http://mindhacks.com/2009/11/12/eeg-leads-to-murder-conviction/ Neuroscience and psychology news and views. Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:46:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ http://mindhacks.com/2009/11/12/eeg-leads-to-murder-conviction/#comment-5219 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:02:03 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/eeg-leads-to-murder-conviction/#comment-5219 This is a little scary, the ethical implications of this alone are enough to cause serious concern let alone the tenuous science it is based on. The many other factors that could have caused the same reaction in the womans brain during the testing are alarmingly ignored and further reading of the article leads me to think that Champadi Raman Mukundan may have a little bit of a god complex:
“‚ÄúThey are not in conflict,‚Äù Mukundan replies sharply. He interrupts an attempt to challenge him: ‚ÄúI found that there is no conflict.‚Äù”
I hope the comment at the bottom of the article is true and that the high court threw this evidence out.

]]> http://mindhacks.com/2009/11/12/eeg-leads-to-murder-conviction/#comment-5218 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:07:26 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/eeg-leads-to-murder-conviction/#comment-5218 The Discovery Channel, here in the U.S., has a series called The New Detectives: Case Studies in Forensic Science. One of today’s episodes (they’re all in reruns now; I don’t think they’ve run any new episodes in years, alas) talked about “the science of ‘brain fingerprinting’ “. Apparently a scientist did a study with some FBI agents-in-training similar to what you’ve described above. They showed the trainees images of things which would only be significant to an FBI agent (what those things were, the show didn’t say), and checked the trainees’ responses to see how they reacted. As of the show’s original airing, about five or ten years ago, the technique “showed promise”. I don’t think it’s ever been used as evidence in an American court, though.

]]>