A Small Look at Some of the Cases I have Been Involved In
This information will give you a hint, as to why I am not appreciated, by the self-proclaimed experts in the field of Forensics as it relates to how, a reported stolen vehicle was last operated.
This is not meant to be name calling. It however, is my Personal opinion that the term Gonif is a perfect word to describe Rich Pacheco and Robert Mangine.
I have been referred to as a "Plaintiff" expert by the opposing experts. The truth of the matter is that I will work for anyone as long as they are willing to accept only fact and let the chips fall where they may. The standards I live with are not based on hocus pocus and secret unfounded processes. Common sense is my guide and I rely on life-experience. I have never stopped learning from others and will continue to do so.
The one common denominator in these cases, is that the basis for the denial of the auto theft claim was the contention the vehicle was not stolen. Allegedly, the case was considered an insurance fraud on the part of the insured. Although there was much more the plaintiff or defense attorney had to deal with in the case and I am not allowed to give those details, I feel that this is an interesting partial list of cases with my involvement.
Some of these cases I testified in. Some never reached the court system and some of them were found in my client’s favor merely because of my report, affidavit, deposition testimony or even showing for court.
There are many cases I have not put up at this time just due to the fact I am tired of punching keys. The only inaccuracy you may find here is on a couple of monthly dates and, if there is an inaccuracy I observe on the month, I will soon correct it.
I have the documentation on all of these cases in the event an opposing expert gets his undies in a bundle and I need to prove any of this.
Many of these cases are a behind the scenes look.
It should not be construed that this is a total list of cases I have been involved in. It is just a small partial list, to give you a taste of what it is like to be an expert witness, not only for the insured, but for criminal defense as well as insurance companies.
It is very important to note that if one is very good in this field, his reports are rarely questioned and end up in the court system.
When working as an examiner for insurance companies, I have only been to court three times since the early nineties to support my opinions in my reports. Some experts have been in court hundreds and hundreds of times to support their conclusions in their reports.
At this point, one needs to ask why? Some insurance company personnel are very impressed by the hundreds and hundreds of times the expert has testified in court. This is due to ignorance on the insurance person’s part.
If the expert keeps going to court to support his reports it is because he wrote an ambiguous report or is not putting facts in. Yes, there are “Professional” experts out there that don’t make a living on examinations, but off their court time!
You need to be the judge when picking your expert/examiner/consultant!
Bottom line- these cases and others explain why the “Legitimate Forensic Examiners” as they call themselves in my field, do not care too much for me and have launched vicious attacks of libel and slander on my good name.
Not being egotistical, I consider myself very good in this profession because I paid my dues having to work exclusively on the repair of thousands and thousands of theft recovered and fire damaged vehicles. There are people more knowledgeable than me and have even more years experience, but I am not aware of them being involved in the court system.
There are some very good forensic examiners in this field and some learned my experience in theft recoveries and combined this knowledge with what they had already.
I will name just a few of these people, and there are more. In my opinion, they are very honest and write uncontestable reports.
Some of these names are Michael Webb, from Jacksonville, IL, Dan Cunningham from Camas, Washington, Jeff Abrams from Houston TX, John Bainbridge from Lebanon, PA. and Lee Griggs from Camden, SC. There are more, but these names come to mind. As for Fire Investigation, Robert Toth from Colorado, Tim Yandell from Oklahoma and Steve Riggs from Indianapolis, Indiana, who currently serves as an instructor for Public Agency.
I have a great amount of respect for these individuals. I consider myself blessed and fortunate to know these people.
Burnnette vs American Ambassador---4/2003—Dupage County, IL Court-No Opposing Expert
Burned reported stolen vehicle: Qualified to testify on how the vehicle was last operated, steering column, ignition lock, vehicle fire. My testimony revealed misrepresentation on how insured claimed vehicle was last operated before the fire and that the steering column and ignition lock had not been defeated before the fire.
Truchinski vs MetLife-6/2004-Joliet County, IL No Opposing Expert.
Burned reported stolen vehicle: Qualified to testify as an expert in vehicle fire, steering columns, ignitions, transponder systems, forensic locksmithing. My testimony revealed that the vehicle was last operated before the fire with an ignition key cut for the ignition lock in the vehicle as well as having the correct electronic code in order for the vehicle’s computer to read the chip in the key in order to start engine. I also testified on the wear or the two insured supplied ignition keys through forensic lock/key analysis.
Stropki vs Progressive—Stropki—Client—11/99 Ohio Court of Common Pleas—Cleveland, OH Opposing Expert: Rich Pacheco and Peter Hammond of NETS (North Eastern Technical Services)
Burned reported stolen vehicle—Opposing expert’s contention was that the vehicle was last operated with the insured’s second issued ignition key. I was qualified as an expert in vehicle fire, ignition locks, forensic lock analysis, ignitions, steering columns.
