Auto Theft Claims Forensic Exams

Featured

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Addurl.nu

When You Will Accept Nothing Short of the Best!

Court Appointed Expert Witness

Court Appointed Umpire

Auto Theft Claims Master

Do not let the name fool you! Auto theft claims investigations have given me laser focus because of the incompetence ànd ineptitude, in my opinion of the so-called forensic locksmiths the carrier’s use as experts to determine a reported stolen car was last driven, with what is inferred to be the insured’s key or key fob.

Have they scientifically eliminated other amicable ways of theft before reaching their conclusion? No!

Auto Theft Claims Investigation is the only line insurance that operates in this highly questionable manner from my experience.

When an investigation is predicated on fraud, what could possibly go wrong? This is what happens when investigating a car theft and using a forensic locksmith to determine how the reported stolen car was last driven!

Phone-1-866-490-1673
Cell 1-903-513-7808
Email robo14@aol.com
Smittydog1952@gmail.com
Consultant/Expert in these areas:
Vehicle Theft
Vehicle Fire & Explosion
Vehicle Defect Analysis
Lemon Law Issues
Accident Reconstruction
Vehicle and Structure Security
Vehicle Component Failure Analysis
Firearms and Personal Protection
SIU Investigation Consultant/Expert
EUO Preparation Consultant/Expert

Credentials
Rob Painter

Former ASE Certified Auto, Collision, Med/Hvy Duty Truck Technician
Former Certified Forensic Locksmith
Former Certified Fire and Explosion Investigator
Former Certified Vehicle Fire Investigator
Auto Theft and Forensics Expert

Auto Theft Claim SIU Investigation Procedures Expert
Automotive Forensic Component Consultant/Expert Witness
Court Qualified Expert Witness in 21 states and in Federal Court in both Criminal and civil arenas
Vehicle Fire Instructor
Patented Inventor/Published Author
Courts Appointed Umpire

Our firm looks forward to taking assignments from insurance companies under one condition:

We tell it how it is to in our reports. We are completely impartial and give you only provable facts, supported methodology protocol. Unlike the current certified forensic locksmiths, engineers and mechanics assessing reported stolen vehicles to determine as to how they were last driven, we do not use pre-written cookie cutter reports. Every report is drafted individually for that specific vehicle!

We commonly use the nationally accepted NFPA 921 for our scientific methodology. Although geared for fire investigations, these principles from this manual are applied on every forensic examination.

The sad truth has been that certified forensic locksmith reporting, methodology and conclusions do not need to be accurate or provable if not contested. These conclusions can be ambiguous (which they commonly are) and are accepted as fact-based primarily on the bogus forensic title they apply to themselves as forensic experts. and the ignorance on the subject by others.

We challenge these forensic locksmith reports because they are not based on fact.

An example of the Star witness report in a criminal prosecution: Car recovered totally burned. Ignition not recovered. Dent puller found on driver’s floor with broken bolt attached. Car equipped with easily bypassed PK III transponder system. 2008 GM car.

Report read: If ignition had been recovered, we MAY have found broken bolt from dent puller in it. To or knowledge, if the ignition had been forcibly removed, the PASSLOCK III would have prevented the car from starting.

Unfortunately, out of thousands of certified forensic locksmith reports I have reviewed, most are just like this! No fact! All speculation deliberately meant to appear as fact. The investigator who knows nothing about auto theft relies on the expert and assumes that the insured was involved in the claim and launches an investigation.

This claim like most, should have never been prosecuted, but it is assumed because the expert is a certified forensic locksmith he is beyond question.

Lets break this down: The ignition was not recovered. So any mention of it other than that is not fact! It is total assumption on the part of that expert that the dent puller was even applied to the ignition. Yet, he renders the possibility it was. As for the PASSLOCK transponder system on that vehicle, it is pretty much common knowledge as to how to bypass it and unfortunately, because of the expert’s ignorance, my client was being charged with felonies. Of course, my client was acquitted and closing arguments were based on my testimony, but that is not the point! The point is my client’s family was broken apart on these bogus charges and the expert got paid for sub-standard work!

More than 90% of the prosecutions I have defended were just like this case!

Speculation, innuendo=Certified Forensic Locksmith! The strangest thing: No one has even checked and for over 5 years the IAIL (International Association of Investigative Locksmiths) the certifying organization has been non-existent! That kind of makes that title as bogs as the so-called expert!

Yet, when Plaintiff and criminal defense attorneys see that title, they get really anxious and question the honesty of their clients!

Stated as fact by these experts, they can determine if a newly-cut key had been recently used. This is not a fact but merely an opinion designed to appear as fact. This fact assumes that s newly cut key will have remaining burrs on the key blade where it was cut. The first musing depends on how the key was cut. If cut from a laser, there are no sharp edges. If cut on a key punch or a mill, like that used in a hardware store, the key blade edges will have sharp burrs. The burrs must be removed or when the key is put into the lock, the key commonly binds. Burrs are commonly buffed off with a grinding wheel or a file. The cleaner the key, the better the lock will operate. If the key still has burrs, new striations will be seen on the wafer (tumbler) lands (where the key rides when inserted into the lock). To make the statement that the use of a newly-cut key can always be determined is a deception for the purpose of deliberately misrepresenting fact.

If such an event occurs microscopic photos should be required because history with these forensic locksmiths cannot be taken by their word! This is supposed to be about science if they are operating under the forensic badge! For the past 10 years, these experts cut corners. No longer did they remove the ignition lock, disassemble and take microphotos of the internal lock components. We get no internal photos of the lock! We just get their subjective opinion of what they say they observed! Hey, if we can’t believe them on their forensic title, how can we believe anything else?

The only time you see such photos are from a burned vehicle where the lock blew apart during the fire and the wafers (tumblers) were recovered off the driver’s floor. Even at that, the wafers have a burned crust on them, just like the crust on a cookie pan. I still have yet to see where this crust is properly removed without destroying the evidence! That is the only way one can view striations under a microscope!

Any fire investigator is required to prove everything they say. Engineers are required to support their findings. Every scientist is as well!

Yet, the certified forensic locksmith almost never is questioned about their findings. In the event a totally destroyed vehicle by fire has the conclusion the vehicle was last operated with a key of the proper type, the investigator does not ask; “can you prove that?” Instead, the investigator would say: “He is the expert!”

Here is another interesting fact about forensic locksmiths: one fact is they have a vested interest in the outcome of the claim. Secondly, they have been allowed to perform forensic examinations on s vehicle with no expert representing the insured present to keep them honest! It is the only industry I have ever run across this!

Destructive testing is common. What that means is the evidence may have been altered and can never be put into it’s pre-examination condition! Even inserting a key into the lock alters the lock!

How do we know the evidence was not deliberately altered? We don’t. Since they have no problem being deceptive, why in the Hell would we believe them about anything? Investigators must, which they do not now, inform the insured that they can have their own expert present at the examination at their expense! They inform the insured they can retain an attorney at any time. Why not an expert? What is the insurance company hiding?

When doing potential recall examinations, nothing is touched until the manufacturer sends an engineer. In this event, the engineer and I are talking to each other but not sharing notes. I am present and he is present so we can perform destructive testing together. That is the correct way to perform a forensic examination on a recalled vehicle. It is also the correct way to examine a reported stolen vehicle!

Reported stolen vehicles are not automatically deemed criminal cases for felony insurance fraud. First the investigator refers the claim to the prosecutor and this may be months after a forensic lock examination was performed creating a real big problem for the prosecutor if opposing a good defense attorney.

The attorney can request the evidence gathered by the certified forensic locksmith for his expert to peer review. Oh oh, was not treated as a crime scene? No photographs from where and when vehicle was recovered? No evidence gathered? Now the attorney’s expert has no way of replicating the forensic testing purportedly applied by the prosecutor’s star witness.

About this time a good defense attorney motions for a dismissal. Note I state good attorney? It has all too common that missing evidence goes over the head of many attorneys. They don’t get it! They may be hung up on the imagined manufactured motive, which is a moot point if there is no evidence linking the defendant to the crime in the first place. Our policy is to treat every exam as if it were a criminal case using standardized investigative protocol! By using that standard all forensic examinations will hold up highly in civil and criminal reporting on the vehicle!

Currently, from my experience, fire damaged reported stolen vehicle criminal cases do not meet criminal standards and are based on civil preponderance. I do not claim to know anything about the law because I am not a lawyer, but I know the difference between (assumption, speculation an innuendo and making something sound like believable fact) ————-preponderance–and beyond any reasonable doubt, which is the criminal standard.

As rebuttal experts we are required to be accurate 100% of the time! Unlike the current Certified Forensuc Locksmiths and others generating reports on these reported stolen vehicles using speculation, and projection as fact for their conclusions, we only apply provable fact!

Insurance companies expect these examinations and reporting to be low cost and will commonly go to the lowest bidder. Their experts are not vetted by their peers. This is in our view short-sighted without the consideration they can be sued successfully for bad faith.

Another joke of deception: There are firms in which the boss signs off on the report as if peer reviewed. Who says the boss is qualified to do this because he has never put forth his methodology for peer review or supplied any error ratings? Basically, another smoke scree from the smoke and mirrors folk!

In a stolen vehicle claim is being investigated and the insured is told they are waiting on forensics, rest assured there is no forensics applied and forensics is in fact a fraud used for the purpose of doing an investigation to deny the claim!

There are many examples of which they pay heavily for these indiscretions. One example is the Missouri case in 2006 (Jenny Hampton v State Farm and on the web). The vehicle in question was an old Toyota with over 100,000 miles on it. It was reported stolen and recovered severely burned.

At the lot the vehicle was stored, the vehicle for whatever reason was set on the ground upside down with the top on the ground. This action displaced many of the burned ignition lock components. A State Farm rep gathered the burned ignition lock evidence and mailed the remains to their expert Mike Hearold from Liberty, MO. The expert based his conclusion on exactly half the ignition lock components because that was all that was located in this upside down burned Toyota.

Of course, the expert implicated the insured with the theft claiming it was last driven with a key of the proper type. The insured Jenny Hampton was not only denied on her theft claim, but she was also charged with felony insurance fraud! She was acquitted. I understand she sued NICB (National Insurance Crime Bureau), the district attorney for malicious prosecution and State Farm. Her attorney was Mike Radar in this Kansas City, MO case and I was serving as one of her experts. She and her brother prevailed and the jury verdict was for more than state statutes allowed on the compensatory portion. The jury also awarded her $8,000,000. The verdict was appealed. The judge awarded $8,000,000 on the appeal! State Farm said: “$8,000,000 for a car?” From my understanding, the judge told State Farm they were lucky it was only $8 million!

The true kicker is that one would think that State Farm would no longer use this vendor as an expert. It was business as usual and they continued to use his services afterward for years!

This example is one of many. When the carrier gets caught using inferior forensic services, their defense has been we didn’t know. They know and this is their way of facilitating fraud from the very beginning of the investigation!

These forensic locksmiths are not vetted for the credibility on these forensic exams and reporting. After over 20 years and in the court system opposing these experts I can say with 100% certainty that a majority of over 95% of the methodology and conclusions applied by these experts can be successfully refuted with the use of real forensics, common sense and fact!

The problem here is when fraudulent forensics is applied it clouds the ability to determine fraud on the part of the insured. It’s highly possible the insured has misrepresented the events of the theft. As I have said, ignorance as to the lack of scientific protocol not being applied has been what has gotten these experts to be believed. We educate the courts as to how for the last 20 years forensic locksmithing has been wrongly abused for the agenda to deny claims.

If performed properly forensic locksmithing can be a kill shot to the insured misrepresenting a claim! In it’s current state, it is easily proven the conclusions are based on personal net opinion that have no basis! In other e ok red from the CFL, “It’s that way because I say so!”

All we are doing is leveling the playing field and supplying only fact and truth.

We offer remote services which means that it is not only a safety issue, but saves money on time and travel. We have offered remote services across the US for over 5 years and it has been extremely successful.

We are in Texas, you have an assignment in Sacramento-no problem!

Services are listed in my CV page. Whether it is a theft, a vehicle fire, collision damage, a potential recall, a lemon law case, we can handle the forensic analysis of the vehicle.

Something different than many- if there is evidence, we retain it!

Our conclusions are scientifically verifiable. Something that current forensic locksmiths don’t offer!

For those insureds going through an SIU investigation or an EUO we are the only firm that offers nationwide defense for insured clients.

We offer our extensive experience with hundreds of hours giving sworn testimony in depositions and trial testimony.

We share that experience with the insured going through an SIU investigation or an examination under oath.

In the area of consulting, we are not limited to auto theft claims, but home owners and renters claims, marine claims and commercial truck claims

The most common question of me from clients is “How did you know they were going to ask me that? Experience!

We can script the insured for any questions pertaining to the claim! Have nothing to hide? Yes you do because what you say will be used against you.! 1-866-490-1673 or 1-903-513-7808

We are extremely successful getting claims settled when they were scheduled for denial.

We realize the investigator is only as good as the information they rely on from their vendors. If their forensic expert vendor does not supply accurate factual information (all the time) they believe the experts that the insured has misrepresented the claim. Hard for them to do an impartial investigation on the insured when their expert has already inferred directly or indirectly has accused the insured! Unfortunately this has happened across the US for the past 20 years!

Insureds- the insurance company is going to perform a forensic analysis on your vehicle. You are entitled to have your own expert present at the time of the exam! Insurance companies don’t tell insureds this and it can be crucial!

I have successfully refuted these expert reports during the investigation.

In fact, evidence that we have are reports from these experts that determined the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type. The problem–the vehicle was never recovered! Now, if they fabricate these reports, what else are they lying about?

Why were we blacklisted by carriers like Allstate, State Farm, Progressive etc?

The reason was quite simple. They claim they want impartial experts as long as one doesn’t ever take a claim against insurance companies. This does not mean just one carrier, but all the major players. They flock together.

In 1997 I took a case to defend the insured accused of having the last key used before the theft and subsequent fire. The claim was in Mississippi and I was based in Wisconsin. It was a Progressive claim. Now, I had nothing against Progressive or any large nationwide carrier. I just felt if they had an expert to accuse the insured, the insured had every right to have their own expert, but if insurance companies had their way, they would have the final say about the denial of the claim.

Well, it was proven their expert could not support his conclusions and the case settled for the insured.

The argument would be it is a business decision to settle these claims. They would not have settled if they thought they could prevail in court! They could not on this claim! The work by their expert was shoddy. He was used to getting past everyone’s eyes hiding behind the title of “Forensic Locksmith.” Without the scrutiny this title should have been subjected to, along with severely flawed methodology, the experts got away with deceiving the courts back then all the way to 2020!

Here is a fact: The organization (International Association fferedof Investigative Locksmiths) IAIL that offered the (Certified Forensic Locksmith) CFL designation has been defunct for over 5 years! In other words the title is bogus as the experts methodologies and conclusions!

There is a network nationwide of forensic locksmiths as they call themselves Certified Forensic Locksmiths when. In truth, the only forensics applied is to their title.
The process applied is smoke and mirrors. Fueled by ignorance of forensic locksmithing, assumption, speculation, projection is hearlded as fact by these charlatans!
Lawyers, juries, judges and investigators know nothing about theft methodology, forensic Locksmithing and determining as to how a reported stolen vehicle was last driven, they are left taking the word of the expert from his reporting. They have fallen prey to the experts!

The field is riddled with deception, but there has never been anyone pointing this fraud on their part out, other than my firm nationwide for two decades!

People are commonly denied on their claims and that’s great if it can be proven with scientific verifiability. The problem comes when my firm dare opposes these experts with not the projection and speculation they masquerade as fact, but I supply documented fact! I don’t want someone to take my word for it. I don’t make conclusions I can’t support!!

Here is a very valid point when refuting these insurance paid whores! I am right 100% of the time and they are not!

How can I be right 100% of the time refuting these experts?

Easy– Common sense, fact, truth is my defense! Every time I testify it appears to be a learning experience for everyone! See, my background is real. I have been involved in the repair of more than 10,000 theft recovered vehicles and thousands of fire no sic examinations! I have been very 20 years working with investigators. On auto theft I know far more past vehicle examinations, I know the whole investigation process!

When it comes to auto theft, there is not an area I haven’t been involved in: cloned cars, title washing, VIN switches, trap cars, any type of theft method. I bc should write a book on it! Oh that’s right I did in 1998 “Auto Theft-Let The Truth Be Known!” As well as an forensic auto theft course of 1,350 pages in power point format. Over 60 published articles. Peer reviewed testing on many vehicle subjects!

It’s one thing to brag, it is quite another to prove!

Here is my court record going back which goes back 30 years in the auto theft forensics field! Absolutely no one in this field has a record even close! The charlatan experts in my opinion commonly are in court trying to support their conclusions! Their reports are questioned all the time!

I have been examining thousands of auto theft claims to determine how a reported stolen vehicle was last driven since 1990.

I have only had to defend my reports 3 times. 2 went in my client insurance company’s favor. The third, the jury got emotional and felt sorry for the plaintiff and aawarded him $10k. They didn’t care about the forensics and I could prove the insured had not supplied me a key!

Please realize the forensic experts selling substandard services that they refer to as forensics are not competitors of mine. One might say by naming them, it’s just sour grapes and I have an axe to grind.

Not at all. I am a professional and unlike them don’t take this personal. I should for the malicious damage they have tried to do to my name and business over the years, colluding with insurance defense attorneys to put me out of business and in one situation, trying to get me out in federal prison!

One really needs to think this out. Why did the boys as we called them, go to do much trouble to destroy me? The reason is obvious. I am that big of a threat that can expose them for what they are in my opinion. They are frauds serving as a tool to defraud the insured! To give reason for the investigator to investigate the claim, manufacture what appears to be a believable motive for the claim to be denied or worse yet, prosecuted!

When I defend insureds, defendants, and carriers, it’s not my job to determine Innocence or guilt! I only supply facts and guess what? Some of these claims the end result is inconclusive. Too many inconclusives or determining it was a good theft, will make the investigator consider using someone else!

These Forensic Locksmiths, engineers and mechanics as experts are very dangerous. I know for a fact, there was not enough evidence commonly due to fire that these experts have made conclusions inferring insured involvement with the theft, yet if confronted with fact and common sense, their credibility is in danger!

I have warned insurance defense attorneys and cops investigators, but they continue to use their services!

I have even put skin in the game where I have guaranteed my conclusion to be without question and if proven wrong, I would give a full refund of my fees on the claim or case! The independent forensic locksmith would never make such a guaranty! That tells one about the quality of their work product.

They supply free sales “training seminars.”(propaganda teaching the unimforned) their secret scientific processes. Science is not secret and should be available for peer review!

I charge for my seminars. I am not begging for insurance work. I will gladly take it, but I am not going to report on anything other than facts!

The problem is that dealing with one claim at a time is not icontext. Let’s say I am reviewing their report. It is made to appear as though their is specific testing (of something the average person doesn’t understand in the first place. At that point it is assumed this is a highly technical forensic field and since he is a forensic locksmh and we are forced to believe his conclusions because there is no argument from the other side.

Now, for the context! I have hundreds of reports they have age drafted over the years. Let’s say I supply 5 or 10 of previous reports from other vehicles for compare to subject vehicle.

Let’s say 5 were recovered burned and 5 not burned ands vehicle burned.

There are 2 different processes used between burned vehicles and non burned vehicles.

Burned vehicles commonly have only half the evidence a non burned has.

Explain this to me- how can one have two different processes, yet have the same identical conclusion? You can’t! That defies science! Yet with exculpatory electronic evidence destroyed by fire, the conclusion is the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type!

All a guess which the report claims is based on a reasonable degree of scientific certainty! A lie that floats right past all those in court!

Dealing with these goofs is no different than being told by Dr Faucie on Feb 28th, 2020 the Coronavirus Covid 19 is minimal danger and within weeks we are warned of 2illion deaths and the US is on lockdown!

What an irony–a parellel between my field and America’s health situation!

I believe it was Feb 28, 2020 Dr. Fausie claimed the Covid 19 posed no health threat. Within weeks are country was shut down! He is the expert on infectious diseases. He uses the word science and everyone listens even though I have seen no peer reviewed report in which 6 ft is a safe distance to be separated. How about 5 foot 11 or 10 feet? Blowing smoke, just like the certified forensic locksmiths I successfully oppose in court!

The courts appear to be in love with the word or title forensics, when it gas never been applied!

I am going to put up some names. Not to embarrass or ridicule, but in my opinion their work product sucks. We have enough documentation to cause the conclusions to collapse!

Not all names are mentioned, but just a few key players that will be found to be used in multiple states. As I said, this is not personal and just plain fact.

North American West

Works across California. Chad Tredway

According to my information, he is a licensed Private Investigator and worked for insurance companies as an employee. About 2010 bought the name North American from Robert Mangine who at the time was working out of Las Vegas.

Interesting North American West and North American Forensics and Technical Services use the same cookie cu5er format reports.

To my knowledge Tredway gas no documentation as a auto auto technician. He never was a locksmith and he has no background in stolen vehicles to determine the difference from a fraud or a theft as it relates to stolen vehicles. He is a certified forensic locksmith and as stated the organization that gave them that title has been defunct for over 5 years.

I know for a fact he testified in a criminal trial concerning a reported stolen BMW which was recovered sevrrely burned, in which he implied it was last riven with the insureds key, which is a great truck when all electronic case we’re destroyed by fire!

Had I been the expert for the defendant, Tredways conclusion would have been toast!

He does not disassemble ignition locks, does not use a microscope, does not appear to retain evidence!

To be scientifically verified another examiner needs the evidence to perform an ignition lock analysis. How can that work then? It can’t! The standard canned conclusion no matter what, the vehicle was last driven with a key or key fob of the proper type!

