AUTHOR'S NOTE: This story contains graphic details from proceedings in the trial of Anthony Patterson that involve alleged sex crimes against child victims. Discretion is advised before reading. If you know or suspect that any child under the age of 18 is being abused sexually, please call the Texas Child Abuse Hotline at 1 (800) 252-5400. TARRANT COUNTY (KFDX/KJTL) — Testimony continues in the trial of Anthony Ryan Patterson on Wednesday, November 6, 2024, with the prosecution calling a child sexual abuse expert witness that has testified in multiple Wichita County trials taking the stand. THE LATEST: Alleged child victims, FBI agent testify against Anthony Patterson Former president of the Patterson Auto Group, Patterson, 48, of Wichita Falls, stands accused of multiple counts of human trafficking and child sex crimes. Testimony began on Monday afternoon, November 4, 2024, in Auxiliary Trial Room A in the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center in Fort Worth. A recap of prior proceedings can be found below: Jury selected, stage set for Anthony Patterson's trial Day 1: Testimony underway in Anthony Patterson's trial Day 2: Alleged child victims, FBI agent take the stand A running live blog of opening arguments and testimony in the trial of Anthony Patterson from Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2024, can be found below. Refresh this story often for updates. Judge Kennedy dismissed the witness from the stand. Judge Kennedy then dismissed the jury for the day. The Court will be in recess until 9 a.m. on Thursday, November 7, when testimony is set to resume. After several back-and-forths between the witness, Gillespie, and Mowla, it was reaffirmed that Patterson's DNA was not found on the tested clothing. 4:47 p.m. — White again testified that Patterson was excluded from the DNA testing conducted on the shirt. He testified that the presumptive testing for semen could have returned a false positive. 4:32 p.m. — White testified that prior to his time with DPS, he worked with a wastewater plant testing water samples. He also testified that he was previously a high school science teacher. Gillespie passed the witness to Mowla for cross-examination. 4:26 p.m. — White testified that if a child was instructed to take a shower after a sex act occurred, there could hypothetically be no semen to transfer onto clothing. He testified that his job is to analyze what DNA is there, not to determine how the DNA got there. He testified that it is up to the jury to determine the value of DNA evidence or lack thereof. 4:22 p.m. — White testified that in the process of his testing, the small amount of sperm found on the shirt was consumed, so when it was sent off for additional testing, no further testing or analysis could have been done. He testified that some of the stains on the leggings and the underwear were able to be sent for further analysis. 4:19 p.m. — White testified that DNA testing on the leggings did not return a decipherable DNA profile. He testified that male DNA was found to be present on the underwear. 4:16 p.m. — White testified that DNA is a science and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. He testified that in the case of a very small sample size, it is possible that the process would not be successful. 4:10 p.m. — White testified there are a number of reasons why no male DNA would be detected in an area with presumptive positive tests of sperm. He testified that the sperm membrane could break down and that the sperm heads could be washed out in the initial extraction process. 4:07 p.m. — White testified that no male DNA was detected in the sperm fraction. He testified that after the extraction process is complete, it doesn't necessarily mean that sperm is actually located in the sperm fraction. 4:05 p.m. — White testified that a process is conducted on any samples for DNA testing that separates sperm cells from skin cells and that sometimes male DNA is found and sometimes it's not. He testified that the goal of the process is to extract DNA from the skin cells first and the sperm cells second, with the goal to have male DNA at the end of testing. 4:00 p.m. — White testified that he developed a DNA profile of Patterson and the child victim from buccal swabs. 3:55 p.m. — White testified that he is a forensic scientist with the Lubbock DPS Crime Lab and has been for a little over 10 years. Mowla passed the witness back to Gillespie, who had no further questions. Judge Kennedy released the witness from the stand. Gillespie, on behalf of the prosecution, called it's next witness, Jason White, to the stand. 3:49 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that he is able to readily tell the difference between sperm cells and skin cells. He testified it is possible to make a DNA identification with sperm cells and skin cells. 3:47 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that he was not aware that the clothing he tested for semen had sat in storage for six years prior to his testing. He testified that in the case of the leggings and the underwear, the presence of semen was not confirmed. 3:44 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that his lab does not photo-document individual slides examined under a microscope. 3:40 p.m. — Mowla questioned Dr. Martin regarding the amount of sperm that is typically found in a millimeter of semen. Dr. Martin testified that it numbered in the millions. He also testified that five sperm is a very low amount. 