Brain Fingerprinting Report

1. INTRODUCTION Throughout the history of the criminal justice system, numerous technological innovations have signaled landmark changes in how authorities conduct investigations. From fingerprinting to DNA testing, these one-time technological marvels turned police investigation staples have shaped the way that justice is conceptualized in America, as well as the way in which society interacts and is influenced by law enforcement. One such new technology carries with it an emerging potential to revolutionize the investigatory landscape Brain Fingerprinting (“BF”) the law enforcement technology. The future of police investigations may very well be under construction in Seattle, Washington, where Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell has created Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories (“BFL”), a privately held company created to pursue the study and application of BF.BF testing, in a nutshell, is an examination designed to determine if particular information is familiar to a test subject in a specific context (such as that of a crime).Essentially, a BF test asks a suspect’s brain if it is familiar with a particular place, time, or action, and does so using brain monitoring technology that is nearly impossible to deceive. BF has been called “a perfect example of a technology at the tipping point making its way from the lab into our culture,” and “an intriguing, novel, scientific venture that is inching toward the doors of courtrooms everywhere.” Although BF may “sound like something straight out of a science-fiction movie” it is part of a growing trend of technological innovations that are rapidly coming to the forefront in today’s heightened level of security. As one commentator has explained, “These aren’t cinematic gadgets from a James Bond set. They are real world technologies that were on recently display for members of Congress as lawmakers consider new steps to beef up security at airports, border crossings, and other facilities around the country. The P300 event-related brain potential which is the key element of most of the published brainwave based deception research. The “Guilty Knowledge Test” or GKT, which in a form modified for P300 methods, yielded the P300 protocol for detecting concealed, crime-related information. The issue of P300-based tests’ accuracies Farwell claims that his method is based on a brain activity index, the “MERMER,” ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response") which goes beyond P300 methods.

1

1.1 BACKGROUND Farwell claims presently that the brain wave index crucial to all his assertions is the MERMER, or “Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response .” He claims that the P300 event-related potential (ERP, discussed below) is but one element of the MERMER. It will be seen later that P300 is very likely the basis and essence of the MERMER. Indeed, at the Harrington Appeal hearing of 2000 Harrington vs Iowa 2000 In any case, it seems unlikely that Farwell would argue against the assertion that the P300 ERP was the brain wave which first impelled several investigators to study the potential of EEG waves as deception indices. The history of this ongoing research program will make this clear. First, however, a brief review of P300 phenomenology is in order. It is well known that between an electrode placed on the scalp surface directly over brain and another electrode connected to a relatively neutral (electrically) part of the head (i.e., remote from brain cells, such as the earlobe), an electrical voltage, varying as a function of time, exists. These voltages comprise the spontaneously ongoing electroencephalogram or EEG, and are commonly known as brain waves. If during the recording of EEG, a discrete stimulus event occurs, such as a light flash or tone pip, the EEG breaks into a series of larger peaks and troughs lasting up to two seconds after the stimulus. These waves, signaling the arrival in cortex of neural activity generated by the stimulus, comprise the wave series called the ERP, the EEG potential series related to the stimulus event. Actually, the ERP “rides on” the ongoing EEG, by which it is sometimes obscured in single trials. Thus, one typically averages the EEG samples of many repeated presentation trials of either the same stimulus or stimulus category (e.g., male names), and the ensuing averaged stimulus-related activity is revealed as the ERP, while the non-stimulus-related features of the EEG average out, approaching a straight line. P300 is a special ERP which results whenever a meaningful piece of information is rarely presented as a stimulus among a random series of more frequently presented, non-meaningful stimuli.

2

1.2 EARLY P300-BASED DECEPTION DETECTORS Fabiani, Karis, and Donchin, (1983) showed that if a list of words, consisting of rare, previously learned (i.e., meaningful) and frequent novel words were presented one at a time to a subject, the familiar, previously learned words but not the others elicited a P300. As suggested above, Rosenfeld, Nasman, Whalen,Cantwell, Mazzeri (1987) recognized that the Fabiani et a. (1983) study suggested that P300 could be used to detect concealed guilty knowledge, i.e., P300 could be used as a potential lie detector: Therefore, P300 could index recognition of familiar items even if subjects denied recognizing them. From this fact, one could infer deception. The P300 would not represent a lie per se, but only recognition of a familiar item of information, the verbal denial of which would then imply deception. Farwell has also emphasized this distinction on his web site, although as an academic nicety which in no way affects the claims of the BF approach. Farwell and Smith (2001), however, seem to have over-extended this distinction: “Brain MERMER testing has almost nothing in common with ‘lie detection’ or polygraphy. Polygraphy is a technique of interrogation and detection of deception Brain MERMER testing does not require any questions of or answers from the suspect. The subject neither lies nor tells the truth during the procedure, and in fact the results of MERMER testing are exactly the same whether the subject lies or tells the truth at any time.” This assertion is misleading: In fact the subject does give behavioral button press responses. One button means “No, I don’t recognize this stimulus.” If the guilty subject presses this no button to a guilty knowledge item, he is lying with his button press, if not his voice. Lying is the clear inference if there is no other innocuous explanation for the brain response, and there is no doubt that P300/MERMER testing is clearly relevant to lie detection. Indeed, the terms “Interrogative polygraphy” and “lie detection” are in the subtitle of Farwell and Donchin (1991), Farwell’s only peer-reviewed paper on P300-based deception detection in a psychology, neuroscience or psychophysiology journal. Finally, when Farwell and Smith (2001; not a journal in psychology, psychophysiology, or neuroscience) stated, “in fact the results of MERMER testing are exactly the same whether the subject lies or tells the truth,” they are incorrect (about the major P300 element of MERMER), and, not surprisingly, did not cite any supportive literature. In fact, there are many peer-reviewed, published studies in which the opposite is shown, and it is discussed why truthful subjects in fact produce much larger P300s than subjects giving dishonest responses to the same questions (e.g., Ellwanger, J. Rosenfeld, , Hankin, & Sweet, 1999; Miller, A.R., Rosenfeld, J.P., Soskins, M., Jhee, M. 2000; Rosenfeld, Rao, Soskins, & Miller, 2003,). Soon after seeing Fabiani et al. (1983), our

