What did the Western Australia coroner ultimately rule about Virginia Giuffre's cause of death?

1. What the police and family publicly said at the time

Western Australia Police confirmed they were called to Giuffre’s rural property after she was found unresponsive and a police spokesperson repeatedly stated the death was not being treated as suspicious while major crime detectives prepared a report for the coroner ^{[1] [4]}; Giuffre’s Australia-based attorney and family members likewise said the coroner would determine the official cause of death and several outlets reported family statements describing the death as a suicide, noting she left a personal note and that her lawyer saw no immediate indication of suspicious circumstances ^{[2] [5]}.

2. What the coroner’s office had actually done (and not done) in public reporting

Public reporting in these sources shows the coroner’s court had received police material and was reviewing it, but had not provided a public timeframe or published a final finding on cause of death—multiple outlets explicitly note the coroner’s inquiry was ongoing and that a formal determination would be made “in due course” based on evidence supplied by police ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. How outlets and secondary sources framed the status of the inquiry

News outlets varied in emphasis: some reported family and legal representatives’ statements that characterized the event as suicide while stressing the coroner’s role in formally establishing cause of death, others focused on estate litigation and the appointment of an interim administrator—neither line of coverage produced a cited coroner’s verdict in the material provided ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

4. Why ambiguity persisted in public accounts

Ambiguity arises because initial classifications by police (not suspicious) and family statements about suicide are preliminary and distinct from a coroner’s formal finding, which typically relies on autopsy, toxicology, witness statements and a legal determination recorded in a coroner’s report—none of the supplied sources contains or cites a completed coroner’s report declaring the definitive cause of death ^{[1] [2] [6]}.

5. What has been reported about investigations and timelines

Multiple reports underscore that major crime detectives prepared material for the coroner and that the coroner’s court could not provide a timeframe for completion of its inquiries, leaving legal battles over Giuffre’s estate and related civil suits to proceed while the coroner’s process remained unresolved in public records ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

6. Limits of available reporting and the responsible conclusion

Based solely on the supplied reporting, it is not possible to assert that the Western Australia coroner "ultimately ruled" any specific cause of death because no source here contains or cites a final coroner’s finding; therefore the accurate, evidence-based conclusion is that authorities were investigating, the death was not being treated as suspicious by police, family and some outlets described the death as a suicide, and the coroner’s formal determination was pending or not yet publicly released in the material provided ^{[1] [2] [6]}.