Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Drew Richardson
 - Feb 28, 2003, 01:43 AM
Shadow,

As is the case with standard polygraphy, Brain Fingerprinting should absolutely not be used for general screening applications (fishing expeditions), i.e., periodic/aperiodic testing (screening) of applicants, employees, convicted sex offenders, etc.  Such a use would be invalid and the damage caused would be as ethically indefensible as is the case with polygraph screening now.  We have no intention of promoting our services for inappropriate applications.  I am glad to say that we limit our services in such a way--I would have no connection with Brain Fingerprinting if it did not; unfortunately, as the NAS panel has concluded, by not doing likewise, the polygraph world has created a situation which poses a danger to the national security and likely victimizes thousands of our citizens each year.  Although the NAS panel did not specifically call for the end to polygraph screening, it did provide an ample justification for decision makers to reach such a conclusion and take such action.  I would like to think that the DOE (the sponsors of the aforementioned study) will take the lead and begin this process (ending/severely limiting polygraph screening for its employees) over the next year.

With regard to specific issue testing, I would estimate that with properly trained investigators and analysts in place for a given jurisdiction that in excess of 70 percent of matters investigated properly (involves having concealed information collected in a timely, logical, and complete manner and then preserved and properly protected) will be amenable to Brain Fingerprinting analysis and other forms of concealed information testing.  Nationwide, this, of course, amounts to a tremendous amount of potential applicability to criminal casework and various administrative inquires.  We are in the process of planning an evaluation of both the applicability and the validity of Brain Fingerprinting and concealed information testing using standard polygraph instrumentation that will involve a formal study including real field cases .

Posted by The Shadow
 - Feb 28, 2003, 12:30 AM
FYI on "Brain Finger Printing", it has promise, but even Dr Farwell will admit that it is limited in its application/use.
Posted by Marty
 - Feb 27, 2003, 02:00 PM
I had read about Terry's retrial and was astonished the judge ruled as he did given the evidence.  Not surprised that he was overturned.

Any new technology takes a while to be vetted and trusted or discarded.

-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Feb 27, 2003, 01:41 PM
In a case of major significance for brain fingerprinting, a form of concealed information or guilty knowledge test, the Iowa supreme court has reversed the murder conviction of Terry J. Harrington. A brain fingerprinting test indicated that Harrington was unfamiliar with details of the crime scene. The court's ruling may be read on-line here:
 
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/supreme/opinions/20030226/01-0653.asp?printable=True
 
See also the following press release on the Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories website:
 
http://www.brainfingerprinting.com/harrington.htm