2. Table of Contents

3. Brain Fingerprinting:
Overview of the Technology

During the Brain Fingerprinting test, Terry Harrington 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 Schweer murder; others were irrelevant phrases that would be equally plausible crime-related items for an innocent subject.

The Brain Fingerprinting system analyzed Harrington’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.

3.2 Previous Record of 100% Accuracy

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 and Sharon Smith of the FBI Laboratory and published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences found Brain Fingerprinting to be 100% accurate in detecting real-life events stored in the brains of FBI agents and others. Tests conducted by Dr. Farwell for the US Navy in collaboration with Navy LCDR Rene S. Hernandez, PhD 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. (For contact information on Dr. Richardson, Dr. Hernandez, Supervisory Special Agent Smith, and other experts on Brain Fingerprinting, see Appendix 4.)

Dr. Farwell has published extensively on Brain Fingerprinting in the scientific literature and presented his research to many scientific and technical audiences throughout the world (see Appendix 3).

3.3 Brain Fingerprinting in Law Enforcement.

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.

3.4 Criminal Evidence in the Brain of the Perpetrator.

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.

3.5 Description of Brain Fingerprinting

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, non-stressful, and non-testimonial 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;

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.

4. Scientific Procedure, Research, and Applications

4.1 Informational Evidence Detection.

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, government and private investigations, and intelligence operations. Brain Fingerprinting 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.

4.2 The Brain MERMER

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 insignificant and not noteworthy, and the MERMER response is absent. The MERMER occurs within about a second after the stimulus presentation, and can be readily detected using EEG amplifiers and a computerized signal-detection algorithm.

4.3 Scientific Procedure

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 or situation 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, the probes are indistinguishable from the irrelevant stimuli. For such a subject, the probes are not noteworthy, and thus probes do not elicit a MERMER.

4.4 Computer Controlled

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 stimulus presentation or brain responses.

4.5 Scientific Experiments, Field Tests, and Criminal Cases

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, the offices of the Macon County (MO) Sheriff, and other organizations and individuals. Some of these tests are described below.

In research conducted by Dr. Farwell in collaboration with Drew Richardson, PhD of the FBI Laboratory, 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, conducted at the FBI by Dr. Farwell in collaboration with SSA Sharon Smith of the FBI Laboratory, correctly detected whether or not individuals had participated in specific, real-life events. This research has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. (See Appendix 4 for contact information for Dr. Richardson and Supervisory Special Agent Smith.)

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, PhD This experiment was a collaboration between the intelligence 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, except that military medical experts, rather than FBI agents, were detected.) As with the other experiments, Brain Fingerprinting was 100% accurate. (See Appendix 4 for contact information for Dr. Hernandez.)

On January 7, 1984 Julie Helton was abducted, raped, and murdered. Her badly beaten body was found four days later near a railroad track in Macon, Missouri. She had been raped, beaten, and stabbed in the neck.

James B. Grinder was 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. Farwell used Brain Fingerprinting to test suspect James B. Grinder’s brain for evidence stored in the brain that would identify him as the perpetrator of the Helton murder. The test identified Grinder as the killer with a statistical confidence of 99.9%.

Shortly after Brain Fingerprinting proved that he had raped and murdered Julie Helton, Grinder -- faced with an almost certain conviction and probable death sentence -- pled guilty to the murder in exchange for a sentence of life in prison without parole. He is currently serving that sentence. Grinder has now confessed to the murders of at least three other young women.

Over 120 subjects in the above four experiments were correctly classified as possessing or not possessing the critical information stored in the brain. 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 criminal case, Brain Fingerprinting implicated a serial killer in a murder that had remained unsolved for 15 years. In all of these studies and cases, words, phrases, or pictures flashed on a computer screen containing information relevant to the crimes or other investigated situations elicited a MERMER only in the subjects who possessed the critical information. Previous published research by Dr. Farwell, his colleagues, and other scientists (see Appendix 3) has consistently demonstrated similar results.

