How to Pick an Expert in the Auto Theft Field

There are sites out there in the forensic automotive field that spew garbage about how one should choose an expert. I thought now is the time to give a potential client the opportunity to make an informed decision as to how to go about this task.

There are many misstatements about the expert they have opposed including down right lies. The reason is because the experts on these sites primarily work for insurance companies and their reports are the basis of the theft claim denial, don't appreciate being embarrassed for not doing their job correctly.

I have composed a list of questions that you the attorney or insurance company need to consider before hiring an expert witness in the fields of  forensics, vehicle theft and origin and cause of vehicle fires.

I have also listed factual information here that you need to know when picking an expert with a Certified Forensic Locksmith title.

Does the expert have the actual background in repairing theft recoveries or is he merely a locksmith with a assigned (bought and paid for forensic) title?

To understand, one needs to know what "professional" organization offers the opportunity to become a Certified Forensic Locksmith. The Association that doles this title out is the International Association of Investigative Locksmiths A/K/A (IAIL). The first question would be: What in this organization's title has anything to do with forensics?

Let's look a little deeper here: For years in their "ethics" statement at http://www.iail.org it stated in order to be a member, the applicant can not be a felon. They did in fact accept a member that was a convicted felon. It was stated, the crime of distribution of cocaine was a long time ago, and he was accepted as a member. This definitely affects the credibility of this organization and one needs to ask; who else would they accept?

Another ethics statement was: The examiner can only render an opinion after examination of the physical evidence. This too, is a very interesting statement, because the person on the education committee has rendered opinions, based on "assumed fact" as he states in his reports. The problem is that he never examined the vehicles that he wrote the reports on for client insurance companies. These "forensic" reports were used as the basis for the insurance company's denial of the theft claim. This was so brazen that one of these vehicles was never recovered!

Let's ask ourselves again, how good is this credential? In fact, I am aware of an expert that renounced his CFL after his complaints to the IAIL board about these issues went unanswered.

When reviewing the expert's CV (resume), it is important to note how many times he has testified in court, but it is even more important to note how many times he has testified to support his reports for his insurance client.

To the novice, it may appear to impress someone that the expert has testified hundreds of times, but then we need to  ask why? Someone who puts in every detail possible and considers all known hypotheses before reaching a conclusion, rarely if ever, has to support his conclusions in court. If for instance, the expert has hundreds of times testifying for insurance companies, it means one of two things. He either does very sloppy work and writes ambiguous reports or he leaves the details out deliberately. There is no excuse for "forensic" reports on the vehicle to be in question. If the scientific method is properly employed, the process can be duplicated. If not, the "forensic" report is smoke and mirrors.

Please take a look at a small portion of my court record, which really says it all, and note the players I continuously successfully oppose on my portion (the last operation of a vehicle) and not the totality of the entire case.

One friend of mine told me a long time ago, its one thing to tell everybody your cool. Its quite another to sit back and have others see your accomplishments and they know your cool.

Never buy into an expert that states he can determine the "last key used" in a case involving a reported stolen vehicle. Insurance companies and courts were served a bill of goods here on a process that cannot be replicated. This was a proprietary service that was passed off as scientific. The secret process is an oxymoron when compared to the process of "forensic." If it cannot be repeated, it isn't science. The original inventor of this process published it. It is stated to "use variable lighting and variable magnification." Since when can "variable" be replicated?

Another problem with the " Certified Forensic Locksmiths": The inventor of the last key used process sits on the board of another "forensic" organization with another forensic locksmith. Mr. Last key used, when supplying his published process states "Never insert a key into the lock because you will damage the evidence." The other forensic locksmith who recently gave deposition testimony that Mr. Last key used, was his mentor. This forensic locksmith has two published chapters in a book that states: "insert the key into the lock to check lock function." Since the relationship between these two is close, serving on the same board and Mr. Last key used being his mentor, it causes the  question: Which is it? Insert the key and damage evidence? Or insert key to check the lock function?

A very important consideration when attempting to hire an expert in auto theft; does he actually know how to steal cars in a very short amount of time, or is he a locksmith with all the time in the world to duplicate a key?

Are his opinions on auto theft based on how the particular anti-theft system is designed? Or are they based as to how anti-theft systems are actually defeated on the street?

There are different thresholds in the court system involving the totality of the case. Civil can be preponderance or clear and convincing evidence. Criminal is beyond any reasonable doubt. Although some attorneys may not like it, the expert should be able to articulate ONLY the points about the vehicle to the minimum of clear and convincing. If you are inquiring about the expert's ability as to the hypotheses to be considered when determining how a reported stolen vehicle was last operated, he must be able to present reasonable hypotheses either through photographs, video or even demonstrative evidence.

