Maybe you are sick of hearing about the DeOnte Rawlings case. The 14-year-old was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer on September 17, 2007. That's a long time ago. By now, the off-duty cops have been cleared by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the D.C. Police Department. Law enforcement contends that Rawlings had fired on the officers—James Haskel and Anthony Clay—first and was riding Haskel's stolen minibike. Officer Haskel only returned fire in self defense.

In this series, City Desk has set out to chronicle the case's oddities and various headscratchers. You can read part one here, part two here, part three here, part four here, part five here, and part six here. Our latest installment focuses on deposition witness: James Haskel's wife—Corsondra L. Haskel.

Mrs. Haskel is important. Why? Because immediately after the shooting, Clay drove Haskel's Tahoe back to her house. The first civilian he talked to was Corsondra L. Haskel.

Rawlings' family attorney Gregory Lattimer deposed her on April 9, 2009. Haskel seemed very concerned about why Clay had left her husband behind. She also contradicts Clay's testimony on a crucial point. Here is what she had to say about her interactions with Officer Clay:

Lattimer: What happened at that point when he brought the truck back?

Haskel: We talked.

Lattimer: We meaing—

Haskel: Officer Clay and I.

Lattimer: OK. What did you all talk about?

Haskel: We talked about—we talked about where he was or where my husband was.

Lattimer: All right. And what did you say and what did he say?

Haskel: He told me what happened.

Lattimer: What did he tell you?

Haskel: He told me what happened — I don't remember what — I don't remember his words as to what exactly he said.

Lattimer: OK. To the best of your recollection and as best as you remember, what did he tell you had happened?

Haskel: I don't remember.

Lattimer: You don't remember anything that he said?

Haskel: Can I take a break?

Lattimer: Well, there is a question pending right now. Once you answer the question, you can take a break....

Haskel: I asked him where was James, and he said that they saw the mini bike. And he told me about the fire exchange.

Lattimer: What did he say? Well, let me finish because you want to take a break. Let me let you finish your — what you were saying before I started devling into questions.

Haskel: That's what he said...

(Haskel gets to take a break).

Lattimer: You say he told you about the fire?

Haskel: Uh-hu, there was an exchange of fire.

Lattimer: And what did you think he meant by that?

Haskel: What did I think?

Lattimer: Yes.

Haskel: Where was my husband if there was an exchange of fire?

Lattimer: Did he explaine to you how this gun — this shooting had occurred?

Haskel: Did he explain to me?

Lattimer: Yes.

Haskel: Once they saw the bike, he said that they were shot at, and then there was gunfire. And I asked him, where is James? And he said around the corner. And I said, OK.

Lattimer: Did you say, is he all right?

Haskel: Yes, I said is he all right, and why did you leave him.

Lattimer: And what did he say when you asked if he was all right?

Haskel: He's fine.

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.

Lattimer: Did he tell you what happened to the young man on the bike?

Haskel: No.

Lattimer: So at that time what, if anything, did you do?

Haskel: I got on the phone and called my husband.

Lattimer: Did you reach him?

Haskel: No....And then I called him again.

Lattimer: Did you reach him that time?

Haskel: I spoke with him...

Lattimer: Did you ever tell Clay that a young man had been shot?

Haskel: No.*

*Why is this important? Clay claimed in his deposition that Mrs. Haskel told him about the boy being shot.

Maybe you are sick of hearing about the DeOnte Rawlings case. The 14-year-old was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer on September 17, 2007. That's a long time ago. By now, the off-duty cops have been cleared by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the D.C. Police Department. Law enforcement contends that Rawlings had fired on the officers—James Haskel and Anthony Clay—first and was riding Haskel's stolen minibike. Officer Haskel only returned fire in self defense.

In this series, City Desk has set out to chronicle the case's oddities and various headscratchers. You can read part one here, part two here, part three here, part four here, and part five here. In this latest installment, we find a very curious detail—one that complicates Haskel's decision to go out looking for his mini bike.

On September 17, 2007, Haskel didn't just leave a wife and young child behind to go looking for his mini bike. He left a fellow D.C. cop.

Haskel wasn't home when his mini bike was stolen from his garage. Neighbors noticed the theft and did the responsible thing—they called the police. By the time Haskel came home, there was a police officer waiting for him. The cop told him that other cops–from the 7th District–would be responding to his home.

Haskel did not wait for his fellow D.C. Police officers to arrive. Nor did he bother notifying them that he was going to go out on his own and search for his missing mini bike. Here is Haskel's related deposition testimony with Rawlings' family attorney Gregory Lattimer:

Haskel: The neighbors were all out. There was an officer there.…The neighbors called about the burglary and 7D dispatched it. He heard the run dispatch and he responded…

Lattimer: You didn’t take down his name?

