## Farwell Brain Fingerprinting
A New Paradigm in Criminal Investigations

#### "Satyam eva jayate --
Truth alone triumphs."

### Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph. D.
BrainWave Forensics

#### Human Brain Research Laboratory, Inc.
Fairfield, IA 52556
USA
Phone: (641) 469-5649
Email: Farwell@BrainWaveScience.com

## January 12, 1999

> ## 2. Table of Contents

> 2. Table of Contents *

> 1. Executive Summary * 1.1.1 A patented new technique of proven accuracy in US government tests *
> 1.1.2 Featured on major TV networks, magazines, and newspapers worldwide *
> 1.1.3 Law enforcement agencies agree to implement the technology *
> 1.1.4 Scientific detection of the record of the crime in the perpetrator’s brain *
> 1.1.5 Matching evidence from a crime scene with evidence on the perpetrator *
> 1.1.6 How the technology works *
> 1.1.7 Effectively solving the central problem in a trillion-dollar market *
> 1.1.8 $4 Million spent to develop mature technology *
> 1.1.9 Unique, patented technology *
> 1.1.10 Comparison with other technologies *
> 1.1.11 Accurate, scientific technique saves resources *
> 1.1.12 Commanding legal position *
> 1.1.13 Our goal: further truth, reduce crime *
> 1.1.14 Conclusion *

> 3. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting: Overview of the Technology * 3.1 An illustrative field application of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting *
> 3.2 Record of 100% Accuracy *
> 3.3 Media Coverage of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting *
> 3.4 A New Era in Law Enforcement and Intelligence. *
> 3.5 Criminal Evidence in the Brain of the Perpetrator. *
> 3.6 Description of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting *
> 3.6.1 Matching evidence at the crime scene with evidence in the brain *
> 3.6.2 Four phases of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting *
> 3.7 Benefits of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting. *
> 3.8 Types of Questions Answered by Farwell Brain Fingerprinting. *
> 3.9 Human Rights Oriented. *
> 3.10 Forensic Science *
> 3.11 Admissibility in Court *
> 3.12 Patents *

> 4. A Brief Historical Perspective * 4.1 Historical Background *
> 4.2 Fingerprinting *
> 4.3 DNA Fingerprinting *
> 4.4 Highly Successful Techniques *
> 4.5 Drawbacks of Fingerprinting and DNA Fingerprinting. *
> 4.5.1 Additional investigative work and skill required. *
> 4.5.2 Rarity of Fingerprints and DNA Samples *
> 4.6 Need for Other Scientific Techniques to Identify Perpetrators. *
> 4.7 Brain Fingerprint *
> 4.8 MERMER *
> 4.9 Brain Central to Crime and Criminal Investigations *

> 5. Scientific Procedure, Research, and Applications * 5.1 Informational Evidence Detection. *
> 5.2 The Brain MERMER *
> 5.3 Scientific Procedure *
> 5.4 Computer Controlled *
> 5.5 Scientific Experiments, Field Tests, and Criminal Cases *
> 5.5.1 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) studies *
> 5.5.2 US intelligence agency studies *
> 5.5.3 US Navy study *
> 5.5.4 Field tests and criminal investigations *
> 5.5.5 Results of research, field tests, and investigations *

> 6. Conclusion * 6.1 Farwell Brain Fingerprinting: A New Paradigm in Criminal Investigations *
> 6.2 How to Apply Farwell Brain Fingerprinting *

> 7. Appendix 1: Curriculum Vitae, Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D. *

> 1. Executive Summary

> 1.1.1 A patented new technique of proven accuracy in US government tests

> Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell has invented, developed, proven, and patented the technique of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, 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. Farwell 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 actual crimes.

> 1.1.2 Featured on major TV networks, magazines, and newspapers worldwide

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has been featured on CBS Evening News, ABC World News, CNN Headline News, the Discovery Channel, and the major networks in Canada and the United Kingdom, as well as in U.S. News and World Report, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and in print and electronic media throughout the world.

> 1.1.3 Law enforcement agencies agree to implement the technology

> Ten law enforcement agencies at the local, state, and national levels in the Washington, DC area and in Iowa have agreed to implement Farwell Brain Fingerprinting once appropriate funding is obtained.

> 1.1.4 Scientific detection of the record of the crime in the perpetrator’s brain

> Farwell 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 Farwell Brain Fingerprinting detects scientifically.

> 1.1.5 Matching evidence from a crime scene with evidence on the perpetrator

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting matches evidence from a crime scene with evidence stored in the brain of the perpetrator, similarly to the way conventional fingerprinting matches fingerprints at the crime scene with the fingers of the perpetrator, and DNA fingerprinting matches biological samples from the crime scene with the DNA in the body of the perpetrator.

> 1.1.6 How the technology works

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting 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. Dr. Farwell has discovered that a specific 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 or not the specific crime-relevant information is stored in the brain of the suspect.

> 1.1.7 Effectively solving the central problem in a trillion-dollar market

> Local, state, and federal governments in America now spend approximately $100 billion per year to operate the criminal justice system. In addition, individuals and corporations spend approximately $65 billion on security operations, including internal investigations. The total global government budget devoted to crime has been estimated at approximately $750 billion annually. Including private sector security operations, the figure is over one trillion dollars. This does not include crime-related insurance costs, military and intelligence applications, the costs incurred by defendants in criminal cases, or the cost in life and property to crime victims. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting can solve many, perhaps most of these crimes, more quickly, accurately, and scientifically than has been possible before, and thus can save billions of dollars annually in the US alone.

