Mary Jumbelic(Marc Safran)

Program transcript:

Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. If you're a fan of true crime, you're in for a treat. My guest today is Dr. Mary Jumbelic. She's a forensic pathologist and the former chief medical examiner of Onondaga County. She's just published a new book, it's titled, “Speak Her Name: Stories from A Life from True Crime”. Dr. Jumbelic, welcome back to the program and congratulations on this new book.

Mary Jumbelic: Thank you so much. It's great to be here.

GR: Well, we're really glad you made the time. So let me just start, the structure of the book, it's a blend of, I guess what I would call sort of vignettes, sometimes extended vignettes of a personal memoir type. And then you have your, the theme of those is your experiences related to being a girl, a woman, a female doctor. And then you mix that in with different cases involving women victims that you've been involved in working on the cases for. So I was just wondering how you arrived at that structure, at that style, it's very interesting.

MJ: Well, my first book had a similar structure in that it blended personal and professional stories about my life and the life of my patients. And I guess I kept to that script, if you will, even though the lens of the second book is different than the first. The lens on the second book is related to being a woman and violence against women.

GR: Right, right. Now, you just did something very interesting there in your answer, you used the word patients. We need to make it clear that these patients are not alive. So in just one or two sentences, what is forensic pathology?

MJ: Well, forensic pathology is what medical examiners do. And so it's the study of death, what causes people to die, how they die, accidents, suicides, the investigation of sudden and suspicious death. And then relaying that information to doctors, the public, the law, whoever needs it, really.

GR: And I was surprised to learn in reading your book that there are only about 500 certified forensic pathologists.

MJ: Yes.

GR: That just seems really few to me thinking about all the people that are killed and die in various ways. Why is that the case, how come only 500?

MJ: Well, that's a really hard question to answer probably for, you know, brains larger than mine or analysis greater than I can give. But a pathologist in general is not a super popular specialty like primary care, surgery, internal medicine, pediatrics. People think it's not a social, you know, profession, but it really is. We are the doctors’ doctor, the pathologist. And then forensics is a special branch of that, so an even smaller group. And again, I think what we're dealing with is a sensitive issue, death and trauma and violence. And so not everyone wants to go into that. They want to be in the healing profession, so that's true as well. And death investigation in this country is not all medical examiners. It's coroners, and then they might hire a regular pathologist to do the autopsy and come to a determination. So forensic pathology is a special branch.

GR: Well, in your career, and this is obviously one of the themes of your book in different ways, but in your career you operated in a very male dominated environment, and that would be law enforcement and criminal justice that are related to being a medical examiner and the things that you worked with. Did you develop any, I don't know what to call them, tricks or hacks for dealing with that kind of environment?

MJ: Well, I think that I grew tougher, as anyone who might in a challenged situation where you're facing it again and again, you develop a thicker skin, you learn ways around the system. You learn to push ahead and not ask for permission beforehand and then say sorry afterwards. You learn who your supporters are and your mentors and you lean on them to gather that extra person who has your back. So all of those things.

GR: And one of the other things that I didn't realize when I was reading your book is that this explosion of all of these true crime, you know, the interest in true crime and true crime drama and a lot of the series that are dramatic series that are on TV, how many of those kind of got their start with the O.J. Simpson trial and how that was kind of the spark for all of that. I'm going back to the question I asked you just a little bit before but, do you know whether that has caused an uptick in the interest for people becoming forensic pathologists? You know that they see that and are like, hey, that's, I'd like to do that.

MJ: Well, it absolutely has had an uptick in interest in forensic sciences and so at the university level, even at the high school level and the university level, people going to get their criminal justice degrees, that sort of thing. Forensic pathology, not as much. You still have to become a doctor to get there and that's a bit of a barrier for some people. It's a long road to go to become a medical examiner. And so I do think it has glamorized my profession more, and I've enjoyed the popularity of it just from people appreciating what I do and what I did. So I'm grateful for that aspect.