My testimony revealed that the opposing expert could not prove his conclusion because the ignition lock could be forced from the steering column in 12 seconds with no damage what so ever, to the ignition keyway circumventing the use of the ignition lock and key system all together. Our side prevailed based on my testimony and video demonstration.
State of New York vs Moray-Westchester County Criminal Court—Moray—Client 8/2003-Westchester County, NY Opposing Expert: Lange Techincal Services
Opposing expert claimed damage to vehicle was insurance fraud-also admitted destroying evidence. The opposing expert claimed damage to vehicle was consistent with insurance fraud. I qualified as an expert in forced entry, ignition locks, forensic lock analysis, auto theft and in all areas I was certified in. The organization I formed was the “International Association of Forensic Auto Theft Examiners” was also recognized as valid as well as its certification program.
Along with my preparation of questions supplied to the client attorney for the opposing expert and my demonstration to the jury with lock component props, my client was found to be innocent of all charges.
State of New Jersey vs Dente Towing-Newark Criminal Court-Client-Dente-4/2003-Newark, NJ Opposing Expert: Tom MacNamara- Hard Facts
Opposing expert claimed he could determine ignition lock was not picked without him removing the ignition lock, disassembling it and examining under magnification. I was qualified to testify on how the vehicle was last operated before the theft, forensic lock analysis , ignitions and forced entry. I supplied questions to the client attorney for opposing expert. My testimony revealed through props and explanations to the jury as to why opposing expert could not make the conclusion he did based on any type of fact. We won that case and my client was found not guilty.
Piersol vs. USAA June 2006- Florida Opposing Expert-Dave Drew C&D Lock
It was proven forensic locksmith may have destroyed evidence and did not gather lock for safe keeping. Settlement at mediation. The opposing attorney at mediation stated Dave Drew was my mentor. Good trick! I have never met the man! Our side prevailed.
Ledin V. Mercury Insurance—6/2006 Tampa FL—Opposing Expert—Rich Pacheco-North Eastern Technical Services
Expert for insurance company could not account for missing key. This is not to infer he lost it. I don’t believe he ever had it. He testified about the black bowed factory original key he examined, but he only had one factory key and a key he called a steel key, which would have been an after market duplicate. Expert also stated there were signs of picking only in middle of lock and apparently did not consider the mark observed in the middle of the lock, was caused by debris such as sand. On the video deposition of Mr. Pacheco, he claimed Rob Painter stole Key Pathway from him. Case was settled for my client.
Baca V. CSAA—Las Vegas, NV 5/2005-Opposing Expert: VINLOCKSMITHS-Herbert T. Miller
Case settled almost from inception of my services. Forensic locksmith made a big deal about no blunt force trauma being done to ignition lock. He also stated in his report that there were no signs of stripping to the vehicle. Upon my inspection of this vehicle that suffered from a passenger compartment fire, I found seats, door trim panels had been removed before the fire and the vehicle was in fact stripped. Case settled in our favor.
State of Ohio V. Withers—Nov 2006 A-1 Lock- Mark Ames
Case dismissed with me showing for court. There was no problem with our side revealing a pattern in which, this expert, commonly sacrificed the evidentiary value of the ignition lock keyway during his examinations by inserting a key and worse yet, trying to yank it out of the lock in a position other than LOCK.
State of Ohio V. Higgins—March 2007 Expert For State A-1 Lock- Mark Ames
After prosecution rested and could not put defendant with car and after the judge read my report on all the variables, the forensic locksmith did not consider before rendering a conclusion that car last operated with proper key. The State had lost the car for a number of months as well and could not account for it. Also the state could not place defendant with car. The judge invoked rule 29 dismissing the case, and acquitting my client.
Theodore Pearson Vs. Progressive 9/2006 Iowa Opposing Expert: Mark Ames-A-1 Lock
Forensic locksmith determined that vehicle last operated with a key. Steering column was mailed to expert with no ignition lock cylinder in steering column. There was no lock for him to examine! Progressive denied payment on the claim based on the report from the forensic expert. I submitted a report and case did not go to court before settling in Mr. Pearson’s favor.
Espinoza vs Infinity –Orange County, CA 9/2006 Opposing Expert- North American Technical Services- Robert Mangine
Expert claimed vehicle was last operated with key of the proper type. After review of expert’s report I prepared a report revealing the unsupported statements made in his report. Case went to court and during trial settled in our favor.
