PA - Ellen Greenberg, 27, Philly teacher’s brutal stabbing, ruled suicide but possible homicide, Jan 2011

[sunspun]

All good points !
The severity of the wounds makes it 100 % unlikely Ellen did this to herself !
Imo.

Thank you for the 100%. It is infuriating to see people keep saying it seems "unlikely" or "improbable" that this was suicide. Imo, and I would also say, in FACT, it is IMPOSSIBLE! I realize people saying it's highly unlikely are "on my side", and that they too believe she didn't do this to herself. I realize that even though someone is sure it was not suicide, we still usually say "probably" and "unlikely" and hedge words like that, just because that's what we say. Because... anything's possible, right?

But no! I say this is NOT possible! For too many reasons. And using words like "unlikely" is partly how the word "suicide" made its way into official documents in this case! Just leaving room for doubt. Hedging our bets. Covering for all contingencies. Which is often a good idea. The cautious way to play things. But not necessary in this case!

It should be stated as fact that there is no possible way she could do this to herself, or that any human could do this to oneself. If she's a human, and she certainly was, it's impossible that she did this all to herself. Reasons have been given by many learned people as well as any person with half a brain in their head. It's physiologically and also logistically, BIOSPATIALLY (I made that word up) impossible.

I wish people who believed that wouldn't say, I doubt she could do this to herself. Or it's highly unlikely...

She didn't, everyone knows she didn't, everyone knows she couldn't. It's 100% impossible.

ok,imo

 

[arielilane]

An article from Sept. 8, 2025:

Judge Blasts the City in Ellen Greenberg Case: ‘Justice Delayed is Justice Denied’ Lamb McErlane partner Joe Podraza, Attorney for the Greenbergs | Lamb McErlane PC

Judge Blasts the City in Ellen Greenberg Case: ‘Justice Delayed is Justice Denied’ Joe Podraza, attorney for the Greenberg's Quoted in Philadelphia Inquirer article. Joshua and Sandra Greenberg received the monetary portion of their settlement with Philadelphia, but await the promised...

www.lambmcerlane.com

 

[tlcya]

My daughter has been on my butt to watch the Hulu docuseries on this case. I say this NOT having followed this case or watched the docuseries, so maybe once I catch up this will make more sense to me, but what on earth made authorities think this was a suicide to begin with? The amount of stab wounds is excessive, and half appear to have entered her from behind so how in the heck does one land at suicide in that sort of circumstance??

 

[snarast]

Right now, the focus should be on proving that the likelihood of this being suicide is nearly nil.

There are many reasons but the most striking is the sequence of the stabs and the angles of the stabs. It’s looking physically impossible. And the there is the evidence for throttling, how solid is that - but if it is as convincing as her father thinks, it seems it might be a contributing cause of death.

Taken together with that the latch was not actually breached - because to be a nonfunctional latch allowing the door to open either side of the latch would have to be completely separated from the door-side or the wall-side. Photos show that was not the case.

If it’s not broken in that manner it means that the latch was never engaged in the first place. There was no latched door and therefore no Agatha Christie style ”locked room mystery”.

IMHOO

 

[snarast]

My daughter has been on my butt to watch the Hulu docuseries on this case. I say this NOT having followed this case or watched the docuseries, so maybe once I catch up this will make more sense to me, but what on earth made authorities think this was a suicide to begin with? The amount of stab wounds is excessive, and half appear to have entered her from behind so how in the heck does one land at suicide in that sort of circumstance??

She had a hoodie on and was propped up against the kitchen cabinets.

I think a lot of us suspect that was staged so that you couldn’t see the many stabs to the back of her neck and head.

I guess a judge who is an uncle of Sam showing up at the scene may have contributed to the impression of his innocence, or rather highlighted the risks involved with treating Sam as a suspect.

IMHOO

 

[Chimera]

She had a hoodie on and was propped up against the kitchen cabinets.

I think a lot of us suspect that was staged so that you couldn’t see the many stabs to the back of her neck and head.

I guess a judge who is an uncle of Sam showing up at the scene may have contributed to the impression of his innocence, or rather highlighted the risks involved with treating Sam as a suspect.

