When the Experts Collide
 

 

Robert F. Mangine

 

 

 

When a vehicle is reported stolen and later recovered it is often subject to a forensic examination to determine whether or not there was sufficient damage to the ignition lock, column locking mechanism, electric starter (ignition) switch, gear selector lock (if so equipped) or other column assemblies that would allow the vehicle to be started and operated without the properly cut mechanical key (physically defeated).  These examinations can be performed on both unburned and burned vehicles that are reportedly involved in the commission of various crimes or if there are compelling reasons to suspect insurance fraud could be a factor in the alleged theft.

 

These vehicles could actually be stolen as well and it is not the expert's place to determine anything other than how the vehicle was last operated. The expert must go into each examination with an unbiased, open mind.
 

 

An automotive forensic examination is conducted by a trained and qualified professional who performs an orderly examination and analysis of the vehicle, vehicle parts or vehicle components, using accepted industry standards and procedures, to find the truth and arrive at a conclusion.  The examination and conclusions must be made with no outside influences or considerations and reported on a properly formatted and detailed report with documenting photographs.  

 

The forensic examiner is not capable of determining the truth when arriving to a conclusion. His job is ONLY to supply the facts and a culmination of those facts is the conclusion. Lock analysis plays such a small role in the total scope of things, that there is no ay that the truth can be determined from it.

 

 

 

These cases can end up in a civil or criminal court with the vehicle examiner called to testify as an expert.  The plaintiff or defendant certainly has the undisputed right to obtain the services of their own expert to challenge the conclusions of the original report.

 

It is the law of the land that the accused to have access to the best defense possible.

 

An interesting phenomenon has begun to surface over the past 3 to 4 years.  We, as examiners, have started to encounter self-proclaimed “experts” who do not possess the training, experience or skill in the areas in which they profess to be experts, and usually work on behalf of the plaintiff or defendant.  Their lack of appropriate qualifications has apparently compelled some of these unscrupulous individuals to divert attention from the facts of the matter and resort to distortion of the truth and even personal attacks on legitimate automotive forensic examiners.

 

I like the saying "self-proclaimed experts." No, not self proclaimed, but qualified to give expert opinion in 10 state courts, federal and a USAF Court Martial. This is hardly self proclaimed. I also work for insurance companies and represent insurance company's in court against the plaintiff.

I find it interesting according to Mr. Mangine that I do not possess the training, experience or skill in this area. I have been involved in the direct repair of over 10,000 theft recoveries and some of these vehicles required total reconstruction.

 

 

 

Mr. Mangine, I am going to put up on this site your actual training, background and experience in this field, including your background as being a store detective at Herman's, sporting goods, colleges and other locations in which you had absolutely nothing to do with forensics or auto theft examinations.

It wasn't until 1991 that you assumed the business name of a competitor in this business, when you started doing these examinations and then you opened your own company.

I have never distorted the truth, I have however attacked your conclusions because they could not be supported with the scientific process.

 

 

 

  Others do not even bother to examine the vehicle or the recovered parts/components. 

 

That is because in many cases the expert retained no such locks and components. If they did, there was always a problem. When the wafers (tumblers) were burned, they were never cleaned and yet magnified and photographed to impress a jury. No one could see under the burned crust.

 

Mr. Mangine also recommends in two chapters of a book he contributed to, to insert the key into the ignition lock to do a function test. By doing this any potential newly made scratches are obliterated and any forensic analysis of the lock is moot because it has now been altered.

In many cases, we are supposed to take the expert's word on what he allegedly observed, with no documented proof.

 

 

 

 

They testify on what could have happened, rather than what actually did occur.  Their testimony is based on theory while ignoring the facts and physical evidence.  On the rare occasion when the evidence is examined, the examination is often lacking in any recognized scientific or organized procedure.  I can cite two examples where one so-called “expert” viewed recovered parts at our facility and a second purported “expert” who looked at parts at an attorney’s office.

