FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY

INTRODUCTION
Forensic psychology is the intersection between the study of psychology and the
justice system. It involves understanding fundamental legal principles, particularly
with regard to expert witness testimony and the specific content area of concern (e.g.,
competence to stand trial, child custody and visitation, or workplace discrimination),
as well as relevant jurisdictional considerations (e.g., in the United States, the
definition of insanity in criminal trials differs from state to state) in order to be able to
interact appropriately with judges, attorneys, and other legal professionals. An
important aspect of forensic psychology is the ability to testify in court as an expert
witness, reformulating psychological findings into the legal language of the courtroom,
providing information to legal personnel in a way that can be understood. Further, in
order to be a credible witness, the forensic psychologist must understand the
philosophy, rules, and standards of the judicial system. Primarily, they must
understand the adversarial system. There are also rules about hearsay evidence and
most importantly, the exclusionary rule. Lack of a firm grasp of these procedures will
result in the forensic psychologist losing credibility in the courtroom. A forensic
psychologist can be trained in clinical, social, organizational, or any other branch of
psychology.
Generally, a forensic psychologist is designated as an expert in a specific field of
study. The number of areas of expertise in which a forensic psychologist qualifies as
an expert increases with experience and reputation. Forensic neuropsychologists are
generally asked to appear as expert witnesses in court to discuss cases that involve
issues with the brain or brain damage. They may also deal with issues of whether a
person is legally competent to stand trial.
Questions asked by the court of a forensic psychologist are related to legal questions,
and the response should be in language the court understands. For example, a forensic
psychologist is frequently appointed by the court to assess a defendant's competence to
stand trial. The court also frequently appoints a forensic psychologist to assess the
state of mind of the defendant at the time of the offense. This is referred to as an
evaluation of the defendant's sanity or insanity (which relates to criminal
responsibility) at the time of the offense.1 There are several conditions in which the
law recognizes that a guilty mind is absent (e.g., self-defense). The standard for
insanity is determined by each state, and there is also a federal standard. A common

