Rushita beladiya.pdf

NAME: RUSHITA BELADIYA
BRANCH: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ENROLLMENT NO :130210116003
TOPIC:CASE STUDY ON BRAIN FINGER PRINTING

A DOCUMENTRY MAKING REPORT
BRAIN FINGER PRINTING
GUIDED BY SUBMITED BY
PROF. SEEMA JOSHI ENROLLMENT NO :130210116003
RUSHITA BELADIYA
SUBMITTED TO
GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE,BHAVNAGAR
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE,BHAVNAGAR
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
CERTIFICATE
Date: 30122013
This is to certify that RUSHITA BELADIYA OF B.E 1St
Semester Information
Technology Department Enrollment No :130210116003 has Satisfactorily
compeleted his team work of subject (case study making) during the academic
year 2013 and submitted on
Date:30122013
Staff in charge Head of Department
PROF:SEEMA JOSHI PROF:D R KERALIYA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to be thankful to the principal and college for providing the necessary
resources and facilities and also for their support, courage and cooperation.
Having completed this report,looking back, I realize the importance of the people
without whom this report would have not been complete. I am indebted to my
H.O.D Prof S B PATEL, and my lecturer Miss Seema joshi for their guidance and
commitment towards the preparation of the case study making report without
which I would have not been able to complete in such a short period.
Yours sincerely,
Enrollno.130210116003
Name:Rushita Beladiya

CONTENT
1. Introduction 1
2. Abstract 2
3. History 3
4. technical aspects 5
5. background and terminology 7
6. current uses and research 8
7. limitation of brainfingerprinting 11
8. future applications and rearch 15
9. Conclusion 23
10.
Refrences 24

LIST OF FIGURE Pg.no
1. HOW TO ATTECH WITH MAN 6
2. DIAGRAM FOR TECHNIQUE 7
3. FIGURE FOR ANSWERE 9
4. USE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION(1,2,3) 12

INTRODUCTION:
Brain fingerprinting is based on finding that the brain generates a unique brain wave pattern
when a person encounters a familiar stimulus Use of functional magnetic resonance imaging in
lie detection derives from studies suggesting that persons asked to lie show different patterns of
brain activity than they do when being truthful. Issues related to the use of such evidence in
courts are discussed. The author concludes that neither approach is currently supported by
enough data regarding its accuracy in detecting deception to warrant use in court.
In the field of criminology, a new lie detector has been developed in the United States of
America. This is called “brain fingerprinting”. This invention is supposed to be the best lie
detector available as on date and is said to detect even smooth criminals who pass the polygraph
test (the conventional lie detector test) with ease. The new method employs brain waves, which
are useful in detecting whether the person subjected to the test, remembers finer details of the
crime. Even if the person willingly suppresses the necessary information, the brain wave is sure
to trap him, according to the experts, who are very excited about the new kid on the block.
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.



Abstract :
Brain fingerprinting is based on finding that the brain generates a unique brain wave pattern
when a person encounters a familiar stimulus. Use of functional magnetic resonance imaging in
lie detection derives from studies suggesting that persons asked to lie show different patterns of
brain activity than they do when being truthful. Issues related to the use of such evidence in
courts are discussed. The author concludes that neither approach is currently supported by
enough data regarding its accuracy in detecting deception to warrant use in court. In the field of
criminology, a new lie detector has been developed in the United States of America. This is
called “brain fingerprinting”.
Brain fingerprinting is a controversial forencik science technique that uses
electoencephalography to determine whether specific information is stored in a subject's brain. It
does this by measuring electrical brain wave responses to words, phrases, or pictures that are
presented on a computer screen .(farewell,smith,Richardson.)

History:
Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that the brain processes
known and relevant information differently from the way it processes unknown or irrelevant
information. The brain's processing of known information, such as the details of a crime stored in
the brain, is revealed by a specific pattern in the EEG. Farwell's brain fingerprinting originally
used the well-known P300 brain response to detect the brain's recognition of the known
information. Later Farwell discovered the P300-MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related
Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response"), which includes the P300 and additional
features and is reported to provide a higher level of accuracy and statistical confidence than the
P300 alone. Farwell and colleagues report less than 1% error rate in laboratory research and real-
life field applications. In independent research William Iacono and others who followed identical
or similar scientific protocols to Farwell's have reported a similar low level of error rate and high
statistical confidence. Farwell's standards for brain fingerprinting tests are specified in Farwell
2012 .
Brain fingerprinting has been ruled admissible in court and applied in a number of high-profile
criminal cases, including the exoneration of Terry Harrington after he had been convicted of
murder.
Brain fingerprinting technique has been criticized on a number of fronts. Although independent
scientists who have used the same or similar methods as Farwell's brain fingerprinting have
achieved similar, highly accurate results, different methods have yielded different results. J. Peter
Rosenfeld used P300-based tests incorporating fundamentally different methods, resulting in as
low as chance accuracy as well as susceptibility to countermeasures, and criticized brain
fingerprinting based on the premise that the shortcomings of his alternative technique should
generalize to all other techniques in which the P300 is among the brain responses measured,
including brain fingerprinting.
Four phases of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting:
In fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting, evidence recognized and collected at the crime scene,
and preserved properly until a suspect is apprehended, 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, except that the evidence collected both at the
crime scene and on the person of the suspect (i.e., in the brain as revealed by electrical brain
responses) is informational evidence rather than physical evidence. There are four stages to
Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, which are similar to the steps in fingerprinting and DNA
fingerprinting:
1. Brain Fingerprinting Crime Scene Evidence Collection;
2. Brain Fingerprinting Brain Evidence Collection;
3. Brain Fingerprinting Computer Evidence Analysis; and

4. Brain Fingerprinting Scientific Result.
In the Crime Scene Evidence Collection, 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. 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. In the Computer Evidence Analysis, the Farwell Brain Fingerprinting
system makes a mathematical determination as to whether or not this specific evidence is stored
in the brain, and computes a statistical confidence for that determination. 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.