Turner vs. Sterling Insurance –Orange County, CA 1/2006 Opposing Expert-North American Technical Services- Robert Mangine & Associate
Expert claimed vehicle was last operated with proper key. I reviewed expert’s report and found that the statements made about the reported stolen vehicle’s last operation could not be supported. In fact, in this case Mr. Mangine was deposed and asked what the purpose of his testimony was, because he admittedly never examined the evidence, he never examined the vehicle. His associate when deposed stated he had the evidence removed from the vehicle stored in his garage. I generated a report for this case revealing the statements made in the expert’s report could not be factually supported. At this point, the case settled out of court and our side prevailed.
Baron V. Warrior – State of Illinois—St. Clair County 6/2002 Opposing Expert- Tim Finley
This case was very interesting because it was the straw that broke the back of the camel. Although I did not have the opportunity to be in court on this case, I likened it to John Grishem’s “Rain Maker” movie. All the details appeared to be the same. The insurance company denied the theft claim because of the expert’s report stating that the windowns were rolled down at the time of the fire and that the vehicle was last operated with a proper key. I reviewed the expert’s report and found some very serious flaws in the statements made by the opposing expert. I generated questions for the client attorney as it related to the vehicle.
My purpose in this case was very small because it only related to the fire and last operation of the vehicle. One of the questions for the opposing expert at his deposition, since he stated the windows were rolled down at the time of the fire was: how did he prove this statement as fact? Did he take three like kind doors, roll down the windows, subject the doors to a fire similar to this vehicle. If so, did he measure the volume of glass remains as for weight and compare to this vehicle? Of course not! As for window regulator position, the components were made of plastic and succumbed to the fire. This was the first statement he could not prove.
The next was that he stated there was a key found in the burned remains with 5 of the eight ignition lock wafers still attached. To the burned ignition lock remains. The expert was asked in what layer of the fire debris was the burned ignition and key found in (important in order to determine if the ignition lock was located in the steering column or removed at the time of the fire).
His answer was he did not know. When asked if he could identify if the key found in the lock remains was the ignition key for that vehicle? He stated he was not a locksmith. Basically, in the end, we proved that the expert was not and expert in reported stolen vehicles as to how they were last operated. It was proven that he could not determine if the windows were rolled down at the time of the fire. It was proven that he admittedly knew nothing about locks and keys.
The details of this case were really neat and I would suggest that you look it up as to all the details that ran parallel with John Grishem’s movie. Our side prevailed with a judgment for the plaintiff of $3,000,000.00
Sidhu Vs. Farmers – Fresno, CA 3/2006 Opposing Experts-Herbert T. Miller/ Tom Seroogy VINLOCKSMITHS
This case involved a Dodge Ram truck that had been reported stolen. The stripped vehicle sat at a repair shop for a while after recovered. The repair shop had employees readily admit that they had inserted an ignition key into the lock numerous times. It was that time Mr. Herb Miller was dispatched to do a forensic examination on the ignition lock to determine how this reported stolen recovered stripped truck was last operated. It is also important to note at the approximate same time as this examination, Mr. Seroogy decided he wanted to get into the career of forensic locksmithing, and was buying Mr. Miller’s business according to Mr. Seroogy’s deposition testimony on this case in 2005.
Mr. Miller allegedly did a forensic examination on this ignition lock. After reviewing Mr. Miller’s report on this vehicle, I requested the opportunity for my examination of the ignition lock. I met with Mr. Seroogy at the atrium of the Radison Hotel in Merrillville, Indiana with my associate. I had taken my microscope with me at that time. (Please keep in mind that anything I list as detrimental about the purported forensic examination of the ignition lock Mr. Miller performed in this case I can prove because I have the photographs to back it up. I was physically given the ignition lock for this vehicle.
I began to disassemble it. I found the first wafer I removed from the lock was cleaned of lubricant. I examined it under the microscope for signs of fresh striations (scratches) and I did observe some. I began removing the rest of the wafers. I found that the next ignition lock wafer did not appear to be examined by anyone because it was covered in lubricant and grime with the remaining wafers in the same type of condition. At this time, it was my opinion that a proper forensic examination of the ignition lock had not been performed. Only the first wafer out of a total of eight had been examined! At this point, I traveled back to Milwaukee.
My associate had worked for Strattec (Makers of the keys and locks for GM, Ford, Chrysler and Mitsubishi). This had given me access to learn more about these locks and keys than the normal locksmith had. I was aware that this style lock was very sloppy in tolerances new and progressed to the point over time a huge amount of key combinations close in cut would operate the lock.
In other words, this style lock new was not secure. I had another associate assemble a brand new lock with the same wafer heights as the vehicle in question. We then cut a key of exacting cuts consistent with the question Dodge Ram. We then cut four more keys with random cuts. (These keys can be seen on this site at the “Proper Key” link. A couple of these keys that operated this new l;ock doing no damage were very interesting. One key had cuts in the middle of the blade similar to comb teeth. Another single cut key did not have the teeth consistent with a normal car key. It just had one long cut in the blade. All of these keys operated the ignition lock that we made and they would operate the ignition lock in this reported stolen Dodge Ram.
