By John Q. Hosedrinker 
After fourteen years of fighting for justice, the Greenbergs reached a settlement with the city of Philadelphia and Dr. Marlon Osbourne, the pathologist who initially ruled their daughter Ellen’s death a suicide. Dr. Osbourne reversed his ruling, stating new information led him to believe Ellen’s death was not self-inflicted. This settlement includes a financial payment to the Greenbergs and a commitment by the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s Office to re-examine the case, potentially paving the way for a criminal investigation. The Greenbergs’ lawsuits, alleging a cover-up, were resolved, bringing some closure to their long battle.
Read the original article here
Ellen Greenberg’s death was initially ruled a suicide, despite the presence of twenty knife wounds and eleven bruises. This seemingly contradictory conclusion, reached years ago, has now been overturned by the pathologist who initially performed the autopsy. The pathologist’s change of heart, coming after fourteen years, raises significant questions about the original investigation.
The sheer number of wounds alone makes the suicide ruling questionable. Twenty knife wounds and eleven bruises are not typical indicators of self-inflicted harm. The location of some wounds, such as a stab wound to the back of the neck, which is likely post-mortem, further fuels skepticism about the suicide theory. It’s highly improbable that someone would inflict such extensive and varied injuries upon themselves. The sheer brutality of the injuries seems to contradict the typical understanding of suicidal behavior, especially when considering the unusual number and placement of these wounds.
The involvement of Greenberg’s fiancé, a figure with political connections, adds another layer of complexity to the case. Conflicting accounts surrounding his discovery of the body and his interactions with the security guard cast doubt on his initial statements. The timing of his 911 call and his access to the apartment before calling emergency services also came under scrutiny, suggesting a possible attempt to manipulate the initial investigation.
It’s also striking that the initial investigation was so readily accepting of the suicide theory, despite the clear physical evidence contradicting it. The pathologist’s initial conclusion, apparently influenced by inaccurate information provided by law enforcement about the circumstances surrounding the death, highlights serious issues with the integrity of the initial investigation. The fact that the door may have been unlocked, contradicting the claim that she was alone in the apartment, further calls into question the official narrative. It appears as though crucial details surrounding the circumstances of her death were either overlooked or deliberately ignored during the initial phase of the investigation. This leads to significant questions about the thoroughness and impartiality of that investigation.
The pathologist’s reversal, while welcome, unfortunately doesn’t entirely resolve the lingering uncertainties. The reasons behind the initial misjudgment are still unclear. Whether it was a genuine oversight, a case of deliberate misrepresentation, or a combination of both, needs further investigation. The fact that new information prompted the change suggests that the original information was incomplete or inaccurate.
The reversal also underscores the potential for errors and bias in forensic investigations, and the importance of thoroughly investigating all possible scenarios, even when an initial conclusion seems clear-cut. The case serves as a cautionary tale of how deeply ingrained biases and pressure from connected individuals can influence investigations, especially those with political implications. This underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability within law enforcement and the forensic science community to ensure that justice is served in all cases, regardless of the social standing or influence of those involved.
The fourteen-year delay in rectifying the initial misjudgment is also deeply troubling. The change in the ruling appears to have been initiated by the threat of a lawsuit, not an independent review. This highlights how outside pressure can eventually prompt a re-examination of evidence in high-profile cases, though it might have been more desirable to see a more proactive reevaluation of the case sooner rather than later. The delay likely damaged efforts to reconstruct the scene or obtain accurate statements from witnesses, hindering a full investigation that might have been possible sooner. This case highlights the need for robust systems of oversight and internal review within forensic pathology and criminal investigations.
The case of Ellen Greenberg serves as a powerful reminder that even the most seemingly straightforward conclusions can be wrong, and that persistence in seeking justice is crucial. Her story demands a deeper examination of the systemic issues that allowed for such a gross misjudgment to remain unchallenged for such a long period. While the pathologist’s change of heart offers a small measure of justice, it’s important to look beyond this one case and consider the broader systemic failures it exposes. The lack of adequate oversight and the influence of political power, revealed by this tragic case, must be addressed in future investigations.