The Brain Fingerprinting Technology

- A patented new technique of proven accuracy

Presented by:

G.Malleswari,
Dept of Information Technology
BAPATLA ENGINEERING COLLEGE
Bapatla-522101
E-Mail: [email protected]

P.Navya,
Dept of Information Technology
BAPATLA ENGINEERING COLLEGE
Bapatla-522101
E-Mail: [email protected]
 ABSTRACT

Brain Fingerprinting is 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 felony crimes.

Why Brain Fingerprinting???

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 secrets of Brain Fingerprinting
Matching evidence at the crime scene with evidence in the brain
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

MERMER Methodology

The procedure used is similar to the Guilty Knowledge Test; a series of words, sounds, or pictures are
presented via computer to the subject for a fraction of a second each. Each of these stimuli are organised
by the test-giver to be a “Target,” “Irrelevant,” or a “Probe.” The Target stimuli are chosen to be
relevant information to the tested subject, and are used to establish a baseline brain response for
information that is significant to the subject being tested. The subject is instructed to press on button for
Targets, and another button for all other stimuli. Most of the non-Target stimuli are Irrelevant, and are
totally unrelated to the situation that the subject is being tested for. The Irrelevant stimuli do not elicit a
MERMER, and so establish a baseline brain response for information that is insignificant to the subject
in this context. Some of the non-Target are relevant to the situation that the subject is being tested for.
These stimuli, Probes, are relevant to the test, and are significant to the subject, and will elicit a
MERMER, signifying that the subject has understood that stimuli to be significant. A subject lacking
this information in their brain, the response to the Probe stimulus will be indistinguishable from the
irrelevant stimulus. This response does not elicit a MERMER, indicating that the information is absent
from their mind. Note that there does not have to be an emotional response of any kind to the stimuli-
this test is entirely reliant upon recognition response to the stimuli, and relies upon a difference in
recognition- hence the association with the Oddball effect
THE FANTASTIC FOUR!!!
The four phases of Brain Fingerprinting

In fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting, evidence recognized and collected at the crime scene, and
preserved properly until a suspect is apprehended, is scientifically compared with evidence on the
person of the suspect to detect a match that would place the suspect at the crime scene. 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

4. Brain Fingerprinting Scientific Result.

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 is not stored in the brain of
the suspect
 Scientific Procedure, Research, and Applications

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.

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.

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. 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.

The devices used in brain fingerprinting

Brain waves:

Using brain waves to detect guilt

How it works

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: GUILTY:
Because the blue and green because the blue and red
Lines closely correlate, suspect does Lines closely correlate, and suspect has
Not have critical knowledge of the crime critical knowledge of the crime

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.

Terry Harrington's Brain-Wave Responses

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

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

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.
Determination: information present.

Statistical Confidence: 99.9%

Conclusion: Certain significant details of the murder of John Schweer are stored in Terry Harrington's
brain.

Results of the Brain Fingerprinting test on Terry Harrington

For the test on Schweer's murder, the determination of Brain Fingerprinting was "information absent,"
with a statistical confidence of 99.9%. The information stored in Harrington's brain did not match the
scenario in which Harrington went to the crime scene and committed the murder. The determination of
the Brain Fingerprinting test for alibi-relevant information was "information present," with a confidence
of 99.9%. The information stored in Harrington's brain did match the scenario in which Harrington was
elsewhere (at a concert and with friends) at the time of the crime.

Conclusion

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 fulfills an urgent
need for governments, law enforcement agencies, corporations, investigators, crime victims, and falsely
accused innocent suspects.

References

1. Lander ES. DNA fingerprinting on trial. Nature 1989.

2. Simpson L. Courts Ready to Accept DNA Profiling As Evidence. Sydney Morning
Herald 4 March 1989.
3. Lambourne GTC. The Use of Fingerprints in Identification. Med. Sci Law 1979.
4. Kasprzak J. Possibilities of Cheiloscopy.
Forensic Sci Int. 1990.
5. Farwell LA and Smith SS. Using Brain MERMER Testing To Detect Concealed
Knowledge Despite Efforts To Conceal Journal of Forensic Sciences 2001.
6. Farwell LA and Donchin E. The Truth Will Out:
Interrogative Polygraphy (“Lie Detection”) With Event Related Potentials.
7. Farwell LA. brainwavescience.com.
8. Wasserman S, Bockenholt U. (1989). Bootstrapping: applications to bioinformatics and secure
authentication analysis Dept.of Defence Research.