Brain "Fingerprinting"

Latest Tool For Law Enforcement

By Dr. Tod W. Burke, June, 1999

What is Brain Fingerprinting Testing?

Brain fingerprinting is the latest in computer-based technology that allows investigators to identify or exonerate subjects based upon measuring brain-wave responses to crime related pictures or world presented on a computer screen.

According to Dr. Larry Farwell, the inventor of this technology, "Brain Fingerprinting is based on the principle that the brain is central to all human activities; it plans, executes and record information. "Therefore, if a subject has information pertaining to a crime, this information is permanently recorded in the brain. With proper training and technology, the memories stored in the brain can be retrieved.

How Brain Fingerprinting Works:

According to Farwell, to determine if a subject was present or has specific knowledge concerning a crime, words or pictures relevant (and irrelevant) to that crime are flashed on a computer screen. For scientific assurance, three types of stimuli are used during the process: Irrelevant (that which is immaterial to the case and person); Targets (that which the subject will recognize and respond); and Probes (those related specifically to the crime). The subject is attached to a headband equipped with sensors that measure his/her electroencephalograms, or EEG, for short. The subject is instructed to press a particular button for target responses and another button for all other responses. Each stimulus appears for a fraction of a second. If the subject recognizes the pictures, words or phrases (target or probe), a MERMER (Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response) will occur.

Farwell said, "for a subject with knowledge of the investigated situation, the probes are noteworthy due to that knowledge, and therefore these problems will elicit a MERMER. For a subject lacking this knowledge, that is, information not stored in the brain, probes are indistinguishable from the irrelevant stimuli, thus will not elicit a MERMER."

In other words, when details of a crime known to the subject are present, a MERMER will be detected. A MERMER will not occur in an innocent subject or someone who has no knowledge of the crime. Farwell added that a computer then analyzes the brain response to these MERMERS (or lack of MERMERS) to scientifically determine if a subject has specific information related to the crime stored in his/her brain.

Law enforcement has other investigative tools as their disposal to determine if a subject was at a crime scene, such as fingerprint identification. DNA analysis and polygraph examinations. There is no doubt that fingerprint and DNA analysis are both reliable and valid in determining the guilt or innocence of subject, but they are not always available. It has been estimated that DNA and/or fingerprints are only available in one percent of all crime scenes.

Farwell noted that "DNA fingerprinting can only be successfully applied when investigators collect and preserve the specific kind of evidence demanded by the technique." Additionally, "collecting and preserving fingerprints and biological samples involves significant cots in time, resources and money." With Brain Fingerprinting, the information stored in the brain is always present, similar to a video camera recording events.

Brain Fingerprinting is frequently mistakenly compared to the polygraph. The polygraph determines a person's level of deception by measuring galvanic skin response, respiration, heart rate and blood pressure. Farwell said "Brain Fingerprinting depends only on brain information processing, it does not depend on the emotional response of the subject."

Brain Fingerprinting does not direly seek the distinction between lies versus truth, it merely indicates whether a person has information specifically related to the crime in question. There is also the issue of deception. According to F.B.I. Physiologist and Special Agent Dr. Drew Richardson, "the polygraph can be beat with just 10 minutes of training, even by a 10-year-old."

Deception would be difficult with Brain Fingerprinting. As long as the subject recognizes the stimuli, a MERMER will occur. With the exception of some state provisions, the polygraph is inadmissible in court. Furthermore, "participating in a polygraph examination is a negative experience, even by those offering the truth." Agent Richardson believes that Brain Fingerprinting is more reliable and valid than the polygraph.

Brain Fingerprinting has been tested by several federal government agencies. I has proven to be 100% accurate.

The FBI designed a study to ascertain if Brain Fingerprinting could distinguish between subjects were who were bureau agents versus those who were not. Twenty subjects participated in the experiment (17 agents, 3 non-agents). The agents were instructed to strive to conceal information (attempt to deceive) whether they were employed by the FBI. They were then shown a series of words, phrases and acronyms that would be familiar only to agents. The results indicated, with total validity (100% accuracy), the 17 agents and 3 non-agents.

A similar study was conducted by U.S. Navy. According to the supervisor of the experiment, Dr. Rene Hernandez, Lieutenant Commander in the Navy's Medical Service, "a list of acronyms was used to differentiate military medical students from civilian. Brain Fingerprinting proved 100% accurate."

Studies completed by a U.S. intelligence agency proved 100% accurate in detecting individuals possessing information in regards to mock crimes relating to espionage scenarios. Words and phrases were also used as stimuli in real life events, including two felonies.

According to Captain Blain Corle, Alexantria Police Department, one of its officers was accused of multiple felony counts concerning a prescription drug ring. The accuser, a suspect who confessed in the case, provided details of the officers' involvement in the crime. The officer denied criminal involvement. While both the suspect and the officer passed the polygraph, there were contradictory accounts of the events.

