# Talk:Death of Jeffrey Epstein

If such a large percentage of people think Epstein was murdered, doesn’t that mean “online conspiracy theorists” are better simply described as “people”?  Is it the position of mainstream, “reliable” sources that all conspiracy theories are, were, and always will be, false?  Or are those who believe in the outlandish, and those who believe in theories with more evidence, simply lumped into the same group?  Does this risk legitimizing the ridiculous, or is the working hypothesis that the righteous and good people of the world always know which is which? 73.254.234.103 (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The article only uses the phrase "online conspiracy theorist" once, while referring to fake news from right after the news of his death dropped. It also doesn't say that only online conspiracy theorists believed he killed himself. SolemnEye (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
This is somewhat semantic relative to the crux of what the question was asking. 154.5.50.30 (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

This article made heavy use of unreliable sources such as: Fox News, NYPost, Washington Examiner. For a controversial subject, it is even more important to use mainstream reliable sources with a history of good cautious reporting rather than give weight to reporting by unreliable sources known for sensationalism and sloppy reporting. These sources also give the most weight to Epstein's team's claims. I've removed some text, and tagged others with CN. If a CN can't be found this text should be removed or re-worded to what reliable sources say. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: I would caution you from removing only sources you disagree with. Here are a couple of things I note.
You removed the statement: After Epstein's death, Tartaglione was reportedly threatened by jail guards and told to "stop talking" after describing Epstein's death and conditions in the jail to the media.
Reported:
https://abc7.com/jeffery-epstein-nicholas-tartaglione-metropolitan-correctional-center-mcc/5481525/
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-epstein-cellmate-wants-jail-transfer-with-threat-claims-20190820-es34umh3rnetxm5gditnrsdnru-story.html
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/jeffrey-epstein-jail-guards-warn-cellmate-discuss-suicide-lawyer-2019-8-1028462230
You removed the statement: Epstein was reportedly depositing funds into other prisoners' accounts to gain their favor or buy protection.
Reported:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/jeffrey-epsteins-wealth-allowed-him-many-perks-while-serving-jail-time-in-florida/2019/07/17/fab2c128-a8c5-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html
https://www.concordmonitor.com/Harassed-by-guards-and-extorted-by-inmates-Jeffrey-Epstein-shared-suicidal-thoughts-at-NYC-federal-jail-38022078
You removed the statement: The news of the death was posted on 4chan about 38 minutes before ABC News reported it. If this 4chan post was by a first responder, as it has been speculated, it would likely be a violation of privacy law
Ours is not to judge the law it is to report what is cited.
Reported:
https://www.cnet.com/news/4chan-post-appears-to-have-detailed-jeffrey-epsteins-death-before-news-broke
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/4chan-user-posted-about-jeffrey-epstein-s-death-it-was-n1041931
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/13/4-chan-post-jeffrey-epstein-death-made-before-news-broke-not-from-fdny/2002514001/
https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffery-epstein-death-by-apparent-suicide-4chan-post-investigated-2019-8
You removed the Washington Examiner as a source but left the statement up asking for a citation??
The Washington Examiner is not a Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Currently deprecated sources
You removed several other sources... for what I believe was your disagreement on the reporting but ours is not to judge the reporting if it is reported by numerous agencies that are reliable.
DoctorTexan (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Fox News is reliable providing it is non-politics non-science, per WP:FOXNEWS.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)SimpsonDG (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Defining liberal news sources as "reliable" and conservative news sources as "unreliable" necessarily introduces a liberal bias into Wikipedia.  The same applies to the deletion of conservative views from Wikipedia talk pages.  This is why I direct my college students NOT to use Wikipedia for any reason.  SimpsonDG (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
That's not what Wikipedia does. You'll notice there are reliable conservative sources, such as the Wall Street Journal. There are also unreliable liberal sources, such as Daily Kos. OrangeCroutons (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.212.239 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC) 

