Prove It.
™
Forensic Research
Resolving controversy
affecting the reputation of a collector car.
David Burroughs
[email protected]
309 261-0992
Prove It.
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
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

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.”
Actual Cases
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
NASCAR Shock Absorbers
No Evidence of Shock Installation
Actual Cases
1961 Gulf SCCA
Champ
Rumored to be a “fake”
Conclusion
Confirmed the 1961Champ
Hinged on—

Historic photography

Pre-restoration photos

Highly credible witnesses
VIN Linkage
Screw Ghosts Visible
How It Works
Someone has a “claim” to prove
 Client meeting to explain—

o
o
o
o
o
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
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?
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”
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 revisited

Conclusions are Rated by Strength
(Not just ‘yes’ or ‘no’.)
Definitive
 Highly Probable
 Probable
 Indications
 Inconclusive

Unequivocal certainty
Virtually certain but with limiting factor
Strong evidence to support
There is some evidence to support
Indeterminate
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
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
Prove It.
™
Forensic Research
Resolving controversy affecting the
reputation of a collector car.