Plaintiff attorneys with a case involving one of Tredway’s “Forensic” reports. Deposition time with him will be an exceptional treat with my retention.

After we have questioned about his unproven methodology, one question that will develop will be:

What actual training, experience background do you have in vehicle theft? What qualifies him at all to examine any theft to determine how it was last driven.

The answers will be striking!

Please realize, Tredway does a Lion’s share of examinations on theft and mechanical for the major carriers in California! This could be a domino effect(

Insurance companies using his services be aware, I am actively looking for the claims he served as their expert for forensics!

A-1 forensics

Mark and Ryan Ames from Toledo Ohio

Apparently they have a special forensic tool. A crystal ball!

The vehicle does not need to be recovered for them to determine how the vehicle was last driven! A-1 has drafted reports on vehicle’s never recovered, yet they could determine how it was last driven or moved like in towing! No, they really couldn’t but in some situations the fake “Forensic” title threw them off! A common situation with this ruse.

Since there is no evidence, a recreation of the examination can’t be performed. This means the methodology and the conclusions are not scientific or forensic.

Here is a logical question: if the vehicle examination is not required on non- recovered vehicles, what is the point of doing examinations on any recovered thefts? Probably for a photo shoot! This does illustrate the quality of their work product! Extremely questionable!

We are actively searching for claims and cases involving this firm as well. We have over 200 of their previous forensic reports.

Mark Ames is a highly qualified locksmith without question, but that has absolutely nothing to do with forensic locksmithing and his “Forensic”reporting. They have no examination standards.

North American Forensic and Technical Consultants based in Florida.

They offer serves in Kentucky, Maryland, DC, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island.

Robert Mangine, Christopher Arnold.

Disqualified in a Virginia court: Comm v. Vaught CR16-595 / Stafford County Virginia for refusing to answer a subpoena 9/6/2017

Clients include Geico, Allstate and others.

Back in 2010 in California (State of California v Roth) the firm actually applied true forensic locksmithing methodology, removing the ignition, disassembling it, performing microscopic examination to the keys and internal lock components. Micro photos were taken.

However, about that time, evidently, it must have been considered too much time and effort taking an hours-long investigation process and turning it into minutes long!

Ignition components were no longer removed and retained in non burned vehicles. No internal photos of the ignition components. Canned cookie-cutter reports are common from this firm.

From my experience, “Forensic” reports are highly questionable almost always using the same generic conclusion that the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type deliberately not staying the last specific key used to start the engine.

We are actively looking for cases involving this firm!

SD Lyons

Never considered the anti theft system was bypassed for remote start causing denial of a claim, which we got settled.

Never considered remote start in which a working key has been installed under the dash to bypass the transponder system. This was a felony case in MA. Conclusion, last driven with a key of the proper type. Of course it was with the second programmed key for the vehicle removed from under the dash due to remote start.

This was a crime scene, but they retained no evidence. No vehicle, no key used to last drive the vehicle. No remains of remote start they never looked for. No ignition or the object said to be jammed in the key way!

This is how forensic experts are supposed to handle a criminal case?

Another case where they are touted to be expert forensic locksmiths, yet never examined the ignition lock or keys!

We are actively looking for active cases with their involvement as experts!

Arc Forensics Indiana and US

Another firm that drafts reports on unrecovered stolen vehicles.

We are actually looking at cases with their involvement.

There are more we will list later. Insurance companies assume all investigations are the same. They are not!

 

 

 

We look forward to bringing honesty to the profession!

If we can we of assistance, contact Rob at 1-866-490-1673 or robo14@aol.com

Auto Theft Claim Denial Cases, SIU Investigation

Featured

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Rob Painter

1-866-490-1673

1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com





Auto theft claim denial cases appear much more complex than they are.



This is by design.

My general interpretation of an auto theft claim denial letter:

The insurance denial letter creates the understanding to the reader that due diligence was performed in the investigation of the claim.

In spite of how much we wanted to pay the claim, the facts would just not let us.

Fact #1

Policy holder was consistent with making late payments on vehicle.

Fact#2 The vehicle was recovered totally burned. Vehicles do not self-combust.

Fact#3 On inspection, the engine was found to have serious pre-exisisting problems with anti freeze found in the found in the engine oil.

Fact#4 This vehicle is equipped from the factory with a highly sophisticated anti-theft system requiring a specially electronic encrypted key to start the engine.

Fact#5 The policy holder had all keys in their possession.
Forensics was performed on this vehicle to confirm this vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type.

Because of these facts we cannot honor this claim because of misrepresented material fact.


Once an attorney reviews a letter like this, it is extremely common to assume that it is pretty much and open and shut case.

Attempting to defend the case would cost a lot of money because of  the forensic findings of their expert. This appears to be highly technicial.

Even if you could retain a qualified consultant, it’s a crapshoot as to who the jury would believe.

Working on a contingency with all these areas that could go wrong could make the case extremely time consuming with no benefit. These are very serious considerations and should not be taken lightly.

Also keep in mind it is very common for the defense to try to transfer these cases to federal courts because the rumor is federal juries tend to favor corporations such as insurance companies.

What I have laid out here is the most common scenarios I see after being in this business for over 20 years.

You will find the case in which you are reviewing a common denial letter like I outlined.

You may feel like a fish out of water with a tremendous amount of risk of the unknown.

This is the reality. What are you going to do? Sure, you know the law well and are good a litigating, but this case is different because it is supported by forensic evidence and potential testimony. What do you do?

I would suggest contacting me, because the first problem attorneys have in these cases is assume that you are really dealing with forensics in these cases.

Forensic locksmithing has been nothing but a Con, a Scam for the last 15 years. Sure, that is my opinion, but different than the ignition forensics, it is all proven fact, not with technical jargon, but something as simple as common sense!

Convince me:

Forensic methodology as it applies to a reported stolen vehicle is use of the scientific method.
Theories are applied and ruled in or out in order to meet a scientific verifiabal conclusion.
This means, if another examiner examines the same evidence as the procedures applied by the insurance forensic examiner, the conclusion by the second examiner should be exactly the same.
That process is also known as  peer review.

The very very first problem we run across it that these ignition/anti-theft exams are treated as secret.

Science is not secret and if the process used is secret, it’s simply not science or forensic!

Example: During the course of the investigation, the insured is commonly told they can contact an attorney anytime.
Yet, when it comes to the forensic examination of the vehicle, things take a different turn. The insured is told forensics will be performed on the vehicle. They are not given a time or date. They are not informed that they can hire their own forensic expert! No problem with an attorney, but if they are going to have strangers with a vested interest in the outcome of the claim rummaging through the vehicle with no one to watch them, that’s not OK.

I have been hired by the insured to be at the forensic examinations. Except for a few times, it hasn’t gone well.
It has been common to try to keep me far enough away in which I can’t see if they are taking and hiding evidence, adding evidence etc.

Look, I am not infering anything nefarious here, but remember, the carrier is their client and not the insured! The “independent” conclusions are going to favor their client!

Believe them because they are the forensic experts!


Microscopes are no longer used to determine the fine details of identifiable markings in the waters (tumblers) as compared to a specific key. That was simply too much time and effort to be applied. Juries don’t know any better! That reliable process got phased out around 2010-2012. Micro photos could be taken of the small lock components.

The process was replaced that missed half the detail, and now because photos of the small internal lock components could not be taken, we are left taking the experts word on what he said he observed. OK.

Evidence Retention

For the life of me, I cannot believe the courts let these guys testify to evidence they don’t have. Especially in criminal trials!
How can the examination be forensic? It can’t be replicated!

All these cases are intrinsic and there will always be different factors involved. So my services will always be needed for difference between these cases

Once the expert is taken out, the case falls apart. In my example of the denial letter, I took out 4 out of 5 so-called facts. You as the lawyer can take out their imagined motivation on the part of the insured.

Now, are you still worried about taking a denied auto theft claim supported by forensics?

Here is the root cause to these cases:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-humes-forensic-evidence-20190113-story.html?

This is what stands in the way of insured’s being paid for their theft claims, and makes the difference between a clean record or conviction on auto theft claims/cases. This story has nothing to do with auto theft, but the junk science of forensics. The same junk science applied by insurance carrier vendors when determining the last key used in a reported stolen vehicle.

You may say “This sounds to complicated, stolen vehicles and forensics.” Do not fear!

I am here to tell you dealing with these claims/cases for over 25 years as an expert witness, I can assure you I have everything behind the claim/case down to a perfect science either serving as a consultant or an expert witness.

I have made these issues my mission in life, to have more knowledge than anyone on every aspect of these cases. I still do not know everything, but am constantly trying for that goal. I know in many cases what the opposing expert does not know from past performances. Unfortunately, they get free training from me when I call them out on their non-sense in these cases. The problem is they never seem to learn, or their past mistakes are brought to life.

Auto Theft Claim Denial Cases Are Very Common! The only problem from my experience nationwide over the years has been taking on a new client attorney who will say “This is the first case of this nature I have ever had.”

Of course these cases need you to perform your lawyerly skills, but they are different.

What makes them different? Unlike many cases out there they are built on a house of cards with a sand foundation in a wind storm!

The mechanics of these cases: These cases are built on the third party forensics the carrier contracted to examine the ignition, the keys and anti-theft system of a reported stolen vehicle. The purpose is for forensics to determine how the reported stolen vehicle was last driven before the theft. Commonly, it is asserted that the insured’s keys were used last implicating the insured with the theft. There by making it a fraudulent claim.

The carrier has great confidence in their forensic experts in this area, because uncontested, the insured or defendant loses.

After all, the courts are in awe of a Certified Forensic Locksmith or engineer title, which causes their credibility to soar! The main reason: Ignorance of everyone in the court on auto theft methodology and how forensics is supposed to interact! There is no comparison, so the expert’s methodology can’t be questioned as well as he conclusions.

Let’s throw a monkey wrench into this finely tuned process the carrier uses to control its costs by not paying the claim, or convicting the insured as well if the claim goes criminal.

I guide the client through every aspect of the claims investigation. These investigations for a manufactured motive can’t go forward without the forensic expert inferring the insured had the last key used. Without the report and conclusions, the investigation has no way to go forward.

Depending on the strategy of the attorney, we can take the expert out in deposition, or damage his credibility to the attorney’s specifications.

Personal attacks are not applied, however any previous reports by the expert can be compared to the case at hand for standardized examination methodology. Many of these experts nationwide, I have past depo and trial transcripts and reports.

Forensic locksmithing the way it has been applied over the last decade has not progressed, but digressed. These guys have gotten lazy. The only forensics applied is in the title they so willing us to impress the courts!

There is no one that has the training, background experience I do in auto theft and forensics!

Just a little about me:

I had a business that repaired theft recovered vehicles for 20 years. This means that while these experts were locksmithing, I was putting major puzzles together in the case of a full strip! Not only did I make keys and service locks, but serviced factory and after market security systems. In fact, I defeated the impossible to bypass transponder systems. Los Angeles “Greines v Ford.” In another LA case serving as an expert witness, I decimated the opposing expert in “McCoy v Progressive.”

In Fresno it was “Sidhu v Farmers.” Over 25 years serving as a consultant/expert witness, there are a large amount of cases our side prevailed on, not including all the cases we forced settlement without court intervention. I have about 20 published cases through Westlaw and other legal resources.

I authored the first 1,350 power point slide training course on auto theft and forensic examinations in 2001. The testing methodology was vetted by the FBI tool mark and firearms supervisor as well as the US Army Crime Lab in Georgia.

My first book I authored was in 1998 “Auto Theft-Let The Truth Be Known!” Even though it has been out of print for some time, sill listed on Amazon.

In essence, there is not a vehicle out there that I have not been able to illustrate to a jury as to how to steal without the insured’s keys! Better yet, in many cases forensics can not be ruled in or ruled out!

It gets worse for the opposition–Who have I recently worked for? A repossession company, where from the time the tow truck wheel lift touches a vehicle’s wheels, it can be as little as 30 seconds before the vehicle is mine!

Here is the part that can be approached in many ways:

Is your client looking for a quick settlement? That is entirely possible! I review the file and the forensic report on the vehicle and generate a report that you as the attorney can submit to the carrier and ask them if they really want to proceed forward? We never bluff!

Or, the case goes to deposition for the insurance personnel involved including their forensic expert. I supply the questions for the client attorney, and we eviscerate them!

Last but not least, I can be retained as a consultant/expert witness and make a fool out of the forensic expert illustrating to a jury, not only can the vehicle be stolen without the insured’s keys, but all the so-called forensics applied to the case was a scam. These ae not my opinions, but fact!

Low Cost Benefit: If I am serving as a consultant assisting the attorney, travel may not even be necessary! This is truly possible in cases for quick settlement without having to go through the court system.

I have had prosecutors very confident in their dealer expert call me and talk to me for a half hour and dismiss the case!

These auto theft insurance claim denials are based on the forensic expert they have. Take out the expert and there goes the case!

If you do not currently have an auto theft claim denial case, you may want to be proactive and attempt acquiring one or two. You may find these cases to be simple, but fun to do in which you as the plaintiff attorney control the outcome of the case with your consultant! Let your consultant do the work for you.

I am an expert on every level required on auto theft claim denial cases. I am also an expert on the experts. I know what they can and cannot prove. For years, their conclusions inferring the insured was involved have not been a fact, but a pure deception in my opinion by the use of semantics. These experts are not lying. They are just telling half truths. It works because no one in the court knows better, yet I have proved it time and time again for the past 25 years!

I also do failure analysis and crash analysis. Vehicle recalls like the GM ignition recall.

I had a fatality Chevrolet crash in which the air bags did not deploy. They did not deploy because of the GM ignition switch recall. Was the vehicle listed in the recall? No! I had to cross references the ignition lock and key design to find that it was in fact involved in the recall. I supplied a very extensive report including weather conditions, as well as using a like kind vehicle to test my theories. Everything matched what the on site crash investigator surmised over a year prior.

Insurance defense attorneys and prosecutors may feel left out here. Please don’t. I can assist you by reviewing your claim/case in order to head off any future liability issues by your forensic lock expert.

I work for anyone looking for the truth!

Rob Painter

1-866-490-1673

Cell: 1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com

Copyright 2019. Rob Painter.

How To Successfully Burn a Car!

My name is Rob Painter and I have served the claims area representing insureds as well for 35 years. My phone numbers are 1-866-490-1673 orv1-903-513-7808. I can be reached with email of robo14@aol.com. I do not knowingly represent insureds submitting fraud claims. I do however represent insureds under investigation in an effort to get their claim paid that was schedle for denial because the investigator believes the insured has misrepresented the claim.

This commonly happens because of information received by a beer known as a Certified Forensic Locksmith. The investigators only as good as the information supplied to them! If the certified forensic locksmith did not apply forensics to reach their conclusion (extremely common) but infer that. The vehicle was last driven with the insured’s key, at this point, who is the investigator going to to believe? The insured, or the vendor they use on a daily basis?

If that Certified forensic locksmith says the file was deliberately set (even though he did no accelerant testing) who is the investigator going to believe? The insured or the tried and true vendor? It’s not going to be the insured! This information is supplied at the very beginning of the investigation, so immediately, convinced the insured is lying, the investigator is building a case against the insured instead of being impartial! Now the insured ranks with all the fraudsters and just telling the truth does not exonerate the insured.

This subject of how to burn a car has been searched frequently especially in these dire economic times. People have lost their jobs and are finding themselves in a position in which they have found themselves behind through no fault of their own. The insured was living a good life working hard and Paying the bills only they have the rug ripped out from under him because of covid-19 the Chinese disease.

The insured no longer has a job and the bills are due. He is desperate with nowhere to turn. Savings gone and no longer has any income. Without that exorbitant car payment things would be so much better. A plan is devised to get rid of the car. The insured plans as to how to get rid of the car. Of course since he’s not a career criminal many things are not considered. This is the act of desperation but the insured feels they have no choice.

The plan is to report the car stolen and then burn it so the car can’t be fixed. The first thing not considered is that in many jurisdictions across the United States filing a false police report is a felony. Of course this is not considered because a man is desperate. He Parks the car a location where can be burned and not peek a lot of interest. He may or may not tamper with the ignition to make it appear as if it were stolen without the keys. He may have brought his own gallon of gasoline or decided to purchase it down the street. Now comes the time to the burn the vehicle. No I’m not going to go into fire characteristics and the correct way to burn a vehicle. That would be unethical on my part but I will give some examples as to some of the things that have been done that didn’t work so well. I have seen people that douse the whole outside of the car and then try to figure why the inside the vehicle didn’t burn. I have come across many vehicles that were filled with short inside very little burned and the gas can laying on the seat. It is assumed by the novice that fire destroys everything. It does not it just transforms everything. A good forensic examiner can determine many things. Experience is crucial when doing a forensic examination to determine how one of these vehicles was last driven. Dash-mounted ignitions we’re very easy to find if the examiner knew where to look. The plastic dash when melting encapsulated and protected the ignition lock from being destroyed in the fire. Steering column ignition locks we’re subjected the fire usually came apart and fell on the driver’s floor. Now we have keyless ignitions which can be challenging determine all the vehicle was last driven but in some cases it can happen.

For the frugal that try to keep their insurance rates low Daikin install a device that the insurance company gave them into the OBD2 port of the vehicle to determine how the vehicle is driven. Many insurers really haven’t thought this out very well. It’s an insurance device that tracks your movements with the vehicle. Information like if you have your seatbelt on if you are exceeding the speed limit in certain area all sorts of things including location the vehicle from where was reported stolen to possibly where it would be recovered. In other words for the insured to save money big brother is watching! Ensure it is giving up their privacy do the insurance company in order to save some money. The truth of the matter is you would be amazed as for what the insurance company knows about that about an insured. Combined with a database that is only available to insurance companies they know everything about the insured. A workman’s comp claim filed 1992 there is a record. Relatives they know where they all are as well as associates. A desperate insured doesn’t know about this I’m think they can beat the system and outsmart the insurance investigators. Another consideration not taken into play is what is known as gap insurance. If the vehicle does not have gap insurance the insured will find there is a huge difference between what the insurance company will pay and what they owe. Gap insurance covers the gap between what is owed and the value of the vehicle. Have a gap insurance is a red flag because the insured could you just walk away from the car with no financial liability.

once the vehicle set on fire the insured report your car is stolen. It’s stated the insured has all sets of the vehicles recovered in less than 24 hours burned of course. The police impound a vehicle an insurance claim is set up. A recorded statement is required and which the insured explains the events surrounding the theft. They are ass a litany of questions which are required to be answered. The insured is manufactured a story about when he parked his car and what he was doing and worry was at the time of the theft. The claim is now sent to what is known as the SIU (special investigations unit). There is a host of reasons that this Graham went to the special investigations unit. First, the vehicle is deemed unstealable because of the factory-installed anti-theft device. Secondly, the vehicles recovered burn within 24 hours close in proximity to where it been reported stolen. There may have been questions as to the answers 5ge insured had given in a recorded statement. Boswellia background check has been run of the insured and it was found there was a felony and their background 20 years ago. All of these things add up to requiring an intense investigation. Not only that but a forensic examination had been performed of the vehicle it was determined that although there appear to be tampering to the ignition the process was unsuccessful. A cause and origin of the fire had been determined to be a deliberately set fire with an accelerant such as gasoline.

Insurance Claims During Covid

Insureds during the covid19 era are going to be disasterous for Insureds.

States were closed since the middle of March shutting down the US economy with as many as 30 million people not working.

The first thing that has to be realized is that all investigators are skeptical in normal times. Covid has drained the finances out of many. The little but if savings they had may be gone already and that $1,200 the government gave us, in many cases was used to pay a missed car payment, house payment or whatever.

This can be the hardest times that people have ever gone through, I know it has been difficult for me with much of my work still in closed stares in which client attorneys have put cases on hold because the courts are not open.

There are some that will panic and maybe report the car stolen, or all of a sudden their house has a major peril such as a fire. Some panic and want to liquidate figuring the insurance company will pay the claim with no questions asked. That was 20 years ago! It doesn’t work like that anymore! Things may seem hopeless but you do not want to misrepresent a claim. You can possibly go to jail! Investigators are very thorough these days. Many are ex-cops. Don’t think you can outsmart them. You can’t. They know more about you, your relatives and friends than you can imagine. They have more power than the cops, because they don’t need a warrant. You signed over permission for them to obtain any information they need and you agreed to cooperate with the time nvestigation!

All I am saying is if you think that because you haven’t had a claim for years and you want to get some quick cash from a bogus insurance claim, for your own good, think of something else!

We have now experienced another different experience because of Covid 19. To protect the criminals from getting this disease, we have the bleeding heart liberals that are very concerned for their safety one such an diot is the Los Angeles County sheriff that released over 4,000 criminals on the streets, but closed the gun stores so you could not protect yourself. That has happened across the country. All crime is up! Auto theft, auto burglaries, home invasions, rape and everything else!

We have severe weather destroying homes in the south. It has been a crazy year! To top it off 30 million unemployed, ranchers having to euthanize their gerds because it costs to much to feed the cattle there is no demand for or they can’t get processed in the meat plant because they are shut down because employees have been subjected to Covid 19. It’s like a bad movie in which we don’t know the ending!

Investigators are going to be skeptical on auto theft claims more than ever! The narrative to them iisvehicles are impossible to steal and a thief would not burn through vehicle. Interesting they know all this up front without catching the thief! The goal is to accuse the insured. The insurance company won’t accuse you in the begining, but their all knowing forensic expert will say the last key used had to be the insureds key.