3

lab planned and executed a study (Rosenfeld, Cantwell, Nasman, Wojdak, Ivanov, & Mazzeri, 1988) in which subjects pretended to steal one of ten items from a box. Later, the items were repeatedly presented to the subject by name, one at a time, on a display screen, and we found that the items the subjects pretended to steal (the probes), but not the other, irrelevant items, evoked P300 in 9 of 10 cases. In that study there was also one special, unpredictably presented stimulus item, the target, to which the subjects were required to respond by saying “yes” so as to assure us they were paying attention to the screen at all times, and would thus not miss probe presentations. They said “no” to all the other items, signaling non-recognition, and thus lying on trials containing the pretended stolen items. The special target items also evoked P300, as one might expect, since they too were rare and meaningful (task-relevant). (The 1988 study was actually the second of two closely related publications, the first having been published as Rosenfeld . et al., 1987.) This paradigm had many features of the guilty knowledge test (GKT) paradigm (developed by Lykken in 1959; see Lykken, 1998) except that P300s rather than autonomic variables were used as the indices of recognition. This required various other departures from the classic GKT method, such as signal averaging and target stimuli. Farwell and Donchin (1991) reported that in the 20 guilty cases, correct decisions were possible in all but two cases, a detection rate of 90%. Indeed, this was not impressive given that the subjects were trained to remember the details of their crimes, a procedure having limited ecological validity in field circumstances in which training of a suspect on details of a crime he/she was denying would not be possible. In the innocent condition, only 85% were correctly classified, yielding an overall detection rate of 87.5%. In the second experiment of Farwell and Donchin, (1991), the four volunteering subjects were all previously admitted wrongdoers on the college campus. Their crime details were well-detected with P300, but these previously admitted wrongdoers no doubt had had much rehearsal of their crimes at the hands of campus investigators, teachers, parents, etc. Therefore, one can ask: was the P300 test detecting incidentally acquired information versus previously admitted, well rehearsed information? Moreover, the n=4 was hardly convincing, and in one of the four innocent tests, no decision could be rendered, meaning that a correct decision was possible in only three of four (75%) innocent cases.

4

1.3 THE ACCURACY ISSUE Regarding P300-based GKT studies from independent laboratories, how does the BF method fare? Our lab has typically reported 80-95% detection (see Rosenfeld, Soskins, Bosh, & Ryan, 2004; Rosenfeld, 2002). Our higher detection rates tend to accompany detection of autobiographical knowledge in head injury malingering studies. Our lower rates tend to accompany detection of incidental knowledge as in Rosenfeld et al., (2004). Another prominent group of investigators used to report 90% and above hit rates in detecting concealed though over-learned information, (Allen, Iacono, & Danielson, 1992). More recently, this group has reported poor detection (27%-47%) of mock crime details; (Mertens, Allen, Culp, & Crawford, 2003). Apart from these lab analogues, there has been only one independent field study of P300-based detection of guilty knowledge, that by Miyake,Y., Mizutanti, M., and Yamahura, T. (1993). This study, under the auspices of a Japanese police department, reported only 48% detection of guilty subjects. One can surmise what Farwell’s responses to these challenging data would be, based on the fact that he was actually confronted with the Miyake et al. (1993) report at the Harrington 2000 hearing. He stated that these findings were not relevant since Miyake et al. recorded from Cz rather than Pz: “They recorded from Cz, so I don’t know what they were measuring it appears they were doing something that was in no way related to what we did.” This statement seems erroneous and misleading in that Miyake et al. were indeed conducting related research as they actually cited Farwell and Donchin, (1991) as the basis of their effort. Moreover, had there been a P300 expert present, he/she could have retorted that P300s from Cz and Pz usually correlate at >.95 over trials, and that indeed, no less a P300 expert than Polich (1999) recommended the use of Cz in diagnostic clinical P300 studies. Farwell might also respond more technically that the EEG filters used by other investigators are not the Optimal Digital Filters he used in Farwell and Donchin (1991), and claimed to be superior to the filters most others use (Farwell, Martineri, Bashore, Rapp, & Goddard, 1993.) The filters discussed here are circuit elements or software models of circuit elements through which raw EEG signals are passed. Their purpose is to remove artifactual and other sources of noise in the brain wave signal. The present author, not an electrical engineer, had always sensed a problem with the Farwell et al. (1993) paper. In preparing the present review, I consulted two P300 experts (one an engineer), plus one of Farwell’s co-authors on the 1993 paper about this serious problem.

5

2. LITERATURE SURVEY Is something new happening? A controversial claim: Something fundamentally new is happening. Until now, ALL information that we got from human beings we got from their peripheral nervous system. For the first time in human history, we are developing the ability to bypass the peripheral nervous system and get information directly from the brain. Assuming this is true Does it matter? Bypassing the Peripheral Nervous System • Phelps: Amygdala activation and racism • Greene: Emotional activation & moral decision-making • Canli: Extroverts amygdala activation to smiling faces • Price, Zeffiro: Can he read English or Arabic? • Kamitani & Tong, Haynes and Rees: visual patterns • Schaefer et al: Violent offenders & brain structure

2.1 BUFKIN & LUTTRELL “The consistency with which prefrontal disruption occurs across studies, each of which investigated participants with different types of violent behaviors, suggests that prefrontal dysfunction may underlie predisposition to violence.” • Freedman & Iacoboni Democrats and Republicans • Farwell: Brain Fingerprinting • Langleben, Laken: fMRI for lie detecti

6

2.2 NEUROPRIVACY We believe in and treasure our inner lives as a private domain where none can enter Historically, religion preached that God had access to our private thoughts; confession was intended to compel revelation off the inner life Think deeply about a world where others have access to subjective states off your mind. Do you want it? Can such ability be available? And not be abused? Is the asset to forensics? Civil society, the military, national security worth the potential invasion of privacy ?

