This episode of Undisclosed contains language that might be objectionable to some listeners.

There's a classic paradox known as the Liars Paradox. Imagine, for instance, that a stranger

says two things to you. First, I come from France. And second, I am lying to you. The paradox

is as follows. If the man is telling the truth, then he's lying to you, which means he can't

be lying to you. The Liars Paradox is sometimes called the Epimenides Paradox because it originates

from the philosopher Epimenides, who lived on Cretan the 6th century BC and famously said

all Cretans are liars. Ever since then, philosophers have debated whether a person saying that he

is lying truly creates a paradox. In my opening example, though, one thing's for certain. I'm not

putting any stock in the man's claim that he comes from France. The reasons are obvious, and it

explains why many lawyers have made reference to the Liars Paradox, and claim that their client

can't be convicted when a key witness for the prosecution admits to lying. For instance, in

United States versus Williams, Deborah Williams and others were charged with Medicaid fraud,

in connection with walking clinics in New York, where doctors allegedly falsely claimed that they

had performed tests and procedures on AIDS patients to get Medicaid money. One of the witnesses

against Williams was Lareda Mitchell, who first claimed that on one of her visits to Williams,

no examination was conducted despite Medicaid billing that indicated otherwise. Mitchell later

admitted though that this claim was a lie. According to Williams's Defense Council, quote,

this presents us with the Liars Paradox. If Lareda Mitchell is a liar and says she lied,

does that mean she told the truth? Of course not, one simply can have no confidence in any trial in

which she played a part. The Jamar Huggins trial presents a twist in the classic Liars Paradox. If

the only evidence against the defendant is a prior statement by a witness who testifies it trial,

that this prior statement was a lie, can that prior statement ever amount to enough evidence to prove

...