BRAIN MAPPING PRESENTERGOPENDRA CHANDRA KAMAL PG 1ST YEAR SCHOLAR

GUIDE DR. NAVEEN ASST. PROFESSOR

DAPARTMENT OF AGADA TANTRA

Contents• INTRODUCTION• DEFINITION• HISTORY• TECHNIQUES• PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES• USES• DRAWBACKS• BRAIN MAPPING CENTRES AND CASES• ACCURACY• COURT’S VIEW• DISCUSSION• CONCLUSION

What is the brain-mapping test?

It is a test that maps the brain to reveal guilty knowledge.

The brain-mapping test is done to interpret the behaviour of the suspect and corroborate the investing officers' observation and the suspect's statements.

During the tests, forensic experts apply unique technologies to find out if a suspect's brain recognises things from the crime scene which an innocent is unaware of.

DEFINITION•Brain Mapping is a group of neuroscience techniques

based on the mapping of quantities or properties (biological) onto spatial representation of brain.

History of Brain mapping• It began when experimental strategies of cognitive psychology were

combined with modern brain imaging techniques.

• This combination has galvanized the cognitive neuroscience, which has rapidly expanded to include a broad range of social sciences, in addition to neurophysiology, cell biology and genetics.

Techniques used-

BRAIN MAPPING-• PET ( POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY)• FMRI (FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING) -

These measure the cerebral blood flow, metabolism and structural integrity of the brain.

BRAIN MERMER/ BRAIN FINGERPRINTING-• QEEG (QUANTATIVE ELECTRONCEPHALOGRAPHY)- measures

electrical activity of the brain.

Who invented this test?• American neurologist Dr Lawrence A Farwell, an expert in brain wave

science, who called this technique 'brain-wave fingerprinting' or 'brain mapping test.'

PRINCIPLE AND PROCEDURES-

Brain mapping -

• Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of brain tells what parts of the brain are active, by watching for the changes in blood oxygen level.

• fMRI is a variant of MRI which images the distribution of protons and other nuclei - mostly in the water - by peaking up their radio frequency (RF)signal.

• Through the effects on the signal caused by haemoglobin that has lost its oxygen, fMRI can sense blood oxygen level.

contd… •Deception is associated with changes in the brain activity.

And regional blood flow change is anatomically localized by fMRI.

• Blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) fMRI contrasts has shown that increased activity in anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), superior frontal gyrus (SFG), left pre-motor, motor and anterior parietal cortex. These are specifically associated with deceptive responses and appear as translucent areas in the scan.

In practice, the subject lies inside a MRI scanner and performs mental tasks on GKT (Guilty knowledge Test).

Recently, Positron Emission Tomography (PET) has also been used to spot regions of brain associated with emotions.

Brain Mermer Test (Brain fingerprinting)

• It is based on Quantitative Electroencephalogram (QEEG) under computer control.

• It matches evidence from a crime scene with evidence stored in the brain of a culprit,

Similar to the way conventional fingerprint matches fingerprints at the crime scene with that of the perpetrator or DNA fingerprinting matches biological samples from the crime scene with the DNA in the body of the perpetrator.

The test is based on the principle that an Event related potential (ERP) in the brain is produced in response to a particular stimulus.

Such stimulus may be- a series of words, sounds or images . Stimulus sets are composed of three types of stimuli:1) life experience related (Probes)2) stimuli the subjects are asked to memorize (Targets) 3) irrelevant information (Irrelevants).

Contd..

Farwell discovered that a MERMER is elicited whenever a person recognizes and processes a stimulus that is particularly noteworthy event.

P – 300 wave is a sub-component of MERMER (Memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response).

This is used to determine whether the subject hasrelevant information stored in his brain (Information present) or not (Information absent).

The subject is seated in front of a computer screen wearing a headband with EEG sensors.

MERMERS are elicited-- by Probe stimuli only in subject who has participated in the event,- by Target stimuli in all subject- in no case by Irrelevant stimuli. There is an in-built programme that automatically removes responses

obtained due to 'tensions' unrelated to the crime.

