TalkLeft Discussion Forums

George Zimmerman Trial Coverage => Witnesses => Topic started by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:10:18 AM

Title: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:10:18 AM
Currently unemployed.

She has a graduate degree.

In the 1980s she was Olympic runner. Olympics were boycotted.

Not married, no children.

She has a cat.

(Ed. to change thread title from Jane to Jayne)
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: RickyJim on June 26, 2013, 07:11:18 AM
Big surprise.  I thought she was much older.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:14:21 AM
Three upstairs bedrooms.

Master bedroom faces back, has a window. She normally has blinds partly open for her cat.

2/26/12,  she's repeating the basics from her statements.

Hard rain started and she closed her window. As she was turning away she heard loud voices.

With window closed, she heard one loud voice.

She sat on her bed and started to read. Then she again heard one loud, dominant voice.

Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:16:34 AM
She raised the window. She heard a very aggressive, angry, agitated voice. Then she heard a lighter, softer, higher-pitched voice. Couldn't understand words.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:18:27 AM
She estimates 20-30 feet.

She turned off her light to see who it was.

She could see 2 people on ground, on on top of the other.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:19:35 AM
There was a short gap, because she didn't open the window right away. A couple minutes, 5 at most.

Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: RickyJim on June 26, 2013, 07:23:25 AM
I think the distance from her window to John's lawn is known.  100 feet?
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:23:32 AM
Bernie says she is gesturing. He says she needs to describe everything.

Two were wrestling.

She couldn't tell age, sex, race.

She grabbed her cellphone and called 911.

She believes, especially the second yell for help, was the boy's voice.

O'Mara objects, improper predicate, foundation.

Bernie gets her to say she means the voice sounded like 'younger individual'.

Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:24:43 AM
She heard 3 'pops'.

A little while later, one person got up and started walking toward her. Then she could see the person clearly.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:25:38 AM
The person walked normally to near a porch, and put his hand to his forehead.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:26:52 AM
A neighbor came out his front door a followed sidewalk to 'Mr. Zimmerman'.

She didn't know GZ or TM.

Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:27:34 AM
Bernie is showing her photos.

Overhead of RATL.

Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:28:45 AM
She ID's her unit.

They were between 1st and 2d porch on right.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:29:33 AM
SE-5, a ground level photo.

SE-10, another ground level view.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:30:29 AM
Showing more ground level views. I'll stop trying to keep track of the numbers.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:31:32 AM
Bernie asking her to ID her place in various views. She couldn't in at least one of them.

Photo show over.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:35:36 AM
I took a break.

Surkyka is still on the stand. Silence while some people fuss with some equipment.

Playing her 911 call.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:40:29 AM
Her face shows distress. She wiped as at a tear.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:41:36 AM
Tracy and Sybrina also showing some emotion, more composed than Surdyka.

ETA: Surdyka looks down from time to time, quickly looks up again.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:43:08 AM
GZ is impassive as a Buddha.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: RickyJim on June 26, 2013, 07:43:30 AM
Is that Sean Noffke on the phone with her?
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:44:59 AM
Surdya blinking a lot, as if fighting tears. Sybrina blinking less often. She and Tracy both facially composed now.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:46:09 AM
Is that Sean Noffke on the phone with her?

No.

We've been over that a few times.

When I have time I'll look the name up again.

ETA: I think they are in the 7th Supplemental. It's the one with the drawings.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: cboldt on June 26, 2013, 07:46:38 AM
Is Surdyka the one that has been previously referred to as "the schoolteacher?"
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:47:16 AM
Is Surdyka the one that has been previously referred to as "the schoolteacher?"

Yes.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on June 26, 2013, 07:48:27 AM
She raised the window. She heard a very aggressive, angry, agitated voice. Then she heard a lighter, softer, higher-pitched voice. Couldn't understand words.


This jibes with what we heard early on.
Did she estimate how long the verbal exchange lasted?
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: SuzieTampa on June 26, 2013, 07:50:44 AM
I hope someone else wasn't trying to get through on 911 while Surdyka was getting counseling from the 911 dispatcher.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 07:51:40 AM
I took a break.

It looks like they are done playing the call.

