In a planned and deliberate attack, Man A (while wearing clothes that conceal his identity) beats down Man B in a dark alley and then runs away, leaving no compelling physical evidence as to his identity. The attacker does not know if there were any witnesses, but knows that he couldn’t be identified if there were. The victim figures he knows who his attacker was based on hearsay rumors, but has no actual proof and didn’t see his face; all he can offer to police is his questionable word as to the attacker’s identity; nobody he knows will speak on his behalf to help him ID the attacker.
So… should the victim, lacking any other evidence, lie to the police and say he clearly saw his unmasked attacker’s face and can positively identify Man A as the guy? (assume he knows what the Man A looks like from a prior meeting and can pick him from a line up).
And… assuming the attacker acted alone and can’t find anyone to give him an alibi, what could he say in his defense upon being accused by the victim (who lied that he saw his face)? Even though the truth should refute the accusation, Man A can’t very well state that he was wearing a mask when he committed the crime and therefore Man B is lying about seeing his face.
All either man has is his word; what should each man’s basic story to the investigators be? And what would then happen if several real witnesses that neither man knew about come forward and state that the attacker had his face masked and couldn’t be identifed? Would there even be enough evidence for the courts to do anything in such a case?