D.C. Police detectives worked quickly to solve the murder which took place last Wednesday as Rawlings was trying to board a Metro bus along H Street NE. According to an affidavit [PDF} filed in D.C. Superior Court, there were several witnesses that came forward.

In reading the affidavit, one thing is clear: Jeffrey Britt will not be the only one charged in this case. Police recovered two different caliber shell casings from the crime scene, and witnesses point to other individuals involved in the killing:

"One such witness...reported that it observed two black males armed with guns shooting into the well of the Metro bus."

The affidavit goes on to describe a murder plot developed in front of witnesses and carried out within minutes.

While attending the funeral service for Ashton Hunter, one witness saw Rawlings walk into the proceedings. At that point, several attendees of the funeral talked about Rawlings' supposed involvement in Hunter's murder. The witness heard a "Jeff" state: "I should kill that nigga!"

After Rawlings left the funeral home, this witness saw "Jeff" and two other individuals standing near Rawlings. Rawlings soon left. Jeff and the two others followed. A short time later, the witness heard gun shots and observed the three individuals running back towards the funeral home. The witness said that he noticed they were armed with guns. The witness identified Jeff as Jeffrey Britt.

Another witness saw the actual murder. The affidavit states:

"[The witness] observed one of the black males who was with 'Jeff' shooting a gun at the decedent who was lying on the steps of the Metro bus....It subsequently observed the black male aiming the gun at him and pulling the trigger, but the gun did not go off because it appeared to be out of bullets."

After the murder, detectives found on Rawlings a Smith and Wesson 9mm semi-automatic handgun and a "bottle containing a clear liquid that had the chemical odor consistent with...PCP."

In late July, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan called for an investigation into the discovery abuses in the Pershing Park case. Sullivan suggested that the D.C. Council should get to the bottom of how evidence went missing or got botched.

Councilmember Mary Cheh called for AG Peter Nickles to resign. Councilmember Phil Mendelson, who heads the Judiciary Committee, stated that he "definitely" would be considering an investigation into the matter.

Now, a D.C. Council investigation appears unlikely.

Mendelson tells City Desk that he hasn't ruled out holding hearings on the mass arrests and troubling OAG response. But considering Nickles' relationship to the council, he says it might be a waste of time.

"The difficulty with holding a hearing is Nickles may not show," Mendelson says. "He might even claim privilege....I'm not sure what I could get out of a hearing."

Mendelson counters that the bulk of any investigation into the disappearing evidence is already coming from the plaintiffs attorneys. He's just not sure what more he could discover from holding a public hearing on the case. "I just don't know how we could have an effective hearing given Nickles' obstructionism," he explains.

Mendo says he's still trying to get police documents related to the DeOnte Rawlings case. Pershing Park could be another never ending document chase.

Still, Mendo assures: "Pershing Park is not off my radar screen in terms of Nickles' bad behavior. I'm not sure how I'm going to follow up on it....In some way, and I don't know how right now, all that's going to come back to haunt him."

*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, 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.

First up: Fresh stuff right here on this very Web site. Jason Cherkis has the cops, in their own words, explaining themselves for the DeOnte Rawlings shooting. Of special note: why they not only left the boy bleeding from the back of the head, but why they never even checked to see if he's still alive. Stunning.

Tim Carman's got even more on the eviction of celeb chef Spike Mendelsohn; Amanda Hess is wondering who can tell a rape joke; Ruth Samuelson finds a juicy condo conversion story peopled with phantom tenants; and Dave McKenna finds a guy to lay out in telling detail why DCPS is dysfunctional. LL Weekly to be pimped in forthcoming LL Daily.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, except when it comes to the Cleveland Park Cititizens Association. Marc Fisher today goes after George Idelson and Friends after old George, rather than welcome a bunch of people who don't agree with him into "his" neighborhood group---designed to "make your voice heard and help preserve and improve our neighborhood"---decided instead to postpone/cancel elections. Idelson's a classic NIMBY, of course, who favors "preservation" above development, even if that development includes replacing a crappy grocery store with a noncrappy one. But what Fisher didn't get into is just how quietly effective old George has been over the years. The battles being lost in Cleveland Park now are connected to the "overlay"---the complicated, esoteric formula that dictates how much property and which kind can be commercial. Idelson is its most vocal defender and has successfully fought off scrapping it and drastically changing it. As a result, Cosi fell victim. The Giant project has been stalled for more than 10 years. Empty storefronts at the Park and Shop remain that way. But if old George is forced to open up his fiefdom? Things could finally get interesting in CP.

