AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER IN IOWA'S TECHNOLOGY CORRIDOR

highlights from an article by Dave DeWitte - June 7, 2003

Making Waves

Brain wave responses of Terry Harrington (left) show that the record in his brain does not contain critical information about a murder he was initially convinced of committing. Brain wave responses of James B. Grinder (right) show the record in his brain matches the details of the murder of Julie Helton.

Dr. Lawrence Farwell (right), Chairman and Chief Scientist of Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, demonstrates how he would perform a test. Farwell would be measuring the brave-wave responses of the person who is looking at words or pictures displayed on a computer screen.  (The Gazette/Buzz Orr)

Brain 'fingerprints' could revolutionize justice system

FAIRFIELD -- The plot has the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster as the chairman of Brain Fingerprinting Inc. explains a recent plea for his company's help.

An inmate serving time in a Texas prison for the murder of three people pours out his soul in a letter to Lawrence Farwell. The inmate professes innocence.

A fourth victim injured during the murders, who was not able to testify at trial, has recovered enough to describe the assailant.

The description of the murderer doesn't match the Texas inmate, who asks Brain Fingerprinting to determine if he has any memories of committing the crime, evidence that could help him prove his innocence.

Amazing requests are increasingly common as word of Brain Finger-printing's controversial new technology spreads.

The tiny Fairfield firm holds patents on technology it says can tell, with a high degree of accuracy, whether specific knowledge is stored in the brain.

Farwell, a Harvard-educated psychologist who has studied the P300 brain wave for 15 years, believes the technology has the potential to revolutionize the criminal justice system.

"There are finite limitations to the capabilities of the human brain," Farwell says. "But the major milestone of events in life remain in memory."

How it works In using the technology, a suspect is shown carefully selected words, phrases or images on a computer screen. They are things like a photo of a murder weapon or the model of car used in a crime that would only be recognized by the person who committed the crime.

Sensors on a headband register the subject's EEG, or brain wave responses to the computer images. The EEG is fed through a amplifier and into a computer that uses proprietary software to display and interpret the brain waves.

Farwell looks primarily for a brain wave response he terms MERMER (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response) or the lack of it. MERMER is a combination of brain wave elements, the central component being a brain wave known to scientists as P300.

Farwell has been awarded patents covering the use of MERMER in forensic applications.

"The technology is based on P300 science, but in our judgment, MERMER makes it much more accurate." says Farwell.

Brain Fingerprinting has offered Iowa and other states a pilot program under which 10 criminal suspects who have pleaded innocent would be allowed to undergo Brain Fingerprinting before trial.

Prosecutors could then reevaluate the usefulness of taking suspects to trial if the suspects lacked the knowledge of the key details of the crime.

Brain Fingerprinting estimates Iowa spends $100 million per year on major cases that go to trial.

Farwell thinks the company could potentially save 10 to 20 percent of that expense by avoiding the costs of prosecuting innocent people, in addition to keeping innocent people out of prison and freeing law enforcement to pursue the real criminals.

Farwell: It's accurate Farwell says Brain Fingerprinting has been 100 percent accurate in 170 cases that have been evaluated. He does not claim it is 100 percent effective, or applicable in every case.

The technology works best in fresh criminal cases, he says, when the criminal is the only person besides investigators with knowledge of crime details.

Two murder cases in which Brain Fingerprinting played a role were both more than a decade old when Farwell tackled them.

Authorities spent over 10,000 hours investigating the 1984 rape-murder of Julie Helton in Macon, Mo., before Farwell was brought in to interview James B. Grinder, who had long been the prime suspect. Farwell evaluated Grinder in August 1999.

After testing, Grinder, already imprisoned on another crime, was told that specific details of the murder were in his memory. He realized he would be prosecuted, Farwell said, and entered a negotiated plea of guilty.

Terry Harrington of Omaha, Neb., had been in an Iowa prison for 22 years for the 1977 murder of John Schweer, a security guard in Council Bluffs. He was only 17 at the time of the crime.

Farwell's evaluation of Harrington in early 2000 found his brain did not contain specific knowledge of the crime but did store details of the night of the murder consistent with his alibi. Farwell used the information to confront the key witness against Harrington, who admitted he had not told the truth.

The Brain Fingerprinting evaluation was admitted as evidence based on the scientific studies of P300 brain waves. It became part of an appeal that succeeded when the Iowa Supreme Court in February ruled police had wrongly suppressed eight reports that should have given to Harrington's defense. Marketing the tool Over the past year, Brain Fingerprinting has put together a powerful executive team to market the evaluation tool.

Drew Richardson, a former chief of the FBI's nuclear and biological antiterrorism unit, joined the company as vice president of forensic operations weeks before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Richardson had been assigned to collaborate with Farwell at the FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Va., on a $1 million Central Intelligence Agency research study on Brain Fingerprinting.

Farwell succeeded in distinguishing federal employees who had received FBI training and employees who had received military medicine training from those employees who had not been trained.

Richardson now estimates Brain Fingerprinting could be useful in solving 70 percent of major crimes, more than traditional fingerprinting or DNA evidence.

The cost of Brain Fingerprinting ranges from about $1,000 to $25,000, depending on the case. The company has a waiting list of about 400 requests.

Richardson believes the terrorist attacks will accelerate government adoption of Brain Fingerprinting technology from more than five years to as little as two years. He says Brain Fingerprinting is trying to avoid the trap that delayed acceptance of DNA testing as a forensic tool -- that is, a belief that it was only useful for criminal defense.

"What we want to do is to be understood to be an unbiased and scientific tool that can be used by either side to help prove innocence or guilt," he said."

People will be seeing a lot more of the year-old company, which has already gotten national exposure on programs ranging from "60 Minutes" to "Alibi."

It will be the subject of a hour long prime-time documentary that will be part of PBS' new "Innovation" series on technology.

Brain Fingerprinting is in talks with pharmaceutical companies interested in using it to evaluate the effectiveness of drugs to treat Alzheimer's disease and with insurance companies interested in using it as an investigative tool -- even entertainment companies interested in using Brain Fingerprinting in a weekly TV show.

TOP       HOME