This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

George P. Fletcher
Seattle

JAMA. 1968;203(13):1141.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor:—

I am indebted to Dr. Butler for pointing out that the evidence against Dr. Hermann Sander was equivocal. Sander retracted his confession at trial (though he never explained why he might wish to inject air into the veins of a dead patient); and Dr. Ford testified that it was very unlikely that air injected into the veins could have reached the deceased's heart. It is true that a jury concerned only about the evidence might have reasonable doubts whether Sander's injection was the cause of death.

That the jury might have acquitted Sander on the basis of the evidence is not to say that it did in fact do so. The evidence against Sander was at least as strong as that against others convicted of serious offenses. To offset Ford's testimony, the prosecution could point to the contradictory testimony of two medical witnesses and to Sander's own . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?