“Adverse reaction” is the rather euphemistic term for a wide range of unintended side effects of taking medications; it turns out that term can also be accurately applied to certain responses to blog posts about controversial deaths. Beginning less than 24 hours after my first post about the Ellen Greenberg case, and continuing throughout the entire week since, waves of reaction washed over me from several directions. Split fairly evenly, three camps emerged: those who enthusiastically agreed with my argument that Ellen killed herself in a psychotic episode; those whose reaction was a rather emotionless acknowledgement that I’d raised points they hadn’t previously considered; and finally, as most criminal defense attorneys have experienced a time or two, a group of people found colorfully expressive ways to let me know that they think I, and my theory of the case, are both “unacceptable” to them in every way.

The essential mystery of this case is tragically simple to frame: was Ellen murdered, or did she kill herself? The controversy has been set up by the clash of two sets of facts, kind of like the irresistible force meets the immovable object: On one side, there are the mechanics of how she died, which are definitely unusual for typical suicides. On the other side, there is overwhelmingly strong evidence that Ellen was alone in her apartment when she was stabbed, enough to make it a physical impossibility that anyone else could be responsible except her. How can these be reconciled?

In summary, Ellen suffered 20 stab wounds, 10 of which were to the back of her neck. She also had a series of bruises around her body, in various levels of severity. She was stabbed in her chest several times, all of which were through her clothing, and she left no suicide note. The people who are convinced that Ellen was the victim of murder are centering their argument around these facts.

However, multiple independent agencies investigated the scene, and the key facts upon which they agree include that there were only two doors to the apartment: the front, which was manually bolted from the inside, and a sliding glass door to the balcony, which was on the 6th floor, and was covered in undisturbed, fresh snow. There was nobody else’s blood, fingerprints, or DNA on the single knife that was used in the killing, which was still lodged in Ellen’s chest when police arrived. Ellen had no defensive wounds on her hands or arms; none of the stab wounds are slashes – most are very shallow, except for two that were deep. The apartment had no signs of any struggle – it was entirely clean and ordered. The blood stains proved that the entire act of violence occurred in one small area of the kitchen, meaning Ellen stood in place; there was no chase, no fight, nothing knocked down or askew. The neighbors heard nothing in the way of fighting or shouting, and Ellen herself never called for any help.

Legally speaking, there are only five options for medical examiners to use in their findings to determine a manner of death: natural, accident, suicide, homicide, or undetermined. In this case, various experts have concluded each of the last three, and at least one has changed his mind. The fact that such a conflict exists means there is some evidence to support each of those conclusions. How is that conflict possible? 

In a trial in US criminal court, the issue is what conclusion is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Ultimately, although the burden of proof is legally imposed upon the prosecution in criminal cases, and defendants are supposed to be protected by the presumption of innocence, the reality is the opposite: if police and prosecutors are making a serious enough accusation against someone to charge that person and put him in jeopardy of going to prison, people tend to believe the authorities. In reality, the defense has to come up with a damn good explanation. Rare are the instances when the defense finds an issue that everyone else has missed, but they do occur. Ellen’s case is a perfect example.

Among the many responses I received after writing about this case the first time, two in particular........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)