Brain Fingerprinting Interview

[Guest guest]

Brain Fingerprinting Interview

Interview with Dr. Lawrence FarwellBrain Fingerprinting and the Harrington Casehttp://www.brainwavescience.com/QandABrainFingerprinting001.htmPlease note: For a comprehensive account of Brain Fingerprinting and itsapplication in the Harrington case, see Dr. Farwell's Forensic ScienceReport: Brain Fingerprinting Test on Terry Harrington and Supplement toForensic Science Report: Brain Fingerprinting Test on Terry Harrington. Thebelow questions and answers provide a very brief overview, plus informationnot included in the Forensic Science Reports.QUESTION: What is Brain Fingerprinting?DR. FARWELL: Brain Fingerprinting is a scientific technique to determinewhether or not specific information is stored in a brain. We do this bymeasuring brain-wave responses to words, phrases, or pictures presented on acomputer screen. We present details about a crime mixed in a sequence withother, irrelevant items. We use details about the crime that theperpetrator would have to have encountered to commit the crime, but that aninnocent suspect would have no way of knowing. We can tell by thebrain-wave response if a person recognizes the stimulus or not. If thesuspect recognizes the details of the crime, this indicates that he has arecord of the crime stored in his brain -- including things that only theperpetrator would know.QUESTION: Has Brain Fingerprinting been scientifically tested,peer-reviewed, and published?DR. FARWELL: Yes. My colleagues and I have published in the leadingscientific journals in the field. Dr. Drew Richardson and I conducted astudy of FBI agents in which we were able to identify FBI agents with 100%accuracy based on their brain responses to information only FBI agents wouldknow. Sharon Smith, an instructor at the FBI Academy, and I are currentlypublishing a paper on research we conducted in which Brain Fingerprintingwas 100% accurate in determining who had participated in real-life events.Brain Fingerprinting also achieved 100% accuracy in three studies Iconducted on contract for the CIA, including one that was a collaborationwith Dr. Rene Hernandez of the US Navy.QUESTION: What does Brain Fingerprinting determine?DR. FARWELL: Brain Fingerprinting determines scientifically whether or notspecific information is stored in a brain. In the case of a crime, we useinformation that would be known only to the perpetrator and theinvestigators, and not to an innocent suspect. The system makes adetermination of "information present" or "information absent," and astatistical confidence for the determination. This is done by amathematical algorithm, and does not depend on subjective interpretation ofthe data.QUESTION: How accurate is Brain Fingerprinting?DR. FARWELL: In over 150 tests, Brain Fingerprinting has never made anerror. In cases where a determination of "information present" or"information absent" was made, 100% of the determinations were correct. In6 cases, the mathematical algorithm determined that there was insufficientinformation to make either determination, and no determination was made,(i.e., "indeterminate" result).QUESTION: What other similar technologies are there now in use?DR. FARWELL: Brain Fingerprinting detects information stored in the brain.It matches information stored in the brain with information from the crimescene. This is similar to fingerprinting, which matches fingerprints fromthe crime scene with fingerprints on the fingers of the suspect, and DNAresearch, which matches DNA from the crime scene with DNA on the person ofthe suspect. Fingerprints and DNA are available in only about 1% of cases.The brain is always there, planning, executing, and recording the crime.Brain Fingerprinting scientifically detects this record of the crime storedin the brain.QUESTION: What did Brain Fingerprinting show in the Harrington case?DR. FARWELL: Brain Fingerprinting showed that the record of the night of thecrime stored in Harrington's brain did not match the crime scene. Therecord in Harrington's brain did match Harrington's alibi, as described byalibi witnesses who said he was in another city at a concert and withfriends at the time of the crime.QUESTION: Did Brain Fingerprinting prove Harrington "innocent" or "notguilty?"DR. FARWELL: Technically, that's not what Brain Fingerprinting does, and notwhat science in general does. What Brain Fingerprinting showed is that therecord stored in Harrington's brain did not match specific details of thecrime scene, and did match specific details of the alibi. This is likefinding that Harrington's fingerprints or DNA did not match the fingerprintsor DNA at the crime scene, and did match fingerprints or DNA at the scene ofthe alibi. It's up to a judge or jury to decide whether a person isinnocent or guilty. What Brain Fingerprinting or