1.

INTRODUCTION
Throughout the history of the criminal justice system, numerous technological
innovations have signaled landmark changes in how authorities conduct investigations. From
fingerprinting to DNA testing, these one-time technological marvels turned police
investigation staples have shaped the way that justice is conceptualized in America, as well as
the way in which society interacts and is influenced by law enforcement. One such new
technology carries with it an emerging potential to revolutionize the investigatory landscape
Brain Fingerprinting (“BF”) the law enforcement technology. The future of police
investigations may very well be under construction in Seattle, Washington, where Dr.
Lawrence A. Farwell has created Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories (“BFL”), a privately held
company created to pursue the study and application of BF.BF testing, in a nutshell, is an
examination designed to determine if particular information is familiar to a test subject in a
specific context (such as that of a crime).Essentially, a BF test asks a suspect’s brain if it is
familiar with a particular place, time, or action, and does so using brain monitoring
technology that is nearly impossible to deceive. BF has been called “a perfect example of a
technology at the tipping point making its way from the lab into our culture,” and “an
intriguing, novel, scientific venture that is inching toward the doors of courtrooms
everywhere.” Although BF may “sound like something straight out of a science-fiction
movie” it is part of a growing trend of technological innovations that are rapidly coming to
the forefront in today’s heightened level of security. As one commentator has explained,
“These aren’t cinematic gadgets from a James Bond set. They are real world technologies
that were on recently display for members of Congress as lawmakers consider new steps to
beef up security at airports, border crossings, and other facilities around the country. The
P300 event-related brain potential which is the key element of most of the published brain-
wave based deception research. The “Guilty Knowledge Test” or GKT, which in a form
modified for P300 methods, yielded the P300 protocol for detecting concealed, crime-related
information. The issue of P300-based tests’ accuracies Farwell claims that his method is
based on a brain activity index, the “MERMER,” ("Memory and Encoding Related
Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response") which goes beyond P300 methods.

1
 1.1 BACKGROUND
Farwell claims presently that the brain wave index crucial to all his assertions is the
MERMER, or “Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic
Response .” He claims that the P300 event-related potential (ERP, discussed below) is but
one element of the MERMER. It will be seen later that P300 is very likely the basis and
essence of the MERMER. Indeed, at the Harrington Appeal hearing of 2000 Harrington vs
Iowa 2000 In any case, it seems unlikely that Farwell would argue against the assertion that
the P300 ERP was the brain wave which first impelled several investigators to study the
potential of EEG waves as deception indices. The history of this ongoing research program
will make this clear. First, however, a brief review of P300 phenomenology is in order. It is
well known that between an electrode placed on the scalp surface directly over brain and
another electrode connected to a relatively neutral (electrically) part of the head (i.e., remote
from brain cells, such as the earlobe), an electrical voltage, varying as a function of time,
exists. These voltages comprise the spontaneously ongoing electroencephalogram or EEG,
and are commonly known as brain waves. If during the recording of EEG, a discrete stimulus
event occurs, such as a light flash or tone pip, the EEG breaks into a series of larger peaks
and troughs lasting up to two seconds after the stimulus. These waves, signaling the arrival in
cortex of neural activity generated by the stimulus, comprise the wave series called the ERP,
the EEG potential series related to the stimulus event. Actually, the ERP “rides on” the
ongoing EEG, by which it is sometimes obscured in single trials. Thus, one typically
averages the EEG samples of many repeated presentation trials of either the same stimulus or
stimulus category (e.g., male names), and the ensuing averaged stimulus-related activity is
revealed as the ERP, while the non-stimulus-related features of the EEG average out,
approaching a straight line. P300 is a special ERP which results whenever a meaningful piece
of information is rarely presented as a stimulus among a random series of more frequently
presented, non-meaningful stimuli.

