report - findforms.com · it is used to identify the spot responder, this means to avoid that the...

Mexico D. F., May 7. 2008

In answer to your request, in which you asked the intervention of the undersigned, in order torender an expert report in polygraph related to the fire case of the boat "Mi Barur", I present to youthe following:

REPORT

PROBLEM POSED.

A. Determine whether Mr. Rello Romero Luis Manuel intentionally provoked the fire of theboat Mi Barur" on October 20, 2007, located at dock number 2 of Marina Palmira in La Paz, BajaCalifornia Sur.

SICENTIFIC METHODOLOGY

I. APPLICATION OF A POLYGRAPH TEST

These were the steps of the scientific methodology that were taken during the test:r

* Introduction of the persons in charge of the test.

* Authorization in writing to perform the test to respect the fundamental rights of the UnitedMexican States Constitution.

* Personal background

* Review of the medical - psychological status of the person being interviewed.

* Explanation of the polygraph.

* In-depth interview.

* Introduction to control questions.

* Making and reviewing of questions that were to be used during the test.

* Elaboration of graphics.

* Interpretation of the graphics.

* Post-test interview.

II. QUESTIONS USED DURING THE TEST

1 EXHIBITA-41217

Case 3:08-cv-00443-BEN-POR Document 13-9 Filed 06/20/2008 of 24

The questions that were used are the following:

Irrelevant questions 1, 7 y 10, This questions are designed with the purpose of decreasing theemotional stress, as well as to verify the reaction capacity of the subject, as they are not linked withthe target fact being investigated.

Symptomatic question 2. This is designed with the objective of testing a single fact subjectmatter of the investigation and to cause the subject not to disperse his psychological attention inother acts.

Relevant questions 4, 6 y 8, They are designed with the purpose of exploring the facts subjectmatter of the investigation, because they are linked to the target of the test.

Comparative questions 3, 5 and 9, They are designed with the purpose of balancing theemotional charge, caused by the relevant questions that are linked with the target of theinvestigation.

11 Are you now in Sinaloa’? No

2T Did you answer with the truth all the questions that I made to you today? Yes

3C Do you remember taking women to the boat without the authorization of the owner in anyoccasion? No

4R Did you intentionally cause the fire by any means of the boat "Mi Barur"? No

5C Do you remember having consumed alcoholic beverages in the boat in any occasion? No

6R Did you intentionally cause the fire of the boat "Mi Barur" on October 20, 2007? No

71 Are you now in Mexico City? Yes

8R Did you smoke in the area of the cabins located at bow on October 20, 2007? No

9C Do you remember, in any other occasion, having defrauded the trust of the owner of theboat? No

101 Are you now in Aguascalientes? No

The used technique was the MGQT, which is a modified version of the technique developed byJohn Reid in 1953, who was the first in developing the method comparing comparative questions

- Translators note: Sinaloa is a one of the 31 States of Mexico.- Translators note: Aguascalientesis a one ofthe 31 States of Mexico.

2 EXHIBITA-41218


and the guilt complex reaction questions, incorporating that to this technique. In 1968, the ArmForces Academy modified Reid’s technique and call it MGQT, incorporating the principles used inthe test of comparative zones of Cleve Backster ZCT comparative questions separated in spaceand time, which was adopted by the Arm Forces Academy of the U.S.A. in 1961.

The main difference between Reid’s Technique 1953, and that of the Army MGQT 1968, wasthat Reid’s did not use a numeric analysis, the controls were not isolated in time and/or placeregarding the relevant matter, and he permitted multiple matters in the test in a sole seriescrossing objectives. Crossing objectives consists on two or more different matters or crimes.

In the last years, both the Army and the Marine of the United States of America have modified theMGQT in several way and have used this technique in criminal and counterintelligence areas.

The results to determine the accuracy of the Poligraph made by some Universities are presentedbelow:

* Stanford’s states a 96%.* Utah’s, a 94%.* British Columbia’s, a 96%.

On the other hand:

* Jagiellonian, in Poland, a 95%.* Another from the government of India, a 90%

MGQTS PRINCIPLES

* Comparative questions technique

* Uniformity of the technique

* Permits up to five relevant questions concerning a single crime or subject matter and/orseveral subject mailers.

PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MGQT’S STURCTURE

The MGQT is a test designed to cause a threat in the security of the person being examined,without minding if he is guilty or innocent, and focing him to center his attention in the specificquestions of the structure of the test.

The MGQT uses a structured format where the questions are reviewed with the person beingexamined. In any event, the exact sequence of how the questions will be made is not known. Itdesigned to avoid external mailers to interfere with the examination, the use of symptomaticquestions used in the ZCT technique.

3 EXHIBITA-41219


It is used to identify the spot responder, this means to avoid that the person being examined isresponding to a question because he is in the same position always, because this techniquepermits the rotation of both relevant and control questions in each of the sequences, alwaysrespecting the recognized principles of the American Association of Poligraphs.

Ill PROTOCOL TO QUALIFY THE PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIONS OBTAINED BY THETEST

* The numeric evaluation of the MGQT is vertical, there is not an horizontal total, this isbecause each OR’s refers to different matters.

