Category: Transcript

Full transcripts of episodes of The Thing About Witch Hunts

  • Episode 10 Transcript: Descendants of Connecticut Witch Trial Victims

    Josh Hutchinson: [00:00:00] Welcome to Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast. I’m Josh Hutchinson.

    Sarah Jack: And I’m Sarah Jack.

    Josh Hutchinson: In this episode, we speak with descendants of Connecticut witch trial victims about efforts to exonerate their ancestors.

    Sarah Jack: I am one of those descendants.

    Josh Hutchinson: Im not descended from anyone accused in Connecticut, but I am descended from some of the Salem accused.

    Sarah Jack: I am as well. That’s why when I found Winifred Benham in my tree, and it said that she was the Witch of Wallingford, Connecticut, and I looked into it, and she was [00:01:00] actually an accused witch, I was very baffled, cuz I knew nothing about witch trials outside of Salem.

    Josh Hutchinson: Not many people know there were witch trials and Connecticut, but we’re hoping to change that.

    Sarah Jack: That is changing.

    Josh Hutchinson: More people are learning every day. There’s been a lot of it in the news lately. And, of course, we’ve done several episodes of the podcast about Connecticut. And people are finding out through social media, as well.

    Sarah Jack: It’s a very exciting change for the history, and I’m really hoping that the descendants can start to feel camaraderie and learn about their ancestors from each other. And I’m looking forward to seeing what Connecticut decides to do with this history.

    Josh Hutchinson: Hopefully, they do the right thing with it and exonerate those accused and make this part of everyone’s education, so people know the [00:02:00] stories, and we don’t make these same mistakes again.

    Sarah Jack: We’re gonna find out what these descendants that we’ve brought together have to say about those things.

    Josh Hutchinson: I’m sure they have some good things to say, perhaps some profound things to say about their feelings, how they felt when they discovered these ancestors, how they feel now, what they think about the ConnecticutWitch Trial Exoneration Project.

    Sarah Jack: Watching this exoneration project come together has been really beautiful.

    Josh Hutchinson: We’ve come a long way since May.

    Sarah Jack: We have. In May, there was just a few of us trying to talk about it. We were throwing it out there. Who can hear us?

    Josh Hutchinson: And I was just watching you tweet. But then we came together in June and formed the project. And we’ve had media attention. We’ve got the podcast going. We’ve got the social media going. There are eyes on it [00:03:00] now.

    Sarah Jack: There is, we’ve learned a lot from many of the descendants.

    Josh Hutchinson: The resolution is being discussed by members of the Connecticut General Assembly. We’re hoping that they do take it up to vote on it in their next session.

    Sarah Jack: Which is upon us soon.

    Josh Hutchinson: Soon, soon. Starts the beginning of January, in fact. But I know it runs until June. So we’ll just keep plugging away while they’re working. We’ll be trying to get their ears and to get them to focus on this and get it done, hopefully sooner rather than later.

    Sarah Jack: I definitely think they’ll have some things to think about after hearing the powerful words of our descendants on this episode.

    Sarah Jack: Josh, do you have any Connecticut history for us today?

    Josh Hutchinson: For this episode’s history segment, I’m going to talk about the witch trial victims who were the [00:04:00] ancestors of the descendants we spoke to. There are five ancestors of these eight individuals.

    Josh Hutchinson: Four of the descendants are related to Alice Young of Windsor, who was the first known person to be executed for witchcraft in the American colonies on May 26th, 1647.

    Josh Hutchinson: One of our descendants is related to Lydia Gilbert of Windsor, who was hanged in 1654.

    Josh Hutchinson: Another is related to Rebecca Greensmith of Hartford, who was hanged in 1662 or 3 with her husband, Nathaniel.

    Josh Hutchinson: And we have Mary Barnes of Farmington, who was hanged in 1663.

    Josh Hutchinson: And, finally, our Sarah Jack is descended from Winifred Behnam, Sr. of Wallingford, [00:05:00] who was the second of three generations of women to be accused of witchcraft. Her mother, Mary Hale, was hanged for witchcraft in Boston. Winifred Sr. was acquitted of witchcraft twice, and her daughter Winifred Behnam, Jr. was also acquitted of witchcraft. Their last trials were in 1697, and so they were the last two accused of witchcraft to be taken to trial.

    Sarah Jack: Awesome. Josh, thank you for covering all that descendant and ancestor information for us today.

    Josh Hutchinson: It was my pleasure. I’m really looking forward to talking to these descendants now.

    Sarah Jack: And here are my fellow descendants talking about their ancestors and why this project has been important to [00:06:00] them. Sherry Kuiper, descendant of Alice Young, Alse C. Freeman, descendant of Alice Young, Rosemary Lang, descendant of Mary Barnes, Morgan Leigh Kelsey, descendant of Alice Young, Sue Bailey, descendant of Alice Young, Laura Secord, descendant of Lydia Gilbert, Caitlin Golden, descendant of Rebecca Greensmith, and Sarah Jack, descendant of Winifred Benham, Sr.

    Josh Hutchinson: How did you find out about your ancestor who was accused of witchcraft?

    Josh Hutchinson: Sherry?

    Sherry Kuiper: My mom’s retired, and she’s the one who does all the research in our family, and I’m the one who will say, “get in the car, and let’s drive to Connecticut and see what we can find.” And we like it that way. It works really well. And we call it visits, right? We go visit our ancestors.

    Sherry Kuiper: So she has a cousin that they do some research together on the family, and we were all together one day, and he said, [00:07:00] “I think we have an accused witch.” And I was like, “no way.” I didn’t believe it, and then he said, “it’s on the internet. Look it up.” And I was like, “okay.” I mean, Google’s great and all, but that’s not how genealogy works, right? And my mom was like, “let’s just look and see.” And so we started looking, and it made some logical sense, so then my mom really started digging into it. All the way up until her daughter, we had a paper trail, and then the Associated Daughters of Early American Witches, which is one of the many lineage societies out there, but this one is dedicated to those accused and hanged of witchcraft. They had that missing link from her daughter to her. So it was really just this conversation. In fact, I was the naysayer. I was like, “there’s no way we have somebody who’s this fascinating a part of American history. And early American history.” But he was absolutely right, and we were able to do the research and prove it.

    Josh Hutchinson: Alse C.?

    Alse Freeman: [00:08:00] My sibling, who had access to the family history library, did extensive genealogical work, and somehow I had missed the bottom line of their research, which all it said was Alse Young, 1600 to 1647, parentheses, “witch.” And I don’t think I had even gotten to the bottom of that list, but it was in March of 2020 that I went and had a gathering with a lot of my family members on my dad’s side, and they were talking about their ancestors with certain fondness.

    Alse Freeman: And then right after that, the pandemic hit, and I felt, “well, I, I want to go deep into this genealogy myself,” and it was a chance I could do a free trial for one month on one of these websites and learn a lot more than I already knew. But my sibling had already done all this great research, so most of what I did was just corroborate, fact checking various other people’s [00:09:00] accounts, making sure that there was no errors in what my sibling done. And it’s led back to Alse Young, died in 1647.

    Josh Hutchinson: Rosemary?

    Rosemary Lang: This genealogy was presented to my mother when I was a baby, and when I was older, I read about it and found out about Mary Barnes being an accused witch, and in the genealogy it said she was accused of drunkenness and fornication. So I was just appalled, and I started looking into her a little bit, and that was probably 40 years ago, and I found nothing. But there seems to be a whole lot more online, especially, to find out about her. But I’m not ashamed or anything about it, because she was probably just an innocent woman.

    Rosemary Lang: And I remember quite a few years ago there was a presentation at the old State House in Hartford. It was made as a Halloweeny event, [00:10:00] and they had a little play going, and it was about Mary Barns, and I knew that we were descended from her somehow. So I went to this play, and the Old State House was packed, and I think I was the only one that cried. I thought, “oh my God, this is my relative. It’s so sad.” And for everybody else, it was just a Halloween event.

    Josh Hutchinson: Morgan?

    Morgan Leigh Kelsey: So my dad passed away in 2016, and he had done a lot of genealogy. So Alice is on his father’s side, and he had done up to one generation prior to Alice, to Alice’s daughter, the other Alice, and when I saw Alice’s name, there was some kind of knowing within me that just sparked a curiosity and a need to dig further. And so I ended up just simply googling [00:11:00] “Alice Young,” and all of a sudden it brings up that she was the first in the colonies to be executed, and I felt pretty shocked by that, very shocked by that.

    Josh Hutchinson: Sue?

    Sue Bailey: A friend of Beth Caruso’s from Windsor is my massage therapist, and her name’s Donna, and she told me, “oh yeah, my friend wrote a book about the first accused witch that was executed, and I said, “oh, that’s really cool.” And I thought, “well, that’s really interesting.”

    Sue Bailey: I had my genetics done, and I see this relative that was a second cousin. I’m like, “who is this person?” So you can email someone through 23andme, which I did. He was an elderly gentleman, but his daughter answered me and said, “oh, I’ve done a lot of research on the family on that side,” that would be my mother’s father’s side, “and we’re related to the first person executed as a witch in the colonies.” And I said, “oh my God, it must be Alice Young.” And it [00:12:00] was, and then I started looking just online through all the genealogies that are available. I’m actually paying a genealogist to do a whole view of all four sides of me now, just because I wanna perhaps show my kids, and they thought it was pretty cool.

    Josh Hutchinson: Laura?

    Laura Secord: My husband is a historian, genealogist, and I think he’d gone in his family all the way back to the beginning of time, and one day he just came and he was looking at my family. I didn’t even know he was looking at my family. And he came and said, “well, your great, great, great, great, great was found guilty of witchcraft in Connecticut in 1654.”

    Josh Hutchinson: Caitlin?

    Caitlin Golden: So I am an avid ancestry user, like the ancestry.com, and I had found her name, but I didn’t look too much into her until I got a hint that was talking about the witch trials, and of course that was eye-catching to me, and so I read about her, and I’m like, “oh my [00:13:00] gosh.”

    Caitlin Golden: I never knew about the Connecticut Witch Trials. Of course, I knew about Salem. We talked about it in school, but the Connecticut Witch Trials was never something I knew about. I knew that Salem wasn’t the only trials. But then I researched her, and my jaw dropped. It’s absolutely insane and horrible what she and all of these other victims went through, and it just hurts knowing like she was a mother, and I can’t imagine how her children felt.

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you, Caitlin. Finally, we have our very own host, Sarah Jack.

    Sarah Jack: I was working on a family line, and it was one of the first ones that took me into Connecticut, and I started reading through documents, and I saw that this person was an accused witch, and I didn’t understand how that could be, because it was not Salem.

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you, Sarah.

    Josh Hutchinson: How did you feel when you learned about your ancestor, [00:14:00] who was accused of witchcraft?

    Sherry Kuiper: When I was in college, I took a really amazing class at Edinboro University with a woman named Dr. Jenrette, and she did a class called History of Witchcraft, which was about the Reformation, all the way up through the Salem Witch Trials. And she took us to Salem on Halloween weekend, and it was amazing, right? Probably the coolest class trip in the world.

    Sherry Kuiper: I’ve always been interested in that and always fascinated by it. I don’t know if I had any feelings of anything. I thought it was, I hate to say this because people died, but I thought it was really cool, because I thought that these people who did get accused and didn’t die from it, they were kind of badasses, if I’m allowed to swear on your podcast. They were people who really kind of bucked the system in a lot of ways, and usually that’s what got them to be an outcast, or they were different.

    Sherry Kuiper: In that respect, I thought it was really cool that my ancestor was somebody who was causing enough trouble that they felt that [00:15:00] this was the way to deal with her, and then when a lot of my friends found out, you know, a lot of them were like, “we’re not surprised that you were descendant from somebody like this.” So that’s kind of how that initial feeling was. And then of course, you know, it just kept going from there. And then really understanding, too, like yeah, there’s that kind of interesting history part of it, but then there’s the reality part of it, of what really happened to these people, my ancestor and all the others, and then that kind of manifested more into a little bit of activism that all of us share today.

    Alse Freeman: Once I kind of knew that connection with 95% certainty, I tried to read anything I could to find out more about her, and really there just wasn’t very much at all. Just putting myself in her shoes at the time, it really just struck me with extreme sadness. Like I remember getting goosebumps all over my body and just like a chill running through my body and a sinking feeling in my stomach, just putting [00:16:00] myself into her shoes and being, almost being there on the gallows, looking down at my six or seven year old daughter.

    Alse Freeman: And then putting myself in that daughter’s shoes, who’s also my ancestor, of looking up at her mother thinking, ” what’s going on? I don’t understand what’s happening.” And just that moment, whether or not it’s actually how things went down. I really was chilled by it, and it really stuck with me, and I wept, and part of the reason I wept, I think, is just this extreme feeling of injustice that was.

    Alse Freeman: And so much injustice has been done to so many people through our nation’s history, but this was like a really visceral feeling for me, where I, I actually felt connected with my ancestor in a way that I hadn’t felt very connected to any other ancestor that I had ever heard about.

    Alse Freeman: I had this connection with Alse and [00:17:00] her daughter, and so it was soon after that that I decided to carry the name Alse, or Alse C. is how I pronounce it, so I could still keep the letter C from my given name. But I felt like it was a way that I could honor my ancestor and keep her memory alive in a way.

    Alse Freeman: From there, I realized that there were hundreds and thousands of people potentially who were interested in the same thing, who were also descendants. I got connected with Beth Caruso’s Connecticut WITCH Memorial Facebook page and started following those updates. And those updates led me to learn about the campaign to have the witch hanging victims exonerated. And so everything’s just flowed from there, where I’ve seen that there’s potentially hundreds of thousands of people, who if they knew, they are actually descended from these witch hanging victims. And potentially millions of Americans are connected in some way to this legacy through [00:18:00] their blood.

    Sarah Jack: I was baffled. I was very eager to get more information, and then I was quickly disappointed that there really wasn’t much, and Connecticut wasn’t offering information about their Witch trials, so I really had to dig around, and I found that extremely disappointing.

    Josh Hutchinson: Do you think your ancestor should be exonerated?

    Alse Freeman: There’s no graveyard that I can actually go visit my ancestor. There’s just a brick in Hartford in the courthouse square, and it feels not like a true memorial. It just says “witch hanging victim” and doesn’t really speak to who she was as a person. We don’t have very many details.

    Alse Freeman: I just wanna be clear that, you know, my ancestor’s exoneration is not more important than other wrongfully accused people, and so I’m really grateful that your podcast is [00:19:00] also highlighting modern-day victims of the witch hunts. Another thing I just wanna mention is our country has a huge reckoning to do, in terms of understanding its past and making amends and seeking justice.

    Alse Freeman: Specifically focusing on the case of Alse, absolutely she needs to be exonerated by the state of Connecticut, because first of all, there’s no record of any actual harm she committed upon anyone. There are no records. Secondly, if current laws do not penalize practices which can be considered witchcraft, then those who are punished for them need exoneration under the current laws, is the way I see it. And it’s just as simple as the state of Connecticut allowing posthumous pardons.

    Alse Freeman: This should not be such a big challenge, and it should just be a stepping stone to open the door to all types of people rectifying injustice that have been committed against them and their families.

    Rosemary Lang: [00:20:00] Yes, of course, I think they all, all of them should be, especially because did she really do any harm to anybody? Was it just people’s words that accused her? She should be exonerated, and I think they all should be. I don’t think whatever she did does she deserved to be hanged for. So I hope they do exonerate them.

    Morgan Leigh Kelsey: I do. I do. I think that it’s also complicated. There’s a lot of layers there. I think that it is important to exonerate or to restore the good name. One, just to kind of bring some light to that and to bring some awareness to people. Generally, if I’m talking with anybody about that, I feel like there’s always some sort of an education that ends up happening, because they’re like, ” I didn’t know,” or people just think, “oh, you [00:21:00] know, the witches, they burn the witches. They hung the witches. What are the witches, really?”

    Morgan Leigh Kelsey: What do we often do to people who might be a little different or might be the people that are the healers, the people that are bringing truth and light to situations, and nobody wants to hear or accept that sometimes. Just the fact that people could have gotten together, tortured people, then killed them, and said that that was okay, and that that was in the name of God is horrific, and I think that people really should be made aware of that.

    Sue Bailey: Yes, I do. And I can’t even believe there was, when this was brought up in 2008 in the legislature that they didn’t do it. What in the world are they thinking? That, “well, we don’t have any proof they weren’t witches.” [00:22:00] What kinda crazy thing is that? How is it that they couldn’t say, “of course we’re gonna exonerate them?” Salem did it. Why in the world wouldn’t we? It doesn’t make sense.

    Laura Secord: I have like a list of reasons witches need to be exonerated, because they’re innocent. First of all, the main reason is they were innocent. They were falsely accused. They were almost always women. So there was not entirely, but the bulk were women. They weren’t weak. They weren’t women that were easily duped by evil. They were the participants who helped to build this country, mothers, wives, helpmates, human beings, healers. Without them, we wouldn’t have created what we have in this country now.

    Laura Secord: Because their lives and their stories paint a clear picture of what our country’s beginning was like. Because as modern persons, you and I have attained levels of knowledge and [00:23:00] education, and we now understand the science of nature behind the colonists’ irrational fear. Because women were part of founding this country. Because these persons are our family and we want them remembered, celebrated, and honored, instead of carrying the stain of disgrace based in ignorance and hysteria. And because today forces of false truth, hysteria, and misogyny are rising up again, vilifying and naming women criminals, liars, and manipulators.

    Caitlin Golden: Just like everyone else, she was innocent. She was just trying her best to live. Just live a simple life back then, and this is just a big human rights violation. Simply because people disliked her, and she didn’t have a good reputation, they figured, “hey, let’s just call her [00:24:00] a witch, and that’s all of her we’ll see.” It’s wrong and it’s horrible.

    Sarah Jack: Yes. I wanna acknowledge that they should not have been water tested, that they should not have had to flee.

    Josh Hutchinson: Why is it important for your ancestor’s name to be cleared? It’s not even just her name, right? It’s all of their names. It doesn’t matter if it was three days ago or 300 years ago, a wrong thing was done. And even though that the state of Connecticut saying, “I’m sorry, Sherry, that we did this to your grandmother” isn’t gonna change anything, just that recognition that, “hey, this was a crappy thing that happened and it should have never happened.” Sometimes we have to own those mistakes, even though we might have not been the ones who directly made it.

    Sherry Kuiper: Do I think anybody alive today had anything to do with this? Absolutely not. But just to, Really remind people because, you can look at some things going on in society today, and there’s been references made to modern-day witch-hunts. And while we [00:25:00] might not hang people from trees like that happened to Alice, there are still things going on today, and we just need to remind ourselves how easy we can fall into those traps.

    Sherry Kuiper: It’s just important for all of those people, all those ancestors. I can prove that this is my grandmother. So to say that nobody around today cares is not fair, and, frankly, I think that it’s, while I’m sure there’s red tape of bureaucracy, as there always is, I don’t think it’s as hard as they’re making it to just come together and say, “these people are no longer accused, and we exonerate them.” And I am glad that there are people finally in the state of Connecticut who are trying to help us move towards that resolution.

    Rosemary Lang: The cider goes bad, and they’re accused of being a witch, or all the children in the town get sick but your own, so you must be in league with the devil to protect them. Stupid things like that. It was just so unfair. [00:26:00] Nobody listened to anything they said. I’m sure it was a jury of all men. Magistrates were all men. They were just lowly housewives, so nobody cared what they had to say. So, yes, they should all be exonerated.

    Sarah Jack: It’s important, because although we don’t know much about them, we do know that they were not witches. I don’t want anybody in this country confused anymore about these victims that went through these witch trials. And if the state of Connecticut clears the names of their accused, it’s a giant statement towards clarifying that these were innocent people.

    Josh Hutchinson: Why is exoneration relevant today?

    Alse Freeman: I think exoneration is relevant today because this case and these cases of the 11 witch-hanging victims in Connecticut can be a [00:27:00] teachable moment for us that these people were scapegoated in the past, most likely for something they did not do wrong, but some huge upheavals were happening in society at the time.

    Alse Freeman: There was a flu outbreak that was killing a lot of people, including many children, as Beth Caruso points out in her research. And so you gotta look at what’s going on today with how people are being scapegoated for the various ills that are afflicting society.

    Alse Freeman: What I’m hopeful for is that my ancestor’s case can be this way to highlight retrospectively how scapegoating is a part of our culture, how we’re constantly looking for someone to blame. These days, often it’s very in a very partisan way, but throughout our [00:28:00] nation’s history, we have blamed others. We’ve blamed The Other for a lot of our collective problems that need a collective solution.

    Alse Freeman: Just to bring up the history of our treatment of the indigenous people of this country. And it’s just, it’s heartbreaking. To me, it’s an even higher level of heartbreaking even than just my ancestors standing on the gallows. I know that other ancestors of mine participated in some of these colonial battles and even enslaved an indigenous child, um, one of my ancestors did. And so that for me is a great reckoning that I need to come to terms with myself. And I think it’s very hard for our country to come to terms with that part of the story, so it’s a little easier for us to focus on the tragedy in the colony, but the tragedy outside the colony was [00:29:00] just so monumental that, in the course of what we’re doing, we need to like remember that that is a part of it, too. That is the context in which this was happening. I think just like acknowledging that the people were there before these, the colonies would be one starting point.

    Sue Bailey: I think the passage of time doesn’t negate the wrong. Just because it’s a long time ago doesn’t mean that it’s too late to do some sort of retroactive exoneration to right a wrong. And it would be for all the relatives. Some people might think, “oh, well that was cool that they were accused of. I like to think that they were really a Witch or something.”

    Sue Bailey: I just can’t help but think most people, when they find out they had a relative that goes back nine, 10 generations, that’s a person just like we are, that has all [00:30:00] the same feelings and fears and loves people. And why would their death be any less meaningful 375 years later? It’s still the fact that they were put to death wrongly, undoubtedly wrongly. It’s just an injustice that needs to be addressed, even 375 years later.

    Caitlin Golden: While most of us look at witch trials as though that’s just in my history book, it’s still happening today in other countries around the world. And so if we make a good example, maybe it’ll stop worldwide.

    Sarah Jack: I hope that when Connecticut exonerates their accused witches that it’ll send a message and a signal to leaders in communities in other parts of the world, where witch-hunts are being tolerated. I want the message to be that we must stand against witch-hunting, that it’s no [00:31:00] longer something that is acceptable, that it is murder, that it is destroying families, and it does not need to happen anymore.

    Josh Hutchinson: What would you like to say to the Connecticut General Assembly about why your ancestor should be exonerated?

    Sherry Kuiper: Just do it. Like, seriously, it’s really that easy. And I know we can come up with lots of reasons why it’s difficult , but just do it. I mean, because people said to me, “well, Sherry, it happened so long ago. Who cares?” I’m like, “well, then just do it. Who cares? Just get up there and say it. Sign the piece of paper and be done with it.”

    Sherry Kuiper: It’s the right thing to do and you just gotta do it. And Massachusetts has done it. Salem has fully embraced what has happened to their people, to almost to do a complete 180 or 360 really of what happened there. So I just tell state of Connecticut, just review it, do what you gotta do, but get it done. It’s long overdue, and there’s no reason we [00:32:00] should be waiting any longer.

    Alse Freeman: I think the basic requests we have are acknowledge that the injustice happened, recognize officially the innocence of these 11 victims who are executed, and recognize not only their suffering, but also their families and their descendants. Removing the ill fame from their descendants is one part of it. Reversing the charge is the bottom line.

    Alse Freeman: But I would add one extra thing, which is just we need to educate people on this history, not just a little paragraph on Wikipedia, but people need to be taught in schools about what happened in our country. And it’s gonna be a long story to tell, but that is part of the way you can get closer to a country that has justice, which we are supposedly a country of justice and a country of laws. So you can’t tell that story and then [00:33:00] hide the story where injustice was committed. And so the basic step forward is we need to move on to an education piece after we’ve exonerated these people, because their story needs to continue to be told. It’s not just close the book and never talk about them again.

    Rosemary Lang: Because Mary Barnes was just a housewife and a mother taking care of her farm and her children. She was accused of something, we don’t even really know what, that probably didn’t harm anybody, and she should be exonerated. In all fairness, all of them should be.

    Morgan Leigh Kelsey: If that passes, that to me almost feels like it heals something in my DNA and in the DNA of others and in the DNA of future generations. And I think that can be thought in [00:34:00] a larger view. If you take that same principle and apply that to a whole lot of other things, if you apply that to Native Americans and you apply that to people who have been oppressed, and murdered, that’s huge. So what I would say to the Connecticut General Assembly is that that is an important motion, an important movement for the future of all the people.

    Sue Bailey: The people that were executed were more than likely innocent, and for what comfort it can bring their souls now or their relatives who are still alive. If it can bring them comfort and some measure of closure, I think it’s a small task for them. I mean, it would be a really good gesture on the part of the legislature.

    Sue Bailey: [00:35:00] The old Connecticut General Assembly or whatever they called themselves back then, I forgot the management of the colony, maybe they’re the ones that voted on deciding that she should die. Now here, this current legislature could vote on freeing those people from that stigma of potentially a Witch or be an evil person. They were put to death. I mean, I think it’s still really important. The length of time that’s elapsed doesn’t mute the wrong. And it’s still something that’s important.

    Caitlin Golden: I think I would again say this was a big human rights violation, and it’s not fair that even after death, she and as many other people are still considered criminals, even though they were very clearly innocent. And as a descendant, it would mean the world to me to be able to have her name cleared. And [00:36:00] I’m sure she would’ve been ecstatic, as well as everyone else, to finally be recognized. “Hey, I didn’t do anything wrong. I was just a victim.”

    Sarah Jack: I want the exoneration to acknowledge that all the Connecticut accused should not have had their good names defamed.

    Josh Hutchinson: What type of memorial do you want to see?

    Sherry Kuiper: I would like to see a memorial. I do like them, because I do think it serves as a reminder of things that have happened. I love visiting historical places and everything, so I think it would just really be dependent on where it is.

    Sherry Kuiper: I think it would need to be Hartford Square there, where a lot of the victims were hanged. Something in a place like that, I think would be ideal, because it’s in a place of significance. It’s a place where people are gonna see it and actually stop. If you put it in the middle of nowhere, like I love all the small Connecticut towns, my whole family’s from up there, if you go back far enough. I think it loses its value. So I think it needs to go in a significant place, where it’s actually going to be seen.

    Sherry Kuiper: [00:37:00] I love Windsor, Connecticut. It’s a beautiful little town. You’re not going there unless you’re going there for a very specific reason. Harford Square, it’s in the center of town, a popular place where people go, so I think it would be great if it’s put in a place that’s going to actually reach people.

    Sherry Kuiper: Just to bear their names and probably with whatever words it is that exonerates them, however the state is going to recognize that, I think would be really important. But definitely to put their names in there, because I’m a big believer that, as long as your name is out there, your legacy will live on. People will be able to look up Alice Young, it’s on the internet. They can read about her and know a little bit about her.

    Alse Freeman: I would love to be part of coming up with what that would look like, and I would love to be present when it’s initiated. My ancestor, she’s dead, and she’s not gonna ever be able to feel that vindication of being cleared. At least, I don’t think she will. But I really like to believe that her story could be [00:38:00] an example of how we as a society can learn to make peace with the past and also learn from our errors. So I would love to see the memorial kind of speak to that, that we are learning from the past, and we are gonna move forward as a country of justice.

    Rosemary Lang: Well, no brooms or funny hats, for sure. Something beautiful, a little bench for people to sit and contemplate, everybody’s name’s inscribed. They have something like that in Salem. It’s a nice, peaceful area. Something along those lines. Not religious and not halloweeny.

    Sue Bailey: Well, it shouldn’t have a pointy hat, I’ll tell you that. It was talked about, I think maybe when I was interviewed for that channel 30 thing that, it was a joke when the legislature, when they were addressing this before in 2008 and the legislature, like they didn’t take it [00:39:00] seriously. I mean the people that were in the legislature reviewing it. And I think if you put a pointy hat on the statue, much as it’s amusing, it doesn’t take it seriously enough. Should it be a woman? Yeah. Why not it, it should be a statue of a woman. I mean, men were accused too, though. I mean, maybe you want a woman and a man.

    Sue Bailey: How about this? Is this too much like the Kennedy grave, like an eternal flame? That meaning you could do something like that. It would be cheaper, too. That or something peaceful but something that symbolizes the continuity of life and the fact that that tiny lapsing is of no significance. It’s just as relevant today as it was then. Something to show that the memory of what they went through goes on.

    Caitlin Golden: If there can be like some kind of like plaque or monument maybe, or maybe since she was a mom, maybe it would be [00:40:00] possible to have a little playground. I think that would be nice, so I feel like she would like that, for children to be able to play there, and you can still have remembrance for them.

    Sarah Jack: I want their names on it, but I want, if other people are discovered, their names to be able to be added. I want it to be accessible. I don’t want it to be a side. I want it to be a monument that is known, so that the history is known, but I want it to represent that a new page has been turned in that book.

    Josh Hutchinson: What does the exoneration project mean to you?

    Rosemary Lang: It’s great that all this information is coming out. Witches aren’t evil, I don’t think. And I think by presenting all this information that you are will help people to realize that they’re just people, and people need to know [00:41:00] that they’re just innocent women, really, and men, and it was a tough time.

    Morgan Leigh Kelsey: I guess it’s something that I never expected to be a part of that really caught me by a surprise. Just the discovery of the situation and my tie to it. To me, all of it just really feels like it’s all about healing. I think whenever you can go and go look back and look at wrongs that were done and try to do something about it. I mean, you can’t take it back. But I think when you educate people, when you look forward, when you look at something and say, “this can never happen again.” I think that’s the most important part of it.

    Caitlin Golden: I think for me, I always love history, and any chance I can get to volunteer or help for a cause [00:42:00] beyond me always makes me very happy. If I can get the word out and better educate myself on this and help better educate other people, I think it’s just making a difference in many people’s lives.

    Josh Hutchinson: Have you felt more connected to your accused ancestor due to the project?

    Sherry Kuiper: Yeah, when I do research and find these fascinating people in our history, which I believe everybody has fascinating people in their genealogy, we just have to find it and find their stories. So whether it’s Alice Young, or whether it’s some of the other really neat people in my history, I think it’s just important to remember it and to talk about it and to really understand what their life was like. The more I learned about her and the closer I looked at some of the things and being involved in the Associated Daughters of Early American Witches, it just made me realize that more needed to be done for these folks.

    Sherry Kuiper: Recently, thanks to, to the great internet and social media and stuff, I’ve been able to support it in a lot of ways from afar, and I find that really important [00:43:00] because even though it’s what, 370 some years since since Alice Young was hanged and the ones who came after her, there’s really still been no justice for a lot of them. And so it’s important it’s important to recognize those wrongs, even if it’s 300 years later , we still, it’s still important for for us to recognize that as a country, well, I guess pre country, but as colonial Americans, these things happened. They happened in Connecticut, and it would be really nice if they would just take the steps to rectify what had happened.

    Rosemary Lang: Definitely, I do feel connection and I really would like to learn more about her and try to go back.

    Morgan Leigh Kelsey: Yeah, I do feel deeply connected, and I think it’s, when you go back that many generations, it seems so far back, and it’s almost like having that knowledge. I guess it’s more a piece that’s in my heart that I [00:44:00] feel, but you feel like you’re able to just reach back into the past and pull that to you. And I guess even just thinking of that’s your grandmother and thinking of that female lineage and thinking of how incredibly far back that traces her. It just feels like there’s this palpable line to the past and this woman that I feel like is now right here that I never knew about.

    Caitlin Golden: I would definitely say I feel a lot more connected, and the more I learn about her, the more, obviously, I want to, help get her exonerated, as well as everyone else. Yeah, I do, I definitely feel a lot more connected to her.

    Sarah Jack: I do, because I’m hearing what the project and the ancestors mean to the other descendants, and it helps me to see that I’m not the only one that feels this way.

    Josh Hutchinson: Do you think any differently about what you’ve been taught about history? [00:45:00] I don’t recall ever learning anything in history class about the witches, maybe a little bit of the witch trials. Probably we had to read The Crucible. Other than that, most of my learning has been as an adult, an older adult. I think the history classes are changing in a lot of ways, and that’s one way they could present it differently to kids, just like with Columbus and all of those discoverers, supposedly. I think they should change the presentation for witches, as well. Because I think kids still, it’s Halloween, it’s, you know, pointy black hats and broom and things. So it’d be nice to portray them more as just women that were mistreated.

    Caitlin Golden: I definitely feel like I haven’t learned everything that maybe should have been taught to me, [00:46:00] because I would’ve never known about the Connecticut witch trials, if I had never found Rebecca Greensmith in my family tree. I definitely feel like a lot of it is not discussed, because of how dark it is, or there’s just some things that maybe the school systems don’t feel is necessary to teach. But in cases like the Connecticut witch trials, any witch trials, I think it’s really important to discuss, so that we don’t repeat history ,because it’s still happening that people are being accused and executed because of it, and it’s wrong, so clearly we haven’t learned that lesson.

    Josh Hutchinson: Do you feel more hopeful?

    Sherry Kuiper: I feel more hopeful, because I think the big shift was there is somebody in the government in Connecticut who has taken up this case. And so that to me was a big thing of hope, because with any sort of legislation of any kind, you need somebody to pick it up and look at it and say, “you know what? I think this is important enough to move forward with it.” So that actually is a huge thing.

    Sherry Kuiper: And so that kind of coupled with [00:47:00] some of the press that we’ve been able to do over the past few months with that person picking up that piece of paper and saying, “you know what? This is worth it and I’m gonna look into this.” It does give me hope, and I think we’ve got a lot of great forward momentum, and I think we need to keep showing this legislator why this is important, and however we need to show up for her to carry that on, I think this is really going to be it. And I think this is probably the best shot we’ve had ever to get something done. I am just grateful that somebody finally picked it up and said, “you know what? This is important, and we’re going to take a look at it.”

    Alse Freeman: I’m very excited that thousands of people are working on a collective solution for this one problem, and I hope that we can build off that and develop more collective actions that lift up our country’s people, instead of tearing them down. And now here’s Sarah Jack with an important update on witch hunts happening in our world right now.

    Sarah Jack: Here is End Witch Hunts World [00:48:00] Advocacy News. You are living in a world with a pervasive belief in harmful witchcraft with a mass occurrence of holding women and children responsible for supernaturally causing death, illness, and misfortune. This deep-seated conclusion is delaying action for protecting alleged witches, promoting witch-hunting behaviors, and blurring the recognition that worldwide historic witch trials executed innocent humans. These are communities that are waiting to be made safe. These are behaviors that have no place in a world that seeks to protect the vulnerable. These historic victims should have their names cleared and their innocence acknowledged by the communities that prosecuted them. When any advocate asks for this, ears should be listening, minds should be realizing, and bodies should be moving to take action.

    Sarah Jack: I hope you have had a chance to look up Dr. Leo Igwe of the Nigerian organization, the Advocacy for Alleged Witches. Please find the website link in our show [00:49:00] notes. Here’s a quote from a recent message from Leo.

    ” Part of the objective of Advocacy for Alleged Witches is to tackle the misperceptions of witches and witchcraft, whether alleged or not. Advocacy for Alleged Witches seeks to address associated fears and suspicions. It aims to correct the pervasive misconceptions and fears associated with the term witch or witchcraft, because these misperceptions are at the root of witch persecution. Saving alleged witches cannot be realized until Nigerians disabuse their mind and free themselves from fears and suspicions that the term witches or witchcraft, engenders. So the mission of combating witch persecution and supporting victims starts in the mind. It starts by demystifying the term witchcraft or witches. It starts by clarifying misconceptions and misperceptions that are linked to terminologies such as witches, witchcraft, and supposed occult forces.”

    Sarah Jack: Can you accept this change in thinking? [00:50:00] Consider it a message not just for Nigeria, but also for you and every human. As Leo states, misconceptions linked to the idea of witches, witchcraft, and harmful occult forces must be demystified. It is time to stop obscuring the truth and start diffusing the panic that is ignited by what we fear as malevolent.

    Sarah Jack: Last week, I brought attention to a situation in Ireland. The Northern Ireland Borough of Larne wants to commemorate eight Witch trial victims from the Islandmagee witch trial that took place on March 31st, 1711. A borough councillor raised questions of whether the eight women and a man who were found guilty of witchcraft were actually innocent. When criticized for his deferral of action, due to what authority he perceives the council holds, he has stated that actually he feels ambivalent about the matter of innocence. Ambivalent?

    Sarah Jack: He feels the council does not have authority to acknowledge innocence due to obscurity around witches and witchcraft. He is, however, interested in having [00:51:00] tourists play a game of determining guilt of these historical people that are still waiting to have their names cleared. He wants their convictions left alone, but he wants to draw tourists to the historic site by the opportunity to vote for guilt or innocence with tokens.

    Sarah Jack: This incident on the other side of the world from me matters, because I have asked the Connecticut legislature to exonerate the accused witches of Connecticut colony. I cannot imagine a response where the Connecticut legislature embraces ambivalence and suggests a tourist game at historical sites, instead of exoneration and memorials. Please, hear your community and the descendants of accused witches when they say that recognizing innocence matters, it matters to women and children that are being attacked as witches today. Acknowledging their innocence builds the foundation for dismantling witch-hunt mentalities that are destroying lives in our modern world.

    Sarah Jack: While we watch and wait, let’s support the victims across the world where innocent people are being targeted by superstitious fear. [00:52:00] Support them by acknowledging and sharing their stories. Please use all your communication channels to be an intervener and stand with them. The world must stop hunting witches. Please follow our End Witch Hunts movement on Twitter @_endwitchhunts and visit our website at endwitchhunts.org.

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you, Sarah, for that update.

    Sarah Jack: You’re welcome.

    Josh Hutchinson: And thank you for listening to Thou Shalt Not Suffer: the Witch Trial Podcast.

    Sarah Jack: Join us next week.

    Josh Hutchinson: Like, subscribe, or follow wherever you get your podcasts.

    Sarah Jack: Visit at thouschaltnotsuffer.com.

    Josh Hutchinson: Remember to tell everyone you know about Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast.

    Sarah Jack: Support our efforts to End Witch Hunts. Visit endwitchhunts.org to learn more.

    Josh Hutchinson: Have a great today [00:53:00] and a beautiful tomorrow.

  • Episode 9 Transcript: Katherine Howe on the Salem Witch-Hunt

    Josh Hutchinson: [00:00:00] ” Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”

    Josh Hutchinson: Welcome to another episode of Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial podcast. I’m Josh Hutchinson.

    Sarah Jack: And I’m Sarah Jack.

    Josh Hutchinson: Today’s guest is the extraordinary author Katherine Howe. We’ll speak with her about the causes of the Salem Witch Hunt and about her new book on pirates. I’m excited to talk about Salem Witch Hunt again and really curious what her book is about.

    Sarah Jack: Yeah, it doesn’t matter what time of year.

    Josh Hutchinson: [00:01:00] It’s always Christmas for pirates.

    Sarah Jack: Just like Katherine’s other books, you are going to be delighted by the characters and the adventure. Fun getting to hear about it, and it’s gonna be hard to wait for the publishing.

    Josh Hutchinson: She has wild swashbuckling shenanigans. But first, on a more serious note, we talk Salem, Witch Trials, what caused them, what didn’t cause them, why Katherine Howe it gets fired up about certain topics.

    Sarah Jack: We get to a lot of layers.

    Josh Hutchinson: Peeling that onion.

    Sarah Jack: We just take Katherine right into the depths of the mechanics.

    Josh Hutchinson: We talk about the different spheres that Malcolm Gaskill spoke about that are nested in each other and how each of those [00:02:00] spheres contributed to the witch-hunt.

    Sarah Jack: We talk about what kind of perspective do we need to be using when we look back at the individuals that were in a different time in history.

    Josh Hutchinson: Oh yes, we do that, don’t we? Wow, this is gonna be one hell of an episode!

    Sarah Jack: Aren’t they all?

    Josh Hutchinson: Yes, but I have a good feeling about this one. It’s gonna be something special.

    Sarah Jack: It’s another dynamic conversation with a phenomenal author and researcher, and she does not hold back.

    Josh Hutchinson: She does not. The emotions come out. Be ready.

    Josh Hutchinson: I’m going to talk about the before the Salem Witch Trials, what the conditions were in Massachusetts Bay Colony and Salem Village and Andover.

    Josh Hutchinson: Colonies used to have charters, so they [00:03:00] were officially recognized by the English government to govern themselves without direct supervision from the Crown and Parliament. Massachusetts Bay lost its colonial charter in 1684, when King Charles II revoked it because they had been naughty boys. And when the witch hunt began in early 1692, they still didn’t have a charter, so they were in legal limbo.

    Josh Hutchinson: In addition, they were fighting King William’s War and still recovering from King Philip’s War, which was the costliest and bloodiest of the colonial wars, occurring between 1675 and 1678. In fact, the Massachusetts economy did not recover to pre-war levels [00:04:00] until the 1800s, after the Revolution.

    Josh Hutchinson: Economic hardship resulting from the wars and the collapse of land speculation were also contributed to by an influx of refugees from the frontier in Maine and New Hampshire, and Essex County, where Salem’s located, was especially impacted, due to its proximity to that frontier, being the northernmost county in Massachusetts. Many of the settlers of Salem had moved on to Maine and New Hampshire, only to be forced to return when their villages were burned to the ground.

    Josh Hutchinson: Beyond these issues, in Salem, the town had recently gone through a bit of a separation, [00:05:00] where Salem Village was allowed to begin its own church. In 1689, Salem Village hired the fourth in a series of unpopular ministers, and there were disputes over his contract, so there was a lot of tension in the area.

    Josh Hutchinson: There was also tension in Andover, which was the hardest hit by the witch trials, with some 45 individuals being accused. There, there was a dispute between two ministers, Francis Dane and Thomas Barnard. Francis Dane was an older gentleman with health issues, who was no longer performing full duties as minister. So they had brought in Thomas Barnard, a younger man to take over some of [00:06:00] his duties, but were still paying both men in 1692, leading to tensions within the community that may have fueled some of the allegations there.

    Josh Hutchinson: We’ll get into these issues further with Katherine Howe, and specifically we’ll be discussing Andover in a few weeks with author Richard Hite and get into more of whether the dispute over the ministers did or did not contribute to witch-hunt fever in that community.

    Sarah Jack: That was good, Josh. Thanks, Josh.

    Josh Hutchinson: You’re welcome. It was a fun one to do, and we’re going to dig into that stuff some more with our guest.

    Sarah Jack: I am excited to introduce author Katherine Howe, whose works include The Physick Book of Deliverance Dane, Conversion, [00:07:00] The Daughters of Temperance Hobbs. She’s an editor of The Penguin Book of Witches and co-author of Vanderbilt.

    Josh Hutchinson: We’ve read that you’re actually connected to somebody accused, which is an interesting connection. So can you tell us about who it is that’s your ancestor?

    Katherine Howe: It’s a little bit of a funny story. So my last name is Howe, like, how are you? But with an “e” on the end. And one of the witches who was accused towards the beginning of the Salem panic and who was put to death was Elizabeth Howe. And she was from the same broad region that my family was from also. So it wasn’t a huge surprise when my aunt, back in the nineties, she was doing some genealogical research, and she figured out that that Elizabeth Howe is, I think it’s like my eighth great aunt. So it’s a lateral thing, rather than a direct thing. But at the time, she discovered that Elizabeth [00:08:00] Howe was related to us that way and also that Elizabeth Proctor was also a eighth or ninth great aunt, as well.

    Katherine Howe: Just not all that surprising given that those communities were pretty small, and there were lots of intermarriages between different family groups and things like that. So it was in the nineties when I first learned that and thought, of course, it being the nineties and me being a grunge kid, and I thought was like, “oh, that’s so badass. That’s so metal.” thought that was the greatest thing ever.

