????德吉爾吉奧依然否認(rèn)自己做過任何錯(cuò)事。正如報(bào)告中所述，“當(dāng)被問到點(diǎn)火開關(guān)在2009年及之后是否被替換過，德吉爾吉奧說沒有。至今為止，在正式面談和宣誓中，德吉爾吉奧都表示自己不記得授權(quán)更換過點(diǎn)火開關(guān)，也不記得與此同時(shí)他做出過不要改變部件編號(hào)的決定。他特意不改變部件編號(hào)的決定導(dǎo)致調(diào)查者多年來一直都無法弄清事情的真相。”

????自從1991年起，德吉爾吉奧就開始在通用汽車擔(dān)任設(shè)計(jì)發(fā)布工程師，他的工作主要與汽車開關(guān)相關(guān)。在1999年10月至2001年3月之間，他主管汽車開關(guān)部門，并于2002年從事Cobalt平臺(tái)的相關(guān)工作。

????報(bào)告稱，作為工作內(nèi)容之一，德吉爾吉奧最終同意了使用遠(yuǎn)低于他規(guī)定的扭矩和轉(zhuǎn)換壓力的最低限度的點(diǎn)火開關(guān)。不過，德吉爾吉奧引發(fā)開關(guān)問題的動(dòng)機(jī)尚不明了。無論如何，這都是案件中的棘手的地方。

????2001年3月到2002年底，點(diǎn)火開關(guān)需要經(jīng)過多次調(diào)整，但是從設(shè)計(jì)到實(shí)際做出成品之后，開關(guān)仍然不管用。2002年1月，開關(guān)供應(yīng)商德爾福（Delphi）在進(jìn)行檢驗(yàn)測(cè)試時(shí)，發(fā)現(xiàn)所有的樣本組都不符合標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。調(diào)查報(bào)告顯示，德吉爾吉奧與德爾福公司就這個(gè)問題展開了交流，然后在2002年2月，他做出了抉擇：不進(jìn)行維修與更換，暫緩開關(guān)生產(chǎn)。德吉爾吉奧在一封從此變得臭名昭著的電子郵件中對(duì)德爾福公司說，他會(huì)堅(jiān)持到底，簽上自己的名字。落款：“（無比厭倦開關(guān)的）雷?德吉爾吉奧”。

????根據(jù)瓦盧卡斯的報(bào)告，德吉爾吉奧沒有告訴任何人德爾福公司的開關(guān)不符合標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在采訪了數(shù)以百計(jì)的證人后，瓦盧卡斯的團(tuán)隊(duì)發(fā)現(xiàn)所有其他人都不知道這件事。報(bào)告稱，開關(guān)在2002年獲準(zhǔn)生產(chǎn)，隨后在2003、2004及2005年開始出現(xiàn)問題，但是德吉爾吉奧沒有通知任何人開關(guān)有問題。這是他自己一個(gè)人的秘密。

????2004年，通用汽車的一些工程師屢次發(fā)現(xiàn)，司機(jī)在駕駛Cobalt汽車時(shí)，如果碰到控制引擎開關(guān)的車鑰匙，汽車就會(huì)在行駛中熄火。瓦盧卡斯在報(bào)告中寫道，一名工程師將情況反饋給了德吉爾吉奧，問他扭矩是否有標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，Cobalt是否達(dá)到了這一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。不過德吉爾吉奧并未給予回復(fù)。報(bào)告稱，“盡管德吉爾吉奧已經(jīng)獲知這個(gè)問題，但他并沒有對(duì)開關(guān)做出改動(dòng)，也沒有人得到警報(bào)說開關(guān)達(dá)不到相關(guān)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。”

????到了2005年5月，顧客開始就熄火問題發(fā)起投訴。投訴的電子郵件中出現(xiàn)了德吉爾吉奧的名字，但他表示自己沒有看到過郵件。其他工程師詢問他時(shí)，他也說沒有接到過投訴。調(diào)查報(bào)告顯示，有證據(jù)證實(shí)他收到過熄火事件的擔(dān)保數(shù)據(jù)報(bào)告，但他表示自己不記得有過這類報(bào)告。

????調(diào)查報(bào)告顯示，在通用汽車其他人都不知情的情況下，德吉爾吉奧開始私下與德爾福公司討論如何在以后的車輛中增加扭矩，來修復(fù)點(diǎn)火開關(guān)問題。2006年4月26日，德吉爾吉奧同意在2007年的汽車中使用更強(qiáng)的彈簧和活塞。利用2001年便可以使用的一個(gè)組件，他在沒有增加任何成本的情況下完成了這一改動(dòng)，也沒有任何紙面文件記錄了這次部件替換行為。調(diào)查報(bào)告稱，之后的調(diào)查者也對(duì)此一無所知，因?yàn)榈录獱柤獖W沒有跟他們說過這回事。德吉爾吉奧告訴調(diào)查者，他不記得自己替換了開關(guān)，或是沒有更改部件編號(hào)。