* To obtain a result of NDI a vertical total score greater to + 3 has to be obtained in each ofthe relevant questions.

* To diagnosticate a Dl resulta vertical total score of -3 has to be obtained in each of thequestions.

* If none of this scores are obtained, then it is inconclusive or we do not issue an opinion.

SCORES OBTAINED IN THE TEST

VAT.2+I6_8H

EXHIBIT A-41

1÷3 I 1

4

220


I iI

_______1I

I +21 I

TOTALS +4

÷36

+4

CONCLUSIONS

1. With respect to the polygraph test performed to Mr. Luis Manuel Rello Romero we obtaineda "VERACI1’Y" result NDI, sustained in the quantitative analysis of the psychophysiological of the person being examined according to the protocols established by theAmerican Association of Polygraphs.

2. No psycho-physiological reactions of lack of veracity were registered when he answerednegatively to the question if Mr. Luis Manuel Rello Romero intentionally caused the fire byany means of the boat "Mi Barur".

3. No psycho-physiological reactions of lack of veracity were registered when he answerednegatively to the question if Mr. Luis Manuel Rello Romero intentionally caused the fire byany means of the boat "Mi Barur" on October 20. 2007 and if on October 20, 2007 hesmoked in the area of the quarters of bow.

4. For the reasons stated above, the undersigned poligraph experts, Psychologists JuliánFlores Anda and Psic. Carlos Enrique Ramos Raths, conclude that according to theprotocols of the polygraph techniques and based on the methodology of the psychophysiological test of Deceit Detection PDD and the numeric qualification obtained thereto,that no reactions of deceit were registered in the main subject of the evaluation by Mr. LuisManuel Rello Romero.

SINCERELY,

PSIC. JULIAN FLORES ANDACertified Poligraph Expert

Supervisor

PSIC. CARLOS ENRIQUE RAMOS RATHSCertified Poligraph ExpertPerson applying the test

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tuvia Rosen 2002, The polygraph, myths and reality, Mexico: INACIPE.

5 EXHIBIT A -41221

a


James Allan Mafte, Ph D. 1968, "Forensic psychophysiology using the polygraph".

Norman Ansley 1990, Validity and accuracy of poligraph decisions in real cases

Elmer Criswell 2003, Study of the test formats of P.D.D., article presented to the Annual Seminarof the American Association of Polygraphs, Sparks, Nevada.

6 EXHIBITA-41222


Mexico 0. F.. a 07 de Mayo del 2008

En atenciOn a su solicitud donde requrriá do nuostra intervention de los que suscriben, paradictaminar en materia de poligraria relerente at caso del incendlo dci Darco ‘CMi Barur’ remito austed Ic sigusente:

DICTAMEN

PROBLEMA PLANTEADO

A. Determiner si el C. Rello Romoro luis Manuel, provocO intencionalrnente el incendio delbarco Mi Barur’ ci dia 20 tie octube del 2007, en Is Marina de Palmira en Ia Paz, Baja caliForniaSur en el muelle marcacic con el nijmem 2

METODOLOGIA CIENTIFICA

I APLICACION DE LA EVALUACION POLIGRAFICA

Estos son los pasos do Ia metodologia cientifica que se emplearon durante Is evaluacion:

* Presentation de los Evaluadores

* AutorlzaciOn pa escrito para lievar a cabo Is prueba Respeto a las garantlasIndividuates plasmadas on Ia Constitution Pol%Vca de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos

* Antecedentes personales

* Revision tie Is sihiaciOn medico - psicolOgica del entrevistado

Explicacion del pollgrafo

* Entrevista Profunda

* Introduccion de preguntas control

Formulacion y revision do proguntas quo so van a utilizar durante ci examen

Elaboracion tie graficos

Interpretacion do graficas

Entrevista post-test.

.4 annns,rrr Lie nnTyaLt an odan aot44n darBXH1BFFA941223


r

II PREGUNTAS EMPLEADAS EN LA PRUEBA

Las preguntas quo so utilizaron fueron:

In’olevantes jpreguntas 1, 1 y 10, Estas preguntasestn daseñadas con Ia finalidad tie disminuirIs tensiOn emocional, asi comb veriricar Ia capacidad Ge reacciOn del sujeto, ys gte no estanligadas con & objavvo del bccho que se investiga.

$intomática pregunta Z Esta diseñaOa con el obeUvo be evaiuarsolo el hacho quo so investigay que ei sujeto examinado no disperse su atencion psicologica en otros actos.

Rolevantes preguntas 4, 6 y 8. Son diseAadas cart a linalidad de exploar los hethos que seinvestigan, ya qua onàn Jigadas a los obeth’os tie Ia evaluaclon.