In court while on the stand, the judge let the jury see these demonstrations and it was obvious to the jury that the statement in Mr. Miller’s report of being last operated with a proper key was too general. Mr. Seroogy (serving as a surrogate representative from VIN LOCKSMITHS) was asked if he could prove that the Dodge Ram was not operated by keys similar than the ones I had made that were not even close to the “proper” cut. His answer was that he could not prove that keys like that I supplied did not last operate this Dodge Ram. His answer was no. Please keep in mind, I used no tricks here, like I am accused of doing in Mr. Seroogy’s article (On a link on my home page) from March of 2007. I used true forensics by attempting to rule out real life scenarios.
Mr. Seroogy was the expert for Farmer’s Insurance Company now in this case. The jury award for Mr. Sidhu was $375,000.00
Wasseff V. Unitrin Insurance -Orange County, CA-3/2007 -Opposing Expert- North American Technical Services- Robert Mangine
This case was written about by Mr. Seroogy in his 3/2007 article located on a link at my home page. Mr. Seroogy stated that if a competent examination of this vehicle was performed, the answer for the amount of programmed keys to operate this vehicle could have been determined. My point exactly, and obviously Mr. Seroogy was not aware of what had or had not been done in the examination of this vehicle. It was Mr. Mangine that did not scan this vehicle to determine how many keys were programmed to operate this vehicle, when he performed the examination for his insurance client, Unitrin!
I did in fact, use a Code Seeker to determine how many keys were programmed to operate this vehicle. I also video taped the examination I performed.
After my examination and my report, this case settled in favor of Mr. Waseff for an undisclosed amount in March of 2007.
Had Mr. Mangine performed this examination completely in my opinion, there would have been no question as to how the vehicle was last operated. Instead, in my opinion, he did not look out for his client, Unitrin Insurance.
McCoy V. Progressive—Los Angeles, CA—3/2007 Opposing Expert- Forest Folck
Before this case went to trial, the Progressive expert was deposed. A copy will be put on this site. I supplied the questioning on forensics and how it related to the locks and keys. In essence, he admitted he was not a locksmith and knew very little about forensics when it came to locks and keys. (His words, not mine located in his deposition).
The story on this involved a reported stolen Ford Mustang that was recovered burned. The vehicle was located in Las Vegas at a storage lot. It was important to note the vehicle was equipped with remote start there by, bypassing the transponder anti-theft system. (Engine could be started at a distance without a key in the ignition, by pushing a remote transmitter button)
It seemed strange that this fact was never considered in the overall scheme of things. Someone from Progressive decided to remove the steering column of the vehicle and send it to the expert in California. The Expert went to his local Ford dealer, gave them the VIN and they gave him the key cut codes for the ignition lock. He then went to a locksmith and had a key cut for this column. Now a very important note involving the condition of this ignition lock,. This lock had suffered from fire damage and a crust was put on the wafer lands (Where the key rides when inserted). As I keep explaing on this site, one should never insert a key (impact tool) into the softer ignition lock wafers (tumblers) because of the altering of the evidence.
In this case, the expert admitted to inserting the brand new key into the lock. This new key blade was filled with burrs and basically cut what appeared liker railroad tracks into the burned crust on the wafers. In other words, he (the expert) literally destroyed all evidence that this lock may have shown when determining last operation. He then rotated the ignition lock to the ON position and depressed the retainer pin and removed the lock. He then disassembled the lock components and examined them under not a microscope, but a magnifying glass!!! He then concluded the reported stolen vehicle was last operated with a key of the proper type!
The case went to trial in March of 2007. I testified about all the real problems I felt the expert had created in his examination of the lock. I also explained this was a very sloppy lock and after a period of time could operate the lock with no key at all.
There were questions now because the vehicle was transponder equipped requiring a properly coded key and I expounded on the fact that when the steering column was removed, the components to the remote start were never removed which bypassed the transponder system any way.
The jury found in favor of Mr. McCoy at $17K for the car, $65K for emotional distress and $100K for punitive damages because Progressive did not follow the facts that the insured had told them.
Nobels V. Ampac—Alabama—3/2007 Expert-Opposing Exprt: Pronet and Herbert T. Miller
This case involved a guy that traveled to examine the vehicle. All he did was look at the vehicle physically, checking the locking steering wheel and taking pictures. He being some what inexperienced in this field had someone else write a report on the vehicle stating that the vehicle had to be operated with a key of the proper type and transponder vehicle. There was also a question on the actual mileage on this vehicle. The biggest problem here was, the ignition lock had not been removed for examination. The transponder system was never interrogated for function or to determine how many keys were programmed to operate the vehicle. The only thing done was a physical examination and pictures.