Many think all they gave to do us tell the truth, they gave nothing to hide oh yes they do! There us more than one way to tell the truth and you are already at a disadvabtafe. They have a guy using a forensic title that has no problem lying about you!

If you have a SIU investigation, call me. I will let you know if I can guide you through the mine field in which every word you say will be contorted, twisted in their favor. If you have an EUO (Examination Under Oath) scheduled (Sworn testimony) do nothing without contacting me!

My consultations are exytremelt successful and they are remote keeping us safe. Lawyers cannot help you with investigations or EUOs on auto theft claims.

1-866-490-1673 or 1-903-513-7808 Rob

My email is robo14@aol.com

Befote covid, insurance carriers would try to deny claims on their bogus Forensics in auto theft claims and I have made them decide otherwise.

I consult on all types of property claims, boats, home owners, renters, auto theft and collision claims. I am an expert in Sworn testimony. I have been doing it for 25 years opposing insurance companies. It has been a very Rocky road and they have tried everything to put me out of business and I am still here;!

If you have an auto theft claim that has been denied and you are pursuing by suing the carrier, I oppose successfully their so called forensic experts across the country!

Auto Theft Claim Denial Cases, SIU Investigation

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Rob Painter

1-866-490-1673

1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com





Auto theft claim denial cases appear much more complex than they are.



This is by design.

My general interpretation of an auto theft claim denial letter:

The insurance denial letter creates the understanding to the reader that due diligence was performed in the investigation of the claim.

In spite of how much we wanted to pay the claim, the facts would just not let us.

Fact #1

Policy holder was consistent with making late payments on vehicle.

Fact#2 The vehicle was recovered totally burned. Vehicles do not self-combust.

Fact#3 On inspection, the engine was found to have serious pre-exisisting problems with anti freeze found in the found in the engine oil.

Fact#4 This vehicle is equipped from the factory with a highly sophisticated anti-theft system requiring a specially electronic encrypted key to start the engine.

Fact#5 The policy holder had all keys in their possession.
Forensics was performed on this vehicle to confirm this vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type.

Because of these facts we cannot honor this claim because of misrepresented material fact.


Once an attorney reviews a letter like this, it is extremely common to assume that it is pretty much and open and shut case.

Attempting to defend the case would cost a lot of money because of  the forensic findings of their expert. This appears to be highly technicial.

Even if you could retain a qualified consultant, it’s a crapshoot as to who the jury would believe.

Working on a contingency with all these areas that could go wrong could make the case extremely time consuming with no benefit. These are very serious considerations and should not be taken lightly.

Also keep in mind it is very common for the defense to try to transfer these cases to federal courts because the rumor is federal juries tend to favor corporations such as insurance companies.

What I have laid out here is the most common scenarios I see after being in this business for over 20 years.

You will find the case in which you are reviewing a common denial letter like I outlined.

You may feel like a fish out of water with a tremendous amount of risk of the unknown.

This is the reality. What are you going to do? Sure, you know the law well and are good a litigating, but this case is different because it is supported by forensic evidence and potential testimony. What do you do?

I would suggest contacting me, because the first problem attorneys have in these cases is assume that you are really dealing with forensics in these cases.

Forensic locksmithing has been nothing but a Con, a Scam for the last 15 years. Sure, that is my opinion, but different than the ignition forensics, it is all proven fact, not with technical jargon, but something as simple as common sense!

Convince me:

Forensic methodology as it applies to a reported stolen vehicle is use of the scientific method.
Theories are applied and ruled in or out in order to meet a scientific verifiabal conclusion.
This means, if another examiner examines the same evidence as the procedures applied by the insurance forensic examiner, the conclusion by the second examiner should be exactly the same.
That process is also known as  peer review.

The very very first problem we run across it that these ignition/anti-theft exams are treated as secret.

Science is not secret and if the process used is secret, it’s simply not science or forensic!

Example: During the course of the investigation, the insured is commonly told they can contact an attorney anytime.
Yet, when it comes to the forensic examination of the vehicle, things take a different turn. The insured is told forensics will be performed on the vehicle. They are not given a time or date. They are not informed that they can hire their own forensic expert! No problem with an attorney, but if they are going to have strangers with a vested interest in the outcome of the claim rummaging through the vehicle with no one to watch them, that’s not OK.

I have been hired by the insured to be at the forensic examinations. Except for a few times, it hasn’t gone well.
It has been common to try to keep me far enough away in which I can’t see if they are taking and hiding evidence, adding evidence etc.

Look, I am not infering anything nefarious here, but remember, the carrier is their client and not the insured! The “independent” conclusions are going to favor their client!

Believe them because they are the forensic experts!


Microscopes are no longer used to determine the fine details of identifiable markings in the waters (tumblers) as compared to a specific key. That was simply too much time and effort to be applied. Juries don’t know any better! That reliable process got phased out around 2010-2012. Micro photos could be taken of the small lock components.

The process was replaced that missed half the detail, and now because photos of the small internal lock components could not be taken, we are left taking the experts word on what he said he observed. OK.

Evidence Retention

For the life of me, I cannot believe the courts let these guys testify to evidence they don’t have. Especially in criminal trials!
How can the examination be forensic? It can’t be replicated!

All these cases are intrinsic and there will always be different factors involved. So my services will always be needed for difference between these cases

Once the expert is taken out, the case falls apart. In my example of the denial letter, I took out 4 out of 5 so-called facts. You as the lawyer can take out their imagined motivation on the part of the insured.

Now, are you still worried about taking a denied auto theft claim supported by forensics?

Here is the root cause to these cases:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-humes-forensic-evidence-20190113-story.html?

This is what stands in the way of insured’s being paid for their theft claims, and makes the difference between a clean record or conviction on auto theft claims/cases. This story listedlist nothing to do with auto theft, but the junk science of forensics. The same junk science applied by insurance carrier vendors when determining the last key used in a reported stolen vehicle.

You will see other references to what I am going to say in other pages in this site. For 20 years all auto carriers using Forensics to determine the last key used in a reported theft have procured Certified Forensic Locksmiths, engineers and mechanics.

A majority of the time when doing this are facilitating fraud to accuse the insured of fraud for the purpose of denying the claim, or worse yet prosecution of felony insurance fraud of which you will be convicted without my involvement!

I have been defending these claims and cases for 25 years and the most common problem I see with attorneys defending these cases/claims is they put far too much credence in the apparent Forensics applied by these experts.

What appears to be scientific if a microscope is used (rarely) is merely a dog and pony show for the uninformed. Common sense is thrown out the window so everyone in the courtroom believes the expert because of the use of the bogus Certified Forensic Locksmiths title! It sounds very impressive. One of the real problems is that commonly (almost every time) what appears to be fact about the vehicle in the report is merely projection and speculation appearing to be fact. Defendants without my involvement get convicted on this crap!

Why? Because it’s not just my opinion these guys are fabricating a story, but it is documented provable fact in almost every auto Theft investigation from these charlatans I oppose!

I have many of these experts previous cookie cutter reports in which they can be applied to the case at hand, commonly leaving the question for the expert; which time were you telling the truth?

You may say “This sounds to complicated, stolen vehicles and forensics.” Do not fear!

I have made these issues my mission in life, to have more knowledge than anyone on every aspect of these cases. I still do not know everything, but am constantly trying for that goal. I know in many cases what the opposing expert does not know from past performances. Unfortunately, they get free training from me when I call them out on their non-sense in these cases. The problem is they never seem to learn, or their past mistakes are brought to life.

Auto Theft Claim Denial Cases Are Very Common! The only problem from my experience nationwide over the years has been taking on a new client attorney who will say “This is the first case of this nature I have ever had.”

Of course these cases need you to perform your lawyerly skills, but they are different.

What makes them different? Unlike many cases out there they are built on a house of cards with a sand foundation in a wind storm!

The mechanics of these cases: These cases are built on the third party forensics the carrier contracted to examine the ignition, the keys and anti-theft system of a reported stolen vehicle. The purpose is for forensics to determine how the reported stolen vehicle was last driven before the theft. Commonly, it is asserted that the insured’s keys were used last implicating the insured with the theft. There by making it a fraudulent claim.

The carrier has great confidence in their forensic experts in this area, because uncontested, the insured or defendant loses.

After all, the courts are in awe of a Certified Forensic Locksmith or engineer title, which causes their credibility to soar! The main reason: Ignorance of everyone in the court on auto theft methodology and how forensics is supposed to interact! There is no comparison, so the expert’s methodology can’t be questioned as well as he conclusions.

Let’s throw a monkey wrench into this finely tuned process the carrier uses to control its costs by not paying the claim, or convicting the insured as well if the claim goes criminal.

I guide the client through every aspect of the claims investigation. These investigations for a manufactured motive can’t go forward without the forensic expert inferring the insured had the last key used. Without the report and conclusions, the investigation has no way to go forward.

Depending on the strategy of the attorney, we can take the expert out in deposition, or damage his credibility to the attorney’s specifications.

Personal attacks are not applied, however any previous reports by the expert can be compared to the case at hand for standardized examination methodology. Many of these experts nationwide, I have past depo and trial transcripts and reports.

Forensic locksmithing the way it has been applied over the last decade has not progressed, but digressed. These guys have gotten lazy. The only forensics applied is in the title they so willing us to impress the courts!

There is no one that has the training, background experience I do in auto theft and forensics!

Just a little about me:

I had a business that repaired theft recovered vehicles for 20 years. This means that while these experts were locksmithing, I was putting major puzzles together in the case of a full strip! Not only did I make keys and service locks, but serviced factory and after market security systems. In fact, I defeated the impossible to bypass transponder systems. Los Angeles “Greines v Ford.” In another LA case serving as an expert witness, I decimated the opposing expert in “McCoy v Progressive.”

In Fresno it was “Sidhu v Farmers.” Over 25 years serving as a consultant/expert witness, there are a large amount of cases our side prevailed on, not including all the cases we forced settlement without court intervention. I have about 20 published cases through Westlaw and other legal resources.

I authored the first 1,350 power point slide training course on auto theft and forensic examinations in 2001. The testing methodology was vetted by the FBI tool mark and firearms supervisor as well as the US Army Crime Lab in Georgia.

My first book I authored was in 1998 “Auto Theft-Let The Truth Be Known!” Even though it has been out of print for some time, sill listed on Amazon.

In essence, there is not a vehicle out there that I have not been able to illustrate to a jury as to how to steal without the insured’s keys! Better yet, in many cases forensics can not be ruled in or ruled out!

It gets worse for the opposition–Who have I recently worked for? A repossession company, where from the time the tow truck wheel lift touches a vehicle’s wheels, it can be as little as 30 seconds before the vehicle is mine!

Here is the part that can be approached in many ways:

Is your client looking for a quick settlement? That is entirely possible! I review the file and the forensic report on the vehicle and generate a report that you as the attorney can submit to the carrier and ask them if they really want to proceed forward? We never bluff!

Or, the case goes to deposition for the insurance personnel involved including their forensic expert. I supply the questions for the client attorney, and we eviscerate them!

Last but not least, I can be retained as a consultant/expert witness and make a fool out of the forensic expert illustrating to a jury, not only can the vehicle be stolen without the insured’s keys, but all the so-called forensics applied to the case was a scam. These ae not my opinions, but fact!

Low Cost Benefit: If I am serving as a consultant assisting the attorney, travel may not even be necessary! This is truly possible in cases for quick settlement without having to go through the court system.

I have had prosecutors very confident in their dealer expert call me and talk to me for a half hour and dismiss the case!

These auto theft insurance claim denials are based on the forensic expert they have. Take out the expert and there goes the case!

If you do not currently have an auto theft claim denial case, you may want to be proactive and attempt acquiring one or two. You may find these cases to be simple, but fun to do in which you as the plaintiff attorney control the outcome of the case with your consultant! Let your consultant do the work for you.

I am an expert on every level required on auto theft claim denial cases. I am also an expert on the experts. I know what they can and cannot prove. For years, their conclusions inferring the insured was involved have not been a fact, but a pure deception in my opinion by the use of semantics. These experts are not lying. They are just telling half truths. It works because no one in the court knows better, yet I have proved it time and time again for the past 25 years!

I also do failure analysis and crash analysis. Vehicle recalls like the GM ignition recall.

I had a fatality Chevrolet crash in which the air bags did not deploy. They did not deploy because of the GM ignition switch recall. Was the vehicle listed in the recall? No! I had to cross references the ignition lock and key design to find that it was in fact involved in the recall. I supplied a very extensive report including weather conditions, as well as using a like kind vehicle to test my theories. Everything matched what the on site crash investigator surmised over a year prior.

Insurance defense attorneys and prosecutors may feel left out here. Please don’t. I can assist you by reviewing your claim/case in order to head off any future liability issues by your forensic lock expert.

I work for anyone looking for the truth!

Rob Painter

1-866-490-1673

Cell: 1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com

Copyright 2019. Rob Painter.

Covid 19 Corona Virus Policy

Due to the dangers of spreading the virus, we give our clients a real feeling of safety and security.

A majority of our services to the consumer or insured require little to much no e physical interaction.
We have been serving our insurance clients remotely for a decade, consulting them during an auto theft investigation or an examination under oath.
We guide the client through email or by phone. Our remote services are extremely successful. Many times I am steal and the investigator does not know the client was coached, or at least who by.
There are times that I may have to provide a report on the vehicle to illustrate how inept their forensic expert is accusing the insured of having the last key used on their stolen car.
I can’t say we are nice because we know the fraud the insured is being subjected to.
The investigators are bullies.
We serve as the insured’s 800 pound gorilla in auto theft investigations.
We don’t go to hurt the expert accusing the insured/client of the claim. We rhetorically kill him!
The worst thing is we love the verbal combat the client ends up with a claim that is settled without having to spend tears in the court system with no guaranty the insured will prevail!

The only time there is physical intervention on our part is if we have to testify in court.
That only happens if the insured was denied on their theft claim and is suing the insurance company.

Buy Here Pay Here Cars

Tags

, , , ,

Over the years vehicle security has been an extensive concern. We equip our cars with alarms, anti theft devices gps tracking etc.
However, this has been turned against the consumer and it will get worse!
It seems these sub prime auto dealers don’t trust their clients and not only have the ability to disrupt your privacy as well as putting them at risk of hacking, but if late on a payment can disable the engine from starting remotely.
Other concerns are that there is an aftermarket device wired into your vehicles computer system. You have no idea if this incompetent installation was performed professionally or if the system has the ability to start your car on fire!
I investigated after market products that had issues being made in China that did just that, setting the car on fire!
Did you know that such products will void a manufacturer’s warranty?
You are dealing with a product in which you have no idea about it’s realiability!

I question the legality of such products being installed. There are active cases involving the installation of these devices right now!
With the issues going on with the economy, more and more dealers including new car dealers are going to resort to such options! Next, the I’ll be video taping the occupants in the vehicle and whatever is going on when the car is being driven! Insurance companies would love this information to fight their fraud claims!

Personally, I say to Hell with big brother! At the time of purchase, people will sign away their privacy because their credit may not be good enough to purchase a car from an honest dealer at a reasonable price.
40 years of alarm installation, GPS experience as well as the ability to bypass factory security that few have been able to do.
We offer you the ability to DIY to disconnect these unwanted features.
For a fee, we can supply a very easy way to bypass these systems with 0 problems.
This instructional information is supplied for education purposes. We can not be held responsible for what the reader does with this information.
If you apply it to your vehicle, that is not on us, however the information you will find is very valid and has a 100% success rate!

You may want to disable the engine disable and leave the GPS intact. You have the option!
Never worked on vehicle electronics before? Not a problem. You will learn to be a pro!

Simple tools needed will be addressed! Don’t worry, if you apply as per instructed, you could hook it back up again, probably more professional than the hack called a mechanic at these car lots!

For a detailed instructional publication on how to disable the aftermarket GPS and engine disable contact me at robo14@aol.com.

For the beginner who has never done anything like this, it shouldn’t take more than an hour.
For someone familiar with vehicle electronics, it should only take from 15-20 minutes!
Personally, I don’t think a stranger should he allowed to know my movements and I sure as hell would not be getting gouged financially on a car that may not start for me!

Recently in San Antonio an employee was let go. Well, as he went, he took customer accounts with him giving him the ability to shut down 1,100 of the vehicles the dealer had sold!
There were 1,100 very pissed off people that had made payments that could not drive their cars,ball because of a disgruntled employee!

We offer you the ability to take your privacy back and know that your engine will start when you need it!

Automobile Forensics

Rob Painter

 

1-866-490-1673

Robo14@aol.com

I

have over 30 years of applying the scientific method in my examinations for over 30 years.

My experience is vast from determining the origin and cause of a vehicle fire, to sudden acceleration recalls. Determining collision damage, to auto theft and to how the vehicle was last driven.

My for my for my  ASE certtifiations were in Medium/Hvy Duty truck repair, Auto and collision.

I have been involved in discovering recalls, and drafting scientifically verifiable report conclusions on a variety of problems. It could be a vehicle fire with a known origin and cause which I would have to trace back to the source amongst the burn debris.

It could be a severe head on crash that the airbag did not deploy. It could be an accident collision re-enactment. Determining collision damage between a vehicle and another object.

That is what he as made my life do interesting and applying the scientific method, things commonly go together for an air tight conclusion that can be replicated by another forensic examiner.

I commonly oppose professional engineers and fire investigators. I may or may not agree with their assessment.

With that said, you will see many comments about the Certified Forensic Locksmith. CFLs serve insurance companies nationwide examining reported stolen vehicles and claim to be able to determine how they were last driven.

I can support my conclusions because they are based on fact and the scientific method.

 

 

.

 

 

Other certifications were in forensic locksmithing, fire and explosion, vehicle fire Investigation. My experience with insurance claims is vast and goes back over 30 years.

In order to perform a competent forensic examination, evidence is required in order to replicate any examination that was performed previously.

I find this relevant when dealing with engineers and fire investigators. Forensic locksmiths, not so much! In my opinion, the forensic locksmith is a total fraud! The only forensics one will find with a forensic locksmith is the title he puts to his name on the report!

Evidence, a majority of the time there is none, or it has been secretly damaged by the forensic locksmith. There is one firm out there that uses the ruse of certification with the owner of the firm signing off on a report.

Forensic locksmiths are so blatant in their incompetence, projection and speculation serve as fact. Many attorneys are too impotent or incompetent to question then properly. Evidence from crime scenes is not preserved and the inept prosecutor thinks they have a case against be the defendant.

How can an opposing expert recreate the screen when no evidence was retained. The report may explain something was jammed in the key way. There is no explanation when, how and what the object was removed and that a key was inserted into the ignition afterward. Yet, to attempt to do peer review, it can’t be performed because the evidence was never retained as evidence, nor the vehicle and about 6 other pieces of evidence! Yet, the stupid DA has no problem pursuing the defendant for felonies. We are just supposed to take the word from one of these self-proclaimed forensic experts.

Worse yet, at one time or many, a judge took it on their own after a Vior Dire to classify these guys as experts. Did the judge understand the subject matter of a forensic locksmith? Of course not, but that hasn’t stopped them since 1999 and Daubert when the judge was made a gate keeper as to who could give expert testimony.

Some judges don’t flat out like an out of town expert critisiziing a local expert, even though their work product is do egregious that it should be criminal, because nothing performed had anything down as to the scientific method!

Insurance Companies Facilitate Fraud In Their Fraud Investigations

Fraudulent Forensics That Insurance Companies Use For Their Investigations and Denials In Auto Theft Claims
Rob Painter
1-866-490-1673
1-903-513-7808
Robo14@aol.com

What bothers as a highly qualified expert witness in auto theft, forensics and vehicle fire O&C?
Travesty of justice. I do not understand. Attorneys always looking for cases, especially those that require very little on their part and they seem uninterested in helping people and making money.


Look, I put 20+ years of reputation and credibility into my very successful career.

Opposing insurance companies is not easy. In many cases they appear to pick the most unprofessional, unethical law firms possible to defend their cases in my opinion. It doesn’t matter that their expert is operating fraudulently, the bottom line is to destroy my reputation by all means necessary by lying about my stellar extensive background to a judge or having an insurance friendly judge lie about me.

This is what I have had to endure over the years! From having 12 months stolen from mine and myex-wifes life being under federal investigation, only to have it closed after a 10 minute deposition with an inept federal DOJ prosecutor!

In Virginia in 2017 being threatened by the opposing prosecutor that I would be arrested for fraud on the witness stand (nothing like witness intimidation!) to having his experts disqualified for refusing to answer the subpoena intended for me. Then while on the stand to put up baseless lies about me addressed as fact from an insurance friendly judge from Las Vegas.

He lost the argument! The judge quashed the disqualification because I was not present at the heating to defend myself. That POS prosecutor came off like a big steaming pile!

However, if I am representing the carrier in a claim or case, I am then treated as a hero in the fight against fraud. Of course unlike the incompetent fraudulent forensic locksmiths I oppose, if I am accusing an insured of fraud, they have no chance to prevail! None! Might as well walk away or take a plea.

Here is my court record-25 years serving insurance companies in tens of thousands of forensic examinations of vehicles only 3 of my reports have been contested in court. Out of those 3, two went in favor of my insurance client. The third, I could prove the insured had not provided a missing transponder key. The jury did not care and felt sorry for the plaintiff because of his two repossessions.

Why is this record important? Absolutely no one in the forensic locksmithing and auto theft field has such a flawless record!

Kind of makes one wonder why these great forensic experts are in court all the time to defend their reports. Could it be they are that incompetent? Could it be that they are all frauds taking advantage of insureds with auto theft claims? The answer is both!

They appear to have no problem defrauding the courts as forensic experts either! Judges, you have all been played! For more than a decade across the US by every auto carrier.