Coinparativas proguntas 3, 5 y 9. San disenadas con Ia finalidad equilibrar Is carga ernocional,quo generan las preguntes relevantes que estan Iigadas con el objetivo quo se investiga

11 tEstas ahora en Sinalea? No

2T tContesto con total veracidad a las preguntas que le realice el dia tie hay? Si

3C Recuerdas en al9una otra ocasiOn. LHaber Ilevado inujeres 01 barco sin autorizaciOn Gelpropietarlo? No

4R DoIiberadamcnto ocasionaste ol Incondic a través de cualquier modlo del barco "MiBarur?No

5C tRecuordas en alguna oa ocasiOn. haber consumida bebidas alcotiolicas en el bareS?No

GR tlnlenclonalrnente tu provacaste eI incendio en sI barco "ml barur" el 20 do octubredo 2007? No

71 stas ahora en Ia ciudad do Mexico? Si

SR /El die 20 do octubre do 2007 u fumaste en ol area do carnarotes do proc? No

9C cRecuerdas en alguna otra ocasiOn, Haber derraucfatio ta conflanza dcl propietario tic,!barco? No

101 tEstas ahora en Aguascahentes’ No

I

B000PISS US QQIXW fl ‘iodagaoi1j0


r

La tecnica ernpleada tue MOOT quo Cs una versiOn modilicada do Ia b5cniCu desan’oIlada porJohn Reid, en 1953, que tue el primero en desarrollar Ia cornparaciOn do las preguntascomparativas y las preguntas Ce reacciOn do complejO Ge culpa quo incorporO en esta tOcnica En1968, Ia Academia do Ia Armada modutico Ia tecnica be Reid y Ia Ilamo MGQT, Ademas leincorporaron los principios preguntas cornparabvas sepamadas en tiempo y espacio utilizados poreI examen do cornparaciOn Ce zones do Clove Backater ZCT, que tue adoptado par Ia Academiatie ia Arms be los E. E. UU. en 196’t.

La diferencia principal entre Ia Têcnlca do Reid 1953, y Is del Ejrcito MGQT 1968, tue quo Reidno usaba 01 analisis numerico. sus controles no estaban aisladas por tiernpo yb lugar del asuntorelevante. y él permilir, mOltiples asuntos en Is prueba en una sole sena cruando objetivos.Cruzando objetivos consiste en dos o rnés dulerentes asuntos o crirnenes.

En Los iltimnos a/tos, tanto el Ejercito coma Ia Marina do los Estados Unidos be Nortearnerica banmodificado el MGOT en varies tormas y ban utilizado eats lecnica en a! Area do crimones y encontraintebgencia.A continuatiOn se presantan resultados pars determiner Ia exactitud del Poligralo realizadas paralgunas Universidades:

* La be Stanford se/tala uti 96%.* Lade Utah, eI 94%.* La be British Columbia. el 96%.

Por otro lado:

* Jagielionian. en Polonia, el 95%.* Otro pore! gobierric, do a India, arrojô ol 90%

PRINCIPIOS OE MOOT

* Ttcnica do preguntas comparetivas

* Uniformidad en a técnica

* Permite hasta cinto preguntas relevantes concernierites a un solo crinen a asunto ybvarios asuntos.

PSICOLOGiA DE LA ESTRUCTURA MGQT

El MOOT es un examen disofiado pars poner una arnenaza a Ia seguridad del examinado, sinrnportar SI CS cu,ablc a inoccntc, y forzarlo a centrar su atencion en las preguntas especibcas doIa estructura del examen.

El MOOT use un torrnato estructurado en donde las pregunts son revisadas con el examinado.Do cualnuier orma Is secuencla exacts do cOmo so forrnularan las preguntas no so conoce

3

e’d 8000tiss US OQ!ZOw Cfl aode ;a+o225


r

Esta di5eñado pare evitar quo asuntos externos intertieran con Is examination, Is utilization dopreguntas sintornAticas usaclas en a técnica ZCT.

Es utllizaaa pars Idenllficar al respondlente do punlo Spot Responder. esto so refiere cuando tincxarninado esta respondiendo a una misma pitgunta por encontrarse en Ia misms positionsternpre. esto Ia eviLs ya que Ia técaica perrnite rotar tanta relevantes coma controles en cads unado sus secuencias. siernpre respetando los principios reconocido par Is AsociaciOn Americana bePoligrafistas.

Ill LINEAMIENTOS DE CALIFICACION DE LAS REACCIONES FISIOLOGICASOBTENIDAS

* La evaluation numénca en Cl MOOT es vertical, no bay un total horizontal.. esto debido aquo cads OR ‘s so refieren a asuntos diferentes.

* Pare obtener un tesultado be NOl se dote obtener Un puntaje total be rnanera verticalmayor a t a en cads una do las progunta rolovantos.

* Pars diagnosticar Un resultado Dl se dote obtener un puntaje total de manem verticalmenor a - 3 en alguna de las preguntas.

* Si no obtenemos ningtri be estos puntajes, entonces tetiemos un inconcluso o nocruitirnos una opiniOn.

CALIFICACIONES OBTENIDOS EN EL EXAMEN

+1

_____________________ _________

-1I +ii

J.tki. I I

4

-- -t

uooosjss us 001xal4 ode0 aot*340 do; EXH1BtFAe4j226

VAT 2 4 6

TL 1-1 ‘--I H1H

p


r

+4 +3

CONCLUSIONES

1. En 10 concemionte a Is evaluatiOn poligraflca realizada S C. Rello Rornero Luis Manuel seobluvo un resultado do "VFRAZ" NOt, sustentado en el anátisis cuantitativo be asreacciones psicofisiolOglcas do examinado durante eI coirido be las tres graficas realizadasbe acuerdo a los lineamientos establecidos por Is AsociaciOn Americana de Poligrafisla.

