Forensic Biotechnology

Graduate Level Course

Brain Fingerprinting
11/25/21 | 2
 Overview:

Brain fingerprinting was invented by Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell.

It’s a patented technique of proven accuracy in US government tests.

Ruled Admissible in US Courts as scientific evidence.

It has a record of 100% Accuracy.

 Brain Fingerprinting
üThe Brain Fingerprinting is an advanced computer-based
technology which detect the information stored in the brain
of the subject by measuring brain-wave responses like
P300/MERMER which are elicited in response to crime
relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen.

üBy using EEG (Electro EncephaloGraphy) to ascertain the

presence or absence of information into human brain.
üBrain fingerprinting, also known as Brain Electrical
Oscillation Signature Profiling (BEOSP) is a neuro-
psychological method of interrogation in which the suspect’s
participation in the crime is investigated by studying the
brain’s response.
 P300 /MERMER:
• The P300 is a component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). It is a specific
brain response elicited in the subjects’ brain has a latency of at least 300 ms
(300). The P300 an electrically positive component maximal at the parietal scalp site.

• The MERMER (Memory and Encoding Related Multi-faceted

Electroencephalographic Response), includes the P300 and another longer latency,
electrically negative subcomponent at the frontal scalp site with a latency of up to
1400msec post-stimulus which can be readily detected using EEG amplifiers.
 Continued….
ü When subjected to a rare, but meaningful stimulus, the neurons fired
synchronously, eliciting characteristic voltage changes in the brain, which can
be readily captured by EEG amplifiers and computerizes signal detection
algorithm.
Procedure
ü A sequence of words, phrases, or pictures is presented on a video monitor to the
subject, wearing a special headband with EEG sensors designed for detecting
the brain wave responses.

ü Brain responses were recorded from the midline frontal, central, and parietal
scalp locations, referenced to linked mastoids (behind the ear), and from a
location on the forehead to track eye movements.
• Farwell measures brain-wave responses of a person looking at
words or pictures displayed on a computer screen using a headband
with built-in electrodes
 Summary of the Procedure
Electrical
Picture/word Potentials
shown to an Generate P300 accumulate in
individual Brainwave brain
(stimulus) Triggers (MERMER)
neurons of
Head band fitted
brain
with electrodes
placed on scalp

P300-
MERMER (an
Found Guilty/
EEG amplifier Scalp ERP
Not Guilty
EEG)
Data analysis using Generate measures
a computer program Analog signals

25/11/21 | 9
Continued….
The suspect views stimulus consisting of words or pictures regarding the crime on a
computer screen. Stimuli are of 3 types:
1. Targets
2. Irrelevants
3. Probes

ü Targets:
Stimuli that are relevant to the investigated situation and are known to the test
suspect.

ü Irrelevants :
Stimuli that are irrelevant to the investigated situation and to the suspect.

ü Probes :
Information relevant to the crime or situation, which is known only to the
convicted may or may not known to suspect.
Continued…

• A subject lacking specific information relevant to the situation under investigation

recognizes only two types of stimuli:
ü Targets & Irrelevants.

• A subject with specific information relevant to the situation under investigation,

however, recognizes all three types of stimuli:
ü Targets, Irrelevants & Probes.
Continued…
ü The entire Brain Fingerprinting system is under computer control, including
presentation of the stimuli, recording of electrical brain activity, 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“.
 “Information Present” Brain response
(The subject knows the crime-relevant information contained in the probe stimuli)

ü The determination of information present in one’s brain consists of comparing the

probe responses to the target responses, which contain a P300/MERMER, as both
are noteworthy to the subject.
Red- : Information the subject is expected to know.
Green-: Information not known to suspect.
Blue- : Information of the crime that only suspect knows.
Blue and Red lines closely co-relate, suspect has critical
knowledge of the crime – information present.
“Information Absent” Brain response
(The subject does not know the information)

ü The determination of information absent in one’s brain consists of comparing the

probe responses to the irrelevant responses, as both are not familiar to the subject
and do not elicit a P300/MERMER.
 Red : Information the subject is expected to know.
Green : Information not known to suspect.
Blue : Information of the crime that only suspect knows.
Blue and green lines closely co-relate, suspect does not have
critical knowledge of the crime – information absent.
ü Results have shown this technique to be capable of producing an "Information
Absent" or "Information Present" determination, with a strong statistical
confidence, in approximately 90% of the cases studied.

ü All of the determinations were accurate. In the other 10% of cases the
mathematical algorithm determined that there was insufficient information to
make determination.
Comparison with other technologies:
ü Fingerprints and DNA are available in only 1% of crimes. But the brain and the
evidence recorded in it are always there.

ü No questions are asked or answered during Farwell’s Brain Fingerprinting test.

ü Brain Fingerprinting technology depends only on brain information processing, it

does not depend on the “emotional response of the subject”.
Instrumental requirements:
ü Personal Computer
ü A Data acquisition board
ü A Graphics card for driving two
monitors from one PC
ü A four-channel EEG amplifier system
ü Software developed by the Brain
Fingerprinting Laboratories for data
acquisition and analysis.
 Brain Fingerprinting in India
üThe Gujarat government has constituted an eight-member 'ethics committee' headed
by a high court judge, to monitor and establish newly acquired techniques of crime
detection. The technique being perused by this committee at this juncture is the use
of BRAIN FINGERPRINTING on the accused and suspects in India.

üAnand Yagnik, an advocate at the Gujarat High Court and a member of this
committee said : The ethical considerations to be kept in mind while conducting new
techniques of crime detection like the brain fingerprinting.

üNational Institute of Mental Health and Neuroscience, Bangalore, is helping the

FSL(Forensic Science Laboratory) authorities in imbibing the technique.
Other applications:

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

ü Criminal Justice
ü Counter terrorism
ü Medical diagnosis
ü National Security
ü Advertising
 Advantages:
ü Identify criminals quickly and scientifically
ü Record of 100% accuracy
ü Identify terrorists and members of gangs, criminal and intelligence
organizations
ü Reduce expenditure of money and other resources in law enforcement
ü Reduce evasion of justice.
ü Access criminal evidence in the brain
ü Fingerprints and DNA, though accurate and highly useful, can only be
collected in approximately 1% of all criminal cases brain is always there.
ü Human Rights Oriented.
 Disadvantages:

ü This technique is not applicable in some cases such as Person’s disappearance.

ü This technique is not applicable if a person already knows every conceivable detail
about the crime.

ü This 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 suspect and the investigator.
Case study:
üNithari case

üMadhumita murder case investigations involving former UP minister Amarmani

Tripathi, now in CBI custody.

üIndian student Aditi Sharma was convicted of murdering her ex-boyfriend Udit
Bharat by giving him a “Prasad” laced with arsenic. Aditi was found to
have experiential knowledge for having a plan to murder Udit by giving him
Arsenic.
Conclusion:

• This technology provides the 99.9% accurate results towards crime victims, falsely
accused, innocent suspects.
• Additional research is required to determine if brain MERMER testing is a
technique which could tell an investigator that a particular person possesses this
detailed knowledge.
• Additionally, if research determines that brain MERMER testing is reliable enough
that it could be introduced as evidence in courts of India, it may be the major
criminal investigative tool of the future.