I am completing an article in which I will be naming names. Not as a vicious personal attack because I know none of these forensic locksmiths personally. The purpose is to call out the blatant fraud that insurance companies use to initiate their fraud investigation of the insured. They are not competitors. They would technically be opposing forensic experts that don’t practice forensics and in my view are not experts at anything! They are a rubber stamp for the insurance company to investigate not an auto theft, but a fraudulent claim.

The insured rarely knows it at the time, but the fraudulent forensic locksmith has already inferred insured inbolvement as to having the last key used.

These goofs obviously do not know how to apply the scientific method to their reporting. The only thing forensic in their report is the self-applied forensic title they annointed themselves with.

I am not crazy nor do I have a personal vendetta. I believe in justice and the rule of law. I am not anti-insurance and support investigations not fraudulent clams. With all this said, attorneys both plaintiff and criminal defense think they have all the answers in auto theft claim denial cases and felony insurance fraud auto theft. Sorry to say, you don’t! The case is based on an independent forensic locksmith, engineer, dealer mechanic that has concluded the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type inferring the insured’s key. The amazing thing to me is that you attorneys, judges and juries believe this bull crap cloaked under the term forensics. You assume the title is valid because you don’t know a damn thing about it. You assume that the standards are similar to DNA, GSR (gun shot residue) etc just because of the title.

Let’s look at Certified Forensic Locksmith. Originally a credential offered by the international association of investigative locksmith which dissolved about 5 years ago and now is part of associated locksmiths of America. Do you see anything forensic in their titles? Of course not! This is a bunch of guys that put together what if? Situations which in many cases do not even take part in auto theft methodology. They know your ignorant and they can lie on the stand (and sometimes do, knowing you can’t catch them). Forensic locksmithing for the last decade has been a total fraud!
I have addressed this many times on this site but I want to make this very simplistic so everyone understands! On every auto theft claim the SIU, fraud is by default put into the investigation of the insured.
The investigator cannot arbitrarily accuse the insured of fraud. The investigator needs to know if the vehicle was actually stolen or if it was only made to look that way, so the investigator is reliant on a forensic expert to make this determination. Without knowing this information, the claim would have to be paid if an investigation was not performed.
Ignorance plays a role here as well. Investigators are taught today that almost all vehicles are equipped with anti-theft transponder systems making the vehicle unstealable.
With that in mind, the investigator goes to the company vendor list for experts in that area. They hand pick this independent forensic shop and assign the claim to them. Before establishing them as vendors did the carrier vet the work product of the forensic expert on the subject of auto theft and forensic locksmithing. In forensic science there is something known as error rate. How many times was the process applied to be found valid? 100% of the time? 50% of the time? 10% of the time. That is crucial because if the process is wrong 50% or 90% of the time, it’s unreliable and can’t be trusted and is known not as forensics, but junk science! This is only one thing that illustrates what a fraud this process of last ignition key used! There is no established scientific error rate! So all you are relying on is done guy’s opinion with no basis of fact!

In order to get a accepted error rate for a process, everything involved in that process has to be thoroughly described and set for any other forensic examiner to be able to repeat the exact same process and his conclusion should match to the original examiners. If not why not? What needs to be amended?
The next item is a very common and illustrates what a fraud forensic locksmithing is: evidence!!!! Rarely gathered unless easy to find such as in a burned vehicle where the ignition separates once melted and the wafers (tumblers) are spread on the driver’s floor debris field. Commonly the burned wafers are gathered up and sometimes a microscope is employed to look for tool marks. To fool juries, these charlatans would take these burned wafers and blow them up with microphotos and say they could see tool marks. This was an outright lie because when lock components are subjected to fire they get a crust on them, similar to when you are baking cookies. Well, these blown up pictures still had the crust on, so how are you going to see tool marks without x-ray vision? These clowns would be believed because sing the title of forensic and a blow up Go to with nobody knowing what to look for!
It is really difficult to replicate an examination when there is no physical evidence! The forensic expert these days no longer feels the need to gather evidence. Ignition’s are no longer removed, disassembled and examined under a microscope. It’s too much work. Why spend hours when you can get by in minutes? No one knows the difference! They will just believe the word of this forensic expert.
Let me put this even more simpler because some will still not understand.
The investigator wants to know how a reported theft was last driven. He assigns it to the forensic locksmith. The insured sends the keys and key fobs via US mail to the insurance company. They were lost in the mail. Did I mention the vehicle was never recovered? No I didn’t. Yet the forensic examiner authors a three page report with information about the description and operation theory about the anti theft system stolen right out of a factory service manual and placed in the report. This is commonly known as deflection or deception in order to make the reader to believe the vehicle is unstealable. The strangest thing though, he made the determination as to how the vehicle was last driven. It was last driven with a key of the proper type. The same conclusion used in totally burned vehicles and unburned vehicles he actually examined! That must be a very powerful crystal ball he used or he is a member of the physic friends network!
Obviously, the guy is a liar. He had no physical evidence to examine. The car could have been towed. Yet we are supposed to believe these jokers? I have the reports! Some have gone to court! Sometimes not seeing the forest for the trees, attorneys her hung up on the forensics not realizing there is no evidence. I have to bring them to earth.
Now, if that is not fraud, what is? Yet, insurance companies facilitate these frauds for their fraud investigation on the insured! This has been going on through the states for over a decade and insurers may be fairly accused and their auto theft claim is denied!
The insurance investigations on auto thefts are rigged! There are so many ways I can prove this forensic analysis is deliberate bull crap to deceive.
If they are so good in the forensic field, why can’t they specify the exact last key used? Because they are falsely claiming to use forensics when it’s nothing more than a word. Speculation, assumption and projection are masqueraded as fact. Our courts have been defrauded and insured convicted by stupid prosecutors that don’t reach the threshold beyond reasonable doubt, but have only the insurance supplied information of preponderance. These poor defendants are convicted on the testimony of these fraudulent forensic locksmiths.
In fact a low-life (my opinion) supervisor was boasting how my guy got convicted. I did not represent him as his expert. I just examined the vehicle. I found LA fire was lazy and incompetent. They said the fire started in the vehicle with a match. Of course I wanted to see the match which they could not supply. It was an obvious engine fire. The interior was destroyed as the fire progressed through the so called fire wall. This was a BMW with a smart key and a start switch. All plastic. All the wiring colored plastic insulation
for the computer was destroyed and bare. There was no way to test anything. The DA investigator asked the expert how it was last driven in it’s state. The expert stated it was last driven with a key fob of the proper type. The investigator said are you sure? The expert said absolutely!
There were two smart keys for this vehicle. Unless a thief made a third with a $300 key programmer from China. My question would be instead of the nebulous term key fob of the proper type, exactly which key fob was it? He would have had no clue exposing him as the fraud he is!
My questions, how can any fraud investigation be legitimate based on a fraud?

Rob Painter
1-866-49-1673
1-903-513-7808 email robo14@aol.com

Be Careful On Who You Need To Represent You on a SIU Investigation!

Tags

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

Rob Painter’s CV (resume) and Services

Phone-1-866-490-1673
Cell 1-903-513-7808
Email robo14@aol.com
P.o. 261
Bonham, TX 75418

Services

SIU investigation consultant. I teach people how to address investigations truthfully, but correctly. All based on my extensive hours of trial and deposition testimony.
Some feel that all they need to do is tell the truth, they have nothing to hide. The truth will not set you free in an insurance investigation.
Being the claim is in a SIU investigation tells you that there are red flags that were noted and the claim is generally scheduled for denial. It could be that the investigator received inaccurate information from their Certified forensic locksmith, indicating the vehicle was last driven with what is inferred to be the insured’s key. These so- called forensic locksmiths have yet to produce a report in which forensics was performed. The title sounds cool so they must be believed. No longer is the investigator looking at your claim in an unbiased matter. They are now convinced of the insured’s guilt and now it only a matter or creative writing to manufactured a motive.
Please do not misunderstand. The investigator is only as good as the information they rely on. This creates a mine field for the insured and all of those truthful statements can now be twisted around. I prevent this from happening especially in an examination under oath where the insured is giving sworn testimony.
Why you and not a lawyer? Because the Investigation and EUO have nothing to do with the law. Lawyers can tell you about the legal side of things, but it doesn’t help during an investigation.
Even in an EUO you are asked a question you don’t want to answer. You look over to your attorney. They object. You still have to answer the question. What if they drove into areas you don’t expect like if you have paid or claimed income on taxes? You can be asked anything and we guide you through it. Over the last 10 years, I have been extremely successful at getting these claims paid.
Far below is a list of all the testimony I have given in very adverse conditions. The insurance defense firms did everything possible to put me out of business and they did not succeed!

Texas Bonded and Licensed All Lines Public Adjuster
License# 2548231

Texas License to Carry a Firearm (2016-2021)
Florida Concealed Carry License since 1992.
Former Wisconsin Licensed Real Estate Broker 1994-2000
Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL Gun Dealer) 1987-1993
It is rare for an attorney to have a case published by Westlaw and other legal authorities to be used as a precedent. over my career over 20 of cases I interacted in have been published and with some,the complete trial transcripts are located on the web!
Inventor: Patent# 6,039,140 for the prevention of air bag theft-1999
Published Author: “Auto Theft-Let The Truth Be Known!” (1998) as well as about 60+ additional articles, books, and a 1,350 Power Point Slide training course on auto theft and forensic investigations.
Answered over 30,000 questions on vehicle repair and auto theft for insure.com and allexperts.com from 1994-2015 to assist consumers with their automotive and insurance issues.
Consultant/Expert in these areas:
Vehicle Theft
Vehicle Fire & Explosion
Vehicle Defect Analysis
Lemon Law Issues
Accident Reconstruction
Vehicle and Structure Security
Vehicle Component Failure Analysis
Firearms and Personal Protection
SIU Investigation Consultant/Expert
EUO Preparation Consultant/Expert
http://www.autotheftclaimsmaster.me
https://www.facebook.com/autotheftclaimsmaster/
https://www.facebook.com/cartheftmaster/
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=auto%20theft%20siu%20investigation
Boomer1400@twitter
Formerly certified as a CFEI (Certified Fire & Explosion Investigator, CVFI (Certified Vehicle Fire Investigator), ASE Certified Auto Technician in Collision, Electrical and Med/Hvy Duty Truck, Certified Forensic Locksmith.
Oct 2018-March 2019 worked for an auto repossession company.

I have also been involved with recalled and potential recalled vehicles, with sudden accelleration, vehicle fires and NHTSA had a file under my name for a collection of underhood fires that I had determined.

Qualified to testify as an expert for the Defense in USAF Court Martials in the areas of Origin and Cause of Vehicle Fires, Transponder System Operation, Ignition Locks, Steering Columns, Auto Theft, and Vehicle Burn Debris Analysis. January 13, 2017, I testified for my second USAF court martial for the defense.

Court Cases: In the three cases in which I testified from October 1, 2014 to March 18, 2015 from AZ to MA to OH in which my side prevailed, which has been a common occurrence over my career. What made the last case interesting was after I testified, and was ready to head home, I ran across the opposing attorney that said only one thing. “You kicked our butts!” What an experience!
My complete court case record, where I was either deposed or gave trial testimony or both is listed in this CV. It does not take into consideration of all setttlements.
9/2014—Appointed by Dallas court to serve as “Umpire” in auto theft case settlement.
4/2014 Retained by the Maryland Attorney General’s office on a consumer fraud case.
December—2006 Appointed “Special Instructor” for the Darien, WI Fire Department
August—2006 Illinois Court (Cook County) appointed Umpire (Mediator)
Insurance Services

20+ years working with and training with Special Investigation Units. Hundreds of hours of sworn testimony. Has trained investigators on property claims investigations.
April-2006 Worked with Brad Stone of Newsweek from San Francisco on a story, which was published in 5-2006 about insurance fraud related to reported stolen vehicles and the so-called factory installed “Anti-Theft Systems known in the Wired Magazine as “Pinch my Ride.”

July-2004 Lead Forensic Examiner for San Francisco PD in a homicide investigation involving a reported stolen and recovered burned vehicle.
September-2004 Contacted by the TV show “Forensic Files” for a potential story to be aired.
Robert Painter is also cited in West Law in the case Sailsbury/Davis VS. State Farm as well as other cases. There are approximately 20 cases that I have been involved with that have been published by legal sources. Many are also on the Internet.
BUSINESS EXPERIENCE
Formed the non profit Forensic Institute on Auto Theft Analysis. Both organizations are
to set the standards in forensics as it relates to reported stolen vehicles and to provide
Training to examiners, fire service and law enforcement.
Founded the “International Association of Forensic Auto Theft Examiners.” Its purpose is to set the standards in the field of determining the last operation of a reported stolen vehicle.

• 1986 opened Auto Recovery Specialists Inc., providing exclusive repair of theft recovered and vandalized vehicles. The initial concept of the business was to return vehicles to their original shape before the theft, vandalism or fire. In 1987 bought the rights to the theft deterrent known as the “Chicago Collar”Ò.Duties include complete component replacement: dash, stereo system, interior,
locks and coding, rebuilding steering columns, repairing and installing vehicle security system components (factory and after market), engine components, body repair, glass replacement, repair and service of air conditioning components, brake and suspension repair, and replacement, wiring harnesses etc. to return vehicle to pre-theft condition.
• For 17 years directly involved in the repair of thousands of theft-recovered and fire damaged vehicles.
• Personally examined and rebuilt thousands of steering columns on both import and domestic vehicles
• Has never held himself out as a locksmith to the public, however during his tenure at Auto Recovery, cut thousands of keys and repined ignition, trunk and door locks and in fact was a locksmith for the company as well as everyone else working at Auto Recovery Specialiss Inc.
• Factory
• Internationally acknowledged as expert in auto theft including court, consulting with insurance companies, attorneys and law enforcement.
• Consultant on steering columns, locks, stereo systems and vehicle security for Special Investigation Units for many large insurance carriers during the past 10 years. Consulting services include but not limited to: How a vehicle was last operated (with or without keys in burned or unburned vehicles), Origin and Cause of vehicle fires, and vehicle defects. Has examined thousands of reported stolen vehicles in order to determine how they were last driven.
• Unlike mere locksmiths that serve as experts in how a reported stolen vehicle was last driven, Rob looks at these issues as a professional thief, considering the electronics he is trained in, and as someone that knows how to actually defeat just about any factory installed theft deterrent.
• Provides services as a consultant and researcher to attorneys and insurance companies, and public throughout the US in cases related to vehicles.
• Has worked with crime prevention officers throughout the US establishing training programs designed to protect the public from becoming victims of auto theft.

Insurance Claims Experience
20 years in insurance claims handling. With Auto Recovery, we were direct pay and handled the claim in its entirety, Wrote estimates, figured for betterment and diminished value, determined if vehicle was total loss. Handled everything related to the claim except for writing a check to the insured.
Rob Painter & Associates Inc, trained SIUs on auto theft and what indicators to be watched for in a questionable claim as to last operation. Attended seminars on insurance fraud, body language, investigation, interviewing procedures.
Trained in insurance fraud indicators .
Familiar with ISO Database.
Assisted in-house attorneys on the merits of claims as to pay or deny the claim.
Has reviewed over 100,000 pages of insurance activity notes, depositions, EUOs, affidavits.
Authors questions for insureds for the insurance carriers to be asked of the insured when giving recorded statements on the events surrounding the theft of their vehicles and for EUOs.
Authors questions for client attorneys for direct examinations in court in the proper court format as well as authors the questions for opposing experts as to accepted methodology. Authors questions for insurance SIU personnel as it relates to standard investigation methodology for depositions.
Has participated with client attorneys in hundreds of bad faith cases when the insured was denied coverage.
Has served as an instructor to insurance companies on the subjects of Forensic origin and cause examination of vehicle fires, auto theft and vehicle forensics. Although Rob’s certifications call him a fire investigator, Rob has never been a fire investigator. He performs the scientific method in order to perform a forensic fire analysis.
Currently serves as an Insurance SIU Investigation Consultant for insureds during the investigation, Prepares them for EUOs. Does not offer legal advice, but guides insureds as to his very extensive experience in these matters. Has 17 years experience with these in this area.
Commonly works under a POA (Power of Attorney) representing insureds investigated or denied on their auto theft claims.
Serves as a consultant to Insurance Defense attorneys, Plaintiff attorneys, Criminal Defense attorneys, Prosecutors, SIU personnel as it relates to issues involving auto theft claims.
25 years experience in the forensic examinations of reported stolen vehicles to determine the last operation of the vehicle.

• PATENT: 3/21/00 issued patent# 6,039,140 for 8 different variations of airbag anti-theft devices.
PUBLICATIONS
Currently author’s articles and test reports on an ongoing basis for insurance SIUs and the forensic/vehicle fire/theft industry.
Found at: https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/f?type=all&keywords=rob+painter+ase%2Ccfei&orig=GLHD&rsid=&pageKey=member-home&trkInfo=tarId%3A1411064641854&search=Search
Published author: (4) linkedin Pulse articles 9/2014
• Petty Theft 2014 version.
• Insurance Fraud-Auto Theft
• For Those that Deny and Defy the Truth
• The Lies We Were Told About Vehicle Anti-Theft Systems
Published author:
• Forensic Auto Theft Examination Hypotheses-John Cooke Fraud Report- May 2013
• Published author: Anti-Theft v. Theft Deterrents– Insurance Industry Publication (January, 2006).
• Published author: The Truth about GM PASSLOCK-III revision (Hypotheses to be considered before rendering a conclusion) (Spring, 2005 IASIU—Insurance Industry Publication)
• Published author: (1,350 slide training course) Auto Theft/ Fraud Training Course) “The Modern Forensic Approach to Auto Theft Investigation.” (January, 2001)
• Published author: “Absolute Statements Made By Experts” (Insurance publication-Sept. 2003)
• Published author: “Locksmiths as Experts Reporting On Stolen Vehicles” (Insurance Publication-August 2003)
• Published author: “Uncovering The Truth in Burned Reported Thefts” (Insurance publication-August 2002)
• Published author: “Problems and Solutions in Vehicle Theft Determination” (Insurance publication December 2002)
• Published author: Master Keys”( Insurance publication- February-2003)
• Published author: “Variables to Be Considered In Vehicle Fire Investigation after Suppression.” (Insurance publication-November 2001)
• Published author: “Ford Magnesium Steering Columns and the Results to Ignition Components after a Fire”. Article for peer review from the fire and forensic community. (November 2001)
• Published author: “The Truth About GM VATS.” (Article) (November 2001)
• Published author: “The Truth About GM PASSLOCK TM” (Article) (November 2001)
• Published author:” Auto Theft Investigation: Hollywood vs. Reality” (Article) (February 2001) For the John Cooke Fraud Report.
• Published author: (Manual) “Forensic Vehicle Fire/ Arson and Auto Theft Investigation” (October 2000)
• Published author: (Article) “Petty Claims” for the John Cooke Fraud Report (October, 1998)
• Published author (Manual) “AUTO THEFT: LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN!” (1998) (Previously distributed by Barnes & Nobel)
• Co-authored the investigation manual, “Surreptitious Entry & Auto Theft & Burn & the Investigator.” (1999)
• Authored test questions on the subject of steering columns and vehicle security for CFL (Certified Forensic Locksmith) designation to be given by the International Association of Investigative Locksmiths. January, 2000
• Published author: (Manual) “Saginaw Steering Columns-What Has Not Been Told” Training manual for fire investigators. (March 2000)
• Published (Article) “Beyond The Lock” (May 2000)
• Published Author: (Article) Fraud Defense Network-August, 2000 Edition-“Melting Steering Column Tests.” http://www.fraudreport.com/index.cfm?month=08&year=2000
• Published author: (Test Report) “Burned Toyota Steering Column Testing to Determine How Last Operated”. Tool marks and procedures. (December 1999) Currently at the FBI Crime Lab in Washington DC and the US Army Crime Lab in Atlanta, GA for peer review.
• Many more articles!!!!!
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
• Defeated the “unstealable” Ford Securilock transponder system for a court case 10/10/00. They said it could not be done!
• Primary designer of a state of the art “bait” car for a police department to catch car thieves.
• Worked with The National Highway Safety Transportation Administration and
discovered a potential fire hazard on a vehicle and determined origin and cause of under hood fires on this type of vehicle.
• Featured as “Auto Theft Expert” in the A & E auto theft documentary “Stealing Wheels” that aired July 26, 2000.
• Contacted by Sears and Edelman Marketing to be a national spokesman for an anti theft device for vehicles. (November 1999)
• Invited to provide evaluation and consulting to steering column engineers at Daimler Chrysler Corporation in Auburn Hills, MI (10/99). The purpose of this project was to demonstrate how steering column locking mechanisms could be defeated without the use of a key and how to reinforce the columns against theft.
• Court Qualified as an Auto Theft Expert and my videos of defeating columns were also accepted by a Cleveland, Ohio Court in October 1999 as a valid piece of evidence.
• Contacted by Disney Touchstone Pictures for technical assistance in making the movie “Gone in 60 Seconds” (March 1999)

CONSULTANT FOR FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS
• Former contributor for The Insurance News Network (Auto theft and prevention) includes heading a forum for the public on how to protect their vehicles for 3+ years.
• Former editor and consultant for the public on matters involving auto theft and prevention 2000-2001 on the web at http://www.autotheft_forum.com.
• The Insurance Career Center (Auto theft and fraud).
• National Association of Investigative Specialists (Auto theft and fraud)
• Expert Find (Auto theft and fraud}

TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE
• ASE (National Institute of Automotive Service Excellence) Formerly certified in Auto: brakes, steering and suspension, engine repair, manual drive train and axles, air conditioning. Med/Heavy duty truck: gasoline engine repair, electrical/electronic components. Collision: electric/electronic components. At Auto Recovery Specialists, never served as a general mechanic as opposing counsel likes to state. This business dealt exclusively in the repair of theft recovered vehicles and nothing else!
• SCRS (Society of Collision Repair Specialists) certified in airbags.
• ICAR (Inter-Industry Conference of Auto Collision Repair) trained.
EDUCATION
• American College of Forensic Examiners-Tested and given certificate as Diplomate Board Certified Forensic Examiner. Unlike opposing counsels like to espouse, this certificate does not mean I went to college.
• Racine, WI Vocational School
• Moraine Park Technical School
• Milwaukee Area Technical School
• General Motors Factory School
• AC Delco School
• Harnischfeger Corporation
• Unlike
PREVIOUS TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE
• 1974-1986 Auto technician and management for Oldsmobile dealerships full
time or part time, on and off for those years.
• 1976-1984-Harnishfeger Corp. (Mining Manufacturer) Expeditor, Assembly, Machinist, heat treat and non-destructive testing: Ultra Sonic Testing, Magnetic Particle Testing.