2. En lo referents a si el C. I%ello Roincro Luis Manuel. delberada’nente ocasiono elincendio a través do cunlquier media bet barco "Ml Barur, no so registraron reaccionespsicofisiológicas do falta be veracidad, al contcstar negativemente este cuestionamiento.

3. En Ia referente a quo Si eI C. Rello Romero Luis Manual, intencionalmente provoco elincendio en 91 barco ‘mi barur" S 20 be octubre do 2007 y si 01 dIe 20 do octubre de 2007fumô en CI area be camarotes do pros, no so registraron reacciones be falLs de veracidad,al contestar negativamente a estos a estos cuestionamientos

4. Por to ya descrilo, 105 quo suscriben poligraflstas Psic. JuIiân FIGres Anda y el Psic.Carlos Enrique Ramos Raths, concluyen quo be acuerdo a los lineamientos de a têcnicapoligrtflca y con base en Ia metodologia de aplicaciOn do Ia prueba psicofisiolOgica doDeteccion del Engaflo POD, asl coma, de Is calificaciOn numerics obtenida. en el exarnenpracticado al C. Rcllo Romero L.uis Manuel, no se registraron reacciones be engaño

5.

PSIC.

5

eooos.tss us oo;xaw e odaj ao;flQ dot EXHIStTae.241

4

TOTALES

6

ATEI

r

‘E RAMOS RATHS

Aplicador

s’S

227


BIBLIOGRAFIA

tuvia Rosen 2002. El poligratoniltos y realidades, Mexico: INACIPE,

James Allan Matte, PhD. 1968. ‘Forensic psythophysiology using the polygraph.

Norman Ansley 1990. Validez y confiatilidacl en decisiones poligráficas en casos rests

Elmer Criswcll 2003, Estidia be los formatos do prueba do P. 0. 0., articulo presentado en ciSerninario Anual do Ia Aseclacion Arnencana do Poligrafia, on Sparks Nevada.

8

8000PISs us oopce e ode aozjj0

228


FireCauseAnalysis.4 DIVISION OF FT INC.

May 20, 2008

To: Edward M. BullBanning,Micklow andBull LLPOneMarket - SteuartTower#1440San Francisco,CA 94 105-1429

Re; Mr. ArsenioFarell CampaMotor Yacht "MI BARUR"Vessel; 1990 HatterasHIN No,: HATDT3O11990US Official Number: 975461Date of Loss: October 20, 2007 SaturdayLocation of Loss: Marina Palrnira, dock #2, slip#2Ol-#2O2

La Paz,MexicoRespondingFD: La Paz Fire DepartmentAlarm Time; 9:40A.M.FCA Ref. No.: 08-10613V

Enclosedfor your private and confidential information is my report of the evaluationof theMaze fire investigationreport of the abovereferencedfire. The opinionsexpressedin thisreportare basedupon the guidelinesestablishedin the NFPA 921.

Synopsis:

In summary,this fire loss occurredin the mid-morning hours at the Marina Palmira YachtHarbor in La Paz, Mexico. The fire occurredwithin the "MI BARUR", a 1990, 92-footmotor yacht, manufacturedby Hatteras, MI BARUR was moored on the starboardside,facing north at slip #201 & #203 locatedat the eastendof dock #2. No onewas on boardthemotor yacht at the timethe fire was reported.

Multiple calls were received by witnesseswithin the marina,who observedsmokeemanatingfrom the forward, starboardside, of the vessel,mainly from the starboardgalley passagewaydoor. Two of the witnesses,Mr. FranciscoRobles and Alfredo Amador were working onadjacentvesselstowardsthe middle of dock #2 and observedthe early stagesof the fire.

With assistancefrom individuals around the marina, the vesselwas moved from its originalmooredposition at the westend dock #2 to north side of dock #7, on the interior eastsideofthe marinabreakwater. The vesselwas movedso that other vesselswould not be harmedbythe fire andto provided better accessfor fire suppressionequipment.

Offices: 935 PARDEE STREETSan FranciscoBay Area BERKELEY. CA. 94710.2623USASacramentovalley 510.649.1300Southern California 800.726.5939Phoenix.Arizona Fax: 510.649.3099

EXHIBIT A-42229


Local firefighters arrived on scene and observedheavy flames emanatingfrom the galleydoor and salon. Firefightersbegansuppressionoperationsbut were driven off the vesselbythe intensity of the fire. Firefighters then re-directedtheir efforts from the exterior of thevessel. Suppressionefforts continueduntil approximately2:00 P.M. on the sameday whenthe fire was thought to be completelyextinguished. The motor yacht "MI BARUR" and allcontentssutaineda total fire loss.

The following morning, a "re-kindle" occurredon the vessel.The vesselwas takenoutsidethe breakwater,burned to the water line, and sunk in shallow water. The vessel wassubmergedfor some three days prior to being raised and taken to a local marine facility,Abaroa’s shipyard,where shewas placedin the ways for inspection.

