Prove It™: Forensic Research for Collector Car Controversies

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.