New Witness - Miguel Angel Cruz - Says he saw Imette and Littlejohn leave together

[PonderingThings]

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/65076.htm



Miguel Angel Cruz - a 47-year-old homeless man who was sleeping in a park across the street from The Falls in SoHo - told police he saw suspect Darryl Littlejohn, 41, drive a blue van up to the bar, go inside and then lead the grad-school beauty out and into the vehicle.

"He was saying, 'Don't worry, I'll take you home.' He put her in the van in the front seat and they left," Cruz said. "She left like he was giving her a ride."

Cruz was first found by a Post reporter, who put him in contact with detectives who then interviewed him and deemed his story to be highly credible.

While the account puts Littlejohn with the victim after he said he had parted ways with her, police have not uncovered any physical evidence tying the burly bouncer to St. Guillen's savage rape and death.


and....



Cruz told The Post he was awoken at around 4 a.m. by the screeching tires of Littlejohn's van as he stopped just down Lafayette Street from The Falls. Cruz said he saw Littlejohn - who was wearing a black jacket, blue jeans and brown boots - jump out and run inside.

"He parked in front of a lamp. He went in the front door," Cruz said. "When he came out the side door, he peeked his head out, and he came out the side door with her. They weren't fighting or nothing."

He said Littlejohn led a woman - whom he described as looking "part-Spanish, part-Chinese," and clad in a black jacket, black wool cap, dark jeans and black boots - out by the elbow before loading her into the vehicle.

Cruz also told cops about distinctive jewelry that Imette was wearing - a detail that detectives have not revealed publicly.

The van then pulled out, going south on Lafayette Street and turning left onto Canal Street, he said.

Sources told The Post most of what Cruz described dovetails with what they know to be true.

[concernedperson]

This is a good witness if he described jewelry that wasn't publicized before. It is also one more circumstantial nail.

[MrsMush99]

This is a good witness. My only question is why did he wait so long to come forward?

[concernedperson]

This is a good witness. My only question is why did he wait so long to come forward?

The way I read the article (coffee not kicking in yet) a Post reporter found him. It could be that since he is homeless he doesn't watch TV or read the newspaper. Other than the screeching tires it doesn't seem all that abnormal and he wasn't alerted to an abduction.

[MrsMush99]

He said Littlejohn led a woman - whom he described as looking "part-Spanish, part-Chinese," and clad in a black jacket, black wool cap, dark jeans and black boots - out by the elbow before loading her into the vehicle.

I'm confused by this part. Who was wearing the black jacket, etc.?

[PrayersForMaura]

I'm confused by this part. Who was wearing the black jacket, etc.?
Me too... the second reference of it wit the black wool cap, dark jeans and black boots seem to be about her. But all other reports said she had white on. UNLESS those reports were wrong.

Interesting about the jewelry.

[PonderingThings]

Didn't she have a white shirt/hoodie on? Perhaps she took it off? I recall that people speculated they found it in the basement of the bar.

Also this witness says she came out of the side door... could he have led her to the basement until he got the van?

[PrayersForMaura]

Didn't she have a white shirt/hoodie on? Perhaps she took it off? I recall that people speculated they found it in the basement of the bar.

Also this witness says she came out of the side door... could he have led her to the basement until he got the van?
I read that the white thing they found in the basement of the bar was another blanket. LOL. So many stories out there, I tell ya, it is honestly hard to keep things straight.
However, you areright, it was a white hoodie shirt and i think a greay or black knee-length coat.

About the side door, you are right. Remember when the br workers heard a "Whimper". Maybe she started to cry because she didn't have a ride home or something? When i drink a little much sometimes and I get angry, I sometimes get so mad I cry. I don't know, just thinking of possibilities.

One article I read was suggesting she was calling him names about him being "Black." I don't buy that one bit.
There's so many conflicting stories. I wish the truth would just come out. :(
For the sake of Imette and her family...

[MrsMush99]

Me too... the second reference of it wit the black wool cap, dark jeans and black boots seem to be about her. But all other reports said she had white on. UNLESS those reports were wrong.

Interesting about the jewelry.