Fig.1 Britton Chance at Pennand Banu Onaral and her team at Drexel are working on fNIR detection of lies, surrently using headbands with sensors.

2.3 A NEW PARADIGM IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE A critical task of the criminal justice system is to determine who has committed a crime. The key difference between a guilty party and an innocent suspect is that the perpetrator of the crime has a record of the crime stored in their brain, and the innocent suspect does not. Until the invention of Brain Fingerprinting testing, there was no scientifically valid way to detect this fundamental difference. Brain Fingerprinting testing does not prove guilt or innocence. That is the role of a judge and jury. This exciting technology gives the judge and jury new, scientifically valid evidence to help them arrive at their decision. DNA evidence and fingerprints are available in only about 1% of major crimes. It is estimated that Brain Fingerprinting testing will apply in approximately 60 to 70% of these major crimes. The impacts on the criminal justice system will be profound. The potential now exists to significantly improve the speed and accuracy of the entire system, from investigations to parole hearings. Brain Fingerprinting testing will be able to dramatically reduce the costs associated with investigating and prosecuting innocent people and allow law enforcement professionals to concentrate on suspects who have verifiable,

7

detailed knowledge of the crimes. Brain fingerprinting testing represents a new paradigm in law enforcement. It is a technology that has been researched and tested for more than 20 years and has now been admitted as scientific evidence in court. How accurate is Brain fingerprinting testing? Brain Fingerprinting testing has proven to be highly accurate in over 175 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 MERMER (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response). The discovery of the MERMER allows the results gained through the P300 testing to be even more accurate. Since the inclusion of the MERMER in the brain-wave analysis algorithm, Brain Fingerprinting testing has made a definitive determination in every test. What if the person knows about the crime because he was there as a witness and not a perpetrator? 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.

8

What if a suspect read about the crime in the newspaper? 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, but that have not been publicly released. 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? 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. In what kinds of cases does Brain Fingerprinting testing not apply? 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.

9

Where in the criminal justice system does Brain Fingerprinting testing apply? 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. Brain Fingerprinting testing finds the truth in long-term cases Dr. Farwell 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

10

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 then confessed to the unsolved murders of several other young women. Brain Fingerprinting testing admitted as evidence On March 5, 2002 Pottawattamie County District Court Judge Tim O'Grady ruled that Brain Fingerprinting testing is admissible in court. Brain Fingerprinting testing is a technological breakthrough that will have a profound impact on the criminal justice system. The Iowa Su

2.4 BRAIN FINGERPRINTING TESTING AND MEMORY ISSUES In any situation involving human memory, questions can be raised regarding the fallibility of human memory and factors that might influence memory. Such questions can in principle be raised in the Harrington and Harris cases. The same issues can be raised in any other forensic situation involving human memory and this includes all situations involving testimony by witnesses, victims, or perpetrators, alleged or actual. In the Harrington and Harris cases, Brain Fingerprinting® testing proved that the two men who had been convicted of murder did not have salient, significant facts regarding the respective murders stored in their brains. Does this really prove they are innocent? What if they committed the murders, and did not notice what they were doing, or forgot the important facts? What if they had a physical or mental illness that impaired their memory? What if they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs that tend to impair memory?

11

Fig.2 Langleben, D. D., et. al., "Brain Activity during Simulated Deception: An Event Related Functional Magnetic Resonance Study", 15 Neuro Image, January 4, 2002.

This document seeks to clarify the issues related to memory in the application of Brain Fingerprinting, and to delineate what Brain Fingerprinting testing can prove scientifically, and what must be decided not by science or scientific experts but by a judge or jury. In both the Harrington and Harris cases, Brain Fingerprinting testing proved two things: 1) that salient features of the crime were not stored in the suspect’s brain, and 2) that salient features of the alibi were stored in the suspect’s brain. The latter finding shows that the suspect did not suffer from a failure of memory. Brain Fingerprinting testing proved that both suspects’ brains contained a clear record of the events of the evening of the crime. This record matched the respective accounts of the events of the evening of the crime, as told by the alibi witnesses. The records stored in the brains of the two suspects did not match the respective crime scenes. This illustrates one effective means to scientifically eliminate the possibility that the lack of a record of a crime stored in a suspect’s brain was due to some malfunction of memory, rather than due to innocence of the crime. When Brain Fingerprinting testing proves not only that the record stored in the brain of the suspect does not match the crime scene, but also that it does match the alibi, this provides strong scientific evidence that the lack of a record of the crime stored in the brain is indeed due to non-participation in the crime rather than to some malfunction of the memory. The more general question of the fallibility of human memory is indeed the perennial problem of all legal proceedings that involve human beings. This is by no means unique to Brain Fingerprinting. In fact, the questions and issues surrounding human memory apply as much in every case involving testimony by humans regarding remembered events as they do

12

cases involving Brain Fingerprinting testing evidence. The human brain is an amazing instrument, but it is not perfect. Every time a person participates in or witnesses an event, the imperfections of the human faculties come into play. First of all, perception is not perfect. A witness may see a man with a dark hat, mistake it for dark hair, and report seeing a darkhaired man.

Second, memory is not perfect.

