Blind Eye: The Terrifying Story of a Doctor Who Got Away With Murder by James B. Stewart Page B

the results of Goodman’s investigation, but he did agree to pass on Dickson’s request to meet with Tzagournis. The next day, Dickson narrated the alarming events to the dean; she thought he at least listened carefully. Tzagournis seemed to recognize the gravity of the matter, and though he made no commitments, she felt she was making headway.
    On February 9, the day after the meeting, Goodman began what would prove to be a pivotal investigation of Swango’s activities. His investigation had three components. At 3:30 P.M ., he interviewed Cooper; next, he reviewed the files of seven patients who had died since Swango began his neurosurgery rotation; last, he considered the results of a blood test on Cooper. He did not interview either of the residents, Freeman and Brakel, who responded to the code on Cooper. Had he interviewed Brakel, he would have learned more about Swango’s involvement in Ruth Barrick’s death the same day, since Brakel had responded to Barrick’s code as well.
    Nor did Goodman interview any of the nurses who witnessed the events, or the orderly who discovered the syringe, or Utz, Cooper’s roommate. He did not ask to see the syringe, still in Nurse Moore’s custody. He didn’t speak to any witnesses to any of the patient deaths, such as Nurse Ritchie. No autopsies or physical tests were ordered for any of the possible victims, nor were any experts in toxicology or anesthesia consulted for possible explanations of the deaths and of Cooper’s apparent paralysis. While Goodman did not purport to be a trained investigator, the extremely limited scope of his inquiry is hard to comprehend unless he had already largely concluded that Swango was innocent and that the nurses’ “grapevine,” as he had put it, was largely to blame for the rumors sweeping the hospital. These were sentiments he had expressed from the outset.
    The following statements appear in a memorandum Goodman wrote the next day, summarizing the interview with Cooper: “Someone was standing by the bed and injected something into the I.V.”; “Blonde, short, unable to see face”; “Yellow pharmacy jacket.”
    Goodman’s principal reaction to the interview seems to have been distress that Cooper was spreading stories that were agitating other patients. He called Cramp, the hospital chief, at 4:30 P.M . to complain that rumors about Swango were “rampant” on the floorand to say he was moving Cooper to a private room to stop them. Although Cramp objected, Goodman did so. He also ordered that only Amy Moore, the head nurse, would be allowed contact with Cooper; this move, too, was intended to contain her inflammatory allegations.
    That Saturday morning, the initial group involved in the matter met to hear Goodman’s report and conclusions. Three important people joined this meeting: Holder, Tzagournis, and Michael Whitcomb, the hospital medical director, a close friend and protégé of Tzagournis. Although Dickson and others had urged that the university president, Edward Jennings, and Richard Jackson, the vice president, attend, Tzagournis had decided that there was no need.
    To Dickson’s amazement, Goodman was even more dismissive of the allegations against Swango than he had been at the first meeting. His interview with Cooper, he assured the group, had gone a long way toward eliminating the possibility that Swango had been involved in foul play of any kind. Goodman reported that Cooper had identified the alleged assailant as a “female” and “neither a nurse nor physician on the hospital staff.” Since his notes also indicated the person was wearing a “yellow pharmacy jacket,” he concluded the suspect was probably a woman pharmacy technician, and he had already determined that there was no one who fit that description.
    Virtually everything about Goodman’s conclusions and interview with Cooper is puzzling. Cooper insisted she never described her assailant as a “female.” Indeed, in her numerous other accounts