R1 — Uploaded document — extracted text
# Nolan Wells: Evidence Gaps, Grand-Jury Review, and Mississippi Disclosure Rules

**Record basis:** This is a bounded synthesis of the supplied public-record review and its cited sources. It distinguishes a document **not publicly disclosed** from a document **not shown publicly as collected**, and both from a fact that the record actually establishes. It is not an accusation or a finding of negligence, obstruction, homicide, accident, or responsibility.

## Concrete answer

**The public record describes a substantial grand-jury and investigative review, but it does not publish the underlying case file needed for independent, audit-level testing of the most consequential event questions.** The highest-value public-record gaps are: (1) original scene/recovery and search/SAR documentation; (2) native phone, carrier/cloud, and message-provenance material; (3) native vessel/tow/engine data and original Sea Tow transaction records; (4) original 911/CAD/Coast Guard/radio records; (5) complete medical-examiner casework; (6) native photos/videos with provenance; and (7) full ordinary interviews, occupancy documentation, and search logs. These are **public-disclosure gaps**, not proof that the records were never created, collected, preserved, or lawfully withheld.[1] [9]

**What is known to have been before the grand jury—but is not published as the underlying record—is unusually broad.** The filed report says the jury had full and open access to the complete JCSO/assisting-agency investigative file; considered witness testimony, physical and digital evidence, reports, interviews/recorded statements, images, videos/recordings, maps, GPS/location data, cellphone extractions, and subpoena-*duces tecum* responses; issued **132 subpoenas**; and heard **43 witnesses**. It also says the jury received the original Sea Tow call and the family examiner's 14-page preliminary phone report, 21-page final mobile-device report, and 261-page Snapchat Conversation Report.[1] The report proves that **the grand jury says it reviewed those categories and reports**; it does not publish or authenticate every underlying original, return, transcript, or exhibit.

**The official No True Bill and the medical findings are distinct.** The Jackson County grand jury unanimously returned a **No True Bill**—a decision not to return an indictment on the matter presented—not a medical certification.[1] [2] The disclosed State Medical Examiner report and independent final pathology report both certify **cause of death: undetermined; manner of death: undetermined**.[7] [8]

> **Prominent medical caveat — absence of water does not prove non-drowning.** The state report records no fluid or debris in the airways and an empty stomach; the independent report describes no water identified in the airway and no gastric contents including water. Both nevertheless retain an **undetermined** classification, and the independent pathologist describes drowning as a diagnosis of exclusion.[7] [8] Water-recovery guidance likewise cautions that there is no single pathognomonic autopsy sign of drowning, particularly where decomposition limits interpretation.[16] Those negatives therefore **do not prove non-drowning**; nor does recovery in/near water alone prove drowning.

## How to read the gap labels

| Label | Meaning in this report | It does **not** mean |
|---|---|---|
| **Publicly released** | The item itself, or a public report of it, is in the reviewed public file. | That every underlying source item was released. |
| **Described as obtained/reviewed, not released** | A public report says an agency, expert, or grand jury received/reviewed it, while the original item was not found in the public packet. | That the original is publicly available or that its contents can be reconstructed from a summary. |
| **Not shown publicly as obtained** | The reviewed public materials do not demonstrate collection or receipt. | That investigators never sought, received, retained, or lawfully withheld it. |
| **Recorded negative / genuinely unresolved** | A report expressly records a negative, or the public sources leave a question unresolved. | A broader causal conclusion beyond the source. |

## 1. What the public record actually establishes

### A. Filed grand-jury result and stated scope of review

The Jackson County report, filed September 18, 2026, says the jury was reconvened September 14, adjourned September 18, and unanimously returned a **No True Bill** in the Nolan Wells death investigation.[1] It reports 132 subpoenas, 43 witnesses, and broad access to the complete JCSO/assisting-agency file.[1]

The same report states that the jury considered the two pathologists' positions as **undetermined** and describes drowning as a diagnosis of exclusion. It reports that the body's position, condition, discovery time, and location were consistent with drowning; that statement is the grand jury's reported view of circumstances, **not** a replacement for either medical certification.[1] [7] [8]

### B. Medical record actually released

The signed state report identifies two posterior scalp contusions; records no skull fracture or brain hemorrhage, no fluid/debris in the airways, and an empty stomach; and lists ethanol from **chest decomposition fluid**, not identified blood. It certifies undetermined cause and manner.[7] The independent report likewise certifies undetermined cause and manner, describes marked decomposition and limitations of the cavity-fluid toxicology, and discusses its review of photographs, radiology, retained tissue, and investigative materials.[8]

