

someone

else.

Ultimately, the evidence accumulated by the investigator will

need to be weighed by the judge and jury for its bearing on the guilt or innocence of the
suspect.
Criminal investigation is not science. Investigation does involve a high degree of skill and
expertise. The details uncovered by investigation are used as evidence in virtually every
trial. Expert testimony by investigators in criminal trials is very common. When found to be
relevant and based on reliable methodology, such evidence and testimony are universally
accepted as a viable part of the proceedings in court. This still does not mean, however, that
investigation

is science. Unraveling

the case and determining what

is significant and

relevant will always depend on the skill of the investigator. Each case is different, and there
is an infinite variety of information that may be available to be discovered. There are
no standardized algorithms or procedures that will solve every case. There will never be
a time when we can simply feed all of the facts about a case into a computer, and the
computer will tell us what is significant or how the case is to be solved.

Although

investigation is not science, investigation contributes substantially to legal proceedings, and

the evidence and expert testimony provided by investigators will continue to be a valuable
part of the process.
Some research scientists have expressed the view that if we just conduct enough research,
and define and study nearly infinite panoply of parameters; someday the process of
investigation will become a scientific process that can be accomplished by applying a set
algorithm which does not depend on the skill and judgment of the investigator. There is no
reason to believe or to hope that this will ever happen. It is our view that science will
11

not, and should not; take the place of skilled criminal investigation. The infinite variety of
factors in a crime, and the intimate involvement of human beings in every aspect of the
crime, insures that the judgment and skill of the investigator will always be a necessary
ingredient in criminal investigations. Science will never make skilled investigators
obsolete, and should not attempt to do so.
The process of determining which items to use as probe stimuli will always depend on the
skill and judgment of the investigator, and will never be accomplished just by applying some
set scientific algorithm in the absence of human judgment. Ultimately, the judge and jury
will decide whether the evidence uncovered by the investigator and embodied in the probe
stimuli is convincing regarding the guilt or innocence of the suspect.
5.2 Phase 2: Interview of Subject:
Once evidence has been accumulated through investigation, and before the Brain
Fingerprinting test is conducted to determine if the evidence can be linked to the suspect, it
can in some cases be very valuable to obtain the suspects account of the situation. For
example, if an investigation shows that specific fingerprints are found at the scene of a
murder, a suspect can be interviewed to determine if there may be some legitimate reason
that his prints are there. If the suspects story is that he was never at the scene of the crime,
then a match between his fingerprints and the fingerprints at that scene would be highly
incriminating. If, on the other hand, the suspects story is that he was at the scene for some
legitimate reason just before the crime, then fingerprints must be interpreted differently,
particularly if there is corroborating evidence of the suspects presence at the scene before the
crime.
The interview with the suspect may help to determine which scientific tests to conduct, or
how to conduct the tests. For example, a suspect may say that he entered and then left the
room where a murder was committed a short time before the murder, and that he never saw
or handled

the murder weapon.

In

this

context,

finding

that

the

suspects

fingerprints matched the fingerprints on the doorknob would have little value, but a
finding that his fingerprints matched those on the murder weapon would provide
incriminating evidence.

12

Prior to a Brain Fingerprinting test, an interview of the suspect is conducted. The suspect is
asked if he would have any legitimate reason for knowing any of the information that is
contained in the potential probe stimuli. This information is described without revealing
which stimuli are probes and which are irrelevant. For example, the suspect may be asked,
The newspaper reports, which you no doubt have read, say that the victim was struck with a
blunt object. Do you have any way of knowing whether that murder weapon was a
baseball bat, a broom handle, or a blackjack? If the suspect answers No, then a test
result indicating that his brain does indeed contain a record of which of these is the murder
weapon can provide evidence relevant to the case.
The suspect may have been exposed to information about the crime through an error on the
part of interrogators in previous interrogations, through familiarity with the scene or the
victim that has nothing to do with the crime, through hearsay from people directly or
indirectly involved, or through any number of other channels. It is vital that the suspect be
given a chance before the Brain Fingerprinting test to disclose any familiarity he may have
with the crime, so that any probes that he knows about for a legitimate reason can be
eliminated from the test. Recall that the probes contain crime-relevant information that the
suspect has no way of knowing except through having been present at the crime.
The targets are also discussed in the interview. Recall that the targets contain
information about the crime that the suspect knows whether he committed the crime or not,
and are used to establish a baseline brain response for

information known to be

significant to this subject in the context of the crime. For example, if media reports
known to the suspect have disclosed the location of a murder (e.g., behind Newton
Stadium), then the location of the murder could be used as a target stimulus.

