July 27, 2007
Oh No, Ed Jew!: Day One
Dun Dun (.wav file. You know, that Law and Order sound!)
Picture by SFist Jim, who was at the plastic bag event taking pictures and noticed a teeny-tiny Ed Jew in the background of one of his shots, which he forwarded to us and we've gleefully cropped out for you to see!
We've been impatiently hitting refresh for news on Ed Jew's preliminary hearing all day too, Michela Alioto-Pier commenter guest[8]!
There isn't too much up yet, alas, but CBS 5 is first on the scene, reporting that two neighbors have testified in court today that Ed didn't live in their neighborhood. Sounds like it's Ed's purported "next door (San Francisco) neighbor" (.pdf), and a woman that lives four doors down (maybe this neighbor? (.pdf)). While the DA's not working with the City Attorney's investigation, it sounds like they're at least talking to the same people.
Ed's lawyer (Fazio) said both people were "barking up the wrong tree," and tried to suggest that they might have been mistaken in recalling that they'd never seen Ed or his family on their block. Ed, for his part, came in all smiling and glad-handing, leaving Fazio to go around telling everyone that while he's got a house in Burlingame, "his home is in San Francisco." Yeah, him and Tony Bennett's heart.
The preliminary hearing's scheduled to go four days (and aaaaagh! We're out of town for work for two out of four of those days!) -- and just to review, a preliminary hearing's when the judge hears a mini-version of the case and decides whether or not there's enough evidence for the case to go to a jury. The judge won't decide guilt or innocence at this point in the game.
|
So, looks like Ed Jew's article has the elderly neighbor over a barrel. The neighbor testified no one has resided in the house since a drive-by shooting. There's apparently evidence that there were tenants in that house over the past 3 years.
His deposition says specifically:
"I have personal knowledge of the matters set here forthin, except as to matters I have specifically indicated are based on information and belief.
...
Between that time (after shooting) and May 2007, no one has resided in that house.
...
I declare under penalty of perjury... that the foregoing is true and correct."
So... has he just perjured himself in this deposition, as well as on the witness stand, in reference to this material fact?
What? No American flag tie today?
And, commenter [1] - the witness likely did not commit perjury. He signed a statement based upon his own "information and belief" - the objective fact that there may have been tenants there in the intervening years does not mean the witness was lying. Perjury requires that you KNOW you are lying when you make a statement. Being misinformed at the time you make the statement is not perjury. Though you are right that it calls into question the witness' ability to credibly testify about the comings and goings at that house.
Hmm, maybe the people visited the house occasionally but never lived there, kind of like Mr. OH NO himself!
Sweet Melissa,
Logically speaking, I agree with you the old man was clearly confused and not intentionally trying to lie... but his deposition did say:
"I have personal knowledge of the matters set here forthin, [b]except as to matters I have specifically indicated are based on information and belief."[/b]
He didn't make any such [i]specific indication[/i] that the statement about no one residing at the house was "based on information and belief". Right?
Being wrong does not constitute perjury. You can't say Monar was "not intentionally trying to lie" and then also suggest he may be guilty of perjury. Perjury involves intent. If he wasn't trying to lie, then he isn't guilty of perjury. End of story.
Commenter [4] - See erudite Commenter [5]. Perjury is an unwieldy and sometimes counterintuitive beast. Just because his "personal knowledge" was inaccurate doesn't make him an intentional liar (and I can't imagine ANY "personal knowledge" that is NOT based upon "information and belief").
Actually, you being up a good point insofar as this issue of 'intent to lie' will be the hardest thing for the D.A. to prove in the perjury case against Jew.
where's the lolkatz?