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. 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. A brain computer interaction has been developed to
record the brain signal / electric activity through Digital Electroencephalography. The Brain
Fingerprinting is a advanced computer-based technology to determine the falsely accused innocent
suspects of a crime accurately and scientifically by measuring brain-wave responses to crime-relevant
words or pictures presented on a computer screen. By using electroencephalography to ascertain the
presence or absence of information into human brain. 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 reallife situations including actual crimes.

INTRODUCTION
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 designed to determine whether an individual recognizes specific information
related to an event or activity by measuring electrical brain wave responses to words, phrases, or
pictures presented on a computer screen. 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. In this respect, Brain Fingerprinting is
considered a type of Guilty Knowledge Test, where the "guilty" party is expected to react strongly
to the relevant detail of the event of activity. Existing (polygraph) procedures for assessing the
validity of a suspect's "guilty" knowledge rely on measurement of autonomic arousal (e.g., palm
sweating and heart rate), while Brain Fingerprinting measures electrical brain activity via a fitted
headband containing special sensors. Brain Fingerprinting is said to be more accurate in detecting
"guilty" knowledge distinct from the false positives of traditional polygraph methods, but this is
hotly disputed by specialized researchers.

TECHNIQUE

The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that measure the
electroencephalography from several locations on the scalp. In order to calibrate the brain fingerprinting
system, the testee is presented with a series of irrelevant stimuli, words, and pictures, and a series of
relevant stimuli, words, and pictures. The test subject's brain response to these two different types of
stimuli allow the tester to determine if the measured brain responses to test stimuli, called probes, are
more similar to the relevant or irrelevant responses. 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, e.g. a rare vs. a common stimuls or a stimulas
the proband is asked to count. The novel interpretation in brain fingerprinting is to look for P300 as
response to stimuli related to the crime in question e.g., a murder weapon or a victim's face. Because it is
based on EEG signals, the system does not require the testee to issue verbal responses to questions or
stimuli. 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. 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. 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.

THE DISCOVERY OF THE P300-MERMER

In the initial brain fingerprinting research, Farwell and Donchin used the P300 event-related brain
potential. Later Farwell discovered that the P300 can be considered to be part of a larger response he
called a memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response or P300MERMER.The discovery of the P300- MERMER was one more step in the ongoing progression from
very short latency evoked potentials to longer and longer latency event-related potentials as the stimuli
and the processing demanded by the experimental task become more rich and complex. In the 1990s
when Farwell and FBI scientist Drew Richardson were conducting the brain fingerprinting research on
FBI agents, P300 latencies of 600 to 700 milliseconds were typically found in experiments. Where the
stimuli were information rich and the cognitive processing required was substantial. At that time, in such
research a new stimulus was typically presented every 1000 to 1500 milliseconds (1 to 1.5 seconds). In
the first brain fingerprinting study, for example, Farwell and Donchin presented a stimulus every 1500
milliseconds. In dealing with real-life situations, Farwell and Richardson (2006b; Farwell, Richardson,
and Richardson, 2011; in press) found it necessary to use longer and more complex stimuli to accurately
communicate the necessary information to the subject. In order to present realistic stimuli that accurately
represented knowledge unique to FBI agents, they found it necessary to use stimuli consisting of several
words, sometimes several words of several syllables each. It took the subjects longer to read the words
and evaluate their significance than in previous experiments with simpler stimuli. To give the subjects
time to process the stimuli and respond appropriately, Farwell and Richardson lengthened the interval
between stimuli from 1500 milliseconds to 3000 milliseconds. They recorded a longer segment of
brainwave data in each trial.
What is MERMER?

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Brain fingerprinting tests are conducted according to the following scientific protocols. In a brain
fingerprinting test, stimuli are presented to the subject in the form of words, phrases, or pictures
on a computer screen. (Auditory stimuli may also be presented.) Brain responses are measured
non invasively from the scalp, digitized, and analyzed to determine the presence or absence of
information stored in the brain. Figure 1 outlines the stages of data acquisition and analysis in
brain fingerprinting. Three types of stimuli are presented: probes, targets, and irrelevant. Probes
contain information that is relevant to the crime or other investigated situation. Probes have three
necessary attributes.
Probes contain features of the crime that in the judgment of the criminal investigator the
perpetrators would have experienced in committing the crime.
Probes contain information that the subject has no way of knowing if he did not participate in
the crime.
Probes contain information that the subject claims not to know or to recognize as significant
for any reason.
For example, if a subject claims not to have been at the murder scene and not to know what the
murder weapon was, a probe stimulus could be the murder weapon, such as a knife. Brain
fingerprinting experimental protocols ensure that probes do not contain information that the
subject knows from the news media interrogations. The scientific question addressed by a brain
fingerprinting test is whether or not the subject is knowledgeable regarding the crime or
investigated situation. Specifically, the critical variable is his recognition of the information
contained in the probes as significant in the context of the crime (or lack thereof). If, and only if,
this is present, it is predicted that the probes will elicit a P300- MERMER. The amplitude,
morphology and latency will be characteristic of the individual subjects response to such stimuli
when the subject knows the relevant information. For a subject who is knowledgeable or
information present, the probes contain information describing known features of the crime.
For a subject who is information absent, the probes contain information describing plausible
features of the crime that are not known to be correct. To objectively classify the probe responses
into one of these two categories, it is necessary to isolate the critical variable. To accomplish this,
two standards are required: a standard for the response of this subject to stimuli containing known
features of the crime, and a standard for the response of this subject to stimuli containing
plausible but unknown (or incorrect) features of the crime.

INSTRUMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

Personal Computer
A Data acquisition board
A Graphics Card for driving two monitors from one PC A four-channel EEG amplifier system
Software developed by the Brain Fingerprinting laboratories for the data acquisition and analysis.

The belt wearing in both the figures containing special sensors. Brain fingerprinting is said to be more
accurate in detecting "guilty" knowledge distinct from the false positives of traditional polygraph
methods, but this is hotly disputed by specialized researchers and has been criticized on a number of
fronts (Abdollah, 2003; Fox 2006b). Although independent scientists who have used the same or similar
methods as Farwells brain fingerprinting have achieved similar, highly accurate results (Allen and
Lacono, measured brain responses to test stimuli, called probes, are more similar to the relevant or
irrelevant responses. The technique uses the well known fact that an electrical signal known as P300 is
emitted from an individual's brain approximately 300 ms after it is confronted with a stimulus of special
significance, for example, a rare vs. a common stimulus or a stimulus the subject is asked to count
(Gaillard and Ritter, 1983; Picton, 1988). The novel interpretation in brain fingerprinting is to look for
P300 as response to stimuli related to the crime in question for example a murder weapon or a victim's
face. Figure 4. Victims facial expression. Because it is based on EEG signals, the system does not require
the testee to issue verbal responses to questions or stimuli. Brain fingerprinting uses cognitive brain
responses and do not depend on the emotions of the subject, nor is it affected by emotional responses
(Farwell, 1994). Brain fingerprinting is fundamentally different from the polygraph (lie-detector), which
measures emotion-based physiological signals such as heart rate, sweating, and blood pressure (Farwell
and Smith, 2001). Also, unlike polygraph testing, it does not attempt to determine whether or not the
subject is lying or telling the truth. Rather, it measures the subjects brain response to relevant words,
phrases, or pictures to detect whether or not the relevant information is stored in the subjects brain;
Harrington v. State), different methods have yielded different results. J. Peter Rosenfeld used P300-based
tests incorporating fundamentally different methods, resulting in as low as chance accuracy (Rosenfeld et
al., 2004) 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.

OPERATION OF THE TECHNIQUE

The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that measure the
electroencephalography from several locations on the scalp (Figure 3). In order to calibrate the brain
fingerprinting system, the testee is presented with a series of irrelevant stimuli, words, and pictures, and a
series of relevant stimuli, words, and pictures. The test subject's brain response to these two different
types of stimuli allow the tester to determine if the measured brain responses to test stimuli, called probes,
are more similar to the relevant or irrelevant responses. The technique uses the well known fact that an
electrical signal known as P300 is emitted from an individual's brain approximately 300 ms after it is
confronted with a stimulus of special significance, for example, a rare vs. a common stimulus or a
stimulus the subject is asked to count (Gaillard and Ritter, ; Picton, ). The novel interpretation in brain
fingerprinting is to look for P300 as response to stimuli related to the crime in question for example a
murder weapon or a victim's face. Figure 4. Victims facial expression. Because it is based on EEG
signals, the system does not require the testee to issue verbal responses to questions or stimuli. Brain
fingerprinting uses cognitive brain responses and do not depend on the emotions of the subject, nor is it
affected by emotional responses . Brain fingerprinting is fundamentally different from the polygraph (liedetector), which measures emotion-based physiological signals such as heart rate, sweating, and blood
pressure (Farwell and Smith, 2001). Also, unlike polygraph testing, it does not attempt to determine
whether or not the subject is lying or telling the truth. Rather, it measures the subjects brain response to
relevant words, phrases, or pictures to detect whether or not the relevant information is stored in the
subjects brain.

ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
When brain fingerprinting test is done on any suspect then this type of graph appears on the analyzer
screen, by seeing these waves is comes to the conclusion that whether the information is present in the
person mind or not. This graph shows three lines red, blue and green. Red line indicates the information
that suspect is expected to know. Green line shows information that is not known to the suspect and the

blue line indicated the information of the crime that only suspect would know. In this graph green line and
the blue line are closely correlate with each other that means the related information is not present in the
suspect brain. Information is not present in figure of not guilty. In this graph since blue and red lines
which indicated that the information is expected to know by the suspect and the information that only the
suspect would know are correlated with each other that shows the information is present in the suspect
brain. This is how analyzes is done in brain fingerprinting. The whole procedure of brain fingerprinting
consists of four phases.
Comparison of waveform

Waveform of Brain Fingerprinting: A Suspect is tested by looking at three kinds of information

represented by Different colored lines: -----Red: information the suspect is expected to know -----Green:
information not known to suspect -----Blue: information of the crime that only perpetrator would know.
NOT GUILTY: 1. Because the blue and green 2. Lines closely correlate, suspect does 3. Critical
knowledge of the crime GUILTY: 1. Because the blue and red 2. Lines closely correlate, and suspect does
not . 3. Critical knowledge of the crime. Four phases of Farwell brain fingerprinting In fingerprinting and
DNA fingerprinting, evidence is 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 (that is, 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:
Brain fingerprinting crime scene evidence collection.

Brain fingerprinting brain evidence collection.

Brain fingerprinting computer evidence analysis.
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 detail 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 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 of the suspect. Record of
100% of accuracy At the time of this first field application, Dr. Farwell's successes in the scientific
laboratory with his invention were already well known. In collaboration with FBI scientist Dr. Drew
Richardson, Dr. 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. Tests
conducted by Dr. Farwell for the US Navy in collaboration with Navy LCDR Rene S. Hernandez, Ph.D.,
also resulted in 100% accurate results. In research on contract with a US government intelligence agency,
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. Dr. Farwell has
published extensively in the scientific literature and presented his research to many scientific and
technical audiences throughout the worl. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has been subjected to rigorous peer
review under US government sponsorship, and has been found scientifically viable as well as
revolutionary in its implications.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE

Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new scientific technology for solving crimes, identifying
perpetrators, and exonerating innocent suspects, with a record of 100% accuracy in research with US
government agencies, actual criminal cases, and other applications. The technology investigators fulfill an
urgent need for governments, law enforcement agencies, corporations, crime victims, and falsely accused
innocent suspects.

APPLICATIONS

Dr. Lawrence Farwell conducts a Brain Fingerprinting test on Terry Harrington.

Dr. Lawrence Farwell conducts a Brain Fingerprinting test on serial killer JB Grinder.

Brain fingerprinting has been ruled admissible in court in the reversal of the murder conviction of Terry
Harrington (Harrington v. State 2001, Encyclopedia of Forensic Science 2014, Farwell & Makeig 2005).
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, 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 has been tested and proven, that it has
been peer reviewed and published, that it produces a known (and low) error rate and is systematically
applied, and that it 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. Also, Dr. Farwell's testimony as an expert witness and the
testimony of the other two expert witnesses in the case 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." (Roberts in Yale
Journal of Law and Technology 2007, p. 265)

"In Harrington, the court admitted Dr. Farwell's testimony on brain fingerprinting and stated that
it satisfied the Daubert test." (Moenssens in University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, p. 26)

"[T]he [Harrington] court admitted Brain Fingerprinting evidence based upon the P300 effect"
(Erickson in Drake Law Review, p. 13)

The court noted the distinction, however, between admissibility and weight. In light of the circumstances
of a particular case, the admissible evidence does not always have sufficient weight to produce a verdict
in favor of the side that 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." ( Farwell and Makeig
in Open Court, p. 9)
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 was 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" (Denno 2002) of the test.
Harrington appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the trial court and
granted Harrington a new trial. (Harrington v. State 2003, p. 516) 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." (Harrington v. State
2003, p. 516)
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
admissibility of the newly discovered evidence resulting from Harrington's Brain Fingerprinting test.
(Harrington v. State 2003)
Due to a constitutional rights violation, specifically a Brady disclosure 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 argued unsuccessfully in trial court that the brain fingerprinting results should not be
considered admissible "evidence," whether "newly discovered" or not (Harrington v. State 2001).
In his recantation, Hughes stated under oath under questioning by Farwell that the detectives and
prosecutors had told him he would go to prison for life if he did not implicate Harrington. He stated that
when he agreed to falsely accuse Harrington of the murder, they coached him in fabricating the story to
which he later testified in the trial. He stated that when he said something that contradicted known facts
such as identifying the wrong murder weapon they corrected him, and he changed his story accordingly.
(Harrington v. State 2001).
Harrington sued the prosecutors and the State of Iowa for framing him. The prosecutors and the State of
Iowa did not deny the accusations brought by Hughes and Harrington. Their defense was that they
enjoyed absolute immunity due to their professional positions. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the
case on the issue, as reported in theTIME Magazine article, "When Is It Legal to Frame a Man for
Murder?" (TIME Magazine article on Harrington ]) (TIME 2009). However, before the Supreme Court
heard the case, the State of Iowa settled with Harrington and another man falsely convicted of the same
crime. The state paid them a $12 million settlement (L A Times 2010).
Brain fingerprinting testing was also instrumental in bringing serial killer James B. Grinder to justice. In
August 1999, Dr. Farwell conducted a brain fingerprinting test on Grinder at the request of Sheriff Robert
Dawson of Macon County, Missouri. The test proved that information stored in his brain matched the
details of the murder of Julie Helton (Encyclopedia of Forensic Science 2014, Farwell et al. 2013, Farwell
2012). Faced with a certain conviction and almost certain death sentence, Grinder then pleaded guilty to
the rape and murder of Julie Helton in exchange for a sentence of life in prison without parole. He is
currently serving that sentence and has also confessed to the murders of three other young women.