In the

interview, the interviewer makes sure that the suspect does indeed know the information
contained in the target stimuli.
In the interview, the suspect is also given a list of all of the stimuli to be presented in the test,
without disclosing which stimuli are probes and which are irrelevant. The suspect is asked to
identify any stimuli that are significant to him for reasons that have nothing to do with the
crime. If any stimulus is significant to the suspect for reasons having nothing to do with the
crime, then that stimulus is eliminated from the test. For example, if the suspect claims to
13

know nothing about who committed the crime and to be unfamiliar with any of the other
people who are suspected of being involved, one of the probe stimuli may be the name of a
known accomplice. If that name also happens to be the name of the suspects brother-in-law,
then the stimulus would be significant to the suspect for reasons unrelated to the crime, and
this stimulus would be eliminated from the test. In this way, the interview sets the stage for
later interpretation of the test. If the suspect has just told investigators that none of the
stimuli are significant to him for any reason, and then the probe stimuli are revealed through
Brain Fingerprinting to be significant to the suspect in the context of the crime, this scientific
finding provides evidence relevant to the suspects involvement in the crime.
A frequently asked question is, What if one of the probe stimuli is significant to the suspect
for the wrong reason?

The interview serves to eliminate this potential confound, as

described above.
Things are significant to a person in context. The context of the probe stimuli in relation to
the crime is established in the interview, and prior to the Brain Fingerprinting test.
Immediately before each test, the context of the probe stimuli is established, and the probe
stimuli are described without being specifically named. For example, the subject is told, In
this test, you will see several items, one of which is the murder weapon. Then several
different stimuli are presented, including the murder weapon (e.g., baseball bat) and
several other options that would be equally plausible for an innocent person not familiar with
the crime (e.g., broom handle). We all have some familiarity with baseball bats and broom
handles, but in the context of the murder in which the baseball bat was the murder weapon
baseball bat will be significant for the perpetrator and not for an innocent suspect who does
not know what the murder weapon was.
In some cases, the interview will reveal that the suspect is already familiar with all of the
information that might be used to structure probe stimuli, for some reason unrelated to
committing the crime. For example, interrogators may have mistakenly revealed to the
suspect all that they know about the crime. In such a case, there is no remaining
information to be used to structure probe stimuli, and a Brain Fingerprinting test is not
conducted. If a Brain Fingerprinting test were conducted to test whether or not a suspect
knew details of a crime that had been told to him by investigators, the test would result in an
14

information present result, which would be correct. The probative value of such a result
with respect to committing the crime, however, would be nil. Such a test would only reveal,
correctly, that the suspect knows the information. Since the investigators already know for
certain that the suspect knows the information because they told it to him this result
would not provide any useful evidence with respect to solving the crime. This is why
a test is not conducted under such circumstances. Note that this is a limitation only on when
Brain Fingerprinting can be usefully applied, and not a limitation on the scientific accuracy
or validity of the technique. As with DNA, fingerprints, and every other science, there are
situations where a correct Brain Fingerprinting result is simply not useful in solving a
particular crime.
In short, Brain Fingerprinting determines scientifically and accurately what
information is stored in a persons brain.

It does not determine how that information got

there. In order for Brain Fingerprinting to be useful in identifying a perpetrator that is, in
order for a correct information present Brain Fingerprinting

result

to be useful

evidence regarding a suspects participation in a crime investigators must first

discover information that would be known to a perpetrator but not to an innocent suspect,
and ensure that the subject in question has not obtained that information through some means
other than participation in the crime. The interview contributes to this process.
Science is useful only when applied appropriately and intelligently. If the aim is solving a
crime or informing a judicial decision, then it is not useful to conduct scientific testing in a
vacuum, absent any consideration of what the results will mean in the context of the crime.
A test must be structured that will provide relevant and useful results. Also, once the results
have been obtained, they are useful only if they are interpreted in the light of the other
available evidence, as

in

the above example

regarding

fingerprints.

