IIRC, from the original reported denial by the pathologist, it struck me that she did not want to agree with the police version of the incident, but suggested that the evidence didn’t “jive” with St. Swisher’s accomplice’s version.
Everything that I have read so far from her points to one thing: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s article posited one possible conclusion from her remarks which, according to her, they shouldn’t have done.
She hasn’t denied anything, but is out to coorect some bad reporting, and has asserted that her quotes were taken out of context and misrepresneted.