How to "Choose An Expert"

When the Experts Collide

Robert F. Mangine

When a vehicle is reported stolen and later recovered it is often subject to a forensic examination to determine whether or not there was sufficient damage to the ignition lock, column locking mechanism, electric starter (ignition) switch, gear selector lock (if so equipped) or other column assemblies that would allow the vehicle to be started and operated without the properly cut mechanical key (physically defeated). These examinations can be performed on both unburned and burned vehicles that are reportedly involved in the commission of various crimes or if there are compelling reasons to suspect insurance fraud could be a factor in the alleged theft.

An automotive forensic examination is conducted by a trained and qualified professional who performs an orderly examination and analysis of the vehicle, vehicle parts or vehicle components, using accepted industry standards and procedures, to find the truth and arrive at a conclusion. The examination and conclusions must be made with no outside influences or considerations and reported on a properly formatted and detailed report with documenting photographs.

These cases can end up in a civil or criminal court with the vehicle examiner called to testify as an expert. The plaintiff or defendant certainly has the undisputed right to obtain the services of their own expert to challenge the conclusions of the original report.

An interesting phenomenon has begun to surface over the past 3 to 4 years. We, as examiners, have started to encounter self-proclaimed “experts” who do not possess the training, experience or skill in the areas in which they profess to be experts, and usually work on behalf of the plaintiff or defendant. Their lack of appropriate qualifications has apparently compelled some of these unscrupulous individuals to divert attention from the facts of the matter and resort to distortion of the truth and even personal attacks on legitimate automotive forensic examiners. Others do not even bother to examine the vehicle or the recovered parts/components. They testify on what could have happened, rather than what actually did occur. Their testimony is based on theory while ignoring the facts and physical evidence. On the rare occasion when the evidence is examined, the examination is often lacking in any recognized scientific or organized procedure. I can cite two examples where one so-called “expert” viewed recovered parts at our facility and a second purported “expert” who looked at parts at an attorney’s office. One procedure took nine minutes and the second less than six minutes. In neither inspection did the “experts” use a microscope, any type of magnification equipment or, for that matter, any type of equipment whatsoever. They observed the parts with the naked eye and took photos. One can only assume this cursory inspection was performed to perpetuate the illusion of being an expert.

There is one self-promoting “expert” who has actually been expelled from a professional organization and had a certification revoked for ethics violations. This individual has also stated in court testimony that he is “self taught” in automotive forensics with virtually no formal training and has been disqualified as an expert in another court for this lack of training or foundation. Incredibly, this individual continues to be retained as an “expert” nationwide.

There are other purported “experts” who have extensive training and education in automotive technology, years of experience in automotive repair and some who have even acquired private investigators licenses. Yet, a review of their resume/CV’s indicate absolutely no training or education in ignition locks, anti-theft systems, steering columns, burned vehicle examination or the forensic sciences. Still, they promote themselves as automotive forensic examiners.

A study of obtained court testimony and deposition transcripts reveals that some of these “experts” will alter their testimony predicated upon the circumstances on which they were hired to promote doubt. The examination standards and procedures, as well as the truth, should not be subject to situational alterations. No unprincipled individual should be permitted to sell their testimony for any price.

There are several methods that can help identify these individuals. The obvious would be the extent of relative training and experience in the areas they claim expertise and to provide documentation. Certifications issued by, and membership in, recognized professional associations are important. No one can be “self-taught” in the required disciplines. No one can buy a DVD package priced at $1500-$1700 with the promise that they will be qualified automotive forensic experts after viewing the material, taking some type of test and joining a questionable organization. And, in my opinion, any purported “expert” who accepts every offer, without exception, and commits to testify against another expert without ever properly examining the vehicle, the available parts or components to form their own conclusions as to the validity of the case, would expose their true intentions to suspicion.

When the experts collide it is not simply a clash of training, skill or experience. It isn’t even a matter of opposing opinions. What should be most important are the qualifications of the expert, their professional ethics and their honesty.

obert Mangine has been an Automotive Forensic Examiner since 1991 and has examined over 12,000 vehicles. Robert has qualified as an expert in 7 states, the District of Columbia and in military court on over 45 occasions. Robert Mangine has instructed Automotive Forensics as a guest lecturer at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, as well presenting training seminars nationwide for law enforcement, attorneys, the US Marine Corps, US Air Force, NCIS, insurance companies and professional organizations.

2007 NorthAmerican Technical & Forensic Services, LLC