Brain

Fingerprinting is like all other sciences in this regard.

The interview serves to refine the selection of stimuli so that the test results will provide
useful and relevant information, to establish the relevance of the stimuli, to eliminate
potential confounds in the scientific test, and to provide a background for interpretation of
the test results once they are obtained.

15

5.3 Phase 3: Scientific Testing with Brain Fingerprinting:

It is in the Brain Fingerprinting test where science contributes to the process. Brain
Fingerprinting determines scientifically whether or not specific information is stored in a
specific persons brain.
Brain Fingerprinting is a standardized scientific procedure. The input for this scientific
procedure is the probe stimuli, which are formulated on the basis of the investigation and the
interview. The output of this scientific procedure is a determination of information present
or information absent for those specific probe stimuli, along with a statistical confidence
for this determination.

This determination is made according to a specific, scientific

algorithm, and does not depend on the subjective judgment of the scientist.
Brain Fingerprinting tells us the following, no more and no less: These specific details about
this crime are (or are not) stored in this persons brain. On the basis of this and all of the
other available evidence, a judge and jury make a determination of guilty or innocent.
It has been proven in the scientific arena, and also in court, that the science of Brain
Fingerprinting has the following attributes:
1. This science is testable and has been tested;
2. This science has been peer reviewed and published;
3. This science is accurate, has an error rate extremely close to zero, and has standard
procedures for its application;
4. This science is well accepted in the relevant scientific community.
These facts have been discussed extensively elsewhere, and will not be further elaborated
here. In legal proceedings, the science of Brain Fingerprinting may play a central role, but
not

an

all-inclusive

role.

The

Brain

Fingerprinting

test

is

preceded

by

an

investigation and followed by a legal determination, both of which fall outside the realm of
science.
Brain Fingerprinting determines scientifically what information is stored in a persons brain.
It does not determine how that information got there. In order for a determination that
certain information is (or is not) stored in a suspects brain to be useful to a judge and jury,
the significance of this finding with regard to the crime must be established.
16

This is

accomplished by the investigation and the interview, not by the Brain Fingerprinting test
itself. Brain Fingerprinting is similar to other sciences in this regard.

For example, as

discussed above, a fingerprint test can determine that a suspects fingerprints match the
fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, but the fingerprint test does not tell
us whether that was because the suspect is guilty or because he was at the scene
for a legitimate reason before the crime.
Science can only provide scientific data in the case of Brain Fingerprinting, a
determination of information present or information absent regarding specific details of a
crime in a specific brain. Science, no matter how accurate and valid, is only useful in the
context of an effective investigation. For example, the investigator must determine whether
or not there is some innocent, legitimate reason why a suspects fingerprints are at the scene
of the crime in order for the scientific finding of a fingerprint match to have value in legal
proceedings. In the absence of adequate investigation, science no matter how
and valid may have little weight in the judicial process.
is no exception.

accurate

Brain Fingerprinting

The investigation and interview that precede the scientific Brain

Fingerprinting test are necessary to provide the information to test, and to provide a
background as to the significance of the test vis--vis the crime once the scientific
results are obtained. The weight of the Brain Fingerprinting evidence, and its value to the
judge

and

jury

in making

their determination, depend

in part on

the effectiveness

and skillful execution of the investigation that precedes the scientific testing.
The science of Brain Fingerprinting does not tell us what information to test for. This is
determined according to the skill and judgment of the investigator which is in the end
evaluated by the judge and jury.
Brain Fingerprinting does not test whether a person is guilty of a crime. This is adjudicated
by the judge and jury. The question of guilt or innocence is a legal determination to be made
by a judge and jury, not a scientific one to be made by a scientist or a computer. What Brain
Fingerprinting does is to provide evidence that can be weighed by the judge and jury in
making their determination of guilt or innocence.
5.4 Phase 4: Adjudication of Guilt or Innocence:

17

The final step in the application of Brain Fingerprinting in legal proceedings is the
adjudication of guilt or innocence. This is entirely outside the realm of science. The
adjudication of guilt or innocence is the exclusive domain of the judge and jury. It is not the
domain of the investigator, or the scientist, or the computer. It is fundamental to our legal
system that decisions of guilt or innocence are made by human beings, juries of our peers, on
the basis of their human judgment and common sense. The question of guilt or innocence is
and will always remain a legal one, and not a scientific one. Science provides evidence, but a
judge and jury must weigh the evidence and decide the verdict.
5.5 The Role of Science in Legal Proceedings:
In legal proceedings, the scope of the science of Brain Fingerprinting and all other sciences

is

limited.

