The Megan Boswell Trial
by:
Murry Lee
Posted: Feb 11, 2025 / 08:53 AM EST
Updated: Feb 11, 2025 / 06:13 PM EST
LIVE: TRIAL UPDATE - 2 OF 2 - PM
Tuesday marks the sixth day jurors will have spent in the courtroom weighing Megan Boswell’s fate
Trial resumes following lunch recess:
Durant continues testimony
When the trial resumed, Durant continued to review photos and messages. Those included a picture of Boswell and Wood in Blowing Rock, North Carolina on Jan. 20, 2020 and a message Boswell sent to another person verifying that is where they went.
The prosecution also presented several Instagram photos of Wood that Boswell posted, some of which expressed excitement for a new home that the two would share.
Massengill then began to ask Durant if he reviewed conversations with Perry and if he knew who Perry was in regard to Boswell. Durant affirmed that he had checked those conversations and knew who he was. Durant told the jury that Boswell sent Perry at least a dozen messages every day (typically about Evelyn) from Nov. 1, 2019 until Dec. 3, 2019.
After Dec. 3, 2019, Durant said those messages dropped off significantly and no new images of Evelyn were sent to Perry after that time.
Scott had no questions for Durant, and he was released but could be recalled if needed.
Witness: Marla Gray
Marla Gray, the next witness called, is a special agent assigned to analysis with the TBI crime lab in Knoxville. She told Deputy District Attorney William Harper that she has worked about 1,600 cases in the forensics field during her time with the TBI and has been qualified as an expert witness in previous cases, some in Sullivan County.
Goodwin approved qualifying Gray as an expert in serology (examination of blood serums) and forensic analysis.
She informed the jury of the TBI’s processes and procedures when handling evidence for cases at its labs. Gray told Harper she received multiple items that were sent to the lab as part of the investigation into Evelyn’s disappearance and death.
Gray said her first task was to build a genetic profile for Evelyn using items of hers while she was still considered missing. Gray was looking for items that may have had her drool on them at one point to extract DNA.
Harper provided Gray with a copy of a report she wrote with her first findings while attempting to build Evelyn’s genetic profile.
Gray confirmed she was sent the trash can that Evelyn’s body was found in. According to Gray, the trash can was sent to the TBI’s crime lab in Nashville for latent print testing. Gray said swabs were also collected from the trash can to test for DNA.
She was also sent items from the trash can and the bags inside. Gray said TBI Special Agent Brian Fraley called her on the night that Evelyn was found to confirm that DNA would be extractable from the partially decayed body.
Gray said once she was able to verify Evelyn’s DNA through other clothing, she did match it to Evelyn’s belongings when she was found.
Harper also produced a copy of a March 25, 2020 report that Gray penned. In that report, Gray listed her findings for the items in the trash can. The first item she showed the jury was the chewing gum taken from inside the trash can. Gray said when she performed analysis on the gum, it was a match for Boswell.
The next item Gray was given was a cold and cough medicine bottle found in the trash can. From the exterior, Gray said there was a mixture of DNA, at least one unidentified male. The findings of that item did not provide any matches.
A Dasani water bottle was also examined by Gray. She said the mouth area and inside of the cap came back with a mixture of DNA, with Boswell being the main contributor. A Great Value water bottle was also analyzed. In that bottle, Gray said there was a positive match for Evelyn. A third water bottle was also handed to Gray, and she said testing returned a match for Boswell. A fourth water bottle was also tested, but Gray said not enough DNA was found to identify a contributor.
Next, the prosecution had Gray share her findings when she tested a white pillow. She said it was positive for a mixture of DNA profiles. The center found a mixture of Evelyn and an unidentified male. The outer areas of the pillow also returned a mixture of inconclusive DNA from three people.
A stained pillow was given to Gray next. However, she said analysis was inconclusive on which DNA profiles were present on it, and the stains were determined to not be blood.
Gray also analyzed a baby bottle that was recovered. The nipple and exterior returned matches for Evelyn’s DNA. Three blue gloves were tested; however, limited DNA profiles resulted in inconclusive results. She did note that an unidentified male’s DNA was found inside two of the gloves in a mixture. Harper asked Gray to confirm that Evelyn’s DNA could not be confirmed to be on the gloves, which she did. Hairs were also found on the gloves, but Gray said the TBI does not test human hair.