3:37 p.m. — Mowla questioned Dr. Martin regarding the 494-page DPS manual. Grona-Robb objected, claiming Mowla was reading from a document that was not in evidence. Judge Kennedy reminded Mowla that the manual was admitted for the record only, instructing him not to read from the document. Judge Kennedy called the jury back into the courtroom. Testimony resumed, with Mowla continuing to cross-examine Dr. Martin. Judge Kennedy addressed counsel for the prosecution and the defense regarding a juror who appeared to be falling asleep. Replacing the juror with an alternate juror was discussed. Judge Kennedy dismissed the jury for an afternoon break. The Court will be in recess for about 10 minutes, at which time testimony is set to resume. 3:25 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that the ALS test is just a tool to help identify areas of the clothing that may have semen that might not be visible to the naked eye. 3:21 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that other fluids may fluoresce during an ALS test, returning a false positive test. He testified that they do not have an exhaustive list of fluids that could return a positive test, including urine, saliva, sweat, bleach, and residue from detergent. 3:19 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that the Alternative Light Source testing was conducted on all three articles of clothing. He testified that the ALS test is a screening tool or a presumptive test. 3:15 p.m. — Mowla handed Dr. Martin a 494-page manual that the DPS uses for DNA testing. Mowla offered it as evidence. Gillespie agreed to the evidence if admitted for record purposes only. The manual was admitted for record purposes. Gillespie passed the witness to Michael Mowla, one of Patterson's defense attorneys, for cross-examination. 3:11 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that he has no way of determining how long a stain has been on any article of clothing. He also testified that if a positive test result for semen is returned, he has no way of determining when the sample was deposited. 3:09 p.m. — Gillespie offered Dr. Martin's report as evidence. It was admitted without any objection from the defense. 3:08 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that an area of the crotch of the underwear fluoresced during the Alternate Light Source Test. He testified that he then tested the area for presumptive semen, and the test returned a result after 45 seconds. Dr. Martin testified this was a weaker result than the leggings returned. He testified that an area of the presumptive positive result was cut out of the underwear and placed into a sterile tube for DNA analysis. 3:05 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that an area of the crotch of the leggings fluoresced during the Alternate Light Source Test. He testified that he then tested the area for presumptive semen, and the test returned a result after 30 seconds. Dr. Martin testified this was a weaker result, so no further testing was conducted. He also testified that another area of the leggings tested negative for presumptive semen. He testified that the area that returned a presumptive positive result was cut out of the leggings and placed in a sterile tube for DNA analysis. 3:02 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that he also conducted Alternate Light Source testing on the leggings he received. Gillespie offered photographs of the leggings as evidence. They were admitted into evidence with no objection from the defense. 2:59 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that he cut the area out of the shirt and placed it in a sterile tube for forensic analysis. He testified that the area was then sent off to the lab for testing. 2:57 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that when the area that returned a presumptive positive test for semen was placed under a microscope, he found five individual sperm heads. He testified that his is relatively few sperm heads. He testified that in some instances, thousands of sperm heads are discovered. 2:55 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that he placed the shirt onto butcher paper and conducted an Alternate Light Source test. He testified that two areas of the shirt fluoresced, one small area near the bottom area of the shirt and one on the right shoulder. He testified that the small area near the bottom of the shirt returned a presumptive positive test for semen, and the area on the shoulder tested negative. 2:52 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that after he received the items of clothing, he photographed them. Gillespie offered photographs of the shirt into evidence with no objection from the defense. 2:48 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that he conducted forensic testing for the DNA of Anthony Patterson at the request of the Texas Rangers. He testified that he received three items of clothing, a shirt, leggings, and underwear, as well as DNA buckle swabs from Patterson and Child Victim 2. 