The

role

of Brain Fingerprinting

is

to

take

the

output

of

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

determination regarding the presence or absence of that information in a specific brain, and
thus to provide the judge and jury with evidence to aid in their determination of guilt or
innocence of a suspect.
As with the other forensic sciences, the science of Brain Fingerprinting does not tell us when
to run a test, whom to test, or what to test for. This is determined by the
investigator according to his skill and judgment, and evaluated by the judge and jury. Recall
the case of the possible murder by poisoning discussed above. All the science of forensic
toxicology tells us is that there is or is not ricin or cadmium in specific cadaver. Science does
not tell us to look for these specific poisons in this specific case. This is determined by the
investigator according to his skill and judgment.
Similarly, the science of Brain Fingerprinting does not tell us what information to test for.
Again, this information is accumulated by the investigator according to his skill and
judgment. Brain Fingerprinting tells us scientifically whether or not this specific
information is stored in a specific persons brain.
In the poisoning case mentioned above, science does not tell us whether a particular
suspect is guilty. This is determined by the judge and jury according to their human

18

judgment and common sense. The same is true of Brain Fingerprinting, and every other
scientific procedure.
Again, the science of Brain Fingerprinting does not tell us if a particular suspect is guilty or
not. Only a judge and jury can make a determination of guilt or innocence, and they make
this determination according to their human judgment, taking into account all of the scientific
and

other

evidence.

It

is

our

view

that

science, whether

it

be Brain

Fingerprinting or any other science, does not and should not seek to infringe the realm of the
judge and jury in making a determination of guilt or innocence.
Nor is science a substitute for skillful and effective investigation. Science depends on
investigation, which is outside the realm of science, to determine when to test, whom to test,
and what to test. The evidence provided by science and by investigation ultimately must be
weighed and evaluated by the human beings who are the judge and jury, on the basis of their
human judgment and common sense, in reaching their verdict regarding the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
It is fundamental to our legal system and essential to the cause of justice, that the judge and
jury must be supplied with all of the available evidence to aid them in reaching their verdict.
Brain Fingerprinting provides solid scientific evidence that must be weighed along with other
available evidence by the judge and jury. In our view, it would be a serious miscarriage of
justice to deny a judge and jury the opportunity to hear and evaluate the evidence provided
by the science of Brain Fingerprinting, when available, along with all of the other available
evidence. In the case of a suspect presenting Brain Fingerprinting evidence supporting a
claim of innocence, such a denial would also is unconscionable human rights violation.
Brain Fingerprinting is not a substitute for the careful deliberations of a judge and jury. It
can play a vital role in informing these deliberations, however, by providing accurate,
scientific evidence relevant to the issues at hand.

19

CHAPTER 6

CURRENT USES, APPLICATIONS & LIMITATIONS

The various applications are as follows:1. Test for several forms of employment, especially in dealing with sensitive military
and foreign intelligence screening.
2. Individuals who were information present and information absent
3. A group of 17 FBI agents and 4 non-agents were exposed to stimuli.
4. To detect symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, Mental Depression and other forms of
dementia including neurological disorders.
5. Criminal cases.
6. Advertisements (researches are being carried on).
7. Counter-Terrorism.
8. Security Testing.
6.1 Medical Applications:
The incidence of Alzheimers and other forms of dementia is growing rapidly throughout the
world. There is a critical need for a technology that enables early diagnosis economically and
that can also accurately measure the effectiveness of treatments for these diseases. Research
has now demonstrated that analysis of the P300 brainwave can show dementia onset and
progression. MERMER technology, developed and patented by Brain Fingerprinting
Laboratories, includes the P300 brainwave and extends it, providing a more sensitive
measure than the P300 alone. Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories is now developing diagnostic
and monitoring systems for Alzheimers using this exciting new technology.

