Cindy Abel wrote: (Sorry--did I spell your name correctly? Digest format makes it more difficult to reply.) >Also some of the accusers and accused had life experiences that differed >only in a few details. My question is: how does one establish cause and effect? How can one be certain that actions were the result of what happened during the trials and not becasue of something else? For example, you mentioned that a large number of your relatives moved out of Mass. into NH and elsewhere. That was quite common in Essex County. The original settlements had little left in the way of free land. The parent's real estate often went more or less intact to one child (perhaps the child who has been living there, caring for the elderly parent) while gifts of money or personal property went to those in need. Most of the male children had already dispersed to other places (Chester, NH, for example, primarily was one of what is sometimes called "second-tier" settlenments, and its initial population came from people whose parents lived in Essex County) and NH was a near and logical choice. So how does one conclude that someone went there *because* of persecution? I'm facing similar questions. I've noticed that almost all of Elizabeth Morse's descendants (at least those I can find) left Newbury and went not to NH but to central Mass. locations. That *may* indicate a need to get away from the past. The house where Elizabeth lived probably went to her son-in-law after her death, since he was charged by her husband's will to see that Elizabeth was cared for. So perhaps her daughter and her daughter's family stayed, but the sons seem to have left. At this point I'm not sure whether they left before or after she was tried and convicted. But, given that she was apparently accused several times (only in 1680 was she actually tried and convicted), they may have had motivation to leave before then. However, as I'm sure many of you have found, it's not always easy to know why someone did something. Look at out own lives: what seemingly tiny and unrecordable influences caused us to live where we have at various times? It's also difficult to be sure why people got nothing in wills. It wasn't necessarily a matter of disfavor. Sometimes--in fact, maybe most of the time--the bulk of the property was given to the children who needed it most or who had earned it for some reason. Single daughters often were given things whereas married daughters were not, presumably because they were already taken care of. The parental house went to the child who was already living there, and, presumably had cared for the parent. Occasionally, one finds a comment like, "I'm not giving Sally Jo anything because I already gave her x and y during my lifetime" but most wills don't explain things like that. They assume everyone already knows. Francine Nicholson _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com