 

  One procedure took nine minutes and the second less than six minutes.  In neither inspection did the “experts” use a microscope, any type of magnification equipment or, for that matter, any type of equipment whatsoever.  They observed the parts with the naked eye and took photos.  One can only assume this cursory inspection was performed to perpetuate the illusion of being an expert.   

 

 

I addressed the 6 minute examination in the case USAF vs. Jackson in which the evidence collected was burned junk.

 

 

As for the nine minute exam at an attorneys office, I am not sure if he is referring to a` case I have in California at this moment. But he wasn't there to time me. Recovered was a burned damaged ignition lock that supposedly had not been tampered with and yet the cap had a big dent on it. Mr. Mangine's firm gave the conclusion "based on 95% or higher certainty, the vehicle was last operated with a key of the proper type." Now, one might wonder where the 95%  came from. I would have to say it is a guess to sound impressive to a jury. Now, here is the problem with his percentage rate: There are 9 wafers (tumblers) in this lock. 7 were removed, but it was rather obvious they were not cleaned of the burned crust in order to see any underlying marks or striations. The first (most worn) wafer was never removed from the lock. The last (least worn) wafer was not removed from the lock. Examining 7 out of 9 wafers takes this examination to .777%.

 

There is one self-promoting “expert” who has actually been expelled from a professional organization and had a certification revoked for ethics violations. 

 

This was a blatant consorted conspiracy by the experts and District Attorney Voyles in a case The State of California vs. Diaz in Santa Clara County on August 28, 2006. The conspiracy is actually substantiated in my book "Assault of a Forensic Expert Witness." Under normal circumstances, if their are charges to be brought against a member, he is informed in advance so he can prepare to face these charges from the International Association of Investigative Locksmiths. I know this because I was always getting accused of something because I opposed IAIL members. This situation was different. I received an email from a IAIL board member at 2:48 pm Saturday, August 26, 2006. The email stated I was kicked out. This was interesting because I was testifying on Monday morning. The transcript form the DA is in the book, revealing that he was telling the jury I was lying because as of Saturday I was no longer a Certified Forensic Locksmith and had been kicked out of IAIL. Mr. Mangine just happens to be a member of that association as well. I call it the Good Ole' Boy Club.

It is my opinion that DA Voyles would stoop to anything to win the case. In fact, when he found out there were problems with his original expert in the case, he actually went expert shopping for an expert that would support his case. The defendant was screwed here and he stood no chance against this machine.

There is nothing professional about that organization and at one time until they found out it was against the law, they were going to make a rule that no expert could oppose another member.

 

 

 

 

This individual has also stated in court testimony that he is “self taught” in automotive forensics with virtually no formal training and has been disqualified as an expert in another court for this lack of training or foundation.  Incredibly, this individual continues to be retained as an “expert” nationwide.

 

 

Again, like the insurance expert reports, this information is misleading to people in the industry and actually borders on lies and deception to make the author appear to be the all-knowing. Of course he is.

I am self-taught in the methods of auto theft having been exposed to over 10,000 theft recoveries. The author tries to make one believe that forensic analysis of an ignition lock is highly complicated and reserved for specially trained people. This may be the case for the junk science of last key used, which is a proprietary process that is not scientific because it cannot be repeated, with the requirement of using variable lighting and variable magnification.

It does not take a rocket scientist to use the scientific method to determine if a newly cut key was used. It takes no brains at all to see no obvious signs of tampering. Wear is almost never considered by these experts where it is very common to operate the ignition lock without a key and there is no damage to the internal lock components.

Incredibly, I am retained as an expert nationwide because it is easy to reveal the improper processes that were performed and to attack the ambiguous unsupported conclusions from the insurance experts.

 

As for the reference to being disqualified in another court, this is another means of my personal destruction and is simply like the expert report conclusions, simply not true, This is a locksmith attempting to give a legal opinion. This issue is also in my book revealing the deception on the part of the opposing experts trying to damage my reputation.

I have never been disqualified as an expert in a court I appeared in that I am aware of.

The case referenced is Salazar vs. Farmers in Fresno, California. The disposition of the case had nothing to do with the experts. The judge sided with Farmers because of a policy issue in which the insured had the vehicle insured for personal use and in fact, used the vehicle for business. I was never asked to appear in court in this case. The judge went off of my deposition testimony. I stated at that time I could make no determination as to how the reported stolen vehicle was last operated without examining the ignition lock. I was NEVER given the ignition lock from the opposition to examine, so I could not conclude how the vehicle was last operated. The judge was correct in disqualifying my deposition testimony, because without examination of the lock, my opinions were moot in trial.

This case did give the opportunity for the opposition to exploit this issue and make it appear as though a judge had disqualified me. These opposing experts are scared to death of me because I expose them for what they really are and they will stop at nothing to use attacks of personal destruction (the charges don't obviously have to be true) in order to diminish my capabilities in court.

 

 

There are other purported “experts” who have extensive training and education in automotive technology, years of experience in automotive repair and some who have even acquired private investigators licenses.  Yet, a review of their resume/CV’s indicate absolutely no training or education in ignition locks, anti-theft systems, steering columns, burned vehicle examination or the forensic sciences.  Still, they promote themselves as automotive forensic examiners.

 

This is a blatant attack on me and my associates. Where do people get their training? Either through books, seminars, or personal experience. In my case, I have over 17 years of rebuilding steering columns, installing alarms, working with transponder systems, working with burned cars and I have written the books on these subjects over the years.

I will put my actual training, background and experience head to head with any one of these opposing experts and unlike the embellishment used by them, my background is real. I have long surpassed them in experience and all they can do is attack me on the web.

 

A study of obtained court testimony and deposition transcripts reveals that some of these “experts” will alter their testimony predicated upon the circumstances on which they were hired to promote doubt.  The examination standards and procedures, as well as the truth, should not be subject to situational alterations.  No unprincipled individual should be permitted to sell their testimony for any price.

 

 

Testimony is only altered to a specific vehicle and a specific situation. It has to be unless of course one runs a report mill where every report is essentially word for word the same except for the personal information. The job of the defense is to find any type of questionable statements and see if they can be supported. This is an adversarial situation and the client needs the best defense. Unfortunately, the reports I have seen from the opposition are riddled not with fact, but speculation, conjecture and assumption with little factual verification. We are supposed to believe these experts at their word and they are not to be questioned. The problem here is that the innocent are accused and convicted with no proof. Only the word of the expert for the insurance company is to be considered.

Unlike the opposition, I do not sell my testimony. I am paid only for my time. The opposition gets their money from writing bogus reports from their client insurance company.

A classis example was addressed before with mail order forensic reports. Currently, a good share of the insurance reports I review always seem to acknowledge insured involvement for their client insurance company.

 

 

 

There are several methods that can help identify these individuals.  The obvious would be the extent of relative training and experience in the areas they claim expertise and to provide documentation.  Certifications issued by, and membership in, recognized professional associations are important.  No one can be “self-taught” in the required disciplines.  No one can buy a DVD package priced at $1500-$1700 with the promise that they will be qualified automotive forensic experts after viewing the material, taking some type of test and joining a questionable organization.  And, in my opinion, any purported “expert” who accepts every offer, without exception, and commits to testify against another expert without ever properly examining the vehicle, the available parts or components to form their own conclusions as to the validity of the case, would expose their true intentions to suspicion.

 

 

As you can see by Mr. Mangine's writing here, he is frustrated and tired of being questioned as to the validity of his opinions. A way to help identify these individuals is for someone to come forward. He is writing about me. I am the one that offers these training courses. Looking at Mr. Mangines former background as a store detective, I understand why he stresses training. I still go to classes offered by people who might know more about a particular subject than I. Yes, I am self-taught with 17 years in the theft repair business.  I don't seal with speculation an innuendo and only supply knowledge to the best of my ability. Funny, the processes I use to reach an conclusion are replicatable by anyone. I do not use confusing statements. I have found that common sense is my best defense.

