Examination Under Oath Part 2

I have likened an examination under oath to a minefieild in which I prevent my client from getting blown up. A better analogy would be say you imagined yourself with heroes like Doc Holiday, Wyatt Earp and his brothers at the OK corral for a gun fight, but you had one problem you didn’t have any guns for the gun fight!

That would be an awful feeling wouldn’t it? This is what you face going against well seasoned investigators and sometime an attorney retained just to make you really in fear as if this were some sort of legal proceeding. It’s not, and it is only designed to appear that way, so you may hire an incompetent attorney that knows nothing about insurance investigations to defend you in something they can’t defend you on in the first place!

Please don’t misunderstand. There is a time and a place for attorneys, but an examination under oath is not one of those times. In fact, I have seen many situations where the attorney created more problems for the insured than helped them.

Attorneys know law I have over 25 years testimony offering sworn testimony.with insurance investigations, subrogation a and other areas of all types of claims. Auto thefts are my specialty, but when it comes to examination under oath, all types of claims, marine, commercial, homeowners, the template is the same.

i do not give legal advice. The investigation and the examination under oath I’m not illegal setting and a lawyer is not required. Of course lawyers advertise for this type of work because it’s very easy for them. In many cases the client has no way annoying if the attorney is doing good or bad for them. It’s just the feeling that you are retaining an attorney and won’t be badgered by the insurance company. Truth of the matter is they will abuse you anyway.

the way it works is lawyers got their own little club. They made golf together dine together and be friends. It’s an act that they’re putting on when they’re supposedly opposing each other and I investigation or examination on under oath. Anyone that is not a lawyer is not part of their little club. That’s just how it is I didn’t make up the rules.

I genuinely represent my client and I can do anything an attorney can do and much more. I have more knowledge on the subject especially when it comes to auto theft where most attorneys are clueless when they hear the word forensic locksmith. In auto theft claims insurance companies facilitate fraud by hiring fraudulent forensic experts that will accuse the insured of involvement with the depth of the vehicle. This way the insurance company doesn’t have to accuse him of fraud a third party does it. That third party they claim is independent. The reason they’re independent is they have their own business which is not part of the insurance company. What you need to remember is it the insurance investigator hand-picked this third party expert from their vendor list.

have these experts ever been vetted as far as the quality of the conclusions in their reports? No they have not been vetted and so everybody’s just supposed to take their word for whatever they say doesn’t really matter if they can prove it.

he’s experts rely on the fact that the jury will believe them because they have a forensic title that they have given themselves. Even their titles are bogus. The organization that gave out the credential certified forensic locksmith has been out of business for years, well over 5 years. The organization is called the international association of investigative locksmiths. We’re in the title does it say anything about forensics? It’s investigative locksmiths that will assume fax as they relate to auto theft even though they’ve had no exposure to auto theft. They use the perception as to how they would steal a vehicle which is not consistent with how a thief would steal a vehicle. There’s no standards as to how they inspect the vehicle. I have over 120 reports from one firm and I had to put together a spreadsheet for a court case as to consistencies of things examined. There was no consistency. One car they may remove the ignition lock disassemble it and put the components under a microscope comparing them to the key. The next vehicle didn’t touch the ignition lock. I am not sure where they have taken a consideration for aftermarket options like that of a remote start. Remote start bypasses the transponder system and the vehicle can now be taken without a correctly programmed key. Or in many cases there is a program key in the car to lie to the computer it’s under the driver side dash. If the thief finds that drives a vehicle away. The forensic locksmith doesn’t even look for evidence of such a option and it’d be there in the car. When you spill a nonsense that the vehicle was designed not to be stolen by the factory requiring a coated key and not look for such an option in a vehicle that’s incompetence. Remote start is a common aftermarket option so the vehicle can be warmed up from a distance without the key in the ignition or cool down when it’s hot outside.