    Katherine Howe: I didn’t give it much thought beyond that, until I was actually living in that region of New England, because my family left New England in the 1930s. I grew up with this sense of it as like the motherland, but I didn’t actually grow up there myself. So I arrived in this region with this kind of funny twin consciousness of, oh, this is home, but I’m also a stranger here. And so it was being a stranger in this place that I felt this kinship that probably contributed somewhat to my getting started [00:09:00] writing fiction.

    Katherine Howe: My first book was The Physick Book of Deliverance Dane, which was something I started working on when I was in graduate school at Boston University and just trying to think about the humanity of people living in this time and the, maybe a funny little detail. So one of the historians of witchcraft who I really admire the most is a woman named Mary Beth Norton, who wrote a book called In The Devil’s Snare, which anyone is interested in Salem has to know Professor Norton’s work, cause she’s just like the kind of detail that she can bring to it. And she writes in a novelistic sort of way. It’s just like the most gripping account of Salem ever. And Professor Norton has said that the more you work on witchcraft, the more superstitious you become. And I have to say that this is true. As evidenced by the anecdote I’m about to tell you.

    Katherine Howe: So my first book was The Physick Book of Deliverance Dane. It asked, “what if one of the Salem witches the real [00:10:00] thing?” But the real thing the way the colonists believe, which is to be not in that pointy hat fantasy, Harry Potter Sense.

    Katherine Howe: And I built that story around a woman named Deliverance Dane who’s a real person. And she was a minor person in the Salem Witch crisis. She was accused towards the end of the panic. She was not put to death. She really, like, was a footnote, I think, in the real history of Salem. And so I felt like it was okay to build a more fantastical story.

    Katherine Howe: Physick Book is a magical realist story, so I wanted room to have kind of a fantastical story around a real person. And so I picked her because of her obscurity, but also because of her name. Her name is so evocative of this particular moment in time of this like subculture that she was living in, Puritan New England, Deliverance Dane. Just amazing. So that is why I chose to write about her.

    Katherine Howe: That book [00:11:00] came out in 2009, and so several years later I was futsing about on a genealogy website because of course, for people who are interested in family history, life’s gotten a lot easier. Over the last couple of years, with the advent of digital humanities and so many more ways of doing research online. Like, when my aunt was doing research in the nineties, it was really hard to do, and now it’s actually much more accessible, which is a huge gift.

    Katherine Howe: So I’m messing about, point, click, point, click, and I come upon Nathaniel Dane, which is actually the name of a character in the book that I wrote, and I was like, “huh, that’s a weird coincidence. Who knew?” Point, click, point, click, point, click. Lo and behold, I learned that it turns out Deliverance Dane, the real one, is my eighth great-grandmother. And so she’s more closely related to me, genetically speaking, than Elizabeth Howe, even though Elizabeth Howe and I have the same last name. And I had [00:12:00] zero idea, no idea whatsoever, and I’d written an entire novel about this person and found that there she was, just hanging out, waiting for me. So I definitely have gotten more superstitious the longer I’ve worked on witchcraft.

    Josh Hutchinson: That’s a very strange thing to have happen to you. But it turns out that Deliverance Dane is actually my like eighth or ninth great grand aunt, and Elizabeth Jackson Howe is also an aunt, and Deliverance Dane, in her confession, says that she worked with Mary Osgood, and that’s my grandmother. I connected to a lot of the people you’re connected to.

    Katherine Howe: So we’re cousins, Josh.

    Josh Hutchinson: And Sarah’s my cousin through Mary Esty.

    Katherine Howe: Wow.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. It’s a small world when you get back to those little towns back there.

    Katherine Howe: Yes. It really is, for sure. It’s still pretty far back there. It’s a long time ago. It was very funny. I once did a book event, and someone came out to me very emotional, [00:13:00] and they were, turns out, a descendant of a judge from the Salem trials. And this person wanted very much to personally apologize to me. And I was like, ” no, it’s really, it’s okay”. Like he’s, this is not something that you need to feel badly about. This is, everything’s fine, cool’s fine. But it is interesting to me how close people can feel to people who are living in such a distant time period.

    Josh Hutchinson: We definitely feel connected to our ancestors, and we talk to a lot of descendants of which trial victims, and they have an emotional bond with those ancestors, but that was so long ago. Did you get interested in Salem because of your connection with Howe and Proctor?

    Katherine Howe: Partly. I went to graduate school for American and New England studies, which is like interdisciplinary American history. And I actually came to it from an art history [00:14:00] background. I have a background in visual culture, and it’s a where for grad school visual culture and also material culture, which is to say, stuff, objects. On a whim, my husband and I moved to Marblehead, Massachusetts, which is a small town on the water close to modern-day Salem.

    Katherine Howe: We’re having this conversation in October, and there was just an article on Boston Globe about how like a hundred thousand people came to Salem for Halloween and running streets. Salem is a town of 40,000 people. I can’t even wrap my head around how many people they cramming in this season. And a lot of people come to Salem for Halloween. It’s like Halloween Central, and understandably.

    Katherine Howe: But it was interesting to me while I was living in Marblehead and I was studying history. And I was living in a house that was built in 1705. And so one thing I have to say is people associate me so closely with Salem, because I’ve written so much Salem fiction. I grew up in [00:15:00] Houston, Texas. Okay. So the oldest building extant in Houston, Texas is a wine bar that was originally built as a bakery, and it’s from 1856. So the oldest building in the entire city that I grew up in is six years younger than the new edition of the house that I was living in in Marblehead, Massachusetts. Earlier, when I was talking about having a sense of being home but being a stranger there. I brought my new south eyes to this incredibly old environment, because Marblehead has the biggest collection of century houses in the entire country. They even have more than Colonial Williamsburg, for instance, except that in Marblehead, the houses have been continually occupied.

    Katherine Howe: On the second floor of the house was an apartment, but the house had been a single-family house, been carved into apartments. Pine floors were like foot wide, and the ceilings were incredibly low. Like, you couldn’t stretch your arms over your head, cuz [00:16:00] the ceilings were so low. And this is actually when I learned for the first time, talking material culture, that bed headboards actually have a function. They’re not just decorative. And I discovered this, because we were so broke in grad school that we would turn the heat down as far as we could manage.

    Katherine Howe: And so the room that we used as our bedroom, ice would form on the inside of the windows, because it was so cold, and we were so broke. And so when we were first living there, we had this futon I’d brought with me from Texas, of course. And there was no headboard on the futon. And so we were freezing, just like having your head up by this wall with ice on the window. We were freezing cold. And it wasn’t until we got like a bed with a headboard, we like, “oh, this is a lot warmer. This is great.” We just only then did I discover that a headboard really is important, at least if you’re living in New England.

    Katherine Howe: And in this room, the bedroom that we had was tucked under the eaves of the lean-to part of a house. So if you’re familiar with colonial architecture, houses tended to be built in stages. You’d have room here and a [00:17:00] room here, and you have maybe you’d add a second floor and you might add a lean-to in the back to add some extra space. So we were in what had been the lean-to, and there was a little door that went into the back stair, and over the back stair, there was this little horseshoe-shaped charm over the back door that had been painted over. And of course, horseshoes are something that I think all over the country, we all recognize what they mean, and they mean that they’re there for luck or for protection. And you see this all over the place. This is a piece of folk magic belief that is incredibly widespread, such that we don’t even really notice it, as evidenced by the fact that you can buy horseshoe necklaces at Tiffany’s, wherever. We don’t even think about it anymore. But it was interesting to me to see this little remnant piece of magic. It wasn’t a real horseshoe. It was clearly there. It was tiny. It was a charm. It had been made as a charm, sold as a charm.

    Katherine Howe: And so then I started looking around and noticing horseshoes wherever I went. And it got me thinking [00:18:00] between the fact that there was this little remnant magic shred, that there was that and also the fact that I was in this physical space that people had been moving through, who had been present when the trials were happening. Like we were only one town over from Salem, and, of course, when the trials were happening, people were traveling from towns all over the place to come and see, because it was a huge spectacle. People were talking about it.

    Katherine Howe: So there was one day when I was sitting and thinking, like, “someone’s foot has been on this board, this actual board under my hand. The same foot was standing and watching what was going on.” And something about that tangibility or that proximate tangibility was really moving to me, and it got me thinking about the humanity of people who were living through that very strange moment in time, cuz I feel like much of the time their humanity is elided by our presentist biases or what have you. I feel like in [00:19:00] highly fantasy versions of witchcraft, the humanity of the people in the past is elided, and in, certainly in Arthur Miller, the actual humanity of people is alighted.

    Katherine Howe: I started thinking about what became the story in Physick Book from that perspective, from like occupying this very weird, specific physical space as a stranger and trying to think about what it meant to be in that space and like how it felt to be in this space, over this incredible span of years, and how, in one sense, the early modern period is this incredibly alien and remote time. Their understanding of how reality worked is very different from our understanding of how reality works. But at the same time, there are certain common elements of common humanity that persist, like lying in bed and being freezing cold, unless you have a headboard at your head, and so a lot of my fiction, my desire to write fiction came [00:20:00] from thinking about these common points of humanity across really wide, gaping spans of time.

    Josh Hutchinson: Can you give us a little background on what the situation was in Massachusetts Bay, when the witch trials started?

    Katherine Howe: A few things were happening. A question that I get a lot is, what is the proximate cause o f the Salem Witch crisis, what caused it? And the thing that I think is interesting about that question is that it suggests that it would be so much easier if there were just one cause, if we could just point to the thing, and be like, “oh, that’s the thing.”

    Katherine Howe: When we were corresponding, Josh, you mentioned the ergot hypothesis, that back in the seventies, somebody floated the idea that maybe all the afflicted girls had eaten moldy bread and were suffering from ergotism, and they were all tripping outta their mind. And that hypothesis was actually dismissed, I think, six months after it was first floated. But it still bubbles up periodically in [00:21:00] documentaries and popular discourses about Salem, because, and I think the reason that it doesn’t go away is because it’s so simple. It’s so tidy to be like, “okay, that’s the thing.”

    Katherine Howe: And the truth of the matter is there isn’t one thing. The way that I sometimes talk about it is that it’s like a Venn diagram, and Salem is the point of the intersection of all the overlapping circles.

    Katherine Howe: So one overlapping circle is the very specific kind of religion that everyone in Salem adhered to. It was a world view that did not hold that there was anything outside of Christianity. So, for instance, the indigenous population that was already living in Massachusetts at that time, by virtue of not being adherents of Christianity in their very specific puritan worldview, that which is not Christian is by definition devilish, and it was actually Mary Beth Norton who’s made the point that a lot of the language that the [00:22:00] people at Salem use to describe the devil is language that is used to describe indigenous people. So, one big Venn diagram circle is the specific religious and cultural moment that they’re living in.

    Katherine Howe: Another diagram circle that we could point to is the weather, that the first panicky behavior that erupts with Betty Parris and with Abigail Williams, it starts in January, January, super cold in Massachusetts, cold, dark. The sun sets at 4:30 in the afternoon. And I’m not exaggerating, like it is dark AF. And and that’s true in the 17th century, as it’s today. And also in 1690s, North America was in miniature ice age. It was even colder and more bitter than it is now in Massachusetts.

    Katherine Howe: Another piece is pretty relentless class and gender context. The girls who first experienced symptoms that they describe as [00:23:00] fits are Betty Parris, daughter of Samuel Parris, who’s the unpopular minister in Salem Village, Abigail Williams, who’s his 11-year-old, she’s described as being his niece, although that had a different meaning for them than it does for us today, but she was bound out to service.

    Katherine Howe: So can you imagine living in a culture where when you can’t afford to feed your 11-year-old, you just give her to somebody to live with, for her to work for them? You just give her away. And so Abigail was this lonely, impoverished, starving, freezing child whose job it was to obey everyone all the time.

    Katherine Howe: Oftentimes, I think with great sympathy about Abigail Williams, poor Abigail, who, by the way, in Arthur Miller is turned into a 17-year-old temptress. She’s a child. She’s a child. And if you look at the descriptions of her behavior that are described as her being in her fits, a lot of her behavior sounds to me like playing, [00:24:00] like running around in circles and flapping your arms and saying, ” whish” and saying that you’re gonna fly at the chimney.

    Katherine Howe: Is that devilish possession, or is it an 11 year old girl being silly? And I feel like that is a, that is something that’s worth thinking about. So there’s the kind of class and gender politics, that’s another big.

    Katherine Howe: So there are a number of different aspects, but you were asking about the politics and the charter. So this is another pretty big circle. So, typically in the early modern period in the colonies, if someone was accused as a witch, they would be accused and have a trial, and if they were found guilty, by the way, it’s hard to find people guilty. They actually had a pretty high bar for for evidence at that time. Believe it or not, you could be tried and found guilty, and if you’re found guilty, you could be put to death, and that could happen within a matter of weeks. Salem, the panic begins in January, the first hangings aren’t until June. That’s like a huge long span of time. And the reason for that long span of time is because the Glorious Revolution was unfolding.

    Katherine Howe: Back in England at that [00:25:00] time, Massachusetts Charter had expired, so they didn’t have the legal wherewithal to hold a trial. That’s why the Salem trial trials are conducted by a special Court of Oyer and Terminer. They basically had to convene like a special tribunal to deal with this problem that had come together. In fact, there’s some historians who wondered if the Court of Oyer and Terminer didn’t just deal with witchcraft. They were supposed to deal with all the rest of the backlog. But we just don’t know what that backlog was, cause the records of the witch trials are what have survived.

    Katherine Howe: And then there’s another piece of the Venn diagram, and we have to consider it. At the very beginning, the very first person who’s accused as a witch is accused by Abigail and Betty and she’s the only person who has less social and cultural power than they do. And they accuse Tituba or Titube Indian, who is an enslaved woman in the Parris household.

    Katherine Howe: So she’s basically the only person who has less ability to protect herself than these children themselves do. And so Tituba’s accused. She [00:26:00] has two confessions, and there’s some evidence that she is beaten in between the two confessions. And in one of the confessions, Tituba introduces the idea of a conspiracy. She says that there is a group of witches at work in Salem Village. She doesn’t know who they are or how many.

    Katherine Howe: And so at one point early on, there’s actually a sermon is preached in Salem Village that I’m gonna mangle the title, but it’s something along the lines of “Christ Knows How Many Devils There Are.” And so you have this idea of an unknown number of conspirators, who must be discovered. And when you have this undefined, invisible threat and also no legal relief, there’s no like pressure valve that this tension could be released by, because of the like, unfortunate timing of the expiration of the charter.

    Katherine Howe: So you bring [00:27:00] all of these circles in the Venn diagram together, and that is why Salem gets as big as it does. And by the time Salem was over and done, 19 people were put to death and hundreds had been accused, hundreds in a period of time when a given town would only have a couple thousand people.

    Josh Hutchinson: That was a great, thorough explanation of how it took all these different factors to create the situation. It wasn’t something, a single bullet theory, that you can put to rest.

    Katherine Howe: But I think one reason that, that we keep craving for simplicity is because with a simple explanation for why than it’s easier to consign, to history. It’d be so much more encouraging or it’d be such a relief to be able to say, “Oh, it was air got poisoning. No big deal. That’s all.” But like the fact that it, what really was at stake was this intersection of circumstances and that everyone who was a participant in [00:28:00] Salem pretty much believed that they were doing the right thing. Not only the right thing, but the necessary thing to save their community. That to me is also a moving but also terrifying thing to remember and to realize.

    Katherine Howe: Because certainly we all, we’ve all lived through moments where we are convinced that we’re doing the right thing, only to see ourselves perpetuating horrors, and that is I think that’s one of the reasons we as a culture are never really able to let go of Salem.

    Sarah Jack: You said, ” as a culture, we’re never able to let go of Salem.” Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote, ” shall we never get rid of this past? It lies upon the present like a giant’s dead body.” I’m wondering what you think you would write now about that.

    Katherine Howe: Hawthorne in particular is someone who, like he personally, so felt the weight of Salem’s past in a very personal way, because he was a descendant of Judge Hathorne, obviously. And because he was living there himself, and for many [00:29:00] generations, in fact, much during much of the time period when Hawthorne was living in Salem, the witch trials were not discussed in polite society. This was true into the 20th century, actually. They were not discussed. It was not something that was brought up. It’s certainly something my family never talked about until this is something that my, my aunt uncovered. There was a sense of embarrassment attached to it, I think.

    Katherine Howe: But I’m also intrigued by the fact that when Hawthorne has tried to grapple with it, and he has tried to grapple with it, he took the line from he, he knew what had happened. Like he took a line from Sarah Good and put it in the mouth of Matthew Maule, in The House of the Seven Gables.

    Katherine Howe: Was it Hawthorne who grumbled about “damn scribbling women?” I think it was. I think it was. And so this is me tweaking his nose a little bit, but Sarah Good. Sarah Good was a beggar. Okay. She was destitute. She was one of the first people accused, because she was in no position to defend herself. She was thrown into jail. She has a baby on her and like [00:30:00] toddler, essentially with her, the baby dies while they’re in jail. The toddler, whose name is Dorothy, ends up losing her mind and has to be like supported by the town after the trials are all over. So like this person is in absolutely dire straits and is and suffers mightily at the hands of the community where she lives and who’s supposed to be helping them.

    Katherine Howe: And when she’s on the scaffold, she says the most badass thing anyone has ever said in history of time, my unbiased opinion. She says, “I’m no more than a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my life, God will give you blood to drink.” And I wish I had that kind of wherewithal, because who has that kind of wherewithal under in those circumstances?

    Katherine Howe: And so Hawthorne takes this line, Hawthorne knows it’s happened, and he puts this line in a guy, in a guy’s mouth. I understand that he’s writing in the 19th century. I get it. But at the same time, I think it’s impossible to look [00:31:00] at Salem and not consider gender politics in place. The fact that virtually everyone who’s accused and put to death was a woman. Any man who was accused cuz he’s associated with a woman who was already accused. Giles Corey was crushed to death between stones. He’s accused cuz his wife, Martha’s accused first, but also the accusers are initially children, but then also women. So there’s a really intense gender politics in place here.

    Katherine Howe: So your question was, the past lying with the weight of the giant and what would Hawthorne say today? And I’m actually curious what Hawthorne would say about it today. I think he would sympathize with, or maybe be aggravated by the fact that we’re still having the conversation that he was having a hundred and fifty years ago. But at the same time, I feel like we’re talking about different things from what he was concerned. And and also I think he would be really annoyed because I write novels. I’m a woman.

    Sarah Jack: I love [00:32:00] that you brought up that he took Sarah’s words and gave them to a man, because it just dawned on me very recently that Ann Putnam didn’t read her own apology. I just assumed, and I think that possibly other descendants, we read that, we think I don’t know what we really think about it. We’re evaluating what it says anyways, but we’re doing that with her voice in our head, and no, it was not.

    Katherine Howe: One thing that, that continues to interest me, as a history person, about Salem is that it’s one of the rare instances when regular people are at the center of the store. So much of history, especially the further you go into the past, the vast majority of people who’ve been alive in history of ever, have left no record of themselves. They weren’t literate, they weren’t of sufficient note to have their burial place noted, [00:33:00] and so much of history, even academic history, as it’s gotten more serious about excavating stories, just by the nature of the way that archives come to exist, there’s still going to be a bias towards power.

    Katherine Howe: There’s gonna be a bias towards privilege and a bias towards power, and, when it comes to Salem, that is one of the rare instances where the bias towards power falls away, because the people who are at the center of the drama are regular people, and where historians have put the work in to try to excavate what is able to be excavated of these lives that otherwise would’ve been invisible to us.

    Katherine Howe: Would we have known Abigail Williams ever existed, if she hadn’t been part of the Salem Witch Trials? We would not have? And in fact, even with her central position at the beginning of the panic, we don’t know what happened to her. We don’t know where she went. We don’t know how old she was when she died. Nobody actually knows for sure.

    Katherine Howe: And so particularly talking about people who are not literate, Anne [00:34:00] Putnam had her confession read. If I remember correctly, Anne Putnam wasn’t literate. And so you’re right in saying here’s this apology that she delivered in front of everybody and that it was read on her behalf. To what extent was she the author of her own apology? And it’s impossible to say. It’s impossible to know.

    Katherine Howe: And it’s one of the reasons that you’ve touched on one of my rant buttons, I’m sorry to report, but as a writer of historical fiction, like I have so little patience for historical fiction about kings and queens. I don’t give a damn about kings and queens. Who cares? They get enough attention, they have enough records, they’re all literate, everyone documents every single thing that they do. And I do not give a damn, because history pays them enough attention, and I’m so much more interested in trying to excavate the history of people who would otherwise be forgotten.

    Sarah Jack: I caught that from you reading Conversion, because your [00:35:00] main character, Colleen, she’s getting to give us the firsthand experience like no other afflicted person was able to do.

    Katherine Howe: Thank you for saying that. I confess I haven’t looked at Conversion in kind a long time. You’re making me think I should look at it again, cuz there’s actually a group of high school students who are reading it right now and I’m gonna talk to next week. I should read that book.

    Katherine Howe: But I appreciate you saying that, because I feel like, like one question I sometimes wrestle with as a history person and someone who’s a novelist is what does historical fiction have to offer that nonfiction doesn’t have to offer? Like, why not just write a really good history of something?

    Katherine Howe: And I feel like in many instances, in the cases where a story cannot be recovered, that’s where historical fiction can be a really wonderful intervention. If you can build a credible world with credible material culture, and credible details, and credible politics, and credible ideology, and then [00:36:00] people it with people who are credible people, it is a way of accessing history that otherwise is not extant, where it doesn’t exist.

    Katherine Howe: Is there going to be some imagination involved? Obviously, but it is, I feel like that’s where the opportunity lies. And I realize we’ve gotten off Salem a little ,bit and I apologize, but it’s something that I think about a lot. Like, particularly for some, a story that’s as revisited as often as the Salem story is, what does fiction have to offer? Like why tell a fictional version of this story? I feel like fiction gives you permission to fill in and shade in stories that where there just is no other shading available. And that to me seems like the real area of opportunity for storytelling.

    Josh Hutchinson: I wanted to ask you about the afflicted girls. Do you think it’s plausible that conversion disorder could [00:37:00] explain some of the fits?

    Katherine Howe: Yes and no. I’ll explain that hedge of an answer. For one thing I find it always a little bit tricky to apply contemporary psychoanalytic categories to people in the past. Like on the one hand, I believe very urgently in, the shared humanity of people in the past, but at the same time, like we take as natural so many habits of mind that are actually very historically contingent. The fact that you and I might casually talk about what our dreams mean or what our subconscious motivations might be for something like that is indicative of post-psychoanalytic. And I think it’s tricky to try to access the interior light of people who are living in a different moment, especially a moment like the early [00:38:00] modern in Massachusetts. It’s even hard for a scholar of that time period to really grasp the extent to which Christianity informed every, single aspect of existence.

    Katherine Howe: So for my second novel I was working on. No, it’s Physick Book. I was reading up about alchemy, and like we know about alchemy as this pseudoscientific practice in early modern practice in which someone tries to turn that into gold. Okay, fine. But that’s actually not what it was. It is actually a way of understanding the order of the universe that took as scientific fact the perfectability of the human soul.

    Katherine Howe: There’s this tense layering of religion and materiality and mirroring of structures and images like, like as soon as I would get close to thinking I understood alchemical thought, it would slither out of my grasp. And I would realize this because I’m just [00:39:00] too much of someone born in the 20th century to, to I will never actually really understand that intellectual landscape.

    Katherine Howe: So when you ask can conversion disorder explain the girls’ behavior? Like in a way yes. But in another way I don’t know that we can actually really understand their selfhood, the way that these girls thought about themselves or understood themselves as individuals.

    Katherine Howe: It’s just very different from the way that we think. It’s very different. So that there’s that qualification. With that qualification in place, I would say that, so conversion disorder is where you are under so much stress that your body converts it into physical symptoms. And then mass psychogenic illness is when a group of people experience strange behavior together.

    Katherine Howe: And there are many examples of mass psychogenic illness [00:40:00] or mass psychogenic illness expressions of conversion disorder, and many examples of it across cultures, across time, across continents, across ethnicities. And it very often happens among adolescent girls, for whatever reason. Maybe cause we are conditioned to be more like socially engaged with other people. Who knows? You can try to explain it a number of different ways.

    Katherine Howe: But it’s not only adolescent girls. I think that it is, this is gonna be a controversial thing to say, but like the recent incidences of Havana Syndrome are pretty clearly an example of mass psychogenic illness. Now it’s important to say that mass psychogenic illness is real. It counts as a real thing. It’s not just people like, it’s not all in your head. You know what I mean? Like the fact that it is, that it has its origin in mental disorder doesn’t make it any less real to the body. Conversion disorder is a disorder. It is your body being sick. It’s just that the sickness originates from [00:41:00] inside your own organism. That doesn’t make it count less. You know what I mean?

    Katherine Howe: All of which is to say, did a group of girls start exhibiting strange behavior? Yes. Did it spread from girl to girl on networks of kinship and friendship? It did. But at the same time, their behavior, when you say “fits” today, that has a very specific connotation. And it sounds like a epileptic seizure or something like that to, to us today. If I say, “Oh my gosh, I just saw this person have a fit.” You’d be like, “Oh no.” And you’d imagine that they fell down twitching and foaming at the mouth, but that’s not what they were doing.

    Katherine Howe: What they were doing was behaving out of the ordinary. So like earlier we were talking about Abigail running around flapping her wings and saying, her arms, and saying, “whish, whish, whish.” That is her in her fits. Or like another instance of Abigail in her fits is when she challenges Deodat Lawson to name his text. She like gets up in the middle of church and like mouths off to this very famous divine and rolls her eyes about how boring it’s gonna be when he reads his text. That’s [00:42:00] not her having a fit. That’s her misbehaving.

    Katherine Howe: But her behavior was such a challenge to the gender and economic power structure that was in place while she was living. It was so out of the ordinary that her community could only chalk it up to devilish influence because it was that unimaginable that she would behave this way.

    Katherine Howe: So was there a social illness aspect to the afflicted girl’s behavior? I feel certain, yes. So that, that’s my long and qualified example about or discussion of conversion disorder.

    Josh Hutchinson: Do you think that they were really afraid of witches and that the fear of witches might have also translated?

    Katherine Howe: Sure. Oh, for sure. Yeah. I think the fear was real. I think it is a mistake to either chalk it up as craven opportunism or as naked stupidity or superstition. One of the [00:43:00] things that I think is important, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt who live in the past and that is that like absolutely they were afraid.

    Katherine Howe: Can you imagine, what does it feel like to live in a world where you really, actually, honest to gosh believe that the devil can go walk about on the earth, as a real person and that he can disguise himself as people you know and love and trust? That at any given time, I could be talking to you right now, Josh, and you could be the devil in disguise, and I wouldn’t know it.

    Katherine Howe: That’s a and if you really believe that, you really do believe that, and you actually really believe that hell is a real place that you can go there if you make a mistake. That there is no, this is another like aspect of puritan belief, that like they believed in the elect. The idea that you have no way of saving yourself. That your being saved was only up to God, and you had no control [00:44:00] over it whatsoever. Like what? You couldn’t go to confession. You couldn’t do penance. You could try your best to behave, but it was ultimately just up to God.

    Katherine Howe: What an existentially dreadful way to live your life, to have no certainty. It’s a little, a really hard life, first of all, and to believe that there was such a thing as paradise after death, but to have no idea whether or not you got to go there and that nothing you did made any difference. And that everywhere, at every turn, the devil was waiting to trip you up. Like that would be a difficult and impossible mental landscape to occupy.

    Katherine Howe: So yes, if your question was did they really believe in witchcraft and was that fear, could not fear contribute to their behavior? Like absolutely. What a terrifying way to live, and also what a relief. Like one of the reasons that I think witches [00:45:00] was such a persuasive idea for so many people at that time was wouldn’t it be great if something was going bad in your life, to be able to not try to see it as a sign of God’s Ill favor, but instead to have someone to blame for it? To be like, “it’s not me. I’m not messing up here. Someone’s doing this to me.”

    Katherine Howe: I think that’s also very human, that human feeling. It’s not just bad luck or misfortune or like the luck of the draw, and it’s so much more of a, “no, this person doing something to me. They wish me ill, and that’s why my life is hard.” I think that’s a very human way to be.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. We talked a little about Anne Putnam, Jr.’s apology earlier, and she still does that in her apology. “The devil made me do it.” And Samuel Sewall does the same thing, like the two big apologies that come about after Salem is over after everything’s done are Ann Putnam’s and [00:46:00] Samuel Sewall’s apology. But Samuel’s apology, too, is weird where he like, first of all, he comes to it. It’s not that he stops believing in witchcraft or stops believing that there is an invisible world. He comes to it after a series of wonders and marbles, including, if I remember correctly, like his house being tilted with stones. Who knows what really happened? And maybe there was like a passing hailstorm is how it took it.

    Katherine Howe: But he comes to it after a series of wonders and marvels, and he comes to believe that the devil tricked them all. That it wasn’t that that the devil wasn’t luring people into witchcraft. Instead, the devil obscured the minds of the people who are supposed to keep the community safe. And but also what a horrifying thing to, to come to believe about yourself. To look back at your actions and think you’re doing the right thing, and think that you are saving your community from the most threatening presence that your imagination can come up with, and instead to conclude that, no, what happened [00:47:00] was that threatening presence tricked you. That you were so weak that you were fooled. Like what a, what a heinous thing to believe about yourself. It’s a very punishing worldview that they subscribe to.

    Josh Hutchinson: Do you see any modern parallels to the Witch hunt?

    Katherine Howe: Sure. A few years ago a historian of witchcraft named John Demos published a book about witch hunting, in which he has a chapter about the 1980s daycare satanism thing that happened, much of which I was only dimly aware of, being a small person in 1980s myself.

    Katherine Howe: But what happened was, a group of people were put on trial, actually put on trial and actually convicted of having you run a daycare center and used the children in satanic rituals. And at the time that it was happening, and this is preposterous, like I, it’s actually just like on the surface of it, I think [00:48:00] preposterous. I think, taken out context, any of us looking at this would say, “this makes, this is ridiculous. Obviously this did not happen.” And at the time that it was unfolding, John Demos saw it unfolding and he was like, “Oh my God, it’s Salem all over again.” Like the same pieces are in place, like the idea of a conspiracy, the idea of trusted people that you cannot trust, the idea of children being at risk.

    Katherine Howe: And I think that you see some of the same hysteria and language. I don’t like using the word hysteria, cuz it’s such a specific word, but you see some of this in like contemporary corners of the conspiracy internet, where I try not to spend any time, but Isn’t that Pizzagate? Isn’t there some like thing not too long ago about worrying a particular pizzeria was like putting kids at risk in this same kind of way? Like you see the same kind of like at any time that someone worries that children are at risk, there will be a lot of open-mindedness about it.

    Katherine Howe: But of course, here’s me getting political. Like, of course, children actually literally are at risk [00:49:00] by, by school shooting, right? Like the one thing that would really keep children really safe in places where they’re supposed to feel safe and trust people around them, is if they restricted access to military assault weapons. That’s my opinion. My opinion is that if we really care about keeping children safe, we take those guns off the street, right, full stop. But feel free to send me hate mail. I can be reached to KatherineHowe.com/contact.

    Sarah Jack: So I think asking the question about are there parallels, we have these modern parallels that are popping into our heads. We have our strong feelings, but what can the understanding of the Colonial Witch trials and those before do to help us with these parallels? Can it help us? Will it help?

    Katherine Howe: I’d like to think that it can. One of the things that I like to say when talking about Salem is that I feel that one of the reasons we can’t let Salem go. As a culture, like we come back to it and we, like we can’t let it go.[00:50:00]

    Katherine Howe: And I feel that the reason that we can’t let it go, among the many reasons, but I think one of the big reasons is that it forces us to confront how fragile our ideals really are. We are an unusual country in that in many respects, we are, notwithstanding those of us who were brought here against our will, which is many of us, but broadly construed, you could argue that we are something of an intentional community.

    Katherine Howe: That the only thing that really holds us together is this set of shared ideals, and that some of our shared ideals include religious freedom. They include a social safety net. That we value people who are different from us, that we value people who are vulnerable. ” Bring us you’re tired, your poor, your huddled masses.” Like that, that arguably this is an ideal that we hold in common. This is an organizing principle of the culture in which we live.

    Katherine Howe: And yet Salem is this instance where everybody, believing they were doing the [00:51:00] absolute right thing, instead put to death, the state put to death 19 people. That, in the course of doing the right thing, the state did the absolute wrong thing, and they also put to death people who were, many of them were vulnerable in their community. People who were more likely to be accused were those who were at the most vulnerable, who were the most out step vulnerable in community. And so I feel like Salem is an instructive moment for that, because here’s this moment where, in the course of being convinced of our total moral authority and correctness, a huge miscarriage of justice took place.

    Katherine Howe: And I think that’s a really difficult thing to reconcile. And I think especially for a country like ours, where also so many of us are brought up to look to the colonial period for our origin, that we’re told, rightly or wrongly, that we are taught to look into the 18th, and to a lesser extent [00:52:00] the 17th century, and see in it the seeds of the country that we would become.

    Katherine Howe: Maybe that’s another way of thinking about it. Like another way of thinking about it, is it more productive to think about what we want the future to look like than it is to try to think about what the past has to tell us? That’s a question. That’s a question that I think is interesting. One, particularly for an intentional community like ours. We have, we get to reinvent ourselves as a country, and we get to decide, and what kind of place do we want to be? Do we want to be the kind of place that protects vulnerable people? Do we want to be the kind of place that protects people who are at risk, who are different from us, who are angry, who are grumpy, who read too many books? I would prefer to live in a place that protects those kinds of people. But we get to choose We choose who we protect.

    Sarah Jack: We can make that choice, and not only is it going to stop suffering here, there are places in this world that are still totally captured by [00:53:00] doing the wrong thing, thinking they’re doing the right thing, witch hunting. This discussion it is about us here, but it’s about us there.

    Sarah Jack: You have referred to time so much. That is such a strong piece of this. Even in Conversion, one of the simple quotes you have says, “any number of things could happen in the time it took to go down the hall.” You like go right to the time thing. And today when you started talking, you talked about time. And I look at the history, I look at us now, how do we all get caught up on this witch-hunting mentality and start looking out for humanity and protecting other?

    Katherine Howe: It’s a hard thing. It’s a really hard thing. And I wish I had easy answers for it. I think simply the act of reflection and awareness is an important one. Stopping to interrogate what our assumptions are.

    Josh Hutchinson: We’ve talked about a lot of heavy things. [00:54:00] I wondered if we could switch and discuss your new book project. What can you tell us about it?

    Katherine Howe: Oh, so many things. So I’m obsessed with pirates, who isn’t? Hopefully, the answer is everyone is obsessed with pirates.

    Katherine Howe: So I have a book coming out in fall, and I think they’re gonna let me keep the title. And you. Okay, Josh, Sarah, you guys have to tell me what you think of the title. You ready? So get comfortable, here it is: A True Account of Hannah Masury’s Sojourn Amongst the Pyrates, Written by Herself. That’s the title. It’s a mouthful.

    Katherine Howe: It starts in Boston in 1726 at a very real an actual pirate trial that really did happen. Like most of my stuff, it’s, it is grounded in actual facts and then becomes what I’m describing as a little bit like Gone Girl meets Treasure Island. And I had so much fun with it, and I’m really excited about it. And it is a little bit of a departure from what I’ve done, but it is about a girl, Hannah Masury, who has to disguise herself in order to escape some pretty heavy circumstances. And she [00:55:00] ends up basically stealing away on what turns out to be a pirate ship. And we have to follow her on her adventures.

    Katherine Howe: And I have so much fun with some basic pirate tropes. There is treasure, there is a parrot. It’s so much fun, and there’s also some, a little bit of romance, and I have the most fun ever.

    Josh Hutchinson: Sounds like a fun one to read.

    Katherine Howe: I really hope so.

    Sarah Jack: I’m so delighted by what I just heard.

    Katherine Howe: That makes me very happy. Makes me very happy. It’s weird because it’s one of the, it’s probably the most violent book I’ve written. If y’all have read my stuff, then you know I’m a teensy bit squeemish and shy away from. So there’s some violence in this book, but what’s strange about it is, I didn’t invent any of it. It is actually all from historical record. I take no responsibility whatsoever for any of the stuff that happens in this book, because it all ripped from the headlines. It all really happened.

    Josh Hutchinson: And was Hannah herself based on a real [00:56:00] person?

    Katherine Howe: Hannah is based on a couple of people. She’s inspired in part by real accounts of Anne Bonny and Mary Read, who are two working-class women, who ended up disguising themselves as men and going raiding in Jamaica at the end of the 17th century. They were real people ,and there was a real Hannah Masury ,who I talk about a little bit in the author’s note of the book. She was a 19th-century person, and she ended up, I was inspired when I came across her. She was the wife of a ship captain. She was married to a ship captain, and she ended up putting down a mutiny by herself, armed only with a pistol, in the Pacific Ocean.

    Katherine Howe: And so I read about her, and she didn’t have any children, and I was like, “oh my gosh, I am obsessed with you.” And so I decided to name my awesome pirate after her. Hannah, Hannah comes from a couple of different sources, but I really like her as a person. She’s a tough character .

    Josh Hutchinson: Sounds like it. You said that it’s set [00:57:00] around a pirate trial in Boston?

    Katherine Howe: Yeah, it starts, the action starts in Boston in 1726, and in 1726, it’s the end of the golden age of piracy. It’s actually funny that the Salem period, like the witch craze, the end of the witch craze and golden age of piracy are at the same time period, which I think is interesting. And a guy named William Fly was tried as a pirate, and the person who ministered to him and preached about him was none other than Cotton Mather .

    Katherine Howe: So Cotton Mather by then was this like hugely famous, successful cleric. He was really rich. He was, like, had a very popular ministry and so he had taken it upon himself to crusade against piracy. So he tries to bring William Fly and his compatriots back to God, and he’s there when they’re hanged. William Fly was hanged, and then he was gibbeted. He was, his body was hung in chains on a tiny island in the Boston Harbor Islands and left [00:58:00] there to rot. He was really avid as a warning to other people who might go out on the account, which is a way of describing going, turning pirate.

    Katherine Howe: And so I was fascinated by this. It was only a hundred years later that excursion boats are starting to leave Boston. Like steam boats are going from Boston to Nahant. This is no time all. To think that you could go by Nixes Mate, which is where William Fly was hanged and chained. You could go by there and to see you remnant oft remain dangling there.

    Katherine Howe: So that’s where the action begins at William Fly’s trial, and things even crazier.

    Josh Hutchinson: Sounds like a fun ride. .

    Katherine Howe: I’m excited for it. I’m not sure when it’s coming out. I think it’s gonna be November, 2023. So it’s coming up.

    Josh Hutchinson: Here’s Sarah with an important update on what’s happening now in your world.

    Sarah Jack: Thank you for listening a few minutes longer to hear End Witch Hunts World Advocacy News. How many innocent world citizens [00:59:00] is it okay to accept as suffering from violent brutalization, due to harmful practices related to accusations of harmful witchcraft and ritual attacks? These attacks are happening now to thousands of innocent people, who are not causing supernatural harm but are being punished by their community, as if they are the ultimate explanation.

    Sarah Jack: They are innocent, not dangerous witches. These attacks are happening across countries of Africa and Asia. Please see the show notes for links to read about how some countries have advocacy groups working to intercede. When there is not an answer for unexpected bad luck, unfortunate death, or personal misfortune, blaming others for supernatural malevolence is the actual crime. This witch fear is still causing unfounded, violent attacks against women, children, and sometimes men. Listen and watch for the reports. These attacks are reported on.

    Sarah Jack: The Northern Ireland borough of Larne wants to commemorate [01:00:00] eight Witch trial victims from the Islandmagee Witch Trial that took place on March 31st, 1711. A borough counselor raised questions very recently of whether the eight women and a man who were found guilty of witchcraft were actually innocent. In the trial era, using witchcraft was a covenant with the devil against the victims. When this counselor questioned if it is within the counsel’s capacity to say they were innocent, he’s questioning if the accused were indeed working with the devil himself to cause harm.

    Sarah Jack: Is it within human capacity to not assign witch harm guilt onto others? I want to answer that question right now. Yes, it is within our capacity to stop questioning other people about their status as a supernaturally harmful witch. It is our duty to stop questioning accused witch innocence, past or present. These accused people were not, and today’s accused witches are not, causing the supernatural harm that is feared of them.

    Sarah Jack: [01:01:00] This week, academic research was published that is “a new global data set on contemporary witchcraft beliefs .” It has determined that witchcraft beliefs cut across sociodemographic groups, but are less widespread among the more educated and economically secure. Country-level variation in the prevalence of witchcraft beliefs is systematically linked to a number of cultural, institutional, psychological, and socioeconomic characteristics. Altogether, the resulting data set covers more than 140,000 individuals from 95 countries and territories and 5 continents. Over 40% of all survey respondents claim to believe in witchcraft. Stay tuned for a discussion on this research outcome. Find a link to the report in the show notes.

    Sarah Jack: While we watch and wait, let’s support the victims across the world where innocent people are being targeted by superstitious sphere. Support them by acknowledging and sharing their stories. Please use all your communication channels to be an [01:02:00] intervener and stand with them. The world must stop hunting witches. Please follow our End Witch Hunt movement on Twitter @_endwitchhunts. And visit our website, endwitchhunts.org.

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you, Sarah, for that eye-opening update.

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you for listening to Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast.

     Join us next week for a special Connecticut witch trial victim descendant episode.

    Josh Hutchinson: And join us in our efforts to end modern witch hunts. Go to endwitchhunts.Org.

    Sarah Jack: Subscribe to our podcast wherever you listen.

    Josh Hutchinson: Visit thoushaltnotsuffer.com.

    Sarah Jack: Remember to tell your friends that you love what you’ve been hearing on Thou Shalt Not Suffer, so that they will not miss out.

    Josh Hutchinson: Have a great today and a beautiful tomorrow.

    [01:03:00]

  • Episode 8 Transcript: The Putnams of Salem with Greg Houle

    Josh Hutchinson: [00:00:00] “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Exodus 22:18. Welcome to another episode of Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast. I’m Josh Hutchinson.

    Sarah Jack: And I’m Sarah Jack.

    Josh Hutchinson: Today’s guest is Greg Houle, an author currently working on a novel about the Putnams of Salem.

    Sarah Jack: Because you like the show, please share it with your friends, family, and followers.

    Josh Hutchinson: We hope you’re enjoying a wonderful Thanksgiving. Have a slice of Turkey for me.

    Sarah Jack: Share the mashed potatoes.

    Josh Hutchinson: Pass that gravy.

    Sarah Jack: This is a great topic for [00:01:00] Thanksgiving. I’m looking forward to talking to a Putnam of Salem descendant.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yes, and we hope this episode gives you lots of conversation ideas for your Thanksgiving dinner.

    Sarah Jack: Especially if you’ve been having boundary disputes with your friends or family.

    Josh Hutchinson: Make a peace offering, and be sure to watch Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, the best Thanksgiving anything ever made, hands down.

    Sarah Jack: But only after you watched Holly Hunter’s Home for the Holidays.

    Josh Hutchinson: Then get back to your Walking Dead marathon. That’s what you’re really watching. Or House of the Dragon.

    Sarah Jack: And now Josh is gonna tell us some history about the Putnams of Salem.

     The Putnams of Salem Village were instigators of the Witch Hunt. Thomas Putnam and his brother, Edward, were two of the four men who [00:02:00] filed the first complaints against Sarah Good, Sarah Osborne, and Tituba. Thomas went on to make 35 complaints, testify against 17 people, and record 120 depositions, including those of his daughter Ann Putnam, Jr., who was the first villager outside of the parsonage to be afflicted. Later on, she was joined by her mother Ann Putnam, Sr. and their maid, Mercy Lewis, among the ranks of the afflicted. The Putnam family was an important family in the village for three generations. 12 out of the original 25 villagers to sign the church covenant were Putnams, and they ranked among the top taxpayers in the village, along with the Porters.

