The Powerade Poisoning: A Retired Teacher, a Dead Boyfriend, and the Evidence That Disappeared

On the night of November 11, 2022, Leroy Fowler was thrashing around in a bedroom in Salisbury, Massachusetts. His nose was bleeding. He couldn't stand. According to prosecutors, the woman who lived with him, the woman who supposedly loved him, picked up her cell phone and started recording.

Thirteen videos. That's what investigators say they found on Judy Church's phone. Thirteen recordings of a man in medical distress, writhing in pain, unable to help himself.

She didn't call 911 for roughly thirty minutes.

Two days later, Leroy Fowler was dead at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston. He was 55 years old. A grandfather. A father. A man whose son would later describe him simply as "a good guy." An autopsy would reveal that ethylene glycol, the toxic chemical compound found in antifreeze and windshield de-icing fluid, had destroyed his kidneys from the inside. The state of Massachusetts says Judy Church put it in his Powerade, the sports drink he loved, the one he reached for every day, the one he trusted.

Now, more than three years after that November night in a small beach town near the New Hampshire border, Judy Church sits in an Essex County courtroom facing first-degree murder charges. She has pleaded not guilty. She has spent every single one of those three years behind bars, held without bail since her arrest in December 2022. Her entire life before this, 31 years as a fourth-grade teacher, gone. And there's a critical piece of this case that most people haven't heard about yet: the toxicology lab that tested the key evidence destroyed the remaining samples before her defense team ever had the chance to independently verify what was in them.

The court said that's not a problem. I have questions about that.

This is Justice Is A Process. Judy Church is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not a disclaimer I throw on for legal cover. It's the entire point. The system has to prove its case. The system has to follow its own rules. And we're going to watch every minute of this trial to see whether it does.

The Night Everything Changed

Salisbury is a small beach town on the Massachusetts coast, practically touching the New Hampshire border. It's the kind of place where people know their neighbors and not much happens that makes the news. Judy Church and Leroy Fowler lived together in an apartment on Central Avenue. According to Church, they had been in a relationship since 2012.

On November 11, 2022, at 8:02 p.m., Church called 911. She told dispatchers that her boyfriend "must have ingested something." She reported that Fowler had a bloody nose, couldn't stand up, and was "pulling the bedroom apart." Salisbury Police, Fire, and EMS responded to the Central Avenue address and found Fowler in obvious medical distress.

Paramedics rushed him to Anna Jaques Hospital in Newburyport. His condition was serious enough that he was transferred to Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge. From there, he was moved again to Beth Israel Hospital in Boston. Doctors discovered that his kidneys were failing. And the medical team at the hospital told Fowler's family something that would change everything: they believed he had been poisoned with antifreeze.

Fowler's family didn't hesitate. They called the Salisbury Police Department immediately and told a detective they believed something criminal had happened.

Leroy Fowler never recovered. He was removed from life support and pronounced dead on November 13, 2022. He was 55 years old. His family, the same people who had raised the alarm, now faced an impossible reality: a man they loved was dead, and the woman he lived with might have killed him.

In the days after Fowler's death, the anger from his family was raw and public. His sister, Tammy Carbone, wrote on Church's Facebook page: "I can't wait to see her face tomorrow when she can't walk out. To think she thought she could get away with it." His son, also named Leroy, posted a screenshot of a news story about the arrest with the caption: "Cats out of the bag now. I had to stay quiet but not anymore." These are the words of people who believed they knew what happened. Whether the evidence supports that belief is what this trial is about.

The Investigation Begins

Within days, Salisbury police detectives and the Essex State Police Detective Unit were at Church's apartment to talk to her about Fowler's death. According to court documents, Church drove up while detectives were waiting outside. When a detective introduced himself, she asked, "What is this about?"

She agreed to talk. She got out of a Jeep carrying two pizza boxes and a bag, walked over to the first-floor apartment where her adult son Douglas Church lived, dropped off the food, and came back outside. But when detectives asked if they could come inside the apartment to talk, Church said no. She told them the house was dirty and they had arrived unannounced. The interview happened on the sidewalk.