> 1.1.8 $4 Million spent to develop mature technology

> Approximately four million dollars in grants and contracts from the US government has been spent on research and development culminating in a fully developed technology ready for widespread application. No debt has been accumulated in this process.

> 1.1.9 Unique, patented technology

> Dr. Farwell holds three patents on the technology, and no competing technology is currently known to exist.

> 1.1.10 Comparison with other technologies

> Conventional fingerprinting and DNA match physical evidence from a crime scene with evidence on the person of the perpetrator. Similarly, Brain Fingerprinting matches informational evidence from the crime scene with evidence stored in the brain. Fingerprints and DNA are available in only 1% of crimes. The brain and the evidence recorded in it are always there.

> This has nothing to do with lie detection. Rather, it is a scientific way to determine if someone has committed a specific crime. No questions are asked and no answers are given during Farwell Brain Fingerprinting. As with DNA and fingerprints, the results are the same whether the person has lied or told the truth at any time.

> 1.1.11 Accurate, scientific technique saves resources

> By providing an accurate, scientific means of identifying the perpetrator of a crime and clearing innocent suspects, Farwell Brain Fingerprinting will provide substantial value immediately for law enforcement organizations, corporations, attorneys, and individuals. Once the authorities know with certainty who has committed a crime, all resources can be devoted to bringing the perpetrator to justice, rather than to seeking additional leads or pursuing innocent suspects.

> 1.1.12 Commanding legal position

> Because of its accuracy and scientific nature, we believe that Brain Fingerprinting will be admissible in court once the necessary test cases have been tried. Once this process is completed, the economic and practical value of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting will be significantly enhanced.

> 1.1.13 Our goal: further truth, reduce crime

> The goal of the Human Brain Research Laboratory, Inc. and affiliated organizations (the "Company") is to implement Farwell Brain Fingerprinting worldwide as quickly as possible, to strengthen mankind’s ability to discover the truth, and to substantially reduce the human suffering and cost in money and resources resulting from crime in the world today.

> 1.1.14 Conclusion

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new technology for solving crimes, with a record of 100% accuracy in research with US government agencies and other applications. The technology is proprietary and patented. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has had extensive media coverage around the world. The technology fulfills an urgent need for governments, law enforcement agencies, corporations, and individuals in a trillion-dollar worldwide market. The technology is fully developed and available for application in the field.

> 3. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting:
> Overview of the Technology

> 3.1 An illustrative field application of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting

> On April 12, 1994, a young police officer walked into the police headquarters of a major metropolitan area. He had been accused on multiple counts of a felony drug charge. The evidence against him was substantial. His accuser, who had already confessed his own involvement, had identified the officer by name and description, and picked the officer's photograph out of a pictorial lineup. The accuser provided extensive details of meeting times and places, and exchanges of drugs and money. There was extensive corroborating evidence that the crimes had taken place. The officer denied any criminal activity. He admitted telephoning the accuser once (for a legitimate reason), but denied meeting him and denied all of the alleged drug-related transactions. The officer admitted having possessed the drug in question at certain times, but only under entirely legal and legitimate circumstances. Both men had passed polygraph tests, maintaining fundamentally contradictory accounts.

> The officer met Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell, Chief Scientist and Chairman of Human Brain Research Laboratory, in a small room at the police headquarters. Earlier, Dr. Farwell had already completed the process of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting Collection of Crime-Scene Evidence in conjunction with investigators. Dr. Farwell explained and initiated the process of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting Brain Evidence Collection using electroencephalographic (EEG) sensors attached to a headband that was placed on the officer's head and connected to the Farwell Brain Fingerprinting System. Then, seated in front of a computer screen, the officer began to observe words and phrases (evidence) which were flashed on one of the video monitors. Some of evidence was relevant to the crimes in question -- meeting places, sums of money, and vehicles and buildings in which drug transactions had allegedly taken place. On another video monitor, Dr. Farwell observed multicolored plots of the officer's brain responses to each of the items flashed on the monitor, along with matrices of numbers and other data.

> After an hour or more, the Farwell Brain Fingerprinting Brain Evidence Collection was completed and Dr. Farwell entered the computer commands to implement the Farwell Brain Fingerprinting Computer Evidence Analysis. In less than a minute, a plot of the officer's brain responses appeared on the screen, along with the Farwell Brain Fingerprinting Scientific Result: "Information Absent".

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting Scientific Result of Information Absent means that the suspect’s brain did not contain a record of the evidence taken from the crime scene. Despite the testimony of his accuser and the extensive circumstantial evidence, Farwell Brain Fingerprinting proved that no crime-relevant evidence was stored in this officer's brain -- he did not know the details about the crime; he did not recognize the evidence that was flashed on the video monitor -- and therefore he could not possibly have committed the crime. The investigation was renewed, and there is now substantial, independent evidence that the officer was indeed innocent, and that his accuser and another individual framed the officer in order to deflect suspicion from another former police officer who had carried out the crimes of which the officer was accused. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting had cleared an innocent man.

