The Key To Forensic Hypotheses When Examining a Reported Stolen Vehicle For Last Operation
This will be the common sense method that can be duplicated by anyone without smoke and mirrors and assumption.
The scientific method is the elimination of all known hypotheses before arriving to a conclusion based on scientific certainty.
Currently, there are those in the field that try to make it appear as though they are the only ones capable of rendering such conclusions for their business interests.
There are some requirements. The individual needs to be knowledgeable in ignition locks, auto theft methods, automotive, transponder systems and burn debris analysis. Other than that and training on the use of microscopes, tool marks and other items along with common sense, the individual performing such examinations should be fine. He should also have the needed electronic equipment for checking transponder systems so he does not assume.
Right now, unfortunately there are those in this field that embellish their actual background to make them appear to be better than they really are. In many f these situations with the insurance experts there is no standardized testing, its usually examination of the day. Commonly locks are not taken for evidence and in reality many of these so-called technical examinations could be done by a monkey. Yet, insureds are being denied payment on their theft claims and sometimes being prosecuted on opinion and not fact.
We do have training available on CD for those that feel they have an interest in this field.
The First Problem!
The experts and attorneys like to generalize a thief and generalize the damage from the theft. There is no common denominator for a thief and only applies on an individual basis as per his motive and experience. If a reported stolen vehicle is only missing the passenger compartment components and everything else is present, it is commonly assumed that the insured had something to do with the theft claim because a thief would take all valuable components. The truth of the matter is that a thief takes what he needs and commonly leaves the rest.
Some thieves take no components and use the vehicles to commit other crimes. This is real world and not fantasy offered by the experts that are not experienced in the repair of theft recovered vehicles.
Here will be a list of some of the hypotheses to be considered before rendering a conclusion on the last operation of a reported stolen vehicle and if they are not followed by the letter, the scientific method has not been performed. If the scientific method was not performed, then you are dealing with assumed fact, which has nothing to do with forensics and is only a personal opinion with no basis. Such methods are easily exposed in a court room if opposed by an expert.
1) Don't go to deep into forced entry. Vehicles by nature are not secure and 99% of them are unlocked at the time of the examination. Do not use terms like: There was no door lock present, however you observed no signs of forced entry. This is deceptive because with the door lock not present, it cannot be eliminated as a means of forced entry. With today's electronic locking systems, it may be assumed that by depressing the lock button on the remote that the vehicle locked, but in reality, there are far too many variables that can effect the locking of the vehicle by electronic means.
2) Examination of the Ignition lock. Is there any obvious damage to the front of the lock? Never insert a key even though it is recommended by some forensic firms. Inserting a key into the lock alters the condition of the keyway forever. You can no longer prove if you over rode any freshly made tool marks. The lock must be physically removed without the use of the key. Will this cause damage to the steering column? Yes, but that holds no evidentuary value.
The ignition lock must be retained for future examination and also for safe keeping. The days of experts testifying on what they say they observed and photographs they took are over. If you don't have the lock, the examination cannot be peer reviewed, which will create a real problem for you if you go to court.
If transponder equipped, it is a requirement that the system be scanned. The purpose in many cases is two-fold. To determine how many keys were programmed to operate the vehicle as well as the determination as to if there are any error codes from the transponder system. In order to use a scanner plugged into the OBDII port, the electrical ignition has to be in the ON position. How do you get the electrical ignition in the ON position without a key? If the ignition lock housing from the dash or column has been forcibly removed without doing any damage to the transceiver (Antenna mounted directly in front of the lock) a screwdriver can now be inserted into the slot in the center of the ignition switch and rotted to the ON position. Another way to do this on steering columns is to remove the electrical ignition switch on the left side of the steering column.
Now, there are some makes and models that will not tell you how many keys are programmed for the vehicle. There are others in which the dealer can find out with their equipment. Just don't make a stupid comment like an expert in New Jersey did in which he said "It's illegal to make unauthorized keys." It's also illegal to steal cars and to commit insurance fraud!
There is a process known as "Key Pathway". This process has been bastardized and called other things like "Key Track Analysis" and other names. In the late 90's and even up to the present, insurance companies have used this process to deny claims. The premise is the last key used. Although this process was constantly held out as "Scientific" and he had engineers sign off on it, it wasn't because the process was as per the inventor Proprietary" or secret and only his business or someone he trained or certified could only do it. The problem is if the process is secret, its not science. Sure the owner got this through the courts as valid because who else would the judge believe?
In 2002 the owner decided to publish the process for peers in order to make it scientific. The problem is that in order to be scientific, the process must be replicated. The article first states tht the process determines innocence or guilt. That is an egotistical self serving statement that has absolutely no merit. The process is then described as examining components under variable lighting and variable magnification. What does variable mean? How can the process be repeated. It can't!
Tool mark identification is fine, and it is possible that a specific key left a specific mark in the wafer (tumbler) but there is almost no chance of telling when this mark was made. There are far too many variables to make this process scientifically sound.
If you want to guaranty you are correct in determining the last key used, it must be in the lock at the time of your exam. That way you are always right!
Another thing about this key pathway process is that it was used in cars that were totally burned. The inventor would tell the insurance companies to gather all the driver's floor debris, throw it in a container and mail it to the key pathway lab. The problem: When a vehicle has a totally involved passenger compartment fire, all the steering column components melt and fall on the floor in layers. When put into container who knows if the ignition lock was forcibly removed before the fire? You might as well throw the container in the garbage because the layers of fire debris are destroyed. Commonly, there were not considerations as to if the steering column locking mechanisms were defeated. It was only the condition of the internal ignition lock components that mattered for this process.
In the Cleveland, Ohio case Stropki vs Progressive, according to the key pathway experts the last key used was the insured's second key. The steering column was completely destroyed by fire. We showed a tape of this ignition lock being knocked out in seconds doing no internal damage to the lock.
One last note about this process. I received a phone call from the Inventor of key pathway at 11:48 am on October 17, 2007 stating that if I said anything about him or his daughter's company in my book that he would sue me like no one has ever been sued. When I told him I had no money, he threatened to kill me. This is not the first threat. I will be putting on this site many of his depositions, but the one most noteworthy is the Orange County 2005 deposition of him in Ferras vs Permanent General. This expert actually threatened my life in a public document such as a depo. He also talked about little green men.
I have supplied the first few hypotheses for these examinations and lock analysis will be forthcoming.
Here is the so-called key pathway scientific process which is not scientific because it cannot be repeated direct from the author. Always remember what P. T. Barnum said about a sucker being born every minute!
I will in the future be putting up the key pathway certification test that has next to nothing about forensic locksmithing.