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

Originally posted by Catalyst317
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.

OK. Sorry, I understand now. I think you think I'm the prosecutor?

So this is how internet message boards work: sometimes, people will see an article that piques their curiosity and which they would like to share with others of similar interest. They then post the web address to that article, also called a hyperlink, to a message board with a short summary of the article so that people can quickly identify the topic. At that point a polite and civil discussion ensues in the message board regarding the linked-to article.

Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any other questions. Always happy to help a fellow ATSer!

Poppycock.

Certain men of the village were jealous of the success of some of the women and had them murdered so they could steal their land and their money. Others wanted to be rid of their wives. A lot of it was just old fashioned misogyny.

Side note - I had a relative on my mothers side murdered for supposedly being a witch.
Mary Barnes of Farmington Connecticut

reply to post by walliswallis


I also apologize, however, the Original article was not quoted and YOU made the headline, hence no discussion based on "the prosecution" is needed. Since YOU said, "Prosecutor: Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty". I challenge you to prove your case. To be a discussion, one must provide an original headline and dispute. Since you came up with this Headline, then YOU must defend it. THAT is how a message boards works...

Originally posted by Catalyst317
reply to post by walliswallis

 

I also apologize, however, the Original article was not quoted and YOU made the headline, hence no discussion based on "the prosecution" is needed. Since YOU said, "Prosecutor: Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty". I challenge you to prove your case. To be a discussion, one must provide an original headline and dispute. Since you came up with this Headline, then YOU must defend it. THAT is how a message boards works...

I only have to defend it's an accurate summary of the article; nothing more. I defend it by pointing to this passage:

In Justice at Salem you don’t claim the condemned at Salem were actually in possession of supernatural powers, merely that – by an objective evaluation of evidence – some were, in fact, engaged in the rituals of witchcraft.

If you disagree this is a correct summary, then this is a ToS issue you need to raise with the mods. As I can't edit the original title, I'm afraid I'm not able to help you obtain the satisfaction you're seeking, even if I were to agree with you. Best of luck.

reply to post by Catalyst317


He has you on this technicality. You brought this up so it is on you to provide beyond a reasonable doubt, not a preponderance of the evidence, that they were guilty.

You said They Were Guilty. Now prove that they were. I also, did not see anywhere in the article that said that "Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty.". You propose the statement, now you have to back it up. He is correct in say that "this is how internet message boards works"...

Originally posted by lothran
reply to post by Catalyst317

 

He has you on this technicality. You brought this up so it is on you to provide beyond a reasonable doubt, not a preponderance of the evidence, that they were guilty.

You said They Were Guilty. Now prove that they were. I also, did not see anywhere in the article that said that "Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty.". You propose the statement, now you have to back it up. He is correct in say that "this is how internet message boards works"...

A summary is not a verbatim restatement of facts. A summary is a brief and concise encapsulation of a main point.

There is a reason you do not see quotation marks (" ") in the title of this thread - because I wasn't quoting anything. I was crafting a summary meant to roughly encapsulate the major theme of the article. Summaries are never 100% accurate - if they were there would be no need for the full article.

Like I said, if you disagree with the general, thematic accuracy of my summary, then this is a ToS violation and I encourage you to raise it with the mods. I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to help you. Sorry.

Originally posted by walliswallis

Originally posted by Catalyst317
reply to post by walliswallis

 

I also apologize, however, the Original article was not quoted and YOU made the headline, hence no discussion based on "the prosecution" is needed. Since YOU said, "Prosecutor: Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty". I challenge you to prove your case. To be a discussion, one must provide an original headline and dispute. Since you came up with this Headline, then YOU must defend it. THAT is how a message boards works...

I only have to defend it's an accurate summary of the article; nothing more. I defend it by pointing to this passage:

In Justice at Salem you don’t claim the condemned at Salem were actually in possession of supernatural powers, merely that – by an objective evaluation of evidence – some were, in fact, engaged in the rituals of witchcraft.

If you disagree this is a correct summary, then this is a ToS issue you need to raise with the mods. As I can't edit the original title, I'm afraid I'm not able to help you obtain the satisfaction you're seeking, even if I were to agree with you. Best of luck.

edit on 26-3-2013 by walliswallis because: (no reason given)

You do not defend an accurate summary by passing of such headlines as: Prosecutor: Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty.

That is a VERY brash headline that deserves facts and not some speculation of "supernatural powers" like you claim.

Again, you claim this, but please present ANY Supernatural Powers that they possessed that were factual as you are presenting a claim of 100 year old evidence to say that "Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty".

Again, please post the headline you cited to reference this and back up your statement... If not, we are only engaging in another "witch hunt".

