- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 39,943
Metadata Shows the FBI’s ‘Raw’ Jeffrey Epstein Prison Video Was Likely Modified
There is no evidence the footage was deceptively manipulated, but ambiguities around how the video was processed may further fuel conspiracy theories about Epstein’s death.
https://www.wired.com/story/metadat...rey-epstein-prison-video-was-likely-modified/
{Dhruv Mehrotra | 11 July 2025}
The United States Department of Justice this week released nearly 11 hours of what it described as “full raw” surveillance footage from a camera positioned near Jeffrey Epstein’s prison cell the night before he was found dead. The release was intended to address conspiracy theories about Epstein’s apparent suicide in federal custody. But instead of putting those suspicions to rest, it may fuel them further.
Metadata embedded in the video and analyzed by WIRED and independent video forensics experts shows that rather than being a direct export from the prison’s surveillance system, the footage was modified, likely using the professional editing tool Adobe Premiere Pro. The file appears to have been assembled from at least two source clips, saved multiple times, exported, and then uploaded to the DOJ’s website, where it was presented as “raw” footage.
Experts caution that it’s unclear what exactly was changed, and that the metadata does not prove deceptive manipulation. The video may have simply been processed for public release using available software, with no modifications beyond stitching together two clips. But the absence of a clear explanation for the processing of the file using professional editing software complicates the Justice Department’s narrative. In a case already clouded by suspicion, the ambiguity surrounding how the file was processed is likely to provide fresh fodder for conspiracy theories.
Any aspect of the official story that isn’t fully explained will be co-opted by conspiracy theorists, says Mike Rothschild, an author who writes about conspiracy theories and extremists. “So whatever your flavor of Epstein conspiracy is, the video will help bolster it.”
For months leading up to the joint memo the DOJ and FBI published Monday, attorney general Pam Bondi had promised the release of records related to Epstein, raising expectations that new, potentially incriminating details might surface about the disgraced financier’s death and his ties to powerful individuals. However, rather than revealing new information, the memo largely confirmed conclusions reached years earlier: that Epstein was found in a Manhattan prison cell on August 10, 2019, and died by suicide while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
To support its conclusion, the FBI reviewed surveillance footage overlooking the common area of the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), where Epstein was held. The FBI enhanced the footage by adjusting contrast, color, and sharpness, and released both the enhanced and what it described as the “raw” version. Both versions of the video appear to have been processed using Premiere and include much of the same metadata. According to the FBI, anyone entering the area containing Epstein’s cell during the relevant time frame would have been visible on that camera.
[metadata hidden to save space]
Working with two independent video forensics experts, WIRED examined the 21-gigabyte files released by the DOJ. Using a metadata tool, reporters analyzed both Exchangeable Image File Format (EXIF) and Extensible Metadata Platform (XMP) data to identify signs of postprocessing.
The “raw” file shows clear signs of having been processed using an Adobe product, most likely Premiere, based on metadata that specifically references file extensions used by the video editing software. According to experts, Adobe software, including Premiere and Photoshop, leaves traces in exported files, often embedding metadata that logs which assets were used and what actions were taken during editing. In this case, the metadata indicates the file was saved at least four times over a 23-minute span on May 23, 2025, by a Windows user account called “MJCOLE~1.” The metadata does not show whether the footage was modified before each time it was saved.
The embedded data suggest the video is not a continuous, unaltered export from a surveillance system, but a composite assembled from at least two separate MP4 files. The metadata includes references to Premiere project files and two specific source clips—2025-05-22 21-12-48.mp4 and 2025-05-22 16-35-21.mp4. These entries appear under a metadata section labeled “Ingredients,” part of Adobe’s internal schema for tracking source material used in edited exports. The metadata does not make clear where in the video the two clips were spliced together.
Hany Farid, a professor at UC Berkeley whose research focuses on digital forensics and misinformation, reviewed the metadata at WIRED’s request. Farid is a recognized expert in the analysis of digital images and the detection of manipulated media, including deepfakes. He has testified in numerous court cases involving digital evidence.
Farid says the metadata raises immediate concerns about chain of custody—the documented handling of digital evidence from collection to presentation in a courtroom. Just like physical evidence, he explains, digital evidence must be handled in a way that preserves its integrity; metadata, while not always precise, can provide important clues about whether that integrity has been compromised.
“If a lawyer brought me this file and asked if it was suitable for court, I’d say no. Go back to the source. Do it right,” Farid says. “Do a direct export from the original system—no monkey business.”
Farid points to another anomaly: The video’s aspect ratio shifts noticeably at several points. “Why am I suddenly seeing a different aspect ratio?” he asks.
Farid cautions that while the metadata clearly shows the video was modified, the changes could be benign—for example, converting footage from a proprietary surveillance format to a standard MP4.
