brain fingerprinting and p300 by sharada avadhanam

• Sharada Avadhanam, ADFS APPA, HYDERABAD, INDIA.

• BRAIN FP - MERMER


• MERMER
Making Waves

• Crime Information Absent

•
• Crime Information Present
•
• MERMER
THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE
• Brain Fingerprinting testing works as follows:
• Words or pictures relevant to a crime are flashed on a computer screen, along with other irrelevant words or pictures.
• Electrical Brain responses are measured non-invasively through a patented headband equipped with sensors.
• Lawrence Farwell had discovered that a scientific brain-wave response called a MERMER (Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response) is elicited when the brain processes noteworthy information it recognizes.
• Thus, when details of the crime that only the perpetrator would know are presented, a MERMER is emitted by the brain of a perpetrator, but not by the brain of an innocent suspect. In Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, a computer analyzes the brain response to detect the MERMER, and thus determines scientifically whether the specific crime-relevant information is stored in the brain of the suspect.

Brain finger printing
• The new successor technology to lie detector
• No effort by guilty to cover-up
• No effort by IO to fix the innocent
• Objective evidence from the deep recesses of the brain
• P300/MERMER test measures memory of brain with help of EEG electro encephalogram

Premise of the test
• The memory of any individual is unique like a fingerprint and so the graph produced in the technique is also unique
• the accused will be shown picture of crime weapon victim
• Brain stimuli recorded analyzed and link to crime detected


• ENCODING
• During experience, visual, verbal, and other forms of information of the event are acquired (classified) and etched into the brain.

• The relationships are auditory, semantic, visual, and somatosensory, with emotional components
• Mixed in.

• The encoded information is stored as memory trace.

• Brain finger printing :Farwell
• It works by measuring a person’s brain activity from their reactions to seeing details about a crime flashed on screen
• When a person recognizes these details because of having been there and committing the act we get a particular brain wave that we can determine, measure and detect with a computer.
• So far Brain Finger Printing has been proven accurate in more than 170 tests by Brain Finger Printing Laboratories Inc, USA.
• India:Khan in Telgi scam subjected to test to find out links with Telgi
• Trying to extract information about officials who accompanied Khan during his visit to Maharashtra to bribe Assistant Inspector Dilip kamat
• Brain FP
• As with other scientific evidence, brain FP test does not prove guilt or innocence per se
• It provides information about what is stored in the suspect’s brain
• Judge can utilize this information in making the legal determination of the guilt or innocence
• The weight of the test evidence will be evaluated along with other evidence under consideration
• Admission in court is a landmark for FS
• Innocents have a new technology to aid them

• INFORMATION PROCESSING

• Experts view/ Daubert criteria
• Wide spread consensus that the science behind
• is excellent and thoroughly tested,
• peer reviewed,
• published in the best journals,
• extremely accurate,
• generally accepted in the scientific community
• Difference between Brain FP/ polygraph
• The difference is substantial
• Poly graph is lie detection device, attempts to detect deception in response to probing questions by measuring sweat on the palm
• Which may be caused by a lie or other causes as well
• Brain FP allows to determine whether certain specific information is stored in the brain
• Regardless of whether or not the subject is lying
• Both are founded on totally different fields of science

• Brain FP vs polygraph
• Brain FP is cognitive psycho physiology I.e measurement of information processing activity in the brain
• Polygraph measures emotion driven autonomic response
• POLYGRAPH IS USED as general screening when the IO does not know specifically what he is looking for
• Brain FP in criminal investigation and for specific screening
• IO knows the specific details of crime or specific trend under investigation