Originally posted by Catalyst317

Originally posted by walliswallis

Originally posted by Catalyst317
reply to post by walliswallis

 

I also apologize, however, the Original article was not quoted and YOU made the headline, hence no discussion based on "the prosecution" is needed. Since YOU said, "Prosecutor: Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty". I challenge you to prove your case. To be a discussion, one must provide an original headline and dispute. Since you came up with this Headline, then YOU must defend it. THAT is how a message boards works...

I only have to defend it's an accurate summary of the article; nothing more. I defend it by pointing to this passage:

In Justice at Salem you don’t claim the condemned at Salem were actually in possession of supernatural powers, merely that – by an objective evaluation of evidence – some were, in fact, engaged in the rituals of witchcraft.

If you disagree this is a correct summary, then this is a ToS issue you need to raise with the mods. As I can't edit the original title, I'm afraid I'm not able to help you obtain the satisfaction you're seeking, even if I were to agree with you. Best of luck.

edit on 26-3-2013 by walliswallis because: (no reason given)

You do not defend an accurate summary by passing of such headlines as: Prosecutor: Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty.

That is a VERY brash headline that deserves facts and not some speculation of "supernatural powers" like you claim.

Again, you claim this, but please present ANY Supernatural Powers that they possessed that were factual as you are presenting a claim of 100 year old evidence to say that "Despite what you've been told, the Salem witches were guilty".

Again, please post the headline you cited to reference this and back up your statement... If not, we are only engaging in another "witch hunt".

Posts can be reported to the mods by hitting the "Flag This" icon at the top of a message. For the third time, if you feel my post was a ToS violation, I would appreciate you reporting it to the mods for their adjudication rather than trying to fight with me about it. Thank you.

reply to post by walliswallis


He's a prosecutor. Its his job to theorize that all those that come before him are guilty and then go about devising how he will prove said guilt despite any facts to the contrary. So, that's what he has done.

I do hate to cast a dim view of his findings based upon his profession, but I'm afraid its what I'm doing. An attorney who had spent most of his career as a defense attorney could likely build an equally convincing case for their innocence using the rule of law.

For what its worth the Univ of MO Law School has an extensive site on the Salem Witch Trials

The law school sums up the lessons of salem as follows..

1. What are the lessons?
--------Hysteria happens.
--------Children (especially) can be influenced by suggestion and peer pressure to say things that are not true.
--------We should be skeptical of confessions when the confessions are the result of torture or when the person has a self-interest in confessing.
--------A "cooling off period" can sometimes prevent injustices.
--------Trials should be fair: evidence introduced should be reliable, witnesses should be subject to cross-examination, defendants should have legal assistance and be allowed to testify on their own behalf, and judges should be unbiased.

2. Have we had "modern-day witch hunts"?
--------HUAC/McCarthy "Communist hunts" of early 1950s (events that inspired The Crucible)
--------Day care abuse trials of 1980s (child witnesses, accusations multipy, people afraid to support accused, unbelievable charges, hysteria). [/ex ]

Originally posted by Frogs
reply to post by walliswallis

 

He's a prosecutor. Its his job to theorize that all those that come before him are guilty and then go about devising how he will prove said guilt despite any facts to the contrary. So, that's what he has done.

I do hate to cast a dim view of his findings based upon his profession, but I'm afraid its what I'm doing. An attorney who had spent most of his career as a defense attorney could likely build an equally convincing case for their innocence using the rule of law.

For what its worth the Univ of MO Law School has an extensive site on the Salem Witch Trials

The law school sums up the lessons of salem as follows..

1. What are the lessons?
--------Hysteria happens.
--------Children (especially) can be influenced by suggestion and peer pressure to say things that are not true.
--------We should be skeptical of confessions when the confessions are the result of torture or when the person has a self-interest in confessing.
--------A "cooling off period" can sometimes prevent injustices.
--------Trials should be fair: evidence introduced should be reliable, witnesses should be subject to cross-examination, defendants should have legal assistance and be allowed to testify on their own behalf, and judges should be unbiased.

2. Have we had "modern-day witch hunts"?
--------HUAC/McCarthy "Communist hunts" of early 1950s (events that inspired The Crucible)
--------Day care abuse trials of 1980s (child witnesses, accusations multipy, people afraid to support accused, unbelievable charges, hysteria). [/ex ]

great points and interesting link

reply to post by walliswallis


No, the comedy nature of Monty Python about witches is relevant and shows just how absurd the subject is.

reply to post by Catalyst317


very entertaining read. I can picture catalyst screaming at his monitor, banging his hands on the keyboard screaming "PROVE IT! PROVE IT!" like it was OP who made the stance in the first place. Excuse me Catalyst, but do you see the beginning portion of the title that reads "Prosecutor:" or have your eyes been too watery this whole time to notice?

Originally posted by walliswallis

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.

To be honest, it would help if you weren't so intentionally obtuse. But I digress...