Technique:
The technique uses the well-known fact that an electrical signal known as P300 is emitted from
an individual's brain beginning approximately 300 milliseconds after it is confronted with a
stimulus of special significance, e.g. a rare vs. a common stimulus or a stimulus the subject is
asked to count. The application of this in brain fingerprinting is to detect the P300 as a response
to stimuli related to the crime or other investigated situation, e.g., a murder weapon, victim's
face, or knowledge of the internal workings of a terrorist cell .Because it is based on EEG
signals, the system does not require the subject to issue verbal responses to questions or stimuli.
The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that measure the EEG
from several locations on the scalp. The subject views stimuli consisting of words, phrases, or
pictures presented on a computer screen. Stimuli are of three types: 1) "irrelevant" stimuli that
are irrelevant to the investigated situation and to the test subject, 2) "target" stimuli that are
relevant to the investigated situation and are known to the subject, and 3) "probe" stimuli that are
relevant to the investigated situation and that the subject denies knowing. Probes contain
information that is known only to the perpetrator and investigators, and not to the general public
or to an innocent suspect who was not at the scene of the crime. Before the test, the scientist
identifies the targets to the subject, and makes sure that he/she knows these relevant stimuli. The
scientist also makes sure that the subject does not know the probes for any reason unrelated to
the crime, and that the subject denies knowing the probes. The subject is told why the probes are
significant (e.g., "You will see several items, one of which is the murder weapon"), but is not
told which items are the probes and which are irrelevant.
HOW TO ATTECH WITH MAN:

Diagram for technique
Since brain fingerprinting uses cognitive brain responses, brain fingerprinting does not depend
on the emotions of the subject, nor is it affected by emotional responses. Brain fingerprinting is
fundamentally different from the polygraph (lie-detector), which measures emotion-based
physiological signals such as heart rate, sweating, and blood pressure. Also, unlike polygraph
testing, it does not attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying or telling the truth.
Rather, it measures the subject's brain response to relevant words, phrases, or pictures to detect
whether or not the relevant information is stored in the subject's brain .By comparing the
responses to the different types of stimuli, the brain fingerprinting system mathematically
computes a determination of "information present" (the subject knows the crime-relevant
information contained in the probe stimuli) or "information absent" (the subject does not know
the information) and a statistical confidence for the determination. This determination is
mathematically computed, and does not involve the subjective judgment of the scientist.

Background and terminology:
"Brain fingerprinting" is a computer-based test that is designed to discover, document, and
provide evidence of guilty knowledge regarding crimes, and to identify individuals with a
specific training or expertise such as members of dormant terrorist cells or bomb makers. It has
also been used to evaluate brain functioning as a means of early detection of Alzheimer's and
other cognitively degenerative diseases, and to evaluate the effectiveness of advertising by
measuring brain responses.
The technique is described in Dr. Farwell's paper "Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect
Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal", published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences
in 2001 by Dr. Farwell and FBI Supervisory Special Agent Sharon Smith of the FBI, and in other
peer-reviewed publications.
These papers describe tests of brain fingerprinting, a technology based on EEG that is purported
to be able to detect the existence of prior knowledge or memory in the brain. The P300 occurs
when the tested subject is presented with a rarely occurring stimulus that is significant in context
(for example, in the context of a crime). When an irrelevant stimulus is presented, a P300 is not
expected to occur.The P300 is widely known in the scientific community, and is also known as
an oddball-evoked P300 .While researching the P300, Dr. Farwell created a more detailed test
that not only includes the P300, but also observes the stimulus response up to 1400 milliseconds
after the stimulus. He calls this brain response a P300-MERMER, memory and encoding related
multifaceted electroencephalographic response. The P300, an electrically positive component, is
maximal at the midline parietal area of the head and has a peak latency of approximately 300 to
800 milliseconds. The P300-MERMER includes the P300 and also includes an electrically
negative component, with an onset latency of approximately 800-1200ms. According to Dr.
Farwell, the P300-MERMER includes additional features involving changes in the frequency of
the EEG signal, but for the purposes of signal detection and practical application the P300-
MERMER is sufficiently characterized by the P300 and the following negative component in the
brain response .

