ms. haines, on the fourth, continuing to the afternoon. we also have text messages between the sheriff and ms. haynes that day that would tend to show what role ms. haines was taking monday. it is proved, more or less, that she was intending to protect the sheriff, based on what was coming out of this incident. chairperson hur: you have conversations suggesting the sheriff had talked to ms. haines about providing pressure? >> we expect to get something out of this testimony, at least about contact regarding this incident, and also their relationship and ms. haines statement of their purpose. the kelly williams statement is first offered to show state of mind with regard to reporting this incident. less so, what happened on the 31st. the second reason the statement is relevant for a non-hearsay purpose is that there are substantial similarities between the account that ms. lopez gives to ms. williams and gave to ms. madison on the first. that tends to defeat the claim,, a claim of fabrication are in accuracy. it essentially gives greater wei

ms. haines into the hearing room. ufssq>> is that it? >> thank you.>d like to remind anyone before making an outburst, we appreciate your presence. we are going to have a very strict rule about any noises or outbursts from the crowd, so we hope you understand that. if you hear somebody, please remove them. >> i think he would like to address the commission prior to her taking the stand. >> very well. >> my name is eric safire, and we received subpoenas from both parties, and it was our understanding that the purpose was to be cross-examined for issues that were raised, but it has become clear the issue has to do with the conviction and whether or not that rises to the level of contact doug requires determination, and in that regard she has no relevant testimony, so unless there is some specific she has no testimony to be cross-examined on. >> i am not sure you are familiar with the amended o but in ths in acts to intimidate witnesses. as a result, she was on the o there is going to be some examination, and i would not comment on the relevance. i think

ms. haines, so let's turn to objections for lopez. >> if i may raise an objection, there is a least one member of the audience who has a small recording device, and i have requested her not use it in our proximity so she does not over here attorney-client conferences'. she has declined to stop doing that, and i think given the past of the various people using recording devices to infringe on attorney-client privilege, i would like to get3jz)f of the only person alive with the video recording device are those members of the media who are here. g? i am sensitive to that concern, and i would ask members of the public do not record proceedings, particularly in if you are sitting in proximity of counsel. can we switch her seat with k]t'isomeone? if you are willing to turn off the device, we will not have a problem. thank you. no recording devices used by members of the public out of respect for the attorney-client privilege. the lopez declaration. first, thank you to both sides. i appreciate you working together and finding reasonable accommodation. you did narrow it down quite a bit. my understand

ms. haines is available to testify on july 18, in person. >> i have not heard directly from her lawyers, so i am relying on mr. kopp. chairperson hur: july 18? >> that is my understanding, yes. chairperson hur: we will have her on the 18th. you said ms. lopez could be available the 18th or 19th, so let us put in for the 18th. i think that is a good idea. >> both? chairperson hur: both. is mr. hennessy going to appear live? >> not as far as i know. chairperson hur: so there are two witnesses, and they will appear july 18. >> we need to go over the sheriff mirkarimi's testimony to find out if we need rebuttal witnesses. i do not know whether we do. we might. we will look into it as quickly as we can. chairperson hur: everybody hold the 19th. do not release the 19th. i would like to know by july 6 -- is that doable? that is next friday. we can do the 10th, if that is a problem. >> we might be able to identify the witnesses by july 6, certainly. i do not know if they are going to be any part of it. it depends how quickly the court reporter may be able to get us a transcript. chairperson hur:

let me tell the commissioners, what i was hoping to accomplish tonight was the testimony of ms hianes -- hainesd ms. lopez. tomorrow. the other thing we needed to decide now is whether we need to hear from inspector danielle. we need to hear from him tomorrow as well. we do need to address that issue of whether we neeé9@inspector becker, i am sorry. so while she is conferring, why do we take up the issue of officer becker? here's my view of the situation. i understand why the mayor wants -- had this rebuttal testimony. i think this rebuttalçñ is completely redundant to where you have in officer danielle's decoration. your proffer is in his declaration which has been admitted into evidence. i would be inclined to reject the request for officer becker to appear for for their rebuttal testimony but i will give you a chance to argue it. >> thank you. à that your testimony would be consistent but this is a factual dispute. the sheriff said he did not make certain statements. i apologize. this is a situation where there is a factual dispute and the sheriff had said he did not make certain statements

ms. peralta haines testimony last night? >> we came to that room. we were trying to connect, maybe that took 20 minutes, then we were like talking and then that took another 10 minutes and then i went down maybe 5:30. she start to testify at 5:00, right? >> i just want to know your recollection, ms. lopez, of when you started. >> when everything start. >> i just want to know your recollection of what time you started watching ms. peralta haynes' testimony? >> i don't know. >> how long did you watch her testimony? >> until the break. >> did you watch her testimony after the break? >> i come back downstairs at some point and maybe i saw the final part, and just before the commissioners, i couldn't hear the commissioners asking the questions. >> did anybody describe to you the content of ms. peralta haynes' testimony? >> describe the content? >> yes. >> i read her declaration online. >> i mean, her testimony before the commission last night, did anybody tell you about it? did anybody tell you what she said? >> no, i was trying to looking for that but i

ms. peralta haines testimony last night? >> we came to that room. we were trying to connect, maybe that took 20 minutes, then we were like talking and then that took another 10 minutes and then i went down maybe 5:30. she start to testify at 5:00, right? >> i just want to know your recollection, ms. lopez, of when you started. >>

haines. >> i do have a few questions for you. ms. talk -- ms.ez testified and told you that on january 4, during your multiple conversations and texts with her, did you provide her with any ideas about how to handle or deal with the situation of the video becoming public? >> no. and did not. >> did you provide any ideas about dealing with theú>8ú>qj sn of the video turned over to the police? i did not. there were 25 or 30 text with a share for mirkarimi, did you provide him with any ideas or suggestions on how to deal with this situation with the video becoming public? >> no. i did not. >> did you provide sheriff mirkarimi with ideas on how to do with the video being turned over to the police? >> no. i did not. >> let me ask you -- to the asking for help in that regard? >> no. they did not. you testified that ms. lopez was stress and on the verge of tears or crying in the background during one of the conversations when you were handed over the phone -- the fall was handover to you and use -- you ended up -- the phone was handed over and you adde