While there may be uncontroversial explanations for the metadata artifacts, such as stitching together multiple days of footage during compilation, or the routine export of surveillance footage to an mp4 format, the FBI did not respond to specific questions about the file’s processing, instead referring WIRED to the DOJ. The DOJ in turn referred inquiries back to the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons. The BOP did not respond to a request for comment.
According to a 2023 report from the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG), MCC, the detention facility where Epstein was found hanged, had around 150 analog surveillance cameras—but starting on July 29, 2019, a technical error prevented roughly half of them from recording, including most inside the SHU.
The system was scheduled for repairs on August 9, the night before Epstein was found dead. But the technician assigned to fix it couldn’t access the necessary equipment because the corrections officer required to escort him was nearing the end of their shift.
As a result, only two cameras were operational near the SHU at the time MCC staff found Epstein hanging in his cell: one covering the common area and stairwells near the entrance to the adjacent 10 South Unit, and another monitoring a ninth-floor elevator bay. Neither captured Epstein’s cell door.
According to the DOJ’s memo, the footage confirms that from the time Epstein was locked in his cell at approximately 8 pm on August 9, 2019, and between around 10:40 pm and 6:30 am the next morning, no one entered the tier where his cell was located. However, the recording includes a notable gap: Approximately one minute of footage is missing, from 11:58:58 pm to 12:00:00 am. The video resumes immediately afterward.
The OIG’s report found no evidence of a conspiracy to kill Epstein. Instead, it documented years of chronic staffing failures and system breakdowns at MCC. The facility was temporarily closed in 2021 after the DOJ essentially deemed conditions unfit for incarceration.
At a press conference on Tuesday, Bondi attributed the missing minute to a flaw in the surveillance system’s daily cycle, claiming that one minute is missing from every night’s recording.
Given the years of high-profile conspiracy theories surrounding Epstein, any perceived inconsistency in the official narrative is likely to draw intense scrutiny. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones called the DOJ memo “sickening.” “Next the DOJ will say, ‘Actually, Jeffrey Epstein never even existed,’” he wrote in a post on X.
“In the world of conspiracy theories, evidence that disproves something happened becomes proof that something happened,” says Rothschild. He explains that the case of Epstein's death is a good example of this phenomenon. “Every piece of evidence that points to him taking his own life—the negligence of the prison staff, the disrepair of the cameras, the coroner's report—is turned into evidence that he was killed by powerful figures who weren't competent enough to cover up the crime correctly.”
The apparent gaps in the video, Rothschild says, will naturally inflame these suspicions.
One media forensics expert, who reviewed the metadata and agreed with WIRED’s analysis but requested anonymity due to privacy concerns and a desire to avoid having their name publicly associated with anything related to the Epstein case, put it bluntly: “It looks suspicious—but not as suspicious as the DOJ refusing to answer basic questions about it.”
There is no evidence the footage was deceptively manipulated, but ambiguities around how the video was processed may further fuel conspiracy theories about Epstein’s death.
https://www.wired.com/story/metadat...rey-epstein-prison-video-was-likely-modified/
{Dhruv Mehrotra | 11 July 2025}
The United States Department of Justice this week released nearly 11 hours of what it described as “full raw” surveillance footage from a camera positioned near Jeffrey Epstein’s prison cell the night before he was found dead. The release was intended to address conspiracy theories about Epstein’s apparent suicide in federal custody. But instead of putting those suspicions to rest, it may fuel them further.
Metadata embedded in the video and analyzed by WIRED and independent video forensics experts shows that rather than being a direct export from the prison’s surveillance system, the footage was modified, likely using the professional editing tool Adobe Premiere Pro. The file appears to have been assembled from at least two source clips, saved multiple times, exported, and then uploaded to the DOJ’s website, where it was presented as “raw” footage.
Experts caution that it’s unclear what exactly was changed, and that the metadata does not prove deceptive manipulation. The video may have simply been processed for public release using available software, with no modifications beyond stitching together two clips. But the absence of a clear explanation for the processing of the file using professional editing software complicates the Justice Department’s narrative. In a case already clouded by suspicion, the ambiguity surrounding how the file was processed is likely to provide fresh fodder for conspiracy theories.
Any aspect of the official story that isn’t fully explained will be co-opted by conspiracy theorists, says Mike Rothschild, an author who writes about conspiracy theories and extremists. “So whatever your flavor of Epstein conspiracy is, the video will help bolster it.”
For months leading up to the joint memo the DOJ and FBI published Monday, attorney general Pam Bondi had promised the release of records related to Epstein, raising expectations that new, potentially incriminating details might surface about the disgraced financier’s death and his ties to powerful individuals. However, rather than revealing new information, the memo largely confirmed conclusions reached years earlier: that Epstein was found in a Manhattan prison cell on August 10, 2019, and died by suicide while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
To support its conclusion, the FBI reviewed surveillance footage overlooking the common area of the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), where Epstein was held. The FBI enhanced the footage by adjusting contrast, color, and sharpness, and released both the enhanced and what it described as the “raw” version. Both versions of the video appear to have been processed using Premiere and include much of the same metadata. According to the FBI, anyone entering the area containing Epstein’s cell during the relevant time frame would have been visible on that camera.