• MERMER IMPROVES P300
• A specific type of electrical brain wave called p300 which activates when a person sees a familiar object
• If a murder suspect is claiming an alibi then p300 not active when shown murder weapon
• The 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 MERMER has both a peak and a valley.
• DAUBERT CRITERIA
• Has the science been tested?
• Has the science been peer reviewed and published?
• Is the science accurate?
• Is the science well accepted in the scientific community?
• P300 science that has been extensively researched and is well accepted in the scientific community.
• the MERMER, does not yet have the same level of acceptance as the P300.
• Telgi undergoes p300 test
• Telgi’s brain mapping by Dr Malini Bangalore
• On whether he paid money to Chhagan Bhujbal, Dy CM
• Tested positive
• Submitted to MCOCA court pune by SIT as supportive evidence to third charge sheet
• Report
• Findings are indicative of possession of knowledge about the activities by telgi
• Brain activation during preparation processing while evoking primary encoding indicates active participation by telgi
• Three tests: lie detector, p 300 brain mapping and narco analysis
• Narco analysis has not evidentiary value but supportive role to evidence

• Brain mapping
• Done in two stages, a pretest interview followed by EEG on 32 channel EEG/ECP neuro scan to invoke event related potential response ERP
• Used three types of words
• Neutral words
• Probe words
• Target words
• If telgi truthfully participated in the act suggested by the target words it would generate an ERP and no ERP when neutral words are presented
• ERP associated with probes suggests information in the individual which was acquired by direct participation only in the act or event
• Words
• Target words:
• payment to RS Sharma; Sharma's favour in Pune cases;
• payment of 75 lakh to Dilip Kamat; payment to Mumbai police officers Sridhar Vagal and Pradeep Savant;
• connection with SM Mushrif in Pune; facilities provided in Mumbai custody by Sharma; threat by Roshan Baig;
• possessing of mobile phone in the cell; payment made to Bhujbal; payment made to Krishna Yadav

• Results/ report
• Telgi showed signs of acknowledging payment to RS Sharma which he also admitted in the pre-test and subsequent narco test ,.
• Payment to Vagal and Savant was denied in pre test but agreed in subsequent narco test.
• Pre test produced agreement in payment to Dilip Kamat
• High level of activation to the words reflecting threat made by Karnataka minister Roshan Baig while in central jail Bangalore which was not revealed in pre test but admitted under trance

• DR. FARWELL:
• If he committed the crime, then his brain says,
• "Ah ha! I recognize that."
• We get a brain wave response indicating recognition,
• we get a MERMER, and
• that way we can tell that this is the person
• who committed the crime.
• What if the fellow was a witness to a crime and
he saw all of these things happen,
but he was not the criminal?

• DR. FARWELL: Well, then we would not be able to apply this technology.
• It is the same as if, for example, someone might be present at a crime scene and leave his fingerprints there,
• but because he was there for some other purpose.
• 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 Fptesting may be able to distinguish between a witness and a perpetrator.
• Harrington case
• On a June morning back in 1977, retired Police Captain John Schweer was found shot to death on the railroad tracks in Council Bluffs, Iowa.
• Schweer had been working as a night watchman guarding several car dealerships in the area.
• After a four month search, 16 year old Terry Harrington was arrested and eventually convicted of the murder.
• 16 yr old Terry Harrington convicted of murder of policeman in 1977
•
16 yr old Terry Harrington convicted of murder of policeman in 1977 Today,

• Since the day of his arrest, Harrington has maintained his innocence.
• Harrington has filed several appeals in his case all were rejected
• On hearing about brain fingerprinting he decided to file a new appeal and contacted Dr Farwell.
• State's case rested on the testimony of this man
• Kevin Hughes who claimed to have gone with Harrington to steal a car on night of murder