> 3.2 Record of 100% Accuracy

> At the time of this first field application, Dr. Farwell's successes in the scientific laboratory with his invention were already well known. In collaboration with FBI scientist Dr. Drew Richardson, Dr. Farwell achieved 100% accuracy in using Farwell Brain Fingerprinting to identify FBI agents based on their brain responses to words and phrases only an FBI agent would recognize. Tests conducted by Dr. Farwell for the US Navy in collaboration with Navy LCDR Rene S. Hernandez, Ph.D., also resulted in 100% accurate results. In research on contract with a US government intelligence agency, Farwell Brain Fingerprinting achieved 100% accuracy in proving the presence or absence of a wide variety of evidence stored in the brains of individuals involved in over 120 cases. Dr. Farwell has published extensively in the scientific literature and presented his research to many scientific and technical audiences throughout the world (see Appendix 1). Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has been subjected to rigorous peer review under US government sponsorship, and has been found scientifically viable as well as revolutionary in its implications.

> 3.3 Media Coverage of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting

> Dr. Farwell and his invention have also become widely known to the general public, in the US and around the world. Dr. Farwell has been featured CBS Evening News; ABC World News; CNN Headline News; the Discovery Channel; across the nation in television programs on new crime-fighting technologies; on BBC in the UK; and on CTV, the Canadian TV network. Articles featuring Farwell Brain Fingerprinting have appeared in US News and World Report; The Washington Post; The New York Times; and elsewhere in print and electronic media throughout the world.

> 3.4 A New Era in Law Enforcement and Intelligence.

> With the application of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, a new and significant scientific breakthrough has become a practical applied technology. A new era in law enforcement and intelligence has begun. Now, there is no reason why any individual should ever again be falsely convicted of a crime, nor should any guilty person evade justice for lack of evidence.

> Farwell 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 Farwell Brain Fingerprinting detects scientifically.

> The foremost reason that the investigation of the brain had not become central to criminal and espionage investigation until now is that, in the past, neuroscience had not yet progressed to the point where the brain could be utilized as a source of evidence regarding crime and espionage. The scientific discoveries of Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell and others have changed this situation. New research conducted at the Human Brain Research Laboratory and elsewhere has proven that it is possible to match evidence stored in the brain with evidence from a crime, in an accurate and reliable manner and without trauma, invasive procedures, or discomfort to the individual.

> 3.5 Criminal Evidence in the Brain of the Perpetrator.

> In addition to the physical and circumstantial evidence that can be obtained from the crime scene and elsewhere, there is one place where an extensive record of the crime is stored: in the brain of the perpetrator. Now that this record can be tapped, criminal investigation, corporate security, and counterintelligence will be revolutionized.

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting allows evidence to be analyzed directly from the human brain, in an accurate, objective, non-stressful, non-invasive, and scientific manner. This breakthrough promises to revolutionize criminal investigations. Moreover, there is every reason to believe that this new science and technology will become admissible as evidence in court.

> 3.6 Description of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting

> 3.6.1 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. Farwell 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 evaluated by Farwell Brain Fingerprinting is evidence stored in the brain.) Farwell 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. Thus, the guilty can be identified and the innocent can be cleared in an accurate, scientific, objective, non-invasive, and non-stressful manner.

> 3.6.2 Four phases of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting

> In fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting, evidence recognized and collected at the crime scene, and preserved properly until a suspect is apprehended, is scientifically compared with evidence on the person of the suspect to detect a match that would place the suspect at the crime scene. Farwell 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 responses) is informational evidence rather than physical evidence. There are four stages to Farwell 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

> 1. Brain Fingerprinting Scientific Result.

> In the Crime Scene Evidence Collection, an expert in Farwell 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 whether or not the evidence from the crime scene matches evidence stored in the brain of the suspect. In the Computer Evidence Analysis, the Farwell 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 Farwell Brain Fingerprinting: either "information present" – the details of the crime are stored in the brain of the suspect – or "information absent" – the details of the crime are not stored in the brain of the suspect.

> 3.7 Benefits of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting.

> - Identify crime perpetrators quickly and scientifically;
> - Record of 100% accuracy;
> - Confirm innocence, clear the falsely accused, and the falsely convicted;
> - Provide immediate Scientific Result: Information Present or Information Absent. Provide the accused and the investigators with an accurate, conclusive Scientific Result: Information Present or Information Absent, i.e., the crime-relevant information is or is not stored in the brain of the suspect, within a few hours (same day).
> - Identify terrorists and members of gangs, criminal and intelligence organizations;
> - Discover criminal, espionage, and terrorist plots against individuals, corporations, governments, and society; Contribute to the reduction of potential personal injury and enormous cash and property losses which would have ensued had not the plots been uncovered;
> - Reduce expenditure of money and other resources in law enforcement. Significantly decrease the high cost in time, money, human and materials resources normally associated with criminal investigations, by quickly and accurately identifying the perpetrator and exonerating innocent suspects.
> - Increase the number of perpetrators identified. Identify an increased number of perpetrators as compared with other scientific and nonscientific methods;
> - Reduce evasion of justice. Decrease the number of perpetrators that escape justice because of lack of witnesses or lack of evidence;
> - Provide scientific proof. Present scientific proof of the suspect's presence or absence from the crime scene.
> - Reduce costs and complexities. Provide a straightforward, scientific method of distinguishing between perpetrators and innocent suspects.
> - Access criminal evidence in the brain. Evidence of a crime is virtually always stored in the brain of the perpetrator; fingerprints and DNA, though accurate and highly useful, can only be collected in approximately 1% of all criminal cases.
> - Provide cost-effective results. By quickly and scientifically identifying perpetrators, Farwell Brain Fingerprinting can potentially save a substantial portion of the money now being spent on investigating and adjudicating crimes.
> - Save costs associated with pursuing the wrong suspects. Eliminate the need to expend valuable resources on pursuing other suspects once a guilty suspect has been identified by Farwell Brain Fingerprinting as the perpetrator, or innocent suspects have been cleared by Farwell Brain Fingerprinting. This, of course, also serves to protect the rights of the innocent.
> - Provide implementation in the field under varying conditions.
> - Support the right to a speedy and fair trial.