Removed comment for personal attacks against editors contributing to this article. DoctorTexan (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Of the opinion polls cited in the article: in the August 2019 Rasmussen poll, 42% say murder is more likely; in the January 2020 Rasmussen poll, 52% say murder is more likely; and in the Business Insider poll 45% say it was murder. The Rasmussen polls were clearly asking about likelihood, so presenting this as a positive belief is wrong. The 2020 Rasmussen poll was of 1000 people and had a 3% margin of error.
Overall I don't think these polls indicate a majority of Americans believing it was murder, so I have taken this out of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I would say "Rasmussen found in August 2019 that 42% of Americans believed murder was more likely" and leave it at that, maybe add an updated poll if it exists, like "by 2021.. x% believed he was murdered according to y poll" I would agree that characterizing it as a majority positively believing it is inaccurate. The polls themselves should remain linked, since it is significant that 42% believe murder was more likely, that should be mentioned in this article as it certainly indicates its widespread nature. DrDrago1337 (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gaioa (T C L) 11:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Just noting that, according to the RfC, it would apply to this article too. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Note 5 of the "Notes and References" section should be removed. It states that Jeffrey Epstein's possession of a sheet was against jail protocol. The source linked only states that possession of a sheet is against protocol for those under suicide watch, which Epstein was not under at the time of his death.
Here is the exact quote from the article. 
"Under the jail's protocol, Epstein would not have been given a bedsheet had he been on suicide watch. He was placed on suicide watch last month after he was found on the floor of his cell with bruises on his neck, but he was later returned to the jail's special housing unit for inmates needing close supervision." Jobbus (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. I haven't removed it, as it is interesting material, but I have clarified per your source that he would not have had one, etc, on suicide watch but was allowed one at the time he was killed died  :)  Thanks for improving Wikipedia!  SN54129 19:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The picture of the protestor in the "Homocide suspicions and conspiracy theories" section of the page should be removed or changed with an image of a less partisan image.  The current picture unfairly implicitly associates proponents of the Epstein homicide conspiracy theory with far-right, antisemitic pizzagate conspiracy theorists when in reality proponents of the conspiracy theory are found on every corner of the political compass and the theory is believed by a larger percentage of the public than other conspiracy theories. If another photo of a protestor asserting Epstein's alleged homicide that is less associated with other fringe conspiracy theories cannot be found then the image should just be removed to maintain a neutral point of view. 47.205.39.125 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current photo. NPOV doesn't mean censoring photos.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
It's the best protest image we have. ~ HAL333 17:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein was murdered 2601:842:8100:2E80:D953:9A10:B046:2551 (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be changed to Suicide of Jeffrey Epstein? Conspiracy theories and speculation notwithstanding, the official manner of death has been ruled a suicide. "Death" lacks context and implies the manner of death is inconclusive, when in reality it has already officially been ruled a suicide and no reliable evidence (aside from speculation) indicates otherwise.
User:Gdeblois19(talk) Gdeblois19 16:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not the status quo in naming articles on assumed suicides: Death of Adolf Hitler, Death of Cleopatra, Death of Marilyn Monroe, Death of Sandra Bland, etc. What makes Epstein so special? ~ HAL333 22:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The difference here is that the suicide isn't "assumed". An autopsy was performed, and the manner of death was officially ruled a suicide. Most of the other examples you listed did not have an official manner of death ruled. Gdeblois19 14:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Death of Jeffrey Epstein is just better.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Support -- A lot of other articles of official suicides use this language. For example Suicide of Kurt Cobain. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Per HAL333.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 04:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per HAL333. Unnecessary change when "Death of..." is the more neutral title in this more charged topic. Some1 (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Support. I'm very late here. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm even more late. But this is too controversial to rename like that. SolemnEye (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I'm later than late but Epstein's cause of death is too disputed to make this change between official govt reports, pathologist Michael Baden's opinion, public polling, and the fact that reputable sources never assert that he killed himself (they only state that the official reports say he killed himself). ThePoggingEditor (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

