124. The Pinto (Ford Motor Company)

Support for swindled comes from Simply Safe.

For the longest time, I thought home security meant an alarm going off after someone broke in.

But if the alarm is already blaring, it's too late.

The damage is done.

That's a reactive approach, and it leaves you with that awful feeling of violation, even if the intruder runs away.

That's why I switched to Simply Safe.

They've completely changed the game with Active Guard outdoor protection.

designed to stop crime before it starts.

Their smart, AI-powered cameras don't just detect motion.

They can tell you when there's a person lurking on your property.

That instantly alerts SimplySafe's professional monitoring agents in real time.

And here's the game changer.

The agents can actually intervene while the intruder is still outside.

Talk to them through two-way audio, hit them with a loud siren and spotlight.

and call 911 if needed.

It's proactive security, and that's real security.

I trust SimplySafe because there are no long-term contracts, no hidden fees, and a 60-day money-back guarantee.

They've been named best home security systems by U.S.

News and World Report for five years in a row, and I can see why.

Get 50% off your new SimplySafe system at simplysafe.com/slash swindled.

That's 50% off your new SimplySafe system by visiting simplysafe.com/slash swindled.

There's no safe like SimplySafe.

Support for swindled comes from Honey Love.

It's officially cozy season.

Soft sweaters, layered looks, comfort on every level.

But if your bra still feels like medieval body armor, it's time for an upgrade.

Honey Love makes the best wireless bras you will ever wear.

Seriously.

No wires, no digging straps, no weird bulges, just support that actually feels good.

Think you'll miss the structure of an underwire?

Think again.

Honey Love's smart design does all the lifting and shaping without any of the pain.

Honestly, it's the first bra you won't rip off the second you get home.

You can wear them under a sweater, on a night out, even just lounging around the house.

And every time, you'll forget you're even wearing it.

This is the bra you'll actually enjoy wearing.

Honey Love's crossover bra will be your new go-to.

But their new Cloud Embrace Wireless t-shirt bra sold out in a few days for a reason.

It feels like a cloud against your skin.

And they don't just stop at bras.

They've got shapewear, tanks, and leggings that are just as comfortable and supportive.

Treat yourself to the most comfortable and innovative bras on earth and save 20% off site-wide at honeylove.com/slash swindled.

Use our exclusive link to get 20% off, honeylove.com/slash swindled.

After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them.

Please support our show and tell them we sent you.

Experience the new standard in bras with Honey Love.

This episode of Swindled may contain graphic descriptions or audio recordings of disturbing events which may not be suitable for all audiences.

Listener discretion is advised.

You know,

we all kind of take our cars for granted.

But cars don't just happen.

There's a lot of careful planning and engineering that goes into every one of them.

Our Toyotas are built by the world's largest automaking company in the most modern auto plants in the world.

Toyota's fun.

It's a joy to own and drive.

Americans are intrigued with Toyota.

They know that Toyota means quality, value, service, economy, and dependability.

That good things really do come in small packages.

The Mole sisters were still beaming from the concert they had attended in Miami that night, June 16, 1979, as they climbed into a mustard-green 1973 Toyota Corona for the 45-minute drive home.

Eighteen-year-old Pamela was behind the wheel.

It was her last summer in Florida before heading off to college at Purdue.

25-year-old Denise was sitting in the front passenger seat.

She had already started her career as an accountant.

Their younger sister, Wendy, a 15-year-old high school freshman, occupied the back seat.

The girls weren't sure when they would have time to do something together like that again, so they savored every moment.

About 30 minutes into the trip, driving north on I-95 near Hallendale Beach, the car in front of them lost control and spun out on the rain-slick road.

Pamela Moll slammed on the brakes of her reliable little subcompact imported car and came to a screeching halt in the middle of the highway, making only minor contact with the other car's bumper.

Whoa, is everybody okay?

That was a close call.

Moments later, a 1969 Oldsmobile Delta 88, traveling at 39 miles per hour, slammed into the rear of the Mole Sisters Corona, which instantly burst into flames.

A moving wall of fire traveled from the back of the car into the passenger compartment within seconds.

The doors jammed.

Pamela, Denise, and Wendy were trapped inside.

Bystanders yanked on the handles, but the doors wouldn't budge.

The heat eventually forced the Good Samaritans to abandon the effort, and the screams coming from inside the car eventually stopped.

When the flames were extinguished and the doors were pried open, rescue workers carefully removed the smoldering remains of all three mole sisters, too charred for their parents to identify at the morgue.

Beyond being absolutely tragic, accident investigators noticed something bizarre about the scene.

The 1973 Toyota Corona was demolished.

mangled, a burnt-out shell.

Meanwhile, the Oldsmobile, admittedly a much larger car, had a broken radiator hose and cosmetic damage, similar to what you might expect to find after a minor fender bender.

Its occupants, a young couple, walked away completely unharmed.

What exactly happened here?

The answer was quickly deduced.

The Toyota Corona's fuel tank, which was located underneath the trunk of the car, had ruptured.

When the tank was forcibly pushed forward by the rear-end collision, the tank's filler hose, a 14-inch rigid steel pipe, acted as a bottle opener essentially, ripping open the tank and spewing gasoline into the cabin of the car.

Combined with a crushing effect of the car's body, which more or less sealed the door shut, the 1973 Toyota Corona was in most automotive experts' opinion, unreasonably dangerous.

In fact, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety had already compiled data concluding that 35 people had burned to death following gas tank ruptures in the Japanese-built Toyota Corona and Corolla models made between 1966 and 1979.

Make that 36, 20-year-old Seth Fishman burned to death in his corona on a different stretch of I-95 three days after the Mole sisters.

We've been urging them now for several years

to initiate both an investigation and a recall campaign requiring the manufacturer, who you would expect would do it anyway,

to fix these vehicles.

And the worst part, Toyota had been aware of the fuel system defects for years, but refused to address the issue.

When the company crash-tested Corona in 1966 into rear-end collisions as slow as 20 miles per hour, the gas cap located behind the lysine plate was pried off while the filler pipe rotated forward, repeatedly.

Furthermore, Toyota conducted additional research in the early 70s, which concluded that, quote, The safest location for the fuel tank is just behind the rear seat back instead of beneath the floor of the luggage compartment.

What did Toyota do with this information?

Nothing, at least not for the Corona.

Toyota did alter the fuel system configurations of several other models to include much safer side field over-the-axle tanks.

As a matter of fact, the Corona was the only vehicle in Toyota's entire 1973 line that continued to utilize a behind-the-axle tank.

Why?

Because according to Toyota, there was nothing wrong with it.

And Toyota issued a statement saying there's no defect in the design or construction of the fuel reserve system of these models.

The parents of Denise, Pamela, and Wendy Moll were not convinced.

This 1973 Toyota Corona burst into flames moments after it was struck in the rear near Hollywood, Florida two years ago.

Three sisters, Denise, Pamela, and Wendy Moll, were trapped inside and burned to death.

The girl's parents charged Toyota with manufacturing a car with gas tanks that tend to explode and doors that jam in accidents.

They went to circuit court, seeking $165 million.

The Moll family sued Toyota in the Broward County Circuit Court in 1979, seeking $165 million, $55 million for each daughter lost.

They refused to accept an out-of-court settlement like so many victims of Toyota's negligence had before.

Betty Moll, the girl's mother, wanted a jury to hear the case to bring the issue to the public's attention.

