Mississippi, this is exactly why I keep asking questions. When I first wrote about Nolan Xavier Wells in July, I did not accuse anyone of killing him. I did not declare that his death was racially motivated, and I did not ask people to ignore evidence simply because the circumstances surrounding his death were difficult to understand. I argued that an 18-year-old young man went on a Fourth of July outing and never came home. His family deserved a thorough investigation and honest answers about what happened to their son. Three months later, I still believe that.
On Sept. 21, a Jackson County grand jury returned a no true bill, meaning no one was indicted in connection with Nolan’s death. The district attorney and the grand jury’s findings say that investigators examined extensive evidence including witness statements, cellphone and location records, photographs, videos, and forensic information. The grand jury found insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against anyone and did not find evidence establishing that Nolan’s death was racially motivated. Those findings matter. Anyone serious about following the evidence has to acknowledge them, even when the outcome is not what some people expected.
But acknowledging the grand jury’s decision does not require us to pretend every question surrounding Nolan’s death has been answered. In fact, information released since that decision has helped clarify some claims while leaving other questions unresolved. Attorneys representing Nolan’s family released medical findings and cellphone evidence.
The Mississippi Free Press has since published additional reporting explaining what the digital evidence actually shows. Some of that reporting challenges claims circulating on social media, and we should be willing to correct those claims. None of this proves somebody killed Nolan. But the evidence also does not establish with medical certainty how he died.
Keyword: ‘Undetermined’
The Mississippi State Medical Examiner’s autopsy findings say that Nolan had two contusions beneath the scalp on the back of his head. The report also documented an absence of fluid or debris in his airways. Those findings are important, but they should not be stretched beyond what medical science can establish. The absence of fluid in the airways does not automatically rule out drowning, just as bruising on the back of the head does not automatically prove an assault. Medical evidence has to be considered in its entirety, not reduced to one finding that supports a particular theory.
What matters most is that the Mississippi medical examiner classified both Nolan’s cause of death and manner of death as undetermined. An independent examination the family commissioned reached the same classification. The independent examination also documented recent blunt force injuries to the back of his head but did not establish precisely how those injuries occurred or whether they caused or contributed to his death.
The grand jury reviewed evidence that Nolan may have fallen awkwardly from a boat earlier that day. That is a possible explanation for the injuries, but the available medical findings do not conclusively establish their origin.
District Attorney Angel Myers McIlrath has emphasized that neither autopsy identified a fatal injury and neither ruled out drowning. That point deserves to be acknowledged. It would be misleading to suggest that the medical evidence rules out an accidental death when it does not. But there is also a difference between identifying drowning as a possible or likely explanation based on the circumstances and medically determining that drowning caused someone’s death. Neither medical examiner reached that definitive conclusion.
That leaves a legitimate question. What caused those injuries, and what ultimately caused Nolan’s death? Asking that does not accuse anyone of hurting him. It does not turn a bruise into proof of murder. It simply recognizes that the medical professionals who examined his body could not definitively determine how he died.
A Phone Left Behind
The cellphone evidence adds another layer to this case, although recent reporting has made it necessary to separate what is established from what has been misunderstood. Andrew Garrett, the forensic expert Nolan’s family retained, said that Nolan last unlocked his phone at approximately 2:18 p.m. on July 4. Garrett explained that the phone remained locked until Nolan’s parents received it early the following morning.
Mississippi Today’s reporting described location information showing that the phone traveled from Horn Island back to the mainland with members of the group while Nolan reportedly remained on the island. That distinction matters. The cellphone’s movements do not establish Nolan’s movements after the phone left his possession.
The question is not whether somebody could have physically carried his phone back to the mainland. The evidence indicates that the phone returned without him. The larger question is what happened to Nolan after the friends who departed with the phone left the island. Investigators received accounts from witnesses about his activities, including reports that he remained with other people after some of his friends departed. Those accounts matter, and they should be considered alongside the forensic evidence rather than dismissed simply because they do not fit a particular theory.
