According to internal police documents, sexual assaults in the first half of 2010 are up as much as 325% in areas across the District. Baumann's letter breaks down the numbers:

Internal department documents show that as of June 8, 2010, serious sexual assaults were up 46% city-wide (from 56 during the same period in 2009 to 82 in 2010 . . .  The increases in serious sexual assaults were not uniform throughout the city. The Second Police District (Ward 3) had a 250% increase (from 2 in 2009 to 7 in 2010) and the Third Police District (Ward 1) had a 133% increase (from 6 in 2009 to 14 in 2010). Both of those increases are alwarming and certainly necessitated a proactive response from the police Department, both in enforcement activity and increasing public awareness of not only the problenm, but also resouces for victims and individuals in abusive relationships.

In the Seventh Police District (Ward 8), the increase in serious sexual assaults has been dramatic. Serious sexual assaults increased 325% from 2009 to 2010 (from 4 in 2009 to 17 in 2010). It is important to remember that the Seventh Police District covers an area of only 6.5 square miles and a population of some 60,000. The fact that 17 serious sexual assaults have taken place in an area that small with a population that size cannot be taken lightly. The fact that the Department has taken no steps to identify the problem, warn the public, create education and awareness programs, focus on registered sex offenders, and proactively address the crisis is indefensible.

It's impossible to say whether the increase is due to more assaults or better assault reporting. But Baumann's greater concern centers on discrepancies between the way sexual assaults are reported internally within the police department and externally to the public:

The Department's website contains crime statistics for the city and individual police districts. Rtaher than report serious "sexual assaults" as a category as it oes in internal documents, the Department on its website instead reports all sexual incidents as "sex abuse." This allows the Department to include all criominal sexual reports in one category.

As a result, criminal sexual misdemeanors (e.g. unwanted touching) are included in the numbers for sexual offenses. The number of misdemeanors is significantly higher than the serious felony sexual assaults, and their presence in the same category skews the numbers and serves to mask the increase in serious sexual assaults. For example, the Department's website reported that in 2010 for the Seventh Police District up to June 8, 2010, "sexual abuse" was actually down by 3% (from 33 in 2009 to 32 in 2010).

So by grouping all sexual offenses together—from groping to violent rape—the D.C. police department has obscured (intentionally or not) the increase in reports of the more serious offenses. Beyond the numbers, Baumann's also concerned with the department's tone—he took Lanier to task for downplaying acquaintance rape in her appearance on WTOP earlier this month. Baumann has called for D.C.'s Office of the Inspector General and the D.C. Council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary to investigate the police department's reporting practices.

In an e-mail to WTOP, Police Chief Cathy Lanier wrote, "I have absolutely no problem with the OIG conducting an investigation into my crime statistics." Lanier chalked the controversy up to "confusion" over the department's comprehensive reporting practices: "I am committed to providing full and complete information on crime in the District. Indeed, if anything, more confusion arises because we do provide data in a variety of formats that allow people to analyze the data themselves."

In a Wednesday press conference, Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier stated that as far as MPD and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is concerned, the Hunter case is not a hate crime. In a statement, Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit (GLLU) Community Outreach Specialist Matt Ashburn wrote, "Of particular interest to members of the GLBT community, Chief Lanier stated the case was thoroughly reviewed by prosecutors at the United States Attorney's Office and there is no evidence to support a hate crime enhancement."

Lanier also noted that investigators in the case have ruled out another suspected motive: robbery. MPD is now describing the events leading to Hunter's death simply as an "altercation between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Hanna."

But with the robbery motive abandoned, how is it decided whether or not an “altercation” is motivated by hate?

According to Brett Parson, acting lieutenant of the MPD's Special Liaison Unit, the hate-bias determination is made at three levels: First, by the officers who respond to the scene; second, by the police investigators assigned to the case; and third, by the District Attorneys who prosecute the accused.

In this case, says Parson, “the initial officers that responded to the scene did indicate that it was a potential hate bias crime,” Parson explains, emphasizing the term “potential.” Officers “based that [determination] on the geographic location and the lack of any other evidence,” he says. “They felt that they should raise the issue and that it should be looked into.” Parson says that the MPD Homicide Dept. investigators assigned to the case, Detectives Jacqueline Middleton and Jed Worrell, did look into the hate/bias issue—and found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support the classification. “Homicide did in fact look into it,” says Parson. “They found that it did not reach that level. It did not pass that threshold.”

The hate crime enhancement can be difficult to satisfy, as it applies to a specific aspect of a suspect’s motive: their “prejudice.” In the District of Columbia, hate crimes are classified under the "Bias-Related Crime Act of 1989" (22 D.C. Code 3701). According to the statute, a hate crime is: “a designated act that demonstrates an accused’s prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibility, physical handicap, matriculation or political affiliation of a victim of the subject designated act.” A factsheet released by MPD's Gay and Lesbian Liason Unit (GLLU) clarifies that a hate crime "is motivated, in whole or in part, by an offender’s bias.”

Parson says that in this case, investigators and prosecutors failed to uncover substantial evidence that bias played a role in the altercation. Though he says he “cannot discuss any statements made by any witnesses,” he does say that MPD has no evidence that Hanna used “any overt words or epithets” during or leading up to the altercation with Hunter, and that Hanna does not appear to have any pattern of attacks against gays.

