Brain Fingerprinting is a controversial forensic science technique that uses ele ctroencephalography (EEG) to determine whether specific information

is stored in a subject's brain. It does this by measuring electrical brainwave responses to words, phrases, or pictures that are presented on a computer screen (Farwell & S mith 2001, Farwell, Richardson, and Richardson 2012). Contents 1 History 2 Technique 3 Background and terminology 4 Current uses and research 5 Use in criminal investigation 6 Limitations of brain fingerprinting 7 Future applications and research 8 See also 9 References 10 External links History Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that the br ain processes known and relevant information differently from the way it process es unknown or irrelevant information (Farwell & Donchin 1991). The brain's proce ssing of known information, such as the details of a crime stored in the brain, is revealed by a specific pattern in the EEG (electroencephalograph) (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell 1994). Farwell's brain fingerprinting originally used the we ll-known P300 brain response to detect the brain's recognition of the known info rmation (Farwell & Donchin 1986, 1991; Farwell 1995a). Later Farwell discovered the P300-MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalograph ic Response"), which includes the P300 and additional features and is reported t o provide a higher level of accuracy and statistical confidence than the P300 al one (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell 1994, Farwell 1995b, Farwell et al. 2012). In peer-reviewed publications Farwell and colleagues report less than 1% error rat e in laboratory research (Farwell & Donchin 1991, Farwell & Richardson 2006) and real-life field applications (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell et al. 2012). In in dependent research William Iacono and others who followed identical or similar s cientific protocols to Farwell's have reported a similar low level of error rate and high statistical confidence (e.g., Allen & Iacono 1997). To ensure accuracy and statistical confidence, brain fingerprinting tests are co nducted according to specific scientific standards, which are specified in Farwe ll 2012 and Farwell et al. 2012). Brain fingerprinting has been applied in a number of high-profile criminal cases , including helping to catch serial killer JB Grinder (Dalbey 1999) and to exone rate innocent convict Terry Harrington after he had been falsely convicted of mu rder (Harrington v. State 2001). Brain fingerprinting has been ruled admissible in court (Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell & Makeig 2005, Farwell 2012). Brain fingerprinting technique has been criticized on a number of fronts (Fox 20 06b, Abdollah 2003). Although independent scientists who have used the same or s imilar methods as Farwell's brain fingerprinting have achieved similar, highly a ccurate results (Allen & Iacono 1997; see also Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell 2012), different methods have yielded different results. J. Peter Rosenfeld use d P300-based tests incorporating fundamentally different methods, resulting in a s low as chance accuracy (Rosenfeld et al. 2004) as well as susceptibility to co untermeasures, and criticized brain fingerprinting based on the premise that the shortcomings of his alternative technique should generalize to all other techni ques in which the P300 is among the brain responses measured, including brain fi ngerprinting.

Technique The technique uses the well-known fact that an electrical signal known as P300 i s emitted from an individual's brain beginning approximately 300 milliseconds af ter it is confronted with a stimulus of special significance, e.g. a rare vs. a common stimulus or a stimulus the subject is asked to count (see P300, Gaillard and Ritter 1983, and Picton 1988 for a comprehensive discussion of this effect). The application of this in brain fingerprinting is to detect the P300 as a resp onse to stimuli related to the crime or other investigated situation, e.g., a mu rder weapon, victim's face, or knowledge of the internal workings of a terrorist cell (Farwell 1992a, Farwell & Donchin 1991, Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012). Because it is based on EEG signals, the system does not require the subject to issue verbal responses to questions or stimuli. The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that me asure the EEG from several locations on the scalp. The subject views stimuli con sisting of words, phrases, or pictures presented on a computer screen. Stimuli a re of three types: 1) "irrelevant" stimuli that are irrelevant to the investigat ed situation and to the test subject, 2) "target" stimuli that are relevant to t he investigated situation and are known to the subject, and 3) "probe" stimuli t hat are relevant to the investigated situation and that the subject denies knowi ng. Probes contain information that is known only to the perpetrator and investi gators, and not to the general public or to an innocent suspect who was not at t he scene of the crime. Before the test, the scientist identifies the targets to the subject, and makes sure that he/she knows these relevant stimuli. The scient ist also makes sure that the subject does not know the probes for any reason unr elated to the crime, and that the subject denies knowing the probes. The subject is told why the probes are significant (e.g., "You will see several items, one of which is the murder weapon"), but is not told which items are the probes and which are irrelevant (Farwell 1994, Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012). Since brain fingerprinting uses cognitive brain responses, brain fingerprinting does not depend on the emotions of the subject, nor is it affected by emotional responses (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell 1992a, 1995a, Farwell 2012). Brain fing erprinting is fundamentally different from the polygraph (lie-detector), which m easures emotion-based physiological signals such as heart rate, sweating, and bl ood pressure (Farwell 1994). Also, unlike polygraph testing, it does not attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying or telling the truth. Rather, it measures the subject's brain response to relevant words, phrases, or pictures to detect whether or not the relevant information is stored in the subject's br ain (Farwell & Smith 2001, Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell 2012). By comparing the responses to the different types of stimuli, the brain fingerpr inting system mathematically computes a determination of "information present" ( the subject knows the crime-relevant information contained in the probe stimuli) or "information absent" (the subject does not know the information) and a stati stical confidence for the determination. This determination is mathematically co mputed, and does not involve the subjective judgment of the scientist (Farwell e t al. 2012). Background and terminology "Brain fingerprinting" is a computer-based test that is designed to discover, do cument, and provide evidence of guilty knowledge regarding crimes, and to identi fy individuals with a specific training or expertise such as members of dormant terrorist cells or bomb makers. It has also been used to evaluate brain function ing as a means of early detection of Alzheimer's and other cognitively degenerat ive diseases, and to evaluate the effectiveness of advertising by measuring brai n responses. The technique is described in Dr. Farwell's paper "Using Brain MERMER Testing to

