"Brain Scanning" Cops Newest Ultimate Lie Detector Technique - GoFuckYourself.com

Greg B · 02-18-2004, 08:14 AM

This could be a good thing or a bad thing. Problem is we still don't know everything about the human mind and brain and this device is being used in courts of law to convict and exonerate. Although I think it's cool, a man should be judged by a jury of his peers.
-----

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3495433.stm

Brain fingerprints under scrutiny

By Becky McCall

A controversial technique for identifying a criminal mind using involuntary brainwaves that could reveal guilt or innocence is about to take centre stage in a last-chance court appeal against a death-row conviction in the US. The technique, called "brain fingerprinting", has already been tested by the FBI and has now become part of the key evidence to overturn the murder conviction of Jimmy Ray Slaughter who is facing execution in Oklahoma.

Brain Fingerprinting, developed by Dr Larry Farwell, chief scientist and founder of Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, is a method of reading the brain's involuntary electrical activity in response to a subject being shown certain images relating to a crime.

Unlike the polygraph or lie detector to which it is often compared, the accuracy of this technology lies in its ability to pick up the electrical signal, known as a p300 wave, before the suspect has time to affect the output.

"It is highly scientific, brain fingerprinting doesn't have anything to do with the emotions, whether a person is sweating or not; it simply detects scientifically if that information is stored in the brain," says Dr Farwell.

"It doesn't depend upon the subjective interpretation of the person conducting the test. The computer monitors the information and comes up with information present or information absent."

Brain fingerprinting is admissible in court for use in identifying or exonerating individuals in the US.

Maximum security

A few days ago Dr Farwell ran the test on Jimmy Ray Slaughter at the maximum security state prison in Oklahoma.

A jury convicted Slaughter of shooting, stabbing and mutilating his former girlfriend, Melody Wuertz, and of shooting to death their eleven-month old-daughter, Jessica.

The crimes for which he is sentenced to death took place in a house that he is very familiar with. The results were revealing.

"Jimmy Ray Slaughter did not know where in the house the murder took place; he didn't know where the mother's body was lying or what was on her clothing at the time of death - a salient fact in the case," says Dr Farwell.

During the test, the suspect wears a headband equipped with sensors to measure activity in response to recognition of an image relating to the crime - for example, a murder weapon or possibly a code word in the case of a spy.

Dr Farwell claims some tests were 100% accurate

"In research with the FBI, we presented words and phrases that only an FBI agent would know and we could tell by the brain responses who was an FBI agent and who was not; we could do that with 100% accuracy," says Dr Farwell.

Brain Fingerprinting has profound implications for the criminal justice system.

Any decision relies on more than just the outcome of a forensic test such as brain fingerprinting. However, in the light of these findings, the case for appeal hopes that Slaughter will either be granted a pardon, clemency or a retrial.

Critics of brain fingerprinting believe it needs far more refinement before its use becomes widespread and cases are won and lost on its evidence.

Needless to say, Dr Farwell disagrees.

"What I can say definitively from a scientific standpoint, is that Jimmy Ray Slaughter's brain does not contain a record of some of the most salient details about the murder for which he's been convicted and sentenced to death," says Dr Farwell.

CARRlE · 02-18-2004, 09:09 AM

He states that he can say this man is innocent definitively, yet it says that SOME tests were 100% accurate.
Not all.
So how can he be so sure?

Also I can think of a bunch of cases where this wouldn't apply... for instance a man who comes home to find his wife murdered. He's seen her; showing him pictures his brain would give a positive reaction to that scene. Or a man who has seen pictures of a crime scene in the paper or in an earlier part of the trial. Positive response.

And how can they tell *what* the brain is responding to? Perhaps he's seen the person before so there's a positive result coming through, but he simply hasn't seen the person in their "final state" laying in a pool of blood on the floor.

The whole thing seems too "iffy" to me.

Greg B · 02-18-2004, 09:34 AM

That's what I'm talking about Carrie. These new technologies are being implimented and we don't know everything about everything yet.

Even in physics we're not 100% there yet and a man's life in a court of law is balanced on science the average person can't fathom. Same with DNA. People think DNA is the be all and end all of proof but even that isn't 100% accurate.

That's why the further we get in law, the more it requires us to look back to the basics and realize that the foundation of the court is and always should be based on what those 12 jurors conclude.

GotGauge · 02-18-2004, 09:47 AM

just by looking, I think this could be used to prove innocents, but not guilt...

itzjamiex · 02-18-2004, 10:10 AM

I don't like it.

Gov!

Greg B · 02-18-2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GotGauge
just by looking, I think this could be used to prove innocents, but not guilt...

Now you're talkin'!

Yet our legal system has become more of a platform for vindictiveness instead of trying to redeem the innocent.

That's what our legal system is based on that you're innocent until proven guilty. With devices like this you're guilty by machine not men.

It's like that episode of the old Star Trek show where Kirk was found guilty by computer and he had to call on an expert attorney to argue his case.

Guess we'll all be needing Samuel T. Cogburn Attorney at Law.

