Brain Fingerprinting Technology

BRAIN FINGERPRINTING TECHNOLOGY Mandar Ghate Department Of Computers, Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratisthans College Of Engineering [email  protected] com Abstract— Brain fingerprinting is a new computer-based technology to identify the perpetrator of a crime accurately and scientifically by measuring brain-wave responses to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen. Brain fingerprinting has proven 100% accurate in over 120 tests, including tests on FBI agents, tests for a US intelligence agency and for the US navy, and tests on real-life situations including felony crimes. Brain fingerprinting was developed and patented by Dr. Lawrence Farewell in 1995. Keywords— Perpetrator, MERMER methodology. INTRODUCTION Brain Fingerprinting is based on the principle that the brain is central to all human acts. In a criminal act, there may or may not be many kinds of peripheral evidence, but the brain is always there, planning, executing and recording the crime. The fundamental difference between a perpetrator and a falsely accused, innocent person is that the perpetrator, having committed the crime, has the details of the crime stored in his brain, and the innocent suspect does not. This is what Brain Fingerprinting detects scientifically. THE SECRETS OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING Matching evidence at the crime scene with evidence in the brain: When a crime is committed, a record is stored in the brain of the perpetrator. Brain Fingerprinting provides a means to objectively and scientifically connect evidence from the crime scene with evidence stored in the brain. (This is similar to the process of connecting DNA samples from the perpetrator with biological evidence found at the scene of the crime; only the evidence valuated by Brain Fingerprinting is evidence stored in the brain. ) Brain Fingerprinting measures electrical brain activity in response to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen, and reveals a brain MERMER (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response) when, and only when, the evidence stored in the brain matches the evidence from the crime scene. The MERMER includes P300 brain response and also electri cally negative component, with an onset latency of approximately 800-1200ms. Thus, the guilty can be identified and the innocent can be cleared in an accurate, scientific, objective, non-invasive, non-stressful, and non-testimonial manner. MERMER Methodology: The procedure used is similar to the Guilty Knowledge Test; a series of words, sounds or pictures are presented via computer to the subject for a fraction of second each. Each of these stimuli are organised by the test-giver to be a â€Å"Target†, â€Å"Irrelevant†, or a â€Å"Probe†. The Target stimuli are chosen to be relevant information to the tested subject, and are used to establish a baseline brain response for information that is significant to the subject being tested. The subject is instructed to press on button for targets, and another button for all other stimuli. Most of the non-Target stimuli are Irrelevant, and are totally unrelated to the situation that the subject is being tested for. The irrelevant stimuli do not elicit a MERMER, and so establish a baseline brain response for information that is significant to the subject in this context. Some of the non-target are relevant to the situation that the subject is being tested for. These stimuli, Probes, are relevant to the test, and are significant to the subject, and will elicit a MERMER, signifying that the subject has understood that stimuli to be significant. A subject lacking this information in their brain, the response to the Probe stimulus will be indistinguishable from the irrelevant stimulus. This response does not elicit a MERMER, indicating that the information is absent from their mind. THE FANTASTIC FOUR!!!! The four phases of Brain Fingerprinting: In Fingerprinting and DNA Fingerprinting, evidence recognized and collected at the crime scene, and reserved properly until a suspect is apprehended, is scientifically compared with the evidence on the person of the suspect to detect a match that would place the suspect at the crime scene. Brain Fingerprinting works similarly, except that the evidence collected both at the crime scene and on the person of the suspect (i. e. in the brain as revealed by electrical brain response) is informational evidenc e rather than physical evidence. There are four stages to Brain Fingerprinting, which are similar to the steps in Fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting: 1. Brain Fingerprinting Crime Scene Evidence Collection; 2. Brain Fingerprinting Brain Evidence Collection; 3. Brain Fingerprinting Computer Evidence Analysis; and 4. Brain Fingerprinting Scientific Result. In the Crime Scene Evidence Collection, an expert in Brain Fingerprinting examines the crime scene and other evidence connected with the crime to identify details of the crime that would be known only to the perpetrator. The expert then conducts the Brain Evidence Collection in order to determine or not the evidence from the crime scene matches evidence stored in the brain of the suspect. In the Computer Evidence Analysis, the Brain Fingerprinting system makes a mathematical determination as to whether or not this specific evidence is stored in the brain, and computes a statistical confidence for that determination. This determination and statistical confidence constitute the Scientific Result of Brain Fingerprinting: either â€Å"information present† (â€Å"guilty†)-the details of the crime are stored in the brain of the suspect-or â€Å"information absent† (â€Å"innocent†)-the details of the crime is not stored in the brain of the suspect. THE DEVICES USED IN BRAIN FINGERPRINTING BRAIN WAVES HOW IT WORKS A Suspect is tested by looking at three kinds of information represented by different coloured lines: —–Red: information the suspect is expected to know —–Green: information not known to suspect —–Blue: information of the crime that only perpetrator would know. NOT GUILTY: Because the blue and green. Lines closely correlate, suspect does not have critical knowledge of the crime GUILTY: Because the blue and red Lines closely correlate, and suspect has ritical knowledge of the crime. INSTRUMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. A personal computer. 