> 3.8 Types of Questions Answered by Farwell Brain Fingerprinting.

> - Does a suspect have evidence stored in his brain connecting him to a specific crime?
> - Does an intelligence source have knowledge of the internal working of a hostile intelligence agency that would indicate that he was an intelligence officer of that agency and not who he claimed to be?
> - Has an informant, a debriefed spy, or a suspected member of a criminal organization accurately described the entirety of his actions and knowledge?
> - Did a convicted serial killer who claims to have killed 40 to 50 individuals, other than the one(s) for whom he was convicted, actually commit these acts, or are these claims merely the bravado of a condemned prisoner?
> - Did a stock broker leak inside information that allowed a select few illegally to take advantage of an event on Wall Street?
> - Did a white collar employee illegally acquire corporate trade secrets, financial data, or intellectual property from his company? Did he pass the information to competitors?
> - Did a suspected arsonist set ablaze a manufacturing plant?
> - Did an employee or client of a health insurance company commit fraud, resulting in substantial financial losses for the company and increased costs for policyholders?
> - Did a man violently attack or kill his wife?

> 3.9 Human Rights Oriented.

> In the past, innocent suspects have almost universally been subjected to stressful interrogations, and in some cases have been subjected to false conviction and punishment. With Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, an innocent suspect can simply observe a computer monitor on which words, phrases, acronyms, or pictures appear. His brain responses will confirm that information relevant to the crime is not stored in his brain. In this way, Farwell Brain Fingerprinting can establish innocence. This is a great benefit for innocent individuals who are falsely accused. It would be a serious violation of human rights to deny an innocent subject access to this effective, non-invasive, non-stressful, and accurate means of establishing innocence. The rights of a guilty subject are not violated when he voluntarily undergoes such a non-invasive analysis of criminal evidence (unless one considers license to continue to perpetrate crimes, without exposure or punishment, a "right").

> 3.10 Forensic Science

> The goal of forensic science is twofold:

> 1. to obtain evidence definitively connecting the perpetrator(s) with a crime; and
> 2. to clear innocent suspects with a minimum of trauma.

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, as a forensic science investigative method, addresses both of these needs.

> 3.11 Admissibility in Court

> Due to its scientific, objective, accurate, and non-invasive nature, there is every reason to predict that Farwell Brain Fingerprinting will be legally admissible as evidence in court. The Company’s activities will be designed to achieve this goal as quickly as possible. Activities to be undertaken to achieve this goal include the publication of more scientific research in scientific journals by Dr. Farwell and other scientists to be employed by the Company; legal research, preparation of legal briefs, and legal consulting to prosecutors and others by HBRL attorneys; and widespread education of the legal, governmental, and scientific communities and the public.

> 3.12 Patents

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting is covered by three United States Patents that are owned by Dr. Farwell, US Patents Nos. 5,363,858; 5,406,956, and 5,467,777. Dr. Farwell has granted HBRL an exclusive right to make, use, and sell the technology, which will accrue to the affiliated organizations as appropriate.

> 4. A Brief Historical Perspective

> 4.1 Historical Background

> Throughout history, humans in society have had a need to determine the identity of individuals who have committed crimes. In the last century, there has been unprecedented progress in developing accurate, scientific methodologies for connecting a suspect with a crime. This paper reports the discovery of Brain Fingerprinting, a new technology that uses brain waves to connect evidence stored in the brain of a suspect with evidence connected with a crime, and discusses Brain Fingerprinting from the perspective of scientific progress in criminal investigations.

> The promise of this new technology is to provide an accurate and scientific means through which perpetrators can be identified, and the innocent can be cleared, based on the evidence from the one place where a comprehensive record of every crime is stored: in the brain of the perpetrator. Brain Fingerprinting has been preceded by two major breakthroughs in criminal investigation in the last hundred years.

> 4.2 Fingerprinting

> One of the great breakthroughs of modern criminal investigation came when it was discovered that human fingerprints can uniquely connect an individual with a crime. Beginning at around the turn of the century, investigators began to collect and preserve a new kind of evidence in criminal cases: The traces left behind at crime scenes from the fingers of perpetrators. As is now well known, these traces found at the scene of a crime can be matched with the patterns on the fingers of suspects to place the suspect at the crime scene. Special procedures must be applied to collect and preserve fingerprinting evidence properly.

> 4.3 DNA Fingerprinting

> A second breakthrough was the recent discovery of "DNA fingerprinting." Like fingerprints, DNA can be used to connect or match evidence that is collected at the crime scene -- in this case, biological samples -- with evidence on the person of the criminal -- the DNA. DNA can be used to clear a suspect by showing that evidence from the crime scene does mot match evidence on the person of the suspect.

> Like conventional fingerprinting, DNA fingerprinting can only be successfully applied when investigators collect and preserve the specific kind of evidence demanded by the technique. DNA fingerprinting is much more complicated and difficult than conventional fingerprinting, because the DNA is much more subtle and complex than the print of a finger. In fact, only a small portion of the DNA is involved in any DNA fingerprinting procedure -- a full DNA "fingerprint", mapping all of the DNA, would be virtually unobtainable with current scientific techniques.