20

With early diagnosis, the progression of Alzheimer's symptoms can often be delayed through
medications and dietary and lifestyle changes. Using the very precise measurements of
cognitive functioning available with this technology, pharmaceutical companies will be able
to determine more quickly the effects of their new medications and potentially speed FDA
approval. The non-invasive nature of P300/MERMER testing technology and the simplicity
of its administration will allow primary care physicians to monitor the progress of their
patients in their own offices and adjust treatments accordingly. An accurate, inexpensive and
easy to administer test for Alzheimers and dementia will improve the healthcare process
dramatically, and will also help to improve the quality of life for millions of people.

6.2 Advertising Applications:

How do we know what information people retain from a media campaign? There is a new
technology that allows us to measure scientifically if specific information, like a product
brand, is retained in a persons memory. Brain Fingerprinting testing adds a whole new
dimension to the methods of measuring advertising effectiveness, going well beyond
subjective surveys and focus groups. The implications for the advertising Industry are very
exciting! Here are some of the possibilities:
1) What specific information do people retain from advertising?
Do they remember the product, the company, the retailer, the website, pricing and
promotional information, etc.?

21

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

What do people pay attention to or respond to the most in an ad what gets their attention?
3) Which type of media is most effective?
If an advertising campaign uses TV, radio, magazine, web banners, billboards, newspapers,
email and direct mail, which of the media have the most effect on which client base and how
do those results vary with demographics?
4) What commercial is the most effective for a single product?
In an advertising campaign that uses multiple commercials or multiple printed messages,
which version is the most effective at reaching the target audience?
5) How effective is the product branding strategy?
Does a person or group of people remember the specific brand being advertised? If so, how
does its recognition compare with other brands? Which branding campaigns are most
effective for both new and established brands?
6) How effective is an ad campaign in different parts of the world?
If the same advertising campaign is run in various parts of the world, how does its
effectiveness vary from area to area? What specific aspects of the message are retained by
people in different countries? Do some areas respond differently to types of media?
7) What is the correlation between the campaign and the point-of-sale?
How do the various campaigns and the types of media affect awareness at point-of-product
with potential buyers in a superstore? How does this media type and frequency vary in
effectiveness with potential buyers on-line or with catalog users?
8) How do the effects of campaigns vary with the influence of time?
How does the specific information retained by an individual or group of people vary over
time? At what rate does the impact of an advertising campaign degrade or have diminishing
impact? For example, a specific advertising campaign may have a strong impact short term,
22

while another campaign causes the information to be retained over a longer period of time.
How do these results vary with multiple types of media, product types and demographics?
6.3 Security Testing:
Brain Finger-printing technology can play a significant role in Security Testing when
investigators know specific details of a crime, training or group affiliation. It can also
determine if a person has specific "classified" or confidential information stored in their
brain. Typical applications include:
1) Visa Applications2) 2nd Level Testing3) Polygraph "False-Positive"4) 2nd Level Testing5)
Corporate Security6) Insurance Fraud7) Security Clearances8) Computer Hacking
6.4 Counter-Terrorist Applications:
Brain Finger-printing technology can determine the presence or absence of specific
information, such as terrorist training and associations. This exciting new technology can
help address the following critical elements in the fight against terrorism: 1) Aid in
determining who has participated in terrorist acts, directly or indirectly. 2) Aid in identifying
trained terrorists with the potential to commit future terrorist acts, even if they are in a
sleeper cell and have not been active for years. 3) Help to identify people who have
knowledge or training in banking, finance or communications and who are associated with
terrorist teams and acts. 4) Help to determine if an individual is in a leadership role within a
terrorist organization.
One fundamental difference between a terrorist and an innocent suspect is that the terrorist
has detailed knowledge of terrorist activities and an innocent person does not. A terrorist has
committed a crime, received training in terrorism or worked with others in planning terrorist
attacks. The innocent suspect does not have this type of information stored in his brain.
Brain Finger-printing technology is based on the principle that the brain is central to all
human acts. In a terrorist act, there may or may not be peripheral evidence such as
fingerprints or DNA, but the brain of the perpetrator is always there, planning, executing, and
recording the crime. The terrorist has knowledge of organizations, training and plans that an
innocent person does not have. Until the invention of Brain Fingerprinting testing, there was
23