2
 1.2 EARLY P300-BASED DECEPTION DETECTORS
Fabiani, Karis, and Donchin, (1983) showed that if a list of words, consisting of rare,
previously learned (i.e., meaningful) and frequent novel words were presented one at a time
to a subject, the familiar, previously learned words but not the others elicited a P300. As
suggested above, Rosenfeld, Nasman, Whalen,Cantwell, Mazzeri (1987) recognized that the
Fabiani et a. (1983) study suggested that P300 could be used to detect concealed guilty
knowledge, i.e., P300 could be used as a potential lie detector: Therefore, P300 could index
recognition of familiar items even if subjects denied recognizing them. From this fact, one
could infer deception. The P300 would not represent a lie per se, but only recognition of a
familiar item of information, the verbal denial of which would then imply deception. Farwell
has also emphasized this distinction on his web site, although as an academic nicety which in
no way affects the claims of the BF approach. Farwell and Smith (2001), however, seem to
have over-extended this distinction: “Brain MERMER testing has almost nothing in common
with ‘lie detection’ or polygraphy. Polygraphy is a technique of interrogation and detection of
deception Brain MERMER testing does not require any questions of or answers from the
suspect. The subject neither lies nor tells the truth during the procedure, and in fact the results
of MERMER testing are exactly the same whether the subject lies or tells the truth at any
time.” This assertion is misleading: In fact the subject does give behavioral button press
responses. One button means “No, I don’t recognize this stimulus.” If the guilty subject
presses this no button to a guilty knowledge item, he is lying with his button press, if not his
voice. Lying is the clear inference if there is no other innocuous explanation for the brain
response, and there is no doubt that P300/MERMER testing is clearly relevant to lie
detection. Indeed, the terms “Interrogative polygraphy” and “lie detection” are in the subtitle
of Farwell and Donchin (1991), Farwell’s only peer-reviewed paper on P300-based deception
detection in a psychology, neuroscience or psychophysiology journal. Finally, when Farwell
and Smith (2001; not a journal in psychology, psychophysiology, or neuroscience) stated, “in
fact the results of MERMER testing are exactly the same whether the subject lies or tells the
truth,” they are incorrect (about the major P300 element of MERMER), and, not surprisingly,
did not cite any supportive literature. In fact, there are many peer-reviewed, published studies
in which the opposite is shown, and it is discussed why truthful subjects in fact produce much
larger P300s than subjects giving dishonest responses to the same questions (e.g., Ellwanger,
J. Rosenfeld, , Hankin, & Sweet, 1999; Miller, A.R., Rosenfeld, J.P., Soskins, M., Jhee, M.
2000; Rosenfeld, Rao, Soskins, & Miller, 2003,). Soon after seeing Fabiani et al. (1983), our

3
lab planned and executed a study (Rosenfeld, Cantwell, Nasman, Wojdak, Ivanov, &
Mazzeri, 1988) in which subjects pretended to steal one of ten items from a box. Later, the
items were repeatedly presented to the subject by name, one at a time, on a display screen,
and we found that the items the subjects pretended to steal (the probes), but not the other,
irrelevant items, evoked P300 in 9 of 10 cases. In that study there was also one special,
unpredictably presented stimulus item, the target, to which the subjects were required to
respond by saying “yes” so as to assure us they were paying attention to the screen at all
times, and would thus not miss probe presentations. They said “no” to all the other items,
signaling non-recognition, and thus lying on trials containing the pretended stolen items. The
special target items also evoked P300, as one might expect, since they too were rare and
meaningful (task-relevant). (The 1988 study was actually the second of two closely related
publications, the first having been published as Rosenfeld . et al., 1987.) This paradigm had
many features of the guilty knowledge test (GKT) paradigm (developed by Lykken in 1959;
see Lykken, 1998) except that P300s rather than autonomic variables were used as the indices
of recognition. This required various other departures from the classic GKT method, such as
signal averaging and target stimuli. Farwell and Donchin (1991) reported that in the 20 guilty
cases, correct decisions were possible in all but two cases, a detection rate of 90%. Indeed,
this was not impressive given that the subjects were trained to remember the details of their
crimes, a procedure having limited ecological validity in field circumstances in which
training of a suspect on details of a crime he/she was denying would not be possible. In the
innocent condition, only 85% were correctly classified, yielding an overall detection rate of
87.5%. In the second experiment of Farwell and Donchin, (1991), the four volunteering
subjects were all previously admitted wrongdoers on the college campus. Their crime details
were well-detected with P300, but these previously admitted wrongdoers no doubt had had
much rehearsal of their crimes at the hands of campus investigators, teachers, parents, etc.
Therefore, one can ask: was the P300 test detecting incidentally acquired information versus
previously admitted, well rehearsed information? Moreover, the n=4 was hardly convincing,
and in one of the four innocent tests, no decision could be rendered, meaning that a correct
decision was possible in only three of four (75%) innocent cases.

4
 1.3 THE ACCURACY ISSUE
Regarding P300-based GKT studies from independent laboratories, how does the BF
method fare? Our lab has typically reported 80-95% detection (see Rosenfeld, Soskins, Bosh,
& Ryan, 2004; Rosenfeld, 2002). Our higher detection rates tend to accompany detection of
autobiographical knowledge in head injury malingering studies. Our lower rates tend to
accompany detection of incidental knowledge as in Rosenfeld et al., (2004). Another
prominent group of investigators used to report 90% and above hit rates in detecting
concealed though over-learned information, (Allen, Iacono, & Danielson, 1992). More
recently, this group has reported poor detection (27%-47%) of mock crime details; (Mertens,
Allen, Culp, & Crawford, 2003). Apart from these lab analogues, there has been only one
independent field study of P300-based detection of guilty knowledge, that by Miyake,Y.,
Mizutanti, M., and Yamahura, T. (1993). This study, under the auspices of a Japanese police
department, reported only 48% detection of guilty subjects. One can surmise what Farwell’s
responses to these challenging data would be, based on the fact that he was actually
confronted with the Miyake et al. (1993) report at the Harrington 2000 hearing. He stated that
these findings were not relevant since Miyake et al. recorded from Cz rather than Pz: “They
recorded from Cz, so I don’t know what they were measuring it appears they were doing
something that was in no way related to what we did.” This statement seems erroneous and
misleading in that Miyake et al. were indeed conducting related research as they actually
cited Farwell and Donchin, (1991) as the basis of their effort. Moreover, had there been a
P300 expert present, he/she could have retorted that P300s from Cz and Pz usually correlate
at >.95 over trials, and that indeed, no less a P300 expert than Polich (1999) recommended
the use of Cz in diagnostic clinical P300 studies. Farwell might also respond more technically
that the EEG filters used by other investigators are not the Optimal Digital Filters he used in
Farwell and Donchin (1991), and claimed to be superior to the filters most others use
(Farwell, Martineri, Bashore, Rapp, & Goddard, 1993.) The filters discussed here are circuit
elements or software models of circuit elements through which raw EEG signals are passed.
Their purpose is to remove artifactual and other sources of noise in the brain wave signal.
The present author, not an electrical engineer, had always sensed a problem with the Farwell
et al. (1993) paper. In preparing the present review, I consulted two P300 experts (one an
engineer), plus one of Farwell’s co-authors on the 1993 paper about this serious problem.