West up for cross.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: AJ on June 26, 2013, 07:53:11 AM
Is that Sean Noffke on the phone with her?

Nope. Here's a previous conversation:

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2161.msg108936.html#msg108936
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: Cylinder on June 26, 2013, 07:55:55 AM
Witness heard only two screams - West is hitting his stride.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: cboldt on June 26, 2013, 07:56:41 AM
I hope someone else wasn't trying to get through on 911 while Surdyka was getting counseling from the 911 dispatcher.

I suspect the pool of operators is "big enough."  She sounded emotionally impacted, and it was good to keep with her.

Short sidebar before West cross exam.  West gets her to say it is her opinion that the screams came from the person who died.  West gets her to describe the two yells that she heard.  She has never heard the 911 call - maybe once or twice on teevee or the radio, a year ago.  Now she has heard the 911 call with screams.  West says "over and over" she says "maybe a couple, not over and over"  She still believes there were only two calls for help.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: cboldt on June 26, 2013, 07:57:45 AM
Good for West to get her to define "vertical."  That does not mean standing, it is the head-to-foot direction of them as they are on the ground, as viewed from her vantage point.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:00:16 AM
Voice so loud she can't imagine it was someone on the phone.

West suggests someone on phone talking over wind.

She guesses it could be.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:01:30 AM
West starting to confront her with contradictory pre-trial statements. She has said the gap could have been 10 minutes.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: Cylinder on June 26, 2013, 08:02:06 AM
West is doing a good job working her outside the timeline.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:02:58 AM
West asking if the dominant voice initiated the conversation.

She says it was the first one she heard.

Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:03:29 AM
I think they are getting ready for more visual aids.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:05:39 AM
West is trying to pin her down to locating the voices where GZ says he was hit. She won't be pinned.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: Cylinder on June 26, 2013, 08:07:57 AM
West is reinforcing the very dark theme.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:08:06 AM
She says one unit had a porch light on. I can't tell which one she means.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:09:12 AM
West got her to say it looked like the one on top was wearing black.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:09:54 AM
Yells for help started as she was pushing button on phone.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: Cylinder on June 26, 2013, 08:11:49 AM
Thought shots were captured on her 911 call. Still believes that.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:12:10 AM
West asking questions with 'believe' in them.

She believe's she was on the phone and watching fight at time of gunshot.

West asking if she recording she just heard sounded like that was true.

She doesn't know.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: Cylinder on June 26, 2013, 08:13:08 AM
Thought window was open in 911 call. In call she tells operator she could open window if he wanted her to. Still thinks window was open.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: Cylinder on June 26, 2013, 08:13:34 AM
Still believes she heard 3 gunshots.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:14:05 AM
West pressed her on how she thought she opened the window before she called, on recording she told dispatcher she could open the window. She stuck to her guns.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:15:21 AM
She hasn't seen photos of GZ injuries. She tries not to watch news about the event.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:16:45 AM
West getting her to repeat that GZ didn't run away, was co-operative.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:18:56 AM
She doesn't know what 'muzzle blast' is. She doesn't watch many movies. She guesses she might have seen a muzzle flash on TV.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: Cylinder on June 26, 2013, 08:19:18 AM
Still with the Pop!, Pop! Pop!. West struggling on muzzle flash.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:20:19 AM
She says TM was face down when he was shot.

ETA: She is adamant. That's what she saw. He was face down when she heard the gunshot.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: Cylinder on June 26, 2013, 08:20:54 AM
West gets her to assert Martin was face down when he was shot.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:21:54 AM
West quizzing her about assumptions she made.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: Cylinder on June 26, 2013, 08:24:08 AM
Suddenly, she's no expert of the teenage voice. I don't know. I guess so.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:24:43 AM
She doesn't know if the voice she thought was a boy could have been a man with a high voice.

She conceded the deep voice could have been a boy.

West asks her about her experience with teenagers.

She says she doesn't know anything because she has no children, hasn't taught for two years.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:25:30 AM
Bernie has been objecting a lot. I haven't been able to record them individually.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:29:01 AM
She hasn't heard voice of TM or GZ since the event.

