INTRODUCTION

This report describes new and potentially revolutionary technology for the detection of concealed information in ones brain and this technology is based on non-invasive recording of electrical brain activity. The electrical brain activity pattern recorded and of interest is a specific multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MER) that occurs within less than one second after an examinee is visually presented (via a computer screen) with words, short phrases, acronyms, or pictures that are recognized and cognitively processed by that subject. This phenomenon, coupled with its absence following the presentation of the same information to a subject for whom the material is unknown or irrelevant, is the basis for discriminating between a subject with “information present” and “information absent.” This would potentially allow for the determination of a whole host of issues of interest to the law enforcement and intelligence communities, e.g.,

• Does a suspect have knowledge connecting him to specific investigated criminal activity?
  
• Does an intelligence source have knowledge of the internal workings of a hostile intelligence agency that would indicate that he was an intelligence officer of that agency rather than who he claimed to be?
  
• Has an informant, a debriefed spy, or a suspected member of a criminal organization accurately described the entirety of his actions and knowledge?

The potential benefit of this program extends to a broad range of law enforcement applications, including organized crime, violent crime, white-collar crime, drug-related crime, foreign counterintelligence, non-traditional targets, and other categories of casework as well. This new technology promises to be of tremendous benefit both at the national level and for state and local law enforcement agencies.

When a crime is committed, traces of the event are left at the scene of the crime and elsewhere. The task of the investigators is to reconstruct what has happened and who has been involved, based on the collection of such evidence. In addition to the physical and circumstantial evidence that can be obtained, there is one place where an extensive record of the crime is stored — in the brain of the perpetrator. If this record could be tapped, criminal investigation and counterintelligence could be revolutionized.

Until recently, the only method of attempting to discern what information regarding a crime or other situation of interest was stored in the brain of a suspect or witness has been (1) to interrogate the subject, and (2) to attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying.

In a conventional polygraph test, emotion-driven physiological responses to relevant questions (regarding the situation under investigation) are compared to responses to control questions, which are invasive, personal questions not relevant to the issue at hand that are designed to be emotionally and physiologically disturbing to the subject. A greater response to the relevant questions leads to a deceptive ("guilty") determination; a greater response to the control questions leads to a non-deceptive ("innocent") determination. In an attempt to avoid a false positive result (non-deceptive subject falsely found deceptive), the examiner must ask penetrating questions in the pre-test interview to find personal material sufficiently disturbing and stress-producing to produce effective control questions. Thus, in conventional polygraphy, innocent subjects — even if they are correctly determined to be innocent and truthful — are deceived and subjected to a highly invasive and stressful situation both during the pre-test interview and during the test.

This shortcoming is generally justified by the correct end result of finding an innocent subject non-deceptive to the relevant questions, but could be avoided altogether with Brain Fingerprinting technology, which depends entirely on information processing brain activity (i.e., recognition and processing of significant information) rather than an artful and disturbing manipulation designed to produce emotional and physiological responses to control question material. In fact, the pre-test interview for a Brain Fingerprinting technology exam is a very clinical, emotionally neutral experience for all subjects, whether or not they have specific information relevant to the situation under investigation. The in-test portion of the Brain Fingerprinting technology exam does not involve the asking of any questions, only the non-invasive recording of brain electrical activity as subject views verbal or pictorial information on a computer screen.

Dr. Farwell, the Director and Chief Scientist of Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc., Fairfield, Iowa, and his colleagues have been conducting research on this new technique for several years. Results have shown this technique to be capable of producing an "information absent" or "information present" determination, with a strong statistical confidence, in approximately 90% of the cases studied. All of the determinations were accurate: there were no false positives and no false negatives. In the other 10% of cases the mathematical algorithm determined that there was insufficient information to make determination.

Another study conducted by Dr. Farwell in collaboration with SSA Drew C. Richardson, Ph.D., FSRTC, FBI Laboratory, has also shown Brain Fingerprinting testing to be capable of detecting whether or not an individual has participated in FBI new agent training at the Academy. New FBI agents in training at the FBI Academy at Quantico were correctly identified as such, and individuals unfamiliar with the FBI were also correctly classified. The application of this technique in foreign counterintelligence is obvious: if this technology can be utilized to detect an FBI agent, it can also be used to detect agents of other organizations, including intelligence organizations, international criminal organizations, and terrorist groups.

The far-reaching implications of possessing technology to accomplish this end are obvious. With the potential availability of such technology, it is felt imperative that this methodology be further tested as soon as possible, that the research and development necessary to make this a practical technique for field use be undertaken immediately, and that the technique be implemented as soon as possible by law enforcement agencies, if and when found valid and feasible.

A Brief Historical Perspective

Historical Background

Throughout history, humans in society have had a need to determine the identity of individuals who have committed crimes. In the last century, there has been unprecedented progress in developing accurate, scientific methodologies for connecting a suspect with a crime. This paper reports the discovery of Brain Fingerprinting, a new technology that uses brain waves to connect evidence stored in the brain of a suspect with evidence connected with a crime, and discusses Brain Fingerprinting from the perspective of scientific progress in criminal investigations.

The promise of this new technology is to provide an accurate and scientific means through which perpetrators can be identified, and the innocent can be cleared, based on the evidence from the one place where a comprehensive record of every crime is stored: in the brain of the perpetrator. Brain Fingerprinting has been preceded by two major breakthroughs in criminal investigation in the last hundred years.

 Fingerprinting

One of the great breakthroughs of modern criminal investigation came when it was discovered that human fingerprints could uniquely connect an individual with a crime. Beginning at around the turn of the century, investigators began to collect and preserve a new kind of evidence in criminal cases: The traces left behind at crime scenes from the fingers of perpetrators. As is now well known, these traces found at the scene of a crime can be matched with the patterns on the fingers of suspects to place the suspect at the crime scene. Special procedures must be applied to collect and preserve fingerprinting evidence properly.

