Ellen Greenberg case: Philadelphia medical examiner reaffirms suicide ruling after fresh 32-page review

What the new review says—and why it matters now

The latest review, led by Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Lindsay Simon, concludes that Greenberg, 27, was capable of inflicting her own injuries and that the scene evidence does not support the presence of an intruder. The report points to the apartment’s locked door, the absence of defensive wounds, and the lack of another person’s DNA on the kitchen knife. Investigators also revisited time-stamped entries and surveillance logs that placed Greenberg’s fiancé, Sam Goldberg, at the building gym before he discovered her body during a 2011 snowstorm.

While the distribution of wounds remains “unusual,” the office maintains the manner of death is suicide, not homicide or “undetermined.” That reaffirmation lands after a settlement earlier this year in which the city agreed to re-examine the case—one reason the timing carries extra legal weight.

The counterargument: a family unmoved and experts at odds

Greenberg’s parents, Sandee and Josh, have long argued that the mechanics of the injuries—20 stab wounds, including to the back and neck—are incompatible with suicide. Their team highlights a pattern of bruising, contested interpretations of specific wounds, and what they describe as early investigative missteps that shaped the narrative before a full forensic consensus existed. They also note that the original ruling was homicide before it was changed to suicide in 2011; more recently, the pathologist who performed the autopsy has said he no longer supports a suicide finding.

Attorneys for the family blasted the new report as a backfill for a predetermined outcome, calling out passages they say mischaracterize autopsy detail and downplay anomalous injuries. Expect that critique to crystallize into motions and expert affidavits as the case returns to court and administrative forums.

How a closed-door forensic debate became a public trial

In the last year, the case has surged back into the national conversation, driven by fresh litigation and a high-profile docuseries that reconstructed the timeline and examined contradictory expert opinions. That attention created a feedback loop: each new filing spurred media coverage, which in turn heightened pressure on officials to explain, in plain language, why the suicide ruling should stand despite layperson incredulity over the wound pattern.

Crucially, the new medical examiner’s review attempts to close gaps that fueled suspicion—reassessing door hardware, confirming keycard and camera references, and formalizing why the pattern of injuries, while rare, is not forensic proof of another person’s involvement. Opponents say the office still hasn’t reconciled all anomalies or fully addressed scene-handling critiques from past litigation.

What happens next: hearings, litigation, and the court of public opinion

A public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 14, 2025, is expected to memorialize the reaffirmed ruling and preview the city’s posture in any follow-on litigation. Procedurally, the family can pursue further administrative appeals and civil claims aimed at forcing the manner of death to “undetermined” or reopening a criminal investigation. Substantively, the debate narrows to two questions:

1. Evidentiary sufficiency: Is the totality of scene, medical, and trace evidence enough to exclude homicide to a reasonable degree of medical certainty?

2. Process integrity: Were earlier investigative decisions so flawed that confidence in the conclusion is undermined, regardless of today’s re-analysis?

Why this case resonates beyond Philadelphia

The Greenberg case has become a referendum on how death-investigation systems balance statistical rarity against categorical impossibility. Suicide by stabbing is uncommon; suicide involving numerous wounds to hard-to-reach areas is rarer still. But rarity is not the same as impossibility. The medical examiner’s office is staking its credibility on that distinction, arguing that the entire evidence record—not a single shocking detail—must drive the conclusion.

For the public, the optics are stubborn: twenty stab wounds, a locked apartment, and dueling experts. For the courts, the issue is narrower: whether the current official finding rests on defensible science and procedure. The next phase will likely hinge on fresh expert testimony, not new physical evidence, and on whether a judge believes the system’s internal review can command public trust.

 The city has doubled down on suicide after a comprehensive re-examination. The family remains unmoved and poised to escalate. More than fourteen years after Ellen Greenberg’s death, the central question endures—not just what happened in Apartment 603, but whether the institutions tasked with answering it have done enough to be believed.