Ask for the expert's "score card", (the number of cases his side prevailed on and lost on).

When should you be concerned about the expert? I have already addressed some instances, but more importantly, is his client base relatively even? Does he work 99% of the time for insurance companies and also the prosecution? If so, does not look good for the expert.

Is the expert a convicted felon? This would be nice to know ahead of time. Yes, there are convicted felons and other experts awaiting the outcome of criminal charges in the forensic locksmithing field. The expert may tell you, it was a long time ago since his conviction. Just remember, it will come up if the state has not pardoned him.

Is the expert familiar with the expert firm you are opposing? Does he have knowledge as to their methodology?

Does he have compelling information about the opposing expert or expert firm that will be helpful in your case?

Has the expert qualified in state courts as well as federal in his field of expertise?

Has he met a Daubert challenge?

Does the expert have the proper training and has he obtained the certifications in the areas he has testified  in?

Does the expert have the training, background and experience to testify?

Now, one area that the insurance defense firm will attempt to discredit an expert witness working for a plaintiff attorney on the stand: Mr. Expert, isn't it true that you never examined the vehicle? Or, Isn't it true that you examined the vehicle years later?

Mr. Expert: How can you testify on something in which, you were not there at the car to examine the physical evidence that the insurance expert did?

These cases commonly take years and the vehicle is commonly disposed of. In theory, wasn't the insurance expert responsible for retaining the evidence for his testimony? Time changes and alters the physical condition of the vehicle. These vehicles are not preserved and yet they are considered "evidence."

These can be compelling questions unless your expert knows how to address these issues truthfully and with common sense. First, it is all too common that the insurance expert does not remove physical evidence such as the ignition lock. Or if the ignition lock is examined, it is very common for the insurance expert to insert a key into the ignition lock and potentially damage the evidentiary value of the ignition lock.

Forensic locksmithing 101 A/K/A "Common sense." The key is harder than the softer brass or aluminum wafers (tumblers). When the key is inserted, it will leave striations (scratches). When removed, it polishes those marks. This is like Pandora's box. Once a key is inserted, there is no way for the expert to prove he did not cause damage to the lock.

Secondly, without removal of the ignition lock, full cleaning, disassembly and magnification of the wafer lands (where the key rides inserted into the lock) as well as comparing any identifiable marks to the known keys, there is no way possible that the insurance expert can rule out all known hypotheses (scientific method).

What I find very interesting is where the courts allow these experts to testify on evidence that they never retained. This happens far too often! Why would the expert retain the ignition lock? Many reasons. First to do proper testing. Second to prevent the evidence from being damaged any further. In the case of the ignition lock, more key insertions. The making of a new key etc. The third reason is very important. In order to be forensic, the evidence must be available to the opposing expert , for him to be able to replicate the process used by the insurance expert. If every thing was done employing the scientific method, the opposing expert should have the same opinion that the insurance expert does.

The use of scopes:

The insurance expert may try to impress you with the use of what appear to be "forensic" tools. The expert may state he used a borescope, ophthalmoscope, otoscope into the keyway of a lock. Until recently, borescopes were too large in diameter and there use can be seen in the movies when a safe cracker drills a hole next to the tumblers in a safe. A ophthalmoscope is used by eye doctors to check your eyes. The otoscope is used by doctors to check your ears. The use of these scopes into the ignition keyway is fine to look for obvious damage to the internal lock components, however these scopes should just be used for preliminary examination. The problem is that is all too common for the insurance expert to use these scopes as their only form of examination of the ignition lock key way condition.

Here is what can't be seen with the use of these scopes: Any small scratches under the lock lubricant, carbon, soot and even the burned crust from a fire. Only certain borescopes have photo capability. We are left taking the expert's word on what he allegedly observed.

Do not be sucked into the theory that forensics was performed merely by the use of these scopes. Again, this is just smoke and mirrors to fool the public including attorneys.

Warning:

Here is a very eye opening revelation! There is a auto theft expert firm in which the owner located in the State of Michigan claims to be an expert in auto theft, steering columns, immobilizer systems and vehicle fire. In his deposition he was asked: Where did you get your experience to testify in this field? His answer: He was a Detroit police officer for 8 years involved in Narcotics, B&E and auto theft. He was then asked: Do you have any automotive training? His answer: No! Do you have any automotive experience? No!