West quizzing her about not wanting to be a witness.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: Redbrow on June 26, 2013, 08:29:39 AM
This witness is not giving clear consistent answers and now the judge won't allow him to ask in order to clarify? On what basis?
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:31:15 AM
She's vacillating. At times she seemed to saying she remembered feeling like she didn't want to be a witness. Then she says she only knows that because she heard herself say it on the recording.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: Cylinder on June 26, 2013, 08:31:47 AM
The first officer she talked to was a female officer named Serena.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:32:51 AM
She thinks she talked to a female officer named 'Serena', definitely not Serino.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:36:57 AM
She says she only went on national TV once.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: cboldt on June 26, 2013, 08:39:34 AM
She thinks she talked to a female officer named 'Serena', definitely not Serino.

But that contact was just to arrange Serino or investigator visit.  There is no record of W18 giving any incident  information to Serena.

West brings up the Ashely Banfield interviews.

Bernardo objects when West suggests the case can be decided using "common sense."  "Argumentative"

Re-direct by Bernardo.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:40:59 AM
Bernie's redirect was just to establish that the rain slacked off and didn't block her view.

Surdyka excused

10:40 AM, 15 minute recess.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: Cylinder on June 26, 2013, 08:43:51 AM
Factual inaccuracies aside, the problem with her testimony is that if the first voice was the aggressive one and W8 is believed then that voice was Martin's.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: RickyJim on June 26, 2013, 08:47:55 AM
Somebody at CTH posted this link (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1985-07-21/sports/0310380275_1_triathlon-surdyka-running-shoes).  Quite revealing.   ::)
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:50:59 AM
Something I didn't get down at the time, is that West got Surdyka to admit that one of the reasons she went on CNN was that she thought TM was the victim, or something like that. I forget the exact words West used.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 08:54:54 AM
For Sean Noffke fans, in the discovery there is a record of a call that he took during this time. It is labeled NEN ('Call Source: TEL'), but it seems likely that it's the 911 call made by Sierra McLendon.

Whatever that call is, it is the one Noffke took. Sean Noffke did not take any of the other 911 calls related to this case on 2/26/12.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 11:54:08 AM
Did she estimate how long the verbal exchange lasted?

If she did I missed it.

Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 26, 2013, 12:15:35 PM
Surdyka's 911 call was taken by an L. Miller (21/33 (http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/2012/09/GZ-Discovery-Redacted-0919.pdf)).
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: ding7777 on June 26, 2013, 03:44:37 PM
Why did the State even call this witness? 
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: unitron on June 26, 2013, 11:34:48 PM
Why did the State even call this witness?

After her very long 911 call, they may have felt stuck with her.

Or maybe they wanted an excuse for the jury to hear her palpable distress that night that a shooting death had occurred.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: TalkLeft on June 27, 2013, 01:49:16 AM
She says she only went on national TV once.

she went on Anderson Cooper in March and Ashly Banfield on April 6. Different shows and interviews. Her voioce was disguised as a male on Banfied, but her lawyer was with her. I have the transcripts.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 27, 2013, 05:01:00 AM
she went on Anderson Cooper in March and Ashly Banfield on April 6.

Video

Cooper, 3/29/12 (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/29/trayvon-martin-witness-breaks-silence/)

Banfield, 4/6/12 (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trayvon-killing-eyewitness-on-cnn-i-offered-to-show-police-scene-of-the-crime-they-declined/)
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind 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.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: teresainpa 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.
Title: Re: Jane Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind 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.
Title: Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond 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.”
Title: Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: jjr495 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?
Title: Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond 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.
Title: Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: MJW 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.
Title: Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: jjr495 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?
Title: Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond 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.
Title: Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: Cylinder 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.
Title: Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond 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.
Title: Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind 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 (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2533.msg114311.html#msg114311) if you disputed the point in question. You said (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2533.msg114315.html#msg114315) 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.
Title: Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond 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
Title: Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind 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.
Title: Re: Jayne Surdyka (W-18), 6/26/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind 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 (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/29/trayvon-martin-witness-breaks-silence/)

Banfield, 4/6/12 (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trayvon-killing-eyewitness-on-cnn-i-offered-to-show-police-scene-of-the-crime-they-declined/)

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.