**A documented quality concern—not just a missing public release:** After reviewing the original autopsy photographs, the independent forensic pathologist wrote that there were **no close-up photographs of the posterior-head injuries**. He further states that the original examiner identified two posterior scalp contusions but did not dissect that area or take histology from the bruising. He identified possible back/shoulder bruises in general photographs that the first report did not describe or specifically photograph. These are the second pathologist's specific assessments in his final report (pp. 5–7); the state examiner did **document and report** the scalp contusions, and general body photos do exist. Do not rephrase this as “no injuries were photographed at all” or assign the original autopsy to a county coroner; Mississippi says medicolegal autopsies are performed by qualified physicians at its State Medical Examiner's Office.[7] [8] [20]

He also wrote that, among the investigative documents he reviewed by September 1, he could not find a record specifically investigating the head injury. The **later** grand-jury report describes a witness's sworn account of a fall around 3:30 p.m.; the public cannot infer from the earlier document review that no follow-up ever occurred, or from the later account that the injury's cause was proved.[1] [8]

The [NAME forensic autopsy standard E3](https://name.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/2025%20NAME%20Forensic%20Autopsy%20Standards.pdf) calls for photographing injuries unobstructed and photographing **major** injuries with a scale; E2 calls for descriptive injury documentation. It is a **professional benchmark**, not by itself a finding of a Mississippi statutory violation or a determination that a particular contusion legally qualifies as “major.” A qualified independent reviewer would need the **complete** original photo set, scales, dissection/slide logs, contemporaneous protocols, decomposition constraints, and the examiner's explanation to assess compliance and consequences.[8] [11]

**Bounded inference:** Neither public report identifies a mechanism, actor, intent, exact injury time, negligence, obstruction, accident, or homicide.[7] [8]

### C. Core public chronology limits

The supplied timeline identifies approximately **3:45–4:31 p.m. on July 4** as an unresolved interval and identifies the beginning of sustained Garmin movement at 4:31 p.m. It warns that vessel GPS establishes vessel movement—not passenger identity—and phone-location data establishes device placement—not who possessed the phone.[9] It also documents a July 6 morning discovery near Horn Island's northwest/west end but not an authenticated exact coordinate, continuous recovery sequence, or scene-grade record set.[9]

## 2. Highest-priority evidence categories missing from the *public* record

The following are common documentation or preservation categories in a well-documented death, water-recovery, digital-evidence, marine-incident, or search case. Their public absence should be treated as a **request-and-review priority**, not a premise that evidence was never collected or that wrongdoing occurred.[10] [11] **Exception to the mere-nonpublication framing:** the independent examiner specifically reports the absence of close-up posterior-head injury images, dissection, and initial histology, as detailed in §1B; that is an affirmative professional criticism requiring evaluation, not simply a missing public exhibit.[8]

