Author Topic: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13  (Read 363434 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #75 on: June 27, 2013, 05:40:35 AM »
There is no record of W18 giving any incident  information to Serena.

I don't know of any evidence to corroborate that there is a Serena. The only female officer I recall from the reports is Sgt. Stacie McCoy.

Offline teresainpa

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #76 on: June 27, 2013, 04:36:49 PM »
thank you everyone for live blogging this event.  I saw the start of this witness testimony and not any of the cross by defense. I am glad to know West was able to pick her apart a bit.  It annoyed me to no end that she said she knew the cries for help were from the boy.  I wondered if he would challenge her on the obvious fact that she came to that conclusion after the fact since she couldn't have know there was a teen and an adult involved at the time she was listening to the voices.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #77 on: June 27, 2013, 09:02:03 PM »
I think the distance from her window to John's lawn is known.  100 feet?

I'd say it looks to be about 85 ft. on Google Earth.

From her window to the T, about 40 feet.

Her estimate of 20 to 30 feet would be midway, or a little more than midway, from her window to the sidewalk.

All in my opinion.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #78 on: June 29, 2013, 07:43:29 PM »
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/28/no-evidence-zimmerman-eyewitness-qualified-for-olympics-despite-claim-under-oath/
Quote

The Daily Caller has learned that a witness for the prosecution in the George Zimmerman trial may have fibbed under oath when she said that she was a qualified Olympian.

Jayne Surdyka, who lives in the gated community where Trayvon Martin was killed, was asked Wednesday by state prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda if it was true that she had at some point qualified for the Olympic Games.

“During the eighties is, you know, when I was running and they had a marathon in the Olympic Games. I would have been the top three runners.”

De la Rionda followed up, asking “Were those the Olympics that was [sic] boycotted?”

“Yes, sir,” said Surdyka.

In a 2008 blog comment, a person using the handle “Jayne Surdyka” — who also listed that they lived in Florida — wrote that they were “a former Olympic athlete.” The commenter’s stated occupational history also matched that of the state’s witness.

The 1980 Summer Games, held in Moscow, were boycotted by the United States in response to Soviet military actions.

But those Games did not hold a women’s marathon event.

An article dated Feb. 24, 1981 reported on the International Olympic Committee’s decision to finally allow women to compete in the marathon event in the 1984 Games, held in Los Angeles.

A commenter at a track and field online message board recalled running with Surdyka at the University of Florida. That individual said that Surdyka was a decent runner, but added “I do not believe she ever made any Olympic team though.”

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #79 on: June 29, 2013, 08:32:07 PM »
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/28/no-evidence-zimmerman-eyewitness-qualified-for-olympics-despite-claim-under-oath/
Interesting. Why did BDLR mention this stuff at all? Was it to bolster her credibility, or to make her more favorable to the State?

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #80 on: June 29, 2013, 08:37:18 PM »
Interesting. Why did BDLR mention this stuff at all? Was it to bolster her credibility, or to make her more favorable to the State?

I wondered much the same. I didn't watch her on the stand, and I was pretty surprised when I read about his line of questioning--it really seemed like it had nothing to do with anything.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #81 on: June 29, 2013, 08:47:40 PM »
Even supposing Surdyka did lie under oath, I doubt it would perjury since it's not a material fact. The defense probably could have objected to this attempt to bolster her credibility, but they probably thought it would be better to allow it than to look petty and mean.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #82 on: June 29, 2013, 09:01:23 PM »
Even supposing Surdyka did lie under oath, I doubt it would perjury since it's not a material fact. The defense probably could have objected to this attempt to bolster her credibility, but they probably thought it would be better to allow it than to look petty and mean.
I agree.
This raises another question I have had: Why did many of the witnesses hire lawyers? The housing complex appears to me to have been lower-middle to middle-middle class. Not a lot of extra cash. Why buy a lawyer? Security? Hope to cash in on fame? Fear of depositions and lawsuits?