The complaint alleged that Toyota had been, quote, negligent and careless in its construction, design, manufacture, and use of materials regarding the corona, and that Denise, Pamela, and Wendy's deaths were the direct and proximate result of that negligence, which Toyota willfully, wantonly, and knowingly failed to fix, despite having the knowledge.

The Moll's attorney, Sheldon Schlesinger, called the case, quote, the grossest example of corporate indifference that has ever been brought into a courtroom, a quote, tragedy of monumental human proportion, in which a survivable moderate speed accident created a flamethrower.

That vehicle was unreasonably dangerous, Schlesinger told the jury, and Toyota did nothing about it.

It was unfit to be used on the highways in this country.

It was

unreasonably dangerous

by virtue of its design and manufacture.

The plaintiffs called a string string of witnesses to prove this point during the month-long trial.

Automotive design and accident experts testified that the corona's fuel system was hazardous.

They even brought in the rear half of a 1973 model into the courtroom as a visual aid.

Firefighters and eyewitnesses testified about the intensity and speed of the fire.

And Betty Moll described to the jury how their family was tormented by the accident, how she and her husband and still living children even relocated to get away from the memories, but testified that she still saw visions of her daughters, how objects moved mysteriously, and how weird noises kept her up at night.

There was no escaping the grief.

Toyota's defense attorney Tom Rumberger discounted that sorrow.

If you take the sympathy out of this case, they've got nothing, he told a newspaper.

Instead, Rumberger wanted to focus on the car, which he and Toyota executives claimed was just as safe, if not safer, than any other subcompact car on the American highway.

It passed all the tests, and there were no federal standards for rear-end crashes at the time the 1973 corona was designed, Rumberger pointed out.

No car that size could be expected to survive a 39-mile-an-hour crash, he told the jury.

That's part of the trade-off.

To achieve economy, it's a reasonable expectation to sacrifice a bit of safety.

And no car is truly safe as long as there are reckless drivers on the road, Rumberger noted, shifting the blame to the 21-year-old driver of the Oldsmobile.

That car, as long as it is properly operated

and the people in its environment are properly operated,

is as safe as any vehicle that any of us own.

The jury did not accept Toyota's defense.

However, on September 10th, 1981, it awarded the Moll family only $5 million, about $160 million short of what they had requested.

Betty Moll was offended.

It's absolutely stupid, she said afterward.

It's an insult to the girls and a disgrace.

I can't see that it's reasonable.

We lost three daughters.

Three daughters.

There's no vehicle on the road that was made as stupidly.

No disrespect intended, but actually there was.

A fiery highway crash with a car bursting into flames after being struck from behind by another vehicle.

The deaths of young women in that crash.

It all sounds like last year's Ford Pento trial.

Just a year earlier, another automobile manufacturer was on trial for almost the exact same reasons, which made the Toyota Corona and the Mole Sisters tragedy feel like deja vu.

Except in the case of the Ford Pinto, the stakes were even higher, resulting in a landmark case in which, for the first time, a corporation responsible for a defective product was charged criminally with homicide.

Can big business get away with murder?

What do you think?

Ford Motor Company's popular subcompact car is accused of being a death trap on this episode of Swindled.

They bribed government officials to hide accounting.

Dummied up its books and records to hide that.

Support for Swindled comes from bombas.

We're all chasing something.

A break, a goal, a vibe.

But nothing kills momentum like bad socks and blisters.

That's why I wear bombas.

They make socks and now slides and seamless essentials that keep up with whatever you're doing, whether you're running a marathon or just running errands.

Their running socks are my favorite.

They wick sweat, keep your feet cool, and fight blisters like nothing else I've tried.

And it's not just for running.

They've got specialized socks for hiking, tennis, golf, you name it.

Honestly, they've nailed the one less thing to think about factor, and they go beyond socks.

Bombas makes insanely comfortable white tees, buttery soft, sweat-wicking underwear, and even waterproof slides.

I wore their compression socks on a long flight recently, and my legs actually felt good when I landed.

Best of all, Bombas gives back.

For every item purchased, they donate one to someone in need, and now they ship internationally to over 200 countries.

Head over to bombas.com and use code audio for 20% off your first purchase.

That's bombbas.com.

Code audio.

Bombas.com and use code audio.

How about the fight of the Volkswagen?

Well, the Volkswagen has become very popular in the States.

As I understand it, they will sell this year more cars than all the other cars imported into the United States together, totaled together.

Why that is, I don't know, but apparently people in the United States do like the Volkswagen.

But there's still a market for a small car.

I think there is.

I don't think there's a market necessarily for a small car for an American manufacturer.

That's the voice of Henry Ford II, responding to a question about the Volkswagen Beetle, the German-manufactured subcompact vehicle that took America by storm in the 1960s.

Hank the Deuce, as some called him, was skeptical of the small car's success.

They were slow, noisy, and ugly, he was quoted as saying.

Ford II dismissed the Beetle and similar imports as a fleeting fad.

But not everyone at the Ford Motor Company shared the chairman's view.

Lee Iacoka, Ford's tough-talking executive vice president of North American operations, recognized an emerging trend at the end of the decade.

Volkswagen had the Beetle, Dotson at the Bluebird, Honda at the Civic, Toyota had had the Corona and the Corolla.

Even American companies like Chevrolet and AMC had fuel-efficient subcompact automobiles in the pipeline.

If Ford didn't act now, it was almost a certainty the company would be left in the dust.

Ford's president, Bunky Knudsen, favored the company's large and medium-sized vehicles and had no desire to compete in the small car market.

But Lee Iacoka's opinion carried a lot of weight at Ford after he spearheaded the launch of the immensely successful Mustang a few years earlier.

A power struggle ensued.

Knudsen resigned, and Lee's car, as it became known, received the green light.

As newly appointed president of the Ford Motor Company, Lee Iacoka rushed his vision of a subcompact car into production and micromanaged every aspect.

Codenamed the Phoenix, the vehicle must weigh less than 2,000 pounds and cost less than $2,000, Iacoka demanded, a feat that the company hadn't accomplished since 1907.

Didn't matter.

No exceptions.

Additionally, Iacoka announced that this car must be on Ford's showroom floor by 1970, which was approximately two years away.

Ford's normal time span from conception to production was a little less than four years.

Again, Iacoka reminded the company's engineers, no exceptions.

And he meant it.

One Ford engineer later recalled that whenever a problem was raised that meant a delay, Lee would, quote, chomp on his cigar, look out the window, and say, read the product objectives, and get back to work.

So they did.

And the result?

A peppy little European-style sub-compact car that featured a 2.3-liter, 75-horsepower engine that averaged 25 miles per gallon and required minimal routine maintenance.

Rear-wheel drive, front disc brakes, and a, quote, all-steel, rattle-resistant unitized chassis construction welded together like a battleship.

The Phoenix would also be the first mass-produced American automobile to incorporate rack and pinion steering.

Also, it was no longer called Phoenix.

Ford stuck to its horse theme and renamed its newest creation, Pinto.

Hello, world.

Pinto is coming.

The new little car from Ford with a little price tag, little gas bills, little servicing, a little more room inside.

Pinto, the little carefree car.

The Pento, a little carefree car from Ford, went on sale at dealerships across the United States on September 11, 1970, with a suggested retail price of $1,919,

approximately $16,000 in today's dollars.

The company could not have timed its launch any better.

An energy crisis would soon sweep Western countries after OPEC's oil embargo.

American consumers demanded a more economical car, and now Ford had one to offer in hatchback or sedan and 15 different colors.

Ford had a winner in the Pinto, selling more than 300,000 units during its first year, despite multiple recalls within the first six months for a sticky accelerator and an engine compartment that had the tendency to catch fire when the car was started.

Sales increased in the following years before peaking in 1974 at 540,000 units.

Pinto leaves you with that warm feeling the advertisements read.

Ford certainly felt that warm feeling.

The company was completely dominating the domestic subcompact market until.

Good afternoon.

During the past two years, Mother Jones magazine and its publisher, the Foundation for National Progress in San Francisco, has conducted extensive research on corporate decision-making.

A recent investigation of high-level policy formulation in the automotive industry as it relates to vehicle safety has uncovered an astonishing case study in the Ford Motor Company.

In August 1977, Mother Jones magazine published an 11-page award-winning expose by investigative journalist Mark Dowie, which accused Ford of defectively designing the Pinto's fuel system.

The story was titled Pinto Madness, and it recounted the story of Sandra Gillespie and Robbie Carlton, a woman and a teenager respectively, who were involved in a Pinto-related accident in May 1972.

Sandra was driving her six-month-old 1972 Pinto on a Minneapolis highway when the engine stalled.

13-year-old Robbie was riding shotgun.

A car traveling at an estimated 28 miles per hour struck them from behind.

The Pinto's gas tank ruptured.

Gasoline filled the cabin.

A spark ignited the fuel.

Sandra suffered agonizing burns to her entire body and died of congestive heart failure on the way to the hospital.

Robbie survived, but over 90% of his body was burned.

He lost his nose, his left ear, and four fingers, among other permanently disfiguring injuries.

He would spend nine months in the hospital and undergo more than 50 surgeries over the next 10 years.

We now know that Sandra Gillespie and Robbie Carlton were pseudonyms for Lily Gray and Richard Grimshaw.

That accident happened in San Bernardino, California, not Minneapolis.

We know because Gray's family and Grimshaw eventually sued.

Ford Motor Company.

Attorneys for Grimshaw and Gray filed suit against Ford, claiming the Pitto's gas tank was poorly designed, and that Ford knew the gas tank was poorly designed, yet did nothing about it.

Mark Dowby used internal Ford documents obtained from that lawsuit and other sources to form the basis of his Mother Jones article.

Those documents conclusively revealed a disturbing truth.

The Ford Pinto's fuel system was a disaster waiting to happen.

For starters, the gas tank was located between the rear axle and the back bumper, a back bumper that, as auto safety design expert Byron Block Block explained, was largely considered ornamental.

Pinto fuel tank is located very close to a very flimsy rear bumper.

The bumper, as I've said before, does little more than reflect sunshine.

So when a pinto was rear-ended, the back bumper provided little resistance and would buckle like an accordion up to the back seat, allowing the fuel tank, which set just six inches ahead, to be pushed into the differential housing on the rear axle, which was situated just three inches forward.

That differential housing featured more than half a dozen sharp protruding bolts that would rip into the fuel tank like a can opener and the welds on the tank would break when squeezed.

Speaking of welds, those on the floor of the car would pull apart when the rear end was crushed, leaving gaps in the Penthouse passenger cabin that allowed fuel to intrude from the rigidly attached filler pipe, which was ripped out from the cap end when the tank was moved.

Well, first of all, the rear of the car begins to crush.

And because of the location of the fuel tank, it is right in the zone where the crush occurs.

The fuel tank begins to move forward and contact the differential, the shock absorber mounts, and

the

fuel filler tube can very easily be pulled out of the tank in a rear end collision.

Add a spark from grinding metal or lit cigarette to truly achieve that warm Ford Pento feeling.

And don't bother trying to leave.

The doors would jam shut.

A crushed rear end would wedge the pentos frame tightly against the doors, making them virtually impossible to open.

Byron Block called the design of the Pento's fuel system a catastrophic blunder.

He elaborated to Mother Jones, telling the magazine that Ford made, quote, an extremely irresponsible decision when they place such a weak tank in such a ridiculous location and such a soft rear end.

It's almost designed to blow up.

Premeditated.

Premeditated because Ford Motor Company discovered the hazard during the production of the Pento and chose to do nothing to alleviate it.

Internal company documents revealed that Ford secretly crash-tested the Pento more than 40 times before it went on the market, and that the Pento's fuel tank ruptured in every test performed at speeds exceeding 25 miles per hour.

This 1973 Ford Pento is about to suffer a rear-end collision at 38 miles an hour.

The impact drives the gasoline tank forward into the differential, causing a rupture, spilling gas.

Any spark and the tank explodes.

The company had even financed a UCLA study that focused on fire safety and high-speed rear-end crashes.

The conclusion of that study, which was published in the Journal for Automotive Engineers, read, quote, fuel tanks should not be located directly adjacent to the rear bumper or behind the rear wheels adjacent to the fender sheet metal, as this location exposes them to rupture at very low speeds of impact.

So why then?

were these cars on American roads with that exact configuration?

The unnamed Ford engineers who talked to Mark Dowie pointed to the Pento's rushed production schedule, quote, Design, styling, product planning, advanced engineering, and quality assurance all have flexible timeframes, and engineers can pretty much carry these on simultaneously.

Tolling, on the other hand, has a fixed timeframe of about 18 months.

Normally, an auto company doesn't begin tolling until the other processes are almost over.

You don't want to make the machines that stamp and press and grind the metal into the shape of car parts until you know all those parts will work well together.

But Iacoka's speed up meant pinto tolling went on at the same time as product development.

So when crash tests revealed a serious defect in the gas tank, it was too late.

The tolling was well underway.

Even minor changes were out of the question for Ford management.

Because the company at the time was rushing the car into production to compete with the fast-growing Volkswagen, assembly line machinery was already tooled when this defect was discovered.

Top Ford officials decided to manufacture the car anyway,

exploding gas tank and all, even though Ford owned, at the time, the patent on a much safer fuel system.

Correct.

Ford already owned the patent to a much safer fuel tank that it had developed for a similarly sized car.

It was called a saddle tank or Capri tank because it was used in the Ford Capri, which was sold exclusively in Europe.

A Capri tank was positioned over the rear axle, safely cradled between the rear wheels and protected on all sides.

Ford engineers actually tested it in the Pento, and no leaks were detected after rear end collisions, and it only cost $9.95 per car.

But Ford decided against using the Capri tank due to, quote, undesirable luggage space attained.

Lee Iacoka was adamant that the Pento's trunk be able to fit a set of golf clubs.

No worries.

Other remedies proved just as effective in crash tests and even cheaper.

For example, a simple plastic shield between the gas tank and the differential housing.

It would have likely cost less than $3 in parts and labor to install.

Or again, like the Capri, they could reposition the spare tire to absorb some rear end impact, add some steel body rails to prevent crushing, and smooth out the sharp points on the axle at minimal cost.

Engineers also proposed lining the existing gas tanks with a heavy rubber bladder that would retain the fuel in the event of a puncture, or wrap the outer tank in a rubber flax suit to prevent a puncture, or add polyurethane foam between two metal shells like a tank-and-tank solution.

None of these remedies would cost more than $11 per car.

Ford crunched the numbers to see if it was worth it.

