1 / 18

Prove It. ™ Forensic Research

Prove It. ™ Forensic Research. Resolving controversy affecting the reputation of a collector car. David Burroughs David@BloomingtonGold.com 309 261-0992. A research team that determines if claims or rumors about a vehicle are true, false, or inconclusive.

kailey
Download Presentation

Prove It. ™ Forensic Research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Prove It.™Forensic Research Resolving controversy affecting the reputation of a collector car. David Burroughs David@BloomingtonGold.com 309 261-0992

  2. A research team that determines if claims or rumors about a vehicle are true, false, or inconclusive. David Burroughs (Moderator) Frank Pope (Sr. Investigator) Subject Matter Witnesses 20+ Analysts Available No single authority Prove It.

  3. Typical Cases Are High Risk/High Reward • Not pre-purchase inspections • Not verifying engine stamps or trim tags • Not replacing individual subject experts • Not replacing judging organizations • Not limited to Corvettes • Typically more complex • Needing significant credibility

  4. Examples of Claims “This is the actual race car that won XYZ race.” “No; it’s a fake that looks like that car.” “I have the last XYZ produced.” “No, you don’t. I do.” “Celebrity XYZ owned this car.” “No, he didn’t. He owned the twin to it.” “This is what remains of the 6th Grand Sport.” “Impossible. There were only 5 built.”

  5. 1963 Mickey Thompson Bonneville Z06 Determined not to be the Bonneville car Determined to be Thompson’s driver Hinged largely on Historic photography & Expert witnesses Actual Cases

  6. NASCAR Shock Absorbers

  7. No Evidence of Shock Installation

  8. 1961 Gulf SCCA Champ Rumored to be a “fake” Conclusion Confirmed the 1961Champ Hinged on— Historic photography Pre-restoration photos Highly credible witnesses Actual Cases

  9. VIN Linkage

  10. Screw Ghosts Visible

  11. How It Works • Someone has a “claim” to prove • Client meeting to explain— • We don’t “fight for” client • Findings may be negative • Determine strength of evidence • If weakly supported, case is declined • If appears possible, discovery is begun

  12. Discovery Phase • What exactly is the owner’s claim? • Review owner evidence, testimony, witnesses, photographs, and relevant facts to support it. • Collect adverse witness evidence against it. • Develop plan how to confirm, reject, or expand the evidence presented. • Who to interview? • What other witnesses suggest themselves? • Is there any “silver bullet” evidence?

  13. Investigation Phase • Interview witnesses on both sides to determine theories, next questions, contradictions, patterns, exceptions, “monkey wrenches” in the logic train. (e.g. 1st or 2nd issue Monroney) • Remove irrelevant findings to narrow the scope • Conduct forensic lab tests on paperwork if required • Sort the issues dividing the client & adverse witness • Define the one thing that would convince everyone • Determine if there is any way to get that “one thing”

  14. Initial Report • Written summary of findings, implications, and initial conclusions • Distributed to client and all witnesses to confirm accuracy and avoid gaps of testimony • Errors will be corrected and any open issues re-visited

  15. Conclusions are Rated by Strength(Not just ‘yes’ or ‘no’.) • Definitive Unequivocal certainty • Highly Probable Virtually certain but with limiting factor • Probable Strong evidence to support • Indications There is some evidence to support • Inconclusive Indeterminate

  16. Final Draft • Initial Report is updated to reflect any corrections resulting from the initial review of client and witnesses. • Final Draft distributed to 3-5 analysts selected from pool to review, comment, and concur or not. • 20+ professional critical thinkers available (attorneys, scientists, business persons, etc.) • Unpaid • Unknown to client and other analysts on case • Analysts submit their individual verdicts to the Moderator

  17. Final Report • Final Draft is updated to Final Report • Restatement of the client claim is made • Summary of evidence supporting /rejecting the claim • Statement of conclusions based on the evidence • Level of Strength assigned the conclusion • Analyst Team concurrence now included • Distributed to Client

  18. Prove It.™Forensic Research Resolving controversy affecting the reputation of a collector car.

More Related