Jeffrey Epstein’s brother claims released suicide note is a ‘forgery’: report 57%

By Josh Marcus57%

5/8/2026, 4:34:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 18.7% saturation with 91 hits. Analysis detected 838 faulty-reasoning hits from 486 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.8% and a BS Rank of 57% (9,575 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.30% of the article peer group.

Jeffrey Epstein’s brother believes his brother’s purported suicide note, released this week in court, is fake. 
Mark Epstein, speaking with The National Enquirer, called the document a “forgery.” 
“I’ve known Jeff all my life. 
If he was going to kill himself, if he was going to write a suicide note, he would’ve written it ‘to somebody,’ not just a blanket statement saying goodbye,” Epstein said. 
“I don’t buy that.” 
Jeffrey Epstein’s former cellmate claims to have discovered the document in July 2019, after Epstein was found unresponsive but alive in his cell. 
Epstein died by suicide the following month. 
“It’s bulls**t and let me explain why,” Epstein’s brother added in the National Enquirer interview. 
“In the July incident, Jeffrey’s cellmate attacked him, he reported it as such, he told his lawyer as such, and then he recanted that story saying he couldn’t remember what happened because he was fearful of retaliation.” 
“It is a treat to be able to choose one’s time to say goodbye,” the note, released in federal court on Wednesday, reads. 
“Watcha want me to do  Bust out cryin!!” 
“NO FUN," the message concludes. 
“NOT WORTH IT!!” 
Epstein’s cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione, claims he discovered the message inside a book in July 2019 after the first incident. 
Epstein initially claimed that Tartaglione, a former police officer convicted of leading a murder plot, tried to kill him, but the disgraced financier did not subsequently repeat the claim after he was moved to another cell. 
The note was initially sealed in court records, but Tartaglione later described it to The New York Times and reporter Jessica Reed Kraus. 
The paper then petitioned for the document to be released publicly. 
On Monday, the Justice Department backed the request. 
Though officials determined that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide, his brother has long argued that this is incorrect. 
Mark Epstein told The National Enquirer that a forthcoming review of his brother’s autopsy would prove the death wasn’t a suicide. 
“Anybody who still thinks it’s a suicide after the report comes out; they should be declared brain dead,” he said. 
Nearly seven years after Jeffrey Epstein’s death, the scandal around his sex ring continues. 
On Wednesday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick answered questions about his past ties to Epstein during a closed-door deposition before the House Oversight Committee. 
If you are based in the USA, and you or someone you know needs mental health assistance right now, call or text 988 or visit 988lifeline.org to access online chat from the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. 
This is a free, confidential crisis hotline that is available to everyone 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 
If you are in another country, you can go to www.befrienders.org to find a helpline near you. 
In the UK, people having mental health crises can contact the Samaritans at 116 123 or jo@samaritans.org 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.1%Josh Marcus: 4.5%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias18.1%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Josh Marcus: 3.6%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic13.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.7%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 2.1%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Josh Marcus: 8.9%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect7.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.6%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.3%Josh Marcus: 1.9%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias4.3%This article: 0.8%Josh Marcus: 1.4%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.8%This article: 17.5%Josh Marcus: 12.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias17.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.6%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.1%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.7%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.7%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Josh Marcus: 1.5%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Josh Marcus: 2.5%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem11.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.6%Josh Marcus: 3.6%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority5.6%This article: 10.5%Josh Marcus: 1.2%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma10.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.0%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 4.1%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.1%Josh Marcus: 7.9%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion3.1%This article: 0.8%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.8%This article: 1.4%Josh Marcus: 3.8%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.1%Josh Marcus: 1.1%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof4.1%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 2.5%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.6%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 6.4%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity6.4%This article: 7.6%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading7.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.7%Josh Marcus: 2.4%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote4.7%This article: 4.9%Josh Marcus: 2.6%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection4.9%This article: 13.8%Josh Marcus: 5.5%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice13.8%This article: 18.7%Josh Marcus: 1.5%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination18.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.6%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.0%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%Josh Marcus: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.2%

486 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers38%attributed speech302writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageMark Epstein • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMark Epstein • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMark Epstein • 31 words • 0.0% coverageMark Epstein • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMark Epstein • 15 words • 100.0% coverageMark Epstein • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas Tartaglione • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJustice Department • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMark Epstein • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMark Epstein • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mark Epstein

92%flagged-word coverage
146 attributed words79% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -24.5 ptsWriter: 24.5%Mark Epstein: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-9.8 ptsWriter: 23.5%Mark Epstein: 13.7%13.7%Biased Writer Voice-6.9 ptsWriter: 17.2%Mark Epstein: 10.3%10.3%Quote-first Misdirection+7.3 ptsWriter: 3.0%Mark Epstein: 10.3%10.3%Unattributed Quote-7.6 ptsWriter: 7.6%Mark Epstein: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.