LIMITATIONS
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 ( Harrington v. State 2001)
as well as in Farwell's publications and patents Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell 2012) and other scientific
publications (e.g., Encyclopedia of Forensic Science 2014). The limitations of brain fingerprinting
described below are also summarized in PBS TV, PBS Innovation Series "Brain Fingerprinting: Ask the
Experts".[4]
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 can 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 indicate which party's version of the
intent is correct.
Obviously, in structuring a brain fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoid including information that has
been made public. Detecting that a suspect knows the 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 (Encyclopedia of Forensic Science 2014, Farwell
1995a, Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell 2012). 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 (Farwell 2012), and these can be used as stimuli
to test the subject for knowledge that he or she 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, if the individual decided to take a trip and
did not tell anyone, or if 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 such as, for example, in general preemployment 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 be used for specific screening or focused
screening, when investigators have some idea what they are looking for. ).
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 it (Encyclopedia of
Forensic Science 2014, Farwell 1994, PBS TV, Farwell 2012).
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 (Encyclopedia of Forensic Science 2014, Farwell 1994, PBS TV, Farwell 2012). 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, 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 (Harrington
v. State 2001). 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 or she
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 or her 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
(Harrington v. State 2001, PBS TV).
Just as all witness testimony depends on the memory of the witness, brain fingerprinting depends on the
memory of the subject. Brain fingerprinting results must be viewed in light of the limitations on human
memory and the factors affecting it (Harrington v. State 2001, PBS TV). 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 (Encyclopedia of Forensic Science
2014, Farwell 2012). How this evidence is interpreted, and what conclusions are drawn based on it, are
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 suspect 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 is probative
regarding 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 (PBS TV).

REFERENCES

Fox, C. (2006a) "Brain Fingerprinting National Security," American Observer, March 29, 2006.

Fox, C. (2006b) htm "Brain Fingerprinting Skepticism" American Observer, March 29, 2006

Gaillard A.K.W. and Ritter W. (1983). Tutorials in event-related potential research: endogenous
components. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Harrington v. State, Case No. PCCV 073247. Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County,
March 5, 2001.

Harrington v. State. 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003).

Iacono, W.G. (2008). "The forensic application of brain fingerprinting: why scientists should
encourage the use of P300 memory detection methods. " The American Journal of Bioethics 8(1), 3032.

KOMO TV News, October 10, 2008. KOMO TV News Video "Brain Fingerprinting could be
breakthrough in law enforcement" KOMO TV News Print Accessed September 15, 2014.

Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2010. Savage, D. G. Prosecutor conduct case before Supreme
Court is settled. Accessed September 15, 2014.

Moenssens, A.A., (2002) Brain FingerprintingCan It Be Used to Detect the Innocence of

Persons Charged with a Crime? UMKC L. Rev. 70, 891-920..

PBS Innovation Series "Brain Fingerprinting", May 4, 2004. "Brain Fingerprinting: Ask the
Experts" Accessed September 15, 2014.

Picton T.W. (1988). Handbook of electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology: human

event-related potentials, Vol. 3, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Roberts, A.J. (2007). "Everything New Is Old Again: Brain Fingerprinting and Evidentiary
Analogy." Yale J L & Tech 9. 234-270. Accessed September 15, 2014.

Slaughter v. State, No. PCD-2004-277 (Okla. Ct. of Crim. App., April 16, 2004)
Time, November 5, 2009. Suddath, C. "When Is It Legal to Frame a Man for Murder?" Accessed
September 15, 2014.