    Josh Hutchinson: After accusing many people and going through [00:03:00] all her theatrics in the courtroom, Ann Putnam, Jr. did apologize in 1706, specifically to Rebecca Nurse’s family, but also to the whole village, as she joined the church under the new minister, Joseph Green.

    Sarah Jack: Thank you for introducing us to the Putnams of Salem. I cannot wait to get more of these details from Greg.

    Josh Hutchinson: You’re welcome. I’m also looking forward to hearing this family covered in depth. They were so heavily involved, what they did in the witch trials, which was so much. So many Putnams were involved in so many ways.

    Sarah Jack: I’m so happy to welcome Greg Houle, writer of short fiction and author of The Putnams of Salem, coming 2025.

    Greg Houle: So I came into this story, the story of Salem and the Salem witch hysteria like a lot of people do, with a personal family connection to [00:04:00] it. My mother is a Putnam. She is a direct as descendant of Thomas Putnam, Jr., who, along with his oldest daughter Ann, were probably two of the most prolific accusers during the Salem witch hysteria. But yet, despite that connection, I really didn’t have any interest in exploring the story as I was growing up. And in spite of having a really intense, lifelong interest in history, I really didn’t care, and I think part of that was because of the fact that Salem is such a huge story, and it has a life of its own, and it’s become this kind of larger than life almost true crime story.

    Greg Houle: And I think a lot of times what has happened is it’s deflected a lot of the attention away from the important things, the victims, why it happened, how can we prevent it from happening in the future, that [00:05:00] sort of thing. It was always an interesting thing to be connected to, so many of us are.

    Greg Houle: Everything changed in the summer of 2021. And that is that summer, I live in LA now, and my wife and daughter went back east to visit our family, and my wife’s family lives in Boston. And while we were there, we decided, let’s go to Salem. And we went there, I thought, “Okay I really want to connect my daughter to my, her grandmother’s side of the family. I really ought to understand the story better and really dig into it. “And that’s really what I did.

    Greg Houle: And as soon as I did that, I became immediately enamored by what was going on in the heads of someone like Thomas Putnam, Jr. and Ann. So you have someone who’s accusing all of these people, and then you have another one who is said to be afflicted. And I started exploring [00:06:00] that. And this is the part that’s unknowable for a historian. So we all wish we could be inside their heads and understanding what’s going on during that time. I thought the best way to explore it would really be to look at the environment in which they were in, the things that led to Salem and what happened there and then really just use fiction at that point to tell the story, and, of course, no historian would ever use conjecture , but the beauty of fiction is you can do that. And I think what I tried to do initially in this short story and then now to much greater depth in the novel, is really explore that and look at the forces that created this really tragic event.

    Greg Houle: The short story and the novel, at least a tentative title of the novel is The Putnams of Salem. [00:07:00] And there is a sort of subtitle that I’m throwing around. That’s really The Fall of an American Family. Not sure how my family will feel about that, but it’s what we find out in this story.

    Greg Houle: And I think it’s really quite fascinating when you think about all the different forces involved in the world that they were living. One of the major themes of the short story and the novel is really fear and the way in which fear drives a lot of what happens and the various types of fear and various sources of fear, from the fear that’s inherent within the Puritan religion to fear of the native population. In the case of Thomas Putnam, there’s fear of losing your place in society. The sense that throughout history there’s the common case of [00:08:00] the patriarch of a family kind of building something, the second generation making it stronger, and then the third generation messing it up somehow. Thomas Putnam Jr. was the third generation of the Putnams in America, and it really does follow that trajectory. And I think it’s really interesting when you insert this man into these circumstances and you see the way in which it drove him to do some pretty awful things.

    Josh Hutchinson: You’ve touched on it already, but how did you go from where you were doing your research into your family to deciding to write stories and then a novel about them?

    Greg Houle: Yeah, it’s a great question. I, again, a lot of the impetus for this was my 12 year old daughter at the time and really wanting to connect her to this story in a way that I thought was meaningful. For me it was about really trying to get behind any [00:09:00] lore that existed within our family to the actual story, and it’s not always easy to do when you’re dealing with 17th century America. You can’t always get every detail.

    Greg Houle: In my family, there was not a lot of detail. I think there was always the sense of we are connected to this great American story, “great” in quotes, by the way. And isn’t that fascinating? But I think, for me, my interest in history has always been about the fact that it is multi-dimensional and dynamic. I think what tends to happen with history is over time we flatten it out, and it becomes very one dimensional. So the sort of typical story of Salem is that it’s these sort of fundamental crazy puritans who experience something one [00:10:00] day, start accusing women of witchcraft, and then put them to death. And while the basic facts may be true, there’s so much more involved in that story. They lived in a different world than we live in today, obviously, but they still wanted to succeed.

    Greg Houle: They laughed sometimes. They cried. They had fights, and they, wanted to be successful. And I think a lot of times we forget that. And in looking at the story, the part that really fascinated me was thinking about the context of this tragedy within that parameter.

    Greg Houle: And so for me that’s my entry point into this. And so when I really thought about both Thomas and Ann, I kept thinking, ” what must be going on in our heads?” I think a lot of times our simple answer is Thomas [00:11:00] is a devout Puritan, and he believes wholeheartedly that all these people he’s accusing are witches. And isn’t that crazy? But the reality of the fact is that’s probably not true, right? He was very strategic in his efforts. Again, we don’t wanna have too much conjecture here and assume that we know everything that was going on, but, for me, I was fascinated by that.

    Greg Houle: And then you also have Ann, who, in my writing of her, tried to present her as the sort of typical, idealized Puritan girl who’s really trying to do all the right things and failing because of her affliction. We know that her afflictions are probably not a real thing, but they are something, and it’s it’s a sort of interesting juxtaposition between [00:12:00] the two of them. And that was what really fascinated me.

    Josh Hutchinson: For our listeners who aren’t as familiar with the Putnams, can you explain Thomas’s role in the trials?

    Greg Houle: The sort of patriarch of that family was John Putnam, who came over during the great Puritan migration, came over from England probably in the early 1630s. He was one of, not the initial group of settlers that settled Salem, but he was there a few years later. Pretty prominent landowner. But one of the things that the Putnams at least say that they always wanted to do was create this kind of communal society in Salem, where it was a little bit more, ” we’re not worried about individual wealth, we’re gonna just try to bring everyone up.”

    Greg Houle: But again, this was at a time where everyone, where Puritans were much more sanguine about their prospects and in the new [00:13:00] world. And I think by the time we get to the witch hysteria 60 years later, everything, the shine has come off a little bit. But so John was the initial patriarch of the family, and then Thomas Sr. was, of course, Thomas Jr.’s father, and he built their land holdings. They were farmers. He was pretty privileged person, but things were different for him, and they weren’t quite so easy. By the time we get to 1692, Thomas is still doing pretty well, and his family is pretty prominent.

    Greg Houle: He was known as Sergeant Thomas Putnam, because he fought in King Philip’s War, which was, some say, the bloodiest war in colonial American history, where it was, in many ways, almost like a akin to a world war in some respect. [00:14:00] It was fought throughout New England between the colonists and their Native allies and other native communities. I think by the time of the Salem witch hysteria, 1692, Thomas was a much different person than his father and his grandfather.

    Greg Houle: I think that there are a couple of things that, that are going on. One is the realization that the Puritans are not going to have a shining city on the hill like they initially thought. Now, that doesn’t mean that, that they weren’t still trying, or they didn’t still believe that they were superior in many ways. But I think they realized at that point that wasn’t gonna be easy.

    Greg Houle: The relationships that they had with the native populations in New England had really soured to the point where that [00:15:00] had created a lot of fear. You may have talked about the fact that they that Massachusetts did not have a charter at that time, had lost its charter. So there’s a lot of uncertainty there. So I think, the way I portrayed in the novel and the short story, to some extent, is that Thomas is really this fading patriarch but family that is still prominent, but like a lot of people with power, he wants to do whatever it takes to keep that power, and this opportunity arises, and he takes advantage of it.

    Josh Hutchinson: What were some of the things that he did during the witch-hunt that stand out to mark him as a prominent figure?

    Greg Houle: So he accused many people of witchcraft. He also pretty much wrote all of the documents that needed to be submitted to court for Ann, so he was really orchestrating a lot of that. There [00:16:00] was also, as I’m sure you’re aware, quite a rift in the community and had been for generations about who leads the church, and Thomas was very much in favor of the head of the church, Samuel Parris, but others were not. There was a lot of choosing sides there, and that became a big part of it as well.

    Greg Houle: In terms of his actual role, he was there during the very first examinations of the first three witches when they were examined by the magistrates. The first three were Sarah Good, Sarah Osborne, and Tituba, who were three kind of outcasts. But he was there and playing a very prominent role. I think that he saw himself as a leader. He was, a military [00:17:00] leader and a fairly wealthy person with land, and I think he saw his role as being someone who should take a prominent role during a time like this. And he certainly did. And I think, certainly, as I explore in the novel, he uses that as an opportunity to really reshape the nature of his relationships.

    Sarah Jack: What you had just said about growing and securing their wealth with that land, I think that was a really big part of the fight, as well as having a stake in what was happening with the church.

    Greg Houle: That’s a great point. I think that another interesting component with Thomas is his father, Thomas Sr., remarried at a very older age, so Thomas had a half brother who ended up inheriting a lot of what he was expecting to inherit. In many [00:18:00] ways, he comes across by 1692 as really just having this series of just one after another of what he would think are tragedies. But again, the thing I kept coming back to and what was fascinating to me was this idea that, you have this privileged person who’s then throwing a fit because he’s not getting his way every time.

    Greg Houle: Maybe I’m projecting something that’s 330 years old to today, but I really, that was the thing that I kept coming back to, and a lot of it is tied up in those land disputes and the endless lawsuits and the just no way to ever solve these problems, either in court or outside of court. And it really brought it to the forefront that you realize that they have a lot of these kind of frivolous and difficult problems that we all deal with [00:19:00] today. And I think, again, going back to what I said earlier, we tend to just have this very one dimensional view that they were this sort of whole community block that just all did, were in lockstep with each other, and it’s just not like that.

     The other thing I explore in the novel and have fun with is their desire to gossip and just really spread these, rumors and innuendo and all of this other stuff. Obviously, a lot of it was part of the driving force of the accusations of witchcraft, but it’s really tied up in the same disputes, those family squabbles. They were a big deal obviously, but they go back generations. When you start digging into it, you realize, you know, what a mess it actually is.

    Sarah Jack: And it sounds like getting to look inside [00:20:00] the Putnam family the way you are doing it with your novel is a way to redeem them.

    Greg Houle: That’s a really great point. I hope so. There’s a lot of redeeming that needs to be done. The one thing that I’ve never really been able to quite put my finger on, and I think it’s really difficult, because we don’t have full knowledge in the historical record, and that sort of thing is what role someone like Thomas really did play. I think, obviously, it’s clear he made a lot of accusations.

    Greg Houle: I’m making a lot of conjecture that was purposeful and political and driven by anger and annoyance and all these other things, but we don’t really know how true that is. And we don’t know if he got caught up with the people on his side of the argument. And so it’s really one of those things where I want to be a little [00:21:00] careful. I certainly don’t pull any punches and protect my family members, but I don’t really know, and I’ve never really been able to pinpoint the role precisely that the Putnams played.

    Greg Houle: And, for me, what’s more interesting actually is to think about the role that Ann played as a 12 year old , because, you imagine a scenario where she is really believing that she has done something wrong, or she, like a lot of Puritans at the time, thinking that they’ve let the devil into their being and into their world. But then there’s a part of me that thinks, “or was she just doing what her father wanted her to do?” so it becomes one of those things where those are the unknowable questions that I think are challenging for us to understand.

    Greg Houle: But you can certainly, looking at the history, looking at [00:22:00] the situation of the Putnam family, you can see where they may have said, “hey, let’s just make this thing happen. Let’s just keep pushing it forward and see what we can do.” And perhaps that was what happened, and that’s what’s so challenging about this, because we never really will know. But part of what’s fun about writing historical fiction is you can then tell the story the way you want to tell it, right?

    Josh Hutchinson: I think the way that you’re telling it is so important, because to understand how witch hunts happen, we need to get into the head of both sides of them. So we need to know the people who were making the accusations, what were they thinking, what was going on in their minds, so we can learn from that, and I think it’s just terrific that you are exploring, getting inside the heads of Thomas and Ann in the way that you [00:23:00] are.

    Greg Houle: Thank you. I think you’re right. That’s the part that is just so fascinating. I think a lot of it, and certainly the work that you’re doing here with the podcast is really touching on this as well, but I think we live in modern times, and I think we can’t help but think about the way that works today, the way, you know, people are exposed to certain media and develop certain beliefs, and then that manifests itself in certain actions. And so I think the whole time that I’ve been working on this, that’s always been in my mind is it’s easy for us in a one dimensional world to say Thomas was just a leader in the community. He was a devout Puritan. He firmly believed that these women were evil, and he just [00:24:00] wanted to cleanse Salem, which, by the way, the novel is a dual narrative between, first person narrative with Thomas and Anne, and he’s basically saying that the whole time, he’s saying, “no, I’m just trying to cleanse our community.”

    Greg Houle: But I think as intelligent people, we know that cannot possibly be the case, that it isn’t just black and white, that there may be an inkling of that there. We don’t want to completely dismiss it, but it’s just too convenient for him not to have taken the opportunity to, essentially, engage in behavior that resulted in the deaths of many needlessly.

    Josh Hutchinson: I like the way you frame it as, in the terms of, dimensions that we look at, history as this one dimensional black and white thing. And I like how you’re getting into [00:25:00] the persons of these complicated people, getting into their minds and their characters to analyze them from a human perspective and make them three dimensional. I think that’s very important to our modern understanding of how we operate today.

    Greg Houle: Yeah, that’s right. I think it’s a really important component anytime we look at history, I think, for anyone, and I’m sure you both feel the same way. Anyone who has real interest in history tends to be interested in the fact that it’s really about people, right? And it’s about decisions they make and then how those decisions affect other decisions. And this kind of long stretch of what occurs. And I think, a lot of times, people think of history as a series of events and things that happen at certain dates. And it really is about taking that three dimensional or [00:26:00] multidimensional view and really trying to understand what was going through the minds of people when these things were happening.

    Greg Houle: I think the probably any legitimate historian listening to me would be very angry, because without actual historical record or information, you can’t extrapolate what is actually happening. But I do think the value of something like historical fiction, in this case, is really trying to use your knowledge and the information you have to make those leaps a little bit and try to understand it.

    Greg Houle: One thing I’ll say about the novel is that I really tried hard to make it plausible. Obviously, I wasn’t privy to what was going on inside of Thomas or Ann’s mind, wasn’t privy to a lot of conversations that they may have had with other people, but the world in which they lived [00:27:00] and the thinking that they had were, it’s legitimate, and I’m trying to create something is realistic in terms of, how they would respond to those things. And I think, when you look today, at similar manifestations of persecution, you really do the same thing.

    Josh Hutchinson: What can you tell us about Ann Jr. And her struggles during all of this?

    Greg Houle: She, very early on, was afflicted, and I’m using the air quotes, and struggled a lot with various manifestations of that affliction. But one thing about Ann that you can tell from what sparse information is available about her, is that she was pretty well liked. And she seemed to, at [00:28:00] least the way I present her is, she was a good girl, I guess you could say, for lack of a better way of putting it, that she tried to live the way Puritan girls were meant to be living.

    Greg Houle: What is very interesting, though, about Ann is in 1706, when she went back to the church in Salem and requested to take communion and become a member of the church. And that was when she essentially apologized, although it was a semi apology.

    Sarah Jack: I think readers would love to hear what she was thinking around that. We have the apology, but I wanna know what she was thinking. I’ve seen so many family researchers or descendants of the accused talk about that, and they have different [00:29:00] perspectives, which I always enjoy reading. Some feel that it was very acceptable, especially based on what her beliefs of the devil’s work in her life would’ve been. Others think it was not really good enough. Getting to hear what was going on in her mind around the apology would be really interesting.

    Greg Houle: I agree. It’s a very rare example for us to hear from someone who was involved so early on being also involved at the end like this. My view is that Ann was a broken woman at that time, and my thinking, and again I wanna preface this by saying, “of course I could be completely wrong here,” but my thinking is that, by that point, everyone knew, of course, that what happened in 1692 was this horrible thing, and she was this last vestige of that. And so [00:30:00] my read of the situation is that she is this outcast, and at the end of the novel, there’s a sort of epilogue where this comes up, and the pastor, Pastor Green at the time, is hesitating and thinking, “do I really wanna let this person back into the church? I worked so hard to try to bring us back together.” And, ultimately, of course, does, because she really has nothing else.

    Greg Houle: Both her parents died the same year, in 1699. She never married. By all accounts, her experience was the kind of thing that basically ruined her life. And by the time 1706 rolls around, she basically just realizes that the only thing she has is the church, and she’ll do anything to be a part of it. So that’s my read. Now, whether or not it is [00:31:00] sincere, I think it’s really hard to speculate about. I think that it’s very plausible that it was not, but it’s also plausible that, there is a way of thinking about it where Ann truly was an innocent victim. Not saying that’s the case, but she may very well have manifested all of these afflictions and challenges and that she was encouraged by her father and others and that by the time they were all gone, she thought it was safe now to beg for mercy and try to live a life where she could be member of the church again.

    Sarah Jack: I had mentioned family researchers and descendants. I’m wondering, are you ready for other Putnam descendants and other descendants to reach out to you about the book you’re writing?

    Greg Houle: You know, I really would love to hear what they have to say. I’m sure I could learn a lot [00:32:00] from those folks. So I really am interested in that. You know, I’m not someone who wants to defend the Putnams or what occurred here. So I’m happy to have those discussions. I think that’s a very dangerous thing, so I would not wanna do that at all, but I would definitely love to hear what others know, and the Putnam family has a very important long legacy in New England, and there’s a lot to be proud of, but this is not one of those events that anyone should be proud of.

    Sarah Jack: One of the things that you can be proud of is that there were seven Putnam that signed Rebecca Nurse’s petition.

    Greg Houle: I think, you know, it speaks to another aspect of the Salem witch hysteria that really fascinates me, is how quickly it seemed to go south, right? The whole collection of events took place in a very short period of time, but it was like [00:33:00] all of a sudden the bottom fell out and everyone realized it was as if they woke up and realized what were we doing? And so that’s something that I’m not really that knowledgeable about, would love to know more about, because I think it’s really like a community of people realizing at that moment that they were on the wrong side of history and saying, “what are we doing? What have we done? How can we get out of it?” And I think, that’s why we see some of this stuff happening so quickly after, and even maybe why we saw Ann petition to, to want to join the church again.

    Josh Hutchinson: I can totally relate to that. I’m a descendant of, among others, Joseph Hutchinson, who was one, along with Thomas Putnam, who complained against the original three suspects, but then later on he changes sides and defends Rebecca nurse. [00:34:00] So I’ve been exploring that a lot in my own mind, how you start off believing in this witchcraft and then at some point you realize you are on the wrong side of history.

    Greg Houle: The one thing I’ll add to that is, when you think of the first three women who were accused, they were clearly outside the norm of late 17th century Puritan society. Tituba is a slave from the West Indies. Sarah Good is essentially homeless, for the most part. Sarah Osborne was always outside of the norms. In the beginning you think, “of course they’re gonna be the ones who were accused.” But it’s interesting as the accusations continue to fly going forward. When you get to someone like Rebecca Nurse, who is not like those folks, and that she was [00:35:00] well respected, it’s almost like the fire burned out of control, and you had a point where maybe people realized, “what are we doing at that point?” I think maybe some of that was what was happening, and that’s where you get people switching sides ,and there are multiple cases of that sort of thing. And I think part of that has to do with the fact that, I don’t know if anyone really expected it to become this kind of inferno that ended up really engulfing the entire community.

    Sarah Jack: Yeah, I think about that too, cuz I think about when I first realized that people were writing testimony and defense of Rebecca and signing some petitions for her, and there were a lot, I remember thinking, “how was this not enough?” And also, [00:36:00] when her verdict was changed on her. I just remember, I’m like, “how could that happen?” And it’s just another tell of how out of control, when a fire takes off, sometimes you just don’t have enough water to put it out right then, and that was definitely happening.

    Greg Houle: Yeah I think in many ways this goes back to the kind of perfect storm that existed, where you have, you know, a community appearance that is moving away from their original purpose, or they know that they’re not as pious as they should be at this point, three generations on, you have fear of, ” what’s gonna happen to our charter? Are we going to remain a colony of England?” And then you have this really burgeoning concern over the native population and the conflicts that were existing there. You have just the [00:37:00] inherent concern that exists within the Puritan religion of, ” am I going to heaven?” This idea of predetermination and that you don’t even really know and it’s all determined. “Am I on God’s path? I don’t know.”

    Greg Houle: And I think it was almost like this perfect storm, where some things happen. Some people who are outcast get accused as. One would expect in a case like this, and then it just took off from there, and I would contend that people like Thomas Putnam were fanning the flames. There were others, as well. But I think that is part of what speaks to this, is that convergence of all of those different things and the kind of fear and concern about the future and what their world was gonna be like.

    Greg Houle: I think, also, this may be a reach, they’re going into a new century soon, and I think there was a [00:38:00] lot of concern about, ” who are we gonna be?” There was, after King Philip’s War, there was a lot of concern that it was so gruesome that, “are we turning into these savages, who we claim they are?” So there’s all kinds of components here, and I think it’s interesting how they all play together.

    Josh Hutchinson: It was a grand conflagration. In previous witch trial cases, you’d have one, maybe two people get accused at a time. And I think that’s what they expected in the beginning, when you had those first three outsiders accused. But then you get things like Tituba’s confession, where she says there’s nine witches, and you have people like Samuel Parris fanning the flames every week in church. And, like you said, a perfect storm of ingredients had to come together for it to continue and to expand the way it [00:39:00] did.

    Greg Houle: Yeah. And I’m glad you brought up Tituba, because I think that was really the linchpin of a lot of this. And that scene is portrayed in the novel, and the way I portray it is they, it’s almost like boiler plate. Sarah Good, Sarah Osborne, of course they’re gonna deny it, but we know they’re witches. And then Tituba comes and says, “yeah, the devil came to me. Yeah, he wanted me to kill these girls. Yes, there was a yellow bird,” and saying all this stuff that they are suddenly thinking, “whoa, wait a minute, we weren’t expecting this.”

    Greg Houle: So I think in many ways her saying the things that she said to the magistrates really helped get the wheels turning in the heads of a lot of people like Thomas Putnam. Again, it’s conjecture, I know, but I think that it’s an interesting concept to think about that, that really helped turn the tide a little [00:40:00] bit and fan the flames further.

    Sarah Jack: And, like you said, there was this uncertainty with the charter. We know there was deceit with the new charter that ended up coming, but the court that was opened that, that was certain, that had procedure. It gave the powerful men power. So you had that piece sliding in when everything else was uncertain.

    Greg Houle: Yeah, that’s a really important point. It was a sense of certainty at a time of great uncertainty. And that helps push the process along. And, also, and maybe we’re gonna touch on this, but the other aspect that really fascinates me is how, the new governor’s wife suddenly gets accused and everything falls apart at that point. So it also is a nice button to the story in the sense that you realize these external forces [00:41:00] are really what is driving this, rather than the Satan, the underworld, these dark forces. It’s endlessly fascinating, but there are all kinds of those markers along the way that you see, where you realize, “okay, this is why this happened, or this is why this didn’t happen, and et cetera.”

    Sarah Jack: Yeah, I’m thinking, when would’ve the devil have got his foot in the door on some of this? It was already full.

    Greg Houle: I don’t know. Yeah. I think again, looking at it from our eyes now with everything we see and just seeing the, maybe some of it, and it’s not, not trying to be political, and the novel is not political in that regard, but I think it’s, we see divisions in our own society and you see how those divisions are further exploited. And so it’s very easy to look back through that lens and [00:42:00] see where that is happening. And I think I was doing a lot of that as I was researching and writing this, this novel.

    Josh Hutchinson: So what does it boil down to? What you are trying to say through your writing on the Putnams?

    Greg Houle: That’s a really great question. For me, the biggest thing that I want to say, I think about the Putnam’s is that it’s the story of this privileged family who was losing its privilege. And in many ways, as that happened, you see what the family did in order to try to retain that power. For me, that’s what I kept coming back to, is that there is this sort of multi-generational, pretty powerful family that is losing its power in [00:43:00] that moment, and the years leading up to the Salem witch hysteria, it’s a fading family. That’s why I said earlier that a good subtitle for the book would be The Fall of an American Family, because I think it really is that kind of story, and so for me it’s about telling that story through this sort of famous American tragedy. And that’s, I think, probably the biggest thing that I want to try to do.

    Sarah Jack: When you talk about their fall, and when one reads about all of their tactics with what was happening with all the families and the boundaries and stuff, they were really put trying to push forward. They were really fighting tooth and nail to not lose footing.

    Greg Houle: That’s something that I really try to explore through various flashbacks and so forth. And the novel is just the [00:44:00] idea that Thomas Jr., In particular, has the weight of the world on his shoulders. His father did so much to try to build it up, and now it’s all on him, and you can feel it slipping away. But he’s very arrogant, and he’s got a lot of hubris, and he just is gonna keep saying that he’s great. And what’s interesting about how it appears during the witch hysteria at Salem is that you see there, you witness the fall, you witness the way in which he was trying to take advantage of this opportunity and failing, ultimately.

    Greg Houle: And that’s what I really enjoyed exploring, even though it is a tragic story within my own family. And of course, again, a lot of this is fiction. I don’t wanna sound like I know everything that went on inside his [00:45:00] head, but I do think that it’s all plausible, and I think, the way the story sort of progresses before and after Salem, you see it, as we already talked about with Ann, you see what happens to her. She fades from history at that point. And that’s, in many ways, a metaphor for the entire family. Now, I don’t mean to say that my Putnam family no longer exists. They’re fine. They’re all over the country, but it’s not the same. So that is what I was trying to tell that story through this major event.

    Josh Hutchinson: What do you hope people take away from your stories and your novel?

    Greg Houle: I think the biggest thing I’d like for them to take away is realize that what we’ve been talking about in terms of the multi-dimensional aspect of history is real. When we think of [00:46:00] the Salem witch hysteria, we often think about it as, “well, there was witchcraft and these, this monolithic group of puritans then went crazy and accused witches and then put them to death,” but the reality, of course, is that there were a lot of things that led up to that and a lot of things that happened after it. And I think for me the biggest takeaway’s for people to see this story as a larger story, as the story of various things occurring at the same time, rather than just this one snapshot of an event.

    Greg Houle: Because, going back to what I said earlier, my feeling with Salem is that it is often almost like a caricature of what we talk about, this idea that this thing happened [00:47:00] and isn’t that crazy? But the reality is it happened for a variety of reasons. And to me the biggest takeaway that someone reading the novel would get would be, “wow, I understand that there are multidimensions to this. And isn’t that an interesting way of thinking of it?

    Sarah Jack: I think right now as a society, there’s a growing number of people who are learning to look at history dimensionally. So many of us were taught it as a snapshot, and I think everyone is ready. Not everyone, I think the amount of people ready to take a deeper look is now, and I think that’s why historical fiction is important, and the history’s important, but I think it’s great timing. I think your book is coming at a great, I know it’s, you still have a little while before it’s released, but that just means more people are gonna be ready to receive it.

    Greg Houle: I think the same is true with podcasts. I think that’s why we’re having a [00:48:00] moment with podcasts. I think that’s why, even when you look at like true crime series and things that really take a deep dive into these stories that were often very flat and one dimensional, I think that is, you’re right that we’re at a time where a lot of people are interested in that, and for me that was really what I was trying to do here is create some dimension to this story. Now, I don’t claim to be the first person ever to do that, many others have, but I think that there needs to be as much of that as possible, in order for people to be able to connect to the elements that we hopefully will learn from and avoid, as we go into the future.

    Josh Hutchinson: I think your writing is so important to help people understand what really happened. I know it is fiction, but it gets people into the right mindset to [00:49:00] start exploring possibilities of what happened and to reflect on what’s happening now. So I highly recommend that everybody read it. How can people access your writing currently?

    Greg Houle: I guess the easiest way is they can visit my website, which is greghoule.info, that’s g r e g h o u l e.info. There are links to some of my writing about the book, and I’ll continue to build that up prior to publication.

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you. We very much appreciate you and your wisdom, and you’ve gone a long way towards answering the fundamental questions that are behind the podcast. We like to get in every episode part of the how do we hunt witches why do we hunt witches, how can we turn away from hunting witches? And your [00:50:00] answers have been quite elegant, speaking on those questions.

    Greg Houle: Obviously, it was much different, but they had the same sensibilities. They wanted to succeed. They wanted to defeat their enemies, and they wanted to make sure that their kids succeeded. And there were a lot of the same fears that they had that are very familiar to us today.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. I like to point out that witch hunting in one form or another has been going on as long as humans have been around, because we, though the technology evolves and our beliefs evolve, at the core of us, we still have those same insecurities and fears that you point out.

    Josh Hutchinson: And now Sarah’s here with another update on real-life witch-hunts happening in the present day.

    Sarah Jack: Welcome to this [00:51:00] episodes Witchcraft Fear Victim Advocacy Report, sponsored by End Witch Hunts News. Today’s Thanksgiving 2022 in the United States. I thank you for tuning into our weekly End Witch Hunts News. Thank you to the advocates across the globe standing in the gap. For those who can’t, thank you for being an activist against witchcraft.

    Sarah Jack: On its 47th session, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on July 12th, 2021 for the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economics, social, and cultural rights, including the right to development. Here is what they resolved regarding the situation of the violations and abuses of human rights rooted in harmful practices related to accusations of witchcraft and ritual attacks. It requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize an expert consultation with states and other relevant stakeholders, including the United Nations [00:52:00] Secretariat and relevant bodies, representatives of subregional and regional organizations, international human rights mechanisms, national human rights institutions, and non-governmental organizations, the result of which will help the office of the High Commissioner to prepare a study on the situation of the violations that abuses of human rights, rooted in harmful practices related to accusations of witchcraft and ritual attacks, as well as stigmatization and to inform further action by existing mechanisms at the United Nations and to submit a report thereon to the Human Rights Council at its 52nd session.

    Sarah Jack: Mr. Volker Turk is the current United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. He took up official functions as high commissioner on October 17th, 2022. His Twitter handle is @ V O L K E R _ T U R K. Let him know you support his taking a suggested action on the [00:53:00] resolution. Let him know people like you stand against these violations and support finding solutions. Thank him for his work and accomplishments.

    Sarah Jack: Next, support the Connecticut Witch Trial Exoneration Project. You can support the project by sharing @_endwitchhunts, CT Witch Hunt, and CT Witch Memorial social media, and especially the news interviews in the first three Thou Shalt Not Suffer Podcast episodes. You can support the project by signing your name on the change.org petition. All these links are in our show episode notes. Go to the links, learn, support, and share.

    Sarah Jack: When the state of Connecticut moves forward with an exoneration for their accused witches, they’re taking state action that stands with the promotion and protection of all human rights. Their exoneration decision is for Connecticut, but it is also for Africa and Asia. Their decision shows where they stand on violations and abuses of human rights, rooted in harmful practices related to accusations of witchcraft and ritual attacks, as [00:54:00] well as stigma.

    Sarah Jack: While we watch and wait, let’s support the victims across the world where innocent people are being targeted by superstitious fear. Support them by acknowledging and sharing their stories. Please use all your communication channels to be an intervener and stand with them. The world must stop hunting witches. Please follow our End Witch Hunt movement on Twitter @_endwitchhunts and visit our website at endwitchhunts.org.

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you, Sarah.

    Sarah Jack: You’re welcome. Join us next week.

    Josh Hutchinson: Like, subscribe, or follow wherever you get podcasts.

    Sarah Jack: Visit thoushaltnotsuffer.com often.

    Josh Hutchinson: And join our Discord for rousing discussions of the show.

    Sarah Jack: Follow us on social media, links in description.

    Josh Hutchinson: Remember to tell your friends, family, and anybody else you run into about Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast.

    Sarah Jack: Catch you next time.

    Josh Hutchinson: Have a great today and a beautiful tomorrow.

    [00:55:00]

  • Episode 7 Transcript: Documenting the Exoneration of the Last Witch of Salem

    Josh Hutchinson: [00:00:00] “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Exodus 22:18

    Josh Hutchinson: Welcome to another episode of Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast. I’m Josh Hutchinson.

    Sarah Jack: And I’m Sarah Jack.

    Josh Hutchinson: Today we’re talking to Annika Hylmo and Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine. Their documentary, The Last Witch, covers the exoneration of Elizabeth Johnson Jr., the “Last Witch” of Salem to have her name cleared.

    Sarah Jack: Because you like the show, please share it with your friends, family, and followers.

    Josh Hutchinson: I’m looking forward to today’s episode. I think we’ll have a deep, [00:01:00] powerful conversation with Annika and Cassandra, and looking forward to diving into how and why we hunt witches with them, what they’ve learned from doing their documentary.

    Sarah Jack: Yeah, I’m really excited to get to talk to them directly. I’ve really enjoyed their Facebook Live updates on their work, but we’re gonna get so much more tonight.

    Josh Hutchinson: We are, and speaking of getting more, Thanksgiving is next week.

    Sarah Jack: I have my turkey. It’s not thawed yet, but I have it.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah, don’t thaw a week ahead of time. I wouldn’t wanna eat a week old Turkey.

    Sarah Jack: There’s this movie that I watch every Thanksgiving if I can get it. It’s Home for the Holidays with Holly Hunter and Dylan McDermott and Robert Downey Jr.

    Sarah Jack: Have you seen it?

    Josh Hutchinson: I think I’ve seen that. I don’t remember it though.

    Sarah Jack: Love that movie. [00:02:00] And it’s all about frustrating family dynamics, and the sister brings a Neutra bird.

    Josh Hutchinson: What is a Neutra bird?

    Sarah Jack: I I have no idea, but it was like a special health. They called it a Neutra bird or Neutry bird, and she ends up wearing it.

    Josh Hutchinson: Oh, like Joey and the turkey in Friends?

    Sarah Jack: Oh yeah. See that’s what we should talk about is Friends.

    Josh Hutchinson: I wanna talk about Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. That’s my favorite Thanksgiving movie.

    Sarah Jack: That is up there. That is up there.

    Josh Hutchinson: That’s the classic Thanksgiving movie.

    Sarah Jack: Josh, let’s hear some history about Elizabeth Johnson Jr.

    Josh Hutchinson: Elizabeth Johnson, Jr. was an unfortunate victim of the Salem Witch Trials. Elizabeth Johnson Jr. was the granddaughter of Reverend Francis Dane of Andover, but, more importantly, she was the first cousin, once removed of Martha Carrier, who Cotton Mather described [00:03:00] as the Queen of Hell and whose family were basically all arrested during the Salem Witch Trials.

    Josh Hutchinson: Elizabeth Johnson, Jr. was 22 at the time of her arrest. Her father Steven Johnson had died in 1690, due to a smallpox outbreak that was blamed on Martha Carrier. Elizabeth Johnson, Jr. was arrested shortly before August 10th, 1692, along with her second cousins, Sarah and Thomas Carrier, children of Martha.

    Josh Hutchinson: Elizabeth was examined by magistrate Dudley Bradstreet on August 10, and she did confess. She was alleged to have afflicted Sarah Phelps with the help of Sarah and Thomas Carrier. Sarah Phelps was the daughter of Samuel Phelps and the niece of recently deceased Elizabeth Phelps Ballard, the woman for whom [00:04:00] the Andover witch-hunt really started, when her husband invited afflicted girls from Salem Village to come up and detect witches. Elizabeth confessed to afflicting Sarah Phelps, Ann Putnam, Mary Walcott, Lawrence Lacey, Benjamin Abbott, a child of Ephraim Davis, two children of James Fry, the children of Abraham Foster, and Elizabeth Phelps Ballard, who died.

    Josh Hutchinson: Elizabeth stated that she had been a witch for four years. She became a witch at her cousin Martha Carrier’s house, and in 1689 she was baptized by the devil by having her head dipped in Martha Carrier’s well. She also scratched the devil’s book with her finger to sign the covenant with him. She was present at a witch sacrament, where red bread and blood wine were served. All the witches there pledged to pull down the Kingdom of Christ and [00:05:00] set up the Devil’s Kingdom.

    Josh Hutchinson: While she confessed, she also accused Martha Carrier, George Burroughs, Martha Toothaker’s two children, Richard Carrier, Sarah Carrier, Mary Lacey, Sr., Mary Lacey, Jr., John Floyd, and Daniel Eames. She confessed to using puppets and she showed a place on her knuckle, where her familiar suckled her and said that there were two more places that she couldn’t reveal. So women searched her body, and they found one behind her arm, but didn’t mention any other.

    Josh Hutchinson: And now after 330 years, her name has finally been cleared, the last of the convicted Salem witches to have that done.

    Sarah Jack: Thank you for all of that information on Elizabeth Johnson, Jr.’s life and for making her experience something that we know about.

    Josh Hutchinson: You’re welcome, [00:06:00] and I forgot one detail. She sold her soul to the Devil for one shilling, which is just a bunch of pennies, 5 cents worth, a nickel. She sold herself to the devil. And she never got paid. The devil never paid up anybody who confessed to covenanting with him during the Salem witch trials. Never once did the guy actually do what he said he would do.

    Sarah Jack: That sounds like him.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah, he’s a rascal.

    Sarah Jack: Yeah, he’s a liar.

    Josh Hutchinson: The Prince of Liars.

    Sarah Jack: Welcome to Annika Hylmo and Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine of The Last Witch, a documentary about the work of a middle school teacher and her students to exonerate Elizabeth Johnson Jr., the last person convicted during the Salem Witch Trials to be cleared.

    Sarah Jack: We would like to start out by finding out who was the last witch.

    Annika Hylmo: The last witch, it depends on [00:07:00] how you see it, depends on what you consider to be a witch. But the last convicted witch from the Salem Witch Trials was Elizabeth Johnson Jr., who was just exonerated on July 28th, 2022, three hundred and twenty-nine years after she was convicted. So with that, I guess you could say that she was the last witch from the Salem Witch Trials, and that kind of ended the Salem Witch Trials.

    Sarah Jack: When I saw how you listed that on your social media, the end of them, I thought that’s really a strong statement and thought, and that’s a wrap. So that’s really powerful.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: Yeah, we felt that way too. I think Annika came up with it first, and she said that, and it was like, “wait, you’re right.”

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: Oh my gosh. It’s, it made history and it like closed a chapter in history. Not all the way, there’s still more obviously other people that haven’t been exonerated, like in Connecticut and other places around the world, but also and still the lasting effects of it. But [00:08:00] definitely that particular chapter felt like it had come to a close.

    Annika Hylmo: It’s incredible when you start to think about it that it’s been almost 330 years, right? And that for all this time that somebody could be considered to be a witch. And it raises, I think, a lot of questions about what we believe to be a witch, who is a witch, who isn’t a witch, who’s culpable, and how we treat people, as well as all the issues that you can trace back to the Salem Witch Trials. History and present are so intertwined, and we tend to forget that history is, it’s happening now, and we’re a part of all of this.

    Annika Hylmo: So the fact that this took 330 years for simplicity to get taken care of makes me wonder sometimes what things we’re dealing with now that it will take 330 years to clear and set things right.

    Sarah Jack: None of us are gonna allow that. Are [00:09:00] we ?

    Annika Hylmo: Let’s hope not.

    Sarah Jack: Can you tell us a little bit about where she lived, how old she was, how long she was in prison, a little bit about her experience?

    Annika Hylmo: We don’t know an awful lot about her, to be honest. We have snippets of information about her. We know that she lived in what is today, North Andover, Massachusetts, which is outside of Salem. We know that she was about 22 at the time of the witch trials, and we know that she was not married. She did not have children.

    Annika Hylmo: And we know that she may have been a little bit different. There was talk of her being simplish. She, there was talk of her being simple-minded, and that came up on a couple of occasions in some of the documents. We also know that she was the granddaughter of Reverend Dane, of Reverend Francis Dane, who was the elder clergyman in town at the time.

    Annika Hylmo: But as far as any other specifics, we know [00:10:00] very little. We can assume things. We can assume that she probably lived with family, for example. We do know that she was examined, and that’s another word of being like really threatened, because these were very threatening circumstances. In 1692, early fall of 1692, she was then in prison, we assume, but we don’t know because some of them were let out temporarily, so we don’t know the exact circumstances, but until January of 1693, when her grandfather wrote a letter where he stated that she was simplish at best, but about a week after that she was convicted and sentenced to hang. At the time, the governor of Massachusetts had already pardoned everybody, so she wasn’t going to actually hang, but she was imprisoned, from what we understand, a little bit longer.

    Annika Hylmo: We do [00:11:00] have a sense that she was supposed to hang early February. That did not happen because of the pardon, but it wasn’t like people let go of this thing about witch hunts and witch trials and witchcraft. It was just that the governor had said no, and there’s an end to it. From there, we don’t know much about her.

    Annika Hylmo: We know that she probably owned some property. She tried to get restitution for the time that she was in prison. Basically, people had to pay their own way, and she tried to get that money back at one point. We know that she sold some property at one point and that she probably died when she was, I think, in her seventies.

    Annika Hylmo: But we know very little about her circumstances after the trials, before the trials. She was, in many ways, one of us. Most of us, you don’t know exactly who we are, what we do, even with social media, That’s our modern day version of gossip, but you don’t really know that much about each one of us. And for many of us, once we are gone, we’re gone, as much as we’d like to think otherwise. So [00:12:00] she’s somebody that could be anyone of us at the time and now, and that’s what makes her so compelling. One of many reasons.

    Josh Hutchinson: That reputation sticks with the person through the rest of their life and well beyond.

    Annika Hylmo: And the interesting thing about that is that the whole connection to the witch trials is profound. When you look at people that have some kind of connection and who you are related to, there’s a big difference when you talk to people who consider themselves to be related to somebody who was a witch compared to somebody who was an accuser compared to somebody who was a judge. That still is part of modern day community, and that has not let go.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: And, unfortunately, I’m related to all three , so I’m confused with my feelings. But yeah, it is true. When we met descendants who were descendants or relatives of people that were accused or witches that were actually executed, the [00:13:00] pain is still pretty strongly, especially with ones that grew up on the east coast, knew about their heritage their whole life.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: And then you have the accusers. I’m a direct descendant actually of an accuser, joseph Ballard, who actually, because of him and his wife, who was ill at the time, is why the Salem girls were brought over to Andover and why people were then accused in Andover’s from my grandfather.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: And I’m actually a cousin through marriage of Elizabeth, as well. So I’m related, and then I’m related to a few that were executed, and I’m related to Judge John Hathorne, which he wasn’t the nicest of people. And it can be confusing and also feel, wow, what a timeframe of what went through with all these people.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: I can’t imagine being a direct descendant of someone who accused and caused more people to be accused than in Salem itself. There is a guilt that came on when I first learned about it, but I wasn’t raised with this. I had to learn about it about ten years ago. Until then, it was a story that happened to someone else.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: But yeah, as Annika says it’s interesting when we’ve talked to other descendants, [00:14:00] relatives of what that has carried on for them.

    Josh Hutchinson: Sarah and I are both descendants. Sarah’s a descendant of Rebecca Nurse and her sister Mary Esty. I’m a descendant of Mary Esty and found family connections to several dozen people involved. So I have that thing of being related to judges and jury and accusers and everyone, and it brings up conflicting feelings.