A person, whether he is a witness or a

perpetrator, may experience something and then forget. Third, a person may be under the influence of some debilitating mental or physical illness or drug that compromises the system such that perception and/or memory is less effective than usual. What are the implications of the imperfections of human faculties for legal proceedings? These issues are central to every legal proceeding that involves any kind of testimony or evidence connected with human beings. Every time there is an alibi witness who testifies that he was with the suspect the whole time, and saw no crime, there are three possibilities: 1) His account is correct; 2) He was in fact with the accused, but the crime took place in his presence and he either did not perceive it or forgot about it (either because of mental or physical illness, drugs, poor perception or memory, or some other reason); 3) He knows the suspect committed the crime, and he is lying. The same three possibilities are there every time a suspect testifies on his own behalf. It is never possible, in principle, to be absolutely certain that any alibi witness (or any other witness) is actually a reliable witness, even if we are convinced that the witness is not lying. If a witness says that the suspect did not commit the crime, it is still possible that he witnessed the suspect committing the crime, and just forgot about it. In principle, we can never be absolutely sure that anyone in the area at the time did not commit a given crime. You and I are quite sure that we did not commit the crimes that we read about in this morning's paper, but in principle we must admit that there is a possibility that we did commit these crimes and then forgot about it. We can never absolutely prove otherwise. Fortunately, in this country, we do not have to absolutely prove that a suspect is innocent. A person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge and jury take all of the evidence into account, and make a decision as to whether the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or not. (In some legal proceedings, another legal standard other than reasonable doubt, e.g., preponderance of the evidence is applied.) In evaluating scientific evidence, the principal is the same.

13

The judge or jury take into account the

available scientific evidence along with other evidence, and make the legal determination according to the applicable legal standards When judges and juries hear an alibi witness state that he was with the suspect at the time of the crime, and he is sure the suspect did not commit the crime that is, the witness says he has no record of the suspect committing the crime stored in his brain judges and juries must always evaluate this statement in the light of the fact that human perception and memory are fallible. Again, it is always possible that the alibi witness saw the whole crime and just forgot about it. Judges and juries must take this possibility and the likelihood of it actually happening into account. The effect of the fallibility of human memory and perception on Brain Fingerprinting testing is identical to the effect of these factors on the testimony of a witness.

Take, for

example, the case of an alibi witness and a suspect who has been shown through Brain Fingerprinting testing to have no record of the salient features of the crime stored in his brain. The alibi witness says that he remembers being with the suspect at the time of the crime, and has no memory of the suspect committing the crime. Brain Fingerprinting testing demonstrates that the suspect also has no memory of the salient facts of the crime, and does have a memory of the alibi. One possible conclusion that the judge and jury may reach, upon considering this evidence along with all of the other available evidence, is that the suspect is innocent. Another possibility that must be considered in every case, whether Brain Fingerprinting testing is used or not, is that the suspect committed the crime, the alibi witness witnessed the crime and both of them forgot about it either due to extremely poor memory, drugs, physical or mental illness, or some other reason. With or without Brain Fingerprinting, this is a possibility that can in principle never be entirely eliminated. What Brain Fingerprinting testing can do is to provide extremely strong scientific evidence that the record of the time of the crime stored in the suspect's brain does or does not contain the salient facts about the crime, and does or does not contain the salient facts about the alibi. Brain Fingerprinting testing can prove that the suspect's brain does not have the salient details of the crime stored in it, that is, when the suspect does not remember or recognize the salient details of the crime. It is up to a judge or jury to take this fact into account, along with all the other available facts, in coming to a verdict of guilty or not guilty.

14

Neither Brain Fingerprinting testing nor any other scientific technique proves a suspect innocent or guilty of a crime. The determination of guilt or innocence is a legal matter, not a scientific one.

All Brain Fingerprinting testing or any other scientific

technology can do is to provide a judge or jury with evidence, which they will take into account in their determination of guilt or innocence.

The specific evidence that Brain

Fingerprinting testing provides is either 1) that salient facts about the crime, facts that the subject claims not to know and would have no way of knowing other than committing the crime, are in fact stored in the suspect’s brain; or 2) that these salient features of the crime, features that the suspect would have encountered if he had committed the crime, are not stored in the suspect’s brain. Does this prove that the suspect is guilty or innocent? No. That is up to a judge or jury to decide, taking into account the Brain Fingerprinting testing evidence along with all of the other available evidence. There is an extensive literature on what makes events memorable, and we take that into account in structuring the stimuli for the Brain Fingerprinting testing tests in order to maximize the memorability of the items tested for. Still, we can never be absolutely certain that a suspect who has no memory of the salient facts of the crime is innocent; any more that we can be absolutely certain that a truthful alibi witness didn't actually witness a crime and then forget about it. The determination of innocence or guilt, however, is not a scientific determination. That is a legal determination. Brain Fingerprinting testing detects the record of the crime stored in the brain, or a lack of that record. The determination of Brain Fingerprinting testing is "information present" or "information absent." This is science. The judge and jury take the evidence provided by Brain Fingerprinting testing into account, along with all of the other available evidence, to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty. This is not science, but rather the judicial process. Judges and juries know that human perception and memory are imperfect, and that a witness or suspect may have been under the influence of some debilitating physical or mental condition or drug that could make these faculties even more imperfect than usual. Whenever witness testimony is heard, and whenever Brain Fingerprinting testing evidence or any other evidence depending on human beings is presented, this imperfection must be taken into account, along with any evidence that this is a circumstance in which perception or memory may be more imperfect than usual.

15

This does not, however, mean that judges and juries should be disallowed to hear the testimony of witnesses, just because the memory of the witnesses may be imperfect or impaired for some reason. Nor does it mean that judges and juries should be deprived of the evidence provided by Brain Fingerprinting, just because the memory of the suspect may also be imperfect or impaired for some reason. Brain Fingerprinting testing objectively detects the presence or absence of a record of the crime in the brain of the suspect, whatever the suspect says. Brain Fingerprinting testing is non-assertive and non-testimonial. The suspect neither lies nor tells the truth during the process. No questions are asked or answered. The question of the truth or veracity of the subject is irrelevant, just as it is with a fingerprinting or DNA testing. The results detect a match or no match between something on the person of the suspect and something from the crime scene be it fingerprints, biological samples, or, in the case of Brain Fingerprinting, information stored in the brain. This has nothing to do with what a person says about it, or whether he speaks the truth or lies. Neither Brain Fingerprinting testing nor any other scientific procedure, however, can absolutely eliminate the possibility that a suspect committed a specific crime. When Brain Fingerprinting testing proves that a suspect lacks knowledge of the salient aspects of a crime, then, there are two possibilities: 1) he is innocent; 2) he committed the crime and either never knew it or forgot about it later. (The latter could be due to defective memory, physical or mental illness, drugs, or some other factor.) These same possibilities are present whenever there is an alibi witness. Neither Brain Fingerprinting testing nor any other scientific technique can totally eliminate the possibility that a witness or a suspect was present at a crime and failed to perceive or forgot the salient facts about the crime. Does this mean that we disallow the judge and jury to hear any testimony from witnesses? No. The judge and jury have a duty to take into account the available facts, and to evaluate these facts in the light of the reality that human perception and memory are imperfect. Does it mean that we should disallow the judge and jury to know the facts proven by Brain Fingerprinting testing regarding the presence or absence of the record of the crime stored in the brain? Again the answer is no. The judge and jury are entitled to have the evidence provided by Brain Fingerprinting, along with all of the other available evidence.