2:44 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that once a fluid believed to be semen is identified by the Alternate Light Source test, a presumptive test can be conducted, with the length of time for a response determining how strong the result is. He testified that the longer it takes for a result to be returned, the weaker the result. He testified that it is not a confirmatory test. 2:42 p.m. — Dr. Martin testified that he conducts several tests with the DPS in sexual assault investigations, including an Alternate Light Source test. He testified that semen, among other bodily fluids, can show up on an Alternate Light Source test. Judge Kennedy called the jury back into the courtroom. Gillespie, on behalf of the prosecution, called Dr. Dwayne Martin, a forensic scientist with the Texas Department of Public Safety, to the witness stand. Gillespie passed the witness back to Laseter, who had no further questions. Judge Kennedy dismissed the witness from the stand. She dismissed the jury for a short break. Testimony is set to resume in about 10 minutes. 2:26 p.m. — Dr. Coffman testified that she was unsure of when protocol changed regarding SANE exams. She also testified that if no skin-to-skin contact was disclosed, regardless of the window, an acute SANE exam would not have been conducted. Laseter passed the witness back to Gillespie for re-direct examination. 2:23 p.m. — Dr. Coffman testified that during SANE exams, children can disclose more or less information than they did during their forensic interview. She testified that SANE nurses try to keep up with current literature regarding child sexual abuse to stay informed when they conduct the exam. 2:18 p.m. — Dr. Coffman testified that SANE exams were conducted at the discretion of law enforcement until recently. 2:16 p.m. — Dr. Coffman testified that an acute SANE exam is meant for evidence collection, such as DNA, and a non-acute SANE exam does not focus on collecting DNA. She testified that the 120-hour protocol for acute SANE exams is standard in Texas. 2:13 p.m. — Laseter questioned Dr. Coffman regarding scientific literature and its role in informing opinions. Dr. Coffman testified that a person's personal experience could also inform their opinion, but keeping up with the scientific literature is important. Gillespie passed the witness to Laseter for cross-examination. 2:10 p.m. — Dr. Coffman testified that sensory details are important to look for in child sexual abuse disclosures. She testified that pain is a sensory detail that would likely cause a child to remember traumatic events. 2:08 p.m. — Dr. Coffman testified that a perpetrator can sexually abuse a child without climaxing. She also testified that she's observed child victims disclosing sexual abuse by different perpetrators at different times. She testified that she's seen parents fail to protect their children so many times that it no longer shocks her, but it just makes her sad. 2:05 p.m. — Dr. Coffman testified that she is one of six child abuse pediatricians in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. She testified that she treated both of the alleged child victims. She testified regarding the process of conducting a SANE exam. She testified that if a child victim discloses abuse years after the abuse occurred, any injuries would have likely healed. 1:57 p.m. — Dr. Coffman testified that she graduated from Rider High School in Wichita Falls as well as Midwestern State University. When asked if she'd heard of the Patterson Auto Group, she responded, "Oh, yes." She testified that she is a child abuse pediatrician. Shook passed the witness back to Grona-Robb, who had no further questions. Judge Kennedy dismissed Vermillion from the witness stand. Judge Kennedy also instructed the jury to inform the bailiff if any of them were becoming drowsy so they could take an additional break since the afternoons were long. Wichita County District Attorney John Gillespie, on behalf of the prosecution, called Dr. Jamye Coffman to the stand. 1:53 p.m. — Vermillion testified that, in hindsight, he could not have known if "Boy Gentry" knew anything else about "Anthony" without conducting an interview. Grona-Robb passed the witness back to Shook for further cross-examination. 1:53 p.m. — Vermillion testified that he had no reason to believe "Boy Gentry" knew where "Anthony" lived or had any other information about "Anthony". He testified that while the girls' forensic interview might have qualified them for a SANE exam, at the time, there was a 120-hour window for SANE exams to be conducted. Shook passed the witness back to Grona-Robb for re-direct examination. 1:50 p.m. — Shook questioned Vermillion regarding why he never interviewed "Boy Gentry", who drove Bell and the alleged child victims to meet with Patterson. Vermillion testified that "Boy Gentry" was not present for the offense, so he did not feel it necessary to interview him. He testified in hindsight that he might have been a good person to question. 1:47 p.m. — Vermillion testified that the warrant for Bell was signed by a judge on September 13, 2018. He testified that there is no team in Wichita County that goes beyond its jurisdiction to round up suspects with active warrants. He testified that he did not ask the Vernon Police Department to arrest Bell. 1:44 p.m. — Vermillion testified that he could have had the warrant for Bell signed in July 2018, because he believed he had probable cause. He testified that he chose to wait for her to contact him back because he always wanted to give a person accused of a crime a chance to turn themselves in. 1:41 p.m. — Vermillion testified that delays in criminal investigations can be bad. He testified that Jandreani Bell eventually returned his call and agreed to a non-custodial interview, which she did not show up for. Judge Kennedy called the jury back into the courtroom. Testimony continued at about 1:30 p.m., with Shook continuing to cross-examine Vermillion. Judge Kennedy released the jury for their lunch break at noon. The Court will be in recess until 1:30 p.m., at which point testimony is set to resume, with Shook continuing to cross-examine Vermillion. 