    Josh Hutchinson: You try to understand what each of those people was thinking and what their experience was, and that fear of witches was so real back then that kind of understand where they were coming from, but it still doesn’t make it better.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: Josh, when we first started our project, it was actually a narrative feature film that we were working on, a story of about Andover and what happened there. A lot of people have done stories on Salem, so we were wanting to make a movie [00:15:00] about a different version or portion of what happened. And Annika had actually brought that up, and I thought that was really lovely of seeing the humanity, cuz I had the guilt of, oh no, my grandfather, did this horrible thing.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: And she’s, ” but he was in love with his wife and she knew, and they had real fears and this was their religion and their beliefs”. And that really actually helped me. So thank you, Annika. With that portion. At the time as well, when we started, I didn’t realize actually I was related to so many other people at the time. I only thought it was related to the accuser. But as Annika says, they all, they all had to marry each other and everything. It was such a small town. And and so you end up, if you’re related to one, you’re probably related to a few.

    Josh Hutchinson: Does the film explain why she was overlooked?

    Annika Hylmo: That’s one of the big questions why she was overlooked, and there’s really no good answer, except that it makes for really good drama, because once we discovered this story, it came about because there was an article about school teacher Carrie LaPierre and her middle school students who were working [00:16:00] to study the case of Elizabeth Johnson Junior and to exonerate her from the witch trials and working together with Senator Dizoglio to get that.

    Annika Hylmo: So in digging into this story and asking people who were in some way connected to Salem, in some way connected to the witch trials and go, “so why do you think that she was not cleared?” Because there were others who have been exonerated various phases as we know. The last group before her was in 2001.

    Annika Hylmo: And so the question is, why was she left out and why is there only one? Why is she the last one? And the response that inevitably came up was that they just forgot about her, and it became an echo. They just forgot about her. They just forgot about her. They just forgot about her. And it got to be a little bit eerie.

    Annika Hylmo: Almost there’s a conspiracy theory around this, which opens up a number of questions, right? So why would you forget somebody who was a member [00:17:00] of your family? Why would you forget somebody who was convicted of witchcraft during such an important time and that’s been studied so much. And there are probably a number of reasons why she was forgotten, overlooked, and ultimately considered to be unimportant, which is a critical part of this when we’re gonna be going into some of this, during the story, during the documentary, and obviously dig deeper.

    Annika Hylmo: But for our purposes today, and remembering the contemporary side of this is that she did not have kids. She was a single woman who was a little bit different in some way. We don’t wanna go back and give her a diagnosis because that’s not fair to her. It’s not fair to history. And back in the day, people did not have psychiatrists and other people to help them out, but she was different in some way.

    Annika Hylmo: And you take all of [00:18:00] those elements, plus the fact that this was a big, dark shadow that was cast over the communities. Nobody really wanted to talk about it. Nobody really wanted to talk about the Salem witch trials. People tried to figure out how to move on through marriage, in some cases by moving away, in some cases by running away. We have a lot of people that disappeared after the witch trials.

    Annika Hylmo: And for Elizabeth, she probably lived with her family afterwards for a while, but she didn’t have descendants. And when you don’t have descendants, you’re much easier to forget. It’s like society is saying that you don’t matter if you don’t have descendants. So that’s a really big and important thing for us to look at is when do you stop mattering? And if you don’t have kids, do single people matter less than people who are married or people who have kids? We know that women then and now are still more likely to be struggling financially, economically, for [00:19:00] example.

    Annika Hylmo: So some of those issues that she would’ve been dealing with then that would make her less important to people around her are probably the reasons for why she kept being forgotten. All the people that have been exonerated since have had family members that have been speaking for them. We know Rebecca, Nurse’s family, for example, have been integral in making sure that she was never forgotten.

    Annika Hylmo: Some of the other families tried to move on and just forget, but Elizabeth didn’t have anybody speaking up for her, and to me that is one really important question and lesson to be taken away from this is who are we as individuals today when we are overlooking people, where we’re not paying attention to that one person who’s alone by themselves, when we walk by somebody who is not connected, who doesn’t have a family, the same way, somebody who doesn’t have kids, who [00:20:00] might need a little bit of support, and how often do we do that without stopping to think about it? Because that’s probably what happened to Elizabeth back then.

    Sarah Jack: Yeah, that is very powerful. I just think about how unfortunate for her experience that the exoneration didn’t happen for her and during her lifetime or even in a quick amount of time, but it’s really giving us a lot of power today to do something with it for these people that are getting looked over. And also, when I saw the exoneration news popping up, it was right before the anniversary of Alice Young’s hanging. And I like anything you guys put out, I pushed out and talked about Alice, and I feel like it really was important during the very beginning of the exoneration for the Connecticut witch trials, when that group was forming this [00:21:00] spring, what you guys were doing, about sharing what was happening with Elizabeth with the legislator. That’s like another powerful thing. This is one of those things that it was, a grave oversight, but it’s also something very powerful today.

    Annika Hylmo: Yeah, it’s very much something that’s holding up a mirror to us. And for me, that’s why it’s important to tell this story, because it’s asking us to take a look at a lot of the same questions that were happening back then that are happening again today. Historically, we know that Massachusetts didn’t have a charter at the time. We know that people were coming out of war. There was a lot of war going on at the same time. They just had a smallpox. This was a community that was settling, and so economically, there was a lot of instability and it was a community that had a lot of young people and not so many elder people, older people. So it was like a pyramid if you look at it that way, in terms of the numbers of people. [00:22:00] And again, a very unstable time when people were trying to figure things out. People were trying to build a new community, and people were trying to recover from famine, from misfortune when it came to crops and trying to find a way to create a new society. And in some ways did, and in some ways they failed.

    Annika Hylmo: And if we look at what’s going on around us right now, we’re very much at that precipice again, that we can either do what people have done over and over in time, right? Which is to look around and blame somebody else, and point a finger at somebody else, and continue with this black and white thinking where whatever is wrong in the world is somebody else’s fault, while we watch and we look around and we see war, we see climate change, we see all sorts of destruction going on around us, we see families being torn apart, we see death and [00:23:00] dying and pandemics taking over regardless of what you think may or may not be. We are seeing a lot of lot similar changes as we’re taking place back then.

    Annika Hylmo: And the question for us is really what can we learn from what happened in 1692 so that we don’t push ourselves toward the same kind of apocalypse that happened for them at that time? And so that we can really think about what kind of world do we want to live in and create that world, as opposed to jumping on the bandwagon of the latest rumors and misfortune and catastrophe. So what do we wanna do as individuals and as our society? And I think that’s a big lesson to think about, because otherwise we’re gonna land in the same kind of apocalyptic underworld that they felt like they were in at the time.

    Sarah Jack: Were you surprised at the impact your work is [00:24:00] having, even in the stage, like your research stage and now in a new stage of the film? Has the power of your work been a surprise? Was it your hope to get things rolling in people’s minds now at this point of your project?

    Annika Hylmo: That’s part of the fun, isn’t it? To shake people up a little bit and to get people to think a little bit, and obviously this story is about a story that was already in motion.

    Annika Hylmo: Carrie LaPierre was already working on this based on the work of Richard Hite, who was the one who discovered that Elizabeth was still not exonerated and the wonderful Diana Dizoglio state senator, who pushed this through the Massachusetts Senate. And as you start to look at the story, obviously there’s a reason for why we picked doing this.

    Annika Hylmo: It’s like this, there’s curiosity behind this. This is crazy. There’s this, how could this be? And how could this be that there is somebody that’s still convicted as a witch from [00:25:00] 1692? And that became the impetus. But as you start to pull at it and things happening in real time, then you start to realize how much there is to this story.

    Annika Hylmo: So then it becomes, how can we have fun with this and challenge people to be a part of it? Because that’s, it’s fun to challenge people to be a part of it and to listen to people and hear their stories. It’s a lot of fun to do that. But as we went on, this, the bill, the initial bill went through this Massachusetts State Senate and then it stalled.

    Annika Hylmo: So there are these moments that you come up against where you go, “this is crazy. Why would they not just sign up on this?” So when other people are starting to step up and saying, “yeah, we also think this is crazy, this is nuts,” then you start to feel that community, and when you start having that community that’s doing something good or starting to realize that there’s something good about this, then you [00:26:00] go, “okay, this is fun.”

    Annika Hylmo: And filming the kids, and even seeing the kids in the classroom go from, “yeah, this sucks. We gotta do the school project,” which we expected because they’re eighth graders. If they weren’t like that, then I’d be really worried. But they went from that to go, “yeah, I guess this kind of maybe important.”

    Annika Hylmo: And then you realize that they go, “yeah, we’re doing something that adults aren’t doing. This is cool.” So it shifts along the way, and seeing them and seeing everybody else take on and let it grow, I think has been affirming more than anything else. This is something that matters. It’s, beyond just the surface level of the story, which is great, like teacher kids exonerating, but the impact, seeing all those accounts start to pop up.

    Annika Hylmo: This was especially in July, when we were doing a ton of social media [00:27:00] outreach, and I know you were both part of that and then responding and answering and everything like that. We did a ton of social media outreach in July, and seeing more and more accounts pop up and more and literally around the world and say, “yeah, we too.” So it went from me too to we too when it came to the witches. Was incredible power, incredibly powerful, seeing the story spread, not just here in the US but literally spread around the world, which the original story had as well, when Carrie first started with the project, or when the first articles came out about it that also went around the world, but nothing like this.

    Annika Hylmo: But it’s also, I think, giving us hope that we can come together as a community and do the right thing when it comes to many of the people who were convicted back in the day, but also to move forward and really ask those [00:28:00] profound questions about what does this tell us about who we are, about what we need to do? Because we can’t stop. If we stop here, we will have more tragedy. And that’s what the witch trials, I think, can teach us and tell us.

    Josh Hutchinson: You’ve touched basically on the central premise of why we’re doing this show and our questions that we’re looking to have answered as we do this, which are how do we witch-hunt?

    Josh Hutchinson: Why do we hunt witches? And how can we possibly stop this behavior because it does continue today. So I thank you for getting into so much detail on that. That was wonder.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: And I think, in a way you just want everyone to look at your movie and support it, right? We wanted to be able to make the movie. We loved it. We loved the topic. We were already working on a project prior to it. When Annika had discovered what was going on, I said, “oh my gosh, let’s work on this.”

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: So we absolutely were honored when people started paying [00:29:00] attention and when you, yourself, when both of you started paying attention to our project and then it connected us to other witch trials, that was such an honor. I think that’s how I look at it now. And as Annika said, the community of building everybody and coming together.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: And I think also one more part that I wanted to mention from earlier, your question earlier was just that, and Annika’s mentioned this as well. She, as the director, she points out a lot of these things, and so that’s why I keep referring to her, which is great. I’m so honored to have her be able to be so intelligent about it.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: But the middle school news often nowadays is a school shooting. And how amazing is it that this is not that, that this is success, that this is them standing up for someone’s rights? This is changing history. Even if they were bored and didn’t understand it at times, they did get it at times, and especially, when the senator came to visit them and getting when they were able to do it. And one of the young girls even actually ran into the governor before he even signed off and was like, “you should do this.” So it was pretty amazing, to have them fight for something like this.

    Sarah Jack: [00:30:00] It’s definitely planting very important seeds.

    Annika Hylmo: And that’s how you stop it.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: Josh is saying, “how do you stop some of this?” And it’s I think we do have to start young with this. And inspiring others. Annika’s talked about, that the movie being an inspiration to get you to see how can you help, how can you be part of changing history or the story or what story do we wanna write, because if it happened then, and it’s echoing now and paralleling, then where are we going? Are we going to a second apocalypse? Are we going to have a situation where people are gonna be collected and told they’re witches and hanged? That’s seems so unimaginable, but it must have been very odd then too.

    Annika Hylmo: Stop to think about it a little bit, though, this whole thing about witches and witchcraft, which there’s a whole question of who is a witch and who isn’t a witch. And I think witches are something. We’ve always had witches around us in some way, whatever, because we designate, we put a label on people, and they happen to be the witches of the time. Even the Bible has stories [00:31:00] about witches, and those, the Bible is based on oral traditions. I think it’s something that we’ve always had with us. And it’s something that’s morphed at that community. It’s a community that’s morphed in different ways, and we can go into whole conversation around the connection to theology and spirituality and religion.

    Annika Hylmo: But it is a very interesting phenomenon to look at. Back in the day, in the 1600s, they were superstitious, just like we are superstitious today. So I think that’s one place to start really considering how close are we to this? They were very superstitious. They used an almanac, which is basically astrology, and anybody that’s ever read their astrological horoscope or something like that, that could have been you.

    Annika Hylmo: They would do little rituals, they will do things and they would have sayings just like we have now. There were some stories of people dying very suddenly and nobody understanding why, and so people came up with an explanation. So [00:32:00] there’s a whole range of what that might be. There were, they would sell little booklets about palmistry, about how to read somebody’s hand to tell their fortune, that kind of thing.

    Annika Hylmo: During the pandemic, I saw some statistics about Tarot cards, and apparently the sale of Tarot cards went way up during the pandemic. So I would say that anyone who’s listening to this, who’s got a deck of Tarot cards at home, if we consider that to be your local poppet or your local whatever it might have been back in 1692, this is how close it is. Little things that we say and do, little superstitions that we all have in different ways, like throwing salt over your shoulder for one thing what, whatever it might be, everyone’s got something that we do. That could potentially mark us as a witch. Somebody that’s really intuitive could be marked as a witch.

    Annika Hylmo: It [00:33:00] happens easier than we think, so that’s when it comes to the whole idea of witches, and of course people go into see a psychic, which Salem is these days, very famous for that. It’s become a safe haven for people who are psychics and who are spiritually minded, and it’s wonderful that it is a safe space in many ways, but it’s also telling us how easily this could be potentially be repeated, if we look just at spirituality and women’s spirituality in some way.

    Annika Hylmo: And we take the same thing, and we can look at any other community that’s different in some way, and how easy it is to say that’s you, not me. And then we start to build those walls, and the same challenge comes up. We just had it during this entire pandemic where we had people say, “I believe there’s a pandemic. I believe there’s a virus.” And we had people who said, “no way there is a virus, absolutely not.” People are saying that, “of course I’m gonna get [00:34:00] vaccinated and it’s the right thing to do.” And then people are saying, “no. It’s almost like it’s the devil’s work, right?” It’s closer to us than we think, and we can take that image and place it on so many different social issues, so many different circumstances that are very close to us.

    Annika Hylmo: So the whole idea about witch hunts, it’s here. That’s the thing that, witch hunts are here. Look at politics. Every single time there’s an election, somebody’s gonna say something and be called a witch or being called a witch hunter, or something along those lines. There’s a witch-hunt on this, there’s a witch-hunt on that. It happens consistently, and we’re all a part of it. The question is, what are we gonna do about it? And then I think another question is, are we doomed ? For want of a better word, are we doomed to constantly repeat this? Because if we’ve done this for thousands and thousands of years, is this something that’s just by [00:35:00] nature, a part of humanity?

    Annika Hylmo: And that I don’t know the answer to, and I don’t know that I want to know the answer to it either, to be honest.

    Sarah Jack: We’ve been looking more and more at the modern witch killings that are happening in other parts of the world, and there is a very strong religious superstition tied to it. And so not every community in the world is in the same place as far as the understanding or the tools they have to start changing that next generation. So I just really hope that these powerful words that you’re saying today, the power of your documentary the historical part of the documentary is so important. It’s interesting cuz you brought up the safe, the safeness of Salem today for those that are practicing, and [00:36:00] it’s so how does this all come together without the fear? I just, I want the fear to be. dissipated and yeah, I just really thinking, I’ve just been really thinking.

    Josh Hutchinson: We haven’t in many ways changed very much, but we’re hoping that somehow a way to intervene can be found, and these witch hunting behaviors can be stopped.

    Josh Hutchinson: They have been going on since basically the beginning of humanity in various forms. Labeling the other, the one you want to scapegoat for all your problems. We saw that with World War II. We’ve seen that so many times in our own lifetimes. I wanted to thank you for bringing that up.

    Annika Hylmo: It’s very real. Yeah. I think we all have superstitions and I think it’s it’s a big part of psychology and our [00:37:00] superstitions and our fears. They’re there for a reason as well. They’re there to protect us, so it’s not like we want to get rid of it altogether, but to learn to question it and to learn to take action. Too often do we look at something further away, as opposed to looking at what’s really close at hand and even how we’re talking to each other, how we’re expressing things. I’ve been called a witch. I’ve been called witchy, and there’s probably some truth to that. Do I identify myself as a witch? Not particularly, but depending on what the other person sees in me, then I may well be a witch.

    Annika Hylmo: I think the question though, of how it’s expressed and how we’re talking to each other, how we’re talking about one another, not just when we’re in the room, but also when we’re not in the room with one another. How do we express respect for somebody else? How do we talk about, [00:38:00] again, going back to that person who’s alone, but talk about that person in a respectful way to a point where it feels like, “oh my gosh, that’s somebody that I want to invite into my world,” as opposed to, “poor so and so that are by themselves.” So instead talking about something amazing that they’re doing or great sense of humor or whatever it is that person has.

    Annika Hylmo: It’s often those little things that where it starts. And that’s a personal responsibility that we have, I think each one of us. And probably should find something that really matters to us and stand for that and stand up for it, not be afraid to express an opinion. But would that also take the responsibility of learning about it? So it’s not just because somebody said or because you picked it up on the news or social media or something, but really take the time to discover different sides to it. Be curious about that [00:39:00] issue, and then stand up and speak for it, and find somebody that you’re going to protect when you’re doing it, somebody who might not be as good at speaking about it as you are, but bring them into your fold. So it’s certainly, I think, a lot about personal responsibility in this that needs to come out. What can we do as individuals? How can we talk about questions in ways that we might not feel comfortable talking about?

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: And to speak to that, Dr. Samuel Oliner, who I was very fortunate to get to meet. He taught here locally at the university. He really helped foster and coin the phrase of altruism. And he was a teenage boy and during World War II and had to pretend to be German on a, at a ranch that he stumbled upon after his whole family was killed in a mass grave.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: And he, the woman he found out later had always known he really actually was Jewish and saved him and didn’t turn him in. And so he studied. Instead of studying the negative side, [00:40:00] which we’ve been talking about, that energy of that happening, he studied the opposite, which is the answer, some of the answers, I won’t say it’s the answer, but what Annika was saying of us taking responsibility and caring about someone else. So he studied altruism, and he created a whole facility. He wrote a plethora of books on it. And what he found was that it was a lot of times somebody who, people had more empathy and were more altruistic the more that they were able to see outside their little world.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: So if they traveled, they were the person that was gonna come to a bridge. If they saw a car go over the bridge, they would be the person who would jump into the water to go save someone, versus the spectators who stood and watch. And what made that difference? How do we get more of those people who jump in the water, or who write the letter and say, “no, this is ridiculous? We’re not gonna hang or burn people for playing with Tarot cards, things like that.” And it basically came down to just be more worldly and be more experienced so that you would have more empathy and realize there’s people that do things different [00:41:00] than you. And that’s okay.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: They can still exist and we can still coexist and not have to feel so threatened and blame them for the things that we are confused about or don’t understand. But how do you teach that to everybody? And some people don’t have that, they’re not in the space, the mindset, I think, as Annika said, psychology, they’re going through a tough time.

    Annika Hylmo: It brings to mind somebody that I met when I was working on my PhD. And my PhD is in communication, which is basically storytelling. That’s the simplest way of explaining it to everybody. But I met a researcher back then, his name was George Gerbner, and he studied the impact of mass media, and people who are always watching a lot of news, taking in a lot of the bad news, often feel like it’s a very dangerous world of life, bad living in, and as a result, refusing to interact with other people, refusing to make contact with other people and thinking that the world is a lot worse than it actually is.

    Annika Hylmo: And [00:42:00] it strikes me that we had another event, just 2020, and that was the Black Lives Matter movement, which came up very suddenly and not suddenly. It was interesting to talk to people who are very different. I’m very pale skinned in comparison to the vast majority of this world. I have blue eyes, I’ve got brown hair, and I found that I had such rich conversations with people who didn’t look like me and with people who looked like me, and I learned so much about myself and about the world through those conversations. That’s something that’s open to anyone to have those conversations, to do that outreach.

    Annika Hylmo: And that’s also where a lot of this is going to start. It’s dared to have a conversation who isn’t like you, who doesn’t have the same belief system as you, who might be [00:43:00] different, whether it’s economically, it’s spiritually, it’s sexually, it’s ethnically, whatever it might be. Those conversations are so powerful because they teach you something about you at the same time as it opens up to the rest of the world.

    Annika Hylmo: So I think, just like what Cassandra was saying, it’s that really that connecting and seeing how you can connect with other people. There’s a lot of psychology in this and a lot of opportunity for us to step across those boundaries, to step outside of that fear zone a little bit and go, “hey, this is fun. I like hanging out with you. Let’s do this.”

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah, that’s such an excellent point about connecting with people who could alternatively be seen as the other and avoided. One thing, one big step towards getting rid of this witch hunting behavior is exactly that, embracing [00:44:00] people with different beliefs, different appearances, different backgrounds and connecting. But it’s still the problem of how do we get everyone to embrace that?

    Annika Hylmo: I think that we need to open up to curiosity a lot more in this world compared to where we might have been. And I actually think that’s a lesson, too, that we have to learn from the 1600s, because their experience was very different with the world compared to ours. Theirs was one of all the senses, and we are not using all of our senses anymore. And with that, we’ve lost some curiosity. And I think this is actually a really important point that we need to not just go, “oh, we don’t wanna be at all like the 1600s” But there are some ways, at least for me, that I wanna be more like the 1600s and that use of all the senses, to me it’s really tied to curiosity.

    Annika Hylmo: It’s like it’s stepping outside, being outdoors a little bit and just check in with your senses. Being curious about [00:45:00] that. What does it feel like? Is it warm? Is it cold? Is it windy? What am I tasting? And sometimes if you’re lucky enough that you come across something that you could get a bite of along the way, or that experience that you’re touching something touch is so incredible. I love walking up and down the street, and sometimes I’ll just grab a bit of rosemary, and I’ll smell it, and I’ll touch it, and it feels a little bit oily, and it smells really good, and it just pops me, wakes me up a little bit.

    Annika Hylmo: That sense of curiosity with the natural world is something that people had back in the 1600s, because that was part of their life. They didn’t have streetlights the way that we do, and so they had to be curious about the shadows at night. They had to be curious about how to grow their crops, about all of those things.

    Annika Hylmo: And I think that kind of curiosity at a very basic level is something that we’ve lost. But it’s a step toward connecting, [00:46:00] cuz that lets us connect with ourself and then connecting with other people as well. That, and that’s something that we all have. That’s something that people, you’re never gonna be able to take that away from us, but as long as all we do is look at a screen all day long, then we’ll forget how to do that.

     I think that there is that connecting, like what she said. And then there’s also not labeling too, so there’s a thing that we should be doing and something maybe we need to also stop doing. I had to take a whole class as part of my degree on labels and what it does to a society when we label.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: Besides being, through my mother’s side being related to the witch trials, I’m also half Mexican through my biological father’s side, but a lot of people look at me and think, You’re not Mexican. Where’s your accent?

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: I’ve actually been told, “where’s your accent? Were you born in Mexico?” And I giggle, and I’m like, “no, I read white, I appear white, but I am Mexican too.” And stop having these labels and then be curious, as Annika said. Be able to wonder what’s going on and inquire. And those same exact [00:47:00] elements that she was talking about with nature. We could do with people too. Find out more about them. Find out what makes them, instead of labeling them as this thing, and then that thing becomes bad.

    Annika Hylmo: The labeling thing is actually a really good thing to look at, and it’s an opportunity to look at a little bit for each one of us as individuals, because there’s a whole movement now that lets people self identify and self label, right? So do you want, what pronouns do you wanna use? And how you react to that has a lot to do with, or tells you a lot about how comfortable you are in a world that isn’t so clear, so specific.

    Annika Hylmo: Again, this is what happened in 1692, that things were not clear, crystal clear to people, something as small or big, depending on your worldview and how, what your comfort level is as having people label themselves, self-identify, and/or asking you what your pronouns are and/or getting [00:48:00] comfortable using those pronouns when you’re not comfortable, you’ve never done it before. It’s something completely new to you in a small way.

    Annika Hylmo: That encapsulates what people were dealing with back in 1692, because there was so much ambiguity around them. And taking that opportunity to really think about that and then to act on it to say, “maybe I am gonna be making it a little bit more effort to step up and use the pronouns that someone else wants me to use and embrace.” That’s a really small, large step that everybody can take. And that’s the kind of thing that I think we need to look for. It’s what are the small things that we can do as individuals and hold ourselves personally accountable for.

    Sarah Jack: And when everybody goes out and does these very important things that Annika and Cassandra are [00:49:00] recommending, talk about that experience. I think that once you’ve had a new experience, be brave enough to talk about it with other people.

    Annika Hylmo: And if you feel like you wanna go to church, if you wanna go to synagogue, you wanna go to mosque, please do. If you wanna be out in nature, if that’s where you find your spirituality, please do. If you find that doing something creative, artistic is your spirituality, please do. Whatever it is, talk to animals, go for a long walk, sit on the beach, yoga. Whatever it is, take the time to experience spirituality every day. That will help us a lot too.

    Josh Hutchinson: I personally, I just wanna say I love talking to animals. I find that to be very therapeutic, if nothing else, engaging with them and I love engaging with nature in general. So I’m glad you brought that up and the curiosity with our senses that we need to engage all five again. That’s a good [00:50:00] point.

    Josh Hutchinson: I think what you’re doing with the film and what you’ve done with the conversation so far today is just so important in so many ways. How can people support the documentary?

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: There’s a couple different ways they can. As Annika said, definitely, reach out to us, tell us their stories. It helps educate us, helps us know more of what’s going on. We can’t be everywhere at all times. We weren’t fully aware of everything that was going on in Connecticut until you reached out to us, so helpful. That is so helpful. So that’s one way. Following us on all the social medias. If people do that, obviously we hope that everyone uses it for the right reasons, but following where the project is, commenting participating. Facebook, Instagram, we do a little Twitter. And then we have a website. People can, stop and check out and see where we are with the project.

    Cassandra Roberts Hesseltine: And then, if inclined, we always understand this is the awkward part, but we are self-funding as of right now and the contributions and we’re working on our funding for the bigger project. So [00:51:00] that’s obviously a big way would be help us get it made, help us get the word out by helping contribute to actually the process of making the film.

    Annika Hylmo: And I would add to that, that if there are nonprofits out there that would be interested in learning more about this project and to see where there is a cause, where there might be an overlay, reach out to us because this is a community effort and there may well be a way that we could partner on this.

    Josh Hutchinson: Great. And we’ll have links in the show notes to your website and to your contact form on there, as well.

    Annika Hylmo: Thank you, and a huge shout out to these kids in Massachusetts. They are incredible, amazing. Were it not for these middle school kids, two years worth of middle schoolers from North Andover Middle School.

    Annika Hylmo: If it weren’t for them and the work that they did together with our teacher, Carrie LaPierre, we would not be sitting here today. We would not be making the documentary, and we wouldn’t be having [00:52:00] this conversation. So guys, thank you to North and over Middle School, cuz you guys are amazing.

    Josh Hutchinson: This has been such a great conversation. In many ways don’t want it to end. I thank you both for your powerful insights into humanity and the things that we can be working on to improve ourselves. Thank you for that.

    Sarah Jack: Welcome to this episode’s Witchcraft Fear Victim Advocacy Report, sponsored by End Witch Hunts News. You have been hearing Witch Hunt Happenings in Your World from me. Who has heard about these crimes from you? Have you looked up any news? Have you checked out the Africa advocacy links in our episode show notes? Who did you say you have mentioned it to?

    Sarah Jack: This week I attended the Colorado Podcaster’s Meetup events sponsored by Podfest Expo and others at the Great Divide Brewery in Denver. I enjoyed meeting other creative conversors out here in the West who run various podcasts of their own. Check Thou Shalt [00:53:00] Not Suffer’s podcast social media to see all of us.

    Sarah Jack: I had the chance to tell these podcasters that witch hunts are a very relevant conversation. I talked about the Connecticut Witch Trial Exoneration Project, and that Alice Young, the first accused Witch, executed in the American colonies, died in Hartford 375 years ago and is still waiting for her good name to be restored.

    Sarah Jack: She was not using witchcraft to harm others. Neither were the dozens of others accused in the Connecticut colony. If she and the other 10 hanged for witchcraft are exonerated by the state of Connecticut, it will be because we advocated for them. Also, those who have been cleared and memorialized by Massachusetts were not harming others with witchcraft. This week, our episode was about Elizabeth Johnson, Jr. of Andover, Massachusetts, and how she was finally advocated for after she remained overlooked in previous Salem Witch Trial exoneration efforts. Each of these exoneration efforts happened because of advocacy from humans like you. It didn’t just occur for [00:54:00] Elizabeth because she was actually not a harmful Witch, but it happened because a mighty, collaborative effort from the community spanning young and old came together to make it happen. Likewise, efforts to stop the witch attacks in Asia and Africa must come from other people, people who can use their voice to talk about it and to stand against it.

    Sarah Jack: This month, a woman lost her life due to superstition fears in the Gaia District of Bihar in the Jarkhand state of India. She was burned alive at her home after neighbors accused her of being a witch. She was 45. You can find a news link in our episode notes.

    Sarah Jack: Pre-pandemic, Global Journalist reported this, “for many, witch trials may seem like a relic of early colonial America. But in fact witch-hunting is still a feature of rural life today around the world. One place where it’s prevalent is India. On average, an Indian woman is killed every other day after being accused of witchcraft, according to government [00:55:00] statistics. Many are tortured or publicly humiliated before being burned, stabbed or beaten to death.”

    Sarah Jack: I will be researching and reporting more in India. While we watch and wait, let’s support the victims in India and across the world where innocent people are being targeted by superstitious fear. Support them by acknowledging and sharing their stories. Please use all your communication channels to be an intervener and stand with them.

    Sarah Jack: The world must stop hunting witches. Please follow our End Witch Hunts movement on Twitter @_endwitchhunts. And visit our website, endwitchhunts.org.

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you, Sarah, for that moving and powerful update.

    Sarah Jack: You’re welcome.

    Josh Hutchinson: And thank you for listening to Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast.

    Sarah Jack: Join us next week for our guest, Greg Houle, an author writing a book about the Salem Putnams.

    Josh Hutchinson: Subscribe or follow wherever you get your podcasts.

    Sarah Jack: Visit thoushaltnotsuffer.com [00:56:00] often.

    Josh Hutchinson: And join our Discord for discussion of our episodes. Link in the show notes.

    Sarah Jack: Follow us on social media, links in description.

    Josh Hutchinson: And remember to tell your friends and family and coworkers, and shout it from a mountaintop, about Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast.

    Sarah Jack: So long for now.

    Josh Hutchinson: Have a great today and a beautiful tomorrow.

  • Episode 6 Transcript: Witch-Hunts in Great Yarmouth and Salem with Dr. Danny Buck

    Josh Hutchinson: [00:00:00] “Thou shall not suffer a which to live.” Exodus 22:18. Welcome to another episode of Thou Shalt Not Suffer, the Witch Trial Podcast. I’m Josh Hutchinson.

    Sarah Jack: And I’m Sarah Jack.

    Josh Hutchinson: Today’s guest is Dr. Danny Buck. We’ll be discussing a witch-hunt in Great Yarmouth, England and comparing that to the Salem Witch-hunt.

    Sarah Jack: I am so excited to look at these comparisons with him.

    Sarah Jack: Knowing that some of the ancestors and parents of the accused witches in Salem came from Great Yarmouth really intrigues me, [00:01:00] and I’m looking forward to finding out about its history and who was doing what over there in the mid 17th century.

    Josh Hutchinson: We both have familial connections to Great Yarmouth, you through Rebecca Nurse and both of us through Mary Esty. The Towne sisters were born in Great Yarmouth.

    Sarah Jack: Their parents were married there and able to start their family. Rebecca and Mary and Sarah’s father was a gardener or a small farmer there.

    Sarah Jack: Because of Dr. Danny Buck’s area of expertise, we’re getting a chance to look back at the area that Rebecca Nurse’s parents started their life and their family, and that really is exciting to me.

    Sarah Jack: There’s an inscription on a tombstone in the cemetery at St. Nicholas Church in Great Yarmouth, England, and this is the church where Rebecca [00:02:00] Towne would’ve been baptized.

    Sarah Jack: This life’s a voyage. The world’s a sea where men are strangely tossed about. Heaven’s our port. Steer thou that way. Thou shall anchor safe, no doubt.

    Sarah Jack: Not only is Great Yarmouth interesting because we can understand the background of William and Joanna Towne, but because of what was happening there with the Civil War and the politics and the religious strife, it gives us an insight into the people of the Salem Witch Trial history.

    Sarah Jack: Having a chance to talk with Dr. Buck about Yarmouth’s history and what created the environment for the witch trials is a great lens for us as we look again at the Salem Witch Trials. You come to the realization of how important looking at them [00:03:00] together is, once you learn more about both. It’s not something that you have to look for common threads. They are related, and that’s because of the people and the types of circumstances .

    Josh Hutchinson: Today’s episode will provide valuable insight into not only the witch-hunt in Great Yarmouth but into the witch-hunt later in Salem. These were the same people we’re talking about, the same families coming from Great Yarmouth to New England had the same mentality, the same background, the same upbringing, and the same beliefs about witchcraft.

    Josh Hutchinson: Especially important in our discussion are the Towne family. You all know Rebecca Nurse and probably her sister Mary Esty, and maybe their sister, Sarah Cloyce, were all [00:04:00] arrested during the Salem Witch-hunt. Rebecca and Mary were born in Great Yarmouth before their family migrated to Salem, where Sarah was born.

    Josh Hutchinson: Ultimately, sadly, Rebecca Nurse and Mary Esty were executed, but Sarah Cloyce was fortunate to survive, though she was jailed under harsh conditions for a long period. We’ll discuss them more when we get to our conversation with Danny Buck.

    Sarah Jack: Dr. Danny Buck is a research historian who has identified the relationship of the Great Yarmouth Witch Trials with the religious tensions between Presbyterians and Church of England conformists in the 1620s and 30s. Also the challenge of Congregationalism, particularly in the 1640s.

     What are the preconditions for the Great Yarmouth Witch Hunts? What was the background of the community?

    Danny Buck: That is a very interesting question cause I, the good thing about getting to write a [00:05:00] PhD on topic is you can really go into detail. And I basically went back to 1625 to argue that some of the preconditions go back to just the existence of King Charles I and his reforms to the church and the tensions that caused between Puritans and particularly Presbyterian Puritans who want to create one unified Puritan church and the Anglicans who at this time are being well, not even properly Anglicans at this time, conformists to the church of England who want to see a church of England that’s very pretty, that’s very ceremonial, and these tensions and the desire for purity, unity that come out of that seem to me, the heart of what the witch hunt represents. The things that start in 1625, so that’s 20 years before the witch hunt proper, create the tensions necessary within the community.

    Danny Buck: I feel, and I think it’s something we see throughout all the witch [00:06:00] hunts, I think we’ve, you’ve probably looked at and I’ve looked at certainly is the sense of a community divides and fearful of something. And in the first place, I think the idea of Presbyterianism, of a Puritanism that calls for a godly unified society, really struggles with the concept and reality of division. Before the English Civil War, this division can be maintained, because it could be used as a way of rallying against that Church of England as represented by Laudianism, by this beauty and holiness and particular in Great Yarmouth the hate figure of the local minister, Matthew Brooks, is something they could all rally against. They definitely agreed they are against him. I’ve got a fantastic record from Matthew Brooks saying about how much he’s hated, and you’ll see how they all work together.

    Danny Buck: They abuse him, they abuse his assistant, they abuse his children. It’s something they can work against. [00:07:00] So that’s our first step. We’ve got this division within the community, but I don’t think at that point, it’s necessarily inevitable. With the outbreak of what we refer to the English Civil War, we start getting a breakdown in society comparable to other breakdowns I think you must see in North America, just before Salem, whereby government from London is getting truncated. There’s a war on. Power is devolved down to the local area in terms of military government called the Eastern Association.

    Danny Buck: That means that instead of judges coming up from London, we’re reliant on military figures. So this creates more power to localities, towns like Great Yarmouth. They have to sort things out themselves. Also there’s a disjunction in government about deciding what religion is going to look like. There’s this great calling together of ministers called the Westminister Assembly of Divines. And they spend years debating, arguing, and they agree they ought to have a Presbyterian [00:08:00] settlement, but there’s enough people who think that’s not a great idea for there to be tension. So this national tension over religion is then played out in Great Yarmouth in a very personal way.

    Danny Buck: Firstly, one of the members of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, a man called William Bridge is what the leading proponents of what’s called independency, a belief there’s one big, national Puritan Church, you have a series of separate congregations. He is invited to Great Yarmouth by the MP and later regicide Miles Corbet. He settles there, and from 1643, we see the development of his own separate church. I find this particularly fascinating in how it plays into sort of the tensions that lay behind witch hunting, because it’s both a separation, a division within the community again, one where the Puritans are beginning to fall out amongst themselves. But in particular it’s growth as a separate church peaks in 1645, the same time as the witch-hunt. Is also quite [00:09:00] remarkable in this involves a large number of women joining that community. So we see on an average two to one of the local converts are women, often without their husbands.

    Danny Buck: And it’s followed up by the returning Puritan Presbyterian minister, a man by the name John Brinsley, providing a fantastic sermon called A Looking Glass for Good Women. The expectations of how these women should be behaving, which is basically continue to be Puritan. Again, it does include an exclusion saying this doesn’t include our congregationalists, our independent friends, but I can’t help but feel there’s gotta be some tension there, but he’s losing members of his the unification of the Puritan community.

    Danny Buck: So this tension, the desire to return to a unified puritan community certainly feeds into a precondition for the members of the elite, the people in the town to support witch hunting. But a more vivid religious threat comes from a group of anabaptists, so these are people [00:10:00] who really are radical for the 17th century.

    Danny Buck: I think that we’ve got a wonderful record of this, where John Brinsley, the puritan minister, writes this long letter to Thomas Edwards, the heresiographer, the man who just collects every awful religious view out there. And at one point, he describes it as the worst heresy since time began or since Christian history, when a John Boggis this former member of the army who’s come into the towns, part of garrison, he rolls up and he, first of all, he over grace, he says, “who are we offering thanks to? Not to God.” Another time he describes the Bible as but paper, and probably the most awful thing is he bursts into the puritan minister’s dinner and decides he’s gonna declare they’re gonna debate. So this real separate, private churches, separate communities, creating a real sense of fear and tension that makes this fear of people within your community.[00:11:00]

    Danny Buck: Again, attempts to remove John Boggis come as 1645, just after the witch-hunt. It feels like a wider process of religious regeneration and attempt to make the community feel more cohesive. But again, this is still feeding off real fears and tensions. We’ve got people whose children have been languishing for the last year and a half being unwell.

    Danny Buck: We have a problem of real economic turmoil caused by the civil wars that feed into this, but I can’t help but feel the religious element is striking in how it defines what’s possible and how people understand their conflict within their community.

    Josh Hutchinson: And what were the key differences between the different religious groups?

    Danny Buck: The conformist members of the Church of England, they believe in the book of common prayer. They see themselves as Protestant, but their neighbors believe they’re becoming more Catholic. They’ve [00:12:00] brought back in a lot of Catholic traditions.

    Danny Buck: So we’ve got things like the rood screen that separates the priest doing the actual communion, looking more like the mass is in secret. The minister who comes in, Matthew Brooks, he puts back in stained glass windows. He removes this special seating for the local Puritans, so they could watch over him. The sense of bringing back power and authority to the minister, as opposed to the role of these local Puritans.

    Danny Buck: Now for the Presbyterians, the people like John Brinsley, they want a much more reformed church. They want it to be plain. They have much more focus on giving sermons. There’s again the idea of sermon gadding. When John Brinsley is removed as minister, during the 1620s and the 1630s, his Puritan supporters in the town, they like his preaching so much they’re willing to travel five miles down the road, where he’s preaching in Lound, to go and hear him, so very much focused on the word. But again, that’s [00:13:00] still that sense of community. They seek a moral regeneration of the town. So we see them putting in reforms into local government, and it’s the ministers, their political supporters. They build new hospitals and workhouses, they build spaces to help people. They see that as part of their mission, but they also require people to follow the rules. They need to be married. They try and cut down on unlicensed ale houses. They have soldiers. So very much that focus on social regulation.

    Danny Buck: The independents are the people around William Bridge. In some ways they’re quite similar that they believe in lots of these ideas of social regulation, but they don’t want to force people to be part of the Presbyterian church. Instead, they’re defined by the willingness to break.

    Danny Buck: During the 1630s, when John Brinsley, he just goes down the road. These people feel that they’re not safe in England. England has become so corrupt, they want to go. So these are some of the people who are the basis of the Mayflower communities and the people who [00:14:00] go. So first of all, they go to the Netherlands, which obviously just across the road, a lot more religious toleration, but obviously some of them feel their parents are becoming a bit too Dutch, obviously want to then move on to the new world. But then some of them do stay in the Netherlands, they stay in touch, and they’re willing to do quite brave things to spread the word of God.

    Danny Buck: There’s a couple of them. A man called William Burroughs, who was based in the Netherlands, who comes back to Great Yarmouth in 1635 to smuggle books while disguised as a veteran of the Dutch wars. And then the local MP hides him in his house. So still, there’s a belief. There’s still a connection, but what they want is to form separate covenant with God, form an elect group of people who are willing to worship in their own way, a much flatter structure, no bishops, no great meetings instead a lot more on their own conscience.

    Danny Buck: Finally, we have religious radicals, people who want to meet God in their own way and often form private communities, so far beyond the [00:15:00] control of the government. In the 1630s, there’s a talk, what’s called a barn conventicle, where people are sneaking out to this hidden barn in the middle of the countryside. And they’ve got a glassmaker from London and a local alderman come up, and they just talk about things, discuss religion.

    Danny Buck: We’ve got the anabaptists we’ve mentioned who seem to have no respect for the structures of the church or the expectations of Bible. Again, some of them obviously still exist in the 1630s, but in the 1640s with the collapse of the Church of England, with the hope for religious reformation, and with the army of the Eastern Association becoming a home for people whose views are unexpected, definitely not acceptable normally, we see a lot of these emerging and using the army as a means to maintain themselves in safety.

     I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts, as we go because religious radicalism, I think it’s a really interesting part of the story of New England [00:16:00] and the colonies there. So again, I believe there’s a famous Hutchinson involved in that story. How does this begin to tie into the fears and tension over the demonic presence in New England?

    Josh Hutchinson: In New England, most of them were these independents that wanted particular churches, congregations, independent of each other. They did have ministerial councils that would meet, but otherwise they had no structure with bishops or archbishops. So initially the first generation, they’re all very much committed to this idea.

    Josh Hutchinson: As you get into the second and third generation, a lot of the ministers are fearing that the people are backsliding and they’re becoming less Puritan, that they’re less committed to the vision of the new world as the new Jerusalem, which Salem got its name from.

    Josh Hutchinson: They’re supposed to be this very pure, covenant community, everyone in [00:17:00] covenant with some congregation, some church somewhere, but the churches largely operating independently of one another. As you get down the line, the requirements for membership start to change in some of the churches. You have what’s called the halfway covenant, where children of members are allowed to become members without going through a conversion narrative, which was the requirement for their parents to get in, and they’re allowed to baptize their children. And then for those baptized children to become members without making this public, very public declaration of their faith and how they were converted. So there’s division, maybe half the churches adopt this rule and half of them say, “no, we’re going to stay pure.”

    Josh Hutchinson: So you have in Salem Town, they’re on board with this halfway covenant. Where in the village, the [00:18:00] dominant faction, at least, the minister in 1692 is very opposed to the notion. He wants very strict requirements for membership, a very strict puritanical faith to be followed.