Haskel: No.

Lattimer: Why?

Haskel: Didn’t feel the need to.

Lattimer: I thought he was investigating the burglary?

Haskel: I said he responded.

Lattimer: OK, so what was he just doing, just standing around?

Haskel: Yes, basically when I got there, he was sitting in his cruiser.

Lattimer: So he just came there and just sit and looked around?

Haskel: If you want to know exactly what he done, you may have to get him here and ask him some questions…

Lattimer: So when you got there, did you have any communication with 7D?

Haskel: No.

Lattimer: Why?

Haskel: He told me that 7D had the call and would respond and was coming out to the call.

Lattimer: So he told you that 7D was coming out to the call.

Haskel: Right.

Lattimer: Did you wait for them to get there?

Haskel: No.

Maybe you are sick of hearing about the DeOnte Rawlings case. The 14-year-old was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer on September 17, 2007. That's a long time ago. By now, the off-duty cops have been cleared by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the D.C. Police Department. Law enforcement contends that Rawlings had fired on the officers—James Haskel and Anthony Clay—first and was riding Haskel's stolen minibike. Officer Haskel only returned fire in self defense.

In this series, City Desk has set out to chronicle the case's oddities and various headscratchers. You can read part one here, part two here, part three here, and part four here. In this latest installment, we focus on Haskel's explanation of why he fled the scene. Immediately following his shooting of Rawlings in the back of the head, Haskel contends a hostile crowd formed.

Haskel's contention is not backed up by his fellow cops.

In his deposition with Rawlings' family attorney Gregory Lattimer, Sgt. Ralph Wax tries to make the case for Haskel. But after lengthy questioning, Wax must concede that the crowd may not have been hostile at all.

Wax: [Haskel] did not know the whereabouts of DeOnte Rawlings' firearm at that point. So there's a inherent danger when the subject is down, and he observes three people over top of him. There's an inherent danger, not knowing where that weapon is, knowing that there is a firearm in that immediate area. Yes, I think he could reasonably conclude that there is a danger.

Lattimer: So if he had immediately gone to DeOnte Rawlings and secured him, there wouldn't have been three people over him, would there?

Wax: I can't answer that.

Lattimer then reads back what Wax wrote in his investigative report.

Lattimer: Second, the shooting prompted an immediate and negative response from the community, whose ire was directed towards Officer Haskel, based on what Haskel told you.

Wax: I think that, coupled with all the officers' statements in this instance.

Lattimer: None of the other officers were attacked.

Wax: The officers talked about the hostility in the area. They weren't the ones identified as the shooter who just shot somebody, but they all were talking about the hostility when they got there.

Lattimer: What hostility? What did they say? Go to somebody who talked about hostility?

Wax: OK. Based upon 6(e), I can't talk about what officers said. There is other statements from Officers Egbert, Cilla, and Bank.

Lattimer: In your initial report, you talk about Officer Bank, and you don't talk about any hostility that he talks about.

Wax: I didn't cite it....He said there was a hostile crowd there that night.

Lattimer: OK. I'm looking at it. Once on the scene, Officer Banks, he observed a juvenile lying on the ground bleeding from the head. Officer Banks said that he and Officer Egbert were joined by Officer Cilla, and the three of them secured the scene and attempted to keep the crowd under control....

Wax: If you have to keep the crowd under control, there's a reason to control the crowd.

They go on to talk about what the crowd was saying. They were talking about how the police had shot Rawlings. They knew Haskel was a cop. Lattimer goes through the statements from the cops on the scene and then finally returns to the hostility question.

Lattimer: But none of that talks about hostility?

Wax: I can't talk about hostility. I guess I shouldn't have referenced that.

Lattimer: What is the reason?

Wax: I spoke out of turn....

Lattimer: Nobody was throwing anything, right, that you know of?

Wax: I have no evidence that anybody threw anything at anybody.

Lattimer: Nobody was threatening anybody, that you know of, right? At least not from these three guys, what they say, right?

Wax: I can't answer that fully. I know Haskel felt threatened, he stated, by an individual who beckoned him towards the scene.

Let's stop right here. The evidence Haskel has to back up his hostility claim is that a citizen standing by Rawlings waved him over. That's it. Haskel doesn't describe the citizen as angry. The citizen just waved him over. He thought that was unusual. Really? A 14-year-old is shot in the head. Maybe it's possible that the citizen wanted Haskel's help. There's no evidence that this citizen's motives or actions were hostile.

It was just a wave.

Lattimer: We're talking about the three officers, is what I'm asking you about. None of them indicated that—

Wax: The context of those interviews, no one said anybody was threatening them in those statements that I just read from.