5
 2. LITERATURE SURVEY
Is something new happening? A controversial claim: Something fundamentally new is
happening. Until now, ALL information that we got from human beings we got from their
peripheral nervous system. For the first time in human history, we are developing the ability
to bypass the peripheral nervous system and get information directly from the brain.
Assuming this is true Does it matter? Bypassing the Peripheral Nervous System
• Phelps: Amygdala activation and racism
• Greene: Emotional activation & moral decision-making
• Canli: Extroverts amygdala activation to smiling faces
• Price, Zeffiro: Can he read English or Arabic?
• Kamitani & Tong, Haynes and Rees: visual patterns
• Schaefer et al: Violent offenders & brain structure

2.1 BUFKIN & LUTTRELL

“The consistency with which prefrontal disruption occurs across studies, each of
which investigated participants with different types of violent behaviors, suggests that
prefrontal dysfunction may underlie predisposition to violence.”
• Freedman & Iacoboni Democrats and Republicans
• Farwell: Brain Fingerprinting
• Langleben, Laken: fMRI for lie detecti

6
 2.2 NEUROPRIVACY

We believe in and treasure our inner lives as a private domain where none can enter
Historically, religion preached that God had access to our private thoughts; confession was
intended to compel revelation off the inner life Think deeply about a world where others have
access to subjective states off your mind. Do you want it? Can such ability be available? And
not be abused? Is the asset to forensics? Civil society, the military, national security worth the
potential invasion of privacy ?

Fig.1 Britton Chance at Pennand Banu Onaral and her team at Drexel are working on fNIR
detection of lies, surrently using headbands with sensors.

2.3 A NEW PARADIGM IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

A critical task of the criminal justice system is to determine who has committed a
crime. The key difference between a guilty party and an innocent suspect is that the
perpetrator of the crime has a record of the crime stored in their brain, and the innocent
suspect does not. Until the invention of Brain Fingerprinting testing, there was no
scientifically valid way to detect this fundamental difference. Brain Fingerprinting testing
does not prove guilt or innocence. That is the role of a judge and jury. This exciting
technology gives the judge and jury new, scientifically valid evidence to help them arrive at
their decision. DNA evidence and fingerprints are available in only about 1% of major
crimes. It is estimated that Brain Fingerprinting testing will apply in approximately 60 to
70% of these major crimes. The impacts on the criminal justice system will be profound. The
potential now exists to significantly improve the speed and accuracy of the entire system,
from investigations to parole hearings. Brain Fingerprinting testing will be able to
dramatically reduce the costs associated with investigating and prosecuting innocent people
and allow law enforcement professionals to concentrate on suspects who have verifiable,

7
detailed knowledge of the crimes. Brain fingerprinting testing represents a new paradigm in
law enforcement. It is a technology that has been researched and tested for more than 20
years and has now been admitted as scientific evidence in court.

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.

8
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.

9
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.

Brain Fingerprinting testing finds the truth in long-term cases

Dr. Farwell conducted a Brain Fingerprinting test on Terry Harrington, who is serving
a life sentence in Iowa for a 1977 murder. The test showed that the record stored in
Harrington's brain did not match the crime scene and did match the alibi. Harrington filed a
petition for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, including the Brain
Fingerprinting test. On February 26, 2003 the Iowa Supreme Court reversed his murder
conviction and ordered a new trial. In October 2003, the State of Iowa elected not to re-try
Mr. Harrington. Brain Fingerprinting testing also helped to bring serial killer J. B. Grinder to
justice fifteen years after the commission of the crime. The Brain Fingerprinting test
administered to Grinder found that the specific details of the crime were recorded in his brain

10
as “information present,” with a statistical confidence level of 99.9%. This means that the
record stored in Grinder’s brain matched the details of the crime scene of the murder of Julie
Helton. Following the test results, Grinder faced an almost certain conviction and probable
death sentence. Grinder pled guilty to the rape and murder of Julie Helton in exchange for a
life sentence without parole. He is currently serving that sentence. In addition, Grinder then
confessed to the unsolved murders of several other young women.

