Robert Jones

This essay might be of special interest to writers of detective and mystery stories who would like to enrich their stories by presenting their readers with a gift of some extra detail. It might also be of general interest to many other readers.

By January 7, 1984, Julie Helton had lived for some 25 years. She had lived in Marceline, Missouri and had worked for a publishing company. James Grinder, a woodcutter, allegedly put an end to her life on that date by assaulting, beating and stabbing her, leaving her body to be found several days later near a railroad track in Macon, Missouri.

In 1993, Grinder and another suspect, a former Macon policeman, had court-ordered blood samples taken. At that time however, there was insufficient evidence to support an indictment for murder. Grinder subsequently served a sentence for an unrelated crime, but he was arrested upon his release in 1998 He confessed his involvement in the Helton murder, but offered conflicting versions. He subsequently confessed to having been involved in the murders of three other young women.

Macon County sheriff Robert Dawson had spent more than 10,000 man-hours investigating the Helton murder and was determined to prove or disprove the involvement of Grinder in it. To help ensure success, Dawson turned to Dr. Lawrence Farwell, who had developed a system, referred to by its registered trademark as “brain fingerprinting,” for detecting, amplifying, digitizing, recording, analyzing and displaying electrical activity in portions of a person’s brain. Electrical brain activity in response to specific visual and/or auditory stimuli is sensed by a number of electrodes fastened to a flexible headband placed around a subject’s head. The electrodes are positioned to sense electrical activities of the frontal, central and parietal portions of the subject’s brain. The electrodes are connected through an amplifier to a computer, where electrical signals representing brain activities undergo a data analysis by a mathematical algorithm to determine if suspected information is or is not retained in the brain. Results can be recorded, displayed on a monitor and/or printed. An electrical activity detected when a subject is presented with specific crime-related words, phrases and/or pictures results in the creation of a specific pattern displayed in an EEG (electroencephalograph). The pattern represents what is referred to as a MERMER, that is, a Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response. (That last bit of information will not be on the next exam.)

The presence of such activity indicates that specific memories have been retained within the brain
portions and are being recalled. For example, someone who has stabbed another person to death and buried his or her body would have memories associated with the stabbing and burial. Electrical activity would be initiated when the stabber is shown a picture, for example, of the murder weapon and when shown words and phrases describing details of the murder, the murder scene, the transportation of the victim, the burial scene, etc. Innocent suspects would not have memories of the crime, and there would be no similar electrical activity when shown such items. The system thus indicates not only when a suspect has memories of a specific crime, but also when s/he does not. The latter advantage could save innocent persons from undergoing unpleasant experiences attending investigations and interrogations and, even worse, undeserved convictions, prison sentences and executions.

Briefly, a typical brain fingerprinting test would include a preliminary investigation to collect information associated with a crime. Such information includes that which a perpetrator would gather while committing the crime in question. Examples would be: the victim was knitting when the suspect broke into her home, the victim was wearing fuzzy pink slippers, there was only one light on, a popular game show was on the victim’s television set, a half-eaten pickle was on a small table next to where the victim was knitting, and the suspect had skinned his knee while breaking in. Such details would be known only by the suspect and perhaps by the police. Ordinary citizens would not likely be aware of any of them and would certainly not be aware of all of them. Of course, relevant information divulged during interrogations and court proceedings must be avoided.

Following an investigation, suitable words, phrases and/or pictures are divided into three stimulus categories: IRRELEVENT, TARGET and PROBE. Irrelevant stimuli, having no relation to the crime, will not elicit a MERMER from a subject. Target stimuli have a relation to the crime and are revealed to the subject prior to the test. They will elicit a comparison-standard MERMER. Probe stimuli to which the subject has not been exposed (unless s/he was, for example, present at or more closely involved in the crime) will not elicit a MERMER. Comparisons of resulting patterns displayed on an electroencephalograph (EEG) will reveal whether or not the subject had details of the crime retained within his or her brain.

Significant details of such an act as a murder are retained in one’s brain for some time. Grinder was tested some 15 years after the murder. Another suspected murderer, Terry Harrington, was tested to confirm or deny his involvement in a murder committed 23 years prior to the test. In 1997, retired Police Captain John Schweer, while working as a night watchman in Council Bluffs, Iowa, was shot to death. A few months later, sixteen-year-old Terry Harrington was arrested. Although Harrington had what was apparently a solid alibi that placed him, at the time of the murder, in Omaha, 20 miles away from the murder scene, he was subsequently convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Following a string of failed appeals, Harrington contacted Dr. Farwell and was given his brain fingerprinting test.

According to Farwell, it was determined with a 99.99 percent confidence that test information related to the murder was not being retained in Harrington’s brain. Farwell further claimed that, again with a 99.99 percent confidence, information related to his alibi was retained in his brain. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court found that police had failed to provide Harrington’s defense attorney with a total of eight reports that could have cast doubt on testimony linking him to the night watchman’s murder. Additionally, the witness who had put Harrington at the scene of the murder recanted. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed Harrington’s conviction and ordered a new trial. The State of Iowa decided not to try Harrington again, and he was once again, after nearly a quarter of a century, a free man.

Readers should realize that brain fingerprinting does not determine guilt or innocence. It is evidence akin to standard fingerprint and DNA evidence that is submitted to a judge or jury whose duty it is to decide guilt.

ADDITIONAL FACTS:

Dr. Farwell has a PhD in biological psychology from the University of Illinois and has done research at Harvard University. In addition to the Brain Fingerprinting system, he has invented a device that enables paralyzed persons to control a computer so that they can communicate and control other devices. Farwell is Chairman and Chief Scientist of Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc.

Estimates put the number of crime suspects apprehended in the United States at about fourteen million. Estimates of the number of innocent persons serving long-term prison sentences ranges from a few thousand to more than a hundred thousand. Estimates of the fraction of the five thousand or so persons being held on death row that are innocent range between a few and forty percent.

Brain fingerprinting also finds application in additional areas. These include medical diagnostics such as the early detection of Alzheimer’s disease, security testing, military intelligence matters, terrorism, fraud and computer-hacking detection and measuring the effectiveness of campaigns and advertising.