DNA Fingerprinting

A second breakthrough was the recent discovery of "DNA fingerprinting." Like fingerprints, DNA can be used to connect or match evidence that is collected at the crime scene -- in this case, biological samples -- with evidence on the person of the criminal -- the DNA. DNA can be used to clear a suspect by showing that evidence from the crime scene does mot match evidence on the person of the suspect.

Like conventional fingerprinting, DNA fingerprinting can only be successfully applied when investigators collect and preserve the specific kind of evidence demanded by the technique. DNA fingerprinting is much more complicated and difficult than conventional fingerprinting, because the DNA is much more subtle and complex than the print of a finger. In fact, only a small portion of the DNA is involved in any DNA fingerprinting procedure -- a full DNA "fingerprint", mapping the entire DNA, would be virtually unobtainable with current scientific techniques.

Highly Successful Techniques

With proper collection and preservation of evidence and proper scientific technique, applied by properly trained individuals, DNA fingerprinting in its present state of development can be a highly accurate means of identifying perpetrators. Both DNA and conventional fingerprinting have also been highly successful in exonerating the falsely accused. DNA fingerprinting has recently resulted in the release of a number of individuals from prison who were falsely convicted of serious crimes.

Drawbacks of Fingerprinting and DNA Fingerprinting

Although both DNA fingerprinting and conventional fingerprinting are highly accurate, they share two drawbacks.

Additional investigative work and skill required

Both techniques involve considerable extra work and skill for investigators. Collecting and preserving fingerprints and biological samples involve significant costs in time, resources, and money.

From present-day perspective, this difficulty seems trivial compared to the benefits of the techniques, but it was not always considered so. Now that conventional fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting are established as universally applied procedures, the additional work they require is almost taken for granted. Since both techniques are highly accurate, there is little doubt that the additional work is worth the effort.

Rarity of Fingerprints and DNA Samples

This drawback is more serious. DNA samples and fingerprints are found in only a very small percentage of cases about one in a hundred. This, of course, does not mean that the techniques are not worth pursuing. A technique that provides an accurate identification of the perpetrator even in one percent of cases is unquestionably of high value.

Need for Other Scientific Techniques to Identify Perpetrators

There is a tremendous need for other accurate, scientific means of matching evidence from the crime scene with evidence on the persons of suspects, particularly in the cases where no fingerprints or DNA samples are left at the scene.

This need has inspired some scientists to ask, "What does the criminal take with him from the crime scene that records his involvement in the crime?" The answer to this question, of course, is the brain. The brain of the criminal is always there, recording all of the events like a video camera -- and like his DNA and fingerprints, the brain always stays with the criminal.

The problem, until recently, has been that there was no way to detect this record of the crime stored in the brain. But now we are having a technology that can provide an accurate and scientific means through which perpetrators can be identified, and the innocent can be cleared, based on the evidence from the one place where a comprehensive record of every crime is stored: in the brain of the perpetrator, and the technique is known as Brain Fingerprinting.

BRAIN FINGERPRINTING

Brain Fingerprinting is a scientific technique invented by Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell to determine whether or not specific information is stored in an individual's brain. We do this by measuring brain-wave responses to words, phrases, sounds or pictures presented by a computer. We present details about a crime, training or other types of specific knowledge, mixed in a sequence with other, irrelevant items. We use details that the person being tested would have encountered in the course of committing a crime, but that an innocent person would have no way of knowing. We can tell by the brainwave response if a person recognizes the stimulus or not. If the suspect recognizes the details of the crime, this indicates that he has a record of the crime stored in his brain.

Brain fingerprinting technology utilizes multifaceted electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA) to detect information stored in the human brain. A memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MERMER) is elicited when an individual recognizes and processes an incoming stimulus that is significant or noteworthy. When an irrelevant stimulus is seen, the P300/MERMER is absent. This pattern occurs within less than a second after the stimulus presentation, and can be readily detected using EEG amplifiers and a computerized signal-detection algorithm.

What! Something sounds like MERMER or P300 in previous paragraph. You might be thinking what’s all this stuff. Lets have a brief idea about them.

Research has shown that brain information processing of noteworthy stimuli results in a characteristic brain electrical response known as a memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MERMER). One of the most easily measured aspects of this response (and the only one measured in early research) is an electrically positive component, maximal at the midline parietal area of the head, with a peak latency of approximately 300 to 800 msec. It is referred to variously as P300, P3, P3b, or late positive component (LPC). Another more recently discovered aspect of the MERMER is an electrically negative component, maximal at the midline frontal area, with an onset latency of approximately 800 to 1200 msec. These components can be readily recognized through signal averaging procedures.

Now coming back to the main topic how brain fingerprinting works.

Brain fingerprinting technology incorporates the following procedure: A sequence of words, phrases, or pictures is presented on a video monitor under computer control. Each stimulus appears for a fraction of a second. Three types of stimuli are presented:

1. Target: The targets are made relevant and   noteworthy to all subjects.

2. Irrelevant:  Irrelevant stimuli have no relation to the situation under investigation.

3. Probe: These stimuli are relevant to the situation under investigation.

For each probe stimulus, there are approximately four irrelevant stimuli. The stimuli are structured such that the probes and irrelevants are indistinguishable for a subject lacking specific information relevant to the situation under investigation. That is, if a given probe is an article of clothing relevant to the crime, four articles of clothing irrelevant to the crime are also presented; if a particular probe stimulus is a name, there are four irrelevant stimuli that are also names, and so on.