Current uses and research:
Brain Fingerprinting has two primary applications: 1) detecting the record of a specific crime,
terrorist act, or incident stored in the detecting a specific type of knowledge, expertise, or
training, such as knowledge specific to FBI agents, Al-Qaeda -trained terrorists, or bomb makers
. The seminal paper by Dr. Farwell and Emmanuel Donchin reported successful application of
the technique in detecting knowledge of both laboratory mock crimes and real-life events, with
no false positives and no false negatives.
In a study with the, Dr. Farwell and FBI scientist Drew Richardson, former chief of the FBI's
chem-bio-nuclear counterterrorism unit, used brain fingerprinting to show that test subjects from
specific groups could be identified by detecting specific knowledge which would only be known
to members of those groups. A group of 17 FBI agents and 4 non-agents were exposed to stimuli
(words, phrases, and acronyms) that were flashed on a computer screen. The probe (situation-
relevant) stimuli contained information that would be common knowledge only to someone with
FBI training. Brain fingerprinting correctly distinguished the FBI agents from the non-agents.
The CIA has also funded Farwell's research In a study funded by the CIA, Farwell and
colleagues used brain fingerprinting to detect which individuals had US Navy military medical
training. All 30 subjects were correctly determined to have or not to have the specific
information regarding military medicine stored in their brains. In another CIA-funded study,
brain fingerprinting correctly detected which individuals had participated in specific real-life
events, some of which were crimes, based on the record stored in their brains. Error rate was
again 0%; accuracy was 100%. Dr. Farwell collaborated with FBI scientist Sharon Smith in a
further study in which brain fingerprinting detected real-life events that was published in the
Journal of Forensic Sciences.
Dr. Farwell's recent studies, many conducted with former FBI scientist Dr. Drew Richardson,
have mostly involved detecting real-life information in field conditions. Farwell and Richardson
applied brain fingerprinting in detecting information regarding actual crimes with real-world
judicial consequences, including multiple murders .In one study they tested brain fingerprinting
in detecting information unique to bomb makers (experts in improvised explosive devices,
IEDs), for application in national security and counterterrorism. Error rate was 0%; that is, 100%
of subjects in these studies were correctly detected Dr. Farwell has also offered a $100,000
reward for beating a brain fingerprinting field test.To date, no one has ever succeeded in doing
so.

Use in criminal investigation:
Dr. Lawrence Farwell conducts a Brain Fingerprinting test on Terry Harrington.
Dr. Lawrence Farwell conducts a Brain Fingerprinting test on serial killer JB Grinder.
Farwell's brain fingerprinting has been ruled admissible in court in the reversal of the murder
conviction of Terry Harrington .Following a hearing on post-conviction relief on November 14,
2000, an Iowa District Court stated that the fundamental science involved in Dr. Farwell's brain
fingerprinting P300 test was well established in the scientific community. For a range of reasons,
however, the court dismissed the defendant's petition for a new trial.
In order to be ruled admissible under the prevailing Daubert standard established by the US
Supreme Court, the District Court required proof that brain fingerprinting 1) has been tested and
proven, 2) has been peer reviewed and published, 3) produces a known (and low) error rate and
is systematically applied, and 4) is well accepted in the relevant scientific community. In ruling
the brain fingerprinting test admissible as scientific evidence, the Court stated the following:
"In the spring of 2000, Harrington was given a test by Dr. Lawrence Farwell. The test is based on
a 'P300 effect'."
"The P-300 effect has been recognized for nearly twenty years."
"The P-300 effect has been subject to testing and peer review in the scientific community."
"The consensus in the community of psycho-physiologists is that the P300 effect is valid."
"The evidence resulting from Harrington's „brain fingerprinting‟ test was discovered after the
fact. It is newly discovered."

As the Iowa District Court clearly stated, the results of the brain fingerprinting test on Harrington
constituted "evidence" that the court admitted. Dr. Farwell's testimony as an expert witness and
the testimony of the other two expert witnesses in the case also were admitted as evidence. The
Iowa court admitted the brain fingerprinting evidence and Dr. Farwell's testimony on it under the
Daubert standard.
Several authors of law articles have examined the admissibility of brain fingerprinting evidence
in the Harrington case in depth and detail, and summarized the outcome as follows.
"The Judge in Harrington ruled Brain Fingerprinting admissible under Daubert after
conducting a day-long hearing featuring three expert witnesses, each renowned in his
field."
"In Harrington, the court admitted Dr. Farwell's testimony on brain fingerprinting and
stated that it satisfied the Daubert test."
"The [Harrington] court admitted Brain Fingerprinting evidence based upon the P300
effect…"
The court noted the distinction, however, between admissibility and weight. In light of the
circumstances of a particular case, admissible evidence does not always have sufficient weight to
produce a verdict in favor of the side which proffers the evidence. Although the court ruled brain
fingerprinting admissible, the court ruled that the weight of the brain fingerprinting evidence and
other evidence proffered by Harrington would probably not have been sufficient to change the
verdict in the original trial.
"The court determined that Brain Fingerprinting was new evidence not available at the original
trial, and that it was sufficiently reliable to merit admission of the evidence; however, the court
did not regard its weight as sufficiently compelling in light of the record as a whole as meeting
its exacting standard, and thus it denied a new trial on this and the other grounds asserted by
Harrington.”The court ruled in Harrington's favor on two major issues, but nevertheless denied
him a new trial. The court ruled brain fingerprinting and the testimony of the expert witnesses on
it were admissible, and also admitted the recantation testimony of the only alleged witness to the
crime, yet nevertheless denied Harrington's petition for a new trial. Regarding this rather
complicated ruling, one commentator opined that "[t]he Harrington court avoided a clear ruling
on admissibility" of the test.
Harrington appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. The reversed the trial court and granted
Harrington a new trial.The supreme court did not reach the brain fingerprinting issue, and
decided the case on other grounds. "Because the scientific testing evidence is not necessary to a
resolution of this appeal, we give it no further consideration."
Although the Iowa Supreme Court did not rule on brain fingerprinting, they allowed the
law of the case established by the district court to stand, implicitly including the district
court's finding regarding the "newly discovered" "evidence" "resulting from Harrington's
Brain Fingerprinting test”.Due to a constitutional rights violation, specifically a Brady
violation, by the State of Iowa in the original trial, the Iowa Supreme Court awarded
Harrington a new trial. The only alleged witness to the crime, Kevin Hughes, recanted

