Tag Archives: EUO Preparation

Forensic Locksmithing=Junk Science

04 Thursday Jul 2019

Posted by in auto theft, Auto Theft Claim Denial, Auto theft SIU investigations, Car theft investigation, Car theft investigations, Forensic ignition analysis, Home owner insurance claims investigation, ignition forensics, SIU investigation consultant

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auto Theft- Legitimate Or Bogus Claim?

28 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by in auto theft

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

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

Serving The US.

1-866-490-1673

Cell-1-903-513-7808

Robo14@aol.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forensic Locksmith Reports on a Reported Stolen Vehicle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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