4.6 Admissibility of Brain Fingerprinting in court

The admissibility of Brain Fingerprinting in court has not yet been established. The following well established facts about Brain Fingerprinting, however, will be relevant when the question of admissibility is tested in court. 1) Brain Fingerprinting has been thoroughly and scientifically tested. 2) The theory and application of Brain Fingerprinting have been subject to peer review and publication. 3) The rate of error is extremely low -- Brain Fingerprinting has been 100% accurate in all tests to date -- and clear standards governing scientific techniques of operation of the technology have been established and published. 4) The theory and practice of Brain Fingerprinting have gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. 5) Brain Fingerprinting is non-invasive and non-testimonial.

6.  
   1.  
   2. Dr. Farwell’s Brain Fingerprinting Test on Terry Harrington

5.1 Background of the Terry Harrington case

On the morning of July 22, 1977, John Schweer, a retired police officer who was working as a security guard, was found dead on a railroad track that ran behind the automobile dealership where he had worked the previous evening. He died of a shotgun wound. In 1978, Terry Harrington was convicted of the murder. The conviction was based largely on the testimony of Kevin Hughes, an alleged witness who said he accompanied Harrington to the scene of the crime with the intent of stealing a car. Harrington and several alibi witnesses testified that Harrington was at a concert with friends at the time of the murder.

Harrington was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to life in prison. He was 17 years old at the time of the crime. Now, Harrington is 41 years old. He is currently still serving a life sentence for the murder in the Iowa State Penitentiary at Fort Madison, IA. Harrington maintained his innocence at the time of the trial, and has continued to maintain his innocence to the present day.

Court records contain contradictory accounts of the events of the evening of the crime. In the trial, Harrington testified that he had been with friends at a concert the evening of the murder, and then had driven around the town with three friends before returning home. Several witnesses corroborated this alibi.

The primary prosecution witness, Kevin Hughes, told a different story. Hughes testified that he had driven with Harrington to the scene of the crime, where they had planned to steal a car. Other witnesses testified that they had seen Harrington, Hughes, and another alleged perpetrator set off in a car together toward the crime scene with the stated intention of stealing a car. Hughes stated that after they arrived at the dealership where the planned auto theft was to take place, he stayed in the car. He said he watched Harrington and another man approach the car lot, with Harrington carrying a shotgun concealed under a leather jacket. Hughes said he then heard the fatal shot, saw Harrington and the other man running out from behind a building, and helped them make their getaway in a car.

Now, 23 years after the crime, the new technology of Brain Fingerprinting has made it possible to determine scientifically which sequence of events actually took place -- the one described by Hughes or the one described by Harrington's alibi witnesses -- by determining which one is stored in Harrington's brain.

Dr. Farwell ran two separate Brain Fingerprinting sessions on Harrington, one on April 18, 2000 and one on April 25, 2000. The first Brain Fingerprinting session tested Harrington's brain for information relevant to the crime. The second Brain Fingerprinting session tested Harrington's brain for information relevant to Harrington's alibi.

Brain Fingerprinting can scientifically determine whether or not Harrington killed Schweer in the following way. If Brain Fingerprinting demonstrates scientifically that Harrington has information about the crime stored in his brain that he would have no way of knowing except to commit the crime, then Brain Fingerprinting will prove that Harrington committed the crime. If Brain Fingerprinting demonstrates scientifically 1) that Harrington's brain does not contain critical details about the crime, details that the perpetrator would know from having committed the crime, and 2) that Harrington's brain does contain details of the events of the evening of the crime -- i.e., the non-crime-related events described by the alibi witnesses -- then Brain Fingerprinting will prove that Harrington did not commit the crime.

Legal questions have been raised about the Harrington case. These questions are outside the scope of this report. This report is confined to providing a scientific answer to the question of whether or not Terry Harrington committed the murder of John Schweer.

5.2 Brain Fingerprinting test for information relevant to the crime

For the Brain Fingerprinting tests on Terry Harrington, Dr. Farwell followed the standard Brain Fingerprinting scientific testing procedure described in the scientific literature and in Dr. Farwell’s patents. This procedure is also briefly described above in Section 4.3, Scientific Procedure. (For technical details of the Brain Fingerprinting test on Harrington, see Appendix 2. For details of the standard Brain Fingerprinting procedure, see Farwell, 1992; 1994, 1995; Farwell and Smith, 2001, in Appendix 3)

Harrington 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 for crime-relevant information stored in his brain, Harrington viewed short phrases flashed on a computer screen, some of which were probe stimuli containing specific details of the crime that the perpetrator would have had to experience in order to commit the crime.

