In a bombshell that turns promised transparency into deepening distrust, forensic experts dissecting the federal government’s “full raw” Epstein prison surveillance video uncovered embedded metadata proving it was processed through professional editing software—most likely Adobe Premiere Pro—contradicting official claims of an untouched export straight from the jail’s system.T

A detailed forensic examination of the surveillance footage released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in July 2025—purportedly the “full raw” video from Jeffrey Epstein’s final night in custody—has revealed significant discrepancies. Contrary to official claims, metadata embedded in the nearly 11-hour file indicates it was processed through Adobe Premiere Pro, a professional video editing software, raising profound questions about potential alterations during Epstein’s critical final hours.

WIRED, in collaboration with independent video forensics experts including UC Berkeley professor Hany Farid, analyzed the file’s Exchangeable Image File Format (EXIF) and Extensible Metadata Platform (XMP) data. The metadata references Adobe Premiere project files and at least two source clips (dated May 22, 2025), stitched together and saved multiple times over several hours on May 23, 2025, by a Windows user. Further scrutiny uncovered that nearly three minutes of footage were cut from one clip, including just before a known one-minute gap at midnight—previously attributed to a system reset.

Experts emphasize no direct evidence of deceptive manipulation exists, and processing could stem from benign format conversion or compilation for public release. However, the use of professional editing tools contradicts the DOJ’s “raw” labeling, undermining chain-of-custody integrity. Farid noted such a file would not hold up in court without the original source.

The DOJ and FBI, defending the suicide ruling, declined to explain the processing, referring inquiries circularly. This opacity, amid Epstein’s 2019 death in the malfunction-plagued Metropolitan Correctional Center, fuels skepticism. Combined with prior anomalies—like partial staircase views and debated “orange shapes”—the revelations intensify demands for unredacted originals.

As Epstein file releases continue under the 2025 Transparency Act, these findings highlight transparency challenges: Were edits routine, or do they conceal critical details from Epstein’s isolated final hours? Public trust hangs on fuller accountability.