What did the official coroner’s report say about Virginia Giuffre’s cause and method of death?

1. What the authorities have said so far — no final coroner finding yet

Authorities in Western Australia have confirmed only that major crime detectives were preparing a file for the coroner, indicating an inquest-style process rather than a public release of a completed cause-and-method determination; the police spokesperson told The Guardian that the death was not being treated as suspicious while that coronial work was underway ^[1]. This language signals that, at the time of reporting, there was an active investigative-to-coronial handover but not a published coroner’s finding outlining a medical cause or manner of death ^[1].

2. The view from Giuffre’s legal team — expectation of a formal coronial determination

Giuffre’s Australia-based lawyer publicly expressed a belief that the death was not suspicious and emphasized that the coroner would set out the definitive cause based on evidence, implying an expectation of a standard coronial process that culminates in an official cause-and-method finding ^[2]. That statement underlines a separation between investigators’ preliminary comments and the coroner’s formal role in determining medical cause and legal manner of death ^[2].

3. What the public reporting does not yet provide — no published cause or method

Neither The Guardian’s reporting nor the biographical summary in widely used reference material includes a published coroner’s report specifying a medical cause (for example, natural causes, accident, suicide, or homicide) or a legally stated method; available accounts only reference the investigative step of preparing material for the coroner and public comments about suspicion levels ^{[1] [2]}. Because the coroner’s determination was not reported as completed in the cited sources, it is not possible from these sources to state any official cause or method of death.

4. How to read “not suspicious” in early statements — caution and competing readings

Early official descriptions that a death is “not being treated as suspicious” do not equate to a coronial ruling; they are investigative shorthand that can reflect the existing evidence known to police but can change if new evidence emerges, and independent coroners will often reach conclusions that differ in wording or emphasis from police summaries ^[1]. Alternative readings exist: family, estate litigants, or advocates might see those early characterizations as reassurance, while others—especially given Giuffre’s public profile and pending litigation—might view them cautiously and await the coroner’s detailed findings for any definitive answer ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Why the coroner’s report matters here — legal and reputational consequences

A formal coroner’s report would record the medical cause and the legal manner of death and can influence the resumption of legal actions tied to Giuffre’s estate and public understanding of her final circumstances; The Guardian reported that an interim administrator was appointed to manage her estate, and that legal disputes over the estate had been on hold pending these processes, highlighting the stakes tied to an authoritative coroner finding ^[1]. Without that report, courts, estate litigants, journalists and the public must rely on preliminary police statements and attorney comments rather than a documented coronial determination ^{[1] [2]}.

6. What remains unknown and how to follow up responsibly

The specific medical cause (for example, a disease, toxicity, or traumatic injury) and the coronial classification of manner (natural, accidental, suicide, homicide, undetermined) are not contained in the cited reporting and therefore remain unknown to the public based on these sources; any definitive statement requires the published coroner’s report or an official coroner’s announcement, neither of which appear in the available material ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting beyond police and lawyer statements is not in the provided sources, so responsible follow-up is to await the coroner’s formal findings and to scrutinize whether preliminary police phrasing aligns with the coroner’s documented conclusions.