Mr. Miller served as a supporting witness in this case mainly to say decretory things about me. On the stand for about a half hour it was my understanding that he was rather upset about the questioning of himself by the plaintiff cross examination, where a judge reversed a case he was involved in and called his testimony “Unbelievable.” This case he was questioned on had been reversed against his insurance client for $2.7 million dollars.
In the end though in March of 2007, my client was awarded a $375,000.00 judgment. Note- I only had to do a deposition in this case and never appeared in the trial.
Feraras Vs. Permanent General-Orange County, CA-3/2005-Opposing Expert-Rich Pacheco-North Eastern Technical Services
(Deposition excerpts on this web site)
I had a deposition scheduled for this case that had been cancelled because of what went on the day before. This case had been going on for 4 years with no disposition. I had been involved in the case for three weeks. I reviewed the information to the case. Part of my review was the NETS report.
The NETS report involving this reported stolen 2002 Ford Explorer that had been recovered with a key similar to the key that was used to operate this vehicle was in the console. The NETS report stated that this vehicle was last operated with what the termed (Key C). Key C was one of the insured’s keys as well as what they termed Key A.
In a later report from NETS it was re-determined that key B (the key found in the console was the last key used). After reviewing the information on this case, I generated a declaration on an affidavit with my concerns about the last operation of this vehicle.
Evidently, NETS had never physically examined the vehicle. Someone from the insurance company had removed the steering column to NETS as well as the two insured keys and the key found in the console.
My declaration did not accuse NETS of any wrong doing, however it did state all the considerations to be made before rendering a conclusion as to how this vehicle was last operated.
These considerations required a physical examination of the vehicle. One such reason was to confirm the transponder antitheft system was functioning correctly. It would be required to check the PCM relay for bypass or tampering and to determine if the system was in fact functioning properly. NETS did not do this because it was admitted in Rich Pacheco’s deposition that he was never at the location of the vehicle. Another very important reason that the vehicle had to be physically examined is that it needed to be interrogated with a scanner such as a Ford NGS, T-Code, Code Seeker etc. to actually determine how many keys were electronically programmed to operate the vehicle. This in this case was paramount because we needed to know if a third key (Key found in console) was programmed to operate the vehicle. This type of vehicle could have up to eight programmed keys!
The day before my deposition I arrived in Santa Anna, CA to the opposing attorney’s office with a client paralegal. I was there to inspect the “Evidence.” The steering column was present as well as the keys.
I had brought my electronic testing equipment with me at the time of this examination of the evidence. The purpose was to determine if the key found in the console was electronically coded to operate this vehicle. It appeared that NETS had never checked the key for an electronic code. All they had done was checked the cuts in the key (the mechanical portion. I also wanted to examine the vehicle with the scanner I had in my possession to determine how many keys were programmed to operate the vehicle. Had these operations been performed, there would have been no question as to how the vehicle was last operated.
In his deposition, Mr. Pacheco continued to rant that he had checked with others in the field that had never heard of the scan tool that I had. He didn’t even know if such a tool existed when the vehicle had been recovered. Well, the Ford NGS had been around since at least 1997 and Mr. Pacheco did not apparently attempt to use that tool on the vehicle because he never examined the vehicle. As per his testimony, he did 90% of the examination and this may be true. The only problem was that 10% he did not do was crucial to determine the last operation of this vehicle!
I stated to the opposing attorney that I intended to test the vehicle as well as the key found in the console.
After being at her office for over an hour and inspecting the “Evidence” that NETS examined, the paralegal and I left her office. I stated to the paralegal that this case was over. He stated that that couldn’t happen because the case had gone on for four years.
2 hours later at my hotel room I got a phone call from my client attorney. He stated my deposition was cancelled and the case settled in our favor!
The point to all of this is, one cannot just be sent the steering column or lock on a transponder equipped vehicle. The vehicle itself MUST be examined.
The outcome on this case and many other things are the reason Mr. Pacheco does not care for me. In fact, it is not just Mr. Pacheco that is not happy, but a number of “Forensic Locksmiths” I have successfully opposed because they could have done the examination better in my opinion.
Kourosh Sajjadi VS Permanent General Insurance Company-Santa Ana, CA- May 2004
In this case, it is my understanding that the insurance company attorney had taken some information about Ford transponders from an expert in the field, and used it for a reason for denial of a Lexus 300E that had never been recovered.
I was scheduled to do a deposition on this case and went to the opposing attorneys office for the deposition.