when Dr. Farwell confronted him with the "information absent" results of the brain
fingerprinting test on Harrington. Without its star witness, the state subsequently
dismissed the murder prosecution without prejudice for lack of evidence due to witness
recantations and the passage of time.
The State of Iowa had argued unsuccessfully in trial court that the brain fingerprinting results
should not be considered admissible "evidence," whether "newly discovered" or not. After the
Supreme Court reversed Harrington's conviction and granted him a new trial, the Iowa Attorney
General's Office issued a press release restating this position, and also restating the fact that the
Iowa Supreme Court did not rule on brain fingerprinting.
"With one Justice dissenting, the Supreme Court reversed Harrington's conviction on the
ground that the failure to disclose police reports denied defendant a fair trial. The Court
ruled that withholding the reports compromised Harrington's defense at trial that he was
not the person who shot Mr. Schweer."
"The Court also declined to rule on the admissibility or credibility of the "brain fingerprinting"
evidence offered by Harrington. In its brief and argument to the Court, the State argued that brain
fingerprinting is "junk science" that has no track record establishing its reliability. The State
argued that the technique has been tested in the lab with fewer than 200 persons and has been
used in the field in only a handful of cases. The State argued the technique should be treated
similarly to lie-detector tests, which are inadmissible in Iowa and most other states. The Iowa
Supreme Court did not determine the reliability of brain fingerprinting and did not rule on the
admissibility of brain fingerprinting in Iowa courts."
Limitations of brain fingerprinting:
Both the strengths and limitations of brain fingerprinting are documented in detail in the expert
witness testimony of Dr. Farwell and two other expert witnesses in the Harrington case as well as
in Farwell's publications and patents The limitations of brain fingerprinting described below are
also summarized in PBS 2004, PBS Innovation Series – "Brain Fingerprinting: Ask the Experts".
Brain fingerprinting detects information-processing brain responses that reveal what information
is stored in the subject's brain. It does not detect how that information got there. This fact has

implications for how and when the technique can be applied. In a case where a suspect claims
not to have been at the crime scene and has no legitimate reason for knowing the details of the
crime, and investigators have information that has not been released to the public, brain
fingerprinting can determine objectively whether or not the subject possesses that information. In
such a case, brain fingerprinting could provide useful evidence.
If, however, the suspect knows everything that the investigators know about the crime for some
legitimate reason, then the test cannot be applied. There are several circumstances in which this
may be the case. If a suspect acknowledges being at the scene of the crime, but claims to be a
witness and not a perpetrator, then the fact that he knows details about the crime would not be
incriminating. There would be no reason to conduct a test, because the resulting "information
present" response would simply show that the suspect knew the details about the crime –
knowledge which he already admits and which he gained at the crime scene whether he was a
witness or a perpetrator.
Another case where brain fingerprinting is not applicable would be one wherein a suspect and an
alleged victim – say, of an alleged sexual assault – agree on the details of what was said and
done, but disagree on the intent of the parties. Brain fingerprinting detects only information, and
not intent. The fact that the suspect knows the uncontested facts of the circumstance does not tell
us which party's version of the intent is correct.
 In a case where the suspect knows everything that the investigators know because he has
been exposed to all available information in a previous trial, there is no available
information with which to construct probe stimuli, so a test cannot be conducted. Even in
a case where the suspect knows many of the details about the crime, however, it is
sometimes possible to discover salient information that the perpetrator must have
encountered in the course of committing the crime, but the suspect claims not to know
and would not know if he were innocent. This was the case with Terry Harrington. By
examining reports, interviewing witnesses, and visiting the crime scene and surrounding
areas, Dr. Farwell was able to discover salient features of the crime that Harrington had
never been exposed to at his previous trials. The brain fingerprinting test showed that the
record in Harrington's brain did not contain these salient features of the crime, but only
the details about the crime that he had learned after the fact.
 Obviously, in structuring a brain fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoid including
information that has been made public. Detecting that a suspect knows information he
obtained by reading a newspaper would not be of use in a criminal investigation, and
standard brain fingerprinting procedures eliminate all such information from the
structuring of a test. News accounts containing many of the details of a crime do not
interfere with the development of a brain fingerprinting test, however; they simply limit
the material that can be tested. Even in highly publicized cases, there are almost always
many details that are known to the investigators but not released to the public and these
can be used as stimuli to test the subject for knowledge that he would have no way to
know except by committing the crime.
 Another situation where brain fingerprinting is not applicable is one where the authorities
have no information about what crime may have taken place. For example, an individual
may disappear under circumstances where a specific suspect had a strong motive to