Detect Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal", published in the Journa l of Forensic Sciences in 2001 by Dr. Farwell and FBI Supervisory Special Agent Sharon Smith of the FBI (Farwell & Smith 2001), and in other peer-reviewed publi cations. For a review, see Farwell 2012; see also Farwell et al. 2012. These papers describe tests of brain fingerprinting, a technology based on EEG t hat is purported to be able to detect the existence of prior knowledge or memory in the brain. The P300 occurs when the tested subject is presented with a rarel y occurring stimulus that is significant in context (for example, in the context of a crime) (Gaillard & Ritter 1983, Farwell & Donchin 1991). When an irrelevan t stimulus is presented, a P300 is not expected to occur (Picton 1988, Farwell & Donchin 1991, Farwell & Smith 2001). The P300 is widely known in the scientific community, and is also known as an oddball-evoked P300 (see Harrington v. State 2001 and P300). While researching the P300, Dr. Farwell created a more detailed test that not on ly includes the P300, but also observes the stimulus response up to 1400 millise conds after the stimulus. He calls this brain response a P300-MERMER, memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response. The P300, an el ectrically positive component, is maximal at the midline parietal area of the he ad and has a peak latency of approximately 300 to 800 milliseconds. The P300-MER MER includes the P300 and also includes an electrically negative component, with an onset latency of approximately 800-1200ms (Farwell 1994, Farwell & Smith 200 1, Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012). According to Dr. Farwell, the P300-MERMER includes additional features involving changes in the frequency of the EEG sign al, but for the purposes of signal detection and practical application the P300MERMER is sufficiently characterized by the P300 and the following negative comp onent in the brain response (Farwell 1994, Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012). Current uses and research Brain Fingerprinting has two primary applications: 1) detecting the record of a specific crime, terrorist act, or incident stored in the brain (Farwell & Smith 2001, Dalbey 1999, Farwell et al. 2012), and 2) detecting a specific type of kno wledge, expertise, or training, such as knowledge specific to FBI agents, Al-Qae da -trained terrorists, or bomb makers (Farwell 1992b, Farwell 1993, Farwell et al. 2012). For a review, see Farwell 2012. The seminal paper by Dr. Farwell and Emmanuel Donchin (Farwell & Donchin 1991) r eported successful application of the technique in detecting knowledge of both l aboratory mock crimes and real-life events, with no false positives and no false negatives. In a study with the FBI, Dr. Farwell and FBI scientist Drew Richardson, former c hief of the FBI's chem-bio-nuclear counterterrorism unit, used brain fingerprint ing to show that test subjects from specific groups could be identified by detec ting specific knowledge which would only be known to members of those groups (Fa rwell et al. 2012). A group of 17 FBI agents and 4 non-agents were exposed to st imuli (words, phrases, and acronyms) that were flashed on a computer screen. The probe (situation-relevant) stimuli contained information that would be common k nowledge only to someone with FBI training. Brain fingerprinting correctly disti nguished the FBI agents from the non-agents. The CIA has also funded Farwell's research (Dale 2001). In a study funded by the CIA, Farwell and colleagues (Farwell et al. 2006) used brain fingerprinting to detect which individuals had US Navy military medical training. All 30 subjects were correctly determined to have or not to have the specific information regard ing military medicine stored in their brains. In another CIA-funded study, brain fingerprinting correctly detected which individuals had participated in specifi c real-life events, some of which were crimes, based on the record stored in the ir brains. Error rate was again 0%; accuracy was 100% (Farwell et al. 2012). Dr.

Farwell collaborated with FBI scientist Sharon Smith in a further study in whic h brain fingerprinting detected real-life events that was published in the Journ al of Forensic Sciences (Farwell & Smith 2001). In another CIA-funded study, a group of subjects enacted a simulated espionage s cenario and were then tested on relevant stimuli in the form of pictorial probes . Brain fingerprinting correctly identified all individuals who were "informatio n present" and "information absent" (Farwell & Richardson 2006). Dr. Farwell's recent studies, many conducted with former FBI scientist Dr. Drew Richardson, have mostly involved detecting real-life information in field condit ions. Farwell and Richardson applied brain fingerprinting in detecting informati on regarding actual crimes with real-world judicial consequences, including mult iple murders (Farwell et al. 2012). In one study they tested brain fingerprintin g in detecting information unique to bomb makers (experts in improvised explosiv e devices, IEDs), for application in national security and counterterrorism. Err or rate was 0%; that is, 100% of subjects in these studies were correctly detect ed (Farwell et al. 2012). Dr. Farwell has also offered a $100,000 reward for bea ting a brain fingerprinting field test(KOMO News 2008). To date, no one has ever succeeded in doing so (Farwell et al. 2012). Use in criminal investigation Dr. Lawrence Farwell conducts a Brain Fingerprinting test on Terry Harrington. Dr. Lawrence Farwell conducts a Brain Fingerprinting test on serial killer JB Gr inder. Farwell's brain fingerprinting has been ruled admissible in court in the reversa l of the murder conviction of Terry Harrington (Harrington v. State 2001, Farwel l & Makeig 2005). Following a hearing on post-conviction relief on November 14, 2000, an Iowa District Court stated that the fundamental science involved in Dr. Farwell's brain fingerprinting P300 test was well established in the scientific community. For a range of reasons, however, the court dismissed the defendant's petition for a new trial. In order to be ruled admissible under the prevailing Daubert standard establishe d by the US Supreme Court, the District Court required proof that brain fingerpr inting 1) has been tested and proven, 2) has been peer reviewed and published, 3 ) produces a known (and low) error rate and is systematically applied, and 4) is well accepted in the relevant scientific community. In ruling the brain fingerp rinting test admissible as scientific evidence, the Court stated the following: "In the spring of 2000, Harrington was given a test by Dr. Lawrence Farwell. The test is based on a 'P300 effect'." "The P-300 effect has been recognized for nearly twenty years." "The P-300 effect has been subject to testing and peer review in the scientific community." "The consensus in the community of psycho-physiologists is that the P300 effect is valid." "The evidence resulting from Harrington's brain fingerprinting test was discovered after the fact. It is newly discovered." (Harrington v. State 2001) As the Iowa District Court clearly stated, the results of the brain fingerprinti ng test on Harrington constituted "evidence" that the court admitted. Dr. Farwel

