Hi Francine, Well, I guess I'll start at the END of your post, and work my way up... >>Excuse me, but *no one* has suggested or assumed this. Accusations of mischief and witchcraft are actually quite similar, the distinction being *how* the damage was caused. My vague recollection is that charges of witchcraft often mentioned mischief. Therefore, the suggestion that someone charged with mischief--as Goody Chamberlain was; it's not that she simply died in prison of an unknown charge or cause--might have been considered a witch is worthy of further research.<< Judging by the tone of your post, apparently, I've offended you, although I honestly can't see HOW! I never said that anyone DID assume she was a witch, I merely cautioned against making such an assumption. Personally, I find it very helpful when others share their mistakes with me, so that I might not make them myself.... I was merely trying to make a helpful suggestion....if that offended you, I apologize. Also, I believe I DID recommend further research, but you knew that, since you quoted in your post. >>I think you've misunderstood what was posted about her case....However, no one has suggested that Goody Chamberlain was *proved* to be a witch.<< I don't believe that I did misunderstand the post about her case, but you're certainly free to believe what you wish, I was merely asking questions to try and further understand her situation, if the answers were known by anyone. I did NOT, however, say that ANYONE suggested that she had been "proven a witch". Perhaps you misunderstood my post? >>ALL that anyone has suggested is that because of the timing and the similarity between mischief and witchcraft, the case bears further investigation.<< You completely lose me on this one! First of all, as I said above, I too recommended further investigation! But where you lose me is in the "similarity" between mischief and witchcraft. Unless I have COMPLETELY misunderstood all the court documents from the trials, those accused during the hysteria of 1692 were alleged to have committed grievous personal assaults, including those causing several deaths, particularly in Ann Putnam's family. I don't see much similarity between those allegations and something as petty as a mischief, even though I can certainly see where mischievous behavior could be PART of witchcraft allegation. And certainly the punishments for the two would have been vastly different, as I doubt there were too many people being hanged for mischief! >>Seems to me that you're thinking more like a 20th c. than a 17thc. person. "Proof" would be testimony that the accused did witchy-type things immediately before someone's child or cows got sick.<< Nope, sorry, it's definitely the 17th century that I'm thinking of, and the argument that you make suggesting that I'm confused over the era, is in complete support of what I wrote...IF you read the whole thing together, as the reply that it was! The suggestion was made that perhaps mischief was charged BECAUSE there was proof of THAT crime, but NOT of witchcraft. The "witch-type" behavior you mention, would be proof of WITCHCRAFT, which, according to the suggestion I was addressing, would not have existed! My suggestion was that the evidence of mischief WITHOUT witchcraft, would be something that any mere mortal could have done, so why then would witchcraft be suspected. While spectral evidence was admitted into the trials of the accused witches, other crimes were tried using quite ordinary evidence, even in the 17th century! Proof of a mischief that did NOT involve witchcraft would have been very similar to what it would be today...a witness, a motive, a threat, etc. Remember, I'm NOT talking about evidence of WITCHCRAFT, but rather mischief!! >>Did they really always believe that?....My point is that what made some people accuse other people was not simply a belief that the crime of witchcraft had been committed.<< ABSOLUTELY NOT....nor did I say that I thought they did!! In fact, I've quite clearly stated that I absolutely do NOT believe that the ACCUSERS believed the accused to be witches, nor do I think those close to the accused believed them to be witches, but the VAST MAJORITY of the population, who WERE NOT the accused or the accusers, or close friends or relatives of either, would have, more likely than not, in my humble opinion, believed the allegations to be true, and thus have been in fear of falling victim to witchcraft. After all, it wasn't until AFTER it was over, when the whole atrocity was studied thoroughly, that all the possible motives for the accusations were made public, so why wouldn't those who were not close to the situation believe what was being reported or told to them at the time?? >>Look around you--prosecutors often charge people with what they think they can prove.<< It certainly seems to me that witchcraft was one of the easiest crimes to prove, since it was impossible to defend against!! Wouldn't it be easier to CLAIM that you saw someone's spectral being committing a crime, than to actually PROVE, through REAL physical evidence, that some OTHER crime had been committed?? >>But it might be possible to prove that Goody Chamberlain did something that looked like deliberate harm, like letting her pigs into someone's garden.<< TRUE, but if Goody Chamberlain WAS a witch, why would SHE let her pigs into someone's garden, running the risk of her or her pigs being seen, when she could easily do just as much harm to the garden without being seen anywhere near it? >>No proof? Consider what constituted proof, statements like, "I saw Goody X chanting funny words behind my house and right afterwards my child got ill." That's proof. If your child got ill but no one had seen Goody X chanting nearby, then you have no proof.