the forensic locksmith testifies I’m confusion. After all he’s not a locksmith he’s a forensic locksmith. Yet the only thing forensic in their reports is their title. When performing forensics on a vehicle did you determine how it was last driven one needs all known keys has to disassemble the lock and examine under a microscope and look for possible consistent striations between the keys and the tumblers. Over the years so this has been too much work for these so-called experts. Instead of using a microscope no just install a scope into the keyway and look inside. To clean the inside of the lock they use penetrating oil. What is penetrating oil do? It penetrates it’s an abrasive. So now you got all this debris in there from over the years pocket lint dirt etc. You spray it down now you shove the key inside possibly you made new marks. Without removing a lot you can’t do a comparison between a specific key and the tumblers. You can’t examine both sides of the tumblers. In other words you get about 50% of what you would get out of a microscopic examination. The difference in time though is quite amazing. It’s a lock is removed and disassembled clean examine under microscope it takes a lot of time at least a couple hours. What you using the opthamologist scope are otoscope the examination time is minutes. There’s many hypotheses you can’t eliminate when you don’t do a full and complete examination. Do they care no. Does anybody know any better between the two examination methods? No. So not why not just do it the lazy way? The only time that these experts get in trouble is if I’m involved in the case and then I make them prove which they can’t their conclusions. That assumes that they’re trying to run through a scientific conclusion.

there’s a trick to all this though are too ignorant to know about getting played by these experts. If they were truly using the forensic process they might be able to determine the specific key last used in the ignition. But instead of doing that they use general terms that are truthful but severely deceptive. The most common conclusion that about 99% of all reports that I have seen throughout the country states the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type. That is assumed to be the insureds key. Stay with me folks people go to jail on this. Assumption is not fact even though it is used as fact. Prosecutors use this particular conclusion to convict! And they are successful because nobody knows any better.

kill the proper type can be any key that will operate the vehicle. It could be the insured everyday use key, the second key is not used very often for the vehicle. It’d be a locksmith key that was recently made. It could be on account key like that from my used car where you only got one key and it was the other key that no one knew about where it was. It could also be a clone key and it could be a thief’s program key. I can give more examples but all these are key of the proper type. So which specific key was last used to drive the vehicle? No one knows no one bother trying to find out and yet you’re supposed to take the forensic locksmith word for it. Many forensic locksmiths would know a stolen car if they were sitting in one. That doesn’t matter though. Their conclusion and supposedly on questionable because after all their forensic locksmiths and the court qualified them as experts. Of course the right questions weren’t asked to them by the attorneys during the process of determining if the person was qualified be an expert witness in the area of 9 locks but Auto theft which is what they are testifying to. These forensic locksmiths or charlatans. As far as the investigator goes he just relies on the expert.

in vehicle is reported stolen recovered burned. Many look at the fire damage and go oh my God how could anybody determine how this vehicle was last driven? The truth of the matter is the forensic locksmith can’t but he’ll turn around and tell you that he knows how that vehicle was last driven and you can’t question him. Doesn’t matter if all the computer components are burned up and there’s no way of reading any data as to the specific keys we’re at the transponder was working at the time of the theft or bypass electronically. Am I saying that they lie? I will just let you be the judge. To prove my point further as to how no forensics is really actually done many of these so-called forensic locksmiths will take on clams for the vehicle as a member covered. In this case they have no way of examining the vehicle the lock the computer any type of forest entry nothing. Yet though write a report on just like they examine the vehicle. Well if they’re willing to do that then one would say what’s the sense in them going to all the work of examining the vehicles in the first place? When the examine vehicles in the first place they can puff up the report thicker with lots of photos meaning more money on a report. What is the difference between me and forensic locksmiths other than the fact that I know how to actually do that type of work and wrote a 1350 PowerPoint slide course on it? I can prove everything I say in fact refute some rather well. The problem with the attorneys is they actually give credence to the forensic locksmith having a different type of discipline. They look at the forensic locksmith is a professional you know line of forensics. There’s a problem with that they don’t know how to sort through the crap.

I have an examination under oath where my client needed me to change hats from being a consultant to being their expert. I would supply a report on the vehicle and refute the opposing experts without ever seeing their report and being very successful doing it because they are that predictable.

if you have an honest claim there’s other investigation there’s only one place to go and that’s my firm. I can make the difference as to what happens in the claim. I’ve been representing clients and investigations and examination under oath for over 10 years with a 95% success rate. None of my clients has ever been charged with felony Insurance run and attorneys can’t say that.

if you want to be properly prepared and have no surprises I’m the guy you want to talk to. My clients are prepared very well and they’re set up for the players involved and what’s going to go down. Think of me as your bully that’s 600 lb gorilla that you need by your side figuratively to carry you through the claim. No matter how anxious my clients are and even after attorneys and I’m getting involved in a case I always say be prepared to have fun. When it’s all said and done believe it or not the client had fun!



Cell 1-903-513-7808


Auto Theft Claims Forensic Exams


, , , , ,


When You Will Accept Nothing Short of the Best!