murder the individual. Without any evidence, authorities do not know whether a murder
took place, or the individual decided to take a trip and tell no one, or some other criminal
or non-criminal event happened. If there is no known information on which a suspect
could be tested, a brain fingerprinting test cannot be structured.
 Similarly, brain fingerprinting is not applicable for general screening, for example, in
general pre-employment or employee screening wherein any number of undesirable
activities or intentions may be relevant. If the investigators have no idea what crime or
undesirable act the individual may have committed, there is no way to structure
appropriate stimuli to detect the telltale knowledge that would result from committing the
crime. Brain fingerprinting can, however, be used for specific screening or focused
screening, when investigators have some idea what they are looking for. For example,
brain fingerprinting can be used to detect whether a person has knowledge that would
identify him as an FBI agent, an Al-Qaeda-trained terrorist, a member of a criminal
organization or terrorist cell, or a bomb maker.
 Brain fingerprinting does not detect lies. It simply detects information. No questions are
asked or answered during a brain fingerprinting test. The subject neither lies nor tells the
truth during a brain fingerprinting test, and the outcome of the test is unaffected by
whether he has lied or told the truth at any other time. The outcome of "information
present" or "information absent" depends on whether the relevant information is stored in
the brain, and not on what the subject says about.
 Brain fingerprinting does not determine whether a suspect is guilty or innocent of a
crime. This is a legal determination to be made by a judge and jury, not a scientific
determination to be made by a computer or a scientist. Brain fingerprinting can provide
scientific evidence that the judge and jury can weigh along with the other evidence in
reaching their decisions regarding the crime. To remain within the realm of scientific
testimony, however, a brain fingerprinting expert witness must testify only regarding the
scientific test and information stored in the brain revealed by the test, as Dr. Farwell did
in the Harrington case. Like the testimony of other forensic scientists, a brain
fingerprinting scientist's testimony does not include interpreting the scientific evidence in
terms of guilt or innocence. A DNA expert may testify that two DNA samples match, one
from the crime scene and one from the suspect, but he does not conclude "this man is a
murderer." Similarly, a brain fingerprinting expert can testify to the outcome of the test
that the subject has specific information stored in his brain about the crime (or not), but
the interpretation of this evidence in terms of guilt or innocence is solely up to the judge
and jury.
 Just as all witness testimony depends on the memory of the witness, brain fingerprinting
depends on the memory of the subject. Like all witness testimony, brain fingerprinting
results must be viewed in light of the limitations on human memory and the factors
affecting it. Brain fingerprinting can provide scientific evidence regarding what
information is stored in a subject's brain. It does not determine what information should
be, could be, or would be stored in the subject's brain if the subject were innocent or
guilty. It only measures what actually is stored in the brain.How this evidence is
interpreted, and what conclusions are drawn based on it, is outside the realm of the
science and the scientist. This is up to the judge and jury. It is up to the prosecutor and
the defense attorney to argue, and the judge and jury to decide, the significance and

weight of the brain fingerprinting evidence in making a determination of whether or not
the subject committed the crime.
 Like all forensic science techniques, brain fingerprinting depends on the evidence-
gathering process which lies outside the realm of science to provide the evidence to be
scientifically tested. Before a brain fingerprinting test can be conducted, an investigator
must discover relevant information about the crime or investigated situation. This
investigative process, in which the investigator gathers the information to be tested from
the crime scene or other sources related to the crime, depends on the skill and judgment
of the investigator. This process is outside the scientific process; it precedes the scientific
process of brain fingerprinting. This investigative process produces the probe stimuli to
be tested. Brain fingerprinting science only determines whether the information tested is
stored in the brain of the subject or not. It does not provide scientific data on the
effectiveness of the investigation that produced the information about the crime that was
tested. In this regard, brain fingerprinting is similar to other forensic sciences. A DNA
test determines only whether two DNA samples match, it does not determine whether the
investigator did an effective job of collecting DNA from the crime scene. Similarly, a
brain fingerprinting test determines only whether or not the information stored in the
suspect's brain matches the information contained in the probe stimuli. This is
information that the investigator provided to the scientist to test scientifically, based on
the investigative process that is outside the realm of science. In making their
determination about the crime and the suspect's possible role in it, the judge and jury
must take into account not only the scientific determination of "information present" or
"information absent" provided by the brain fingerprinting test; they must also make
common-sense, human, non-scientific judgments regarding the information gathered by
the investigator and to what degree knowledge or lack of knowledge of that information
sheds light on the suspect's possible role in the crime. Brain fingerprinting is not a
substitute for effective investigation on the part of the investigator or for common sense
and good judgment on the part of the judge and jury.
 A report by the United States General Accounting Office (now called Government
Accountability Office) in 2001 reported that the scientists it interviewed (including
Farwell, Iacono, Richardson, Rosenfeld, Smith, Donchin, and others) all had expressed a
need for more research to investigate brain fingerprinting's application as forensic science
tool While they were unanimous in their support of more scientific research, scientists
and others expressed widely varying views on the social policy question of whether brain
fingerprinting should continue to be applied to bring criminals and terrorists to justice
and to free innocent suspects while this research continues.
 The initial GAO report was completed before the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. At that
time, the primary interest of federal agencies in detection methods was for employee
screening, rather than detecting terrorists. (As discussed above, brain fingerprinting is not
applicable in general employee screening.) The initial, pre-911 GAO report stated that
most of the individuals in various federal agencies interviewed at that time did not see
brain fingerprinting playing a major role in their then-current operations. The report did
not examine the science of brain fingerprinting; the published research at the FBI, the