He was reportedly found dead. This is a simple statement of reality. Whether you think he committed suicide or was killed, it was reported that he was killed. Hence I see no reason to abstain from using the word "reportedly". Par âpre aux astres (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Par âpre aux astres, your insertion of the word "reportedly" was probably reverted per MOS:DOUBT. While there are reasons for thoughtful people to question Epstein's cause of death, there aren't many sources who seriously question that he was "found dead". Sure, there are those who have speculated that his death was faked, but there's not good evidence of that, at this point. So, I don't see any compelling reason to say that he was "reportedly" found dead. Open to changing my mind if you think I'm missing something. Cheers. Pecopteris (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The word "reportedly" is an adverb that means "according to reports". "Guards found him dead" sounds somewhat like "He committed suicide, no further questions. Case closed. Drop. The. Topic." but the word "reportedly" doesn't push an opinion, it just means "reports say that". Par âpre aux astres (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
It provides attribution when none is necessary, thus sneaking in a suspicion of doubt. The doubt would be about whether he was murdered or committed suicide. We don't introduce such doubts unless mainstream RS do it. You did it by wikilinking to an article about the conspiracy theories, which is what my edit summary was about. The word is just unhelpful since everything here is "reportedly". It ALL has to be sourced, so it is ALL "reported" by a source. We don't usually mention that as it's a given. When we do, it's because there is serious disagreement in RS, and we then explain both/all sides of the debate.
In this case, there is no debate in RS, only in unreliable sources, ergo conspiracy theories, which, around here, are false. When proven true, we retitle (by removing the words "conspiracy theory") the article and update its contents. Pretty much all articles here that say "conspiracy theory" are about "false" conspiracy theories. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity: Did mainstream "reliable" sources ever showed a suspicion of doubt in a situation like that? Like, on occasions where U.S federal government said "this is blue" did they ever say "no, it's red"? For example the U.S government says "Kennedy was killed by one man" and "reliable" sources say "yes sir, he was". I want to see if they ever happened to say "no, we think otherwise" on any topic of identical level of importance and controversy. Par âpre aux astres (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@Par âpre aux astres, I understand your concern. If this article took the tone of "he committed suicide, no further questions. Case closed. Drop. The Topic", I would not be comfortable with that at all. But in this specific case, I don't see it. The sentence basically says "The guards found him dead." But think about it: maybe he committed suicide and was later found dead, or maybe he was murdered and later found dead. The simple assertion "the guards found him dead" leaves that ambiguous.
Adding the word "reportedly" actually implies that the guards may not have found him dead, which would mean one of two things: the guards observed his death first hand, or he was removed from the prison, dead or alive, without the guards seeing him. I'm aware of plenty of conjecture about that, but no hard evidence or investigative reporting. If you're aware of some...by all means, please bring it to my attention. But until we have citable evidence to back that up, I don't think the adding the word "reportedly" is wise. Pecopteris (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Note 1 says "the removal of his cellmate without a replacement, possession of banned objects, and the falling asleep of two guards who were meant to check on him" but I could not find in the cited sources any statement that he possessed contraband (in the period following removal from suicide watch) nor that the guards had been asleep. Am I blind? Al Begamut (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The caption of the autopsy image:
> Marks on Epstein's neck
I recommend, to remove the opportunity for misunderstanding:
> Marks on Epstein's neck (front and back view)
Due to the hard crop of the autopsy image, the composition of the photograph makes the hair on the back of his head in the second photo look like facial hair on his chin.  
It took me a long time to realize I'm looking at two different perspectives of the same autopsy.  Originally, I thought these two images were both a front view, a comparison of two types of neck trauma.  It's a very small change, but it is objective and reduces ambiguity. Ryanalexmartin (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Four documents were released by the Department of Justice today: Epstein Files:First Phase. These four documents can be found now on the Commons: Category:Epstein Files Phase 1. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's the newly released document from the DOJ and FBI Memo about Epstein:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1407001/dl?inline
I also would like to suggest an edit in the description of the video provided through this.
Current wording (the section I'd like to add to / update bolded): 
"In 2025, according to documents obtained by Axios, the Justice Department under the Second Trump administration concluded that Epstein was not murdered and there was no purported "client list" featuring names of Epstein's associates. It also released footage of Epstein's cell during his death, though it was missing one minute and was likely modified. Trump later claimed that the files were created by Democrats."
I would advise editing this to "It also released footage showing part of the stairs leading to the section that Epstein was housed in, though the footage was missing a minute and was likely modified."
This is to reflect that the door shown was not actually Epstein's door (as it may incorrectly imply). In fact, the door to Epstein's cell is not visible from the camera. In fact, it barely shows the stairs to this section.
A YouTuber, voidzilla, went over this in one of his videos ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWRHtp4FeFU&t=70s , "new epstein footage is a disaster" around 1:10 ) (it actually goes into detail and looks at the old released FBI files about Epstein and references them). I just wanted to bring that up, as I think the current way that the section is written could incorrectly lead people to continue to believe this incorrect understanding! 73.62.125.173 (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The prison has, from what I understand, not verified this claim. The only named source for the claim seems to be the lawyer of the suspect. If we are going to include this claim we should hegde it "as according to [name, role]" instead of framing it as a matter of fact. 110.93.84.166 (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