Moving on to the fact that Virginians are not allowed to smile for their license photos anymore. But they are allowed stupid vanity plates? Oy vey.

More from the D.C. blogoworld:

* Greater, Greater Washington thinks Silver Spring could be like New York and San Francisco.

* Congress Heights on the Rise does some serious gloating about his/her condo and Congress Heights being on the rise.

* DCist gives three stars to Loose Lips. Not that Loose Lips!

* SWDC calls the rotting, trash-filled Town Center Park at 6th and I SW a "disgrace." Tommy Wells responds.

Here's what I wrote back then:

"Last Monday, At-Large Councilmember Phil Mendelson held one of his Judiciary Committee’s oversight hearings on the D.C. Police Department. For the most part, the hearing was routine: right down to the councilmember asking for the investigative materials related to the DeOnte Rawlings shootings. By Mendo’s own count, he has asked for the Rawlings report at least three times.

At Monday’s hearing, D.C.Police Chief Cathy Lanier and her top brass assured Mendelson that he would have the Rawlings case report on his desk very soon. The expectation was for a Friday deadline"

Well, it's almost May. And according to Mendo's office, the Councilmember has yet to receive the Rawlings investigative reports. How long is this going to take? How many more cheap blog posts am I going to have to write before Lanier makes good on her promise?

Mark Segraves, who also questioned Nickles, already posted an item about Nickles' strong statements on Ward 8 Councilmember Marion Barry. Asked if not paying your taxes should disqualify a person from public office, Nickles said his "personal view" is that it should.

But what really caught the ear of LL is statement Nickles made about the DeOnte Rawlings case. Asked by Segraves about the Fenty administration's commitment to transparency, Nickles raised the subject of the Washington Post's in-depth investigation of the Rawlings case published last Sunday.

That article, by Cheryl W. Thompson, he says, contained an illegal leak. Nickles says the article names an individual who provided grand jury testimony indicating that Rawlings shot first at officers James Haskel and Anthony Clay.

Now it's unclear who that might refer to. The article cites Haskel's "recorded statement to police" in which he says "I thought he's trying to scare us and then out comes the gun....And I'm like, oh, my God, he has [inaudible] because he's standing there with the gun there and I'm like, okay, I get my gun out [inaudible] the gun out the window, he fires. I bang off two rounds. He runs off." Thompson also mentions Clay's statements to police, including that he saw the "muzzle flash" of DeOnte's gun.

Said Nickles, "That material should never have been disclosed. It put the life of that individual in jeopardy. I've talked to the Post, we're going to pursue that matter vigorously....It is inappropriate in the name of freedom of the press or whatever to disclose grand jury material. That is the law."

Segraves asked Nickles if he was planning to bring legal action against the Post.

"Probably not against the Post because the law is not as good as it should be when something like this happens in a criminal grand jury matter, but I think I know how that was leaked, and I intend to pursue the leaker."

Segraves asked if he suspects it was a D.C. government official.

"I'm not going to discuss the evidence I have indicating the inappropriateness of putting a life in jeopardy in get a story in the paper. Completely inappropriate and beyond bounds."

If Nickles is claiming that the leak and the Post's disclosure are putting Clay or Haskel in jeopardy---the only two persons named in the articles as having seen Rawlings fire a shot---he has no leg to stand on, seeing as their names have been in rightfully in the public record since shortly after the incident happened in fall 2007. And yet he is going to pursue a witchhunt for a leaker?

Bizarre.

The other possibilities are that he's concerned about the naming in the article of a heretofore unnamed party.

That might be D.C. cops Anthony Fucci, Daniel Egbert, or Jeremy Bank---who responded to the scene that night. But their statements are included based not on grand jury testimony but on depositions given earlier this year for a civil case---and those depositions are part of a public court record.

Or perhaps he's speaking of Bobby McNair or "Fat Stink", who are named based on "[r]ecords obtained by The Post." Neither of them, however, are said to have seen the shooting, only that they helped track down the missing minibike well afterward.

