The Forensic
Perspective in Determining How a Reported Stolen Vehicle Was Last Operated
The
determination of how a reported stolen vehicle from a forensic perspective is
commonly flawed. How can I say this? 67 times of successful opposition against the
insurance “Forensic “ experts.
Its one thing to say something happened. It’s
quite another to prove it.
We
watch TV shows like
I
realality, the only goal for the examiner is not to
look for the truth because his information is very limited and only to supply
the facts-all the facts about the vehicle. Not just some facts that make it a
quick and easy examination.
Fortunately,
in other areas in which the scientific method is employed, I have see some very good fire exams, of course I have seen bad
ones as well. It is quite common to see where a fire cause and origin exam
deals with all known possibilities and they are ruled out one by one before a
conclusion is reached. This is how the scientific method should be employed in
determining how a reported stolen vehicle was last operated. It is very common
to see it assumed as to how many transponder keys were programmed to operate
the vehicle. You know what happens when one assumes. If you don’t and you wrote
a report accordingly, you are not going to be happy when you as the expert is in a deposition or worse yet in trial, when the opposing
attorney wants to know if you determined this event factually or you just
guessed.
Denying
theft claims has all been a numbers game by insurance companies and they are
commonly using the “Forensic” report as their main emphasis for denial of a
theft claim. These numbers will be turning to the insurance carrier’s
disadvantage in the near future, because we are training trial attorneys about
this misconceived process of forensic locksmithing.
If
you are an expert for the insurance company embellishing your background, it’s
time for you to consider the very real chance that you are going to be
questioned on this. If you claim to be court certified 60 times as an expert
witness, you better have all 60 certificates from the courts. If you claim that
you were trained and certified as an automotive mechanic by the Department of
Defense, you better have such documentation. You as the expert are going to be
held to higher scrutiny than ever before as well as your process. No longer are
you going to be taken at your word. Your reports better not be ambiguous and
you better be able to prove every step.
I
am going to stress something that may not be good business sense here, however,
it reflects the frustration I have with the insurance industry and does prove
the potential that the insurance companies are denying claims deliberately do
to lack of evidence.
It’s
very rare to see obvious damage to the keyway of an ignition lock, and it
appears as though that because there is no obvious damage to the ignition lock
such as twisting or other obvious damage to the keyway, that the vehicle was
last operated with a proper key. Such examinations require far more scope and
the way these examinations are being performed by the forensic locksmiths is
just one part of the examination and heralded to be the ultimate answer
determining how a reported stolen vehicle was operated.
Examples:
Ignition locks are commonly forced from the housings. No damage to the keyway
is present. A mechanic would know the ignition lock function was circumvented
and the key way condition was a moot point. The forensic locksmith to obfuscate
the issue will state there was no damage to the keyway and the lock was last
operated with a key of the proper type.
In
the case of a worn lock where the lock can be operated without a key, there is
no damage to the keyway and the forensic locksmith will state there was no
damage and the lock was operated with a key of the proper type.
Lock
tolerances in vehicles are very sloppy and don’t have close tolerances. Now, if
stated that the lock was operated with a key of the proper type, which is the
proper type? The correct type or something close?
Basically,
if the lock reveals no signs of obvious damage to the keyway, the insured is
screwed! This event is not common.
Locksmithing
has nothing to do with theft. Yes, if the evidentiary value of the keyway is
preserved, it may determine if a newly cut key was recently used, but that is
it!!!!!!!
Forensic
locksmiths are used to give their determination as to only the condition of the
key way even though that may have nothing to do with the last operation or how
the vehicle was moved. They look at it as to how they as locksmiths would steal
the vehicle, not a thief. Who cares? Unless of course you are
an insurance company out to deny a claim.
This
is a big business and just adds to the locksmith’s income!
I
am not here to puff out my chest and be self-promoting in this field and to
come off like I am better than anyone. That’s not my purpose. My purpose is to
show what is happening to people every day that are accused of a crime or
inferred to have been party to the claim only on assumed information construed
as fact.
The
problem here is that many look at this industry as a business and don’t have
the passion for doing the job right. It’s much easier to take shortcuts and for
the examiner to assume he won’t be caught. In the event he is contested, that’s
when the libel, slander and personal attacks are displayed against the
opposition.