USES• CRIMINAL CASES- To determine if a suspect is telling the truth or make him reveal facts pertaining to a case.•MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS- Early evaluation of Alzheimer’s and other cognitive degenerative diseases.• ADVERTISEMENT- Evaluates the effectiveness of advertising products by measuring brain responses.• NATIONAL SECURITY- Screening employees , especially in military and foreign intelligence and counter terrorism.• INSURANCE FRAUD.

DRAWBACKS-The test may not be useful in a case in which :

1.Two suspects were present at a crime – one as a witness and another as a perpetrator.

2.Investigators do not have sufficient information about a crime so as to test a suspect for crime relevant information stored in the brain.

3. Subjects who have gained the knowledge of crime from mass media.

Brain mapping centres in India• Bangalore FSL is the main centre where Brain mapping is

carried out in our Country. •Also carried out in FSL, Mumbai and DFS, Gandhinagar

• In India celebrities like Rahul Mahajan, extradited gangster Abu Salem, stamp scamstar Abdul Karim Telgi and noted bandit Veerappan underwent Brain Mapping.

Any examples to show that brain-mapping tests are effective? Abdul Karim Telgi, the kingpin in the multi-crore fake stamp paper scam case, tested positive in the P-300 brain-mapping test performed on him.

Telgi underwent the test to ascertain whether he has made payments to former Maharashtra deputy chief minister Chhagan Bhujbal, allegedly to seek favours.

The report on Telgi brain mapping test said: 'The major findings reported by the brain mapping tests are indicative of the possession of knowledge about the activities by Karim Telgi;

brain activation during preparation, processing, while evoking primary encoding indicates active participation of Karim Telgi in all these activities.'

NITHARI MASSACRE- THE HOUSE OF HORROR

AARUSHI-HEMRAJ MURDER MYSTERY All the suspects underwent Brain-mapping test.• Rajesh and Nupur Talwar-DFS,

Gandhinagar• Krishna and vijay mandal- FSL,

Mumbai• Rajkumar- DFS, Gandhinagar

How accurate is the brain-mapping test?

The accuracy rate is 99.99 per cent, says Dr Malini, FSL, Bangalore. In fact, brain mapping is one of the most effective ingredients of forensic sciences these days. In the US, it is said the Federal Bureau of Investigation uses brain-mapping tests to convict criminals.

WHAT DOES THE COURT SAY?

Recently the Government of India justified before the Supreme Court the use of modern scientific technique like Brain mapping, Narco-analysis and Polygraph to investigate a crime .

Infact, S.53 Cr.PC. accords the requisite statutory sanction for conducting these tests. The use of the term "such other tests" in S.53 Cr.PC. includes in its ambit Polygraph, Narco-analysis and Brain mapping.

Earlier Judgments on DDTs

In a landmark judgment, the Madras High Court conveyed that investigating agency is required to complete investigation within a reasonable time, if not, the benefit of delay is given to the accused. If accused fails to co-operate with the investigation process undertaken during custodial interrogation, to unravel the mystery surrounding the crime, scientific investigation methods may have to be carried out to find the truth.

Supreme Court judgment on DDTThe Supreme Court judgment on May 5, 2010 related to the involuntary administration of DDT for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases was questioned on the account of violation of fundamental rights such as:

‘Right against self-incrimination’ enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution,

which states that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself/herself,

and Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) has been judicially expanded to

include a ‘right against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’.

The Supreme Court judgment on involuntary DDT is that it has no place in the judicial process. On the contrary, it will disrupt proceedings, cause delays, and lead to numerous complications which will result in no greater degree of certainty in the process than that which already exists.

Contemporary DDT needs to undergo rigorous research in normative and pathological populations.

Premature application of these technologies outside research settings should be resisted.

The vulnerability of the techniques to counter measures also needs to be explored. It is also important to know the sensitivity and specificity of these tests. There should be standard operating guidelines for conducting DDT.

The recent Supreme Court judgment on DDT is admirable from the scientific, human rights, ethical, legal and constitutional perspectives.

DDT also raises serious concerns related to the professional ethics of medical personnel involved in the administration of these techniques and violation of human rights of an individual.

US courts on brain mappingAmerican Courts have considered the question as to whether the evidence gathered from brain mapping could be admissible in court, and have categorically concluded in the negative.