Governments did burn witches at the stake. Just a cursory glance at the top google results sheds light there. I admit I may have been a bit inaccurate with the drowning comment but what I was referring to is called "dunking". Witches floated and the innocent sank to the bottom. Your source says the Salem Wiches were all hanged and one "pressed" for not entering a plea. Dunking would have been part of the trial itself. Whether any of this took place in Salem in particular, I'll have to take your word on.

ETA I still maintain that fear and ignorance were the driving factors in these cases.

Originally posted by Urantia1111

Originally posted by walliswallis

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.

To be honest, it would help if you weren't so intentionally obtuse. But I digress...

Governments did burn witches at the stake. Just a cursory glance at the top google results sheds light there. I admit I may have been a bit inaccurate with the drowning comment but

So to summarize: "You're an idiot! Google it! But, yes, you were right."

Originally posted by doesntmakesense
reply to post by Catalyst317

 

very entertaining read. I can picture catalyst screaming at his monitor, banging his hands on the keyboard screaming "PROVE IT! PROVE IT!" like it was OP who made the stance in the first place. Excuse me Catalyst, but do you see the beginning portion of the title that reads "Prosecutor:" or have your eyes been too watery this whole time to notice?

hehe - I think we had a shared vision on this one

Originally posted by Frogs
reply to post by walliswallis

 

He's a prosecutor. Its his job to theorize that all those that come before him are guilty and then go about devising how he will prove said guilt despite any facts to the contrary. So, that's what he has done.

I do hate to cast a dim view of his findings based upon his profession, but I'm afraid its what I'm doing. An attorney who had spent most of his career as a defense attorney could likely build an equally convincing case for their innocence using the rule of law.

For what its worth the Univ of MO Law School has an extensive site on the Salem Witch Trials

The law school sums up the lessons of salem as follows..

1. What are the lessons?
--------Hysteria happens.
--------Children (especially) can be influenced by suggestion and peer pressure to say things that are not true.
--------We should be skeptical of confessions when the confessions are the result of torture or when the person has a self-interest in confessing.
--------A "cooling off period" can sometimes prevent injustices.
--------Trials should be fair: evidence introduced should be reliable, witnesses should be subject to cross-examination, defendants should have legal assistance and be allowed to testify on their own behalf, and judges should be unbiased.

2. Have we had "modern-day witch hunts"?
--------HUAC/McCarthy "Communist hunts" of early 1950s (events that inspired The Crucible)
--------Day care abuse trials of 1980s (child witnesses, accusations multipy, people afraid to support accused, unbelievable charges, hysteria). [/ex ]

And yet as a lawyer, to condemn a person to death you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty... In this case, of which-craft... This was a good case to review in Criminal Law 101, as I did, but the verdict will always remain the same... unless you can prove which-craft exists and can not be disproved by nature...

Originally posted by Catalyst317
And yet as a lawyer, to condemn a person to death you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty... In this case, of which-craft... This was a good case to review in Criminal Law 101, as I did, but the verdict will always remain the same... unless you can prove which-craft exists and can not be disproved by nature...

indeed

Originally posted by doesntmakesense
reply to post by Catalyst317

 

very entertaining read. I can picture catalyst screaming at his monitor, banging his hands on the keyboard screaming "PROVE IT! PROVE IT!" like it was OP who made the stance in the first place. Excuse me Catalyst, but do you see the beginning portion of the title that reads "Prosecutor:" or have your eyes been too watery this whole time to notice?

If the OP was a direct quote, I could see your stance... HOWEVER, since the OP was not a headline and was an attention grabbing headline that was never stated in the article cited, then I must stand by proof... The article gave reasons for such accusations, but NEVER said ANYTHING about "Salem witches were guilty". As I stated a guilty verdict that deprives the life of a human being, the evidence HAS to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Considering there was nothing in ANY article or case study that could not be dis-proven by science, the evidence is clear that that there is a reasonable doubt.

ALSO since the case is being brought up into modern terms, as per the article, there is NO reasonable doubt, let alone, a preponderance of the evidence.

You want to bring up such claims and use your own headline, then be prepared to back it up. What have you learned that ANY first year law student has not?!?!

Originally posted by Catalyst317
reply to post by Catalyst317

 

The article gave reasons for such accusations, but NEVER said ANYTHING about "Salem witches were guilty".

Hi Catalyst. For the second time, my summary was based on the overall tone of the article, highlighted by this passage, specifically, in which the author is noted as having said the condemned were involved in the practice of witchcraft (IOW, "guilty" of witchcraft) -

In Justice at Salem you don’t claim the condemned at Salem were actually in possession of supernatural powers, merely that – by an objective evaluation of evidence – some were, in fact, engaged in the rituals of witchcraft.

- for the fourth time, if you would like to discuss whether this thread is a ToS violation, I strongly encourage you to do that via violations report to the mods. It's a little disruptive and stifling of conversation to work through that here with posts accented by periodic ALL CAPS shouting. Thank you.