GR: I remember you mentioned the barrier, I remember when I was in college myself and my classmates who were planning on going to med school, it was always, what was that class? Organic chemistry that kind of sorted them out. If they could make it through that, they could kind of go (laughter).

MJ: Right, right, everyone says that that's the breaking point for undergraduates is the organic chemistry. Which is ironic because I'm not really sure organic chemistry is necessary in most fields of medicine, but...

GR: That's the one. Well, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm speaking with the forensic pathologist and writer Dr. Mary Jumbelic, and we're discussing her new book. It's titled, “Speak Her Name: Stories from a Life and True Crime”. So before we get to the Robert Neulander case, which is, you know, a big case that you worked on, and we'll talk about that a little bit later, which of the cases other than that one that you relate in your book, stays the most in your head and why?

MJ: Well, all of the women in my book, in some form or fashion were ghosts in my mind. And I started the book focusing on Leslie Neulander, but so many other women were in line saying, but what about me and what about me? And so therefore, I gave them space to grow and to exist on the page. I think one of the ones that stays with me is Carol Ryan, and I think for many reasons that local people will understand. But the length of time it's taken and no one has been charged or found responsible for one of the most heinous acts of violence that I have seen in my long career, and so she stays with me.

GR: And remind us, as I recall, her body was discovered in Jamesville, is that right?

MJ: Yes, she was the subject of a podcast called ‘Firecracker’ that was done maybe a year and a half ago and so it was discussed at length. But I met Carol while she was alive at the hospital. She was unconscious. she did not speak to me, but I was called in to give my opinion on what was the source of her injury and trauma and, you know, with the head of Trauma there. And so then I again examined her later when she died. So it stays in my mind very, very deeply for that reason.

GR: Well, you know, you mentioned this earlier, your book, I thought this was a nice little technique that, you know, it starts with the Neulander case and then you kind of leave it and then you come back to it at the end, and that got me going. And so your book leads up to this Neulander case. The Neulander case is arguably the highest profile murder case that we've seen in the Syracuse area, probably in all of central New York for several decades at least. Neulander was a very prominent and popular OBGYN physician in the area, and the couple very highly respected, well-liked. Just remind us, if you could, of the basic facts as they were understood before you first looked at the case. What were the basic facts as they were understood?

MJ: Well, Leslie had purportedly fallen in the shower and died. And this was on the morning of Rosh Hashanah, one of the holiest days in the Jewish year. And that was what was known for several months to the community. It was sudden death, sudden collapse, and over time, and after I got involved, I uncovered that it was a homicide. And it wasn't just my opinion, other experts were brought in, like, can we review this and see, you know, what happened here? And they concurred, yes, it's a homicide. And because of the gap in time and the lag, I think it took time to accumulate everything, all the evidence, so it could be handled in a proper fashion. So he didn't go to trial until maybe a little over two years after the actual death of his wife. And he was found guilty, but then there was a complication with a juror misconduct. And so he went to prison, but then he was granted a new trial, as is appropriate in that circumstance. But then COVID happened, and then so a decade goes by after her death when finally the second trial occurs and again, he's found guilty and is in prison.

GR: Well, I don't want to delve too much into gossip, but I think it's important here that my understanding is that his career and his marriage both had taken difficult turns before this event and that that was known and that that was one of the things that got a lot of people suspicious. Am I right about that?

MJ: I think the community and those close to Leslie were concerned. There certainly were people that were close to her that weren't concerned, but there were others that were concerned and, you know, there were financial difficulties. There were, she was going to move out and get an apartment and all of this came out much later, you know, in bits and pieces and was verified. But at the time I reviewed the case, I didn't know any of that, it was not even on my radar, frankly. It only was in retrospect that there's all this behind the scene, you know, murmuring of what was going on.

GR: Well, we'll dove deeper into this in a minute. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm talking with Dr. Mary Jumbelic. She's a forensic pathologist, the former chief medical examiner of Onondaga County and the author of a new book. It's titled, “Speak Her Name: Stories from My Life and True Crime”. So as you intimated before the break, you personally knew this couple. And then also you were retired as a medical examiner by the time this murder took place. So how did you come to get involved in it?

