exclude it on relevance grounds. i mean, i understand your witness disuation theory but i still don t see the connection here with the journalists and press coverage. any other dissenting views if other commissioners. ok. hearing none, i think we should move on. need to know what specifically to sustain the objections? i think the whole 21 through 28? 21 through 28. mr. keith, why don t i do this. why don t i give you a chance to tell me that if there s anything different i think it all relates to the same issue. unless there s something different in there that we overlook that needs to come in. the fact is these witnesses experienced harassment. it seems that how witnesses are treated in a criminal action when they re getting calls like this again, i don t think the complaint is about press coverage. press coverage is inevitable in a case where you have as well known a defendant but they re getting the kinds of calls that suggest a campaign against miss mad
funded miss lopez s attorney. please, we cannot have comments from the audience. to me, that is not relevant. i will sustain the objections and welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. ok, hearing no objection. mr. murton. first objection is to paragraph 6 through 9. i had a hard time seeing the relevance here. i would sustain the objection. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. if there are any where you would like to be heard, we will certainly give you that opportunity. thank you. commissioners, i want to say this, i recognize things discussed in these paragraphs. they are not flattering but we take to the fact as they come. from our standpoint, information like this about the past relationship between between miss lopez and the sheriff are relevant to our theory that domestic violence would occur, and our view of the fact domestic violence would occur. our it is extreme thrirs, the couple sentences about his account of what happened on the 31st. i d
even hearsay where he says someone told me that the sheriff told me not to come forward or intimidated me or something. where are those allegations? the allegations would be they re getting these calls from journalists with these story ideas that they know to be completely false, that the reasonable inference to draw is these story ideas are being planted by the criminal defense. that s the inference to draw. certainly, when the reporter says on the phone, oh, you know, ross said whomever told me this, that is hearsay. but just the fact they re getting the call what s can infer that they re being these story ideas are being put out there by the sheriff. i mean there s no other reason for these calls to be coming to these witnesses. i do not think that s relevant. but i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. even if there are hearsay even if there is something to point me to where it says someone told me that the sheriff it is there in paragraph 21, that the
i meant the first. next objection is to the second full paragraph of page two. the objection is based on the statements mr. hennessey is talking about how he would be viewed. i don t see how that is relevant here either. i would sustain the objection to the second full paragraph of page two. niss dissenting views from the commission? that objection will be sustained. the third objection to the third full paragraph. here he s an expert. i think he s qualified to testify about this. it is a little general. i certainly understand the objection, but this one i would overrule. we have testimony from the hennessey and we will have chief lansdowne as well. i would permit this. i would overrule the objection.w commissioners? ok. that paragraph shall be omitted. there are no objections to mr. lansdowne. nancy lyman? lemon s declaration? i am sorry. was there something about lansdowne? about michael hennessey. we are trying to work up a scheduling issue. chairperson hur: while we a
allegations or some statements from miss madison s explanation that relate specifically to statements about the sheriff s alleged harassment of miss madison. are there you know, there was a lot to read so i have read it but i have not marked marked out the portions by 21 through 28 that go to whether or not the sheriff harassed mr. murton. given that it s your objection, can you point us to those portions? you would like it see the portions here in which mr. murton s alleges that the sheriff said something that s deemed to be harassment? actually, yes, but i probably should put it to mr. keith, because i want to know because we allowed it for miss madison to some extent, i would like to be cautious about strike ing it from mr. murton s if it is there. so there s basically three different things or categories of harassment mr. murtons is discussion in this portion of the declaration. have you in paragraph 21 he s getting phone calls from journalists who are basically