The Epstein “Strangled, not suicide” story is back. Here’s what actually changed.

A recycled medical claim from 2019 is driving a new wave of headlines. But is there actually any new evidence?

Before we get into it: if you’re receiving this via email, thank you. You’re already subscribed. If you’re not, now is the time.

Over the last few days my inbox has been flooded with messages.

“David, a doctor just blew the Jeffrey Epstein suicide claim wide open.”

“It wasn’t suicide. It was homicide.”

“He was strangled. This is it.”

So let’s slow this down and walk through it carefully. Is it true that a doctor is once again saying that Jeffrey Epstein was strangled and did not kill himself?

Yes. That part is true.

But the much more important question is this: Is any of this new?

The answer is no.

The claim everyone is sharing

The headlines making the rounds all reference forensic pathologist Michael Baden, who is again saying that Epstein’s injuries were more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicidal hanging.

If that name sounds familiar, it should.

Back in 2019, shortly after Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in a Manhattan jail cell, Baden made the same claims. I covered it at the time (you can view the segment, linked below). The medical reasoning being cited today is the same reasoning he cited seven years ago.

There is no new autopsy.
There is no newly discovered fracture.
There is no fresh forensic revelation.

This is a recycled claim from 2019 moving through a new news cycle in 2026.

That doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong, but it does mean we need to evaluate it based on the actual substance, not the hype.

The one medical argument

So what is Baden’s core medical claim?

He argues that Epstein had multiple fractures of the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage, and that these fractures are “very unusual” in suicidal hangings but more consistent with homicidal strangulation.

That’s the medical heart of the argument.

Everything else he mentions: security cameras malfunctioning, guards allegedly asleep, changes in official conclusions, is not a medical determination. Those are circumstantial issues. They may raise questions and may warrant investigation, but they are not forensic pathology.

The forensic claim comes down to this: hyoid fractures are rare in suicide and therefore suggest homicide.

There is just one problem.

What the research actually says

The fracture question has been studied extensively.

Peer-reviewed research on suicidal hanging cases shows that fractures of the hyoid bone and/or thyroid cartilage occur in approximately 25 percent of known suicide-by-hanging cases.

Twenty-five percent is not zero. It’s not “never” and it’s not even considered rare.

That doesn’t prove Epstein died by suicide, but it does directly undermine the idea that these fractures are medically incompatible with suicide.

If the only medical claim being made can be contradicted by established research, then at minimum we have to say the case is not as airtight as it is being presented online.

Separating suspicion from evidence

There are definitely other suspicions of the Epstein case, however.

Since 2019, we’ve learned about irregularities, including questions about surveillance footage and jail procedures. If there are legitimate investigative angles there, they should be pursued, absolutely.

But we have to separate two different categories of claims:

1. Medical evidence

2. Institutional failure or conspiracy speculation

Baden’s medical argument hinges on the fractures, but that argument is not supported by the broader forensic literature.

Everything else being cited in these viral posts falls into the second category, which is not forensic pathology. It’s inference layered on top of suspicious circumstances.

Those are very different things.

Why this keeps coming back

The reason this story keeps resurfacing is simple: the Epstein case sits at the intersection of power, wealth, sex crimes, and institutional distrust.

That is fertile ground for suspicion.

When people see a respected forensic pathologist say “this points toward homicide,” it feels like the missing puzzle piece. It feels definitive.

But if the underlying medical claim does not hold up under scrutiny, then what we’re left with is a news cycle built around a statement that is seven years old and medically contestable.

Where this leaves us

If you believe there should be further investigation into the Epstein case, that is a perfectly reasonable position.

If you think institutional failures occurred at the jail, that is also reasonable.

But we cannot pretend that the existence of hyoid fractures suddenly converts a contested case into proven homicide. The research simply does not support that leap.

As of right now, there is no new forensic development. There is a renewed wave of coverage around an old opinion.

That’s where things stand.

I’m curious what you think. Is this story convincing to you? Do you see the fracture data differently? Leave a comment or send me an email and let me know.

---

We’re reaching over 150 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. But algorithms can change. Platforms can fold. And when that happens, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.