Brain Fingerprinting testing admitted as evidence

On March 5, 2002 Pottawattamie County District Court Judge Tim O'Grady ruled that
Brain Fingerprinting testing is admissible in court. Brain Fingerprinting testing is a
technological breakthrough that will have a profound impact on the criminal justice system.
The Iowa Su

2.4 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?

11
Fig.2 Langleben, D. D., et. al., "Brain Activity during Simulated Deception: An Event Related
Functional Magnetic Resonance Study", 15 Neuro Image, January 4, 2002.

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

12
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.

Fortunately, in this country, we do not have to absolutely prove that a suspect is

innocent. A person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge and
jury take all of the evidence into account, and make a decision as to whether the suspect is
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or not. (In some legal proceedings, another legal standard
other than reasonable doubt, e.g., preponderance of the evidence is applied.) In evaluating
scientific evidence, the principal is the same. The judge or jury take into account the

13
available scientific evidence along with other evidence, and make the legal determination
according to the applicable legal standards

When judges and juries hear an alibi witness state that he was with the suspect at the
time of the crime, and he is sure the suspect did not commit the crime that is, the witness says
he has no record of the suspect committing the crime stored in his brain judges and juries
must always evaluate this statement in the light of the fact that human perception and
memory are fallible. Again, it is always possible that the alibi witness saw the whole crime
and just forgot about it. Judges and juries must take this possibility and the likelihood of it
actually happening into account.

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.

14
 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.

15
 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.

16
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.

Granted, human memory and perception are not infallible, and can be compromised
by mental and physical illness and drugs. This limitation applies to information that is or is
not known as evidenced by Brain Fingerprinting testing and it also applies equally to all
information that is a part of any testimony by a witness. With Brain Fingerprinting testing as
with witness testimony, however, this limitation affects the weight given to the evidence, and
not the admissibility of the evidence. The question of weight is one that can only be decided
by the judge and jury, and not by a scientific procedure or a scientific opinion. Brain
Fingerprinting testing can determine scientifically what information is stored in a brain, i.e.,
what a person does and does not know. How these scientific facts are interpreted in relation
to participation or non-participation in a crime, and what weight is given to this scientific
evidence, is a matter to be decided by a judge or jury.

We must acknowledge, in principal, that any one of us might have committed the
murder we read about in today's paper, and then forgot about it. We must acknowledge that
any alleged alibi witness may have in fact witnessed the crime rather than the alibi, and then
forgot about it. Theoretically, a suspect who is proven through Brain Fingerprinting testing
to lack knowledge of the salient details of a crime could conceivably have committed the
crime, and then forgotten about it. This kind of thing is not what we find in reality, however.
When one reads the transcripts of court testimony for major crimes, the people who were
present witnesses, perpetrators, and surviving victims alike do in fact remember the salient
features of the events that took place, as proven by the descriptions they offer in testimony.
This includes people who are of very high or very low intelligence. It includes people who
are under the influence of all kinds of different drugs, legal or illegal. It includes psychopaths
and other people with highly abnormal or pathological emotional responses and
psychological conditions. It includes people who have committed many crimes and people
who have never committed a crime. It includes people who are under severe stress, people

17
who are calm and unemotional, people who are violently angry, people who are terrified, and
people who commit serious crimes with no remorse.

The entire judicial system is built on the concept of reasonableness. Is it possible that
you or I committed the murder we read about in today's paper, and then forgot about it? And
we are going about our business falsely believing ourselves to be innocent? Yes. Is it a
reasonable scenario, with a reasonable likelihood of being accurate? No. Is it possible that
an alibi witness saw a violent murder, and never noticed it, or forgot about it? Yes. Is it a
reasonable, likely explanation? No, not often. It is possible that a suspect who demonstrably
does not know the salient facts about a major crime actually committed the crime, and never
noticed what he was doing, or forgot about it? Yes. Is it a reasonable, likely explanation of
the facts? No, not unless there is some highly unusual, reasonable explanation for why such
an extremely bizarre and unusual phenomenon would occur. Anything is possible, and it is
indeed possible that a person could commit a crime and not know the salient details of it, but
is a judge or jury likely to conclude that such a thing happened, beyond a reasonable doubt,
and takes away a person's freedom or his life on that basis? Not in a reasonable world, and
not in a reasonable criminal justice system.

3. DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEM
3.1 HOW BRAIN FINGERPRINTING WORKS?
(Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response MERMER)
Probes
Stimuli relevant to the Investigation under question
Irrelevant
Matched to Probes (e.g., if the issue is clothing warn during crime, four pieces of irrelevant
clothing will be shown for each probe)
Targets
Comparison images or words familiar to the subject but not relevant to investigation; subjects
are told to pay particular attention before testing. Can be general or given by experimenters

Fig.3 “Information present” case Fig.4 “Information absent” case

18
 Fig.5 Dr. Lawrence Farwell administers a Brain Fingerprinting test to JB Grinder.

There are two general applications for which Brain Fingerprinting can be applied. The
first concerns testing concealed information regarding events that have already occurred. Dr.
Drew Richardson, a 25-year veteran, now retired, of the FBI who acted as one of the bureau’s
top forensic scientists, explains this involves examining suspects of a crime or potential
witnesses to see if they have information stored in their brains that would generally not be
known by the public, but would be known by somebody who either witnessed or participated
in the crime. The second application is to determine if someone is associated with a group.
This capability is what prompted the FBI to aid in funding for the research and development
of this technology. Richardson, who acts as vice-president for Forensic Operations with Brain
Fingerprinting Labs, and Farwell first worked together in the 1990s at the FBI academy. The
Brain Fingerprint testing conducted was centered on determining who in a group of people
FBI graduates were and who new agent trainees were. A list of 25 words, acronyms and
phrases relating to the graduates instruction or way of life were collected to act as the probes.
One of the items used was FD302. To most people this doesn’t mean anything. But to an FBI
agent, it’s the government designation for the piece of paper that is used to record
investigative information, subsequently record into file and ultimately testify if it comes to
trial. FD302 immediately stands out and rings a bell with an FBI agent, and using this as well
as numerous other probes, the test was able to determine with complete accuracy who was an
FBI agent.“If we can do this with the FBI, we can do this with organized crime; the KGB, or
its successor SVR; and now with terrorist groups, Al Qaeda and so forth,” says Richardson.
This test does not, however, prove a person’s innocence or guilt. It determines whether the
person has information about the crime stored in his brain. Similar to DNA, the sample is
given to a scientist, and following series of tests, it is determined if the samples match. In this
case the information stored in the subject’s brain either matches the details of the crime or it
doesn’t. Brain Fingerprinting also has nothing to do with lie detection. Unlike lie detection,

19
Brain Fingerprinting has been found to be admissible in court. Furthermore, lie detection
works on the basis of emotional stress response where Brain Fingerprinting simply measures
if a subject knows the details of a crime. Therefore, this test would not work as a general
screening tool. It could not be used to test job applicants on various habitual behaviors, drug
use, falsification of an application, etc. There also are certain types of cases where Brain
Fingerprinting will not be applicable. Since Brain Fingerprinting detects a record of the crime
stored in the brain, investigators need to have a clear idea of the specifics of a crime. The case
of a person’s disappearance could be a murder or simply a runaway. Not being able to know
what crime or any specifics to test for, this test could not be used in such a case. Similarly in
a sexual assault case, everyone may agree on exactly what happened, but they disagree on the
intent of the party. Brain Fingerprinting doesn’t indicate intent; it only tests whether the
subject recalls the unique details of the crime. Another case where it would not be applicable
is if a person already knows every conceivable detail the pre-test investigation can find about
the crime. “If somebody has already been convicted, they may know everything about the
crime that we can find out, so we can’t structure a Brain Fingerprint test,” states Farwell. “In
order to structure a test, we need probes the items the individual denies knowing that are
specific details about the crime.” The earlier in a case a Brain Fingerprinting test can be
applied, the better, says Farwell. “One hour after the crime has been committed, the
perpetrator knows everything about the crime and an innocent suspect doesn’t know anything
about the crime.” He adds, once the individual has been arrested or brought in for
questioning, he’ll know a little bit about the crime, even if he’s innocent. Administering the
test before trial also requires less resources since investigators won’t have to go through
mountains of court documents to figure out what the person does and doesn’t know. Using
Brain Fingerprinting early on also can help speed up the investigative process. If there is a
group of suspects, the innocent parties will likely be willing to take a Brain Fingerprint test
and show they do not have critical knowledge the perpetrator of the crime would have.
Detectives are then able to focus the resources of the investigation toward those who are
reluctant to take the test or have shown to have knowledge of the crime. “Although
admissible in court, Brain Fingerprinting doesn’t have to get to that point,” says Farwell. “We
can use it to point to the right suspects, illuminate people and rule out individuals as
suspects.”

20
Fig.6 The image above is JB Grinder’s brainwave responses to crime scene information.
Fig.7 The image on the right is Terry Harrington’s brainwave response to crime scene information.
Target (red), irrelevant (green) and probe (blue) stimuli.

3.2 THE METHODOLOGY OF THE BF TEST

There are four phases of using BF in a criminal case: investigation, interviewing,

scientific testing, and adjudication.

3.2.1 Investigation

Initially, the investigation process consists of the test administrator (or a designee)
determining the salient features of the crime, which are used to make “probes,” or bits of
information that would seem innocuous to someone who did not commit the crime under
investigation, but which would be present in the mind of the culprit. This is research-
intensive, especially in cases that have been highly publicized and where details have been
widely disseminated in such cases, the test administrator must find rather obscure information
that has not been made public and that is unknown to an innocent test subject (through trial,
interrogation, or by some other manner). To an innocent person who does not have
knowledge of the crime, probes would be indistinguishable from other irrelevant (stimuli
which the test administrator knows that the subject has no knowledge of) and would therefore
elicit no physiological response. The test administrator must be careful to select probes in
such a manner that someone who does not know about the crime would find them as equally
plausible as the irrelevant chosen. Probes selected in cases where BF testing has been
employed in the past have included the material used to bind a victim’s hands, what was
printed on a victim’s t-shirt, and the landscape that the perpetrator of an offense ran through
while leaving the scene of the crime.