Or maybe he's talking about Clifton Coleman, the 18-year-old who told police, after being arrested for shooting his girlfriend a month after the Rawlings incident, that DeOnte had shot twice at police. If he told a grand jury that, it was no surprise: "Sources" told Examiner's Scott McCabe that much, naming Coleman, back on Oct. 18, 2007. And at that time, Coleman had also spoken to Gregory Lattimer, the lawyer representing Rawlings' family in the current civil case (and, LL suspects, the person Nickles has in mind as the leaker).

If the leak of that information is such a big deal, and it's putting Coleman's life in danger, why not pursue the leaker back then?

Again: bizarre.

On Sunday, the Washington Post dropped a huge A1 investigative look at the DeOnte Rawlings shooting written by Cheryl Thompson. The Rawlings case has rightly consumed the paper. Two off-duty cops--James Haskel and Anthony Clay--went looking for a stolen minibike that resulted in the shooting death of 14-year-old Rawlings. In the immediate aftermath of that fatal September day in 2007, transparency and accountability were promised by city officials. They have yet to fulfill those promises.

The Post devoted more than 3,700 words to yesterday's Rawlings story. And before that piece, the paper had produced more than two dozen stories on the Rawlings saga, noting every twist and turn in the case---from the autopsy findings to a feature on the neighborhood where Rawlings was shot and everything in between. Their stories aren't just sourced by angry family members either. Their stories appear sourced by well-meaning cops as well. [It's not just the family who wants the answers out there, it might just be the rank and file, too].

What made yesterday's story such a stunner was how little news was in there. It was a testament to the stubbornness of police officials--Chief Cathy Lanier, in particular--who continue to refuse to release their investigative documents and findings.

The article's author, Thompson, rarely gets in print. She had to have been on the Rawlings story for at least a year. And yet, I can't seem to find one revelation or new detail that sheds new light on either the shooter (Officer Haskel) or Rawlings.

If you want a good summation of those 3700 words, read the Post's Dec. 1, 2008 editorial pleading for the city to cough up answers on the shooting. It is the best thing written so far about the case. [Haskel's prior shootings, the bullet hole on the SUV, etc. are in that editorial]. If you thought that eyewitness sounded familiar, he was. The Post wrote about him and his alleged claims on October 19, 2007.

After all those words from the Post, there are still too many questions left unanswered. Here are a few:

1) Haskel had been involved in two other shootings while he was off duty. What exactly was his involvement and what were the circumstances of those shootings? Those shootings had been ruled justified--why were they ruled justified?

2) Immediately after the shootings, police brass spoke highly of Haskel and Clay. Why did they fail to mention that he had been involved in those other shootings?

3) Not mentioned in the the Post story was the fact that Chief Lanier had promised Councilmember Phil Mendelson a copy of the police's investigation into the Rawlings shooting. She made this promise under oath roughly a month ago at a council hearing. She has yet to turn over the Rawlings report. Why?

4) Were Haskel and Clay reprimanded for their failure to follow police procedure? The officers admitted to not securing the crime scene, to fleeing the crime scene, and to failing to announce themselves as police officers when they allegedly found Rawlings and the stolen minibike.

5) Who was DeOnte Rawlings? We know he was a 14-year-old kid who was slipping into trouble. What was his family history? We know he sought the counsel of a social worker. We know that the family had been troubled prior to the shooting. Not in the Post story: Did CFSA have a case file on Rawlings' family?

6) What was Rawlings doing the day before the shooting? Hours before the shooting? Minutes before the officers pulled up? If Rawlings did have a .38, what attempts have the police made to find the gun and find the person who gave him the gun?

7) Rawlings did not have any gunshot residue on his arms and hands following the incident. What medical attention did he receive on the scene and at the hospital? Is it possible that the residue would have been  wiped off? If not, then how do the police explain this?

8) Aside from the ShotSpotter and the two cops, what evidence does law enforcement have that corroborates the police version of events?

9) Alleged eyewitness Clifton Coleman claims he was there and saw Rawlings fire a .38. Did the Post attempt to interview him and if so why did they not include his statements? If he refused to comment, why did he refuse to comment? If he was deposed, why not quote his deposition? Rawlings family attorney Gregory L. Lattimer claimed he has questioned Coleman.

10) Lanier claims that she can't talk about the case because of grand jury secrecy rules. The officers were cleared. Why not share the case file now?

11) Haskel said in his recorded statement that he fired two shots and the kid with the minibike ran off. Why didn't he then call for back up?