It
is common when these forensic examiners get caught that instead of admitting
they took a shortcut or did not do the examination properly, to deflect from
the facts related to the vehicle in the claim.
Such
examples are these: The independent forensic examiner working for the
prosecution was asked three simple questions: (1) Why did you insert a key into
the ignition lock potentially damaging any evidentiary value of the keyway? (2)
Why didn’t you remove the ignition lock, disassemble, clean, examine the
components under a microscope, take photos and retain the lock for safe
keeping? (3) Why didn’t you have the transponder checked for function and to
determine how many keys were programmed to operate the system?
Instead
of explaining his errors, the expert went into a 15-page tyrant as a court
document attacking me personally. When they get caught, this is the only way
they can act. These forensic experts in my opinion have what I call malignant
Narcissism. They appear to have the attitude “How dare you question my
opinion?”
When
approached with the fact that the examination was not done properly, they react
with deflection.
I
have found this very common in my industry. They have tried to set me up in
order to cloud my credibility, but unfortunately for them, they were not good
enough to do this without a paper trail.
I
understand that the prosecutor or insurance defense attorney has to work with
the cards he was dealt. I understand that when their experts opinions
masqueraded as fact create a problem for them. Many of these attorneys though
have sold their souls to the Devil, by misrepresenting comments about me to
judges in motions.
Yes,
I am trophy. Whatever attorney can destroy me gets the big reputation. In
reality, without a doubt, these forensic experts and opposing attorneys are
scared to death of me and my capabilities to expose them for what they really
are.
Forensics
and the scientific method at least as it relates to my industry, are not that
difficult to do properly. One does not need to be college educated and a real
good attribute is to use common sense. Right now, on their websites, the
experts brag about how great they are and how no matter if the vehicle is
totally destroyed by fire, they can determine how the reported stolen vehicle
was last operated. In many cases, this cannot be factually proven, but they
hide under the title “forensic” Making any potential opposing attorney question
his client’s innocence.
Here
is the latest from an expert in this industry and it is just one example that
proves my point as to how corrupt all of this is:
Prepared by a wannabe expert
in California for at least two cases in Canada. It is my understanding
that in Manitoba, the judge stated if the insurance company could not supply a
forensic report on a stolen and burned car they would have to pay the claim.
Well, guess what? A forensic report was
written by the expert and the claim was denied. The expert never examined the
car and based his report on what he called “assumed facts.”
He
did the same type of report in British Colombia again on assumed facts. That
car has been missing for 2 years and still has not been recovered, but because
of the forensic report the claim was denied.
The
biggest problem for trial attorneys in these cases is they don’t know the
questions needed to prove that the statements made by the forensic experts are
smoke and mirrors with no factual basis. Your opportunity as a trial attorney
in vehicle theft cases, is that you have very little
research to do on them. I have years of documentation on these guys across the
US. Most are not personal attacks, but deal with the scientific method as to
how the examination should have been performed.
SCIENTIFIC
METHOD AS TO HOW IT IS TO BE EMPLOYED ON REPORTED STOLEN VEHICLES
Here
we go using common sense, which shoots these experts right out of the water!
The
use of a borescope or an Otoscope in the ignition
lock keyway is preliminary examination. Looking in the keyway for obvious
damage is fine; however this is only a preliminary exam. Commonly, this method
is used as the whole “Forensic” examination. The scope cannot see under grease,
grime or soot in the keyway. Its use will not pick up small newly made
striations (scratches) caused by the use of a newly cut key or a key that had
some other anomaly in it. In reality, the use of a scope does not require any
real skill, but the experts will make this sound like a labor intensive
operation.
Now,
locksmiths not knowing any different, commonly use their locksmith service
expertise to destroy the evidentiary value of the keyway of the lock. In
service, it is common for the locksmith to insert a key into the lock so he can
rotate it to the ON position, depress the retainer pin and remove the cylinder.
Here
is common sense again: Once the key is inserted into the lock cylinder, it will
leave marks because the key is harder than the wafers (tumblers) in the lock.