In addition to the probes and the irrelevants, a third type of stimuli, designated as targets, is presented. About one-sixth of the stimuli are targets, one for each probe. The subject is given a list of the targets, and is required to press a particular button whenever a target is presented. (For all other stimuli, the subject is instructed to press another button.) Each target is the same type of item as one of the probes and the several corresponding irrelevants. The targets, since they are recognized and require a particular response, are noteworthy for all subjects. The irrelevants are not noteworthy for any subjects. The probes are noteworthy only to the subjects who possess the knowledge necessary to recognize them — that is, the knowledge specific to the situation under investigation.

The subject is given a list of the target stimuli and instructed to press a particular button in response to targets and another button in response to all other stimuli. Since the targets are noteworthy for the subject, they elicit a P300/MERMER. Most of the non-target stimuli are irrelevant, having no relation to the situation under investigation. These irrelevants do not elicit a P300/MERMER. Some of the non-target stimuli are relevant to the situation under investigation. These relevant stimuli are referred to as probes. For a subject who as knowledge of the situation under investigation, the probes are noteworthy due to the subject's knowledge of that situation, and therefore probes elicit a P300/MERMER when the subject is "knowledgeable". Probes are indistinguishable from the irrelevants for a subject who is not knowledgeable, and thus probes do not elicit a P300/MERMER if the subject has no knowledge of the situation under investigation.

A subject lacking specific information relevant to the situation under investigation recognizes only two types of stimuli: relevant, noteworthy, rare targets and irrelevant, frequent stimuli (consisting in fact of true irrelevants, plus probes — which he does not distinguish as being different from the irrelevants). The targets elicit a P300/MERMER, and the irrelevants and (unrecognized) probes do not. A subject with specific information relevant to the situation under investigation, however, recognizes a second noteworthy type of stimuli, namely the probes, which are relevant to a crime or other situation in which he has participated. Thus, for a guilty subject, the probes, too, elicit a P300/MERMER.

What this experimental design accomplishes, essentially, is to create a two-stimulus series for an individual without the specific information under investigation, and a three-stimulus series (with the same stimuli) for an individual who possesses knowledge of the specific information under investigation. The targets provide a template for a response to stimuli known to be particularly noteworthy — P300/MERMER-producing stimuli. The irrelevants provide a template for a response to stimuli that are irrelevant — non-P300/MERMER-producing stimuli.

The determination of information present or information absent consists of comparing the probe responses to the target responses, which contain a P300/MERMER, and to the irrelevant responses, which do not. If the probe responses are similar to the target responses, one can conclude that the subject recognizes the probes, which only someone knowledgeable about the crime would do and therefore is "knowledgeable". If the brain responses to the probes are like those to the irrelevants — i.e., lacking a P300/MERMER — then the subject can be determined to be lacking in knowledge of the situation under investigation. (Note that what is detected is not actually guilt or innocence, but knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the situation under investigation.) In order for the test to be an effective indicator of knowledge or lack thereof, stimuli must be structured such that only a knowledgeable person would recognize the probe stimuli.

The table presented below summarizes the three types of stimuli presented and the predicted brain responses to each type of stimulus.

TYPES OF STIMULI AND PREDICTED BRAIN RESPONSES

SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS

Validity (excluding inconclusive) 100%

Brain Fingerprinting System: Detection of FBI Agent Knowledge 

"Information Present" Brain Response

A. Parietal Area

                        B. Frontal Area

Stimulus Type:  Target _____ Irrelevant......... Probe_____

 Brain Fingerprinting System: Detection of FBI Agent Knowledge 

"Information Absent" Brain Response

1. Parietal Area

B. Frontal Area 

Stimulus Type:  Target _____ Irrelevant......... Probe_____

Instrumental Requirements for Brain Fingerprinting

The equipment required for Brain Fingerprinting technology consists of a

• Personal computer (e.g., 486 - 66 MHz Gateway 2000)
  
• A data acquisition board (e.g., Scientific Solutions Lab   Master AD),
  
• A graphics card for driving two monitors from one PC (e.g., Color graphics Super Dual VGA)
  
• A four-channel EEG amplifier system (e.g., Neuroscience)
  
• Software developed by the Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories for data acquisition and analysis.

 The electrodes used to measure electrical brain activity are held in place by a special headband designed and constructed by Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories for this purpose. (This new method for attaching electrodes is more convenient and comfortable for the subject as well as quicker and easier for the operator than previously available methods.) The software necessary to present the stimuli, collect the electroencephalographic data, and analyze the data has been developed by Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories. Benefits of Brain Fingerprinting

• Identify crime perpetrators quickly and scientifically.
  
• Record of 100% accuracy.
  
• Confirm innocence; clear the falsely accused, and the falsely convicted.
  
• Provide immediate Scientific Result: Information Present or Information Absent. Provide the accused and the investigators with an accurate, conclusive Scientific Result: Information Present or Information Absent, i.e., the crime-relevant information is or is not stored in the brain of the suspect, within a few hours (same day).
  
• Identify terrorists and members of gangs, criminal and intelligence organizations.
  
• Discover criminal, espionage, and terrorist plots against individuals, corporations, governments, and society; Contribute to the reduction of potential personal injury and enormous cash and property losses, which would have ensued, had not the plots been uncovered.

• Reduce expenditure of money and other resources in law enforcement. Significantly decrease the high cost in time, money, human and materials resources normally associated with criminal investigations, by quickly and accurately identifying the perpetrator and exonerating innocent suspects.
  
• Increase the number of perpetrators identified. Identify an increased number of perpetrators as compared with other scientific and nonscientific methods.
• Reduce evasion of justice. Decrease the number of perpetrators that escape justice because of lack of witnesses or lack of evidence.
  
