Metadata Shows Epstein Prison Video Likely Edited

Department of Justice this week released nearly 11 hours of what it described as “full raw” surveillance footage from a camera positioned near Jeffrey Epstein’s prison cell the night before he was found dead. The release was intended to address conspiracy theories about Epstein’s apparent suicide in federal custody. But instead of putting those suspicions to rest, it may fuel them further.

Metadata embedded in the video and analyzed by WIRED and independent video forensics experts shows that rather than being a direct export from the prison’s surveillance system, the footage was modified, likely using the professional editing tool Adobe Premiere Pro. The file appears to have been assembled from at least two source clips, saved multiple times, exported, and then uploaded to the DOJ’s website, where it was presented as “raw” footage.

Experts caution that it’s unclear what exactly was changed, and that the metadata does not prove deceptive manipulation. The video may have simply been processed for public release using available software, with no modifications beyond stitching together two clips. But the absence of a clear explanation for the processing of the file using professional editing software complicates the Justice Department’s narrative. In a case already clouded by suspicion, the ambiguity surrounding how the file was processed is likely to provide fresh fodder for conspiracy theories.

For months leading up to the joint memo the DOJ and FBI published Monday, attorney general Pam Bondi had promised the release of records related to Epstein, raising expectations that new, potentially incriminating details might surface about the disgraced financier’s death and his ties to powerful individuals. However, rather than revealing new information, the memo largely confirmed conclusions reached years earlier: that Epstein was found in a Manhattan prison cell on August 10, 2019, and died by suicide while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

To support its conclusion, the FBI reviewed surveillance footage overlooking the common area of the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), where Epstein was held. The FBI enhanced the footage by adjusting contrast, color, and sharpness, and released both the enhanced and what it described as the “raw” version. Both versions of the video appear to have been processed using Premiere and include much of the same metadata. According to the FBI, anyone entering the area containing Epstein’s cell during the relevant time frame would have been visible on that camera.

Working with two independent video forensics experts, WIRED examined the 21-gigabyte files released by the DOJ. Using a metadata tool, reporters analyzed both Exchangeable Image File Format (EXIF) and Extensible Metadata Platform (XMP) data to identify signs of postprocessing.

The “raw” file shows clear signs of having been processed using an Adobe product, most likely Premiere, based on metadata that specifically references file extensions used by the video editing software. According to experts, Adobe software, including Premiere and Photoshop, leaves traces in exported files, often embedding metadata that logs which assets were used and what actions were taken during editing. In this case, the metadata indicates the file was saved at least four times over a 23-minute span on May 23, 2025, by a Windows user account called “MJCOLE~1.” The metadata does not show whether the footage was modified before each time it was saved.

The embedded data suggest the video is not a continuous, unaltered export from a surveillance system, but a composite assembled from at least two separate MP4 files. The metadata includes references to Premiere project files and two specific source clips—2025-05-22 21-12-48.mp4 and 2025-05-22 16-35-21.mp4. These entries appear under a metadata section labeled “Ingredients,” part of Adobe’s internal schema for tracking source material used in edited exports. The metadata does not make clear where in the video the two clips were spliced together.

Hany Farid, a professor at UC Berkeley whose research focuses on digital forensics and misinformation, reviewed the metadata at WIRED’s request. Farid is a recognized expert in the analysis of digital images and the detection of manipulated media, including deepfakes. He has testified in numerous court cases involving digital evidence.

Farid says the metadata raises immediate concerns about chain of custody—the documented handling of digital evidence from collection to presentation in a courtroom. Just like physical evidence, he explains, digital evidence must be handled in a way that preserves its integrity; metadata, while not always precise, can provide important clues about whether that integrity has been compromised.

“If a lawyer brought me this file and asked if it was suitable for court, I’d say no. Go back to the source. Do it right,” Farid says. “Do a direct export from the original system—no monkey business.”

Farid points to another anomaly: The video’s aspect ratio shifts noticeably at several points. “Why am I suddenly seeing a different aspect ratio?” he asks.

Farid cautions that while the metadata clearly shows the video was modified, the changes could be benign—for example, converting footage from a proprietary surveillance format to a standard MP4.