Frequently
Asked Questions
about
Farwell
Brain Fingerprinting
Q.What
is Brain Fingerprinting Testing?
DR. FARWELL:
Brain Fingerprinting testing is a
scientific technique to determine
whether or not specific information is
stored in an individual's brain. We do
this by measuring brain-wave responses
to words, phrases, sounds or pictures
presented by a computer. We present
details about a crime, training or other
types of specific knowledge, mixed in a
sequence with other, irrelevant items.
We use details that the person being
tested would have encountered in the
course of committing a crime, but that
an innocent person would have no way of
knowing. We can tell by the brainwave
response if a person recognizes the
stimulus or not. If the suspect
recognizes the details of the crime,
this indicates that he has a record of
the crime stored in his brain.
Q. What
is involved in setting up a Brain
Fingerprinting test?
DR. FARWELL: In
a criminal case, we utilize information
gathered from investigations to identify
those details of the crime that a
perpetrator would have to have
encountered in the commission of the
crime; details that the brain records
and remembers. There are certain kinds
of crime details that are insignificant
in a usual crime scene investigation,
but which become very significant in a
Brain Fingerprinting test. These include
things a perpetrator would remember
doing or encountering in the course of
committing a crime, such as knocking
over a pink flamingo on the lawn,
running through tall grass, what type of
weapon was used, etc. Once we have
gathered a significant number of
memorable details, we determine which of
those would be known to the general
public (via press reports, etc) and
which would be known only to the police
investigators and the perpetrator of the
crime. From this information we are able
to construct the actual Brain
Fingerprinting test, which includes
targets, probes, and irrelevant stimuli.
In
counterterrorism applications we
construct tests with information
appropriate for the subjects,
information that would identify the
individual as, for instance, an
Al-Qaeda-trained terrorist or a bomb
maker. We define specific information
that indicates whether or not a person’s
brain contains the information in
question.For example, we have conducted
tests showing that Brain Fingerprinting
can detect FBI agents and bomb-makers
with over 99% accuracy, based on the
unique knowledge that they have.
Q. What does
a Brain Fingerprinting test determine?
DR. FARWELL: A
Brain Fingerprinting test determines
scientifically whether or not specific
information is stored in a brain. In the
case of a crime, we use information that
would be known only to the perpetrator
and the investigators, and not to an
innocent suspect. The system makes a
determination of "information present"
or "information absent," and a
statistical confidence for the
determination. This is done by a
mathematical algorithm, and does not
depend on subjective interpretation of
the data.
Q. How
accurate is a Brain Fingerprinting
test?
DR. FARWELL:
Brain Fingerprinting testing has proven
to be highly accurate in over 200 tests,
which included actual criminal cases,
tests on FBI agents and tests on
military medical experts. In all but six
of these cases, the system produced a
determination of either "information
present" or "information absent." 100%
of these determinations were correct. In
six cases, insufficient information was
available and no determination was made.
Dr. Farwell, the inventor of Brain
Fingerprinting technology, discovered
that the P300 was one aspect of a larger
brain-wave response that he named and
patented, a P300-MERMER (memory and
encoding related multifaceted
electroencephalographic response). The
discovery of the P300-MERMER allows the
results gained through the P300 testing
to be even more accurate. Since the
inclusion of the P300-MERMER in the
brain-wave analysis algorithm, Brain
Fingerprinting testing has made a
definitive determination in every test.
Q. Has Brain
Fingerprinting testing been
scientifically tested, peer-reviewed,
and published?
DR. FARWELL:
Yes. My colleagues and I have been
published in the leading scientific
journals in the field. Dr. Drew
Richardson and I conducted a study of
FBI agents in which we were able to
identify FBI agents with over 99%
accuracy based on their brain responses
to information only FBI agents would
know. Dr. Sharon Smith, an instructor at
the FBI Academy, and I have published a
paper on research we conducted in which
the Brain Fingerprinting system was 100%
accurate in determining who had
participated in real-life events (Journal
of Forensic Sciences, January
2001). Brain Fingerprinting testing also
achieved over 99% accuracy in three
studies I conducted on contract for a
U.S. intelligence agency, including one
that was in collaboration with Dr. Rene
Hernandez of the US Navy. These
studies are summarized here
and listed here.