no scientific way to detect this fundamental difference. Brain Fingerprinting testing provides
an accurate, economical and timely solution to the central problem in the fight against
terrorism. It is now possible to determine scientifically whether or not a person has terrorist
training and knowledge of terrorist activities.
Brain Finger-printing testing can determine quickly and accurately whether or not specific
knowledge is present or absent in an individual. In a Brain Fingerprinting test, words,
pictures or sounds relevant to a crime, terrorist act or terrorist training are presented by a
computer, along with other irrelevant images and sounds. Electrical brain responses are
measured non-invasively through a patented headband equipped with sensors. A computer
then analyzes the brain responses and determines whether or not the specific information is
stored in the brain of the suspect. The results are not affected by the willingness of the person
being tested to tell the truth. By testing for specific information, Brain Fingerprinting
technology can accurately distinguish between a trained terrorist and an innocent person who
may have knowledge of certain locations, people and events for legitimate reasons.
Brain Fingerprinting testing detects whether or not specific information is stored in a
persons brain, not truth or falsehood. In fact, no questions are asked and no answers are
given during a Brain Fingerprinting test. Brain Fingerprinting testing cannot be used for
general, non-specific testing, something for which no reliable facts exist against which to
compare the subjects answer. For example, a general question like Are you a terrorist? is
not something that can be addressed by Brain Fingerprinting technology. However, the
recognition of specific information from terrorist training or of individuals at a training camp
can be detected. Investigators must have reliable, factual details from which to draw the
information that will be used to structure the Brain Fingerprinting test.
Any known legitimate means through which a subject may have encountered crime or
terrorist-relevant information are examined prior to conducting a Brain Fingerprinting test.
Standard protocols ensure that the individual has a chance to reveal any circumstances
through which he may have had legitimate access to the crime-relevant information in
question. Any information the suspect has obtained through legitimate means is eliminated
from consideration before the test is administered. A suspect is tested only on information
that he has no legitimate means of knowing, information he denies knowledge of, and for
24

which he has no legitimate explanation if it turns out that the information is indeed stored in
his brain.
With the Brain Fingerprinting system, a significant scientific breakthrough has now
become a practical applied technology. A new era in security and intelligence gathering has
begun. Now, terrorists and those supporting terrorism can be identified quickly and
accurately. No longer should any terrorist be able to evade justice for lack of evidence. And
there is no reason why an innocent individual should be falsely imprisoned or convicted of
terrorist activity. A Brain Fingerprinting test can determine with an extremely high degree of
accuracy those who are involved with terrorist activity and those who are not.
6.5 Other Applications:
In

advertising, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will offer

significant

advances

in

measuring campaign and media effectiveness. Most advertising programs today are
evaluated subjectively using focus groups. We will be able to offer significantly more
advanced, scientific methods to help determine the effectiveness of campaigns and be
very cost competitive with current methodologies. This technology will be able to help
determine what information is actually retained in memory by individuals. For example, in a
branding campaign do people remember the brand, the product, etc. and how do the results
vary with demographics? We will also be able to measure the comparative effectiveness of
multiple media types.
In the insurance industry, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will be able to help reduce the
incidence of

insurance

fraud by determining

if an

individual has knowledge of

fraudulent or criminal acts. The same type of testing can help to determine if an
individual has specific knowledge related to computer crimes where there is typically no
witness or physical evidence.
6.6 Limitations of Brain Finger-Printing
The limitations of this technique are discussed with examples (in crime scenarios) as follows:
1. Brain fingerprinting detects information-processing brain responses that reveal what
information is stored in the subjects brain. It does not detect how that information got there.
25

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
show

that

test, because

the resulting information present response would simply

the suspect knew the details about the crime knowledge which he already

admits and which he gained at the crime scene whether he was a witness or a perpetrator.
2. Another case where brain fingerprinting is not applicable would be one wherein a suspect
and an alleged victim say, of an alleged sexual assault agree on the details of what was
said and done, but disagree on the intent of the parties. Brain fingerprinting
detects only

information, and not

intent. The

fact

that

the suspect knows

the

uncontested facts of the circumstance does not tell us which partys version of the intent
is correct.
3. In a case where the suspect knows everything that the investigators know because he has
been exposed to all available information in a previous trial, there is no available information
with which to construct probe stimuli, so a test cannot be conducted.
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.
examining

