The Death of Ellen Greenberg

Introduction

Our blog today covers the death of Ellen Greenberg in 2011.

It is a longer and more complex blog than usual as we show how using both Factual and Forensic Statement & Linguistic Analysis Timelines can further inform detailed due diligence and investigations.

The circumstances of Ellen’s death are currently being re-investigated in the US. This is potentially a live murder investigation and, if you step through our article below, you should be able to pick up on the fact that something is drastically wrong – from the 911 call alone.

Applying Forensic Statement & Linguistic Analysis on the 911 call itself from Ellen’s fiancé may well have changed the course of the investigation at an earlier stage.

The authorities would have saved countless hours and a considerable amount of public money in the original investigation and would certainly not be having to re-investigate Ellen’s death again. Getting it right first time would have meant that the Greenberg family would not have had unprecedented levels of stress over the last 14 years.

The Circumstances of Ellen Greenberg’s Death

On 26th January 2011, Ellen Greenberg was found dead by her fiancé in her apartment in Philadelphia. She had been stabbed more than 20 times.

In January 2011, the death was ruled as a homicide. In April 2011, the cause of death was changed to suicide. In January 2025, the determination of suicide was removed. 

On 2nd February 2025, the Mail Online confirmed the medical examiner as saying that the death should be ruled as ‘something other than suicide’ after learning of new information that has changed his initial opinion. See: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14351361/Ellen-Greenberg-suicide-medical-examiner.html.

On 4th February 2025, Court TV covered the updates to the case, including some quite incredible anomalies. See: https://www.courttv.com/news/medical-examiner-reverses-ruling-in-ellen-greenberg-case/. 

The original 911 Call from Ellen’s fiancé, Samuel Goldberg, was just over four minutes long. It is latent information which could provide insights into the case. You can listen to it here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-3245417/Video-Disturbing-911-call-Samuel-Goldberg-Ellen-Greenberg-dead.html.

When analysing information, we consider the expected and unexpected in context. We note what is said and that which remains unsaid. There is much contained within the 911 Call. We particularly note where the caller begins their account, as follows:

Caller: ‘Help! I've got, I need, I need, uh, I just, I just walked into my apartment, my fiancés on the floor with blood everywhere’.

The priority on the call is to say what he himself needs. This is followed by repetition of the word ‘just’ in respect to having ‘just’ walked into his apartment. The caller doesn’t ask for help for Ellen throughout the call. This is unexpected.

In relation to Emergency Calls, our experience tells us that the use of the word ‘just’ by the Caller in the following circumstances has shown a 90%+ accuracy rate for the Caller being either guilty of the crime or having guilty knowledge;

• When used as an adverb (meaning 'very recently, in the immediate past')

• Relating to the arrival or departure in the initial / opening utterance of an Emergency Call

• When unbidden and given voluntarily

• When no timeframe has been asked for

• In response to the question "What is your emergency" or "Police emergency" (UK) and "What happened?”.

Upon finding Ellen’s body, the Caller says, in order:

‘She stabbed herself’.

‘She fell on a knife’.

‘There’s a knife sticking out of her heart’.

‘It looks pretty deep’.

‘I mean it’s a long knife’.

This is unexpected and we would question what made the Caller say this. This is especially pertinent given the context. The Caller says that ‘the door was latched and that he had to break down the door in order to gain entry’. At the outset of the 911 call, the Caller had originally stated that ‘I just walked into my apartment...’ This is simply not consistent.

Notably, the Caller doesn’t say Ellen has been murdered and neither does he show any fear of a potential perpetrator still being present in the apartment.

When asked, ‘Do you know what happened to her?’ The caller is unable to answer the ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question.

Instead, he postulates, ‘she may have slipped.’ This is a sensitive question, and all the caller’s comments speak of ‘self-inflicted injury’ and are distanced from that of potential murder or of having been stabbed twenty times.

The City of Philadelphia were right to reopen the investigation. Justice for Ellen may yet be found.

‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’

Martin Luther King

See www.ddlltd.com for more on Deception Detection Lab Ltd.

All blog subjects are identified, validated and written by the DDL Team.