Lattimer: And when they got there, they got there within moments, seconds of teh shooting, right?

Wax: Couple minutes after the shooting, approximately two minutes.

Lattimer: And Clay doesn't talk about any hostility, right?

Wax: That's correct.

Lattimer: So of the five people that I understand now from you that the first five people, MPD-related people, who were on that scene after the shooting, were Haskel, Clay, Egbert, Bank, and Cilla, right?

Wax: Right.

Lattimer: Of those five people, only Haskel told you on the 18th or 17th that there was crowd hostility?

Wax: That would be a correct statement.

Maybe you are sick of hearing about the DeOnte Rawlings case. The 14-year-old was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer on September 17, 2007. That's a long time ago. By now, the off-duty cops have been cleared by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the D.C. Police Department. Law enforcement contends that Rawlings had fired on the officers—James Haskel and Anthony Clay—first and was riding Haskel's stolen minibike. Officer Haskel only returned fire in self defense.

In this series, City Desk has set out to chronicle the case's oddities and various headscratchers. You can read part one here, part two here, and part three here. In this installment, we present a curious incident that took place shortly after the Rawlings shooting.

According to the D.C. Police's preliminary investigative report, the shooting drew a very high-profile crowd to the scene at Highland Dwellings: Mayor Adrian Fenty, Chief Cathy Lanier, Asst. Chief Willie Dandridge, 7D Command Joel Maupin, Commander Alfred Durham, Special Operations Division Commander Patrick Burke, Acting Asst. Chief in the Office of Professional Responsibility Matthew Klein, Capt. Melvin Gresham, and various watch commanders and Force Investigation detectives.

One person on the scene actually found a red minibike–Det. K. Goldberg. By the time he arrived, Rawlings had been transported to Children's Hospital and the scene had been secured, the report states. Goldberg states that he began canvassing the neighborhood for evidence.

Goldberg walked into a courtyard surrounded by 638 and 650 Atlantic Street SE. He goes on to state in the report:

"[There] was a group of people that appeared to [be] juveniles in front of and along side 650 Atlantic St. SE. DC. This group was made up of boys and girls. I noticed a group of four or five young males that had a red framed mini bike on a cement porch that appeared to be in front of 650 Atlantic St. SE. DC. They were crouched down around the mini bike as if [they] were trying to fix some part of it. There were other young people standing two to three feet away from the ones with the mini bike."

Goldberg doesn't know anything about the importance of a red minibike. But he approaches the group anyway.

Goldberg goes on to state:

"I spoke to a young black female that was sitting on a metal rail that was approximately 10 feet away from the boys with the mini bike. The unidentified female stated that she was 12 years old, she did not see anything and she lived in 638. As I awas walking back toward the crime scene to continue the canvass, I turned around and saw two young males pushing the mini bike and leaving from in front of 650 Atlantic ST. SE. DC."

Goldberg then joins up with the other officers at the crime scene. Some time later, he overhears something about a red minibike being stolen. And that the bike was a motorized bike. The detective then meets with a member of the Force Investigation Team–a Det. Baum–and told him that he had seen a red minibike. Baum and Goldberg then went back to the area and knocked on the door to 638 Atlantic.

"An unidentified young male opened the front door and stood at the door," Goldberg writes. "I recognized this young male from being one of the people that was standing about two or three feet away from the mini bike in front of 650 Atlantic ST. SE. DC. I asked the young male if he knew about a mini bike. He answered negatively. I told him I saw him standing near the mini bike. The young male did not say anything and closed the door."

Goldberg states that he and Det. Baum walked back to the crime scene. This was the extent of their canvassing.

Rawlings' family attorney Gregory Lattimer says he has seen no warrants issued for 650 or 638 Atlantic Street SE.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Maybe you are sick of hearing about the DeOnte Rawlings case. The 14-year-old was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer on September 17, 2007. That's a long time ago. By now, the off-duty cops have been cleared by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the D.C. Police Department. Law enforcement contends that Rawlings had fired on the officers—James Haskel and Anthony Clay—first and was riding Haskel's stolen minibike. Officer Haskel only returned fire in self defense.

In this series, City Desk has set out to chronicle the case's oddities and various headscratchers. You can read part one here, and part two here. Now comes this curious detail from Sgt. Ralph Wax.

On September 4, 2008, the D.C. Police Department cleared Haskel and Clay of wrongdoing in connection with the shooting death of Rawlings. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said that she was happy to have the officers back. But in the Post story linked above, it was reported that Clay had been reprimanded for an undisclosed infraction. Sgt. Wax's deposition sheds some light on what that might have been. In his deposition, he stated that he cited both officers. And the citation was not for some small infraction.