Or unless the witness got it wrong. Her friend would have known what she was wearing, I doubt she got it wrong. There are just too many "facts" out there.

[Vet4Bush]

This is a good witness. My only question is why did he wait so long to come forward?I'll there are 40,000 reasons why he waited to disclose his statement. Reward.

[MrsMush99]

I'll there are 40,000 reasons why he waited to disclose his statement. Reward.

The reward has been out there for quite sometime. I don't think that's the reason, although you never know.

[Mygirlsadie]

She probably had the white hoodie on under the black jacket. I put jackets on over my hoodies of course I am here in Germany where its freezing butt cold everyday! I wonder about the jewelry though how close was this guy? Because man to describe jewlery you have to be pretty close to a person.... :waitasec:

[nanandjim]

Do you think that police are also considering this witness a suspect? How on earth could he see her jewelry? Perhaps, she had on very distinctive earrings. What else could he possibly see if she had on a sweatshirt, coat and hat?

[Mygirlsadie]

nanandjim thats what i'm thinking. Unless she had on some 'door knockers' for some reason though she don't strike me as the type to wear the door knocker earrings... hmm I wonder about this now. My husband is sitting behind me on the chair and I can't even describe his wedding band by being this close to him I can barely see it actually and its daylight and I know its there...



Do you think that police are also considering this witness a suspect? How on earth could he see her jewelry? Perhaps, she had on very distinctive earrings. What else could he possibly see if she had on a sweatshirt, coat and hat?

[OhSal]

I'm confused by this part. Who was wearing the black jacket, etc.?

Hi All................as to the black jacket she was seen wearing by this new witness (Cruz)could it be that Littlejohn might have thrown it over her shoulders to kind of comfort her, to gain her confidence while he went to bring the van around?

[PrayersForMaura]

Hi All................as to the black jacket she was seen wearing by this new witness (Cruz)could it be that Littlejohn might have thrown it over her shoulders to kind of comfort her, to gain her confidence while he went to bring the van around?
that is a good point, too.

[strach304]

This is the same story that already came out that was creditted to a homeless woman sleeping on a park bench. As for the why it wasn't reported sooner same reason, didn't see it as an abduction. The jewelry detail may be something LE added on for reasons known only to them.

[PonderingThings]

I thought that it was the homeless woman too.. but the story does not state its the same person. They are both homeless and both heard the screeching tires but at the moment anyway it is being presented as two different stories, by two different witnesses.

[Insomniac]

nanandjim thats what i'm thinking. Unless she had on some 'door knockers' for some reason though she don't strike me as the type to wear the door knocker earrings... hmm I wonder about this now. My husband is sitting behind me on the chair and I can't even describe his wedding band by being this close to him I can barely see it actually and its daylight and I know its there... Not only that, but, he's across the street in the park and it's dark out, even with a streetlight, it would be hard to see jewlry under a hat.

[Insomniac]

This is the same story that already came out that was creditted to a homeless woman sleeping on a park bench. As for the why it wasn't reported sooner same reason, didn't see it as an abduction. The jewelry detail may be something LE added on for reasons known only to them.Yeah, but, her face, with 40,000 reward was plastered under it, was out the 1 or 2 days after it happened.

[Insomniac]

Didn't she have a white shirt/hoodie on? Perhaps she took it off? I recall that people speculated they found it in the basement of the bar.

Also this witness says she came out of the side door... could he have led her to the basement until he got the van?The first description of what she was wearing, was a white hoody, knee-length grey coat. No mention of a hat, gloves etc.

[strach304]

Not only that, but, he's across the street in the park and it's dark out, even with a streetlight, it would be hard to see jewlry under a hat.
That's what makes me suspicious and the striking similarities with the story from the homeless woman. If there are two such witnesses why did both go to the media vs. police?

[PonderingThings]

Why did they go to the media instead of the police? These are homeless people living in a "trendy" area. Its my speculation that they do not have a good relationship with the beat cops.

I know in the trendy area I used to live in the "badest bar" often had the cops standing out front checking the I.D.'s of only the really pretty girls (the not so pretty ones were allowed to go by unaccosted).