reports,

interviewing

witnesses, and

visiting

By

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

26

test showed that the record in Harringtons brain did not contain these salient features of the
crime, but only the details about the crime that he had learned after the fact.
4. Obviously, in structuring a brain fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoid including
information that has been made public. Detecting that a suspect knows information he
obtained by reading a newspaper would not be of use in a criminal investigation, and
standard brain

fingerprinting procedures eliminate all

such

information

from

the

structuring of a test. News accounts containing many of the details of a crime do not interfere
with the development of a brain fingerprinting test, however; they simply limit the material
that can be tested. Even in highly publicized cases, there are almost always many details that
are known to the investigators but not released to the public, and these can be used as stimuli
to test the subject for knowledge that he would have no way to know except by committing
the crime.
5. Another

situation where brain

fingerprinting

is not applicable

is one where

the

authorities have no information about what crime may have taken place. For example, an
individual may disappear under circumstances where a specific suspect had a strong
motive to murder the individual. Without any evidence, authorities do not know whether
a murder took place, or the individual decided to take a trip and tell no one, or some other
criminal or non-criminal event happened. If there is no known information on which a
suspect could be tested, a brain fingerprinting test cannot be structured.
6. Similarly, brain fingerprinting is not applicable for general screening, for example, in
general pre-employment or employee screening wherein any number of undesirable activities
or intentions may be relevant. If the investigators have no idea what crime or undesirable act
the individual may have committed, there is no way to structure appropriate stimuli to detect
the telltale knowledge that would result from committing the crime. Brain
can, however, be used

for

specific

fingerprinting

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

27

7. Brain fingerprinting does not detect lies. It simply detects information. No questions are
asked or answered during a brain fingerprinting test. The subject neither lies nor tells

the

truth during a brain fingerprinting test, and the outcome of the test is unaffected by
whether he has lied or told the truth at any other time. The outcome of information present
or information

absent depends on whether

the relevant information is stored in the

brain, and not on what the subject says about it.

8. Brain fingerprinting does not determine whether a suspect is guilty or innocent of a crime.
This is a legal determination to be made by a judge and jury, not a scientific determination
to be made by a computer or a scientist. Brain

fingerprinting can provide scientific

evidence that the judge and jury can weigh along with the other evidence in reaching their
decisions regarding the crime. To remain within the realm of scientific testimony, however, a
brain fingerprinting expert witness must testify only regarding the scientific test and
information stored in the brain revealed by the test, as Dr. Farwell did in the Harrington case.
Like the testimony of other forensic scientists, a brain fingerprinting scientists testimony
does not include interpreting the scientific evidence in terms of guilt or innocence. A DNA
expert may testify that two DNA samples match, one from the crime scene and one from the
suspect, but he does not conclude this man is a murderer. Similarly, a brain fingerprinting
expert can testify to the outcome of the test that the subject has specific information stored in
his brain about the crime (or not), but the interpretation of this evidence in terms of guilt or
innocence is solely up to the judge and jury.
9. Just as all witness testimony depends on the memory of the witness, brain
fingerprinting depends on the memory of the subject. Like all witness testimony, brain
fingerprinting

results must be viewed

in

light of

the

limitations on human memory

and the factors affecting it (Harrington v. State, PBS 2004). Brain fingerprinting
can provide scientific evidence regarding what information is stored in a subjects brain. It
does not determine what

information should be, could be, or would be stored in the

subjects 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

28

significance and weight of the brain fingerprinting evidence in making a determination of

whether or not the subject committed the crime.
10. Like all forensic science techniques, brain fingerprinting depends on the evidencegathering process which lies outside the realm of science to provide the evidence to be
scientifically

tested. Before

investigator must discover

a brain

relevant

fingerprinting

information

about

test

can be

the

conducted,

crime or

an

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.

29

CONCLUSION
Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new scientific technology for solving crimes,
identifying perpetrators, and exonerating innocent suspects, with a record of 100% accuracy
in research with US government agencies, actual criminal cases, and other applications.
The technology fulfills an urgent need for governments, law enforcement agencies,
corporations, investigators, crime victims, and falsely accused innocent suspects.

30

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1]. Picton TW. Handbook of electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology: human
[2].
[3].
[4].
[5].

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

www.brainwavescience.com
www.searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition
www.slideshare.net
Wikipedia

31