An example of this cost-benefit analysis was found in a 1973 inter-office memo by Ford's Environmental and Safety Engineering Department titled Fatalities-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires, which later became known infamously as the Pinto Memo.

In that memo, Ford estimated that recalling and modifying all of its lightweight vehicles to meet proposed federal fuel safety regulations would cost approximately $11 per vehicle, multiplied by 12.5 million lightweight vehicles sold in the U.S.

each year, to arrive at a total cost of $137 million.

Ford estimated that making those improvements would save 180 lives and prevent another 180 serious injuries.

Ford also calculated the benefit of saving those lives, or units, as they're referred to in the memo.

Ford used the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-provided amount of $200,000 for each of the 180 estimated dead.

It used $67,000 for the 180 serious burn victims and $700 for each damaged vehicle.

The total benefit of implementing safety improvements and eliminating death, pain, and suffering?

About $49.5 million.

The implementation costs far outweighed the expected benefits, the memo read.

High-ranking Ford executives decided it was more cost-efficient to manufacture and sell a dangerous car than to correct the problem.

This decision would save the company tens of millions of dollars over the next few years.

It was cheaper to pay off a grieving mother than to repair the pinto.

And Ford was paying off plenty of grieving mothers in the early 70s, but most of those lawsuits were sealed under the guise of trade secrets and never made public.

However, it's reasonable to assume the company spent millions of dollars settling litigation, but still a pittance compared to what Ford spent lobbying against safety standards at the same time.

For close to eight years after this decision was made, Ford lobbied vigorously against the federal safety standard that would have forced the company to change the Pinto's gas tank configuration.

In 1968, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted Standard 301.

Fuel System Integrity to mitigate the hazard of fires resulting from motor vehicle crashes.

The standard initially only applied to frontal crashes, but the NHTSA was preparing to expand it to include rear-end crashes as well, because there was no federal regulations concerning how safe a car must be from gas leakage and those types of collisions.

If passed, all cars should be able to withstand a fixed barrier impact of 20 miles per hour without losing fuel.

Ford objected.

Fires were a minor problem, the company contended.

So the NHTSA spent months afterwards studying accidents to prove that that claim was blatantly untrue.

Okay, maybe they are, Ford conceded, but rear-end collisions are relatively rare.

The NHTSA spent additional months disproving this new argument.

Okay, well, most of the victims in these cases would have died from impact injuries anyway, Ford claimed, buying itself even more time and profit.

Each time the NHTSA would prove the need for rear-end crash regulations, Ford would respond with a flurry of falsehoods, sending the agency back to its labs.

The delays were part of the company's patriotic duty to protect against the demise of American industry, according to Henry Ford The Deuce.

If we have to close down some production because we don't meet standards, we're in for real trouble in this country, he warned.

With the help of the Nixon administration, Ford successfully stalled the new regulations for eight years.

In 1977, the NHTSA finally expanded Standard 301 to mandate that all new cars be able to withstand a 30 miles per hour moving barrier rear-end crash without fuel leakage.

Ford complied by adding a polyethylene shield and improving the filler pipes of the gas tanks and newer Pento models.

However, by then, more than 1.5 million Pentos with inadequate fuel systems had been built and sold, resulting in what Mark Dowie and Mother Jones considered a conservative estimate of 500 deaths.

And there were more to come.

The sweeping charges against the second largest automaker, Ford, came by a consumer-oriented magazine.

They said 2 million pre-1977 Ford Pentos are potential death traps, that their fuel tanks rupturing in rear-end collisions, as seen in this demonstration film, have been responsible for at least 500 burning deaths and thousands of serious burn injuries.

The following is a paid advertisement for the Swindle Valued Listener Rewards Program.

Are you tired of hearing advertisements in Swindle like this this one?

Do you wish there was more swindled content to distract you from your miserable existence?

Don't settle for those other inferior podcasts with the annoying hosts who laugh at their own jokes.

Become a swindled, valued listener today to receive easy access to new episodes and exclusive access to bonus episodes that are not available anywhere else.

Completely advertisement-free.

It's fun for the whole family, but don't take our word for it.

Who is this?

Just tell me who is this, please.

Millions of swindled fans have discovered the secret of becoming a valued listener.

Try it in your own home today.

Also, act now to receive the Valued News for Valued Listeners update show at no extra cost.

That's a $5,000 value for one easy monthly payment of $4.99.

Go to valuedlistener.com to sign up using Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Patreon.

No long-term commitments, satisfaction guaranteed, foreign currency accepted.

Canceled anytime.

Please, just give us your money.

Support for Swindled comes from Delete Me.

Delete Me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable.

It's easier than ever to look up someone's home address, phone number, even their relatives' names with just a few clicks, and that information can have very real consequences, whether it's identity theft, harassment, or being targeted just for voicing an opinion online.

As someone with an active online presence, I know how unsettling it feels to realize that strangers might have access to details about my personal life.

That's why I use Me to help keep that information off the internet and protect my privacy before it can be exploited.

Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me.

Now at a special discount for our listeners, get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeleteme.com slash swindled and use promo code swindled at checkout.

The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindeleteme.com slash swindled and enter code swindled at checkout.

that's joindeleatmeat.com slash swindled code swindled

the story that you're hearing today is a story of corporate callousness at the highest levels of the ford motor company a callousness expressed by president lee iacoka who knew both before the sale of the pintos and during the sale of the pintos that the fuel tank was in a very vulnerable vulnerable position and could lead to the fiery deaths and injuries of Pinto occupants in case of a rear-end collision by another car at speeds as low as 21 or 22 miles per hour.

That's Ralph Nader, the lawyer and political activist who published a best-selling expose of the automotive industry in 1965 called Unsafe at Any Speed.

Nader appeared at a press conference with Mother Jones journalist Mark Dowie within days of of Pinto madness hitting the newsstands.

Dowie and Nader called on the Department of Transportation to issue a recall on all pre-1977 Ford Pintos for retrofitting of safer fuel tanks.

Ford had already responded to Dowie's article in a press release.

The company assured the public that there was, quote, no serious hazard in the fuel system of the Pinto, nor were any Pinto models exceptionally vulnerable to rear impact collision fires.

The Mother Jones report contained distortions and half-truths, the statement read.

The performance of the Pento's fuel tank system in actual accidents appears to be superior to that which might be expected of cars its size and weight, wrote Herbert L.

Misch, Ford's vice president of environmental and safety engineering.

At the press conference, Ralph Nader responded to Ford's recent claims.

I'd like to say in conclusion, that the Ford Motor Company's response to these disclosures, as predictable as they may be, illustrate the utter inability of the top executives of Ford Motor Company, Lee Iacoko and Henry Ford, in behaving like human beings, like people who care about people on the highway, about people who are being exposed to a process of victimization in order to keep Ford Motor Company's profits at a few higher dollar levels.

To further legitimize his reporting, Mark Dowie provided a packet of documents to the media members who attended that press conference.

These included crash tests, internal Ford memorandum, and correspondence between Dowie and Ford.

Several media outlets confirmed his findings and ran with the story, including ABC News and CBS's 60 Minutes, of which Ford Motor Company was a principal sponsor.

Ford refuses to comment, won't let us film inside a Pinto production plant, and has denied the Pinto is any more dangerous than other cars.

After years of delay, the Federal Highway Traffic Safety Agency is just starting crash tests to establish the fire danger of the Pinto and other small cars.

