This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Brain Fingerprinting is a controversial proposed investigative technique that measures recognition of familiar stimuli by measuring electrical brain wave responses to words, phrases, or pictures that are presented on a computer screen. Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that the suspect's reaction to the details of an event or activity will reflect if the suspect had prior knowledge of the event or activity. This test uses what Farwell calls the MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response") response to detect familiarity reaction. One of the applications is lie detection. Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell has invented, developed, proven, and patented the technique of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, a new computer-based technology to identify the perpetrator of a crime accurately and scientifically by measuring brain-wave responses to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has proven 100% accurate in over 120 tests, including tests on FBI agents, tests for a US intelligence agency and for the US Navy, and tests on real-life situations including actual crimes.. This report describes new and potentially revolutionary technology for the detection of concealed information that revolves around the noninvasive recording of electrical brain activity. The electrical brain activity pattern recorded and of interest is a specific multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MER) that occurs within less than one second after an examinee is visually presented (via a computer screen) with words, short phrases, acronyms, or pictures that are recognized and cognitively processed by that subject. This phenomenon, coupled with its absence following the presentation of the same information to a subject for whom the material is unknown or irrelevant, is the basis for discriminating between a subject with “information present” and “information absent”. This would potentially allow for the determination of a whole host of issues of interest to the law enforcement and intelligence communities, e.g., (1) does a suspect have knowledge connecting him to specific investigated criminal activity, (2) does an intelligence source have knowledge of the internal workings of a hostile intelligence agency that would indicate that he was an intelligence officer of that agency rather than who he claimed to be, (3) has an informant, a debriefed spy, or a suspected member of a criminal organization accurately described the entirety of his actions and knowledge, (4) did a convicted serial killer who claims to have killed 40 to 50 individuals, other than the one(s) he was convicted of, actually commit these acts, or are these claims merely the bravado of a condemned prisoner. The potential benefit of this program extends to a broad range of law enforcement applications, including organized crime, violent crime, white-collar crime, drug-related crime, foreign counterintelligence, non-traditional targets, and other categories of casework as well. This new technology promises to be of tremendous benefit both at the national level and for state and local law enforcement agencies.
Department of Computer Science & Engineering
Until recently. Richardson. traces of the event are left at the scene of the crime and elsewhere.D. the FBI) and others who are not knowledgeable regarding that organization.g. based on the collection of such evidence. FBI indicates that the system is also effective in distinguishing between members of a particular organization (in this case. Lawrence Farwell and his colleagues has shown this technique to be highly accurate in distinguishing between individuals with “information present” and “information absent” in mock crimes and actual minor crimes (see 1-9). Traditional interrogative polygraph ("lie detection") methods rely upon using questioning formats in conjunction with the recording of physiological parameters that reflect autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity (e. FSRTC. Conventional control question (CQT) polygraphy has been used as an aid in the attempt to detect deception in such reports. and this emotional arousal will be accompanied by corresponding physiological arousal which can be measured. Laboratory Division. heart rate. The fundamental theory of conventional polygraphy is that a deceptive individual will be more concerned with and experience more emotional arousal in response to relevant questions than control questions. criminal investigation and counterintelligence could be revolutionized.. Farwell in collaboration with SSA Drew C. Ph. If this record could be tapped. the only method of attempting to discern what information regarding a crime or other situation of interest was stored in the brain of a suspect or witness has been (1) to interrogate the subject. Department of Computer Science & Engineering 2 . When a crime is committed. The task of the investigators is to reconstruct what has happened and who has been involved. and (2) to attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying. Research conducted by Dr. Previous research conducted by Dr. blood pressure.Brain Fingerprinting This document describes a revolutionary technology that is capable of detecting concealed information stored in the brain through the electrophysiological manifestations of information-processing brain activity. In addition to the physical and circumstantial evidence that can be obtained. there is one place where an extensive record of the crime is stored — in the brain of the perpetrator.
