It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Brain Fingerprinting can tell if your innocent or guilty of a crime. Supposed to be 100% accurate.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2004 @ 02:14 AM
link   
O.k. I usually know whats going on in the world but how come I never heard of this. Heres a brief description of how it works.

6. How Brain Fingerprinting 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.

Heres a link to the creators website.
www.brainwavescience.com...

Heres a link to a descriptive website.
www.forensic-evidence.com...

This is like a lie detector that is 100% accurate. Just think of the possibilities of using this for interrogations on suspects. Think of using this on terrorists. What about the constitutional aspects of this. You have the right to plead the fith but what if they use this. What do you all think.

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Hoppinmad1]

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Hoppinmad1]




posted on May, 14 2004 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I would be careful here. It was admited only once as evidence in a court in Iowa. When I searched up on this through google I only popped up the guys site, lots of AP media sites, yet not a single Science journal. Not even a single layman science site has touched this. (afaik)



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 04:39 AM
link   



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   
It made one of the daily papers here in Ireland a few weeks ago.
It was a tabloid though which isn't renown for its accuracy



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   
The fact is it will catch on. It was admitted in court. I seen it on tech tv first and reasearched a little. One man who was in prison and said he was innocent took the test and later confessed to 3 more murders.

It makes sense to a certain extent. It would work if certain elements of the crime weren't made public but if they were widely known it wouldn't work.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
A large number of murders are performed by someone who knows the victim. A smaller but still substanial number are performed in an area well known to the victim.
So, if for example, someone was killed in their own home and another person who lived there was accused of the crime, wouldn't this cause severe problems?
They would recognise the scene because they see it everyday.
They would recognise the victim because they lived with them.
They could well recognise the murder weapon because they used it to prepare meat every day.
My point is, how can you prove that the information is not only noteworthy to a suspect, but also noteworthy to them in the correct context?



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I think it is a good idea. I don't think it would pass and become admissable in the federal supreme court cuz the issues you raised. But if the suspect was unrealted and the details of the crime were kept secret then it could be usefull. I think most usefull in prison for people who are convicted yet claim to be innocent. Lots of people have been relased from prison after dna has proved them innocent.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I do not believe "brain fingerprinting" to be junk science.

A half year ago, I did a web page on the topic. Somewhat comprehensive, covering finger prints, polygraph, forensic science, dna and brain fingerprint. Farwell moved his company into the field of security for corporations, over time his system will be tested in court cases. This will eventually become a field of forensic science. It will never be a standalone, always used in conjunction with other fields of expertise in evidense presentation. It can be used to prove guilt or innocence. Wonder who the first prosecuter will be? He'll probably be fired or replaced before using this method of evidence.

A thought I mention in the introduction of page:

Would the algorithm be modified in pedofile cases, such as Michael Jackson. Pedofiles who believe they have done no wrong, that it is a beautiful thing.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
hmm.. this all sounds too good to be true... maybe it will catch on if it is believed to be actually 100% accurate... but it sounds pretty good if it is true..

...also amarogue makes a very good point in such cases as micheal jackson... wonder what they would have to do then...



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I am kind of curious if anyone has heard anything new about this potiential forscenics technique or if it has been found to be a hoax? On a quasi-related note I have heard of an interesting accidental discovery. Apparently certain people who are depressed or even bi-polar can be given a does of inexplicable happyness by getting a MRI scan.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I agree, in theory anyone with knowledge of the area, victim, method etc could be implicated. The only way it could really be used would be details that could only be known to the perp and not all cases have that kind of detail.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Wow I posted about this way back. I haven't heard about any new uses of this technology. It is still a hotly debated idea and rightfully so. I think it should be used more often and similary to the polygraph. Not so much as evidence but to get an idea on something. That is the way it could be most effective. But it raises a lot of legal questions.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join