IMHOO

Emphasis mine.
Yes that's not hinky in the slightest.
Some people are better than others at understand the legalities involved, and possibly knowing how to work the system.
A judge might be thinking, "Ok here's what needs to happen...".
Or something similar ?
Putting a hoodie on after brutally stabbing oneself is just adding layers of unbelievability.
My .02.

 

[Quill]

I'm newer to this case but something jumped out at me in the 911 call. When the fiancé tells the operator that "she stabbed herself...in the heart" the operator asks about the knife. He responds with something to the effect of " a really long knife but it's far in" or something similar. My question: how does he know it's a really long knife just looking at it plunged "far" into her? I need to go back and listen again. Anyone else have any thoughts/observations on this?

 

[sunspun]

My daughter has been on my butt to watch the Hulu docuseries on this case. I say this NOT having followed this case or watched the docuseries, so maybe once I catch up this will make more sense to me, but what on earth made authorities think this was a suicide to begin with? The amount of stab wounds is excessive, and half appear to have entered her from behind so how in the heck does one land at suicide in that sort of circumstance??

IMO, and I may not have every detail correct, but essentially this: Ellen's boyfriend (actually fiancee) at the time is from a wealthy family who apparently also have some perhaps powerful connections in this community. He has an uncle who is an attorney. He called his uncle from the scene (of the crime, imo) and this uncle came straight over there. If I recall correctly, the uncle was responsible for having the scene cleaned up in record time, not just of blood etc., but also of a laptop and seems like other things, but the laptop is what I distinctly remember.

Anyway, so it's also known that this attorney knows his state's governor personally, and made calls to him about this. I don't know if the governor has made any statements about this.

OK, so then when her body was autopsied, the coroner relied on the usual things you'd expect him to rely on to make out the official report, namely the visible injuries he noted in his examination of her body, and LOGIC! Which is why he entered "homicide" and not "suicide" in manner of death. It sounds like from your post that you didn't realize that that happened. But yes, the ORIGINAL manner of death upon initial autopsy findings given in the original report, was never "suicide". It was CHANGED from homicide to suicide after "someone" had a talk with the ME (or coroner, whichever they have there).

Now I don't recall all the facts that are actually known about this part. First off, I've forgotten how much time passed before the report was changed to say it was a suicide. And I know that the general consensus is that some powerful (political) people exerted their influence into this case on behalf of the boyfriend and his family which resulted in the report being changed to label this a suicide. And that's what I too believe happened. But I don't know if there is actual evidence of this or if that's what people just figured out by looking at the facts of the case. I'd like to know if this can be proven. It shouldn't have to be. It's obvious this happened, imo. But it always looks better if you can come with receipts, as they say.

I just can't understand how a coroner, whose reputation and career assurance relies on their integrity and consistency in providing valid, unbiased, accurate, objective findings and reports, would falsify any reports or enter inaccurate data on official documents, or allow themselves to be influenced for any reason by some individual/s, powerful or not. That would be risking their career. Their reputation and integrity would be at stake here. What could possibly have persuaded them? Were they bribed?? Were they related? Were they threatened?

I figure it'll just turn out to be as simple as that they were pressured to do it, with someone dropping the governor's name as backup, or even with a call from governor himself, and they agreed even against their better judgment, because they "knew" no one was ever going to be giving this a second glance. They knew they wouldn't be questioned, they knew they could get away with it, because it was going to all be swept under the rug, and it would all go away with no one having to ever answer for any questionable thing they might do. Their authority would be accepted, as always.

But they didn't count on Ellen's parents being so adamant and persistent. But that also is confusing to me, because they knew the parents would be able to read the details of the autopsy. Those are always available to the family of the deceased, right? But if they knew the details would be known, why wouldn't they expect to be questioned by the family? Especially when they were trying to say it was suicide. Families often find it hard to believe or even refuse to believe their loved one killed themself, maybe even when they were found with a GSW to the head and the gun nearby and gunshot residue on their hand, maybe even when there's a suicide note right there! It's just often a very hard thing to accept, so people sometimes won't accept it. A lot of people would rather find out they'd died in an accident than by suicide. That's a pretty common feeling, imo. So why wouldn't the coroner worry that putting "suicide" on the report would cause problems, especially in this case, when the details of her death are as horrendous as we know them to be? And when they knew the parents would read these?