16

The judge and jury have a duty to take into account all of the available evidence, and to make a determination based on their best judgment in light of all the evidence. Perception and memory are imperfect, and can never be totally relied upon to provide an accurate representation of the facts. This limitation on the judicial system applied to all testimony of witnesses long before Brain Fingerprinting testing was discovered, and will always apply to all aspects of the judicial system that involve human beings. Granted, human memory and perception are not infallible, and can be compromised by mental and physical illness and drugs. This limitation applies to information that is or is not known as evidenced by Brain Fingerprinting testing and it also applies equally to all information that is a part of any testimony by a witness. With Brain Fingerprinting testing as with witness testimony, however, this limitation affects the weight given to the evidence, and not the admissibility of the evidence. The question of weight is one that can only be decided by the judge and jury, and not by a scientific procedure or a scientific opinion. Brain Fingerprinting testing can determine scientifically what information is stored in a brain, i.e., what a person does and does not know. How these scientific facts are interpreted in relation to participation or non-participation in a crime, and what weight is given to this scientific evidence, is a matter to be decided by a judge or jury. We must acknowledge, in principal, that any one of us might have committed the murder we read about in today's paper, and then forgot about it. We must acknowledge that any alleged alibi witness may have in fact witnessed the crime rather than the alibi, and then forgot about it. Theoretically, a suspect who is proven through Brain Fingerprinting testing to lack knowledge of the salient details of a crime could conceivably have committed the crime, and then forgotten about it. This kind of thing is not what we find in reality, however. When one reads the transcripts of court testimony for major crimes, the people who were present witnesses, perpetrators, and surviving victims alike do in fact remember the salient features of the events that took place, as proven by the descriptions they offer in testimony. This includes people who are of very high or very low intelligence. It includes people who are under the influence of all kinds of different drugs, legal or illegal. It includes psychopaths and other people with highly abnormal or pathological emotional responses and psychological conditions. It includes people who have committed many crimes and people who have never committed a crime. It includes people who are under severe stress, people

17

who are calm and unemotional, people who are violently angry, people who are terrified, and people who commit serious crimes with no remorse. The entire judicial system is built on the concept of reasonableness. Is it possible that you or I committed the murder we read about in today's paper, and then forgot about it? And we are going about our business falsely believing ourselves to be innocent? Yes. Is it a reasonable scenario, with a reasonable likelihood of being accurate? No. Is it possible that an alibi witness saw a violent murder, and never noticed it, or forgot about it? Yes. Is it a reasonable, likely explanation? No, not often. It is possible that a suspect who demonstrably does not know the salient facts about a major crime actually committed the crime, and never noticed what he was doing, or forgot about it? Yes. Is it a reasonable, likely explanation of the facts? No, not unless there is some highly unusual, reasonable explanation for why such an extremely bizarre and unusual phenomenon would occur. Anything is possible, and it is indeed possible that a person could commit a crime and not know the salient details of it, but is a judge or jury likely to conclude that such a thing happened, beyond a reasonable doubt, and takes away a person's freedom or his life on that basis? Not in a reasonable world, and not in a reasonable criminal justice system.

3. DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEM 3.1 HOW BRAIN FINGERPRINTING WORKS? (Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response MERMER) Probes Stimuli relevant to the Investigation under question Irrelevant Matched to Probes (e.g., if the issue is clothing warn during crime, four pieces of irrelevant clothing will be shown for each probe) Targets Comparison images or words familiar to the subject but not relevant to investigation; subjects are told to pay particular attention before testing. Can be general or given by experimenters

Fig.3 “Information present” case

Fig.4 “Information absent” case

18

Fig.5 Dr. Lawrence Farwell administers a Brain Fingerprinting test to JB Grinder.

There are two general applications for which Brain Fingerprinting can be applied. The first concerns testing concealed information regarding events that have already occurred. Dr. Drew Richardson, a 25-year veteran, now retired, of the FBI who acted as one of the bureau’s top forensic scientists, explains this involves examining suspects of a crime or potential witnesses to see if they have information stored in their brains that would generally not be known by the public, but would be known by somebody who either witnessed or participated in the crime. The second application is to determine if someone is associated with a group. This capability is what prompted the FBI to aid in funding for the research and development of this technology. Richardson, who acts as vice-president for Forensic Operations with Brain Fingerprinting Labs, and Farwell first worked together in the 1990s at the FBI academy. The Brain Fingerprint testing conducted was centered on determining who in a group of people FBI graduates were and who new agent trainees were. A list of 25 words, acronyms and phrases relating to the graduates instruction or way of life were collected to act as the probes. One of the items used was FD302. To most people this doesn’t mean anything. But to an FBI agent, it’s the government designation for the piece of paper that is used to record investigative information, subsequently record into file and ultimately testify if it comes to trial. FD302 immediately stands out and rings a bell with an FBI agent, and using this as well as numerous other probes, the test was able to determine with complete accuracy who was an FBI agent.“If we can do this with the FBI, we can do this with organized crime; the KGB, or its successor SVR; and now with terrorist groups, Al Qaeda and so forth,” says Richardson. This test does not, however, prove a person’s innocence or guilt. It determines whether the person has information about the crime stored in his brain. Similar to DNA, the sample is given to a scientist, and following series of tests, it is determined if the samples match. In this case the information stored in the subject’s brain either matches the details of the crime or it doesn’t. Brain Fingerprinting also has nothing to do with lie detection. Unlike lie detection,