l's testimony as an expert witness and the testimony of the other two expert wit nesses in the case also were admitted as evidence. The Iowa court admitted the b rain fingerprinting evidence and Dr. Farwell's testimony on it under the Daubert standard. Several authors of law articles have examined the admissibility of brain fingerp rinting evidence in the Harrington case in depth and detail, and summarized the outcome as follows. "The Judge in Harrington ruled Brain Fingerprinting admissible under Daubert aft er conducting a day-long hearing featuring three expert witnesses, each renowned in his field." (Roberts in Yale Journal of Law and Technology 2007, p. 265) "In Harrington, the court admitted Dr. Farwell's testimony on brain fingerprinti ng and stated that it satisfied the Daubert test." (Moenssens in University of M issouri-Kansas City Law Review, p. 26) "[T]he [Harrington] court admitted Brain Fingerprinting evidence based upon the P300 effect" (Erickson in Drake Law Review, p. 13) The court noted the distinction, however, between admissibility and weight. In l ight of the circumstances of a particular case, admissible evidence does not alw ays have sufficient weight to produce a verdict in favor of the side which proff ers the evidence. Although the court ruled brain fingerprinting admissible, the court ruled that the weight of the brain fingerprinting evidence and other evide nce proffered by Harrington would probably not have been sufficient to change th e verdict in the original trial. "The court determined that Brain Fingerprinting was new evidence not available a t the original trial, and that it was sufficiently reliable to merit admission o f the evidence; however, the court did not regard its weight as sufficiently com pelling in light of the record as a whole as meeting its exacting standard, and thus it denied a new trial on this and the other grounds asserted by Harrington. "(Farwell and Makeig in Open Court, p. 9) The court ruled in Harrington's favor on two major issues, but nevertheless deni ed him a new trial. The court ruled brain fingerprinting and the testimony of th e expert witnesses on it were admissible, and also admitted the recantation test imony of the only alleged witness to the crime, yet nevertheless denied Harringt on's petition for a new trial. Regarding this rather complicated ruling, one com mentator opined that "[t]he Harrington court avoided a clear ruling on admissibi lity" (Denno 2002) of the test. Harrington appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed t he trial court and granted Harrington a new trial. (Harrington v. State 2003, p. 516) The supreme court did not reach the brain fingerprinting issue, and decide d the case on other grounds. "Because the scientific testing evidence is not nec essary to a resolution of this appeal, we give it no further consideration." (Ha rrington v. State 2003, p. 516) Although the Iowa Supreme Court did not rule on brain fingerprinting, they allow ed the law of the case established by the district court to stand, implicitly in cluding the district court's finding regarding the "newly discovered" "evidence" "resulting from Harrington's Brain Fingerprinting test." (Harrington v. State 2 003) Due to a constitutional rights violation, specifically a Brady violation, by the State of Iowa in the original trial, the Iowa Supreme Court awarded Harrington a new trial. The only alleged witness to the crime, Kevin Hughes, recanted when Dr. Farwell confronted him with the "information absent" results of the brain fi

ngerprinting test on Harrington. Without its star witness, the state subsequentl y dismissed the murder prosecution without prejudice for lack of evidence due to witness recantations and the passage of time. The State of Iowa had argued unsuccessfully in trial court that the brain finger printing results should not be considered admissible "evidence," whether "newly discovered" or not (Harrington v. State 2001). After the Supreme Court reversed Harrington's conviction and granted him a new trial, the Iowa Attorney General's Office issued a press release restating this position, and also restating the f act that the Iowa Supreme Court did not rule on brain fingerprinting. "With one Justice dissenting, the Supreme Court reversed Harrington's conviction on the ground that the failure to disclose police reports denied defendant a fa ir trial. The Court ruled that withholding the reports compromised Harrington's defense at trial that he was not the person who shot Mr. Schweer." "The Court also declined to rule on the admissibility or credibility of the "bra in fingerprinting" evidence offered by Harrington. In its brief and argument to the Court, the State argued that brain fingerprinting is "junk science" that has no track record establishing its reliability. The State argued that the techniq ue has been tested in the lab with fewer than 200 persons and has been used in t he field in only a handful of cases. The State argued the technique should be tr eated similarly to lie-detector tests, which are inadmissible in Iowa and most o ther states. The Iowa Supreme Court did not determine the reliability of brain f ingerprinting and did not rule on the admissibility of brain fingerprinting in I owa courts." (Press release by Iowa Attorney General's Office) In his recantation, Hughes stated under oath under questioning by Farwell that t he detectives and prosecutors had told him he would go to prison for life if he didnt implicate Harrington. He stated that when he agreed to falsely accuse Harri ngton of the murder, they coached him in fabricating the story to which he later testified in the trial. He stated that when he said something that contradicted known facts such as identifying the wrong murder weapon they corrected him, and he changed his story accordingly. (Harrington v. State 2001) Harrington sued the prosecutors and the State of Iowa for framing him. The prose cutors and the State of Iowa did not deny the accusations brought by Hughes and Harrington. Their defense was that they enjoyed absolute immunity due to their p rofessional positions. The US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on the issue , as TIME magazine put it, of "When Is It Legal to Frame a Man for Murder?" (TIME Ma gazine article on Harrington) (TIME 2009). Before the Supreme Court heard the ca se, however, the State of Iowa settled with Harrington and another man falsely c onvicted of the same crime. The state paid them a $12 million settlement (L A Ti mes 2010). Brain Fingerprinting testing was also "instrumental in obtaining a confession an d guilty plea" from serial killer James B. Grinder, according to Sheriff Robert Dawson of Macon County, Missouri. In August 1999 Dr. Farwell conducted a brain f ingerprinting test on Grinder, showing that information stored in his brain matc hed the details of the murder of Julie Helton (Dalbey 1999). Faced with a certai n 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 t hree other women. Limitations of brain fingerprinting Both the strengths and limitations of brain fingerprinting are documented in det ail in the expert witness testimony of Dr. Farwell and two other expert witnesse s in the Harrington case (Harrington v. State 2001) as well as in Farwell's publ ications and patents (e.g., Farwell 1994, Farwell 1995a, b, Farwell & Smith 2001