ADDITIONAL TRAINING
• WSATTI (Western States Auto Theft Investigators)-Vehicle Tracking Laguna Hills, CA (Jan 2004)
• NAFI (National Association of Fire Investigators)-Vehicle Fires-Eastern Kentucky University- (Sept and Oct 2002)
• IAIL (International Association Of Investigative Locksmiths) Atlantic City, New Jersey (June 2002)
• IAAI (International Association of Arson Investigators) (5 day seminar) Milwaukee, WI (May 2002)
• NCRC/ IAATI (International Association of Auto Theft Investigators) Auto Theft Seminar (4 days)- Indianapolis, IN (May 2002)
• National Association of Professional Insurance Investigators. (November 2001)-Cincinnati, Ohio
• Electrical Fire Investigation- Public Agency Training Council- Brown Deer, WI (August 2000)
• Insurance Fraud Seminar –SCIFI- Columbia SC (November 1999)
• Forensic Locksmithing-ALOA- Cincinnati (July 1999)
• Bomb and Explosion Seminar -Public Agency Training Council-Racine, WI PD (April 1999)
• Arson Seminar Public Agency Training Council- Racine, WI PD- (April 1999)
• Fire Investigation Training Seminar -Myrtle Beach S.C. (October 1998)
• Public Agency Training Council-Electrical Fire Investigation (August 1998)
• AVCAW Vehicle Fire Seminar-also taught Plover WI. (May 1997)
• Vehicle fire training seminar-Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (October 1997)
• AVCAW fraud seminar-also spoke Wisconsin Dells, WI (November1997)
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

Speaker for Horace Mann SIU- Auto Theft Methodology- Irvine, TX
(May 8, 2014)

• Speaker for TIIAA Vehicle forensics, transponders, auto theft-Dallas, TX (November, 2012)

• Instructor for fire investigators on the methods used on how to determine Origin and Cause of Vehicle Fires. (Parker, Colorado February, 2007)

• Instructor on depositions and court testimony as well as protocol to fire fighters. (Darien, WI Fire Department January, 2007)

• Speaker for Safeco Insurance —Vehicle Forensics-Vehicle Fires—-Indianapolis, IN (May, 2006)

• Speaker for MetLife —Vehicle Forensics-Vehicle Fires—-Freemont, IL (Feb 2006)

• Speaker for Harleysville Insurance—Vehicle Forensics—Edina, MN (July, 2005)

• Speaker for Safeway Insurance—Vehicle Forensics—Chicago, IL (June, 2005)

• Instructor—Litigation Support-Gieco Attorneys– Speaker for Country Insurance—Las Vegas, NV (May, 2005)

• Speaker for Las Vegas, PD—Vehicle Forensics—Las Vegas, NV (May, 2005)

• Speaker for Met Life Insurance—Vehicle Forensics—Las Vegas, NV (May, 2005)

• Speaker for Country Insurance—Vehicle Forensics—Las Vegas, NV (May, 2005)

• Speaker for Liberty Mutual Insurance- Vehicle Forensics as it relates to theft-Naperville, IL (March, 2005)

• Speaker for Liberty Mutual Insurance- Vehicle Forensics as it relates to theft-Indianapolis, IN (February, 2005)

• Speaker for Safeco Insurance- Vehicle Forensics as it relates to theft-Indianapolis, IN (February, 2005)

• Speaker for Apollo Insurance- Vehicle Forensics as it relates to theft –Des Plaines, IL (January 2005)

• Speaker for Bristol West Insurance Company-Auto theft/ Fire and Transponders –Anaheim, CA- (May 2004)

• Speaker for the International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU) Vehicle Theft/ Fire-Pomona, CA (April 2004)

• Speaker for Geico Insurance Company- Vehicle Theft/ Fire-San Diego, CA- (April 2004)

• Speaker for Geico Insurance Company- Vehicle Theft/ Fire-Las Vegas-NV- (February 2004)

• Speaker for Indiana Farm Bureau—Anti -Theft/ Plaintiff Attorney Arguments (Sept. 2003 Monticello, Indiana)

• Speaker For Regional MetLife Conference – Electronic Theft Deterrents and Plaintiff Arguments (July 2003 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida)

• Speaker On Auto Theft And Forensics for MetLife in Naperville, Illinois (March 2003)

• Interviewed as an “Auto Theft Expert” for WBZ Television in
Boston, MA (February 24, 2003)

• Forensic Steering Column Analysis. Pacific Locksmith Association-Seaside, OR- (December 2002)

• Auto Theft Methods/ Locks and Columns—American Ambassador-Itasca, IL (April 2002)

• Forensic Report Writing Seminar- Illinois Chapter of Special Investigation Units- (January 2002-Schaumberg, IL)

• Auto Theft and Fraud Seminar- American Express Insurance Company- (June, 2001-Greenbay, WI)

• Auto Theft and Fraud Seminar- (May 2001-NCRC- Iowa)

• Auto Theft/Fraud/Vehicle Fires. San Antonio, TX (November, 2000) This seminar was for continuing DOJ Education.
· ATLA- (Trial Lawyers) Steering columns and locks. Indianapolis, IN (June, 2000)

• IAAI (International Association of Arson Investigators-Florida Chapter) Advanced Vehicle Fire and lock investigations. Tallahassee FL. (June, 2000)

• IAIL (International Association of Investigative Locksmiths) Steering columns and locks. Egg Harbor, NJ (May 2000)

• SCLA (South Carolina Locksmiths Association) Steering columns and locks. Columbia, SC (April 2000)

• Baltimore County Regional Auto Theft Team Subject: Auto theft Baltimore, MD (March, 2000)

• Speaker for Daimler Chrysler Corporation Topic: How to increase security in their vehicles. (October 1999}
· Guest speaker at two seminars for AVCAW (Anti-Vehicle Crime Association of Wisconsin) composed of law enforcement and insurance personnel. Topic: “What to look for in auto theft” (October 1995).
• Speaker for IAATI (International Association of Auto Theft Investigators) for 300 law enforcement and insurance personnel on steering columns and locks. (May 1996)
• Speaker for State Farm field damage appraisers on how to detect fraud in an auto theft claim. (July 1996)
• Speaker for the Sentry Insurance claims office in Stevens Point, WI to train adjusters on what to look for in a fraud claim. (Sept. 1996)

Court Cases:
Stropki VS Progressive 11/1999
Ohio State Court-Cleveland, OH
Stropki-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire

Holiday VS Progressive
Oregon State Court-April 2002
Holiday-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire

State of California VS Youngbloode
Los Angeles Criminal Court-11/2002
Youngblood Client– Vehicle theft/ fire

State of New Jersey VS Dente Towing
Newark Criminal Court-5/2003
Dente Towing Client— Vehicle theft

Burnett VS American Ambassador
Dupage County, IL Civil Court 4/2003
Client: American Ambassador Insurance Company– Vehicle theft/ fire

State of New York VS Moray
Westchester County Criminal Court-8/2003
Moray-Client— Vehicle theft

Greines VS Ford Motor Company
Los Angeles Circuit Court-1/2004
Greines-Client— Vehicle theft/transponder

O’Connell VS Arbella Insurance Company
Quincy, MA Circuit Court-4/2004
O’Connell-Client– Vehicle theft

Truchinski VS MetLife
Joliet, IL June 2004
Client: MetLife– Vehicle theft/ fire

Kettina VS State Farm
Chicago, IL May, 2005
Cook County Court
Client: Kettina– Vehicle theft/ fire

Mannian VS CSAA
Superior Court Of California-Fresno, CA June, 2005
Fresno County Court
Client: Mannian– Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

USAF V. Jackson
Edwards AFB-California (July, 2005)
Client-Jackson– Vehicle theft/ fire

State of California (Kern County) VS Yates
Bakersfield, CA (July 2005)
Kern County Court
Yates: Client– Vehicle theft

Sidu VS Farmers
Superior Court of California-Fresno County Court (April 2006)
Client Sidhu— Vehicle theft

Superior Court of California–Santa Clara County (August, 2006)
State VS Diaz
Diaz-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

Federal Court- San Francisco, CA (October, 2006)
Stecz V State Farm
Client: Stecz– Vehicle theft

McCoy VS Progressive Insurance
Superior Court of California (March 2007) Los Angeles, CA
Client: McCoy– Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

Jackson VS MetLife
Arapahoe County, CO 3/2008
Client: MetLife—Vehicle theft/transponder

Issa VS Allstate Insurance
Wayne County, MI 4/2008
Client: Issa—Vehicle theft/transponder

Santos VS Skylands Insurance
Newark, NJ 6/2008
Client: Santos—Vehicle Theft/Transponder

Rosel v. Allstate
Miami, FL 5/2009
Client: Rosel—Vehicle Theft/Transponder/Fire

Pershad v. Unitrin
Miami, FL 5/2009
Client: Pershad—Vehicle Theft/VATS

4/2010–Trial
People v. James
Trial in Carow, MI
Client: James-Vehicle theft/ignition/transponder/fire

5/25/2011

Todd v. Coast Insurance Company
San Bernardino County, California
Client: Todd Theft/anti theft GM Passlock

6/30/2011

Arble v. State Farm
Albuquerque Federal Court
Client: Arble—Consultant turned expert to opine on State Farm’s Expert competency as to methodology on reported stolen recovered burned Chrysler as to last driven.

10/2014

People v Cox
Tucson AZ Superior court-Ford PATS-Unrecovered F 150
Client: Cox

10/2014

People v Rogers
New Bedford, MA Superior court -GM PK III-Burned 2008 Equinox
Client: Rogers

3/2015
Bailey v Grange Insurance Co.-Burned 2008 Enclave
Franklin County of Common Pleas
Columbus, OH
Client: Bailey

6/2016
Maumee Valley Credit Union v Nunn
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas
Toledo, Ohio
Client: Nunn

1/2017
USAF v Otanez
Fairchild AFB Washington State
Tele-testimony from Texas
Client-Otanez

9/2017
Stafford County VA v Vaught
Stafford, VA
Client Vaught

Depositions:
Heady VS State Farm
Louisville Kentucky Federal Court-4/1999
Heady-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire/VATS

Stropki VS Progressive
Ohio State Court-5/1999
Stropki-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire

Thompson VS State Farm
Louisville Kentucky Federal Court-3/2000
Thompson-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire

Baron VS Warrior Insurance Company
Illinois State Court-3/2002
Baron-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire

Mediation Hearing-Truchinski VS MetLife
Illinois State Court-5/2003
MetLife-Client- Vehicle theft/ fire

Greines VS Ford Motor Company
California State Court-1/2004
Greines-Client– Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

O’Connell VS Arbella Insurance Company
Quincy, MA Circuit Court-3/2004
O’Connell-Client- Vehicle theft

Hampton VS State Farm Insurance Company
Kansas City, MO-5/2004
Client: Hampton– Vehicle theft/ fire

Kourosh Sajjadi VS Permanent General Insurance Company
Santa Ana, CA- May 2004
Client: Kourosh Sajjadi – Vehicle theft/transponder

Guiertiez VS CSAA
Fresno, CA June 2004
Client: Guiertiez-Vehicle theft/fire
Guiertiez VS CSAA
Fresno, CA July 2004
Client: Guiertiez
Guiertiez VS CSAA
Fresno, CA August 2004
Client: Guiertiez
Sailsbury/ Davis VS State Farm
Hammond, IN December, 2004
Client: Sailsbury/Davis—Vehicle theft/ fire

State of Iowa VS Turner
Deposition taken over phone when I was in Los Angeles
January, 2005
Client: State of Iowa– Vehicle theft/ fire

Kettina VS State Farm
Chicago, IL April, 2005
Client: Kettina– Vehicle theft/ fire

Mannian VS CSAA
Fresno, CA April, 2005
Client: Mannian– Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

Sidu VS Farmers
Fresno, CA June, 2005
Client: Sihdu— Vehicle theft

Salizar VS Farmers Insurance
Fresno, CA July, 2005
Client: Salizar– Vehicle theft

Ledin VS Mercury Insurance
Tampa, FL August, 2005
Client-Ledin– Vehicle theft/transponder

Turner VS.Sterling Insurance\
Irvine, CA November 2005
Client: Turner- Vehicle theft/ fire

Serenas V. Infinity Insurance
Irvine, CA June, 2006
Client: Serenas– Vehicle theft/ fire

McCoy V. Progressive
Los Angeles, CA November, 2006
Client: McCoy- Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

Nobels V. Ampac Insurance
State of Alabama
March, 2007 in Milwaukee, WI
Client: Nobels– Vehicle theft/transponder

Klajic V, State Farm
State of Indiana
May, 2007
Client: Klajajic– Vehicle theft/ fire/transponder

Issa VS Allstate Insurance
Wayne County MI (Held in Langlade County, WI via telephone)
April 2008
Client: Issa Vehicle theft/transponder

Rosel v. Allstate
Miami, FL 2/2009
Client: Rosel—Vehicle theft/transponder/fire

Nunn v. State Farm
Dallas, TX 8/2009
Client: Nunn Theft/transponder

3/2010
Lawley v.Esurance
Denver case with deposition taken in Dallas, TX
Client: Lawley Vehicle theft/transponder

2/2011
Daranyi v. Liberty Mutual
Atlanta case with deposition taken in Plano, TX
Client: Daranyi Vehicle theft/ignition/transponder/fire

3/2011

Winters v American Ambassador
Chicago, IL case with deposition taken in Dallas,TX
Client: American Ambassador Insurance-Vehicle theft/ignition/transponder

3/2011
Moore v American Ambassador
Chicago, IL case with deposition taken in Dallas, TX
Client: American Ambassador Insurance-Vehicle theft/ignition /VATS

3/31/2011

Abrble v State Farm
Albuquerque, NM Case
Deposition held in Irving, TX
Client: Arble- Fire, theft, transponder

4/2/2012 Johnson v State Farm
Deposition held in Ft Worth, TX -New Orleans Federal case
Client: Johnson-Vehicle theft/transponder/fire

5/2012 Dane v Gieco
Deposition held in Greenville, TX
Las Vegas, Nevada
Client: Dane-Vehicle Theft/ Transponder

7/2012 Smith v Unitrin
Deposition held in Dallas, TX
Tampa Florida case
Client: Unitrin-Vehicle forensics, auto theft, transponder

11/2012 Gerke v Travelers/Valley Forge
Federal case-Portland, OR
Client: Gerke-Ignition, vehicle theft

11/2012 Morros v State Farm
Deposition held in Dallas, TX
Mississippi Federal case
Client: Morros-Vehicle theft, forensics, transponder

01/2015 Bailey v Grange Insurance
Deposition held in Greenville, TX
Ohio state case
Client: Bailey

2/27/2018 Murphy v Progressive
Deposition in Pearland, TX
Texas Case
Client: Murphy

Mediation Deposition:
Taylor VS American Ambassador
Chicago, IL September 2004
Client: American Ambassador—Vehicle theft/fire

Arbitration:
Herrejon VS Progressive Insurance
Portland, OR September 2004
Client: Herrejon– Vehicle theft

Public Service Hearing:
County of Los Angeles VS Clarence Johns-5/2003
Johns-Client— Vehicle theft/ fire

All of this combined with over 17 years of exclusively in the direct repair of over 10,000 theft recovered vehicles, as well as the claims handling makes Rob Painter’s background in ignition systems, transponder systems, vehicle fire and forensics very extensive as it would relate to any reported stolen vehicle.
30 years of examining theft recovered vehicles for insurance companies.

Forensic Locksmithing=Junk Science

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

All too often, insureds are denied on their auto theft claims because of junk science. There are no facts other than speculation by the forensic locksmith masqueraded as fact.

Insurance companies use these independent services because they appear to be valid. At least until some poking around is done by an opposing expert and the truth is exposed. Here you have some “Forensic” (No one even questions the validity of this title) locksmith expert that takes a guess forcing the insured’s claim to be investigated. The forensic locksmith doesn’t care if he is accusing the insured of fraud. The forensic locksmith collects his money and goes on to the next target! For those not aware, most carry $2,000,0000 worth of errors and omissions insurance generally required by the carrier. Lawyers have been hesitant to sue them because it diminishes the claim against the carrier. I say sue them both. The forensic locksmith is an obvious fraud and that can be easily proven. The carrier is conspiring with the forensic locksmith for the purpose of not compensating the insured for the claim. Hmmm…. Wonder if the carrier and their expert can say the catch phrase RICO (You know, racketeering and Corruption). I am not a lawyer, but this might be an interesting route to check into.

Plaintiff and criminal defense attorneys, when you have auto theft denial cases, you are being played because of your ignorance on the subject of last key used. When I say your it can be the reader, a lawyer (both sides, juries and Judges. I am not saying anyone be is stupid. I am saying uninformed. These so called experts are making a mockery of a courtroom in my view.

Of course this all sounds like I am real good at accusing the insurance auto theft experts of fraud with only my opinion. Wrong! I have fact! Key of the proper type is a fraud in itself and does not mean the insured’s key was used last. The only reason it is believed to determine the insured’s key was used last is because people actually believe science was involved to reach this conclusion. It is all a big lie!!!!!

Is the investigator a part of this fraud? I don’t believe so and they care only as good as the information supplied to them. So, the forensic locksmith concludes the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type, it is assumed you he insured was involved 2ith the theft, which launches the investigation on the insured.

The problem being key of the proper type does not have to be the insured’s and many times it’s not.

Who is going to question the he credibility of a Certified Forensic Locksmith? I will by supplying questions to client attorney! That’s when it gets indefenceable and their stupidity and lack of honesty is on display!

If you have a case in which the insured is being accused of having the last key used in an auto theft, you need to contact me immediately! 1-866-490-1673 or 1-903-513-7808 and ask for Rob! I am capable of shutting down 99% of these cases! 25 years court room experience! Insurance defense and these charlatans are scared to death of me and have tried since 2002 to put me out of business along with defense attorneys they have colluded with and I am still here with a vengeance!

If you need to write, my email is robo14@aol.com

Airbag Recall! Many appear to be disregarding This Extremely Important Takata Recall Campaign With The Potential For Injury Or Death!

Tags

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-recalls-defects/takata-airbag-recall-everything-you-need-to-know/

It appears as though, far too many consumers are taking a very life-threatening recall campaign for their vehicle too lightly and are not doing what they need to do. I believe they do not understand the potential risk of injury or death caused by defective Takata air bags.

The steps to confirm that your vehicle is subject of the Takata air bag campaign are extremely simple. Contact me through phone at 1-866-490-1673 or 1-903-513-7808, or you can write me at robo14@aol.com. Supply your VIN (Locations are addressed later). On email, subject line is air bag recall. I will get back to you the same day to determine if your vehicle is affected. It’s a free service to the owner and no charge to you will be incurred. In the event your vehicle is affected by this extremely important recall or any other, I will advise you. If so, contact a local dealership to have them address the recall. Since it is a recall, again, there is no charge to the owner.  

Years ago, Takata issued recalls on their air bags on tens of millions of vehicles. The recalls are not meant for one specific make or model. Just about every vehicle has a Takata air bag.

The reason for the recall and the immediate danger to get the vehicle into the shop to get the recall handled. This is serious! In the event the vehicle is involved on a collision and the air bags deploy, what is happening is shrapnel is coming out with the deployment of the airbag! There is extreme concern for injury or death! This is not one of those recalls to be ignored. There is no charge for the owner to correct this problem.

In my case, I have seen the results of these defective air bags. To illustrate as to how serious this recall is with no exaggeration, picture someone aiming a shot gun at your face and upper torso from a couple feet away! The results are the same!

All you need to do to see if your vehicle is recalled or if recalled and problem has already been repaired is call me at 1-903-513-7808 or email me at robo14@aol.com with subject line air bag recall and supply me with your 17 digit VIN.

Where is the VIN if I don’t have any paperwork with the vehicle’s VIN inscribed on sales, insurance card or registration?

The VIN is located behind the windshield on the driver’s side of the dash. You can see it by being on the outside of the car on the driver’s side and peering into the windshield on the top of the dash.

Another location for the VIN is on a mylar label located on the driver’s door or door jamb which varies from vehicle to vehicle.

Once you supply the VIN, I will get back to you rather quickly to inform you if your vehicle is affected. I do not charge the owner of the vehicle for this information and am happy to supply the public with this information to save injuries and possibly death!

This recall campaign is extremely important! You may now feel too scared to drive the vehicle if affected. Tell these concerns to the dealership and they make arrangements for you to get a car to drive until the recall campaign is successfully is no longer an issue. As stated, this is an air bag safety campaign, which means you do not have to pay anyone to address this problem.

