Witnesses say they saw a child getting in and out of defendant's truck; one witness identifies person in court

Several witnesses testified in the 36th District Court that they saw a small girl get in and out of a truck connected to the defendant’s auto-work activities, and that the girl wore a colorful or pink jacket.

Shijuana Watts (testifying as a witness called by the prosecution) said she observed a little girl at a repair shop on Harper and Connors and later saw video and photos. “I saw her, because she was walking. I never saw her face,” Watts said, but she told the court she later recognized the back of a distinctive jacket in a photo admitted as evidence and confirmed the jacket matched the child she had seen. Watts told the court she first noticed the child moving in and out of a truck and that the motion drew her attention; she described the jacket as “colorful.”

Tanisha Moore, another witness, described a January 9, 2024 visit to a private residence in which she said Cordell (a mechanic) introduced a young woman as “his niece.” Moore testified the visitors delivered a Jaguar to the house, sat for roughly 30 to 45 minutes and left in Cordell’s car. “He said this is his niece,” Moore said in court when recounting the introduction.

Latricia Johnson testified she had allowed the defendant to borrow her Nissan Sentra on Jan. 9, 2024. Johnson said that after the car was returned the next morning she found a pair of clear glasses that her son began playing with; she later showed the glasses to detectives. Johnson also testified about an inmate telephone recording played at trial in which a caller spoke about keeping a distance from others and instructed someone to “go to mama's house.”

On the stand, witnesses described varying levels of certainty about the child’s identity at the time of their observations. Several witnesses said they did not see the child’s face, that lighting made identification difficult, or that they only later learned the child’s name from police or news reports. Moore told the court she did not know the girl’s name at the time of the January visit and learned it later when detectives came to question her.

The testimony tied two strands of the prosecution’s case together on the record: (1) civilian observations of a small child at locations linked to the defendant’s activities on or about Jan. 9, 2024; and (2) subsequent investigative steps that included detective interviews, photo review and recovery of physical items elsewhere by forensic teams. Witnesses identified the defendant in court where noted by the record.