Court Appointed Expert Witness

            Court Appointed Umpire

            Auto Theft Claims Master

Texas Licensed & Bonded All Lines Public Adjuster

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.  They determine how 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 stolenBondrd car was last driven!

Cell 1-903-513-7808
Email robo14@aol.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

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 Claims Investigation Expert

I am qualified to handle any claims investigation including the extremely intimidating Recorded Statement or Examination Under Oath (EUO). My specialty is auto theft claims because I know all the players.

My experience in examination under oath on all property claims is second to none! Commonly, people fire their lawyers and hire me! Why? Because I have 25 years SIU experience, deposition and trial testimony experience. An insured is not capable of going through an examination under oath, or even a recorded statement during an investigation on their own without getting their claim denied. The game is rigged and I even the playing field by preparing the insured from the unknown and grooming them on what today and how to say it! 90% success rate getting a claim scheduled for denial and paid!


1) I have an EUO I must attend. Do I need an Attorney?

A) Absolutely not! An attorney cannot protect you like I can, With me, you can call any time!

2) They said Forensics determined my key was the last key used in my stolen car. How can you help?

A) Chances are forensics was not performed on ignition. I am extremely good at addressing this.

3) Insurance company demanding cell phone records, pay check records and bank records. I don’t have to supply them because of privacy do I?

A) You must supply anything requested because you agreed to assist un any investigation on your policy.

4) Why is my claim being investigated? I have not falsified any information.

A) There is an infinite list of fraud indicators (red flags) sometimes even imagined at the moment. For the initiation of an investigation, the investigator is reliant on a third party vendor to determine how the reported stolen vehicle was last driven. This conclusion eliminates the vehicle being stolen by breaching the factory installed security and ignition and being key driven last.

5) Is my insurance company accusing me of a crime?

A) No! Your insurance investigator hired a third party vendor from their vendor list of experts. Some of these experts are far better trained and experienced than many on the national list. The problem is these vendors are not vetted for their work product. Many do not retain evidence from the vehicle, which then makes it impossible to replicate their methodology for accuracy. Assumption and speculation is commonly supplied as fact. This creates a real problem to the investigation. Basically a house of cards built around the expert’s conclusion. Some of these experts don’t even know how to duplicate keys and key fobs!

Others think like locksmiths and not thieves when assessing the vehicle as to how it was last driven. Then they get up in arms when their report is contested in court.

6) I have been told by the investigator that they are waiting on forensics. Am I allowed to have my own expert present when the examination of my vehicle takes place?

A) Absolutely at the insured’s own expense! It is kind of strange, any point in the investigation the investigator will tell the insured that they can retain an attorney, but they never seem to bring up the fact the insured should have their own expert present when an ignition/vehicle security evaluation is being performed. The insurance contracted certified forensic locksmith has a vested interest in the outcome of the claim! This is the only field I am aware of where both sides do not have experts present during destructive testing, Destructive testing can be as simple as inserting a key into the ignition lock! If not done correctly, witness marks can be made to the tumblers which were not present post theft!

7) During the investigation it appears to be hostile to the insured. Should the insured retain an attorney?

A) The insured should feel comfortable in their defense, but there are things they must know first before retaining an attorney for an investigation and subsequent examination under oath (Sworn testimony).

The differences between using me and an attorney are a stark contrast. Many have fired their attorneys and hired me. The investigation has nothing to do with the law. You don’t hire a plumber to rewire your house. Many attorneys are not familiar with the SIU investigation process. I have over 25 years of direct experience working with SIU investigators nationwide.

Even if an attorney preps you for an examination under oath all they can do is give you legal suggestions to assumed questions that may never come up. At the EUO you might have a false sense of security with your attorney sitting next to you. Your attorney is impotent though. You are asked a question. The attorney objects. You now think you don’t have to answer that question. Surprise! You are now told you have to answer the question any way! I have my client take a break and call me. Whenever I have a scheduled examination under oath, my phone line is dedicated to my client. If it is after hours or a holiday and you have a concern, you can call me. I am there for my client! How many attorneys offer this service? If needed, I can draft a report on the vehicle. The attorney can’t!

8) How long does an investigation take?


Auto Theft Claim Denial Cases, SIU Investigation


, , , , , , , , ,

Rob Painter




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?

