John Ivory Trial: Blood Tests Negative for Drugs and Alcohol

John Ivory, a man facing charges in a fatal 2025 Anchorage crash, has had his blood tested by crime lab scientists who found no trace of alcohol or drugs in his system. This revelation, delivered during trial testimony on Wednesday, directly contradicts the initial DUI charges brought against him following the death of 34-year-old Lorraine Williams.

The case centers on a collision that occurred around 9:33 p.m. on October 30, 2025, near Fireweed Lane and D Street. According to reporting by KTUU, Williams was struck by an eastbound SUV while she was outside a crosswalk. The driver left the scene but was located shortly afterward. Ivory was initially jailed on a driving under the influence allegation, leading to a class A misdemeanor charge on October 31, which alleged he had operated the vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a controlled substance, or an inhalant.

Forensic evidence contradicts initial DUI charges

While police originally sought a blood warrant based on “clues” from drug-recognition testing and traffic camera footage, the actual lab results told a different story. Forensic scientist Colleen O’Bryant testified that Ivory’s blood sample showed no detected alcohol. Chemist Donald Scott Harrell added that separate screenings for THC and other drugs of abuse also came back negative.

While the state’s forensic evidence cleared Ivory of impairment, testimony from Anchorage Police traffic fatality Investigator Casey Johnson revealed a different biological reality for the victim. Johnson testified that Lorraine Williams’ autopsy showed high levels of illicit substances and alcohol in her system.

John Ivory Trial: Blood Tests Negative for Drugs and Alcohol

Visibility and speed at the crash site

Investigator Casey Johnson used business surveillance footage from 406 West Fireweed Lane and city traffic cameras to reconstruct the event. His analysis suggests that Ivory was not speeding; Johnson estimated the SUV was traveling at roughly 25 mph, which is actually below the posted 35 mph speed limit.

The lack of marked crossings in the immediate area of the crash.
The damp pavement resulting from recent rain.
The poor lighting, which Johnson admitted came from only one side of the street.

Johnson conceded that the cameras made the scene appear clearer than it would have been for a driver sitting behind a windshield in the rain and darkness. It suggests a gap between what a forensic investigator can see on video and what a driver can see in real-time during a rainy October night in Alaska.

The question of fleeing the scene

A central point of contention remains Ivory’s behavior after the collision. While he left the scene, the defense argued this was not a high-speed flight to evade justice. They pointed out that Ivory remained on public roads and was eventually found at his place of employment. Even the lead investigator, Casey Johnson, stated he would not characterize the post-crash driving as “fleeing at high speed.”

The defense also highlighted that Ivory maintained a valid driver’s license, insurance, and registration, painting a picture of a law-abiding citizen caught in a tragic, low-visibility accident rather than a reckless criminal.

What remains for the jury

The state declined to cross-examine the lab witnesses who cleared Ivory of drug and alcohol use, effectively accepting the forensic results. This leaves the jury to decide if Ivory’s actions and the resulting death of Lorraine Williams constitute criminal negligence, regardless of his sobriety.

Closing arguments are scheduled for November 2, after which the jury will begin deliberations. The core of the decision will likely hinge on whether the darkness and rain provided a reasonable excuse for Ivory’s failure to see Williams, or if the act of leaving the scene is the primary factor.

Worth a look