    Josh Hutchinson: And when you get that division within Salem Village, between the supporters of the ministers, Samuel Parris, and his opponents, and that village had a 20 year history at that point of arguing over ministers. So it was a tradition in the community at that point to have this very heated conflict, one minister versus another or one minister versus we want to see who else is out there situation. So I think that is quite similar to what you described in Great Yarmouth, and I wonder was that kind of dynamic occurring in the rest of England as well?

     There’s definitely a tension in, particularly, the [00:19:00] east coast towns that are particularly godly. And also some extent in London. Historically, they’ve had a process. A lot of these have been purchased by godly merchants, who’ve been able to therefore establish the ministers they wanted and the new reforms under Charles I, but trying to sweep those away, which creates that tension where you still have some places that are able to keep hold of their puritan ministers, other places remove them. You bring them in, and that creates a real source of this conflict we’re seeing religiously. Definitely places like Colchester down the way, Ipswich, all these connected. Again, it’s no coincidence these are often the places where you see their names being repeated New England. People are leaving there, following ministers to set up these new communities.

    Josh Hutchinson: Right. You had mentioned a Burroughs and one of the famous characters in the Salem Witch Trials was a Burroughs, minister who was accused of having [00:20:00] Baptist tendencies. He hadn’t baptized most of his children, and that was part of the reason why he got caught up in the conflict.

    Danny Buck: By 1690s, how settled is the Salem community? You’ve had you say two or three generations there, are they feeling something unique and new? Obviously we have the idea of the American identity is something that comes more the revolution, but is there a distinct sense that this colonial community having its own sense of itself, by this point?

    Sarah Jack: I feel like they were still tug having tug of war over what that identity was gonna be.

    Josh Hutchinson: Well, there was a sense in Massachusetts Bay Colony, especially involving the style of government, they very much wanted to be self govern. They really valued the original charter they had from the king. In 1684, King Charles II revoked their charter, and they didn’t have one again until [00:21:00] 1692. After the witch trials had begun, the new governor showed up with the new charter, and they were rather upset in the colony about that charter. They felt that they had lost some of their liberties as a unique government. They were forced to tolerate other religions. That was one of their big things. They didn’t want to tolerate the Quakers and the Anglicans and the Baptist.s Now, they had to accommodate Anglican services in their meeting houses in some places until Anglican meeting houses were built, which I believe you said in your thesis that in great Yarmouth, at the end, they split up the church into three parts. So that’s something of a situation like that by 1692.

     Yes. I think that is itself really interesting. So ultimately I see a lot [00:22:00] of the tension of the moment of the witch hunt is about the struggle for unity versus toleration.

    Danny Buck: It’s the point where it seems like unity is breaking down. And again, politics at this point is all focused on unity. So your charters, your corporations, again, these separate townships, politics is the idea that you work, you should work as one corporate body, like the frontest piece of Hobbs’ Leviathon. The corporation is one legal man who is made up of many men. So the reality has always been that people always fall out and have factions, but the ideal should be, they all work as one body. The right hand, shouldn’t be fighting the left hand. And the civil wars is a period when that fails because people are in conflict with each other, attempts to purge and remove people who disagree.

    Danny Buck: I don’t think Great Yarmouth ever gets quite the job of purging during the point just before the [00:23:00] witch-hunt. It happens, certainly happens afterwards. And that in itself is quite interesting, but the attempt to push unity to again, when I go back to talk about these religious communities, there’s a letter from the Great Yarmouth corporation to members of the independent congregation to tell them to stop.

    Danny Buck: We’ve had enough, we should only have one church, everyone together. So in this case, there’s that push for unity over toleration. And then it’s when it collapses, afterwards is when people then push for the opposite. So instead of having, we’re forcing everyone to be together, we find ways to work together. In Great Yarmouth, that takes another four years and a failed coup before they get round to that point where they can accept that and then accept division of their church.

    Danny Buck: What a symbol of that, isn’t it? The one Great Yarmouth only has one church, one minister. They all come together still, Anglicans in the north aisle, Presbyterians in the south aisle, and the chancel, [00:24:00] you got the Independents. It’s quite surreal for a community where, you know, up until eight years before, no, even maybe four years before people had by law to attend the one church, listen to the one choice of ministers.

    Danny Buck: But again, why this period is so earth shaking in terms of English history and probably, comparable to the shock of the reformation of your church broken up, to see it collapse and having to fend for yourself to some extent. So I can imagine a period where the godly have worked so long to build their communities in New England.

    Danny Buck: You see that again, people working so long to build something. What happens when you can’t sustain it? When that dream has turned to ashes in your mouth? Something about the failure of the witch hunt is that it, it comes as a way to protect that, preserve that, but it never works. It’s not, it’s desperate.

    Danny Buck: It’s a sense of the devil working amongst you attempt to pull, to purge the body politic of some, [00:25:00] a poison that’s has created a toxic heresy, symbolic of the very worst heresy going on amongst your community, but it can’t do that. It can’t bring back together what’s broken, what’s come untied in society.

    Danny Buck: You have to find ways to retie yourselves back together. And the next little decade of history in Great Yarmouth remains so unsettled.

     And you have that sense of a diabolical conspiracy in New England. Very much. They basically thought that everybody was out to get them. Even to some extent, the English government being out to ruin their plans for covenant community Puritan church. And they’re surrounded. They’re in a wilderness basically, as they see it. They believe that the original inhabitants of that wilderness worship the devil They have warfare with the French constantly.

    Josh Hutchinson: They’re afraid of a papist conspiracy [00:26:00] of the Catholics coming against them, working in league with Satan and with his other worshipers already there. So they’re very much besieged in their eyes at that time of the witch trials.

    Danny Buck: I think that’s a really nice comparison, the sense of the siege mentality. So obviously in England at this time, there’s the greater siege mentality of being at war with the king and that war taking on very much that cataclysmic, end of days feel. I imagine it must be similar during King Philip’s War, the sense that all these townships that were thriving are now forced on their uppers.

    Danny Buck: In Great Yarmouth, there’s part of a wider trade collapse, as it’s reliant on merchants, is of starving strangling. This is the evidence of an increased population of people fleeing the countryside. On top of that, they are bouts of pestilence mentioned and in particular for Great Yarmouth, the great stranglehold, the besieging [00:27:00] comes from without, from the sea, where as you may have read there’s highly reliant on the herring fleet. Herring, delicious fish, part of the North Sea, but to catch it, you often have to go all the way up to Iceland, right up the North Sea, which is fine in peacetime, but in wartime, Great Yarmouth managed to make an enemy of its nearby neighbor the town of Lowestoft, and there’s one man called Thomas Allen, whose ship was in Great Yarmouth.

    Danny Buck: They took it because he was involved in a royalist plot. He flees and he raises that piratical group of privateers in the king’s service and almost wipes out the herring fleet. So this is what’s reliant on the day-to-day living of most ordinary people in the town. That’s the kind of thing where if you think of the model witch carter’s charity refused as Keith Thomas argues, you can see why people Great Yarmouth would be starving.

    Danny Buck: The herring, in some ways it’s the living because people go and fish it, sell it. There’s supplies from that. You have the industries linked to [00:28:00] that, so barrelmaking, ropemaking, protecting the keys. But on top of that, a certain amount of the catch was used as the funding for charitable exercises, so it’s like a special tax on it levied by the corporation.

    Danny Buck: So you imagine that also collapses at the same time when everything else is going so economically wrong. On top of that, you have some really harsh winters, 1644, 1645, 1646. There isn’t enough money for coal. There’s no coal to be found at times. So people are starving, hungry, and then we have people coming, asking for charity, for support. As part of this, people get rejected for that. Things start going wrong.

    Danny Buck: We see why some witchcraft accusations emerge, but they are seen as part of this great war against the great enemy. Certainly it’s something very catastrophic about being civil war on top of that, you’ve had soldiers garrisoned in Great Yarmouth, because it’s seen as a possible invasion [00:29:00] coast. The very top of Norfolk, called King’s Lynn, is seen as a possible entry point for the armies of the king. That is briefly held by a group of rebels, royalists supporting backed rebels for a couple of months, the summer of 1643. We know the supporters of the king on the continent. The queen Henrietta Maria is trying to raise money and mercenaries. And one of those ships is blown into Great Yarmouth, becomes part of their little own protection fleet, but also there’s the, this Great Yarmouth that’s just the south.

    Danny Buck: Is this very flat area called Lovingland or Lovingland. I think today it’s Lovingland then it was Lovingland. Contrast, but it’s seems this perfect area to landing is where Lowestoft is, where they have this royalist uprising. So despite seeming in the middle, what’s the most secure part of parliamentary territory in the East Association, good Puritan towns, raising large bits of armies, the Homeland of Oliver Cromwell and his Ironside.

    Danny Buck: It still seems fundamentally vulnerable. [00:30:00] I imagine, how far is Salem from the fighting in the 1680s?

    Josh Hutchinson: It’s not terribly far. There’s a town called Andover. That’s just miles away. There’s one town in between Salem and Andover, and then beyond Andover there’s another town called Haverhill. Haverhill and Andover ultimately get attacked during King William’s War in the 1690s.

    Josh Hutchinson: So they’re very much out near the frontier, exposed. The enemy comes through there, they’re in Salem essentially. So their outpost on the frontier, and you see a lot of accusations, especially in Andover actually has more witchcraft accusations than Salem.

    Danny Buck: I think there has to be something to that. The way people rationalize this war against a papist enemy, against an enemy who’s not just, the enemy of [00:31:00] Parliament’s the enemy of God. The fact that Henrietta a cat Catholic is sending over mercenaries. The fact that there allegations that some of the witches in Norfolk are sending their familiars off to help prince Rupert.

    Danny Buck: That is part of this papist, demonic conspiracy. Despite being, the second line of this conflict, and being uncomfortably close to billeted soldiers who are being radicalized with this conflict, sense of real tension there.

    Josh Hutchinson: There was definitely tension. There was another coastal town called Gloucester just up the coast from Salem.

    Josh Hutchinson: And they had sightings, allegedly, were probably not real, but they spotted allegedly French and native American soldiers in Gloucester in 1692 while the witch hunt is happening. So there’s a sense of panic there. One of the accused of witchcraft was [00:32:00] from wanna say Billerica, which is near Andover, and she stated specifically that, when she ultimately confesses to witchcraft, one of her reasons is that she was afraid of the Native Americans and the Devil promised that he would protect her.

    Danny Buck: That’s fascinating.

    Danny Buck: I also find this devil’s promise is fascinating as a whole. First of all, the Devil is the tempter, but also somehow often a failed figure. So the sense of the one case I’ve got a really good record of, the confession. There’s a woman called Elizabeth Bradwell. She’s old. She hasn’t got any family. I think the records aren’t sure if she’s a spinster or widow. She’s someone who seems to be very lonely. She’s reliant on charity from the local ministers. She’s asking for work or for charity, but she’s refused. So she goes home. She goes, first of all, to the man of business, he says, no, the master’s not here. I can’t give you [00:33:00] anything. She goes to the maid. The maid says the same thing. She goes home, she’s angry, she’s discontented. And this tall, black man appears in front of her and promises her revenge and no more need of money. It doesn’t say how much money he gets her, but it’s enough. And she must sign his book in her own blood. That it’s revenge and a little money. There’s not very much in some ways to damn yourself with.

    Josh Hutchinson: There were some cases in Salem where it was a pair of shoes or a fashion book was all they were gonna get. Versus other cases where. One girl claimed that he offered her all the kingdoms that she saw from atop a great mountain that he took her to.

    Josh Hutchinson: So you have this whole range from basically a pitance to everything.

    Danny Buck: He’s also interesting figure, particularly in that confession I talked of. He does seem almost like a minister himself. He’s got his [00:34:00] little book, he requires her to sign in, he’s got his fancy pen dressed in black, quite an imposing figure. And again, we certainly, by the 1650s, their description of the Devil was the Great Quaker in England.

    Danny Buck: What kind of shape does he take in Salem?

    Josh Hutchinson: He’s described often as the black man. Sometimes he’s described as being tawny like a Native American. Other times he gets those ministerial features. He’s dressed in black. Sometimes he’s tall, sometimes he’s short, changes a lot. But sometimes he very much resembles that minister George Burroughs that we spoke of. He’s a little, dark-haired man dressed in black, carrying a book, getting people to sign a covenant with him like they would entering the church, but doing it in blood or red ink, or they had different ways of signing it. But generally it was red.

    Danny Buck: [00:35:00] And does the tradition of the familiar cross over?

    Josh Hutchinson: Very much. They have imps. They have a creature that was hairy all over, but like a man. They have a monkey with a rooster’s head as one of them, lots of cats and dogs. Sometimes pigs, people would shift into. They had a lot of birds, and one girl, they arrest this four year old girl, and she describes having a snake that would suck between her fingers and says that her mother, who was accused before her, gave her this snake as a familiar.

    Danny Buck: It makes my reference to a Blackbird seem rather tame by comparison.

    Josh Hutchinson: They had quite an imagination in some of these confessions. They get really elaborate.

    Danny Buck: So obviously the process of examination is quite interesting. So in Great Yarmouth, we have just a [00:36:00] reference to midwives who are too expensive. So need to be they need to be limited to, I think, just four of them. So we’ve got Elizabeth Howard who’s one of the midwives. The corporation ordered 12 pence a day for their service and in the future, they will only to be hiring four women, cause they were just ruinously expensive to get the evidence there.

    Danny Buck: Again, we have dark allegations about what Hopkins is doing. We know that some of the accused witches were being examined by the local ministers. So no, their bodies are being searched by the midwives. There’s no evidence for some of the harsh methods. Matthew Hopkins, who was invited in by the corporation to investigate the cases was famous for.

    Danny Buck: So no swimming, no pricking. Again, suspect they’d been kept awake a while in the jail, but we’ve got no evidence of that. What kind of methods are being employed by those searching the witches in Salem?

    Josh Hutchinson: You have the same with the midwives [00:37:00] searching for the witches marks, or in the case of the male suspects, they have a group of men search them, which sometimes is the jailer and whoever else they can enlist, the marshal, maybe the sheriff. And in some cases, they find these marks, they test them out, put a pin through the mark to see if anything comes out. If it’s insensitive, the person doesn’t feel it, then that’s a witch’s mark for sure. They have that going on. They have the magistrates doing the other examinations, basically grilling the suspect with a lot of leading questions starting out with, why are you a witch? When did you become a witch?

    Josh Hutchinson: How long did you volunteer to serve for? How did Satan appear to you? They’re never asking them their side of the story. They’re telling them their side of the story. There was no swimming. There was a [00:38:00] case in Andover where they did a mass touch test, where they believed that the person that the witch had afflicted, by making contact with the witch, transferred the magic back to the witch and would be healed.

    Josh Hutchinson: So they would take these afflicted girls who were having fits. They blindfold them, have them going around, randomly touching people. And if they stop having a fit, that’s a witch. So this actually happens in Andover where they were quite intense and belligerent in trying to get people to confess there.

    Sarah Jack: The accused, they were blindfolded for that, were they not?

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. Everybody’s blindfolded and they’re just going around touching people and trying to decide who’s a witch. Basically they round up dozens of people in Andover. I don’t know how many came out [00:39:00] of that event specifically.

    Josh Hutchinson: But they’re doing that kind of testing. No pricking. There are couple cases, though, where they tie them neck and heels until the blood comes out of their nose, and then they get a confession.

    Danny Buck: Yeah. I think I’ll probably confess at that point.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. And they leave them like that for hours and hours until that happens.

    Josh Hutchinson: There’s some other cases where they might have done the thing of keeping them awake. There’s some petitions that referenced that idea, that they were basically out of their minds at the point that they confessed.

    Danny Buck: Yeah, it is shocking, quite how close people were able to skirt the lines of what’s expected of legality. Again, partly, the argument of the witch hunt is that it is cruel necessity? That this is part of the war on demonic forces. Do you think that’s why these things burn out so quickly? The [00:40:00] very fact you’re having to create these emergency measures. The fact you’re having to carry something out, and it’s supposed to be this radical solution and it doesn’t work. And also it’s is just so traumatic for everyone involved. Even those making accusations.

    Danny Buck: Like in Great Yarmouth we have 15 people accused by the end of the September. So we start off with the first accusations, April 1645, last ones in September of that year, we have half of them are convicted lead to hanging in that year. And then a further five the next year come to trial. None of ’em are found guilty, already the desire to carry this out all burnt out. The midwives are too expensive. Hopkins isn’t invited back. It seems like it’s this very sharp flame, but it can’t be sustained very long.

    Sarah Jack: Josh and I were talking about how quickly that turned, that he had been invited on the first incident and [00:41:00] then was not called for the second.

    Danny Buck: Again, partly it’s Hopkins’s own myth. He’s someone who’s very effective.. But for me, he is fantastic as this sort of shamanistic figure comes in. He resolves your problem. He’s invited in, but that only works as long as he’s effective.

    Danny Buck: Certainly with Great Yarmouth, I feel like Hopkins has already had a bit of a dry run, because he has been invited to previous other towns connected to the MP in Great Yarmouth, Miles Corbet, where he also acts as the judge. The title at the time is recorder. So we’ve already, got Aldeburgh further down the coast in Suffolk, where he is recorder, where he’s obviously been involved in trials where Hopkins has arrived, and obviously Hopkins built his reputation first of all, in Essex, where he’s obviously been very successful about getting conviction after conviction. But already by the middle of 1645, I think his legend is beginning to weigh. People are criticizing his methodology. So got Thomas Scott at the same time. People are feeling [00:42:00] he’s not as effective, and they’re paying him quite a lot for this.

    Danny Buck: He obviously he’s a gentleman. I think it’s too cynical to see him as fleecing people to do this. I think he believes he’s got the methodology. I think he believes he owes certain level of respect for his status. Now his self-declared Witchfinder General status, which requires people to pay for his lodging as a gentleman should be kept.

    Danny Buck: But that’s still gonna put you off as a time when I’ve mentioned tax income is gonna be down cause of the problems of the trade collapse. The North Sea is lousy with pirates. When they all know people are suffering because their herring has been collapsed, there’s plague going on. Providing the support for ordinary people is now it’s much bigger burden.

    Danny Buck: So you can justify bringing Hopkins as a short term response, but you can’t because the English system, he doesn’t get rewarded for this, the money doesn’t come in from witchcraft trials, you might get somewhere like Germany where they can self sustain, but maybe a couple of [00:43:00] years. Instead, yeah, he burns himself out.

    Danny Buck: Which doesn’t help that. And on top of that, therefore that the crisis continues in these towns unabated, and it’s from 1646, we see that for religious toleration, as opposed to exclusion, reduces other pressure, I think of the witch hunt, but what brings the dying down in New England?

    Josh Hutchinson: In New England, I think they just reach critical mass with the number of accusations. And they’re starting to target the wealthier, more influential people. There’s a rumor that they accuse the wife of the governor himself. But they’re going through these kind of brutal methods, especially in Andover.

    Josh Hutchinson: So you’re accumulating resistance that way. There’s a lot of petitions starting to come in saying these people confessed, but they didn’t mean it, because they were forced into it, driven to [00:44:00] it. You have those things. You have just the quality of the people that they’re accusing very much religious people.

    Josh Hutchinson: You have Sarah’s ancestor, Rebecca Nurse. She’s seen as a pillar of the religious community in Salem Village, and yet she’s accused. So you get that village divided fairly early on, and other towns that it spreads to, you have similar incidents there. In Salem town. They accuse the minister’s daughter. In Andover, they’re accusing dozens of people related to the minister. And you just get this cumulative effect from those types of things.

    Sarah Jack: One of the comparisons between Great Yarmouth and the Salem accusations that I noticed was I believe it was in 1646, when it really mattered if they [00:45:00] had somebody that was standing up for them, if they were attached to a male or a powerful person, but in Salem, they were gathering lots of support and signatures.

    Sarah Jack: And that still was not like that. It looked like it was gonna help Rebecca, but then it wasn’t enough. The governor didn’t do anything with all of those signatures.

    Josh Hutchinson: Right? At one point, the governor does issue a reprieve of Rebecca Nurse, but then some people who aren’t named, Salem gentlemen, show up and pressure him, and he reverses that. And her sister Mary Towne Esty is actually released from jail. The afflicted people have basically double the fits that they were having before, and the court reverses on that. But you have these petitions starting to gather steam, dozens of people signing [00:46:00] them. There’s one for a woman named Mary Bradbury, which has 200 signatures on it.

    Josh Hutchinson: So you have a lot of support for the accused that builds as these popular people are getting accused.

    Danny Buck: Yeah, I think the closest we get to that in Great Yarmouth big case is that of the local astrologer Mark Prynn, it was a faceting character. He’s someone who the local MP has a grudge against for quite some time. Cuz there’s a first accusation, 1637. Then comes back again, 1645. It’s the case I’ve really enjoyed, cause I’ve got to talk about it in length in a second article, because this blows up in 1645 in a really interesting way. Because obviously astrology is this fine line. The astrologers themselves claim it’s Christian, it’s science, it’s very ordered and disciplined, it’s about just understanding the stars. This chap, he’s doing a good enough job that people are asking him for lost hats, lost [00:47:00] cushions, lost metal items. So he’s making it as a side hustle, as I think they’d say today between his job as an actual farmer, a tenant farmer. He’s interesting cause he’s got links to the local conformist Church of England minister. He’s one of his tenants, and later the assistant to the minister, Thomas Cheshire, comes back to defend the farmer Mr. Prynn later. But it, but what’s really interesting for the case is the MP involved, the recorder Miles Corbet, he’s made a few enemies, and I’ve got this fantastic 12 stanza poem by the water poet, John Taylor, who just hates Corbet so much. So he uses this case as a way to discredit him. And I think this is part of the reason why I think it’s hard to sustain that campaign when you’re being mocked for it.

    Danny Buck: I think this in so much prefigures what goes on in England after the Restoration, where belief in witchcraft is used as a way to label Puritans as superstitious, as foolish in a way that [00:48:00] I don’t think quite manages to get across the colonies in quite the same way. But in short, what happens is that according to the satirical poem, Corbet looks at the collection of astrological books and believes they’ve referenced demons and devils, whether they’re in fact star constellations, or just names of Arabic philosophers.

    Danny Buck: So again, it’s trying to make Corbet look credulous and foolish in a way that puritan fears of witches are being increasingly seen as something ridiculous. You see it, the civil war, as well, and Mark Stoyle’s written really convincingly on the poem about Prince Rupert’s dog, Boy, being a familiar, being a royalist satire that already it’s mocked the Puritan sphere of the demonic.

    Danny Buck: But in this case, according to the poet, John Taylor, Prynn is just a conman. His friend, Thomas Cheshire comes up speak for him and says, no, he can’t be a demonic. He’s not raising spirits. He’s just conning old ladies out of money. And so making the [00:49:00] whole thing look ridiculous. And in particular making Corbet’s fear of the demonic, witches, and of this suppose seemingly harmless, man, as some kind of sorceror, as something that makes them just look silly.

    Danny Buck: And I think that is also something that, that brings an end to general fears is seeing the people making these accusations, not as concerned citizens, as people desperately fearful of an enemy within, but citizens somehow laughably frightened of their aging neighbors or a strange man up the road who just reads almanacs for a living.

    Danny Buck: Yeah. I dunno. Is that something you ever see New England, some kind of mockery of how ridiculous the whole thing has become?

    Josh Hutchinson: You get some mockery at the very end of it. There’s a man named Thomas Brattle, who’s a scientist, among other things. And he writes a famous letter in October 1692, where he [00:50:00] criticizes the whole philosophy of how witchcraft is supposed to work, how they employ the touch test, why they employ it.

    Josh Hutchinson: He criticizes those things. He criticizes the spectral evidence that they’re using. Did they have spectral evidence in Great Yarmouth?

    Danny Buck: The only thing I’ve seen mentioned is people mention raising spirits as were the crimes. But no, allegedly Elizabeth Bradwell uses a wax poppet to it buried, which is supposed to create illness, but they never find it. By the time they go and dig it up, it has either rotted away or was never there.

    Danny Buck: But spectral evidence as a whole, it’s just reliant on confessions.

    Josh Hutchinson: In Salem, they very much rely on spectral evidence. They believe and accuse the suspects of physically being in one place while their spirit goes out to other places to afflict, and their spirit can travel any distance they want [00:51:00] to, 20 miles or more in an instant and afflict somebody, while you have witnesses saying, “I saw them at home. They were at home with me. They couldn’t have done that.” But yet these afflicted, mostly young girls, are coming together and saying, we all saw this happen and they use that evidence, even though we’ve spoken before on the show about the Connecticut witch trials. In Connecticut, you have John Winthrop, Jr. serving as governor for a long time. He’s actually an alchemist, a scientist, and he disputes the spectral evidence, says you need to have at least two witnesses seeing these things happen at the same time, you can’t have one witness come in and say, “I saw it this time,” another witness [00:52:00] saying, “I saw this other incident.” You need to corroborate. So he gets rid of spectral evidence before Salem happens. This is in the 1650s, 60s, 70s. But then interestingly enough, his son Waitstill Winthrop is one of the judges at Salem who accepts the spectral evidence.

    Danny Buck: Interesting how this all believes have such a hold over such a time.

    Josh Hutchinson: Early on, the judges asked a group of Boston area ministers for advice. They wrote what’s called the return of several ministers. In it, they’re cautioning against the use of spectral evidence and against some of the other aspects, but then at the very end Cotton Mather, one of the most famous of the divines in New England, writes on there, but proceed vigorously against all those who have rendered [00:53:00] themselves obnoxious. So he’s advocating for speedy trials, a quick resolution to this, because he very much believes in the diabolical conspiracy and sort of contradicts what the rest of the letter said.

    Josh Hutchinson: So the judges choose to basically ignore all of the letter, except for that last bit.

    Sarah Jack: When Dr. Buck asked about mockery, I was thinking Ben Franklin came to mind because there’s that essay that possibly he wrote in 1730, “A Witch Trial at Mount Holly.” That just popped into my mind. So I was thinking about that’s that was like, 40 years after witch trials.

    Danny Buck: Again, just the sort of scale of history that again, we’ve got Rebecca Nurse, Sarah Cloyce, both of these, and Mary Towne, they leave Yarmouth 10, 15 years before the trial in the big witch-hunt in Great Yarmouth. We’ve got trial happening. Then the people of that are people who know Ben Franklin and then lead [00:54:00] onto the revolution, only a couple of generations of that span. That’s fascinating. Also, I think it’s very interesting when you talk about Franklin’s mockery, comparing that to the famous poem, which mocks a lot of the civil wars by Samuel Butler, “Hudibras.” He brings in the figure of Hopkins as someone who’s got the devil’s book, he’s secretly a witch himself, and then is hanged for it.

    Danny Buck: When in fact he died of tuberculosis a couple of years afterwards. That again, that mock of making it the past, finding a way to get past it and reject that era. I think that’s quite interesting as how you get perspective past it and try and reduce the horror of it all, perhaps.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. It’s an interesting point. How this spread of time works there, because in Salem, the oldest victim is 81 years old at the time that he’s pressed to death with stones, [00:55:00] because he refused to stand trial. So they buried him in stones essentially until he refuses to confess, he refuses to stand trial, but he’s 81 years old. So he’s born in around 1611. And you have him on the one end where you have these young afflicted girls. And you have a man named Joseph Putnam is one of the early critics of the trials. He’s related to the chief accusers, the Putman family, but his son, Israel, is a major general in Washington’s army. So just one generation apart, Salem Witch Trials, Revolution.

    Danny Buck: Cause again, the whole era is this such a transformation point in global history, but particularly in the Atlantic world, I’ve found it very interesting to read book recently on the regicides who escaped to [00:56:00] America. And the fact that they were able to hide out there for so long and became part of this founding myth of Republican America, which, you know, how this, the two nations interlinked, but also separating at this point, in some cases for some people, the sort of Puritan communities of New England represent what England could have been become, if it didn’t decide to go crawling back to the king. And that sense of those sort destinies and both the positives and negatives of that we can see of the communities riven by a godly dream of regeneration and living a better life. But also with that diabolical fear, seems such an interesting contrast.

    Danny Buck: Go back to the Puritans, the same people who are pushing for the witch hunt are the people pushing for new workhouses. It’s such a contradiction at times, people who want to make the world so much better, kinder a lot of ways where people are struggling, but the same people who are [00:57:00] willing to bully a Church of England minister, threaten to throw sand and lime in his eyes to protect their community.

    Danny Buck: It’s so wonderfully vivid.

    Josh Hutchinson: It’s a fascinating period of history, as you mentioned, there’s such profound change going on. And in a lot of ways that change itself is what’s driving these witch hunts. It’s maybe growing pains. You could describe it as, or all that conflict. They’re trying to pin that conflict on Satan and his agents.

    Danny Buck: Yeah. It’s a real sense of a lost identity, I think, or losing identity. I think you could probably put the sort of a hundred years after reformation in England are times when people are really struggling to define themselves and their community, because it is something that’s become very changeable and flexible.

    Danny Buck: The classic cases, if you go back to things like the Pendle Witch Trials, where [00:58:00] people, the magic there is allegedly a form of the sympathetic magic that comes from the Catholic medieval traditions that survived, that is a need for folk magic. And to take that away to desacrilize the world. You leave the darkness and the danger there, but you remove a lot the ways that people can combat that. As interesting with a lot of the religious nonconformance groups that emerge, like the Quakers and others. Peter writes about this fascinatingly, that the idea that witchcraft becomes a possession becomes part of their tool.

    Danny Buck: So they seek to restore some of that magic to the world. The age of miracles, if you believe in miracles, positive miracles, like the Quakers do be able to speak in tongue, being able to form a relationship with God. That means there’s still room there for the demonic, but also room to protect yourself from it, to be able to be the godly people who can push out the spirits, inhabiting people, but it, then it makes the [00:59:00] identity of witchcraft so much more complex and harder for people who see themselves as orthodox to deal with, if it’s something that’s being taken up with, people who are a lot more radical.

    Josh Hutchinson: That’s an excellent point. You have a great shift there when the reformation happens, and they strip all of those Catholic rites, like exorcism and other protective magic kind of elements, as the reformers see it, anyways, as magic. And then you’re left with nothing but witches and the idea of the satanic pact, where people are actually in league with Satan, physically meeting him and covenanting.

    Danny Buck: Okay. There’s definitely a case. There are two options for you. If you are godly enough, if you go to church enough, the devil can’t harm you. If you haven’t got that, you’re a small child, then you’re in danger and it doesn’t seem, there’s no kind of protection available except [01:00:00] to get the person to confess, to get the ministers involved, to defeat the magic.

    Danny Buck: The power to defeat witchcraft seemed to move upwards in the social scale. Your gentlemen like Hopkins, your witchfinders, your magistrates, the judges who can be given God’s power to judge the unworthy and to deal with them, or ministers who are educated enough to know what’s going on, fits in some of the, I the idea of Puritan and the focus on the words, the focus on ministry.

    Sarah Jack: I’m really thinking about the Quaker thing and that piece of their power, their godliness, giving them power over evil, that progression of personal religion. That’s very interesting. My mind’s thinking about that now.

    Danny Buck: They say also interesting because people take it the opposite way.

    Danny Buck: Elmer written fantastic on this, that the fact they can do miracles means, they seem to be angels clad in rayments of light, but are they secretly of the devil’s party? It’s upon the 1650s where the devil is [01:01:00] called the great Quaker, as a belief that the miracles being done by men like George Fox are, in fact, demonic magic, or that the fact that they suddenly start spreading so quickly, they’re bewitching people.

    Danny Buck: There’s a contemporary theory that the ribbons they were giving out were actually charms. During the 1650s, they are so controversial, sometimes they’re playing Jesus, one of them entering Bristol on a donkey, having palm leaves thrown in front of him, sometimes seem to be linked to plots of revolution.

    Danny Buck: They’re so nebulous as well that they could be seen as this underground force, but it’s interesting that they, despite these fears of them, there isn’t, the pressure to condemn them as witch is, they’re called witches behind their back. You face these allegations, but they’re not convicted of that.

    Danny Buck: So as the, of heresy, so this locks up for being annoying, but they never faced witchcraft accusations against them, even though the popular imagination casts them as witches, which again, post that [01:02:00] shift of that push for toleration after the civil wars.

    Josh Hutchinson: Now in Massachusetts Bay, they famously did hang Quakers prior to the Salem witch trials. I believe some decades before they hanged four Quakers. In the Salem witch trials, there are some suspects that have these kind of nebulous connections to Quakers, and that’s believed to be a factor by some, or at least as a possibility.

    Josh Hutchinson: There’s a community called Lynn that has a lot of Quakers in it. And so there are suspects from that community that have familial connections and might be suspected of having Quaker tendencies themselves. But there’s no direct, “this person is a Quaker. Let’s hang them as a witch.” You don’t get that direct confrontation as far as I see.

    Sarah Jack: And Josh, which executed, accused, quoted [01:03:00] a Quaker curse?

    Josh Hutchinson: Sarah Good. When she said, “the Devil will give you blood to drink,” that was from the Bible, but it was used in a famous Quaker sermon or other publication. That was directed to the minister Nicholas Noyes. And then he’s believed to have actually died with blood in his mouth. That’s a famous legend associated with it. There’s a couple curses.

    Danny Buck: We can’t let face good in the way of a good story.

    Josh Hutchinson: No. Yeah. Don’t let the facts get in the way or anything like that.

    Danny Buck: I think my favorite, one of that is, is nearby King’s Lynn. I mentioned before the story of a witch accused there, I think earlier than the Hopkins hunt who was being burnt. So again, popular folk story, her heart exploded out, and you can still see the patch on the nearby church where her exploded heart hit it.

    Josh Hutchinson: [01:04:00] That’s intense.

    Danny Buck: We got the, again, the sense of wilderness sometimes, which again, we think of England is pretty tamed, but the idea of the giant demonic dog, which is seen, familiars. We also have the story of black shook, who’s again, a dog that represents the devil that’s supposedly lurks in East Anglia and takes the unwary.

    Danny Buck: How does that compare to the actual wildlife of new England? Like it is literally dangerous to leave your streets. Not only with the Native Americans, French, but still surrounded by wolves and there’s real sense of wilderness in a way that maybe coastal towns with their salt flats and their bleakness on a sort of North Sea wind in the winter might feel, but not gonna be the same as New England and it’s majesty and harshness and cruelty.

    Josh Hutchinson: You still have mountain lions, bears, wolves. They’re all over the place. They have bounties on wolves. You kill a wolf and pin its head to the side of [01:05:00] the church. That sort of thing’s still going on, and you do get stories. There’s one girl, Abigail Hobbs, who’s about 15 when she’s accused, but she said that years earlier, when she lived on the frontier in Maine, that a black dog came to her and was the devil in the form of a dog and spoke with her and got her to agree to be a witch.

    Josh Hutchinson: And there’s a case with Sarah Good. They accuse her of, it’s unclear whether they’re accusing her of becoming a wolf or sending a wolf to chase one of them, but allegedly this wolf comes from Sarah Good in some way and chases one of the afflicted persons.

    Danny Buck: That’s obviously the foundation myth of Matthew Hopkins and the fact he went out there and was faced this giant black dog. His dog ran away, but he stood firm, as evidence he was [01:06:00] being pursued by these witches. Oh there is one, there is some preventative magic, used in East Anglia, which needs to come across this period with the witch bottle.

    Danny Buck: Is this something we see sometimes in New England, the fact that people fill a bottle full of urine, that urine’s believed to contain the magic, often soaking some iron and then put into the fire as way to break.

    Josh Hutchinson: You have a variety. We just spoke with someone a few days ago about folk magic in Salem. One of the things that they would do would be to nail a horseshoe above their door to prevent a witch from entering.

    Josh Hutchinson: They’d also bury things in or near the hearth to prevent a witch from coming down the chimney. You still find in these old houses, shoes, dead cats, interesting artifacts. You do have some stories of the witch bottle itself. They bake a witch cake to identify a witch. They make a cake, they feed it to a dog and it’s unclear how they [01:07:00] expected to identify the witch, but that was their practice in one case.

    Danny Buck: Some of those sound all too familiar, obviously these, the same communities, the same traditions survive. There’s this one dead cat I’ve seen for the Ipswich museum collection a couple of times now. Shoes survive that.

    Danny Buck: That’s really interesting. Is there any tradition of marks above the hearth as well as a, for protection?

    Josh Hutchinson: Oh, there are, what they call daisy wheels?

    Sarah Jack: And hexafoil.

    Josh Hutchinson: Hexafoils. That’s what it is. Yeah. They have hexafoils in various locations.

    Danny Buck: Yeah. That’s definitely something that’s come directly over.

    Danny Buck: Fantastic collection. I think they’re referred Germany as witches marks, but definitely that protective magic, these interest and exit points. You think these communities, they’re still keeping them going. Even that far across the ocean, even these godly communities, these little things that are meant to keep you safe in a world that’s so uncertain.

    Josh Hutchinson: And this in 1692. It’s also a few generations removed by that [01:08:00] point. You still have these older individuals the Towne sisters that were born in England and raised by English parents. So they would have those traditions still, but you also have people who are grandchildren or great-grandchildren of the original settlers, and they still believe the very same folk traditions.

    Danny Buck: I always find interesting. I’m gonna go complete tangent about the idea of folk, traditions and land, but land that isn’t one you’ve grown up in, because I recently went to SU who, which is this Anglo burial. And you imagine these are people who’ve come over maybe a hundred years before they found places of sacred memory to the previous people who were there.

    Danny Buck: And again, not just the recent people like iron age settlements, ancient hinges, and they use those to build their new holy grounds and these important sites that overlook the river and become a place of power for their Kings. And, but they talk about these gods the Anglo-Saxon [01:09:00] gods Odin, Thor. I wonder, is there any sense that the locations picked by the settlers in New England, are these places that were of importance and memory to the Native Americans, and how do they cope with the sort of magic, if especially you say they mentioned the practices of the Native Americas they see as demonic?

    Josh Hutchinson: The places they settle largely are along the coast. They’re in places that were visited by disease and where the natives had been established for many hundreds or thousands of years, but have been annihilated by disease brought by European fishermen. So they find these cleared lands, and they just take over where the natives had the before.

    Josh Hutchinson: So some of those areas must have been considered sacred or been their burial grounds.

    Danny Buck: So there’s no sense of trying to resacrilize them as bringing them into Christian harvest is [01:10:00] it’s something I thought about before just occurred to me. But how do you make this place yours and make it a godly place afterit’s been this godless wilderness?

    Josh Hutchinson: I don’t think they did any consecration. My understanding of the Puritans, they didn’t consecrate the grounds. But they would build their meeting house, one of the first things they would do, and introduce their ministry. And they did they did attempt to convert the natives. They translated the Bible into Algonquin

    Sarah Jack: I was just thinking Josh with Kings Philip’s war, I believe that some of the Native Americans that were converted were then used politically, in trickery during some of the incidents and battles.

    Josh Hutchinson: There was a case I remember where one of the Christian Indians, is what they called the [01:11:00] converts, and they had whole towns of Christian Indians, but one of the Christian Indians at one time sees other Native Americans from the other side of the war, tricks them into coming over, and then kills them.

    Sarah Jack: It just really seems like there was not an element of wanting to help them preserve any of their own sacredness of the land.

    Josh Hutchinson: There seemed to have been every effort made to drive that out of the land and Christianize the entire land, anglicize it. They wanted it, I mean they wanted it all basically.

    Danny Buck: Make it literally new England in every way, transport entire villages across, creating the space, but without the baggage of the Catholic past.

    Danny Buck: Again, the sort of revolutionary element of you see that in the civil war, the prelude to Matthew Hopkins at the arrival of William Dowsing, the commissioner for removing idolatrous images. So [01:12:00] where first William dowsing goes to the church to break down the corrupted images of the past.

    Danny Buck: It’s no coincidence. It can’t be a coincidence that Matthew Hopkins follows the same route to then remove the demonic influences in the community. And that desire for restoring, not even restoring to, to break that, which is corrupt and to break it down, rebuild. And I suppose that must be easier when you’ve got almost a, I don’t think the Native Americans see it as that, but what the settlers in New England see is a blank slate.

    Danny Buck: And I suppose the tension there by the 1690s, if you’ve got, you’ve had a blank slate, what happens to that blank slate after you’ve been there a while and things aren’t going perfectly?

    Josh Hutchinson: Just wanna ask if you have any other point you wanna make, any project you’re working on that you wanted to talk about?

    Danny Buck: My big fascination is to try and find out more about the regicide Miles Corbet. He is a fascinating man. He comes from relative obscurity. He’s a second son of a minor [01:13:00] gentry figure in Sprowston, which is just the north of Norwich, so my home territory. He goes to Lincolns Inn. He becomes a lawyer.

    Danny Buck: He comes back and becomes Great Yarmouth’s recorder, so he’s actually their judge. He’s the secretary, so he mans the records of the corporation and becomes indispensable to them. Eventually he ends up as the MP, but he’s had this, first of all, his religion. He’s happy to work with the Puritans, but he’s already showing independent tendencies.

    Danny Buck: But yes, he starts bringing up witchcraft cases in the 1630s, 1637. We’ve got obviously Mark Prynn, and there’s another woman who’s sent to Norwich Castle. I know nothing about her. I’d love to know more, called violet Smith. She’s just sent to the, again, the major capital, that’s all the reference I’ve got in the assembly book.

    Danny Buck: And again, cuz her trial is in Norwich. No records in Great Yarmouth, so still needs a bit more digging. He obviously becomes more important in the Long Parliament, the civil war begins. [01:14:00] So obviously that parliament keeps going. He gains a bit of a reputation, not always a good one. Rumors he’s a bit corrupt, rumors he’s engaging in dodgy practices, or he’s just a bit dim, but he’s largely successful.

    Danny Buck: But his reputation does seem to be linked to Hopkins in 1645, because he’s in three communities affected by the witch-hunt. So in Aldeburgh, I’ve got chance visited there the weekend, this beautiful, Elizabethan Moot house, another courthouse. These old, converted merchant houses where he was sat there in judgment. Then obviously to Great Yarmouth.

    Danny Buck: After Great Yarmouth, to King’s Lynn, so all around the coast, these communities he’s recorded for and Hopkins follows. That can’t be a coincidence. That’s one part of that. But then after this, his reputation declines, in part because he is involved in the regicide. So he’s the last person to sign his name to King Charles I’s death warrant.

    Danny Buck: Not his best decision, I’m not [01:15:00] gonna lie. So catches up to him after the restoration. But, um, during the, um, protectorate, for some reason I think he might be his religion, he keeps being referred to as a Jew. Again, he’s, as far as I know, his family has been in Sprowston since Adam, or pretty close to it.

    Danny Buck: So I’ve got no reason to think he’s actually Jewish, but he’s also suddenly described as swarthy. He’s very dark. Like there’s this awful royalist propaganda pieces in newspapers talking about how the Earl of Warrick suddenly finds him as coach and starts beating him thinking he’s the devil. Cause he’s so dark.

    Danny Buck: And again, he meeting him just to the place where Charles was executed so good of curse. Another, accusing him impropriety on a boat with, uh, a woman of negotiable affection, which is obviously very untoward, but as far as I know, we’ve got this lovely diary. It’s beautiful. It’s like four pages folded together, in which he [01:16:00] lists, you know, when his children are born, his little thoughts, and his marriage dates. It’s so sweet. You know, it’s hard to imagine him of, of having a liaison on a boat in the river Thames and allegedly being beaten up by some other fellows. So his dark reputation, his interest in witchcraft, possibly some corruption involved in Ireland after the Oliver Cromwell’s conquest there. They became a fascinating figure that should tie up together.

    Danny Buck: I got a chance to explore him with his feud with Mark Prynn, but it seems more to go with that. Obviously the east coast of England needs a lot more exploration.

