SFist: Oh No, Ed Jew!: Day One

guest

Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:26:21 -0800

where's the lolkatz?

Sweet Melissa

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:42:33 -0800

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.

guest

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:18:51 -0800

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.

guest

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:56:17 -0800

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?

guest

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:00:55 -0800

Hmm, maybe the people visited the house occasionally but never lived there, kind of like Mr. OH NO himself!

Sweet Melissa

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:57:33 -0800

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.

guest

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:37:17 -0800

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?