Think about that for a second. Your boyfriend just died in the hospital. Police show up at your door. You choose to keep them outside.

Church told the detectives that Fowler had woken up around 4:30 a.m. on November 11 and seemed normal. She said he was doing work around the house but appeared tired at times, leaning against walls to collect himself. She denied that he ate or drank anything before the medical emergency. Her son Douglas, who came outside during the interview, suggested Fowler may have suffered carbon monoxide poisoning.

Detectives also learned something else during that sidewalk conversation. Church told police she had gone to the hospital trying to become Fowler's health care proxy, but the hospital wouldn't allow it because there was no official paperwork.

Later, officers brought Church to the Salisbury Police Department for a formal interview. While sitting in the lobby waiting, according to the investigating trooper's report, Church was spotted deleting text messages from her phone. The trooper seized the phone under the authority of an existing search warrant.

During the formal interview, Church told police she had been in a relationship with Fowler since 2012. The trooper noted that she seemed unusually familiar with the medical terminology surrounding Fowler's condition. When asked how she knew so much about the diagnosis, Church said she used Google frequently. She also admitted to something that would become a significant piece of this case: she said she had communicated with Fowler regularly about poisoning him, but that it was all done "in a joking manner." She told detectives they used to watch true crime documentaries together and she would joke about poisoning him.

Joking about poisoning someone. And then that person dies of poisoning.

On December 21, 2022, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner officially determined that the cause of Leroy Fowler's death was ethylene glycol poisoning. The next day, an arrest warrant was issued for Judy Church. On December 23, she was arrested without incident by the Massachusetts State Police Violent Fugitive Apprehension Section.

What Prosecutors Say They Have

This case is built on physical evidence from Church's apartment, digital evidence from her phone, and statements from Fowler's family members. According to prosecutors, it paints a detailed picture of a woman who didn't just commit murder, but documented it.

The Phone

When investigators searched Church's cell phone, they found what prosecutors consider their most powerful evidence: 13 separate videos of Leroy Fowler in medical distress, recorded in the bedroom of Church's apartment on the night of November 11. According to the prosecution, the videos show Fowler thrashing about, unable to help himself, while Church recorded him.

At one bail hearing, Assistant District Attorney A.J. Camelio told Judge Thomas Drechsler that the recordings showed Church filming Fowler in pain and asking for help getting to the bathroom, which she refused, for approximately thirty minutes before she finally dialed 911.

Also on Church's phone, according to investigators: a screenshot of a recent purchase from AutoZone, and photos of a bottle of orange de-icing fluid among items in her kitchen and near Fowler's belongings.

The Physical Evidence

When police executed a search warrant at Church's Central Avenue apartment, body camera footage from officers showed the kitchen cluttered with numerous bottles that appeared to be cleaning materials on the counters and floor. Investigators seized several key items: a bottle of fruit punch Powerade found in the trash that contained orange residue, a container of Rain-X de-icer found in the kitchen, and a can of orange soda.

The Powerade is central to the prosecution's theory. Fowler didn't drink alcohol. He was known to drink red Powerade regularly. The state alleges Church placed ethylene glycol into his Powerade bottle. Ethylene glycol has a sweet taste and can be ingested without the person knowing, and even a small dose can be fatal.

Portions of the liquid from the seized containers were sent to NMS Labs, a private toxicology laboratory, for testing. Those results, and what happened to the samples afterward, would become one of the most significant pretrial battles in this case. More on that shortly.

What the Family Told Police

The family's statements to investigators read like a series of red flags that, looking back, all pointed in the same direction.

Fowler's son, also named Leroy Fowler, told detectives his father had been dating Church and living at her place for years. But he also had a second girlfriend, and he was known to go back and forth between the two women. The younger Fowler also told police about a life insurance policy that Church had taken out on his father approximately one year before his death.

