The competitors and insurance company attorneys are good at taking perception and making it appear to be reality.

I am very tired of the personal attacks on me by members of a so-called “Professional” organization. If they were truly professional, they would not take the outcome of these cases personally and learn from them as to not repeat the mistake again, and again, again. Instead, it appears to be easier to come off like you are the all knowing and continue to take short cuts at the insured’s expense and not do a complete and thorough examination. Anyone can stick a key into a lock. Anyone can look at the keyway with a scope. There is nothing in this area that requires expertise. What does take expertise is to protect the evidentiary value of the key way, know how to properly clean and examine the wafers (tumblers) of the lock components and examine them under magnification and to rule out all known theories before reaching a conclusion based on scientific certainty.

I have seen more than my share of microscopic photos from these experts with wafers from burned locks with the magnification of carbon, making it impossible to see freshly made tool marks. These photos may look impressive to the layman, but in reality are worthless! Just because microscopic photos are taken, does not mean the process is forensic!

This in no way is to be perceived as a war between experts. I am just not taking the abuse to my credibility or my good name any longer!

If you can’t attack the facts, the personal attacks fall on the opposing expert. The allegations don’t have to be true. They can be made up with rumor an innuendo and are portrayed as fact.

As Forensic Locksmiths, it is our job to rule out all known hypotheses as to how a reported stolen vehicle was last operated. This includes checking the ignition lock for tool marks as it relates to the recent use of a newly cut key or a key that had some type of anomaly.

In order to perform such functions, the examiner cannot insert a key into the lock! By doing this, at the least, he has altered the evidentiary value of the ignition lock cylinder keyway. It is very possible by inserting the key into the lock; the examiner may have polished the marks made from the last key inserted into the lock before he inserted a key.

Common sense and not high tech thinking plays a role here.

Since the key is harder than the wafers (tumblers) in a lock, key insertion will leave marks. Removal of the key will polish these marks eventually causing a wear pattern. In the event a newly cut ignition key was inserted before the examination and it had a burr or some other type of anomaly, these striations could be erased by insertion of the key during the examination.

Now, we hear about what a specialized field forensic locksmithing is and yet the process falls moot when the evidence has been potentially destroyed by the examiner.

There is no point in doing a microscopic examination on the wafer lands (where the key rides when inserted) once the examiner has potentially destroyed the small scratches and striations by insertion of the key.

There are also incompetent examinations performed by these examiners. This would include only the use of an Otoscope or a borescope in the keyway. Such tools are good for a preliminary examination, but should never be considered the ultimate conclusion.

Looking into a lock with a scope will show obvious damage, but in reality is like looking into a tunnel. The examiner cannot see under soot or lock lubricant and we are left taking the word of the examiner on what he allegedly observed. No photographic documentation.

Another very incompetent exam is the lack of removal of the ignition lock cylinder. There are actually courts that have let the forensic examiner testify on something he considers evidence without retaining such. This is far too common in which the examiner is testifying on the condition of the ignition lock cylinder without retaining it! First, this should not be acceptable. Secondly, in this case, the examiner did not retain the lock for safe keeping and his process of his conclusion cannot be peer reviewed or duplicated. How is this fair for the insured accused of a crime?

How can these guys claim to be forensic locksmiths when in fact, they have not taken all scenarios into considerations? These “experts” are hoping their conclusions aren’t questioned. If they are contested with real forensics, they do personal attacks on the opposing expert.

Currently, I am involved in a California civil case. I asked some very simple questions pertaining to the burned ignition lock forensic examination. Normally, a subpoena would be made with a request for maybe 10 items to produce. This may be a current resume, what items were relied on to form conclusions etc. No big deal.

This subpoena is different though. This was a hand served subpoena that went through a` Wisconsin judge. At this time I was personally served in Wisconsin for this California civil case! There are approximately 260 items requested which involves just about everything I have ever written. Requests for every certification and anything I have done in my life for the past 30 years.

Yes, they are truly out to destroy me and everything I have ever stood for. This is a fishing expedition because they can’t beat the truth in court.

In a criminal case in New Jersey in 2006, I asked three simple questions of the prosecution expert. One was why did he destroy the evidentiary value of the ignition lock with inserting a key into the lock? Why did he not remove and retain the ignition lock and thirdly, why did he not have the vehicle checked to determine how many transponder keys were programmed?

These were very simple questions.

The expert’s answer was to launch a 15-page personal attack on me and deflect from those three simple questions.

In 2006 there was a consorted conspiracy launched against me by members of the International Association of Investigative Locksmiths (IAIL) these so called professional forensic locksmiths. Under normal circumstances, the member is given the charges against him and then he faces those charges. This happened in 2003 when other members did not like the fact that I opposed them. At that time my attorney was given the bogus charges and we were going to fly to Maryland to answer those charges. Funny, all charges were dropped because I had an attorney.

On August 26^th 2006 I was sent an email by the board members of IAIL at 2:48 pm. These board members were Tom Seroogy and Jim Bickers. They say timing is everything. I was to testify Monday morning August 28th for the defense.

