The author is grateful to Supervisory Special Agent Drew Richardson, PhD

FBI Laboratory, Quantico, VA  for assistance in developing the stimuli for the test on the Helton murder.

The test identified Grinder as the murderer of Julie Helton.

Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell has invented, developed, proven, and patented the technique of Brain Fingerprinting, a new computer-based technology to identify the perpetrator of a crime accurately and scientifically by measuring brain-wave responses to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen. Brain Fingerprinting has proven 100% accurate in over 120 tests, including tests on FBI agents, tests for a US intelligence agency and for the US Navy, and tests on real-life situations including actual crimes.

Brain Fingerprinting is based on the principle that the brain is central to all human acts. In a criminal act, there may or may not be many kinds of peripheral evidence, but the brain is always there, planning, executing, and recording the crime. The fundamental difference between a perpetrator and a falsely accused, innocent person is that the perpetrator, having committed the crime, has the details of the crime stored in his brain, and the innocent suspect does not. This is what Brain Fingerprinting detects scientifically.

Brain Fingerprinting matches evidence from a crime scene with evidence stored in the brain of the perpetrator, similarly to the way conventional fingerprinting matches fingerprints at the crime scene with the fingers of the perpetrator, and DNA fingerprinting matches biological samples from the crime scene with the DNA in the body of the perpetrator.

Brain Fingerprinting works as follows. Words or pictures relevant to a crime are flashed on a computer screen, along with other, irrelevant words or pictures. Electrical brain responses are measured non-invasively through a patented headband equipped with sensors. Dr. Farwell has discovered that a specific brain-wave response called a MERMER (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response) is elicited when the brain processes noteworthy information it recognizes. Thus, when details of the crime that only the perpetrator would know are presented, a MERMER is emitted by the brain of a perpetrator, but not by the brain of an innocent suspect. In Brain Fingerprinting, a computer analyzes the brain response to detect the MERMER, and thus determines scientifically whether or not the specific crime-relevant information is stored in the brain of the suspect.

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 and the evidence recorded in it are always there.

This has nothing to do with lie detection. Rather, it is a scientific way to determine if someone has committed a specific crime. No questions are asked and no answers are given during Brain Fingerprinting. As with DNA and fingerprints, the results are the same whether the person has lied or told the truth at any time.

On January 8, 1984 Julie Helton was reported missing in Macon, MO. Three days later her badly beaten body was found near a railroad track near Macon. She had been raped and stabbed in the neck.

James B. Grinder is the primary suspect in the case. Over the fifteen years since the crime, he had given several different, contradictory accounts of the crime. Some accounts involved his participation, and some did not. Some involved participation by several other individuals. Grinder's accounts contradicted both physical evidence and the statements of an alleged witness. The various accounts of Grinder and several others who were allegedly involved all had proven to be unreliable as well as contradictory. Macon County Sheriff Robert Dawson asked Dr. Farwell to use Brain Fingerprinting to determine scientifically whether or not Grinder was the perpetrator of the crime.

On August 5, 1999, Dr. Larry Farwell tested James B. Grinder at the Macon County Sheriff’s Office in Macon, MO. Dr. Farwell tested Grinder’s brain for the presence of absence of information that would identify him as the perpetrator of the Helton rape and murder.

FBI Supervisory Special Agent Drew Richardson, PhD assisted Dr. Farwell in developing the specific test on the Helton rape/murder. Macon County Sheriff Robert Dawson, Chief Deputy Charles Muldoon, and Randy King of the Missouri Highway Patrol provided Dr. Farwell with the information on the case for use in developing the test.

The determination of Brain Fingerprinting was "Information Present," with a statistical confidence of 99.9%. This means that J.B. Grinder’s brain contained information identifying him as the perpetrator of the Helton rape and murder, with a high statistical confidence for that determination.

During the Brain Fingerprinting test, J.B. Grinder wore a headband equipped with sensors and connected to an electroencephalograph (EEG) amplifier, which in turn fed the brain-wave data into a computer for analysis. He viewed phrases flashed briefly on a computer screen. Some of the phrases were relevant to the Helton murder; others were irrelevant phrases that would be equally plausible crime-related items for an innocent subject.

The Brain Fingerprinting system analyzed Grinder’s brain responses to determine the presence or absence of a MERMER (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response) in response to the crime-relevant stimuli. The presence of a MERMER indicates that the subject recognizes these stimuli as significant, due to the fact that his brain contains information relevant to the crime.

In collaboration with FBI scientist Dr. Drew Richardson, Dr. Farwell achieved 100% accuracy in using 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, 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 world (see Appendix 1). 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.