> 4.4 Highly Successful Techniques

> With proper collection and preservation of evidence and proper scientific technique, applied by properly trained individuals, DNA fingerprinting in its present state of development can be a highly accurate means of identifying perpetrators. Both DNA and conventional fingerprinting have also been highly successful in exonerating the falsely accused. DNA fingerprinting has recently resulted in the release of a number of individuals from prison who were falsely convicted of serious crimes.

> 4.5 Drawbacks of Fingerprinting and DNA Fingerprinting.

> Although both DNA fingerprinting and conventional fingerprinting are highly accurate, they share two drawbacks.

> 4.5.1 Additional investigative work and skill required.

> Both techniques involve considerable extra work and skill for investigators. Collecting and preserving fingerprints and biological samples involves significant costs in time, resources, and money.

> From present-day perspective, this difficulty seems trivial compared to the benefits of the techniques, but it was not always considered so. In 1909, the Mona Lisa was stolen, and the perpetrator left behind a clear fingerprint at the scene of the crime. The French, however, unlike some other countries, were not using fingerprints as a means of matching a suspect to a crime. (They were committed to a French-invented system of identification which involved measuring the size of the head, feet, etc.) The art world's treasure was recovered by accident, when the perpetrator was arrested for another crime.

> Now that conventional fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting are established as universally applied procedures, the additional work they require is almost taken for granted. Since both techniques are highly accurate, there is little doubt that the additional work is worth the effort.

> 4.5.2 Rarity of Fingerprints and DNA Samples

> This drawback is more serious. DNA samples and fingerprints are found in only a very small percentage of cases -- about one in a hundred. This, of course, does not mean that the techniques are not worth pursuing. A technique that provides an accurate identification of the perpetrator even in one percent of cases is unquestionably of high value.

> 4.6 Need for Other Scientific Techniques to Identify Perpetrators.

> There is a tremendous need for other accurate, scientific means of matching evidence from the crime scene with evidence on the persons of suspects, particularly in the cases where no fingerprints or DNA samples are left at the scene.

> This need has inspired some scientists to ask, "What does the criminal take with him from the crime scene that records his involvement in the crime?" The answer to this question, of course, is the brain. The brain of the criminal is always there, recording all of the events like a video camera -- and like his DNA and fingerprints, the brain always stays with the criminal.

> The problem, until recently, has been that there was no way to detect this record of the crime stored in the brain.

> 4.7 Brain Fingerprint

> Is there a "brain fingerprint" that can reveal a suspect's presence at a crime scene? Although "brain fingerprinting" is a new science, recent advances in neuroscience do indeed make it possible to reveal a "brain fingerprint" that can scientifically, objectively, non-invasively, and accurately match or connect a criminal with a specific crime.

> 4.8 MERMER

> The discovery of the brain MERMER by Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell has made it possible to reveal, with extremely high accuracy, specific information stored in the brain. MERMER is an acronym for memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response. The MERMER is elicited when the brain recognizes and takes note of certain specific information (in the case of a crime, this information is crime-relevant evidence collected from the crime scene). By flashing crime-relevant information (words or pictures) on a computer screen and measuring brain responses, the brain MERMER can be used to determine objectively whether or not the details of a specific crime are stored in a suspect's brain. If (and only if) the evidence is stored in the brain, a brain MERMER is elicited. As described above, this technique of Brain Fingerprinting has been found to be highly reliable in scientific tests.

> 4.9 Brain Central to Crime and Criminal Investigations

> As the human brain is central to all human acts, the human brain is central to the criminal act. The only reason that the brain has not yet become central to criminal investigations is that, until Dr. Farwell's discovery of Brain Fingerprinting, there was no scientific, objective way to match the evidence stored in the brain with evidence from the crime scene. Now that this new technology is available, it is inevitable that the brain will take its rightful place as a central facet of criminal investigations.

> 5. Scientific Procedure, Research, and Applications

> 5.1 Informational Evidence Detection.

> The detection of concealed information stored in the brains of suspects, witnesses, intelligence sources, and others is of central concern to all phases of law enforcement, corporate, and intelligence operations. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting (for multifaceted electroencephalographic response analysis - MERA) presents a new paradigm in forensic science. This new system detects information directly, on the basis of the electrophysiological manifestations of information-processing brain activity, measured non-invasively from the scalp. Since Farwell Brain Fingerprinting depends only on brain information processing, it does not depend on the emotional response of the subject.

> 5.2 The Brain MERMER

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting utilizes multifaceted electroencephalographic response analysis (MERA) to detect information stored in the human brain. A memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response (MERMER) is elicited when an individual recognizes and processes an incoming stimulus that is significant or noteworthy. When an irrelevant stimulus is seen, it is seen as being insignificant and not noteworthy, and the MERMER response is absent. This pattern occurs within about a second after the stimulus presentation, and can be readily detected using EEG amplifiers and a computerized signal-detection algorithm.

