i think I read it here, from one of the reports upthread.
ETA link is in my post upthread #76.
Here's the extract.
However, there was something unusual Emery discovered during the course of her exam.
She observed three injuries of note to Ellen’s spinal column. One, to the spinal cord tissue
itself, was done during the course of Ellen’s autopsy, she said.
But there were two other cuts — one to the bone and ligaments in the back of Greenberg’s
spinal column and a corresponding cut to the dura — that were from a “bona fide sharp force
injury” and were not done at autopsy, she said.
What was notable about those injuries was there was no hemorrhaging around them, Emery
testified, saying, “Lack of hemorrhage means no pulse.”
She offered three possibilities for the lack of hemorrhaging: There wasn’t enough time
between when the wound was inflicted and when Ellen died for it to hemorrhage; the wound
didn’t disrupt the tissue enough to cause a response — or Ellen was already dead when the
wound was inflicted.
If the cut was administered while Ellen was still alive, Emery said she’d have expected to see
hemorrhaging.
“And by the fact that now the dura is not demonstrating hemorrhage, as you found also the
spinal column didn’t, would that weigh a little bit more in suggesting Ellen was dead at the
time this wound was administered?” Podraza asked.
“Yes,” Emery said.
Podraza called this “amazing new information.”
A month after her deposition, the city filed a written declaration by Emery, in which she said
she didn’t fully understand the scope of questions posed to her at deposition by the city’s
attorney, and presented several other possibilities for the lack of hemorrhaging including: that
nothing was injured along the wound path; that bleeding in other areas of the body prevented
bleeding in that area; or that the injury could have been done at the time of autopsy.
“I view the declaration as a deliberate submission to try and cloud her testimony, but it
doesn’t change what her testimony was,” Podraza said.