Then there's what Fowler's stepson, Michael Hawkins, told investigators. According to court documents, Hawkins said he was driving with Fowler about two weeks before the 911 call when Fowler said, seemingly out of nowhere, that he thought Church was poisoning him. Fowler allegedly told Hawkins he felt better when he was away from Church's apartment, but he relied on her to prepare most of his meals.

Hawkins provided another piece of information that goes to potential motive: he told detectives that Church had offered him $10,000 to kidnap Fowler from his second girlfriend's house, tie him up, and bring him back to her apartment. He also said he overheard Church say she wanted to "murder" the other girlfriend.

Fowler's sister, Tammy Carbone, gave a similar account. She told police that Church had mentioned on a phone call that Fowler thought she was poisoning his coffee shakes. Carbone said she brushed it off at the time, thinking it was a joke.

And one more detail from the family. Fowler's son noted that whenever his father had a medical issue in the past, Church would notify the family almost immediately. On November 11, she waited approximately twelve hours before telling them he was in the hospital.

The People at the Center of This Case

Leroy Fowler

Leroy Fowler was 55 years old when he died. Some early reports listed his age as 46, but his family later corrected the record. His son described him to the Daily Beast as "a good man" who "loved his children and loved his grandkids." The family said he was especially close with his 8-year-old grandson, Leo, who he spent time with constantly.

"Not perfect, but he was a good guy," his son wrote.

Fowler had a pacemaker and had been treated at Anna Jaques Hospital in the past for medical issues. He lived with Church in her Salisbury apartment on Central Avenue. He didn't drink alcohol. He liked red Powerade, Pepsi, and a coffee shake that Church made for him regularly. By all family accounts, he was dependent on Church for most of his meals.

He also maintained a second relationship with another woman, something his family was aware of. He moved between the two women's homes. Whatever the dynamics of that arrangement, his family loved him and they want justice.

Judy Church

Judy Church is now 67 years old. Before her arrest, she spent 31 years as a fourth-grade teacher at Howe-Manning School in Middleton, Massachusetts. She had lived in Salisbury for 29 years. Her defense attorney told the court she had no passport, had a restaurant job waiting for her, and had housing available with her sister if released on bail.

Church has an adult son, Douglas, who lived in a first-floor apartment below hers on Central Avenue. She has maintained her innocence from the beginning. Her attorney, Timothy Connors of Haverhill, told reporters outside court that Church is "certainly upset" about losing Fowler, "but she maintains she had nothing to do with it."

She has been incarcerated since December 2022. That's more than three years of pretrial detention on a case that has not yet gone to a jury. That's a reality worth sitting with, regardless of what the evidence looks like. Three years of a person's life, erased before a single juror has heard a single witness.

The Prosecution

The case is being prosecuted by the Essex County District Attorney's Office, initially under DA Paul F. Tucker. Assistant District Attorney A.J. Camelio has argued the bail hearings. The investigation involved Salisbury Police, the Essex State Police Detective Unit, and the Massachusetts State Police. Trooper Louis Williams authored the key investigative report.

The Defense

Timothy Connors of Haverhill represents Church. Early in the case, Judge Drechsler requested a statement of financial condition from Church, noting he believed she had resources to partially contribute to her own defense, even as she claimed indigency. The defense team has signaled they plan to aggressively challenge the prosecution's forensic evidence at trial.

What She's Charged With

Judy Church faces a single count of first-degree murder.

Under Massachusetts law, Chapter 265, Section 2 of the General Laws, first-degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in state prison without the possibility of parole. There is no death penalty in Massachusetts and hasn't been since 1984. If convicted, Church will die in prison. There's no parole hearing at year 15 or year 25. No possibility of early release for good behavior. Life means life. That's the weight of what a guilty verdict means in this courtroom.

First-degree murder in Massachusetts requires proof of one of three things: deliberately premeditated killing, killing with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or a felony murder theory. In a poisoning case, the prosecution's natural path is deliberate premeditation. Mixing a toxic substance into someone's drink and waiting for the result is, by its nature, a planned act. If the jury believes that's what happened here, premeditation won't be their biggest question.