• Provide scientific proof. Present scientific proof of the suspect's presence or absence from the crime scene.
  
• Reduce costs and complexities. Provide a straightforward, scientific method of distinguishing between perpetrators and innocent suspects.
  
• Access criminal evidence in the brain. Evidence of a crime is virtually always stored in the brain of the perpetrator; fingerprints and DNA, though accurate and highly useful, can only be collected in approximately 1% of all criminal cases.
  
• Provide cost-effective results. By quickly and scientifically identifying perpetrators, Farwell Brain Fingerprinting can potentially save a substantial portion of the money now being spent on investigating and adjudicating crimes.
  
• Save costs associated with pursuing the wrong suspects. Eliminate the need to expend valuable resources on pursuing other suspects once Farwell Brain Fingerprinting as the perpetrator has identified a guilty suspect, or Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has cleared innocent suspects. This, of course, also serves to protect the rights of the innocent.
  
• Provide implementation in the field under varying conditions.
  
• Support the right to a speedy and fair trial.

An illustrative field application of Brain Fingerprinting

On April 12, 1994, a young police officer walked into the police headquarters of a major metropolitan area. He had been accused on multiple counts of a felony drug charge. The evidence against him was substantial. His accuser, who had already confessed his own involvement, had identified the officer by name and description, and picked the officer's photograph out of a pictorial lineup. The accuser provided extensive details of meeting times and places, and exchanges of drugs and money. There was extensive corroborating evidence that the crimes had taken place. The officer denied any criminal activity. He admitted telephoning the accuser once (for a legitimate reason), but denied meeting him and denied all of the alleged drug-related transactions. The officer admitted having possessed the drug in question at certain times, but only under entirely legal and legitimate circumstances. Both men had passed polygraph tests, maintaining fundamentally contradictory accounts.

The officer met Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell, Chief Scientist and Chairman of Human Brain Research Laboratory, in a small room at the police headquarters. Earlier, Dr. Farwell had already completed the process of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting Collection of Crime-Scene Evidence in conjunction with investigators. Dr. Farwell explained and initiated the process of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting Brain Evidence Collection using electroencephalographic (EEG) sensors attached to a headband that was placed on the officer's head and connected to the Farwell Brain Fingerprinting System. Then, seated in front of a computer screen, the officer began to observe words and phrases (evidence), which were flashed on one of the video monitors. Some of evidence was relevant to the crimes in question -- meeting places, sums of money, and vehicles and buildings in which drug transactions had allegedly taken place. On another video monitor, Dr. Farwell observed multicolored plots of the officer's brain responses to each of the items flashed on the monitor, along with matrices of numbers and other data.

After an hour or more, the Farwell Brain Fingerprinting Brain Evidence Collection was completed and Dr. Farwell entered the computer commands to implement the Farwell Brain Fingerprinting Computer Evidence Analysis. In less than a minute, a plot of the officer's brain responses appeared on the screen, along with the Farwell Brain Fingerprinting Scientific Result: "Information Absent".

Farwell Brain Fingerprinting Scientific Result of Information Absent means that the suspect’s brain did not contain a record of the evidence taken from the crime scene. Despite the testimony of his accuser and the extensive circumstantial evidence, Farwell Brain Fingerprinting proved that no crime-relevant evidence was stored in this officer's brain -- he did not know the details about the crime; he did not recognize the evidence that was flashed on the video monitor -- and therefore he could not possibly have committed the crime. The investigation was renewed, and there is now substantial, independent evidence that the officer was indeed innocent, and that his accuser and another individual framed the officer in order to deflect suspicion from another former police officer who had carried out the crimes of which the officer was accused. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting had cleared an innocent man.

Brain Fingerprinting Testing and Memory Issues

 In any situation involving human memory, questions can be raised regarding the fallibility of human memory and factors that might influence memory. Such questions can in principle be raised in the Harrington and Harris cases.  The same issues can be raised in any other forensic situation involving human memory – and this includes all situations involving testimony by witnesses, victims, or perpetrators, alleged or actual.

 In the Harrington and Harris cases, Brain Fingerprinting® testing proved that the two men who had been convicted of murder did not have salient, significant facts regarding the respective murders stored in their brains.  Does this really prove they are innocent?  What if they committed the murders, and did not notice what they were doing, or forgot the important facts?  What if they had a physical or mental illness that impaired their memory?  What if they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs that tend to impair memory?

        This document seeks to clarify the issues related to memory in the application of Brain Fingerprinting, and to delineate what Brain Fingerprinting testing can prove scientifically, and what must be decided not by science or scientific experts but by a judge or jury.  

        In both the Harrington and Harris cases, Brain Fingerprinting testing proved two things: 1) that salient features of the crime were not stored in the suspect’s brain, and 2) that salient features of the alibi were stored in the suspect’s brain.  The latter finding shows that the suspect did not suffer from a failure of memory.  Brain Fingerprinting testing proved that both suspects’ brains contained a clear record of the events of the evening of the crime.  This record matched the respective accounts of the events of the evening of the crime, as told by the alibi witnesses.  The records stored in the brains of the two suspects did not match the respective crime scenes.  

This illustrates one effective means to scientifically eliminate the possibility that the lack of a record of a crime stored in a suspect’s brain was due to some malfunction of memory, rather than due to innocence of the crime.  When Brain Fingerprinting testing proves not only that the record stored in the brain of the suspect does not match the crime scene, but also that it does match the alibi, this provides strong scientific evidence that the lack of a record of the crime stored in the brain is indeed due to non-participation in the crime rather than to some malfunction of the memory.