[metadata hidden to save space]
The “raw” file shows clear signs of having been processed using an Adobe product, most likely Premiere, based on metadata that specifically references file extensions used by the video editing software. According to experts, Adobe software, including Premiere and Photoshop, leaves traces in exported files, often embedding metadata that logs which assets were used and what actions were taken during editing. In this case, the metadata indicates the file was saved at least four times over a 23-minute span on May 23, 2025, by a Windows user account called “MJCOLE~1.” The metadata does not show whether the footage was modified before each time it was saved.
The embedded data suggest the video is not a continuous, unaltered export from a surveillance system, but a composite assembled from at least two separate MP4 files. The metadata includes references to Premiere project files and two specific source clips—2025-05-22 21-12-48.mp4 and 2025-05-22 16-35-21.mp4. These entries appear under a metadata section labeled “Ingredients,” part of Adobe’s internal schema for tracking source material used in edited exports. The metadata does not make clear where in the video the two clips were spliced together.
Hany Farid, a professor at UC Berkeley whose research focuses on digital forensics and misinformation, reviewed the metadata at WIRED’s request. Farid is a recognized expert in the analysis of digital images and the detection of manipulated media, including deepfakes. He has testified in numerous court cases involving digital evidence.
Farid says the metadata raises immediate concerns about chain of custody—the documented handling of digital evidence from collection to presentation in a courtroom. Just like physical evidence, he explains, digital evidence must be handled in a way that preserves its integrity; metadata, while not always precise, can provide important clues about whether that integrity has been compromised.
“If a lawyer brought me this file and asked if it was suitable for court, I’d say no. Go back to the source. Do it right,” Farid says. “Do a direct export from the original system—no monkey business.”
Farid points to another anomaly: The video’s aspect ratio shifts noticeably at several points. “Why am I suddenly seeing a different aspect ratio?” he asks.
Farid cautions that while the metadata clearly shows the video was modified, the changes could be benign—for example, converting footage from a proprietary surveillance format to a standard MP4.
While there may be uncontroversial explanations for the metadata artifacts, such as stitching together multiple days of footage during compilation, or the routine export of surveillance footage to an mp4 format, the FBI did not respond to specific questions about the file’s processing, instead referring WIRED to the DOJ. The DOJ in turn referred inquiries back to the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons. The BOP did not respond to a request for comment.
According to a 2023 report from the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG), MCC, the detention facility where Epstein was found hanged, had around 150 analog surveillance cameras—but starting on July 29, 2019, a technical error prevented roughly half of them from recording, including most inside the SHU.
The system was scheduled for repairs on August 9, the night before Epstein was found dead. But the technician assigned to fix it couldn’t access the necessary equipment because the corrections officer required to escort him was nearing the end of their shift.
As a result, only two cameras were operational near the SHU at the time MCC staff found Epstein hanging in his cell: one covering the common area and stairwells near the entrance to the adjacent 10 South Unit, and another monitoring a ninth-floor elevator bay. Neither captured Epstein’s cell door.
According to the DOJ’s memo, the footage confirms that from the time Epstein was locked in his cell at approximately 8 pm on August 9, 2019, and between around 10:40 pm and 6:30 am the next morning, no one entered the tier where his cell was located. However, the recording includes a notable gap: Approximately one minute of footage is missing, from 11:58:58 pm to 12:00:00 am. The video resumes immediately afterward.
The OIG’s report found no evidence of a conspiracy to kill Epstein. Instead, it documented years of chronic staffing failures and system breakdowns at MCC. The facility was temporarily closed in 2021 after the DOJ essentially deemed conditions unfit for incarceration.
At a press conference on Tuesday, Bondi attributed the missing minute to a flaw in the surveillance system’s daily cycle, claiming that one minute is missing from every night’s recording.
Given the years of high-profile conspiracy theories surrounding Epstein, any perceived inconsistency in the official narrative is likely to draw intense scrutiny. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones called the DOJ memo “sickening.” “Next the DOJ will say, ‘Actually, Jeffrey Epstein never even existed,’” he wrote in a post on X.
“In the world of conspiracy theories, evidence that disproves something happened becomes proof that something happened,” says Rothschild. He explains that the case of Epstein's death is a good example of this phenomenon. “Every piece of evidence that points to him taking his own life—the negligence of the prison staff, the disrepair of the cameras, the coroner's report—is turned into evidence that he was killed by powerful figures who weren't competent enough to cover up the crime correctly.”
The apparent gaps in the video, Rothschild says, will naturally inflame these suspicions.
One media forensics expert, who reviewed the metadata and agreed with WIRED’s analysis but requested anonymity due to privacy concerns and a desire to avoid having their name publicly associated with anything related to the Epstein case, put it bluntly: “It looks suspicious—but not as suspicious as the DOJ refusing to answer basic questions about it.”