So I don't understand that. Why would the coroner have just changed the manner of death to such a controversial and heartbreaking-to-the-family, and contrary-to-the-medical-findings manner as suicide when that should come with major risk to their career and reputation? Was this coroner involved in any other scandals or controversial findings, etc.? Did they just not care? No integrity?

I hope they're finally all doing the right thing on this case. Bring the guilty party to justice finally. But first, the simplest action they could take - change the manner of death.

 

[cujenn81]

IMO, and I may not have every detail correct, but essentially this: Ellen's boyfriend (actually fiancee) at the time is from a wealthy family who apparently also have some perhaps powerful connections in this community. He has an uncle who is an attorney. He called his uncle from the scene (of the crime, imo) and this uncle came straight over there. If I recall correctly, the uncle was responsible for having the scene cleaned up in record time, not just of blood etc., but also of a laptop and seems like other things, but the laptop is what I distinctly remember.

Anyway, so it's also known that this attorney knows his state's governor personally, and made calls to him about this. I don't know if the governor has made any statements about this.

OK, so then when her body was autopsied, the coroner relied on the usual things you'd expect him to rely on to make out the official report, namely the visible injuries he noted in his examination of her body, and LOGIC! Which is why he entered "homicide" and not "suicide" in manner of death. It sounds like from your post that you didn't realize that that happened. But yes, the ORIGINAL manner of death upon initial autopsy findings given in the original report, was never "suicide". It was CHANGED from homicide to suicide after "someone" had a talk with the ME (or coroner, whichever they have there).

Now I don't recall all the facts that are actually known about this part. First off, I've forgotten how much time passed before the report was changed to say it was a suicide. And I know that the general consensus is that some powerful (political) people exerted their influence into this case on behalf of the boyfriend and his family which resulted in the report being changed to label this a suicide. And that's what I too believe happened. But I don't know if there is actual evidence of this or if that's what people just figured out by looking at the facts of the case. I'd like to know if this can be proven. It shouldn't have to be. It's obvious this happened, imo. But it always looks better if you can come with receipts, as they say.

I just can't understand how a coroner, whose reputation and career assurance relies on their integrity and consistency in providing valid, unbiased, accurate, objective findings and reports, would falsify any reports or enter inaccurate data on official documents, or allow themselves to be influenced for any reason by some individual/s, powerful or not. That would be risking their career. Their reputation and integrity would be at stake here. What could possibly have persuaded them? Were they bribed?? Were they related? Were they threatened?

I figure it'll just turn out to be as simple as that they were pressured to do it, with someone dropping the governor's name as backup, or even with a call from governor himself, and they agreed even against their better judgment, because they "knew" no one was ever going to be giving this a second glance. They knew they wouldn't be questioned, they knew they could get away with it, because it was going to all be swept under the rug, and it would all go away with no one having to ever answer for any questionable thing they might do. Their authority would be accepted, as always.

But they didn't count on Ellen's parents being so adamant and persistent. But that also is confusing to me, because they knew the parents would be able to read the details of the autopsy. Those are always available to the family of the deceased, right? But if they knew the details would be known, why wouldn't they expect to be questioned by the family? Especially when they were trying to say it was suicide. Families often find it hard to believe or even refuse to believe their loved one killed themself, maybe even when they were found with a GSW to the head and the gun nearby and gunshot residue on their hand, maybe even when there's a suicide note right there! It's just often a very hard thing to accept, so people sometimes won't accept it. A lot of people would rather find out they'd died in an accident than by suicide. That's a pretty common feeling, imo. So why wouldn't the coroner worry that putting "suicide" on the report would cause problems, especially in this case, when the details of her death are as horrendous as we know them to be? And when they knew the parents would read these?

So I don't understand that. Why would the coroner have just changed the manner of death to such a controversial and heartbreaking-to-the-family, and contrary-to-the-medical-findings manner as suicide when that should come with major risk to their career and reputation? Was this coroner involved in any other scandals or controversial findings, etc.? Did they just not care? No integrity?