Brain Fingerprinting is based on the principle that the brain is central to all human acts. In a criminal act, there may or may not be many kinds of peripheral evidence, but the brain is always there, planning, executing, and recording the crime. The fundamental difference between a perpetrator and a falsely accused, innocent person is that the perpetrator, having committed the crime, has the details of the crime stored in his brain, and the innocent suspect does not. This is what Brain Fingerprinting detects scientifically.

The foremost reason that the investigation of the brain had not become central to criminal and espionage investigation until now is that, in the past, neuroscience had not yet progressed to the point where the brain could be utilized as a source of evidence regarding crime and espionage. The scientific discoveries of Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell and others have changed this situation. New research conducted at the Human Brain Research Laboratory and elsewhere has proven that it is possible to match evidence stored in the brain with evidence from a crime, in an accurate and reliable manner and without trauma, invasive procedures, or discomfort to the individual.

In addition to the physical and circumstantial evidence that can be obtained from the crime scene and elsewhere, there is one place where a comprehensive record of the crime is stored: in the brain of the perpetrator. Brain Fingerprinting allows evidence to be analyzed directly from the human brain, in an accurate, objective, non-stressful, non-invasive, and scientific manner.

When a crime is committed, a record is stored in the brain of the perpetrator. Brain Fingerprinting provides a means to objectively and scientifically connect evidence from the crime scene with evidence stored in the brain. (This is similar to the process of connecting DNA samples from the perpetrator with biological evidence found at the scene of the crime; only the evidence evaluated by Brain Fingerprinting is evidence stored in the brain.) Brain Fingerprinting measures electrical brain activity in response to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen, and reveals a brain MERMER (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response) when, and only when, the evidence stored in the brain matches the evidence from the crime scene. Thus, the guilty can be identified and the innocent can be cleared in an accurate, scientific, objective, non-invasive, and non-stressful manner.

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. 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 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

In the Crime Scene Evidence Collection, an expert in 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 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 Brain Fingerprinting: either "information present" ("guilty") – the details of the crime are stored in the brain of the suspect – or "information absent" ("innocent") – the details of the crime are not stored in the brain of the suspect.

There is a tremendous need for accurate, scientific means of matching evidence from the crime scene with evidence on the persons of suspects.

This need has inspired some scientists to ask, "What does the criminal take with him from the crime scene that records his involvement in the crime?" The answer to this question, of course, is the brain. The brain of the criminal is always there, recording all of the events like a video camera -- and like his DNA and fingerprints, the brain always stays with the criminal.

The problem, until recently, has been that there was no way to detect this record of the crime stored in the brain.

The discovery of the brain MERMER by Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell has made it possible to reveal, with extremely high accuracy, specific information stored in the brain. MERMER is an acronym for memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response. The MERMER is elicited when the brain recognizes and takes note of certain specific information (in the case of a crime, this information is crime-relevant evidence collected from the crime scene). By flashing crime-relevant information (words or pictures) on a computer screen and measuring brain responses, the brain MERMER can be used to determine objectively whether or not the details of a specific crime are stored in a suspect's brain. If (and only if) the evidence is stored in the brain, a brain MERMER is elicited. As described above, this technique of Brain Fingerprinting has been found to be highly reliable in scientific tests.

As the human brain is central to all human acts, the human brain is central to the criminal act. The only reason that the brain has not yet become central to criminal investigations is that, until Dr. Farwell's discovery of Brain Fingerprinting, there was no scientific, objective way to match the evidence stored in the brain with evidence from the crime scene. Now that this new technology is available, it is inevitable that the brain will take its rightful place as a central facet of criminal investigations.

The detection of concealed information stored in the brains of suspects, witnesses, intelligence sources, and others is of central concern to all phases of law enforcement, corporate, and intelligence operations. Brain Fingerprinting (for multifaceted electroencephalographic response analysis - MERA) presents a new paradigm in forensic science. This new system detects information directly, on the basis of the electrophysiological manifestations of information-processing brain activity, measured non-invasively from the scalp. Since Brain Fingerprinting depends only on brain information processing, it does not depend on the emotional response of the subject.

Brain Fingerprinting utilizes multifaceted electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA) to detect information stored in the human brain. A memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MERMER) is elicited when an individual recognizes and processes an incoming stimulus that is significant or noteworthy. When an irrelevant stimulus is seen, it is seen as being insignificant and not noteworthy, and the MERMER response is absent. This pattern occurs within about a second after the stimulus presentation, and can be readily detected using EEG amplifiers and a computerized signal-detection algorithm.