    Danny Buck: We’re very lucky now to been living in a sort of bit of a renaissance in witchcraft studies of various certain kinds, all kinds of different interpretation approaches.

    Danny Buck: And I’m lucky that Peter Elmer, the other political witch-hunt chap has retired, so I’m not doing too badly. We live in a real era when people are exploring the witch in so many different [01:17:00] angles. So it’ll keep you busy and me busy hopefully for the next few years.

    Josh Hutchinson: Sarah and I have talked about this a lot. It seems like all the time there’s some new discovery. Um, we’ve learned about cases that weren’t even known about before. Uh, get more details on the cases and the background of them. There’s so many dozens of researchers. We have this whole, long list of a hundred some people we want to talk to, and that’ll keep us busy for a while, but we’re very grateful that you came on the show.

    Josh Hutchinson: It’s been a very wonderful chat for us.

    Danny Buck: I think if anything I’ve learned more from this than probably you and your audience. So I’ve, I’ve really enjoyed my time.

    Josh Hutchinson: Oh, we’ve learned so much from your thesis and from what you’ve said today.

    Sarah Jack: Absolutely. Yeah. I, I just, the word essential came to my mind when I was thinking about the research you did.

    Sarah Jack: That [01:18:00] what you did your, um, research on is essential to what is happening. With research now, with the, which Charles, like we’re talking about just the Renaissance that you said. So I think having all of that documentation and the, all of the facets of, um, what brewed the perfect environment for these witchcraft.

    Sarah Jack: I, I’m just, I’m so thrilled that you did that study. Thank you very much.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. Thank you for coming. It’s been wonderful. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hey, Sharon.

    Danny Buck: Thank you. Cheer.

    Danny Buck: Cheer.

    Josh Hutchinson: And now Sarah has an update on witchcraft related persecution going on now.

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you, Sarah, for shining a light on these dark events.

    Sarah Jack: You’re welcome.

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you all for listening to Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast.

    Sarah Jack: I’m really looking forward to next week’s topic with Cassandra Roberts [01:19:00] Hesseltine and Dr. Annika Hylmo. We are going to discuss their documentary, The Last Witch.

    Sarah Jack: The Last Witch follows the eighth grade class from North Andover Massachusetts and their teacher, Carrie LaPierre, as they’ve worked to exonerate forgotten accused witch Elizabeth Johnson, Jr.

    Sarah Jack: We will hear from them on what that journey has been, what it means to descendants and the students. And for Elizabeth Johnson, Jr.

    Josh Hutchinson: Like, subscribe, or follow wherever you get your podcasts.

    Sarah Jack: Goodbye.

    Josh Hutchinson: Have a great today and a beautiful tomorrow. Thou shalt tune in next week.

    [01:20:00]

  • Episode 5 Transcript: Malcolm Gaskill on the Ruin of All Witches

    Josh Hutchinson: [00:00:00] ” Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live.” Exodus 22:18.

    Josh Hutchinson: Welcome to another episode of Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast. I’m Josh Hutchinson.

    Sarah Jack: And I’m Sarah Jack.

    Josh Hutchinson: Today we get to talk to Malcolm Gaskill about his new book, The Ruin of All Witches.

    Sarah Jack: Because you love the show, share it with your friends, family and followers.

    Josh Hutchinson: Halloween’s in the rear view mirror. Thanksgiving’s coming up.

    Sarah Jack: Looking forward to spending this month of thankfulness with you through several episodes.

    Josh Hutchinson: Even if you’re not one to do a big [00:01:00] holiday feast, feast on some knowledge this year with your copy of The Ruin of All Witches, which you will forever cherish.

    Sarah Jack: And trade your dessert out for another episode of Thou Shalt Not Suffer. Let your friend have that last slice of pie.

    Josh Hutchinson: We’re so excited to share this discussion with you today, in this month of sharing. You’ll feast on the wisdom of Malcolm Gaskill and learn about a truly wonderful book, The Ruin of All Witches.

    Sarah Jack: I’m excited about that too, and I’m also excited about hearing some history from you.

    Josh Hutchinson: The Connecticut Valley settlements of the early to mid 17th century included Saybrook in the South, Wethersfield, Hartford, and Windsor in Connecticut, along with Springfield [00:02:00] located 20 miles north of Windsor and under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. All of these communities were connected through trade and migration. Especially connected were Windsor and Springfield just 20 miles apart from each other, where the flow of people and information was nearly constant. They had another thing in common too, which was they all had witch hunts around the same time. Between 1647 and 1663, witch hunting was in fashion, unfortunately, along the Connecticut River.

    Sarah Jack: Thanks for sharing that, Josh. I’m sure many listeners are finding out maybe for the first time about the witch trials outside of Salem.

    Josh Hutchinson: You’re welcome. I know that they will learn something today from our next guest.

    Sarah Jack: I am happy to introduce Malcolm [00:03:00] Gaskill, Emeritus Professor of early modern history at the University of East Anglia. He is unquestionably one of Britain’s leading experts in witchcraft history. His works include the highly acclaimed Witchfinders: A Seventeenth-Century English Tragedy and Between Two Worlds: How the English Became Americans. Today we have the fortunate opportunity to spend this episode with him digging into his just-released, unmatched New England witch trial book, The Ruin of All Witches. It has reached the top of the Times paperback nonfiction bestsellers list in the UK and is now number two in the Sunday Times. It will certainly be in equally high-growing demand in the United States.

    Sarah Jack: The publisher describes The Ruin of All Witches as a gripping story of a family tragedy brought about by witch hunting in puritan New England that combines history, anthropology, sociology, politics, theology, and psychology.

    Sarah Jack: You’ll be gripped by his [00:04:00] telling of our important witch trial history as you are held fast by every page. So let’s take advantage of the time we have with him and jump into this real life fairytale.

    Josh Hutchinson: What drew you to this subject for a book?

    Malcolm Gaskill: I’m a historian of witchcraft. I’ve been working on the history of witchcraft for best part of 30 years. You’re always looking for the next story. And I’ve done big overviews, and I’ve done some smaller stories, but there’s something about this one, which is it’s just such a fine grained detailed story of a witch-hunt.

    Malcolm Gaskill: So it really enables you to get very close to the story and to the characters involved and actually see what the mechanics of a witch-hunt are, the social, economic, cultural mechanics, really up close over a period of time. Because quite often with the history of witchcraft, we get these kind of big overviews, and we can make assumptions about the way that witch-hunts happen, almost automatically. And I think when you look really close at a story like this, and the [00:05:00] sources allow you to do that, you can see that people hesitate and for a period of time they do nothing and they almost contradict themselves. It becomes a very, much more of a human story, I think.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And it’s just a very good insight into the way that our ancestors were probably a bit more like us than we think, in that they weren’t always terribly sure of themselves. But even so at Springfield, Massachusetts, they do still, in the end, all the factors come together, and they do actually have a witch-hunt.

    Josh Hutchinson: We were talking the other day about how intimate this felt compared to those other books we’ve read, particularly about other Massachusetts witch trials, had been more of a broad survey, and you don’t get quite this level of detail, so it’s quite refreshing to see that.

     I think that’s, again, that’s one of the the things that drew me to the sources is that you really do see the characters, and also [00:06:00] they do, through their depositions that they make to William Pynchon, who is like the landlord and the magistrate, and he runs everything in Springfield, they do tell him how they feel. This is one of the really important things that, so when you’re trying to write this like a story, you don’t have to kind of invent people’s feelings or their nightmares or their dreams or their emotions, because they’re actually set down in the record, and that does turn it into something which is much more novel-like, I suppose, much more fictive, more kind of cinematic.

     Those things were always there in all those other stories that you read about in history of witchcraft, but you’re just not always able to get down to ground level and actually peer into people’s homes and listen into their conversations and really get that, as you said, that very kind of intimate sense of what these people’s lives were like and the ways in which they felt vulnerable and the ways in which they felt [00:07:00] afraid, and the way that they acted upon those fears.

    Sarah Jack: You mentioned the mechanics of it, and now you’re talking about the listening through the walls and hearing the story. I feel like those pieces really need to come together, especially for those interested in understanding and not just following the assumption. So what you were able to do with that is so great for readers and researchers of all levels. I think it’s gonna be really important in helping so many individuals get to that next level of understanding their ancestor’s experience, how it all comes together. So thanks for doing that.

    Malcolm Gaskill: It’s a pleasure.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Thank you very much. I’m glad that works cuz of course you sit for a long time with the material and writing, and in the end you talk yourself, as a writer, about whether it’s really working. But I think the response from readers like yourself so far has been quite gratifying that that does come across, and it isn’t just that we are [00:08:00] somehow entertained or titillated by the intimacy of these stories. But actually it really does teach us something about the way that witch trials did take place. And actually also I think why quite a lot of the time they came to nothing. And that’s almost a counterfactual, isn’t it in the history of witchcraft that it’s how do witch trials not happen?

    Malcolm Gaskill: Because actually most of the time there are these preconditions there, but they just don’t ever quite come to fruition. And the hesitancy in the characters in Springfield in the middle of the 17th century, I think demonstrates the way that our ancestors are not these kind of crazed, hysterical automata who just naturally blame everything on witchcraft and then accuse the first person they don’t like the look of, that it’s a much more slow, smoldering process towards an accusation. And even then, it’s actually as the book demonstrates, it’s actually very [00:09:00] difficult to make your suspicions come off, to turn them into accusations and to turn them into a prosecution and a conviction.

    Malcolm Gaskill: We end up with a picture where almost everybody believes in some level in witchcraft, but the way in which those beliefs translate to a conviction where a witch is actually executed is an extremely torturous and long and difficult path. And that at every stage it’s actually quite likely from the perspective of the accuser, it’s quite likely to result in failure.

    Josh Hutchinson: You mentioned that this takes place in Springfield, Massachusetts. Can you give us a little background on the community?

    Malcolm Gaskill: Okay, so Springfield is not quite most other New England Puritan communities. It’s a godly town, but it’s founded quite deliberately for trade and for profit, so William Pynchon, who is a migrant from England in 1630s is a trader in [00:10:00] beaver fur, and he realizes that actually it’s one thing to conduct trade on the Eastern seaboard, but actually what you really need to do is to go a hundred miles west, get yourself into the Connecticut Valley, get high up the Connecticut River, and actually then you can receive the beaver fur from source, from the Native American trappers.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And that’s really his skill. So this is a very entrepreneurial town. It’s a town which is built up from scratch by Pynchon, attracting the kinds of migrants that he needs in order to make his town function like a middle-sized English town of that time, where you need a division of labor, where you need farmers, but you also need cobblers, and you also need barrel makers, and you need tailors and everything, because everybody needs to be a cog in the machine to make it work. It’s a kind of almost artificially constructed community with Pynchon at the head of it. [00:11:00] And it’s remote from Boston, which is the center of government.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And there’s a sense in which this town is rather isolated. And of course there are other towns up and down the Valley at this time, these people don’t seem to like each other very much. There’s a lot of conflict and tension between these communities. You certainly shouldn’t get the idea that just because they all come from England, that somehow there’s some sort of national fraternity between these people. In many ways it’s the opposite. It’s the fact that they are actually very close to each other and in competition for resources and authority and trade and all those things.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And so that, if you go back to, to commit to John Winthrop and the ideals of the city on the hill, this, the ideas of Christian charity that John Winthrop and the great migration of the 1630s was supposed to transplant in America. Rather ironically, these seem to be rather grasping, selfish, avaricious individuals and communities who [00:12:00] are at war with their English neighbors, at war with local Native Americans, at war with the Dutch, and even within Springfield itself, as we discover in the book, that actually at war with one another within an individual neighborhood. So some of those ideals of Christian love, Christian charity between neighbors are really rather turned on their head, because actually they seem to be rather selfish and actually have a lot of animosity for one another.

    Sarah Jack: That makes me think about how Mary Lewis. I was thinking with the turmoil in her first marriage and then, the church body that she was a part of, she was excited about her future, excited about her faith again, and she decides to go to New England. But then, so quickly there is all of this inter fighting and stuff. I was just thinking how she really wanted to turn over a new leaf, but then when you get there and in that [00:13:00] situation with all that it was taking to survive and to fight to get, a new life going, it just it, it came back to that.

    Malcolm Gaskill: This is a story about hope. It’s a story about high ideals. These are, whether these migrants from England or from Wales, from British Isles are puritans who are going for religious reasons or whether they’re economic migrants or whether it’s a mixture of the two you don’t, you just don’t get on a boat in 1630 to cross the Atlantic unless you’ve really got some very high hopes for the improvement in your own future. Now, An almost inevitable consequence of anyone whose hopes are that high is some degree of disappointment. And that actually that this is not a world where there is something for everybody.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And this is particularly true in this era of spirituality and religion because there are those , who feel that they are quite convinced in their own [00:14:00] hearts that they are chosen by God. They are, according to Calvinist theology, they are the elect. They are the ones who will reign as saints with Christ at the millennium. And they believe that implicitly.

    Malcolm Gaskill: But when they get to New England, they then have to prove themselves all over again before their congregations that actually that God’s grace is in their hearts and so on. And actually sometimes the congregations are not convinced. And this causes, I say it’s really beyond disappointment.

    Malcolm Gaskill: I think there are certainly, we can see some cases where people suffer really quite extreme depression and maybe even have nervous breakdowns, because that disappointment is so total. They feel totally spiritually broken, and they feel they may never be accepted. And so that there may be something of that in Mary Lewis.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Unfortunately we, one great body of records, we don’t have a Springfield of the church records, so it’s a little bit difficult to know who’s in and who’s out and who’s struggling. But we know from other [00:15:00] sources that we, that she’s definitely someone who’s suffering from, not only from a mental illness, but from spiritual turmoil.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And of course at that time, they could be almost one and the same thing, or at least they were fused together, and you couldn’t easily separate one from the other. Her personal experience of mental illness I think was as, was in terms of terror and fear of the devil, the fear of her husband, but also a kind of, a real sort of, existential despair with herself that maybe actually she wasn’t quite as spiritually worthy as she’d imagined before she went to America.

    Malcolm Gaskill: There is this history of disappointment, I think, to be written about New England as well as about success and triumph and fulfillment.

    Josh Hutchinson: We’ve spoken a little about Mary Lewis and William Pynchon. The third main character in this story is Hugh Parsons. What can you tell us about Hugh?

     Almost everything I can tell you [00:16:00] about Hugh comes from the witch trial against him. His origins are obscure. He is almost certainly, I think English rather than Welsh, and he probably goes over in the 1630s as so many others do. And so many other people in Springfield, he is hired by William Pynchon because he has a particular skill in trade, and that is that he’s a brick maker. Now that in Springfield at this time, there are some who have a little bit of disposable income, want to differentiate themselves from their neighbors, want to show off a bit with some conspicuous consumption. And the way that you do that in this kind of timber built town is you build yourself a brick chimney, which is a status symbol, as well as being something that’s practical that stops your house being burned down, because the others have wooden and mud chimneys. Anyway, so that he has this particular skill.

    Malcolm Gaskill: So Hugh Parsons arrives in Springfield 1645 with a certain amount of authority and power, and actually that [00:17:00] those who want to order bricks from him and get them to build them a chimney well, you know, they’re sort of at his beck and call. And of course he falls out with them. He falls out with nearly all of them and that this is great source of friction in the town, which contributes to an impression of his character, which is let’s just say it’s more than negative. They despise and fear him, and he threatens people. So he is a, he is someone who doesn’t fit into the community ideal. However, by the time really the more repellent aspects of his character become apparent, he has already married Mary Lewis. That’s not a spoiler. And they’re trying to build a life for themselves, but this is a life which as for so many colonial families was an extreme struggle.

    Malcolm Gaskill: But there’s something about the chemistry, this sort of toxic chemistry between their hopes and ideals and ambitions and their kind of underlying character, I think, which means that they [00:18:00] will come to the worst kind of friction with one another as husband and wife, and together as a household will come into the worst kind of friction with their neighbors.

    Sarah Jack: And speaking of Mary Parsons, there were two similar names. There’s Mary Lewis Parsons, and Mary Bliss Parsons. What do we need to know about that?

    Malcolm Gaskill: The first thing you know is it’s incredibly annoying and confusing that people have the same names when you’re trying to actually set I mean, no novelist would ever do it. It would be madness. But there we are. There are two Mary Parsons. There’s Mary Lewis Parsons, and there’s Mary Bliss Parsons. Now that actually that, we do need to talk about them both. And I do talk about them both in the book. I talk about Mary Bliss Parsons quite briefly, but she does need a mention.

    Malcolm Gaskill: So that Mary Bliss has her family come from Devon in the west of England, and she ends up in Springfield. She marries a man called Joseph Parsons who is as say, no relation to Hugh [00:19:00] Parsons that we can determine. And that from about 1649, t’s a bit obscure, but about 1649 it seems that actually she starts to deteriorate, has so many women do after her child dies.

    Malcolm Gaskill: We sometimes have this idea that people in the 17th century, women didn’t, child mortality was so high that women didn’t care particularly, or you know, when their children died. This is quite, this is a complete myth, and that women suffer extremely emotionally, when their children die.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Her behavior becomes erratic and very strange. She starts leaving the house at night, causing her husband incredible consternation and fear and anger actually. She starts being able to find lost and stolen goods. Now, in, back in Old England, this is what you would call a cunning woman, a kind of witch, a white witch, but still someone who seemed to be using powers that were not entirely natural.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Now, her husband locks her in the cellar to try and stop the getting out, [00:20:00] but this just course antagonizes her it tremendously, and she thinks she’s locked down in this cellar with spirits. She feels that she’s imprisoned in a world of spirits. And she even actually hallucinates. She’s washing down by the brook, and she hallucinates this row of rag dolls, this incredible horror film moment where this row of rag dolls comes towards her.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And actually that so far she’s not accused as a witch, but she will be, because it’s like this world of negative spirits follows her around so that in the end, the Parsons they leave Springfield and they go and live in the fledgling community of Northampton.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And what happens there? They fall out with their neighbors. The suspicions of witchcraft against Mary Bliss Parsons now divides the town. She is finally accused and tried for witchcraft. It goes on right into the 1670s until she is finally acquitted. But you see the way that just [00:21:00] suspicions and feelings of witchcraft. You can follow a person around for their entire lives. And I think in her case almost certainly connected to some kind of psychosis. Which of course within this rather spiritually polarized community is interpreted as some kind of demonic relationship. And so it’s, although that there isn’t, doesn’t seem to be any kind of obvious family connection with between Mary Bliss Parsons and Mary Lewis Parsons, or between Joseph Parsons and Hugh Parsons, that actually that the story of Mary Bliss Parsons does contribute to this sense in Springfield that the devil is hovering around and that there are people in the community who through a kind of frailty in their own hearts is inviting the devil in. And so that successful, I’m successful again, from the point of view of the accuser. Successful witchcraft accusations are ones where there is a [00:22:00] consensus that is at least plausible that people might actually be dealing with Satan. And here we see that cases like this, which are not directly related to the accusations against Hugh and Mary Parsons are part of a climate of opinion, part of an atmosphere where the devil is insinuating themselves into the lives of ordinary people and making it seem that this New England community is under some kind of external demonic attack, perhaps particularly because the people there have been set this task by God to thrive out in the American wilderness and that they just simply can’t live up to it. And that sense of shame and guilt that comes with that sort of failure to live up to God’s covenant creates the sort of despair that makes the idea of witchcraft absolutely plausible in their lives.

    Josh Hutchinson: You said that in addition to suspicion, [00:23:00] there are certain other preconditions that need to be met before someone is formally accused of witchcraft. So I’d like to get into those some now. Did part of the tension have to do with the civil wars going on in England?

    Malcolm Gaskill: That’s a very good question.

    Malcolm Gaskill: I always try to think about the causes of witchcraft accusations in terms of spheres. You’ve got this very small sphere at the center, which is perhaps the individual human heart. And then there’s one around it, which is the sense of the self. And then you’ve got the family, and then another sphere out the household, the neighborhood, the community.

    Malcolm Gaskill: So you’re always like layers of an onion. So you’re always working outwards or inwards. And that actually each one of these layers is connected to the one within it. But they’re on different scales. And so that, at the center of this story, we’ve got really a sense of personal despair, anxiety, terror, and marital breakdown.

    Malcolm Gaskill: But one of the spheres or layers of the onion, whichever you prefer, [00:24:00] which is right at the outside of all this, is the sense of a Puritan trans-Atlantic world, which is being turned upside down. Maybe not actually even particularly Puritan, but the period of the Civil wars is incredibly important because these are, we sometimes think of the the British civil wars as being, you know, it’s a kind of this set piece from the past where people wear funny costumes and you know, it’s a sort of, you see Reenacters doing this kind of thing in England and actually that the way, that rather belies the fact that at the time the Civil War was experienced as some kind of end of days, some kind of end of time, some moment before Armageddon, where the whole world was being turned upside down.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Now the Springfield story really takes off in 1649. That’s the year in which Charles I, King of England, is executed. Now the execution of the King of England is even for those who were on the the side [00:25:00] parliament during the Civil War. Just for listeners, just in case, just make sure everybody knows that there were royalists versus parliamentarians, those who side with the king and those side with parliament, but even parliamentarians are shocked by the execution of the king. People who are constantly asking themselves, what is God’s will, are forced to ask themselves, did God really want the king to be executed?

    Malcolm Gaskill: Now, the likes of Oliver Cromwell and those who signed the King’s Death warrant are quite sure that they are doing God’s will. But there are many who start to think God put this king on the throne, God ordained monarchy. Are we doing the right thing, getting rid of it? And I think that does contribute to a sense of anxiety and turmoil.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And we should, of course, also remember that those settlers in New England, in Springfield and right across Massachusetts and Connecticut, throughout New England, everybody’s got some relatives in England who they’re still in touch with. Many of them go back to see them. About one in ten men in New England go back to fight [00:26:00] in English regiments, mostly for parliament. So there is this traffic, physical traffic, traffic of letters and books and ideas that’s going back and forth across the Atlantic. So that actually the, just because these New Englanders are might think of as proto Americans, they actually in their emotions and their feelings are still very sentimentally attached to England and still call themselves the English and feel that they are still part of England, so that they are worried and very emotional about the consequences of the fighting in England.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And so that you know that feeling that maybe if you do the wrong thing, that the devil has somehow got the better of you and that the devil is raging and very active, or the devil may even be joyful in the face of these calamities, is an essential backdrop to a community like Springfield thinking that perhaps the devil is watching them and that the devil will find [00:27:00] some chink in their godly armor and get in there and destroy them from within.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Because there is something really important, as I always tell people about a difference between New England and the sensibilities of its people, which is that although that people in England are heartbroken by war and that they suffer all sorts of anxieties, they never feel that England will cease to exist, whereas the New England colonies do have that existential fear hanging over them at all times, that maybe actually if God is disappointed with the results of his experiment by entrusting this covenant to his new Israelites, he’ll get rid of them, and there will be some kind of Sodom and Gomorrah reborn in 17th century New England.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And of course by the 1670s when the wars with the Native Americans really take off that that fear does for a while start to feel like it will it will come to fruition. And Springfield itself is almost completely destroyed in 1675 as a consequence [00:28:00] of those wars. So that existential fear is always hanging over these colonists, and I do think that makes their anxieties rather particular and special.

    Sarah Jack: And then along with that, did the witch panics in the 1640s in East Anglia, how did they affect the witch hunting?

    Malcolm Gaskill: Yeah that’s another very good point. So the witch-hunt in East Anglia goes between 1645 and 7.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Couldn’t really have happened without the Civil War itself. There’s a suspension of legal authority. There is disruption of the normal law courts. There are men, in this case the Witchfinder General Matthew Hopkins and John Stearne, they come forward because this is a time when Puritan men of action feel that they should take the initiative and that they can, and that they feel that there is a righteous war to be won. So that the English Civil War and the East Anglian witch-hunt really do go hand in hand.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And then of course, that the news of the East Anglian witch-Hunt does go across the Atlantic [00:29:00] so that it’s quite obvious that William Pynchon in Springfield knows about what’s happened in East Anglian Witch-Hunt, because they start using techniques and methods which have been used in East Anglia and that even during a Boston Witch trial that takes place a little before this, that that before this, the Springfield witch-hunt, that where William Pynchon himself is sitting as one of the magistrates. They say they need to search the suspect and watch her to see whether the devil’s familiars come to her.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And they actually say in the record, using the methods as used in England, I’m paraphrasing a bit here, but using the method used in England the surest and the best way. So they’re feeling that they’re very much of this kind of witch finding moment that’s going on in England, and they’re going to try to conduct their witch-hunt using similar kinds of quasi-legal methods, but ways in which they feel that they can expose a crime which otherwise was being concealed by the devil.

    Malcolm Gaskill: But again, I [00:30:00] think that all witch hunts, whether they are within New England or whether they are coming across from England, or even news coming from continental Europe, that witch hunts to some extent do breed other witch hunts because they increase the sense, not just that the devil’s out there, but that there are actually people who are engaging with the devil and that they are witches and that these witches can be stopped.

    Malcolm Gaskill: So that if for a crime where people naturally lack confidence, success in witch trials gives them some of the confidence they need. It creates fear. So creates a degree of confidence actually that we can do something about.

    Josh Hutchinson: So we’ve addressed some preconditions, some layers of the onion. How did New England’s economic and social difficulties impact witch hunting?

    Malcolm Gaskill: One of the things that’s interesting about witch hunting is that, I think working backwards from The Crucible and the Salem Witch Hunts of the [00:31:00] 1690s, there’s this sense in which Puritans are predisposed to accuse everybody who having the devil in the accused, witches left, right, and center.

    Malcolm Gaskill: But for the first 20 years or so of permanent settlement in New England, there are just about no witch trials at all. There are different theories and different ways of explaining this, but one theory, which is the one that I think speaks most to me, is that if you go back to England and see what creates the kinds of tensions that then make witchcraft accusations, trials happen, they are really about economic conflict between neighbors. They are about competition for resources. They are about overpopulation. They are about anxieties about the poor and difficult feelings about charity. The point about going to America was because England was full, and America had lots of land and all it needed was labor.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And that actually, it didn’t always work out this way, but that was certainly one of [00:32:00] those underlying feelings. Somewhere like Boston, originally when they arrived 1629, 1630, there is very little there, there is lots of land they can develop. Boston by 1635 is full, and they have to actually start radiating outwards cuz if you arrived in Boston, you don’t get some plum piece of land in the center of Boston. You get moved out, and that’s why satellite towns have to be founded. Happens in Springfield, as well, later on. And lots of little towns get formed around it because that particular piece of land gets full up, but before it gets full up, you get social conflict between neighbors, you get poverty, you get problems about poor relief.

    Malcolm Gaskill: You get beggars, you get theft, you get all sorts of crime. And actually these are some of the ways in which New England starts to resemble Old England quite quickly, and not in a good way. But actually you get some of those problems. And when you get those kinds of economic [00:33:00] preconditions, not macroeconomic conditions, but economic conditions within a community, which are problematic, if you’ve got a belief in witchcraft as well, then you create the kind of tension between neighbors where they start to suspect that maybe someone else is trying to avenge themselves or get the better of them using some kind of demonic power.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And once that seed of an idea is planted, that it is almost inevitable you get witchcraft accusations. So of course you do get these very English type accusations in New England. They just take a little bit of time to develop, because you need the right kind of economic problems to develop within a community to allow them to happen.

    Sarah Jack: And what was the situation in Springfield when the witchcraft accusations began there? Had there been enough time for that all to develop?

    Malcolm Gaskill: Yeah, it has. I think that actually Springfield is doesn’t need [00:34:00] all that time because it starts off already quite competitive, so that these are, as I said before, this isn’t a a transplanted Puritan congregation, which was the nucleus for so many New England communities in Massachusetts during the 1630s. It’s built up from scratch in a very small way initially, but it is rather artificially constructed so that the people that go there, or rather the people that are William Pynchon, who attracts there, are I think already predisposed to want land and to want authority.

    Malcolm Gaskill: When you trace the relations between these neighbors way after the 1649-51 witch-hunt, when you go right for into the 1670s and 1680s, you get the same people or you get their children, are in the same kind of loggerheads with one another over issues typically of work and money, authority and [00:35:00] land.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And so that it’s, I think it is perhaps a more competitive place perhaps from the get go than some other communities, because it is almost designed that actually that people will fight with each other. And I think that, this isn’t a godless place of saying, this is a place where Christian charity and Christian worship or Christian piety are extremely important.

    Malcolm Gaskill: But that creates its own kind of friction because for individuals that inevitably, if you are grasping avariciously for your neighbor’s land, In your heart and in your mind, you are already at odds with the ideals that have been set down for you. And they are actually ideals, I think, that people take very seriously. And so that the consequence of there are feelings of guilt and shame, as I’ve said, and that they’re exactly the kinds of emotions that the devil would revel in and maybe [00:36:00] actually encourage and exploit and so on. So I do think there is something about Springfield which is unusual. And for that reason, I think it does. If there, it hadn’t been a witch-hunt in Springfield, but I’d known everything that I know about its economic and social and religious conditions, I’d be asking myself, why not? Because it’s just the conditions I think are ripe.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And particularly, as happens at Salem later on, the fact that there is a sort of a wobble or a wavering about the their legal authority and William Pynchon is, becomes a slightly less I think, reliable natural leader than maybe actually people thought that he was. And that does, for people who feel themselves out on a limb anyway to lose that faith in their strong leader is actually a rather destabilizing thing.

    Josh Hutchinson: In the book, you say that witchcraft is an expression of disorder. How was that?

    Malcolm Gaskill: Witchcraft is lots of [00:37:00] things. It is a belief and it’s a fear, but it’s also an ideological emblem, and you get sermons, and you get political tracks, and you get poetry and plays and all sorts of literary forms that draw upon the idea of witchcraft as an ideal world inverted, so that you get witch trials, as we’ve discussed during the English Civil War.

    Malcolm Gaskill: But that’s not just a crime which is generated within communities, which results in legal trials, but it’s actually stands for, it feeds into propaganda, for example, that, oh, of course in Puritan East Anglia or in Puritan New England, you’re gonna get witch trials, because the people there are so hypocritical. All the puritans will say of course we are going to get witch trials here, because we are so holy and so pious this is where the devil will try and do is damnedest. So that actually you get this kind of toing and froing about witchcraft as an emblem, an idea [00:38:00] of perfect disorder in gender relations, in social relations within a church, within a community, within a state, and so on.

    Malcolm Gaskill: So it always has that ideological function when they’re actually real witchcraft trials. Then they become illustrations of that disorder as if, wow, look what’s happening to this land. It’s going to hell in a handcart. So the Bible teaches rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, in the book of Samuel. So this idea of rebellion and of political chaos and of revolution are tied ideologically to this image of witchcraft. And the communities that have witchcraft accusations, like Salem, find that actually the trials themselves were become much more socially disruptive than the witchcraft that the trials actually set out to get rid of.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Is this tragic, cruel irony and that the Salem and many [00:39:00] other places severe what witch hunts do come to realize that it’s almost really losing your temper and saying things you don’t mean, and then calming down and looking back and slightly objectifying yourself and thinking I lost control, and I’m sorry.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Exactly that happens at Salem, but 20 people are dead. And so that this sense of a, kind of these emotional volcanoes that then burn themselves out is very much at the heart of the idea of witch hunting. So that witch hunts sometimes when I say feel like a good idea, I’m not even sure people are that consciously thinking about it.

    Malcolm Gaskill: I think they can feel righteous. They can feel like a purge. They can feel like a correction to some kind of corruption within a community, but they never quite deliver that sense of purification and of correction at the end of it. On the contrary, they often leave a sense, a feeling, a feel of queasy, feeling of [00:40:00] regret and of remorse. And to set it in its religious framework, perhaps actually the devil was in us, perhaps actually that when we thought we were fighting the devil, we were the ones who were being manipulated by the devil. And that’s what I think happens when your thoughts, when all your actions and all your motivations are keyed to some kind of supernatural superstructure where you feel that your thoughts and your deeds are constantly in a very direct way keyed to the devil’s temptations or to god’s providential impulses.

    Sarah Jack: What was a witch to New England settlers? It was that person that was getting manipulated by the devil.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Just that question, what is a witch? It’s such an incredibly multifaceted and mutable concept.

    Malcolm Gaskill: So again, you have the biblical witch, and you have the legal witch. The witch is someone who forms a covenant with the devil. But how do you prove that? [00:41:00] But in the community, the witch is somebody really who is trying to harm you, your household, your domestic interests, your livestock, your crops, and very particularly, and this is really important for the history of witchcraft, your children.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Children are so often at the center of witchcraft accusations. That the fear of parents towards their children is that most intense emotional experience. The parent who thinks, as I think many parents would, I would die to protect my children. If you take that intensity into a situation where people really do believe that someone is trying to use black magic, in effect, to murder their children, you get the most vicious kind of defensive response.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And that vicious defensive response often translates into witchcraft accusations. Because witchcraft, the suspicion of witchcraft is often based upon the belief that someone else is jealous and [00:42:00] envious and therefore can’t have what you have and therefore will just destroy it, and spoil it. You know that anxiety is very common.

    Malcolm Gaskill: This is part of the Springfield story, as well. There’s a lot about children, a lot about women becoming pregnant and about the anxieties around childbirth and about infant mortality. And that sense that in some pregnant women, that Hugh Parsons is there. He’s watching them or tormenting them when they’re giving birth. We might be apt to think, oh, this is just these women just blaming things they didn’t understand or Hugh Parsons. They understand perfectly well about the birth pangs of giving birth. They just think that in this case, that this man is responsible for it.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And that, that genuineness, that authenticity of that belief, that sincerity of belief, I think is something which we have to at least accept, might be possible in this story. So that we don’t just explain it all the way and dismiss it as people so often do and say, oh it was [00:43:00] just because they didn’t like someone, or it was just because they couldn’t explain some natural phenomenon.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Whereas actually all those kind of evasions from the historical truth ignore the thing that’s at the center of it, which is for these people, the belief in witchcraft was a real thing and that witchcraft was a real power, albeit one that they found very difficult to identify specifically and even more difficult to prove at law.

    Josh Hutchinson: You spoke about them needing to be in covenant with the devil. What was the 17th century New England Puritan view of the devil?

    Malcolm Gaskill: There’s so much about the New England law code departs from English common statute law because they stick very closely to the Mosaic code. They stick very closely to the Bible.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And this is true about Puritans in England as well. The message which they really wanted to get across was that the devil is a malign spirit. The devil is a fallen angel, [00:44:00] but is the instrument of God, because if you start saying that the devil is the enemy of God, you get into kind of heretical grounds that the devil isn’t some negative equivalent of God. God is supreme. And therefore, that God uses the devil as an instrument, as a kind of chained servant, in order to to tempt the sinful to their own destruction. That’s really what they wanna teach, and they wanna teach, therefore, that the covenant that you have with Satan is in your heart, but these are, both in England and in New England, these are rather abstract theological ideas that are, whether they can be grasped or not, I don’t know. Maybe people don’t want to believe them, but a lot of ordinary people whose religion is also attached to their sense of folklore. And the stories of the woods and the wilds and the wilderness they’ve grown up with.

    Malcolm Gaskill: This is a world where actually supernatural beings like fairies and devils and ogres [00:45:00] are tangible. They are actually real monsters that lurk out there. And so that it’s very difficult, say particularly for a child. These children grow up in these communities who are told about the devil. Children first of all understand about monsters. They understand about creatures. They don’t understand about abstract ideas, about ethereal spirits that might infect your heart. And so that some people, I think, don’t necessarily move on from that idea that the devil is some kind of lurking creature. So there is a tension between that theological idea and what we might call a kind of folkloric idea about the devil. Of course, in New England it’s given particular kind of an even stronger tangible sense, because of a certain kind of illision between what the Puritan settler see as godless Native Americans, who many feel that they have tried to bring the gospel to and failed.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And they would say the Native Americans don’t realize it, but actually because [00:46:00] they don’t worship a Protestant God, they’re actually worshiping the devil. And particularly when there are political and economic tensions over land and so on, that as I say erupt in the 1670s, you can get this kind of illision between this idea of demons out there in the wilderness and these demonic Native Americans, who really will come into your remote homestead at night and kill people, because of course that’s exactly what happens.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And those stories are terrifying and I think do terrify children. There’s certainly some evidence, but the fear of adults at Salem in the 1690s stems from traumas that they experienced as children during those native wars of the 1670s.

    Sarah Jack: I just wanna say that one of the quotes that you had in your book when you were discussing some of that was, “let the devil rage.” And I just thought that was like, put in there perfectly. I loved that thought put in there with the other.

    Malcolm Gaskill: [00:47:00] I think the thing about the devil raging is that the devil really rages when he feels he’s being fought, when he’s being faced down. So he said really at the early days of the Reformation that, as soon as Martin Luther and the other early Protestants in Germany in the 1520s exposed the Pope as antichrist, then the devil had to start raging, because he’d had a free ride. If you can install antichrist as the head of the Christian Church, then the devil doesn’t have to do anything. But the Protestant reformers and the Puritans who go to New England, particularly, they feel that there is a shape to this battle that they’re fighting. They feel it has a beginning, middle, and an end. And the end will be their righteous victory over antichrist and, and they will get their heavenly reward. And so to think of it in those terms of this being this series of battles as part of a drawn out war, then actually we feel that they really do feel, and this is probably true of the witch finders of [00:48:00] East Anglia, they feel like they’re fighting Satan in the way they can.

    Malcolm Gaskill: They can’t fight Satan literally hand to hand, but they can fight those who have truck with Satan. And that is sometimes difficult for us to grasp, because all we can see is barbarism and cruelty and persecution. But if we’re to try to, rather than to judge it, but if we as historians to try and understand it, which is not at all to, as I say, to exonerate or make excuses for, but if we’d actually try and understand it, I think that sometimes that motives which seem barbaric to us were more sincere, because they took very seriously the idea that there was a war, not just that they could fight, but that they actually felt it was their duty to fight.

    Josh Hutchinson: In their fight, they took action against suspected witches. What was the penalty for witchcraft in Massachusetts Bay Colony, and what was that based [00:49:00] upon?

    Malcolm Gaskill: Okay, so the Massachusetts Bay does follow English common law. The penalty is hanging. Now hanging in this world was extremely unpleasant. It didn’t break the neck. This is where you were basically, you strangled to death. At the end of a rope, we are much more familiar with the the mass kind of bonfires, the burning of witches, which was certainly true in Scotland and was also true in most continental inquisitions, but you get different legal systems, they have different consequences. But the witch hangings are sensational events, where mass crowds would turn out to see them.

    Malcolm Gaskill: But they were comparatively rare because the legal process didn’t hurry people. Again, this is a sort of a myth that we have, where as soon as somebody suspected, they’re hurried hung to their execution. The legal process actually more works to towards acquittal than it does towards conviction.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And this is one of those surprising facts, but that [00:50:00] even those people who you know, did find themselves being acquitted, it wasn’t necessarily the case that they just then slotted back into the community. I think that we there’s a whole history of witchcraft that isn’t very well documented, which is actually what happens afer unsuccessful trials, after acquittals. Where do people go? How do they go? How do people treat them after that? Are they sorry, are they shamed? I think a lot of the time the people actually do have to go, because it’s just too awful and awkward to live amongst the people who actually tried to have you executed and failed.

    Malcolm Gaskill: How can you look someone in the eye, who was actually very happy to see you executed the day before? So I think that, and of course in the Springfield story that people were like, Mary Bliss Parsons, that they don’t stay in Springfield. They do go to Northampton, but, as so often the case, your past follows you around, and it’s much harder to make a clean start than maybe they think, because actually that the rumors [00:51:00] begin.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And of course this happens to one of the other characters in the Ruin of All Witches, woman called Mercy Marshfield. And she arrives in Springfield for family reasons from Windsor further down the Connecticut Valley. And it’s not long before the rumors start, Mary Parsons starts saying, “oh, she’s brought the devil with her.”

    Malcolm Gaskill: Now this all massively backfires against Mary Parsons. In this case, interestingly, it doesn’t mean that everybody starts whispering about Mercy Marshfield. And then Mercy Marshfield is accused of witch. Actually, on the country, it all blows up in Mary Parson’s face. It works against her. But the, just that insinuation of the idea that somebody might be bringing the devil with them, I think shows us that it’s very difficult just to arrive in a new place from somewhere else and for nobody there to know nothing about you whatsoever.

    Sarah Jack: You said in your book, “witches are paradoxically everywhere and nowhere, which made prosecuting them so urgent and so difficult.” [00:52:00]

    Malcolm Gaskill: So there’s some very interesting anthropological work about this, about the way that witchcraft exists in tribal communities today or in, certainly in, in recent years.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And they have this idea, too, this idea that everybody believes in witchcraft. People everyone’s afraid of witchcraft. Witchcraft is all around, but nobody can quite pin it down on anybody. It’s always glimpsed out of the corner of your eye. It’s always a feeling about somebody that you can’t, you wouldn’t quite like to translate into a pointing the finger at somebody.

    Malcolm Gaskill: And that, that’s really what I meant by that. It’s, the idea is absolutely all around. But that doesn’t mean to say, and again, this is one of those cliches, I think of witchcraft, that witchcraft is all around. That mean everybody’s always pointing at somebody else and accusing them cuz they don’t understand or explain things, they don’t like people, and so on. Actually, most of the time they do nothing, and the problem with doing nothing in history is it doesn’t leave a lot of [00:53:00] records. We don’t have records of people doing nothing that I think we have to assume a lot of the time, that’s what happens in the history of witchcraft, because it stays as a kind of ethereal abstraction.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Not just as an idea, but even something that you feel about somebody. Because witchcraft is always about fear as well. If you are frightened of somebody in your community, you don’t stand on a box and point the finger at them, you stay out of their way. And so that it’s an important thing with the history of witchcraft, I think, just to use our imagination about what we would do, how would we be?

    Malcolm Gaskill: Now we are not absolutely the same as them, of course we are not. But there is a degree of common sense. Actually, what I’d probably do is just be polite, stay outta their way. Keep your mouth shut. Try not to antagonize them, but try not to ostracize them either. I think that is almost certainly what most people do most of the time.

    Malcolm Gaskill: It’s [00:54:00] only really when the suspicions against someone reach a kind of critical mass, and something happens to trigger it. And quite often that is the fear of a mother to about her child, because that’s when you know the all caution’s thrown to the wind and they feel actually they’re consumed by this kind of rage and fear that means that they will actually stand up in public and say, “I think that person is a witch, and I think that person bewitched my child.” But behind that’s the tip of the iceberg. And the submerged 99% of the iceberg is all the stuff that often doesn’t leave much of a trace in historical record, because actually, it’s that part of the iceberg that doesn’t actually amount to anything in the end, because accusations just go nowhere, or people just keep them private.

    Malcolm Gaskill: I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground, but I think I’d just say just one concluding remark is that it’s that when we look at the the [00:55:00] documentation, the evidence we have for the history of witchcraft of many different types, I think we have to remember, it’s important to remember that it’s what makes that all stick together in a witch hunt is emotion, toxic emotions of envy and fear and anger and rage. And these are, of course, these, this is where we can bring something of ourselves into the past, because although we apply these emotions to different situations and in different circumstances, and maybe we’re better at restraining them, who knows? Really this, these are things which are, we can identify within our own lives, and they’re things which I think are absolutely central to making witchcraft accusations happen.

    Malcolm Gaskill: So really my final remark really is just a, kind of a plea for some imagination history. And that imagination really in witch hunting is to think what part of these emotions play. Because once you get the emotions in action within a story, I think it makes a lot more sense than it might do [00:56:00] otherwise.

    Sarah Jack: I feel like I know what this book is gonna mean to American readers. How is it different than what it means to the U.K.?