There may be additional recall campaigns that need to be satisfied as well and again at no charge they can be taken care of at the same time.

Other than recalls associated with vehicle fires, I feel this is the most important recall addressing potential injury and death that I have been made aware of and I have been doing vehicle component defect examinations for close to 40 years! Please do not ignore this Takata vehicle air bag campaign.

Other than a little time contacting me and supplying the 17- digit VIN to me, this will give you peace of mind knowing what recalls are open on your vehicle and if it is safe to operate. I have never been a fear monger and extremely careful as to what I tell the public on the safety of their vehicles. In fact, on some not as important I underplay the potential affects. This is not the case in the Takata air bag recall campaign. This product has the potential to injure or kill you and your passengers in the event the vehicle is involved a collision!

There is another related recall campaign on GM vehicles in which the air bags will not deploy. This is about the GM ignition switch recall, in which the ignition lock will go from the on position to off, shutting the engine off and supplying no electrical power to initiate the air bags to deploy in a collision.

The combination of these two recalls in one GM vehicle leaves a kunundrum. Damned if the air bags deploy and damned if they don’t deploy!

©Copyright 2019. Rob Painter with all rights reserved.

Steering Column Rebuilding-The Beginning

I started a business part time in 1981. We rebuilt all columns, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyotas. You name the vehicle. I will go on about theft recoveries in my next article.

1-903-513-7808 Rob

I was working for an Oldsmobile dealer as a Service manager and we were inundated with theft recoveries. I imagined a business that exclusively repaired theft recovered and vandalized vehicles.

I started working in my home garage. I advertised in small neighborhood newspapers.

I then bought the very popular theft deterrent known as the Chicago Collar from the cop that designed it. The Chicago Collar installed at the dealer cost $150.00. I had distributors. In fact, it was so cool-I never had to even use my own money to buy the product! I already had enough distributors and product to pay the cost of buying the product.

GM vehicle until 1994 used the very common Saginaw steering column as did Chrysler. Cadillac and some other GMs incorporated the column after 1994, but the column after 36 years.

To steal a GM with the Saginaw tilt took about 30 seconds for a teenager with a screwdriver. Method of attack was on the left side of the steering column, completely the opposite side of the ignition lock location. The kids in jail taught other kids how to do this as well as how to run with cuffs on. Some gangs would hold training courses at junk yards!

Breaking the column. One method common with the north side of Milwaukee was to break the lower cast shift bowl. The shift bowl was called that because it rotated when you were changing shift positions with the transmission shift lever from Park to Low. On floor shifts, also known as a lower shift bowl. The really cool thing was from 1977 to 1994 all Saginaw steering columns shared most of the same parts. The part number on the shift bowl was only different because of the length of the plastic shroud attached to it. There were 4 locking fingers that attached the shroud to the bowl. We would just squeeze the shroud, remove it and replace with what we needed.

The column parts never had wear issues. Oh, there would be complaints of looseness on the column, especially on trucks with over weigh owner grabbing the steering column to get into the vehicle. Some who did a quick job only tightened the 2 of 4 bolts and it would loosen up again. The bearing housing had to be removed to get to all 4 bolts. I never had a lose column come back I had tightened. Most did not realize a special puller was required to remove the tilt pins in the bearing housing. What made us different from most we never put junk yard steering columns in. Each steering column was rebuilt in the vehicle. This way, we could offer a workmanship warranty on the steering column.

I used to go to a junk yard and order 50 steering columns at a time. The best deal I ever got where they removed them and I paid $5 each. As I said, the internal parts did not wear out and installing an unknown steering column that may be collapsed or loose was out of the question. On a Saturday afternoon or Sunday, we completely disassembled these columns. Paint was removed from the outer components. We painted the columns to match the vehicle with the original factory color.

Many times when the thief did not get the lock plate disengaged for the steering wheel, the splines on the upper shaft and broaches in the lock plate would strip. Dealer cost on the upper shaft was $200.00 Well, I had 300 shafts, lock plates for tilt and tele, tilt and non-tilt in stock at all times. The plastic horn/tsignal cancel cam would also break. I had about 200 of them in stock as well.

The dealer could not compete with us! We were rebuilding columns for body shops too! We got so good at rebuilding steering columns that we would have contests. I did one blindfolded with the tools and parts laid out on my snap on cart in 45 minutes! Without a blind fold Mike and I could rebuild a steering column in 30 minutes. A job that paid 5.0 hours plus paint time of .5.

I would or my wife at the time Kathie went to the police department every day to what we called the theft list from the night before. We would send a flyer offering victims a free Chicago Collar with every repair. The Chicago Collar was 2 pieces of stainless that went on top of the lower bowl to reinforce it. It was visible, attached with stainless rivet and when we went a little farter and installing a hidden ignition interrupt, we had attempt theft, but no one got the vehicle.

The left side of the column was vulnerable. Without the collar, as I said, the locking mechanisms could be defeated in as little as 30 seconds. The control locking the transmission shifter was located there. The Rack as it was called had a loop that looked like a D which cops called the D ring controlled the locking of the steering wheel and ability to start the engine. The rod for starting the engine inside the circle of the D. The thief would break the soft metal D and it would drop to the floor. Then he would take the screwdriver and hit the remains upward towards the steering wheel, bouncing the spring of the geared plastic sector. The steering wheel was no unlocked. To start the engine on a broken tilt column was to pull on the ignition rod and engine would start and vehicle could be driven with no keys or damage to the ignition lock!

There were times they accidently engaged the brights and did not know how to turn on low beam. That is how some thieves got caught because of the bright lights.

How Did They Break Into The Vehicle?

There were many ways kids would break into cars. There were some that they would literally rip the door lock from the outside door panel. They also commonly broke the vent glass in the rear, reach their arm in and unlock the door.

They also used wedges to pry the door and stick a rod in the car and press the unlock button. Slim Jims were common. A straight think piece of metal that had a couple cut out that slid between the door glass and the door which could manipulate the door lock linkage and unlock the door.

Try out keys in the outer lock were used as well. I never saw evidence that a vehicle door lock was ever picked.

The second way to defeat the Saginaw steering column was used on the south side of Milwaukee in the Hispanic area was a different theft method.

The left side upper housing in close proximity of the dimmer/wiper switch was attacked. The left side of the lower bowl was not touched. The sector spring was ripped off, the geared sector was slipped off. The steering wheel lock was just released. The geared end of the D ring or rack had teeth on it and all one had to do was place the screwdriver on the geared portion and pull. This started the engine and the transmission could be put in gear.

© Copyright 2019. Rob Painter. All Rights Reserved.

The Thrill Of The Chase

People have asked what keeps me interested in automotive forensics after 25 years. I tell them it is the thrill of the chase. Insurance investigators, Fire investigators, Cops, Engineers understand this all too well.

Every situation whether it is a vehicle crash, a theft, a vehicle fire, a potential defect have one thing in common. That is the huge question of what happened? What happened to cause the current question.

The thrill of the chase is when one finds the undisputed answer as to what exactly happened preceeding the event. Let’s take the Dodge Ram that was known for dash fires at the instrument panel. The first one I ran across was a full burn out, but I found exactly where the wires arced which would have been consistent with the instrument panel. To the layman, this vehicle was totally destroyed by fire and yet the answer was found as to the origin and cause of the fire.

What was really cool was that a couple months later, I was assigned to do an O&C on another Dodge Ram of the same make and model. The difference was that the windows were closed and the fire was starved of oxygen and self-suppressed. Everything was intact except for one gauge package on the instrument panel. The origin was exactly in the same place as the total burned, which sealed the deal! There was no question as to where the fire initiated and the reason was the same arced wires. This situation was so prevalent Chrysler had a stop build and transport orders. These vehicles were burning up on the trains! Chrysler managed to get the issue taken care of, but this is the thrill of the chase when you can answer with full certainty that the reason for the fire was because of a theory and that theory was found t be accurate!

GM Fuel Line fires under the hood. This was a common scenario in which, the main pressurized fuel line would rupture and spill fuel on ignition sources such as a hot exhaust manifold, puddle and ignite the plastics in the area. The plastic fuel lines would decompose and turn brittle. Any movement directly or indirectly would cause the line to fracture. If there was a tune up performed and the tech had his hand on the plastic line it could rupture. One Aurora had an engine mount changed and just by moving the engine around caused this calamity.

Just on the 1997 Olds Aurora there were over 100 consumer complaints of under hood fires and never a recall issued. Complaints of a fire that would go out when the ignition was turned off. The reason was that the fuel pump was no longer powered.

Finding this event to be true was another thrill of the chase moments.

Ford had claimed their first generation PATS transponder system made the statement that such equipped vehicle was virtually unstealable. Dealer techs, locksmiths all stated the system could not be beat. I studied the wiring schematics and had a theory. Ford used a very common Bosche relay controlling the system. I came up with theories as to how to bypass the relay by taking terminals 87 and 30 putting a wire across them. The end result by me thinking like a thief was that I had successfully bypassed the system. My bypass was applied by others and worked on every Ford SUV and truck! This was definitely a thrill of the chase moment!

I had a Chev Truck with a fatality crash. The air bags did not deploy and there was no obvious reason they didn’t. We checked the air bag system. No faults. I had to drive to the Tennessee mountains to find the answer to what happen. After recreating the event with a like kind truck, I found the answer. This vehicle only had one recall for the Takata air bags exploding and sending missiles into the occupants. There were a couple consumer complaints where the air bags did not deploy, but the number was not significant.

I thought about a recall I had been involved in, but this truck was not recalled for a faulty ignition switch. However it had the same ignition and style of key of the recall. I then took into consideration as to the terrain the truck passed through before crashing. Everything was consistent with the recall. If the vehicle hit a bump, the ignition could rock back to off and shut the engine off and air bags would not deploy. This vehicle crossed a median and approached the step up of the black top of the entrance ramp it crossed causing the truck to launch with the wheels at least 41″ above the pavement to clear the guardrail and hitting a bunch of trees on at least a 6% grade until it landed where it was found. Weather was considered, pavement conditions at 3 am with a 25 mph warning on the ramp with a hair pin curve.

When all was said and done, everything matched the on site crash investigator’s report a couple years previous. I generated a report for the estate to consider a case against GM for the ignition recall.

That is why I do what I do. Not always are answers to questions so stark, but finding the answer is an emotional high! That is the thrill of the chase!

c Copyright 2019. Rob Painter. All rights reserved.

Rob Painter

robo14@aol.com

http://www.autotheftclaimsmaster.me

1-866-490-1673

1-903-513-7808 cell

Forensic Deception Applied To Stolen Vehicles

Tags

, , , ,

Rob Painter

1-866-490-1673
Cell 1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com

I am going to address the industry of forensic locksmithing as applied to reported stolen vehicles to determine how the vehicle was last driven.

I can state in my opinion over the last decade, this industry has been a total fraud, a Con, a Scam. The industry is used as a third party investigation tool to accuse the insured of involvement of a bogus theft claim. This has devastated insureds financially, reputations destroyed as well when prosecuted, conviction rates are very high.

Someone could argue that my opinion is just sour grapes and that I have no facts to support my opinions. That my examination methods are secret and are what should be applied. The opposing lawyers try everything possible to attack me to diminish anything I say.

Well, here it is, my opinion about this fraudulent industry is one thing, it is quite another to be supported by fact and that it is.

Forensic locksmithing in its current state thrives on ignorance. The less one knows about auto theft and how forensics is supposed to play a role, the better it is for the expert using a bogus forensic title.

It is meant to be perceived that being self taught in forensics, that the examination processes I use are strictly subjective and that I am wrong and everyone in the industry is right. The truth of the matter is that my forensic methodology is built on a nationally accepted guide, which in courts is commonly used as the standard to fire investigation, the NFPA 921. I have taken the information from there and applied it to any type of vehicle examination I am doing. This can be for the origin and cause of a vehicle fire. A potential defect that may prompt a recall, and of course vehicle thefts.

How can you use methods applied in fire investigation and relate them to a theft? The subject matter may be different, but the principles are the same.

I apply what I know about theft and use those principals. Using the scientific method, everything is required to be scientifically verifiable. To be scientifically verifiable, another examiner should be able to apply the same principles, examine the same evidence and reach the exact same conclusion.

The first problem I run into opposing one of these experts commonly, evidence such as the ignition lock was never removed or retained. First, that means they never disassembled the ignition lock to determine if there were identifiable marks in the tumblers that could be traced back to a specific key.

Since there was no evidence retained and the vehicle was disposed of, how can someone replicate the examination? The examination obviously can’t be replicated. The conclusion however is a one size fits all and will blend in with any examination. It does not specify the recent use of a specific key, but instead the use of any key. The conclusion is ready made for any report and assumed to be the insured’s key was last used. The conclusion is the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type. This encompasses any key, the insureds first key, second key, and in the case of a used car, an unaccounted for key. It can be a thief’s key. This conclusion covers it all and everything else in the report is all fluff.

To demonstrate this farther, a vehicle does not even need to be recovered and the physical evidence examined. There are “forensic” reports written on vehicles that were never recovered and the conclusion of proper key fits perfectly! This is what we are dealing with folks! Deception that controls the destiny on an insured’s life!

Insurance defense attorneys are good at twisting fact to defend their client. After all the defense of their client is their job, but they take it to the extreme. I am going to lay out real statements made by experts to support their stance of insured involvement. To the novice, it sounds like there is a good reason of motive on the part of the insured. As I address further, you will see pure speculation serving as fact by the expert. The defense gets mad at me because I rain on their parade, but all I want to see is fact and truth. Both of which, I don’t seem to find in any forensic report I review on reported stolen vehicles.

Let’s start with a Texas case. The names won’t be mentioned to protect the guilty. (Insurance company and expert)

We start with a reported stolen 2 wheel drive Dodge Ram. The expert examines the vehicle. This vehicle was equipped with what is known as a POD key. The ignition has no wafers (tumblers) and the only reason for the key blade being attached to the key fob is if battery power is lost, the key can be inserted into the driver’s door lock to unlock the door. Other key’s used for this vehicle, are just a plastic key fob. The plastic key fob is inserted into the ignition socket in the dash.

There are also after market kits in which one can install a simple start button and the key fob sits in a pocket or purse.

It is very interesting as to how the expert plays mind reader into the un-caught thief’s mind as to why he did or did not do something. Yet, this is done all the time by these experts and the statements made by the experts are treated as fact. After all they are forensic, which must make them clarevoyent as well! They are the experts, how dare you dare question them?

From the way the report was written, I was bias towards the client the insurance carrier, where only facts should have been addressed without the commentary diluting the facts.

This vehicle was recovered what I would call stripped. The engine and components associated with it including the computer, radiator and transmission were all missing. All wheels and tires on this dually had been switched except for the left front. The flat bed and additional fuel tank were missing.

The ignition socket was broken. With the socket being broken, it could no longer incorporate a key fob. This damage was considered by the expert to be caused by the insured attempting to make the ignition look like it was defeated. In other words a staged theft. It is possible that this vehicle was subject of a staged theft, but it is also possible it wasn’t. The expert in his report assumed it was staged without having any evidence to confirm or deny.

He then attempted to get the mileage to te vehicle, but could not get the ignition in the on position. Instead, he used the oil change sticker that was about a year old.

He then went on as to how the engine in this type of truck was problematic and known for failure. To summarize the report, the ignition was damaged, and truck probably had bad engine, which had been removed to simulate a theft.

There were major issues in this assumption being treated as fact by the expert and defense attorney.

#1 How does the expert prove another key fob was not made for this vehicle? He had already established the vehicle had been force entered. He did the major mistake that most experts do. He relied on factory supplied information that does not take into consideration the after market. When I say after market, I am referring to locksmiths and thieves making keys to these vehicles using after market key programmers. This expert cannot prove one way or the other as to how this vehicle was last driven. The computer was not present to interrogate.

We don’t know why he ignition was damaged. Was it just an act of vandalism? No one knows, but the expert went far from his expertise assuming the damage was done by the insured to make it look like this was a theft.

The expert went on to say that the type of diesel that was in this truck was known for failure. To assume that this engine was bad and removed from the vehicle to make a false claim is ludicrous. The transmission was missing too! Whoever removed the engine was not a hack, pure professional! Wiring harnesses disconnected and not cut. If smart enough to remove the engine, would not have een stupid enough to damage the ignition to make it look like theft. I even asked if the insured had a mechanical background and was told he did not.

This truck could have been towed in seconds! Working for a repo company recently, it is conceivable to pick this truck up from the rear and be gone in 20 seconds! Did the expert consider towing or the use of a reprogrammed key fob? No!

He looked at this truck as a fraudulent claim. He supplied his report which initiated the investigation which led to the denial of the claim.

Was the expert aware of the condition of the engine from this truck? Of course not! It wasn’t present to examine. The narrative made was that someone went to extensive work to remove the engine and transmission because the engine was bad and then not knowing how to start the truck without the key fob destroyed the ignition. This is all conjecture on the part of the expert, but was used as fact in the investigation of the claim by the investigator. The investigator is only as good as the information with a slant the expert supplies.

We all know insurance companies are going to use experts that will write favorable reports for them. The problem is that these forensic exams are subjective and we are just supposed to take the expert’s word for it. Why? Why are we dealing with un-based opinion and masquerading the conclusion as fact without the supposition?

Here is an example used in a criminal case. You know, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Vehicle: Reported stolen Chev Equinox recovered burned.

The prosecutions case was built on the forensic expert’s statement that the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type.

Expert states that appeared as though someone had been to the vehicle before him and the burn debris that had fallen to the driver’s floor appeared to be displaced. Consistent with someone digging through the burn debris.

Expert could not find the ignition lock or any remains of it. He had found a dent puller with a broken screw attached on the driver’s floor. His factual statement (sarcasm) was he did not locate the ignition, but if he would have found the ignition, it may have had the broken screw piece May have been in the keyway.

The expert also stated that the vehicle was equipped with the PK III transponder system, in which his company was not aware of this system being defeated.

In court when I testified, I demonstrated 5 different ways the vehicle could be stolen without the use of the insured’s keys. Because the vehicle was destroyed by fire, not one of those methods could be ruled out with forensics, and in this case, the ignition was not located. The fire damage took away any possibilities of determining if the PK III had been bypassed. The expert made appear as fact that because his company never saw te system bypassed it must not have never happened. That statement just demonstrated how ignorant he and his company were on the bypass of that system. Its been in use since 1997 and many know how to bypass the system.

In essence the facts to this case are is that the vehicle was reported stolen, recovered burned. As to how it was last driven the conclusion would be inconclusive due to lack of evidence.

Not only did the insured get denied on his theft claim, but he was left paying out thousands of dollars on a defense attorney and for my expert consultation. All because this expert wanted to look like a hero to the insurance company and prosecution!

Unfortunately, just about every report I review frm these insurance experts is the same ole’ assumption that is portrayed as fact.

Evidence Gathering On A Reported Stolen Vehicle To Determine How It Was Last Driven.

Unfortunately, I have seen some absolutely horrid evidence Gathering, lack of retention, destruction of physical evidence by the opposing self-proclaimed “forensic” experts I have opposed.

This is not to say incorrect decisions were made as to removal and a better way could have been applied. That happens sometimes and could be a teaching experience.

Where I have seen the real problem in my view is criminal cases. This could be extremely devestating to the defendant, and how can the attorney defend against it in these sham Certified Forensic Locksmith Conclusions.

Since the attorneys on both sides know nothing about theft methodology and how forensics is applied, they are just left with the assumption the expert is using a forensic title, it must be a valid discipline. That simply is not true the way it has been applied.

Be Careful Listening To The Badge On Vehicle Security!

Tags

https://gnd.com/why-authorities-warn-you-should-always-keep-your-keys-wrapped-in-foil.php?aff=1713&pclickid=7391893e-cbfd-42cd-92ac-cbc620121310#

This fantasy is from law enforcement wanting people to believe how smart cops are at vehicle security. This article gives completely false information.

There are two systems. One for the locking and unlocking of the doors and to set or disarm the alarm.

The second system is a transponder anti theft system involving a computer chip in the ignition key or start button.

I can beat either, but covering your keys in foil will not protect you at all. This is another urban legend probably told as a lie from a thief that the cop bit hook line and sinker on!

As far as vehicle security to prevent someone from getting inside, there is none. Most of these systems have not been updated since the late 90s and the rolling codes that prevented getting into a vehicle back then, no longer stop a thief. He can program his own remote to get into most vehicles today. However, they are not starting them!

The problem in my view is cops are curious. They generally don’t believe anything unless from a criminal. Weird huh?

Don’t waste your time here! It’s stupid and untrue.

SIU Investigation, EUO Consultant

Tags

, ,

Auto Theft Claims Master

Rob Painter

1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com

Initial contact is free of charge in order be to understand your situation

Of course everything we discuss is always confidential!

I apologize if there is redundant information on other pages, but I am revising about 6 different websites with lots of different information, and I will edit when I have the time. I believe that I have addressed immediate concerns so you can understand your situation.

This will be geared to auto theft claims, but I consult on all personal property claims such as renters, homeowners, and boat claims. I have also been involved in commercial business claims with successful outcomes. I average a 90 to 95% success rate in which the claims are settled with my intervention.

One might think with this success, I have an insurance sales or underwriting background. No, I do not have such experience.

Some might think I have some type of legal background. That would be correct, but not in the stadardized way like being a lawyer or a paralegal.

My experience has come the hard way serving as an expert witness giving hundreds and hundreds of hours of sworn testimoñy combined with the fact that I have been involved in every area of auto theft investigations for over 20 years working with Special Investigation Units across the country for just about any auto insurer out there.

I have learned a lot which I exploit for my client and I have taught these investigators for years.