See also Cognitive
Neurodynamics article.
Q. What other
similar technologies are now in use?
DR. FARWELL: A
Brain Fingerprinting test detects
information stored in the brain. It
matches information stored in the brain
with information from the crime scene.
This is similar to fingerprinting, which
matches fingerprints from the crime
scene with fingerprints on the fingers
of the suspect, and DNA testing, which
matches DNA from the crime scene with
DNA on the person of the suspect.
Fingerprints and DNA are available in
only about 1% of cases. The brain is
always there, planning, executing, and
recording the crime. A Brain
Fingerprinting test scientifically
detects this record of the crime stored
in the brain.
Q. What if
the person knows about the crime
because he was there as a witness and
not a perpetrator?
Dr. FARWELL:
Brain Fingerprinting testing will
determine if specific information is in
the brain, but will not tell us how it
got there. It is like having
fingerprints at the crime scene.
Someone's fingerprints could be there
because he was there witnessing the
crime and not because he committed it.
In a case where there are two people at
a crime scene and only one committed the
crime, Brain Fingerprinting testing can
narrow the search down to the two
suspects. It cannot be used to
distinguish why a person was at the
crime scene. Like DNA and
fingerprinting, Brain Fingerprinting
testing matches evidence at a crime
scene with evidence on the person of the
perpetrator or suspect. It can place a
person at the crime scene or exonerate
someone who was not there. If specific
information is available about the
planning or execution of a crime that a
witness would not know, then Brain
Fingerprinting testing may be able to
distinguish between a witness and a
perpetrator.
Q. What if a
suspect read about the crime in the
newspaper?
DR. FARWELL:
General knowledge gained from a
newspaper or television does not
interfere with Brain Fingerprinting
testing. A suspect is tested for details
of the crime that only the perpetrator
and investigators would know. In
structuring a Brain Fingerprinting test,
we only use information that has not
been publicly released.
Q. What if an
innocent suspect knows many details
about the crime from the trial or
interrogations, or if the police told
a suspect details about the crime
during interrogation?
DR. FARWELL:
The best scenario in which to apply
Brain Fingerprinting testing is one
where the crime is recent and the
suspect has not been exposed to
information about it. Then the suspect
can easily be tested for knowledge about
the crime that only the perpetrator
would know.
In cases where
the suspect has already been tried and
convicted, the suspect knows many of the
details of the crime from the trial,
whether he is innocent or guilty. In
such a case, details about the crime
that have not been presented in court
and that an innocent suspect would not
know need to be identified. In some
cases this involves considerable
investigation. Information can be
obtained from court documents, police
reports, alleged witnesses, crime scene
photos and the crime scene itself.
Often, as in the Terry Harrington case,
which occurred 20 years before the Brain
Fingerprinting test, and in which there
had been several appeals in addition to
the original trial, it is still possible
to discover details about the crime that
the suspect was never directly exposed
to at the trial or in interrogation, but
that he would have to know if he had
committed the crime.
Q. In what
kinds of cases does Brain
Fingerprinting testing not apply?
DR. FARWELL:
There are several types of cases where
this technology does not apply. For
example, in a disappearance, all the
authorities may know is that someone
disappeared. They may not know if any
crime has been committed. Another
situation where Brain Fingerprinting
testing is not applicable is when
everyone agrees on what happened, but
there is disagreement as to the intent
of the parties. For example, in a sexual
assault case the alleged victim and the
alleged perpetrator may agree exactly on
what happened, but disagree on whether
or not it was consensual.
Q. Where in
the criminal justice system does Brain
Fingerprinting testing apply?
