A Mississippi grand jury says the circumstances surrounding the death of 18-year-old Nolan Wells were “consistent with drowning.”
But the state autopsy did not establish drowning as Wells’ cause of death.
According to the state autopsy report, there was “no fluid or debris” within Wells’ airways. The medical examiner ultimately classified both his cause and manner of death as undetermined.
That distinction is now at the center of questions surrounding the case.
Wells disappeared during a July Fourth boating trip to Horn Island off the Mississippi Gulf Coast. His body was found in the water two days later.
The Associated Press reported that a Jackson County grand jury later unanimously declined to indict anyone in connection with his death. Jurors said the position and condition of Wells’ body, along with the time and location where he was found, were consistent with drowning.
But “consistent with drowning” is not the same as a medical determination that drowning caused his death.
What the state autopsy found
The Mississippi State Medical Examiner’s autopsy documented several injuries, including blunt-force trauma involving Wells’ head, neck and back.
The official autopsy report also details the examination of Wells’ lungs and airway.
Under the section describing the lungs, the medical examiner wrote that there was “no fluid or debris” within the airways.
The examiner nevertheless did not identify another definitive cause of death.
The report concluded that because the circumstances surrounding Wells’ death were unknown, the cause and manner of death were best classified as undetermined.
That means the state medical examiner did not officially determine that Wells died by drowning.
The finding of no fluid or debris in the airways does not, by itself, prove that drowning did not occur. Forensic pathologists consider the entire medical examination along with the circumstances surrounding a death.
But it is a relevant finding, particularly when the final cause of death remained undetermined.
Independent autopsy also remained undetermined
Wells’ family later retained forensic pathologist Dr. Roger Mitchell Jr. to conduct an independent examination.
According to Mississippi Today, Mitchell documented additional blunt-force injuries but also did not identify a definitive cause of death.
He ultimately classified Wells’ cause and manner of death as undetermined as well.
Mitchell has described drowning as a diagnosis of exclusion, meaning other possible causes must be considered and ruled out before drowning can be established.
During his examination, Mitchell was unable to independently examine Wells’ lungs and airway because those organs had already been removed during the first autopsy.
The state autopsy report, however, provides the original examiner’s documented findings from those organs.
And that report says no fluid or debris was found in the airways.
So why does the grand jury point to drowning?
The grand jury reviewed testimony from dozens of witnesses along with physical evidence, cellphone records, GPS information, video and other investigative material.
WAPT reported that jurors concluded there was no credible evidence that Wells’ death resulted from criminal conduct and returned a “no true bill,” meaning no indictments would be issued.
The grand jury also characterized the circumstances surrounding Wells’ death as consistent with drowning.
But the medical record remains more limited.
The state medical examiner did not list drowning as Wells’ cause of death.
The independent pathologist did not list drowning as Wells’ cause of death.
Both classified the cause and manner of death as undetermined.
And the state’s own autopsy documented no fluid or debris within Wells’ airways.
That does not necessarily rule drowning out.
But it raises a straightforward question:
What evidence led the grand jury to describe the circumstances as consistent with drowning when the medical evidence itself did not establish drowning as the cause of death?
New dispute over Nolan Wells’ cellphone
Another issue is also drawing scrutiny: Wells’ cellphone.
A digital-forensics expert retained by Wells’ family is challenging Jackson County District Attorney Angel Myers McIlrath’s account of why a planned joint examination of the phone did not occur.
According to WAPT’s reporting on the cellphone dispute, Andrew Garrett, CEO of Garrett Discovery, says investigators and the family initially agreed to conduct a simultaneous examination with representatives from both sides participating.
Garrett says those conditions later changed, requiring the examination to take place at a state laboratory where attendance would be restricted to law-enforcement personnel.
McIlrath has said the family’s examiners began a private examination before the scheduled mutual extraction and later informed investigators that the joint examination would not occur.
Garrett disputes the circumstances that led to that decision, saying the family proceeded independently after learning its examiner would not be allowed to participate in the government examination.
According to Garrett, the forensic analysis included Snapchat and Instagram activity, GPS information, telephone records and Apple Health data.
Garrett also said investigators identified messages that appeared to have been deleted or unsent by their senders.
A preliminary report was provided to prosecutors in August, and three final forensic reports were delivered in September and considered by the grand jury, according to Garrett.
The cellphone has drawn attention throughout the investigation because Wells did not have it with him when his body was recovered.
What remains unanswered?
The grand jury’s decision answers one question: based on the evidence presented, jurors did not find sufficient evidence to indict anyone.
It does not establish exactly how Nolan Wells died.
The state autopsy says there was no fluid or debris within his airways.
Both medical examinations ultimately classified his cause and manner of death as undetermined.
Yet the grand jury characterized the circumstances as consistent with drowning.
Those findings are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
But together, they leave an important question unresolved:
If drowning could not be established medically as Nolan Wells’ cause of death, what evidence supports the grand jury’s conclusion that the circumstances surrounding his death were consistent with drowning?