, Farwell 2012). The limitations of brain fingerprinting described below are als o summarized in PBS 2004, PBS Innovation Series "Brain Fingerprinting: Ask the E xperts". Brain fingerprinting detects information-processing brain responses that reveal what information is stored in the subject's brain. It does not detect how that i nformation got there. This fact has implications for how and when the technique can be applied. In a case where a suspect claims not to have been at the crime s cene and has no legitimate reason for knowing the details of the crime, and inve stigators have information that has not been released to the public, brain finge rprinting can determine objectively whether or not the subject possesses that in formation. In such a case, brain fingerprinting could provide useful evidence. 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 sev eral circumstances in which this may be the case. If a suspect acknowledges bein g at the scene of the crime, but claims to be a witness and not a perpetrator, t hen the fact that he knows details about the crime would not be incriminating. T here would be no reason to conduct a test, because the resulting "information pr esent" response would simply show that the suspect knew the details about the cr ime knowledge which he already admits and which he gained at the crime scene whe ther 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 de tails of what was said and done, but disagree on the intent of the parties. Brai n fingerprinting detects only information, and not intent. The fact that the sus pect knows the uncontested facts of the circumstance does not tell us which part y's version of the intent is correct. In a case where the suspect knows everything that the investigators know because he has been exposed to all available information in a previous trial, there is no available information with which to construct probe stimuli, so a test cannot be conducted. Even in a case where the suspect knows many of the details about the crime, however, it is sometimes possible to discover salient information tha t the perpetrator must have encountered in the course of committing the crime, b ut the suspect claims not to know and would not know if he were innocent. This w as the case with Terry Harrington (Harrington v. State 2001). By examining repor ts, interviewing witnesses, and visiting the crime scene and surrounding areas, Dr. Farwell was able to discover salient features of the crime that Harrington h ad never been exposed to at his previous trials. The brain fingerprinting test s howed that the record in Harrington's brain did not contain these salient featur es of the crime, but only the details about the crime that he had learned after the fact. Obviously, in structuring a brain fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoid in cluding information that has been made public. Detecting that a suspect knows in formation he obtained by reading a newspaper would not be of use in a criminal i nvestigation, and standard brain fingerprinting procedures eliminate all such in formation from the structuring of a test (Farwell 1995a, Harrington v. State 200 1, Farwell 2012). News accounts containing many of the details of a crime do not interfere with the development of a brain fingerprinting test, however; they si mply limit the material that can be tested. Even in highly publicized cases, the re are almost always many details that are known to the investigators but not re leased to the public (Farwell 2012), and these can be used as stimuli to test th e subject for knowledge that he would have no way to know except by committing t he crime. Another situation where brain fingerprinting is not applicable is one where the authorities have no information about what crime may have taken place. For examp

le, an individual may disappear under circumstances where a specific suspect had a strong motive to murder the individual. Without any evidence, authorities do not know whether a murder took place, or the individual decided to take a trip a nd tell no one, or some other criminal or non-criminal event happened. If there is no known information on which a suspect could be tested, a brain fingerprinti ng test cannot be structured. Similarly, brain fingerprinting is not applicable for general screening, for exa mple, in general pre-employment or employee screening wherein any number of unde sirable activities or intentions may be relevant. If the investigators have no i dea what crime or undesirable act the individual may have committed, there is no way to structure appropriate stimuli to detect the telltale knowledge that woul d result from committing the crime. Brain fingerprinting can, however, be used f or specific screening or focused screening, when investigators have some idea wh at they are looking for. For example, brain fingerprinting can be used to detect whether a person has knowledge that would identify him as an FBI agent, an Al-Q aeda-trained terrorist, a member of a criminal organization or terrorist cell, o r a bomb maker (Farwell et al. 2006). Brain fingerprinting does not detect lies. It simply detects information. No que stions are asked or answered during a brain fingerprinting test. The subject nei ther lies nor tells the truth during a brain fingerprinting test, and the outcom e of the test is unaffected by whether he has lied or told the truth at any othe r time. The outcome of "information present" or "information absent" depends on whether the relevant information is stored in the brain, and not on what the sub ject says about it (Farwell 1994, PBS 2004, Farwell 2012). 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 and jury, not a scientific determination to be made by a computer or a scientist (Farwell 1994, PBS 2004, Farwell 2012). Brain fingerprinting can provide scientific evidence th at the judge and jury can weigh along with the other evidence in reaching their decisions regarding the crime. To remain within the realm of scientific testimon y, however, a brain fingerprinting expert witness must testify only regarding th e scientific test and information stored in the brain revealed by the test, as D r. Farwell did in the Harrington case (Harrington v. State 2001). Like the testi mony of other forensic scientists, a brain fingerprinting scientist's testimony does not include interpreting the scientific evidence in terms of guilt or innoc ence. A DNA expert may testify that two DNA samples match, one from the crime sc ene and one from the suspect, but he does not conclude "this man is a murderer." Similarly, a brain fingerprinting expert can testify to the outcome of the test that the subject has specific information stored in his brain about the crime ( or not), but the interpretation of this evidence in terms of guilt or innocence is solely up to the judge and jury (Harrington v. State 2001, PBS 2004). Just as all witness testimony depends on the memory of the witness, brain finger printing depends on the memory of the subject. Like all witness testimony, brain fingerprinting results must be viewed in light of the limitations on human memo ry and the factors affecting it (Harrington v. State 2001, PBS 2004). Brain fing erprinting can provide scientific evidence regarding what information is stored in a subject's brain. It does not determine what information should be, could be , or would be stored in the subject's brain if the subject were innocent or guil ty. It only measures what actually is stored in the brain (Farwell 2012). How th is evidence is interpreted, and what conclusions are drawn based on it, is outsi de the realm of the science and the scientist. This is up to the judge and jury. It is up to the prosecutor and the defense attorney to argue, and the judge and jury to decide, the significance and weight of the brain fingerprinting evidenc e in making a determination of whether or not the subject committed the crime. Like all forensic science techniques, brain fingerprinting depends on the eviden

ce-gathering process which lies outside the realm of science to provide the evid ence to be scientifically tested. Before a brain fingerprinting test can be cond ucted, an investigator must discover relevant information about the crime or inv estigated situation. This investigative process, in which the investigator gathe rs the information to be tested from the crime scene or other sources related to the crime, depends on the skill and judgment of the investigator. This process is outside the scientific process; it precedes the scientific process of brain f ingerprinting. This investigative process produces the probe stimuli to be teste d. Brain fingerprinting science only determines whether the information tested i s stored in the brain of the subject or not. It does not provide scientific data on the effectiveness of the investigation that produced the information about t he crime that was tested. In this regard, brain fingerprinting is similar to oth er forensic sciences. A DNA test determines only whether two DNA samples match, it does not determine whether the investigator did an effective job of collectin g DNA from the crime scene. Similarly, a brain fingerprinting test determines on ly whether or not the information stored in the suspect's brain matches the info rmation contained in the probe stimuli. This is information that the investigato r provided to the scientist to test scientifically, based on the investigative p rocess that is outside the realm of science. In making their determination about the crime and the suspect's possible role in it, the judge and jury must take i nto account not only the scientific determination of "information present" or "i nformation absent" provided by the brain fingerprinting test; they must also mak e common-sense, human, non-scientific judgments regarding the information gather ed by the investigator and to what degree knowledge or lack of knowledge of that information sheds light on the suspect's possible role in the crime (Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell1995a, Farwell 2012). Brain fingerprinting is not a subst itute for effective investigation on the part of the investigator or for common sense and good judgment on the part of the judge and jury (PBS 2004). A report by the United States General Accounting Office (now called Government A ccountability Office) in 2001 reported that the scientists it interviewed (inclu ding Farwell, Iacono, Richardson, Rosenfeld, Smith, Donchin, and others) all had expressed a need for more research to investigate brain fingerprinting's applic ation as forensic science tool. (Initial Pre-911 GAO Report While they were unan imous in their support of more scientific research, scientists and others expres sed widely varying views on the social policy question of whether brain fingerpr inting should continue to be applied to bring criminals and terrorists to justic e and to free innocent suspects while this research continues. The initial GAO report was completed before the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. At that time, the primary interest of federal agencies in detection methods was for employee screening, rather than detecting terrorists. (As discussed above, b rain fingerprinting is not applicable in general employee screening.) The initia l, pre-911 GAO report stated that most of the individuals in various federal age ncies interviewed at that time did not see brain fingerprinting playing a major role in their then-current operations. The report did not examine the science of brain fingerprinting; the published research at the FBI, the CIA, the US Navy, and elsewhere; the successful application of brain fingerprinting in criminal ca ses; or the success of brain fingerprinting in being ruled admissible in court. Since it was produced before the attacks of 9/11/2001, this initial report did n ot examine the application of brain fingerprinting in national security in the p ost-911 world. It did not discuss the application of brain fingerprinting in pre sent-day criminal investigations and law enforcement. Consequently, Senator Charles Grassley, who commissioned the initial report, has asked the GAO produce a new report that examines the value of brain fingerprint ing in counterterrorism and criminal investigations in the post-911 world in lig ht of published scientific research on the application of the technique in the l aboratory and the field (Fox 2006a).

The initial GAO report was entitled "Federal Agency Views on the Potential Appli cation of Brain Fingerprinting." (Initial Pre-911 GAO Report). It was essentially a sampling of opinions of individuals associated with the polygraph in the feder al government prior to 9-11. (It was completed before 9-11-2001 and issued short ly thereafter.) It reported that most such individuals did not see the need for brain fingerprinting in their pre-911 operations over a decade ago. Individuals interviewed noted that their primary interest was general screening applications such as applicant screening and periodic employee screening, where the interrogator does not know what information he is seeking. Some individuals interviewed noted that they were satisfied with the performance of the polygraph for this purpose. Since brain fingerprinting detects information stored in the brain, not lies or deception, it is only applicable when the investigators have some idea what information they are looking for. For example, brain fingerprinti ng can detect the details of a specific crime stored in the brain, or the detail s of knowledge unique to FBI agents, or bomb makers, or Al-Qaeda-trained terrori sts, or members of a particular terrorist cell. It is not applicable, however, i n general screening situations, where the investigator has no idea what specific activities or crimes a person may have committed or what specific information i s being sought. Before 9-11, the primary requirement for federal agencies was a general screening tool. The individuals interviewed by the GAO noted, correctly, that brain fingerprinting is not such a tool. Therefore, most of the individual s interviewed generally did not see brain fingerprinting as being useful for the ir primary purposes under the prevailing conditions prior to 9/11/2001. Notable exceptions to this opinion were the only two FBI scientists who had actu ally conducted scientific research on brain fingerprinting and/or participated i n its successful application in solving crimes, Dr. Drew Richardson and Dr. Shar on Smith. They both expressed the opinion that brain fingerprinting was highly v aluable in FBI investigations. Reflecting the views of most of those interviewed over a decade ago, before 9-11 , the report stated: "Officials representing CIA, DOD, Secret Service, and FBI do not foresee using t he brain fingerprinting technique for their operations because of its limited ap plication. For example, CIA and DOD officials indicated that their counterintell igence operations and criminal investigations do not usually lend themselves to a technique such as brain fingerprinting because use of the technique requires a unique level of detail and information that would be known only to the perpetra tor and the investigators. These officials indicated that they need a tool to sc reen current and prospective employees, which as indicated above, involves quest ioning a subject about events unknown to the investigator. Further, a Secret Ser vice official indicated that the agency has had a high success rate with the pol ygraph as an interrogative and screening tool and therefore saw limited use for brain fingerprinting." The report noted, however, that the US government scientists interviewed who had conducted research on brain fingerprinting were convinced that it would be usef ul in FBI investigations. The report did not include an account of the scientific research on brain finger printing or its successful use in court. The report did not discuss the value of brain fingerprinting for other applications other than general screening, for w hich it does not apply as discussed above. The GAO did not evaluate or opine on the effectiveness, accuracy, or validity of brain fingerprinting. The report sta ted: "we did not independently assess the hardware, software, or other components of t he technology nor did we attempt to determine independently whether brain finger