CIA, the US Navy, and elsewhere; the successful application of brain fingerprinting in
criminal cases; or the success of brain fingerprinting in being ruled admissible in court.
Since it was produced before the attacks of 9/11/2001, this initial report did not examine
the application of brain fingerprinting in national security in the post-911 world. It did
not discuss the application of brain fingerprinting in present-day criminal investigations
and law enforcement.
Consequently, Senator Charles Grassley, who commissioned the initial report, has asked the
GAO produce a new report that examines the value of brain fingerprinting in counterterrorism
and criminal investigations in the post-911 world in light of published scientific research on the
application of the technique in the laboratory and the field.
The initial GAO report was entitled "Federal Agency Views on the Potential Application of
„Brain Fingerprinting.‟ It was essentially a sampling of opinions of individuals associated with
the polygraph in the federal government prior to 9-11. (It was completed before 9-11-2001 and
issued shortly thereafter.) It reported that most such individuals did not see the need for brain
fingerprinting in their pre-911 operations over a decade ago.
 Individuals interviewed noted that their primary interest was general screening
applications such as applicant screening and periodic employee screening, where the
interrogator does not know what information he is seeking. Some individuals interviewed
noted that they were satisfied with the performance of the polygraph for this purpose.
Since brain fingerprinting detects information stored in the brain, not lies or deception, it
is only applicable when the investigators have some idea what information they are
looking for. For example, brain fingerprinting can detect the details of a specific crime
stored in the brain, or the details of knowledge unique to FBI agents, or bomb makers, or
Al-Qaeda-trained terrorists, or members of a particular terrorist cell. It is not applicable,
however, in general screening situations, where the investigator has no idea what specific
activities or crimes a person may have committed or what specific information is being
sought. Before 9-11, the primary requirement for federal agencies was a general
screening tool. The individuals interviewed by the GAO noted, correctly, that brain
fingerprinting is not such a tool. Therefore, most of the individuals interviewed generally
did not see brain fingerprinting as being useful for their primary purposes under the
prevailing conditions prior to 9/11/2001.
Notable exceptions to this opinion were the only two FBI scientists who had actually conducted
scientific research on brain fingerprinting and/or participated in its successful application in
solving crimes, Dr. Drew Richardson and Dr. Sharon Smith. They both expressed the opinion
that brain fingerprinting was highly valuable in FBI investigations.
Reflecting the views of most of those interviewed over a decade ago, before 9-11, the report
stated:
"Officials representing CIA, DOD, Secret Service, and FBI do not foresee using the brain
fingerprinting technique for their operations because of its limited application. For example, CIA
and DOD officials indicated that their counterintelligence operations and criminal investigations

do not usually lend themselves to a technique such as brain fingerprinting because use of the
technique requires a unique level of detail and information that would be known only to the
perpetrator and the investigators. These officials indicated that they need a tool to screen current
and prospective employees, which as indicated above, involves questioning a subject about
events unknown to the investigator. Further, a Secret Service official indicated that the agency
has had a high success rate with the polygraph as an interrogative and screening tool and
therefore saw limited use for brain fingerprinting."
The report noted, however, that the US government scientists interviewed who had conducted
research on brain fingerprinting were convinced that it would be useful in FBI investigations.
The report did not include an account of the scientific research on brain fingerprinting or its
successful use in court. The report did not discuss the value of brain fingerprinting for other
applications other than general screening, for which it does not apply as discussed above. The
GAO did not evaluate or opine on the effectiveness, accuracy, or validity of brain fingerprinting.
The report stated:
"…we did not independently assess the hardware, software, or other components of the
technology nor did we attempt to determine independently whether brain fingerprinting is a valid
Federal Agencies - "CIA, DOD, FBI, and Secret Service do not foresee using the Brain
Fingerprinting technique for their operations because of its limited application."
DOD - "Overall, DOD officials indicated that Brain Fingerprinting has limited applicability to
DOD's operations"
CIA - "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." Secret Services - "The Service subsequently concluded that the technique had limited
application to Secret Service activities."
The initial GAO report constituted a reasonably accurate opinion poll of federal employees
involved with the polygraph over a decade ago, before 9/11, in a much different world. Note,
however, that even at that time the FBI scientists who had relevant expertise and had actually
conducted research on brain fingerprinting and used it successfully in field cases expressed the
opinion that brain fingerprinting was valuable for FBI investigations. In any case, the opinions of
non-expert federal employees over a decade ago are not relevant to the current applicability,
validity, value, accuracy, or scientific merit of brain fingerprinting, or to its value in present-day
national security and law enforcement operations.
Consequently Senator Grassley, who commissioned the original GAO report, has asked the GAO
to develop a new report. He asked the GAO to discuss the potential applications of brain
fingerprinting in criminal investigations and counterterrorism in the post-911 world. He also
asked the GAO to include the views of experts well versed in brain fingerprinting and P300-

MERMER technology, and to include the successful brain fingerprinting research at the FBI,
CIA, and US Navy.
In the Crime Scene Evidence Collection, 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. 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. In the Computer Evidence Analysis, the Farwell Brain Fingerprinting
system makes a mathematical determination as to whether or not this specific evidence is stored
in the brain, and computes a statistical confidence for that determination. 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.