• In State v. Zimmerman, a case of a conviction for murder, the Arizona Court of Appeals, upheld the decision of the trial court, which had excluded evidence of brain mapping, concluding that the test was not generally accepted in the neurological community.

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered the issue of admissibility of brain-mapping evidence in an unpublished opinion, Ross v. Schrantz, a case of closed head injury suffered in an automobile accident.

The primary evidence of the alleged injury was retrieved through brain mapping. The trial court had granted a motion to exclude evidence of brain mapping, stating that there was no scientific literature to show that the test was reliable or accepted in clinical applications, and that it was not a stand alone diagnostic tool.

Further, the Court stated that the test was only a research tool and could not be accepted.

ARTICLES

Brain mapping and lie-detector don’t violate human rights as much as narcoanalysis. Hence its use in investigation maybe permissible.

If research by law enforcing agencies determines that Brain MERMER testing and Brain mapping are reliable enough,they could be introduced as evidence in Court.Thus they may be the criminal investigative tools of the future.

This article uses Brain Fingerprinting as a case study to demonstrate that any single analogy, crafted to simplify a new and complicated form of evidence,destroys the evidence.

Specific areas of the brain involved in deception or truth telling can be depicted with fMRI.A subject can attempt to create a false -ve outcome by attempting counter-measure during the polygraph examination.

Because polygraph only measures the anxiety ie limbic system activity. It doesn’t measure the frontal lobe activity which works to inhibit the truth & construct a lie.

It is unlikely that a subject can mask fMRI brain activation patterns that are active during deception, which will always be active when the subject lies.

DISCUSSION

The usefulness of the brain-mapping test is plagued by the varying techniques that are used in the different laboratories. The American Academy of Neurology conducted an extensive study, concluding that the test is “not recommended for use in civil or criminal judicial proceedings.”

The Society of Nuclear Medicine Brain Imaging Council concluded that the use of neuroimaging in criminal and other types of forensic situations remained especially controversial because there were very few controlled experimental studies.

The investigating agencies know that the extracted information cannot be used as evidence during the trial stage. They have contested that it is safer than ‘third degree methods’ used by some investigators.

Here, the claim is that, by using these so called, “scientific procedures” in fact-finding, it will directly help the investigating agencies to gather evidences, and thereby increase the rate of prosecution of the guilty and the rate of acquittal of the innocent.

Recently, these methods are being promoted as more accurate and best to none, without convincing evidence.

CONCLUSION• In a nutshell, experts say the brain fingerprinting test/brain-mapping test,matches information stored in the brain with that of the crime scene.

• Studies have shown that an innocent suspect's brain would not have stored or recorded certain information, which the perpetrator's brain would have stored.

• As per the court, DDTs evidence is not admissible, however they can be used in the investigation process, that too not without the consent.

REFERENCES-1.Gautam Biswas. Review of forensic medicine and Toxicology. 3rd edition,New Delhi:jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (p)Ltd.;2015

2. Basak S, Roychowdhury UB, Gupta AK. Probing in Depth of Criminal Mind. J Indian Acad Forensic Med;30(3):p.169-171.

3.Marcus E.Raichle. A brief history of human Brain imaging. Trends in Neuroscience;32(2):p.118-126.

4.Alexandra J. Roberts. Everything new is Old again:brain Fingerprinting and Evidentiary Analogy. Yale J.L& Tech.2007; 234.

5.Suresh Bada Nath. Supreme Court Judgement on Polygraph, Narco-analysis and brain- mapping: A Boon or bane. Indian j med Res 2011;134:p.4-7.

6.Angelika Dimoka. Brain mapping of Psychological process with psychometric scales: An fMRI method of Social Neuroscience. Neuroimage 2010;4c(5,6):p.1-9.

7.Mohmed FB et al. Brain Mapping of Deception and truth telling about an ecologically valid situation:Functional MR Imaging and Polygraph Investigation- Initial Experience. Radiology @006;238(2):p.679-688.

8.Agrawal A, Gangopadhyay P. Use of modern Scientific Tests in Investigation and evidence: mere Desperation or Justifiable in Public Interest? NUJS Rev. 2009;p.31-54.

9. Wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_mapping