Maze delayed the investigation"while the vesselwas raised from the water" and towed toAbaroa’s Ship Yard. The initial inspection on October 28, 2007 the vesselwas partiallyunder water and was "unable to be inspectedfor fire Origin and Cause." On October31,2007 the vesselwas raisedand towed to the ship yard. Maze’s secondsite inspectionthe MlBARUR was on supoprtstandsat Abaroa’s Ship Yard in La Paz,on November8 & 9 2007.Maze InvestigationReportpages4 & 5

Senior InvestigatorDon Perkins conductedan investigationon April 7, 2008,Don Perkinsreport page 6 subsequentto Mr. Murphy of Maze Investigations. The data acquired byInvestigatorPerkinswas consideredin my evaluation.

rMAZE Report Evaluation:

Investigation Process:

Failure to Document and Examine Potential Evidence:

Mr. Murphy failed to examine the vessel while it was partially submerged. It hasbeenknownin the industry that submerged vessels should be inspected and photographed priortorecovery as data evidence can become dislodged, moved or lost during the recovery.

It is also recognizedby NFPA 921 section28.3.5.11where it states"Boats underthe water or submergedshould be inspected and photographicallydocumentedprior to recovery, if possible." Only "qualified people" should conduct therecoveryand documentation.

* Mr. Murphy was not on site to assurethe vessel was properly recovered soevidencewas not destroyed. The vesselwas "partially" submergedand "the firescene investigationwas delayed while the vessel was raised from the water..."Maze InvestigationReportpage4.

* The vesselshould have beenexaminedand documentedprior to recovery and atno less the recovery should have been overseenand directed to assureevidencewas not lost. The extent of the damageto the vesselallowed for the likelydestructionof evidenceduring recovery.

08-106 13 Page 2 08-10613

EXHIBIT A -42230


* investigatorPerkins and EE Kilgore noted that evidence was not available forexaminationDon Perkin’s report pages4, 15, 16, 18, 20 removal of evidencebyMr. Murphy with no documentation.

Failure to ConductInterviews;

Mr.Murph p did not thoroulihlp identify and interview witnesses. It is recognized intheindustrythat witnesses who first discover the fire may have valuableinformation.

* The "Origin Determination" chapterin NFPA 921 statesthe "observationof personswho witnessedthe fire" should be coordinationto determineorigin of the fire.

* Mr. Perkins was able to identifS’ thesewitnessesand documenttheir observationsasthey enteredthe enteredthe vesselandtheir observationsof the fire in the vesselDonPerkinsreportpage11- 15.

* Mr. Murphy failed to identify this evidenceor failed to documentit in his reportMaze Investigationreport 11 - 17. This information is importantas the ensuingfire destroyedmuchof the remainingcombustiblesand patterns.

* Thesewitnessesprovide informationthat is important to establishingthe stage,heightand possiblelocation of the fire.

* Thesewitnessesprovide information that the smoke and heat is high and they can seebelow the high layer in the areaMr. Murphy definesas the origin. Mr. Murphy reliedon Captain Rello’s interview as being "empirical data" without assuringthat is was"capableof beingverified" NFPA 921 4.3.3.

* In particular, Captain Rello admitted to being a heavy smoker,he was in the vesselfor sometime including having coffee, using the restroom and otheractivities Mazereport pagers11 - 15.

* A heavy smoker often smokeswhen he conductstheseactivities, and evaluation ofthe smoking habits should have beenexplored. Smokingmaterialscould have beenlost in the ensuingfire or the raisingof the vessel.

* It is also know that heavy smoker’solfactoriesmay not be as sensitiveand he may nothavenotedunusualodors in the vessel.

* Mr. Murphy usedthis as "empirical data" that nothing was unusualwhen the captainleft the vessel and did not explore or note if smoking activities occurred on thevessels.

Mr.Murphy also relied as "empirical data" that the electrical system was inproperworkingorder and there had been no previous uroblems with the electrical system, orhe

failed to provide that information in the report Maze report page16.

* A history of the vessel should be explored including any maintenanceissues orproblems,replacementof electrical system, electronicsand componentsshould beaddressed.

08.1 06/3 Page 3 08-10613

EXHIBIT A -42231


r

* InvestigatorsPerkins and Kilgore note that some of the electrical componentsandsystemswere not availablefor inspectionand thereforecould note be ruled out DonPerkin’s report pages15 - 16.

* NFPA 921 statesthat the vehicle and appliancehistory needsto be obtainedSection24.2.1,24.4.2,chapter25 and chapter28. Mazereport page15 statesmajor changeshad occurred but this information was not explored as to additional problems oractivitiesthat occurredin the fire area.

* A changein original systemssuch as activities by third parties should be exploredasa potential failure does exist. This information would provide assistancein theevaluationof any hypothesesand provide informationon problemswith equipmentorappliances. Such information on the electrical system and applianceswas readilyavailablefrom the marinesurveyor,the captainand the owner.

Mr.Murphy has listed the cause as "incendiary" with open flame Maze report 34 & 35.Thistypeof fire with the available fuels would rapidly go to"flash over" and "full room

involvement"within minutes in the compartment ‘NFPA 921 chapter5.