Brain Fingerprinting scientifically determines the presence or absence of information stored in the brain. It does not determine how that information got there. There would be no purpose in conducting a Brain Fingerprinting test on information about the crime that Harrington was told at the trial or in the course of the investigation. The fact that this information is stored in Harrington's brain has no bearing on whether or not he committed the crime, because this information, having been provided to him after the crime, would be known to him whether he had committed the crime or not. The only information that is useful for Brain Fingerprinting is information about the crime that Harrington was never told during the trial or the investigation, but that he would have known in the process of committing the crime if he were the perpetrator.

Dr. Farwell developed the information for use in the Brain Fingerprinting tests through personal interviews, police records, court testimony, crime scene photos, and examining the crime scene itself to discover information that the perpetrator would know but that Harrington had never been told. This information meets the necessary criteria for information that would identify Harrington as the perpetrator or exonerate him.

As is described above in Section 4.3, Scientific Procedure, Brain Fingerprinting involves flashing words, phrases, or pictures (in this case, words and short phrases) on a computer screen and measuring brain responses. Three types of stimuli are used, known respectively as probe stimuli, target stimuli, and irrelevant stimuli. In the Brain Fingerprinting session to detect the presence or absence of crime-relevant information stored in Harrington's brain, the probe stimuli were phrases relevant to the murder of John Schweer that would be known to the perpetrator of the crime, and that Harrington would have had no way of knowing other than by committing the crime. These included the following:

• Where the perpetrator had to go to get from the location of the car he allegedly intended to steal to the location of the shooting.
• What was behind the victim when he was shot.
• What was on the ground the perpetrator ran over after he shot the victim and ran behind the building back towards the car.
• An obstacle that the perpetrator had to get across to get to the road where the getaway car was parked.
• What the getaway car was parked next to.
• The direction that the perpetrator drove the car immediately after the shooting.

As per the standard procedure for Brain Fingerprinting, the target stimuli were made noteworthy to the subject by instructions given before the test. Harrington 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 crime-relevant details for an innocent person.

As is described above in Section 4.3, Scientific Procedure, and in the relevant scientific literature (see Appendix 3), stimuli that are recognized as relevant and noteworthy to a subject elicit a brain response known as a MERMER (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response). Stimuli that are not relevant and noteworthy do not elicit a MERMER.

As per the standard Brain Fingerprinting scientific procedure, the Brain Fingerprinting test on Harrington 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 Terry Harrington’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).

5.3 Results of the Brain Fingerprinting test for crime-relevant information

Terry Harrington’s brain-wave responses to the probe stimuli containing details of the murder of John Schweer clearly did not contain a MERMER. (As expected, the target responses elicited a MERMER, and the irrelevant responses did not elicit a MERMER.) The lack of a MERMER in response to the crime-relevant probe stimuli indicates that critical details of the murder of John Schweer were not stored in Terry Harrington’s brain. That is, there is not a match between the information stored in Harrington's brain and the details of the crime. The average responses of Harrington’s brain to the three types of stimuli are illustrated in Figure 1 in Appendix 1.

The Brain Fingerprinting system mathematically analyzes the brain-wave responses and makes a determination of "information present’ ("match") or "information absent" ("no match"). "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 scientific result of the Brain Fingerprinting test for information relevant to the murder of John Schweer stored in the brain of Terry Harrington was "information absent," with a statistical confidence of 99.9% This indicates that we can conclude with a very high degree of confidence that certain significant details of John Schweer's murder are not stored in Terry Harrington’s brain. In other words, there is not a match between the information stored in Harrington's brain and a scenario in which Harrington visited the crime scene and committed the crime.

5.4 Brain Fingerprinting test for information relevant to Harrington's alibi

The second Brain Fingerprinting test was structured to determine scientifically if there was a match between the information stored in Harrington's brain and a scenario in which Harrington was far from the scene of the crime, at a concert and with friends, at the time of the crime. This is a scenario described by several of the defendant's witnesses in Harrington's trial.

