Forensics of Auto Fraud

 

H O M E
little guy
mission statement
free samples
subscribe now!
publications
links
contact us
bullet.gif (537 bytes) beat the press

    Forensics of Auto Collision and Fraud Investigations Part 1

  Failed, traffic-safety events are important and often have life-changing impact for victims. Yet, local law enforcement officials frequently trivialize such events. After the evidence from such events has been cleared away, reconstruction of what occurred becomes a complex issue. Third-parties (e.g., insurance investigators, attorneys, independent  certified medical fraud investigators) are left to rely on the descriptions of little-trained, failed, traffic-safety personnel who come out to a scene and who are empowered to assign fault, make damage estimates, identify road gouges, describe skid marks, and other forensic measurements of minute, failed, traffic-safety remnants. Such remnants are used to define the relationships among criminal intent, occupant responsibility, offending driver responsibility, criminal conspiracy, and quality interrogatory evidence.  The truth is that--more times than not--a patrol officer is sent to an accident scene—not a seasoned detective. In fact, after having taken just a few of the “proper” courses, an individual can become an accident Reconstructionist (AR), who is then an alleged “expert” recognized by the courts. Medical doctors buy into this system when they take seminars from business profiteers.  Profiteers use their “expertise” to reveal how personal injury professionals can maximize their profits on low-impact accidents; and, of course, attorneys, who in the interest of their client(s), use the psychobabble research and define a failed-traffic safety incident.

      It takes extensive training to identify even the “simplest,” failed, traffic-safety events (e.g., speeding, running a red light, or weaving) after they have happened, let alone, something as complex as a multi-vehicle collision. It should be no surprise, then, those faulty reports are often used as objective evidence, when, in fact, they are only the opinions of novice individuals. Unfortunately, when all is said and done, it is frequently the case that justice is seldom served relative to failed, traffic-safety events.

      We as consumers are learning more about nutrition, exercise, and medicine to better understand and improve our own health. We have not done as much to learn about the mechanics of everyday events such as automobile accidents until we become unwitting participants, with our pocketbooks and/or our health on the line. The focus of this article is to make you aware of identifying factors that can make a failed, traffic-safety event from being perceived as “our fault” to one that looks like it is the fault of the other party(ies) involved, or even like that of contributory, or shared fault.

     In this issue, a case study of a head-on collision between two vehicles is discussed. This particular case is a prototypical example of what is called by trained investigators, a “skewed case effect.” This discussion will be directed to those fellow forensic professionals who work in the field of personal injury—including judges, attorneys, and law enforcement. However, it is also intended for consumers who want to be aware, informed and safe from injustice.

     Driver X said she was traveling westbound going 34 M.P.H. (in a 35 M.P.H. zone), when  Driver Z entered the intersection from the left (see, Figure 2).  X hit the front, right-hand side of Z’s vehicle. The visibility of both drivers was unimpeded prior to their entering the intersection. Z insisted that X be stopped at the curb when he (Z) approached the intersection. X then proceeded through, and slammed on her brakes when she observed Z. .

      X claimed that the skid marks left by her vehicle resulted from her stopping. However, after analysis, these marks do not support her story. In Figure 2, Segment 1 is illustrative of an acceleration skid mark; only Segment 2 shows any effort at braking. Where brake skids move abruptly on the left, demonstrate scientifically the location of a vehicle’s wheels at the point of impact. Despite the confusion, the physical evidence here strongly supports Z’s side of the dispute. by Dr. Scott D. Neff, DC DABCO MPS MSOM CFE FFABS FAABT DACFE FFAAJTS. 

“If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it burst through, it will blow up everything in its way.”  Emile Zola

-- Click here for Part II Dr. Scott D. Neff, Chiropractic Orthopedist     DE, IDE.,CFE, DABFE, FFABS FFAAJTS        

© & TM 1998 American Academy for Justice Through Science. All rights reserved.

vfwim02.gif (4508 bytes)