DR. FARWELL:
Brain Fingerprinting testing solves
major problems in both pre- and
post-conviction areas and can be a great
asset to both prosecutors and defense
attorneys. There are 14 million crimes
reported by police to the FBI annually
in the U.S. in the seven major
categories that are included in the
Uniform Crime Reporting Program. The
National Crime Victimization Survey,
which is conducted by the US Census
Bureau and includes additional
categories of crimes, estimates that
over 34 million crimes are committed
annually in the U.S. In only 35% of the
cases is an arrest made.
Additionally,
there are approximately 6 million
individuals in the US either in prison,
jail or under some form of state
supervision such as parole or work
release. Of those who are imprisoned, an
estimated 5% to 10 % are innocent. This
means that over 300,000 inmates, and
possibly more than 600,000, may be
wrongfully imprisoned. In total, U.S.
federal, state and local governments
spend over $150 billion annually on
crime. This does not include the costs
to victims, innocent suspects and to
society. The worldwide costs are
significantly higher than this amount.
Brain
Fingerprinting testing can address many
of these critical areas, helping to
identify the guilty and exonerate the
innocent. Crimes often go unsolved and
unpunished because the authorities
cannot accurately determine if a suspect
has knowledge about the details of a
crime that only the perpetrator would
know. In the absence of fingerprints or
DNA evidence the criminal justice system
often does not have scientific methods
of identifying those involved in crimes.
Circumstantial evidence is often not
sufficient to convict a suspect or even
to prosecute a case. Brain
Fingerprinting testing can determine if
a suspect has detailed, specific
knowledge of a crime and provide
scientific evidence where none existed
previously.
Q. Can Brain
Fingerprinting testing find the truth
in long-term cold cases?
DR. FARWELL.Yes,
it can and it has.We
conducted a Brain Fingerprinting test on
Terry Harrington, who is serving a life
sentence in Iowa for a 1977 murder. The
test showed that the record stored in
Harrington's brain did not match the
crime scene and did match the alibi.
Harrington filed a petition for a new
trial based on newly discovered
evidence, including the Brain
Fingerprinting test. On February 26,
2003 the Iowa Supreme Court reversed his
murder conviction and ordered a new
trial. In October 2003, the State of
Iowa elected not to re-try Mr.
Harrington.
Brain
Fingerprinting testing also helped to
bring serial killer J. B. Grinder to
justice fifteen years after the
commission of the crime. The Brain
Fingerprinting test administered to
Grinder found that the specific details
of the crime were recorded in his brain
as “information present,” with a
statistical confidence level of 99.9%.
This means that the record stored in
Grinder’s brain matched the details of
the crime scene of the murder of Julie
Helton. Following the test results,
Grinder faced an almost certain
conviction and probable death sentence.
Grinder pled guilty to the rape and
murder of Julie Helton in exchange for a
life sentence without parole. He is
currently serving that sentence. In
addition, Grinder confessed to the
murders of several other young women.
Q. Some
people say it is too soon to apply
Brain Fingerprinting technology in
actual criminal cases. What is your
response?
DR. FARWELL: We
have tested Brain Fingerprinting
technology in over 170 cases. More than
80 of these were in real-life
situations, and the rest were laboratory
studies. Brain Fingerprinting testing
has not made a single error in all of
these cases. Terry Harrington waited 23
years for a Brain Fingerprinting test.
How much longer should he wait? A year?
Five years? I have a letter on my desk,
one of many from inmates on death row
who claim innocence and are asking for
help from Brain Fingerprinting
Laboratories. This particular letter is
from an inmate who is scheduled to be
executed. How long should we ask him to
wait?
I believe it is
a serious human rights violation to deny
access to Brain Fingerprinting testing
to anyone who is accused of a crime and
maintains his innocence.
On the law
enforcement side, a Brain Fingerprinting
test helped to bring serial killer J. B.
Grinder to justice fifteen years after
he murdered Julie Helton. There are
other serial killers out there. How long
should we wait, and how many more
murders shall we tolerate, before using
this technology to bring them to
justice?
Q. Some
people say it is too soon to apply
Brain Fingerprinting technology in
actual criminal cases. What is your
response?