In a conventional polygraph test. whether or not they have specific information relevant to the situation under investigation. Multifaceted electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA) technology presents the possibility of focusing on the origins (at the level of subject recognition of guilty knowledge) of concealed information rather than the peripheral physiological manifestations of that knowledge. The in-test portion of the Brain Fingerprinting technology exam does not involve the asking of any questions. but could be avoided altogether with Brain Fingerprinting technology. rather than innocent (nondeceptive). In addition to being a more direct physiological approach (central nervous system vs. leading him to believe that a large response to control questions will make him appear guilty (deceptive). (2) guilty individuals may fail to respond in the expected way either emotionally or physiologically. which may result in an innocent subject falsely being found deceptive. or at least highly instrumental. (3) certain mental and physical countermeasures can be practiced successfully with standard technology.e. which are invasive. the examiner typically deceives the subject. A greater response to the relevant questions leads to a deceptive ("guilty") determination. and (4) a conventional polygraph exam is highly stressful for the examinee. recognition and processing of significant information) rather than an artful and disturbing manipulation designed to produce emotional and physiological responses to control question material. Department of Computer Science & Engineering 3 . personal questions not relevant to the issue at hand that are designed to be emotionally and physiologically disturbing to the subject. which depends entirely on information processing brain activity (i. innocent subjects — even if they are correctly determined to be innocent and truthful — are deceived and subjected to a highly invasive and stressful situation both during the pre-test interview and during the test. Thus. in conventional polygraphy. In an attempt to avoid a false positive result (non-deceptive subject falsely found deceptive). the examiner must ask penetrating questions in the pre-test interview to find personal material sufficiently disturbing and stress-producing to produce effective control questions. and involves deception by the polygraphers..). emotionally neutral experience for all subjects. the pre-test interview for a Brain Fingerprinting technology exam is a very clinical. To elicit a stress response to the control questions during the test. etc. the Brain Fingerprinting system may well overcome certain difficulties inherent with standard polygraphy: (1) Innocent as well as guilty individuals may respond emotionally and physiologically to crime-relevant questions. This latter shortcoming is generally justified by the correct end result of finding an innocent subject non-deceptive to the relevant questions. In fact. This deception by the examiner is necessary. a greater response to the control questions leads to a non-deceptive ("innocent") determination. This information is peripheral to the cognitive aspects of deception or of concealing guilty information. emotion-driven physiological responses to relevant questions (regarding the situation under investigation) are compared to responses to control questions. to produce the response. only the non-invasive recording of brain electrical activity as subject views verbal or pictorial information on a computer screen. peripheral) to the question at hand.Brain Fingerprinting sweating.
The test subject's brain response to these two different types of stimuli allow the testor to determine if the measured brain responses to test stimuli. Department of Computer Science & Engineering 4 . Brain Fingerprinting is considered a type of Guilty Knowledge Test. and pictures. words.g. and a series of relevant stimuli. In this respect. 2 Technique: The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that measure the electroencephalography from several locations on the scalp. but this is hotly disputed by specialized researchers.. palm sweating and heart rate). and pictures. or pictures presented on a computer screen. the testee is presented with a series of irrelevant stimuli. In order to calibrate the brain fingerprinting system. are more similar to the relevant or irrelevant responses.Brain Fingerprinting 1. Existing (polygraph) procedures for assessing the validity of a suspect's "guilty" knowledge rely on measurement of autonomic arousal (e. while Brain Fingerprinting measures electrical brain activity via a fitted headband containing special sensors. phrases. words. called probes. Brain Fingerprinting is said to be more accurate in detecting "guilty" knowledge distinct from the false positives of traditional polygraph methods. where the "guilty" party is expected to react strongly to the relevant detail of the event of word.1 What is Brain Fingerprinting? Brain Fingerprinting is designed to determine whether an individual recognizes specific information related to an event or activity by measuring electrical brain wave responses to words. The technique can be applied only in situations where investigators have a sufficient amount of specific information about an event or activity that would be known only to the perpetrator and investigator.
Brain fingerprinting uses cognitive brain responses. 2. sweating. and preserved properly until a suspect is apprehended. evidence recognized and collected at the crime scene. a common stimuls or a stimulas the proband is asked to count.. e. a murder weapon or a victim's face. The novel interpretation in brain fingerprinting is to look for P300 as response to stimuli related to the crime in question e.e. is scientifically compared with evidence on the person of the suspect to detect a match that would place the suspect at the crime scene. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting works similarly. which measures emotion-based physiological signals such as heart rate. unlike polygraph testing. in the brain as revealed by electrical brain responses) is informational evidence rather than physical Department of Computer Science & Engineering 5 . it does not attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying or telling the truth. a rare vs..Brain Fingerprinting The technique uses the well known fact that an electrical signal known as P300 is emitted from an individual's brain approximately 300 milliseconds after it is confronted with a stimulus of special significance. except that the evidence collected both at the crime scene and on the person of the suspect (i. the system does not require the testee to issue verbal responses to questions or stimuli. Because it is based on EEG signals.g. brain fingerprinting does not depend on the emotions of the subject. Also.1 Four phases of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting: In fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting. and blood pressure. nor is it affected by emotional responses.g. Brain fingerprinting is fundamentally different from the polygraph (lie-detector).
