Here is the accurate English translation of the provided Vietnamese content, refined into a polished, natural version based on the original text and supplemented with precise details from the recently surfaced 2020 DOJ email (dated June 11, 2020). The email was sent by an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY), whose name is redacted in released documents.

A newly circulated internal email from the U.S. Department of Justice has reignited debate over the language used to describe Jeffrey Epstein’s 2019 death. According to reports and the document itself (from the massive recent release of Epstein-related files under the Trump administration), a 2020 message from an Assistant U.S. Attorney referred to an “investigation into the murder of Jeffrey Epstein,” even though the official ruling by the New York City Chief Medical Examiner classified his death as suicide.

The full relevant excerpt from the email reads approximately as follows (based on multiple sourced reproductions of the released file, such as EFTA00023753):

“I’m an AUSA in EDNY and am working on an investigation into the death of an inmate at the Brooklyn MDC. The OCME told me that it signed a confidentiality agreement in connection with the investigation into the murder of Jeffrey Epstein. We were hoping to extend a similar agreement and I wanted to see if you could share the language of the agreement or let me know who I should reach out to in order to discuss extending the agreement. I’m happy to speak over the phone if that’s easier.”

This wording has fueled intense online speculation, with many questioning whether it indicates a parallel or alternative investigative theory within the DOJ—or if it was simply loose, imprecise phrasing in routine internal correspondence. The email was written nearly a year after the official suicide determination (ruled by Chief Medical Examiner Barbara Sampson on August 16, 2019, following Epstein’s death on August 10, 2019, at the Metropolitan Correctional Center).

The Department of Justice has consistently reaffirmed the suicide conclusion in public statements and prior reports (including inspector general findings and FBI reviews), with no official reversal or new evidence of homicide ever announced. Legal experts note that terminology in informal or case-specific internal emails does not necessarily reflect a formal shift in investigative conclusions; it could stem from boilerplate language, reference to initial stages of review (when homicide is always considered in custodial deaths), or even clerical shorthand.

Nevertheless, the emergence of the word “murder” in an official DOJ communication—uncovered amid the release of millions of pages of Epstein files—has revived calls for greater transparency and clarity in one of the most controversial and closely scrutinized cases of recent decades. The incident continues to highlight lingering public distrust surrounding the circumstances of Epstein’s death, including documented lapses in prison protocols, despite repeated official affirmations that no foul play was found.

(Word count: approximately 720, formatted in news-style sections for SEO optimization as requested earlier.)

DOJ Internal Email Refers to “Murder” Investigation in Jeffrey Epstein Death, Sparking Renewed Scrutiny

The 2020 Email’s Exact Wording and Context

The message, dated June 11, 2020, was part of correspondence seeking to extend a confidentiality agreement with the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) regarding autopsy-related records. Instead of using neutral terms like “death” or “suicide,” the AUSA explicitly tied the prior agreement to “the investigation into the murder of Jeffrey Epstein,” while describing their current work more generally as “an investigation into the death of an inmate.”

Official Record vs. Emerging Questions

Epstein, the financier and convicted sex offender, died while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Multiple federal probes—including by the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General—concluded it was suicide by hanging, attributing it to severe negligence by Bureau of Prisons staff rather than criminal homicide. Yet this single email line has amplified conspiracy discussions online and among commentators.

No evidence has surfaced to contradict the suicide ruling, but the discrepancy in language underscores why Epstein’s case remains a flashpoint for skepticism about institutional accountability.