| Priority | Publicly missing or not publicly shown as obtained | Exact event question(s) the records could test | Critical limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| **1. Discovery, recovery, and search/SAR reconstruction** | NPS/ranger first-finder narrative; authenticated discovery/recovery photos/video with original metadata; scene diagram, measurements, depth/body-position observations; property/evidence and recovery-to-coroner chain; search-vessel/aircraft tracks; complete grid/POD logs; SAROPS case file, environmental inputs, and calibrated drift output.[1] [9] [10] [12] | **Where, in what condition, and through what sequence was the body discovered and transferred?** What searches occurred, where and when? Can an appropriately limited drift/search reconstruction be evaluated? | The public record supports an approximate July 6 discovery area and partial July 5 search activity, not audit-level drift, exact scene position, continuous coverage, or a calibrated body/person model.[9] A July 5 SAR request's 6:00 p.m. time is a modeling input, not proof of an event at 6:00 p.m.[9] |
| **2. Phone, carrier/cloud, and message provenance** | Native handset image and complete forensic package; raw location records with uncertainty/source/time-zone fields; tool logs, hashes, examiner worksheets, and full custody; carrier-certified CDR/subscriber/location returns; authenticated Apple/Google/Life360/cloud exports; Snapchat preservation/legal-process/provider return; message-level provenance table.[1] [9] [13] | **What does the device data actually show during the 3:45–4:31 p.m. interval and afterward?** What is the source, timing basis, integrity, uncertainty, and message history of each relevant artifact? Is there direct evidence of a phone-possession transition? | A phone point is not proof of its owner's location or possession. Recovery/deletion artifacts alone do not establish author, possessor, deletion intent, or a person's movement.[9] [13] |
| **3. Native vessel, engine/bilge, tow, and Sea Tow records** | Native ADM/GPX and complete point tables; hashes, extraction logs, chartplotter clock/DST/configuration audit; native tracks for other boats; ECU/ECM/NMEA/dealer diagnostic data; bilge tests/maintenance/electrical records; tow-line documentation; Sea Tow original audio, routing, dispatch/CAD, GPS, tow order, invoice, and cancellation records.[1] [9] [15] | **What do the native vessel records support about movement and timing?** Was a tow arranged or conducted, and what documentary records support the reported bilge/motor problem? | Vessel GPS does not identify occupants, and a slow track alone does not prove a tow. Native records could corroborate or qualify a summary, but cannot by themselves prove who was aboard, who held a phone, or what occurred ashore.[9] [15] |
| **4. Original emergency, dispatch, radio, and Coast Guard records** | Original 911/PSAP audio with native headers; carrier ANI/ALI/CDRs; CAD incident/narrative/unit data with audit trail; dispatcher notes; Coast Guard RCC/Sector/MISLE SAR case file; native VHF/radio/telephone recordings and synchronized logs.[9] [12] | **What is the authoritative notification, dispatch, search-tasking, and Sea Tow-call chronology?** How do original agency clocks and vendor/carrier records compare? | The public file has derivative scanner material and summarized/reproduced records. Archive-derived scanner time is not agency CAD time. The public materials preserve a 4:48 p.m. Sea Tow exhibit time but also a 4:36 p.m. conference narration; original metadata is not public.[9] |
| **5. Complete medical-examiner case file** | Complete state postmortem/autopsy file; original autopsy and scene photos, scaled injury documentation, diagrams, radiology files, histology slides/blocks/logs and lab records; specimen collection/retention chain; full toxicology report, methods, quality-control, and bench data; documentation of available peripheral blood/urine/vitreous; any case-directed drowning adjunct record.[7] [8] [11] [16] | **Can a qualified reviewer audit injury documentation, image interpretation, specimen source, toxicology limitations, and the basis for the disclosed undetermined opinions?** | These materials may sharpen documentation and interpretation; they do not automatically establish mechanism, actor, or cause/manner. The disclosed matrix is chest decomposition fluid; public non-disclosure does not prove other samples were not taken or tested.[7] [8] |
| **6. Original photos, video, and security-media provenance** | Native originals and adjacent sequences; EXIF/QuickTime/container data; original-device clock settings; upload/download/platform history; uploader/device testimony/access; hashes and custody; authenticated viewpoint/geolocation; itemized mapping to the grand-jury evidence list.[1] [9] [14] | **Do any displayed times correspond to original capture times?** What, if anything, do visual sequences establish about relative vessel configuration, location, or timing? | The supplied 3:23, 4:27, and 4:50 displays are not publicly authenticated as native event times. A screen clock, later export, or user-supplied time does not independently prove event time, Nolan's presence, boat identity, occupancy, or location.[9] [14] |
| **7. Ordinary interviews, occupancy record, and complete search logs** | Complete ordinary interview recordings/notes and metadata; authenticated passenger roster; boat-by-boat occupancy/phone-location matrix; evidence-receipt index; complete agency/volunteer search logs and interagency operational records.[1] [9] [10] | **Who can independently account for observed movements and transitions?** Which accounts were firsthand, how were discrepancies documented, and can search coverage be evaluated as a whole? | The public report says the jury heard 43 witnesses and reviewed interviews/statements. It does not publish a complete roster, all ordinary interviews, an occupancy ledger, or a single complete search-log package.[1] [9] Grand-jury testimony itself is subject to a separate secrecy rule.[2] |

### Why these requests are prioritized

The categories above are not a demand to create records retroactively. They are priority areas because they bear directly on the unresolved questions the public record cannot independently answer: the discovery/recovery sequence; the 3:45–4:31 p.m. interval; source and timing of digital artifacts; vessel/tow/communications chronology; and the medical context of a water recovery.[7] [8] [9]

## 3. What the grand jury is known to have seen or received—but the public does not have as underlying originals

The following list is limited to what the filed report actually says. It does **not** assume that every item within a category exists, remains held, is unsealed, or is releasable.