The expert then conducts the Brain Evidence Collection in order to determine whether or not the evidence from the crime scene matches evidence stored in the brain of the suspect. Brain Fingerprinting Scientific Result. the P300/MERMER is absent. Brain Fingerprinting technology utilizes multifaceted electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA) to detect information stored in the human brain. This new system detects information directly. 3. this indicates that specific information relevant to the situation under investigation is stored in the brain. and 4. which are similar to the steps in fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting: 1. This determination and statistical confidence constitute the Scientific Result of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting: either "information present" – the details of the crime are stored in the brain of the suspect – or "information absent" – the details of the crime are not stored in the brain of the suspect. There are four stages to Farwell Brain Fingerprinting. The detection of concealed information stored in the brain of suspects. witnesses. the Farwell Brain Fingerprinting system makes a mathematical determination as to whether or not this specific evidence is stored in the brain. In the Crime Scene Evidence Collection. This Department of Computer Science & Engineering 6 . A memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MERMER) is elicited when an individual recognizes and processes an incoming stimulus that is significant or noteworthy.Brain Fingerprinting evidence. Lawrence Farwell observes brain responses on the operator monitor. Brain Fingerprinting technology depends only on brain information processing. measured non-invasively from the scalp. In the Computer Evidence Analysis. Brain Fingerprinting Crime Scene Evidence Collection. and then to the computer where they are analyzed. When an irrelevant stimulus is seen. intelligence sources. The subject's brain responses are conveyed from the headband to the amplifiers. an expert in Farwell Brain Fingerprinting examines the crime scene and other evidence connected with the crime to identify details of the crime that would be known only to the perpetrator. If the computer detects a brain P300/MERMER. and computes a statistical confidence for that determination. Brain Fingerprinting Computer Evidence Analysis. Brain Fingerprinting technology presents a new paradigm in the psychophysiological detection of concealed information. on the basis of the electrophysiological manifestations of information-processing brain activity. 2. it does not depend on the emotional response of the subject. and others is of central concern to all phases of law enforcement and intelligence operations. 3 Brain Fingerprinting Technology Dr. The visual stimuli are presented on the subject monitor. Brain Fingerprinting Brain Evidence Collection.
Brain Fingerprinting pattern occurs within less than a second after the stimulus presentation. Frontal Area Stimulus Type: Target _____ Irrelevant...... Probe_____ B. Brain Fingerprinting System: Detection of FBI Agent Knowledge "Information Present" Brain Response A.. Frontal Area Stimulus Type: Target _____ Irrelevant.... Parietal Area B...... Probe_____ Department of Computer Science & Engineering 7 ... and can be readily detected using EEG amplifiers and a computerized signal-detection algorithm.