My name is Rob Painter. I have served as an an expert witness for 25 years in auto Theft and forensics. I have proven that the insurance companies facilitate fraud to set their own narrative to investigate and ultimately deny the claim. Y contact numbers are -866-490-173 or 1-905-513-708. My email is robo14@aol.com. web:www.autotheftclaimsmaster.com

I cite an url that relates to what is at issue. The url deals with junk science. The insurance claims investigator needs to know if the vehicle was really stolen or if the insured ha submitted a fraudulent theft claim. The third party vendor employed for this task is what is known as a forensic locksmith. locksmith.

The title makes the conclusion believable.


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 u 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


Cell: 1-903-513-7808


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.

Automobile Forensics

Rob Painter





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

Please do not misunderstand the beginning of this article as whining or complaining. It is just real concern as to how the courts have been deliberately abused by insurance companies and their guise of retaining a independent forensic locksmith to accuse the insured of submitting a fraudulent claim. All of this is assumed to be scientific fact because of the implication of the word forensic. There is little to no scientific methodology applied to reach their conclusions. Their work product is commonly vetted in court. Not good!

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
1-903-513-7808 email robo14@aol.com

Forensic Locksmithing=Junk Science


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!


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.

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




1-903-513-7808 cell

Forensic Deception Applied To Stolen Vehicles


, , , ,

Written by Rob Painter

If your car is stolen and you submit a claim, be aware the deck is stacked against you immediately! You are under investigation because the claim has fraud indicators. Those indicators are your car is impossible to steal! Before the investigation begins, the investigator needs to know if the anti theft devices were compromised wee they would pay the claim. If not, they have a third party vendor that will accuse you of fraud!

At this point, you may feel you will just tell the truth which almost guarantys a denial. Your insurance company is not your friend and now the investigation no longer unbiased and will work t prove your guilt. It doesn’t matter if yo are innocent! The investigator will build a case making you appear to be guilty! That’s what they do! I have other pages describing how I can help you in these troubling times. Here I am displaying what you are up against!

Cell 1-903-513-7808


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, The examine was bias towards the client the insurance carrier, where only facts should have been addressed without the unfactually based 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 the vehicle, but could not get the ignition in the on position pl

. Instead, he used the oil change sticker that was about a year old. He used the oil change sticker to guess the milage at the time of the exam.

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 it comes to key programmer ng equipment to generate a functioning key fob. 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 the 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. This statement was purely speculative deliberately meant to appear to be fact!

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 been stupid enough to damage the ignition to make it look like theft. Bottom line there were no facts to tell us why the ignition socket was broken. It could have been an accident by the thief. To make a statement of fact that the key fob would no later longer start the engine is even a stretch because the electronics and the engine were missing, so where is the fact that proves that even with the breakage, the engine would not have started? There It s no fact! The only fact is that the area surrounding the front b socket was broken! I even asked the attorney if the insured had a mechanical background and was told he did not. The components removed were you targeted by a professional technician such as myself. An example would be: There were times I drove a car home. Park in garage and remove the engine. It was still warm removed!

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! His goal was to pacify the insurance company (his client) by even supplying a motive that this type of engine was problematic and assuming the engine was reminded very and reported as a theft for the insurance company to pay for a new engine! His argument however is a double edge word. Was the engine stolen because it was good to replace a bar engine in another vehicle?

It is not the examiners job to speculate on things he can’t prove, yet he did! There were no signs of oil leaks.

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. In theory, he is supposed to be unbiased.

The other problem I have found in this industry is no one has any experience in auto theft. They will argue they have been doing theft investigations for insurance companies for years to insurance companies. And how does that give them experience in auto theft? They are concluding if the car was or was not stolen based on what?

Have they ever stolen a vehicle? No! Have they ever repaired theft recoveries to determine theft signatures? No! Do they think like a car or thief? No! All these charlatans are in my opinion is the rubber stamp of denial for their client insurance company!

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. This is the only industry I know of that can get away using speculation as fact!

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.

SIU Investigation, EUO Consultant


, ,

Auto Theft Claims Master

Rob Painter

Texas Licensed & Bonded All Lines Public Adjuster



As I will explain from point of contact, the insurance company is building a case for denial. in auto theft cases they already have their third party forensic expert to accuse you of fraud! i serve alk 50 states as a consultant,
31 states i can patervbevretained as a licensed public adjuster.

My goal is to get the claim paid so you don’t have to spend years in court with no guaranty of outcome.

i am extremely successful of scripting the insured!