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #83 on: June 29, 2013, 09:04:04 PM »
Even supposing Surdyka did lie under oath, I doubt it would perjury since it's not a material fact. The defense probably could have objected to this attempt to bolster her credibility, but they probably thought it would be better to allow it than to look petty and mean.

Yeah, probably not perjury.

But the story wasn't posted until yesterday afternoon--so it could be the defense didn't know about it, true?

I dunno. Lie about one thing, lie about everything.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #84 on: June 29, 2013, 09:37:52 PM »
Why would Zimmerman even need to impeach Surdyka? She did that to herself.

She heard 3 gunshots and asserted they were on the 911 tape that she just listened to 5 minutes previous. Zimmerman did enough with the gunshot, the open window (she asserted it was open but could be heard asking the 911 operator if she should open it) and her traumatized state. If the jury finds her credible then the verdict becomes indistinguishable from random chance, anyway.

In my layperson opinion, of course.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #85 on: June 30, 2013, 06:19:29 AM »
Why would Zimmerman even need to impeach Surdyka? She did that to herself.

She heard 3 gunshots and asserted they were on the 911 tape that she just listened to 5 minutes previous. Zimmerman did enough with the gunshot, the open window (she asserted it was open but could be heard asking the 911 operator if she should open it) and her traumatized state. If the jury finds her credible then the verdict becomes indistinguishable from random chance, anyway.

In my layperson opinion, of course.

Mostly for the purposes of piling on and further public ridicule.

Seriously though--doesn't there need to be some kind of penalty for people that lie in court?

Other than that, I agree with you.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #86 on: July 13, 2013, 07:17:31 AM »
Yes, because we should completely believe the witness who's been so discredited

The last time we discussed this, I asked if you disputed the point in question. You said you did not. Are you disputing it now?

Quote
You butcher George for minor inconsistencies that are easily understood and not even seen as an issue by experienced police investigators

I'm inclined to credit most of what GZ said on the NEN call, with some exceptions for which I have specific reasons.

The statements of Serino and Singleton in this regard have been a cause for reflection on my part. I haven't had time to discuss that yet.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #87 on: July 13, 2013, 07:32:21 AM »
The last time it came up I didn't really feel like polluting (or further polluting) the board with our back and forth bullstuff so I backed out--since you have a well deserved reputation for being a crank about argument and The Hostess had been more than patient.

I find Surdyka to have been discredited. She lied about several things, including things she didn't need to lie about (her participation in the Olympics for instance, or the pop pop pop, maybe even the amount of rain that was falling).

Lie about one thing, lie about everything. If you feel you want to cherry pick from her testimony/story--feel free. It's part of the jury instructions, I believe. But what you can't do is use that cherry picked stuff to attack other posters who've looked at the same evidence and testimony as you have and simply come to their own decision.

You contribute too much value here to do that.


And I'm glad to see you've been examining your thoughts about GZ's stories in light of what the actual professionals testified to. Doesn't really make me feel any better...since I've been saying the same thing about stress and stories for months now... ;D

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #88 on: July 13, 2013, 07:53:44 AM »
But what you can't do is use that cherry picked stuff to attack other posters

I haven't attacked anyone. I have made a point about Surdyka's 911 call, not her trial testimony, which you scoff at without addressing the evidence supporting it.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
« Reply #89 on: July 13, 2013, 10:39:47 AM »
She says she only went on national TV once.

she went on Anderson Cooper in March and Ashly Banfield on April 6.

Video

Cooper, 3/29/12

Banfield, 4/6/12

I saw a comment on this thread on another site, speculating that JS wasn't wrong because the two interviews might have been recorded on the same day.

When will I learn? I thought linking the videos was sufficient. I forgot that clicking a link and listening for 56 seconds is so much harder than speculating, or at least a lot less fun.

0:45-59
Quote
Ashleigh Banfield: She broke her silence, on this program, last week, and she hasn't spoken with anyone else. So we're bringing her back because tonight, she has a lot more to say. We spoke exclusively earlier this evening, and we're showing her in shadow to conceal her identity.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking