ms. flores' transcripts. >> any questions for mr. kopp about that? >> we don't see the unto consumption of time argument, because we submitted the transcripts and testimony within days of wendy witness declarations were submitted. we indicated that if we were submitting it in lieu of a declaration because it was already testimony that had been cross-examined on this issue, it is our position that it is too late now to say, oh, if you let it and we want to do some cross or have a rebuttal witness or this opens a whole new door. if that was going to be the approach, it should have happened when we were making those decisions about how to schedule this hearing. that is our position on time. in terms of relevance of the issues, there are a couple of things. one is we are hearing a lot the last two days, this was an incident, but it was not real domestic violence. that is the defense we are hearing. the power and control wheel and the cycle of violence are the key indicators of whether or not an event fits within a pattern of domestic violence. in order t

ms. flores. i will tell you now that i do not think that should be in at all. so, you cite need that for some reliance of finding of fact, you'll have a tough time convincing me. >> i would agree with both of you about letting in on a limited basis. the background is helpful relative to some of the pattern in miss lopez's testimony as well. >> ms. kaiser, we are ruling your way. >> ok. >> ok, so is there any dissenting view from the commissioners? ok. next item are the rebuttal exhibits from the sheriff. mr. kopp, the you have any objections to them? >> if he could hold them up, because i did not have a hard copy? >> while he is pulling back up, we conferred during the break and i raised an issue of a portion of the declaration that had previously been excluded, and in light of miss lopez's testimony, i thought it was a prior inconsistent statement that could come in. mr. kopp had no objections. was wondering if that would be ok for the commission? >> sure, no objection, you can do it. >> it is paragraph nine, page three, line seven, beginning with, " eliana to

ms. flores' testimony gary >> we reserve on that but that is foreign testimony, correct? >> yes. you do not have to admit them. we do intend to submit them. then you can make a decision whether or not you want to admit them as admissible. >> under your scenario, would we get them in time to allow us to have the witness in person to reconcile the documentary offer for the previous interview transcript with live testimony? if it came in late in the process, that could make it difficult. if we knew it was coming early on, it might signal that we wanted certain witnesses available. or we might feel that it did not trigger that and it was reconciled without them. >> i am not sure the question that you ask, but i can say that i will get the closing party and the commission, our exhibit list by the close of business tomorrow. chairperson hur: that would be great. if we could have objections by the end of friday. is that possible? >> i am a little confused and seeking clarification. in the scheduling conversations we had had with commissioner hur, we discussed all together submitting a e

in light of us having admitted flores, this probably should come in. ms. kaiser, i truss to agree. >> yes. >> mr. kopp. >> i will submit. i do not have any argument. president of the we should strike 1463150 unless there the -- there is a dissenting view -- 146 through 150. i had 182 to 184, which is a big chunk. this seemed to relate more to events that occurred after what we're concerned about but i opened it up for argument from mr. kopp and ms. kaiser and the commissioners to express their views. >> my only comment is this goes along with my objection to that bullet point that still i do not think has been ruled upon. sheriff mirkarimi's post december 31 through january 13 statements, january 4 statement. -- statements. i do not see the relevance. >> i would like to address the two portions that are encompassed your separately. >> ok. >> the this one -- first one is ms. lopez's statement. 1523157, i -- 152 through 157. it goes to the victim was the credibility and finds that she is recanting. she is describing things that suggest the testimony you hear