| Reported to the grand jury | What is public | What is not thereby public |
|---|---|---|
| **Complete JCSO and assisting-agency investigative file** | The report's statement of full/open access and its category list: testimony; physical/digital evidence; reports; interviews/recorded statements; images; video/recordings; maps; GPS/location data; phone extractions; subpoena responses.[1] | The complete case file, item-level evidence inventory, originals, metadata, hashes, and custody records. |
| **132 subpoenas and responses** | The number of subpoenas and that *duces tecum* responses were considered.[1] | Recipient names, subpoena text, production/return ledger, materials produced, objections, seal status, and any excluded/privileged material. A subpoena count is not a production inventory.[1] [2] |
| **43 witness appearances and other statements** | The report's witness count and its statement that certain recorded law-enforcement statements were considered.[1] | Unredacted grand-jury witness names/testimony, transcript/minutes, and the complete ordinary interview set. Rule 13.5 makes grand-jury witness names and testimony secret.[2] |
| **Family phone-forensic reports** | The report identifies the 14-page preliminary mobile report, 21-page final mobile-device report, and 261-page Snapchat Conversation Report, and says the jury considered them.[1] | Native handset image, raw artifacts, full reports/attachments, examiner notes, validation, hashes, raw locations, and custody chain. |
| **Original Sea Tow call** | The report expressly says the jury received it.[1] | Original audio export, carrier/vendor metadata, routing/dispatch record, GPS/tow order, invoice, cancellation, and authoritative timestamp basis. |
| **Medical and investigative material reviewed by the independent pathologist** | The public independent report says the pathologist reviewed original autopsy material, retained tissue, original photographs/radiology, Horn Island context, and investigative documents; the grand-jury report says he testified and had access to investigative materials.[1] [8] | The full original ME case file, raw image/radiology files, complete 750-page investigative binders, tissue/slides/logs, and toxicology laboratory casework. |

## 4. What Mississippi law requires, permits, and does **not** require

### A. Grand-jury process and secrecy

- **Subpoenas and sealed No True Bill list.** The county-grand-jury foreperson may issue or cause subpoenas to be issued, must keep and return a witness-name record, submit a written report, and return a No True Bill list to the circuit clerk **under seal**.[2]
- **Secrecy.** A grand juror must keep proceedings/actions secret for six months after final adjournment, and the name and testimony of any grand-jury witness must be kept secret.[2] The filed Wells report itself says the final-adjournment date was unknown as of the report, despite stating a September 18 adjournment; this report does not calculate a six-month date from that unresolved record detail.[1]
- **No automatic release consequence.** The six-month juror-secrecy period does **not** itself create a general public right to transcripts, testimony, subpoena returns, exhibits, or the complete investigative file when the period ends. Nor does grand-jury secrecy by itself prove that an independently held source document is permanently confidential. Custodian, court/seal status, and other disclosure law still matter.[2] [3]
- **No True Bill.** Rule 13.6 governs indictment/presentment and requires written reporting of a failure to indict. It does not make a No True Bill a medical cause/manner ruling or a command to publish every item reviewed.[2]

### B. Public-record access and law-enforcement files

- Mississippi's Public Records Act broadly defines public records and generally requires public bodies to provide nonexempt records pursuant to written procedures; a denial must be written and identify the specific exemption invoked.[3]
- An **incident report** is public within the statute's limited definition. A law-enforcement **investigative report** is exempt when held by law enforcement, although the agency may release all or part in its discretion.[3]
- Therefore, Mississippi law does **not** require a public online release of the complete JCSO investigative file merely because an investigation is publicly important or a grand jury returned a No True Bill. The cited Ethics Commission decision states that this investigative-report exemption has no automatic expiration on closure/dismissal.[3] [17]
- The Act does not require an agency to create a record it does not maintain, and it does not override a seal, court order, or another confidentiality statute.[3]

