Prosecutor: Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty.

Struggling for survival on the edge of a vast wilderness in the 17th century, thousands of miles from civilization, who knows what strangeness and evil was lurking in the shadows of a small community?

A former Maryland prosecutor, having reviewed the evidentiary records presented during the Salem Witch Trials, is now saying the 20 accused witches and warlocks who were executed were probably guilty ... at least from a strictly legal perspective.

www.parapolitical.com...

reply to post by walliswallis

at least from a strictly legal perspective.

For it to be valid from a legal perspective one would require hard evidence of their magical powers. Since that was unlikely to happen I would say the whole thing was absurd, from any perspective.

reply to post by walliswallis


Interesting. From legal perspective, if witchcraft were illegal and they were engaging in witchcraft, they would be guilty.

Briefly, witchcraft was illegal, a felony and thus punishable by death. It essentially involved using evil spirits, either directly or indirectly, generally to cause harm.

Having looked into the trials myself, if i recall correctly I have seen little to no evidence that they were truly engaging in witchcraft, or summoning evil entities for the purpose of harm.

Most of what I recall was simply hearsay evidence, "unexplained" things happening which the people attributed to the practice of witchcraft (since they were highly superstitious) to those outside the norm, those with whom they might have had disagreements, been jealous of (in the case of the teen), things said in jest, or due to behavior that was not widely embraced, or simply because they were "different" than everyone else.

I don't recall reading of any concrete evidence.

But this article is pretty interesting.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by walliswallis

 

at least from a strictly legal perspective.

For it to be valid from a legal perspective one would require hard evidence of their magical powers. Since that was unlikely to happen I would say the whole thing was absurd, from any perspective.

As it said in the article, the rituals of witchcraft were illegal. Whether or not you actually could pull rabbits out of a hat was not.

The fact I engage in witchcraft doesn't mean I have magical powers.

Witchcraft being illegal fails to account for the fact that we don't accept witchcraft as something that's real

Another possible Explanation

So first you'd have to prove that witchcraft is a real thing, then prove that these people were using it to cause harm.

reply to post by walliswallis

As it said in the article, the rituals of witchcraft were illegal. Whether or not you actually could pull rabbits out of a hat was not.

Oh ok that makes more sense... but then the law must strictly define exactly what a "witchcraft ritual" is and what it is composed of. Since a witchcraft ritual could take almost any form I would say it's impossible to strictly define what a witchcraft ritual is. So I would still say it's not valid from a legal perspective. They were caught doing some "weird ritual" and they were sentenced based on speculation of what it was they were doing. Some of the rituals probably had nothing to do with witchcraft. I still don't see any validity to what they did....

Originally posted by Loki
Witchcraft being illegal fails to account for the fact that we don't accept witchcraft as something that's real

I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding.

- If I get baptized I'm practicing Christianity. That doesn't mean Jesus Christ was a god. Still, I'm engaged in the practice of Christianity.

- If I get circumcised by a mohel I'm practicing Judaism. That doesn't mean a man named Moses was ordered by a supernatural being to make sure his descendents were circumcised. Still, I'm engaged in the practice of Judaism.

- If I pray on a rug toward the east five times a day I'm practicing Islam. That doesn't mean Mohammed actually channeled a supernatural being who told him he should that. Still, I'm engaged in the practice of Islam.

- If I dance around in a Pentagram while uttering incantations I'm practicing witchcraft. That doesn't mean I can summon the elements and do supernatural things. Still, I'm engaged in the practice of witchcraft.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Seems to me it was a literally idiotic and paranoid lynching of completely normal people. The "evidence" was things like if she DOESN'T drown when held underwater for an extended period or DOESN'T die when lit ablaze, then conclusively he/she is a witch. By the time you're acquitted, you're dead. The only explanation is moronic panicked murder.

reply to post by walliswallis


Prove it....nuff said....

Originally posted by Urantia1111
Seems to me it was a literally idiotic and paranoid lynching of completely normal people. The "evidence" was things like if she DOESN'T drown when held underwater for an extended period or DOESN'T die when lit ablaze, then conclusively he/she is a witch. By the time you're acquitted, you're dead. The only explanation is moronic panicked murder.

I've read several books on the Salem witch trials and none of them said anyone was dunked underwater or burned.

Could you point me to a reference as to where that happened? Or are you talking about a different witch trial? This thread is about the witch trials in 1692 in Salem, Mass. (This is kind of like if I started a thread about the Dahmer murder trial you came in and said "having OJ try on a glove wasn't fair!")