If they find the Pinto has unique fire dangers, it could result in the largest, most costly recall in Detroit history.

In response to Pinto madness, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration launched a formal defect investigation into the Pinto on September 13, 1977.

The agency uncovered 38 cases in which rear-end Pinto crashes resulted in fuel system damage, gasoline leakage, and fire.

It also conducted its own crash tests, which concluded that pintos were indeed more likely to spill fuel than similar models from other manufacturers.

Here's the second of the 12 test pintos that burned after being hit.

This after being struck by full-sized cars at 35 miles per hour.

Destruction was total, with fuel flying through the air, both from the fuel tank ruptured by bolts below and the federal line pulling out.

It was was so bad that firemen had a hard time opening the doors.

Federal safety experts contend that victims inside probably could not have gotten out.

While the NHTSA's investigation proceeded, litigation in Richard Grimshaw's personal injury case against Ford concluded.

Experts testified that Lily Gray's death and Richard's injuries were the result of the Pinto's defects.

In February 1978, a jury awarded $665,000 to the Gray family and a record-breaking $127.8 million in damages to now 18-year-old Richard Grimshaw.

Grimshaw is not really sure what he will do with all that money.

I have no idea.

I'd like to donate some of it to the Orange County Medical Center at the Byrne Unit.

And the rest, I'm not sure.

It's just unreal and unbelievable.

Want to spend a little something on yourself, maybe?

No.

Not for a while.

Not for a long time.

I mean I'm doing all right myself, I guess.

Are you bitter about what happened?

Well not bitter.

I'm you know always sad that it happened and stuff you know but you know I'm trying to overcome it but you know it's still there but

I think it'll work out one of these days.

Ford called the massive Grimshaw Award unreasonable and unwarranted since the Pinto met all applicable federal safety standards at the time, never mentioning that they were one of the the main reasons those standards were so lax.

The company appealed.

After 10 years of litigation, Grimshaw ultimately accepted an out-of-court settlement of $6.6 million.

Ford also lost several other lawsuits during this period.

Chester Kaminski and his friend Linda McAfee were awarded $900,000 when her pinto caught on fire after it was rear-ended, leaving a church in Alabama.

Chester suffered significant burns to over 37% of his body.

I've had almost a total of a year, a year's worth of medical treatment, and I'm still going to surgery during the summer, each summer.

It put me back a year in school,

and I can't participate in sports like I used to.

In Virginia, Ford was ordered to pay $657,000 to six-year-old Jeremy Norton for an accident that left him orphaned.

When Jeremy was two years old, he was riding in the back of his parents' pinto when he was struck by another vehicle.

The collision turned the car upside down before it burst into flames.

Mrs.

Norton fled from the car in flames and died later.

Mr.

Norton was killed in the fire.

The child was rescued by construction workers.

Last month, a Virginia court awarded the son, now six, $657,000 for his injuries and the loss of his parents.

By May 1978, Ford was facing 29 lawsuits related to the pinto, with more being filed each passing day.

The company had already settled or lost at least eight of those cases.

The publicity had been detrimental to their bottom line, to put it mildly, and the hits kept coming.

That month, the NHTSA sent a letter addressed to Ford's president, Lee Iacoka, announcing it had completed its initial investigation.

The agency had determined, quote, the existence of a safety-related defect in the 1971 through 1976 Pentos and the 1975-76 Mercury Bobcats, the Pento's Canadian twin.

The NHTSA scheduled a public hearing for June 14th, at which Ford would be allowed to address the findings.

Ford could not let this happen.

They tried to save face instead.

It's the most expensive recall in history.

Ford estimates it could cost them up to $40 million.

Five days before that hearing, Ford announced a recall of 1.5 million pre-1977 Ford Penthos and 30,000 7576 Mercury Bobcats for modifications to the fuel tank, which included a polyethylene shield and a longer filler pipe similar to those already implemented in newer models.

The estimated cost was $20 to $30 per car.

The spokesperson for Ford stated that the total cost could reach $45 million, but realistically, only about half of the eligible vehicles would be brought in for the improvements.

So again, judging by their own calculations, Ford would still come out ahead.

Ford also made it clear that this recall was not an admission of guilt.

In a statement, the company said that it disagreed with the NHTSA's determination that a safety defect existed, but decided to act accordingly to address public concerns that had arisen from the criticism.

This is Ford's safety chief, Herbert Misch.

Well,

simply because we think in total the vehicle is a good, sound, safe automobile.

And

you're trying to focus in on one specific issue of it rather than the vehicle in total, and it has had an excellent record.

Despite the company's assurances, sales sales of the Pinto plunged in the aftermath of the recall, but only temporarily.

To combat the negative sentiment, Ford lowered the price and offered sales promotions to dealers in car lots.

They also used the opportunity to promote the Pinto's newest features.

And since the 77 model year, redesigned fuel system features that include a longer filler pipe and polyethylene shields.

Philip and Renona Light have just purchased a 1978 Pinto.

They say they think the car is safe and they feel they got a good deal.

I don't think they'll sell me a car that I'll go out and get killed in.

Judy Ulrich was proud of her bright yellow 1973 Ford Pinto.

It was her first car, a gift from her father for graduating from high school.

Judy worked at an ice cream parlor to help cover the costs, but she had the day off on Thursday, August 10th, 1978.

So she, her younger sister Lynn, and their cousin Donna decided to go watch the church-sponsored volleyball game that evening.

It was about a 30-minute drive from Osceola, Indiana to Elkhart, but the Ulrich girls planned to stop by their Aunt Esther's house in Goshen on the way since Donna was only in town for a few days.

They departed around 6 p.m.

18-year-old Judy Ulrich was driving.

Cousin Donna, born one day apart from Judy at the same hospital, sat in the passenger seat.

16-year-old Lynn sat in the back seat.

They headed southeast along U.S.

Highway 33.

About halfway through the trip, near Dunlap, Indiana, Judy pulled into a checker gas station to refuel.

By 6.15 p.m., their pinto was back on the road.

Minutes later, Judy looked in her side mirror and noticed the fuel door was open.

It dawned on her that she had left a gas cap sitting on the trunk.

Judy glanced at her rearview mirror just in time to see the chrome gas cap rolling across the five lanes of highway behind them.

She decided to retrieve it.

Judy turned on the pentho's hazards and made a U-turn.

At the same time, 21-year-old Robert Duggar was headed northwest on Highway 33 in his 1972 gold Chevrolet van.

He was on his way to a friend's house to clean out the vehicle, which was a mess, in preparation for an upcoming vacation.

Duggar was trying to light a cigarette, which tumbled off his lips into the driver's side footwell.

Keeping his left hand on the steering wheel, Duggar felt around the floor mat with his right hand, and for a brief moment, he took his eyes off the road.

When he looked back up, he saw a yellow Ford Pinto with lights flashing 10 feet in front of him.

Robert Duggar slammed on the brakes, but it was too late.

The two-ton van slammed into the back of the pinto, forcing the rear of the car to the ground, which dragged along the road.

Duggar said he smelled gasoline almost immediately.

He didn't know it at the moment, but the pinto's fuel tank had ruptured and its filler pipe ripped out.

The pinto's cab soaked in gasoline.

Eyewitnesses described hearing and seeing two explosions as the Pinto became engulfed in flames.

It slowly spun in a clockwise rotation as it separated from the van before coming to a stop straddling the curb.

Bystanders were helpless.

They couldn't get close to the roaring inferno.

Five-foot flames shot out of the back glass and over the top of the pinto.

The grass around it was set ablaze.

Robert Duggar fell to his knees.

He pounded the ground with his fists, perhaps trying to drown out the three young women's screams.

A retired carpenter who witnessed the accident braved the heat long enough to pry open the driver's door.

Judy Ulrich tumbled out, burned beyond recognition, muttering, help me, in a raspy voice.

Most of Judy's clothes were gone, except a tennis shoe that had melted around her foot.

Her hair had been incinerated.

She had third-degree burns on 95% of her body.

Judy no longer had lips, ears, or a nose.

Only the whites of her eyes remained.

An EMT rushed to her side.

Do I still have ears?

She asked him.

Yes, he replied.

Do I still have my nose?

Of course.

I bet I smell.

I bet I'm ugly.

No, sweetie.

You couldn't be ugly if you tried.

Be honest with me, Judy demanded.

Am I going to die?

No, you're not.

The paramedic lied.

Judy Ulrich was transported to a burn center in Fort Wayne, where she was pronounced dead eight hours later.

Lynn and Donna Ulrich never made it out of the car.

When firefighters ultimately recovered their bodies, they were unrecognizable.

Both of their mouths stretched open in horror.

Sunglasses melted around their eyes.

Three teenage girls died in this 1973 pinto on August 10th.

While stopped on a highway near Goshen, Indiana, the car was struck in the rear by this van.

Damage to the van was minor.

Its driver survived.

But the Pinto exploded on impact.

Its occupants incinerated.

The Indiana State Troopers' investigation of the Ulrich accident immediately focused on the Pinto's gas tank in light of the recent recall and publicity.

Their suspicions were confirmed.

Other notable observations included the fact that the Pinto's gear shift remained in second gear.

Both vehicles were moving at the time of the collision, which meant that the crash happened at a much lower speed than if the Pinto had been stationary.

The headlights on Robert Duggar's van weren't even broken.

The van was hardly damaged, but the car looked like it had been run over by a steamroller, recalled Elkhart County's aggressive prosecutor, Michael Costantino.

It just didn't make sense, he said.

Costantino had taken a special interest in the Ulrich crash because he was convinced the three girls would have survived if not for the Pinto's defective design.

Costantino also believed that a civil penalty, regardless of the amount, would not deter corporations from producing dangerous products in the future as long as their bottom line remained green.

Million-dollar civil judgments don't necessarily accomplish anything.

Large companies take their tax deduction and go on their merry way, he told People magazine, adding, It's kind of funny that I'm a conservative Republican involved in a case you think a flaming liberal would bring.

I just believe in what I'm doing.

With the information I had, I felt a moral obligation to press charges.

Criminal charges, charges, Costantino meant.

A recent change to Indiana statutes allowed corporations to be prosecuted criminally for reckless homicide.

Michael Costantino wholeheartedly believed that the Ford Motor Company should stand trial for the deaths of Judy, Lynn, and Donna Ulrich.

And with all the internal company information obtained from previous civil litigation that proved Ford knew about the Pentos issues while actively producing it, Costantino felt he could convince a jury to find the company guilty.

The thrust of the state's case will be primarily based upon the fact that the design and engineering and manufacturing of the Pinto motor vehicle was inappropriate and recklessly done,

and that Ford Motor Company came to know of the defects in the Pinto motor vehicle and did nothing about it.

But it wasn't going to be easy.

For one, there was no precedent.

The corporation had never been criminally charged for designing a defective product.

Costantino was in uncharted territory.

And two, he was David trying to prosecute Goliath.

Ford was the third largest corporation in the United States at the time.

It had half a million employees and unlimited resources.

Meanwhile, Michael Costantino was a small-time county prosecutor with a $200,000 budget and a handful of volunteers.

But the 41-year-old believed in the case and believed in himself.

Costantino had prosecuted murder cases for 25 years and won them all.

It was worth a shot.

Costantino convened a grand jury at the Elkhart Superior Court.

He introduced the damning documents and called on engineering and safety experts to support his case, some of whom were former Ford employees, some of whom had testified or worked behind the scenes on the Grimshaw case.

Ford sent two executives to appear before the grand jury to defend themselves.

Henry Ford II declined to appear.

As did Lee Iacoka, Ford's president, who was soon fired from the company, but hired by Chrysler almost immediately.

The Pinto currently is Ford Motor Company's most successful small car, but now it's the centerpiece in one of the most serious legal charges ever made against an American corporation, reckless homicide.

The grand jury reached a unanimous decision on September 13, 1978.

Ford Motor Company was indicted on three counts of reckless homicide.

and one misdemeanor count of reckless conduct.

Henry Ford II was personally served with a copy of the indictment.

Robert Duggar, the driver of the van, was not charged.

If convicted, Ford faced a maximum fine of $30,000.

But it wasn't about the money.

Michael Costantino wanted to send a message and set a legal precedent.

It may put on notice

the manufacturers that once they have a defective product and they have knowledge of that defect, that they have to fix it.

That's the whole intention, is to make the manufacturers as responsible as you and I have to be.

And that is, when they make a product, they have to make a safe product.

Ford, on the other hand, was worried about the money.

Not the potential fine, but the long-term damage to the brand.

Imagine the stigma the company would carry if it became the first American automaker to be criminally charged for selling a defective car.

Imagine the floodgates that would open in other states if Indiana were to successfully pull this off.

Imagine the effect on all the civil litigation the company faced.

What's next?

Individual corporate executives being indicted for the products their company produced?

The legal precedent established by this case could forever alter corporate America and render most product safety laws obsolete.

Needless to say, the state of Indiana versus Ford Motor Company would go down in history as a landmark case.

Ford attorneys accepted the indictment without comment.

The company issued a statement calling the grand jury's actions unwarranted.

Support for swindled comes from Simply Safe.

For the longest time, I thought home security meant an alarm going off after someone broke in.

But if the alarm is already blaring, it's too late.

The damage is done.

That's a reactive approach, and it leaves you with that awful feeling of violation, even if the intruder runs away.

That's why I switched to Simply Safe.

They've completely changed the game with Active Guard outdoor protection, designed to stop crime before it starts.

Their smart, AI-powered cameras don't just detect motion.

They can tell you when there's a person lurking on your property.

That instantly alerts SimplySafe's professional monitoring agents in real time.

And here's the game changer.

The agents can actually intervene while the intruder is still outside.

Talk to them through two-way audio, hit them with a loud siren and spotlight.

and call 911 if needed.

It's proactive security, and that's real security.

I trust SimplySafe because there are no long-term contracts, no hidden fees, and a 60-day money-back guarantee.

They've been named best home security systems by U.S.

News and World Report for five years in a row, and I can see why.

Get 50% off your new SimplySafe system at simplysafe.com/slash swindled.

That's 50% off your new SimplySafe system by visiting simplysafe.com/slash swindled.

There's no safe like SimplySafe.

In the small Indiana town of Winnemac, a landmark case began today on trial of the Ford Motor Company, the charge reckless homicide.

Specifically, that negligence in the making of the Ford Pinto led to the deaths of three young women in an accident two years ago.

Despite Ford's 55-page best effort to have the case dismissed for being unconstitutional, jury selection for state of Indiana v.

Ford Motor Company began on January 7th, 1980.