any other science can dois to provide evidence that the judge or jury evaluates, along with otherevidence, in making a decision. It is also up to the judge and jury todecide how much weight to give the evidence provided by Brain Fingerprintingor any other scientific technique. When a DNA expert finds that a suspect's DNA does not match DNAfrom the crime scene, his report does not say, "The suspect is innocent."It says, "The DNA does not match." Then the judge and jury take this intoaccount along with other evidence. It's the same with Brain Fingerprinting.Science can demonstrate -- and has demonstrated -- that specific details ofthe crime are not stored in Harrington's brain. Then it is up to the judgeand jury to weigh this evidence along with other evidence to reach theirverdict.QUESTION: At the time of your Brain Fingerprinting test on Harrington, whatwas the evidence that contradicted the Brain Fingerprinting result, that is,what was the evidence against Harrington?DR. FARWELL: There was only one alleged witness to the crime, Kevin Hughes,a 16-year-old black at the time. His testimony at the trial was the basisof the case against Harrington. He testified that he accompanied Harringtonto the crime scene, heard the fatal shot, and saw Harrington running fromthe scene of the crime with a shotgun.QUESTION: As a scientist, what did you do to resolve the contradictionbetween your Brain Fingerprinting results on Harrington and the testimony ofHughes?DR. FARWELL: I tracked down Hughes in Omaha with the help of detective JimSmith. We went and talked to him. I pointed out that Brain Fingerprintinghad cast doubt on his testimony. At first he maintained his story, butfinally he admitted that he had made up the entire story to avoidprosecution himself for the murder. He admitted that none of what he hadsaid about Harrington's participation in the crime had been true, and thatin fact he had no knowledge of the crime. Hughes recanted under oath,before a court reporter, and on videotape.QUESTION: Without Hughes' testimony, is there any viable evidence thatHarrington committed the crime?DR. FARWELL: Not to my knowledge.QUESTION: In addition to Brain Fingerprinting, is there any other evidencethat supports Harrington's innocence?DR. FARWELL: Yes. Several alibi witnesses testified at the trial thatHarrington was at a concert and later driving around town with friends atthe time of the crime.QUESTION: What is Harrington's current legal position?DR. FARWELL: That goes outside my area of expertise. I do know thatHarrington is seeking a new trial. He is also seeking a pardon from theGovernor. On November 14, I testified as an expert witness on BrainFingerprinting in a post-conviction hearing regarding the BrainFingerprinting testing and results. There will be a second hearingregarding the non-scientific aspects of the case on December 7 and 8. Iunderstand that in addition to the Brain Fingerprinting evidence and Hughes'recantation, Harrington's attorneys claim that the prosecutor withheldrelevant exculpatory evidence from the defense in the original trial,including the fact that there was another suspect under investigation. IfHarrington prevails, he will get a new trial. In any case, he may still bepardoned by the Governor at any time.QUESTION: Have you spoken with Senator Grassley about Brain Fingerprinting?DR. FARWELL: Yes. I have been communicating with Senator Grassley forseveral years regarding Brain Fingerprinting in conjunction with hisoversight role with respect to the FBI. The Senator is extremely diligentin keeping himself up to date on new developments in the field. I havefound him and his staff to be highly intelligent, open minded, and wellinformed, and he also has a history of helping citizens of Iowa in ways thatit is appropriate for a Senator to do. Of course the Senator is notdirectly involved in the criminal justice system in Iowa, and is notinvolved in the legal process in the Harrington case. I believe that hisopen-mindedness and concern for the truth, however, have helped to inspireothers to take a similar attitude. When I was first seeking permission toconduct the test on Harrington, Senator Grassley showed an interest in theprocess, and I think that this contributed to the open-mindedness of othersin Iowa with respect to considering scheduling the Brain Fingerprintingtest. After the Brain Fingerprinting test on Harrington, I met withSenator Grassley and explained to him in some detail the test and theresults. I believe he is continuing to keep an eye on the case in themanner appropriate for a Senator.QUESTION: You said the Governor could pardon Harrington. What is hisposition? Have you spoken with Governor Vilsack regarding the BrainFingerprinting results on Harrington?DR. FARWELL: Not yet. As I understand it, the Brain Fingerprinting resultsare a part