        The more general question of the fallibility of human memory is indeed the perennial problem of all legal proceedings that involve human beings.  This is by no means unique to Brain Fingerprinting.  In fact, the questions and issues surrounding human memory apply as much in every case involving testimony by humans regarding remembered events as they do cases involving Brain Fingerprinting testing evidence.  The human brain is an amazing instrument, but it is not perfect.  Every time a person participates in or witnesses an event, the imperfections of the human faculties come into play.  First of all, perception is not perfect.  A witness may see a man with a dark hat, mistake it for dark hair, and report seeing a dark-haired man.  Second, memory is not perfect.  A person, whether he is a witness or a perpetrator, may experience something and then forget.  Third, a person may be under the influence of some debilitating mental or physical illness or drug that compromises the system such that perception and/or memory is less effective than usual.

        What are the implications of the imperfections of human faculties for legal proceedings?  These issues are central to every legal proceeding that involves any kind of testimony or evidence connected with human beings.  Every time there is an alibi witness who testifies that he was with the suspect the whole time, and saw no crime, there are three possibilities: 1) His account is correct; 2) He was in fact with the accused, but the crime took place in his presence and he either did not perceive it or forgot about it (either because of mental or physical illness, drugs, poor perception or memory, or some other reason); 3) He knows the suspect committed the crime, and he is lying.

        The same three possibilities are there every time a suspect testifies on his own behalf.

        It is never possible, in principle, to be absolutely certain that any alibi witness (or any other witness) is actually a reliable witness, even if we are convinced that the witness is not lying.  If a witness says that the suspect did not commit the crime, it is still possible that he witnessed the suspect committing the crime, and just forgot about it.  In principle, we can never be absolutely sure that anyone in the area at the time did not commit a given crime.  You and I are quite sure that we did not commit the crimes that we read about in this morning's paper, but in principle we must admit that there is a possibility that we did commit these crimes and then forgot about it.  We can never absolutely prove otherwise.        

The effect of the fallibility of human memory and perception on Brain Fingerprinting testing is identical to the effect of these factors on the testimony of a witness.   Take, for example, the case of an alibi witness and a suspect who has been shown through Brain Fingerprinting testing to have no record of the salient features of the crime stored in his brain.  The alibi witness says that he remembers being with the suspect at the time of the crime, and has no memory of the suspect committing the crime.   Brain Fingerprinting testing demonstrates that the suspect also has no memory of the salient facts of the crime, and does have a memory of the alibi.

        One possible conclusion that the judge and jury may reach, upon considering this evidence along with all of the other available evidence, is that the suspect is innocent.   Another possibility that must be considered in every case, whether Brain Fingerprinting testing is used or not, is that the suspect committed the crime, the alibi witness witnessed the crime, and both of them forgot about it -- either due to extremely poor memory, drugs, physical or mental illness, or some other reason.  With or without Brain Fingerprinting, this is a possibility that can in principle never be entirely eliminated.

        What Brain Fingerprinting testing can do is to provide extremely strong scientific evidence that the record of the time of the crime stored in the suspect's brain does or does not contain the salient facts about the crime, and does or does not contain the salient facts about the alibi.  Brain Fingerprinting testing can prove that the suspect's brain does not have the salient details of the crime stored in it, that is, when the suspect does not remember or recognize the salient details of the crime.  It is up to a judge or jury to take this fact into account, along with all the other available facts, in coming to a verdict of guilty or not guilty.  

        Neither Brain Fingerprinting testing nor any other scientific technique proves a suspect innocent or guilty of a crime.  The determination of guilt or innocence is a legal matter, not a scientific one.  All Brain Fingerprinting testing or any other scientific technology can do is to provide a judge or jury with evidence, which they will take into account in their determination of guilt or innocence.  The specific evidence that Brain Fingerprinting testing provides is either 1) that salient facts about the crime, facts that the subject claims not to know and would have no way of knowing other than committing the crime, are in fact stored in the suspect’s brain; or 2) that these salient features of the crime, features that the suspect would have encountered if he had committed the crime, are not stored in the suspect’s brain.  Does this prove that the suspect is guilty or innocent?  No.  That is up to a judge or jury to decide, taking into account the Brain Fingerprinting testing evidence along with all of the other available evidence.

        There is an extensive literature on what makes events memorable, and we take that into account in structuring the stimuli for the Brain Fingerprinting testing tests in order to maximize the memorability of the items tested for.  Still, we can never be absolutely certain that a suspect who has no memory of the salient facts of the crime is innocent, any more that we can be absolutely certain that a truthful alibi witness didn't actually witness a crime and then forget about it.

        The determination of innocence or guilt, however, is not a scientific determination.  That is a legal determination.  Brain Fingerprinting testing detects the record of the crime stored in the brain, or a lack of that record.  The determination of Brain Fingerprinting testing is "information present" or "information absent."  This is science.  The judge and jury take the evidence provided by Brain Fingerprinting testing into account, along with all of the other available evidence, to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty.   This is not science, but rather the judicial process.    

        Judges and juries know that human perception and memory are imperfect, and that a witness or suspect may have been under the influence of some debilitating physical or mental condition or drug that could make these faculties even more imperfect than usual.  Whenever witness testimony is heard, and whenever Brain Fingerprinting testing evidence or any other evidence depending on human beings is presented, this imperfection must be taken into account, along with any evidence that this is a circumstance in which perception or memory may be more imperfect than usual.  

        This does not, however, mean that judges and juries should be disallowed to hear the testimony of witnesses, just because the memory of the witnesses may be imperfect or impaired for some reason.  Nor does it mean that judges and juries should be deprived of the evidence provided by Brain Fingerprinting, just because the memory of the suspect may also be imperfect or impaired for some reason.