### C. Medical-examiner records, autopsy reports, and media

- The State Medical Examiner must keep complete records of relevant information. Medical examiners must inquire into cause and manner, reduce findings to writing, and promptly report; they may request court-issued subpoenas for persons/documents required by an investigation.[4] **Authority to request subpoenas is not a duty to subpoena every potential source.**
- When an autopsy is performed, § 41-61-65 requires the complete report to be submitted to the State Medical Examiner and copies furnished to the authorizing medical examiner, district attorney, and court clerk. One adult immediate family member or a qualifying representative/guardian is entitled to a copy **upon request**.[5] This is a defined family-access route—not a universal public right to the complete working file, laboratory materials, images, or every attachment.
- Autopsy media records—autopsy photos/video/audio and crime-scene photos/video/audio taken by or used by a coroner or medical examiner—are confidential under § 41-61-66. A surviving relative/designee may access them, and a court may permit access on a showing of good cause with conditions.[6] Thus, nonpublication of autopsy/ME-used media is legally unsurprising and is not evidence of improper withholding.
- **A distinct review route exists for a disputed medical-examiner determination:** § 41-61-65(3) permits family members or others who disagree to petition the State Medical Examiner and present written argument; if disagreement remains, the petitioner may seek circuit-court review, where a hearing is discretionary and the statute assigns petition/hearing costs to the petitioner.[5] This provides a procedure for review, not proof that the current undetermined classification is erroneous.
- The statutory requirement to obtain or attempt postmortem blood, urine, and/or vitreous applies to public-interest death investigations **where an autopsy will not be performed**.[4] It should not be misstated as a case-specific legal finding that such specimens had to be obtained in this autopsied case. Professional water-recovery guidance may recommend particular matrices when available, but guidance is not proof that a particular test was legally required or feasible.[11] [16]

### D. Does an established documentation failure have civil or criminal consequences?

**It could be professionally significant without automatically satisfying either legal test.** The independent pathologist's specific criticism of absent close-up images, dissection, and histology should be evaluated as an actual alleged **quality-of-examination issue**, rather than dismissed as a mere public-release gap.[8] [11] But a civil negligence or malpractice theory would require case-specific analysis of the applicable duty, breach, causation and compensable harm, plus defenses. Mississippi § 41-61-65(2) gives a medical examiner/physician **conditional** good-faith statutory-compliance civil immunity; the Mississippi Tort Claims Act has additional fact-dependent governmental exemptions. These are **not** proof of blanket immunity or an advance ruling on this examiner's acts.[5] [18]

For a possible **criminal** characterization, Mississippi's physical-evidence-tampering statute (§ 97-9-125) requires intentional destruction, concealment, removal or alteration with specified intent, or other defined knowing/intentional conduct. An omitted photograph or unperformed histology alone does **not** establish those elements; evidence of intent or another charged offense would be needed.[19] This report does not determine a disciplinary breach, civil liability, or a crime.

## 5. Practical, lawful next questions for the public record

These are **record-status questions**, not accusations. They preserve the distinction between disclosure, collection, and existence.

1. **Ask each relevant custodian for a written, item-specific response.** For a request to a public body, identify the record category, date range, and preferred redaction rather than asking only for a “complete file.” A written denial must state the exemption relied upon; nonexempt segregable material should be produced after redaction.[3]
2. **Separate holders and legal routes.** The JCSO/other law-enforcement agencies, circuit clerk, State Medical Examiner, NPS, MDMR, Coast Guard, 911/PSAP, carriers, Sea Tow, and private platform providers do not necessarily hold the same materials or operate under the same access law. A public grand-jury report does not establish which custodian holds which original.[1]
3. **For medical records, distinguish text report from media.** A qualifying adult immediate family member/representative may use the § 41-61-65 report-request route; autopsy/ME-used media have the separate surviving-relative and good-cause-court routes in § 41-61-66.[5] [6]
   A person disputing the medical-examiner determination has the separate written-petition and possible circuit-court-review route in § 41-61-65(3); it is not the same as a public-record request.[5]
4. **For grand-jury materials, seek legal/custodian guidance rather than assuming a release date.** The public record does not show a public transcript/minutes, itemized subpoena-return ledger, disclosure order, or the controlling final-adjournment date for applying Rule 13.5.[1] [2]
5. **Preservation and provenance questions should be specific.** For each digital/video/vessel/communications request, ask whether a native original exists, its format, creation/acquisition date, hash or integrity control, source device/system, time-zone/clock basis, chain of custody, retention policy, and whether it was produced, withheld, sealed, or destroyed under policy. This can clarify status without assuming misconduct.[9] [13] [14] [15]

## Bottom line

The defensible conclusion is **not** that the case lacked investigation. The public report affirmatively describes a large review: 132 subpoenas, 43 witnesses, a complete investigative file, phone-forensic reports, digital/GPS evidence, images/video, subpoena responses, original Sea Tow call, and pathologist testimony.[1] The defensible conclusion is also **not** that every normally useful record is public or known to have been collected.