Brain Fingerprinting incorporates the following procedure. A sequence of words or pictures is presented on a video monitor under computer control. Each stimulus appears for a fraction of a second. Three types of stimuli are presented: "targets," "irrelevants," and "probes."

The targets are made relevant and noteworthy to all subjects: the subject is given a list of the target stimuli and instructed to press a particular button in response to targets, and to press another button in response to all other stimuli. Since the targets are noteworthy for the subject, they elicit a MERMER.

Most of the non-target stimuli are irrelevant, having no relation to the crime. These irrelevants do not elicit a MERMER.

Some of the non-target stimuli are relevant to the crime under investigation. These relevant stimuli are referred to as probes. For a subject who has committed the crime, the probes are noteworthy due to his knowledge of the details of the crime, and therefore probes elicit a brain MERMER. For an innocent subject lacking this detailed knowledge of the crime, probes are indistinguishable from the irrelevants. For such a subject, the probes are not noteworthy and thus probes do not elicit a MERMER.

The entire Brain Fingerprinting System is under computer control, including presentation of the stimuli and recording of electrical brain activity, as well as a mathematical data analysis algorithm that compares the responses to the three types of stimuli and produces a determination of "information present" ("guilty") or "information absent" ("innocent"), and a statistical confidence level for this determination. At no time during the testing and data analysis do any biases and interpretations of a system expert affect the presentation and results of each stimulus presentation.

Four scientific studies, field tests, and actual criminal cases involving over 120 individuals described in various scientific publications and technical reports by Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell have verified the extremely high level of accuracy, and overall effectiveness of Brain Fingerprinting. The system had 100% accurate scientific results in all studies, field tests, and actual cases conducted at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a US intelligence agency, the Alexandria (VA) Police Department, and other organizations and individuals. Some of these tests are described below.

Brain Fingerprinting had 100% accurate scientific results in distinguishing 17 FBI agents and 4 non-FBI agents from a group of 21 subjects. The detection of FBI agents indicates that the system could detect members of a criminal or espionage organization as well as perpetrators of a specific crime. In Experiment 1, the information detected was specific knowledge that would identify an individual as an FBI agent. The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether this method could be useful in detecting members of a group or organization or people with a particular knowledge (e.g.,. members of a foreign intelligence organization or a terrorist organization). Stimuli were words, phrases, and acronyms flashed on a computer screen. Experiment 2 at the FBI correctly detected whether or not individuals had participated in specific, real-life events.

Studies completed at a US intelligence agency proved that Brain Fingerprinting could accurately and reliably detect individuals possessing information regarding mock crimes and real-life activities, including a small number of actual major crimes. In Experiment 3 at the agency, the information detected was relevant to a mock espionage scenario enacted by some of the subjects, and the stimuli that elicited the brain responses were relevant pictures presented on a computer screen. In Experiment 4 at the agency, which used visually presented words and phrases as stimuli, the information detected was relevant to real-life events, including two felony crimes.

Experiment 5 was conducted by Dr. Farwell at the US Navy in collaboration with Navy LCDR Rene Hernandez, Ph.D. (This experiment was a collaboration between the agency and the Navy.) In this experiment words, phrases, and acronyms were presented on a computer screen, and the information detected through brain responses was relevant to knowledge of military medicine. (This is similar to Experiment 1.)

Brain Fingerprinting was highly effective in the resolution of a case investigation at the Alexandria Police Department. A police officer was accused of a series of felony drug crimes. The officer throughout the entire period of investigation claimed innocence of involvement. His accuser was an individual who had already admitted his own guilt. It was clear from the evidence that a second person had been involved, and the accuser identified the officer as that person. The officer admitted that he had spoken to the accuser on the phone, that his wife had met the accuser on several occasions, and that he had some of the drugs in question in his possession at certain times, but always with a legitimate reason. His accuser passed a polygraph exam designed to establish whether or not his accusations were truthful, picked the officer out of a photo lineup, and in interrogation displayed accurate and detailed knowledge about the officer. The Alexandria PD requested Brain Fingerprinting which clearly showed that the officer had no knowledge of the crime stored in his brain. The investigation was renewed, and there is now substantial, independent evidence that the officer was indeed innocent, and that his accuser and another individual framed the officer in order to deflect suspicion from another person who had carried out the crimes of which the officer was accused. The resolution of this case was a major advancement in proving the value of the technology in the field.