Gray said she spoke with other investigators multiple times about which items had value as evidence. She told Harper that due to the amount of decomposition fluid on the blanket Evelyn’s body was wrapped in, it was initially not tested. Gray said decomposition fluid can effectively scramble testing. However, she and other agents later decided to test areas of the blanket that were not stained, but the results were inconclusive.
Harper then asked Gray about the aluminum foil that was found wrapped around Evelyn’s head in the trash can. Gray told the court she conducted tests on the pieces of foil. She said despite numerous tests and blood being present on parts of the foil, the lab was unable to return any conclusive DNA results so they were sent to another lab.
Gray conducted testing on other items in the same bag as Evelyn, including a tissue, a black spoon and baby food. The tissue was stained with what appeared to be blood, and Gray said results returned a definitive match for Boswell.
Gray was also assigned to the TBI’s violent crime response team in 2020. At the time, she executed a search of a red Chevrolet Cruze in Middlesboro, Kentucky. However, she said no blood or evidence was collected from the vehicle.
On Feb. 28, 2020, Gray was also part of a team searching for blood and Evelyn at Boswell’s former Sugar Hollow Rd home. According to Gray, no blood or items of evidentiary value were found or collected.
Scott began his cross-examination and asked Gray to confirm that the inside of two of the blue gloves from the trash can had unidentified male DNA inside. She told him, yes, they did.
Gray told the jury that the TBI lab follows testing guidelines put in place by the FBI, and labs with the same accreditation would not have better testing capabilities.
Scott also asked if Gray could provide her notes on hairs that were collected along with the gloves but not tested. She told him her notes stated the hairs were dark in color. She also confirmed to Scott that male DNA was found on the medicine bottle and in the center of the white pillow with Evelyn’s.
Gray told Scott she was never provided Wood’s DNA, but she did not need it due to the limited traces of male DNA found. Harper asked her why she did not need Wood’s, and Gray testified that there was not enough male DNA present on any of the items to match it to any male’s DNA profile.
Gray was released from the witness stand.
Witness: David Hoover
The next witness called was David Hoover, who works as a special agent forensics scientist in the latent print division at the TBI’s Nashville crime lab. He estimated that he had conducted tens of thousands of print examinations in his nearly 25 years at the crime lab. He told Harper he has previously been qualified as an expert witness in the field of latent print identification.
Goodwin declared Hoover an expert in the trial.
Hoover defined latent prints left by the hands and feet to the jury and how they are left on pieces of evidence. He also explained what examiners look for when analyzing latent prints for identification. Hoover said latent prints include more than just fingerprints; identification can be made with latent prints from the palm, knuckle joints and even feet.
He told the jury that rough and dirty surfaces break up the oil and traces left behind to form a latent print so smooth, clean surfaces make the best testing sites.
Harper provided Hoover with the trash can Evelyn’s body was found in on March 6, 2020, Hoover confirmed that he tested the trash can for latent prints. He told jurors that he tested the trash can itself, a manufacturer’s sticker on the side of the can and pieces of the rim that he removed.
While referring to his notes, Hoover told the court that he put the trash can through a full gauntlet of latent print testing. He found a palm print on the sticker and a partial fingerprint from the very tip of a finger was found on the rim. He was confident the palm print on the sticker was a child’s due to the sticker, and he was able to exclude it as Boswell’s by using a comparison. The fingerprint on the rim was inconclusive because of the location on the body.
Hoover said at the time of his initial testing, he did not have good rolled prints for Boswell for comparison. However, law enforcement did provide him with better prints at a later time. Hoover said the additional prints still were unable to aid in his comparison.
A different technique was employed to get usable prints from Boswell that would allow him to compare the rim fingerprint, but again, Hoover said results were inconclusive.
Eventually, Hoover traveled to Blountville himself to collect prints from Boswell himself that were of a good enough quality for comparison. After collecting the prints himself, Hoover testified that he was able to match the fingerprint on the rim with Boswell.
Harper then asked Hoover to share his findings from testing the pieces of aluminum foil wrapped around Evelyn’s head. Hoover said his initial findings did not discover any usable fingerprints due to the wrinkles on the foil and the trash and decomposition covering parts of the foil.
However, Hoover later learned of additional pieces of aluminum foil that were not tested. He was able to find two prints, one of which was unidentifiable. The other fingerprint matched Boswell’s left middle finger, according to Hoover.
Hoover tested other items in the trash can, like a candy wrapper, but no matches were made. He also tested the trash bag Evelyn was found in and stated that he did find identifiable fingerprints: Boswell’s right middle and ring finger.