Let me know how I can help you work to keep focused and on-topic. Thanks.

Witch hunts in history happened from around 1450 to 1750. During that time Orthodox Christians blamed women for all sin.

A quote from the book (The Dark Sid of Christian History - by: Helen Ellerbe she says: "In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII issued the bull (Summis Desiderantes) authorizing 2 inquisitors, (Kramer and Sprenger), to systematize the persecution of witches" "The Papacy and the Inquisition had successfully transformed the witch from a phenomenon whose existence the Church had previously rigorously denied into a phenomenon that was deemed very real, very frightening, the antithesis of Christianity, and absolutely deserving of persecution."

"The persecution of witchcraft enabled the church to prolong the profitability of the Inquisition." "By adding witchcraft to the crimes it persecuted...the inquisition exposed a whole new group of people from whom to collect money."

"Witches were held accountable for everything from a failed business venture to a poor emotional state."

I think during this time because the inquisition had left so many cash poor that like Helen Ellerbe said the persecution of witches opened up a whole group of people to collect money from.

I am sorry but I still disagree. Think of it like this. (and try not to be a condescending prick this time)

The accused may be guilty if there is direct evidence of their participation in a ritual to summon a spirit. But as the article has it presented it's a pretty hefty burden of proof to prosecute, as evidence that the accused had actually summoned an evil spirit is pretty hard to come by. The rest of the articles on witchcraft discuss doing direct harm to people, through malicious intent, or using spirits for divination.

Now, consider if the entire episode was the result of bad rye grain

Where, and how, do you see anyone in violation of the law? The malleus maleficarum (1400s) is very specific about what is and is not considered a witch, And though the symptoms displayed by the victims coincide with what is described as the effects of witchcraft, they can also be attributed to rye ergot poisoning. The evidence is circumstantial at best unless you literally caught the witches mid-ritual in the presence of an evil spirit. This is all i'm saying.

Personally, I dont think whether or not they were guilty is even the point. It is wrong to murder based on religious persecution. Period.

Originally posted by caladonea
Witch hunts in history happened from around 1450 to 1750. During that time Orthodox Christians blamed women for all sin.

A quote from the book (The Dark Sid of Christian History - by: Helen Ellerbe she says: "In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII issued the bull (Summis Desiderantes) authorizing 2 inquisitors, (Kramer and Sprenger), to systematize the persecution of witches" "The Papacy and the Inquisition had successfully transformed the witch from a phenomenon whose existence the Church had previously rigorously denied into a phenomenon that was deemed very real, very frightening, the antithesis of Christianity, and absolutely deserving of persecution."

"The persecution of witchcraft enabled the church to prolong the profitability of the Inquisition." "By adding witchcraft to the crimes it persecuted...the inquisition exposed a whole new group of people from whom to collect money."

"Witches were held accountable for everything from a failed business venture to a poor emotional state."

I think during this time because the inquisition had left so many cash poor that like Helen Ellerbe said the persecution of witches opened up a whole group of people to collect money from.

The Orthodox Church doesn't have a Pope. That's the Roman Catholic Church.

The head of the Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Personally, I dont think whether or not they were guilty is even the point. It is wrong to murder based on religious persecution. Period.

I agree the death penalty is wrong in all cases.

reply to post by Catalyst317


Like I said, prove it... Witch-Craft is a sort of "magic" that is unexplained by science... The fact that anyone can challenge the science which has been PROVEN to discredit the witch-craft from the day, is non-sense. I challenge you to provide ANY evidence of which-craft from "back in the day". To condemn anyone to death need a 100% guilty verdict from someones peers. Less I remind you, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Now, prove to me that they were guilty, "beyond a reasonable doubt"...

Again. LIKE I SAID... PROVE IT

Originally posted by Catalyst317
reply to post by Catalyst317

 

Like I said, prove it... Witch-Craft is a sort of "magic" that is unexplained by science... The fact that anyone can challenge the science which has been PROVEN to discredit the witch-craft from the day, is non-sense. I challenge you to provide ANY evidence of which-craft from "back in the day". To condemn anyone to death need a 100% guilty verdict from someones peers. Less I remind you, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Now, prove to me that they were guilty, "beyond a reasonable doubt"...

Again. LIKE I SAID... PROVE IT

calm down

reply to post by wdkirk




"I got better...."

reply to post by walliswallis


No, no, you brought this up, I challenge you to PROVE they were witches... by such headlines as: Prosecutor: Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty.

Provide evidence that they were guilty...

You brought this on yourself. Now I challenge you to back it up.