>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 _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus