auto theft, auto theft fraud, auto theft giveup, car theft, Certified Forensic Locksmith, cfl, ignition analysis, ignition forensics, Insurance Fraud, key of the proper type, recovered burned auto theft, transponder bypass, vehicle theft
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!