of Harrington's petition for pardon, along with Hughes'recantation and other exculpatory evidence. When the petition isconsidered, I expect that the Governor will want to become well informedpersonally about Brain Fingerprinting and the scientific evidence it bringsto the case, so that he can make a well-informed decision and base hisdecision on first-hand, accurate, and comprehensive knowledge andunderstanding. I will then have a chance to present the relevant scientificevidence to the Governor and to answer his questions. Once he has heardwhat we have to say, had his questions answered, and become well informed onthe science and its implications for the case, as well as the legalconsiderations, then he will be in a position to make an appropriatedecision. Until he has done that, obviously he cannot take a meaningfulposition, and as far as I know he has not taken one. After he has donethat, he'll speak for himself as to the position he takes.QUESTION: What do you see as the future for Brain Fingerprinting?DR. FARWELL: Currently, many crimes remain unsolved, while apparently manyinnocent people are convicted and go to prison, and some innocent people areeven executed. Science can help. Many innocent suspects, some alreadyconvicted, and some on death row, have been exonerated by the newlydiscovered science of DNA testing. Fingerprints are also highly accurate.Unfortunately, DNA and fingerprints are found in only about 1% of cases.The brain is always there, planning, executing, and recording the crime.Now Brain Fingerprinting is available to determine accurately andscientifically whether the record of the crime is stored in the brain of asuspect or not. As has been the case with DNA, I expect that BrainFingerprinting will help to release many innocent people from falseimprisonment, and save many innocent people from the death penalty. When applied by law enforcement agencies and by defendants incriminal cases, Brain Fingerprinting can eliminate many innocent suspects atthe very beginning of the investigation. Innocent suspects can avoid falseprosecution and possible false conviction and punishment, and get on withtheir lives. Authorities can focus their efforts on the suspects whoactually committed the crime, and Brain Fingerprinting can help to convictthem. Brain Fingerprinting can reduce crime by helping to bringperpetrators to justice, so that they will no longer be out there committingcrimes. Knowing that such an accurate and scientific technique is availablemay also prove to be an effective deterrent. The overall effect of Brain Fingerprinting will be that manyinnocent people will be exonerated and will be free from false prosecution,imprisonment, and execution, while many more actual criminals will bebrought to justice.QUESTION: Some people say it is too soon to apply Brain Fingerprinting inactual criminal cases. What is your response?DR. FARWELL: We have tested Brain Fingerprinting in over 150 cases. Over 80of these were on real-life situations, and the rest were laboratory studies.Brain Fingerprinting has not made a single error in all of these cases. Terry Harrington waited 23 years for Brain Fingerprinting. Howmuch longer should he wait? A year? Five years? I have a letter on mydesk, one of many from inmates on death row who claim innocence and areasking for help from Brain Fingerprinting. This particular letter is froman inmate who is scheduled to be executed in January, 2001. How long shouldwe ask him to wait? I believe it is a serious human rights violation to deny accessto Brain Fingerprinting to anyone who is accused of a crime and maintainshis innocence. On the law enforcement side, Brain Fingerprinting helped tobring serial killer J. B. Grinder to justice fifteen years after he murderedJulie Helton. There are other serial killers out there. How long should wewait, and how many more murders shall we tolerate, before using thistechnology to bring them to justice? Brain Fingerprinting works. It is accurate, scientific,thoroughly tested and proven. Brain Fingerprinting is based on wellestablished science. It is well established that from a scientificstandpoint Brain Fingerprinting can help to determine the truth regardingwhat information is stored in a suspect's brain. Along with other evidence,this can help to bring about justice, free the innocent, and bring theguilty to justice. We have the technology now. I think it would be a crimenot to make use of it.QUESTION: Some scientists have questioned your taking your scientificdiscoveries out into the criminal justice and business world, rather thanremaining solely in the world of academia. What is your response?DR. FARWELL: Some of my colleagues prefer to remain in academia and pursuepure science in the laboratory alone, and I respect that choice. For me, Ibelieve it is my duty to apply my discoveries