Still—shouldn't police wait to determine a subject's "prejudice" until after the suspect is found? Police mouthpieces began insisting against the hate crime classification as early as Sept. 18, the day after Hunter’s death (Hunter died ten days following the altercation with Hanna). "There is nothing to indicate at this time that this crime was motivated by hate or bias," wrote MPD spokesperson Traci Hughes, on Sept. 18. Later that day, GLLU’s Ashburn supported Hughes’ statement, writing: “the crime is NOT classified as a hate/bias crime.”

The statements came nearly a full month before Hanna’s arrival into police custody, and 20 days before the warrant was issued for his arrest. [UPDATE: The Blade reported today that Hannah "spoke with homicide investigators Sept. 22."]

Parson said yesterday that he was unfamiliar with the time-line of MPD statements on the issue, but did insist that the hate crime possibility was fully investigated at the level of both the police department and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Parson did caution that "hate crime" can mean different things to the police and to the community they serve. “It depends if you’re asking from a legal perspective or a general person's perspective,” says Parson. “Once the facts become public, the people will draw their own conclusions from it. The U.S. Attorney's Office has come to the conclusion that this case did not reach the criteria to charge as a hate/bias crime. Whether or not that’s the same conclusion that the public will make will have to wait until after they’ve heard all the facts.”

In the strangest allegation, the suit accuses photo boss Gresham of having "purchased panties with a MPD insignia and provided them to the females in his office." In the most violent, the lawsuit alleges Gresham "hit [Gilkey] on the top of her head with a telephone receiver so hard she bled because [Gilkey] made a disapproving face and mouthed disapproving words when she witnessed Defendant Gresham lying to his wife while he spoke to her on the telephone."

The suit accuses Gresham and the District of Columbia of "sex harassment," creating a "hostile work environment," "intentional infliction of emotional distress," and "retaliation." The District of Columbia is also accused of "negligent training and supervision." The suit alleges that "MPD knew about Defendant Gresham’s proclivities as a sexual predator, was informed of Defendant Gresham’s actions towards Plaintiff, and failed to take appropriate remedial actions against Defendant Gresham." The complaint requests damages for "physical and emotional distress" and asks that Gresham be removed from his post.

Gresham picked up the phone at MPD's photo lab yesterday. When asked about the case, Gresham said he hadn't heard anything about the lawsuit. "I have no comment, and don’t know anything about [the allegations]," Gresham said.

Gilkey's attorney, Ted J. Williams, previously represented MPD employee Tina Hall-Johnson in another sexual harassment case against Gresham and D.C., which the city settled in 2001. When asked about the new case against Gresham, Williams said, "I find it shocking that the Metropolitan Police Department would continue to employ this person, who clearly is a sexual predator and harasser and a wart, knowing what he had done to one employee. Also of concern is they were on notice of the actions of this man, and there is absolutely nothing that we’ve seen to show that they’ve taken any appropriate action."

According to the complaint, Gresham's alleged verbal harassment began shortly after Gilkey was hired on as an MPD lab technician in June of 1994. Gresham, Gilkey's superior, is accused of commenting that Gilkey "had big full breasts" and "walked like she had good pussy." Gilkey also alleges that Gresham told her "he would give her money if she would permit him to lick her pussy" and that "if he gave her his penis she would be wearing a mattress on her back." According to the complaint, Gresham made many of these comments while he "licked his tongue" or "while touching his penis. Gresham is also accused of introducing a “peter meter” in the office, a term the complaint does not explain.

The complaint also accuses Gresham of several instances of physical harassment:

While in the dark room, Defendant Gresham would walk behind the Plaintiff and touch her body with his erect penis. Defendant Gresham on one occasion grabbed the Plaintiff’s breast and told the Plaintiff that if she informed anyone he would make it hard for her. Defendant Gresham repeatedly showed Plaintiff pornographic pictures and pictures of nude women on beaches. Plaintiff informed Defendant Gresham over and over that his actions were unwanted and asked him to stop.

While MPD was investigating Gresham in regards to the Hall-Johnson suit, the complaint reports that "Gresham was detailed out of the MPD Photo Lab for approximately one year." Following the absence, however, the suit states that Gresham returned to work, "where he began his sexual harassment as if he had never left the photo lab."

After reassuming his post, Gresham is accused of continuing his verbal and physical harassment of Gilkey between the years of 2000 and 2006, including exposing Gilkey’s breast, displaying pornography “where one man had his arm up the other man’s ass,” and constantly telling Gilkey “how good she looked and [that] he would do anything to fuck her."

The suit claims that Gilkey reported the abuse to supervisors in 1998 and 2003, as well as during the course of the Hall-Johnson investigation. In both ’98 and ‘03, the suit alleges that supervisors "failed to act on Plaintiff’s complaint and did not either investigate Plaintiff’s complaint, refer Plaintiff to the MPD EEO office or restrain Mr. Gresham in any way."

In response, the suit alleges, the harassment intensified. According to the complaint, Gresham:

created a situation by which Plaintiff’s co-workers would not speak to her or assist her so that she was forced to ask him for assistance. Defendant Gresham would then take advantage of [Gilkey] having to seek assistance from him and would touch her inappropriately or ask her for sex while complying with her request for assistance. He also encouraged Plaintiff’s co-workers to harass her with the ultimate goal of increasing control over Plaintiff and force Plaintiff to have sex with him.

When contacted yesterday, MPD spokesperson Traci Hughes said that the police department "cannot comment on matters that are currently in litigation."