        Brain Fingerprinting testing objectively detects the presence or absence of a record of the crime in the brain of the suspect, whatever the suspect says.  Brain Fingerprinting testing is non-assertive and non-testimonial.  The suspect neither lies nor tells the truth during the process.  No questions are asked or answered.  The question of the truth or veracity of the subject is irrelevant, just as it is with a fingerprinting or DNA testing.  The results detect a match or no match between something on the person of the suspect and something from the crime scene -- be it fingerprints, biological samples, or, in the case of Brain Fingerprinting, information stored in the brain.  This has nothing to do with what a person says about it, or whether he speaks the truth or lies.

        Neither Brain Fingerprinting testing nor any other scientific procedure, however, can absolutely eliminate the possibility that a suspect committed a specific crime.  When Brain Fingerprinting testing proves that a suspect lacks knowledge of the salient aspects of a crime, then, there are two possibilities: 1) he is innocent; 2) he committed the crime and either never knew it or forgot about it later.  (The latter could be due to defective memory, physical or mental illness, drugs, or some other factor.)

        These same possibilities are present whenever there is an alibi witness.  Neither Brain Fingerprinting testing nor any other scientific technique can totally eliminate the possibility that a witness or a suspect was present at a crime and failed to perceive or forgot the salient facts about the crime.

        Does this mean that we disallow the judge and jury to hear any testimony from witnesses?  No. The judge and jury have a duty to take into account the available facts, and to evaluate these facts in the light of the reality that human perception and memory are imperfect.    Does it mean that we should disallow the judge and jury to know the facts proven by Brain Fingerprinting testing regarding the presence or absence of the record of the crime stored in the brain?  Again the answer is no.  The judge and jury are entitled to have the evidence provided by Brain Fingerprinting, along with all of the other available evidence. The judge and jury have a duty to take into account all of the available evidence, and to make a determination based on their best judgment in light of all the evidence.

        Perception and memory are imperfect, and can never be totally relied upon to provide an accurate representation of the facts. This limitation on the judicial system applied to all testimony of witnesses long before Brain Fingerprinting testing was discovered, and will always apply to all aspects of the judicial system that involve human beings.

                Is it theoretically possible for a suspect to commit a crime, and for the scientific tests to reveal that his fingerprints or DNA do not match the fingerprints or DNA at the crime scene?  Yes.  Is it possible for Brain Fingerprinting testing to find that certain specific crime-relevant information is not stored in his brain?  Yes.  All of these, however, are extremely unlikely outcomes if the suspect is indeed guilty.  If fingerprints, DNA, and/or Brain Fingerprinting testing produce a negative result, then in the unlikely event that the prosecution elects to proceed against the suspect in question anyway, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of specific circumstances and events that produced that specific negative result even though the suspect committed the crime.

        Under normal circumstances, one's memory for significant events (such as committing a major crime) is intact, even long after the event.  If the prosecution wants to prove in court that a person committed a significant crime, and yet does not have memory of the significant, salient details of that crime, then the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that specific events and neuropsychological malfunctions took place that could produce such an extremely unlikely phenomenon.

        Also, under normal circumstances, Brain Fingerprinting testing can be used not only to prove the absence in the brain of salient information regarding the crime, but also the presence in the brain of a record of the events that took place at the same time as the crime, i.e., the events of the alibi.  Showing that the suspect does indeed have a memory of the events that took place at the time of the crime – the alibi events – serves to eliminate the alternative hypothesis that the suspect lacks a record of the crime stored in the brain only due to some kind of memory malfunction.

        In any case, it is up to a judge or jury, and not up to science, to make the determination as to whether a suspect is guilty of a crime or not.  Science never provides absolute certainty regarding legal determinations.  Science can only provide evidence that the judge and jury must evaluate in a reasonable fashion in making that determination.  A negative result of a DNA, fingerprint, or Brain Fingerprinting testing test is not an absolute proof of innocence.  It is, however, relevant evidence that a judge and jury are entitled to have in making their determination regarding guilt or innocence.

        The evidence provided by Brain Fingerprinting, like all scientific evidence, is weighed along with the other evidence.  Like all evidence, it serves to tip the scale in one direction or another.  No scientific technology, Brain Fingerprinting testing included, eliminates or replaces the scale of justice, or makes other evidence irrelevant or insignificant.  It is important to understand that all Brain Fingerprinting testing can determine, and all any expert witness can testify to when a Brain Fingerprinting testing test has been conducted, is the presence or absence of certain information stored in the brain matching the crime scene or the alibi.  This is like testifying that the fingerprints or DNA at the crime scene match (or do not match) those on the person of the suspect.  It is up to the judge or jury to decide what this evidence means with respect to the guilt or innocence of the suspect, and to weigh this evidence along with all of the other available evidence in arriving at their verdict.

        In summary, then, Brain Fingerprinting testing only proves whether or not certain information is stored in a person's brain.  Brain Fingerprinting testing does not prove absolutely whether a suspect is innocent or guilty of a crime.  The latter is not a scientific question, but rather a legal question that is decided by a judge or jury.  Brain Fingerprinting testing determines objectively what information is stored in a suspect's brain, that is, whether or not a suspect has knowledge of salient facts about a crime that only the perpetrator and investigators would know.  That is as far as science can go.  A judge and jury have the duty to evaluate this evidence, along with all of the other evidence, in arriving at their verdict. If the record of the crime is not stored in the brain, the judge and jury must take into account the imperfections in human memory and perception -- and the possibility of myriad factors affecting memory -- just as they must do in every case in evaluating the testimony of every witness who testifies to events he remembers or does not remember.   When Brain Fingerprinting testing provides an "information absent" result, then it is up to a judge or jury to decide whether or not they think that the absence of salient details of the crime stored in the brain of the perpetrator, along with the other available evidence, introduce a reasonable doubt about his guilt.  If so, then they must find him not guilty.