There may be LOTS of reasons. Besides, in the case of the second witness it was a reporter who found him, interviewed him, and brought him to the cops.

[PonderingThings]

This is my theory only - I did NOT read this in any news article.

I think this 2nd witness did have an up close look at Imette - possibly when she was arriving at the bar. It was then that he noticed whatever this distinctive jewellery was.

He may have seen her come out with Littlejohn, or may not have. Personally I'm thinking not - although I could be very wrong.

[txsvicki]

I don't believe the stories of Imette getting into a van willingly or that anyone saw that unless maybe she had a gun stuck in her back. I am waiting to hear what the cab driver who supposedly took the other bouncer home has to say. He will probably be the most truthful witness to have seen anything. Everyone else except for possibly the busboy has a reason to lie.

[strach304]

I was fearful of coming forward myself and I don't have the baggage the homeless people do as far as credibility and I can even provide proof to back up my statements to LE and in a court of law so I am assuming that they needed tangible evidence to get a probable cause warrant to go into his house to try and get forensics. That in itself was the way for them to go, they aren't stupid and they know his defense attorney will eat these witnesses alive at trial. Darryl, lawyer and Aunt were crying black man, scapegoat and felon was all that LE saw and the media was printing that. I know how stressed those detectives were about forensics when I talked to them and this is indisputable evidence for them and everything else will just add up to a mountain of evidence come time for trial. Some of the stories they were putting out there about him I knew were crap and not true and I'd be willing to bet there are more they could tie to him if they would just look, he's good or he would've been caught long ago but I bet he left some dna behind in a few other cases.

[strach304]

One other thing worth mentioning that I considered suspicious at the time from my own experience visiting NYC it seems like there is always someone around, the city that never sleeps! I can't figure out why none of the other bar patrons saw him putting her in the van since the story was given she was shown out at closing therefore there should've been others leaving at the same time.

I have considered that the homeless people went to the media because they distrust LE. Many police forces in high crime areas are corrupt and if you talk to the wrong one you're signing your death certificate. The Dorians are well known in that area but I don't think they were involved in Imette's death and I think LE knows that but they do have other reasons for not wanting LE to look too close at them. We went over this with Scott Peterson, police know that people lie for many reasons because of their own skeletons not because they were involved in the crime at hand, so they then have to determine why the lies?

[newtv]

This is my theory only - I did NOT read this in any news article.

I think this 2nd witness did have an up close look at Imette - possibly when she was arriving at the bar. It was then that he noticed whatever this distinctive jewellery was.

He may have seen her come out with Littlejohn, or may not have. Personally I'm thinking not - although I could be very wrong.
the media went to them - the reporters found them not the other way around..maybe the reporters told police to interview them after the media found them

[panthera]

The NY Post found this witness. The witness is across the street approx. 100' from Littlejohn/Imette. I've seen Rita Cosby's interviews held outside the Falls and it isn't that light outside even with the camera light on her! How could he possibly identify jewelry on Imette? And if she was getting in the passenger side of the van, wouldn't the van block his view? This sounds like another Dorrian-related CYA move...let's find a witness ($$$) to nail Littlejohn so the cops will leave us alone.

[partyuv5]

remember DNA doesn't lie

[fran]

remember DNA doesn't lie

This is like a big puzzle. When all the pieces are in place, you have the big picture.

So far a witness seeing them leave together. His cell phone placing him in the vicinity of where she was found. His DNA on the tie that bound her.

LE is picking up and fitting all the pieces together. Each piece on there own can be refuted by a defense attorney. But when you have too many pieces that point to the crime, no defense attorney will be able to sway a jury that they aren't seeing what they are seeing, and that would be that the accused is guilty.

JMHO
fran

[panthera]

remember DNA doesn't lieFortunately it doesn't lie because apparently there is a problem with this witness and had I checked my notes on the case would have found it earlier! The van he is describing was registered in NJ as a "non-operational" on 1/27/06 and the plates handed in. The same day DL registered the silver Windstar and got temporary plates. Since the NYPD has both vans, I'm sure they're checking the "non-op" status of the blue van to see if it was disabled by DL (intentionally) or really has some major mechanical problem.