DR. FARWELL: We
have tested Brain Fingerprinting
technology in over 170 cases. More than
80 of these were in real-life
situations, and the rest were laboratory
studies. Brain Fingerprinting testing
has not made a single error in all of
these cases. Terry Harrington waited 23
years for a Brain Fingerprinting test.
How much longer should he wait? A year?
Five years? I have a letter on my desk,
one of many from inmates on death row
who claim innocence and are asking for
help from Brain Fingerprinting
Laboratories. This particular letter is
from an inmate who is scheduled to be
executed. How long should we ask him to
wait?
I believe it is
a serious human rights violation to deny
access to Brain Fingerprinting testing
to anyone who is accused of a crime and
maintains his innocence.
On the law
enforcement side, a Brain Fingerprinting
test helped to bring serial killer J. B.
Grinder to justice fifteen years after
he murdered Julie Helton. There are
other serial killers out there. How long
should we wait, and how many more
murders shall we tolerate, before using
this technology to bring them to
justice?
Brain
Fingerprinting testing works. It is
accurate, scientific, thoroughly tested
and proven. Brain Fingerprinting testing
is based on well-established science. It
is well established that from a
scientific standpoint a Brain
Fingerprinting test can help to
determine the truth regarding what
information is stored in a suspect's
brain. Along with other evidence, this
can help to free the innocent, and bring
the guilty to justice. We have the
technology now. I think it would be a
crime not to make use of it.
Q. Some
scientists have questioned your taking
your scientific discoveries out into
the criminal justice and business
world, rather than remaining solely in
the world of academia. What is your
response?
DR. FARWELL:
Some of my colleagues prefer to remain
in academia and pursue pure science in
the laboratory alone, and I respect that
choice. For me, I believe it is my duty
to apply my discoveries to help people
in the real world. It's a question of
whether you'd rather be the Wright
brothers or a professor of aeronautical
engineering. It's a matter of personal
preference. My preference is to take my
discoveries out into the world, to get
the thing off the ground and fly with
it, to produce something that can be
helpful to real people in real-life
situations.
Q. If Brain
Fingerprinting technology is so
effective, why has it not been more
widely applied and accepted?
DR. FARWELL:
It's interesting that some say we should
have applied Brain Fingerprinting
testing more quickly and more widely,
and some say we should have waited
longer and applied it more slowly. My
colleagues and I are educating the
criminal justice community and the
public as quickly as we can, but any
time you make fundamental improvements
in the way people do anything, the
process takes time.
New discoveries
always take some time to be accepted. In
1903, the Wright brothers flew. For
several years, very few believed it,
even though they had photos of the first
flight. In 1923, 20 years later, US Army
General Billy Mitchell proved that
airplanes had military value. He said
that airplanes could be used to sink
ships. He actually conducted a test
where he flew planes at 10,000 feet and
sank some old junk ships. He advocated
the development of an air force. He
predicted that if we did not develop an
air force, the Japanese would, and they
would fly over and sink our ships in
Pearl Harbor. We now know that they did
just that a couple decades later. What
was General Mitchell's reward for his
clear and accurate vision regarding the
value of new technology? He was court
martialed in 1925 for his views on the
airplane, and thrown out of the Army.
In the history
of science, whenever there is a new
discovery, at first there is inertia and
disbelief on the part of many and active
resistance from the beneficiaries of the
status quo. Many take the attitude that
"If this were really so great, everyone
would already be doing it, and I would
already have heard about it." Also,
there are always those whose status or
finances depend on the old ways of doing
things, and these people often oppose
progress because they see it as a
threat. Brain Fingerprinting technology
is no exception.
Fortunately,
science always moves forward, not
backward, and the truth always wins in
the end. The truth in this case is that
Brain Fingerprinting technology is
accurate and scientific and is of
demonstrable practical value in
discovering the truth regarding crimes.
In view of the large number of unsolved
crimes, plus the large number of people
in prison and even on death row who may
be innocent, Brain Fingerprinting
technology is also something that is
greatly needed in the present society.
The task at hand is to educate the
public and the criminal justice
community and to make the technology
available where it is needed. We're
making every effort to do both of these
things as quickly as possible.