One other unidentifiable impression was also found on the trash bag, but Hoover said it could not be determined from what part of the body it originated or matched to an identity.
Hoover told Harper that the only print he could identify as not being Boswell’s was the small one on the sticker.
The court then entered a short recess.
Scott began cross-examining Hoover when the trial resumed. Hoover told him it was impossible to determine when the fingerprints were placed on any of the items. According to Hoover, several factors determine how long a fingerprint can remain on a surface. The environment a surface is in largely determines how long a fingerprint stays in a salvageable condition.
Hoover was released as a witness.
Witness: Dr. Matrina Schmidt
The state called Dr. Matrina Schmidt, a forensic pathologist, as its next witness. Dr. Schmidt is an associate medical examiner in Florida. She was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology for the trial by Goodwin.
In March 2020, Dr. Schmidt was working at the William L. Jenkins Forensic Center and also served as an associate professor at East Tennessee State University.
Dr. Schmidt responded to the scene on Muddy Creek Rd the night Evelyn was found. She recalled going to the playhouse the body was found in and told Massengill that she helped remove Evelyn from the trash can.
Dr. Schmidt and two TBI medical death investigators decided the process by which Evelyn would be removed from the trash can. According to Dr. Schmidt, everything removed from the trash can was photographed for evidence purposes. She further detailed the manner in which Evelyn’s body was removed and transported to the forensic center.
Dr. Schmidt told the court that she performed the autopsy on Evelyn’s body. She told Massengill that decomposition can create complications in determining a cause of death. As an example, she said skin discoloration can mask bruises or contusions. Dr. Schmidt said she was not able to locate any soft tissue entries in Evelyn’s body but that it was probable decomposition could have hidden any possible ones.
According to Dr. Schmidt, there were several leaves in Evelyn’s hair at the time she conducted the autopsy.
Massengill provided Dr. Schmidt with a copy of her autopsy report, and Dr. Schmidt told the court that she did determine a cause of death for Evelyn: “homicidal violence.”
Dr. Schmidt said positional asphyxiation could have occurred due to Evelyn being placed in the trash can upside down and her breathing being obstructed. Massengill asked if being wrapped in the blanket and placed in the trash bag could also cause asphyxiation, to which Dr. Schmidt replied yes.
She told the court that she had performed roughly 3,600 autopsies in her career with about 100 of those being children. Based on her experiences and Evelyn’s autopsy, she said she did not think it was likely that Evelyn died due to a co-sleeping incident in which someone rolled onto her.
Additionally, Dr. Schmidt stated that her determination was that Evelyn did not die of natural causes and that her death was the result of a homicide.
Scott began cross-examining Dr. Schmidt and asked if she had gone through Evelyn’s medical records. She told him she checked her pediatric records and may have checked Boswell’s OBGYN records.
Dr. Schmidt reiterated to Scott that she could not be convinced Evelyn died in a natural manner. Her report stated there was a possibility that Evelyn was alive at the time she was placed in the trash can, but she told Scott there was no way to make that determination.
She also noted that she discovered Evelyn had a heart defect, but Dr. Schmidt had ruled it out as a cause of death because Evelyn showed no signs of it causing symptoms or issues.
When asked about how she ruled out sudden infant death syndrome, she told Scott that that is a “diagnosis of exclusion,” and the manner in which she was found did not suggest it as the cause. After a series of questions by Scott, she did acknowledge it was possible that sudden infant death syndrome could have occurred before she was placed in the trash can. However, Dr. Schmidt testified that that would not be her determination.
Scott then referenced previous records of Evelyn’s that showed she had experienced other illnesses or diagnoses that he indicated could have led to sudden infant death syndrome. Dr. Schmidt maintained that her determination did not change and she had ruled out sudden infant death syndrome as a cause.
When asked why, Dr. Schmidt told him that a cause of death is not determined solely by the autopsy but also by the circumstances surrounding the death.
He asked her if it was possible if a child Evelyn’s age could die as a result of co-sleeping, and she did say that yes, it could occur. However, it was not a part of her findings in Evelyn’s case.
When asked if Evelyn showed any signs of physical violence, she noted that there were no broken bones, but she included Evelyn’s position in the trash can as a sign of violence.
Dr. Schmidt told Scott that she was unable to determine if Evelyn was alive at the time she was placed in the trash can. She told him there were no signs that Evelyn had any broken bones or had had any previously.
Dr. Schmidt was released as a witness.