1
One of the most interesting assessments for a forensic psychologist is assessment in “mens rea” (insanity) cases. In the U.S., a
person cannot be held responsible for a crime if he/she did not possess a “guilty mind” (mens rea) at the time the criminal act
was committed.
standard is whether the person knew what he/she was doing was wrong. The forensic
psychologist has to determine not how the person is functioning at the present
moment, but his/her mental state at the time of the crime. Thus, much of the forensic
psychologist’s work is retrospective and must rely on third-party information,
collateral contacts and written communications (e.g., statements made at the time of
the crime). “Insanity” is not a psychological term but a legal one. These are not
primarily psychological questions but rather legal ones. Thus, a forensic psychologist
must be able to translate psychological information into a legal framework.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY
The first seeds of forensic psychology were planted in 1879, when Wilhelm Wundt,
often called the father of psychology, founded his first lab in Germany. Since Wundt,
the field of forensic psychology has blossomed, with contributions by lots of other
experts.
During this time, psychologists were beginning to act as expert witnesses in criminal
trials throughout Europe. In 1896, a psychologist by the name of Albert von
Schrenck-Notzing testified at a murder trial about the effects of suggestibility on
witness testimony.
Hugo Munsterberg is often referred to as the father of applied psychology, which
encompasses the specialty of forensic psychology.
Hugo Munsterberg, a German psychologist, moved to the United States in 1892 and
started a psychology laboratory at Harvard University where he studied the
inaccuracies, biases, and memory lapses of eyewitness testimonies to a crime. He was
startled at his own lack of recollection of details when he was questioned after his own
house was burglarized. Hugo Munsterberg's belief that psychology had practical
applications in everyday life also contributed to the development of forensic
psychology. In 1908, Munsterberg published "On the Witness Stand," a book
advocating the use of psychology in legal matters.
Columbia psychologist James McKeen Cattell was one of the pioneers of forensic
psychology.
In 1895, department head of psychology at Columbia University, James McKeen
Cattell, experimented with 56 students, asking them questions and rating their
confidence in their answers. He posed a series of questions to students at Columbia
University, asking them to provide a response and rate their degree of confidence in
their answers. He found a surprising degree of inaccuracy2, inspiring other
2
He found that even the most confident students were not necessarily more accurate in their answers.
psychologists to conduct their own experiments in eyewitness testimony. With even
eyewitnesses being unsure of themselves, this raised serious issues about the validity
of their usefulness in court.
Alfred Binet, famous for his intelligence test that is still widely used today as a
measurement for intelligence.
Inspired by Cattell's work, Alfred Binet replicated Cattell’s research and studied the
results of other psychology experiments that applied to law and criminal justice. His
work in intelligence testing was also important to the development of forensic
psychology, as many future assessment tools were based on his work.
William Sterns classroom experiment raised some questions as to the accuracy of
eyewitness accounts in court .
Psychologist William Stern also studied witnesses' ability to recall information. In
1901, he ran an experiment where he staged a heated argument between two students
in a college law classroom where one student pulled a gun on the other. After the
incident, students in the classroom were asked to recall the details of the argument.
Stern's findings were fascinating: eyewitnesses made about four to twelve errors while
recalling the details of the fight and made even more errors toward the end of the
argument when the gun was pulled. This experiment was significant because it
highlighted how error-prone eyewitnesses could be in court and how emotionality of a
crime tampered with eyewitness memory of the account. He concluded that a person's
emotions could affect how accurately he remembered things. Stern continued to study
issues related to court testimony and later established the first academic journal
devoted to applied psychology, " Contributions to the Psychology of Testimony".
Stanford psychologist Lewis Terman began applying psychology to law enforcement
in 1916. After revising Binet’s intelligence test, the new Stanford-Binet test was used
to assess the intelligence of job candidates for law enforcement positions.
One of Hugo Munsterberg's students, William Marston, created the polygraph test in
1917, a machine designed to determine if a person is lying, based on their
physiological response, resulting from his discovery that blood pressure and lying
were positively correlated. This discovery would later lead to the design of the modern
polygraph detector.
Marston served as an expert witness in the 1923 court case, Frye vs United States,
asserting the innocence of a criminal defendant based on his low blood pressure while
being questioned. This case is significant because it established the precedent for the
use of expert witnesses in courts. The federal judge dismissed the validity of Marston's
claim3, but Marston's role in this case paved the way for future psychologists who
would also serve as expert witnesses in the courtroom.
Significant growth in American forensic psychology did not happen until after World
War II. Psychologists served as expert witnesses, but only in trials that weren’t
perceived as infringing on medical specialists, who were seen as more credible
witnesses. In the 1940 case of People v. Hawthorne, the courts ruled that the standard
for expert witnesses depended on how much the witness knew about a subject, not
whether the person had a medical degree.
In the landmark 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, several psychologists
testified for the plaintiffs and the defendants. Later, the courts gave support to
psychologists serving as mental illness experts in the case of Jenkins v. the United
States.
Forensic psychology was officially recognized as a specialization within psychology
by the American Psychological Association in 2001.
Forensic psychology has continued to grow and evolve during the past three decades.
Increasing numbers of graduate programs offer dual degrees in psychology and law,
while others offer specialized degrees emphasizing forensic psychology.
DEFINITION OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY
Forensic psychology is a unique combination of medical psychology and criminal
justice. The American Psychological Association (APA) defines forensic psychology
as the use of clinical specialties in the legal system. A forensic psychologist applies
psychological principles, data, research, and theory to provide an explanation for
criminal acts and behavior.
The practice helps to determine whether an accused person should be convicted or
pardoned for his or her actions. Chapter 490 of Florida statutes, aptly titled
Psychological Services, provides a basis for the application of forensic psychology in
the criminal justice system in an increasingly complex society where emotional
survival plays a key role in human behavior.
When is a Forensic Assessment Required?
A forensic assessment is required when there is a complex legal question such as
insanity or mental competency that can only be answered by a professional
psychologist. In this case the psychologist is hired to determine the accused person’s
3
The Federal Court of Appeals determined that a procedure, technique, or assessment must be generally accepted
within its field in order to be used as evidence.
mental and psychological status. The psychologist will conduct clinical interviews
with the defendant as well as collateral interviews with family, friends, witnesses,
police officers, attorneys, and other relevant parties to the case. He or she will also
review the defendant’s school, medical, and criminal records, run psychological tests,
and eventually provide a professional opinion that will help to answer the legal
question at hand. Basically, the forensic psychologist will help to determine the mental
and psychological status of an accused person during the commission or omission of
the act.
An attorney can also recommend forensic evaluation when he or she believes that the
assessment will be beneficial to their case. A judge can also order a defendant to
undergo a psychological evaluation before a verdict is passed.
Where is it Used?
Forensic psychology principles are used in a wide range of evaluation tasks including
child custody evaluations, competency evaluation of defendants in criminal cases,
threat evaluations for schools, counselling victims of crime, and death notification
processes. The practice is also used in screening and recruitment of law enforcement
officers, post-traumatic stress disorder evaluation, and in the assessment of treatment
programs for adult and juvenile offenders. It is used in court rooms, schools and in the
fields of counselling and social work.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY AND FORENSIC
PSYCHOLOGY
Core Differences
The main difference between legal psychology and forensic psychology is that legal
psychology is the study of the thought processes, and behaviors of jurors, the court
system, legal processes, etc., while forensic psychology mostly focuses on criminal
cases (i.e. suspects, defendants, and convicted criminal/felons), and the psychological
issues involved in them. For instance, a forensic psychologist helps determine whether
a defendant was sane when he or she committed a crime. A forensic psychologist also
helps the judge and jurors determine if the suspect/criminal is more likely to commit
the crime again in the future. In many cases, a forensic psychologist will help
determine if a felon will be released from jail or prison, or if probation or parole will
be denied. Forensic psychologists typically work directly with suspects and
defendants/criminals in the penal system.
In other words, they meet with clients in police stations, jails and prisons. Legal
psychologists typically work with lawyers and police officers. They also conduct
research studies to show patterns within the legal process and court system. This
psychologist examines legal, court, and jury patterns, in an effort to improve the
system – they are not concerned with criminals/defendants, per se. Legal and forensic
psychologists tend to make the same average salary, and they are both considered
“psychologists” in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Lastly, both legal and forensic
psychologists must hold a doctorate, and licenses/certifications to be able to call
themselves either a legal psychologist or forensic psychologist. An individual, who
earns a doctorate in legal psychology may in some cases, seek employment as a
forensic psychologist, and a forensic psychologist may seek employment as a legal
psychologist.
The main functions of legal psychologists are to examine how jurors are chosen, ho
juries make decisions, and the credibility of eyewitness testimonies. These
psychologists also interview potential jurors to get a better understanding of their
mental states, and thought processes. These mental health professionals typically work
at courthouses, law offices, police precincts, private practices, and
colleges/universities. Legal psychologists tend to find eyewitness testimonies
unreliable and invalid. They also tend to believe that preferences and biases (i.e.
personalities of the jurors, knowledge of legal terminologies, and the introduction of
evidence) significantly influence jury decisions and outcomes.
The main functions of a forensic psychologist are: evaluating clients (i.e. criminals,
felons, and defendants) to determine if they are legally sane or criminally insane, and
predicting the risk level for repeating the same or similar crimes. Most forensic
psychologists are asked to provide mental stability evaluations, testimonies, and
assessments during trials.
RELEVANCY OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY IN LAW
Forensic Psychologists can play a number of key roles in a criminal investigation.
Immediately following a crime a forensic psychologist may be asked to act as a
criminal profiler. It has over the years become the love child of numerous television
programs, movies, and crime novels. Criminal profiling involves the psychologist
using his understanding of human behavior, motivation, and pathology so that he/she
can create a psychological profile of the offender. The profiles can be surprisingly
accurate. From observations of the crime scene one can infer the behavioral
characteristics of the individual who created it. To a profiler everyone is a slave to his
or her psychological makeup. In turn, profilers use their knowledge of which the
typical offender is that bears these characteristics and then predicts not only how the
investigators can expect the offender to behave in the future, but also what their
physical appearance will likely be. While profiling may seem very exciting, few
psychologists are ever involved in this field. Psychological knowledge has been
applied to many more areas of investigative police work, from the police interrogation
to the police line-up. Both of these areas have prospered greatly from psychological
research.
Outside of the "front-end" operations of police work there is numerous opportunities
for the application of forensic psychology. In the court system, Forensic Psychologists
are frequently used for both criminal and civil cases. In the criminal realm, the forensic
psychologist is often asked to assess competency. Competency assessments can serve
a number of purposes. First, a defendant can be assessed for the ability to stand trial
and/or make legal decisions on their own behalf. These types of decision have been
frequent in the news. These evaluations are carried out when the defendant appears to
suffer from a mental defect, such as an acute psychiatric disorder (i.e., schizophrenia)
or a mental disability (i.e., mental retardation). Secondly, Psychologists may also be
asked to make an evaluation regarding the defendant's mental state at the time of the
offense.
FIVE FAMOUS CASES CRACKED BY FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGISTS
An understanding of the criminal mind is one of the most useful tools in solving
crimes, which becomes apparent in these five famous cases cracked by forensic
psychologists. Although techniques are becoming more sophisticated every year,
forensic psychology has a long and storied history.
1. Ted Bundy
A psychologist could spend a lifetime examining the twisted mind of Ted Bundy, one
of America’s most notorious and charismatic killers. Luckily, several forensic
psychologists used their expertise to crack this famous case. Over time, Ted Bundy’s
brutal attacks and killings became less careful and more frequent. Their psychological
profile, which benefited greatly from a former girlfriend’s information, eventually
ended the nationwide manhunt for Bundy and even linked him to other unsolved
murders.
2. John Wayne Gacy
Although complaints and suspicions from neighbors were ultimately what ended
“killer clown” John Wayne Gacy’s shocking killing spree, forensic psychologists
ensured that the culprit in this famous case didn’t go free on a bogus insanity plea.
Through a series of interviews, psychologists on the case were able to determine that
Gacy’s murders involved premeditation and a detailed plan to hide his victims bodies.
Without forensic psychologists assistance in this case, traumatized families may have
never experienced the satisfaction of seeing Gacy punished for his crimes.
3. Explosions at Radio City Music Hall
An ongoing series of bombings at New York City’s famed Radio City Music Hall is an
intriguing case that’s often forgotten these days. This case, which involved more than
a dozen explosions between 1940 and 1950, proved so problematic for police that it
was one of the inspirations for the development of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Psychologist James Brussel was able to determine that due to the intricacy and
knowledge of the explosive devices, the bomber was almost definitely an engineer,
most likely at Con Edison. This profile directed the police towards George Metesky.
The remarkable accuracy and efficacy of the forensic psychologist’s profile increased
the demand for these experts across the nation.
4. Aileen Wuornos
The case of serial killer Aileen Wuornos, who you might know as the inspiration for
Charlize Theron’s mesmerizing performance in “Monster,” may have never been
solved without a famous use of forensic psychology. Psychologists were able to
determine a consistent motivation for Wuorno’s killings–her intense fear of losing her
relationship with her long-time partner Tyria Moore. This profile proved to be
incredibly accurate when each of Wuornos’s killings was later linked to rocky periods
and short-term separations between the lovers.
5. Andrei Chikatilo
Andrei Chikatilo’s reign of terror had Russian police mystified for more than two
decades, until it became one of these famous cases cracked by forensic psychologists.
To date, Chikatilo has been linked with the murders of 53 Russian women and
children. Growing frustrated with the lack of promising leads, Viktor Burakov, the
case’s chief investigator decided to employ a new method. He enlisted Dr. Alexander
Bukhanovsky’s help in compiling a psychological profile for the killer. This
information proved invaluable in narrowing down their list of suspects down to
Chikatilo himself, who confessed to his horrific crimes in 1990.
INDIA: SUNANDA PUSHKAR DEATH CASE
The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the mysterious death of Sunanda
Pushkar relied heavily on the forensic psychological autopsy of seven people close
including her husband Shashi Tharoor, personal staff Narain Singh and son Shiv
Menon to conclude that she committed suicide, sources said.
Investigating the case for more than four years, the Delhi Police on Tuesday filed a
charge sheet in a Delhi court accusing Pushkar's husband Tharoor of abetting her
suicide.
The medico-legal and forensic evidence were analysed during the investigation but
after carrying out the psychological autopsy, the investigators came up to the
conclusion that Pushkar committed suicide and booked Tharoor for abetment of
suicide and for subjecting her to cruelty.
Special Commissioner of Police Dependra Pathak said, "The charges have been filed
on basis of out psychological autopsy."
The test was carried out last year and the SIT had also informed the Delhi High Court
about it.
This test is carried out usually in those cases where death is unexplained, and no
accused has been named.
Psychological autopsy is a tool to examine the state of mind of the people close to the
deceased in order to reconstruct events leading up to the death.
Tharoor, Narain Singh, Shiv Menon and four friends of Sunanda went through the test
last year in December.
"A series of questions were asked in an interview format and the police tried to
reconstruct the state of mind of the people when the crime took place," said Pathak.
Through this test, the police gathered information on the cognitive functioning,
psychological well being, state of physical health and her Sunanda's social behaviour.
The tests were carried at CBI's forensic lab in Delhi.
However, AIIMS experts stated the test helps the investigators in their probe but the
report not admission-able in the court.
The findings of forensic psychological tests cannot be used as evidence like the lie
detection test is not admissible. These tests cannot be used as evidence under the
Evidence Act.
As per the experts, the psychological autopsy is one of the effective tools for providing
information and answers in suicide cases.
Like a physical autopsy, the psychological autopsy attempts to explain why a person
has taken their life by analyzing medical records, interviewing friends and family, and
conducting research into a person's state of mind prior to their death.
Competency refers to a defendant’s capacity to comprehend the allegations, while
insanity refers to the mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime.
INSANITY AND COMPETENCY TO STAND TRAIL- FORENSIC
PSYCHOLOGY
What is Competency?
Competency determines whether a defendant will be able to appear at trial and
understand the proceedings. More specifically, the Supreme Court found that to be
competent a defendant must:
Have the ability to consult with an attorney with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding
Have a rational and factual understanding of the proceeding
What is Sanity/Insanity?
Sanity determines whether a defendant is capable of being held responsible for his/her
criminal actions. The definition of insanity varies from one state to the next, and some
states have no insanity defense at all.
The insanity defense is based on the assumption that the defendant was not of sound
mind when the crime was committed and is therefore incapable of appreciating the
true nature of the crime.
Defendants who are found competent to stand trial may still be found not guilty by
reason of insanity, although defendants found not competent to stand trial can never be
found guilty or not guilty because a trial cannot happen in the first place.
Insanity may be defined a number of ways:
Legally determined: A defendant lacks criminal responsibility because of a mental
disorder or defect and therefore lacks the capacity to appreciate the crime
Morally determined: A defendant lacks criminal responsibility as a result of a mental
disorder or defect and therefore lacks the capacity to appreciate the misconduct as a
violation of ethical behavior according to society
Subjectively determined: A defendant lacks criminal responsibility because of a
mental disorder or defect due to a belief that committing the crime is morally justified,
despite as an awareness that the actions were illegal or were a violation of social-moral
standards
The Main Differences Between Determining Competency and Insanity
A judge determines competency; a jury determines insanity. Therefore, competency is
determined before a trial commences, while insanity is determined at the end of trial
with the verdict.
An attorney can raise competency as an issue, or a judge may base a finding of
competency based on observation. If there is a reasonable basis to believe that
competency is an issue, the court orders an evaluation, usually by a forensic
psychologist. Based on the outcome of the evaluation, the judge determines whether
the defendant is competent to stand trial. The defendant; however, must plea insanity.
Competency is part of the due process clause of the Constitution and is therefore part
of U.S. federal law.
State law determines insanity, and each state has different parameters under which
insanity is measured. Some states have no insanity defense.
The Consequences of Competency and Insanity in the Legal Process
Judges evaluates competency based on a defendant’s mental state at the time of the
legal proceeding/trial. The judge bases a decision on the result of a forensic
psychologist’s evaluation. If a judge finds a defendant incompetent to stand trial based
on the forensic psychologist’s evaluation, the criminal proceeding is halted and the
defendant receives treatment until the time they are deemed competent.
When evaluating insanity, the jury considers the defendant’s mental state at the time
the crime was committed. A forensic psychologist provides a professional opinion
regarding an insanity defense. If a jury finds a defendant to be insane (either GBMI-
Guilty but Mentally Ill or NGRI-Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity), the defendant is
typically admitted into a psychiatric hospital.
Commitment procedures vary, depending on the state. Some states require a
commitment hearing, while other states allow the commitment to automatically take
place.
Competency to stand trail
At its most basic, the evaluation of a defendant’s competency to stand trial involves an
assessment of the psycho-legal abilities required of the defendant (as per the relevant
legal statutes of the jurisdiction), an assessment of the current mental status of the
defendant, and a determination of whether a linkage exists between any psycho-legal
deficits that may be evident and any mental disease or defect that may exist. Thus, a
mental disease or defect serves as a prerequisite for a determination of incompetency,
and any deficits in the relevant psycho-legal abilities must be linked to this mental
disease or defect. In addition, the evaluation of these components must occur within
the specific context of the defendant’s particular case. That is, the complexities of the
particular case must be considered as well as, and in conjunction with, the specific
abilities of the particular defendant.
Characteristics of Incompetent Defendants
The individuals who are found incompetent to stand trial generally show the following
characteristics: poor performance on psychological tests that measure a defendant’s
legally relevant functional capacities, a diagnosis of psychosis, and psychiatric
symptoms indicative of severe psychopathology. In addition, diagnoses of
schizophrenia, mental retardation, mood disorders, and organic brain disorders have all
been found to be strong predictors of incompetency.
Direct comparisons of competent and incompetent defendants reveal that incompetent
defendants are significantly more likely to be single, unemployed, charged with a
minor offense, and diagnosed with a psychotic disorder and significantly less likely to
be charged with a violent crime and to have substance use disorders than are
competent defendants.
NARCO ANALYSIS TEST
INTRODUCTION