Applications:
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, directly or indirectly.
2: Aid in identifying trained terrorists with the potential to commit future terrorist acts, even if
they are in a “sleeper” cell and have not been active for years.
3: Help to identify people who have knowledge or training in banking, finance or
communications and who are associated with terrorist teams and acts.
4: Help to determine if an individual is in a leadership role within a terrorist organization.
Brain fingerprinting technology is based on the principle that the brain is central to all human
acts. In a terrorist act, there may or may not be peripheral evidence such as fingerprints or DNA,
but the brain of the perpetrator is always there, planning, executing, and recording the crime. The
terrorist has knowledge of organizations, training and plans that an innocent person does not
have. Until the invention of Brain Fingerprinting testing, there was no scientific way to detect
this fundamental difference.
Brain Fingerprinting testing provides an accurate, economical and timely solution to the central
problem in the fight against terrorism. It is now possible to determine scientifically whether or
not a person has terrorist training and knowledge of terrorist activities.
With the Brain Fingerprinting system, a significant scientific breakthrough has now become a
practical applied technology. A new era in security and intelligence gathering has begun. Now,
terrorists and those supporting terrorism can be identified quickly and accurately. No longer
should any terrorist be able to evade justice for lack of evidence. And there is no reason why an
innocent individual should be falsely imprisoned or convicted of terrorist activity. 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.
2. 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, detailed knowledge of
the crimes.
3. Medical:
„Brain Fingerprinting‟ is the patented technology that can measure objectively, for the first time,
how memory and cognitive functioning of Alzheimer sufferers are affected by medications. First
generation tests have proven to be more accurate than other routinely used tests, and could be
commercially available in 18-24 months.
The 30 minute test involves wearing a headband with built-in electrodes; technicians then
present words, 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. When presented with familiar
information, the brain responds by producing MERMERs, specific increases in neuron activity.
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.
Additional Applications:
In advertising, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will offer significant advances in measuring
campaign and media effectiveness. Most advertising programs today are evaluated subjectively
using focus groups. We will be able to offer significantly more advanced, scientific methods to
help determine the effectiveness of campaigns and be very cost competitive with current
methodologies. This technology will be able to help determine what information is actually
retained in memory by individuals. For example, in a branding campaign do people remember
the brand, the product, etc. and how do the results vary with demographics? We will also be able
to measure the comparative effectiveness of multiple media types.
In the insurance industry, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will be able to help reduce the
incidence of insurance fraud by determining if an individual has knowledge of fraudulent or
criminal acts. The same type of testing can help to determine if an individual has specific
knowledge related to computer crimes where there is typically no witness or physical evidence.

Case studies:
The biggest breakthrough, according to Farwell, was its role in freeing convicted murderer Terry
Harrington, who had been serving a life sentence in Iowa State Penitentiary for killing a night
watchman in 1977. In 2001, Harrington requested a new trial on several grounds, including
conflicting testimony in the original trial.
Farwell was faced with an immediate and obvious problem: 24 years had passed since the trial.
Evidence had been presented and transcripts published long ago; the details of the crime had
long since come to light. What memories of the crime were left to probe? But Farwell combed
the transcripts and came up with obscure details about which to test Harrington. Harrington was
granted a new trial when it was discovered that some of the original police reports in the case had
been missing at his initial trial. By 2001, however, most of the witnesses against Harrington had
either died or had been discredited. Finally, when a key witness heard that Harrington had
"passed" his brain fingerprinting test, he recanted his testimony and the prosecution threw up its
hands. Harrington was set free.
In Macon County, Mo., Sheriff Robert Dawson learned about the method from his secretary,
who had also seen it featured on television. In 1999, Dawson ordered a test on J. B. Grinder,
accused of raping and murdering a 25-year-old woman. Grinder had admitted and denied the
allegations so many times that, according to Dawson, "We didn't know what to believe
anymore." Confronted with the test results, which seemed to confirm one of Grinder's many
confessions, Grinder pled guilty to the charges and also admitted to killing three other girls in
Arkansas. When another murder investigation ran into problems earlier this year, Dawson turned
again to brain fingerprinting. He refrained from discussing the details of the case with the suspect
and with the media so that the P300 probes would be valid. While the suspect denied knowing
anything about the case, Farwell's test suggested otherwise.
Comparison with other technologies:
Conventional fingerprinting and DNA match physical evidence from a crime scene with
evidence on the person of the perpetrator. Similarly, Brain Fingerprinting matches informational
evidence from the crime scene with evidence stored in the brain. Fingerprints and DNA are
available in only 1% of crimes. The brain is always there, planning, executing, and recording the
suspect's actions.
Brain Fingerprinting has nothing to do with lie detection. Rather, it is a scientific way to
determine if someone has committed a specific crime or other act. No questions are asked and no
answers are given during Farwell Brain Fingerprinting. As with DNA and fingerprints, the
results are the same whether the person has lied or told the truth at any time.

Future applications and research:
After Dr. Farwell invented Brain Fingerprinting, he withheld it from the public for 15 years
while he, his colleagues, and other, independent scientists tested it in the laboratory and in the
field. Farwell's decision to apply this science in real-life situations has been controversial. In the
years since Dr. Farwell first began applying the technology in the real world, proponents,
including other scientists who have successfully applied the technique such as FBI scientist
Drew Richardson, and those who have been freed or otherwise helped by brain fingerprinting,
have advocated continuing and expanded application of the technology in the real world . Critics,
including some scientists, and those whose criminal activities have been thwarted by brain
fingerprinting have advocated further delay in applying the technique .
According to sworn testimony by Dr. William Iacono, an independent expert unaffiliated with
Dr. Farwell who has conducted extensive research in the area, the science underlying brain
fingerprinting has been published in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles in the scientific
literature, and the specific application of this science in detecting information has been published
in about 50 studies. (For more information on the science and its acceptance in the scientific
community.) Although the science is well established, opinions among scientists and others on
the social policy question of how and when this science should be applied vary widely. Dr.
Farwell's decision to apply this science in bringing criminals to justice and freeing innocent
suspects is controversial. Various other attempts to apply this science in the detection of
concealed information have varied in accuracy and efficacy, depending on the scientific
procedures used .
Farwell and colleagues as well as other, independent scientists who have precisely replicated
Farwell's research or used similar methods (e.g., Iacono and colleagues,)have consistently
obtained error rates of less than 1% in both laboratory and field conditions.
Different scientific methods, however, have yielded different results. In P300-based tests using
different experimental methods, different brain responses, different stimulus types, different data
collection methods, different analysis methods, and different statistics from those used in
Farwell's brain fingerprinting, Rosenfeld reported accuracy rates close to those obtained by
chance, even without countermeasures. Moreover, Rosenfeld's alternative technique proved
susceptible to countermeasures. (For scientific and methodological differences between Farwell's
brain fingerprinting and Rosenfeld's alternative technique.
Controversy has arisen over the best explanation for the fact that Farwell and others who use
similar scientific methods have consistently achieved less than 1% error rate (or in fact 0% error
rate) and high statistical confidences, while Rosenfeld's alternative method yielded more than ten