Interestingly enough, the questions I was given during deposition, kept going back to the same issue. Because this vehicle was transponder equipped, the vehicle was deemed “Unstealable” by the insurance company. A transponder equipped vehicle does not mean that it can’t be stolen.
It just means, it might be a little more difficult to start the engine without a correctly electronically programmed key. Since the vehicle had not been recovered for three years and it still was not available for examination, no one knows how it was stolen. It could have been pushed, it could have been towed. No one knows. The only fact to this case is that the vehicle was non-existent. It was also very ignorant on the opart of the insurance company to compare the Ford transponder system with a transponder system on a Lexus. They are two different animals, but they both work the same way. These systems are referred to as anti-theft. These systems DO NOT prevent theft!!!!
After my deposition, the case was settled in favor of my insured client.
State of MA vs. Parry-3/2008-Opposing Expert-Lange Technical
Charges of insurance fraud were brought against my client in Massachusetts, years after the vehicle had been disposed of.
Lange Technical had generated a report on the reported theft recovered vehicle. They had stated there were no missing components at the time of their examination. At the time of their examination, they altered the evidence because they admitted in their report they had inserted the insured’s key into this transponder equipped vehicle’s ignition lock. They allegedly checked the ignition lock for damage and apparently observed none.
Years later after the vehicle had been disposed of by the insurance company, charges were brought against my client.
I wrote an affidavit on how I felt the examination for the insurance company was flawed and it was my opinion that since this ignition lock had been tampered with by the forensic company, and since the vehicle no longer existed, the prosecution had no evidence to pursue with the prosecution of this case.
The judge dropped all charges against my client and the client attorney wrote me and stated my affidavit was the reason the judge dropped the case.
Issa vs. Allstate Detroit, MI 34/2008-Opposing Expert-Herndon & Associates Inc- Walter Herndon
This case involved a reported stolen BMW. The insurance company denied the claim because of the Herndon report that inferred the vehicle was not stolen after their examination of the vehicle. It was hinted that because this was a lease car and that the odometer was missing, the tires were bald and a number of other things. This case had much more to it than just the vehicle however, the Herndon report was in fact used as the first reason of the denial of the claim.
Now it is very important for me to note: As per the first page of Walter Herndon’s deposition and this is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: He states he has no automotive knowledge or training in the field and he is an expert in steering columns, immobilizer systems, vehicle fire because he served as a cop with general duties from 1971 to 1979.
Anyone interested in this documentation can contact me at Robo14@aol.com.
This vehicle was recovered missing the ignition lock. This is a transponder equipped vehicle. The main reason that Walter Herndon felt this vehicle was not stolen was because someone would have heard the factory installed alarm going off. The problem: The alarm was optional on this vehicle. This vehicle was not equipped with an alarm!
After reviewing the report photos and then physically inspecting the vehicle, it was my opinion this vehicle was a targeted theft. The bonded windshield had been cut out. This requires a professional in glass removal. The wheels and tires from this vehicle had been switched (there were missing lug nuts). The front sheet metal was removed as were the air bags,. To me this made sense as an actual steal.
Here is my reasoning based on the direct repair of over 10,000 theft recoveries. The windshield was taken because on the vehicle that needed parts had a broken windshield from the deployed air bags consistent with a frontal impact. This explained why the air bags and front sheet metal were missing. I feel the odometer was missing not to hide mileage on a lease, but to be the replacement for a higher mileage car. The same went for the tires.
I explained all this to the jury.
Our side prevailed over Allstate and their expert!
Thompson V. State Farm Kentucky Federal Court-Opposing expert- North Eastern Technical Services-Rich Pacheco and Steve Caeton
This case involved a totally burned Toyota in which the last key used was the insureds according to the experts. This case never went to trial and settled in favor of my client, the insured.
This case is what prompted my test report on burned Toyota steering columns for peer review. The questions from this testing were if the steering wheel could proved it was locked at the time of the theft. Where was the ignition lock remains recovered? In what driver’s floor debris area? The ignition lock components had been recovered from the driver’s floor burn debris and sent to the NETS lab. The reason it was so important to determine if the lock assembly was recovered on the top layer of debris or the bottom layer of drivers floor debris, was to determine if the ignition lock was in the steering column at the time of the fire. It was very common for a thief to just break the ignition lock housing and the ignition lock would drop to the floor or be discarded. In the event that this happened, who cared if there was internal damage not present to the ignition key way? This would be a moot point.
If the lock remains were found on the top layer of burn debris, it was the last to fall and still mounted in the column at the time of the fire.
In this case, I brought up these points in my deposition. The case then settled in my clients favor. For years the status quo was to just gather all the driver’s floor debris and package it. Then send it to a lab to determine the last key used, even though the ignition lock was not present in the steering column and a key was not needed to start the engine.
