Did Virginia Giuffre leave a suicide note or social media posts suggesting intent?

1. A Final Note Shared by Family That Frames Her Last Message as Advocacy and Resolve

News outlets report that Virginia Giuffre’s brother and family publicly shared a handwritten note found among her belongings after her death by suicide, describing it as a final message directed to survivors and advocates. The note contains language urging collective action — “Mothers, Fathers, Sisters, and Brothers need to show the battle lines are drawn, and stand together to fight for the future of victims” — and the refrain “We are not going to go away” appears prominently in multiple accounts ^{[2] [4]}. Media coverage on April 30, 2025, emphasized that the family portrayed Giuffre as a “fierce warrior” whose final words continued her long-standing advocacy against sexual abuse and trafficking, and the family’s release of the note was positioned as a way to keep her voice and mission alive ^[1].

2. Social Media Posts Circulating After Her Death: Old Statements Recycled Without Context

Independent fact-checkers and reporting traced widely shared social-media posts claiming Giuffre recently asserted she was not suicidal to an original 2019 post in which she wrote she was not suicidal; those posts were authentic but dated. Fact-checkers on April 28, 2025, noted that reposts circulating after her death omitted the 2019 timestamp, creating a misleading impression that she had made the statement shortly before her death ^[3]. Reuters’ reporting of April 26, 2025, on Giuffre’s death did not cite any contemporaneous social-media admissions of intent, instead focusing on her public role and advocacy, which underscores a gap between verified social-media history and how those posts were used in immediate public discourse ^[5].

3. How Multiple Outlets Repeated the Same Details About the Note — and Where Coverage Diverged

Several outlets published the note’s text and context on April 30, 2025, repeating phrases and attributing the release to family members, but reporting diverged on the level of surrounding detail. Some articles reproduced the handwriting and emphasized the note’s rallying tone for survivors, while others added background on Giuffre’s life, legal battles, and activism to frame the note within her decades-long public fight against abuse and trafficking ^{[4] [6] [1]}. Coverage uniformly treated the note as found after her death, yet editorial choices differed: some outlets foregrounded the note’s political mobilization language, while others centered the family’s depiction of her as a champion for survivors, showing how selection of contextual material influenced readers’ understanding ^{[1] [2]}.

4. What Public Records and Reporting Confirmed — and What Remains Outside Public View

Contemporary reporting confirmed the existence of the handwritten note and the 2019 social-media post; reporters cited family statements and archival posts rather than official forensic timelines or police files in their published pieces. Reuters’ April 26 reporting did not describe a suicide note in its initial coverage, suggesting the note’s public disclosure occurred later, on April 30, when the family released it ^{[5] [4]}. Public reporting does not substitute for investigative documentation such as police or coroner statements; the media accounts rely on family-released material and social-media archives to establish timelines and content, and those are the primary sources referenced across the published pieces ^{[1] [3]}.

5. How These Elements Were Used in Public Discussion — Motives, Misleading Uses, and Clear Facts

The factual record from the cited coverage establishes two clear points: Giuffre’s family released a handwritten note with an activist message after her death, and a separate social-media post from 2019 in which she said she was not suicidal has been recirculated without its date, producing confusion ^{[2] [3]}. Different actors leveraged these materials for distinct narratives: the family used the note to cement her advocacy legacy, some outlets used the note to humanize her activism, and others highlighted the recycling of older social-media content as a source of misinformation. Each use reflects varying agendas — remembrance, reporting, and online amplification — but the underlying published facts remain consistent across the sources provided ^{[6] [5]}.