times higher error rate, sometimes as low as chance, as well as statistical confidences averaging
chance (50%) for subjects lacking the relevant knowledge tested.
Farwell, FBI scientists Drew Richardson and Sharon Smith, and other brain fingerprinting
experts claim that one cannot necessarily expect to obtain the same accuracy as brain
fingerprinting without following standard brain fingerprinting scientific protocols or similar
methods, that Rosenfeld's failure to achieve accuracy rates comparable to those of brain
fingerprinting is the result of the substantial differences in scientific methodology between his
alternative technique and brain fingerprinting, and therefore the fact that Rosenfeld's alternative
technique is admittedly inaccurate and susceptible to countermeasures is no reflection on brain
fingerprinting.
Proponents advocate continuing the use of brain fingerprinting to bring criminals and terrorists to
justice and to free innocent suspects, while at the same time more research is continuing. Dr.
Farwell and former FBI scientist Dr. Drew Richardson are among the scientists who advocate
continuing the use of brain fingerprinting in criminal investigations and counterterrorism,
without delay, as well as ongoing research on the technology.
Dr. Farwell was interviewed by TIME magazine after he was selected to the TIME 100: The
Next Wave, the 100 innovators who may be "the Picassos or Einsteins of the 21st Century." He
said, "The fundamental task in law enforcement and espionage and counterespionage is to
determine the truth. My philosophy is that there is a tremendous cost in failing to apply the
technology." Critics of brain fingerprinting claim that the inaccuracy and susceptibility to
countermeasures of Rosenfeld's alternative technique also cast doubt on all P300-based
information-detection techniques, including brain fingerprinting. Critics agree with proponents
that ongoing research on brain fingerprinting is valuable and desirable. Unlike proponents,
however, critics advocate a discontinuation of the use of brain fingerprinting in criminal and
counterterrorism cases while this research is continuing.
Proponents of the continued use of brain fingerprinting in criminal and counterterrorism cases
cite the peer-reviewed research on the accuracy of brain fingerprinting in the laboratory and the
field, the fact that it has been ruled admissible in court, the vital counterterrorism applications,
and the benefits of bringing criminals such as serial killer JB Grinder to justice and freeing
innocent convicts such as Terry Harrington. They emphasize the established science, the proven
accuracy of brain fingerprinting when practiced according to standard brain fingerprinting
scientific protocols, and the fact that brain fingerprinting is voluntary and non-invasive Farwell
2012, Farwell et al. 2012. They advocate continuing to use brain fingerprinting in criminal
investigations and counterterrorism while research on the technique continues Critics cite the
inaccuracy and susceptibility to countermeasures of Rosenfeld's alternative technique, and
suggest that this casts doubt on brain fingerprinting as well. They emphasize the uncertainty of
applying new technology while it is still being researched, and advocate discontinuing the use of
brain fingerprinting in criminal and counterterrorism cases until more research has been
completed Extensive criticism of brain fingerprinting is contained in Rosenfeld 2005. Dr.
Farwell's brief response is contained in a peer-reviewed paper published in Scientific Review of
Mental Health Practice, Farwell 2011a "Brain Fingerprinting: Corrections to Rosenfeld". A
more comprehensive version of this paper that contains extensive documentation and references

to independent sources where the facts can be verified is "Brain Fingerprinting: Comprehensive
Corrections to Rosenfeld in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice" These issues are
reviewed in more detail, with reference to all research published to date in English, in Farwell
2012.
Those personally affected by brain fingerprinting have expressed divergent views as well,
particularly on the issue of delaying the application of brain fingerprinting in criminal cases.
Terry Harrington, for whom brain fingerprinting provided exculpatory evidence that was ruled
admissible in court and who was subsequently released from prison after serving 24 years for a
murder he did not commit, has advocated continuing to apply brain fingerprinting in criminal
cases while the research continues.

CONCLUSION:
It would be inappropriate to generalize to result of the present research
because of the small sample of objects.
But the 100% accuracy and high confidence level of the results ,however
,provide futher support for results from previous research using brain
MERMER testing

REFERENCES:
Abdollah, T. (2003). "Brain Fingerprinting – Picture-perfect crimes,"
Berkeley Medical Journal Issues, Spring 2003. Accessed July 20, 2008.
Allen J.J.B. and Iacono W.G. (1997). "A comparison of methods for the
analysis of event-related potentials in deception detection."
Psychophysiology 34:234-240.
Booz Allen Hamilton (2008). "Brain Fingerprinting Technology and Indoor
Tracking Solution Win the American-leg of Global Security Challenge."
Accessed January 16, 2012.
CBS 60 Minutes: Mike Wallace interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell,
December 10, 2000.
Dale, S.S. (2001). "THE BRAIN SCIENTIST: Climbing Inside the Criminal
Mind." TIME Magazine, Nov. 26, 2001, pp 80-81.
Denno, Deborah (December 2002). "Crime and Consciousness: Science
and Involuntary Acts". Minnesota Law Review 87: 269–389 [332].
Druckman, D. and Lacey J.I. (1989). Brain and cognition: some new
technologies. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Rushita beladiya.pdf

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Rushita beladiya.pdf

Recently uploaded

Rushita beladiya.pdf