The crime took place 23 years ago. Might it be possible that the reason that Harrington's brain does not contain salient details of the crime is that, due to the long passage of time, Harrington simply does not remember salient details of the events of that night? Brain Fingerprinting provides a method to test this alternative hypothesis by testing Harrington's brain for information that was stored in his brain that same night in carrying out the actions that constitute his alibi.

Several alibi witnesses testified that at the time of the crime Harrington was at a concert, and later driving around town with friends. Dr. Farwell constructed a second set of stimuli to test for the presence or absence information stored in Harrington's brain that matched this scenario.

The procedure for the Brain Fingerprinting test to detect information stored in Harrington's brain relevant to the events described by his alibi witnesses was the same standard Brain Fingerprinting procedure used in the test for crime-relevant information (see above). As before, probe, target, and irrelevant stimuli consisting of words and phrases were flashed on a computer screen, and Harrington's brain responses were measured. The only difference between the test for crime-relevant information and the test for alibi-relevant information was the specific stimuli used. The probe stimuli used in the alibi-relevant Brain Fingerprinting session were items relevant to Harrington's actions on the evening of the crime, as described by the alibi witnesses in testimony at the trial. These included the following:

• People who accompanied Harrington to the concert on the night of the crime.
• People Harrington saw and spoke to at the concert.
• The location of the concert Harrington attended on the night of the crime.
• A street Harrington and his friends drove on after the concert.
• The primary band that was playing at the concert.
• What Harrington talked about with an older person outside the concert.
• What Harrington and the older person Harrington spoke to at the concert sat on while they talked.
• A place Harrington and his friends stopped for something to eat after the concert.
• The vehicle that Harrington drove to the concert.

As before, the target stimuli were made noteworthy to the subject by instructions given before the test. Harrington 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.

As before, the irrelevant stimuli were not relevant to the events that constituted Harrington's alibi, but would be equally plausible for a person unfamiliar with the events of the evening in question.

5.5 Results of the Brain Fingerprinting test for alibi-relevant information

Terry Harrington’s brain-wave responses to the probe stimuli containing details of the events of the night of the crime, as described by the alibi witnesses, clearly did contain a MERMER. (As expected, the target responses elicited a MERMER, and the irrelevant responses did not elicit a MERMER.) The MERMER in response to the crime-relevant probe stimuli indicates that critical details of the events of the evening of the crime (i.e., non-crime-related events that took place elsewhere at the time of the crime) were stored in Terry Harrington’s brain. That is, the information stored in Harrington's brain matched the scenario in which he was far from the crime scene with friends at the time of the crime. The responses of Harrington’s brain to the three types of stimuli are illustrated in Figure 2 in Appendix 1.

The scientific result of the Brain Fingerprinting test for alibi-relevant information was "information present," with a statistical confidence of 99.9% This indicates that we can conclude with a very high degree of confidence that certain significant details of the events that took place elsewhere at the time of the crime are stored in Harrington's brain. In other words, there is a match between the information stored in Harrington's brain and a scenario in which Harrington was far from the crime scene with friends at the time of the crime.

This provides evidence that the reason that Harrington's brain does not contain certain salient details about the crime is not that his memory has failed. Harrington's memory is intact for the events of the evening -- that is, the events described by the defendant's witnesses who stated that Harrington was elsewhere at the time of the crime.

Harrington's brain does not contain significant details about the crime. The record in Harrington's brain does not match The record of the events of the evening stored in Harrington's matches the scenario in which that at the time of the crime, he was with friends at a concert and later driving around town, in accord with the testimony of several alibi witnesses at the trial.

5.6 Summary of Results

Certain significant details of the events that took place in the perpetration of the murder of John Schweer are not stored in Terry Harrington's brain. The details of an alternative set of events -- events described at Harrington's trial by alibi witnesses, events that took place somewhere else at the same time the crime was being committed -- are stored in Harrington's brain. In summary, the results of the Brain Fingerprinting tests on Terry Harrington provide definitive scientific evidence that the record of the events of the evening of John Schweer's murder stored in Terry Harrington's brain

1. does not match the scenario in which Harrington was at the scene of the crime and committed the crime;
2. does match the scenario in which Harrington was elsewhere at the time of the crime, at a concert and with friends.