????這個(gè)遺漏至關(guān)重要，因?yàn)樗七t了事故調(diào)查長達(dá)七年（！）之久。考慮到這個(gè)改變的重要性，部件編號(hào)應(yīng)當(dāng)升級(jí)，以便讓Cobalt的事故調(diào)查者搞清楚為什么在之后的產(chǎn)品中事故減少了。報(bào)告尖銳地指出：“如果其他人知道了這件事，通用汽車就會(huì)更快地采取召回行動(dòng)。”對(duì)于不更換部件編號(hào)的問題，德吉爾吉奧沒有給出任何解釋。

????他的阻礙就像水門事件一樣。瓦盧卡斯的報(bào)告稱，2009年，當(dāng)實(shí)地性能評(píng)估（Field Performance Assessment）工程師在直接質(zhì)問德吉爾吉奧是否對(duì)開關(guān)做出過改動(dòng)時(shí)，他回應(yīng)說沒有任何與熄火問題相關(guān)的改動(dòng)，結(jié)果導(dǎo)致調(diào)查者多年來誤入歧途。有人問過德吉爾吉奧，研發(fā)一種新開關(guān)需要做什么。調(diào)查報(bào)告顯示，他推薦了一種力矩更大的開關(guān)，還說需要18至24個(gè)月才能投入使用。而他沒有透露的是，實(shí)際上點(diǎn)火開關(guān)已經(jīng)得到重新設(shè)計(jì)并投入生產(chǎn)了。

????DeGiorgio continues to deny he did anything wrong. As the report states, “When asked in 2009 and in the years that followed whether the ignition switch had changed, DeGiorgio said that it had not. To this day, in formal interviews and under oath, DeGiorgio claims not to remember authorizing the change to the ignition switch, or his decision, made at the same time, not to change the switch’s part number. DeGiorgio’s deliberate decision to not change the part number prevented investigators for years from learning what had actually taken place.”

????DeGiorgio had worked at GM as a design release engineer since 1991, and his career focused on vehicle switches. He took over responsibility for vehicle switches between October 1999 and March 2001 and was working on the Cobalt platform in 2002.

????As part of his work, the report states, DeGiorgio ultimately approved an ignition switch that fell well below the lower limit of acceptable torque or turning pressure that he himself had specified. But it is not clear why DeGiorgio was said to be preoccupied with starting problems with the switch. In any event, it was a troublesome part.

????The switch required many fixes between March 2001 and late 2002, and it simply didn’t work when it went from design to production as an actual part. In January 2002 validation-testing by Delphi, the switch supplier, every sample set fell below specification. DeGiorgio discussed the problem with Delphi, according to the report, and in February 2002, he had a choice: do nothing to fix it or change the switch and delay production. In an email to Delphi that has since become notorious, DeGiorgio said he would stay the course, signing the note “Ray (tired of the switch from hell) DeGiorgio.”

????DeGiorgio didn’t tell anybody that the Delphi switch was substandard, according to the Valukas report. And after interviewing hundreds of witnesses, the Valukas team couldn’t find anybody else who knew. The switch was approved for production in 2002, and questions were subsequently raised in 2003, 2004, and 2005, but at no time, the report said, did DeGorgio inform anybody that the switch was out of spec. It was his secret.

????In an incident in 2004, some GM engineers repeatedly experienced a moving stall in a Cobalt when the driver slightly grazed the key, which turned the engine off. The Valukas report said an engineer forwarded the complaint to DeGiorgio, asking if there was a torque spec and if Cobalt was meeting it. But he never responded. “Despite being informed of the problem, DeGiorgio made no changes to the switch, and no one was alerted to the fact that it didn’t meet specification,” the report contends.

????By May 2005, customer complaints about stalling had begun coming in. DeGiorgio’s name appeared on an email chain regarding the complaints, but he claimed not to have seen it. When asked by other engineers, he also claimed there had been no complaints. According to the report, there is evidence that he received warranty data reports with incidents of stalls but claimed he did not recall these reports.

????Unbeknownst to anybody else at GM, the report said that DeGiorgio then began communicating with Delphi about how to fix the ignition switch by increasing the torque in future models. A stronger spring and plunger was approved on April 26, 2006 for use on the 2007 model. The change was made at no cost with a part that had been available in 2001, and no paperwork accompanied the change. Later investigators didn’t know about it because DeGiorgio didn’t tell them, the report said. DeGiorgio told investigators he did not recall changing the switch or failing to change the part number.

????The omission was critical because it delayed the accident investigation for seven (!) years. Given the significance of the change, the part number should have been updated so an investigator looking at Cobalt accidents would understand why they decreased in later models. The report trenchantly observes: “Had others known, the recall would have happened sooner.” DeGiorgio offered no explanation for the omission.

????His stonewalling was Watergate-caliber. When a safety engineer from Field Performance Assessment in 2009 directly asked DeGiorgio whether there had been a change in the switch, the Valukas report said he told him there had been none that would affect the shut-off problem–throwing the investigator off the track for years. DeGiorgio was asked what it would take to develop a new switch. He proposed one with more torque, according to the report, and said it would take 18 to 24 months to get it ready. He didn’t disclose that the switch had already been redesigned and had been put in production.