The cellphone evidence also became the subject of considerable confusion over deleted Snapchat messages. During a Sept. 24 press conference, Garrett explained that messages had been deleted from conversations associated with Nolan’s phone. Some people interpreted those statements to mean that somebody had unlocked the device after Nolan last used it and deliberately removed messages. But Garrett subsequently clarified that this was not what his examination established.
In a Sept. 29 Mississippi Free Press report, journalists Amy Schafer and Nick Judin documented his explanation that Snapchat users could delete or recall messages remotely without unlocking Nolan’s phone. Garrett explicitly rejected the suggestion that his findings established somebody had gained access to the device and intentionally removed messages.
That clarification is significant, and anyone discussing this case responsibly should acknowledge it. Deleted or recalled Snapchat messages are not automatically evidence of a cover-up. They do not prove someone tampered with Nolan’s cellphone. They certainly do not establish that a crime occurred. We cannot claim to care about the truth while ignoring evidence that contradicts a theory we may have previously believed.
At the same time, the communications themselves remain relevant to understanding Nolan’s final hours. On Oct. 6, the Mississippi Free Press reported on a publicly released Snapchat log containing private messages and group conversations examined by Garrett’s firm.
Some exchanges discussed Nolan’s whereabouts after other members of the group left the island. One message described Nolan being seen around 6 p.m. with another person, although the identities and circumstances could not be independently established from the redacted material alone. Other messages reflected friends trying to determine where Nolan had gone and whom he might have been with.
None of those conversations proves wrongdoing. But they demonstrate why establishing a reliable timeline of his final movements remains important.
There is also a disagreement over what cellphone evidence investigators actually received. Garrett has maintained that his team provided the district attorney with the recovered Snapchat messages and forensic information. McIlrath has disputed that characterization, saying her office received selected findings rather than the complete digital extraction.
Both accounts deserve scrutiny. If additional relevant records exist that investigators have not received, those records should be provided for appropriate review. If the necessary information has already been shared, that should be clarified. Transparency should not be something we demand from only one side. Law enforcement and the attorneys representing Nolan’s family should both be willing to explain what evidence has been provided, reviewed and verified.
‘Due Process Matters’
This is the part of the case that I believe too many people are trying to force into two opposing camps. One side seems to believe that because a grand jury declined to indict anyone, continued questions amount to an attack on the investigation. The other side appears to believe that unanswered questions automatically prove something criminal happened.
Neither position is supported by the evidence currently available. There is room between unquestioning acceptance and unsupported accusation. That is where I believe we should pursue the truth.
A grand jury and a medical examiner answer different questions. The grand jury considered whether the evidence supported bringing criminal charges against someone. Its answer was no. The medical examiners considered what caused Nolan’s death and how that death should be classified. Their answer remains undetermined. Those conclusions are not contradictory. There can be insufficient evidence to charge anyone with a crime while there is also insufficient medical evidence to determine exactly how a person died.
That distinction is why I continue to believe civil-rights advocates have a legitimate role in this case. McIlrath has criticized misinformation, public accusations and threats surrounding the investigation. She has a legitimate point. Nobody should be convicted by Facebook, TikTok, Instagram or public suspicion. Nolan’s friends and other people connected to this case should not receive threats or be publicly accused of murder without evidence.
The Mississippi Free Press has reported that several friends and their families say they have faced serious threats since Nolan’s death. That is unacceptable. Due process matters, even when emotions are high and families are grieving.
But misinformation and civil-rights advocacy are not the same thing. Ben Crump standing beside Nolan’s parents and asking for records, independent examinations and additional review is not the same thing as someone on social media identifying a person as a murderer without evidence. Those actions should not be grouped together. We should be able to criticize reckless accusations while still respecting a family’s right to seek independent answers. In fact, that distinction becomes even more important when the case attracts national attention and people begin treating speculation as established fact.
‘Advocacy Is Not a Verdict’
As a Black man from Mississippi, I understand why that distinction matters. Black families in this country have a long history of turning to lawyers, journalists, ministers, organizers and civil-rights organizations when they believe they are not receiving adequate answers from institutions. That history does not mean every suspicion is correct. It does not mean every unexplained death involving a Black person was caused by racism. It does not allow us to ignore evidence that contradicts what we might believe happened.