21
3.2.2 Interviewing

Once these probes have been collected and prepared, and prior to the operation of the
BF test itself, the test administrator interviews the subject. This interview is an attempt to
determine exactly what the subject knows, so as to discover any innocuous, non-criminal
explanation as to why he or she would have knowledge of certain information relevant to the
investigation, or if such stimuli are significant to the subject for reasons that are independent
of the crime at issue. Any such probes will thereafter be removed from the test. Aside from
helping authorities to sharpen their probe into the crimes that they are investigating, the
interview serves as a baseline for the test administrator to ensure that the subject has
knowledge of the control stimuli (“targets”) that will be shown to him or her.

3.2.3 Testing

After the interview and prior to the administration of the test itself, the test
administrator selects targets (stimuli which the test administrator, through the interview
process, knows that the subject has knowledge of) and irrelevant. BF tests are comprised of
approximately one-sixth targets, one sixth probes, and two-thirds irrelevant stimuli. Subjects
are then fitted with a sensory headband that is connected to an EEG, which in turn digitizes
brain wave activity and feeds it into a computer. Subjects are then shown a series of pictures
and words on a computer monitor, and the sensory headset tracks their responses. As each
image is shown, the subject clicks a mouse button to advance to the next stimuli, so as to
keep his or her attention on the test itself.36 The key to proper administration of the test is for
the administrator to present each item in context and to identify exactly the category of the
stimuli (e.g., “one of the following is the murder weapon”) The subject’s brain wave
responses are then analyzed. The test looks for a specific response called a P300: a positive
electric voltage that is present 300 milliseconds after a subject is exposed to a stimulus with
which he or she is familiar.38 A MERMER short for “Memory and Encoding Related
Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response” will be present in cases where the subject
recognizes a stimulus (including targets and potentially some or all probes), and will be
absent where they do not (including irrelevant and potentially some or all probes).The
resulting finding of “information present” or “information absent” thus represents a scientific
determination of whether the subject has knowledge of the probe stimuli tested. Because the

22
exact brain response of each subject will differ slightly, the individual response of the
particular subject being tested to the targets and irrelevant presented will be used as a
baseline for comparison.

3.2.4 Adjudication

As previously noted, BF has potential applications in a vast array of criminal cases. A

BF result of “information present,” however, is not the same as a judicial finding of guilt.
Likewise, a result of “information absent” is not the same as a judicial finding of innocence.
The judge and jury must weigh the BF test results along with all the other evidence in any
given case in rendering their verdict or judgment. This will usually entail “educating” a Judge
and/or jury about BF testing, although in the future this need would presumably decrease as
the use of BF became more widespread in the judicial system.

4. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
4.1 THE SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF BF

Although possessing limited legal exposure thus far in its fledgling existence, BF does
have a significant amount of scientific research behind its claims and processes. The P300
electrical brain wave response is “widely known and accepted in the scientific community
and there have been hundreds of studies conducted and articles published on it over the past
thirty plus years.” Dr. Farwell himself has published a scientific analysis of BF testing in a
peer-edited journal, and claims a 100% accuracy rate for the BF test in that study and three
others conducted “on a contract for an unspecified U.S. intelligence agency.” In
approximately 200 total tests to date, BFL claims that there have been no false positives or
false negatives in instances where a determination of “information present” or “information
absent” was made. Although claiming “neither a 100 percent accuracy rate nor a zero percent
error rate because such a claim is scientifically indefensible,” Dr. Farwell asserts that BF has
“high statistical confidence levels for each determination.” Even critics of BF testing concede
that it is probable that additional research will strengthen the scientific methodology behind
BF

23
 4.2 THE TESTIMONIAL NATURE OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING

Assuming that Dr. Farwell’s vision comes to fruition and BF testing becomes
prevalent in the judicial system, the question still remains if an inventive prosecutor
attempted to obtain a warrant to conduct a BF test on an unwilling subject, could a court issue
such a warrant without violating the suspect’s constitutional privilege against self-
incrimination? In addition, even if BF testing is found not to violate the privilege against self-
incrimination, would the admission of BF testing results against a non-tested party violate
current hearsay jurisprudence?

