有个法院开庭审理一起盗窃案件,A、B、C三人被押上法庭。负责审理这个案件的法官是这样想的:肯提供真实情况的不可能是盗窃犯;与此相反,真正的盗窃犯为了掩盖罪行,是一定会编造口供的。因此,他得出了这样的结论:说真话的肯定不是盗窃犯,说假话的肯定就是盗窃犯。审判的结果也证明了法官的这个想法是正确的。审问开始了。法官先问A:“你是怎样进行盗窃的?从实招来!”A回答:“叽里咕噜,叽里咕 There was a court hearing a case of theft and A, B, and C were taken to court. The judge responsible for hearing the case thinks this way: it is impossible for a thief to be able to provide real conditions; on the contrary, a real thief will certainly confess his confession in order to cover up the crime. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that the truth is certainly not a thief, and the affirmation of falsehood is the thief. The result of the trial also proved that the judge’s idea was correct. Interrogation began. The judge first asked A: ”How did you commit the theft? From the real thing!“ A replied: ”"