How did the authorities investigate Virginia Giuffre's death?
Executive summary
Authorities in Western Australia responded to Virginia Giuffre’s death by opening a Major Crime investigation, treating the case as non-suspicious in early statements while preparing a report for the coroner; public details have been limited and family members have pressed for fuller disclosure and further probes [1] [2] [3].
1. How police first became involved and initial public statements
Western Australia police were called to Giuffre’s home in the Neergabby area after she was found unresponsive, and official statements immediately said Major Crime detectives were investigating while noting that "early indications" suggested the death was not suspicious — an initial conclusion repeated across multiple outlets [1] [4] [5].
2. Role of Major Crime detectives and the coroner
Authorities assigned Major Crime detectives to gather evidence and prepare a formal report to the coroner, indicating the investigation was being tunnelled into the coroner’s review process rather than remaining an open criminal inquiry in the public eye; the WA coroner’s court later confirmed no public timeframe for concluding those investigations [2] [4].
3. Evidence handling and what has been released publicly
Police have released limited information to non-family members, with spokespeople and Giuffre’s lawyer repeatedly emphasizing that the full cause of death would be determined by the coroner based on submitted evidence; mainstream coverage noted the investigations were ongoing but offered few granular details about scene forensics, toxicology or a public autopsy timeline [6] [3].
4. Family reaction and calls for further inquiry
Members of Giuffre’s family — notably her father — publicly questioned the suicide ruling and urged additional investigation, a stance that amplified calls from some lawyers representing Epstein victims for a "full, public investigation" and greater transparency about any evidence still held by authorities [7] [8] [9].
5. Defense from Giuffre’s legal representatives and contrasting views
Giuffre’s Australia-based attorney Karrie Louden stated she did not believe the death was suspicious and stressed confidence that the coroner would determine cause in due course, while also clarifying that she was not criticising police and accepted standard information limits imposed on non-family members — a position that contrasts with family members’ demands for more open scrutiny [10] [6] [11].
6. Media reporting, unanswered questions and procedural limits
Reporting by outlets including the BBC, NBC, The Guardian and others highlighted both Giuffre’s high-profile history in Epstein-related investigations and the paucity of publicly available forensic or procedural detail about the WA probe, with journalists noting the investigation’s progress would largely be tied to the coroner’s timetable and what Major Crime detectives ultimately disclose [12] [5] [2].
7. What is known, what remains unclear, and why that matters
What is known is procedural: police attendance at the scene, Major Crime involvement, preparation of a coroner’s report, and repeated early statements that the death was not considered suspicious; what remains unclear from public sources is the specific forensic evidence collected, the coroner’s ultimate findings (if any have been released), and whether any further criminal inquiries will follow — gaps that fuel family concern and public interest given Giuffre’s role in the Epstein saga [1] [2] [8].