Additional Applications of Brain Fingerprinting

There are several other areas in which Brain fingerprinting can be used to make life easier and can aid mankind in many ways. Key fields where brain fingerprinting can be used are:

1. Advertising

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

What specific information do people retain from advertising?

Do they remember the product, the company, the retailer, the website, pricing and promotional information, etc.?

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?

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?

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?

2. Counter terrorism

How do we determine if a person is a terrorist or spy? There is a new technology that for the first time, allows us to measure scientifically if specific information is stored in a person’s brain. Brain fingerprinting 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 the fight against terrorism: Aid in determining who has participated in terrorist acts, directly or indirectly. The implications for the Counter terrorism are very helpful. Here are some of the possibilities:

Aid in determining who has participated in terrorist acts, directly or indirectly.

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.

Help to identify people who have knowledge or training in banking, finance or communications and who are associated with terrorist teams and acts.

Help to determine if an individual is in a leadership role within a terrorist organization

3. Medical Applications

The incidence of Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia is growing rapidly throughout the world. There is a critical need for a technology that enables early diagnosis economically and that can also 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 lab, includes the P300 brainwave and extends it, providing a more sensitive measure than the P300 alone. Brain fingerprinting lab is now developing diagnostic and monitoring systems for Alzheimer’s using this new technology.

With early diagnosis, the progression of Alzheimer's symptoms can often be delayed through medications and dietary and lifestyle changes.

Using the very precise measurements of cognitive functioning available with this technology, pharmaceutical companies will be able to determine more quickly the effects of their new medications and potentially speed FDA approval.

The non-invasive nature of P300/MERMER testing technology and the simplicity of its administration will allow primary care physicians to monitor the progress of their patients in their own offices and adjust treatments accordingly.

An accurate, inexpensive and easy to administer test for Alzheimer’s and dementia will improve the healthcare process dramatically, and help improve the quality of life for millions of people.

4. Security Testing

Brain fingerprinting 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:

• Visa Applications

• Polygraph "False-Positive"

• Corporate Security
• Insurance Fraud
• Security Clearances
• Computer Hacking

Doubts regarding Brain Fingerprinting

Although Brain Fingerprinting is Scientific and very promising technology as we have discussed with accuracy of 100% (excluding inconclusive cases), in spite of all these various doubts are raised against the technology both by the legal experts and scientists. Therefore I am giving here answers for the questions that are generally asked by the people.

How accurate is Brain Fingerprinting testing? 

Brain Fingerprinting testing has proven to be highly accurate in over 175 tests, which included actual criminal cases, tests on FBI agents and tests on military medical experts. In all but six of these cases, the system produced a determination of either "information present" or "information absent." 100% of these determinations were correct. In six cases, insufficient information was available and no determination was made. Dr. Farwell, the inventor of Brain Fingerprinting technology, discovered that the P300 was one aspect of a larger brain-wave response that he named and patented, a MERMER® (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response). The discovery of the MERMER allows the results gained through the P300 testing to be even more accurate. Since the inclusion of the MERMER in the brain-wave analysis algorithm, Brain Fingerprinting testing has made a definitive determination in every test.  

What if the person knows about the crime because he was there as a witness and not a perpetrator?

Brain Fingerprinting testing will determine if specific information is in the brain, but will not tell us how it got there. It is like having fingerprints at the crime scene. Someone's fingerprints could be there because he was there witnessing the crime and not because he committed it. In a case where there are two people at a crime scene and only one committed the crime, Brain Fingerprinting testing can narrow the search down to the two suspects. It cannot be used to distinguish why a person was at the crime scene. Like DNA and fingerprinting, Brain Fingerprinting testing matches evidence at a crime scene with evidence on the person of the perpetrator or suspect. It can place a person at the crime scene or exonerate someone who was not there. If specific information is available about the planning or execution of a crime that a witness would not know, then Brain Fingerprinting testing may be able to distinguish between a witness and a perpetrator.

What if a suspect read about the crime in the newspaper? 

General knowledge gained from a newspaper or television does not interfere with Brain Fingerprinting testing. A suspect is tested for details of the crime that only the perpetrator and investigators would know, but that have not been publicly released.

What if an innocent suspect knows many details about the crime from the trial or interrogations, or if the police told a suspect details about the crime during interrogation? 

The best scenario in which to apply Brain Fingerprinting testing is one where the crime is recent and the suspect has not been exposed to information about it. Then the suspect can easily be tested for knowledge about the crime that only the perpetrator would know.

In cases where the suspect has already been tried and convicted, the suspect knows many of the details of the crime from the trial, whether he is innocent or guilty. In such a case, details about the crime that have not been presented in court and that an innocent suspect would not know need to be identified. In some cases this involves considerable investigation. Information can be obtained from court documents, police reports, alleged witnesses, crime scene photos and the crime scene itself. Often, as in the Terry Harrington case, which occurred 20 years before the Brain Fingerprinting test, and in which there had been several appeals in addition to the original trial, it is still possible to discover details about the crime that the suspect was never directly exposed to at the trial or in interrogation, but that he would have to know if he had committed the crime.  

In what kinds of cases does Brain Fingerprinting testing not apply? 

There are several types of cases where this technology does not apply. For example, in a disappearance, all the authorities may know is that someone disappeared. They may not know if any crime has been committed. Another situation where Brain Fingerprinting testing is not applicable is when everyone agrees on what happened, but there is disagreement as to the intent of the parties. For example, in a sexual assault case the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator may agree exactly on what happened, but disagree on whether or not it was consensual.

