BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
In Partial fulfillment for the requirement of the award of the degree Bachelor of Technology In Computer Engineering
Submitted To:
Submitted By:
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 1
INDEX
Introduction to Brain Fingerprinting Introduction Definition Technique Electroencephalography
P300
About
Role of Brain Fingerprinting in Criminal Proceedings Phase1:Investigation Phase2:Interview of Subject Phase3:Scientific Testing with Brain fingerprinting Phase4:Adjudication of Guilt or Innocence The Role of Science in Legal Proceedings Current Uses and Applications BRAIN FINGERPRINTING Page 2
Medical Applications Advertising Applications Security Testing Counter- terrorist Applications Other Applications Limitations of Brain Fingerprinting Conclusion Bibliography
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 3
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 Central to crime and Criminal Investigations Brain fingerprinting involves measuring the MERMER paradigm EEG response during interrogation. MERMER is Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Page 4
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
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.
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.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 5
The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that measure the EEG from several locations on the scalp. The subject views stimuli consisting of words, phrases, or pictures presented on a computer screen. Stimuli are of three types: 1) irrelevant stimuli that are irrelevant to the investigated situation and to the test subject, 2) target stimuli that are relevant to the investigated situation and are known to the subject, 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
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 6
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 ___________________ Information suspect shouldnt know _________________ Information of crime that only perpetrator would know ______________
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 8
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 9
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 10
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 high-time-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 arc 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. neuro-feedback. and others.
3.4 Method
Scalp EEG, 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 60100 dB of voltage gain). A typical adult human EEG 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 EEG systems. the amplified signal is digitized via an analog-to-digital converter, after being passed through an anti-alaising filter.
Since an EEG voltage signal represents a difference between the voltages at two electrodes, the display of the EEG for the reading encephalographer may be set up in one of several ways.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 11
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 12
Result analysis
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 13
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, BRAIN FINGERPRINTING Page 14
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.
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 are 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.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 15
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 have 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 were the specific details of the crime. 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 BRAIN FINGERPRINTING Page 16
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 who participated in the crime and one who did not, and no Brain Fingerprinting test will be conducted. The investigator must use his in skill and judgment in discovering and
evaluating information
to be used
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 a 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 BRAIN FINGERPRINTING Page 17
reason to believe or to hope that this will ever happen. It is our view that science will 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, insure 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.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 18
the
fingerprints on
that
his
fingerprints matched those on the murder weapon would provide incriminating evidence. 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 irrelevants. 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
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 19
in the test, without disclosing which stimuli are probes and which are irrelevants. 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 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 interviewer serves to eliminate this potential confound. 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
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 20
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 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 BRAIN FINGERPRINTING Page 21
potential confounds in the scientific test, and to provide a background for interpretation of the test results once they are obtained.
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. 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 accurate and valid may have little weight investigation in and the judicial process. that Brain Fingerprinting is no exception. The
interview
precede
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
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 23
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.
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.
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.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 24
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 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 be unconscionable human rights violation.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 25
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.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 26
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.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 27
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-ofproduct 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, 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?
6.3Security 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
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 29
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 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-
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 30
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 which he has no legitimate explanation if it turns out that the information is indeed stored in his brain.
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. BRAIN FINGERPRINTING Page 31
knowing the details of the crime and investigators have information that has not been released to the public, brain fingerprinting can determine objectively whether or not the subject possesses that information. In such a case, brain fingerprinting could provide useful evidence. If, however, the suspect knows everything that the investigators know about the crime for some legitimate reason, then the test cannot be applied. There are several
circumstances in which this may be the case. If a suspect acknowledges being at the scene of the crime, but claims to be a witness and not a perpetrator, then the fact that he knows details about the crime would not be incriminating. There would be no reason to conduct a test, because the resulting information present response would simply show that the suspect knew the details about the crime knowledge which he already admits and which he gained at the crime scene whether he was a witness or a perpetrator. 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 BRAIN FINGERPRINTING Page 32
encountered in the course of committing the crime, but the suspect claims not to know and would not know if he were innocent. This was the case with Terry Harrington. By examining reports, interviewing witnesses, and visiting the crime scene and surrounding areas, Dr. Farwell was able to discover salient features of the crime that Harrington had never been exposed to at his previous trials. The brain fingerprinting test showed that the record in 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 however, be used for specific fingerprinting can,
some idea what they are looking for. BRAIN FINGERPRINTING Page 33
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. . 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.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 34
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Farwell LA, Donchin E. The brain detector: P300 in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology 1986; 24:434. Farwell LA, Donchin E. The truth will out: interrogative polygraphy ("lie detection") with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology 1991;28:531-541. Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for multifaceted
electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA). US patent 5,363,858. 1994 Nov 15. Farwell LA. Two new twists on the truth detector: brain-wave detection of occupational information. Psychophysiology 1992;29(4A):S3. Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for truth detection. US patent 5,406,956. 1995 Apr 18. Picton TW. Handbook of electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology: human event-related potentials. Amsterdam: Elsevier, Vol. 3, 1988. www.brainwavescience.com
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Page 35