printing is a valid technique." The report concluded that in general the federal officials involved with the pol ygraph who were interviewed did not see an immediate application for brain finge rprinting in their general screening operations before 9-11. Specific quotations to this effect follow. Federal Agencies - "CIA, DOD, FBI, and Secret Service do not foresee using the B rain Fingerprinting technique for their operations because of its limited applic ation." DOD - "Overall, DOD officials indicated that Brain Fingerprinting has limited ap plicability to DOD's operations" CIA - "From their experiences with the developer's research between 1991 and 199 3, CIA officials concluded that Brain Fingerprinting had limited applicability t o CIA's operations. Accordingly, CIA decided that it was not worth investing mor e funds to continue the developer's research." Secret Services - "The Service su bsequently concluded that the technique had limited application to Secret Servic e activities." Signed Letter from John E, Collingwood, Assistant Director, Office of Public and Congressional Affairs, to Mr Paul Jones, Director Justice Issues, Washington. T he letter states (as quoted) - " In conclusion, the report fairly reflects the F BI's belief that this technique has limited applicability and usefulness to FBI investigative and personnel security matters. The FBI continues to support the v iew that this technique has limited utility. We also think it is important to po int out that the rest of the federal community shares the FBI's view the Dr. Far well's "Brain Fingerprinting" has very limited applicability and usefulness." Signed Letter from Jack L Johnson, Jr, Special Agent in Charge, to Mr Paul Jones , Director Justice Issues, Washington. The letter states (as quoted) - " Dr Cant u has recently briefed me on this technology and the underlying scientific princ ipals [sic], which purportedly support its accuracy and validity. Following this briefing, and a review of the information related to this technique, I must con cur completely with the opinion of Dr Cantu. The "Brain Fingerprinting Technique " has very little applicability to the overall Secret Service mission, and is a technology that has not been completely validated as of this time." The initial GAO report constituted a reasonably accurate opinion poll of federal employees involved with the polygraph over a decade ago, before 9/11, in a much different world. Note, however, that even at that time the FBI scientists who h ad relevant expertise and had actually conducted research on brain fingerprintin g and used it successfully in field cases expressed the opinion that brain finge rprinting was valuable for FBI investigations. In any case, the opinions of nonexpert federal employees over a decade ago are not relevant to the current appli cability, validity, value, accuracy, or scientific merit of brain fingerprinting , or to its value in present-day national security and law enforcement operation s. Consequently Senator Grassley, who commissioned the original GAO report, has ask ed the GAO to develop a new report. He asked the GAO to discuss the potential ap plications of brain fingerprinting in criminal investigations and counterterrori sm in the post-911 world. He also asked the GAO to include the views of experts well versed in brain fingerprinting and P300-MERMER technology, and to include t he successful brain fingerprinting research at the FBI, CIA, and US Navy. Future applications and research After Dr. Farwell invented Brain Fingerprinting, he withheld it from the public for 15 years while he, his colleagues, and other, independent scientists tested

it in the laboratory and in the field (Farwell 2012, ABC Good Morning America 20 04). Farwell's decision to apply this science in real-life situations has been c ontroversial (Dale 2001). In the years since Dr. Farwell first began applying th e technology in the real world, proponents, including other scientists who have successfully applied the technique such as FBI scientist Drew Richardson, and th ose who have been freed or otherwise helped by brain fingerprinting, have advoca ted continuing and expanded application of the technology in the real world (ABC Good Morning America 2004, CBS 60 Minutes 2000). Critics, including some scient ists, and those whose criminal activities have been thwarted by brain fingerprin ting have advocated further delay in applying the technique (Fox 2006b, Abdollah 2003, Rosenfeld 2005, KTVO-TV 1999). According to sworn testimony by Dr. William Iacono, an independent expert unaffi liated with Dr. Farwell who has conducted extensive research in the area, the sc ience underlying brain fingerprinting has been published in hundreds, perhaps th ousands, of articles in the scientific literature, and the specific application of this science in detecting information has been published in about 50 studies (Harrington v. State 2001). (For more information on the science and its accepta nce in the scientific community, see P300.) Although the science is well establi shed, opinions among scientists and others on the social policy question of how and when this science should be applied vary widely (Fox 2006b, Abdollah 2003). Dr. Farwell's decision to apply this science in bringing criminals to justice (D albey 1999) and freeing innocent suspects (Harrington v. State 2001) is controve rsial (Fox 2006b, Abdollah 2003, Dale 2001, ABC Good Morning America 2004, CBS 6 0 Minutes 2000). Various other attempts to apply this science in the detection o f concealed information have varied in accuracy and efficacy, depending on the s cientific procedures used (Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell 2012). Farwell and colleagues (e.g. Farwell & Smith 2001) as well as other, independent scientists who have precisely replicated Farwell's research or used similar met hods (e.g., Iacono and colleagues, Allen & Iacono 1997), have consistently obtai ned error rates of less than 1% in both laboratory and field conditions (Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012). Different scientific methods, however, have yielded different results. In P300-b ased tests using different experimental methods, different brain responses, diff erent stimulus types, different data collection methods, different analysis meth ods, and different statistics from those used in Farwell's brain fingerprinting, Rosenfeld reported accuracy rates close to those obtained by chance, even witho ut countermeasures (Rosenfeld et al. 2004). Moreover, Rosenfeld's alternative te chnique proved susceptible to countermeasures (Rosenfeld et al. 2004). (For scie ntific and methodological differences between Farwell's brain fingerprinting and Rosenfeld's alternative technique, see Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell 2012, and Farwell et al. 2012.) Controversy has arisen over the best explanation for the fact that Farwell and o thers who use similar scientific methods have consistently achieved less than 1% error rate (or in fact 0% error rate) (Farwell 2012) and high statistical confi dences (Farwell et al. 2012), while Rosenfeld's alternative method yielded more than ten times higher error rate, sometimes as low as chance (Rosenfeld et al. 2 004), as well as statistical confidences averaging chance (50%) for subjects lac king the relevant knowledge tested. Farwell, FBI scientists Drew Richardson and Sharon Smith, and other brain finger printing experts claim that one cannot necessarily expect to obtain the same acc uracy as brain fingerprinting without following standard brain fingerprinting sc ientific protocols or similar methods, that Rosenfeld's failure to achieve accur acy rates comparable to those of brain fingerprinting is the result of the subst antial differences in scientific methodology between his alternative technique a nd brain fingerprinting, and therefore the fact that Rosenfeld's alternative tec