The bigger question will be: did Judy Church actually do it?

Church was initially arraigned in Newburyport District Court on December 23, 2022. A grand jury subsequently indicted her on the single count of first-degree murder, which moved the case to Essex County Superior Court. She was arraigned again in Salem Superior Court on February 9, 2023, where she entered a not guilty plea.

For the jury to convict on first-degree murder, they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that Leroy Fowler's death resulted from deliberate, premeditated poisoning, not from accidental exposure or another cause. That's a high bar. It should be a high bar. When the government wants to lock someone away forever, they need to prove it. Period.

The defense doesn't have to prove anything. Church doesn't have to testify. She doesn't have to explain away the phone videos or the Powerade bottle or anything else. The entire burden sits with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Evidence That Disappeared

This is the part of the story that most news coverage has missed. And it's the part that matters most from a due process perspective.

When investigators searched Church's apartment, they seized several containers holding orange liquid, including the Powerade bottle, a Rain-X de-icer container, and a can of orange soda. Portions of the liquid contents were extracted from each container and sent to NMS Labs, a private toxicology laboratory in Pennsylvania, for analysis.

NMS Labs tested the samples. The results are part of the prosecution's case. But here's what happened next: NMS Labs destroyed the leftover sample material. Gone. Per the lab's own standard policy, unless alternative arrangements are made, samples are discarded after one year. The lab's reports even warned about this. Nobody made alternative arrangements. And the defense team never got the opportunity to independently test those samples.

Think about what that means in a murder case built on poisoning. The prosecution's entire theory rests on toxicology. Ethylene glycol in the Powerade, ethylene glycol in Fowler's body. And the physical samples that could have been retested, challenged, or verified by a defense expert? Destroyed.

The Motion to Suppress

Church's defense team filed a motion to suppress or exclude the toxicology evidence and related testimony. Their argument was straightforward: the destruction of these samples before the defense could examine them violated Church's constitutional right to due process and her right to challenge the evidence against her.

On February 26, 2025, Judge Jeffrey Karp held an evidentiary hearing on the motion in Essex County Superior Court. In March 2025, he issued his ruling: motion denied.

Judge Karp's reasoning had two main threads. First, he found that Church hadn't shown "concrete evidence" that retesting the destroyed samples would have produced different results. The possibility that the leftover milliliters might contain different chemical readings was, in the court's view, speculative. Second, he found that the government's failure to preserve the samples was negligent, but not reckless or in bad faith.

The judge pointed to one key fact: the original containers still exist. There is still orange liquid in the Powerade bottle, the de-icer container, and the soda can. The defense, in theory, could test those remaining contents. In the court's view, that undercut any claim that Church had been completely deprived of the ability to conduct her own analysis.

Why This Matters

I'm not a lawyer. I'm a watchdog. And here's what I see.

The prosecution sent samples to a private lab. That lab ran tests. Those test results are now evidence against Judy Church. Then the lab destroyed the actual material, following its own policy. The defense never got to run its own tests on the same samples. The court says that's acceptable because other liquid still exists in the original containers.

But are those the same thing? Anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry knows that liquid in a container can separate, degrade, or change composition over time. The portion that was extracted and tested may not be chemically identical to what remains. What if the portion originally tested had settled in a way that concentrated certain compounds? What if the testing process itself introduced variables? We can never know now, because the samples are gone.

A criminal defense legal blog analyzing this ruling put it clearly: this case illustrates the persistent imbalance in access to forensic evidence and the challenges defense attorneys face when key material vanishes before trial. They argued that a Bowden defense, which Judge Karp suggested as a potential remedy, allows the jury to draw negative inferences from investigative failures but does nothing to restore what has been lost.

Judge Karp also rejected Church's Rule 14 argument. Massachusetts Rule 14 requires prosecutors to promptly notify the defense when evidence is destroyed. There's no dispute the samples were destroyed. There's no dispute the defense found out after the fact. But the court found the prejudice was "minimal" because those original containers still existed.

