The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear arguments from Ellen Greenberg's parents challenging the ruling of her 2011 death as a suicide, citing evidence of 20 stab wounds and signs of a struggle.

The critical hearing centers on whether Ellen Greenberg's death, initially classified as a suicide, should be reconsidered given significant forensic contradictions, including multiple stab wounds consistent with homicide and signs of a physical struggle. The court's decision will address both the procedural integrity of the initial investigation and the legal standing of Greenberg’s parents to contest the medical examiner's verdict. This case could have far-reaching implications for the oversight of death investigations in Pennsylvania.

Ellen Greenberg was discovered dead in her Philadelphia apartment in January 2011. The shocking circumstances of her death included 20 stab wounds, with 10 stab wounds to the back of her head and neck. This initially sparked a homicide investigation.

Despite the gruesome nature of her injuries, the death was later ruled a suicide by the medical examiner, following a meeting with police. This change from an initial homicide ruling has been a point of contention for Greenberg’s parents and their attorney, leading to ongoing legal battles.

The Greenbergs contend that the evidence at the scene is inconsistent with a suicide ruling. They have highlighted an overturned knife block and a gash on Ellen's head, which suggest a struggle took place. Further complicating the case, the knife found at the scene was never fingerprinted, and there were signs that the door lock had been tampered with and the body moved.

Adding weight to their argument, two highly respected forensic pathologists, Dr. Cyril Wecht and Dr. Henry Lee, reviewed the case independently. Both experts found evidence that pointed towards homicide, not suicide. Dr. Wecht, in particular, is well-known for his work in forensic science and his high-profile consultations.

Family attorney Joe Podraza has pointed out additional troubling details. According to Podraza, at least two of the stab wounds were inflicted after Greenberg’s heart had already stopped beating, further supporting the argument against suicide.

The legal challenge will also focus on whether Ellen’s parents, who are the executors of her estate, have the right to contest the medical examiner's findings. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision on this matter could establish precedent regarding the legal standing of family members in similar cases.

The initial investigation into Greenberg's death has been criticized for several inconsistencies. Court records reveal missing video evidence and a crime scene that had been compromised before a search warrant was executed. These gaps have only bolstered the Greenbergs' allegations of a cover-up regarding their daughter's death.

An appellate court had previously ruled against the Greenbergs' request to reclassify the death from suicide to homicide, but it also noted significant shortcomings and potential biases in the investigation conducted by the police and the medical examiner. This has led to the investigation being transferred to the Chester County District Attorney’s Office, removing it from the jurisdiction of Philadelphia's DA and the state attorney general due to conflicts of interest.

The Greenbergs are relentless in their pursuit of what they believe to be justice for their daughter. In addition to pushing for the reclassification of Ellen’s death, they have filed a civil lawsuit. They allege that there has been a systematic cover-up of the true circumstances surrounding her demise.

As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court prepares to hear these arguments, the case continues to draw attention to the integrity and procedures of death investigations in the state. The court's examination could potentially lead to significant changes in how such cases are handled, ensuring greater transparency and accuracy in forensic examinations.