Q. Is Brain
Fingerprinting technology based on
science that is generally accepted in
the scientific community?
DR. FARWELL:
Yes. There is widespread agreement among
the experts that we can accurately and
scientifically measure
information-processing brain activity
using electrical brain signals, and that
when we apply this science appropriately
we can determine whether or not specific
information is stored in a person's
brain. This has been well-established
science for many years. When I say
"experts" here, I'm talking about
legitimate experts, scientists who have
training, expertise, and experience in
cognitive psychophysiology and in
measuring brain waves for the detection
of concealed information. You can always
find or buy a self-styled expert to
express any opinion on anything, but
here I'm talking about legitimate
experts in this specific field.
The P300
electrical brain wave response, one
aspect of the larger P300-MERMER
response, is widely known and accepted
in the scientific community and there
have been hundreds of studies conducted
and articles published on it over the
past thirty plus years. The P300-MERMER,
a longer and more complex response than
the P300, comprises a P300 response,
which is electrical events occurring 300
to 800 milliseconds after the stimulus,
and additional data occurring more than
800 milliseconds after the stimulus.
While a P300 shows only a peak
electrical response, a P300-MERMER has
both a peak and a valley.
Q. Who are
some experts in the field?
DR. FARWELL: A
list of experts is available on the
Brain Fingerprinting website (see
Research). Some of the experts include
Dr. Drew Richardson, Dr. Sharon Smith of
the FBI, Dr. Rene Hernandez of the US
Navy. Another distinguished expert is
Dr. William Iacono of the University of
Minnesota, who testified in the
Harrington case. Dr.
Iacono has conducted and published
research on the use of brain waves in
the detection of concealed information
in the brain and other related brain
research.
Q. Do all
experts agree about Brain
Fingerprinting technology?
DR. FARWELL: I
don't think all experts will ever agree
entirely about anything. There is,
however, a widespread consensus among
the legitimate experts that the science
behind Brain Fingerprinting technology
is excellent. It's been thoroughly
tested, peer reviewed, and published in
the best journals. It is extremely
accurate. It is generally accepted in
the scientific community. Experts, like
everyone else, have their own opinions
regarding the non-scientific issues,
like where and when this science should
be applied, and how much legal weight
should be given to its results in any
particular application. I think there is
room for varying opinions on these
issues.
Q. Does Brain
Fingerprinting testing provide a
scientific answer to legal questions?
DR. FARWELL:
No. A Brain Fingerprinting test can
provide scientific evidence in answer to
a scientific question: does a person
have particular crime-relevant
information stored in his brain, or not?
This evidence must be evaluated, along
with other available evidence, by a
judge or jury to reach legal decisions
such as whether a person is innocent or
guilty of a crime. The legal issues —
like whether a person is innocent or
guilty — are decided not by science but
by the judgment of the people empowered
to make such decisions, the judges and
juries, who take into account not only
this science but also all the other
evidence at hand.
Q. What is
the difference between polygraphy and
Brain Fingerprinting technology?
DR
FARWELL: The distinctions between these
two technologies are substantial. The
polygraph is a lie-detection device. It
attempts to detect deception in response
to probing questions, by measuring sweat
on the palms, heart rate, etc, which
could register changes for a variety of
reasons other than because the subject
is lying. Brain Fingerprintingtesting,
in contrast, allows an investigator to
determine whether certain specific
information is stored in an individual’s
brain — for example, the details of a
crime known only to the perpetrator and
investigators. Brain Fingerprintingtesting works regardless of
whether or not the subject is lying.
Brain
Fingerprintingtechnology
and polygraphy have their foundations in
totally separate fields of science.
Brain Fingerprintingtechnology
is rooted in cognitive psychophysiology,
the measurement of information
processing activity in the brain. The
polygraph measures emotion-driven
autonomic responses. Brain
Fingerprintingtesting and
polygraphy are also applicable in
different situations. The polygraph may
be used for general screening, when the
investigator does not know specifically
what he is looking for. Brain
Fingerprintingtesting is
applicable in criminal investigations
and for specific screening. It is useful
when investigators know the specific
details of the crime or specific
training under investigation.