* The fire discovery,witness information, and descriptionof the fire indicates a firethat took a period of time to developDon Perkin’s reportpages11 - 15, which oftenoccurs with a fire from an accidental ignition source, as this type heat sourcegenerallydoesnot generateenoughenergyto progressdirectly to flaming combustionbut takestime to develop.

* Ventilation effects during fire spreadmasks or destroysthe original fire movementand patternssequential, and will often have deeperfire charring and fire damageotherthat the fire origin., and mask or destroythe first patterns of the fire.

* Theseeffects were not addressedby Mr. Murphy or are not addressedin the report.Don Perkin’s reportpages25 & 26.

Mr.Murphy states the tireoriginated in the areaof the captains bunk and goes on tostatethemattress polyurethane will flow like an ignitable liquid and burn on the floorMaze

reportpages 33 & 34.

* The report also statesthis is the areaof the captain’squartersare lowest and longestburning Mazereport pages31, 32, 34.

* Mr. Perkins investigationrevealedcarpetremainedin the areaon the floor and belowyet the carpeton the deckof the Captain’s compartmentDon Perkin’s report pages19 & 20 remainedintact receivingno flaming or heat relateddamage..

* NFPA 921 discussesburningof plastic and burning of floors in chapters5 & 6, whichis not consistentwith the Maze reportand the fire starting in this location.

Mr.Murphy Placed emphasis on the vessel being "FOR SALE" and that items hadbeenremovedfrom the vessel Maze report page 14 and 32 [noted during Mr.Murphy’s

discussionof the sceneexamination!.

* Mr. Murphy usesthis informationon reachinghis conclusions.

08-10613 Page 4 08-106/3

EXHIBIT A -42232


* NFPA 921 section 22.3 cautionsthe investigatorthat such indicators are not to beused in determining cause as this information "not directly related to the fire orexplosion cause". They may be used to determinewitnessesfor interviewing or todetermineif they hadprior knowledge.

Mr.Murnhv conducted an investigationof the vessel at Abaroa’s Ship Yard. He didnotlabeland identify the evidence and contents as he removed the material from thevessel

whichis recommended bvNFPA 921 chapter 16 and chapter11.

* To conduct a proper investigation the area should be "reconstruction"to observepatternsand to locate evidenceto make an accurateorigin determinationNFPA 92117.3.2.

* These tasks requiresthe removal of debris and replacethe contentsto their pre firelocation. NFPA 921 statesthe investigator"should acceptthe necessityof removingdebrisfrom the entireareaof interest".

* The fire burned uncontrolledconsumingmuch of the availablefuels to the waterlinefuel controlled fire, making sequentialpatternsmore difficult to identity and theneedfor "reconstruction"of the fire scene.

* Investigator Perkins conducted this reconstruction, revealing data that was notevaluatedby Mr. Murphy, or not addressedin his report Don Perkin’s report pages20- 25.

NFPA921 chapter 17 requires that "arc mapping" be conducted to provide datatodeterminethe origin. Mr. Murphy failed to do arc mapping or did not identify this

informationin hisreport.

* The information provided by InvestigatorPerkins and Kilgore indicate much of theelectrical systemwas destroyedor was missing.

* Mr. Murphy does statehe looked at the "shore power" and electrical systemsMazereport pges 29, 30, 33 but provides little information, and how far he followed ortracedthe system with much of the materials to do such an analysismissing. SeeKigore discussionPerkinsreport pages16, 17.

* Arc mappingrequirestracing and following all the circuits in the origin including thecords to the appliancesand the appliancesthemselves. This information is notaddressedin Mr. Murphy’s report, and likely could not be conducteddo to the loss ofmuch of the electricalsystemand components.

* The battery system in thesevessels provides a lot of "fault current" energy forignition of a fire if any failure occursNFPA 921 chapter8, chapter25 and chapter28 addressedin Maze report pages22 & 23, and Kilgore discussionPerkin’s reportpage 16.

08-106/3 Page 5 08./0613

EXHIBIT A -42233


r

Mr.Murph v is apparently trying to use NFPA section 18.2 "Processof Elimination"whereheidentifies a cause based on eliminating all other causes Maze report 34, 35t.

* This section is not suited for the caseand NFPA 921 specifically statesthat it cannotbe used in such cases.

* NFPA 921 statesthat the investigatormust have a "clearly defined origin" and whenthe origin must be "known to the exclusionsof all other potential origins", "someofthe conditions and circumstancesthat preventthe origin from being clearly definedinclude the degreeor extentof damagesuch as thosefrom a fully developedfire, oradverseeffectsof fire suppressionactivities" this vesselwas submergedin water forextinguishmentand severelydamagedby the fire, and raisedprior to examination.

* Mr. Murphy’s failure to conducta completescene analysisand gather all the data,also the destructionof much of the evidence,does not provide a "clearly definedorigin".

Mr.Murphy also appears to be using NFPA 921 section 18.2 to define the ignitionsourcebutagain NFPA 921 cautions the investigator that this method can only be used "when it

isknow conclusively to the exclusionof all other potential ignition sources" and that this"notto be used indiscriminately".