2. A data acquisition board. 3. A graphic card for driving two computers from one PC. 4. A four channel EEG amplifier system. 5. Software developed by Brain Fingerprinting lab. CASE STUDIES TERRY HARRINGTON: [->0] Dr. Lawrence Farewell conducts a Brain Fingerprinting test on Terry Harrington. For the test on Schweer’s murder at U. S in 2001, th e determination of Brain Fingerprinting was â€Å"information absent†, with a statistical confidence of 99. 99%. The information stored in Harrington’s brain did not match the scenario in which Harrington went to the crime scene and committed the murder. The determination of the Brain Fingerprinting test for alibi-relevant information was â€Å"information present†, with a confidence of 99. 99%. The information stored in Harrington’s brain did match the scenario in which Harrington was elsewhere (at a concert and with friends) at the time of the crime. JB GRINDER: [->1] Brain Fingerprinting testing was also â€Å"instrumental in obtaining a confession and guilty plea† from serial killer James B. Grinder. In August 1999, Dr. Farewell conducted a Brain Fingerprinting test on Grinder, showing that information stored in his brain matched the details of the murder of Julie Helton. Faced with a certain conviction and almost certain death sentence, Grinder then pled guilty to the rape and murder of Julie Helton in exchange for a life sentence without parole. He is currently serving that sentence and has also confessed to the murders of three other women. LIMITATIONS OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING If, however, the suspect knows everything that the investigators know about the crime for some legitimate reason, then the test cannot be applied. There are several circumstances in which this may be the case. If the suspect acknowledges being at the scene of the crime, but claims to be a witness and not perpetrator, then the fact that he knows details about the crime would not be incriminating. There would be no reason to conduct a test, because the resulting â€Å"information present† response would simply show that the suspect knew the details of the crime-knowledge which he already admits and which he gained at the crime scene whether he was a witness or a perpetrator. Another case where Brain Fingerprinting is not applicable would be one wherein a suspect and an alleged victim-say, of an alleged sexual assault-agree on the details what was said and done, but disagree on the intent of the parties. Brain Fingerprinting detects only information, and not the intent. The fact that the suspect knows the uncontested facts of the circumstances does not tell us which party’s version of the intent is correct. Obviously, in structuring a Brain Fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoid including information that has been made public. Detecting that a suspect knows information he obtained by reading a newspaper would not be of use in a criminal investigation, and standard Brain Fingerprinting procedures eliminate all such information from the structuring of a test. Even in highly publicized cases, there are almost many details that are known to the investigators but not released to the public and these can be used as stimuli to test the subject for knowledge that he would have no way to know except by committing the crime. Brain Fingerprinting does not detect lies. It simply detects information. No questions are asked or answered during a Brain Fingerprinting test. The subject neither lies nor tells the truth during a Brain Fingerprinting test, and the outcome of the test is unaffected by whether he has lied or told the truth at any other time. The outcome of â€Å"information present† or â€Å"information absent† depends on whether the relevant information is stored in the brain, and not on what the subject says about it. Brain Fingerprinting does not determine whether a suspect is guilty or innocent of a crime. This is a legal determination to be made by a judge or jury, not a scientific determination to be made by a computer or a scientist. Brain Fingerprinting can provide scientific evidence that the judge and jury can weigh along with the other evidence in reaching their decisions regarding the crime. CONCLUSIONS Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new scientific technology for solving crimes, identifying perpetrators, and exonerating innocent suspects, with a record of 100% accuracy in research with US government agencies, actual criminal cases, and other applications. The technology fulfills an urgent need for governments, law enforcement agencies, corporations, investigators, crime victims, and falsely accused innocent suspects. Additionally, if research determines that brain MERMER testing is reliable enough that it could be introduced as evidence in the court; it may be the criminal investigative tool of the future. REFERENCES [1]www. google. com[->2]. [2]www. brainfingerprint. org[->3]. [3]www. brainfingerprint. pbwiki. com[->4]. [->0] – http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/File:BrainFingerprintingFarwellHarringtonTest2. jpg [->1] – http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/File:BrainFingerprintingFarwellGrinder. jpg [->2] – http://www. google. com [->3] – http://www. brainfingerprint. org [->4] – http://www. brainfingerprint. pbwiki. com