Things you did NOT know about P300 MERMER Brain Fingerprinting - Based on Public Government documents
1) FEDERAL AGENCIES VIEW ON BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
Federal Agency Views on the Potential Application of "Brain Fingerprinting"
Report to the Honorable Charles E. Grassley, U.S. Senate
Federal Agency Views - "CIA, DOD, FBI, and Secret Service do not foresee using the Brain Fingerprinting technique for their operations because of its limited application."
DOD's View - "Overall, DOD officials indicated that Brain Fingerprinting has limited applicability to DODs operations"
It is interesting to note that the CIA who funded the Brain Fingerprinting work abandoned it, and issued a detailed project report on why it is not used.
CIA's View - "From their experiences with the developers research between 1991 and 1993, CIA officials concluded that Brain Fingerprinting had limited applicability to CIAs operations. Accordingly, CIA decided that it was not worth investing more funds to continue the developers research."
Secret Services View - "The Service subsequently concluded that the technique had limited application to Secret Service activities."
Signed Letter from John E, Collingwood, Assistant Director, Office of Public and Congressional Affairs, to Mr Paul Jones, Director Justice Issues, Washigton.
The letter states (as quoted) - " In conclusion, the report fairly reflects the FBI's belief that this technique has limited applicability and usefulness to FBI investigative and personnel security matters. The FBI continues to support the view that this technique has limited utility. We also think it is important to point out that the rest of the federal community shares the FBI's view the Dr. Farwell's "Brain Fingerprinting" has very limited applicability and usefulness."
Signed Letter from Jack L Johnson, Jr, Special Agent in Charge, to Mr Paul Jones, Director Justice Issues, Washington.
The letter states (as quoted) - " Dr Cantu has recently briefed me on this technology and the underlying scientific principals, which purportedly support its accuracy and validity. Following this briefing, and a review of the information related to this technique, I must concur completely with the opinion of Dr Cantu. The "Brain Fingerprinting Technique" has very little applicability to the overall Secret Service mission, and is a technology that has not been completely validated as of this time."
2) COURTS VIEW ON BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
The famous Terry Harrington case listed as a case were Brain Fingerprinting was instrumental in the exoneration.
This is what the court really had to say
Statement of the Iowa Attorney General's Office on Supreme Court Decision re Terry Harrington.
Quoted: "With one Justice dissenting, the Supreme Court reversed Harrington's conviction on the ground that the failure to disclose police reports denied defendant a fair trial. The Court ruled that withholding the reports compromised Harrington's defense at trial that he was not the person who shot Mr. Schweer."
Quoted: "The Court also declined to rule on the admissibility or credibility of the "brain fingerprinting" evidence offered by Harrington. In its brief and argument to the Court, the State argued that brain fingerprinting is "junk science" that has no track record establishing its reliability. The State argued that the technique has been tested in the lab with fewer than 200 persons and has been used in the field in only a handful of cases. The State argued the technique should be treated similarly to lie-detector tests, which are inadmissible in Iowa and most other states. The Iowa Supreme Court did not determine the reliability of brain fingerprinting and did not rule on the admissibility of brain fingerprinting in Iowa courts."
James B Grinder case 1999
In this case the suspect confessed to his crimes, so the Brain Fingerprinting reports were never presented in Court.
The Suspect was tested on request by the Macon County Sheriff Robert Dawson. The results were never presented in Court.
A quick search at the Missouri Courts Case.net online search
Case No WD37139
Name JAMES B GRINDER
Shows only one case as of 1985. No subsequent cases were booked !
3) DOES THIS COMPANY REALLY EXIST ?
It is rare to see real technology companies having a lifespan of 2 years.
The reader would know what it means when people create temporary on demand companies.
a) BRAIN FINGERPRINTING LABORATORIES
as per Washington Secretary of State - Corporations Search
Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories (Corp No: 291116)
Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories (Unique Business Identifier - 602555725)
started on November 07 2005
shutdown on March 01 2007
Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories (Unique Business Identifier - 603147918)
stared on September 30 2011
expiry September 30 2012
b) BRAINWAVE SCIENCE CONSULTING (Unique Business Identifier - 602594570)
Started on : March 16 2006
Closed on : August 07 01 2008
4) HAS THE US GOVERNMENT BOUGHT ANYTHING FROM BRAIN FINGERPRINGING LABORATORIES
According to http://www.usaspending.gov
2 contracts were awarded,
Transaction Number # 1
April 15 , 2003
Transaction Number # 2
November 02 , 2006
Both has a contract value of 0.
The second contract was terminated for Default !
5) Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories tried to go Public Twice (IPO).
Get complete information at
6) Interesting article from India - Farwell was sent back.
An interesting article from India.
FARWELL’S VISIT TO INDIA
This writer, had an opportunity to expose the fallacy behind Farwell’s brain
fingerprinting technique when Lawrence Farwell visited Hyderabad on March 27,
2004 whence the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory had organized a
symposium on ‘Truth detecting techniques’. After Farwell made his presentation
he was confronted with the comment that his technique would not differentiate
the brain wave response exhibited by the perpetrator of a crime from that exhibited
by the others who have knowledge about the crime.
Farwell concurred with the observation.
Farwell’s team brought with them more than a dozen equipment to be marketed in India.
The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mr Sukumaran had on the spot cancelled
the orders earlier placed for the purchase of a unit for Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory
from Farwell and Farwell had to go back to America taking back all the units he
brought to India for sale.
Farwell’s Brain Fingerprinting : The Des Moines Register, a newspaper dated
September 06, 2004 has published a very interesting story about Farwell’s
company having swindled the taxpayers of Iowa out of over $100,000 on the
pretext of Brain Fingerprinting research. On the outskirts of Fairfield, alongside a
gravel- driveway marked with a sign that reads “Hermit Haven,” sits the National
Data Center and Regional Operations Center for Brain Fingerprinting
Laboratories Inc. The centers consist of a small, rented office and an empty
laboratory. A few computers with archived experiment data are stashed in the
basement behind steel doors, but no workers are there to use them. “They moved
to Seattle,” explains a businessman in a neighboring office.
In the months before that move, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories collected
$125,000 in grants and loans from the Iowa Department of Economic
Development. However, a lawyer in the Iowa attorney general’s office has said
Farwell’s so-called brain fingerprinter is no more effective than “a pasta strainer
with a chin strap.” Another lawyer in the attorney general’s office called the
state’s investment a waste of taxpayer money. A third has said the company’s
claims are “nonsense.” There are no takers for brain fingerprinting in America
7) Lawrence Ashley Farwell Resume
As per court documents
1973 - BA from Harvard University , in psychology and social relations
1973 to 1983 - Real Estate Agent
1983 - University of Washington - Discontinued course
1984 to 1988 - MA from the University Illinois (4 years)
1988 to 1992 - Ph.D. from the University of Illinois. (4 years)