Which Time Did You Lie Mr. Expert?


, , , , , , , , , , , ,


I am an extremely competent auto theft/ forensic locksmith expert that makes the insurance expert prove his case and he can’t!




I have a new strategy I am using against “Certified Forensic Locksmiths” who are the linch pin for auto theft investigations to accuse the insured of fraud. It’s deadly!

Let’s say we have an auto theft claim that has been denied for material misrepresentation and you are suing the insurance company. Insurance defense firms are confident in defending these cases with their inept forensic expert who started the witch hunt on the insured by stating in a report the reported stolen vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type. This key being assumed it was one of the insured’s key. However, if they truly applied forensics and the scientific method, we really should expect them not to use generalities and tell us exactly whick key was the last used. The reason they don’t specify is that they really have no clue, but feel the court will let them slide as the all knowing with the use of the questionable forensic title!

When dealing with these cases we are looking at a forensic report with lots of confusing and ambigous language as it pertained to the testing methods performed with what appear to be factual statements.

One of these statements is that the ignition lock has “average” wear consistent with age. This sounds like a scientific analysis as to the condition of the lock. The only problem is that it is smoke so that the average person believes a lie! Age has nothing to do with lock and key wear. If the vehicle was driven only twice in 5 years, how is wear judged by age? Wear is judge by usage! If the vehicle has 80,000 miles of stop and go driving in which the key is inserted and removed from thelock often, wear develops in which a key is not needed to rotate the ignition lock! This is why another “scientific” method is applied by the CFL. The ignition is rotated to the ON or the ACC position and an attempt is made to remove the key in the ON position. If the key comes out, the ignition is worn out and a key is not needed to rotate the lock.

When making factual statements about wear, I expect them to prove it instead of using an ambiguous term like “Average wear.” In order to do this, the ignition needs to be removed and disassembled and the wafers (tumblers) need to be measured by a microscope and take those readings and compare them to new wafers of comparitave heights. The same goes with the key. Wear is sometimes observable by the human eye. The silver plating is worn off along the blade and the peaks and valleys of the silver colored nickel/zinc exposing the gold colored brass the key is made of. Are the wafers measured to make any factual statements about wear? Not anymore! The Certified Forensic Locksmith has cut many corners in the examination process. Who would know any better in the court unless I am opposing these charlatans in my opinion.

Was a locksmith ever aware of this scenario? No! They were never called out to replace a lock that would operate without a key. It wasn’t broken! I trained them in this event because I had seen it so often when repairing high mileage theft recovered vehicles.


CFL Examination Standards

Although I have many reports from various CFL firms across the country, in a court case against a firm in Ohio, we subpoenaed reports going back five years. We received over 100 forensic lock examination reports. My puropse was to be objective. I went through every report for examination consistency. I then put together a spread sheet for examination operations used. I also considered if the vehicles were fire damaged.

I found absolutely no standards or consistency except for one constant. The constant was to check the transmission locking cable in every vehicle. Ignitions were removed and disassembled in some. Transponders were electronically interrogated in some. Bumpers were checked for paint transfer consistent with a push/pull theft. What qualifies a forensic locksmith to determine theft?

On burned vehicles, half the procedures were used because important evidence was destroyed by fire!

There are even vehicles not recovered that Certified Forensic Locksmiths determined that were last driven with a key of the proper type! Here is a common sense question: Why does the CFL bother to physically examne any vehicle because they have no problem stating fact with vehicles they never examined the physical evidence?

New attack in which we use their own words to destroy their credibility. I can supply exculpatory evidence that can take these CFLs down. What if we had previous reports they had written on other vehicles to compare the lack of consistency of their examination process. Some might think it is not a big deal, but I will demonstrate:

CFL examines a burned vehicle. He can’t interrogate transponder, can’t insert the ignition key into the ignition lock for wear.

Yet, on the unburned vehicle he does this. Maybe he went the firm went to the work to remove the ignition, disassemble, examine and photograph the wafers under a microscope? 99.5% of the time however the conclusion is exactly the same where the ignition was last driven with a key of the proper type.

As stated, the question is which time did you lie? When you did a microscopic examination? When you examined a fire damaged vehicle where half the testing cannot be performed? It is scientifically impossible to reach the same conclusion using different processes. Unless, the conclusion is a one size fits all general conclusion that required no forensics!


We have the reports on these guys!

What Do I Require For An Expert in My Auto Theft Claim Denial Case?

If you have an auto theft claim denial case, in order to convince a jury that the Certified Forensic Locksmith that determined  the reported stolen vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type, is incompetent  and cannot be believed.

These cases can be complex and your expert needs the capability of knowing the experts he is opposing.

The optimal situation is if e has opposed the experts before.

If he has depositions and/or trial testimony of theirs.

If he has reports of theirs, where a pattern can be laid out that they shipped steps in their examinations and still had the same conclusions?

Do the CFLs have an error rating on their testing processes?

Is the expert capable of supplying hard hitting questions for your attorney to ask the CFLs?

Is the expert court savvy?

Has he been through a number of trials for plaintiffs?

Has he served as an expert for insurance companies?

Is he familiar with how the vehicle at hand can be stolen?

Is the expert fully informed on the forensic locksmithing process?

Has he ever published a very large training program on auto theft and forensics investigation, with the testing processes vetted by the FBI?

Is the expert trained in all aspects of manufacturing keys and locks?

Is the expert capable of being a car thief?

Does the expert have 37 years experience with auto theft?

Has tje expert defeated an unstealable transponder system with a strategically placed wire?

Has the expert got vehicle fire and defect experience?

Does the expert work for insurance companies?

Does the expert srrve a plaintiff?

Does the expert serve criminal defendants?