. The Brain Fingerprinting system has potential application in a wide range of law enforcement and intelligence operations. Richardson. and therefore probes elicit a P300/MERMER when the subject is "knowledgeable". Dr.g. Neuroscience). FBI applied the Brain Fingerprinting system in the detection of FBI new agent trainees using FBI-relevant probes. Colorgraphics Super Dual VGA)..g..66 MHz Gateway 2000)." and "probes. For a subject who as knowledge of the situation under investigation.1 Instrumental Response Analysis Requirements and Multifaceted Electroencephalographic The equipment required for Brain Fingerprinting technology consists of a personal computer (e. a data acquisition board (e. from detecting whether a suspect has knowledge that would identify him as the perpetrator of a crime to detecting whether an individual has knowledge that would indicate that he had undergone training by a foreign intelligence or terrorist organization. a mathematical data analysis algorithm that compares the responses to the three types of stimuli and produces a determination of "information absent" or "information present. The entire Brain Fingerprinting system is under computer control. Inc." and a statistical confidence level for this determination. and the software developed by the Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories for data acquisition and analysis. Scientific Solutions Lab Master AD). FSRTC." The targets are made relevant and noteworthy to all subjects: the subject is given a list of the target stimuli and instructed to press a particular button in response to targets and another button in response to all other stimuli. Laboratory Division." "irrelevants. 3. they elicit a P300/MERMER. Farwell. These irrelevants do not elicit a P300/MERMER. These relevant stimuli are referred to as probes.g. Each stimulus appears for a fraction of a second. the probes are noteworthy due to the subject's knowledge of that situation. Three types of stimuli are presented: "targets. Since the targets are noteworthy for the subject. having no relation to the situation under investigation.. Director and Chief Scientist of Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories. recording of electrical brain activity.. The electrodes used to measure electrical brain activity are Department of Computer Science & Engineering 8 . or pictures is presented on a video monitor under computer control. including presentation of the stimuli. as well as 4 control subjects who were lacking any knowledge regarding the FBI.D. and thus probes do not elicit a P300/MERMER if the subject has no knowledge of the situation under investigation. a four-channel EEG amplifier system (e.Brain Fingerprinting Brain Fingerprinting technology incorporates the following procedure: A sequence of words. 486 . a graphics card for driving two monitors from one PC (e. Probes are indistinguishable from the irrelevants for a subject who is not knowledgeable. Ph. The system correctly classified 100% of the 17 FBI new agents tested. Some of the non-target stimuli are relevant to the situation under investigation. phrases. Lawrence A. Most of the nontarget stimuli are irrelevant.g. in collaboration with then SSA Drew C.
Irrelevants are. Three categories of stimuli are presented: "probes. In addition to the probes and the irrelevants. The irrelevants are not noteworthy for any subjects. and is required to press a particular button whenever a target is presented. These components can be readily recognized through signal averaging Department of Computer Science & Engineering 9 . designated as targets. four articles of clothing irrelevant to the crime are also presented." and "irrelevants. maximal at the midline parietal area and also prominent at midline frontal area. The stimuli are structured such that the probes and irrelevants are indistinguishable for a subject lacking specific information relevant to the situation under investigation. with an onset latency of approximately 800 to 1200 msec. is presented. a third type of stimuli. there are approximately four irrelevant stimuli. irrelevant. The probes are noteworthy only to the subjects who possess the knowledge necessary to recognize them — that is. P3. The Brain Fingerprinting system presents visual stimuli consisting of short phrases. maximal at the midline parietal area of the head. if a given probe is an article of clothing relevant to the crime.Brain Fingerprinting held in place by a special headband designed and constructed by Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories for this purpose. Research has shown that brain information processing of noteworthy stimuli results in a characteristic brain electrical response known as a memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MERMER). or late positive component (LPC). (For all other stimuli." Probes are stimuli relevant to the crime under investigation. are noteworthy for all subjects. since they are recognized and require a particular response. as the name implies. there are four irrelevant stimuli that are also names. brain responses to certain types of stimuli are analyzed to detect a specific multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MER) known as the memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MERMER). and so on. Another more recently discovered aspect of the MERMER is an electrically negative component. That is. with a peak latency of approximately 300 to 800 msec. It is referred to variously as P300. and analyze the data have been developed by Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories. the knowledge specific to the situation under investigation. or pictures on a video screen under computer control. (This new method for attaching electrodes is more convenient and comfortable for the subject as well as quicker and easier for the operator than previously available methods.) The software necessary to present the stimuli.) Each target is the same type of item as one of the probes and the several corresponding irrelevants. the subject is instructed to press another button. For each probe stimulus. In experiments using the Brain Fingerprinting system. One of the most easily measured aspects of this response (and the only one measured in early research) is an electrically positive component. if a particular probe stimulus is a name." "targets. both in the time and frequency domains that can be detected with sophisticated signal analysis procedures. The targets. P3b. About one-sixth of the stimuli are targets. one for each probe. acronyms. It is elicited by stimuli that are noteworthy to a subject. collect the electroencephalographic data. The subject is given a list of the targets. The P300/MERMER contains several facets.