At cross examination Prosecutor Voyles asked me if I received a fax from IAIL the week before. I stated “No.” I did state I received an email on Saturday from the IAIL, but I did not have chance to confirm the information. He then stated “Isn’t it true that you were kicked out of the IAIL?” I stated that’s what the email said. His next question was; “isn’t it true as you stand here before the jury today that you are no longer a certified forensic locksmith?” He then asked me why I had not changed my resume for that Monday morning when I was testifying in front of the jury. My client attorney kept objecting to this, but the judge let the prosecutor and the crew from IAIL to set me up and ruin my good name.

Also in 2006 at http://www.arcforensics.com (another board member of IAIL) under court conclusions was a transcript of the Salazar vs. Farmers case in which it appeared as though I was disqualified from testifying in the case. The experts had nothing to do with the case and yet they put this transcript on their website in an attempt to discredit me.

In this case in which I was never asked to appear in court, the judge went by my deposition testimony. My testimony was that I could not render a conclusion on how this vehicle was last operated without examining the ignition lock. After demanding this opportunity, I was never given the lock to perform an examination. In turn, with the judge going only off of my deposition testimony and not examining the lock, he disqualified my deposition testimony. I was not in the court and I was not capable of giving a conclusion without examining the lock! In turn, the judge had no idea of what I could testify to.

All of this is a consorted attempt by a good ole boy club to eliminate their competition. In other words, if the expert does not work solely for the insurance company, they will do everything possible to moot the opposing expert.

These characters are not successful in court against me and instead divert the truth into perception being reality. There is an untrue article about me on the web which is blatant libel written by Mr. Tom Seroogy and the names of his IAIL minions are listed on the end of the article.

He states “Rob Painter from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, known for his hyperbole and lack of technical expertise uses tricks in court.” I don’t trick anyone and all I reveal is what they did not consider when arriving to a conclusion for their insurance client.

The California civil subpoena is requesting all documentation from court trials I have ever opposed the insurance experts and I will list here a couple of instances of which I am sure the truth about these results of these cases have been obfuscated to their client insurance companies. (Just my opinion)

If they continue with their libelous attacks, I will start putting their deposition and court testimony and reports on this site. Some of these depositions are quite comical by the “professional” forensic expert, where one speaks of little blue men stealing cars. There is even a public document (deposition) where an expert threatened my life.

I have no problem releasing this information for the world to see just what these experts say behind closed doors at depositions. It will be seen not only can’t they back up their conclusions, but they don’t come off professional at all.

Mr. Robert Mangine (IAIL member) brags on his resume as to qualifying in a USAF court martial as an expert, but what he appears to forget to state is in the USAF vs. Jackson that his side (prosecution) lost.

Mr. Tom Seroogy (IAIL board member) who has been in this business only 5 years tries to push the disqualification of me in a court I never appeared in, but he appears to forget to state the California jury verdict in Fresno, CA (Sidhu vs. Farmers) did not believe him costing the insurance company $375,000 in bad faith. When asked about this, he has said he was not the primary expert in the case and he testified for someone else. That someone else was Herbert T. Miller.

Mr. Herbert T. Miller (IAIL board member) was not believed in the Fresno case Mannian vs. CSAA which cost the insurance company $340,000 plus punitives.

Mr. Herbert T. Miller stated there were no signs of stripping to the vehicle and no blunt force trauma to the ignition lock, in his report on the case Baca vs. CSAA in Las Vegas. There were no seats in the vehicle when it burned! So obviously the vehicle was stripped of the seats before the fire!

I could go on and on with these cases and why I pose such severe threat to these experts (IAIL members).

Mr. Robert Mangine states in 2 chapters of a book and on his website to insert the key into the ignition lock to check its function. Well, what is the sense in doing microscopic lock analysis at this point?

Some of the experts will state I keep a score card. We all have to keep track of the cases we have been involved with. That is usually one of the questions that an opposing attorney will ask at deposition or trial. The experts treat this as a side issue. If they did their forensic processes properly, they would not be open for attack. So often statements made as fact are assumption on the part of the examiner. Either proper tools are not used or can’t be used.

I have been referred to as a “plaintiff” expert, when the truth of the matter is that my firm works for anyone seeking all the facts as to how a reported stolen vehicle was last operated. No hype, just the facts.

Rarely, do I see examinations of transponder system done with the appropriate scanner to determine how many transponder keys are programmed to operate the vehicle. Instead, this is commonly assumed. Assumption has nothing to do with forensics. Forensics is the collection of facts.

Mail Order Forensics

Mr. Tom Seroogy now does mail-order forensic reports. His reports generate the denial of insurance claims in Canada. He does not examine the vehicles and bases his reports on what he calls “Assumed facts.” Even this, is against #8 in the ethics rule of IAIL in which it is stated a forensic report cannot be generated without examination of the physical evidence.

Another IAIL rule for membership requires that a member not be convicted of a felony and yet it is my understanding that they in fact, have a member that has been convicted for distribution of cocaine. Kind of ironic to have a convicted felon serving as an expert witness to testify in a felony trial against an insured isn’t it?

Home