> 5.3 Scientific Procedure

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting incorporates the following procedure. A sequence of words or pictures is presented on a video monitor under computer control. Each stimulus appears for a fraction of a second. Three types of stimuli are presented: "targets," "irrelevants," and "probes." The targets are made relevant and noteworthy to all subjects: the subject is given a list of the target stimuli and instructed to press a particular button in response to targets and another button in response to all other stimuli. Since the targets are noteworthy for the subject, they elicit a 1MERMER. Most of the non-target stimuli are irrelevant, having no relation to the situation under investigation. These irrelevants do not elicit a MERMER. Some of the non-target stimuli are relevant to the situation under investigation. These relevant stimuli are referred to as probes. For a subject with knowledge of the investigated situation ("information present" -- stored in the brain), the probes are noteworthy due to that knowledge, and therefore probes elicit a brain MERMER. For a subject lacking this knowledge ("information absent" - not stored in the brain), probes are indistinguishable from the irrelevants, and thus probes do not elicit a MERMER. When the information tested is crime-relevant and known only to the perpetrator and investigators, then "information present" implies guilt and "information absent" implies innocence. Similarly, when the information tested is information known only to members of a particular organization or group (e.g., an intelligence agency or a terrorist group), then "information present" indicates affiliation with the group in question.

> 5.4 Computer Controlled

> The entire Farwell Brain Fingerprinting System is under computer control, including presentation of the stimuli and recording of electrical brain activity, as well as a mathematical data analysis algorithm that compares the responses to the three types of stimuli and produces a determination of "information present" or "information absent," and a statistical confidence level for this determination. At no time during the analysis do biases and interpretations of a system expert affect the presentation and results of each stimulus presentation.

> 5.5 Scientific Experiments, Field Tests, and Criminal Cases

> Four scientific studies, field tests, and actual criminal cases involving over 120 individuals described in various scientific publications and technical reports by Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell have verified the extremely high level of accuracy, utility, cost-effectiveness, and overall credibility of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting. The system had 100% accurate scientific results in all studies, field tests, and actual cases conducted at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a US intelligence agency, the Alexandria (VA) Police Department, and other organizations and individuals.

> 5.5.1 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) studies

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting had 100% accurate scientific results in distinguishing 17 FBI agents and 4 non-FBI agents from a group of 21 subjects. The detection of FBI agents indicates that the system could detect members of a criminal or espionage organization as well as perpetrators of a specific crime. In Experiment 1, the information detected was specific knowledge that would identify an individual as an FBI agent. The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether this method could be useful in detecting members of a group or organization or people with a particular knowledge (e.g.,. members of a foreign intelligence organization or a terrorist organization). Stimuli were words, phrases, and acronyms flashed on a computer screen. Experiment 2 at the FBI correctly detected whether or not individuals had participated in specific, real-life events.

> 5.5.2 US intelligence agency studies

> Studies completed at a US intelligence agency proved that Farwell Brain Fingerprinting could accurately and reliably detect individuals possessing information regarding mock crimes and real-life activities, including a small number of actual major crimes. In Experiment 3 at the agency, the information detected was relevant to a mock espionage scenario enacted by some of the subjects, and the stimuli that elicited the brain responses were relevant pictures presented on a computer screen. In Experiment 4 at the agency, which used visually presented words and phrases as stimuli, the information detected was relevant to real-life events, including two felony crimes.

> 5.5.3 US Navy study

> Experiment 5 was conducted by Dr. Farwell at the US Navy in collaboration with Navy LCDR Rene Hernandez, Ph.D. (This experiment was a collaboration between the agency and the Navy.) In this experiment words, phrases, and acronyms were presented on a computer screen, and the information detected through brain responses was relevant to knowledge of military medicine. (This is similar to Experiment 1.)

> 5.5.4 Field tests and criminal investigations

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting was highly effective in the resolution of a case investigation at the Alexandria Police Department. A police officer was accused of a series of felony drug crimes. The officer throughout the entire period of investigation claimed innocence of involvement. His accuser was an individual who had already admitted his own guilt. It was clear from the evidence that a second person had been involved, and the accuser identified the officer as that person. The officer admitted that he had spoken to the accuser on the phone, that his wife had met the accuser on several occasions, and that he had some of the drugs in question in his possession at certain times, but always with a legitimate reason. His accuser passed a polygraph exam designed to establish whether or not his accusations were truthful, picked the officer out of a photo lineup, and in interrogation displayed accurate and detailed knowledge about the officer. The Alexandria PD requested Brain Fingerprinting which clearly showed that the officer had no knowledge of the crime stored in his brain. The investigation was renewed, and there is now substantial, independent evidence that the officer was indeed innocent, and that his accuser and another individual framed the officer in order to deflect suspicion from another person who had carried out the crimes of which the officer was accused. The resolution of this case was a major advancement in proving the value of the technology in the field.

> 5.5.5 Results of research, field tests, and investigations

> Over 120 subjects in the above four experiments were correctly classified as possessing or not possessing the critical information. There were no false positives, no false negatives, and no indeterminates. In one criminal case, Brain Fingerprinting vindicated a police officer falsely accused of a felony. In another actual criminal case, brain responses of two subjects showed that one subject was present at an armed robbery, and the other knew nothing of the crime. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting correctly classified both subjects, with a statistical confidence of greater than 99% in each case. In all of these studies and cases, words, phrases, or pictures flashed on a computer screen containing information relevant to the crimes or other situations elicited a MERMER only in the subjects who possessed the critical information. Previous published research by Dr. Farwell and his colleagues (e.g., Farwell and Donchin, 1986, 1991) has demonstrated similar results.