too. What this experimental design accomplishes. which contain a P300/MERMER. but knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the situation under investigation. and the irrelevants and (unrecognized) probes do not. and a threestimulus series (with the same stimuli) for an individual who possesses knowledge of the specific information under investigation.) In order for the test to be an effective indicator of knowledge or lack thereof. Table 1 summarizes the three types of stimuli presented and the predicted brain responses to each type of stimulus. A subject with specific information relevant to the situation under investigation. The statistical technique of bootstrapping is employed to compare the brain responses to the different types of stimuli. namely the probes. If the probe responses are similar to the target responses. The determination of information present or information absent consists of comparing the probe responses to the target responses.e. which are relevant to a crime or other situation in which he has participated. Thus. lacking a P300/MERMER — then the subject can be determined to be lacking in knowledge of the situation under investigation. essentially. noteworthy. one can conclude that the subject recognizes the probes — which only someone knowledgeable about the crime would do — and therefore is "knowledgeable". frequent stimuli (consisting in fact of true irrelevants. A subject lacking specific information relevant to the situation under investigation recognizes only two types of stimuli: relevant. Department of Computer Science & Engineering 10 . The irrelevants provide a template for a response to stimuli that are irrelevant — nonP300/MERMER-producing stimuli. to make a determination of "information absent" or "information present. The targets provide a template for a response to stimuli known to be particularly noteworthy — P300/MERMER-producing stimuli. rare targets and irrelevant. for a guilty subject. elicit a P300/MERMER. however. stimuli must be structured such that only a knowledgeable person would recognize the probe stimuli. Recent research suggests that a third aspect of the P300/MERMER is a pattern of changes in the frequency domain characterized by a phasic shift in the frequency power spectrum that can be detected using single-trial analysis techniques (8). and to the irrelevant responses. If the brain responses to the probes are like those to the irrelevants — i." and to provide a statistical confidence for this determination. (Note that what is detected is not actually guilt or innocence. The targets elicit a P300/MERMER. which do not.Brain Fingerprinting procedures (1-9). is to create a two-stimulus series for an individual without the specific information under investigation. plus probes — which he does not distinguish as being different from the irrelevants).. recognizes a second noteworthy type of stimuli. the probes.
The determinations and the statistical confidence for each are listed in Table 3. Frequent (Treat Like (Indistinguishable Irrelevant Stimuli) from Irrelevant Stimuli) If Information Present: P300/MERMER Relevant. along with a statistical confidence for the determination. 100% of the determinations were correct. FBI agents showed large P300/MERMERs in response both to the targets and to the FBI-relevant probes. The subjects who were not knowledgeable regarding the FBI showed large P300/MERMERs only to the targets. The determinations are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Department of Computer Science & Engineering 11 . Rare Irrelevant. Bootstrapping analysis was conducted to make a determination of whether the subject was knowledgeable regarding the FBI (an "information present" determination). Frequent Predicted Evaluation P300/MERMER No P300/MERMER Irrelevant 2/3 (frequent) Probe 1/6 Left Button If Information Absent: No P300/MERMER Press Irrelevant. and no indeterminate. There were no false positives. both for the FBI agents and for the control group.2 Results of the FBI Agent Study The results of the study of FBI agents were as predicted. or was lacking in such knowledge. no false negatives. Rare 3.Brain Fingerprinting Table 1 BRAIN FINGERPRINTING TECHNOLOGY TYPES OF STIMULI AND PREDICTED BRAIN RESPONSES Stimulus Relative Description Instructions Type Frequency Target 1/6 Relevant to Right Button Task Press Irrelevant Relevant to Crime or Investigated Situation Left Button Press Stimulus Relevant. The Brain Fingerprinting system yielded a correct determination in every case. As can be seen in Tables 2 and 3. In every case.
FBI Agents ("Information Present") Subject Number Determination 1 2 3 4 5 6 Information Present Information Present Information Present Information Present Information Present Information Present Statistical Confidence 100 100 100 100 100 92 Department of Computer Science & Engineering 12 .Brain Fingerprinting BRAIN FINGERPRINTING TECHNOLOGY: SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS Subject State Determination Information Absent Information Present Indeterminate Total 4 0 0 4 Information Absent 0 17 0 17 Information Present Total 4 17 0 21 Predictive Values Negative 100% Positive 100% Validity (excluding inconclusives) 100% Validity (including inconclusives) 100% Table 3 BRAIN FINGERPRINTING TECHNOLOGY: DETERMINATIONS AND STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE A.