 Also known as Truth Serum or Drug Hypnosis or Narco interview technique.

 Term was coined by Horseley.

 Father of truth serum- Robert Ernest House.

The term “Narco Analysis” is derived from the Greek word meaning anaesthesia or
torpor and is used to describe a diagnostic & psychotherapeutic technique that uses
psychotropic drugs, particularly barbiturates, to induce a stupor in which mental
elements with strong associated affects comes to the surface, where they can be
exploited by the therapist.

 It’s a psychotherapy conducted while the patient is in a sleep like state induced
by barbiturates or other drugs.

 Technique used in the Forensic Psychology for Investigation Purposes.

Narco analysis involves the use of certain barbiturates, using sodium pentothal. It is
used in conjunction with other tests – polygraph, or the lie detector test, psychological
profiling & brain mapping. 
HISTORY
In 1916 , Dr. Robert House an obstetrician who noticed that the popular obstetric
anaesthetic drug, scopolamine would put his patients into a state where they would
deliver information in a way that seemed automatic. Dr. House had asked patient’s
husband for a scale to weigh the newborn. The man looked for it and returned to the
bedroom saying he could not find it, whereupon his wife(patient), still under the
anaesthetic, told him exactly where it was.
In 1922, Dr House tried the technique on two prisoners in a Dallas jail, helping to
exonerate both.
(Narco analysis first reached the mainstream in 1922, when Robert House, a Texas
obstetrician used the drug scopolamine in two prisoners. A truth drug or truth serum is
a psychoactive medication used to obtain information from subjects who are unable or
unwilling to provide it).
OBJECTIVE
  Objective of the test is to extract information from the accused when s/he in
hypnotic state.

 Helps to elicit concealed info relevant to crime.

 Helps in eliminating the innocent person.

Comprises the whole team of expert (Clinical Forensic PsychologistØ

PsychiatristØPhysicianØ AnesthetistØ Audio-VideographerØ Writer)

PRINCIPLE
Narco analysis is based on the principle that a person is able to lie using his
imagination & therefore, under the influence of the test the capacity of his imagination
is blocked, by leading the person into a semi conscious state. Hence whatever the
person says is restricted to the facts that he is aware of.
NARCO ANALYSIS IN INDIA

 Narco analysis/Narco interview for the purpose of interview is conducted in a

Forensic Laboratory.

 Interview is conducted in laboratory where facility of minor operation theatre is

available.

 In India, at Bangalore & Gujarat test is conducted.

 Consent of Court is required.

FAMOUS CASES

 Malegaon blasts

 Aarushi murder case

 The Mumbai train blasts

 Bhanwari Devi Case

 Abdul Karim Telgi Case

 Nithari killers

 Veerappan case 2001

 Bhavri Devi Case

PROCEDURE OF NARCO-ANALYSIS TEST
In the Narco Analysis Test, the subjects inhibitions are lowered by interfering with his
nervous system at the molecular level. In this state, it becomes difficult for him to lie
& his answers would be restricted facts he is already aware of. In such sleep-like state
efforts are made to obtain "probative truth" about the crime. The subject is not in a
position to speak up on his own but can answer specific but simple questions. The
answers are believed to be spontaneous as a semi- conscious person is unable to
manipulate the answers.
Narco Analysis is conducted by injecting 3grams of sodium pentothal dissolved in 300
ml of distilled water and this prepared solution is administered intravenously over a
period of 3hours with the help of anaesthetist . The dose is dependent on the person’s
sex ,age , health and physical condition. A wrong dose can result a person going into a
coma, or even death.4
The rate of administration is so controlled to drive the suspect slowly into the state of
hypnotic trance. The ECG and blood pressure are monitored continuously throughout
the testing procedure.
It includes following:
1. Pre Test Interview- A pre test interview is conducted mainly to prepare the subject
to undergo the procedure which involves—
 A written informed consent
 A thorough mental status examination
 Information regarding the possible main and side effects of drug.
2. Pre-Narcotic State- Anaesthetist induces narco and maintain the pre-narcotic state
throughout the interview.  
 Drug is injected till the person appears relaxed and in a state of good
contact.
 Drug i.e Sodium.Pentothal is given intravenously to induce
hypnosis.
 A 5% or 10% solution of drug injected slowly in antecubital vein
NMT 1gm/grain per minute.
 As individual’s speech starts slurring interview begins.
4
Narco test harmed vision: Ahmadabad Blast accused (Mujib Sheikh, an engineering student)
Post-narco test, driver screams memory loss (Bandhavgarh National Park).
3. Semi-Narcotic State-

 Forensic Psychologist or Psychiatrist facilitate the interview after establishing

the semi narcotic state and the individual’s appears to be:
o Flushed

o Slowing and slurred speech

o Nystagmus observing by testing examinee’s eye muscle with finger.