Wax headed up the investigation into the Rawlings shooting. On the night of September 17, he interviewed both Haskel and Clay. Generally, he was the one responsible for the Rawlings case. In his deposition, Wax stated that he cited both officers for fleeing the scene—a major reason why this case has drawn so much outrage.

Both officers admitted in their own testimony that their actions—like leaving Rawlings behind and failing to safeguard evidence, etc.—bucked police procedure.

It is unclear whether Wax's write-ups were ever approved by the department's top brass or whether the officers were punished in some way. When asked about the possible reprimands, Assistant Chief Peter Newsham, who ran the Internal Affairs division and is familiar with the case, refused to comment.

Maybe you are sick of hearing about the DeOnte Rawlings case. The 14-year-old was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer on September 17, 2007. That's a long time ago. By now, the off-duty cops have been cleared by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the D.C. Police Department. Law enforcement contends that Rawlings had fired on the officers—James Haskel and Anthony Clay—first and was riding Haskel's stolen minibike. Officer Haskel only returned fire in self defense.

In this series, City Desk has set out to chronicle the case's oddities and various head scratchers. You can read part one here. This next item is a real whopper.

On the day after the police shooting death of DeOnte Rawlings, D.C. Police Department Inspector Matthew Klein cleared both Haskel and Clay to return to full-duty status. The official was writing from his position inside the Office of Professional Responsibility. Both officers had given statements to police detectives but they had yet to give a walk-through of the scene. Officials hadn't even tested Clay's guns. Put it this way, Rawlings' blood hadn't been cleaned from the sidewalk and a high-ranking official was already clearing the two off-duty cops.

Klein writes in his letter on Haskel–the officer who shot and killed Rawlings:

"The Force Investigation Team initiated a preliminary review of this case in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office. Moreover, the Force Investigation Team has found no issues of concern regarding Officer Haskel's role at this stage of the investigation that would preclude his return to full duty.

It is therefore been determined by the Office of Professional Responsiblity that Officer Haskel shall be placed in a Full-Duty Status, in accordance with the provisions set forth in General Order 901.11...."

You can read Haskel's letter and Clay's letter. Both officers did not return to full-duty status for many, many months. But the letters appear to at least clear both cops within 24 hours after the shooting. Just weird.

I am still waiting on a response from the D.C. Police Department about these letters.

Maybe you are sick of hearing about the DeOnte Rawlings case. The 14-year-old was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer on September 17, 2007. That's a long time ago. By now, the off-duty cops have been cleared by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the D.C. Police Department. Law enforcement contends that Rawlings had fired on the officers—James Haskel and Anthony Clay—first and was riding Haskel's stolen minibike. Officer Haskel only returned fire in self defense.

So what keeps this case from going away? We keep learning new problems with the police work on this case, and new holes in the narrative. Today we published a very long piece on the Rawlings shooting that's simply taken from the depositions of those involved. In it you may find out things you didn't already know. On City Desk, I will be presenting a series of documents and deposition testimony highlighting more screwups, questionable memos, and just sad little details. There's a reason why this case won't go away.

Kicking off this series, we have an exchange between Rawlings' family's attorney Gregory Lattimer and Sgt. Ralph Wax during Wax's deposition taken last fall. Wax headed up the investigation into the shooting. Here he details what Rawlings had on him when he died and the confusion over exactly what color shirt he was wearing at the time. The shirt color would turn out to be crucial since the cops could only recall what Rawlings was wearing at the time. They couldn't identify any of his physical features. Wax also notes that no gunshot residue was found on Rawlings' clothing.

Lattimer: There was one polo shirt, short sleeve, white in color, correct?

Wax: That’s what it says, yeah.

Lattimer: Pair of boxer shorts, right?

Wax: Yes.

Lattimer: Pair of athletic socks, right?

Wax: Yep.

Lattimer: One pair of tennis shoes?

Wax: Yes.

Lattimer: One pair of pants, tan in color, [Old] Navy, right?

Wax: Yes.

Lattimer: Then U.S. currency, paper money, $8, one $5 bill and three $1 bills?

Wax: Yes, sir.

Lattimer: Anything unusual about any of this?

Wax: I think, if I’m not mistaken, the shirt was actually light blue, not white, but everything else is consistent.

Lattimer: Light blue? Why do you say that?

Wax: Just remember, when I saw the shirt, I thought it was light blue.

Lattimer: So you think the hospital got it wrong?

Wax: Hospital didn’t write this out.

Lattimer: MPD got it wrong?

Wax: Might have been the technician….

Lattimer: All of that stuff was tested for powder residue, right?

Wax: Yes.

Lattimer: What were the findings?

Wax: There was none.