to help people in the realworld. It's a question of whether you'd rather be the Wright brothers or aprofessor of aeronautical engineering. It's a matter of personal preference.My preference is to take my discoveries out into the world, to get the thingoff the ground and fly with it, to produce something that can be helpful toreal people in real-life situations.QUESTION: If Brain Fingerprinting is so effective, why has it not been morewidely applied and accepted?DR. FARWELL: It's interesting that some say we should have applied BrainFingerprinting more quickly and more widely, and some say we should havewaited longer and applied it more slowly. My colleagues and I are educatingthe criminal justice community and the public as quickly as we can, but anytime you make fundamental improvements in the way people do anything, theprocess takes time. New discoveries always take some time to be accepted. In 1903,the Wright brothers flew. For several years, very few believed it, eventhough they had photos of the first flight. In 1923, 20 years later, USArmy General Billy Mitchell proved that airplanes had military value. Hesaid that airplanes could be used to sink ships. He actually conducted atest where he flew planes over at 10,000 feet and sank some old junk ships.He advocated the development of an air force. He predicted that if we didnot develop an air force, the Japanese would, and they would fly over andsink our ships in Pearl Harbor. We now know that they did just that acouple decades later. What was General Mitchell's reward for his clear andaccurate vision regarding the value of new technology? He was courtmartialed in 1925 for his views on the airplane, and thrown out of the Army. In the history of science, whenever there is a new discovery, atfirst there is inertia and disbelief on the part of many, and activeresistance from the beneficiaries of the status quo. Many take the attitudethat "If this were really so great, everyone would already be doing it, andI would already have heard about it." Also, there are always those whosestatus or finances depend on the old ways of doing things, and these peopleoften oppose progress because they see it as a threat. Brain Fingerprintingis no exception. Fortunately, science always moves forward, not backward, and thetruth always wins in the end. The truth in this case is that BrainFingerprinting is accurate and scientific and is of demonstrable practicalvalue in discovering the truth regarding crimes. In view of the largenumber of unsolved crimes, plus the large number of people in prison andeven on death row who may be innocent, Brain Fingerprinting is alsosomething that is greatly needed in the present society. The task at handis to educate the public and the criminal justice community and to make thetechnology available where it is needed. We're making every effort to doboth of these things as quickly as possible.QUESTION: Is Brain Fingerprinting based on science that is generallyaccepted in the scientific community?DR. FARWELL: Yes. There is widespread agreement among the experts that wecan accurately and scientifically measure information-processing brainactivity using electrical brain signals, and that when we apply this scienceappropriately we can determine whether or not specific information is storedin a person's brain. This has been well established science for many years.When I say "experts" here, I'm talking about legitimate experts, scientistswho have training, expertise, and experience in cognitive psychophysiologyand in measuring brain waves for the detection of concealed information.You can always find or buy a self-styled expert to express any opinion onanything, but here I'm talking about legitimate experts in this specificfield.QUESTION: Who are some experts in the field?DR. FARWELL: A list of experts is included in the original report, and isalso available as a link from the website (click here).[link toExpertsBrief004.doc] The experts listed in the original report include Dr.Drew Richardson and Sharon Smith, both of the FBI, Dr. Rene Hernandez of theUS Navy, and Dr. Paul Rapp of Allegheny University. Another distinguishedexpert is Dr. William Iacono of the University of Minnesota, who testifiedin the Harrington hearing on November 14, 2000. Dr. Iacono has conducted andpublished research on the use of brain waves in the detection of concealedinformation in the brain and other related brain research.QUESTION: Do all experts agree about Brain Fingerprinting?DR. FARWELL: I don't think all experts will ever agree entirely aboutanything. There is, however, a widespread consensus among the legitimateexperts that the science behind Brain Fingerprinting is excellent. It'sbeen thoroughly tested, peer reviewed, and published in the best journals.It is extremely accurate. It is generally accepted in the