When the key is removed, it polishes those marks off. Now, in the event that a
key with an anomaly (new key with a burr, mark in the key), those marks have
the potential of being removed. No matter what, the forensic locksmith has
altered the condition of the lock and he can’t prove otherwise. Take the case
that the vehicle had a self-suppressed passenger compartment fire. The soot
will go into the ignition lock keyway most of the time. The black soot is now
on the wafers. What has the examiner just done to the lock keyway by inserting
a key? The wafer lands (where the key rides) will be shiny and he may have just
filled in freshly made scratches.
Forensic
Lock Analysis
Part
of the problem here is that the examiner is looking for obvious damage. Many
locks will operate without a key because of wear. Many locks have very sloppy
tolerances. The common statement by these examiners is that the ignition lock
was last operated with a key of the proper cut. This is a very general
statement, but it gets them paid and the insured denied. Proper cut could be
anything that will operate the lock. A pick, a key close in cuts and as I
stated, no key at all. If they were so good at this, why can’t they state a key
of the correct type or a key of exacting cuts coinciding with the ignition lock
cylinder? They can’t because they may be exposed for what they really are
unless they did a proper examination ruling out all known hypotheses.
(Scientific method)
In
certain situations such as professional theft when targeted components are
taken from the vehicle, a forensic locksmith may be assigned to the claim.
Since the forensic locksmith sees no damage to the ignition lock, he writes
that accordingly because that’s what he was assigned to do. The vehicle may
have been towed or pushed and yet because there is no lock damage, the
insurance claim is denied. Since 1998 (10 years ago) many GM cars have not had
a locking steering wheel. Since 2001 all GM trucks and SUVs have not had a
locking steering wheel. Disconnecting of the linkage at the transmission takes
seconds, but the locksmith will opine the transmission shifter was locked in
PARK. Who cares?
TRANSPONDERS
Commonly called “ANTI-THEFT does not prevent the vehicle
from being stolen.
These are merely a deterrent slowing down the would-be thief from operating the
vehicle without the specifically encrypted ignition key. Commonly looked at as
to how a locksmith would duplicate a key, there are many assumptions. These
systems can be bypassed and fail. This takes far more knowledge than a
locksmith can present on a reported stolen vehicle.
Now,
the one tool I do not have that evidently the forensic experts do is a crystal
ball. Boy that would come in great for determining how transponder equipped vehicles
recovered totally burned were last operated. Yet, many in this field with their
smoke and mirrors (pun intended) actually come to the conclusion as to how such
type of vehicle was operated before the fire. On non-burned vehicles, they can
be scanned (rarely are) to determine if there were any fault codes in the
system and how many keys were programmed to operate the vehicle by
interrogating the computer. If the vehicle’s computer is destroyed by fire,
this is not like an airplane with a black box (actually orange); there is no
way to determine anything. The title “Forensics” makes you think they can
though.
I
deal in truth. Not if the insured is innocent or guilty because my examinations
are focused only on the vehicle. I deal in what I can and cannot prove and
don’t make ludicrous statements based on assumption like these guys do.
They
get mad because their invalid opinions are contested and that contesting such
costs them business.
Forensic
Lock Reports
It
appears my writings have rattled one expert so bad that he just put himself
into a box and the next time he has a deposition, he is in trouble. It’s common
to see him go on the defense when articles are written about how vehicles can
be stolen without keys. It’s actually comical and as I said he did it again.
On
his website it is stated “Without exception, all reports are personally signed
by the examiner and signed by the owner of the company as being reviewed by.
The problem is that one does not need to be a signature expert to see many of
this firm’s reports were signed by a female. I guess the dead give away is the
fact there are initials next to the signed names.
GM
PASSLOCK
Junk system that totally relies on the rotation of the
inferior ignition lock. Yet, there are many of these reported theft claims denied
by the experts.
LAST
Defective process that somehow got through the court system
because the inventor went unopposed.
Rob
Painter who is highly respected by some and feared and hated by others offers
consulting and training to trial attorneys as well as providing true forensic
analysis on reported stolen vehicles. He has been accused of keeping a score
card. Don’t we all?
These
cases are not as complicated as they appear and the insurance forensic experts
can be commonly successfully opposed because most of the claims they do are
based on “assumed fact.”
Services
offered in all 50 states and Canada.