    Malcolm Gaskill: I suppose that would be interesting to see what the response to the American audience is. But for the UK response to it so far, I think that a lot of people have responded to it in one of the ways which I’ve pitched it, which is a kind of a real life fairytale. And the thing about fairytales is they don’t really exist anywhere, and they don’t actually always exist in a set particular time. They feel like the distant, but not too distant past. And they feel like a distant but not too distant place. But still you can identify with it. And I hope actually the American readers will respond to it in the same way rather than just seeing it as a piece of American history.

    Malcolm Gaskill: Because I think actually that many of the themes in it, the human story behind it are universal, although obviously it will have, I think, interest to people in New England and Connecticut and Massachusetts and perhaps [00:57:00] even particularly in Springfield as well. We’ll have to wait and see what Springfield does make of it.

    Sarah Jack: It has that fairytale feel and when Josh and I were reading through it and talking a little bit as we read, when you go through a fairytale, sometimes you read a chapter or two chapters, and then you know, the next day you come to it again, and you thought it was very much like that for me, I had to take breaks.

    Sarah Jack: I had to process the emotion of what I was feeling. I would send Josh messages or turn to whoever was near me, and I’m like, “I feel enraged, I feel scared, I feel the desperation of these women”. And you do, you, you picture the surroundings and all of it. It was just phenomenal.

    Malcolm Gaskill: That’s great to hear. Obviously, I don’t wanna manipulate anybody, anyone has emotions. But I’m obviously pleased that you had that kind of visceral response to it, because that’s really what I was hoping for. One of the worst things, [00:58:00] isn’t it about history, the history of witchcraft, or any history, is that people feel that it’s dead, and that it’s gone. And I think by, like I say, by putting the emotions back into the store, you can understand it. But also equally, we can make these stories live in the present, because after all, they are dead in the past. They only exist for us. History only ever really exists in the present, doesn’t it?

    Malcolm Gaskill: Where else could it be? So that it should, I think, mean something to us. I think we should, and maybe even we learned something about ourselves, and witchcraft is one of those things where we feel very different from our ancestors. But actually, when you look at the emotions that lead to witchcraft accusations, I hope there’s a perhaps there’s a chasing effect that actually we’re really not so different from them. And maybe we are prone to some of the same paranoia and the same persecuted impulses as our ancestors 3, 400 years ago were.

    Sarah Jack: It’s also a handbook as your book has so many [00:59:00] parallels in it. For me, it’s has those two parallels. It’s the fairytale, a narrative, but it’s also a handbook for understanding.

    Malcolm Gaskill: That’s great. Thank you so much.

    Josh Hutchinson: Now here’s Sarah with another important update on witch hunts happening now.

    Sarah Jack: Witch Hunt Happenings in Your World. Here at Thou Shalt Not Suffer Podcast, along with the Connecticut Witch Trial Exoneration Project, we have prioritized remembering the stories and names of innocent witch hunt victims in North America. These victims are from the seventeenth century. We have the benefit of time passing and can look back at past history and write some wrongs.

    Sarah Jack: But on the continent of Africa, South African Pagan Alliance’s Advocacy Against Witch Hunts is in the living situation of real witch hunts. It’s not a historical situation. The families of those killed for witchcraft are still living in fear within those communities where killings motivated by superstitious fear are active threats, and have harmed their loved ones. The witch hunting is [01:00:00] intending to stop evil, but the murdering is the evil, and rural South African community members are not safe from it.

    Sarah Jack: Podcast listener Damon Leff of the Alliance, legal professional and witch hunt advocate, has kept a record of reported cases. That project is called Remembering Their Names: Victims of Witch Hunts in South Africa, 2000 to 2021.

    Sarah Jack: We recently spoke with Damon Leff of the Alliance, who has informed us of the Advocacy’s progress and work with South African leadership. We are so appreciative that he reached out to help us bring awareness to all witch hunts. His advocacy brings the matter of the living situation of witch hunts in African countries to us, and we must respond. His advocacy brings the matter of the living situations of the witch hunts in African countries to you, and you must pay attention. Stay tuned.

    Sarah Jack: As you’ve seen, we are highlighting art that stands against the witch hunt. Art is a powerful and special message, and I am so thrilled to see it working to educate the right [01:01:00] message about witch hunting being a crime. However, some art is still not sending the needed message. Witch hunt murders are happening on our planet, yet some American singing and baking artists use the witch burning image lightheartedly to further their art. This choice perpetuates the acceptance of persecuting other. It has a clear message, and that message is that the witch was real, she was to blame, and we killed her. It’s a murder message. Those men and women represented on a burning were innocent, not in a devil pact.

    Sarah Jack: Yes, this sounds strong, and maybe it sounds inflexible, unimaginative. It most certainly is a strong and inflexible request I am making to stop witch fear. Many art forms are making efforts to educate against witch hunts, and it’s now out of touch to continue ostentatious use of the image of a witch burning in the flames.

    Sarah Jack: We have witch hunting to stop. We still have the flames of witch fear to stomp out. So citizens of the USA, I urge you now that you know what’s happening. If you get out your frosting and ganache [01:02:00] for a witch interpretation, think twice about what you’re saying with her image. Performers, put your microphone all the way up, and stand against witch killing, instead of drawing a crowd with a witch burning theme.

    Sarah Jack: Harm is happening to innocent humans while we educate. Listeners, let’s support the countries in Africa and across the world where innocent people are being targeted by superstitious fear. Support them by acknowledging and sharing their stories. Please use all your communication channels, including your art form, to intervene, not disregard the victims. Stand with them.

    Sarah Jack: Talk about what you have learned here.

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you, Sarah, for that informative segment.

    Sarah Jack: You’re welcome.

    Josh Hutchinson: And thank you for listening to Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast.

    Sarah Jack: Join us next week, or Dr. Danny Buck. There’s something for people on both sides of the Atlantic, something for William and Joan Towne descendants and we’ll be comparing Great Yarmouth to Salem. [01:03:00] Dr. Danny Buck studied under Malcolm Gaskell.

    Josh Hutchinson: Like, subscribe, or follow wherever you get your podcasts.

    Sarah Jack: And visit us every week at thoushaltnotsuffer.com.

    Josh Hutchinson: Remember to tell all your friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors about Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast.

    Sarah Jack: Goodbye for now.

    Josh Hutchinson: Have a great today and a beautiful tomorrow

  • Episode 164 Transcript: Ain’t Slender Man Scary? with Sean and Carrie

    Listen to the episode here.

    Josh Hutchinson: Welcome to The Thing About Witch Hunts. I’m Josh Hutchinson.

    Sarah Jack: I’m Sarah Jack Skellington.

    Josh Hutchinson: So Sarah, quick question. If you saw a very tall man with no face watching you from the edge of the woods, would you run toward him or away from him?

    Sarah Jack: I’ve got a bunch of questions for him, so I am going to run towards him.

    Josh Hutchinson: Well, of course you are.

    Sarah Jack: Does he have tentacles?

    Josh Hutchinson: Oh, he’s got tentacles. All right.

    Sarah Jack: I have questions. I gotta go find him.

    Josh Hutchinson: Ah, it looks like you have company.

    Sarah Jack: I hope so.

    Josh Hutchinson: So we are looking at monsters this month because witches are monsters and we wanna find answers to questions about monsters. What is a monster? Why do we need monsters? And why do we treat humans as monsters? [00:01:00] What does that do for us?

    Sarah Jack: I have questions for all those monsters, too.

    Josh Hutchinson: Today we’re joined by returning guests, fellow podcasters, Sean and Carrie of the amazing podcast, Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie, to talk about the Internet’s most infamous creation?

    Sarah Jack: We’re talking Slender Man, the faceless boogeyman born in the digital age.

    Josh Hutchinson: From creepypasta legend to real world nightmare, we’re exploring how folklore goes viral.

    Sarah Jack: And we end up talking about Salem, because of course we do.

    Josh Hutchinson: We always find our way back to the witch trials.

    Sarah Jack: Four podcasters who love things that go bump in the night.

    Josh Hutchinson: So grab your jack o’lantern and keep it close.

    Sarah Jack: Don’t wander off the path, keep the porch light on, and get cozy for this spooky one.[00:02:00]

    Josh Hutchinson: Let’s get started.

    Sarah Jack: He’s skeptical. She’s spooky. Together, they explore the unknown, unsolved, unbelievable, and just plain weird on their podcast, Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie. With their passion for history and the truth, they bring their different perspectives to today’s episode team up. It’s about to get scary with Sean and Carrie and Josh and Sarrie.

    Sarah Jack: Welcome back to the podcast, Ain’t It Scary with Sean and Carrie?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Thank you so much. Thank you so much for having us. We are getting back in the podcast saddle after a long absence, sothank you so much for helping us do that.

    Josh Hutchinson: Absolutely. We’re really looking forward to talking to you guys again. And of course, as always, lowering the usually very high level of discourse on this show. Just a touch. Just a touch. Yeah. Keeping it lighter. the

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And thank you for having us during the most Ain’t it Scary time of [00:03:00] year, duringspooky season, just as we roll into October here.

    Sarah Jack: I was so excited when we connected and it was a go, so thanks for helping us roll out some fun Halloween talk.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, and, and with that, I mean, for Halloween we always I mean, just traditionally, it just sort of happened, we always end up talking about urban legends. It’s such a like a spooky campfire time of year, and more and more over the years, I particularly have been really fascinated with like how folklore evolves over time and how folklore exists in our world nowadays. And usually that’s wrapped up in like scary stories. And I think with both of our podcasts we have kind of this mutual interests in the idea of monsters, not necessarily like [00:04:00] crazy creatures from the abyss, but you know, well for, for us sometimes it’s crazy creatures sometimes, sometimes, you know, but, or you know, Jeff the Talking Mongoose.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: But really society’s like definition of a monster. What makes a monster? If those defined by society at large really are monstrous, if it’s their actions that define that. And oftentimes, urban legends really explore these, you know, where like fictional and real monsters sort of coexist. And that’s pretty appropriate for the time of year, I think.

    Sarah Jack: I’m so fascinated with how the stories are told.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And how they evolve, too. We thought it would be interesting today to talk about Slender Man, in particular. I think your audience will be familiar with the concept of Slender Man. They might even see a few Easter eggs in one of these screens. I don’t know, Slender Man, may be lurking. May be lurking.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: But that [00:05:00] is a story that has evolved from basically a post on an image board to this, to something that I, you know, eventually jumped in a very scary way into, into real life and into, into the news. Yeah. It’s, it’s sort of a case study on internet folklore, which is kind of one of the most popular kinds of, of new age folklore nowadays is because like how, how is everyone connected?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: You know, usually back in the day it was word of mouth or you know, books and things like that. But now with the internet, things move so quickly and you can connect to so many people across such a vast space that these stories really spread and evolve and take on minds of their owns even more than, you know, the urban legends we grew up whispering at summer camp.

    Sarah Jack: Yeah, I was thinking about, you know, hoping to see Bloody Mary in the mirror, but not really wanting to, but you hope, will that image appear? Will the image [00:06:00] appear? And then of course there were not computers for me to go look at scary images yet at that age. When I was that age a hundred years ago.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And I think what’s interesting about those like urban legends that we grew up with and those that maybe, you know, younger people are growing up with now that are really internet-based is that they still kind of function the same way. A lot of them,you know, the, the ones that really stick, the ones that are really, that really are evocative and really grab people. They, they’re often cautionary tales. They’re sort of these like heightened warnings of horrific possibilities lying around every corner. So, you know, we grew up hearing stuff like the man with the hook for a hand. You know, the, the kids are, the teenagers are on Lover’s Lane, and they’re necking in the car and then blah, blah, blah. And a, you know, murderer has escaped an asylum and kills one of [00:07:00] them and leaves a hook in the car and it’s, oh, it’s the guy with the hook for a hand. Now the warning here is obviously like, don’t, don’t be kissing. Don’t be kissing.And, but it, you know, it is kind of influenced by real life, too. There was a real life crime that still hasn’t been solved, the Texarkana Moonlight Murders. Those happened to teenagers on lover’s lanes. They were killed or victimized, and no one ever found who did it. So you know, that’s not something that happened in every town. You know, like every town had the urban legend of like, did you hear about the escaped convict that killed those kids?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: But it, you know, it, this cautionary tale sort of melded with a real life crime and sort of, again, took on a life of its own, but it took a lot longer, you know, to snowball back in the day. The Texarkana Moonlight Murders were in the forties, and we were hearing those [00:08:00] iterations of the legends in like the seventies, eighties, nineties. And so, you know, it kind of took a long time to spread and, and sort of define its classic story structure.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: But with the internet, things are created and they spread immediately. You know, if they really hit, they become viral. Everyone knows about it eventually.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: I also feel like for parents, the internet is a fear or a danger. Yes. Or the, and so one angle of Slender Man to me is a folklore, a modern folklore story to parents of the dangers of your child. What are they looking at on the internet? And I mean, in a way, with the crime that happened, it kind of makes sense. Obviously, this, this, like the, the Lover’s Lane Murders is a very heightened example. This is a very specific example.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: These, these are the Slender Man stabbings. Like, there’s just these, [00:09:00] this one stabbing, but you know, parents can look at that and think like, I knew the internet was a bad place. They, they create these monsters and, and the kids are enraptured by them.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Or, or do you remember Momo? The Yes. Image that was supposedly making kids like unalive themselves? Yes. Yeah. there are, there are things like that all over the place. And, I mean, I, you know, Sean worked in the news, and I feel like you guys covered, you know, this is the new internet thing. Oh, Momo, we, we did cover Momo. Yeah. Like on the local news, because parents were probably calling in, being like, Hey, what’s going on? I heard that this is happening to everyone.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And just like an urban legend, just like with the Lover’s Lane murders or Slender Man, like this is a very centralized situation of, of influence in real life, but people kind of take it and run with.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So these [00:10:00] internet-based urban legends, they’re called creepypasta,and that’s kind of from the, the term copypasta, which was like those emails that you’d get back in the day that was like, copy this and then send it to 10 friends or you’ll have bad luck or whatever. So creepypasta was sort of the internet horror story version of that.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Oh, the, the word “creepypasta.” I, I was reviewing the notes on theSlender Man crime that we’ll get to in a minute. No spoilers. And it struck me that the word creepypasta was, was a big part of these girls’ vocabulary. Yeah. Like, like they’re talking, we’ll, we’ll get into it, but they’re talking about going to a, a mansion in the woods where all of the creepypastas live. Yeah. Like the creepypastas as in like they’re the Universal monsters or something. Yeah. The shared universe, the shared cinematic universe of the creepypastas.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So,yeah, you know, it’s, it’s pretty fascinating how those things take on a life of their own. And [00:11:00] I’m curious how much you guys knew about Slender Man, like when it first started becoming popular, and then did the crime really register with you guys, as well?

    Josh Hutchinson: I don’t think I knew about it until the crime. I wasn’t in the creepypasta world. So,it was a new, exposure for me to see that. Andsince then I’ve, I like the creepypastas, but I don’t like taking them and turning them into real life.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah, for sure.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Agree to agree on.

    Sarah Jack: I was aware of creepypasta, but I wasn’t aware of Slender Man, and my niece was 12 when things happened, and I remember, I think I probably, the first thing Aunt Sarah said was, “you know what’s fantasy, what’s not fantasy, right?” Because it, it was so I think that was one of the real shocking things is [00:12:00] like the, you know, what is in our, actually in our world, what is real in our world?

    Sarah Jack: But I was so fascinated because of how his image, just that the history of him, and I know you might talk about that a little bit, but how he just wasn’t thought of and then he was presented and then the stories were, you know, they just ran with the stories. Yeah.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: The visual hasn’t even evolved that much. In those first two Something Awful posts, it didn’t have to, it was so evolved. It’s there. It’s a really good creature design, you know. Well, it’s very Men in Black. We, we did, 1, 1, 1 of our last runsof episodes before we departed for our hiatus was a Hot Moth summer. And we talked about the,you know, you talking about the Moth Man, and we talked about the Men in Black a lot. There is a Slender

    Sarah Jack: Sing it. Sing it. I’ve heard you sing it. Sing it.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: The Will Smith, uh,

    Sarah Jack: Okay. Yay.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: It’s, it’s been so [00:13:00] long. I forgot what,I forgot which, I was gonna bust into Will Smith’s Miami, and I was like, I don’t know why we’re doing this, but it’s a jam. Yeah. I mean, there’s something really evocative about the imagery and, and we’ll get to that in a second. And yeah, for me, like 2009 is when this first sort of hit the scene and I was in early college, I was probably the perfect age to like really appreciate creepypasta culture and I was on Tumblr, I was on all that fun stuff, but I, I didn’t take it seriously.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Like, I was old enough to not take it seriously. I was old enough to be like, this is cool. I like reading horror. And it’s cool that everyone’s kind of contri, it’s almost like fan fiction, you know? It’s like this really, like anyone could do it. Anyone could share their work and I think that’s really cool and, and special on. On the creepypasta subreddit, which I was on, from time to time. Um,it was always like. Nobody would say that it was fake. Oh. But you could tell no [00:14:00] sleep was the subreddit, and that was oh or no sleep is great. That was the conceit, was like, yeah. Everyone kind of was role-playing.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: That these stories were real. If you said you were posting a fake story, it would get taken down. Like the rules of the sub were, you had to pretend it was real because you want, people wanted the experience of likecould it be real? Like, yeah, this, it’s almost a role play, right? Like, like clicking through these creepy stories and going, oh, who posted this? Yeah. But even though, but everybody’s participating in a shared, like agreed delusion in that, in that space where they all know it’s fake, but, but you know,maybe a preteen stumbling on the creepypasta wiki doesn’t know that. Yeah.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So, you know, they had the, the girls, part of the crime, which again, we’ll get to, you know, they were experiencing this story, after it had evolved and spread for years. So they didn’t have that root of knowing where it came from and knowing it was fictional.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: No, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Yes. Should we start with something awful? Well, yeah. So [00:15:00] Something Awful, which is, what happened, but also this forum, it was like a message board forum, a really popular thing in the mid two thousands. and what’s interesting about this is that not, you know, unlike what we were just talking about with like the role play aspect, this forum started a spooky image contest. So it was. Enter your spooky pictures that you create with like a little spooky story. And everyone knows this is fake because it’s like a Photoshop contest.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So no one was going into this thinking, oh, this is like a ghost photo that someone really took, or this is someone’s real experience. It was like, how legit can they make it seem? Like, how interesting can they make the story? So people started to submit to this back in 2009. It was just, you know, one message thread.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Until, I pretty early on, one user named Victor Surge, which is not his real name, submitted what would probably [00:16:00] become the most memorable because that’s what we’re talking about today. So he posted two photos that he created and then it was part of the thing that he created them. And one of them was a black and white photo. So,like a real picture. He had obviously found it somewhere in, you know, stock imagery and, it’s like a group of young teens. They’re walking toward the camera and then there’s this strange, faceless figure just barely visible behind them, which was, you know, photoshopped in, but like, really well done. It’s a, it’s a pretty good edit. Very tall. Long arms. Yeah, tall, long arms. Big, strong guy. Dear. Streaming dentist. Yeah, bald, like faceless.And then below the photo in the post was this quote, “we didn’t want to go, we didn’t want to kill them. But its persistent silence and outstretched arms horrified and comforted us at the same time.”

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And then there was a date, 1983, photographer [00:17:00] unknown, presumed dead. So it’s I love, Ooh, I love photographer presumed dead. Yes, that’s, that’s a chef’s kiss. Dead, like you don’t even know they’re dead.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And then there was a second photo. So again, like a real life, probably a stock image, black and white picture of a little girl on these like ladder steps up to a small slide. And she’s smiling at the camera, you know, like, almost like,her mom’s taking the picture. There’s a few other kids playing around her in like a park or a playground, and then in the shadows, in the far background, there’s again this same strange, tall, faceless figure. And he’s got these like odd, tentacle-looking limbs and he’s standing with a few children around him.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And the photo bears a seal on the top right saying City of Stirling Library’s local studies collection. He’s, he’s reaching down to them, right? He might be holding the kids’ hands or something with his weird tentacles. It’s kind of like he’s beckoning and bringing them in, like, [00:18:00] you know, like attracting them to him.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Any listeners or viewers who aren’t, who think they’re not familiar with these pictures, if you are familiar with what the Slender Man looks like, you probably have seen one of these, because they’re like the most. But if you just Google, or use search engine of your choice, original Slender Man pictures. Yeah. Original Slender Slender Man pictures. These are the two pictures that you’ll find.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And then on the second, there was this backstory, one of the two recovered photographs from the Stirling City Library blaze. So that sounds like something from a Stephen King novel already. Specifically, it is, it is basically ripped off from It, actually. Notable for being taken the day which 14 children vanished and for what is referred to as the Slender Man, so this is the first time that the name is used. Deformity cited as film defects by officials. So this seems to be a reference to, the weird, creepy guy in the background. Fire at library occurred one week later, actual photograph confiscated as evidence. 1986, photographer [00:19:00] Mary Thomas, missing since June 13th, 1986.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So he just posted these pictures. He just posted like a sentence, a little paragraph, and then everyone freaked out. People still were submitting their own things, but everyone was kind of like this Slender Man. Like, this story is cool. Like, I love this guy. People were, were starting to, I love this guy. I love,I love this, the idea of this monster people were submitting their own images based on Slender Man from a few days before.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So it became its own thing within the message board that like the first people to see this sort of latched on immediately. Like, this is a really effective, creepy story and a really effective monster.which is, which, says a lot about how great of an idea it was.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: It has to be, you have to be a really good creature [00:20:00] design, a really good, creepy idea, to start in a post that literally acknowledges that it’s fake and then get to a place where there’s widespread belief in the, in, in the thing. And in the post, you know, everyone was still very much aware that it was fake. They were making their own versions of the story, and that’s kind of how it would spread.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: It came out of the post. People were sharing the post with other people. People started contributing their own versions of the story and their own imagery and their own lore. And it started out slow because again, this was just, you know, a popular but random message board. It wasn’t like a, you know, it’s not like how social media is today.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: But once it really picked up speed, speed, it just kept on going and going and spreading. Yeah. So Surge, who his real name is Eric Knudsen, told Vanity Fair that he wanted to formulate something whose [00:21:00] motivations can barely be comprehended, which caused unease and terror in a general population.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Andit is it, right? It’s Pennywise. Well, that’s always going to be the thing, for kids. it goes back to that cautionary tale idea that, in this case, Slender Man was targeting and victimizing children and, with Stranger Danger being such a thing and such a influence on urban legends and modern day folklore since, I mean, I guess the eighties was like when it really sort of like became a hysteria.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: It could kind of be that Slender Man became this modern day boogeyman for kids who, you know, like, Hey, don’t stray too far from the crowd. Don’t be too much of an outsider that monsters could lie in wait and get you.

    Josh Hutchinson: I was just gonna say it kind of, you know, goes back to the [00:22:00] why Hansel and Gretel’s so successful. It’s that children in danger, they’re being lured by somebody, they’re being taken by somebody. And we see that with the witch trials. Anytime a child was put in danger, then they go after the danger like intensely. You know, we had the whole Satanic panic going on in the eighties, too. The parents were just freaking out about this stuff.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Mm-hmm. Yeah. And they never stop. They, they might latch onto a new fear. So one of the most prevalent ones, as Sean said, is the internet, is what could be connecting to kids, what your kids could be looking at when you don’t know. And there is, that’s a not an unfounded fear, right? There’s lot of No, I mean, it’s, it’s very legitimate dangers out there.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah. So, you know, it, it all develops and what’s interesting is that I think the adult perspective is just [00:23:00] as involved in the spreading of the story and the formulation of the story as the kids who are consuming it, too. ‘Cause you know, like I was a college kid, I guess I was an adult, but like young adults, like they, they read, you know, spooky stories online because people like reading horror stories, but, you know, they have different perspectives of it, but the adult fears of, of what could happen to your child or a child’s fear of what could happen to them, this, it kind of both combined in this story. It’s also unclear to me in that first flurry of Slender Man posts, and you get into this as the lore, the weird Slender Man lore builds up with the Slender Man proxies. and we’ll get into that. it’s unclear in those first two images whether he’s threatening those children or whether he’s, I mean, the photographers are presumably adults, right? And they go missing. So is it that Slender Man’s weaponizing these children? Is it fear of the children? Well, the 14 children did go missing at the fire. Yeah, ’cause they followed Slender Man. But the [00:24:00] lady who took the picture, she did. Yeah. Yeah. mean, it, it could be he, he is just, he’s just going after everyone.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah. He’s just having fun. He’s just, he’s just having a good time.

    Sarah Jack: Why do you think it seems to have stayed as the Slender Man and not Slender Men?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: What a good question. I think it kind of, I mean, There are versions of the legend that have multiple of these creatures, or like, there’s the Slender Woman. Of course people are gonna spin it off, you know, like the Bride of Slender Man. But I think it’s just so much creepier, like a Pennywise the Clown, to have like one monster. It’s the Michael Myers. You can’t get away from him. Like even he’s just one guy. But even so, he’s still gonna get you. And this guy, particularly this guy, I mean, whatever it is, it can’t be reasoned with, he’s got no face. [00:25:00] Like you can’t talk to him. You know? He is, he is just lying in wait, lurking. Mm-hmm. Like coming to get you.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And these original posts, they’re, they’re not saying how, like they’re just saying, these kids vanished. they’re not saying oh, he, he murders them like this, or he does this. His motivations are unclear and you can’t talk to him about his motivations, and you can’t, there, there’s no understanding, there’s no humanity because you can’t, look ’em in the eye or you can’t connect on that level.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So I think the monstrosity of just this, like this unknowable creature again, so many things go back to the fear of the unknown and what’s more unknown than a faceless face. Just something that looks human but isn’t.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: I’m trying to figure out what, how the timeline on this works, but now I’m also thinking of the, the Silence from Dr. Who, the [00:26:00] Dr who villain, which are a whole alien race of Slender Mans. But I don’t know if that, those episodes came out after the Slender Man legend, probably, but they also could just be men in black. Yeah. again, and the men in blackreally quick overview. But they’re this, these beings.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And there, there are more than one. So it’s unlike the Slender Man, but it’s, they’re attached to stories of alien abductions and encounters. And these weird guys in suits show up to your house and they’re, they threaten you not to talk. And it, they look human at first, but then it turns out like their faces are weird and they start acting funny.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And again, it’s that thing of they seem like us, but they’re not quite right. Yeah, there’s, and that’s always going to make, like we are, that’s why the uncanny valley is so frightening is because we can look at something and go, but the eyes are not quite human. It’s not real. And that makes [00:27:00] people instinctually very afraid, which is why this was so effective.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: He has the somewhat of a guise of a guy in a suit, but he’s like too lanky. And he is got these tentacles sometimes, and he is got no face. There’s things that are off and that are wrong, and that’s what makes it frightening.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: It’s like how movie robots have to look like Johnny Five or they have to be human actors because,something in between is a little too weird. A little too freaky. Yeah. C3 Pocus in between, but Yeah.So Indiana University folklorist Jeff Tolbert noted, “the Slender Man indexes at least two separate intellectual strands, two distinct, but related conceptual frameworks. First, Slender Man is a sign of abject fear, the ultimate other, the final evolution of radical alterity. Second Slender Man subtly references the self-conscious communicative processes that give rise to the tradition itself and are in fact the reason for its continued [00:28:00] existence as an internet icon. Slender Man offers critical commentary on the legend genre by enabling individuals to participate in the creation of a legend through reverse ostension.”

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So basically, there are two really important factors, to this professional folklorist, as to why this was such an evocative story, and it’s because he represents this, this fear of the other, which is something that you guys talk about all the time, is that, you know, why? Why do people ostracize other people?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And why do they turn them into boogeymen is because they’re afraid of them for some reason. They are other, they are different. And that combines with howthe nature of urban legends, and especially internet urban legends, which are just easy to access, like quick to update. You can, you don’t have to wait years for things to like get told through word of mouth. [00:29:00] It’s the participatory nature, and that sort of combined into like this really powerful story that kind of just snowballed and snowballed and snowballed.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And it is the, participatory nature that can also be the scary thing, right? When impressionable minds come across this, this stuff.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah, absolutely. And just like anything on the internet and people are experiencing that now. And, and this is, you know, even this is like dated in a way, like how think this story spread initially. Now it’s like TikTok, it’s conspiracy theories. But it’s, at the end of the day, it’s fear of the unknown. I don’t understand why this thing happened. I need an explanation.We’re making up stories at the end of the day, but they spread, because people need to understand what they don’t understand. And I, and people do, there are, [00:30:00] since we’ve been researching the Slender Man, there have been people who believe that there might be Slender Man out there. And I think a lot of them fall into one of two camps. One is children, who don’t know any better necessarily, and think they see adults talking semi-seriously about something on the internet and think that it must be semi-serious or greater. and then you’ve also got very interestingly, the school of thought around tulpas, Carrie, aroundthought-form energy ghosts. If enough people believe in something, then they will The Secret style manifest it into being somewhere in the world. Yeah, it’s a very old folkloric. I mean, that’s from like old religious and even, certain pagan folklore is, creating something out of pure belief. If you believe something hard enough, you can create something and sometimes that is used for good to, to [00:31:00] manifest to your vision board, but sometimes, according to folklore of all different traditions, that can be used to create like your own little monsters to do your bidding.And it’s at the intersection of like creation and fantasy and real life fear that the Slender Man story eventually led to what was eventually called the Slender Man Stabbing. that is a spoiler. it’s an attempted murder case. We’re gonna spoil that up top because there are children involved here and, it’s good to know that it’s not, it turns out full murder. Yeah, it turns out okay. But yeah, there was an attempted murder. So this was in May 2014, so this is only five years after this, the, the first images were posted. So, you know, we, we were telling the same urban legends for decades. You know, Bloody Mary, the hook hand, you know, aren’t you glad you didn’t turn on the [00:32:00] light like the, the college roommate one, like those had decades and decades to percolate. This had spread so far and wide.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: There were YouTube, web series, there were indie video games by this point, I think, I don’t know if there had been a film yet, but there have been since then. So in only five years, this kind of influenced this major crime. So it’s, it just goes to show how the internet has affected how folklore transmits nowadays.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: But in May, 2014, the basic story is that two 12-year-old Wisconsin girls stabbed their friend in the woods. She was also their age. They had fully intended to kill her, and it was meant to appease what they believed to be the real Slender Man, to prove themselves to him. [00:33:00] And,I think it’s hard to believe that 12 year olds at children could be capable of such horror.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: At the same time, it’s also hard to believe that children as old as 12, 12 feels a little too, when you’ve, on the face of it, it feels a little too old for this level of falling into a fantasy. Right. So it’s surprising in both ways. Yeah. Now this is, it was combined with obvious other issues at play, probably melt mental illness, which we’ll we’ll talk about.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: But it made it so it seemed like this, to them, this was a reasonable course of action. So the victim, Payton Leutner, she was originally friends with the perpetrators. these were Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier, and Morgan and Payton had been friends since fourth grade. Anissa had been a recent addition to the two at the beginning of sixth grade.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So you have this situation where like there’s [00:34:00] these two best friends forever. And then one girl kind of comes in and she’s kind of close with Morgan, but Payton’s not really like into it, but now they’re a trio, and that’s kind of okay, that’s our friends now.Morgan was always a little odd. Her mother recalled that she wasn’t sad about Bambi’s mother dying in Bambi as an example, but rather she just said, run Bambi, run, get out of there, save yourself.

    Sarah Jack: Yeah.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: The save yourself is pretty, and this like very, very young. This is obviously years and years before this stabbing happened, so, you know, she had some things going on. Mm-hmm. And she was the first of them to really become obsessed with Slender Man. She got really into reading creepypasta online. She found the Slender Man story and she just became obsessed with it. She would draw Slender Man, she would look up art, she would, engage with the stories. And she sort of influenced Anissa [00:35:00] with this.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: This obsession. So they fed off of each other. And again, Payton, who is originally Morgan’s best friend, is getting left behind a little bit and they’re becoming like really, really insular and really interested in this thing together. And Payton’s not really interested in it.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So she naturally becoming more and more ostracized the more they become almost addicted to this story and like experiencing more versions of the story and art and videos and all these things. Well, Carrie, they’re working to become proxies to the Slender Man, right? Yes. Because what these girls believed is that Slender Man lives in a mansion somewhere in the woods, an abandoned mansion, except he lives there with all of the other creepypastas.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: that was an idea. Yes. And it was specifically in Nicolette National Park, which was in Wisconsin. That’s convenient.

    Josh Hutchinson: they are.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yes. Yes.

    Josh Hutchinson: We believe it. That he has a mansion. It’s right back here in the woods.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: [00:36:00] Exactly it, it, which is like a, like a childlike way to, well, you know, if, if he has a secret mansion in the woods, it’s gotta be those woods, ’cause those are the only woods I know. It, it, you know, there is this childlike fantasy to it all that is interjected with this just horror, which is really interesting to see it meld together.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So,in 2014, after a slumber party, the three of the girls headed over to a local park,Morgan and Anissa baited Payton with a game of hide and seek. So again, they’re kids like, this is like the natural, you know, they’re walking to the park after a slumber party. They’re playing hide and seek.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: They pull her deeper and deeper into the woods. And eventually Morgan got on top of Payton, told her, I’m so sorry, and pulled out a knife and began stabbing her. Anissa told Payton to lay down away from the road and be quiet so she’d lose blood slower. And the girls said that they were gonna go get help for her, but just fled.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: [00:37:00] So this poor girl, Payton, her friends have just attacked her, tried to kill her. she is really badly wounded and she’s hoping that they’re going to send help too, because again, there’s this childlike aspect of I can’t believe my friends did this. This can’t be real. Yeah. Why? I don’t know why they did this, but I don’t know why they would say they’re gonna send help if they’re not.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So hopefully, yeah.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Why do you think they wanted to kill her with such a violent act? Or why not just lead her to the mansion with them and then trade her for admittance? Why do you think I, it’s, it is really hard for me to comprehend that violent

    Sarah Jack: Me too, too. that

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: I think there’s a sacrificial aspect, especially for Morgan, ’cause she was always so close to Payton. I’m, I don’t know if Anissa was feeling the same sort of intense sacrifice of it all, but there was a development in the Slender Man lore, which, [00:38:00] came years later where you could, and again, there’s a zillion different ways this plays out. But you could, this is a really dark bloody Mary. Yes. You could do a very bloody, do terrible acts and act as his proxy and he would then take you under his wing and trust you. So I think there is a sacrificial aspect of this is my best friend. What could be better to sacrifice to Slender Man than my best friend? Oh, it’s like Thanos. It’s a bit like Thanos. So Slender Man wants to be out in the world and or he wants to have impact on the world. He wants to be doing bad stuff and killing people and being a naughty little boy. but sometimes you don’t want to go out, sometimes you want to eat DoorDash, and that’s where he, they’re DoorDash has the proxies step in, I think is what’s going on.

    Sarah Jack: And then my other question about the proxies is because, I’m thinking always thinking about, witchcraft accusations and just, our, humanity’s idea around [00:39:00] witches. so these proxies, were they ever, could somebody be accused of being a proxy or did people just wanna identify as proxies or were they being identified by other fans?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: That’s fascinating. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of it going that way. I think most of the time, and I think probably where the lore came from was people wanting to be part of the story. And in this case, what’s interesting is, you know, it seems to me that these, the two perpetrators, Morgan and Anissa, they were feeding off of each other, they were playing into each other’s mental illness and obsession with this story. And also they were creating this very intense bond that ostracized this other friend. And also she didn’t struggle with mental illness. She was known as being more well [00:40:00] adjusted. So she, what is interesting is that it’s the reverse of a lot of witch hunts and witch trial cases where the other islike a socially awkward or un doesn’t fit in an outsider. But in this sort of micro group little, yeah, microcosm, this three person group, it’s the two that are, struggling with their mental health, obsessing over this horror monster, and they’re ostracizing the girl that is more well-adjusted, less of an outsider, but to them she has become the outsider. She is the one that needs to be scapegoated and sacrificed.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And they probably are dealing with some social ostracization outside the group. Oh, absolutely. Especially Morgan. Yeah. They both really struggled with friendships in school. Payton and Morgan, it seemed like Payton was making other friends and able to be social and things like that. And maybe Morgan [00:41:00] saw that and was very jealous of that as well, because these were her only friends.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Now didn’t Anissa tell Morgan or the other way around maybe that Slender Man would kill their parents? So there’s also like a, there’s a carrot and a stick angle. Like you can come live in the mansion with me and Michael Myers or whatever, or, I’ll kill your parents. Yeah. So to get that to that in a second, yes. The girls do flee. They go to try and find Slender Man in the woods in his Slender Mansion. Is that what they called it? I, I, it’s good brand. It’s in my mind is that, but I dunno if that’s what they called it. But I colloquially, I think people are like the Slender Mansion.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: It’s right there. So they run. Now Payton was miraculously found alive by like a biker, just like a passing person. She was rushed to the hospital, and Morgan and Issa were discovered walking by the highway and detained for questioning. So again, there’s this really childlike aspect of like, there’s not really a plan here.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: How [00:42:00] are you going to get into the deep woods of the, this national park, which I’m sure is massive to two kids who don’t know where they’re going. They’re just wandering by the highway. They just figured Slender Man would swoop in and be like this way, you know?But they were able to do such a horrific act that is, world altering, that almost ended a person’s life, but that there’s no real plan and that is real, really childlike, but then wrapped up in all of this horror. , questioning, Morgan said that they had to do what they did because Anissa had told her that Slender Man would kill their families, so that was from the stand.

    Josh Hutchinson: You know, what struck me watching the HBO documentary, they talked about Morgan and Anissa planning this for like six months to like work out the details of this plan, but then they kind of changed some of the elements [00:43:00] towards the end. Like, they want to kill her at night while she’s sleeping at first, but then they go with this other plan and.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: This was like the third option. I think they, they tried to do something in the bathroom at the park and I don’t know if Anissa couldn’t go through with it. So like they kept on putting it off. Again, it’s the child like, oh, we’ll figure it out. We’ll figure it out.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: it’s fun to, as a kid to like fixate on something and make a little plan or whatever. And I used to do that with like murder mystery parties. Like, that was my thing when I was, in high school or whatever. Like we would plan and we would create the characters and everything and that was so fun. But it was fake and I knew it was fake and it was just for fun. But they were using this as their entertainment as well, because it was their entertainment reading. creepypasta was their entertainment and fixating on it, and obsessing on these stories. And then they just brought it into their lives.

    Sarah Jack: I was just thinking [00:44:00] about, attacking her was power. Like how do children look at that? Like, look for power? Did they feel like they were taking some power, like having power to hurt their friend to serve Slender Man? So then are they like even, they’re adjusting his power because they’re not gonna be victims of his.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: I think that was part of it, is that,Morgan especially, who was the one who did the stabbing, she had a flat affect too. I don’t think it, it seemed like it affected her a ton, at least initially, and I think part of it was she was wrapped up in this fantasy that she’s just doing this for this monster. she’s just in a way, part of this monster. she’s, his right hand doing this action for him. And I think it’s a way to remove yourself, as well. It’s [00:45:00] like, well, I’m only doing this for such and such, and for a child it might be a little easier to pull those things apart and be like, this isn’t me, ’cause if you’re already wrapped up in this fantasy, it’s not so hard to remove the blame from yourself. So I think she probably did feel power, but she didn’t feel like she was doing it just for herself or doing it to get one over on Payton. She was doing it to, to, go be with Slender Man.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah. that’s what they wanted at the end of the day. Maybe a power dynamic was at play, but they weren’t consciously thinking about it. Super hard. Yeah. I think with what we talked about, how they had been othering her in their three person friendship, I think that was really the expression of it was, this is gonna be the victim because she is the most, unlike the two of us, like the two of us get it. We’re a little, we’re a little more weird. We’re, we’re obsessed with this [00:46:00] story and she’s not like us. And the power there is victimizing her. It’s like they, they felt powerful to make the decision, to make her the victim, to choose her as the sacrifice. But I don’t know if they thought of it as necessarily even against her, you know?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: It’s interesting because it seems like it was just very much like,this is what we have to do to meet Slender Man. Yeah. If one of them fully got cold feet and the other one said, I’m so sorry. They weren’t like exci, they weren’t up in an angry blood lust or, excited to, to get to the stabbing.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: They, and they seemed both interested in Slender Man and also fearful. Morgan said that Anissa said that he would kill their families, and she also said that she had been seeing him in her dreams, which I’m sure was frightening for a child. And Anissa said, “from what the creepypasta Wiki said, he targets [00:47:00] children most, so I was really scared knowing Slender Man could easily kill my whole family in three seconds.”

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: But here’s where I get stuck on that word creepypasta again, because to me maybe this is the difference of being an adult, but to me, or maybe this is a difference of mental illness for that matter, but for me, the word creepypasta means that the stuff’s fake. It’s fake. that’s an attending like mental tag on the word creepypasta as it, it might have just been a genre, true crime, like horror. It was just the genre that they were looking at. But I think they really played into each other’s fears so much so that, you know,they started believing it through the power of just influencing each other back and forth, back and forth, obsessing about this thing, fixating on it, and then fixating on this plan.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: It became more and more real because you had someone else telling you that they believed in, they thought the same things as you. So it’s how a conspiracy theory spreads. It’s, [00:48:00] well, if someone else believes the same thing, I can’t be crazy, because there’s something here.It’s really interesting because again, they’re kids.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So it’s, seeing it through that lens is very different than seeing it through an adult lens. And we talked about the Satanic panic, we talked about Pizzagate and all that stuff. And those are very adult hysterias, based in fears, just like this fears about children and some of them ha resulted in crimes or accusations leveled at people.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: McMartin preschool. Yeah, McMartin, preschool, like very baseless sort of situations at the end of the day, that was legally found. and that those were the adult cases. So it’s interesting that this is like a, again, a microcosm of that.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And Morgan was the one that really went with the proxy thing. She was the one that told Anissa like, this is what we do to be proxies for him and go meet him. It was her that said that they [00:49:00] should kill Payton, because they have to prove themselves to him. So it makes sense that she’s the one, first of all, she’s the one doing the stabbing, but she’s the one making this choice, because she was the one who was the closest to Payton, so maybe she also felt the most jealous of her being more integrated in their young society. She might’ve felt left behind by her in some senses and betrayed by her. And she figured I have this new friend, I need to prove myself to this new friend, as well. We both believed the same thing, so let’s cut out this other person that is not part of our group anymore.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah,I, it just would’ve been better if they just got into like Ed Sheeran or something. Ed Sheeran will never demand stab your friend in the woods, and if he does, that’s not good.

    Josh Hutchinson: If you play him backwards.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: yeah, exactly. Back [00:50:00] masked, ed Shean, it’s can I have some tea?that’s a very pleasant backlash. So after the interrogation, the girls were arrested for first degree attempted homicide.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: The trial began September, 2017, so this is a few years later. Morgan was charged with attempted first degree homicide, ’cause she was the one who perpetrated the stabbing, and Anissa with attempted second degree. Now, because of a get tough on crime initiative in Wisconsin, they were required to be tried as adults. They were not even teenagers during the stabbing and they still were like 14 or 15, yeah, 14 or 15, but they were being tried as adults for attempted murder, and they were both facing life in prison if found guilty. So this kind of, it wasn’t a whim, right?There was planning that went into it, but they didn’t grasp the seriousness of it, for a variety of reasons.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: But again, they [00:51:00] were 12. Like,you’re going through puberty, hormones are crazy like. You’re kind of crazy when you’re 12 in a way. Like just taking out any question of underlying, mental illness or anything like that. Like you are, you’re not your most reasonable as a 12, 13-year-old person.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: That’s also a bad,it’s a bad position to put the jury in, because these girls definitely are guilty of attempted murder. Yes.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah.

    Sarah Jack: Oh yeah.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Is, how much did they understand they were doing something wrong?

