What specific forensic arguments did Michael Baden make challenging the medical examiner’s ruling in Epstein’s autopsy?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Michael Baden publicly disputed the New York City medical examiner’s ruling of suicide in Jeffrey Epstein’s death by arguing that specific neck injuries—three fractures, hemorrhages in the eyes, and the pattern and location of wounds—are more typical of homicidal strangulation than of suicidal hanging, and therefore warrant further investigation [1] [2] [3]. His critique sparked immediate pushback from the chief medical examiner and from other forensic experts who note that those same findings can occur in hangings and must be weighed in the context of the complete investigation [3] [4] [5].
1. The fractures: hyoid and thyroid cartilage cited as central evidence
Baden emphasized three fractures in Epstein’s neck—one fracture of the left hyoid bone and two fractures of the laryngeal cartilages (thyroid cartilage, the “Adam’s apple”)—and told television interviewers that such a combination is “more consistent” with homicidal strangulation than with suicidal hanging, because these fractures are “extremely unusual” in suicide by hanging in his experience [1] [3] [2]. He argued the distribution and severity of those breaks, seen during his observation of the autopsy, point toward manual compression of the neck rather than suspension by a ligature [1] [2].
2. Eye hemorrhages and increased neck pressure: signs Baden says favor strangulation
Baden also pointed to hemorrhages in Epstein’s eyes—petechial hemorrhages—which he said are commonly associated with homicidal strangulation and less commonly seen in suicidal hangings, and he explained that manual compression (a hand around the neck) could double or triple pressure on the neck structures and produce the injuries observed [2] [6]. He presented this as corroborating evidence that the cause of death could be strangulation rather than suspension.
3. Wound location and ligature questions: why position matters
Baden highlighted what he described as the central location of the neck wound—asserting it was “in the center of Epstein’s neck, not under his mandibles as in a typical hanging”—and said the position of the ligature and of the body when found are critical details that would clarify whether ligature suspension produced the injuries or whether something else did [4] [5]. He repeatedly called for more information about the body’s position when discovered, the ligature’s placement, and the initial scene observations by guards, arguing that removal of the body damaged ancillary evidence and left unanswered questions [7] [5].
4. Limitations and context: hired expert, observed autopsy, and media appearances
Baden’s role was as a private pathologist hired by Epstein’s brother; he observed but did not perform the official autopsy, and he communicated his conclusions on national television and conservative outlets, which critics say can amplify a partisan narrative [1] [2] [8]. He framed his decades-long experience—claiming he had “not seen in 50 years” a suicidal hanging with these injuries—as the basis for his opinion, but his status as a hired consultant and frequent media commentator was flagged by some outlets as a reason to treat his pronouncements cautiously [9] [8].
5. Counterarguments from the medical examiner and other forensic experts
The city’s chief medical examiner, Dr. Barbara Sampson, strongly disputed Baden’s interpretation, reiterating that the official autopsy concluded hanging and warning that single findings cannot override the totality of investigative evidence; she insisted all forensic, scene, and investigative information must be reconciled together before changing a manner-of-death determination [9] [3]. Independent forensic scientists and academic commentators pointed out that hyoid fractures and even eye hemorrhages can occur in hangings—particularly in older victims where the hyoid is more fragile—and that such fractures are not definitive proof of homicidal strangulation on their own [4] [5].
6. What Baden demanded and what remained unresolved
Baden demanded further inquiry into the injuries and the circumstances of discovery, saying the photographs and scene documentation he reviewed raised unanswered questions and that the case merited investigation to determine whether homicide could be excluded [7] [5]. Reporting shows that subsequent official investigations later reaffirmed suicide, but Baden’s forensic claims—three neck fractures, eye hemorrhages, atypical wound location, and missing scene clarity—remain the specific medical objections he cited to challenge the medical examiner’s ruling [4] [3].