The officer was questioned prior to the testing (Subjects are often allowed to observe and comment on the stimuli being used). Sensors were attached to the head of the officer (During Brain Fingerprinting, no questions are asked - only visual stimuli shown). The officer was seated in front of the computer screen and instructed to respond to words, pictures and phrases flashed upon the screen that were relevant and irrelevant to the crime in question, such as meeting places, vehicles used, buildings that the transactions were to have taken place, sums of money, etc. Within seconds, the Brain Fingerprinting technology had cleared the officer of any wrongdoing.

The officer's brain indicated a lack of criminal knowledge about the details of the case (as it related to him). An independent investigation confirmed the officer's lack of involvement finding that the suspect and another officer (who was involved in the crime) attempted to frame the questioned officer.

Benefits to Law Enforcement

There are many benefits of Brain Fingerprinting. According to Farwell, this new development can:

• Identify criminals quickly and scientifically.
• Exonerate the innocent.
• Provide investigators and accused with an instant result.
• Identify terrorists, members of gangs, criminal and intelligence information.
• Discover criminal espionage and terrorist plots.
• Provide cost effective approaches to investigations.
• Identify accomplices.
• Decrease the number of suspects that escape justice due to lack of evidence of witnesses.

Brain Fingerprinting could be used to answer the following questions:

• Is a suspect connected to a crime?
• Did a serial criminal commit the crimes?
• Was a stock broker involved in insider trading?
• Did a husband kill his wife?
• It could also be used in internal affairs investigations or in the hiring of police candidates.

Concerns

As with any new technology, a variety of issues must still be addressed. For instance, how would media accounts influence the memory of subject?

Suggestibility may present a legitimate concern. If a suspect observes evidence on television, how will that influence his/her response? Dr. Richardson noted "it is vital for investigators to gather and protect that information." Dr. Hernandez concurred. She stated that "some information must not be released to the press."

Both agree that this will require special training of crime scene investigators and media representatives. For example, investigators should be cognizant of evidence that would not normally appear relevant at a crime scene. For instance, a sofa, which had nothing to do with the breaking and entering, however may prove vital in a photograph as a visual stimuli to place the suspect at the scene.

How do False Memories or Repressed Memories affect Brain Fingerprinting? Richardson and Dr. Robert Brick, a Licensed Clinical Neuropsychologist, believe that due to the nature of repressed memories, brain waves are closer to the surface and therefore may respond better to visual stimuli. This type of selective amnesia may re-awaken the brain allowing memory to surface (causing a MERMER). This may not hold true for those under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

How does alcohol and/or drugs affect memory and how will this affect Brain Fingerprinting? Since many offenders are under the influence of drugs/alcohol at the time they commit their crimes, how does this affect their memory of the event? Farewell stated that while distortion may occur if a subject was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, most people remember events, even if intoxicated. Experts are unclear as to the effects drugs and alcohol may play on Brain Fingerprinting.

How would head trauma affect Brainfingerprinting? As with drugs and alcohol, this remains open for debate. These issues must be addressed in future studies.

Admissibility Issues

For scientific evidence to be admissible in court, it must pass the "Daubert" standard. Based upon the 1993 Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., "the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence is not only relevant, but reliable." While "Daubert" allows for new scientific evidence to be allowed in court. Brain Fingerprinting has not yet been recognized. Expert familiar with Brain Fingerprinting strongly believe it will pass the acceptability standards outlined. (On March 5, 2001 Iowa District Court Judge Tim O'Grady ruled that Brain Fingerprinting testing is admissible in court.)

Another legal issue is the manner in which the test is administered. Does a suspect have a right to refuse? Should the test be voluntarily, similar to that of the polygraph? Should a suspect submit to testing without a warrant (Schmerber v. California), similar to an officer requesting blood?)

Some attorneys believe that Brain Fingerprinting should be treated as a Fourth Amendment search and seizure issue as opposed to a self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment) issue. That is, mandatory compliance should prevail.

However, those who have worked with Brain Fingerprinting indicate it is best not to force a subject to take the test. According to Farwell, "if a person refuses to focus on the screen or moves around a lot, it will compromise the results."

He said, "a person can not pretend to cooperate to beat the machine for deception purposes. As long as the subject is watching the screen and pushing the buttons. Brain Fingerprinting will work. "If they fail to focus on the screen or do not cooperate, that will be easily detected.

It should also be noted that pushing the corresponding buttons is merely to keep the subject focused on the task. it is actually meaningless for the results. As long as the subject looks at the screen, it does not matter whether he pushes the button; the computer will have already recorded a "hit" (MERMER present) or "miss" (MERMER not present).

Brain Fingerprinting is the latest in technological crime solving. It provides an accurate and reliable process to conduct criminal investigations without invasive procedures and biases. It can be used to convict the guilty, exonerate the innocent, and narrow a list of suspects.

Consider if Brain Fingerprinting was used during the O.J. Simpson. Or the Jon Bennet case still being investigated? Farwell noted, "it's a panacea. It will not solve every crime." However, it should become a valuable tool to aid law enforcement in their investigative capacity. -L&O

Those wishing further information should contact:

Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories
108 W. Palm Drive
Fairfield, IA 52556
(641) 209-6000
Email: info@brainfingerprinting.com

Dr. Tod Burke is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at Radford University, Radford, VA. He is also a former Maryland police officer.

TOP       HOME