> 6. Conclusion

> 6.1 Farwell Brain Fingerprinting: A New Paradigm in Criminal Investigations

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new technology for solving crimes, with a record of 100% accuracy in research with US government agencies and other applications. The technology is proprietary and patented. Farwell Brain Fingerprinting has had extensive media coverage around the world. The technology fulfills an urgent need for governments, law enforcement agencies, corporations, and individuals in a trillion-dollar worldwide market. The technology is fully developed and available for application in the field.

> 6.2 How to Apply Farwell Brain Fingerprinting

> Farwell Brain Fingerprinting is now available to law enforcement agencies, corporations, attorneys, and individuals in the United States and many other countries. Dr. Farwell and his associates offer the technology on a fee-for-service basis. For information on how to apply Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, contact Dr. Larry Farwell as follows:

> Dr. Larry Farwell
> BrainWave Forensics
> Human Brain Research Laboratory, Inc.
> 2000 North Court Street
> Zimmerman Blvd. # 10 B
> Fairfield, IA 52556
> USA
> Phone: 641-469-5649
> Email: larryfarwell@lisco.com

> 7. Appendix 1: Curriculum Vitae,
> Lawrence A. Farwell, Ph.D.

> Brief Summary

> Dr. Farwell holds degrees from Harvard University and from the University of Illinois.

> Dr. Farwell is a former Harvard faculty member and is the Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Human Brain Research Laboratory.

> In addition to dozens of articles in scientific journals, Dr. Farwell has written a book entitled How Consciousness Commands Matter: The New Scientific Revolution that will be published in 1998 by Sun Star Press.

> Dr. Farwell is the inventor of the technique of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting, a scientific method to identify perpetrators of crimes and clear the innocent with extremely high accuracy through measuring electrical brain signals. Dr. Farwell also invented the Farwell Brain Communicator, a device that allows an individual to communicate directly from the brain to a computer and speech synthesizer using electrical brain activity, so that paralyzed people can communicate, "talk," and control computers and other devices without being capable of moving.

> Dr. Farwell also conducted and published scientific research demonstrating the direct effect of human consciousness on matter at the quantum-mechanical level. This research may explain the fundamental mechanism through which humans use their brains and interact with the environment, and also demonstrates that human abilities to influence nature heretofore thought to be impossible are indeed within the reach of human life and within the realm of scientific investigation.

> Employment and Academic Appointments

> 1994 - 1996
> Research Associate
> Department of Psychiatry
> Harvard Medical School
> 1991 - present
> Chief Scientist and Chairman

> Human Brain Research Laboratory, Inc.

> Academic Degrees

> B. A. Harvard University, 1973
> M. A. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1987
> Ph.D. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1992

> Publications

> Farwell, L. A., Chambers, R. D., Miller, G. A., Coles, M. G. H., and Donchin, E. (1985).

> A Specific Memory Deficit in Elderly Subjects Who Lack A P300. Psychophysiology, 23, 589 (Abstract.) Donchin, E., Miller, G. A., and Farwell, L. A. (1986)
> The Endogenous Components of the Event-Related Potential - A Diagnostic Tool?
> In Advances in Brain Research, 1986. Amsterdam: Elsevier .
> See also Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 70, 1986.
> Farwell, L. A. and Donchin, E. (1986)
> The "Brain Detector:" P300 in the Detection of Deception.
> Psychophysiology, 24: 434 (Abstract).
> Farwell, L. A., Donchin, E., and Kramer, A. F.(1986)
> Talking Heads: A Mental Prosthesis for Communicating with Event-Related Brain Potentials of the EEG.
> Psychophysiology, 24: 434 (Abstract).
> Bashore, T.R., Miller, G. A., Farwell, L. A., and Donchin, E. (1987).
> Research in Geriatric Psychophysiology.
> In Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics. New York: Springer.
> Farwell, L. A. and Donchin, E. (1988)
> Talking Off The Top Of Your Head: A Mental Prosthesis Utilizing Event-Related Brain Potentials.
> Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 70: 510-513.
> Farwell, L. A. and Donchin, E. (1988)
> The Truth Will Out: Interrogative Polygraphy with Event-Related Brain Potentials.
> Psychophysiology, 25:445 (Abstract).
> Farwell, L. A. and Donchin, E. (1989)
> Detection of Guilty Knowledge with ERPs.
> Psychophysiology, 26:58. (Abstract of an address presented at the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, October, 1989.)
> Farwell, L. A. and Donchin, E. (1991)
> The Truth Will Out: Interrogative Polygraphy ("Lie Detection") With Event-Related Brain Potentials.
> Psychophysiology, 28:531-547.
> Farwell, L. A. (1992)
> The Brain-wave Information Detection (BID) System: A New Paradigm for Psychophysiological Detection of Information.
> Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1992.
> Farwell, L. A. (1992)
> The Farwell System for Event-Related Brain Potential Information Detection: A New Paradigm in Psychophysiological Detection of Concealed Information.
> Technical Report prepared for the Office of Research and Development of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1992.
> Farwell, L. A. (1992)
> Two New Twists on the Truth Detector: Brain-wave Detection of Occupational Information.
> Psychophysiology, 29,4A:S3 (Abstract of an address presented at the Thirty-Second Annual Meeting at the Society for Psychophysiological Research, October 1992.
> Farwell, L. A., Martinerie, J. M., Bashore, T. R., and Rapp, P. E. (1993)
> Optimal Digital Filters for Long Latency Event-Related Brain Potentials.
> Psychophysiology, 30, 3, 306-315.
> Rapp, P. E., Albano, A.M., Schmah, T.I., and Farwell, L. A. (1993)
> Filtered Noise Can Mimic Low Dimensional Chaotic Attractors.
> Physical Review E, 47,4, 2289-2297.
> Farwell, L. A. and Richardson, D. A. (1993)
> Detection of FBI Agents with the Farwell MERA System: A New Paradigm for Psychophysiological Detection of Concealed Information.
> Technical Report, Human Brain Research Laboratory, Inc.
> Farwell, L. A. (1993)
> Brain MERMERs: Detection of FBI Agents and Crime-Relevant Information with the Farwell MERA System.
> Proceedings of the International Security Systems Symposium, Washington, D.C.
> Farwell, L. A. and Farwell, G.W. (1995)
> Quantum-Mechanical Processes and Consciousness.
> Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 40, 2, 956-57.
> Farwell, L. A. and Smith, S. S. (in preparation).
> Using Brain Fingerprinting to Detect Concealed Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal: A Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response Analysis (MERA) Approach.