19

Brain Fingerprinting has been found to be admissible in court. Furthermore, lie detection works on the basis of emotional stress response where Brain Fingerprinting simply measures if a subject knows the details of a crime. Therefore, this test would not work as a general screening tool. It could not be used to test job applicants on various habitual behaviors, drug use, falsification of an application, etc. There also are certain types of cases where Brain Fingerprinting will not be applicable. Since Brain Fingerprinting detects a record of the crime stored in the brain, investigators need to have a clear idea of the specifics of a crime. The case of a person’s disappearance could be a murder or simply a runaway. Not being able to know what crime or any specifics to test for, this test could not be used in such a case. Similarly in a sexual assault case, everyone may agree on exactly what happened, but they disagree on the intent of the party. Brain Fingerprinting doesn’t indicate intent; it only tests whether the subject recalls the unique details of the crime. Another case where it would not be applicable is if a person already knows every conceivable detail the pre-test investigation can find about the crime. “If somebody has already been convicted, they may know everything about the crime that we can find out, so we can’t structure a Brain Fingerprint test,” states Farwell. “In order to structure a test, we need probes the items the individual denies knowing that are specific details about the crime.” The earlier in a case a Brain Fingerprinting test can be applied, the better, says Farwell. “One hour after the crime has been committed, the perpetrator knows everything about the crime and an innocent suspect doesn’t know anything about the crime.” He adds, once the individual has been arrested or brought in for questioning, he’ll know a little bit about the crime, even if he’s innocent. Administering the test before trial also requires less resources since investigators won’t have to go through mountains of court documents to figure out what the person does and doesn’t know. Using Brain Fingerprinting early on also can help speed up the investigative process. If there is a group of suspects, the innocent parties will likely be willing to take a Brain Fingerprint test and show they do not have critical knowledge the perpetrator of the crime would have. Detectives are then able to focus the resources of the investigation toward those who are reluctant to take the test or have shown to have knowledge of the crime. “Although admissible in court, Brain Fingerprinting doesn’t have to get to that point,” says Farwell. “We can use it to point to the right suspects, illuminate people and rule out individuals as suspects.”

20

Fig.6 The image above is JB Grinder’s brainwave responses to crime scene information. Fig.7 The image on the right is Terry Harrington’s brainwave response to crime scene information. Target (red), irrelevant (green) and probe (blue) stimuli.

3.2 THE METHODOLOGY OF THE BF TEST There are four phases of using BF in a criminal case: investigation, interviewing, scientific testing, and adjudication. 3.2.1 Investigation Initially, the investigation process consists of the test administrator (or a designee) determining the salient features of the crime, which are used to make “probes,” or bits of information that would seem innocuous to someone who did not commit the crime under investigation, but which would be present in the mind of the culprit. This is researchintensive, especially in cases that have been highly publicized and where details have been widely disseminated in such cases, the test administrator must find rather obscure information that has not been made public and that is unknown to an innocent test subject (through trial, interrogation, or by some other manner). To an innocent person who does not have knowledge of the crime, probes would be indistinguishable from other irrelevant (stimuli which the test administrator knows that the subject has no knowledge of) and would therefore elicit no physiological response. The test administrator must be careful to select probes in such a manner that someone who does not know about the crime would find them as equally plausible as the irrelevant chosen. Probes selected in cases where BF testing has been employed in the past have included the material used to bind a victim’s hands, what was printed on a victim’s t-shirt, and the landscape that the perpetrator of an offense ran through while leaving the scene of the crime.

21

3.2.2 Interviewing Once these probes have been collected and prepared, and prior to the operation of the BF test itself, the test administrator interviews the subject. This interview is an attempt to determine exactly what the subject knows, so as to discover any innocuous, non-criminal explanation as to why he or she would have knowledge of certain information relevant to the investigation, or if such stimuli are significant to the subject for reasons that are independent of the crime at issue. Any such probes will thereafter be removed from the test. Aside from helping authorities to sharpen their probe into the crimes that they are investigating, the interview serves as a baseline for the test administrator to ensure that the subject has knowledge of the control stimuli (“targets”) that will be shown to him or her.

3.2.3 Testing After the interview and prior to the administration of the test itself, the test administrator selects targets (stimuli which the test administrator, through the interview process, knows that the subject has knowledge of) and irrelevant. BF tests are comprised of approximately one-sixth targets, one sixth probes, and two-thirds irrelevant stimuli. Subjects are then fitted with a sensory headband that is connected to an EEG, which in turn digitizes brain wave activity and feeds it into a computer. Subjects are then shown a series of pictures and words on a computer monitor, and the sensory headset tracks their responses. As each image is shown, the subject clicks a mouse button to advance to the next stimuli, so as to keep his or her attention on the test itself.36 The key to proper administration of the test is for the administrator to present each item in context and to identify exactly the category of the stimuli (e.g., “one of the following is the murder weapon”) The subject’s brain wave responses are then analyzed. The test looks for a specific response called a P300: a positive electric voltage that is present 300 milliseconds after a subject is exposed to a stimulus with which he or she is familiar.38 A MERMER short for “Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response” will be present in cases where the subject recognizes a stimulus (including targets and potentially some or all probes), and will be absent where they do not (including irrelevant and potentially some or all probes).The resulting finding of “information present” or “information absent” thus represents a scientific determination of whether the subject has knowledge of the probe stimuli tested. Because the

22

exact brain response of each subject will differ slightly, the individual response of the particular subject being tested to the targets and irrelevant presented will be used as a baseline for comparison.

