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
Auto Theft Vehicle Component Specialist
607 Market Street West
Honey Grove, TX 75446
Court Qualified Expert Witness on Auto Theft/Forensics
Vehicle Fire O&C
Vehicle Failure Analysis
Consultant to Insureds on SIU
Consultation & Presentatations for SIU
Subrogation Involving Vehicle Events
Vehicle & Semi Collision Analysis
Air Bag Non-Deployment
GM Ignition Recall
All examinations are performed using the scientific method in which reports are prepared for peer review.
The methodology used can be replicated, and if someone else were to use the outline methodology, their conclusion should be the same.
Unfortunately in the field of auto theft and forensic locksmithing, such is not the case.
It’s common to see where instead of all the facts being considered before reaching a conclusion, just the opposite is true.
The conclusion is pre-determined and the so-called facts are made to match the conclusion!
It is common to see cookie cutter reports. The reports in some cases are word for word the same and the only thing different is the type of vehicle, the insurance client and the insureds information.
This is the only field I have ever run across this event!
Vehicle examination protocol changes by the hour. The worst thing is that the courts believe these Charlatans because the courts do have any way of determining if what they are being told by the expert is true.
In a Vior Dire the person may have 20 years as a locksmith, but if claiming to be a forensic locksmith, what experience does he have in that field?
Is the methodology being used in the forensic exam peer reviewed and accepted?
Does the examination methodology make sense?
It should be fully explained if asked in court in laymam terms!
These culprits use many titles for credibility for deliberate confusion. Certified Forensic Locksmith, Engineer and others.
Forensic locksmithing on a reported stolen vehicle as to how it was last driven has other strange things that to my knowledge no other kind of examination exists!
Any other industry I serve, one cannot be alone and do destructive testing, especially when they have a vested interest like these experts do.
The insured will be told forensics is going to be done on their vehicle. They are not given the location, date or time.
In the event the insured hires their own expert to be present during the examination, the investigator will not let the insured’s expert within 100″ of the vehicle during the exam! They will however let the insured’s attorney be present, because the attorney has no one idea what the forensic locksmith is doing!
Something as minor as inserting a key into the ignition can be destructive testing!
This is akin to trying to stick the tooth paste in the tube!
Forensic locksmithing is the only industry I am aware of that does not rely on facts, but utter speculation masqueraded as fact. I will give an example, and what makes this all that much worse is this was a crminal trial based primarily on the prosecution’s star witness (ecpert’s) report in New Bedford, MA in People v Rogers on 10/28/2014.
I will paraphrase the results of this reported stolen, recovered vehicle and how it was assumed to be driven with a key of the proper type. This was a 2008 Eqinox with the PK III Anti-Theft transponder system (computer chip in key).
Here is the paraphrased expert’s account. Pay attention and you will see the speculation passed off as fact!!
A dent puller with a broken bolwas found on the driver’s floor. No parts to the ignition lock were recovered. If the ignition was found, it MAY have had the remains of the broken bolt in the dent puller. Had the ignition lock been forcibly been removed with a dent puller We (referring to the company he worked for) are not aware oany way this vehicle would start and run and this vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type.
Because of his blatant ignorance and arrogance, the prosecutor felt thiwas a very strong gorrnsic report. He was not at all happy, nor was his expert when I took the report all apart. Before doing that though, I gave 6 different methods to steal the vehicle. All, which could not be confirmed of denied, due to the fire damage and missing Ignition lock!
As for the expert’s report. Frs, we do not know if the dent puller found was used in this vehicle. Burn cars are sed as trash bins. It could have been from another burned vehicle next to it where it was examined.
Secondly, a guess is being used as a fact about the possibility that if the lock had been located, it would hdave had the broken remsins of the bolt from the dent puller.
Lastly, just because the people at his firm are ignorant and incompent about knowing how to easily bypass the PK III Anyi-Theft transponder system, which many know how to, that’s OK to have my client charged with felonies?
I stayed in court for closing arguments.
The defense closing argument was based totally on Painter’s testimony. My client was acquitted!
Here is the real problem in these criminal cases with auto theft. The insurance company has a different threshold in a civil case as compared to a criminal case. The threshold is very flimsy for civil known as preponderance. Assumption, speculation and innuendo is treated as fact in a civil case. I am not a lawyer and am just putting this down as I understand it to be.
The prosecution on the other hand is supposed to prove his care beyond any reasonable doubt, which means their case must he based on real fact. In these auto theft cases all they have s what the insurance company supplied them with, preponderance! Yet the prosecution will sattrmp to convict on what they refer to as circumstantial evidence A/K/A assumption, speculation and innuendo as fact.
This is exactly why if the defense does not have their own expert like me to counter the prosecution, chances of the insured being convicted are close to 100%!
One would not think these experts swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, would commonly use speculation and innuendo as fact. They do however! Half truths abound!
After all, they are the experts, who would dare question then?
This hurts their client the insurance company too! The nvestigator is reliant on their so called expertise! Without the expert’s opinion, they do not know if the claim should be investigated or not. The investigator does not know if the reported stolen vehicle was driven last with what is assumed to be the insured’s key or if stolen.
This industry operates under a Vail of secrecy.
If the insured hires their own expert to be present at the time of the forensic examination of the ignition, the insured’s expert is not allowed within 100′ of the vehicle!
The insurance expert who has a vested interest in the outcome of the claim, is allowed to perform destructive testing on the ignition, and there is no question. Why? One can not do this in fire examinations, vehicle recall exams. A representative for all sides is present during destructive testing!
Yet, insureds can have their lives turned upside down, going through brutal sworn testimony, only to have their auto theft claim denied. The only recourse then, which takes years, is to sue. If the insured doesn’t have a competent expert, chances are that getting full compensation is slim.
In the mean time, the lien holder wants their money and the insured has no vehicle!
As for the blame of a person having nothing to do with the theft, it all falls on a faceless expert that was hand-picked from the insurance company’s vendor list.
The investigator s only as good as the information they have by the expert who supposedly is making the right call.
Most of the Special Investigation Units (SIU) are composed of ex-cops.
Once they are told by the expert the reported stolen vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type by the expert, they now believe the claim is fraudulent. There s nothing the insured can do or say that will convince them otherwise. After all, who would have the audacity to question the self-proclaimed expert?
In my very experienced opinion, yes there is fraud in auto theft claims. We have to look for the fraud. Is it on the insured’s part? Or is it the expert who is committing the fraud?
Since 1990, I have seen it both ways!
One dare not question the expert’s methodology or conclusions, because commonly there are years long friendships that have developed between the investigator and the expert.