Nolan Wells’ family to do independent autopsy, attorney describes ‘altercation’ on boat
The Jackson County Sheriff’s Department released this photo during the search for Nolan Xavier Wells, 18, in Mississippi. (Jackson County Sheriff’s Department)
(OCEAN SPRINGS, Miss.) — The family of Mississippi teen Nolan Xavier Wells will conduct an independent autopsy following the 18-year-old’s mysterious death, according to attorney Ben Crump, who revealed new details about what he says unfolded on the day Wells vanished.
“He was a good kid. He was beloved. He was a college athlete. He had everything going for him. And so to go on that island … and then not to come back is what is concerning,” Crump told ABC News’ Linsey Davis.
Wells went missing on the 4th of July after going on a boat trip with his high school friends to the popular, undeveloped Horn Island, just south of Ocean Springs, Mississippi, according to officials and Crump. The location is accessible only by private boat and doesn’t have facilities, drinking water or staff.
“[The friends] left [Horn Island] and went back without Nolan,” Jackson County Sheriff John Ledbetter said. “From what we understand, he chose to stay there.”
A body believed to be Wells was recovered Monday, officials said.
Authorities said they believe Wells drowned and don’t suspect foul play, but the sheriff’s office stressed Wednesday that investigators are “working diligently to determine exactly what occurred.”
Crump said investigators “continue to tell the family that ‘We don’t see any evidence of any foul play,’ even though you have students who recorded an altercation while they were on the boats.” Crump described the altercation as “Nolan and somebody yelling at one another on the boat.”
According to Crump, Wells’ friends took the teen’s phone with them when they left Horn Island. Crump said when Wells’ family got his phone back, messages had been deleted.
Crump also said Wells’ father described the 18-year-old college football player as “an elite athlete.”
“He said that his son could swim. And so, they’re just not accepting that Nolan drowned accidentally,” Crump said.
Crump said the independent autopsy will be conducted in Washington, D.C.
The sheriff’s office stressed Wednesday that the investigation is ongoing and urged anyone who was on or near the northwest tip of Horn Island to come forward with photos or videos, “particularly those depicting alleged altercations or containing images of, or believed to include Nolan Wells.”
The sheriff’s office said it’s also looking for anyone who may have seen Wells or “observed or heard an argument, disturbance, or other unusual activity while on the island.”
“Even information that may seem insignificant could prove valuable to investigators. We encourage anyone with firsthand knowledge to come forward,” the department said.
“Our thoughts, prayers, and condolences remain with Nolan Wells’ family during this difficult time,” the department added.
Signage during a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, May 4, 2026. (Photographer: Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Justice is investigating a series of suspiciously timed trades in the oil market just ahead of major announcements by President Donald Trump and a top Iranian official about the war in Iran, sources told ABC News.
The DOJ, along with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, is probing at least four of these trades where traders made a total of more than $2.6 billion betting that oil prices would drop right before they did.
The DOJ and CFTC have not commented on the trades.
ABC News obtained the data of the four trades from the London Stock Exchange Group.
On March 23, 15 minutes before Trump announced that he would delay threatened attacks on Iran’s power grid, traders bet more than $500 million that oil prices would fall.
On April 7, hours ahead of a temporary ceasefire announced by Trump, traders bet $960 million that oil prices would fall.
On April 17, 20 minutes before Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted on social media saying that the Strait of Hormuz was open, traders bet $760 million that oil prices would fall.
On April 21, 15 minutes before Trump announced he would extend the ceasefire, traders placed a series of bets worth $430 million that oil prices would fall.
The series of oil trades was first reported by Reuters and the data from LSEG does not indicate any identities behind these trades and does not prove individuals were trading based on insider information.
Jeffrey Epstein is seen in a photo released by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice. (New York State Sex Offender Registry)
(NEW YORK) — The House Oversight Committee is conducting a closed-door interview Tuesday with a woman so ubiquitous in Jeffrey Epstein’s life that a search for her name in the Justice Department’s Epstein files returns more than 160,000 results.
Lesley Groff worked as an executive secretary to Epstein in New York for more than 18 years, and was once described by her boss as an “extension of my brain.”
Among her job requirements were scheduling Epstein’s frequent meetings with celebrities, scientists and politicians, booking Epstein’s daily massage appointments when he was in New York, and arranging travel for women linked to Epstein. She was one of four women listed as potential co-conspirators in Epstein’s controversial non-prosecution agreement in 2007.
