In many cases and often on events of importance, the evidence of witnesses is in direct conflict with the truth. A woollen draper of Orleans, one Jean Luillier, comes before the commissioners and as bold as brass maintains that the garrison could not hold out against so great a besieging force.[60] Now this statement is proved to be false by the most authentic documents, which show that the English round Orleans were very weak and that their resources were greatly reduced.[61] [Footnote 60: _Ibid._, vol. iii, p. 23.] [Footnote 61: L. Jarry, _Le compte de l'armee anglaise au siege d'Orleans_ (1428-1429), Orleans, 1892, in 8vo.] When the evidence given at the second trial has obviously been dressed up to suit the occasion, or even when it is absolutely contrary to the truth, we must blame not only those who gave it, but those who received it. In its elicitation the latter were too artful. This evidence has about as much value as the evidence in a trial by the Inquisition. In certain matters it may represent the ideas of the judges as much as those of the witnesses. What the judges in this instance were most desirous to establish was that Jeanne had not understood when she was spoken to of the Church and the Pope, that she had refused to obey the Church Militant because she believed the Church Militant to be Messire Cauchon and his assessors. In short, it was necessary to represent her as almost an imbecile. In ecclesiastical procedure this expedient was frequently adopted. And there was yet another reason, a very strong one, for passing her off as an innocent, a damsel devoid of intelligence. This second trial, like the first, had been instituted with a political motive; its object was to make known that Jeanne had come to the aid of the King of France not by devilish incitement, but by celestial inspiration. Consequently in order that divine wisdom might be made manifest in her she must be shown to have had no wisdom of her own. On this string the examiners were constantly harping. On every occasion they drew from the witnesses the statement that she was simple, very simple. _Una simplex bergereta_,[62] says one. _Erat multum simplex et ignorans_,[63] says another. [Footnote 62: _Trial_, vol. iii, p. 20.] [Footnote 63: _Ibid._, p. 87.] But since, despite her ignorance, this innocent damsel had been sent of God to deliver or to capture towns and to lead men at arms, there must needs be innate in her a knowledge of the art of war, and in battle she must needs manifest the strength and the counsel she had received from above. Wherefore it was necessary to obtain evidence to establish that she was more skilled in warfare than any man.