I do not accept every offer. I have reviewed cases and told the attorney that everything in the examination was done properly and I couldn't help the attorney. I do however enjoy reviewing the huge number of reports, depositions and trial testimony by experts like Mr. Mangine. They are entertaining because not only is evidence not retained, but the opinions made cannot be supported or corroborated.

Mr. Mangine evidently has no clue as to my true intentions. My true intentions are to make sure a statement made under the flag "Forensic" can be supported.

It's obvious by Mr. Mangine's attacks here that he is frustrated and does not like to be on the losing side.

One of his minions wrote a libelous article about me. This s the man who is king of the mail order forensic reports in which he never examined the vehicle or any evidence. Its ok though because they can do what they want, but no one else better do it. He reference the case Wasef vs. Unitron. This involved a Ford product with a anti theft transponder system. The conclusion from Mr. Mangine's firm was that the vehicle was last operated with a key of the proper type and transponder value. The author of the article slammed me stating if a qualified expert with the proper tools could determine how many keys were programmed to operate the vehicle. This was exactly my point. I in fact, used the tools and determined how many keys were programmed to operate the vehicle. Mr. Mangine's firm did not go to this effort in this case. The case was settled for over $100,000 in my client's (Wasef) favor.

It's very common to see where the insurance expert did not do the complete job before forming a conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

When the experts collide it is not simply a clash of training, skill or experience.  It isn’t even a matter of opposing opinions. What should be most important are the qualifications of the expert, their professional ethics and their honesty.

 

The worst thing here is that Mr. Mangine dares question my ethics and honesty. I have a true passion for this career and these so-called experts have done everything to be smudge and destroy my name because he and his minions are scared of being exposed as to what they really are-Insurance prostitutes. This is not name calling, but fact based on their insurance client favored reports for the denial of the claim.

In addressing this article, it is important to realize that Mr. Mangine was the one who wrote this article and I have just responded to it. Although the web is not the place to attack differences in opinions by experts, I had to respond to these lies and deception about me. I am very ethical and my reputation depends on my honesty and I will not let anyone attack my word. Mr. Mangine and his buddies don't like the fact that their conclusions are questioned and that is too bad. Someone has to! Mr. Mangine does not like the fact that he is commonly on the losing side because of his lack of technical expertise and opinions construed as fact that re merely unbased opinions.

What Mr. Mangine has demonstrated is a need for me to put his reports and others on this website so that the public can get a full view of the ludicrous statements his firm and his buddies have made all under the title "Forensic". Before the web, the public would not have had an opportunity to review such information, but now they will.

I have ALWAYS been able to substantiate every statement I make. I would never put something in front of he public that was not true.

My book "Assault of a Forensic Expert witness" reveals these facts. It's one thing to make a statement. It is quite another to prove. You will see the proof in this book as to the deception used by the opposition in an effort to destroy me.

I will be addressing other statements about me that Mr. Mangine has put on the Coalition of good ole' boys website as well. I am not afraid to address these bogus charges by Mr. Mangine and buddies. I can prove my case. The problem is that their opinions like their reports are based on innuendo and speculation and I prove with fact!

I really hope the insurance companies and prosecution take the time to read this (My site has gotten up to 2,500 his a day)  and make an informed opinion about the potential  liability position these firms have put them in. Bad faith comes to mind.

Pleas continue to frequent this site because very shortly, the public information we have on these experts and their statements will be released. You will enjoy the deposition of an expert that claimed he could determine the last key used only to back off of that opinion when speaking about little blue men!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

obert Mangine has been an Automotive Forensic Examiner since 1991 and has examined over 12,000 vehicles.  Robert has qualified as an expert in 7 states, the District of Columbia and in military court on over 45 occasions.  Robert Mangine has instructed Automotive Forensics as a guest lecturer at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, as well presenting training seminars nationwide for law enforcement, attorneys, the US Marine Corps, US Air Force, NCIS,  insurance companies and professional organizations.

.

2007 NorthAmerican Technical & Forensic Services, LLC

All Rights Reserved

 

 

Home