MJ: Well, in a quick synopsis, Grant, it was a rather lengthy process, but a friend of Leslie's was concerned that Leslie had been murdered by her husband and she wound up talking to me and asking me what I thought. And I said, well, you should go to the police, I'm not official, I'm not anything, I can't interpret what you're telling me, just go to the police and talk to them. And the long and short of it is she did and the end result was she called me back and said, they're bringing him in for questioning again and thank you for telling me to do that. And then he called that night, the house, and I knew he was leaving for Israel. And I got concerned that here was someone that was about to leave the country and I knew there was something going on in the background with an investigation or the police wouldn't be bringing him in for questioning. So I called, you know, Bill Fitzpatrick of the district attorney's office to talk with him.

GR: And you also mentioned, I think, in the book that Israel doesn't have extradition arrangements with the United States, that would have been a good place to go if you were worried about something like that. So, I mean, you must have had this, and you do write about this, this swirl of emotions in being involved in this, especially early on. I mean, the case sounds like it divided the synagogue that both of you went to. Can you describe your feelings when you first started considering the evidence, before we get into the evidence itself, just how are you feeling about all this?

MJ: I think it was complicated. I think that, you know, people ask me questions all the time. My uncle died and I think this, and my sister, this happened to her nephew, and, you know, people like to ask me and use my expertise to try to sort things out. And I like to try to answer questions and help if I can. But not usually on an official, you know, basis of any sort. And so when I was asked to look over the case, I thought, you know, maybe with my knowledge base and my expertise, I can sort out, like, whatever question exists about it, and I'll be able to just answer it easily and why are people worried about it? You know, I'll be able to just put everybody's mind at rest. That was my mindset as I went into it. And so I was a bit unprepared when I looked at the images on my computer of the scene and of her trauma and the autopsy to the level of violence that was there. And so that was probably the moment for me when I had to decide if I would go forward or not. That I would just say, no, I can't do this, or I would go forward. And I guess my nature is to see the trouble and see the challenge and then steal myself for it and move in a forward direction. So that's what I did. And I felt like my whole career had been speaking for my patients, speaking for women. And so I did it for my friend too.

GR: You mentioned the level of violence. And I have seen the district attorney's presentation of this case, he's got like a slideshow presentation. And that's one of the things that just the, in what you talk about in the book here in greater detail, but the, the apparent violence of the injury was quite arresting. I mean, it really suggests an extreme rage. And I guess my question to you is, you knew this guy a little bit. Did that fit the Robert Neulander that you knew?

MJ: I mean, I know that there are the people we meet on the surface and then there's whatever going on behind the surface of people. People are complicated and they're nuanced and they're not black and white and you know, I have seen enough people sitting in a chair being, you know, being accused of homicide and I'm in the witness stand and you look at the person, you know, they could not possibly have done this. You know, your mind tells you that. So I don't really hold to that. I think anyone is capable of, you know, extreme emotion in in a particular circumstance, you know? And I would say I was closer to Leslie than Bob. I didn't have any ill feelings toward him at all. You know, but he was more a shadow to me to Leslie's, you know, vivacity and energy. So I didn't know him the way other people in the community have come forward and described him.

GR: If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and my guest is Dr. Mary Jumbelic. So, thinking about what evidence that you were considering, what you were looking at, what were the questions and the inconsistencies that most leaped out to you?

MJ: To try to say it succinctly, the number of injuries, the location of injuries on the head, on all sides, on the neck on the arms, on the hands. So it was the patterning of the injury and also the head wounds and the devastating skull fractures and trauma there. Secondarily, the scene itself didn't make a lot of sense with the blood spatter and the location of the body and whether there was CPR and the shower being 60 feet away from the bedroom. So there were these secondary scene considerations that didn't fit the original story.

GR: And you witnessed the trial. In your view, was there one thing or a few things that more than anything else, did Neuander in both as a suspect and then as a defendant?

MJ: I felt like the playing of the 911 tape that the daughter called in was, I don't know if it was pivotal, but it was quite emotional and quite impactful. And it does seem to have not gone in the direction that I think the defense had hoped.

GR: Yeah. When I saw that presentation, that tape was played and it really, it kind of just puts a chill right down your spine, really. One of the things actually that I guess leads to this question is, it's puzzled me the way that the children stayed supportive of Dr. Neulander throughout the process. I remember a picture in the newspaper about them walking to the trial arm in arm, three of them. Do you know if they are still supportive of him? And I guess if they are, why do you think they have stuck by him in the face of what seems to me to be pretty damning evidence?

MJ: Well, you know, I can't really be inside their minds, but I would, I think they still support him. They certainly did after the second trial still, and that was only three years ago. But I think the gap of time from the death to the trial was quite long. And to my knowledge, they didn't have access to looking at the photos of their dead mother and the, you know, scene and all of that. So the information they had was probably filtered through the attorney and whatever their father was telling them. And so I think by the time the trial came up and they're actually hearing it in the courtroom and there's exhibits being put up and, you know, seen, I think there is a disconnect at that point. It's just a complete cognitive dissonance that happened. And I don't think there's any going back from that. You know, it's very, it’s sad.

GR: Yeah. Well, I mean, but social scientists would probably put this in the category of what they would call confirmation bias. You know, the way you take in information that conflicts with what you have kind of already sunk your mind into.

MJ: Right.

GR: This question here I'm about to ask you, it's very sensitive, but I just feel the need to ask because you say in your book that he is going to be eligible for release at a certain date. He seems like a pretty healthy guy. Do you worry, given your role, that if he is somehow released, maybe that because of old age, they'll release him, you or your family will be in danger? Will that be, you know, do you think about that?

MJ: No. I mean, I've had other cases where I've played some pivotal role or at least had maybe a lot of public acknowledgment of my role. And I'd be naive to say it's never a potential threat but I don't worry about that. I mean, I just did my job to speak for Leslie. I wasn't the jury, I wasn't the judge, I wasn't the prosecutor. I just spoke for what happened to Leslie and I just hold on to that.

GR: Now that makes sense, you know, that makes sense. Well, we've got about 3 minutes left or so, and I want to give you that time to kind of change the tone a bit. This has not been the most uplifting conversation that we've had. And so the final question I think would allow you to do that if you wanted to, is that, is there an overarching message here in this book, particularly for women? Is there an overarching message here that you want to convey?

MJ: Well, I think that my book is more than just a detailing of sort of heinous crimes that have occurred against women. I do want the reader to witness, to see what happens, but to take from that some lessons and learn and educate about the situations and to remember the women that have gone before. One of the ending stories in my book is one of the most hopeful ones, which is someone who actually changed her life based on Leslie's situation.

GR: Say a little bit about that.

MJ: And I think, you know, that is part of the goal here is to, let's not shy away from looking at the reality of what happens to women and let's do something about it.

GR: Yeah, I think, you know, as I was reading through the different stories and, you know, you tell a couple stories about yourself.

MJ: Yeah.

GR: Particularly one when you were a little kid that, you know, like that was like a very, very close call. I don't know if you want to relate that here, but, you know, they kind of all add up to look, all right, you know, pay attention, keep your eyes open.

MJ: Well, it's like, we are vulnerable as women, just on a sheer strength, you know, physical strength, access, okay? But we are smart and we can learn and we can be aware and we can help other women. And part of my goal in my career was to find justice for women. Sometimes I was successful, as in Leslie's case, other times not. But that doesn't deter us, we go forward.

GR: Well, that's a good place to leave it. That was Mary Jumbelic, and again, her new book is titled, “Speak Her Name: Stories from My Life and True Crime”. And I can attest from reading it that it's a real page turner, it's intense. But I say nonetheless, I think it's a great summer read. So, Dr. Jumbelic, Mary, again, thanks for making the time to talk with me, I really appreciate it.

MJ: Thank you. I'm honored, Grant.

GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.