In essence, if one disturbs the debris field and scoops it all up, he should just throw it ion the garbage because the evidentiary layers of burn debris were destroyed!
Porter V. Progressive-Jackson, MI--Dec.1997-Opposing Expert: North Eastern Technical Services-Rich Pacheco and Steve Caeton
This case involved a reported stolen Camaro and recovered burned, equipped with the VATS-Anti-Theft system. (Resistor chip in key blade commonly mistaken for computer chip).
According to the experts, this vehicle was last operated with a key of the proper type. It should be noted, this is the first case I ever took against an insurance company. I paid severely for this because a group I belonged to in Wisconsin (Insurance based fraud investigators-many former cops) never forgave me for taking a case in Mississippi against a member company-Progressive. Since this time, even today, nothing good is said about me because I did not conform to their ways. (Another good ole’ boy club). In fact, I figured by 2002 everything would be forgiven, and I applied for membership once again, but AVCAW (ANTI-VEHICLE CRIME ASSOCIATION OF WISCONSIN), required that I have another member refer me (Fat Chance!) or I would not be allowed to be a member. They sent a letter accordingly and my check back.
This has turned into a side issue. The expert is only allowed to work for insurance companies or against them. Evidently unbiased opinions are not allowed in this field.
Back to the case—I generated a report revealing all the things that needed to be considered before arriving to a conclusion as to how this type of vehicle was last operated. Was it equipped with remote start? This means that the engine could be started from a distance without a key in the ignition. In this case, it was highly unlikely because it was standard shift however; in all my experience in theft recoveries, I have seen such a unit install;led in standard shifts! Kind of funny when you would hear a guy remote started his vehicle with standard shift and it hit a building!
This vehicle was equipped with a locking column and it was commonly assumed on the Saginaw steering column, if the sector spring was not damaged on the left side of the steering column, the steering column was not defeated. This in reality was wrong, wrong, wrong and only identified one method of defeat of the locking mechanisms to this type of steering column.\There was severe problems with one determining the last key used in this type of vehicle and it went back to inexperience in the ways these steering columns were commonly defeated.
The GM Saginaw round tilt was commonly defeated in less that 30 second doing damage to the steering column on the left side, never having to touch the ignition lock!
There were different ways to defeat the locking mechanisms in the steering column. When the top portion of the steering column was broken, there would be evidence of sector spring damage. However, more commonly the lower shift bowl was broken and there was no damage to the sector spring. It just bounced off the sector, unlocking the steering wheel. Then there were the situations that no sector spring damage occurred and the lock plate inner splines were spun.
Was anything like this considered by Progressive’s experts? Not that I am aware of.
The anti thegft system in this vehicle was very problematic for the owner. The most common complaint I hear on this system was “engine starts at times.” The two little wires (like telephone wires) would break inside the steering column and the vehicle’s computer could not read the resistance of the key. The common fix was to put a resistor in line within 10% of it’s value (purchased at Radio Shack) or use the VATS BYPASS resistors from an alarm equipped for remote start. This left no security protection on the vehicle, but you did not need a proper key to operate the vehicle either.
Duplicate keys were also available without proper identification at that time by supplying the dealer with the VIN.
In summary: It was not factually determined that this column was not defeated without the use of a key because the vehicle was burned. There was more emphasis on the condition of the ignition lock where it may or may not have played a role in the last operation of the vehicle.
The point here was last key used was the basis of denial of this burned vehicle and it wasn’t relevant.
After the deposition of the insurance experts, the case settled in favor of my insured client.
Hampton V. State Farm/NICB-Kansas City-9/2005, Kansas Opposing Expert--Technical Forensic Services-Mike Hearold.
In this case, I gave an 8 hour video taped deposition, but never testified in the trial. The opposing expert had received as a mail-in, burn debris allegedly from this vehicle including lock components. The problem I had with this is the expert stated the vehicle was last operated with a proper key. This vehicle was not equipped with a transponder anti theft system and had way more miles than 100,000.
The expert purportedly examined the evidence. He only had half the burned lock remains and we did not even know which half. He had 4 burned and severely worn wafers (tumblers) to rest his conclusion on. To my knowledge, he did not know where the lock remains were recovered on the driver’s floor because someone had the Toyota flipped on it side. This type of vehicle was commonly stolen by what is known as a “shaved” key. Obviously, that scenario could not be eliminated. This ignition lock because of the mileage was excessively worn and it is entirely possible that a key was not even needed to rotate this ignition lock.
There was much more to this case than my part on the lock, but again, the lock exam by their expert was the initial basis for denial of the claim. This case is listed on my home page. initially, the jury found in favor of Jenny Hampton and here brother for $400K each. The case went farther and they were awarded $8,000,000. State Farm had appealed the judgment and after appeal, the judgment was for $8,000,000.00.