Here's what bothers me about that word. "Minimal." In a murder case where the entire cause of death hinges on toxicology, where the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific chemical was placed in a specific bottle by a specific person, the inability to independently test the actual samples that were analyzed is "minimal" prejudice? That's a conclusion reasonable people can disagree about. And that disagreement matters, because it touches on something fundamental about how our system is supposed to work.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to confront the evidence against you. The due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require fundamental fairness. When the state's case depends on lab results, and the physical material underlying those results no longer exists, the defense has lost something that can never be recovered. No amount of cross-examination of the lab analyst can replace the ability to run independent tests and potentially find different results.

My father, Steven M. Askin, spent his career fighting for defendants' rights to confront the evidence against them. He would have had a lot to say about a system where a private lab can destroy the physical foundation of the prosecution's case and the court calls that negligent but not disqualifying. When the government hires a lab to test evidence, and that lab destroys the samples, and the court says the defendant just has to deal with it? That's a due process conversation every viewer of this trial should be paying attention to.

At trial, the defense may be permitted to make a Bowden argument, referencing Commonwealth v. Bowden, which allows the defense to argue that law enforcement failed to adequately investigate the case. Expect that to be a significant theme. Whether jurors buy it is another question entirely.

What the Defense Has Signaled

Church has maintained her innocence since day one. Her attorney has told the media she had nothing to do with Fowler's death. But what does the actual defense strategy look like?

Based on pretrial filings and hearing arguments, a few threads are visible.

First, the "joking" explanation. Church told police she communicated with Fowler about poisoning him, but that it was always in jest. The defense attorney told the court at a bail hearing that the alleged poisoning comment was "in jest and not contemporaneous to Fowler's death." The defense will likely try to frame those statements as dark humor between a couple who watched true crime together, not as admissions of intent.

Second, the forensic evidence challenge. The motion to suppress the toxicology results may have been denied, but the underlying facts don't go away. The defense knows those samples were destroyed. They may not be able to exclude the test results, but they can hammer the credibility of evidence they were never able to independently verify. The potential Bowden argument gives them a framework to question the entire investigation's thoroughness.

Third, alternative explanations. Ethylene glycol is found in many common household products. Church's apartment was described as cluttered with cleaning materials. Douglas Church, her son, suggested carbon monoxide poisoning when detectives visited. The defense may try to introduce reasonable doubt about how Fowler was exposed to the compound.

Fourth, the family statements. Much of the prosecution's circumstantial case comes from what Fowler's family told investigators. The defense will have the opportunity to cross-examine every family member who testifies. Context, reliability, potential bias from the love triangle dynamic; all of that is fair game in a courtroom.

None of this means the defense will succeed. But these are the tools available, and a good defense attorney uses every one of them. That's not obstruction. That's the Constitution working as intended.

Three Years to Trial

The timeline of this case tells its own story.

November 11, 2022: Fowler is hospitalized after the 911 call. November 13, 2022: He dies at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston. December 21, 2022: The Chief Medical Examiner rules the cause of death as ethylene glycol poisoning. December 22, 2022: Arrest warrant issued. December 23, 2022: Church arraigned in Newburyport District Court, held without bail.

January 2023: Grand jury indictment. February 9, 2023: Arraignment in Essex County Superior Court. Church pleads not guilty. Bail denied again. March 2023: Another bail hearing. Judge Drechsler denies bail a second time after hearing about the phone videos and family statements.

For the next two years, Church sat in custody while the case worked through the pretrial process. A significant motion to suppress was filed regarding the destroyed lab samples. In February 2025, Judge Karp held an evidentiary hearing. In March 2025, he denied the motion.

In November 2025, a trial date was set: March 16, 2026. Jury selection began on that date in Salem, Massachusetts, at the Essex County Superior Court.