6. Appendix 1: Terry Harrington's Brain-Wave Responses

Figure 1

Terry Harrington's Brain-Wave Responses

To Stimuli Containing Details of the Murder of John Schweer

The following page displays Terry Harrington's average brain-wave responses recorded in response to three types of stimuli: (1) Targets (illustrated on the figure with a solid/red line) are phrases that were made relevant to the subject by instructing him to press a particular button when they appeared on the screen. Note the large MERMER (evident here as a positive voltage peak at approximately 800 msec followed by a negative voltage peak at approximately 1100 msec), which indicates that these stimuli are relevant to the subject. (2) Irrelevants (dotted/green line) are phrases that are not relevant. The MERMER is absent. (3) Probes (bold/blue line) are phrases relevant to the murder of John Schweer, which the subject gives no overt indication of recognizing. The lack of a MERMER indicates that these specific details of the crime are not relevant and noteworthy for this subject. Note that the brain response to probes matches the brain response to irrelevants, which does not contain a MERMER.

Determination: information absent.

Statistical Confidence: 99.9%

Conclusion: Certain significant details of the murder of John Schweer are not stored in Terry Harrington's brain.

Y-axis: voltage in microvolts at the parietal (Pz) scalp site.

X-axis: time in milliseconds (msec). Stimulus was presented at 0 msec.

Figure 2

Terry Harrington's Brain-Wave Responses

To Stimuli Containing Details of Events on the Night of the Schweer Murder

(Events Constituting Harrington's Alibi)

The following page displays Terry Harrington's average brain-wave responses recorded in response to three types of stimuli: (1) Targets (illustrated on the figure with a solid/red line) are phrases that were made relevant to the subject by instructing him to press a particular button when they appeared on the screen. Note the large MERMER (evident here as a positive voltage peak at approximately 800 msec followed by a negative voltage peak at approximately 1100 msec), which indicates that these stimuli are relevant to the subject. (2) Irrelevants (dotted/green line) are phrases that are not relevant. The MERMER is absent. (3) Probes (bold/blue line) are phrases relevant to events that took place the night of the Schweer murder, according to alibi witnesses. According to these witnesses, Harrington participated in these events that took place far from the crime scene at the time of the crime. The large MERMER in response to probes indicates that these specific details of the events that took place elsewhere at the same time as the crime are relevant and noteworthy for this subject. Note that the brain response to probes matches the brain response to targets, which also contains a MERMER.

Determination: information present.

Statistical Confidence: 99.9%

Conclusion: Certain significant details of events that took place elsewhere at the time of the crime are stored in Terry Harrington's brain.

Y-axis: voltage in microvolts at the parietal (Pz) scalp site.

X-axis: time in milliseconds (msec). Stimulus was presented at 0 msec.

7. Appendix 2: Technical Details,
Brain Fingerprinting Test on Terry Harrington

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 or investigated situation. 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.

Probes consisted of short phrases relevant to the murder of John Schweer that had not been revealed to Harrington since the murder. Targets were also relevant to the crime. Irrelevants were irrelevant to the crime, but equally plausible for a person lacking knowledge of the details of the crime.

Any subject, then, whether or not he had participated in the crime, would recognize and respond to the targets, because the subject was given a list of targets and instructed to press a specific button when a target appeared on the screen. The subject was given no information that would identify which of the non-target stimuli were crime-relevant probes and which were irrelevants. Thus, only a subject who had participated in the crime would recognize the probes as significant.

For each probe stimulus, there were 2 irrelevant stimuli of the same type that were indistinguishable for a subject lacking knowledge of the crime. For example, if the probe stimulus were the location of the getaway car, there would be 2 irrelevant stimuli consisting of equally plausible locations that were not in fact the correct location. Similarly, for each target stimulus, there were 2 irrelevant stimuli of the same type.

At the beginning of the session, the subject was given descriptions of all of the probe and target stimuli. For example, if a probe stimulus were "Omaha," the description might be "Where Harrington lived at the time of the crime." (This example was not an actual probe stimulus.) The descriptions are listed in Section 5.2 above. Each description shown to the subject before the test was followed by one probe stimulus and 2 irrelevant stimuli of the same type, or one target stimulus and 2 irrelevant stimuli of the same type. The 3 stimuli following each description were in alphabetical order, so that a subject lacking knowledge of the crime would not know which stimuli were crime-relevant and which were irrelevant.