<< Again, it would seem that you're making my argument for me...if you read the whole context, you'll see that was exactly my point!! The question was whether someone may have been charged with mischief INSTEAD of witchcraft, because the mischief was provable but the witchcraft was not. Your description above would have been proof of WITCHCRAFT...and if there WAS "proof" of witchcraft, then mischief isn't an issue!! The other opinion I gave, was in the thinking of the times, it would be the crimes that had no REAL physical evidence that would be believed to have been done by witchcraft, which would explain WHY there was no REAL proof!! Cheers! Joan In a message dated 11/6/2002 6:02:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, sorcha432@hotmail.com writes: > >From : Jma8763@aol.com > >As you stated, given the spirit of > the times, I wouldn't think that anyone would have "settled" for a lesser > charge if they believed the offender to be a witch! It certainly sounds > like > the majority of people in the New England states in 1692 BELIEVED that those > accused of witchcraft were in fact witches, and they were terrified of > them! > > Did they really always believe that? I think what Boyer and Nissenbaum and, > to some extent, Karlsen argue is that accusations of witchcraft sometimes > were used to knock off one's rivals or enemies, or to gain possession of > property. In fact, Karlsen presents evidence suggesting that legal > accusations were consistebntly used by magistrates and male relatives to > gain control of female-owned property. And, in the case of my ancestor, > Elizabeth Morse, almost all of her accusers were young (in their 20s or so) > males who m she had, in modern terms, "disrespected." > My point is that what made some people accuse other people was not simply a > belief that the crime of witchcraft had been committed. > > >So it would stand to reason, that if a crime was thought to have been > committed through witchcraft, the charge would have reflected that! > > Look around you--prosecutors often charge people with what they think they > can prove. Wasn't Al Capone convicted of tax evasion? That's not what > everyone *suspected* was his worst crime, but it was what they had the > evidence to prove. Therefore, I think it's quite possible that if > prosecutors couldn't find an accuser who could testify, "I saw Goody > Chamberlain meeting with a tawny man in the woods" or even, "I saw Goody > Chamberlain chanting funny words behind my house and right afterwards my > cow > died," then witchcraft might be impossible to prove. But it might be > possible to prove that Goody Chamberlain did something that looked like > deliberate harm, like letting her pigs into someone's garden. > > > Also, wouldn't it stand to reason that if a mischief was thought to > have been committed through witchcraft, that there would be NO proof that > the > accused had been the one to commit the mischief? > > No proof? Consider what constituted proof, statements like, "I saw Goody X > chanting funny words behind my house and right afterwards my child got > ill." > That's proof. If your child got ill but no one had seen Goody X chanting > nearby, then you have no proof. > > >It seems to me that if there was ANY proof that a particular person > >committed ANY crime, then > there would be no reason to believe that witchcraft had been involved, since > the proof itself would have to be such that any "mere mortal" could have > committed the offense! > > Seems to me that you're thinking more like a 20th c. than a 17thc. person. > "Proof" would be testimony that the accused did witchy-type things > immediately before someone's child or cows got sick. Proof would be > shooting > a cat and finding Goody X with a wound in the same place. Proof would be > having a dream or vision in which Goody X attacked you. All these would be > different from proof that someone let their pigs into your garden. > > I have already suggested and reiterate that I think further research on > this > issue should include seeing what consistituted proof of mischief in other > Middlesex County cases. I'd also look at how "mischief" is mentioned in > cases of witchcraft in Middlesex and Essex County. > > >Getting back to Rebecca Chamberlain, I understand that she died in > prison in 1692, which of course, COULD just be a coincidence, but do we know > WHEN she was first imprisoned? If there is good reason to believe that she > was thought a witch, is it possible that she was imprisoned long before the > winter/spring of 1692, and was serving her sentence of something other > than death, when she died in prison? The prison conditions of the time were > deplorable, so it wouldn't be surprising at all for people to have > survived them for only a relatively short period of time!! > > I think you've misunderstood what was posted about her case. She died in > prison in Sept. 1692 while awaiting trial for mischief. It's not known when > she was first charged and imprisoned. The details of the charge are > unknown. > As I understand it, there's no evidence that she was tried, merely that she > was charged with mischief. Often a good bit of time passed between initial > charge and trial; in fact, one of the points authors often make is that we > really don't know how many people were charged of witchcraft and died in > prison before being tried. However, no one has suggested that Goody > Chamberlain was *proved* to be a witch. ALL that anyone has suggsted is > that > because of the timing and the similarity between mischief and witchcraft, > the case bears further investigation. As has been noted, there are reasons > that someone might be charged with mischief though the aura of witchcraft > hng about them. > > >I agree that the only way of proving or disproving allegations of > witchcraft will be to find either the original charge/arrest warrant, or > better still, the court transcripts. I don't think that it is safe to > assume that just because a woman died in prison in 1692, that they had been > charged with witchcraft. > > Excuse me, but *no one* has suggested or assumed this. Accusations of > mischief and witchcraft are actually quite similar, the distinction being > *how* the damage was caused. My vague recollection is that charges of > witchcraft often mentioned mischief. Therefore, the suggestion that someone > charged with mischief--as Goody Chamberlain was; it's not that she simply > died in prison of an unknown charge or cause--might have been considered a > witch is worthy of further research. > > Francine Nicholson >