12) What is the physical evidence that backs up their claim of a running gun battle--that Rawlings continued to fire his weapon as he was running. Let's face it: A 14-year-old kid running and firing a gun backwards is scary but isn't the safest place behind the SUV? Rawlings allegedly fired his gun nine feet away from the officers' SUV and missed. He then took off running--how far away was he when he fired off more rounds? Twenty feet? More? Less?  Clay claims that he snuck behind the SUV. Why didn't Haskel? Why did he give chase and put himself in danger?

13) Investigators found no gunshot residue on Rawlings shirt. How do investigators explains this?

14) Rawlings body was found roughly 100 feet from the original confrontation. That is a long distance. How did Haskel explain that he feared for his life?

15) The Post reported that two residents called 911. What did they see? What efforts did the Post make to find these residents?

16) The Post reported that three people gathered around Rawlings. Who are these people? What did they see? Did they see a gun next to Rawlings? Did any of them admit to taking the gun?

17) The scene around Rawlings did not appear dangerous. Why did the police say that the scene appeared hostile and that's why the officers fled?

18) Is there anybody who went to police or the family's attorney and claimed they saw Rawlings running without that .38?

19) And finally, is there anything meaningful the police can say about why this case seems so messed up?

At Monday's hearing, D.C.Police Chief Cathy Lanier and her top brass assured Mendelson that he would have the Rawlings case report on his desk very soon. The expection was for a Friday deadline. In an editorial the day of the deadline, the Post urged the police department to release more information about shootings--including the details on the recent police shooting death of a bus driver. We'd like the records behind the David Kerstetter shooting on November 6. And the Osman Abdullahi shooting in late February. The Post sort of piggybacked on David Simon's own editorial in its newspaper a few weeks ago.

So is it shocking that on Friday, the D.C. Police failed to give Mendelson the DeOnte Rawlings report? Of course not. This is what the department does with such things.

"I think that's still at the factory for redactions," Mendelson joked during a phone interview. It was 5 p.m. on Friday. "This is at least the third time I've asked for the D. Rawlings report."

Mendelson believes getting these force-investigation shooting reports is important. "If the executive branch does not want accountability and transparency then they will ignore the legislature's request," Mendelson says. "I agree with what [the Post] wrote. How do we do oversight if they withhold information? Of course that raises the question: Is there something they are trying to hide? Maybe it's nothing but it certainly provokes the question. Anything controversial like that sunshine is most helpful."

Simon writes:

"In January, a new Baltimore police spokesman -- a refugee from the Bush administration -- came to the incredible conclusion that the city department could decide not to identify those police officers who shot or even killed someone. (Similar policies have been established by several other police departments in the United States as well as by the FBI.)

Anthony Guglielmi, the department's director of public affairs, informed Baltimoreans that, henceforth, Police Commissioner Frederick Bealefeld would decide unilaterally whether citizens would know the names of those who had used their weapons on civilians. If they did something illegal or unwarranted -- in the commissioner's judgment -- they would be named. Otherwise, the Baltimore department would no longer regard the decision to shoot someone as the sort of responsibility for which officers might be required to stand before the public./blockquote>

I sympathize with Simon on this one. The D.C. police department not only refuses to release the names of officers involved in shootings, its spokesperson doesn't quite understand the need for such openness.

I was able to get the names of the cops in the David Kerstetter shooting only by talking to friendly officers and digging up the officers' phone numbers. [The Post never bothered to even name Kerstetter in its short account of the shooting]. The department still wouldn't confirm the names even after I interviewed the cops. A few months later, an officer shot and killed Osman Abdullahi, and an off-duty cop shot another mentally ill man the next day.

The D.C. police investigation into the DeOnte Rawlings shooting has yet to be made public. The head of the police union, Kristopher Baumann says the Rawlings case should be made public. He blames Mayor Adrian M. Fenty for keeping the investigation under wraps.

"This is a decision the mayor is making," Baumann says. "If they did start making those investigations public, I would be fascinated to see how that would go." He's open to the idea but with one important caveat: make all cases public.

"You can't have one standard for police officers and one for high-ranking officials," he says. "That would be one of the issues....If you do it for the Rawlings case, it has to be done for all cases and all situations. It has to be one standard. That standard has to be across the board.”

But Baumann is against naming names. I will have more posts on this issue later today.

Photo of David Kerstetter provided by the Kerstetter family

]]> http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/03/02/simon-says-name-the-cops-involved-in-shootings-we-agree/feed/ 4