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 am not a lawyer, but a lawyer is basically toothless in an investigation and an EUO. In an EUO ( Examination Under Oath) which is sworn testimony in front of a court reporter, your attorney can object to the question, but guess what? You still have to answer the question! kind of makes you wonder why you hired an attorney for your EUO doseht it?

i am with my client virtually at all times. if they have a concern at 10pm on a Sunday night, they can call me!
i dont attend EUOs, but my client is fully prepared before the EUO knowing exactly how they will answer a question. lets say that during the EUO you dont know how you will answer. you take a break and call me. my phone line is reserved for my client nly during their EUO. i am extremely successful getting claims paid the investigator had it on course tobbe denied!

Companies like Progressive and Geico and I am sure others, don’t even bother hiring outside attorney to take depositions and let their investigator be the questioner. Might have something to do with billable hours and cost reduction. I don’t know.

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.

It is no longer of the question I may destroy their case for denial. I can destroy their case! These cases are predicated from fraud! That is a very tough word describing a profession. However it’s hard to sugar coat the truth! The truth is, the cards are stacked against the insured the minute their claim goes to SIU. (Special Investigations Unit).

The insured’s attitude is they have nothing to hide. Actually, they do. You don’t know it, but the insurance company has already set you up with the use of fraudulent forensics. The last key used at the time if the theft is a key of the proper type, which is translated as the insured’s key. You are now guilty and the investigator has to reinforce that guilty imagining a motive for the sole purpose to deny the claim.

They don’t care if you have transportation. They don’t care if they have muddied your name with friends, associates and even your employer with their investigation. They believe their fraudulent forensic independent contractors.

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


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



Copyright 2018. Rob Painter all rights reserved.

My 20+ Years of Testimony Sometimes Fun And Sometimes Not.

There is deposition testimony, which when people want to know what an EUO (Examination Under Oath) is the same thing. Both are sworn testimony, but an EUO doesn’t have a court case assigned to it.

Insured’s are made aware of an EUO towards the end of an auto theft investigation. If you have never had the opportunity to testify like this, the worst thing you can do is handle it on your own.

For years I have prepared insureds for EUOs and we have a 90% success rate of getting you past it and paid, when they had no intention of paying before the EUO.

Of course you tell the truth, but there is more than one way to tell the truth. EUOs are commonly given by outside attorneys. Yet, there are insurance companies that like to be cheap and let an investigator give an EUO.

The main thing about an EUO or a deposition is the ground rules are the same. There are no rules, other than the person taking testimony cannot assault you. Both do not reflect as to how you would testify in court because many times the questions aren’t relative in a trial. Now, if you admitted to having a felony or two, you can bet the insurance company is going to use everything possible to put you in a bad light.

Certain legal professions are used against the insured like that of exotic dancing. It is legal, but they emphasize this to make a woman look seedy and a prostitute.

Depositions and EUOs have one purpose. To destroy a person’s credibility  and always remember, the deponent never wins.

This is the lawyers party. You are invited, but not allowed to have fun.

Recently, I had an attorney try to set me up for an argument all through their line of questioning. I didn’t take the bait and just agreed with her.

I have done enough depositions that I have intentionally set up the opposing attorney. One such case, I was having a good time. The lawyer will use a deposition to read you. This way if there are hot buttons, the attorney can make a guy easily upset look like a lunetic in court.

Well, here was the perfect opportunity to have fun. The deposition was not video recorded because I would have never dine what I did here. He stated to me “Mr. Painter, you are aware you are under oath, correct? I gave you three questions and you answered different each time. Actually, he gave three similar questions, each requiring a different answer. Well, he was trying to shame me. I stood up as he was sitting directly across me from the table. I raised my voice (controlled) and told him don’t ever question my credibility ever again!

Immediately, he called for a break. He left the room. The court reporter said to me, I have been in this business 35 years and never saw an expert get angry like that. I said mam, did I appear angry? She said, you sure did! I said good with a smile and said isn’t this court work all about theatrics? She realized there was no anger and it was a show.

He bought it hook line and sinker though. When in trial, he was growing very angry because he assumed I was a hot head. His face was red and that artery in the side of his neck, I thought is was going to burst. He did everything possible to get me angry and I was just cool and calm. I guess Mr. Professional that thought he was an expert on reading people was wrong!

I have jammed up many opposing attorney in trial. Some feel with a law degree they are smarter than everyone. Sometimes, they are wrong!

I will be putting much more information  here. Look for it and please feel free to comment.


Cell 1-903-513-7808


Copyright 2018. Rob Painter

The Professional Certified Forensic Locksmith


, , , , ,

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


, , ,

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


, , , , , ,

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


Cell 1-903-513-7808



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?


, , , ,

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

Serving The US.




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


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.