 Individual is allowed to sleep off and allowed to wake up on his/her off.

 Once she/he wake up, anaesthetist checks him/her and allow to drink coffee or
tea.

 Complete narco interview is audio-video recoded and also written.

4. Post Test Interview- The dual purpose of the post test counselling is—
 Monitoring the subject’s medical condition
 Discuss the information revealed during the procedure; subject is
given the opportunity to explain the information revealed.
 Memory is also Checked.
The forensic psychologist will prepare the report about the revelations, which will be
accompanied by a compact disc of audio-video recordings. The strength of the
revelations, if necessary, is further verified by subjecting the person to polygraph and
brain mapping tests.
ARGUMENTS FAVOURING
In the state induced by the drug, the individual will reply to questions with childlike
simplicity and with childlike honesty, without evasiveness, guile, deceit or fraud, as
the answer to a query that is stored in his mind as memory. “Dr. Robert Ernest House”
In United States v. Solomon there was a detailed discussion on the topic of narco-
analysis. In this case the expert opinion given to the Court established that truth serum
is generally accepted as an investigative technique. It need not be said that prevention
of crime and punishment for the crime are the duties of the State. Fetters on these
duties can be put only in extreme cases where the protection of fundamental rights
weigh more than the fundamental duty cast on the State. Moreover every person is
required to furnish information regarding offences.  Protection against self-
incrimination was instrument for the protection of the innocent and not intended for
the acquittal of the guilty. The framers of the Bill of Rights believed the rights of
society were paramount to the rights of the criminal.
AGRUMENTS AGAINST

 It is not hundred per cent accurate.

 It has been found that certain subjects made totally false statements. 

 It is often unsuccessful in eliciting truth as such it should not be used to compare

the statement already given to the police before use of drug. 

 It has been found that a person has given false information even after
administration of drug.

 It is not much help in case of malingers or evasive, untruthful person.

 It is very difficult to suggest a correct dose of drug for a particular person.

 The dose of drug will differ according to will power, mental attitude and
physique of the subject.

 Successful narco-analysis test is not dependent on injection.

JUDICIAL OBSERVATION TOWARDS THE NARCO ANALYSIS TEST

Violation of Article 20(3) and 21.
Clause (3) of Article 20 (Right Against Self Incrimination) declares that- “ no person
accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself “
Interestingly the results of Lie-detector or Brain- Mapping or electronic surveillance or
DNA finger-printing are not statements made by the witness, but merely extracting
information, hence do not violate Article 20(3).However, narco-analysis Test
(injecting 3grams of pentothal in subject’s body) results into involuntarily making a
statement and hence violation of Art. 20(3).
S.161 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that every person—“is bound to
answer truthfully all questions, put to him by (a police) officer, other than questions
the answers to which would have a tendency to expose that person to a criminal
charge, penalty or forfeiture”.
Landmark Judgement By Supreme Court of India Smt. Selvi & Ors. … Appellants
Versus State of Karnataka … Respondent May 5, 2010. The Court found that
forcing a subject to undergo narco-analysis, brain-mapping, or polygraph tests itself
amounted to the requisite compulsion, regardless of the lack of physical harm done to
administer the test or the nature of the answers given during the tests.
The Court found that since the answers given during the administration of the test are
not consciously and voluntarily given, and since an individual does not have the ability
to decide whether or not to answer a given question, the results from all three tests
amount to the requisite compelled testimony to violate Article 20(3).
Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty, which has been broadly
interpreted to include various substantive due process protections, including the right
to privacy and the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment. The Supreme Court found that narco- analysis violated individual's right to
privacy and amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of
voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of
the Evidence Act.
The Supreme Court left open the possibility for abuse of such tests when it provided a
narrow exception, almost as an afterthought, namely, that information indirectly
garnered from a voluntary administered test i.e. discovered with the help of
information obtained from such a test can be admitted as evidence.
CONCLUSION

 It is a proven technique in the medical set up as well as in forensic set up for

investigation purpose.

 Test require procedure, precaution & expertise to use in the investigation.

 Suspect willingness & his right need to be protected as mentioned in NHRC

Guidelines.
BRAIN FINGERPRINTING
INTRODUCTION
Brain fingerprinting" is a computer-based test that is designed to discover, document,
and provide evidence of guilty knowledge regarding crimes ,and identify members of
dormant terrorist cells. Brain fingerprinting is a technique that measures recognition of
familiar stimuli by measuring electrical brain wave responses to words, phrases, or
pictures that are presented on a computer screen.

 Brain Fingerprinting technique used to determine scientifically what information

is, or is not stored in a particular brain. 

 Measures the response to the Visual and the Audio stimulus.

 Stimulus is a thing or event that evokes a specific functional reaction in an organ

or tissue.

 It does this by measuring electrical brainwave responses to words, phrases, or

pictures that are presented on a computer screen.
INVENTION

 Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell.

 Brain Fingerprinting technology is based on an electrical signal known as

MERMER. 
o Farwell discovered the P300-MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related
Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response").
o A MERMER is an electrical signal which is part of the brainwave
observed in response to familiar information.
o When the brain recognizes something, then there is increase in neurons
activity, so elicit some changes in brain wave signals.
 A suspect is tested by looking at three kinds of information
represented by different colored lines: 

 Green: Information not known to suspect(irrelevant).Red:

Information the suspect is expected to know(target).  
 Blue: Information of the crime that only suspect would know(probe).
  Farwell's brain fingerprinting originally used the well known P300 brain
response to detect the brain's recognition of the known information.
PRINCIPLE

 Every time a crime is commented the best record o the brain of the perpetrator.

 The memory centres of the human brain respond to the sight of familiar stimuli
with a distinct change in electrical activity which is called as a MERMER.