Brain Fingerprinting 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Information Present Information Present Information Present Information Present Information Present Information Present Information Present Information Present Information Present Information Present Information Present 100 92 100 98 98 100 97 91 100 100 100 B. Non-FBI Agents ("Information Absent") Subject Number Determination 1 2 3 4 Information Absent Information Absent Information Absent Information Absent Statistical Confidence 90 100 100 74 Department of Computer Science & Engineering 13 .
4 Comparison with other technologies Conventional fingerprinting and DNA match physical evidence from a crime scene with evidence on the person of the perpetrator. according to Dawson. While the suspect denied knowing anything about the case. Dawson ordered a test on J. who had also seen it featured on television. executing. When another murder investigation ran into problems earlier this year. B. which seemed to confirm one of Grinder's many confessions." Confronted with the test results. Similarly. the results are the same whether the person has lied or told the truth at any time. Dawson turned again to brain fingerprinting. In 1999.. He refrained from discussing the details of the case with the suspect and with the media so that the P300 probes would be valid. it is a scientific way to determine if someone has committed a specific crime or other act. Grinder. No questions are asked and no answers are given during Farwell Brain Fingerprinting. planning. As with DNA and fingerprints. Grinder had admitted and denied the allegations so many times that. Grinder pled guilty to the charges and also admitted to killing three other girls in Arkansas. Mo. Brain Fingerprinting has nothing to do with lie detection. accused of raping and murdering a 25-year-old woman. Brain Fingerprinting matches informational evidence from the crime scene with evidence stored in the brain.Brain Fingerprinting In Macon County. and recording the suspect's actions. Fingerprints and DNA are available in only 1% of crimes. Rather. Farwell's test suggested otherwise. Department of Computer Science & Engineering 14 . "We didn't know what to believe anymore. The brain is always there. Sheriff Robert Dawson learned about the method from his secretary.
Dr. In research on contract with a US government intelligence agency. 7 Applications 7. 1) Brain Fingerprinting has been thoroughly and scientifically tested. 5) Brain Fingerprinting is non-invasive and non-testimonial. In collaboration with FBI scientist Dr. however. will be relevant when the question of admissibility is tested in court. 4) The theory and practice of Brain Fingerprinting have gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. and has been found scientifically viable as well as revolutionary in its implications. 2: Aid in identifying trained terrorists with the potential to commit future terrorist acts. 3: Help to identify people who have knowledge or training in banking. Farwell achieved 100% accuracy in using Farwell Brain Fingerprinting to identify FBI agents based on their brain responses to words and phrases only an FBI agent would recognize.1 Counter terrorism Brain fingerprinting can help address the following critical elements in the fight against terrorism: 1: Aid in determining who has participated in terrorist acts.. Farwell's successes in the scientific laboratory with his invention were already well known. 6 Record of 100% Accuracy At the time of this first field application. even if they are in a “sleeper” cell and have not been active for years.D. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has been subjected to rigorous peer review under US government sponsorship. directly or indirectly. Dr. Department of Computer Science & Engineering 15 . Farwell has published extensively in the scientific literature and presented his research to many scientific and technical audiences throughout the world . also resulted in 100% accurate results. 4: Help to determine if an individual is in a leadership role within a terrorist organization. 2) The theory and application of Brain Fingerprinting have been subject to peer review and publication. Hernandez. Tests conducted by Dr. Drew Richardson. Farwell for the US Navy in collaboration with Navy LCDR Rene S. The following well established features of Brain Fingerprinting. 3) The rate of error is extremely low -virtually nonexistent -. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting achieved 100% accuracy in proving the presence or absence of a wide variety of evidence stored in the brains of individuals involved in over 120 cases.Brain Fingerprinting 5 Admissibility of Brain Fingerprinting in court The admissibility of Brain Fingerprinting in court has not yet been established. Ph. finance or communications and who are associated with terrorist teams and acts. Dr.and clear standards governing scientific techniques of operation of the technology have been established and published.