Then the subject was given a list of the targets (the actual stimuli, not descriptions). The subject was informed that he would need to recognize the targets during the test. The subject was instructed to press a button with the left thumb in response to each target stimulus, and another button with the right thumb in response to all other stimuli.

Then the subject was given a list of all of the stimuli that would appear on the test, in alphabetical order, with no indication of which stimuli were probes, targets, and irrelevants. The subject was instructed to identify any stimuli that were significant to him for reasons that had nothing to do with the crime. The purpose of this procedure is to identify and eliminate any stimuli that are particularly significant to the subject for reasons that have nothing to do with the investigated situation. One of the irrelevant stimuli happened to be the name of a person well known to the subject. This stimulus was eliminated from the test, and another stimulus was substituted.

In the Brain Fingerprinting test for crime-relevant information stored in Harrington's brain, there were 2 sets of stimuli, as described below. In the Brain Fingerprinting test for alibi-relevant information stored in Harrington's brain, there were 4 sets of stimuli.

In each stimulus set there were 3 probes, 3 targets, and 12 irrelevants, a total of 18 stimuli. In the 2 sets of crime-relevant stimuli, then, there were a total of 6 probes, 6 targets, and 24 irrelevants, a total of 36 stimuli.

The test was divided into separate blocks. In each block, each of the 24 stimuli in one stimulus set was presented 3 times, for a total of 72 stimulus presentations or trials in each block.

A total of 24 blocks were run in the Brain Fingerprinting test for crime-relevant information. The first block, and all subsequent odd-numbered blocks, used stimulus set 1. The second block, and all subsequent even-numbered blocks, used stimulus set 2.

A total of 16 blocks were run in the Brain Fingerprinting test for alibi-relevant information. Stimulus sets 1 - 4 were presented in sequence in the first 4 blocks, then sets 1 - 4 were presented again in blocks 5-8, and so on. In the alibi-relevant test, then, each stimulus set was presented in 4 blocks altogether.

At the beginning of each block, the descriptions of the probe and target stimuli that would appear in that block were read to the subject. Note that only the descriptions, not the actual stimuli, were read to the subject at this time. (At no time were the actual probe stimuli identified as crime-relevant probes, nor were they pointed out in any way to the subject, or presented to the subject differently than the irrelevant stimuli.)

The subject wore a headband with embedded disposable electroencephalographic (EEG) sensors. EEG data were recorded from Fz, Cz, and Pz scalp sites (International 10-20 system), and one site above the left eye (to measure electro-oculogram, EOG) referred to linked ears. EEG data were amplified at a gain of 50,000 with Grass model P511 amplifiers. EOG data were amplified at a gain of 10,000. Data were digitized at 100 Hz and stored on disk for analysis.

Signals were analog filtered at a low-pass half-amplitude frequency of 30 Hz and a high-pass half-amplitude frequency of 0.1 Hz.

Stimuli were presented on a computer screen with a stimulus duration of 400 msec and an inter-stimulus interval (stimulus onset asynchrony) of 2900 msec. At 1800 msec post-stimulus a fixation point in the form of an X appeared at the center of the screen. Subjects were instructed to look at the center of the screen between stimulus presentations. Subjects were instructed that if they needed to blink, they should blink after the X appeared. Since the brain responses of interest were primarily completed by 1800 msec post-stimulus, artifacts caused by eye blinks were largely confined to the time range that was not used in data analysis.

Trials with eye-movement or muscle-movement artifact were detected in real time and marked to be eliminated from the analysis. For each trial eliminated due to artifacts, another trial was presented so that the required total of artifact-free trials was achieved.

Prior to analysis, data were digitally filtered with a 49-point, low-pass, optimal, equal-ripple, digital finite impulse response filter with a pass-band cutoff frequency of 6 Hz and a stop-band cutoff frequency of 8 Hz (see Farwell et al., 1993).

The statistical method of bootstrapping (see Farwell, 1992, 1994, 1995; Farwell and Donchin, 1988; Farwell and Smith, 2001; Wasserman and Bockenholt, 1989) was used to compute the statistical confidence for the determinations of "information present" or "information absent."

References

For References to publications by Dr. Farwell and his colleagues, see Appendix 3.

Additional References