What did the coroner’s report ultimately conclude about Virginia Giuffre’s cause of death?

1. What authorities publicly stated in the immediate aftermath

Western Australia police told at least one major outlet that Giuffre’s death was not being treated as suspicious and that major crime detectives were preparing a report for the coroner, language that signals a standard handover of investigative material rather than a public finding on manner or cause of death ^[1]. That same procedural description appears in multiple summaries of the event and has been cited by outlets reporting on estate and legal consequences following her death ^[1].

2. How media outlets framed the cause of death before a coroner’s ruling

Some U.S. outlets, including People, reported Giuffre’s death as a suicide in pieces that also quoted her attorney saying the death did not appear suspicious and that “the Coroner will determine in due course the cause of death and that will be established based on the evidence,” reflecting a mix of reporting on immediate claims and acknowledgement that the official finding rests with the coroner ^[2]. Other summaries, including encyclopedic entries, repeat the attorney’s caution and the BBC’s note that “there is still much that is not known” about her final days, underscoring the distinction between media accounts and a formal coroner finding ^[3].

3. Why that distinction matters — coroner vs. press characterization

A coroner’s report is a legal and medical instrument that states cause and, where applicable, manner of death after reviewing evidence, autopsy results and police materials; reporters may relay statements from family, lawyers or police before that process concludes, which can lead to premature headlines or varied phrasing across outlets ^{[2] [3]}. In this case the police description of “not being treated as suspicious” and the lawyer’s comments both point toward an expectation that the death was not criminal, but neither replaces a completed coroner’s determination ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Alternative perspectives and potential agendas in coverage

Coverage has layers: Australian reporting focused on estate implications and court appointments after an apparent intestacy while U.S. and tabloid media emphasized the circumstances of her death and her public history as an Epstein accuser, which can drive different narratives and speculation; her attorney’s public statements discouraging suspicion may aim to limit sensationalism as estate and legal battles continue ^{[1] [2]}. The sources caution that much remained unknown at the time and that definitive authority rests with the coroner’s office ^[3].

5. What the provided sources do not show — the final coroner report

None of the supplied materials include a finalized coroner’s verdict or text declaring the medical cause and manner of Virginia Giuffre’s death; reporting consistently points to the coroner as the entity that “will determine in due course” the cause of death, and the Guardian notes detectives were preparing a coroner’s report rather than announcing one ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Given that gap, any claim that the coroner “ultimately concluded” a specific cause of death cannot be supported from the provided sources.

6. Bottom line for readers seeking certainty

Based on the documented statements from police and Giuffre’s lawyer and on the absence of a published coroner’s verdict in the provided reporting, the only defensible conclusion is that the coroner had not publicly issued a final cause-of-death determination in these sources; media reports reference suicide and non-suspicious circumstances, but the authoritative coroner finding is not contained in the materials reviewed ^{[1] [2] [3]}.