PASCAGOULA, Miss. — A Mississippi grand jury unanimously declined to indict anyone in Nolan Wells’ death. Both forensic pathologists who examined the case left the 18-year-old’s cause and manner of death undetermined.

In July, USA Herald reported that the independent Nolan Wells autopsy left his cause of death undetermined. Those preliminary findings did not establish homicide.

District Attorney Angel Myers McIlrath announced the decision Sept. 21. Wells disappeared during a July 4 outing with friends to Horn Island. His body was found two days later. The jury found no credible evidence linking the group’s boat passengers to criminal conduct in his death, Reuters reported.

Reporting note: This article presents documented findings, correspondence and attributed statements. It reflects the available record, not the author’s personal views. Reporting a finding, statement or allegation does not constitute endorsement.

What the Nolan Wells grand jury reviewed

The grand jury met Sept. 14-18 and returned a “no true bill,” declining to issue an indictment. Its investigation included 132 subpoenas, testimony from 43 witnesses and physical and digital evidence. In addition, jurors reviewed phone records, photographs, videos and GPS information, according to Mississippi Today’s account of the proceedings.

The released report describes the evidence jurors considered and their conclusions. However, it does not reproduce the complete investigative file or witness testimony.

Nolan Wells’ cause of death remains undetermined

The jury found that the location, condition and position of Wells’ body, along with its discovery, were consistent with drowning. Nevertheless, both the state medical examiner and the family’s independent pathologist left the cause and manner of death undetermined. The Associated Press reported both findings.

The grand jury report says neither expert ruled out accidental drowning. It describes bruising on the back of Wells’ head as nonfatal and says the experts disagreed about suspected bruising on his buttocks and shoulder.

A witness testified that Wells slipped awkwardly off a boat around 3:30 p.m. July 4. However, the witness could not say whether Wells struck his head. According to that testimony, Wells continued socializing afterward without appearing injured.

Jurors acknowledged that the exact cause of the head injury remained uncertain. They could not conclusively attribute the bruising to the fall.

Findings address the boats and online allegations

Jurors found that Wells chose to remain on Horn Island after the Triton, Palm Beach and Tideline departed. They also found that he had not been involved in a physical altercation or argument that day.

Furthermore, the report says GPS data and security footage confirmed the passengers’ accounts. Jurors also found that the boat occupants cooperated fully with investigators.

According to WLOX’s reporting on the findings, the Triton experienced a bilge pump and motor malfunction. It took on water and required a short tow by another vessel.

The jury rejected online interpretations of the Sea Tow distress call after reviewing the original recording. It also determined that circulating pool-party photographs predated July 4 and had no evidentiary value to the death investigation.

Those conclusions address allegations that spread during the investigation. They form part of the jury’s stated basis for rejecting claims of criminal wrongdoing.

Letters document the dispute over the phone

Correspondence reviewed by USA Herald shows weeks of disagreement over arrangements for examining Nolan Wells’ cellphone. The exchanges address scheduling, consent, access to forensic data and the delivery of reports.

In an Aug. 11 letter, family attorney Ahmad Smith said the legal team remained willing to arrange a joint examination. He disputed suggestions that it had refused to cooperate and requested dates for the family’s pathologist to review additional materials.

McIlrath responded Aug. 12 that investigators had awaited follow-up from attorney Eric Hertz since a July 15 meeting. She said the FBI had agreed to examine the phone and requested its delivery by the morning of Aug. 14.

However, Smith’s Aug. 13 response challenged that timetable. He said the family was outside Mississippi and had received less than 48 hours’ notice.

He also said the parties had not agreed on procedures for the examination. His requested terms covered its scope, chain of custody, preservation, access to resulting data and return of the device.

On Aug. 17, McIlrath offered an Aug. 19 examination at the Mississippi Cyber Initiative laboratory. She said investigators needed the parents’ consent because the state lacked a legal basis to compel production and search of the phone.

Smith replied Aug. 18 that the parents anticipated delivering it as requested. The next day, however, McIlrath acknowledged their decision to use independent examiners. Her Aug. 19 letter identified them as Andrew Garrett and Christian Garrett of Garrett Discovery.

That letter requested the complete raw extraction, resulting reports and technical information about the examination. Specifically, McIlrath requested any limitations, processing filters and confirmation that the supplied files were complete and unaltered.

What the submission emails establish

Smith’s Aug. 28 email listed a preliminary phone examination report as an attachment. He said the work continued and anticipated a final report within 48 hours.

The prosecutor’s office asked about the delivery Sept. 1. In response, Smith wrote Sept. 2 that the examination had taken longer than expected. He said the final materials should be ready soon.

At 10:32 a.m. Sept. 16, Smith sent an email titled “Nolan Wells – Final Phone Extraction Report.” It listed two attachments: a final report and a Snapchat communications report, both bearing Sept. 14 dates in their filenames.

Smith described the forensic report as finalized and requested confirmation of receipt. Although the email documents that submission, it does not establish whether raw extraction files accompanied the reports.

The grand jury’s report confirms that jurors considered the preliminary phone report, which ran 14 pages. They also reviewed a 21-page final report and a 261-page Snapchat report. In addition, jurors received the correspondence between the prosecutor and the family’s legal team.

Separately, McIlrath later said she had never received the full extraction data or complete extraction report. She also acknowledged that jurors considered 282 pages of phone reports, according to public radio’s account of her statement.

The documents establish that reports reached the jury. The scope of the underlying data supplied remains a separate issue in the prosecutor’s account.

The independent autopsy review moved forward

The correspondence also records arrangements for Dr. Roger Mitchell, the family’s independent pathologist, to examine additional materials. In an Aug. 20 letter, McIlrath offered access to retained tissue, photographs, medical reports and the investigative file.

Her Sept. 14 letter said Mitchell had reviewed the case file, visited Horn Island and examined Wells’ larynx and hyoid bone. It also said he had received histology slides for review.

McIlrath requested his finalized addendum by noon Sept. 16 if the family wanted him to testify. In response, Smith’s Sept. 15 email listed that addendum as an attachment. The documented submission therefore preceded her deadline.

The jury heard from the family’s pathologist. Its report says he confirmed that retaining the internal neck structures was appropriate forensic practice. It also says he received the other organs, including the lungs and stomach, as public radio reported.

An earlier letter requires its full context

The report cites the family legal team’s earlier statements about information gathered during its independent investigation. An Aug. 13 letter shows how Smith qualified that account at the time.

Smith wrote that the team had reviewed tips and followed up with people whose information appeared relevant. He said that process had not identified additional witnesses whose information about potential criminal activity warranted referral to the prosecutor.

However, he added that the team continued to vet potential witnesses. The letter also said the family was not then requesting that additional materials go to the jury. At the same time, Smith reserved privileged and other protected material.

That correspondence preceded the later phone reports and autopsy addendum. Its timing and qualifications form part of the record of what the family’s lawyers communicated to prosecutors.

Nolan Wells’ family continues seeking answers

Attorney Ben Crump responded to the decision with a statement titled “No True Bill Does Not Resolve How Nolan Wells Died.”

Crump questioned how Wells sustained the documented injuries and continued seeking an explanation for his death. Public radio reported that the independent autopsy report recommended continued investigation because circumstances surrounding his entry into the water remained unresolved.

The charging decision leaves no indictment from this grand jury review. Meanwhile, the medical findings remain undetermined, and the family disputes the adequacy of the explanation provided.

The jury’s report calls for further consideration if credible evidence suggesting a nonaccidental death emerges. It also extends sympathy to Wells’ family and says the evidence convinced jurors of his outstanding character.