[Joe 6-pack]

I posted that from work and on my drive home was thinking about how to more clearly explain it. I think the following example will help illustrate my argument more persuasively. Suppose you come home from work and the window's broken. You ask your son about it and he repeatedly avows that he didn't do it but you find some evidence that suggests he did. Shortly thereafter, your wife comes home and asks you what happened. You tell her:

"Jimmy swore he didn't break it, but I found evidence to the contrary."

In this statement, you've placed the assertion in the past tense...that is, the oath is void, because the evidence is strong enough to refute it. If on the other hand, you state:

"Jimmy swears he didn't break it, but I found evidence to the contrary," there is an implication of uncertainty, that the oath may still be valid and the evidence unconvincing. Now your wife clearly knows for a fact that you spoke to Jimmy before you spoke to her, and thus his oath was made in the past, but use of the present tense conveys that the oath may still be actively in force. Apart from tense, the statements are identical, although it's clear in both that the oath itself was made in the past. The only difference is in the implication as to whether the swearing has been refuted, or whether it may still be valid.

See where I'm coming from?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Yyyup. Clearly.