His firm has over 20 employees and it grosses close to $3 million a year working for insurance companies like Allstate, AAA and State Farm just to name a few. The very real fear for me here is that innocent insureds are being denied on their theft claims, because of this firm's biased conclusions. Worse yet, are there innocent people that have gone to jail or convicted of a felony because of this firm's opinions? From the numerous reports I have reviewed and the cases I have opposed this firm, they have never even examined the ignition locks or interrogated the vehicle's computer!

Always ask for references. If the expert is good, he will have many attorneys that have been happy with his work product.

Update: I serve as an expert on auto theft and prevention on a site known as http://www.allexperts.com.

Now, I had not been active from 2005 until November of 2008. That means I had no questions that I supplied answers to. I was looking through the feedback from readers and found a comment  about key path wayfrom June 23, 2008.

Interestingly enough, the heading was about a process known as "Key Pathway." It is touted as being accepted by the courts as a valid scientific process. The reason it has been accepted as scientific is because the process was never properly scrutinized and the courts were left with the belief that this process could actually determine the last key used. As stated previously, I have the published process right from the inventor of this last key used process. The article stated: Use variable magnification, variable lighting. Since there are no exact numbers used, the process cannot hold up to a consensus. If the process can not be repeated, it is not science!!!!!! There are far too many variables for this process to work. If anyone requests it, I have a deposition from the inventor (his words" in the Orange County, California case Ferres vs. Permanent General), which proves what a farce this process is. Anyone wanting copies of these documents is welcome to them by contacting me for copies. This way, you can make your own informed decision as to this alleged "scientific" process. Don't take my word for it.

In the Ferres case, it was stated in two reports in the fall that the key found when the vehicle was recovered, there was a key found in the console, had never been inserted into the lock. In the spring of the next year another report was generated by the key path way firm, stating the subject key had in fact been in the lock. The expert could not determine when or how many times. In other words, he contradicts his own process!

Now, there have been occasions (Stropki vs Progressive-Cleveland, Ohio-1999-Cuyahoga County) that it was determined the last key used was the insured's second key. The complete passenger compartment had been destroyed by fire. A video tape revealing that the ignition lock could be forcibly removed from the column in and unburned like kind car in 12 seconds, making determining the last key used, moot. The jury watched this tape and found key pathway not valid.

It appears it has been relatively easy to get this process through the courts because opposing attorneys never asked the correct questions. This process was a great sales tool for the inventor, of what he said in many depositions, very costly to create the process and he was not going to give out information about the process until he recouped his cost. In other words, the  process was proprietary (Secret). If secret, the process cannot be replicated and is not scientific. Then about 2002, he published his very vague process that still could not be duplicated except by his friends and associates.

Now, these "Forensic" experts are vicious and will do anything possible to stop anyone that dare as to question them. They have stooped so low that they sent back unsolicited remarks that are flat out lies. To show their professionalism, not only do they lie about their opposition, but go personal as well.

Here is what I found to prove my points:

If you look at what businesses and organizations that are recommended to be contacted, it just happens to be the same I have successfully opposed in court causing them to embarrass themselves.

This is childish and is a blatant attempt to defame me. Now, since none of this can be proven by these so-called professional businesses and organizations, would you want them as your experts?

I have no problem with someone criticizing me on a professional level, if its true, however this reflects as to how they perform their examinations and how they write their reports for insurance company clients. The question here would be; if they lie about these statements about me; what else do they lie about?

The is he difference between those who call themselves experts and real experts. The real experts don't say anything without being able to prove their statements!

Now, mentioning the name "Key Pathway" may get me a threatening letter from an attorney because this is now a registered service mark, but it wasn't always even though sales material from this firm had the ® as far back as the late 90s. Now, I as well as many others used this saying as far back as the early 90's. I was not aware that someone else was using the words to trade mark them. If you go to http://www.uspto.gov and search key word "Key Pathway", you would find Rob Painter & Associates Inc. was the first to file the application for trademark. On April 22, 1999, Nets was the second applicant.

To me, key pathway was not the last key used. It just was a description of the path the key took in the lock.

My fiancée just said it best about me, as for my experience with 17 years of repairing exclusively theft recovered vehicles, and I must say, this was rather interesting:

"You ran a legal chop shop for 17 years"

Now after reading all of this, and needing an expert on auto theft, who would you want? A professional thief (that has never committed a felony) demonstrating stealing cars in court?  Or, a mere locksmith with an embellished title?