• HARRINGTON: I was not in Council Bluffs that night. He knew it.
• he testified that
• he saw you go into the car lot
• in order to steal a car, and
• that he heard a shot, and
• then he saw you running
• from the crime scene
• with a gun.
• I had a concrete alibi
• On the night of the murder, Terry Harrington says that
• he was here in north Omaha, some 20 miles away from the crime scene.
• At the time, this was an amusement park and Harrington and a few friends were here attending an outdoor concert that ended after midnight.
• Several witnesses, among them Harrington's high school football coach, testified under oath that that night they saw Harrington at the concert.
• And when the concert ended, Harrington says he and his friends got something to eat, drove around awhile, and then they went home.
• To determine where Harrington actually was on the night of the murder 23 years ago,
Farwell tested him on specific details about his alibi and about the crime.
• Kevin Hughes testified at the trial, and Harrington heard this, that he saw
• Harrington and another perpetrator running out from behind a building.
• Now I asked Harrington, "Do you know what was behind that building?"
• He said, "No."
• I said, "So you don't know what's behind there?"
• He said, "No, I have no idea what's behind there."
• Behind that building…
• was a field which was overgrown with grass and weeds that were about waist-high.
• After the shooting, police say that Harrington ran across that field to get to his car.
• At 3:00 in the morning, getting away from a crime scene, if you were being impeded by waist-high weeds and grass is something you would notice.
• So on Harrington's test
• the phrase "weeds and grass" flashed repeatedly on the screen,
• as did phrases describing other details of the crime
• which, if Harrington recognized them,
• would prove that he killed John Schweer.
• But he did not recognize them
• Result: DR. FARWELL: My professional opinion is that Harrington did not commit that crime.
• The result was that we can determine with a 99.99% confidence that
• the information relevant to the crime was not stored in Harrington's brain, and
• with that same level of confidence,
• that the information regarding his alibi WAS stored in his brain.
• 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 then confessed to the unsolved murders of several other young women.
• state had a strong case against James B. Grinder, 53,
• in the Jan.7, 1984, abduction, rape and murder of Julie Helton, a 25-year-old Marceline, Mo., woman who worked at a book-publishing company. Her badly beaten body was discovered four days after the murder near a railroad track in Macon, the county seat of Macon County.
• Grinder, a wood-cutter who had lived in Arkansas before moving to Macon a few years before the crime, has been "a suspect for years,"
• Grinder …
• Grinder, a wood-cutter who had lived in Arkansas before moving to Macon a few years before the crime, has been "a suspect for years,"
• Grinder and Swank were arrested in March 1998 when Grinder was released from prison, where he had served time on an unrelated charge. Granger had confessed his involvement, but authorities wanted to make sure "we had the right guy,"
• On Aug.5, Farwell tested Grinder's brain
for a memory of the 15-year-old murder.
• "There is no question that J.B. Grinder raped and murdered Julie Helton," Farwell said after the test. "The significant details of the crime are stored in his brain."
• For investigators Brain Fingerprinting testing provided a measure of reassurance.
• "I think she was planning on pleading guilty, but the test confirmed to us that we had the right guy," said Dawson. "He told us prior to testing he had committed the crime, but we were trying to verify that."
• On Aug. 11,
• 6 days after crime-scene specific messages were flashed before him, Grinder pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in 44th Judicial Circuit Court.
• He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, and was immediately transported to Arkansas, where he is a suspect in the murders of three other young women
• Grinder had confessed to authorities,
• but "the difficulty was this suspect had told many different stories many different times," Farwell said. "At times, he had actually confessed, but he later testified and contradicted himself.
• "What his brain said was that he was guilty," the Fairfield scientists said. "He had critical, detailed information only the killer would have. The murder of Julie Helton was stored in his brain, and had been stored there 15 years ago when he committed the murder."
• Grinder hit by brain fp
• What I did in the J.B. Grinder case is to prove the technology can detect the record of a crime stored years ago in the brain of the suspect."
• "We can use this technology to put serial killers like J.B. Grinder in prison where they belong,"
• "Now, if we have information about a crime and we have a suspect, we can determine scientifically whether that incriminating information is stored in that brain or not,"
• In a murder case the visuals are
• The murder weapon
• The way the person was killed
• Where the body was found
• Some items which were taken from the individual, from the victim
• Items that were left near the crime scene.
• Specific details about he crime which would be stored in the brain of the perpetrator of that particular crime.

