Lattimer: And then you said why did you leave him, what did he say?

Haskel: He said—he said, he’s OK. That’s what he told me. He’s OK.

Lattimer: Did he tell you why he left?

Haskel: No. He didn’t tell me.

Nowhere in the earlier testimony did Mrs. Haskel mention that she asked Clay "Why did you leave him?" Granted, this bit of information may not be crucial to some, it tells me that Lattimer is trying to go somewhere with it. Meaning that in the earlier article, it is established that both Ofc. Haskel and Clay abandonded the scene with no regard for Police regulations. The "implied asking" of that question by Mrs. Haskel once again establishes faulty reasoning on the account of Ofc. Clay.

I know that the purpose of this deposition is to establish "truth" and to contradict some of the sworn statements, but something seems missing. Basic questions establishing the interaction seem to be assumed, rather than asking direct questions like: "On what date and approximately what time, did Ofc. Clay arrive?" "What was his demeanor when he arrived?" or "What was your reaction to someone else driving your vehicle other than your husband?" The latter question actually presents the state of mind Ms. Haskel could've been in which in turn could establish her difficulty in remembering events.

If someone came to my house driving my wife's car (regardless if it is a family friend), my question would first be, how did you come into possession of my wife's vehicle. Where is my wife? While a rational person might assume the family friend is telling the truth, unless my wife had a habit of lending her car to folk, I'd want to check myself. Not only that, but even if there was a shooting involved (assuming my wife is a cop), unless my wife was incapacitated or part of the investigation, I would assume that she would drive the car home, especially since Ofc. Haskel was just "around the corner."

Like I said before, none of this may be relevant, but it paints some uncertainty on the count of this deposition. Yes, depositions can be biased and serve a sole purpose that may not be objective. Still, I (if I were a lawyer) would want to paint the highest of objectivity when the judge (or jury) considers the testimony of my witness.