* This sectionalso requiresthe "testingand rejectionsof alternatehypotheses",whichdid not occur as all the datawas not developed,or Mr. Murphy did not addressthis inhis report.

NFPA921 section 4.3. 7 warns the investigator to "avoid presumption. Until datahavebeencollected, no specific hypothesis can be reasonably formed or tested.All

investigationsof fire and explosion incidents should be approached by theinvestigatorwithoutpresumption as to origin, ignition sequence, cause, fire spread, responsibility for

incident."

* Both the marine surveyor and Mr. Murphy had discussionwith witnessesabout ifCaptain Rello had set the fire prior to conductingthe sceneexamination.

* Mr. Schwedewas overheardasking witnessesif Captain Rello started the fire DonPerkinsreport page14.

On October 30, 2007 Mr. Murphy asked Captain Rello if he had set the fire Maze reportpage12, which is approximately8 daysprior to conductinghis examinationof the vessel.

* Mr. Muphy was at the same conferenceas Mr. Schwedeprior to conducting thisinvestigation.

08-10613 Page 6 08.10613

EXHIBIT A -42234


NFPA921 Chapter 4 is clear; the investigator must gather all the data, and evaluate allthe"empirical data" to develop and "test" their hypotheses.If data does not support the

finalhypotheses, the investigator must rather additional data, reevaluate the data; andifthehypotheses does not with stand a "careful and serious challenge", it should belisted

asundetermined.

* With the information availablethereare other hypothesesthat must be evaluatedasbeingthe possibleorigin, possiblecauseand fire spread.

Pleasefeel free to contactme on any pointsneedingfurtherclarification.

Submittedby,

Hal Lyson, CFIFire InvestigatorFire CauseAnalysis

H Lisa08.10613-OI.RHL

08.106/3 Page 7 08/ 0613

EXHIBIT A -42235


EXHIBIT "B"


‘a

AIitfariè,e Adjusters. Inc.175 Water Sfreet, 14th FloorNew York, New York 10033Tel. #: 212-458’6$13Fa,c ii: 212.458-6520E-Mail: Stsan.Smitb31AlG.com

March 10, 2008

VIA CERTIFIED AND REGULARMAIL HCertified Mail No.: 70072560000172840513Michael HallmarkPresident Mi Barur, Inc.2525 ShelterIslandDrive, SuiteBSanDiego, CA 92106

* Re: M/Y MI BARIJR H* Insured: Ml Barur, Inc.

Policy No.: YM 868-56-66Date of Loss: October 20, 2007Our ReferenceNo.: LE08939

Dear Mr. Hallmark:

* Underwritershavereachedadecisionon the claimof Mi Barur, Inc. for total lossby fire occurringon October20, 2007. The.evidencediscoveredin the investigationsupportsthe conclusionthat the fire was startedwith the siiflcant involvementofCaptainRello. Fir thisreason,andother reasons statedmorefully below, underwritersmust declineyour claim.

Underwritersauthorized release of the fire investigationreport, which wasprovided to you. The report concludesthat the fire was intentionallyset on the Captain’sbunk. The fire investigatorreviewed otherpossiblecauses,such asan accidentalcauseincluding smokingor electrical cause,but ruled themout. CaptainRello deniedthat heev;r used or slopt in the Captain’squarters;he observed thatno lights on in those quartersthe morningof the fire. He could point to no unusual eventsbeforethe fire, such asflickering lights or smell of smoke. We understandthatthe fire investigatorhasruled outany electricalsource in that areaas a cause.

Underwriters could find no evidence to suggest that anyoneother thanthe Captainset the fire. CaptainRello was the only person staying on the boat;, the other permanentcrew had left La Pazfor different reasons.The MI BARUR was located at the end of adock behind a locked security gale with videosurveillance. We understand that thosewho claim to haveseenthe video saythattherewas nothingunusual. While we mustquestion why the Marinawould not turn over the tapes, the report that there was nothingout of the ordinarysuggeststhat no otherpersonwas involved in setting the fire.

CaptainRello was the lastperson leaving the boat before the fire started.

A Member Company of * . .American International Group, Inc.

EXHIBIT B236


.s.

Underwritershavenot determinedif otherswere invélvedin planningthe fire. It is notnecessaryto the currentcoveragedecision,but underwritersreservethe right to furtherinvestigateotherspossiblyinvolved and assertanyrelateddefenses.

* New HampshireInsuranceCompanyissuedthe ExecutiveYachtPolicy ofinsuranceYM- 868-56-66effective9/23/07- 08 to Mi Barur Inc, located in SanDiego,California. California law andmaritime law will thereforegovernthe contract.

While the policywould generallycoverdamageto the hull causedby accidentalfires, it doesnot coverfires startedby or with the involvementof acaptainor othersacting on behalfof the insured.Your policy states:

10. CAUSESOF LOSS THAT ARE NOT COVERED

B. We shall not coveranyloss or damagearising out of:

I IntentionalActs: Any intentionalmisuseor misconduct,criminal,‘willful or malicious actor lack of reasonablecareor duediligence,in theoperationor maintenanceof your yacht,tenderor trailer;

* * ** * *

5 Any willful misconduct,criminal, or dishonestact by an insured, youremployees,or anypersonto whom you entrustyour yacht;

The policy alsoincludesthe Captainwith in the definitionof "YOU," andmaytherebymakehis conductthe conductof thenamedinsured. Any involvementof an insuredinthe fire would subjectthe claim to an arsondefenseto a fire loss. It mayalsoimplicatecertainprovisionsunderCalifornia law suchas InsuranceCodeSection533 relatingtowillful actionof the insuredand/orCivil Code section1668,relatingto willful injury orviolation of law.