By then, the misdemeanor charge against the company had been dropped, and the trial venue was moved to Winnemac, Indiana, and Pulaski County.

The small town would be flooded with lawyers and media for the foreseeable future.

Presiding over the trial was Judge Harold Staffelt, a lifelong resident of the area.

Ford immediately hired Judge Staffelt's longtime friend and law partner, Lester Wilson, as their local counsel to add to their already powerful defense team led by James Flash Neal.

Neal was a Nashville-based white-collar crime attorney whose thick southern draw became familiar to everyone in the country during his time as the chief prosecutor in the Watergate court cases.

James Neal had also famously prosecuted Jimmy Hoffa.

In this case, Neal and his team of 80 legal staff, along with their $1 million budget, would act as advocates for American industry and federalism.

I think that American industry today is an underdog, and there's more to be said for American industry than maybe is being said, he told the New York Times.

I see the case as sort of a microcosm of some of the issues that exist today between some of the consumer advocates and industry.

We expect to show that the thing is not dangerous.

We expect to show that not only it is not dangerous, that Ford did not know it was dangerous, and that Ford didn't act recklessly.

Elkhart County Prosecutor Michael Costantino presented his opening arguments on January 15, 1980.

The state will prove to you that Ford management was was aware of the fire risk to its Pento customers and totally disregarded it, he told the jury.

Even with direct evidence of Pento fire hazards and additional direct evidence of feasible ways to eliminate pento fire deaths, Ford management deliberately chose profit over human life, Constino further alleged.

Judy, Lynn, and Donna Orich, quote, needlessly died as a result of the callous, indifferent, and reckless acts and omissions of the defendant, Ford Motor Company.

Again, he said, Ford sacrificed human life for profit.

In the defense's opening statement, James Neal did not deny that Ford had made some mistakes.

We don't even deny that we could be wrong, he said, but we do deny that we are reckless killers.

Ford was made up of over a half a million employees and 300,000 stockholders, Neal noted and warned the jury.

You'll be trying decent people in a very difficult world that's getting more difficult every day.

The defense's case was based on the fact that the 1973 Ford Pento met every fuel system safety standard required by the federal government and that it was comparable in design and manufacture to many other 1973 subcompact cars.

There were other factors to blame for the death of the three Ulrich girls, Neil pointed out.

U.S.

Highway 33 was poorly designed with its eight-inch curbs that prevented people from pulling onto the shoulder.

And let's not forget Robert Duggar.

It doesn't matter how safe a car is as long as there are reckless drivers on the road.

As for the documents the prosecution planned to introduce, which seemed to suggest the Pinto was dangerous and Ford was well aware, James Nill had no intention of letting the jury see those.

The defense filed a motion to suppress all internal Ford documents and crash tests that did not specifically relate to the 1973 model of the Pinto.

Judge Staffelt, who the local media described as seemingly starstruck by the famous James Nill at times, granted Ford's request.

Michael Costantino would have to try his case without his most crucial evidence, including the infamous Pento memo.

Our story is not being told, Costantino complained to the media.

We should have been able to get more evidence in than we have.

I have well over 200 documents.

I've been able to put in 10 or 12 of them.

The prosecution suffered another setback when Neil successfully prevented the jury from viewing photos of the Ulrich girls.

not just from the grotesque aftermath of the accident, but even photos from when Judy, Lynn, and Donna were alive and well.

This isn't a matter to be tried on a motion, Neil argued.

It deserves to be tried on the issues.

Well, it appears that Ford is attempting to sanitize the state's case and make the three girls

not the victims of this collision, but to make them statistics.

The prosecution would have to rely on its witnesses.

Tomorrow, the first witness, the mother of Judy and Lynn Ulrich, as the prosecution begins its homicide case against Ford Motor Company.

Maddie Ulrich told the jury that she received a Pento recall notice from Ford in February 1979, seven months after the company decided to do the recall, six months after her daughters and niece were burned alive.

Mrs.

Ulrich said she would have gotten rid of the car had she received the notice earlier.

Alfred J.

Clark, the retired carpenter who pried the Pento door open for Judy, testified that the devastation of the accident surprised him.

He estimated that the Pento was traveling at 30 to 35 miles per hour, while the van that hit it was moving at about 40 to 45 miles per hour.

The young man did not hit a parked car.

That young fella has been crucified as far as I'm concerned in the paper and that he hit a parked car.

It was moving.

Both of them were moving, Clark said.

Albert Clark said the Pinto just blew up like a large napalm bomb when it was hit from behind by a van he estimated was going about 10 miles an hour faster than the pinto.

He wept as he said he thought the collision was just going to be a fender bender, but instead the Pinto disappeared in what he called a great big ball of flame.

All of the other eyewitnesses concurred with Alfred Clark's depiction of two moving vehicles, including Clark's wife Pauline, another married couple, and the driver of the van himself, Robert Duggar.

Duggar testified that he was certain his van was traveling at 50 miles per hour because he had just passed a highway patrolman, which made him look down at his speedometer.

Duggar said the Pinto was probably traveling at 15 or 20 miles per hour.

The speeds at which both the Pinto and the van were moving were a critical part of the case.

The prosecution alleged that if it weren't for the pinto's dangerous flaws, the Ulrich girls would have walked away unharmed.

The defense, which claimed the pinto was at a full stop on the highway, sought to prove that no car of that size could have been expected to survive such a violent impact.

James Neal challenged the prosecution's witnesses about the speeds.

He got Robert Duggar to admit that he only had a split second to to determine how fast the pinto in front of him was moving after picking up the cigarette.

Neil also highlighted Duggar's spotty driving record, convictions for running a stop sign, failing to yield, and citations for speeding.

Duggar's license had only been reinstated 33 days before the accident, after it had been suspended for a second time.

Of further interest, Neil pointed out, was what was found in the van.

empty beer bottles, marijuana roaches, rolling papers, and caffeine pills.

However, Robert Duggar had taken a voluntary blood test the day of the accident.

It was determined that he was completely sober.

One of the prosecution's key witnesses in the trial was the independent auto safety design consultant Byron Block.

In painfully technical testimony that went on for days, Block explained all of the issues with the 1973 Ford Penthos fuel system, even brought the rear half of the car into the courtroom as a visual aid.

Ford tried to discredit Block by having him admit that he was not an engineer and that he had never been employed by an automotive company.

The defense also made him concede that millions of American cars were built with similar fuel systems.

Neil, wasn't it a fact, Mr.

Block, that the gas tank in almost all General Motors cars built between 1968 and 1978 was located behind the rear axle?

Block, yes, sir.

Neil, and how many cars was that?

Block, about 50 million.

The prosecution saved its star witness for last, a former Ford Motor Company engineering executive named Harley Kopp.

He had worked for the company for over 30 years and had inside information on the decisions that were made during the development of the Pinto.

Kopp spent six days on the witness stand, confirming the rush schedule, the safety sacrifices, and the pressures of foreign competition, all of which led to a fuel system that was, quote, grossly inadequate, Kopp said.

the weakest I've seen in a car in 10 or 12 years.

Kopp listed a string of measures Ford allegedly knew would lessen the vulnerability of the Pinto's fuel system, and on each one, Prosecutor Costentino asked Kopp, what did Ford do about those problems?

The answer, nothing.

Why not?

Because of design costs, production costs, retooling costs, all the things that affect the company's profits.

Costantino asked, was Leia Coca a good engineer, a responsible, thorough, conservative man?