 When the subject see anything on the screen it creates a pattern of the brain
activity.
The theory is that the suspects reaction to the details of an event or activity will reflect
if the suspect had prior knowledge of the event or activity. This test uses what Farwell
calls the MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted
Electroencephalographic Response") response to detect familiarity reaction. Brain
Fingerprinting has proven 100% accurate in over 120 tests, including tests on FBI
agent tests for a US intelligence agency and for the US Navy, and tests on real-life
situations including actual crimes.
WHAT IS BRAIN FINGERPRINTING?
Brain Fingerprinting is designed to determine whether an individual recognizes
specific information related to an event or activity by measuring electrical brain wave
responses to words, phrases, or pictures presented on a computer screen. The
technique can be applied only in situations where investigators have a sufficient
amount of specific information about an event or activity that would be known only to
the perpetrator and investigator.
In this respect, Brain Fingerprinting is considered a type of Guilty Knowledge Test,
where the "guilty" party is expected to react strongly to the relevant activities. Existing
(polygraph) procedures for assessing the validity of a suspects "guilty" knowledge rely
on measurement of autonomic arousal (e.g., palm sweating and heart rate), while Brain
Fingerprinting measures electrical brain activity via a fitted headband containing
special sensors. Brain Fingerprinting is said to be more accurate in detecting "guilty"
knowledge distinct from the false positives of traditional polygraph methods, but this
is hotly disputed by specialized researchers.
TECHNIQUE
Brain Fingerprinting Testing detects information stored in the human brain. A specific,
electrical brain wave response, known as a P300, is emitted by the brain within a
fraction of a second when an individual recognizes and processes an incoming
stimulus that is significant or noteworthy. When an irrelevant stimulus is seen, it is
seen as being insignificant and not noteworthy and a P300 is not emitted. The P300
electrical brain wave response is widely known and accepted in the scientific
community. There have been hundreds of studies conducted and articles published on
it over the past thirty years. In his research on the P300 response, Dr.Farwell
discovered that the P300 was one aspect of a larger brain-wave response that he named
a MERMER® (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic 5
response). The MERMER comprises a P300 response, occurring 300 to 800 ms after
the stimulus, and additional patterns occurring more than 800 ms after the stimulus,
providing even more accurate results.
OPERATING MECHANISM
Brain Fingerprinting testing incorporates the following procedure:

 The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronic sensors that
measure the EEG from several locations on the scalp.

 The subject views stimuli consisting of words, phrases, or pictures presented

under computer control for a fraction of second each.

 Three types of stimuli are presented: "targets," "irrelevant," and "probes."

o The targets (stimuli that are relevant to the investigation) consist of

information known to the suspect, which will establish a baseline brain
response (MERMER) for information known to be significant to this
suspect in the context of the crime. The subject is given a list of the target
stimuli and instructed to press a particular button in response to targets and
another button in response to all other stimuli.
o Most of the non-target stimuli are irrelevant, having no relation to the
situation under investigation. These irrelevant that do not elicit a
MERMER, and therefore establish a baseline brain response for
information that is not significant to this suspect in the context of this
crime.

5
(EEG) is the recording of electrical activity along the scalp. EEG measures voltage fluctuations resulting from activation of
neurons of the brain. The neurons in the brain fire electrically, forming a vast network of electrical potential
conduits. Electroencephalography (EEG) involves the measurement of these patterns of electrical voltage changes that originate
in the brain. These measurements are made non-invasively from the scalp. When the brain conducts certain tasks, specific
patterns of EEG (or “brainwave”) activity are produced.
 o Some of the non-target stimuli are relevant to the situation under
investigation. These relevant stimuli are referred to as probes; information
relevant to the crime.
o For a subject with knowledge of the investigated situation, the probes are
noteworthy due to that knowledge, and hence the probes elicit a
MERMER, indicating "information present" — information stored in the
brain.
o For a subject lacking this knowledge, probes are indistinguishable from the
irrelevant, and thus probes do not elicit a MERMER, indicating
"information absent" — information not stored in the brain.

 A suspect is tested by looking at three kinds of information represented by

different colored lines:
o RED : Information the suspect is expected to know. It arises due to target
type stimulus.
o GREEN : Information not to suspect. The irrelevant stimuli is responsible
for this type of brain waves.
o BLUE : Information of the crime that only perpetrator would know. This
occurs due to probes.
PHASES OF BRAIN FINGERPRINTING TESTING
There are four stages to Farwell Brain Fingerprinting:
1. Investigation.
2. Interview of subject.
3. Scientific testing with brain fingerprinting.
4. Adjudication of guilt or innocence.
1 Investigation
(Crime Scene Evidence Collection: Gathering evidences from crime scenes.)
The first phase in applying Brain Fingerprinting testing in a criminal case is an
investigation of the crime. Before a Brain Fingerprinting test can be applied, an
investigation must be undertaken to discover information that can be used in the test.
The science of Brain Fingerprinting accurately Determines whether or not specific
information is stored in a specific person’s brain. It detects the presence or absence of
specific information in the brain. Before we can conduct this scientific test, we need to
determine what information to test for. This investigation precedes and informs the
scientific phase which constitutes the Brain Fingerprinting test itself. The role of
investigation is to find specific information that will be useful in a Brain Finger
printing test.
2 Interview of subject
(Brain Evidence Collection: A specialist checks whether the crime scene evidence
matches evidence stored in brain)
Once evidence has been accumulated through investigation, and before the Brain
Fingerprinting test is conducted to determine if the evidence can be linked to the
suspect, it can in some cases be very valuable to obtain the suspect’s account of the
situation. For example, if an investigation shows that specific fingerprints are found at
the scene of a murder, a suspect can be interviewed to determine if there may be some
legitimate reason that his prints are there. If the suspect’s story is that he was never at
the scene of the crime, then a match between his fingerprints and the fingerprints at
that scene would be highly incriminating. If, on the other hand, the suspect’s story is
that he was at the scene for some legitimate reason just before the crime, then
fingerprints must be interpreted differently, particularly if there is corroborating
evidence of the suspect’s presence at the scene before the crime. Prior to a Brain
Fingerprinting test, an interview of the suspect is conducted. The suspect is asked if he
would have any legitimate reason for knowing any of the information that is contained
in the potential probe stimuli. This information is described without revealing which
stimuli are probes and which are irrelevant. For example, the suspect may be asked,
―The newspaper reports, which you no doubt have read, say that the victim was
struck with a blunt object. Do you have any way of knowing whether that murder
weapon was a baseball bat, a broom handle, or a blackjack?‖ If the suspect answers
―No,‖ then a test result indicating that his brain does indeed contain a record of which
of these is the murder weapon can provide evidence relevant to the case
3 Scientific testing with brain fingerprinting
(Computer Evidence Analysis: Computerized analysis is done on the brain
evidences and statistical methods are applied to move to the next phase)
It is in the Brain Fingerprinting test where science contributes to the process. Brain
Fingerprinting determines scientifically whether or not specific information is stored in
a specific person’s brain. Brain Fingerprinting is a standardized scientific procedure.
The input for this scientific procedure is the probe stimuli, which are formulated on the
basis of the investigation and the interview. The output of this scientific procedure is a
determination of ―information present‖ or ―information absent‖ for those specific
probe stimuli, along with a statistical confidence for this determination. This
determination is made according to a specific, scientific algorithm, and does not
depend on the subjective judgment of the scientist. Brain Fingerprinting tells us the
following, no more and no less: ―These specific details about this crime are (or are
not) stored in this person’s brain.‖ On the basis of this and all of the other available
evidence, a judge and jury make a determination of guilty or innocent.
4 Adjudication of Guilt or Innocence
(Scientific Result: Finding whether the person is guilty or not guilty.)
The final step in the application of Brain Fingerprinting in legal proceedings is the
adjudication of guilt or innocence. This is entirely outside the realm of science. The
adjudication of guilt or innocence is the exclusive domain of the judge and jury. It is
not the domain of the investigator, or the scientist, or the computer. It is fundamental
to our legal system that decisions of guilt or innocence are made by human beings,
juries of our peers, on the basis of their human judgment and common sense. The
question of guilt or innocence is and will always remain a legal one, and not a
scientific one. Science provides evidence, but a judge and jury must weigh the
evidence and decide the verdict.
Computer Controlled
The entire Brain Fingerprinting system is under computer control, including
presentation of the stimuli, recording of electrical brain activity, a mathematical data
analysis algorithm that compares the responses to the three types of stimuli and
produces a determination of "information present" or "information absent," and a
statistical confidence level for this determination. At no time during the analysis do
biases and interpretations of a system expert affect the presentation or the results of the
stimulus presentation.
APPLICATIONS
1 Medical field

