I had never seen that before either. Because here in back and white is a police officer who was present at the autopsy stating that there were indications of PRIOR sexual assault. How long did posters go back and forth here on WS claiming there was no prior assault. Even those who conceded that there was assault that night still refused to believe it had happened before - and all because it would have spoiled their "intruder did it" theories. No "small foreign faction" could have snuck into the home on previous occasions and molested a child undetected by her parents and unidentified by the child.
As for the cord- what I see is that she is saying that one of the two loops around her throat was very deeply imbedded and one was not digging in at all. As we know, there was ONE very faint white ligature mark. The coroner never mentioned this. Usually a white mark indicates that it was a postmortem injury, made during the early "blanching" (or non-fixed) stage. If whatever is putting pressure on the skin is left in place, the blood will not seep back in where the blood has been pushed away. This is because the heart is no longer pumping and the blood is no longer circulating. If the cord was wrapped after death and then immediately pulled away, the blood would seep back in. This would occur until it became fixed, and then all livor patterns remain. She doesn't mention the white mark; however- when we look at the autopsy photos of JB's neck, we see what seems to be one deep red ligature furrow that is completely circumferential, with no up or down movement. The coroner doesn't mention the white mark either, and it seems to be visible only at the front of her neck. Arndt's comments could mean that the cord, which was cut off right there on the autopsy table, was wound once deeply imbedded into the red, bruised deep furrow and once leaving the white mark. As I read it again, I see something different. It looks like she means that the cord was wound SO tight that although it was wound twice, the first wrap was SO deep that you couldn't even see the cord, and the second wrap, not imbedded, was hiding the first wrap, and it was laying on the surface of the skin, seemingly not digging in at all. Her wording is confusing, but when I read "twice it was wound and it looked like it was only one loose time" it makes me believe she meant the outer wind of the cord was hiding the much deeper bottom (first wind) of the cord.
Interesting that she spoke to "Good Morning America" and not to the press or any investigators. She planned to write a book- that was why she initially was not forthcoming with information. She was there - ground zero- at the crime scene with the parents and also at the autopsy- she saw and heard more than any other investigator. Yet she clammed up- and developed "ramnesia". I think it had something to do with her lawsuit. She sued the BPD and we never heard about the outcome. I would bet she had to keep quiet, and discontinue plans to write that book, as part of any settlement she received.
That lawsuit is why she was "blackballed" by the BPD. She felt she was being made a scapegoat. But she WAS responsible for much of the mishandling. It is because she did not get control of the crime scene and this allowed the PRIMARY crime scene (the body and the wine cellar) to be forever compromised. Had the parents never been allowed to touch that body, there would be NO explanation for the presence of their fibers on JB other than their handling of the body wearing the clothes they had on that day.