Witness: Dr. Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan
The state called forensic pathologist Dr. Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan as its next witness. She is the chief medical examiner in multiple East Tennessee counties. She is also a recognized member of several forensic pathology societies and has had works published on the subject.
She told Harper she had also conducted presentations on child asphyxiation and strangulation.
Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology for the trial.
According to Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan, she reviewed Dr. Schmidt’s autopsy report and other case files at the request of the district attorney’s office. She told Harper those materials included Evelyn’s birth certificate, her medical records, the autopsy report, photographs of Evelyn from March 6, 2020, toxicology reports, a summary of facts and other documents.
Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan formed her own opinion as to what caused Eveleyn’s death, and she concluded the cause was asphyxiation by homicide.
She said her determination did not differ from Schmidt’s much, only in that she found more manners in which Evelyn was prevented from breathing properly.
Harper asked her if the way Evelyn was found would contribute to positional asphyxiation. Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan told him that a cause of death must be determined in the context of the scene, not in a vacuum. Based on Evelyn’s upside-down position, the layers she was wrapped in and the confined space she was found in all contributed to her determination of asphyxia by homicide as the cause of death.
Harper showed Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan and the jury a photo of Evelyn in a bag in the trash can with other items on top of her. Using a pointer, she showed the jury how Evelyn would have been unable to breathe.
Another photo showed the blanket with Evelyn wrapped up inside next to the trash can. Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan noted the way she was tightly wrapped up and the way her body was contorted as different manners of asphyxiation. In another photo, she pointed out the way the aluminum foil was tightly applied to Evelyn’s head and body.
As Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan described her findings and photos were shown, Boswell could be seen looking down with her head resting on her hands.
Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan also noted some pupae were present with the body due to the decomposition, but there was no maggot activity.
According to Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan, Evelyn’s face was somewhat flattened against the inside of the trash can, and several parts of her body were compressed. She said the pattern of the blanket was imprinted on Evelyn’s face. She told Harper that it was clear, in her opinion, that Evelyn had been intentionally tightly wrapped.
The blanket had to be carefully removed from Evelyn’s head, Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan said, because it had become stuck to some degree. Her body had to be “unfolded” in order to be properly examined and an autopsy confirmed, Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan said.
Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan stated that after reviewing Evelyn’s medical records, she would consider her to be a healthy child and did not consider her an infant anymore. Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan said she found no previous medical conditions recorded that would have contributed to Evelyn’s death. She testified that she had never seen an overlay sleeping death in a child over eight months, except for the homicide of a 2-year-old.
Scott asked Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan to confirm that she did not perform the autopsy, which she did confirm. She reiterated that she reviewed the autopsy report in addition to the other files and documents and that her opinion would be based on what was provided to her in terms of materials and evidence.
Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan told the jury that she created her own objective report and determination of Evelyn’s cause of death. She expressed confidence that she would have found any mistakes in Dr. Schmidt’s autopsy report if they were present.
Scott asked if photos of Evelyn’s internal organs were taken. She told him they were not based on the circumstances and the lack of signs that would require them.
She also told him that there were no symptoms or signs of any medical complications that would have led medical examiners to investigate the organs or consider an illness as the cause.
Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan described sudden infant death syndrome as an “outdated, antiquated” term that she and her peers no longer use. She told Scott it previously was used when autopsy results were inconclusive and it truly never existed.
Scott repeated several
Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan echoed Dr. Schmidt’s belief that Evelyn was alive when she was placed in the trash can. Scott asked her how she could know, and Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan stated that she had no reason to believe that she was dead.
After being repeatedly asked by Scott, Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan said Evelyn could have been dead before being placed in the trash can if she had been wrapped in the layers before. Scott became frustrated with Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan when she would not answer his questions in a yes or no format and asked Goodwin to instruct her to answer them in that fashion.
Goodwin told her to use yes or no answers and that she could explain her answers after. When Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan continued to give more complex answers, Scott told Goodwin that she was being evasive.
After Goodwin told Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan she had to answer first with yes or no or be held in contempt of court, she answered Scott by saying no, she could not conclusively say if Evelyn died in the trash can.
“Ma’am, yes or no, can you say conclusively this child was alive or dead when it was placed in the blanket and the tin foil?” Scott asked.
“The blanket, the tin foil, the trash can? Which one? OK, the answer is no,” Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan said. “She could have been murdered a different way.”
Neither Scott nor the prosecution had any further questions for Dr. Mileusnic-Polchan. Goodwin sent the jury back to their hotel for the evening.
COURT IS IN RECESS UNTIL WEDNESDAY MORNING.
www.courttv.com