 The incidence of Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia is growing rapidly

throughout the world. There is a critical need for a technology that enables early
diagnosis economically and that can also accurately measure the effectiveness of
treatments for these diseases Research has now demonstrated that analysis of the
P300 brainwave can show dementia onset and progression. MERMER
 technology, developed and patented by Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories,
includes the P300 brainwave and extends it, providing a more sensitive measure
than the P300 alone.

 Using the very precise measurements of cognitive functioning available with this
technology, pharmaceutical companies will be able to determine more quickly
the effects of their new medications and potentially speed FDA approval.

 The 30 minute test involves wearing a headband with built-in electrodes;

technicians then present words, phrases and images that are both known and
unknown to the patient to determine whether information that should be in the
brain is still there. When presented with familiar information, the brain responds
by producing MERMERs, specific increases in neuron activity. The technician
can use this response to measure how quickly information is disappearing from
the brain and whether the drugs they are taking are slowing down the process.
2 Criminal Justice
The application of Brain Fingerprinting testing in a criminal case involves four phases:

 Investigation,

 Interview,

 Scientific testing, and

 Adjudication.

o The first phase is undertaken by a skilled investigator.

o The second by an interviewer.

o Only the third one is in the domain of science. 

o Fourth by a judge and jury. 

A critical task of the criminal justice system is to determine who has committed a
crime. The key difference between a guilty party and an innocent suspect is that the
perpetrator of the crime has a record of the crime stored in their brain, and the innocent
suspect does not. Until the invention of Brain Fingerprinting testing, there was no
scientifically valid way to detect this fundamental difference.
Brain Fingerprinting testing will be able to dramatically reduce the costs associated
with investigating and prosecuting innocent people and allow law enforcement
professionals to concentrate on suspects who have verifiable, detailed knowledge of
the crimes.
3 ADVERTISING

 What type of media is most effectiveWhat elements do people pay most

attention to?

 How to advertise to people all over the world?

 how effective is the product branding strategy is?

4 Counter Terrorism

 In determining who has participated in terrorist acts, directly or indirectly. 

 In identifying trained terrorists with the potential to commit future terrorist acts,
even if they are in a “sleeper” cell and have not been active for years. 

 Help to identify people who have knowledge of terrorist training camps. 

 Help to determine if an individual is in a leadership role within a terrorist

organization.
ADVANTAGES

 Identify criminals quickly and scientifically.

 Reduce expenditure of money and other resources in law enforcement.

 Reduce evasion of justice.

 Access criminal evidence in the brain.

 Suspect may lie but the brain never lies.

 Record of 100% accuracy.

LIMITATIONS

 It does not indicate intent of the crime. 

 This technology is a little bit controversial. 

  Difficult to distinguish the criminal and a witness who saw all the criminal
activity happen.