Q. In how
many cases like the Harrington case
can Brain Fingerprinting technology
help to discover the truth? In what
other kinds of cases can it be
applied, and how many such cases are
there?
DR. FARWELL:
There are about 5,000 people on death
row in this country. Educated estimates
of how many of these people are innocent
run from a few percent to 40%. Until
I've run the Brain Fingerprinting tests,
I can't make a scientific estimate. In
any case it's certain that some of these
people are innocent, and Brain
Fingerprinting testing can provide
evidence in many of these cases. In the
cases where people are indeed guilty,
Brain Fingerprinting testing can provide
evidence of that as well.
There are
several hundred thousand people serving
long-term prison sentences, and again we
don't know how many of these people are
innocent. It could be anywhere from a
few thousand to over a hundred thousand.
All of those who claim innocence have a
right to Brain Fingerprinting tests to
provide evidence one-way or the other.
In the USA,
there are about 14 million crimes per
year where a suspect is apprehended.
Brain Fingerprinting testing can provide
crucial evidence in many, perhaps most
of these cases. It doesn't matter what
kind of crime has been committed. The
brain of the perpetrator is always
there. We can test the suspect's brain
for knowledge of the crime, as long as
we can discover some information about
what actually took place so we will know
what information to test him on. There
are some limitations to the
circumstances in which Brain
Fingerprinting technology can be
applied, for example, in a
disappearance, all the authorities may
know is that someone disappeared. They
may not know if any crime has been
committed. Another situation where Brain
Fingerprinting testing is not applicable
is when everyone agrees on what
happened, but there is disagreement as
to the intent of the parties. For
example, in a sexual assault case the
alleged victim and the alleged
perpetrator may agree exactly what
happened, but disagree about whether or
not it was consensual. There may also be
crimes for which not enough evidence is
available to construct a Brain
Fingerprinting test.
I believe that
every person who claims innocence has a
right to use Brain Fingerprinting
technology, where applicable, to provide
evidence for that claim. In cases where
the authorities want to use Brain
Fingerprinting testing to either
exonerate innocent suspects or to
provide evidence against the guilty, I
believe this new scientific technology
should be made available as quickly and
as widely as possible. This will help
those responsible for administering
justice distinguish between the innocent
and guilty as quickly, accurately and
efficiently as possible.
Q. What do
you see as the future for Brain
Fingerprinting testing?
DR. FARWELL:
Currently, many crimes remain unsolved,
while apparently many innocent people
are convicted and go to prison, and some
innocent people are even executed.
Science can help. Many innocent
suspects, some already convicted, and
some on death row, have been exonerated
by the newly discovered science of DNA
testing. Fingerprints are also highly
accurate. Unfortunately, DNA and
fingerprints are found in only about 1%
of cases. The brain, on the other hand,
is always there, planning, executing,
and recording the crime. Now Brain
Fingerprinting technology is available
to determine accurately and
scientifically whether the record of the
crime is stored in the brain of a
suspect or not. As has been the case
with DNA testing, I expect that Brain
Fingerprinting testing will help to
release many innocent people from false
imprisonment, and save many innocent
people from the death penalty.
When applied by
law enforcement agencies and by
defendants in criminal cases, Brain
Fingerprinting tests can eliminate many
innocent suspects at the very beginning
of the investigation. Innocent suspects
can avoid false prosecution and possible
false conviction and punishment, and get
on with their lives. Authorities can
focus their efforts on the suspects who
actually committed the crime, and Brain
Fingerprinting technology can help to
convict them. Brain Fingerprinting
technology can reduce crime by helping
to bring perpetrators to justice, so
that they will no longer be out there
committing crimes. Knowing that such an
accurate and scientific technique is
available may also prove to be an
effective deterrent.
The overall
effect of Brain Fingerprinting testing
will be that many innocent people will
be exonerated and will be free from
false prosecution, imprisonment, and
execution, while many more actual
criminals will be brought to justice.