Three years and four months from arrest to trial. For a woman held without bail the entire time. A woman who, before this, had no criminal record. A woman who taught fourth grade for three decades. Whether the evidence against Church is overwhelming or entirely circumstantial, that timeline is part of the story. Speedy trial rights exist for a reason. When someone sits in jail for over three years waiting for their day in court, the system needs to answer for that delay, regardless of the charge.

Consider what that means practically. Church was 64 when she was arrested. She's now 67. She has missed more than 1,200 days of life on the outside. If she's acquitted, nobody gives those days back. If she's convicted, the pretrial detention gets folded into a life sentence and nobody thinks twice about it. But the principle matters either way. The system promises a speedy trial. Three years is a long time to wait for one, especially when the defendant has been locked up the entire time.

Massachusetts does not have a specific statutory speedy trial deadline the way some states do. The constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment is analyzed using a balancing test that considers the length of the delay, the reason for it, whether the defendant asserted the right, and the prejudice to the defendant. In this case, the significant pretrial litigation over the destroyed evidence likely accounts for some of the delay. But that's exactly the kind of thing that should make us think about how pretrial detention and evidence disputes interact. The longer the case takes, the longer the defendant sits in a cell.

What We're Watching

This case has landed on Court TV's active trial calendar as "MA v. Judy Church: Death by Antifreeze Trial." That means cameras in the courtroom. That means the public gets to see this play out in real time.

Here's what I'll be watching for as this trial unfolds.

The phone videos. If the prosecution plays those 13 recordings for the jury, that's going to be the most visceral evidence in this trial. Jurors seeing a man in distress while the defendant records him. How the defense handles those moments will tell us a lot about their strategy. Do they challenge the timeline? Do they argue context? Do they try to keep them out entirely?

The toxicology testimony. Given the destroyed samples, watch how the prosecution presents its forensic experts. Will NMS Labs analysts testify? If so, expect aggressive cross-examination about the lab's destruction policy, chain of custody, and whether the defense's inability to retest those samples should matter to the jury. This is where the Bowden argument could land hard or fall flat.

The family witnesses. Fowler's stepson, his sister, his son. Each will bring powerful testimony about what Fowler told them before he died. The defense will challenge these statements as hearsay, as unreliable, as colored by grief and anger. The credibility battles over these witnesses could define the trial.

The motive question. The prosecution hasn't publicly outlined a single, clear motive. Jealousy over the second girlfriend? The life insurance policy? Control? The state doesn't technically have to prove motive. But juries want to understand why. If the prosecution can't give them a compelling answer, that's an opening for the defense.

The defendant's own words. Church told police she joked about poisoning Fowler. She admitted familiarity with the medical diagnosis. She was caught deleting texts. Whether she takes the stand or not, her own prior statements will be in this courtroom. The defense will try to explain them. The prosecution will try to use them as a confession hiding behind humor.

And through all of it, the bigger question: did the system protect this defendant's right to a fair trial? The destroyed evidence issue isn't going away. Even though the motion was denied, the facts remain. A private lab destroyed samples before the defense could test them. The court said that's not enough to exclude the results. Agree or disagree, that's a question of constitutional principle that will hang over every piece of forensic testimony in this trial.

How We're Covering This

Justice Is A Process is providing comprehensive coverage of MA v. Judy Church from jury selection through verdict. Daily live broadcasts. No Breaks editions within 24 hours. Trial Analysis Podcast episodes breaking down every day of testimony. Key Moments highlighting the most significant exchanges.

This is a case that touches on forensic evidence reliability, due process protections, the right to challenge the evidence against you, and whether the system can convict someone when it failed to preserve the physical foundation of its own case. Those are exactly the questions this channel was built to ask.

Steven M. Askin was prosecuted for helping people understand their rights. He believed that due process isn't a technicality. It's the whole point. Judy Church is entitled to the same protections as every other defendant in every other courtroom in this country. Whether those protections were honored in the handling of the evidence in this case is something twelve jurors are about to decide.

We'll be watching. Every day. Every witness. Every ruling.

This is Justice Is A Process. The trial starts now.