What forensic evidence and expert testimony were presented at Travis Collins' trial?
Executive summary
Prosecutors at Travis Collins’ August 2025 murder trial relied heavily on forensic crime-scene documentation, a bloodstain-pattern expert and the victim’s autopsy to tie Collins to the beating and strangulation of Ashley Sarazen; defense presentation was minimal, with no witnesses called, leaving many contested scientific questions largely unchallenged on the record [1] [2]. Reporting identifies specific forensic exhibits — dozens of crime-scene photos, a sex-themed coin allegedly linked to Collins, and visible injuries to both parties — but does not provide a complete catalogue of every lab test or expert report introduced [1].
1. Crime‑scene documentation and physical exhibits: photos, a coin and a wallet
Harrisburg police forensics investigator Brandon Shetterly photographed room 528 at the Harrisburg Hilton and those photos were used as exhibits during hours of testimony, with prosecutors presenting a sex‑themed coin they say belonged to Collins among the items recovered and documented at the scene [1]. Police testimony and reporting also emphasize that officers found Collins with blood on his hands and note a wallet printed with provocative language, details introduced to the jury as circumstantial ties between Collins and the victim in the hotel room [3] [1].
2. Bloodstain‑pattern analysis: expert Scott Eelman’s conclusions
Bloodstain expert Scott Eelman testified that the volume and distribution of blood indicated most of the trauma occurred on the bed and that the victim was later moved to the floor, where her body was ultimately found, a sequence Eelman said was supported by the patterning documented in the crime‑scene photos [1]. That testimony functioned as a reconstruction — a common forensic role — linking spatial evidence to timing and movement during the assault [4] [5].
3. Autopsy findings: extensive injuries and internal trauma
Prior trial testimony presented to the jury established that Sarazen’s autopsy recorded 76 injuries to the inside and outside of her body, including severe trauma to internal organs, factual claims prosecutors used to describe the force and fatal nature of the attack [1]. Those medical findings served to corroborate the prosecution’s narrative of a violent beating followed by strangulation [1].
4. Investigative observations and visible injuries on Collins
Photographs taken by Shetterly also captured irritated skin and scratches on Collins — including marks on his back and forehead — which officers and investigators highlighted during testimony; alongside the blood evidence and reported discovery of a sex‑themed coin, those physical observations formed part of the prosecution’s mosaic linking Collins to the encounter [1].
5. Defense posture: no witness or expert counter‑presentation
In the four‑day trial the defense did not present any witnesses, a fact reported as the trial concluded and which meant the prosecution’s forensic and documentary evidence stood without live expert rebuttal from the defense on the record [2]. That absence does not prove the defense lacked alternate explanations, but it did limit what the public reporting captures about cross‑expert disputes or challenges to methodology [2].
6. Legal context: how expert evidence is assessed and the judge’s gatekeeper role
Judges evaluate expert testimony under evidentiary frameworks that require reliability and helpfulness to the trier of fact, and widely used guidance stresses that experts must ground opinions in methods that can be scrutinized — a backdrop that shapes how blood‑pattern and medical testimony is admitted and weighed in criminal trials [4] [6] [7]. Reporting in this case documents specific expert conclusions but does not record extensive Daubert‑style hearings or methodological challenges that might illuminate how the court vetted each forensic technique [1].
7. Limits of the public record and remaining questions
Available reporting names the bloodstain expert, the crime‑scene photographer and summarizes autopsy findings, but it does not provide full transcripts of expert cross‑examination, laboratory reports (e.g., DNA or toxicology), chain‑of‑custody details for physical items like the coin, or any forensics the defense may have sought to exclude or contest — leaving clear gaps that would matter to an expert critique of the evidence [1] [2] [4].