No, said Kopp.

His ambitions overbalanced his sense of morality.

The prosecution rested its case.

Michael Costantino did the best he could with the hand he was dealt.

The case isn't as strong as I would like it to be at this point because of the lack of the documentation.

If it were sympathy Costantino was looking for, he wouldn't find any from James Neal.

I don't lose a ruling with the court and come down here and bellyache and complain that we're not getting to try our case, we're not getting to put our proof in, we're getting ruined.

The judge did what he thought was right.

The defense opened its presentation with a surprise witness whom Ford had flown to Winnemac on a private jet.

Levi Woodard, a 29-year-old hospital orderly, one of the last people to speak to Judy Ulrich.

Woodard said Judy was asking for someone to talk to her about Jesus in the emergency room, and he volunteered to do so.

During that conversation, he said, Judy explained how the accident happened, how she forgot to put the gas cap back on, how she saw it rolling across the highway in a mirror, how she made a U-turn, and how she stopped the car on the side of the road to pick it up.

Stopped.

Sensational.

When you compare that testimony with the eyewitnesses to the scene, it makes it kind of difficult to reconcile the two points.

Sure did.

And James Neal had additional tricks up his sleeve.

He introduced into evidence crash tests conducted by an accident reconstructionist named John E.

Haberstad.

Based on his attempts to duplicate the Ulrich crash, Haberstad was convinced that it occurred at 55 miles per hour.

In other words, he too thought the Pento was stopped.

Prosecutor Michael Cosentino admits the evidence hurt his case.

Cosantino was asked why he didn't do crash test.

Let alone not be able to crash test it.

I couldn't even afford to buy the car.

I mean, that costs money.

We don't have those kind of funds.

James Nill concluded his case by calling multiple employees of the Ford Motor Company to the stand.

Thomas J.

Feeney, the vice president of engineering, testified that the company only instituted the recall because of the reputational problems the media was causing.

We voluntarily recalled 1.5 million perfectly safe cars, he said.

To drive that point home, other Ford engineers testified that they had purchased the 1973 model in question for themselves and family members.

Harold C.

McDonald, the main architect of the Pinto, said he drove one himself, and so did his son.

McDonald says he was confident in the Pinto's fuel system because he was, quote, very sensitive about the subject.

His father had died in a fiery car crash back in 1932 when the fuel tank in his Model A ruptured.

Harold McDonald was the perfect example of a high-level Ford employee who would do everything in his power to create a safe car, James Neal argued.

And he just so happened to be the same person who designed and built the Ford Pento.

Well, big companies are made up of people just like McDonald, good, decent people.

And

that's what we propose to show, the people who designed and engineered the Pento.

Look at them.

See what they are.

Judge them.

During closing arguments, Prosecutor Michael Costantino delivered an emotional appeal to the jury.

In a real sense, this jury, by its decision, can give meaning to these senseless deaths by planting the seeds of change, the needed seeds of corporate moral responsibility and corporate accountability.

You and only you can send a message that can be heard in all boardrooms of corporations across the country.

This is the car Ford built for you to drive, for your families to drive, for your children and grandchildren.

Do you think it's right?

If you think it's right, you go into that room and find Ford not guilty.

But if you think it's wrong, you stand up and say so.

When you and I get up and get out of bed in the morning, you have to be morally responsible.

You leave your neighbor's wife alone.

You have to be legally responsible.

You don't go out and steal somebody else's money.

And you have to be accountable for your actions.

That's what this case is about.

I think large corporations have to be held to the same accountability as you and I.

Corporations cannot pollute our air in the name of profit.

Corporations cannot pollute our streams and rivers and lakes in the name of profit.

And they cannot kill our people in the name of profit.

And if Ford is found not guilty, does that mean they can?

I think it exonerates them.

James Neal again appealed to personal responsibility.

If this country is to survive, it's time to stop blaming industry and business, large or small, for our own sins.

Ford Motor Company is not perfect, but it is not guilty of reckless homicide.

After more than two months of testimony, the jury of seven men and five women convened on March 10, 1980.

They deliberated for 25 hours over a period of four days.

They emerged on Thursday, March 13th with a verdict.

Ford Motor Company was not guilty.

Jury foreman Arthur Selmer, a 62-year-old farmer, said he preferred big cars, but wasn't convinced the Pinto was recklessly designed.

Well, like I told them in the jury room, I said, they asked me whether I would buy one.

I said, no, I wouldn't buy one.

They said, would you drive one if somebody give you one?

I said, I sure would.

and in detroit henry ford all i can say about the winnemac thing is that we heard the results in the middle of the board meeting which we just concluded at two o'clock

and uh everybody was highly elated

the exoneration was a weight off henry ford ii's shoulders it could relax now knowing that the company his grandfather built would survive to see another day Ford II stepped down as chairman of the Ford Motor Company later that evening.

The headaches the Ford Motor Company has had with the Pinto will not end with this trial.

More than 30 civil suits from other people killed or severely burned and Pinto crashes are still pending.

According to news reports, the Pinto accounted for at least five more deaths in 1980 after the reckless homicide trial.

It now faced more than 30 civil lawsuits and counting, including one brought by the parents of Judy Lynn and Donna Ulrich.

That case was eventually settled for $7,500 each.

1980 also marked the last year of the Pento's production.

In total, more than 3 million units had been sold, which was well short of the company's goal.

But if you look at the bottom line, and Ford always does, the Pento was a resounding success.

Swindled is written, researched, produced, and hosted by me, the concerned citizen, with original music by Trevor Howard, aka DeFormer, aka Bunky Nudsen.

For more information about Swindled, you can visit swindledpodcast.com and follow us on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok at SwindledPodcast.

Or you can send us a postcard at P.O.

Box2045-Austin, Texas, 78768.

But please no packages.

We do not trust you.

Swindled is a completely independent production, which means no network, no investors, no bosses, no shadowy moneymen, no filler pipes.

And we plan to keep it that way, but we need your support.

Become a valued listener on Patreon, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify at valuedlistener.com.

For as little as five bucks a month, you will receive early access to new episodes and exclusive access to bonus episodes that you can't find anywhere else.

And everything is 100% commercial-free.

Become a valued listener at valuedlistener.com.

Or if you want to support the show and need something to wear while washing your car, consider buying something you don't need at swindledpodcast.com/slash shop.

There are t-shirts, patches, hats, hoodies, posters, coffee mugs, and more.

Swindledpodcast.com/slash shop.

And remember to use coupod code Capitalism to receive 10% off your order.

If you don't want anything in return for your support, you can always simply donate using the form on the home page.

That's it.

Thanks for listening.

Hello, my name is Peter from Little Rock.

Hi, my name is Kelsey from Sydney, Australia.

What's up, man?

My name is Quentin.

I'm from Houston, Texas, man.

I'm a confirmed citizen and a value.

Man, could y'all drop some more motherfucking episodes, man?

I've been paying for Patreon for over a fucking year, man.

Y'all need to drop some more shit, bro.

Hey, and keep on doing what y'all doing, man.

Appreciate you.

Thanks to Simply Safe for sponsoring the show.

Get 50% off your new SimplySafe system at simplysafe.com slash swindled.

That's 50% off your new SimplySafe system by visiting simply safe.com/slash swindled.

There's no safe like simply safe.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash?

Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies.

Try it at progressive.com.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Potential savings will vary.

Not available in all states.