11:59 a.m. — Vermillion testified that he and the mother of the alleged child victims scheduled multiple interviews that she did not show up for. He testified that the children's grandmother eventually reached out to him to set up the forensic interview. He testified he didn't reach out to the children's grandmother because he didn't have her contact information. 11:56 a.m. — Vermillion testified that officers are trained not to interview children following allegations of abuse. He testified they're trained to allow forensic interviewers to ask questions so there's no contamination of the outcry. He testified that contamination can happen unintentionally and intentionally. 11:52 a.m. — Shook presented Vermillion with the initial incident report from the Vernon Police Department. Vermillion read over the report for several moments. Shook then questioned Vermillion about the report. 11:47 a.m. — Vermillion testified that although the children first reported the alleged abuse to the Vernon Police Department, the case was transferred to him in Wichita Falls in January 2018, because if any offense had occurred, it occurred in Wichita Falls. 11:44 a.m. — Shook questioned Vermillion about how important objectivity is for an investigator in a case. Vermillion testified that investigators should remain objective, gather all the facts, and that the investigation into a crime should be conducted as soon as possible after the fact. Grona-Robb passed the witness to Toby Shook, lead defense attorney for Patterson, for cross-examination. 11:38 a.m. — Grona-Robb offered two pieces of evidence, one being a description Vermillion assembled of the "Anthony" referenced in the forensic interview, the other being a map of Wichita Falls. Both were admitted without objection from the defense. 11:32 a.m. — Vermillion told the jury the process of obtaining and serving an arrest warrant. He testified that he obtained an arrest warrant for Jandreani Bell, but she was outside his jurisdiction to arrest. He testified Bell was arrested a little less than a year after the warrant was obtained, in September 2019. 11:27 a.m. — Vermillion testified that after the forensic interview, he attempted to get in contact with Jandreani Bell in order to conduct an interview with her regarding her involvment in the case. 11:21 a.m. — Vermillion testified that based on what he observed during the forensic interview, he felt an instance of indecency with a child by exposure had occurred. He testified that he believed Jandreani Bell had committed that offense, as well as a male named "Anthony". 11:17 a.m. — Vermillion testified that the alleged victim's grandmother was the one who finally brought them in for a forensic interview. He testified that he observed the forensic interview and that, in cases he's investigating, he's able to give feedback to the forensic interviewer regarding follow-up questions they should ask. 11:13 a.m. — Vermillion testified that he was involved in a case that eventually lead to charges being filed against Anthony Patterson. He testified that he scheduled several forensic interviews with the alleged victims that they failed to show up to. 11:04 a.m. — Vermillion testified that in May 2015, he was transfered to the Crimes Against Children unit of the WFPD, where he worked until 2019, when he was transfered to a training unit. He now serves as a Patrol Sargeant. 11:01 a.m. — Vermillion testified that he's been with the Wichita Falls Police Department. He testified that prior to his time with the WFPD, he served in the United States Armed Forces. Laseter passed the witness to Grona-Robb, who had no further questions. Dula was released from the witness stand. The prosecution called it's next witness, Walter Vermillion, with the Wichita Falls Police Department. 10:58 a.m. — Dula testified that she is not licensed for sex offender treatment. She testified that her understanding of deviant sexual behavior does not come directly from the DSM-V-TR. Grona-Robb passed the witness back to Laseter for further cross-examination. 10:57 a.m. — Dula testified that part of the healing process for a child victim of abuse is to allow the memories of the abuse to be less prevailing over time. She testified this is one of the reasons that children aren't subjected to multiple forensic interviews. 10:55 a.m. — Dula testified that contamination of a child's statement can take place in the form of coaching, when the child is told to say something that didn't happen, or told not to say something that did happen. Testimony resumed just after 10:50 a.m., with Dula returning to the witness stand. Laseter passed the witness to Grona-Robb for re-direct examination. Judge Kennedy dismissed the jury for a morning break. The Court will be in recess until about 10:50 a.m., when testimony is set to resume. 10:34 a.m. — Laseter asked Dula if it would be possible for a child to make up allegations of sexual abuse to escape a chaotic home. Dula testified that it could happen, but in her experience, its "exceedingly, exceedingly rare." 10:33 a.m. — Laseter asked Dula which articles she referenced to form her opinions on grooming. Dula responded by listing multiple sources she's consulted over her 24-year career to form her opinions on grooming and disclosures. 