Thereareotherfactsthat havecome to underwriters’attentionthat constituteadditionalbasesfor underwritersdecliningcoverageas follows:

First, Mi Barur Inc. was formedas aUS company,naming you, the yachtbroker,as the solepresidentand directorof the company. The purposeof the formationwastoobtainUS vesseldocumentation.As a Mexicancitizen, Mr. Farellcould not legallyobtainUS documentationfor his boat. So, he createdandwholly owns Mi Barur, Inc.with his wife. Eventhoughhe is thedecisionmakerfor Mi Banur Inc andmanagerofthe MI BARUR, the statementof anyofficial involvementof Mr. Farellwith Mi BarurInc. is avoided;he is not mentionedin the submissionfor US documentation.Mi BarurInc. appearsto be a shell company,setup to useyour US citizenshipas the designatedpresidentanddirector, so that the companycould try to meetUS vesseldocumentrequirements.

A Member Companyof * * 2American InternationalGroup, Inc. -

EXHIBIT B237


‘S

Mi Barur Inc.was presentedas a US companseekingto insure the MI BARUR,which was alsorepresentedto be calling in US ports,particularlySanDiego. However.after the vesselwas purchasedandmodifiedin San Diego. it neverreturnedto US waters,and Eherewasno intent for it to call in the US. The reality of the risk presentedforinsurancewas that it was a’ boatpurchasedby Mexicanresidentfor priyatepleasureuseonly in Mexicanwaters. Thatwas not the risk disclosedto underwriters.

Both maritimelaw andCalifornialaw requirethe utmostgdod faith in disclosingof mattersmaterial to the risk. The foregoingwas not disclosed. Nor wasthe basis forthe purchasecostdièclosed. The applicationrej,resentedthe purchasecost to be $2.2million. We aclmowledgea surveysupportingthe valuation,but theboatwas actuallypurchasedfor about$1 million plus a tradein, whichbroughtonly $620,000in resale.Beforethe fire, the boatwas listedat $1.9 million, andthe only offer receivedwas for$1.7 million.

Pendinganyfurtherdevelopmentof facts,Underwritersmust reserverights toassertthecondition of the policy which states:

3. CONCEALMENT OR MISREPRESENTATION

Any relevantcoveragesshall be voidedif you intentionall’ concealormisrepresentanymaterial factor circumstancerelatingto this insurance,

* or your insuranceapplication,whether beforeor after the loss.

New Hampshireis decliningthis claim basedupon the information developedinits investigation. If you feel thatunderwriters’assessmentis wrongor that underwritershavenot consideredrelevantinfonnation,pleaseprovidethebasesfor your ownassessmentandthefactsand informationthat supportyour position. The conclusionsofthe investigationareserious,and underwriterswould like to makesuretheyhaveconsideredall relevantfactsandinfonnationthat reasonablysupportalternativeconclusions.

If you believethat afurther inspectionof thehull is necóssary,pleaseprovideampleadvancenotice so that we mayarrangeattendancefor any furtherinspection.Otherwise,we seeno’ reasonto continueto incur the sigitiflcant expensesbeingchargedby Mr. Abarroa to retain the hull. Thereis significantsalvagevalueto the engines,whichunderwritersdo not claim in view of their coveragedecision. Underwriterswill agreetopayfor continuedstorageof thehull until theendof March,which shouldallowsufficient time for you to decideon how you will approachanyfurthersalvageanddestructionof the hull. Underwritersare alsopaying for storage of contents of the boat atAtalantaMarina,which underwritersherebytenderto your possession.Underwriterswilllikewise payfor storageuntil the endof March andthenauthorizeremovalor destructionif youhavenot claimedthem.

Underwriterscontinueto reserveall rights, defensesandremediesavailableunderthe policy andat law, including but not limited the right to reimbursementof expenses

A MemberCompanyofAmericanInternationalGroup, Inc.

EXHIBIT B238


incurredand the right to rescindor declineon other factsthat maybe discovered,andunderwritersdo not waive anysuchrights,defensesandremediesby this declinationor

* * furtheractionstakenin responseto this claim.

** If you feel this claimhasbeenwmngthlly denied,you mayhavethe matter

reviewedby the California Departmentof Insuranceat: Claims ServicesBureau,1 jth

Floor,300SouthSpringStreet,Los Angeles,CA 90013 Tel: 800 927-4357.

Pleaseadvisethe undersignedif you haveanyquestionsor comments

Very truly yours * -

* RegionalHull Manager*

* MarineClaimsDepartment

A MemberCompanyof * * *

American InternationalGroup. Inc.

EXHIBIT B239


report - findforms.com · it is used to identify the spot responder, this means to avoid that the...

Documents