hnique is admittedly inaccurate and susceptible to countermeasures (Rosenfeld et al. 2004) is no reflection on brain fingerprinting (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwe ll 2012, Farwell et al. 2012). Proponents advocate continuing the use of brain fingerprinting to bring criminal s and terrorists to justice and to free innocent suspects, while at the same tim e more research is continuing. Dr. Farwell and former FBI scientist Dr. Drew Ric hardson are among the scientists who advocate continuing the use of brain finger printing in criminal investigations and counterterrorism, without delay, as well as ongoing research on the technology (Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012). Dr. Farwell was interviewed by TIME magazine after he was selected to the TIME 1 00: The Next Wave, the 100 innovators who may be "the Picassos or Einsteins of t he 21st Century." He said, "The fundamental task in law enforcement and espionag e and counterespionage is to determine the truth. My philosophy is that there is a tremendous cost in failing to apply the technology." (Dale 2001) Critics of brain fingerprinting claim that the inaccuracy and susceptibility to countermeasures of Rosenfeld's alternative technique also cast doubt on all P300 -based information-detection techniques, including brain fingerprinting (Rosenfe ld 2005). Critics agree with proponents that ongoing research on brain fingerpri nting is valuable and desirable (Fox 2006b, Abdollah 2003). Unlike proponents, h owever, critics advocate a discontinuation of the use of brain fingerprinting in criminal and counterterrorism cases while this research is continuing (Fox 2006 b, Abdollah 2003). Proponents of the continued use of brain fingerprinting in criminal and countert errorism cases cite the peer-reviewed research on the accuracy of brain fingerpr inting in the laboratory and the field, the fact that it has been ruled admissib le in court, the vital counterterrorism applications, and the benefits of bringi ng criminals such as serial killer JB Grinder to justice and freeing innocent co nvicts such as Terry Harrington. They emphasize the established science, the pro ven accuracy of brain fingerprinting when practiced according to standard brain fingerprinting scientific protocols, and the fact that brain fingerprinting is v oluntary and non-invasive Farwell 2012, Farwell et al. 2012. They advocate conti nuing to use brain fingerprinting in criminal investigations and counterterroris m while research on the technique continues (ABC Good Morning America 2004 ABC-T V Good Morning America: Charles Gibson interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell, CBS 60 M inutes: Mike Wallace interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell, Farwell 2012. Critics cite the inaccuracy and susceptibility to countermeasures of Rosenfeld's alternative technique, and suggest that this casts doubt on brain fingerprintin g as well (Rosenfeld 2005). They emphasize the uncertainty of applying new techn ology while it is still being researched, and advocate discontinuing the use of brain fingerprinting in criminal and counterterrorism cases until more research has been completed (Fox 2006b "Brain Fingerprinting Skepticism", Abdollah 2003 " Issues: Brain Fingerprinting"). Extensive criticism of brain fingerprinting is contained in Rosenfeld 2005. Dr. Farwell's brief response is contained in a peer-reviewed paper published in Scie ntific Review of Mental Health Practice, Farwell 2011a "Brain Fingerprinting: Co rrections to Rosenfeld". A more comprehensive version of this paper that contain s extensive documentation and references to independent sources where the facts can be verified is "Brain Fingerprinting: Comprehensive Corrections to Rosenfeld in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice" (Farwell 2011b). These issues a re reviewed in more detail, with reference to all research published to date in English, in Farwell 2012. Those personally affected by brain fingerprinting have expressed divergent views as well, particularly on the issue of delaying the application of brain fingerp

rinting in criminal cases. Terry Harrington, for whom brain fingerprinting provi ded exculpatory evidence that was ruled admissible in court (Harrington v. State 2001, Farwell & Makeig 2005), and who was subsequently released from prison aft er serving 24 years for a murder he did not commit, has advocated continuing to apply brain fingerprinting in criminal cases while the research continues (CBS 6 0 Minutes 2000). JB Grinder, whose 15-year string of serial rapes and murders was cut short after Farwell's brain fingerprinting test detected the record of the murder of Julie Helton stored in his brain, would have strongly preferred that applications of t he technique in criminal investigations be delayed indefinitely (KTVO-TV 1999). In the case of Jimmy Ray Slaughter, an Oklahoma court ruled that exculpatory evi dence from a brain fingerprinting test conducted by Dr. Farwell was "untimely" a nd had been obtained too late to be used in his appeals (Slaughter v. State). De spite the "untimely" exculpatory evidence which also included exculpatory DNA ev idence, an FBI report discrediting key forensic evidence that had been used agai nst him at trial, and the sworn testimony of the original chief investigator on his case, who became convinced that Slaughter was innocent Slaughter was execute d (Slaughter v. State). Until his execution, Slaughter strongly opposed any dela y in applying brain fingerprinting in criminal cases on the grounds that any del ay would cost more innocent lives, both of murder victims and of falsely convict ed people as he claimed to be himself who could be saved by brain fingerprinting only if it was applied soon enough (ABC Good Morning America 2004). Before Slaughter was executed, when it appeared that brain fingerprinting and ot her exculpatory evidence may have arrived in time to overturn his conviction, Fa rwell said, "When Jimmy Ray Slaughter came to me for help, he had a life expecta ncy of about 90 days. I had to say yes or no. I couldn't say 'wait'. I said yes, and I believe this was the right decision for me. If my already well-proven inv ention can save innocent lives while still more research is going on, I believe it is my responsibility as a scientist to make it available." (Witchalls 2004) Dr. Farwell told Mike Wallace in an interview on CBS 60 Minutes, "Brain Fingerpr inting is a scientific technique for determining whether certain information is stored in the brain or not by measuring brain waves, electrical brain activity. The fundamental difference between an innocent person and a guilty person is tha t a guilty person, having committed the crime, has the record stored in his brai n. Now we have a way to measure that scientifically." (CBS 60 Minutes 2000) In an interview with Charles Gibson on Good Morning America, Dr. Farwell stated, "We showed not only in the laboratory but in over 100 actual real-life situatio ns that the technology was effective. And to date we have never gotten a wrong a nswer." (ABC Good Morning America 2004) ABC-TV Good Morning America: Charles Gib son interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell See also P300 (neuroscience) References ABC-TV Good Morning America: Charles Gibson interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell "Mind-Reading Technology Tests Subject's Guilt -- Brain-Reading Technology Becom es New Tool in Courts," March 9, 2004 Abdollah, T. (2003). "Brain Fingerprinting Picture-perfect crimes," Berkeley Medical Journal Issues, Spring 2003. Accessed July 20, 2008. Allen J.J.B. and Iacono W.G. (1997). "A comparison of methods for the analys