 It can detect what information is stored in the subject’s brain. It can’t detect how
that information got there. 
i. In a case where the suspect knows everything that the investigators know because he
has been exposed to all available information in a previous trial, here is no available
information with which to construct probe stimuli, so a test cannot be conducted. Even
in a case where the suspect knows many of the details about the crime, however, it is
sometimes possible to discover salient information that the perpetrator must have
encountered in the course of committing the crime, but the suspect claims not to know
and would not know if he were innocent. This was the case with Terry Harrington. By
examining reports, interviewing witnesses, and visiting the crime scene and
surrounding areas, Dr. Farwell was able to discover salient features of the crime that
Harrington had never been exposed to at his previous trials. The brain fingerprinting
test showed that the record in Harrington’s brain did not contain these salient features
of the crime, but only the details about the crime that he had learned after the fact.
ii. In structuring a brain fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoid including
information that has been made public. Detecting that a suspect knows information he
obtained by reading a newspaper would not be of use in a criminal investigation, and
standard brain fingerprinting procedures eliminate all such information from the
structuring of a test. News accounts containing many of the details of a crime do not
interfere with the development of a brain fingerprinting test, however; they simply
limit the material that can be tested.
iii. Even in highly publicized cases, there are almost always many details that are
known to the investigators but not released to the public, and these can be used as
stimuli to test the subject for knowledge that he would have no way to know except by
committing the crime.
CASE STUDY
The biggest breakthrough, according to Farwell, was its role in freeing convicted
murderer Terry Harrington6, who had been serving a life sentence in Iowa State
Penitentiary for killing a night watchman in 1977. In 2001, Harrington requested a
new trial on several grounds, including conflicting testimony in the original trial.
Farwell was faced with an immediate and obvious problem: 24 years had passed since
the trial. Evidence had been presented and transcripts published long ago; the details of
6
On the morning of July 22,1977 John Schweer a retired police officer who was working as a security guard was found dead.
Terry was arrested. On April 18 and April 28,2000 Dr Lawrence conducted Brain Fingerprinting test on Terry.
the crime had long since come to light. What memories of the crime were left to
probe? But Farwell combed the transcripts and came up with obscure details about
which to test Harrington. Harrington was granted a new trial when it was discovered
that some of the original police reports in the case had been missing at his initial trial.
By 2001, however, most of the witnesses against Harrington had either died or had
been discredited. Finally, when a key witness heard that Harrington had "passed" his
brain fingerprinting test, he recanted his testimony and the prosecution threw up its
hands. Harrington was set free.
THE ROLE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The scope of the science of Brain Fingerprinting – and all other sciences – is limited.
The role of Brain Fingerprinting is to take the output of investigations and interviews
regarding what information is relevant, to make a scientific determination regarding
the presence or absence of that information in a specific brain, and thus to provide the
judge and jury with evidence to aid in their determination of guilt or innocence of a
suspect. As with the other forensic sciences, the science of Brain Fingerprinting does
not tell us when to run a test, whom to test, or what to test for. This is determined by
the investigator according to his skill and judgment, and evaluated by the judge and
jury. Brain Fingerprinting tells us scientifically whether or not this specific
information is stored in a specific person’s brain. It is fundamental to our legal system,
and essential to the cause of justice, that the judge and jury must be supplied with all
of the available evidence to aid them in reaching their verdict. Brain Fingerprinting
provides solid scientific evidence that must be weighed along with other available
evidence by the judge and jury. In our view, it would be a serious miscarriage of
justice to deny a judge and jury the opportunity to hear and evaluate the evidence
provided by the science of Brain Fingerprinting, when available, along with all of the
other available evidence. In the case of a suspect presenting Brain Fingerprinting
evidence supporting a claim of innocence, such a denial would also be unconscionable
human rights violation. Brain Fingerprinting is not a substitute for the careful
deliberations of a judge and jury. It can play a vital role in informing these
deliberations, however, by providing accurate, scientific evidence relevant to the
issues at hand.
FAMOUS CASES
Ijju Sheikh’s case—face-to-face probe.—
In the Mumbai Serial Blasts case in 1993 RDX was used which was smuggled from
Gujarat coast to Mumbai. On 28th April, 2006 one Ijju Sheikh, an aide of Dawood
Ibrahim, an Underworld Don, was arrested from Mumbai. Ijju Sheikh had smuggled
RDX from Gujarat to Mumbai. He had given certain information to the police and the
police would make him face-to-face with another Dawood aide Umar Miyan Bukhari
who was deported to Mumbai from Dubai in December, 2005 and who was subjected
to narcoanalysis and brain fingerprinting tests at Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad.
2006 Mumbai Serial Blasts —Identification of clues in terrorist mind.—
In the case of serial blasts in sub-urban trains of Mumbai on 11th July, 2006 (i.e., 11/7
serial blasts) the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) of Mumbai Police had sought
permission from the Court for conducting lie detection, brain mapping and
narcoanalysis tests on the arrested suspects, viz., Kamal Ahmad Ansari, Mumtaz
Maqbool Chaudhary, Faizal Sheikh, Mujammil Sheikh, Dr. Tanveer Ansari, Sohail
Sheikh, Jameer Sheikh, Kalid Aziz Sheikh and Etesham Siddiqui. It is believed that
the suspected persons have link with Laskhar-e-Toiba, a banned outfit. The tests would
be conducted at Bangalore and it was proposed that the tests would be conducted first
on Kamal Ansari, the prime suspect. In the incident about 200 persons were killed and
over 600 persons were injured.
Terrorist attack at Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore—
Disclosure of facts by terrorist.—On December 28, 2005 a terrorist attack was made at
Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore. The arrested suspect Abdul Rehman alias
Raizur-Rehman was subjected to nacroanalysis and brain mapping tests and he had
admitted that he met the Laskar-e-Toiba top brass including Abdul Rehman Makki,
Abdul Aziz, Abu Hamza etc. while he was in Saudi Arabia. He also admitted that he
had worked for Hizbul Mujahideen. He also admitted his visit to Dhaka in 2003,
earlier for which he had denied. He also disclosed that Naveed and Naushad had
conducted the terrorist attack. Naveed is supposed to be Ghulam Yezdani like Rahman
who native of Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh and who operates from Saudi Arabia and
Bangladesh for Harkat-ulJehadi-Islami.
Bechu Rehaman’s case—Seeking for test.—
Narcoanalysis, brain mapping and polygraphic tests on Bechu Rehaman, an accused of
Sabarimala Thantri Kandararu Mohanararu assault case was refused by Ernakulam
Court on the ground that accused was not physically fit to undergo the test. He was
remanded to judicial custody after 9 days’ police custody. The case is related to the
assault by Bechu Rehaman by means of manhandling, forcible photography with a
woman and threatening of Sabarimala of Lord Ayyappa temple.
Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi’s case—Confession of crime.—
In our country a multi-crore stamp paper scam was committed by Abdul Karim Telgi.
About 300 brain mapping tests and also lie detection tests were conducted on him
which showed that Telgi was guilty of the crime. In the brain mapping test Telgi was
made to sit in the chair and was asked to close his eyes and then a headband equipped
with 32 electrodes was attached to his scalp. The target words were presented to him
and his changed brain activation pattern was recorded on EEG.
Narcoanalysis, Brain mapping and Lie detector tests of Nithari’s Serial Killers in
U.P.—
In a serial killings case of Nithari (U.P.) Police arrested two persons, Moninder Singh
Pandher and Surendra Koli, for murdering 30 children and women who were sexually
abused after and/or before murders. Police had recovered a sow and many things
which the two used to cut up the parts of the bodies and disposed of their bodies
separately, never at one go or at one place in the sewer behind the house of the
accused. A copy of Kinsey Report on sexual behaviour has also been found from the
accused’s house. Both of the accused were subjected to narcoanalysis, brain mapping
and polygraph tests. In brain mapping names of some Ministers of State of U.P. and
doctors cropped up. Test was conducted at DPS, Gandhinagar (Gujarat). Audio and
video props were designed to focus mainly on two subjects among a host of others—
nature of their sexual perversion and whether this was the only reason behind serial
killings and rapes. After the brain mapping both were subjected to narcoanalysis test.
In the test sodium pentothal was administered as a truth serum. Both the accused had
been cooperative before questioning. The narcoanalysis test showed Surendra to be a
cannibal psychopath driven by sexual impotency.
CONCLUSION
Today’s sophisticated crime scene analysis techniques can sometimes place the
perpetrator at the scene of the crime; however, physical evidence is not always present.
Knowledge of numerous details of the crime, such as the murder weapon, the specific
position of the body, the amount of money stolen -- any information not available to
the public -- may reveal that a particular individual is associated with the crime. .
Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new scientific technology for solving crimes,
identifying perpetrators, and exonerating innocent suspects, with a record of 100%
accuracy in research with US government agencies, actual criminal cases, and other
applications. The technology fulfils an urgent need for governments, law enforcement
agencies, corporations, investigators, crime victims, and falsely accused, innocent
suspects. Additionally, if research determines that brain MERMER testing is reliable
enough that it could be introduced as evidence in court; it may be the criminal
investigative tool of the future.