10:31 a.m. — Dula testified that she is not aware if questions were asked in this case that would help determine if the children had been coached beforehand. 10:29 a.m. — Dula again testified that the role of a forensic interviewer is not to determine if the alleged abuse really happened or not. She testified that she's never seen a child rehearse a story multiple times. 10:25 a.m. — Laseter asked Dula if the opportunities for contamination of an outcry statement increase as time goes on between the initial outcry and the forensic interview. Dula testified that opportunities increase. 10:22 a.m. — Laseter questioned Dula regarding the circumstances surrounding forensic interviews and the timing of them in relation to outcries of abuse. 10:19 a.m. — Dula testified that hindsight bias is the perception of past events as bad acts in the light of allegations. She testified that false allegations happen on occasion from children. She testified that she's not aware of any research suggesting children making false allegations of sexual assault in order to escape a chaotic home environment. 10:16 a.m. — Dula testified that the role of a forensic interviewer is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to recount what the victim told them. Dula testified that conformation bias is a belief or determination that could influence an investigation moving forward. 10:14 a.m. — Dula testified that certain activities can be innocent if the underlying motive is not to abuse children, including giving money to community organizations and volunteering. 10:12 a.m. — Dula testified that she did not review the facts of the case before she took the stand. She testified that she was not there to offer her opinion on the facts of the case. Grona-Robb passed the witness to Kim Laseter, one of Patterson's defense attorneys, for cross-examination. 10:10 a.m. — Dula testified that sexual preferences can be something that aren't deviant in nature, but deviant sexual preferences involve something that is illegal. 10:08 a.m. — Dula testified that some perpetrators have thinking errors, where they will put themselves in situations that may be associated with a sexual fantasy they have in order to minimize the fantasy. An example Dula gave would be for someone with a sexual proclivity for children volunteering to babysit a neighbor's child and saying they're just being a good neighbor. 10:05 a.m. — Dula testified that a perpetrator can use a victim's religious belief to manipulate them into committing a sexual act. She testified that if a victim believes in God and they are told to engage in blasphemy, they may feel like they deserved to be abused. She also testified that a perpetrator might incorporate blasphemy into an instance of abuse to cause the child to be afraid to disclose the abuse. She testified that kids are inherently trusting, even when they are being manipulated and abused. 9:53 a.m. — Dula testified that a community can be groomed when a perpetrator is involved heavily in places of authority, such as a church or community involvment, to where when allegations come out against that perpetrator, people tend to not believe them. She testified that people in high-profile and visible positions that seem to be doing good in the community can use that status as a part of community grooming. 9:50 a.m. — Dula testified that perpetrators will often manipulate the natural desires in children to be older than they are by allowing behaviors, such as kissing or sipping alcohol, and telling the child they're old enough to do that activity now. She testified that rewarding a child for the sexual activity can be a part of grooming, such as giving them candy or money. 9:48 a.m. — Dula testified that perpetrators will sometimes add "child-friendly" behaviors or objects into sexual acts, such as toys or candy, in order to soften the abuse. She testified that she's frequently seen cases in which a perpetrator puts candy on their genitals as a part of the abuse. 9:46 a.m. — Dula testified that physical touch with the child by a potential perpetrator can be grooming. She testified that they might wrestle, hug, or massage the child in order to test the child's boundaries. She testified that they may quickly touch a child's private areas while engaging in normal physical touch as well. 9:41 a.m. — Dula testified that grooming is the process by which a perpetrator gains trust and access to the child. She testified that grooming is done in three ways; grooming of the child, grooming of the caregiver, and grooming of the environment or community at large. 9:38 a.m. — Dula testified that children often don't cry or get emotional during forensic interviews. She testified that children who have been abused have had to figure out how to cope with the abuse, and since outcries are often delayed, they don't present as upset. 9:29 a.m. — Dula testified that children often make delayed outcries of sexual abuse. She testified that most children don't have the words to describe what happened to them, most don't know it was wrong at the time, and most families don't talk about normal sexual behavior. She testified that children are typically abused by someone they know and trust. 9:26 a.m. — Judge Meredith Kennedy returned the jury to the courtroom. Brooke Grona-Robb called the next witness on behalf of the prosecution, Lindsay Dula, an expert in child sexual abuse and the dynamics surrounding child sexual abuse.