According to federal prosecutors, “numerous victims [of Epstein] had indicated that she was responsible for scheduling massages during which they were sexually abused.”
Groff is appearing as part of the committee’s ongoing inquiry into the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and his alleged co-conspirators, which to date has included interviews with former Attorney General Pam Bondi, Epstein’s longtime personal assistant Sarah Kellen, and a prison guard who was on duty the night Epstein died in his jail cell.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer said on his way in Tuesday morning that he believes Groff has “information that is very valuable to our investigation.”
“Hopefully, we’ll learn more today,” Comer said.
The chairman reiterated that the committee is conducting “the most thorough investigation ever of Epstein.”
“We’re bringing in the most important people in the whole Epstein criminal enterprise that are still alive, and hopefully we’ll get the truth to the American people. If there’s an opportunity for accountability, we sure want to see that happen,” he said.
Groff did not speak to reporters upon her arrival.
Last September at a press conference in front of the U.S. Capitol, Epstein survivor Marina Lacerda specifically called out Groff, alleging that Groff had called her so many times to go to Epstein’s place for a massage that she dropped out of high school before the ninth grade.
Lacerda — who was one of the key witnesses that led to Epstein’s 2019 indictment for child sex trafficking — told ABC News in an interview this week that Groff was the conduit to Epstein.
“Anything that had to do with Jeffrey Epstein, ” Lacerda told ABC News in an interview, “had to go through Lesley Groff.”
Through her attorneys, Groff has denied any knowledge of, or participation in, Epstein’s crimes.
Michael Bachner, a lawyer for Groff, declined comment in advance of her appearance on Capitol Hill. He previously told ABC News that Groff “never knowingly booked travel for anyone under the age of 18, and had no knowledge of the alleged illegal activity whatsoever.”
“Ms. Groff, a parent herself, is incredibly shocked and deeply upset about the alleged wrongdoings of Mr. Epstein,” Bachner said.
After Epstein’s arrest in July 2019, federal prosecutors included Groff in a list of potential co-conspirators and sent her a subpoena. Bachner informed the government, just four days after Epstein’s arrest, that his client “would invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination” if called to appear before a grand jury.
Groff, now 59, eventually interviewed with the investigators two years later, telling prosecutors that “making massage appointments was just another appointment she had to make” for Epstein, and said that scheduling massages was “around 1%” of her job.
Groff, who was hired by Epstein in 2001, told the FBI she was immediately struck by Epstein’s lifestyle and the company he kept, describing it as “pretty incredible to see all the people Epstein dealt with in politics, television, et cetera.”
“Groff felt, ‘Wow,'” according to an FBI account of her interview.
Groff was initially paid a salary of $60,000 a year, but saw it doubled to $120,000 by Epstein four years later, DOJ records show.
The New York Times reported in 2005 that Epstein bought Groff a new Mercedes and paid for a nanny to ensure she would keep working for him.
“There is no way that I could lose Lesley to motherhood,” Epstein said of Groff, according to the newspaper’s account.
Banking records included in the DOJ’s Epstein files indicate that Groff also received three payments of $100,000 and one for $110,000 from Epstein companies between 2016 and 2018, though the records do not indicate the reasons for the payments.
Bachner told the government that Groff stayed with Epstein after his first arrest in Florida in 2006 because she believed him when he said that “someone was trying to blackmail him.”
When he was again arrested in 2019, she resigned, her lawyer told prosecutors.
“She felt betrayed and disgusted once the indictment came out,” Bachner wrote.
According to documents released by the Justice Department in response to the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, one victim — who was a minor at the time of her alleged abuse — told the FBI that she felt Groff “knew that the massage appointments were sexual” and “felt it was pretty obvious Lesley knew what was going on,” according to the DOJ records.
Federal prosecutors in 2021 informed Groff that she would not be charged, according to a statement from her attorneys.
“After a more than two-year investigation by the Department of Justice into Jeffrey Epstein’s conduct, which included lengthy interviews of witnesses and a thorough review of relevant communications, we have been informed that no criminal charges will be brought against Lesley Groff,” the statement said.
Lacerda said she hopes the congressional investigators press Groff for answers.
“I just think that she should be honest about it so that we can have some accountability here,” she said.
Oversight Committee member Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) said he’s heading into the interview with Groff already skeptical of her denials.
“She will argue that she didn’t know anything, but I find that to be hard to believe,” he said. “I think at best she was blissfully trying to be ignorant, but probably wasn’t.”