• FBI designed a study
• distinguish between agents versus those who were not
• (17 agents, 3 non-agents)
• agents were asked to deceive
• shown a series of words, phrases and acronyms that would be familiar only to agents
• The results 100% accuracy
• the 17 agents and 3 non-agents.
• FBI STUDY
• study by U.S. Navy
• a list of acronyms was used to differentiate
• military medical students from civilian.
• Brain Fingerprinting proved 100% accurate."
• a U.S. intelligence agency
• proved 100% accurate in
• detecting individuals possessing information in regards to mock crimes relating to espionage scenarios.
• Words and phrases were also used as stimuli in real life events, including two felonies.
• Alexantria Police Department, one of its officers was accused of multiple felony counts concerning a prescription drug ring.
• The accuser, a suspect who confessed in the case, provided details of the officers' involvement in the crime.
• The officer denied criminal involvement.
• both the suspect and the officer passed the polygraph, there were contradictory accounts of the events.
• The officer took brain fp test
• relevant and irrelevant words picture phrases
• to the crime in question,
• meeting places, vehicles used, buildings that the transactions were to have taken place, sums of money, etc.
• the Brain Fp cleared the officer of any wrongdoing.
• Benefits to Law Enforcement
• Identify criminals quickly and scientifically.
• Exonerate the innocent.
• Provide investigators and accused with an instant result.
• Identify terrorists, members of gangs, criminal and intelligence information.
• Discover criminal espionage and terrorist plots.
• Provide cost effective approaches to investigations.
• Identify accomplices.
• Decrease the number of suspects that escape justice due to lack of evidence of witnesses.

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

• 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 Supreme Court left undisturbed the law of the case establishing the admissibility of the Brain Fingerprinting evidence
• The Court’s decision was based on a review of the test in light of the admissibility criteria in the US Supreme Court Decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
• Iowa Supreme Court has reversed the murder conviction of Terry Harrington and ordered a new trial,
• , the court found that police had failed to give Harrington’s defense lawyers eight separate police reports that could have cast doubt on testimony that linked him to the murder of a Council Bluffs night watchman in 1978.
• The suppressed reports were first brought to light in 2001 as Harrington prepared to take a “Brain Fingerprinting” test to establish his innocence.
• Dr. William Iacono at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Iacono is a Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience
• it'll be used more for exoneration than for nailing a suspect?
• that's probably going to be where its usefulness is going to be most successful.
• What we have proven scientifically is that the record in Harrington's brain does not match the crime, and does match the alibi.
• Now the only reasonable interpretation for that scientific fact, in my professional opinion, is that
• Harrington was not at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder.
• 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.
• What if a suspect read about the crime in the newspaper?
• 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?
• 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, in which there had been several appeals in addition to the original trial,
• In what kinds of cases does Brain Fingerprinting testing not apply?
• 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.
• 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.
• Of those who are imprisoned, an estimated 10% to 40 % are innocent.
• governments spend over $150 billion annually on crime. This does not include the costs to victims, innocent suspects and to society.
• It provides an accurate and reliable process to conduct criminal investigations without invasive procedures and biases. It can be used to convict the guilty, exonerate the innocent, and narrow a list of suspects.
• 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
• Concerns
• Suggestibility may present a legitimate concern. If a suspect observes evidence on television, how will that influence his/her response? Dr. Richardson noted "it is vital for investigators to gather and protect that information." Dr. Hernandez concurred. She stated that "some information must not be released to the press.“ investigators should be cognizant of evidence that would not normally appear relevant at a crime scene.
• How does alcohol and/or drugs affect memory and how will this affect Brain Fingerprinting?
• Since many offenders are under the influence of drugs/alcohol at the time they commit their crimes, how does this affect their memory of the event? Farewell stated that while distortion may occur if a subject was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, most people remember events, even if intoxicated. Experts are unclear as to the effects drugs and alcohol may play on Brain Fingerprinting
• How would head trauma affect Brainfingerprinting?
• As with drugs and alcohol, this remains open for debate.

• legal issue is the manner in which the test is administered
• Does a suspect have a right to refuse? Should the test be voluntarily, similar to that of the polygraph? Should a suspect submit to testing without a warrant (Schmerber v. California), similar to an officer requesting blood?)
• Some attorneys believe that Brain Fingerprinting should be treated as a Fourth Amendment search and seizure issue as opposed to a self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment) issue. That is, mandatory compliance should prevail.
• it is best not to force a subject to take the test. As long as the subject looks at the screen, it does not matter whether he pushes the button; the computer will have already recorded a "hit" (MERMER present) or "miss" (MERMER not present).