4.3 COMPARING BF TESTING TO “PARADIGMS OF REAL AND

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE”

When analyzing the separate categories of “real” and “testimonial” evidence, BF test
results clearly fall into the latter group. BF testing is not like taking a photograph of a
suspect, having a suspect’s body examined for physical peculiarities, or even like
fingerprinting itself. Although some may claim that BF testing is simply examining the brain
as a physical component of the body (and is thus more like examining the body for scars,
tattoos, etc.), the way in which the Supreme Court has addressed a similar issue is illustrative.
“A nod or head-shake,” the Court has held, “is as much a ‘testimonial’ or ‘communicative’
act as are spoken words.” In many significant ways, a finding of “information present”
subsequent to a BF test is as though the brain is providing a “nod” to the test administrator
(“yes, I do remember that”). That the psychological “nod” is not visible to the administrator
and requires scientific technology to observe should not be constitutionally relevant to the
calculus the brain is still “testifying,” and the evidence being obtained is not merely “real” in
character. “When interrogation is meant to produce certain reactions, whether they are willed
reactions or not,” the Fifth Circuit has concluded, “the history and spirit of the Fifth
Amendment is summoned to safeguard the rights of a defendant.

24
 Table 1.1 Farwell, Larry. “Brain Fingerprinting” Statistical Data

Subject Number Determination Statistical Confidence

1 Guilty 100
2 Guilty 92
3 Guilty 98
4 Guilty 91
5 Guilty 100
6 Guilty 100
7 Guilty 100
8 Guilty 100
9 Guilty 100

25
 5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS
One of the most common criticisms of BF testing involves the length of time and
effort that would be required to obtain an adequate number of probes in cases where the
judicial process has run its course to a greater extent. Although there are few ways to
circumvent this problem other than simply dedicating more manpower to the investigation
and gathering of probes, this would presumably be a far less common problem if BF testing
were employed more frequently in the judicial system, as authorities would know in advance
to hold back certain details of the crime from public knowledge. As noted previously, the use
of BF testing carries with it a host of logistical issues: the test takes a fair amount of time to
set up and conduct properly, the test administrator must be trained to run the test and analyze
the results effectively, and details of the crime must be excluded from the public and suspects
specifically in order to preserve valuable ground for probe stimuli. Many issues will need to
be considered as the use of BF increases, but the core question of how BF interacts with the
rights of suspects will linger unanswered until acted upon by legislatures and courts.
Regardless of any logistical concerns as to the effective and efficient use of BF testing, our
political and judicial leaders must acknowledge the gravity of the issues at stake. Unless
legislatures and courts act quickly to head off potential abuse of these new scientific
breakthroughs, we could face a grim future. BF testing represents a large leap in
technological innovation that carries with it unanswered questions regarding the impact on
civil and constitutional rights. With great power comes great responsibility, and as the sun
rises on a new age of technological innovation, the government should not be allowed to
exploit that technology for coercive examination purposes. When all is said and done, BF
testing may indeed turn out to be an invaluable tool in the fields of medicine and the law. It is
only through a careful monitoring of the rights of our citizens, however, that we can maintain
forward progress as a society rather than allow a fascination with new and exciting
technologies to provide a more efficient way for those rights to deteriorate.

26
5.2 FUTURE SCOPE
Even in its relative infancy, BF is poised to explode into and beyond the legal arena.
Dr. Farwell recently opened a “training center” for BF aimed at training BF test adminis-
trators and will employ up to 300 people. As far back as mid-2003, there was a waiting list of
approximately 400 requests for BF tests. Foremost among potential applications proposed by
supporters of BF is its use in the criminal justice system. Dr. Farwell has suggested that BF
can be used to accomplish everything in the judicial system from identifying terrorists,
members of gangs, and obtaining criminal and intelligence information, to exonerating the
innocent, to discovering criminal espionage and terrorist plots. Dr. Farwell has also observed
that BF can provide authorities with “cost effective approaches to investigations,” allowing
them to focus their efforts on the suspects who “actually” committed crimes, and thus
increase rates of convictions. “Knowing that such an accurate and scientific technique as BF
is available,” he concludes, “may also prove to be an effective deterrent to the commission of
future crimes.” As the Supreme Court itself has noted, “modern community living requires
modern scientific methods of crime detection lest the public go unprotected.” BFL has
estimated that BF testing could be applicable in approximately sixty to seventy percent of
major crimes (contrasted with only 1% for fingerprinting), and could save up to ten to twenty
percent of overall costs of the criminal justice system by avoiding the prosecution of innocent
individuals and freeing up governmental resources. Supporters of BF testing have made it
abundantly clear that BF should be seen as an asset for both sides of the criminal justice
system. “In every case in the future when someone is arrested,” Dr. Farwell envisions,
“they’re going to say, ‘Look, I’m innocent, don’t tell me anything about the crime. Give me a
brain fingerprint test! The application of BF testing is not by any means restricted to the
criminal justice sphere. BFL is already in negotiations to collaborate with Eli Lilly to use BF
testing to speed market research for drugs treating certain brain disorders, such as
Alzheimer’s disease. Dr. Farwell and BFL have also suggested that BF testing could be used
by advertising agencies and companies to find out what specific information people retain
from advertising, what type

27
 REFERENCES

[1] ABC-TV Good Morning America: Charles Gibson interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell
“Mind-Reading Technology Tests Subject's Guilt Brain-Reading Technology Becomes
New Tool in Courts,” March 9, 2004

[2] Abdullah, T. (2003). “Brain Fingerprinting – Picture-perfect crimes,” Berkeley Medical

Journal Issues, Spring 2003. Accessed July 20, 2008.