The key distinction is this:

> **Known reviewed is not the same as publicly released; not publicly released is not the same as never collected; and a No True Bill is not the same as a medical determination.**

The currently disclosed medical conclusions remain **undetermined cause and undetermined manner of death**.[7] [8] The absence of water in the airway or stomach is a recorded observation—not proof of non-drowning—and should not be used to override those conclusions.[7] [8] [16]

---

## Sources

[1]: https://www.co.jackson.ms.us/DocumentCenter/View/1624/Redacted-Grand-Jury-Report "Jackson County redacted grand-jury report, filed September 18, 2026"

[2]: https://courts.ms.gov/research/rules/msrulesofcourt/Rules%20of%20Criminal%20Procedure%20Post-070123.pdf "Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules 13.3–13.6"

[3]: https://www.ethics.ms.gov/thepublicrecordact "Mississippi Ethics Commission, Mississippi Public Records Act"

[4]: https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2024/html/HB/1000-1099/HB1068SG.htm "Mississippi Legislature, 2024 amendment to § 41-61-63"

[5]: https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2021/html/HB/0900-0999/HB0974SG.htm "Mississippi Legislature, § 41-61-65 report and review provisions"

[6]: https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/title-41/chapter-61/mississippi-medical-examiner-act-of-1986/section-41-61-66/ "Mississippi Code § 41-61-66 (2025), Christian's Law"

[7]: https://dam.tmz.com/document/57/o/2026/09/24/57e671baec2e475bb7fea9a8b8c2c545.pdf "State Medical Examiner postmortem report ME26-0514, publicly posted copy"

[8]: https://dam.tmz.com/document/47/o/2026/09/22/475259be9aab49288d6855e051feebdc.pdf "Roger A. Mitchell Jr., final independent autopsy report, September 14, 2026"

[9]: ../.work/case-timeline/NOLAN-WELLS-FACT-TIMELINE.md "Supplied local case timeline, especially lines 19–108"

[10]: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/308955.pdf "NIJ Death Investigation: A Guide for the Scene Investigator, 2024"

[11]: https://name.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/2025%20NAME%20Forensic%20Autopsy%20Standards.pdf "NAME Forensic Autopsy Performance Standards, 2025"

[12]: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5R/SARfactsInfo/SAROPSInforSheet.pdf "U.S. Coast Guard SAROPS information sheet"

[13]: https://www.swgde.org/documents/published-complete-listing/18-f-003-2/ "SWGDE Best Practices for Mobile Device Evidence Collection and Preservation"

[14]: https://www.swgde.org/documents/published-complete-listing/17-i-001-best-practices-for-maintaining-the-integrity-of-imagery/ "SWGDE Best Practices for Maintaining the Integrity of Imagery"

[15]: https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=zFDPlv7AnK2eNWRp2AgMkA "Garmin chartplotter user-data transfer guidance"

[16]: https://www.rcpath.org/static/a0eab7db-454b-4556-b9961ecfd8356307/Guidelines-on-autopsy-practice-Autopsy-for-bodies-recovered-from-water.pdf "Royal College of Pathologists, autopsy guidelines for bodies recovered from water"

[17]: https://www.ms.gov/msec/ethics/PublicRecord/Document/Order%20of%20Dismissal;%20R-22-009.pdf "Mississippi Ethics Commission, Coon v. Jackson Police Department, R-22-009"

[18]: https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/title-11/chapter-46/section-11-46-9/ "Mississippi Code § 11-46-9, governmental-entity liability exemptions"

[19]: https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/title-97/chapter-9/article-3/section-97-9-125/ "Mississippi Code § 97-9-125, tampering with physical evidence"

[20]: https://www.dps.ms.gov/faq "Mississippi Department of Public Safety, who performs medicolegal autopsies"

R2 — Document extraction record
{"format": ".md", "ocr_pages": [], "method": "embedded text", "limitations": "Automatic text extraction, not independent verification. OCR can misread words, symbols and numbers. Layout, images, charts, tracked changes and table relationships may not be fully represented. Spreadsheet formulas are not recalculated; saved values can be stale. English OCR only.", "filename": "NOLAN-WELLS-EVIDENCE-GAPS-AND-DISCLOSURE.md", "sha256": "83553f5ae2eddfe12b19154f348177d7b40f5375a37055df30bed0765b38adfc"}