> Patents

> U.S. Patent #5,363,858: Method and Apparatus for Multifaceted Electroencephalographic
> Response Analysis (MERA), Nov. 15, 1994
> U.S. Patent #5,406,956: Method and Apparatus for Truth Detection, April 18, 1995
> U.S. Patent #5,467,777: Method for Electroencephalographic Information Detection,
> Nov. 21, 1995

> Presentations of Research

> Farwell, L. A., Chambers, R. D., Miller, G. A., Coles, M.G.H.,

> and Donchin, E. (1985)

> A Specific Memory Deficit in Elderly Subjects Who Lack A P300.

> Presented at the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, October, 1985.

> Farwell, L. A. and Donchin, E. (1986)

> The "Brain Detector:" P300 in the Detection of Deception.

> Presented at the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, October, 1986.

> Farwell, L. A., Donchin, E., and Kramer, A. F.(1986)

> Talking Heads: A Mental Prosthesis for Communicating with Event-Related Brain Potentials of the EEG.

> Presented at the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, October.

> Farwell, L. A. and Donchin, E. (1988)

> The Truth Will Out: Interrogative Polygraphy with Event-Related Brain Potentials.

> Presented at the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, October.

> Farwell, L. A. and Donchin, E. (1989)

> Detection of Guilty Knowledge with ERPs.

> Address presented at the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, October.

> Farwell, L. A. (1992)

> Brain Wave Research and Its Application to the Detection of Deception.

> Presented at the 1992 Federal Interagency Polygraph Seminar, June.

> Farwell, L. A. (1992)

> Psychophysiological Detection of Concealed Information with Event-Related Brain Potentials.

> Address presented at the Cognitive Event Related Potentials Conference sponsored by the Central Intelligence Agency, July.

> Farwell, L. A. (1992)

> Professional Profiles: Brain-wave Detection of Concealed Occupational Information.

> Address presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pavlovian Society of North America, October.

> Farwell, L. A. (1992)

> Two New Twists on the Truth Detector: Brain-wave Detection of Occupational Information.

> Address presented at the Thirty-Second Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, October.

> Farwell, L. A. (1993)

> Brain Responses in Detection: A New Paradigm.

> Address presented at the Twenty-Third Annual National Workshop on Practical Polygraph Procedures, May.

> Farwell, L. A. (1993)

> The Farwell MERA System: A New Paradigm in Detection.

> Address presented at the 1993 Federal Interagency Polygraph Seminar, May.

> Farwell, L. A. (1993)

> Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response Analysis (MERA): A New Paradigm in the Detection of Concealed Information.

> Address presented at the American Meeting on Cognitive ERP Research (A.M.C.E.R.), July.

> Farwell, L. A. (1993)

> The Farwell MERA System: A New Paradigm in the Detection of Concealed Information.

> Address presented at the American Polygraph Association Twenty-Eighth Annual Seminar July.

> Farwell, L. A. (1993)

> Brain MERMERs: Detection of FBI Agents and Crime-Relevant Information with the Farwell MERA System.

> Address presented at the International Security Systems Symposium, Washington, D.C., November.

> Farwell, L. A. (1993)

> Innovations in Brain-Wave Research.

> Invited address, Northern Virginia Community College. Alexandria, VA, November.

> Metzger, L. J., Orr, S. P., Farwell, L. A., and Pitman, R. K. (1994)

> A Pilot Study of Reaction Times and ERPs to Traumatic Words in PTSD.

> Poster presented (by L. J. Metzger) at the meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Philadelphia, May.

> Farwell, L. A. (1995)

> Brain Fingerprinting: A New Method to Match Evidence from a Crime Scene with Evidence Stored in the Brain.

> Invited Address to the Regional Meeting of the American Judges Association. Atlantic City, NJ, February.

> Farwell, L. A. (1995)

> Brain Fingerprinting: Identification of FBI Agents and Matching of Crime Scene Evidence with Evidence Stored in the Brain.

> Regional Law Enforcement Lecture, Alexandria Police Department, Alexandria, VA, February.

> Farwell, L. A. and Farwell, G.W. (1995)

> Quantum-Mechanical Processes and Consciousness.

> Address presented at the April annual meeting of the American Physical Society, Washington, DC, April.

> Farwell, L. A. (1996)

> Quantum-Mechanical Processes and Consciousness: An Empirical Investigation.

> Address presented at the Toward a Science of Consciousness 1996 ("Tucson II") Conference, University of Arizona, Tucson, April.

> > All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
> > FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, and for the general purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research and / or educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use this material for purposes other than provided by law. You must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html,