A forensic medicine expert has raised fresh questions about Jeffrey Epstein’s death after examining medical records that he says contain injuries inconsistent with the official explanation.
Dr. Michael Freeman, a fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists in London, told Metro that his independent review had identified details he believes could be consistent with a struggle or assault.
Aaron Rodgers reaffirms Jimmy Kimmel is on the Epstein list in a controversial videoMarca
Freeman received the complete medical examiner’s file from Epstein’s brother, Mark, and has been preparing an independent report based on the material.
His findings are expected to be presented at a University College London law school event on November 16, after which he plans to release the complete file, including documents that have not previously been made public.
Speaking to Metro, Freeman questioned whether the evidence fully supported the conclusion reached by New York City’s medical examiner in 2019.
"There are lots of things that are not explained by a suicidal hanging, but are consistent with a potential struggle," Dr. Freeman said.
He also challenged the explanation for injuries documented in the medical records, saying: "He had injuries that could not possibly have been caused by a ligature," the doctor told the publication about what he learned from Epstein's body in the ME's report.
One of the most striking elements of Freeman’s assessment concerns marks reportedly visible above the ligature mark around Epstein’s neck.
The expert said that these appeared to resemble fingernail marks, potentially indicating that Epstein had tried to remove the material from his neck.
That interpretation, if supported by further examination, could become a central part of the debate surrounding the case. However, the reported findings have not overturned the official cause-of-death ruling, and Freeman’s conclusions remain an independent assessment that will need to be considered alongside the wider evidence.
The injuries that have renewed scrutiny of Epstein’s death
Freeman believes the autopsy records contain several unexplained features, including injuries to Epstein’s left shoulder, the area behind his neck and his face. He has also questioned the absence of photographs showing Epstein suspended in the position in which he was reportedly discovered.
The expert described the case as unusual, telling the publication that Epstein’s “death was completely unique in the annals of suicidal hanging descriptions”.
Freeman said his review focused on whether the injuries could reasonably have resulted from the circumstances in which Epstein was found. He said that some of the evidence was consistent with the possibility of a struggle, while acknowledging that other experts could disagree with his interpretation.
The medical examiner’s office has rejected any suggestion that the new claims have changed its position. In response to questions, the office said it stands by its determination that Epstein died by suicide.
Epstein was found dead in his cell at Manhattan’s Metropolitan Correctional Center on August 10, 2019.
He was awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges, having been arrested the previous month. His death prevented the criminal case against him from proceeding to trial and intensified scrutiny of his connections to wealthy and influential individuals.
The official suicide ruling was issued by New York City Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Barbara Sampson on August 16, 2019. Debate about the autopsy findings has continued ever since, particularly over fractures involving structures in Epstein’s neck and whether those injuries can occur in different types of hanging or strangulation.
The significance of such injuries cannot be established in isolation. Medical examiners must assess the pattern of injuries, the ligature evidence, the circumstances of death and other available information before determining a cause.
The government’s earlier review concluded that the injuries were compatible with suicide, underscoring the disagreement between the existing official assessment and Freeman’s reported interpretation.
Mark Epstein backs an independent examination
Mark Epstein has welcomed the review, arguing that the medical evidence deserves detailed scientific scrutiny. He told CBS News that the team had spent months examining the records and comparing the findings with evidence from other deaths.
"They looked at this whole thing, they looked at it scientifically, they truly investigated this," he declared.
He also questioned whether the original ruling would have been reached had the material undergone the same level of examination earlier.
"The cause on Jeffrey's original death certificate – they further studied it in detail; this kind of study hasn't been done before," Mark explained. "If this kind of study had been done before, they wouldn't have come up with a suicide conclusion."
He added about Dr. Freeman's findings, "This report was not done on my behalf; they did this of their own volition."
Freeman has also indicated that he wants the medical evidence to be available for public scrutiny, rather than asking audiences to accept his conclusions without seeing the material. The planned release could allow other forensic specialists to examine the records and assess whether the reported inconsistencies support his interpretation.
The new review comes against the backdrop of documented failures at the prison where Epstein died. A 2023 investigation by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General identified serious problems with staff supervision, required checks and security procedures.
Epstein had been left alone in his cell for hours before he was discovered. Nevertheless, the investigation concluded that he died by suicide and did not establish that another person killed him.
For now, Freeman’s findings represent a challenge to the official explanation, not proof that Epstein was murdered. The medical examiner’s office continues to stand by its original determination, and the full independent report has yet to be released.
The next stage will be whether Freeman’s complete analysis provides evidence that other specialists can independently verify. Until then, the competing interpretations of Epstein’s injuries must be distinguished from established findings about the circumstances of his death.