But our history should also remind us that asking institutions to explain their conclusions is not an attack on those institutions. Trust is not built by telling people to stop asking questions. Trust is built when evidence is examined fairly, when mistakes are corrected and when conclusions can withstand scrutiny.
Advocacy is not a verdict. Asking questions is not a conviction. Seeking an independent autopsy is not proof that the first examination was dishonest. Examining cellphone records is not proof of a cover-up. These are tools people may use to better understand the evidence when a family still has unanswered questions about the death of someone they love. And when those tools produce findings that challenge earlier assumptions, responsible advocates should acknowledge that, too.
The evidence we have today establishes several things.
A grand jury reviewed an extensive investigation and found insufficient evidence to indict anyone. The medical examiners documented injuries to the back of Nolan’s head but did not determine that those injuries caused his death. His official cause and manner of death remain undetermined. Cellphone-location information indicates that his phone returned to the mainland while he reportedly remained on Horn Island.
Digital forensic examination identified Snapchat messages that had been deleted or recalled, but the family’s own expert clarified that the device remained locked and that those deletions did not establish unauthorized access or criminal intent. Additional messages have provided possible details about Nolan’s movements, but they have not conclusively established how he died.
None of that proves homicide. None of it proves a racial crime. None of it permits us to accuse Nolan’s friends or anyone else of causing his death. But neither does the grand jury’s decision transform an undetermined cause of death into a medically established accidental drowning.
That is the gap I believe we should be honest enough to acknowledge.
And there is another important detail. The grand jury’s report, made available through Jackson County, expressly recognized that the matter could be presented again if credible evidence emerges suggesting Nolan’s death was not accidental. That does not mean new evidence of a crime has been discovered. It means the legal process itself recognizes the possibility of reconsideration if the facts warrant it. Respecting the grand jury’s decision today does not require rejecting credible evidence that may emerge tomorrow.
‘Holding All of Those Truths’
Nolan Wells was 18 years old. Before this case became a national conversation, before the lawyers, press conferences, grand jury reports, and social-media theories, Nolan was somebody’s son, friend and teammate. His family now has an answer to one important question. A grand jury did not find sufficient evidence to charge anyone criminally in connection with his death. What his parents still do not have is a medically established answer to the most basic question any parent would ask after burying a child: How did my son die?
Mississippi’s own medical record still answers that question with one word: undetermined.
That is not an accusation. It is not proof of a crime. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is the official medical classification of Nolan Wells’ death.
When I first wrote about Nolan, I said loving Mississippi and questioning Mississippi have never been opposites. I believe that even more strongly today. Respecting the grand jury does not require us to stop asking how Nolan died. Supporting Nolan’s family does not require us to accuse innocent people. Believing in civil-rights advocacy does not require us to ignore evidence that cuts against a particular theory. And demanding accountability means being willing to hold everyone involved—including public officials, attorneys, advocates and ourselves—to the same standard of truth.
We should be capable of holding all of those truths at the same time.
The grand jury has answered the question before it about criminal charges. The medical record has not answered the question of how Nolan Wells died. Until credible evidence provides that answer, his family’s request for greater clarity should not be treated as unreasonable.
A no true bill deserves to be respected for what it means.
It should not be used to claim an answer that the medical evidence itself has not provided.
Read the Mississippi Free Press’ full coverage of Nolan Wells here.
This MFP Voices opinion essay reflects the personal opinion of its author(s). The column does not necessarily represent the views of the Mississippi Free Press, its staff or board members. To submit an opinion for the MFP Voices section, send up to 1,200 words and sources fact-checking the included information to voices@mississippifreepress.org. We welcome a wide variety of viewpoints.
Mississippi Free Press stories are always free because we believe everyone should have access to quality journalism. Donations from readers like you make that possible. Please click here to give to help sustain and grow vital, people-over-power journalism for Mississippians.
Readers can sign up for our free newsletters here.