Does the expert serve the prosecution?

Has the expert ever shown his unbiased approach by being appointed an umpire by the courts.

Has the expert published over 50, books and articles on auto theft and forensics?

Has his career encompassed more than just examination of locks, transponder systems and auto theft?

Has he set up the industry standsrds for the examination of stolen vehicles?


Your expert needs to know everything about the auto theft SIU investigation and EUO preparation process in order to assist your attorney with bad faith.


If this is the type of expert you need to prevail in an auto theft claim denial case, we are the firm you need. There is no one else!


1-866-490-1673 ask for Rob





Auto Theft Claim SIU Investigation, EUO Specialist


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: Auto Theft Claim SIU Investigation, EUO Consultant. Court Qualified Auto Theft/Forensic Expert Witness. Serving 48 States.







I will break this down for simple understanding. SIU is the Special Investigation Unit.  With the claim being referred to the SIU, this means they are looking at the insured not as a auto theft victim anymore, but someone suspected as submitting a fraudulent claim. What’s that? You had nothing to do with the reported theft? That attitde falls on deaf ears! You are guilty and the investigator is going to prove it!

The investigator has no proof to this because it simply isn’t true! The investigator doesn’t need proof other than the independent certified forensic locksmith they contracted who is insinuating that it was the insured’s key that last drove the vehicle!

So the insured is being accused by an unknown person referred to as an “independent” certified forensic locksmith (CFL) that wrote a report on your vehicle (the vehicle does not even have to be recovered where he examined no physical evidence) indicating for a conclusion that the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type!

After your recorded statement, a number of facts (red flags a/k/a fraud indicators) were applied to the claim for the purpose of referring it to the SIU. The investigator went to the vendor list and assigned the claim to a CFL.

What is interesting here, is the investigator hand-picked the CFL, and the insured was never given the opportunity to have an expert representing them at the time of the CFL report. Why not? Does the insurance company have something to hide?

This is a process. Once the CFL has submitted his report, whether he examined the vehicle, keys, ignition, interrogated the computer and indicates the vehicle was last driven with a key for the vehicle, the investigator now has the green light for a full blown investigation on the insured. The insured’s involvement does not have to proven. The case being built is based on not what it is, but what it appears to be.

A good example for financial motivation goes like this: The vehicle was recovered a total loss. The insured might owe $28,000 on a vehicle worth $20,000.00. This is known as upside down in the vehicle. Now, let’s say the insured has gap insurance. Gap insurance picks up the difference from what is owed to the actual cash value of the vehicle.

The investigator will claim that the insured could not afford the payments and had the vehicle made into a total loss, so all the insured is responsible for is the deductible and the insured can walk away from any financial liability.

In another situation, let’s say the value of the vehicle is $60,000 and nott recovered. The motivation would be that insured has an astronomical amount of debt, and the insured’s motivation is that they would receive $60,000.00 cash! However, the one fact that the insurance company leaves out is the insured doesn’t get the cash as portrayed and the funds would go to the lien holder!

Insurance fraud is a major problem. I stand by the carriers in their investigations and have no bias against them. I commend the SIU.

The problem though is it is also common for an overzealous investigator to paint all insured’s with the same brush!

Sometimes the investigators put too much faith in their certified forensic locksmiths. I have pointed it out so often, commonly in court that the CFL in my opinion is being deceptive and giving the reader of his reports the false impression that because of their great forensic abilities, they are determining the last specific key used. What they are saying in their reports on recovered thefts, recovered stolen and burned and not recovered is the same exact conclusion of key of the proper type.

There was no scientific or technical skill required to reach this conclusion, but because they are using the badge of forensics, they must be able to determine the last key used. Are these reports specifying the insured’s first and every day use key? No! Are they saying the vehicle was last driven with the insured’s second key? No! Are they saying that the vehicle was last driven with a thief’s key? No! Yet, every one of these examples is a key of the proper type.

One might say that a newly cut key would leave fresh tool marks. How do they know this for a fact? This assumes that a newly cut key will have rough edges and will drag across the wafer lands (Where the key Rides). A competent locksmith and a thief don’t want problems inserting or removing a key, so they will buff all the rough edges. A smooth key is not going to leave any marks. That is simple common sense!

Even though the inventor (who is now retired) of the last key used process from the 90’s has stated in depositions, for a key to create wear patterns, it has to be inserted at least 500 times!

When it comes to the SIU investigation, one has to be very careful truthfully answering the questions! The investigator is convinced the insured has submitted a fraudulent claim, and this is not the time the insured should be defending themselves!

We consult the insured, letting them know up front, what type of loaded questions are going to be asked and how to truthfully address them. We are not lawyers and don’t give legal advice. However, we have given hundreds of hours of sworn testimony. We also prepare the insured for an EUO (Examination Under Oath).

We have over 20 years working with SIUs and we know the process extremely well.

If you are under an Auto Theft SIU investigation, give us a call!


Cell 1-903-513-7808




Serve 50 states. Distance not a problem with investigation consultation. Everything is done through  phone and email.







Auto theft claim siu investigation, EUO Auto Theft/Forensic Locksmith Expert Witness.


, , , ,




Unlike the forensic locksmiths serving insurance industry as experts, I serve anyone looking for the truth. Whether for insurance defense, prosecution, plaintiff or criminal defense attorneys.

Except for a small number of insurance companies, I have been shut out by insurance companies for only one reason: I dare be unbiased and serve anyone. Insurance companies like Progressive quit using my services in 1997 when I opposed one of their experts.

Allstate quit using me in 2000 because aTennessee plaintiff attorney named me as his expert without my permission and without being retained.

Yes, investigators will say they want an unbiased expert, of course as long as you don’t take a case against an insurance company!