scientificcommunity. Experts, like everyone else, have their own opinions regardingthe non-scientific issues, like where and when this science should beapplied, and how much legal weight should be given to its results in anyparticular application. I think there is room for varying opinions on theseissues.QUESTION: Does Brain Fingerprinting provide a scientific answer to legalquestions?DR. FARWELL: No. Brain Fingerprinting can provide scientific evidence inanswer to a scientific question: does a person have particularcrime-relevant information stored in his brain, or not? This evidence mustbe evaluated, along with other available evidence, by a judge or jury toreach legal decisions such as whether a person is innocent or guilty of acrime. The legal issues -- like whether a person is innocent or guilty --are decided not by science but by the judgment of the people empowered tomake such decisions, the judges and juries, who take into account not onlythis science but also all the other evidence at hand.QUESTION: Some scientists say that you have taken advantage of thescientific discoveries of your predecessors, and gone out and gotten famousyourself based largely on the efforts of others. What is your reply?DR. FARWELL: Largely, I agree with them. Newton said, "If I have seen far,it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." I think allscientists must feel that way. I know I do. I am humbled and grateful tomy predecessors and colleagues who have brought science to its present stateof development. Without this foundation, I could never have made mydiscoveries or applied them to help people. I didn't do it alone, and I'mnot doing it alone now. There are many others who continue to make majorcontributions to the field. I see science as a collaborative, interactiveenterprise, with many contributors sharing the common goal of discoveringthe truth and applying it to improve human life. I've been very fortunateto be successful in applying my discoveries to helping people in real-lifesituations, but most of the credit for this should go to my predecessors whobrought the field to its present state of development and whose work formedthe basis for my discoveries.QUESTION: Do you plan to make money with Brain Fingerprinting? Should ascientist do this?DR. FARWELL: Yes, I certainly hope I'll make money from this invention.Thomas Edison was an inventor, and he did quite well financially. Hefounded General Electric, which is still doing well. When people producesomething of value, they generally hope to make money from it, and I'm noexception. Whether scientists, or anyone else, should make money from theirachievements and efforts is a value judgement, and different people willhave their own opinions. I'm proud of what I do, and I'm proud of beingrewarded for it.QUESTION: Who have been the major advocates and supporters of BrainFingerprinting?DR. FARWELL: Brain Fingerprinting is a powerful technology for discoveringthe truth. The people who want the truth to come out have been the majorsupporters of the technique. In the world of criminal justice, many lawenforcement experts and agencies have been supportive of the technique.Human rights advocates, particularly those representing people who have beenfalsely convicted, have also been strong supporters. Many top scientistswith expertise in this field are supporters as well. Some people in thefield of politics who have a commitment to truth have also been supporters.QUESTION: Who have been the detractors and opponents of BrainFingerprinting?DR. FARWELL: Brain Fingerprinting is a powerful technology for discoveringthe truth. The people who do not want the truth to come out have been themajor detractors and opponents of the technique. Generally these fall intothree groups. Criminals, particularly organized crime, have been opposed tothe technique for obvious reasons. There are some individuals in thegovernment who have a vested interest in hiding the truth, and these peoplealso have opposed Brain Fingerprinting, mostly behind the scenes. Thepolygraph industry has also expended a tremendous amount of time, energy,and money -- much of it taxpayers' money -- attempting to prevent the truthabout Brain Fingerprinting from coming out. Government bureaucrats whosejobs depend on the polygraph industry and scientists who are funded by thepolygraph industry also have opposed Brain Fingerprinting. When someone comes out in opposition to Brain Fingerprinting,you have to consider the source. If it's someone with ties to organizedcrime, government officials with something to hide, or the polygraphindustry, their stance is predictable and self-serving. Opinions byso-called experts who have never conducted or published research on BrainFingerprinting, or any kind of brain-wave research, are meaningless.QUESTION: Since Brain Fingerprinting