Over 120 subjects in the above four experiments were correctly classified as possessing or not possessing the critical information. There were no false positives, no false negatives, and no indeterminates. In one criminal case, Brain Fingerprinting vindicated a police officer falsely accused of a felony. In another actual criminal case, brain responses of two subjects showed that one subject was present at an armed robbery, and the other knew nothing of the crime. Brain Fingerprinting correctly classified both subjects, with a statistical confidence of greater than 99% in each case. In all of these studies and cases, words, phrases, or pictures flashed on a computer screen containing information relevant to the crimes or other situations elicited a MERMER only in the subjects who possessed the critical information. Previous published research by Dr. Farwell and his colleagues (see Appendix 1) has demonstrated similar results.

On January 8, 1984 Julie Helton was reported missing in Macon, MO. Three days later her badly beaten body was found near a railroad track near Macon. She had been raped and stabbed in the neck.

James B. Grinder is the primary suspect in the case. Over the fifteen years since the crime, he has given several different, contradictory accounts of the crime. Some accounts involved his participation, and some did not. Some involved participation by several other individuals. Grinder's accounts contradicted both physical evidence and the statements of an alleged witness. The various accounts of Grinder and several others who were allegedly involved all had proven to be unreliable as well as contradictory. Macon County Sheriff Robert Dawson asked Dr. Farwell to use Brain Fingerprinting to determine scientifically whether or not Grinder was the perpetrator of the crime.

For the Brain Fingerprinting test on J.B. Grinder, Dr. Farwell followed the standard Brain Fingerprinting testing procedure described in the scientific literature and in Dr. Farwell’s patents. (For details, see Appendix 1.) Grinder wore a headband equipped with sensors which measured brain-wave responses from the frontal (Fz), central (Pz), and parietal (Pz) areas of the head. Electrical brain responses were amplified, digitized, stored on computer disk, and analyzed at the end of the procedure.

During the test, Grinder viewed short phrases flashed on a computer screen, some of which were probe stimuli containing specific details of the crime that would be noteworthy to the perpetrator.

Dr. Farwell ran seven separate tests, with five different sets of probe, target, and irrelevant stimuli. The probe stimuli were phrases relevant to the rape and murder of Julie Helton that would be noteworthy for the perpetrator of the crime. These included, for example, the murder weapon, the specific method of killing the victim, specific injuries inflicted on the victim by the perpetrators before she was killed, what the perpetrators used to bind the victim’s hands, the place where the body was left, items that were left by the perpetrators near the crime scene, and items that were taken from the victim during the crime.

The target stimuli were made noteworthy to the subject by instructions given before the test. Grinder was given a list of the target stimuli before the test. He was instructed to press a special button whenever a target stimulus appeared on the screen, and another button when anything else appeared on the screen.

The irrelevant stimuli were not relevant to the crime, but would be equally plausible for an innocent person, (e.g., a weapon that was not the murder weapon, an injury that the victim did not sustain, a place where the victim’s body was not left, etc.)

The test was designed so that:

1. The target stimuli would elicit a MERMER, because they were noteworthy to the subject since he had been told about them and instructed to press a special button when they appeared;
2. The irrelevant stimuli would not elicit a MERMER, because they were not noteworthy to the subject;
3. The probe stimuli would elicit a MERMER only if the subject recognized them as relevant to the crime, i.e., if the subject had the significant details of the crime stored in his brain from having committed the crime.

The data analysis consisted of mathematically comparing J.B. Grinder’s brain-wave responses to the three types of stimuli to determine if the responses to the probes contained a MERMER (like the target responses) or did not contain a MERMER (like the irrelevant responses).

J.B. Grinder’s brain-wave responses to the probe stimuli containing details of the rape and murder of Julie Helton clearly contained a MERMER. (As expected, the target responses elicited a MERMER, and the irrelevant responses elicited no MERMER.) The MERMER in response to the crime-relevant probe stimuli indicates that the details of the rape and murder of Julie Helton were stored in J.B. Grinder’s brain. The average responses of Grinder’s brain to the three types of stimuli are illustrated in Figure 1 in Appendix 2.

The Brain Fingerprinting system mathematically analyzes the brain-wave responses and makes a determination of "information present’ ("guilty") or "information absent" ("innocent"). "Information present’ means that the probe responses, like the target responses, contain a MERMER indicating that the crime-relevant information is stored in the brain. "Information absent" means that the details of the crime are not stored in the brain. The Brain Fingerprinting system also computes a statistical confidence for the determination of "information present" or "information absent."

The Brain Fingerprinting scientific result for J.B. Grinder was "information present," with a statistical confidence of 100% (plus or minus 1%). This indicates that we can conclude with a high degree of confidence that significant details of Julie Helton’s rape and murder are stored in J.B. Grinder’s brain, even though fifteen years have passed since the event.