economical and timely solution to the central problem in the fight against terrorism. from investigations to parole hearings. there was no scientifically valid way to detect this fundamental difference. The impacts on the criminal justice system will be profound. First generation tests have proven to be more accurate than other routinely used tests.3 Medical ‘Brain Fingerprinting’ is the patented technology that can measure objectively. terrorists and those supporting terrorism can be identified quickly and accurately. A new era in security and intelligence gathering has begun. detailed knowledge of the crimes. a significant scientific breakthrough has now become a practical applied technology. And there is no reason why an innocent individual should be falsely imprisoned or convicted of terrorist activity. for the first time. In a terrorist act. executing. This exciting technology gives the judge and jury new. Brain Fingerprinting testing does not prove guilt or innocence. but the brain of the perpetrator is always there. It is estimated that Brain Fingerprinting testing will apply in approximately 60 to 70% of these major crimes. No longer should any terrorist be able to evade justice for lack of evidence.Brain Fingerprinting Brain fingerprinting technology is based on the principle that the brain is central to all human acts. training and plans that an innocent person does not have. That is the role of a judge and jury. With the Brain Fingerprinting system. It is now possible to determine scientifically whether or not a person has terrorist training and knowledge of terrorist activities. Brain Fingerprinting testing provides an accurate. scientifically valid evidence to help them arrive at their decision. Until the invention of Brain Fingerprinting testing. and the innocent suspect does not. 7. Department of Computer Science & Engineering 16 . 7. The terrorist has knowledge of organizations. how memory and cognitive functioning of Alzheimer sufferers are affected by medications. 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. there may or may not be peripheral evidence such as fingerprints or DNA. and recording the crime. and could be commercially available in 18-24 months. Until the invention of Brain Fingerprinting testing. planning. there was no scientific way to detect this fundamental difference. The potential now exists to significantly improve the speed and accuracy of the entire system.2 Criminal justice A critical task of the criminal justice system is to determine who has committed a crime. DNA evidence and fingerprints are available in only about 1% of major crimes. Now. A Brain Fingerprinting test can determine with an extremely high degree of accuracy those who are involved with terrorist activity and those who are not. 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.
When presented with familiar information. etc. This technology will be able to help determine what information is actually retained in memory by individuals.”Psychophysiology 34:234-240. Most advertising programs today are evaluated subjectively using focus groups. December 10. CBS 60 Minutes: Mike Wallace interviews Dr. the brain responds by producing MERMERs. 2000.Brain-Reading Technology Becomes New Tool in Courts. and exonerating innocent suspects. law enforcement agencies. innocent suspects. The technician can use this response to measure how quickly information is disappearing from the brain and whether the drugs they are taking are slowing down the process. Department of Computer Science & Engineering 17 . Spring 2003. 2008. Reading Technology Tests Subject's Guilt -. Conclusion Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new scientific technology for solving crimes. the product. and falsely accused.B. 4.” Berkeley Medical Journal Issues. technicians then present words. In the insurance industry. Lawrence Farwell. We will be able to offer significantly more advanced.4 Additional Applications In advertising. and how do the results vary with demographics? We will also be able to measure the comparative effectiveness of multiple media types.G. For example.” March 9. Accessed July 20. (2003). and Iacono W. and other applications. with a record of 100% accuracy in research with US government agencies. 7. Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will offer significant advances in measuring campaign and media effectiveness.J. Allen J. 2004 Abdollah. The technology fulfills an urgent need for governments. T. corporations. in a branding campaign do people remember the brand. ABC-TV Good Morning America: Charles Gibson interviews Dr. “A comparison of methods for the analysis of event-related potentials in deception detection. scientific methods to help determine the effectiveness of campaigns and be very cost competitive with current methodologies. Lawrence Farwell “Mind2. 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. specific increases in neuron activity. 3. References 1. “Brain Fingerprinting – Picture-perfect crimes. (1997). actual criminal cases. crime victims.Brain Fingerprinting The 30 minute test involves wearing a headband with built-in electrodes. 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. identifying perpetrators. phrases and images that are both known and unknown to the patient to determine whether information that should be in the brain is still there. investigators.
S.” American Observer. Fox. L. March 29. and Smith. (2006b) “Brain Fingerprinting Skepticism” American Observer. (2006). 7. Conditions. A. Farwell. 2006.”Journal of Forensic Sciences 46. L. (2001). and Richardson. “Brain Fingerprinting in Laboratory 6.Brain Fingerprinting 5. C. (2006a) “Brain Fingerprinting National Security. Farwell. 8.A. 2006 Department of Computer Science & Engineering 18 . S. March 29. 43: S38. D.1: 135-143 Fox. “Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal.” Psychophysiology.C. C.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.