Demonstrators chant and hold signs outside U.S. Supreme Court on April 29, 2026, in Washington. (Tom Brenner/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday grappled with whether the Trump administration has the authority to end humanitarian protections for thousands of immigrants without facing judicial review.
While an unrelated ruling about the Voting Rights Act overshadowed the arguments, the court’s conservative majority appeared skeptical of the legal challenge to reverse the cancellation of temporary protected status for thousands of Haitians and Syrians.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Congress gave the Secretary of Homeland Security unreviewable discretion to manage and end TPS designations, arguing that a legal challenge would result in “judicial micromanagement” of foreign policy.
“Congress balanced the risk there might be some decision that’s erroneous or baseless… that would evade judicial review, against the risk of what we’re living through here, which is judicial micromanagement of the sorts of foreign policy laden in determinations and decisions that are naturally conferred upon the political branches,” Sauer said.
But attorneys representing the Haitians and Syrian Temporary Protected Status holders argued that the Homeland Secretary must follow the “procedural guardrails” set by Congress, which include reviewing country conditions, consulting other government agencies, and providing TPS holders 60 days of notice.
“The bottom line is the secretary can terminate TPS, but he must turn square corners and follow the rules Congress set,” said attorney Ahilan T. Arulantham. “In contrast, as we’ve heard today, the government reads the statute like a blank check today. They want to use it to expel non-citizens, but the power that they seek is a double-edged sword.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the significance of the legal challenge, which was described as a “box-checking exercise,” if the Trump administration still canceled the designation as long as they followed the procedural steps.
“If it’s just kind of a box-checking exercise, I mean, why would Congress permit review of the procedural aspect, when really what everybody cares about much more is the substance?” Barrett asked.
“I think it’s because Congress and us too, and the millions of people who live with TPS holders, have some faith in government, and they believe that if there is consultation, the decisions will be better,” Arulanantham said.
Sauer pushed back on those arguments, claiming that the Trump administration fulfilled the procedural requirements by “seeking input” from the State Department, though he claimed that even those basic steps were not necessary.
“If the secretary posted a notice on X saying, ‘I hereby terminate Syria’s TPS program effective tomorrow,’ you would say that there’s no judicial review of that decision,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“Correct,” Sauer said.
The three liberal justices also pressed Sauer about President Donald Trump’s public and social media comments about Haitian immigrants, suggesting the statements show a “discriminatory purpose” behind the TPS cancellation.
“The President has disparaged Haitian TPS holders specifically as undesirables from a ‘s——- country,’ and days after falsely accusing them of ‘eating the dogs and eating the cats of Americans,’ he vowed that he would terminate Haiti’s TPS, and that is exactly what happened,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back on the government’s claim that Trump’s rhetoric was focused on policy issues like crime or poverty and pointed to remarks made about “welcoming people” from Norway or Denmark.
“If the position of the United States is that we have to have an actual racial epithet… [and] we aren’t allowed to look at all the context,” Jackson said, then the court would be ignoring a “prime example” of discriminatory intent.
Justice Jackson noted that U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — who attended Wednesday’s hearing and blocked the termination of TPS for Haitians in February — found that there is evidence of “discriminatory intent.”
“So aren’t we bound in some regard with respect to what the lower court has already determined about these facts?” she asked.
Sauer said the court should apply the logic of a different judge who said the President’s statements “are less relevant.”
At one point during the hearing, Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the protections in place for Syrians by mentioning that Bashar al-Assad’s regime is no longer in place.
“The whole thing was the Assad regime,” Kavanaugh said. “After 53 years of complete oppression and brutal treatment, it’s done.”
Arulantham, who argued on behalf of the Syrians, pushed back and said that while the regime may have changed, the country remains a war zone and pointed to current State Department reports of violence in the country.
“It is of no relevance because even if the secretary is right and the State Department is wrong, it doesn’t change the fact that they didn’t talk to each other, and the national interest is not a criteria,” Arulantham said.
While the Court on Wednesday appeared closely divided on whether to invalidate Trump’s cancellation of TPS for Haitians and Syrians over procedural missteps, the bottom line is that the administrationretains almost unquestionable discretion as to if and when TPS status for certain countries should be discontinued.
And that means, if the legal teams representing the migrants prevail in this instance, it may be short-lived. The administration can move againto cancel their status, following the appropriate procedural steps, and more than 350,000+ immigrants who have lived here legally for quite some time under TPS could be forced to leave the country.
The court is expected to issue its decision in the case this summer.
