brain fingerprinting

In such a case, brain fingerprinting could provide useful evidence.

No questions are asked or answered during a brain fingerprinting test.

The report did not include an account of the scientific research on brain fingerprinting or its successful use in court.

In this regard, brain fingerprinting is similar to other forensic sciences.

It reported that most such individuals did not see the need for brain fingerprinting in their pre-911 operations over a decade ago.

Brain fingerprinting does not determine whether a suspect is guilty or innocent of a crime.

Obviously, in structuring a brain fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoid including information that has been made public.

If there is no known information on which a suspect could be tested, a brain fingerprinting test cannot be structured.

Brain fingerprinting can provide scientific evidence regarding what information is stored in a subject's brain.

Before a brain fingerprinting test can be conducted, an investigator must discover relevant information about the crime or investigated situation.

Brain fingerprinting detects only information, and not intent.

It did not discuss the application of brain fingerprinting in present-day criminal investigations and law enforcement.

"The evidence resulting from Harrington's 'brain fingerprinting' test was discovered after the fact.

Brain fingerprinting science only determines whether the information tested is stored in the brain of the subject or not.

Extensive criticism of brain fingerprinting is contained in Rosenfeld 2005.

In ruling the brain fingerprinting test admissible as scientific evidence, the Court stated the following:

(As discussed above, brain fingerprinting is not applicable in general employee screening.)

Brain fingerprinting does not detect lies.

Brain fingerprinting correctly distinguished the FBI agents from the non-agents.

Brain fingerprinting can, however, be used for specific screening or focused screening, when investigators have some idea what they are looking for.

They both expressed the opinion that brain fingerprinting was highly valuable in FBI investigations.

The first, developed by Lawrence Farwell in the 1980s, is known as "brain fingerprinting."

(Harrington v. State 2003, p. 516) The supreme court did not reach the brain fingerprinting issue, and decided the case on other grounds.

Another situation where brain fingerprinting is not applicable is one where the authorities have no information about what crime may have taken place.

The individuals interviewed by the GAO noted, correctly, that brain fingerprinting is not such a tool.