Where in the criminal justice system does Brain Fingerprinting testing apply? 

Brain Fingerprinting testing solves major problems in both pre- and post conviction areas and can be a great asset to both prosecutors and defense attorneys. There are 14 million crimes reported by police to the FBI annually in the U.S. in the seven major categories that are included in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. The National Crime Victimization Survey, which is conducted by the US Census Bureau and includes additional categories of crimes, estimates that over 34 million crimes are committed annually in the U.S. In only 35% of the cases is an arrest made.

Additionally, there are approximately 6 million individuals in the US either in prison, jail or under some form of state supervision such as parole or work release. Of those who are imprisoned, an estimated 5% to 10 % are innocent. This means that over 300,000 inmates, and possibly more than 600,000, may be wrongfully imprisoned. In total, U.S. federal, state and local governments spend over $150 billion annually on crime. This does not include the costs to victims, innocent suspects and to society. The worldwide costs are significantly higher than this amount.

Brain Fingerprinting testing can address many of these critical areas, helping to identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent. Crimes often go unsolved and unpunished because the authorities cannot accurately determine if a suspect has knowledge about the details of a crime that only the perpetrator would know. In the absence of fingerprints or DNA evidence the criminal justice system often does not have scientific methods of identifying those involved in crimes. Circumstantial evidence is often not sufficient to convict a suspect or even to prosecute a case. Brain Fingerprinting testing can determine if a suspect has detailed, specific knowledge of a crime and provide scientific evidence where none existed previously.

Do all experts agree about Brain Fingerprinting technology?

 I don't think all experts will ever agree entirely about anything. There is, however, a widespread consensus among the legitimate experts that the science behind Brain Fingerprinting technology is excellent. It's been thoroughly tested, peer reviewed, and published in the best journals. It is extremely accurate. It is generally accepted in the scientific community. Experts, like everyone else, have their own opinions regarding the non-scientific issues, like where and when this science should be applied, and how much legal weight should be given to its results in any particular application. I think there is room for varying opinions on these issues.

Does Brain Fingerprinting testing provide a scientific answer to legal questions?

No but a Brain Fingerprinting test can provide scientific evidence in answer to a scientific question: does a person have particular crime-relevant information stored in his brain, or not? This evidence must be evaluated, along with other available evidence, by a judge or jury to reach legal decisions such as whether a person is innocent or guilty of a crime. The legal issues — like whether a person is innocent or guilty — are decided not by science but by the judgment of the people empowered to make such decisions, the judges and juries, who take into account not only this science but also all the other evidence at hand.

Media Coverage of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting

Dr. Farwell and his invention have also become widely known to the general public, in the US and around the world. Dr. Farwell has been featured CBS Evening News; ABC World News; CNN Headline News; the Discovery Channel; across the nation in television programs on new crime-fighting technologies; on BBC in the UK; and on CTV, the Canadian TV network. Articles featuring Farwell Brain Fingerprinting have appeared in US News and World Report; The Washington Post; The New York Times; and elsewhere in print and electronic media throughout the world.

Human Rights Oriented Technology

In the past, innocent suspects have almost universally been subjected to stressful interrogations, and in some cases have been subjected to false conviction and punishment. With Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, an innocent suspect can simply observe a computer monitor on which words, phrases, acronyms, or pictures appear. His brain responses will confirm that information relevant to the crime is not stored in his brain. In this way, Farwell Brain Fingerprinting can establish innocence. This is a great benefit for innocent individuals who are falsely accused. It would be a serious violation of human rights to deny an innocent subject access to this effective, non-invasive, non-stressful, and accurate means of establishing innocence. The rights of a guilty subject are not violated when he voluntarily undergoes such a non-invasive analysis of criminal evidence (unless one considers license to continue to perpetrate crimes, without exposure or punishment, a "right").

Conclusion

     It would be inappropriate to generalize the results of the present research because of the small sample of subjects.  The 100-percent accuracy and high confidence level of the results, however, provide further support for results from previous research using brain MERMER testing.  The research reported here adds to the body of knowledge by accurately determining both the presence and absence of specific information relevant to real-life events in the lives of subjects, despite subjects' efforts to conceal that knowledge.

     The usefulness of brain MERMER testing for law enforcement in detecting concealed knowledge should be explored further.  One possibility for future studies would be to use as subjects incarcerated criminals who have exhausted their appeals and/or have confessed.  In these cases there is an actual crime, and ground truth is known with a high level of certainty.  With appropriate permission and observing all legal and ethical considerations, case files of these inmates could be reviewed to determine pertinent crime details that were available during the investigation.  Stimulus sets of Targets, Probes, and Irrelevants could then be constructed and brain MERMER testing administered to determine whether or not the subject's brain responses indicate knowledge of known pertinent crime information.  The same stimulus sets could be tested on subjects who have no knowledge of the specific crime.  This would provide a test of the ability of brain MERMER testing to identify the perpetrator of an actual crime, using information actually available in the investigation of the crime.

     Additional studies could explore the reliability of using auditory and pictorial, as well as visual linguistic material as Probe, Target, and Irrelevant stimuli.  Further studies using brain MERMER testing to detect real-life events under varying circumstances would also be valuable.

References

• Dr. Farwell's Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories website 
  
• Journal of Forensic Sciences publication on Brain Fingerprinting (Farwell and Smith, 2001) 
  
• PBS Innovations broadcast on Brain Fingerprinting 
  
• US News and World Report article on Brain Fingerprinting 
  
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer article on Brain Fingerprinting 
  
• Law Enforcement Technology article on Brain Fingerprinting