Which witnesses did prosecutors call at the Harrisburg trial of Travis Collins, and what did they testify to?
Executive summary
Prosecutors in the Dauphin County trial of Travis Collins called a mix of forensic, investigative and eyewitness witnesses who tied Collins to the Harrisburg Hilton killing of Ashley Sarazen through physical evidence, bloodstain analysis, surveillance images and barroom testimony about how the two left the bar and entered the hotel; defense witnesses were not presented during the four-day trial [1] [2] [3] [4]. Key prosecution testimony included a crime‑scene photographer who documented a sex‑themed coin and other evidence, a bloodstain pattern expert who located most trauma on the bed, bar staff and a friend who described Collins’ conduct that night, and prosecutors relied on Collins’ own post‑arrest statements in the police complaint [1] [3] [5].
1. Crime‑scene documentation: the forensics photographer who catalogued the room
One of the earliest witnesses called by prosecutors was Brandon Shetterly, a Harrisburg police forensics investigator who photographed the contents and condition of room 528 at the Harrisburg Hilton, and whose images included a sex‑themed coin prosecutors said belonged to Collins — photographs that prosecutors presented as part of their sequence of physical evidence tying Collins to the scene [1].
2. Bloodstain pattern testimony: where the trauma occurred
Scott Eelman, a bloodstain pattern expert, testified that the majority of blood and most of the trauma to victim Ashley Sarazen occurred on the bed and that, based on the pattern, her body was later moved from the bed onto the floor — testimony prosecutors used to reconstruct the assault and place the fatal injury sequence inside the hotel room [1].
3. Surveillance and timeline: prosecutors used hotel video and courtroom openings to trace movements
Prosecutors, led in the courtroom by Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Zawisky, introduced surveillance footage described in testimony that shows Collins and Sarazen entering the Hilton just after 1:30 a.m., riding the elevator to her room appearing “normal and almost happy,” and being close enough to kiss in the elevator — footage and opening narrative prosecutors used to dispute any claim the encounter was purely antagonistic from the start [2].
4. Bar and friend witnesses: how Collins and Sarazen met and where he was staying
Witnesses from the Bourbon Street Saloon and Collins’ longtime friend testified for prosecutors about the night’s lead‑up: a bartender said Collins offered to walk Sarazen to her hotel for safety as the bar closed, and Collins’ friend testified about their so‑called “little guys trip” to Harrisburg and the fact Collins was staying at a nearby Crowne Plaza — testimony used to establish opportunity, drinking, and the path the pair took that night [3] [6].
5. Collins’ own statements and police observations: the prosecution’s use of his post‑arrest account
Prosecutors relied on Collins’ own statements recorded in the police complaint and testimony about his interactions with officers: Collins called 911, told dispatchers about an assault, was found with blood on his hands when officers entered the room, and gave an account (contained in police records) that he had been attacked after confronting a woman allegedly going through his belongings — evidence the prosecution used to counter narratives about consent or accident [5] [7].
6. What prosecutors did not need (and what defense did not present)
Over the course of the four‑day trial prosecutors presented a sequence of physical and testimonial evidence but the defense chose not to present any witnesses before the case ended Thursday, a tactical note reported in court coverage that left the prosecution’s witness arc uncontested in rebuttal testimony [4].
7. Alternative interpretations and the record’s limits
News reporting shows prosecutors framed forensic photos, bloodstain analysis, surveillance and witness recollections as a cohesive narrative of assault and murder, while other coverage records Collins’ version to police that he was attacked first; the sources do not publish a complete witness list or full transcripts here, so finer points about cross‑examination, witness credibility fights, or additional expert opinion beyond those named in reportage cannot be independently verified from the provided reporting [2] [5] [1].