JDog · 02-18-2004, 10:39 AM

I read a article about that years ago! But they weren't using it in courts & I don't think that has been study enough to actually use in a court system! It's sad if it is being used!

jDoG

02-18-2004, 08:14 AM	#1
Greg B So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: EARTH (for the time being) Posts: 7,014	"Brain Scanning" Cops Newest Ultimate Lie Detector Technique This could be a good thing or a bad thing. Problem is we still don't know everything about the human mind and brain and this device is being used in courts of law to convict and exonerate. Although I think it's cool, a man should be judged by a jury of his peers. ----- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3495433.stm Brain fingerprints under scrutiny By Becky McCall A controversial technique for identifying a criminal mind using involuntary brainwaves that could reveal guilt or innocence is about to take centre stage in a last-chance court appeal against a death-row conviction in the US. The technique, called "brain fingerprinting", has already been tested by the FBI and has now become part of the key evidence to overturn the murder conviction of Jimmy Ray Slaughter who is facing execution in Oklahoma. Brain Fingerprinting, developed by Dr Larry Farwell, chief scientist and founder of Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, is a method of reading the brain's involuntary electrical activity in response to a subject being shown certain images relating to a crime. Unlike the polygraph or lie detector to which it is often compared, the accuracy of this technology lies in its ability to pick up the electrical signal, known as a p300 wave, before the suspect has time to affect the output. "It is highly scientific, brain fingerprinting doesn't have anything to do with the emotions, whether a person is sweating or not; it simply detects scientifically if that information is stored in the brain," says Dr Farwell. "It doesn't depend upon the subjective interpretation of the person conducting the test. The computer monitors the information and comes up with information present or information absent." Brain fingerprinting is admissible in court for use in identifying or exonerating individuals in the US. Maximum security A few days ago Dr Farwell ran the test on Jimmy Ray Slaughter at the maximum security state prison in Oklahoma. A jury convicted Slaughter of shooting, stabbing and mutilating his former girlfriend, Melody Wuertz, and of shooting to death their eleven-month old-daughter, Jessica. The crimes for which he is sentenced to death took place in a house that he is very familiar with. The results were revealing. "Jimmy Ray Slaughter did not know where in the house the murder took place; he didn't know where the mother's body was lying or what was on her clothing at the time of death - a salient fact in the case," says Dr Farwell. During the test, the suspect wears a headband equipped with sensors to measure activity in response to recognition of an image relating to the crime - for example, a murder weapon or possibly a code word in the case of a spy. Dr Farwell claims some tests were 100% accurate "In research with the FBI, we presented words and phrases that only an FBI agent would know and we could tell by the brain responses who was an FBI agent and who was not; we could do that with 100% accuracy," says Dr Farwell. Brain Fingerprinting has profound implications for the criminal justice system. Any decision relies on more than just the outcome of a forensic test such as brain fingerprinting. However, in the light of these findings, the case for appeal hopes that Slaughter will either be granted a pardon, clemency or a retrial. Critics of brain fingerprinting believe it needs far more refinement before its use becomes widespread and cases are won and lost on its evidence. Needless to say, Dr Farwell disagrees. "What I can say definitively from a scientific standpoint, is that Jimmy Ray Slaughter's brain does not contain a record of some of the most salient details about the murder for which he's been convicted and sentenced to death," says Dr Farwell.

02-18-2004, 09:47 AM	#4
GotGauge Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: USA Posts: 3,072	just by looking, I think this could be used to prove innocents, but not guilt... __________________ ICQ 22264474 [email protected]

02-18-2004, 10:39 AM	#7
JDog Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Canby, OR Posts: 7,453	I read a article about that years ago! But they weren't using it in courts & I don't think that has been study enough to actually use in a court system! It's sad if it is being used! jDoG __________________ NSCash now powering ReelProfits.com ALSO FEATURING: NSCash.com :: SoloDollars.com :: ReelProfits.com :: BiminiBucks.com :: VOD PROGRAMS COMING SOON: Greedy Bucks :: Vengeance Cash NOW OFFERING OVER 60 SITES CONTACT :: JAMES SMITH :: CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER :: ICQ (711385133)

02-18-2004, 09:09 AM	#2
CARRlE So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 29	He states that he can say this man is innocent definitively, yet it says that SOME tests were 100% accurate. Not all. So how can he be so sure? Also I can think of a bunch of cases where this wouldn't apply... for instance a man who comes home to find his wife murdered. He's seen her; showing him pictures his brain would give a positive reaction to that scene. Or a man who has seen pictures of a crime scene in the paper or in an earlier part of the trial. Positive response. And how can they tell what the brain is responding to? Perhaps he's seen the person before so there's a positive result coming through, but he simply hasn't seen the person in their "final state" laying in a pool of blood on the floor. The whole thing seems too "iffy" to me.

02-18-2004, 09:34 AM	#3
Greg B So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: EARTH (for the time being) Posts: 7,014	That's what I'm talking about Carrie. These new technologies are being implimented and we don't know everything about everything yet. Even in physics we're not 100% there yet and a man's life in a court of law is balanced on science the average person can't fathom. Same with DNA. People think DNA is the be all and end all of proof but even that isn't 100% accurate. That's why the further we get in law, the more it requires us to look back to the basics and realize that the foundation of the court is and always should be based on what those 12 jurors conclude.

02-18-2004, 10:10 AM	#5
itzjamiex Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Dirty South Posts: 124	I don't like it. Gov!