But why? News agencies can do that if they wish, for the viewers, but why would a government agency releasing video evidence touch it up in any way? That's just asking for questions.

The article mentions that. They supposedly released 2 versions, one "enhanced" to help make the relevant parts of the image easier to see, which certainly matches the description of "modified" and the other, the same footage but described as "raw" implying that it wasn't "modified" in that way.

There are a lot of plausible and likely explanations for the Adobe metadata schema information that is in the file that don't involve deceptively manipulating footage to hide something that was in that footage before public presentation, then again, given the circumstances and supposed rationale behind publicly presenting this footage, failing to release it with untouched unmodified metadata from the camera original source files is not a good look. Failing to then answer questions about that makes it look even worse. This is is especially true when, although there is no answer they could give that would actually totally convince everyone, there are as I said many plausible explanations they could have offered and yet they were just silent.

Ironically, as is so often the case with anything like this, depending on the interpretive lens you're using this issue with the metadata helps confirm either assertion, that there was cover up and Epstein was murdered, or that there was no such cover up and he really did kill himself. Obviously, the fact that it's modified lends credence to the idea they're hiding something because one might expect that if they weren't it'd be easy to just supply the footage with metadata more reflective of a surveillance system than Adobe software. However one could also say that, modifying metadata in a way that is undetectable should actually be relatively easy and the fact that they couldn't be bothered to do that, or didn't know how, or never thought of metadata being present in the first place could suggest it's not deceptive skullduggery so much as technical incompetence and sloppiness - too sloppy for competent conspiracists. On the other hand, they could also be sloppy and incompetent conspiracists who just did an awful job. That's not altogether unlikely either since the entire supposed suicide they potentially conspired to have people believe is a very suspicious cover story to begin with so not exactly an expertly conceived plan, more improvisational and done in a hurry which would kind of track with them botching later actions to take the heat off.