3.2.4 Adjudication As previously noted, BF has potential applications in a vast array of criminal cases. A BF result of “information present,” however, is not the same as a judicial finding of guilt. Likewise, a result of “information absent” is not the same as a judicial finding of innocence. The judge and jury must weigh the BF test results along with all the other evidence in any given case in rendering their verdict or judgment. This will usually entail “educating” a Judge and/or jury about BF testing, although in the future this need would presumably decrease as the use of BF became more widespread in the judicial system.

4. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS 4.1 THE SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF BF Although possessing limited legal exposure thus far in its fledgling existence, BF does have a significant amount of scientific research behind its claims and processes. The P300 electrical brain wave 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.” Dr. Farwell himself has published a scientific analysis of BF testing in a peer-edited journal, and claims a 100% accuracy rate for the BF test in that study and three others conducted “on a contract for an unspecified U.S. intelligence agency.” In approximately 200 total tests to date, BFL claims that there have been no false positives or false negatives in instances where a determination of “information present” or “information absent” was made. Although claiming “neither a 100 percent accuracy rate nor a zero percent error rate because such a claim is scientifically indefensible,” Dr. Farwell asserts that BF has “high statistical confidence levels for each determination.” Even critics of BF testing concede that it is probable that additional research will strengthen the scientific methodology behind BF

23

4.2 THE TESTIMONIAL NATURE OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING Assuming that Dr. Farwell’s vision comes to fruition and BF testing becomes prevalent in the judicial system, the question still remains if an inventive prosecutor attempted to obtain a warrant to conduct a BF test on an unwilling subject, could a court issue such a warrant without violating the suspect’s constitutional privilege against selfincrimination? In addition, even if BF testing is found not to violate the privilege against selfincrimination, would the admission of BF testing results against a non-tested party violate current hearsay jurisprudence?

4.3 COMPARING BF TESTING TO “PARADIGMS OF REAL AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE” When analyzing the separate categories of “real” and “testimonial” evidence, BF test results clearly fall into the latter group. BF testing is not like taking a photograph of a suspect, having a suspect’s body examined for physical peculiarities, or even like fingerprinting itself. Although some may claim that BF testing is simply examining the brain as a physical component of the body (and is thus more like examining the body for scars, tattoos, etc.), the way in which the Supreme Court has addressed a similar issue is illustrative. “A nod or head-shake,” the Court has held, “is as much a ‘testimonial’ or ‘communicative’ act as are spoken words.” In many significant ways, a finding of “information present” subsequent to a BF test is as though the brain is providing a “nod” to the test administrator (“yes, I do remember that”). That the psychological “nod” is not visible to the administrator and requires scientific technology to observe should not be constitutionally relevant to the calculus the brain is still “testifying,” and the evidence being obtained is not merely “real” in character. “When interrogation is meant to produce certain reactions, whether they are willed reactions or not,” the Fifth Circuit has concluded, “the history and spirit of the Fifth Amendment is summoned to safeguard the rights of a defendant.

24

Table 1.1 Farwell, Larry. “Brain Fingerprinting” Statistical Data

Subject Number

Determination

Statistical Confidence

1

Guilty

100

2

Guilty

92

3

Guilty

98

4

Guilty

91

5

Guilty

100

6

Guilty

100

7

Guilty

100

8

Guilty

100

9

Guilty

100

25

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS One of the most common criticisms of BF testing involves the length of time and effort that would be required to obtain an adequate number of probes in cases where the judicial process has run its course to a greater extent. Although there are few ways to circumvent this problem other than simply dedicating more manpower to the investigation and gathering of probes, this would presumably be a far less common problem if BF testing were employed more frequently in the judicial system, as authorities would know in advance to hold back certain details of the crime from public knowledge. As noted previously, the use of BF testing carries with it a host of logistical issues: the test takes a fair amount of time to set up and conduct properly, the test administrator must be trained to run the test and analyze the results effectively, and details of the crime must be excluded from the public and suspects specifically in order to preserve valuable ground for probe stimuli. Many issues will need to be considered as the use of BF increases, but the core question of how BF interacts with the rights of suspects will linger unanswered until acted upon by legislatures and courts. Regardless of any logistical concerns as to the effective and efficient use of BF testing, our political and judicial leaders must acknowledge the gravity of the issues at stake. Unless legislatures and courts act quickly to head off potential abuse of these new scientific breakthroughs, we could face a grim future. BF testing represents a large leap in technological innovation that carries with it unanswered questions regarding the impact on civil and constitutional rights. With great power comes great responsibility, and as the sun rises on a new age of technological innovation, the government should not be allowed to exploit that technology for coercive examination purposes. When all is said and done, BF testing may indeed turn out to be an invaluable tool in the fields of medicine and the law. It is only through a careful monitoring of the rights of our citizens, however, that we can maintain forward progress as a society rather than allow a fascination with new and exciting technologies to provide a more efficient way for those rights to deteriorate.

26

5.2 FUTURE SCOPE Even in its relative infancy, BF is poised to explode into and beyond the legal arena. Dr. Farwell recently opened a “training center” for BF aimed at training BF test administrators and will employ up to 300 people. As far back as mid-2003, there was a waiting list of approximately 400 requests for BF tests. Foremost among potential applications proposed by supporters of BF is its use in the criminal justice system. Dr. Farwell has suggested that BF can be used to accomplish everything in the judicial system from identifying terrorists, members of gangs, and obtaining criminal and intelligence information, to exonerating the innocent, to discovering criminal espionage and terrorist plots. Dr. Farwell has also observed that BF can provide authorities with “cost effective approaches to investigations,” allowing them to focus their efforts on the suspects who “actually” committed crimes, and thus increase rates of convictions. “Knowing that such an accurate and scientific technique as BF is available,” he concludes, “may also prove to be an effective deterrent to the commission of future crimes.” As the Supreme Court itself has noted, “modern community living requires modern scientific methods of crime detection lest the public go unprotected.” BFL has estimated that BF testing could be applicable in approximately sixty to seventy percent of major crimes (contrasted with only 1% for fingerprinting), and could save up to ten to twenty percent of overall costs of the criminal justice system by avoiding the prosecution of innocent individuals and freeing up governmental resources. Supporters of BF testing have made it abundantly clear that BF should be seen as an asset for both sides of the criminal justice system. “In every case in the future when someone is arrested,” Dr. Farwell envisions, “they’re going to say, ‘Look, I’m innocent, don’t tell me anything about the crime. Give me a brain fingerprint test! The application of BF testing is not by any means restricted to the criminal justice sphere. BFL is already in negotiations to collaborate with Eli Lilly to use BF testing to speed market research for drugs treating certain brain disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease. Dr. Farwell and BFL have also suggested that BF testing could be used by advertising agencies and companies to find out what specific information people retain from advertising, what type