I have formed great relationships with many of these people. Of course there are some who hate me, because I may destroy their case  they were building for denial.

When an insured suffers a loss on the beginning there is very little concern. After all, they have insurance, there should be a few questions about the theft event, but now it’s time to pay up with in 30 days!

Yeah, that was the good ole days, but it is not like that anymore.

When you submit your claim you will be required to give a recorded statement. This will be basic information about the theft and details surrounding it. They want accountability for all keys. Who else uses the vehicle? Any enemies? Any broken glass at the theft scene? Did the vehicle have an alarm? II highly suggest that you listen to the question well before answering. It simply does not look good for you to have to go back and change your answers.

I realize you may be in shock because someone iñvaded you personal space by stealing your property. Most people do not understand the emotions that pop up in these situations 7nless they have been in the same situation at one time in thier lives.

For example: you tell the claims rep that the car was parked at 6 pm. You went back to the car at 7 pm and you found it was no longer there. You speak with the friends you met that day and although the meeting was at 6, you were an hour late and did not arrive until 7 pm. This means your time line is totally off and an investigator will find out. Instead if correcting that answer that the insurance will look at as a misrepresentation of material fact, confirm with witnesses or friends what time the vehicle was stolen.

These investigations are not to find out who stol3 the vehicle! You need to be aware, this is an insurance fraud investigation and you are the target!

The first knee-jerk reaction is to retain an attorney. That is the last thing you would ever want to do in an SIU Investigation. This situation does not merit an attorney because it takes the Investigation to a snail’s pace. Now you can no longer have the option to speak with the investigator. Everything has to go through the attorney. Anyone that deals with attorneys know they are difficult to contact.

Another down side of using an attorney is a huge majority know less than you about auto theft claims protocol, putting you in the position of paying to train them! Auto theft claims are much different than personal injury or slip and fall. They require a specialist like me that has 28 years experience in these claims.

If you hire me to consult you through this witch Hunt, I make this so less a burden on your shoulders and chances of getting the claim settled go up exponentially, because thier ultimate goal is to deny the claim. This would be denied by the investigator, but just follow the money.

Who pays the investigator to investigate? The insurance carrier! If all claims are paid, what is the sense of paying the investigator?

You were probably denied because of the vehicle you drive. Most vehicles equipped with an anti-theft transponder are deemed unstealable by the insurance companies. This is due to the free training they get from their forensic experts.

There are major problems on that front that I will go into.

Basically, they are not a w-2 employee of the insurance company and are termed independent.

These experts have the audacity to accuse the insured of fraud!

You really can’t blame the investigator or the company. They don’t know you and you could certainly we’ll be submitting a false claim. That happens a lot!

It’s not always professional crooks submitting false claims.

It could be a neighbor that fell on hard times, possibly losing his job, owing more than the car is worth (under water), or maybe the wife went through an emergency operation. Bottom line, whatever the reason, here they are trying to illicitly collect that claim money. Although I feel bad for whatever financial situation they got themselves into, it is still a criminal act and I feel they should be prosecuted.

I have seen juries over look the crime andinsert emotion into their verdict in these hardship situations and that is something no one has control of.

There are also the professional scammers submitting bogus claims or at the very least ripped off the buyer of the car and when he submitted a theft claim after owning it for 3 years turned out to be an inadvertantly fraudulent clam.

My urpose here is not to attack the companies for investigating claims. Without the investigators, none of us would be able to afford comprehensive insurance. Before I go on as to the consulting, I want to put in context what these investigators deal with day in and day out, and you will realize the investigation is nothing personal, but some investigators get overzealous and in many cases, they were deliberately deceptive information by thier so-called “forensic” experts who’s reports are responsible for the subsequent investigation and potential denial of the claim. I assure you, this is not an accident or a simple mistake. These experts know the investigator is totally reliant on their bogus conclusions and they figure they will have opposition. When I have cases opposing them .as an expert, I slice and dice this clowns and illistrate to a Jury thier misrepresentations.

As the insured being investigated, it may be because the forensic expert inferred you are a liar and the car was last driven with one of your keys, even though it wasn’t. What? The investigator is supposed to believe you over their hand picked indepemdent forensic experts? Good luck on that!

Insurance Investigations

Some quick context of what investigators are up against:

10 years prior to a theft claim, a guy got a really good deal on a Ferrari. He purportedly paid $50k for a car valued over $100k at the time. I don’t know about you, but I would be thinking this deal is too good to be true and I would have ran away as fast as possible, but that is me.

In defense of the owner to justify this price was that the car did have a salvage/rebuilt title devaluing the vehicle by 35% do at that rate the vehicle was worth about $65k retail.$15k is one heck of a mark down. Something wasn’t right. The owner told me that the guy was his friend and was a dealer buying cars from the auctions all the time. In fact, he had what he thought to be receipts for the replacement parts to rebuild the car.

Fast forward 10 years. The buddy he bought the car from had died 5 years previous. The Ferarri got stolen. The car can had been insured for 10 years by the same major carrier. The car was not recovered, however the investigator reached out to their forensic experts to author a report about how the car was possible to steal because of it’s sophisticated anti-theft transponder system requiring the owner’s key to start the engine.

In case you did not realize it, these experts implicated owner’s involvement in the theft of the vehicle. They inspected absolutely no physical evidence and went solely off the description and operation theory about the design of the system in a service manual. The fact (assumption) was that the vehicle was driven at the time of the Theft. Towing could not even be eliminated, yet here the Certified Forensic Locksmith as an agent (subcontractor vendor) is accusing the insured of a crime with absolutely no physical evidence to support the accusation! Unfortunately, this happens Nationwide far too often. Unopposed, the insured’s lawyer would not know how to refuted the expert. Who would the jury believe? The Certified Forensic locksmith of course, because the jury would put this expert in a professional catagory because of the self-described term forensics in his title. Many members of juries from what I have been told are fascinated by TV shows like Forensic Files iles and CSI and put these experts in that real life TV catagory. Unfortunately, I have run into far too many incompetent attorneys confused by it all without thinking of the basics! The rreport and conclusions should be thrown out of court automatically because they are giving testimony on physical evidence they never viewed! Duh!This blows past attorneys all the time. Instead, they are more concerned about if that anti-theft system can be defeated. Of course it can, but what is the point? You are feeding into their bull crap that they actually we’re testifying on evidence they never had! Yeah, and these attorneys are not ashamed to charge lots of bucks for their idiocy!

This insured was dragged through an investigation because of these moron forensic experts because of a potential fraud claim that did not happen.

A day before the examination under oath, the insured called me back very concerned. I asked him what the problem was. He noticed the title for the Ferrari was a duplicate. 10 years he had to look at the title and the day before the EUO he tells me the title is a duplicate! Now, could be the original salvage got lost and a duplicate was issued. It could be there was a lien on the salvage title and someone “washed it” with a duplicate. At any rate it was a problem. We also don’t know when it happened through which state. The car was bought in Illinois but he had it registered in Florida where he moved to and his dead buddy had handled all of the paperwork.

I had spent 4 hours on the phone with him scripting him as to how to honestly answer all the questions. I gave him questions he never saw coming so he was fully prepared. I told him just like all my clients, my phone is open for any hicups during the EUO, take a break and call me if you have a problem question. And last but not least, call me after the EUO immediately in case we have to clarify something.

Well, I hadn’t heard from him. I don’t know how many times I tried to reach him, but on the fourth day, he called me!

I asked him what happened, everything should have gone very smooth. I had him covered to attack the forensic report and by all my work, the claim should have been paid.

He told me he went out and got drunk for 3 days.

I didn’t get it until he told me what went down. He told me the Insurance company told him if he admitted today that the car was Ferrari was stolen they would not press charges for receing stolen property. He did so accordingly.

Had he called me during the EUO, I would have told him what to say and do and chances are results would have been much more favorable to him. After all the carrier could have checked this out 10 years ago but didn’t and for 10 years had their hands out for the premium every year. In my view the insurce carrier aided and abetted in the posession of the stolen peoperty at the very least! Anyway, that is a claim that went wrong for everyone involved. At least the insurance company did not have to pay. The vehicle was never recovered. The insured didn’t have to contest the denial and get stuck with an incompetent attorney not having to cross examine the expert on their report based on no physical evidence.

The weirdest thing was the insured suspected forany reasons he told me afterward he had bought a stolen Ferrari. I sure don’t have $50k to throw away, but evidently the insured did. That consultant claim is one out of 4 that did not get to as planned. Over 10 years, I have hundreds and hundreds of claims with  I succesfully consulted in. Claims the insurance company had altready hadthe claim scheduled for denial. The problem here was not me but information the insured did not tell me about.

The Cloned Car That Was A Ghost

A cloned car does not exist and in merely a mirage.

In this case I was serving as an expert witness.

The insured bought the car from a Florida dealer. The vehicle was .Corverte.  it was being transported from NYC to Florida. The Vette had a NY title.

Because being from out of state, the vehicle required inspection. Vehicle was recorded as being inspected in Florida. Tirle was transferred from New York to Florida and car was registered and insured to the owner. He took photos of the Vette. The outside was green and interior was black.

The insured evidently enjoyed driving this car for 3 years. It was stolen from his driveway one night.

He did everything right. He reported the theft the cops. He submitted a claim to his insurer. He went over a no f above quizzing neighbors if they heard it saw anything coming from his driveway. No one saw or heard anything.

Since this vehicle was equipped with an anti-theft transponder Systems, it drew scrutiny because these vehicles according to insurance investigators can’t be stolen without the use of the owner’s key. The insured, because of the transponder was now under investigation.

NICB was now involved (National Insurance Crime Bureau) because a national check of the VIN was listed in Iowa.

NICB went to Iowa to check on this. They interviewed the owner who had bought the car new. He was asked if the car had been to New York? He said no. Has the car been out of state. He confirmed it had been to Illinois for car show. NICB took photos of the car, which happened to be the same colors the insured had in his photos.

He was asked if he ever had the car for sale on Craigslist list or anywhere else? His answer was no.

Next, the NICB attempted to contact the seller in New York finding the phone number was not valid anymore  They went to the address you seller had listed. That was a vacant block where houses no longer on the road.

They contacted New York Department of motor vehicle and gave them their summary about the Vette

Vehicle Anti Theft Systems

Tags

,

For years we have been told vehicles with transponders are impossible to steal.

After all, a replacement key if you lose yours could run you $1,000 or more at a dealer!

The dealer is the worst place to send your car for this service.

Consider contacting a local locksmith. The prices are much lower, you are getting the same keys and the best thing is the locksmith comes to you and you don’t need to have the car towed to a dealer!

None of these factory installed anti theft systems are even designed to prevent theft! Yet they are they have names like immobilizer, passive anti-theft system, Vehicle Anti-Theft System and names accordingly. Go figure!

On the first generation Ford transponder system, it was marketed as being a system as being “virtually” unstealable. That is how it was known by locksmiths and every Ford dealer mechanic. All that held true until Rob Painter took a case against Ford in Los Angeles (published on web-Emily Greines v Ford). I studied the wiring schematics and designed a theory. I applied my theory using one wire to bypass the system under the hood . I supplied my process to my peers and consensus was that applied bypass worked Everytime.

These systems are antiquated by up to 3 years when the vehicle is sold new.

There is another major problem. If one can steal a Chevy, he can steal all GM vehicles. The same applies to most car makers.

The cost of key programmers has gone down from thousands to hundreds! All available on the web to anyone with the cash!

China makes knock off versions of the $15,000 T-Code and the price is in the hundreds! Granted, it won’t make all the programmed keys the T-Code will, but it does pretty good.

In 2012 I had an AK 400 programmer I purchased from China directly for $350. That machine could program a BMW remote smart key in 60 seconds! That means if I were a thief, I could have the car in 60 seconds!

The first thing the imvestigator would think is the owner had to be involved in the theft claim! This happens far too often across the country and the vehicles aren’t recovered. The investigator will take the keys to  dealer and have the dates and mileage read for that gotcha moment. That’s all fine and good, but you don’t have the car to compare the mileage and dates on. If I progrsmmed my key for it, the factory keys will no longer work. Thete are so many open questions that must be answered, but can’t be without the vehicle. Yet, insured’s claims are denied with the assistance of the BMW dealer.

This is the same company prior to the smart key around 2005 and prior was nice enough to I a plastic transponder key in the glove box inside the owners manual. Few were aware of this, but thieves were! Thanks for that fine thinking BMW!

These emergency keys easily broke and I don’t know how many I recovered that I had to fish what was left of a broken plastic key in the ignition.

I will be adding much more to this blog.

Please feel free to comment.

Contact is robo14@aol.com

866-490-1673

903-513-7808

Copyright 2018. Rob Painter all rights reserved.

The Professional Certified Forensic Locksmith

Tags

, , , , , , ,

When a court designated expert witness testifies, we assume he is a professional and supports his oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Being an expert witness also shows character. If the character is flawed, chances are his testimony is as well. For the time being, I am going to withhold his name, but if if someone writes me at robo14@aol.com, I will send them documented fact.

These attempts to destroy me personally and professionally are not to be taken lightly. These events are extremely serious and cost me clients all because he was a sore loser in court multiple times.

This all goes back to a court martial I was representing the defense in. The case was USAF v SSgt Jackson.

The vehicle was a reports stole and recovered seriously destroyed by fire.

These cases are different from civillian trials in which the experts are not sequestered. In this case, I was second chair with the attorney. My job in court was to listen to the opposing expert and supply questions for the attorney as the expert was being challenged.

Of course, I also got to serve as a consultant then as an expert witness.

In the beginning, after reviewing t e file and the expert’s report, arrangements were made for us to go to the expert’s shop and review the evidence gathered from the vehicle. This was the beginning of what started this guy’s personal hatred of me.

We got to his shop and the expert’s wife I believe handed me the evidence from the vehicle. There was a sheet of cardboard with burned debris attached with scotch tape!

The remains of the severely fire damaged ignition lock wafers (tumblers) were present. There were two wafers distorted and broken. The wafers still had the burned carbon still attached and were never cleaned to observe fresh tool marks and wear. The additional wafers were damaged from heat in different ways. They had no evidenctuary value. Other burned ignition components were also on this cardboard. I noticed however the retaining strap holding the ignition lock was not present. I didn’t know if it had been destroyed in the fire if it was cast iron, or if it was steel and just not recovered.

I spent around 5 minutes looking at this so-called evidence and handed it back to the woman and we left.

When the expert found I spent only 5 minutes looking at the junk he called evidence, it is my understanding he wa beyond angry!

A couple days later, I went to a Mitshubishi dealer and found the strap I was looking for was not steal, but cast iron and would have been destroyed by fire. I knew this, but the expert didn’t!

In trial, we demanded to know where that strap was. The expert was forced to buy a brand new ignition lock assembly costing him over $200 out of his own pocket, just so he could determine what happened to the strap, which the attorney and I already knew it was destroyed by the fire. The point was, the expert should have known! He was pretty unhappy about that too!

During his testimony, he attempted to prove he was a trained fire expert from a forensic organization. I made him walk this back because I was a member of that organization and they never offered fire training. I should have just let him perjure himself.

This industry is filled with crybabies that act like school girls. I want it understood this is not a bitch session. If these goofs have pulled this on me, it’s obvious they pull their crap on insureds.

Later during the case, the prosecution wanted to talk to me and find out what I would testify to. I had no secrets. I showed the prosecutor my transponder key programmer and told him I would be showing the jury the equipment. The expert was in the room as well. I asked him, why don’t you use a machine like this to determine the number of keys programmed for the vehicle? I guess he didn’t like my question and ignored me.

Now, this expert had no problem testifying that all thieves do not want to spend the $5,000-$6,000 on a key programmer. Interesting he woild say all thieves with authority because there is no way he could interview all thieves in the world! What a moron!

When I was on the stand, I was asked if t he expert’s statements about all thieves was accurate? Of course I said no, and it is assumed a thief would but a key programmer. What do tjhievs do? They steal. So who is to say they didn’t steal a key programmer? My past experience working in a Dodge dealer, we had a programmer stolen once a month.

As the prosecutor was badgering me on the stand, I reached into my computer bag and held my key programmer out and said one of these?

The prosecution objected, but it was too late!

The expert and the prosecution tried to deceive the jury as well.

They made it sound like all this money spent was just to program keys for the subject vehicle, which would be a lie.

The programmer I had could program keys for hundreds of makes and models. Not just for the subject vehicle.

After losing that case and having to shell oit $250 for an ignition he was stuck with pissed him off in a grudge that still lasts today. When I address all of the things he did to destroy me and my ex-wife, yoi will find he is no hero and we really have to wonder how many times he has lied in court!

The Saga continues!

Vehicle Fire Causation

Tags

, , , ,

I am going to address some forensic fire evaluations I have been involved in. You should find them interesting because no matter how you slice it, the conclusions are beyond question.

There are structure fires, forest fires and car fires. No, a fire is not just a fire! Vehicle fires are by themselves.

Corvette C-6

Facts surrounding the fire: Fire self suppressed because it was covered with a heavy car cover (thick insulated blanket). Engine started and fuel filler door button accidently pushed. It is possible that because cover was on vehicle there was too much resistance in the filler door opening, but no matter what it illustrated a dangerous design issue. In the left rear quarter were two foam insulator bags wrapped in polyethylene (extremely flammable) plastic bags. All this designed on a poly carbon Corvette body. Fuel filler door made of steel. Wiring and opening actuator mounted directly above the insulator/ sound deadener bags.

The fire marshall that examined the fire could not reach a conclusion.

The origin of this fire was at the filler door area. Flames were venting from this area melting the 1/4 panel in the area.

Research on consumer complaints turned up complaints of filler door sticking and binding through auto service bulletins.

Service manual cited extreme warnings of heat or direct flame being anywhere near the foam bags.

More later……..

Copyright 2019. Rob Painter. All rights reserved.

Evidence Retention For The Self-Described Auto Theft Experts Out There

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Lesson of the Day-Evidence and Evidence Retention for Chain of Custody

Unfortunately, the field of Forensic locksmithing is rife with incompetence.
Why is this important to you? There are many reasons and they will be outlined in this post. In fact, this could make a substantial difference in your life if you are the unfortunate victim of an auto theft.
Insurance investigators have been taught (wrongly) that today’s vehicles with anti-theft transponder systems are impossible to steal without the owner’s key.
You vehicle is stolen, and you inform your insurance company. Immediately, from the time of the report, they are not going to investigate the matter as a theft, but as a fraud!
You will go through the investigation stage figuring that since you had nothing to do with the theft, they eventually will settle the claim. You would be wrong! You also assume as long as you are honest through the questions and into the examination under oath or recorded statement, everything will be fine. Again, you would be wrong!
In the begining from the time the vehicle is recovered if recovered, the investigator uses the vendor list and seeks out what they refer to be an “independent” Certified forensic locksmith, an engineer or whoever is on the list that performs ignition analysis. They are independent only because they are not direct employees of the insurance company. They have a vested interest in the outcome of the claim. If they don’t write favorable reports for the carrier they ate not needed and the carrier will go elsewhere.
The insured is never told they can have their own expert present to keep everyone honest.
This faceless forensic expert concludes the last key used was of the proper type. This insinuates that you were the last to drive the vehicle before the theft.

You the insured may be the victim but to the investigator, you are the perpetrator! The investigator is already sure of this.

Remember, your car can’t be stolen without your key. At least, that is what they believe because their experts taught them that at those free seminars.

By the way, you will very rarely get to see this expert’s report unless the case is in litigation. Once the report is written, the investigator uses their imagination and builds a financial motive as to why you needed to get rid of the vehicle. None of it has to be true. It only needs to appear to be true, which is the flimsy standard of preponderance. This is enough to have the claim denied!
The only recourse is to sue the insurance company and hope a judge or jury believes your side. You will also need to retain an expert such as myself to refute their expert that determined the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type.
Now, that is the civil end. Lets say you are in California or New Jersey, Massachusetts or other regions that look at such claims as insurance fraud-felonies? You now have a real problem! You either need a criminal defense attorney, which ranges from $10,000-$25,000 to defend in Los Angeles.
If you dont have sufficient income, you will get either a court appointed attorney and the state or county has funds to cover an expert, or a public defender and again, depending on region may have funds for an expert or may not. Your chances with a public defender generally are not good. They are over worked and would prefer you just take a plea!

Now, we have gotten to the evidence issue and it a big one!

When the expert examines the vehicle, he will examine the ignition. It used to be before they got lazy, and I can prove in the past, they did much more thorough work nation wide, but evidently the attitude now is that no one knows the difference anyway. Why spend hours when an exam now can take minutes all for the same money or more?
The forensic examinations were much more detailed, accurate and leaving little doubt. The ignition was removed, disassembled. The internal components the wafers (tumblers) were subjected to a microscopic examination. Micro photos were taken of wear and markings. Keys were compared to the wafers for identifiable markings.
Since the real work was phased out and a dog and pony show were presented to the court as forensic, this created many issues. No longer was evidence removed from non-burned vehicles. The ignition was left in the vehicle. The show that was now the norm was to insert a lighted magnified scope in the ignition keyway. No photographs were taken. Key comparison to the wafers could no longer be performed. All one could do is look inward to the lock. If the lock was picked and markings were on the back side of the wafers, they could not be seen.
The keyway commonly was filled with lock lubricant and pocket lint, dust and dirt. These experts would put WD 40 in the keyway to clean it and insert a key. Now, you are using an abrasive in the lock potentially creating new marks. WD 40. What does it do? Penetrates!