is of event-related potentials in deception detection." Psychophysiology 34:234240. Booz Allen Hamilton (2008). "Brain Fingerprinting Technology and Indoor Trac king Solution Win the American-leg of Global Security Challenge." Accessed Janua ry 16, 2012. CBS 60 Minutes: Mike Wallace interviews Dr. Lawrence Farwell, December 10, 2 000. Dalbey, B. (1999). "Brain Fingerprinting Testing Traps Serial Killer in Miss ouri." The Fairfield Ledger. Fairfield, Iowa, August, 1999, p 1. Dale, S.S. (2001). "THE BRAIN SCIENTIST: Climbing Inside the Criminal Mind." TIME Magazine, Nov. 26, 2001, pp 80-81. Denno, Deborah (December 2002). "Crime and Consciousness: Science and Involu ntary Acts". Minnesota Law Review 87: 269389. Druckman, D. and Lacey J.I. (1989). Brain and cognition: some new technologi es. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Erickson, M. J. (2007). Daubert's Bipolar Treatment of Scientific Expert Tes timony -- From Frye's Polygraph to Farwell's Brain Fingerprinting. Drake Law Revie w 55, 763-812. Farwell L.A. (1992a). "The brain-wave information detection (BID) system: a new paradigm for psychophysiological detection of information" (unpublished doct oral dissertation). Urbana-Champaign (IL): University of Illinois. Farwell, L.A. (1992b). "Two new twists on the truth detector: brain-wave det ection of occupational information." Psychophysiology 29(4A):S3. Farwell L.A. (1993). "Brain MERMERs: detection of FBI Agents and crime-relev ant information with the Farwell MERA system." Proceedings of the International Security Systems Symposium, Washington, D.C. Farwell, L.A. (1994) "Method and Apparatus for Multifaceted Electroencephalo graphic Response Analysis (MERA)," U.S. Patent #5,363,858, Nov. 15, 1994 Farwell, L.A. (1995a) "Method and Apparatus for Truth Detection," U.S. Paten t #5,406,956, April 18, 1995. Farwell, L.A. (1995b) "Method for Electroencephalographic Information Detect ion," U.S. Patent #5,467,777, Nov. 21, 1995. Farwell L.A. (2011a). Brain fingerprinting: Corrections to Rosenfeld. Scient ific Review of Mental Health Practice, 8(2), 56-68. Available at "Brain Fingerpr inting: Corrections to Rosenfeld in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice" Accessed July 2, 2011. Farwell, L.A. (2011b). Brain fingerprinting: Comprehensive Corrections to Ro senfeld in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. Seattle: Excalibur Scien tific Press. Available at Brain Fingerprinting: Comprehensive Corrections to Ros enfeld in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice Accessed July 2, 2011. Farwell L.A. (2012). "Brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials,". DOI 10.1007/s11571-012-9192-2 Cognitive Neurodynamics 6: 11554. Farwell, L.A. and Donchin E. (1986). "The brain detector: P300 in the detect

ion of deception." Psychophysiology 24:434. Farwell, L.A. and Donchin, E. (1991). "The Truth Will Out: Interrogative Pol ygraphy ("Lie Detection") With Event-Related Brain Potentials." Psychophysiology , 28:531-547. Farwell, L.A. and Makeig, T. (2005). "Farwell Brain Fingerprinting in the ca se of Harrington v. State." Open Court X,3:7-10, Indiana State Bar Assoc. Availa ble at: [1] Farwell and Makeig on Brain Fingerprinting in Harrington v. State in Open Court. Farwell, L.A. and Richardson, D.C. (2006a). "Brain Fingerprinting in Field C onditions," Psychophysiology, 43:5 S37-S38 Farwell, L.A. and Richardson, D.C. (2006b). "Brain Fingerprinting in Laborat ory Conditions," Psychophysiology, 43: S38. Farwell, L.A., Richardson, D.C., & Richardson, G.M. (2012). "Brain fingerpri nting field studies comparing P300-MERMER and P300 brainwave responses in the de tection of concealed information,". DOI 10.1007/s11571-012-9230-0 Cognitive Neur odynamics . Farwell, L. A. and Smith, S. S. (2001). "Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detec t Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal." Journal of Forensic Sciences 46,1: 135-143. Fox, C. (2006a) "Brain Fingerprinting National Security," American Observer, March 29, 2006. Fox, C. (2006b) "Brain Fingerprinting Skepticism" American Observer, March 2 9, 2006 Gaillard A.K.W. and Ritter W. (1983). Tutorials in event-related potential r esearch: endogenous components. Amsterdam: North-Holland. The Guardian, November 16, 2009, "A Dragons Den for James Bonds". Harrington v. State, Case No. PCCV 073247. Iowa District Court for Pottawatt amie County, March 5, 2001. Harrington v. State. 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003). [www.iowa.gov/government/ag/latest_news/releases/feb_2003/Harrington_SupCt.h tml "Statement of the Iowa Attorney General's Office on Supreme Court Decision r e Terry Harrington"]. KOMO TV News, October 10, 2008. Brain Fingerprinting could be breakthrough i n law enforcement. Accessed January 16, 2012. KTVO TV, Kirksville, Missouri, August 13, 1999 "KTVO News at 10". Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2010. Savage, D. G. Prosecutor conduct case be fore Supreme Court is settled. Accessed January 16, 2012. Moenssens, A.A., (2002) Brain FingerprintingCan It Be Used to Detect the Inno cence of Persons Charged with a Crime? UMKC L. Rev. 70, 891-920.. PBS Innovation Series "Brain Fingerprinting", May 4, 2004. "Brain Fingerprin ting: Ask the Experts" Accessed July 20, 2008.

Picton T.W. (1988). Handbook of electroencephalography and clinical neurophy siology: human event-related potentials, Vol. 3, Amsterdam: Elsevier. Roberts, A.J. (2007). "Everything New Is Old Again: Brain Fingerprinting and Evidentiary Analogy." Yale J L & Tech 9. 234-270. Rosenfeld, J.P., Soskins, M., Bosh, G. and Ryan, A. (2004) "Simple, Effectiv e Countermeasures to P300-based Tests of Detection of Concealed Information" Psy chophysiology, 41 pp 205219 (PDF) Rosenfeld, J.P. (2005) "Brain Fingerprinting: A Critical Analysis," The Scient ific Review of Mental Health Practice, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 2005) pp 2037. (Available at http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/rosenfeld/NewFiles/BFcrit iquerevsub3-6.pdf, last visited Jan 08, 2011). Slaughter v. State, No. PCD-2004-277 (Okla. Ct. of Crim. App., April 16, 200 4) Time, November 5, 2009. Suddath, C. "When Is It Legal to Frame a Man for Mur der?" United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Charles E. G rassley, U.S. Senate. INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES: Federal Agency Views on the Pote ntial Application of Brain Fingerprinting, October 2001. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities, 2nd Ed.. Chichester, England: Wiley. (See in particular Table 12.2, Table 12.3 and Table 12.5 for GKT accurac y rates, and Box 12.3 starting page 361 for a discussion of Brain Fingerprinting ). "Murder in mind Could reading the thoughts of criminals help free the innoce nt?" The Guardian, March 25, 2004.