I hope they're finally all doing the right thing on this case. Bring the guilty party to justice finally. But first, the simplest action they could take - change the manner of death.

This is covered in the documentary. The ME ruled the manner of death as homicide after completing the autopsy. He changed it to suicide after a closed door meeting with the police department and DA’s office 2 to 3 days later. During his 2021 deposition with the Greenberg’s attorney, the ME said he changed the manner based on information he was given during that meeting. He wouldn’t or couldn’t say exactly what information made him change his initial ruling or who gave him the information, and he didn’t take any notes. But I got the impression the ME was told that the doorman was present when the fiancé broke down the door (which we now know is factually untrue). The doorman was interviewed for the documentary, BTW — and he is PISSED that someone made that claim because it’s easily refuted by the camera footage. (The DA’s office and the police department tried to withhold that footage — also BTW. They flat out told the Greenberg’s attorney that they didn’t have additional camera footage from the apartment building. The attorney knew that was highly unlikely because there were cameras all over the place. He threatened to obtain a subpoena for it and they were all like ohhhh you mean THAT footage. Okay, here ya go.) <<< RAGE INDUCING

 

[cujenn81]

This is covered in the documentary. The ME ruled the manner of death as homicide after completing the autopsy. He changed it to suicide after a closed door meeting with the police department and DA’s office 2 to 3 days later. During his 2021 deposition with the Greenberg’s attorney, the ME said he changed the manner based on information he was given during that meeting. He wouldn’t or couldn’t say exactly what information made him change his initial ruling or who gave him the information, and he didn’t take any notes. But I got the impression the ME was told that the doorman was present when the fiancé broke down the door (which we now know is factually untrue). The doorman was interviewed for the documentary, BTW — and he is PISSED that someone made that claim because it’s easily refuted by the camera footage. (The DA’s office and the police department tried to withhold that footage — also BTW. They flat out told the Greenberg’s attorney that they didn’t have additional camera footage from the apartment building. The attorney knew that was highly unlikely because there were cameras all over the place. He threatened to obtain a subpoena for it and they were all like ohhhh you mean THAT footage. Okay, here ya go.) <<< RAGE INDUCING

Replying to myself to say that I’ll try to go back and transcribe that ME deposition part tomorrow. I feel like my summary doesn’t really pack the punch that it does when you hear it in the documentary.

 

[snarast]

This is covered in the documentary. The ME ruled the manner of death as homicide after completing the autopsy. He changed it to suicide after a closed door meeting with the police department and DA’s office 2 to 3 days later. During his 2021 deposition with the Greenberg’s attorney, the ME said he changed the manner based on information he was given during that meeting. He wouldn’t or couldn’t say exactly what information made him change his initial ruling or who gave him the information, and he didn’t take any notes. But I got the impression the ME was told that the doorman was present when the fiancé broke down the door (which we now know is factually untrue). The doorman was interviewed for the documentary, BTW — and he is PISSED that someone made that claim because it’s easily refuted by the camera footage. (The DA’s office and the police department tried to withhold that footage — also BTW. They flat out told the Greenberg’s attorney that they didn’t have additional camera footage from the apartment building. The attorney knew that was highly unlikely because there were cameras all over the place. He threatened to obtain a subpoena for it and they were all like ohhhh you mean THAT footage. Okay, here ya go.) <<< RAGE INDUCING

the change from homicide to suicide occurred about 2 months after the initial ruling.

 

[cujenn81]

Okay, here's the transcription from Episode 3 of the Hulu documentary, Death in Apartment 603: What Happened to Ellen Greenberg? IRT the information about the homicide/suicide change. This information begins at the 15:00 minute mark.

Death in Apartment 603: What Happened to Ellen Greenberg?

JOE PODRAZA
The Greenberg's Attorney

The lawsuit allowed us to finally get access to the surveillance tape of the complex where Sam and Ellen resided. This facility had between 12 to 20 cameras. So we had asked for that, and the first response was it doesn’t exist. Well, it’s hard to believe something as fundamental as surveillance tape was missed by the police. We therefore said, please go back and check. We get a response back from the solicitor’s office. No, the police have confirmed there is not surveillance footage at all that they have in their possession. So, we said we’re gonna ask a court to get involved in this or you’re going to give us an affidavit from somebody in the police department going on record saying that there was no seizure of the surveillance tape and it doesn’t exist. We didn’t get an affidavit because nobody was going on record saying that. But we did get the solicitor’s office to come back and say… oh, THAT surveillance tape.