27

REFERENCES [1] ABC-TV Good Morning America: Charles Gibson interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell “Mind-Reading Technology Tests Subject's Guilt Brain-Reading Technology Becomes New Tool in Courts,” March 9, 2004 [2] Abdullah, T. (2003). “Brain Fingerprinting – Picture-perfect crimes,” Berkeley Medical Journal Issues, Spring 2003. Accessed July 20, 2008. [3] CBS 60 Minutes: Mike Wallace interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell, December 10, 2000. [4] Farwell L.A. (1992a). “The brain-wave information detection (BID) system: a new Paradigm for psycho physiological detection of information” (unpublished doctoral Dissertation). Urbana Champaign (IL): University of Illinois. [5] Farwell, LA (1992b). “Two new twists on the truth detector: brain-wave detection of Occupational information.” Psychophysiology 29(4A):S3. [6] Farwell L.A. (1993). “Brain MERMERs: detection of FBI Agents and crime-relevant Information with the Farwell MERA system.” Proceedings of the International Security Systems Symposium, Washington, D.C. [7] Fox, C. (2006b) “Brain Fingerprinting Skepticism” American Observer, March 29, 2006 [8] Rosenfeld, J.P., Soskins, M., Bosh, G. and Ryan, A. (2004) “Simple, Effective Countermeasures to P300-based Tests of Detection of Concealed Information” Psychophysiology, 41 pp 205–219 (PDF) [9] “Murder in mind – Could reading the thoughts of criminals help free the innocent?” The Guardian, March 25, 2004.

28

APPENDIX Abbreviations CIA Central Intelligence Agency DOD Department of Defense EEG Electroencephalograph FBI

Federal Bureau of Investigation

MERMER Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response NIH National Institutes of Health

Scientists’ Views on the Brain Fingerprinting Technique The purpose of this appendix is to provide additional information on the Brain Fingerprinting technique. Specifically, we interviewed three scientists who were familiar with the technique: Emanuel Donchin, Ph.D.; William Iacono, Ph.D.; and J. Peter Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Each scientist shared his view of the technique, raising questions and providing insights related to some of the methods that underlie Brain Fingerprinting. These scientists expressed a need for more research to demonstrate Brain Fingerprinting’s application as an investigative tool. However, these views are not representative of scientists’ views in general, nor do they represent a complete or systematic review of the technique.

GAO’S MISSION The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

29

FBI VIEWS According to FBI officials, in 1993, the Laboratory Division’s Polygraph Unit and CIA collaborated in an effort to evaluate and validate the Brain Fingerprinting test. At that time, the Polygraph Unit concluded the following. The developer had not presented sufficient information to demonstrate validity or the underlying scientific basis of his assertions. For example, the FBI asked the developer to provide details of all tests conducted, particularly in a law enforcement setting, which would support validation. FBI officials indicated that the developer maintained that his technique was proprietary. The technique had limited applicability and usefulness to FBI investigative and personnel security matters. The research expenses, equipment, and training costs exceeded any perceived benefit.

CIA VIEWS From their experiences with the developer’s research between 1991 and 1993, CIA officials concluded that Brain Fingerprinting had limited applicability to CIA’s operations. Accordingly, CIA decided that it was not worth investing more funds to continue the developer’s research. Specifically, CIA officials told us that the technique had limited application to CIA activities because it did not have a screening capability, which is of primary interest to CIA. These officials explained that to administer Brain Fingerprinting, an investigator must know enough details of a particular event to test an individual for knowledge of that event. For example, these officials said that using Brain Fingerprinting to determine an agent’s involvement in espionage would be difficult because the investigator would be hard-pressed to identify unique stimuli; in counterintelligence, specific details are not always available because spying is not always known to have taken place. Moreover, CIA officials indicated that a perceived operational limitation of the technique was that it required a trained scientist to administer the Brain Fingerprinting test. In addition, CIA officials indicated that as an ordinary step in evaluating advanced research and development work, the agency had assembled a panel of independent researchers in 1993 to assess the analytic methods employed by the developer to ensure that they were scientifically sound and defensible. CIA officials stated that while the panel indicated that the technique appeared interesting, it was not able to assess the validity of the work because the developer would not provide the algorithmic information that was critical to completing such an assessment. According to CIA officials, the developer considered the information proprietary evaluation.

30

Acknowledgement It is really matter of great pleasure to acknowledge the invaluable guidance, Enormous assistance and excelled co-operation extended to me from every corner, in proceeding smoothly in the writing and development of my seminar. At first instant we express my deep sense of gratitude to seminar guide Miss. Sarita Jain and Teaching staff for guidance and encouragement at every critical juncture in the proceeding of the seminar. I gladly take its opportunity to record my thanks to Prof. G.K.Andurkar (H.O.D.) and Teaching staff for inspiring me for the seminar work. It is extremely heartwarming to mention my gratefulness to Teachers and Non-Teaching staff of my institute for providing invaluable advice and useful suggestions. I also thank all the Friends and the People who ever directly or indirectly shared in moulding of this work.

SACHIN D. BHINGARE B.E. E & TC

31