[3] CBS 60 Minutes: Mike Wallace interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell, December 10, 2000.

[4] Farwell L.A. (1992a). “The brain-wave information detection (BID) system: a new
Paradigm for psycho physiological detection of information” (unpublished doctoral
Dissertation). Urbana Champaign (IL): University of Illinois.

[5] Farwell, LA (1992b). “Two new twists on the truth detector: brain-wave detection of
Occupational information.” Psychophysiology 29(4A):S3.

[6] Farwell L.A. (1993). “Brain MERMERs: detection of FBI Agents and crime-relevant
Information with the Farwell MERA system.” Proceedings of the International Security
Systems Symposium, Washington, D.C.

[7] Fox, C. (2006b) “Brain Fingerprinting Skepticism” American Observer, March 29, 2006

[8] Rosenfeld, J.P., Soskins, M., Bosh, G. and Ryan, A. (2004) “Simple, Effective
Countermeasures to P300-based Tests of Detection of Concealed Information”
Psychophysiology, 41 pp 205–219 (PDF)

[9] “Murder in mind – Could reading the thoughts of criminals help free the innocent?” The
Guardian, March 25, 2004.

28
 APPENDIX

Abbreviations
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
DOD Department of Defense
EEG Electroencephalograph
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
MERMER Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted
Electroencephalographic Response
NIH National Institutes of Health

Scientists’ Views on the Brain Fingerprinting Technique

The purpose of this appendix is to provide additional information on the Brain

Fingerprinting technique. Specifically, we interviewed three scientists who were familiar with
the technique: Emanuel Donchin, Ph.D.; William Iacono, Ph.D.; and J. Peter Rosenfeld,
Ph.D. Each scientist shared his view of the technique, raising questions and providing
insights related to some of the methods that underlie Brain Fingerprinting. These scientists
expressed a need for more research to demonstrate Brain Fingerprinting’s application as an
investigative tool. However, these views are not representative of scientists’ views in general,
nor do they represent a complete or systematic review of the technique.

GAO’S MISSION
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to support
Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the
use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy,
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values
of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

29
 FBI VIEWS
According to FBI officials, in 1993, the Laboratory Division’s Polygraph Unit and
CIA collaborated in an effort to evaluate and validate the Brain Fingerprinting test. At that
time, the Polygraph Unit concluded the following. The developer had not presented sufficient
information to demonstrate validity or the underlying scientific basis of his assertions. For
example, the FBI asked the developer to provide details of all tests conducted, particularly in
a law enforcement setting, which would support validation. FBI officials indicated that the
developer maintained that his technique was proprietary. The technique had limited
applicability and usefulness to FBI investigative and personnel security matters. The research
expenses, equipment, and training costs exceeded any perceived benefit.

CIA VIEWS
From their experiences with the developer’s research between 1991 and 1993, CIA
officials concluded that Brain Fingerprinting had limited applicability to CIA’s operations.
Accordingly, CIA decided that it was not worth investing more funds to continue the
developer’s research. Specifically, CIA officials told us that the technique had limited
application to CIA activities because it did not have a screening capability, which is of
primary interest to CIA. These officials explained that to administer Brain Fingerprinting, an
investigator must know enough details of a particular event to test an individual for
knowledge of that event. For example, these officials said that using Brain Fingerprinting to
determine an agent’s involvement in espionage would be difficult because the investigator
would be hard-pressed to identify unique stimuli; in counterintelligence, specific details are
not always available because spying is not always known to have taken place. Moreover, CIA
officials indicated that a perceived operational limitation of the technique was that it required
a trained scientist to administer the Brain Fingerprinting test. In addition, CIA officials
indicated that as an ordinary step in evaluating advanced research and development work, the
agency had assembled a panel of independent researchers in 1993 to assess the analytic
methods employed by the developer to ensure that they were scientifically sound and
defensible. CIA officials stated that while the panel indicated that the technique appeared
interesting, it was not able to assess the validity of the work because the developer would not
provide the algorithmic information that was critical to completing such an assessment.
According to CIA officials, the developer considered the information proprietary evaluation.

30
 Acknowledgement

It is really matter of great pleasure to acknowledge the invaluable guidance,

Enormous assistance and excelled co-operation extended to me from every corner, in
proceeding smoothly in the writing and development of my seminar.
At first instant we express my deep sense of gratitude to seminar guide Miss. Sarita
Jain and Teaching staff for guidance and encouragement at every critical juncture in the
proceeding of the seminar.
I gladly take its opportunity to record my thanks to Prof. G.K.Andurkar (H.O.D.)
and Teaching staff for inspiring me for the seminar work.
It is extremely heartwarming to mention my gratefulness to Teachers and Non-Teaching
staff of my institute for providing invaluable advice and useful suggestions.
I also thank all the Friends and the People who ever directly or indirectly shared in
moulding of this work.

SACHIN D. BHINGARE
B.E. E & TC

31