O’Connell vs Arbella Insurance Company-Quincy, MA Municipal Court-Client-O’Connell-4/2004-Quincy, MA-Opposing Expert-S.D. Lyons
Opposing expert states he determined reported stolen vehicle last operated with an ignition key designed for the vehicle and that the PASS LOCK anti-Theft system was working before the theft. He also stated damage to vehicle was “Over Kill” relating to the extensive damage to the vehicle when recovered by police. I was qualified to testify in forensic locksmithing, the factory installed anti theft system PASS LOCK, forced entry, forensic lock analysis and auto theft. I supplied client attorney with questions for the opposing expert.
I testified that without the examination of the ignition lock (which was not present for opposing expert) that there was no way the expert could have arrived to the opinion he did. As for the “Over kill” damage to the vehicle, I testified that there is no way to determine what happened to this vehicle in the week that the vehicle was missing. We prevailed in this case. A couple weeks later the client attorney motioned for treble damages and got that judgment.
Mannian vs CSAA Insurance Company-Fresno, CA County Court-Client-Mannian-6/2005-Fresno, CA.-Opposing Expert: VINLOCKSMITHS-Herbert. T. Miller
Opposing expert stated reported stolen and burned Mercedes not stolen and operated last by insured’s key. I qualified as an expert on vehicle fires, security systems and auto theft. This style vehicle is very difficult to operate without an electronic key for this vehicle. I reviewed an extensive amount of information about the vehicle and its service records. There were a number of duplicate keys made for this vehicle. I testified that any one of the seven keys outstanding could have operated this vehicle and not necessarily the insured’s key. Our side prevailed in this case and for $340,000 and punitive damages.
Holiday vs Progressive Eugene Oregon March/2002-Opposing Expert-The late Al Shannon
The opposing attorney built this case around the alleged forensics applied by Mr. Shannon. I was successful in proving to the jury that proper protocol was not done by Mr. Shannon to reach his “forensic” conclusions. The closing arguments by the opposing attorney no longer focused around the forensic and focused on non-cooperation of the insured. The jury deliberation statement showed they did not believe Mr. Shannon and Progressive’s “Forensics” were cast out.
In certain situations I have served merely as a consultant before and during litigation in which the case was resolved because of my intervention. The reason these cases are so important is because of my involvement, the prosecution dropped or reduced the felony charges against my client.
(State Farm) State of Illinois vs Diaz-Lake County, IL Client: Diaz 3/2004 Opposing Expert: George Plakey-PDQ Lock Service- Chicago
This case was interesting, in which I reviewed and was prepared to serve as an expert for the defense. The opposing expert inferred arson and operated with a key on this reported stolen vehicle. He stated nothing, other than the insured’s keys had been in the ignition lock. When the prosecution’s/ insurance company’s expert/locksmith impressioned the ignition lock and made a working ignition key and yet stated the lock revealed no signs of tampering! He tampered with the lock making a key!!! The client attorney (Shirley Bertraine) retained my services and mentioned to the prosecution that I was her expert. At that time the prosecution dropped all criminal charges against Joey Diaz. The client attorney was amazed and stated “Your name is Power” in a letter to me.
State of Ohio vs Echard-Cuyahoga County Criminal Court-Cleveland, OH-Client-Echard-3/2005—Opposing Expert Joseph Tavares Jet Investtigations
This was an arson/vehicle theft case. The fire department claimed this vehicle was burned because of arson on the part of the insured, and the insurance company claimed the vehicle was last operated with the insured’s ignition key. My services were retained by Sam Mamich (defense attorney). I reviewed the information supplied to me from this case. Included was the fire incident report and a report from an alleged lock expert. The fire report misstated the vehicle type.
The vehicle was a totally burned. It was a 2001 Ford Super crew. The fire department had listed a 2002 Ford Sport Trac. The Super Crew is a full size truck. The Sport Trac is a compact truck. The fire alledgely started in the passenger compartment according to the fire department. My review of the burn patterns in the supplied photos revealed this was an engine compartment fire. I asked my client attorney to get a hydro-carbon (Accelerant) report from the Fire Department to show me this was a set fire from the passenger compartment. There was no such report and it was merely assumed by the fire department the fire started in the interior. I found this vehicle was under recall for under hood fires caused by a defective cruise/brake switch!
As for the expert determining the last operation of the vehicle I had the client attorney subpoena the expert’s former employment records in which the expert had signed a confession letter for embezzlement. I also revealed the spoliation of the ignition lock remains. The case was dismissed and the client attorney sent a letter of referral to me for my intervention on getting this case dismissed.