Now, that videotape is critical because the medical examiner’s investigation report indicated that Sam Goldberg, the fiancé, had been escorted and was witnessed breaking into the apartment, where it was claimed that he then found Ellen, and that witness was a security guard. And I will not forget this. We watched and we realized that the footage discredited that claim. Because Mr. Hanton did not go up with the fiancé.

PHIL HANTON - security guard (interview for the documentary)
There was a report that said I escorted Sam to the unit. When I learned that, I was REALLY upset. I want to be clear that I’m not accusing anybody. But then again, you’re not gonna lie on me either. I’m not allowed to leave the post other than for law enforcement. It’s real simple.

JOE PODRAZA
In Sam’s two interviews with investigators, he never expressly states that anyone was with him when he broke in. However, while the police report doesn’t mention that anyone was with Sam, the medical examiner’s report does. And that’s the report that Dr. Osbourne used to determine Ellen’s manner of death. A report that included this inaccurate information. So now, one of the critical pieces of evidence for why this was changed to a suicide from a homicide is completely false. And we realized that something is very, very wrong here. Because, hey, we weren’t the first people to look at this video. It was looked at by the police. How did they miss the whereabouts of the security officer that disproves a huge part of the claim that she committed suicide? So, once we had that videotape, we decided it’s time to start talking to people under oath. And we moved to what we call depositions.

DR. SAM GULINO - Philadelphia Chief Medical Examiner (deposition)
A: The first time I was made aware of the case was when I was asked to participate in a meeting that included the members of the Philadelphia Police Department, Ann Ponterio of the district attorney’s office, and Dr. Osbourne, at which the police wanted to present new investigative information to Dr. Osbourne.

JOE PODRAZA
When we went into the depositions of the three members from the medical examiner’s office, we wanted to know how did this come about? This determination of suicide? What transpired?

DR. MARLON OSBOURNE - Philadelphia Medical Examiner (deposition)
Q: Based on the information that you had going into that meeting, had you decided to change the manner of death from a homicide to a suicide?
A: To the best of my knowledge, I don’t know that I made a definitive decision prior to that meeting to change it.

Q: This was an important meeting, correct?
A: Yes

Q: Did you create a record in writing of the meeting?
A: I don’t have notes from that meeting, no.

Q: Why not?
A: I do not have notes from that meeting.

Q: Why not?
A: I do not have notes from that meeting.

Q: And my question to you is if it’s such an important meeting, why is there no written record?
A: To answer your question, I personally did not take notes at that meeting. However, all the information gathered was documented in other forms elsewhere.

Q: Why did you say it was a homicide?
A: At the time of autopsy, I did believe that I had enough information to make that determination.

Q: What is the best of your recollection of what was said by each of the participants?
A: The investigative officers reviewed and answered questions regarding the scene, with nothing disturbed, nothing out of place, about the door locked from the inside and the boyfriend having the, I believe, front desk person witness him breaking down the door.

Q: But you hadn’t come to a conclusion at the meeting, is that correct?
A: No, we were exchanging information thus—to get to the point where I could basically collect all the evidence that supports homicide and weigh it against whatever evidence supports suicide. To see how I would—to see which determination I would make.

Q: If you were told there was a question as to whether the fiancé was accompanied by someone, whether the fiancé broke through the door, whether the lock was engaged when the wounds were administered to Ellen, that those were in question and not decided, would you have changed your initial determination of homicide to suicide while those questions remained open?
A: No, I would not. I would end up somewhere closer to undetermined if those things are still in question, but that was not the case.

JOHN MCNAMEE - former Philadelphia homicide detective (deposition)
Q: Dr. Osbourne indicated that at a meeting it was shared with him that the fiancé had been witnessed entering the apartment when he found Ellen Greenberg. Do you recall that information being shared at a meeting you attended?
A: I can’t say that. I don’t know how Dr. Osbourne -- or if he became aware of that how he became aware of that.