Why the difference in protocol? No longer were the experts stating they could determine the last key used. They state that a key of the proper type was used. The difference: One does not need to be a forensic expert to state this! It’s a scam! Used on the court system because they don’t know any better!
When the key of the proper type is stated, it doesn’t tell us If it was the insured’s first key, second key or even a thief’s key! There is no differention or specifics. The report relies on the assumption by the investigator and by the court the last key used was the insured’s!

What does the expert have for evidence when testifying? The ignition lock or components? Nope!
Does he have documented proof that he electronically interrogated the transponder anti-theft system to confirm it was functioning properly? Nope! Can it be proven the anti-theft transposed system had how many keys programmed for it? Nope!
In fact, the criminal cases do not have anymore physical evidence than a civil case even though the criminal threshold is beyond any reasonable doubt! One might even say WTF?
It gets even better! The vehicle is commonly disposed of years before!
Normally, how is a defense expert to defend a case where the insurance expert had the opportunity to examine all facets to the vehicle and the defense expert is left with nothing?
They screw up so many other ways, I can refute them based on my experience. However, everyone is just supposed to take the insurance expert’s word for it. My question which is legitimate, why?

If one is dealing with a criminal case and the expert does not know which will go criminal, the standard for gathering and retention of evidence must be the same on every vehicle.

A criminal case means a crime scene! Every component requiring testimony needs to be secured. Yet, we have these so called experts that get away testifying on evidence they do not even have, nor did they retain it for the defense!
There are many that have been convicted just on the expert’s word without having physical evidence to support their testimony!

Now, I ask you, how would you feel to be railroaded like this because the insurance company did not want to pay your theft claim?

I am not blaming insurance companies. I am blaming these experts that know they are running a scam. I am blaming ignorant prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves.

Yes, there is insurance fraud out there, but proper evidence gathering and non-deceptive statements would go a long way.

 

Copyright 2018. Rob Painter

1-866-490-1673

Cell 1-903-513-7808

Robo114@aol.com

 

Auto Theft Claims Master

Tags

, , ,

 

Rob Painter

Honey Grove, TX 75446

1-866-490-1673

1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com

Services

Court Qualified Expert Witness on Auto Theft/

Vehicle Fire O&C

Vehicle Failure Analysis

Consultant and Presentations for SIUs

Auto Theft Examinations

Subrogation Involving Vehicle Events

Vehicle Security                 Consultant

Vehicle & Semi Collision Analysis

Air Bag Non-Deployment

GM Ignition Recall Consultant

 

 

Consulting–

I do not claim to be the ultimate source on auto theft and forensics however over the last two decades it appears I know so much more than the insurance experts I oppose in court. My court record reflects this.

In normal situations, the expert is only one small entity of the overall case and testifies on their expertise in regards to a specific subject.

Auto theft claim denial cases are an exception to the rule. These cases no matter how investigators and insurance defense lawyers spin it, are strictly based on the conclusions associated with the reported stolen vehicle and how it was last driven.

An investigator will state that a denial is not based on the conclusions of a forensic locksmith, and their purpose is only one tool in the investigators arsenal of investigative tools.

Now for the truth: Financial motive and other items related to the case for denial are just add-ons after the fact. Had the insurance compensated expert not accused the policy holder of being in possession of the last key used, there would be no investigation and no denial!

These cases center around the insurance expert’s conclusions. Successfully refuting the expert causes the investigation house of cards to come crashing down, as has been proven for over 20 years in the nation’s courts!

In the event the insured or defendant does not have their own consultant to represent them, chances of prevailing are very slim.

The judge or the jury is going to listen to that insurance expert who commonly  titles himself with the term “forensic.”

After all, many are so fascinated by the forensic TV shows, they equate the forensic locksmith of performing specialized technical services to reach their conclusions. Although there are truly specialized procedures that can be applied so the examination methodology can be replicated in automotive forensics, none of these procedures are applied by the insurance experts in this field.

I have found that these facts are impossible to point out to insurance investigators, because they commonly have a friendship bond with these experts. Any question as to their methodology or conclusions is looked on as a personal attack towards the investigator’s friend, or it is just one competitor speaking bad about the other.

My experience with these investigators is that many are extremely smart and thorough. They are only as good as the information they receive from their experts.

I support the SIU (Special Investigation Unit) completely. If not for their involvement, insurance fraud would be far more rampant and our rates would be much higher. The problem has been how to get investigators to listen and demand that the expert can factually support their conclusions. Where can they learn what to ask these experts so they don’t end up on the wrong side of a bad faith case? From me of course!

Currently, the forensic locksmiths and engineers servicing these claims are using ambiguous language in their reports, no standardized methodology and no technical knowledge or procedures are being performed. Evidence is being destroyed or not retained.

Investigators don’t ever think of this, but yes, even your claim can be denied. I have represented regional SIU managers that thought they would never have their car stolen. They never pictured being the ones under investigation until they were!

All because of incompetence on the part of the expert!

Auto theft investigation is the only field I am aware of, where the expert does not allow any opposing expert near the vehicle when he is performing destructive testing to an ignition lock. Treated as a secret, the experts who have a vested interest in the outcome of the claim can simply alter evidence by inserting a key into an ignition lock.

Science is not secret. If treated secretly, it is not science!

My knowledge does not end in auto theft matters, but this is my passion! So often the Certified Forensic Locksmith drafting a report as to how a reported stolen vehicle was last driven was inferred to be last driven with the insured’s key. Or was it? Was it the report was deliberately obfuscated to make the reader to believe this?

Investigators commonly run on a hunch based on already bad information. They are taught at free seminars put on by the experts that vehicles equipped with transponder based anti-theft systems can’t be driven without the use of the owner’s key. There by making the vehicle unstealable.

Auto makers make the same assertion. After all, they are not going to tell the public their security is outdated and can ne defeated by the time the vehicle is on the show floor!

Investigators believing this non-sense have already pre-judged the insured as submitting a fraud claim. Instead of being unbiased and open minded giving the insured the benefit of doubt, the investigator just needs to confirm they have a fraud claim. This, by using an outside source the Certified Forensic Locksmith or engineer.

Their rule of thumb is because the CFL has a business not associated with the carrier they are independent. However if the CFL does not find in favor for the carrier (their client) almost all the time, the carrier does not need their service and will find someone that will say what the carrier needs to investigate the claim further.

The CFL will no longer claim a specific key was last used. It used to be that one firm would identify the specific last key used. This process required work however. The ignition was removed, disassembled and the wafers (tumblers) were examined under a microscope comparing to the keys for identifiable tool marks. The microscope was capable of photography of the components under magnification.

Now, the ignition is rarely removed and disassembled. The only time we see photos of the wafers is when the ignition was apart by dropping to the driver’s floor as the ignition lock melted during a fire. At that time the wafers are recovered. What was very common in this situation was that microscopic photos were taken to wow the court. Of course judges and jurors had no idea what they were looking at in the exhibits, but it was impressive to see these tiny parts blown up in photos.

Here was the problem: the soot and the baked on crust was not cleaned from the wafer lands (where the key rides when inserted into the lock). In essence, unless one had x-ray vision, any markings from tampering, picking or the use of a newly cut key could not be observed. There was never a problem presenting a predetermined conclusion though where the lock was last rotated with a key of the proper type.

Some might call this scheme used as a valid investigation tool a fraud. I won’t, I leave it up to the reader. However, if it is a fraud, isn’t that interesting? Facilitating fraud in order to accuse the insured of fraud.

As stated before, I don’t feel this issue is on the investigator. They are using the company Protocol by hand picking these experts from a company vendor list.

It sounds legitimate that they use an outside independent forensic firm. The word indepent leading someone to believe they are impartial. Their quasi boss is the insurance company, so they are going to say whatever helps the investigator.

They let it be assumed they determined the last key used. Instead, they state the last key used was a key of the proper type. This phrase leaves open for any key, the insured’s first or second key, a duplicate key, a cloned key, a thief’s key. It doesn’t matter. They all fit under the statement key of the proper type.

Forensics is about eliminating  hypotheses until one fits. The CFL doesn’t do this.

They make factual statements that they can’t support. Who can catch them? Virtually no one, but me!

So what are these conclusions based on in the testimony of a CFL on a reported stolen car?

Speculation, guess work and bull crap assuming they will never be exposed as the charlatans they are. They know lawyers and juries have no clue about what the CFL is talking about. The CFL knows with that bogus forensic title they espouse they will be believed. Unless of course I am present to rain on the parade!

 

Electronic Anti-Theft

One really needs to think on this one. Sending locksmiths out to examine vehicles that have no ignition locks. What qualifies them with electronic knowledge about these systems? Sure, many can program a key fob if they have the equipment, but after that they are lost! Any issues of bypass or error, they simply are not capable of determining how the vehicle was last driven. That is like sending a plumber to do an electrical rewiring job!

Yet, insurance investigators commonly have the keyless ignition vehicles reported stolen have them examined by Certified Forensic Locksmiths. We really need to question the conclusions on every keyless ignition that every CFL made!

In the CFL report it is commonly found manufacturer information giving the description an operation of the system. This is all design theory that is quite different from that which happens in the street. However, inserting this information in the report makes the reader to believe the system cannot be defeated by default.

One hypothesis is to interrogate the computer on a vehicle not involved in a fire of flood. (Can’t be performed on those vehicles). The purpose is to check for active error codes. Another valuable purpose, in most cases determines how many keys are programmed for the vehicle.

Is this operation commonly performed by CFLs and engineers? Almost never! What if a third programmed key shows up? Could that have been the thief’s key?

So how can a fair and impartial examination be performed on your vehicle? That is my point! It can’t!

As far as I am concerned, every denial involving a CFL or an engineer should be re-evaluated. Maybe it is a fraud claim and should be treated accordingly. What about the examinations terminally flawed? There are many!

1-866-490-1673

1–903-513-7808

Much of the information included on this site has never been addressed before except by myself. It is my intention to cause inquiry and interest in a field that can go multiple directions. If you are looking for a challenging exciting career opportunity, who else would you want to learn from as someone that has lived it for more than two decades?

There may be information as to how to steal cars. None of this information is secret unless you ask the insurance experts, who will state you stole your own vehicle for the insurance money!

Automotive forensics can be origin and cause of a vehicle fire, accident reconstruction, determining as to how a reported stolen vehicle was last driven, recall and more. It’s taking the assignment and using simple scientific principals and following the facts.

There is nothing like the feeling when you discover a case, where there is no other possible conclusion!

This is also known as the thrill of the chase! When any other forensic examiner can replicate your methodology and reach the same exact conclusion!

Fortunately, because there are so many charlatans and incompetence in the auto theft and forensic field, competent analysis is wide open when it comes to opposing the insurance experts.

Known as Certified Forensic Locksmiths and some engineers, screams incompetence at it’s best.

Clint Eastwood playing “Dirty Harry” said it best: “A man has to know his limitations!”

Evidently, these guys don’t.

I am going to list experts I have successfully opposed in courts and some I have not had the opportunity to yet.

I may highlight their reports and what is wrong them. Please remember, these are opposing experts and not competitors. I don’t know any of them personally. In fact, some I have never met.

The reason for this, is to show their short comings and how it is just going to get worse for their client carriers.

I am not a lawyers, but these cases they offer reports for, in my opinion scream bad faith!

These publications are not meant to embarrass anyone. Tjey deal with statements made they cannot support.

Yet, insurance carriers use them as a straw man to accuse the insured of fraudulent activity!

What the investigator will say to the insured: “We had an independent forensic firm examine the vehicle and they determined the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type.”

This statement is wrongly and deliberately translated to be one of the insured’s keys. After all, it is claimed forensics was applied. If so, which key of the proper type was last used? The insured’s every day use key? The second key seldomly used? A duplicate key? A cloned key? A thief’s key?

It wasn’t that long ago they removed the ignition, disassembled it and examined the components under an microscope. Of course, why go to all that work, when a jury or judge knows no better. Now examinations that took hours take minutes!

Different buttons will be for many different subjects.

If you like real life puzzle solving in search for the truth, there is nothing like automotive forensics!

Below is just one example as to how you can be criminally charged because in one case, the vehicle was not treated as a crime scene. No evidence was retained, and even though the insured told the investigator his car had remote start, the expert never attempted to confirm so equipped. The thief had found a functioning transponder key under the dash and drove the car off with that key! The expert accused the insured of having the last key used. Because of the expert’s incompetence he is being prosecuted!

If your car is stolen and it has an aftermarket remote start, the chances are high in California and the Northeast that you will be criminally charged with insurance fraud and filing a false police report at minimum. The forensic examiner inspecting  the vehicle may not realize transponder was bypassed!

Many regions do not pursue these as the mentioned areas. If the vehicle is insured in Las Vegas for example, they simply do not have the time for this.

In Massachusetts there is a law enforcement arm known as the IFB (Insurance Fraud Bureau). They are well meaning and take their jobs seriously. From my experience in the numerous times of dealing with cases they create a serious issue because of their ignorance. There evidently is no care about something known as evidence. They support the purported forensic expert working for the insurance company determining as to how a reported stolen vehicle was last driven.
Evidence: They don’t retain the vehicle or any of the components that were used to render a conclusion. If this is a criminal case and I am no lawyer, but why isn’t the vehicle treated as a crime scene? From my experience, even in a house break in, it is treated as a crime scene. Evidence is gathered. Finger prints are taken as well as documentation stating where items were found and of course lots of photos.
Yet, in Massachusetts and California these appear to be insignificant details years later when the case is prosecuted!
Unfortunately, this puts the defendant at a great disadvantage, because even if they hire their own expert, he has no evidence to examine and can’t confirm or deny anything the insurance expert concluded.
If this was a truly scientific examination, it could be replicated by another expert.The examination can’t be replicated years later because every thing used to reach the conclusion no longer exists!
Yet, many times attorneys disregard these very important facts and it all hinges on the word of the forensic expert the judge qualified to render his expert opinion. Think this can’t happen to you? You are wrong. It can happen to anyone!
California, New Jersey are no better. I am very anti fraud and support insurance investigators 110%. Where I have a problem is with their forensic examiners where the term “forensic” is just a title to them and no reflection on their work product. The argument would be is I am just down-ramping competition. No, they are no competition as I prove in court! They are opposition experts that don’t appreciate me exposing them. Too bad!

Look, I don’t want to minimize the really big problem with insurance fraud. Most of the investigators I know nationwide in my opinion are true professionals and they are pretty good at spotting the bogus claims. They don’t just investigate auto thefts and they involved in it all. The problem I see and it isn’t their fault, but a person can only know so much. They are only as good as the information supplied to them. In the case of auto theft and forensics. I have found that if someone claims to be an expert at anything and they tell it to the right person at the insurance company, they are put on the vendor list. The insurance company makes no effort to confirm they are in fact an expert.
Of course the insurance company that gets upset when they lose a bad faith case.

Auto theft is my specialty, but I perform many different consults as it relates to vehicles and failed components.

Just give a call to 1-866-490-1673 or 1-903-513-7808.

You can write us at robo14@aol.com

Later I will also

© Copyright 2018. Rob Painter. All rights reserved.

 

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- Legitimate Or Bogus Claim?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Source: Auto Theft Claim SIU Investigation, EUO Consultant. Court Qualified Auto Theft/Forensic Expert Witness, Vehicle Fire Origin and Cause Instructor.

Serving The US.

1-866-490-1673

Cell-1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com

The Faceless Experts That Examines a Vehicle to Determine How It Was Last Driven

What is wrong with a Certified Forensic Locksmith opining as to if the vehicle was stolen or not?

Most from my court experience opposing them tells me one of two things. They are either the dumbest experts out there or they are flat out dishonest when they acuse the insured of having the last key used.

It is normal to see a forensic locksmith report to state the key and lock had average wear consistent with the age of the vehicle. Unfortunately, very common.

The question then is; if they are going to stretch the truth here, what else in the report is misinformation?

This statement is a great example of the lack of validity these reports have.

First of all, usage affects the wear, not the age of the vehicle.

Define average as it relates to wear. Now, this is supposed to be a factual proven statement. There is no way to factually determine average wear. However, if such a statement is made about wear, then the lock should be removed and disassembled. The wafer (tumbler) lands (where the key rides when inserted in the lock) should be measured with a micrometer. Those measurements should be compared to new wafers. The same measuring applies to the keys from old to new.

Without doing this the statement is a scam into making one believe they are the forensic experts they portray themselves as.

Forensic Locksmith Reports on a Reported Stolen Vehicle

Depending on the firm, most of these reports are pre-made before they examine the vehicle with a pre-determined conclusion. The major differences are the insured information, the insurance company, the type of vehicle and condition.

Methodology depends on what they feel like examining that day. There is rarely standard replicatable Protocol.

On one vehicle, they will check for excessive wear in the ignition lock by inserting the key and putting the lock in the run position. The examiner will pull on the key and see if it can be removed in that position. In this case, a key is not needed to rotate the lock. Yet, in the the next exam, no such test.

Since many of these firms are to cheap to purchase key programmers that will tell the examiner as to how many keys are programmed for the vehicle. Some vehicles can have 8 keys programmed for them.

The key programmer will also let one know if the transponder is functioning correctly or if there is a problem.

The cheap way these guys use for a test is to block the signal from the chip in the key, by placing foil over the head of the key. If the engine does not start with foil on t he key, the transponder anti theft system in their minds appears to be functioning. They regard this as an important test that is used for them in developing their conclusion.

Hmm… I wonder where they learned that? These were the parameters set by Ford in the Greines v Ford case in Los Angeles. My case! Its on the web.

If this test is so important and they can’t perform it on vehicles suffering from fire damage, then explain to me how a burned vehicle can have the same exact conclusion as an unburned vehicle? In other words, the didn’t or couldn’t perform the ignition wear test, or check the transponder system with foil, yet burned or not, they have the same exact conclusion.

Years ago these same firms removed the ignition lock, disassembled  the lock and examined the components under a microscope and took microscopic photos. No longer. Why bother? The jury doesn’t know the difference anyway.

Now, the ignition lock is almost never removed, no photos taken of the internal components of the lock, and we are supposed to take their word on what they purportedly observed inside the ignition lock.

See, they have gotten away with this non-sense because the jury was only looking at one exhibit for that specific vehicle, the report.

Interestingly, I have a better idea. What if the jury could see 5 or 10 reports from the same firm to compare to the report in question? I believe this would be devastating to the expert!

Trust me, you have not seen anything yet when conjecture is used as fact and I will be supplying that shortly.

Burned BMW Conviction

Tags

,

It has always amazed me as to how gullible people are. The insurance Certified Forensic Locksmith rendering an opinion as to how a reported stolen recovered totally burned vehicle was last driven is just one such example.

A report will be drafted as to how the anti theft system is designed as per the manufacturer service manual. That is all fine and good, but there is no way to interrogate the system. The examiner cannot determine how many keys are programmed for the system. Bypass of the transponder system cannot be determined.

Why? The computer is a tin box with printed circuity on plastic along with solder. A simple 400 degrees f. will melt the insides. The wiring has plastic coating and once that insulation is gone, all that is left is bare wiring.

Over 5 years ago I had a case in which I was hired as a consultant, but the guy ran out of money for me to go forward.

The vehicle was a BMW 3 series. It was recovered burning on the on ramp of an expressway. The vehicle had a smart key system ( no ignition lock) and push button start. The vehicle was recovered totally burned and the fire had traveled into the trunk. The computer on that vehicle was located in the trunk. The computer had suffered heat damage. However all the wiring had been destroyed from the dash rearward. There was no way to electronically interrogate the computer. The expert that the insurance company sent to examine the vehicle was a certified forensic locksmith. Why he was picked, I don’t know because this car did not have a conventional key or an ignition lock. Everything is electronic and they send a locksmith. He concluded that the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type. The insured was charged I believe with arson, insurance fraud and filing a false police report based on this so-called scientific analysis by the CFL. There was no science or specialty applied here. It was a deliberate hoax by this so-called expert.

As for the fire, the fire department for expediency said the fire started in the passenger compartment and was started with a match. I went to examine the vehicle that was stored at the auction. I was met by the investigator who in my opinion was a real jerk. He didn’t want me critiquing his buddy the CFL’s work.

The fire did not start in the passenger compartment. All evidence pointed to the driver’s side of the engine area. Of course this would make sense with a fuel line issue getting on the expressway. It’s not like a thief would wait around for help. Where it burned was not the ideal area for an arson. This vehicle had a whole slew of fuel line complaints under the hood!

The CFL wording in his report was deliberately meant to deceive. He stated the car was last driven with a key fob of the proper type. This wording is meant and it is taken that way by the investigator d the courts to believe this conclusion means the owner’s key.

It could have been a thief’s key fob as well.

At the time, I had an AK 400 key programmer. As a thief, I could program my own key fob for this vehicle in around a minute! Aren’t key programmers for a BMW expensive? Mine straight from China cost $350.00. Once done, the owner’s keys would no longer work. Mine would be the key fob to drive the car off.

That theory was never considered! It also could not be confirmed or denied.

The insured was convicted due to the CFL’s testimony. 6 months after the trial, there was a security video that went viral of a BMW being stolen and the thieves using what appeared to be like my AK 400 key programmer. It took them about 3 minutes for them to program their own key fob! The point being they were caught on tape stealing the vehicle.

A couple months after that, I had another type of case against the same insurance company. When the investigator found out about my involvement, he was kind enough to brag in an email that they convicted the owner of the BMW.

I told him his CFL was a hack and couldn’t factually prove anything. The only reason a jury convicted him, they did not know his expert was a fraud.

I then sent him the viral video I had obtained. He chose to not respond.

The problem is that the investigator had so much confidence in this expert, he was not going to admit he was wrong for trusting this expert.

Ex-cops are very proud and don’t like to be reminded how stupid they were.

1-866-490-1673  or 1-903-513-7808.

Robo14@aol.com