He is written about as if he is still an active member. 
"Representative Matt Gaetz, who sits on the United States House Judiciary Committee" under AFTERMATH//Reaction 75.167.179.82 (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Excellent writeup and short video by CBS News that questions and even contradicts some of the information put forward by Pam Bondi and the DOJ.
This is from 29 July 2025, and is by Dan Ruetenik.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-jail-video-investigation/
Here are some key points, but I recommend reading the entire article and watching the video:
"CBS News also digitally reconstructed the Special Housing Unit, or SHU, where Epstein was held ... The CBS News review found the video does little to provide evidence to support claims that were later made by federal officials. Additionally, CBS News has identified multiple inconsistencies between that report and the video that raise serious questions about the accuracy of witness statements and the thoroughness of the government's investigation."
"The entrance to Epstein's cell, as well as the primary entrance to the SHU, are off camera in the same direction, meaning there's no way to tell from the video if he went to his cell or exited the SHU."
"While brief movement is occasionally visible on the stairs when someone is walking up the left side, the area remains mostly obscured throughout the recording, making it impossible to determine if someone may have entered the SHU through the primary entrance and accessed the staircase without ever being captured on the recording."
"This appears to directly contradict the FBI and the inspector general's assertion and allows for the possibility of unrecorded movement between those areas. Without visual evidence, the case relies on the word of staff members Noel and Thomas that no one entered. At one point the Justice Department noted both of them appeared to have fallen asleep, although Noel denies this."
"Jim Stafford, a video forensics expert, reviewed the footage and the inspector general's report and told CBS News, 'To say that there's no way that someone could get to that — the stair up to his room — without being seen is false.' Four other leading video forensics experts interviewed by CBS News concurred."
Some of this information should probably be added to the Wikipedia article. Thank you. 172.58.9.98 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

What exactly makes Jeffrey Epstein's suicide uniquely uncertain compared to like Kurt Cobain that the article is called "death of" instead of "suicide of"? I think it's pretty certain he killed himself. KILLGOESE (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The article being titled "Death of Jeffrey Epstein" is not a statement on whether or not he killed himself. See Death of Marilyn Monroe and Death of Adolf Hitler.
Many independent, reliable sources also use the term "death", "dead" or the equivalent in the title, rather than "suicide". For example, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-death-report.html , https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/jeffrey-epstein-death-jail-investigation-b2842505.html, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-cell-where-he-died-disarray-no-thorough-inspection/ and https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66035393.
"Death of Jeffrey Epstein" is consistent with how other Wikipedia articles discuss suicides and how independent reliable sources cover the event, so it seems like the most appropriate title. MrTaxes (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Should we change Kurt Cobain's suicide article to "Death of Kurt Cobain"? KILLGOESE (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Can it be true that if Epstein  was “found ... unresponsive in his jail cell at 6:30 am”, that then, “after prison guards performed CPR, he was transported in cardiac arrest to the New York Downtown Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 6:39 am” 
So 9 minutes in all? Mmmmmm ...

In the interest of neutrality, I want to discuss the proper neutral viewpoint that this article has and what we should have as editors. Does neutrality mean that we have to treat it as if Epstein 100% did kill himself because official government reports and statements say so but that this ruling is heavily disputed, or does it mean that we have to treat his cause of death as uncertain despite official government reports and statements? If the latter, wouldn't the infobox saying "Cause: Suicide by hanging" violate neutrality, and if so, how could it be made more neutral?
Also, if you view proper neutrality fo this subject in some different way that I didn't say, feel free to explain. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion the infobox should be changed from "Cause"/"Suicide by hanging" to something more neutral such as  "Cause"/Strangulation" (as it seems likely some form of strangulation was involved). Strangling article has 3 types of strangulation: 1) Hanging, 2) Manual strangulation, and 3) Ligature strangulation. --EarthFurst (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Might be too far in the other direction. I was thinking something such as "Cause: Suicide by hanging (disputed)" with sources to back up why the suicide is disputed. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)