has nothing to do with lie detection,why does the polygraph industry oppose it?DR. FARWELL: That's a good question. The opposition to Brain Fingerprintingby the polygraph industry makes no sense to me, since Brain Fingerprintinghas nothing to do with lie detection. Brain Fingerprinting is accurate andscientific, and polygraphy is currently under heavy attack for beinginaccurate and unscientific. Apparently they think Brain Fingerprintingmakes them look bad by comparison. My opinion is that polygraphy will sinkor swim based on its own merit or lack of merit, and the polygraph industryis wasting a lot of time, effort, and money opposing Brain Fingerprinting.No one can deny that Brain Fingerprinting is accurate and scientific, and inthe end those who oppose it for self-serving reasons will only decreasetheir own credibility.QUESTION: Do all polygraphers oppose Brain Fingerprinting?DR. FARWELL: No. There are some open-minded and knowledgeable polygrapherswho see the value of this new scientific technology and have become strongsupporters. These tend to be the ones who have scientific background andtraining, and who are in positions where they have nothing to fear from newdiscoveries and effective new technologies.QUESTION: Various people have porported to express expert opinions aboutBrain Fingerprinting. How can one evaluate the credentials or biases of apurported expert?DR. FARWELL: In addition to checking his academic credentials, ask him twoquestions. 1. Have you conducted research on Brain Fingerprinting, orbrain-wave detection of concealed information? 2. Are you free of any tiesto the polygraph industry? If he answers no to either question, then hecannot honestly purport to render a legitimate expert opinion. Anyone is entitled to an opinion, and there is no law that saysthat someone has to know anything about Brain Fingerprinting to express anopinion on it. The opinion of someone who has not conducted such researchis not an expert opinion, however, and has no more substance or value thanthe opinion of any other person lacking knowledge and expertise in thefield. The opinion on Brain Fingerprinting of someone with ties to thepolygraph industry is like the opinion on cancer research of an employee ofthe Tobacco Institute. You have to consider the source. Whatever aperson's credentials, if he has not conducted research in this specificfield, or if he has the inevitable bias that arises from involvement withthe polygraph industry, his opinion cannot honestly be represented as alegitimate expert opinion.QUESTION: In how many cases like the Harrington case can BrainFingerprinting help to discover the truth? In what other kinds of cases canit be applied, and how many such cases are there?DR. FARWELL: There are about 5,000 people on death row in this country.Educated estimates of how many of these are innocent run from a few percentto 40%. Until I've run the Brain Fingerprinting tests, I can't make ascientific estimate. In any case it's certain that some of these people areinnocent, and Brain Fingerprinting can provide evidence in many of thesecases. In the cases where people are indeed guilty, Brain Fingerprintingcan provide evidence of that as well. There are several hundred thousand people serving long-termprison sentences, and again we don't know how many of these are innocent.It could be anywhere from a few thousand to over a hundred thousand. All ofthose who claim innocence have a right to Brain Fingerprinting tests toprovide evidence one way or the other. There are about 14 million crimes per year in the USA where asuspect is apprehended. Brain Fingerprinting can provide crucial evidencein many, perhaps most of these cases. It doesn't matter what kind of crimehas been committed. The brain of the perpetrator is always there. We cantest the suspect's brain for knowledge of the crime, as long as we candiscover some information about what actually took place so we will knowwhat information to test him on. There are some limitations to thecircumstances in which Brain Fingerprinting can be applied (see Dr.Farwell's Forensic Science Report on Brain Fingerprinting Test on Harringtonand the Supplement to Dr. Farwell's Report on Brain Fingerprinting Test onHarrington, but I believe that every person who claims innocence has a rightto use Brain Fingerprinting where applicable to provide evidence relevant tothat claim. In the cases where the authorities want to use BrainFingerprinting either to exonerate innocent suspects or to provide evidenceagainst the guilty criminals, I believe this new scientific technologyshould be made available as quickly and widely as possible. This will helpthose responsible for administering justice to develop evidence to apply totheir job of distinguishing between the innocent and guilty as accurately,quickly, and efficiently as possible.