    Sarah Jack: Yeah.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Or how much do you want to, how much, who does it serve to put them in prison for and the max punishment, you know?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So Morgan was eventually diagnosed by court psychiatrist Kenneth Casser, with schizophrenia and oppositional defiant disorder. for schizophrenia, Casser said the patients could lose track of reality in a number of ways, hallucinations, hearing voices, and delusional thought, like believing Slender Man is real.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: During the [00:52:00] trial, another psychologist stated that he felt Anissa was susceptible to delusional disorder, schizotypal personality disorder, and this particularly is a diminished ability to determine what is real and what is not real. He also felt that she had no characteristics, of, psychopathy, or sociopathy, but she was diagnosed with a shared psychotic disorder with Morgan. we talked about this in our show. It’s like a folie a deux, madness of two, where you kind of share delusions so deeply, you egg each other on so much, that you enter into a psychosis with another person, and that,the fact that it’s with another person makes it stronger because you’re going back and forth.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: It’s an endless feedback loop of this really damaging thought. It’s what’s probably going on with Betty and Barney Hill or those two ladies who say they went back in time atVersailles. Versailles, yes. Yeah. You say, oh, isn’t this [00:53:00] weird? Isn’t this weird? Isn’t this weird? And then it just goes back and forth. You know what? You’re right. That was Maria Antoinette. Yeah, exactly.And so this idea of this hysteria and shared madness is really prevalent in a lot of stories that both of our podcasts cover. hysteria is often a factor in what leads to Witch trials and the scapegoating of those perceived as others, and this event really was evocative to me of the Salem Witch Trials. Now, of course, it’s the one that I know the best, but the fact of the young girls being the catalyst here, they’re influenced by a variety of factors that are still debated even to today. Wasn’t ergot.

    Josh Hutchinson: No.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: But they’re, they include societal pressures, paranoia. In their cases, the real difficulties of colonial living and being a young girl in the pre-revolutionary era and the, just the dreadful boredom. You don’t have much to [00:54:00] do from childhood to getting married. You’re just getting ready to get married a lot of the time. You’re helping your mom, you’re helping around the house, and then you’re lots of socks to darn, you’re getting, you’re waiting to be a wife and a mother. Um,and that was a really lonely and difficult place to be, I’m sure, as a young woman in the colonial era. So that sort of, in the Salem Witch Trials case, they had these shared stories that they would, go back and forth and participate in. There was a role play element of making their, their little poppets and doing a little spells and things.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah. And they whipped each other into a frenzy building on each other’s stories until it did leak out into the real world and had really large implications for their society, with adults as well. So it wasn’t just limited to the children. And that’s how the shared storytelling of the Slender Man in this little [00:55:00] group led to those real life consequences. It’s this shared hysteria that leads to tragedy. I think those girls probably were feeling their power. Yes, I think so.

    Sarah Jack: And like the Salem Witch trial afflictions, that was full of emotion. Did the shared delusion of Anissa and Morgan, I wonder how, it, it seems like there was like this void of emotion.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah. And some, some of that could be their particular individual mental states and mental health struggles. Morgan might just have a very flat affect generally. I think part of it is also what they were doing was so involved in this other being, you know, doing things for this other being or through this other being. They could kind of lay blame for this other being. And I think they probably knew they were doing something [00:56:00] wrong,depending on the mental illness factor, but they knew that killing was wrong. She said, I’m sorry. Yes.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Um, but the girls in the Witch trials, I think initially they probably didn’t understand what they were doing was wrong. Eventually, things escalated to such an extent that it was like, oh, people are dying. This is getting serious. But I think they were, they had the fantasy, they thought they were in the right, they thought they were doing what was right in a way. I think.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: They put a baby in prison pretty early. They did. I think by that point they were probably figuring it out. But initially, and again, they have childlike motivations too. They don’t wanna get in trouble, so they have to start blaming other people. And then eventually they’re whipping each other into a frenzy of this is really happening.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And then, they have to keep the ruse going, because again, they could get in [00:57:00] trouble. Like it’s a very childlike thing, but has these really drastic implications in the lives of so many people. And that’s what happened in the Slender Man stabbing, as well.

    Josh Hutchinson: You can see how the girls in the Salem Witch Trials and it seems like these two girls, it, the Slender Man case, like they’re really influenced by what adults are saying, also, because adults invented Slender Man and adults in Salem, were saying, Hey, the devil’s all around you. He’s walking around these woods right now trying to get people so you know, they’re on heightened alert, believing what the adults say, and then the adults are reinforcing them and saying, okay, good job accusing that person.

    Josh Hutchinson: Why don’t you accuse another, we’re gonna, have that person arrested. We’re validating your accusation. So it.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Exactly. If your mom’s telling you the devil’s real and you don’t have a lot of [00:58:00] outside experience in the world to tell you that it’s not real, you’re gonna believe that it’s real. And if your mom is telling you, I don’t want you looking at that Slender Man stuff anymore, it’s not right, then part of you, as a child, might think, maybe there is some, like, why is my mom afraid of him If he’s not real? why doesn’t she want me looking at this? you know it, and yeah, it is eventually, like they are two stories told by adults, two children, and the children take it and really run with it for different reasons, but it’s interesting that they’re, the young women and feeling, I think probably both of them did feel powerless. I think, any 12-year-old girl kind of feels powerless in a way of the changes going on around her with her friend groups, with her microcosm of society, with her body, things that we were, you’re not understanding how you’re feeling from moment to moment. Sometimes you feel [00:59:00] powerless. So you can either take action,in the Salem Witch trials case, or you could,be a proxy to another being and not have to make these decisions for yourself.

    Sarah Jack: I was just thinking one of my favorite, one of my favorite, it’s more than a character, ’cause she was a real person, but Abigail Hobbs, she had the most wildconfession abouther contract with the devil, and I was just thinking, man, how would have Abigail Hobbes, what would’ve her, what would’ve she had to say about Slender Man? What actions would she have taken with Slender Man?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah. Yeah. Do you think any of those,obviously those are all coerced confessions to one degree or another in witch trials. Do you think people get into and do you think any of those people got into a place where they were just like, ended up in the delusion with everybody else, or is it [01:00:00] always a case of please stop hitting me, I saw. I’ll tell you whatever you wanna know. I wrote in the book.

    Sarah Jack: Well, I don’t, I mean, Josh, what do you think about Abigail and Slender Man?

    Josh Hutchinson: I think Abigail Hobbs, she confessed, I think because she wanted to, she’s like an outlier. She’s a 15-year-old girl who’s like the wild child of Topsfield, Massachusetts. She like, has a lot of squabbles with her stepmom and she like tells, she’s has the habit of telling people, before the witch trials, like, oh, I know the devil. He’ll come if I call him. Things like that that you shouldn’t be saying at any time in 17th century Massachusetts. But I think that she was like, yeah, I know the devil, what of it. And she felt she had a certain cachet because of it. By the way, I know you have, the trial of George Jacobs up on your wall there.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: We do. Yeah. [01:01:00] So we have, so my parents had, my dad’s an English teacher, and growing up we had the famous portrait of Nathaniel Hawthorne over our fireplace from, he, we got at the House of Seven Gables. He was a, you know, my dad was a big fan, and so when we moved in here, he gave it to us and we were like, this kind of I really like these paintings and we, I think it’s just, I don’t know. I like we, we’ve themed this dining room around Salem, Massachusetts. We have the Witch House on one wall. We have, Hawthorne there, and we have, I just, I always think this and its companion piece actually, the two, those two big witch trials paintings, there’s such, and again, it’s the witch-hunt, the witch trials that I’m most familiar with and most people are, but it is one of my particular interests and I think something about the, the reminder of what we can do to each other when we’re not civil, when we don’t talk, when we don’t try to understand each other. And these are things that I really value is like civil [01:02:00] discourse, empathy, trying to understand each other. That’s really important to me. So that’s why I I like the reminders of in a weird way, it reminds me of, my own like moral hierarchy, I guess. And the importance of critical thinking. Yes, critical thinking, very important, now maybe more than ever, but certainly then too.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah, definitely. When you’re confronted with some of these ideas like that your neighbor is a witch, you should stop and think for a minute on that. Likecould there be another explanation to why my butter soured, or why my pudding split down the middle? Which are things that happened in Witch trials?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Josh, I, you say that, but she looked through the window right when the, right when I took the sip of the sour milk. So I, if you were here, I think you would agree with it. But, they were in such a reduced experience of the world, like children, they, all they had was their religion. All they [01:03:00] knew, most of them was the local area, their neighbors, their hometown. Some of them had been in, in nearby states and had gone through traumas withIndian wars and things like that. But all they knew was their very, comparatively to nowadays they didn’t have the internet, right, but, they’re smaller realities, they’re very insulated communities. And in the Slender Man stabbing it is like a very insulated situation. There is this connectivity to the internet and stuff, but the access ends up just making them more, more obsessed with this one thing and feeding into it on each other. And they don’t have the life experience of an adult. They haven’t traveled, they haven’t met a lot of people. So it’s easier to believe certain things when you don’t have the experience not to.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Also, when you’re forming a personality, when you’re a adolescent and a teenager even, I would say this applies through collagen and [01:04:00] for some people through their twenties, you are looking for things to build that personality around and sometimes you can become obsessive about something, just because there’s not, you haven’t figured out what else you’re really about yet. You’re trying to find the thing. And I think it’s harder for some people than for others, but they must have been talking a lot about Slender Man because when Payton heard the reasoning behind the stabbing, she was just like, that makes sense.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah. They would do that basically. I know they were obsessed. I wasn’t really into it, but yeah, that, that makes sense to me why they would think that’s a good thing to do.So yeah. So at the end of the day, Anissa pled guilty, and the jury found her guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, so not insanity, but she’s not fully in charge of her faculties. Morgan accepted a plea deal, wherein she would not go to trial and would leave it up to psychiatrists how long that she would be held in a mental hospital. And then [01:05:00] later she pled guilty, but was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Anissa received 25 years to life. She had a few years of locked confinement and involuntary treatment at the State Psychiatric Institute. Morgan received the maximum sentence of 40 years to life. She was in three years of locked confinement and involuntary treatment at the Psychiatric Institute. And then eventually Anissa was released in 2021, and Morgan continues to live in a state mental facility.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: I think it’s good that they weren’t sent to prison forever. I don’t think that would serve anybody.But I think they just, I don’t. Usually the standards for the insanity defense as it’s called, is whether you know right from wrong is whether you know right from wrong and if you apologize to your victim before you stab them, I think you are blowing that defense outta the water. But I also think they probably just shouldn’t have been tried as adults ’cause they were children both [01:06:00] before and after.

    Sarah Jack: It makes me feel frustrated with the adults. It’s like, are we too lazy to learn how to try children for horrific crimes? Let’s just, follow this template over here, because it’s so bad. Well, they got help, the help that was available.

    Sarah Jack: I can’t even, like you mentioned what it would’ve been like for the jury, when you’re thinking about the judge, but even the medical staff who wanted to see these girls heal and be okay, I can’t imagine what that journey was like for everybody. but I’m, I don’t know, adult trials for children, it just seems like can we do better than that? But also it is, it was a very, she almost died. She could have been dead, and she survived. That survival

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Full recovery, which is good. Yeah. And yeah, so it seems apparent that Morgan and Anissa latched onto this outsider monster, because they [01:07:00] themselves felt like outsiders and then fed into each other’s delusions until they enacted this crime in his name.The real question here, and I think we’re probably like-minded of this, but like,does that make them monsters? Is it this monstrous act, this planning, this monstrous act? Can 12 year olds be monsters? Are they capable of that? Are children capable of that? Their brain isn’t fully developed. Maybe they’re not totally understanding everything they’re doing, but can you still be a monster as a child?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: What about the mental health factor? And then this applies to many people, we’ve talked about many criminals and stuff and not to say anything about mental illness, there, there are factors in a lot of crimes where that is a contribution. Can you be fully a monster if you’re not fully in charge of your mind?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Many of us would probably, I hope, say that only a [01:08:00] monster could coldly stab their best friend and leave them for dead, but can these girls really be defined as that?They are getting, they’ve had years of, of help, one of them’s free out in the world. Oh, no, now, but were they monsters when they did this crime?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: It was a monstrous action. But can you define them as monsters?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah, I don’t think so. I think, it reminds me, going back again to Salem, because I love it so much, even though it was awful. Yeah, exactly.

    Josh Hutchinson: People like to blame the girls for, you know, for the accusations that they made, but there were, Ann Putnam Jr. was 12 years old, Abigail Williams, 11 years old. How much responsibility could they possibly bear, if you were gonna try them for say, false accusations or something, how much responsibility can they actually bear [01:09:00] because of where they are in their mental development.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Exactly, and the adults are the ones giving them the power. if the adults weren’t listening to them, the adults weren’t making the arrests, it wasn’t the girls who were doing the hangings or whatever. It was the adults that gave them the power. So at, at the end of the day, they were the ones that kind of helped it happen.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah, I was just, do you know with the three friends in Wisconsin, was it common for them to be out on their own wandering? Because I know that that’s an age, right ,where I was,at that age, out in the neighborhood. A hundred percent.

    Sarah Jack: But you just, I don’t know. It’s, you hate to think that, they left the house with a weapon. It just is wild to me that they left the house with a weapon.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: I think, the initial thing was [01:10:00] that they were going to the park. I, that’s something I, we would have a slumber party and then we’d walk over to the park and sit on the swings or whatever and whatever. Just hang out for like two hours for doing nothing. I think that was probably what they assumed and what they usually did.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And then it, like when Payton’s being brought further and further into the woods, like even she’s understanding this is strange. So I don’t think that was something that was expected of like, oh, they’re gonna go to the national park. They’re gonna go into like deep into the woods,and I think the girls didn’t really know what they were doing either, ’cause they thought that there was like a mansion in there. Yeah, I think they probably were just going to the park and they took advantage of that trust that their parents put in them, they’re like, oh, they’ve gone to the park a thousand times and this will be like any other time. You’re not gonna expect that someone’s gonna get stabbed by one of the girls, you know?

    Sarah Jack: [01:11:00] Yeah, I, the question on monsters and were they monsters at that point? And just, at what point is a human, a monster? Andthere is so much that plays into bad choices as we’ve learned about these attackers. There was, there were things that weren’t okay within their own minds, but do we need to admit that humanity is capable, that people are just very capable of monstrous acts? Is that important or do we just, is there just like you hit this limit and now you’re not a human, you’re a monster. Are you a human acting like a monster?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah. it’s interesting. Because even in, in certain other cases, like John Wayne Gacy, right? A famous serial killer, probably widely considered a monster, very famously had grew [01:12:00] very abused and had traumatic brain injury, head trauma, which is a, another common thing. and I say that as someone who got a really severe concussion playing hockey, so I’m not saying every person with head injuries is a murderer. She has no victims that we know of. Yes.But that is a common factor. and there is a nature versus nurture aspect. A lot of these people, obviously John Wayne Gacy was dealing with a lot of mental trauma from his upbringing and brain trauma, but I think most of us would say that guy was a monster. Is that because he was an adult when he made those decisions? Is that the factor? Are we, do we assign more innocence logically to a 12-year-old?I think when it comes to serial murderers and, when it comes to Gacys and Bundys, I think it’s the repetition of it. No, I think we want to, I think we want to define them as monsters as a way to other them [01:13:00] and put up a wall between, well there’s, but not me. It could never be, I would never do anything like that obviously. ’cause I am a totally different species than that.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Exactly.

    Josh Hutchinson: That’s exactly what I was just thinking. Yeah. Like why do we call people monsters? It’s because we don’t want to think about,are we capable of doing the things that they’re doing? We want to be so different from them and we want an easy explanation, too. We don’t want to think about, well, he had some head trauma and some other trauma in his life and you know, that contributed and then you know this and that.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: There was the, there have been a couple of like scary, sniper guys, but one of them had a, just a brain tumor. And a note on his body, that said, I think there’s something going on in my head. Please cut it open. And there was a big old tumor pressing on his brain. It’s really scary to think that just a physical, something physically going on could turn [01:14:00] you into a monster. And at the end of the day, the girls that perpetrated this crime, they thought they were doing this for this faceless, inhuman creature, but Payton only saw her very human friends at the end of the knife.

    Sarah Jack: Wow.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And she didn’t see a faceless non-human monster. She saw two girls that she grew up with, that she trusted. What would she define as monstrous? Would she blame Slender Man or would she blame the very human girls that, that chose to do this to her, probably the girls.

    Josh Hutchinson: Hopefully.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So, yeah, it’s a very interesting question of what defines a monster, what defines othering, and I think we both found in our shows and the different cases we’ve investigated that there’s a lot of factors and it changes from story to story and even sometimes within a story. Maybe [01:15:00] these girlsdid a monstrous action, but,then there was later context found to those actions and that sort of informs on what happened previously, and, the definitions change. So yeah.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: That holding, these perpetrators at arm’s length or othering them, or breaking down those, barriers a little bit to explore what’s going on under the hood, is all very of a piece of that true crime world that we sometimes swim into. I think that is the fascination of serial killer stories for true crime people is like, we’re all people, but how could they be like me? They, him like me, him like me, how, you know?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: That’s the, that’s the dread of serial killers, I think. For a lot of people. So that’s the Slender Man Stabbing, and that’s the story of Slender Man and how internet folklore kind of turned into this real life horror story. And I think, we’ve seen the conspiracies and things like that [01:16:00] in, in their own way, kind of internet folklore nowadays have also continued doing a lot of the same things.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: So yeah, it’s really about that critical thinking. but, it can be hard if you have other factors at play, sort of, messing with how you are thinking.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Has his suit gotten more suyng over the years? I feel like the tie is more defined now. He definitely has a tie. Sometimes there’s like sexy Slender Man too. Yeah, that guy, that one’s built, we just found a pretty built slender, like I, but he’s not that slender. I mean his, yes. He shouldn’t look like he’s,ripping out bench press. Yeah, for sure.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. So thank you so much.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Oh, thank you guys. This has been a blast. Great blast.

    Sarah Jack: Yeah. This was

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: like I’ve shaken off the dust and the rest,

    Sarah Jack: Yay.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: and the cobwebs just in time for October. Yeah. I’ll put them in other parts of the house.

    Josh Hutchinson: I’ll hit

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: thanks for [01:17:00] having us and, have an amazing, spooky season. And, yeah, don’t let Slender Man get you, Yeah. and, we’ll look forward to our next collab, guys. Please. please, invite us back and, We can, maybe we can get you into the scary studio sooner rather than later.

    Sarah Jack: that would be really fun. And I have to tell you, I was like, I, you could tell Josh this week, I was like, I hope they bring up men in black. I hope they bring up men in black. I hope I can get ’em to sing. What if I can get ’em to sing it?

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Wasn’t even in So embarrassed. I running down

    Sarah Jack: oh,

    Josh Hutchinson: Surprised you didn’t get jiggy with it.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Yeah. No, I really have, just, enjoyed your episodes so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. we have loved, watching your show grow and develop and the scope develop and also how you guys have helped influence, the sort of real world out outside of podcast stuff. That’s really important and, again, in influencing more critical thought [01:18:00] and interest in history and knowing how history informs what we’re doing now. I think that’s more important now than ever, probably.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: And some, sometimes how some of the stuff isn’t fully left in the past. No, it just, a lot of the times it just recycles and repeats and hopefully we can approach it in a more critical and tempered way. That’s not always the name of the game nowadays, unfortunately.

    Sarah Jack: Yeah.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah.

    Ain’t it Scary with Sean and Carrie: Start by not calling people monsters. That’s true.

    Josh Hutchinson: Have a great today and a beautiful tomorrow.

  • Episode 161 Transcript: What is The Thing About Salem

    Listen to the episode here.

    Josh Hutchinson: What is The Thing About Salem?

    Sarah Jack: It’s whatever one sees as the main point of the Salem Witch Trials or the Witch City.

    Josh Hutchinson: It’s that the people involved in the Salem Witch Trials were just like us.

    Sarah Jack: It’s that fear can make communities turn on each other, but understanding that can help us do better.

    Josh Hutchinson: It’s that history isn’t just dates and facts, it’s real people making real choices we might face too.

    It’s where we share fun, bite-sized episodes focused on the Salem Witch Trials and the factors that influenced them, because these stories matter more than ever today. Welcome to The Thing About Witch Hunts. I’m Josh Hutchinson.

    Sarah Jack: I’m Sarah Jack. You’re here for The Thing About Witch Hunts, but you get a special treat.

    Josh Hutchinson: We recently created a second podcast called The Thing About Salem to explore Salem history, [00:01:00] culture, and community voices. In this special crossover episode, we’re going to play the extended edition of one of the episodes we did on The Thing About Salem, about the key moments in the Salem Witch Trials.

    Sarah Jack: Subscribe to The Thing About Salem on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts, and share it with someone who needs to hear these stories, too.

    Josh Hutchinson: Just the facts, ma’am. Did you use at any time to ride upon a stick or pole?

    Sarah Jack: Yes.

    Josh Hutchinson: How high?

    Sarah Jack: Sometimes above the trees.

    Josh Hutchinson: Do not you anoint yourselves before you fly?

    Sarah Jack: No, but the devil carried us upon hand poles.

    Josh Hutchinson: Tell us all the truth. What kind of worship did you do the devil?

    Sarah Jack: He bid me pray to him and serve him, and he said he was a god and lord to me.

    Josh Hutchinson: What did he promise to give you?

    Sarah Jack: He said I would want nothing [00:02:00] in this world and that I would obtain glory with him.

    Josh Hutchinson: Why would they hurt the village people?

    Sarah Jack: The devil would set up his kingdom there and we should have happy days and it would then be better times for me if I obey him.

    Josh Hutchinson: Did you hear the 77 witches’ names called over?

    Sarah Jack: Yes, the devil called them.

    Josh Hutchinson: What did he say to them?

    Sarah Jack: He told them obey him and do his commands and it would be better for them and they should obtain crowns in hell. And Goody Carrier told me, the devil said to her, she should be a queen in hell.

    Josh Hutchinson: Who was to be king?

    Sarah Jack: The minister.

    Josh Hutchinson: What kind of man is Mr. Burroughs?

    Sarah Jack: A pretty, little man, and he has come to us sometimes in his spirit in the shape of a cat, and I think sometimes in his proper shape.

    Josh Hutchinson: Do you hear the devil hurts in the shape of any person without their consent?[00:03:00]

    Sarah Jack: No.

    Josh Hutchinson: Welcome to The Thing About Salem. I’m Josh Hutchinson.

    Sarah Jack: And I’m Sarah Jack.

    Josh Hutchinson: The interrogation we just reenacted was taken from the record of the July 21st, 1692 examinations of Mary Lacey Jr., Mary Lacey Sr., Ann Foster, Richard Carrier, and Andrew Carrier, and was a pivotal moment, which we’ll have more about later in the episode.

    Sarah Jack: We think of the witch-hunt as a runaway train fueled by hysteria, but

    Josh Hutchinson: there were a multitude of individual actors that had free will to change the course of the events.

    We’ll be tallking about pivotal moments in the witch trials, when a person or group could have made a different decision and led the affair to a more peaceful conclusion.

    Sarah Jack: We’ll also cover some times when people did succeed in bringing down the temperature in the [00:04:00] room. Had these choices not been made, the runaway train may have gone off the rails.

    Josh Hutchinson: So, of course, we’re talking about the Salem Witch Trials, which we think of as beginning in January 1692 with the afflictions of Abigail Williams and Betty Parris, and it lasted until May 1693, when the final court proceedings were held and the final prisoners were released from jail.

    Sarah Jack: There are a lot of these points of escalations. We’re gonna highlight some of our favorites.

    Josh Hutchinson: One early turning point was the arrests of Martha Cory, Rebecca Nurse, and Dorothy Good, which took place between March 21st and March 24th. Martha was arrested first on March 21st, and she was the first church member to be accused of witchcraft. She was a member of the Salem Village Church, and yet here [00:05:00] she stands accused of being a witch.

    Sarah Jack: Then a few days later on March 24th, my ninth great-grandmother, Rebecca Nurse, was arrested.

    Rebecca was the first member of the Salem Town Church to be arrested.

    Josh Hutchinson: And the same day that Rebecca was arrested, Dorothy Good was jailed. She was a 4-year-old girl child, the daughter of Sarah Good. And despite her very young age, she’s thrown in jail. They have to make special irons to fit around her little wrists and ankles to keep her in chains in the festering dungeon.

    And this tells us that they weren’t looking for just the usual suspects anymore. If church members and little baby children not even old enough for today, kindergarten [00:06:00] are getting accused of being witches that hurt people, anybody is open to accusation.

    Sarah Jack: The next turn of events that was critical in escalating what was happening was in April. On April 19th, Abigail Hobbs gave a confession.

    Josh Hutchinson: Abigail, who’s Sarah’s favorite confessor.

    Sarah Jack: She is,

    Josh Hutchinson: The wild.

    are grand.Abigail was the wild child of Topsfield, had a very interesting relationship with her stepmother and had a very interesting relationship with the devil, which she confessed to on April 19th, and in her subsequent questioning of her in jail, she elaborated, but being from Topsfield, that expanded the search radius for witches beyond [00:07:00] Salem Village. So that was a big piece of it. And this was the first confession by anyone since Tituba had confessed on March 1st.

    Sarah Jack: There’s also no signs of coercion on this one. It appears to be a voluntary confession. Her confession was a confession of covenanting with the devil. It was a diabolical confession.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah, and Abigail and her stepmother, Deliverance Hobbs, they filled in key details about the diabolic pact and the witches’ sabbath, how those things worked.

    Sarah Jack: And Abigail said that she gave the devil her permission to afflict people. So the devil went out in her specter, her likeness, but only because she said that he could. And this was a big moment, because this said that the [00:08:00] witches had to willingly allow the devil to use their form, that the devil couldn’t use anybody’s shape without their permission. In other words, he couldn’t appear as an innocent person. So therefore, the specters that were being seen by the afflicted people were really the specters of witches who had given the devil their permission.

    So this added some cred to spectral evidence, which the ministers and others were really trying to decide. I mean, in other witch trials even, they were questioning whether a spectral form was actually the person or if it was the devil impersonating them.

    A very big moment in the Salem Witch Trials happened May 27th. This was what actually led to the trial phase happening, because [00:09:00] for months, the jails had been filling with witchcraft suspects, but Governor William Phips, the brand new governor for the Colony, he comes to Boston on May 14th with a brand new charter and instructions to form new courts, but the General Court, the legislature of the colony, has to be the one that forms the courts, and they don’t get around to doing this until November.

    Josh Hutchinson: So what happens in the meantime, Phips creates a special court called the Court of Oyer and Terminer, which means to hear and determine, and he appoints nine judges to it. And they’re gonna start in June. The Chief Justice is gonna be William Stoughton. He’s the new Lieutenant [00:10:00] Governor in this new hierarchy with the royally appointed Governor Phips.

    Sarah Jack:  Who Margo Burns calls Uncle Billy.

    Josh Hutchinson: Uncle Billy was in charge of this court of Oyer and Terminer, and with him, he had judges Bartholomew Gedney, John Richards, Nathaniel Saltonstall, Wait Winthrop, Samuel Sewall, John Hathorne, Jonathan Corwin, and Peter Sargent.

    Sarah Jack: Did I just hear Winthrop was one of the judges?

    Josh Hutchinson: A Winthrop, the son of John Winthrop Jr., who had been the governor of Connecticut for many years.

    Sarah Jack: And the grandson of John Winthrop Senior.

    Josh Hutchinson:  So this is the third generation of Winthrop that is trying people for witchcraft in the new world because both grandpa and father had previously been involved in witch trials in Boston and in Hartford, [00:11:00] Connecticut.

    Sarah Jack: Yeah, and John Winthrop Sr. wrote notes on the very first woman hang for witchcraft in Hartford, which was Alice Young, and then also on Margaret Jones, who was hanged in Boston Tangent. But it’s, it’s good to think about that. You know, Again, these escalations were up against all this historied experience of things coming.

    Josh Hutchinson: Hmm.

    Sarah Jack: To fruition where women are getting executed for witchcraft, this is that times 10.

    Josh Hutchinson: A lot of things had to come together for the Salem Witch trials to happen the way that they happened. And the creation of the court of Oyer and Terminate was a pivotal moment in the witch trial process, because, you know, had they waited for the regular courts to be formed and gone through regular [00:12:00] processes, maybe some of the decisions would’ve come out a little differently about how to, what kind of evidence to admit and what procedures to follow.

    Sarah Jack:  Another thing about the witch trials that I think we sometimes forget is that ministers and other men were doing a lot of deliberation around the seen world and the unseen world and how that was impacting witchcraft and who the witch was, and if the accusations were about diabolical afflictions or harm and I love taking a look at what the ministers were saying. I love taking a look at the deliberations. I wish they would not have had such a difficult time coming to the conclusions that they needed to come to. But one of the significant ones is the Return of the Ministers on [00:13:00] June 15th.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. Boston area ministers had been asked for guidance by Governor Phips. He wanted to know how to handle the witch trials and particularly what types of evidence were admissible and would, could be used as proof that witchcraft had happened. So they question things like spectral evidence.   How do we proceed with this?

    Sarah Jack: This report was called The Return of Several Ministers, and it was written by Cotton Mather, the son of Increase Mather.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah, and Increase Mather had just come home from London where he spent years negotiating the new charter for the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, which became the Province of Massachusetts Bay.

    Sarah Jack: In the Return, the ministers warned the justices about relying upon spectral evidence. Even though Abigail’s story was so colorful and compelling, [00:14:00] they were urged, and not just hers, of course, a lot of the, the spectral evidence was, could have been very compelling and scary.

    They urged the justices to avoid folk tests for witchcraft, and suggested that the justices follow the guidelines set forth in books by English puritans, such as Perkins and Bernard.

    Josh Hutchinson: The ministers also recommended that the justices hold their proceedings in calm environments, cautioned them against using spectral visions as proof of guilt, because demons could assume the image of innocent people.

    Sarah Jack: And we know from comments in the examination papers that during the examinations of Rebecca Nurse and Dorothy Good and others, it was not calm. It was not a calm environment.

     The Return also closed with a recommendation for the speedy and [00:15:00] vigorous prosecution of the witches, so contradicts itself, basically. First, they’re urging caution throughout the report, but then at the end, they’re saying be speedy and vigorous. So the judges, they take this return and they say well, we like spectral evidence. We like doing folk tests. We do things like this touch test where if a witch touches an afflicted person, the afflicted person becomes well because the magic goes back from them to the witch who harmed them.  And the judges continued to do those tests and to accept spectral evidence. What if they had stopped here? What if they had had a different response?

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. What if they, what if Cotton Mather hadn’t written that last line about the speedy and vigorous prosecution? What if he’d been consistent in [00:16:00] advocating for caution? Would there have been a peaceful end to the witch-hunt.

    Sarah Jack: In mid-July, there’s another grand turning point, and this one is really what expands the amount of people who are descendants of those who experienced the Salem Witch Trials, because things expanded to the community of Andover.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. Andover, including what is today the separate community of North Andover, was the scene of a very heated chapter in the Salem Witch Trials. The town of Andover  had more witchcraft accusations than any other community, including Salem. Even if you combine the town center and the village of Salem, they did not have as many accusations as the little town of Andover, which was about the size of Salem Village, had about 500 ish people, [00:17:00] had 45 accusations by the end of the witch trials.

    Sarah Jack: Another catalyst in the Andover phase was the sickness of Elizabeth Phelps Ballard. Sickness tends to be part of the story when there’s a witch trial.

    Josh Hutchinson: For instance, the Salem Witch Trials all started because of sickness in Samuel Parris’s household that spread through Salem Village. And now here there’s an unexplained illness in Andover.

    Sarah Jack:

    Josh Hutchinson: One big element of this Elizabeth Phelps Ballard sickness is that her husband at some point called down to Salem Village and got some of the afflicted girls to come up and examine his wife and determine who was bewitching her. And so they came up, they saw specters, they made accusations. July 19th, Joseph Ballard complained [00:18:00] against Mary Lacey, Sr. and her daughter Mary Lacey, Jr.

    This was a renewal of arrests, because there’d actually been six quiet weeks, no warrants had been issued since June 6th, and here we are July 19th and we’ve got two people getting arrested.

    Sarah Jack: Then also in Andover, on July 21st, Ann Foster confessedthe main aim of the witches was to replace Christ’s kingdom with Satan’s kingdom. So here is a conspiracy unfolding.

    Josh Hutchinson: And this conspiracy gets elaborated on. The piece that we read at the beginning was from the examination of Mary Lacy Jr. during this big, they had a just a group of suspects come in. It was Mary, her mother, Andrew Carrier, and Richard Carrier being examined, and they elaborated [00:19:00] on a celestial game of thrones. They said that Martha Carrier and George Burroughs were the queen and king in hell. And they said that the devil did not hurt in people’s shapes without their consent, just confirming what Abigail Hobbs had said earlier and making it seem like spectral evidence was real.

    Sarah Jack: Now we do know that those Carrier boys were essentially tortured. ‘ cause

    I just pointed out,

    Josh Hutchinson: and heels.

    Sarah Jack: earlier we mentioned that there isn’t ev, there’s not evidence of Abigail being coerced, but

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah.

    Sarah Jack: with the boys, they were not handled gently.

    No, Andrew and Richard Carrier were bound neck to heels, which caused blood to run out of their nose. They’re basically, you’re bound up [00:20:00] so tightly, co pressed together and left like that for hours and hours. So very excruciating ordeal. They didn’t call it torture at the time, but that is some torture.Yeah, sadly the sick Elizabeth Ballard did pass away on July 27th.

    Josh Hutchinson: Her death just reinforced people’s belief that she had been bewitched. Now she’s murdered by the witches, so that definitely turns up the heat in Andover.

    Sarah Jack: Let’s talk about those ministers again. They kicked things up again.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah, this time they actually did a solid.Increase Mather, I don’t know what took him so long to come to this conclusion and publicly state this, because he visited Salem jail. He had been to [00:21:00] Salem and observed some of the proceedings firsthand, butit took him, apparently, months of deliberation and writing to come to the conclusions that he did about spectral evidence and so forth. And of course, we’re talking Increase Mather. He’s the delegate to London to works with the king and the king’s men to get a new charter. He’s the president of Harvard College. He is a minister at Boston’s leading church. And he’s the father of Cotton Mather, who writes a different book that will mention a little bit is Wonders of the Invisible World. These two books clash, but the men being father and son say that, no, we’re in agreement with each other. They write this into the books. We agree with each [00:22:00] other is very interesting.

    Sarah Jack: This important publication, called Cases of Conscience, by Increase Mather came out on October 3rd, and a report of this publication was read to the Cambridge Assembly of Ministers at their monthly meeting at Harvard College, so they were all wanting to know what does Increase have to say about all of this, and their conclusions were read to congregations that week.

    Josh Hutchinson: This work, Cases of Conscience, exemplified the shift in opinions about the trials that had happened over the summer, as we get into the fall, there starts to be some people coming out against what’s going on, the way things are being handled.

    Sarah Jack: Increasesuggested the afflicted persons may actually be possessed, that bewitched persons are many times really possessed with evil spirits[00:23:00] And there you have this highest trusted ministerial authority saying that it’s certain that’s impactful.

    Josh Hutchinson: And then on spectral evidence, Increase writes, “the devil may, by divine permission, appear in the shape of innocent and pious persons.”

    Sarah Jack: So now he, all the way after all the hangings he’s saying maybe Rebecca didn’t give permission to the devil to go torment Ann Putnam Senior. I’m not bitter.

    Josh Hutchinson: Exactly. Not bitter.

    Yeah. It’s just why did he wait so long? He, he goes on, he says in his report, “it were better that 10 suspected witches should escape than that one innocent person should be condemned.”

    Sarah Jack: It also said, “it is better that a guilty person should be absolved [00:24:00] than that he should, without sufficient ground of the conviction, be condemned.” Oh my gosh. I had a, I don’t think I’ve actually considered that in light of what happened in Connecticut. Were those,

    were those voters reading the records

    Josh Hutchinson: oh yes. When they decided to absolve those accused of witchcraft,

    Sarah Jack: instead

    Josh Hutchinson: had read Cases of Conscience. Yeah.

     Also wrote, “I had rather judge a witch to be an honest woman than judge, an honest woman as a witch.” He’s very concerned about mistakes being made and innocent people being killed.

    Sarah Jack: Do you think it would’ve made a difference if he’d been in town when Mary Esty wrote her petition, because she was essentially saying she was an honest W woman and they were judging her as a witch.

    Josh Hutchinson: I think it definitely, if Increase had spoken up, because remember, he’s [00:25:00] the one who got Governor Phips appointed as the royal governor. He advocated for him in London. So he had him kind of in his thrall or something, he, uh. his debt, the governor was in Increase Mather’s debt for being appointed governor.

    So he had the influence at the highest levels of government. He knew all the ministers and all the magistrates and justices. He was the most respected minister in New England probably at the time. It would’ve made a difference, if he had put his foot down and said, “spectral evidence is not proof because the devil can impersonate innocent people.” I think the trials would’ve just come to a screeching halt as soon as he said that, unless Stoughton like did some hurried, [00:26:00] you know, death warrant writing.

    Sarah Jack: He would’ve had to scramble.

    He, Stoughton, would’ve had to scramble to keep the trials going. I think the governor would’ve said, you know, Reverend Mather is right. These things have got outta hand and it’s gotta stop and would’ve shut it down a lot earlier than he did.Finally, on October 29th, Governor Phips shuts down the special Court of Oyer and Terminer.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah, one of the assistants, James Russell, so he is a member of the legislature’s upper house, the Assistants, and he asked Governor Sir William Phips directly if the court of Oyer and Terminer should stand or fall, and Phips replied, “it must fall.”

     So we had mentioned earlier the legislature established new courts [00:27:00] in November. That happened November 25th. Andthe witchcraft cases that remained were transferred to the new Superior Court of Judicature, which held sessions in 1693 in Salem, Charlestown, Boston, and Ipswich, processed all of these other claims.

    Now, spectral evidence was not allowed to be considered by the jurors, so they went through the rest of the cases. Three people did get convicted, but the governor reprieved them, and basically the jails cleared out. The last case was heard May 11th, 1693, and as soon as everyone had paid their jail fees, the jails were cleared out of these accused witches and the Salem Witch trials were basically over.

    Sarah Jack: What a [00:28:00] relief. What if he hadn’t shut down that court? What if the spectral evidence hadn’t been halted? Where would we be?

    Josh Hutchinson: If the Oyer and Terminer had stayed around, they would’ve had another session in November. There were five women who had already been convicted, who weren’t executed yet, waiting to be hanged. There was maybe 130 people waiting to be tried in the jails. So this could have really, really just snowballed and instead of, you know, 25 casualties of the witch trials, the 19 hanged, the one pressed, the five who passed away in jail. If the Oyer and Terminer had dragged out until the last person was prosecuted, we’d be talking about European levels of [00:29:00] witch hunting with potentially over a hundred people being killed.

    Sarah Jack: What a rollercoaster.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah, what a, What a time to live, have to live through such a difficult period, And you just wonder, if one thing had happened differently in these turning points that we’ve talked about, what would’ve happened? How could things have been different? How could lives have been saved?

    Join in on this discussion on our Patreon community. We’d love to see you there and hear what you think.

    Sarah Jack: Patreon.com/aboutsalem. Since you’ve enjoyed the episode, why not subscribe to The Thing About Salem to support us and to keep the fun coming?

    Josh Hutchinson: have explored themes like Poppets, the Crucible, Witches’ Sabbaths, spectral evidence, the ergot myth, and more. And we have so much more in store for you to [00:30:00] learn.

    Sarah Jack: In between episodes, come engage with us in our Patreon community at patreon.com

    Josh Hutchinson: /aboutsalem.

     if you’re enjoying all of this great content and you want to know even more about witch trials and other things that are considered to be spooky, join us for our Halloween special. We’re gonna talk about witches and monsters and candy and goblins and all of that good stuff. So look for information about that on endwitchhunts.org/events. So when do you get to hear the next episode of The Thing About Salem? Every Sunday. Have a great today and a beautiful tomorrow.

  • Episode 4 Transcript: Folk Magic and the Salem Witch Trials with Maya Rook

    Listen to the episode here.

    Josh Hutchinson: [00:00:00] “Thou shall not suffer a which to live.” Exodus 22:18. Welcome to another episode of Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast. I’m Josh Hutchinson.

    Sarah Jack: And I’m Sarah Jack.

    Josh Hutchinson: Today we’re talking to historian Maya Rook about folk magic in the Salem Witch Trials. We’ll also talk about Tituba, the afflicted girls of Salem, and pop culture. 

    Sarah Jack: Maya’s approach to discussing these historical topics is very approachable and interesting. So I’m really looking forward to having that conversation with [00:01:00] her on this episode. 

    Josh Hutchinson: So am I. Been fascinated with the Salem witch trials for a long. 

    Sarah Jack: And this time of year, you start thinking about these things.

    Josh Hutchinson: I think it’s at the forefront of people’s minds, seasonally. It is Halloween coming up.

    Josh Hutchinson: I’m pretty jazzed, and I don’t always get into Halloween, but this year there’s something about it that’s drawing me to it.

    Sarah Jack: I love seeing the events popping up, the articles coming out, all the different ways that Halloween starts approaching. 

    Josh Hutchinson: I’m ready for the chocolate. 

    Sarah Jack: They said there was gonna be a shortage, but we’ve already had quite a bit of Halloween chocolate in our house. 

    Sarah Jack: Josh, I’m really looking forward to hearing your history segment on this episode. I believe you’re gonna be giving us some details [00:02:00] on Tituba.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yes, I am. Thank you. We did talk about Tituba a little bit last week, and we’re going to talk to Maya about Tituba some more.

    Josh Hutchinson: So I’m keeping this one brief. Generally people who know about Salem know about Tituba either through The Crucible or history class, some way, but there are a lot of misconceptions out there about her. For one thing, she’s actually an indigenous person, possibly from south America or the. A lot of people out there somehow the legends about her, she morphed and became not an indigenous person, but all of the records referred to her either as a quote “Indian” or a “Spanish Indian”.

    Josh Hutchinson: So we do know that she was an indigenous person who was enslaved. The minister, Samuel Parris acquired her when he lived in [00:03:00] Barbados, before he moved to Massachusetts. And became minister of Salem Village. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Another misconception about her is that she was practicing magic and teaching magic to the girls who became afflicted and became the first accusers in the witch hunt.

    Josh Hutchinson: There’s no evidence whatsoever for her doing that. The only time that we know she did practice some magic was when she baked a witch cake, which was at the instigation of an English woman. And we’ll talk to Maya a little bit more about that. I recommend that everybody reads Elaine Breslaw’s book, Tituba: Reluctant Witch of Salem to get more details about what is known about her and the possibilities around her origins. 

    Sarah Jack: I’m so happy that author was able to present [00:04:00] that origin information. And I’m really happy that we’re talking about her. I think the more that the facts of her life are talked about that we understand her experience in a real important way.

    Sarah Jack: I think she’s been an important figure to many people, and I think she can remain that as we get to know her better. 

    Josh Hutchinson: She was a victim in so many ways, all her life. It’s really important to get her story out there so people know about these things that happened in the past. 

    Sarah Jack: Thank you for introducing us to some of that information about Tituba. 

    Josh Hutchinson: You’re welcome.

    Sarah Jack: Our next guest wears many hats. She is a cultural historian, a college history teacher, a public speaker and artist, a writer, a podcaster, and a yoga teacher. When she’s not [00:05:00] teaching college, she teaches publicly available classes on a variety of history and cultural topics, including the Salem witch trials. She also posts about Salem online under the banner of Salem Oracle. We’ll have links to all these offerings in the episode description, and these classes that she offers are packed full of great information and just very interesting and intriguing topics. So you definitely want to follow her calendar of events, because there will be something you don’t wanna miss.

    Sarah Jack: Without further ado. Here’s Maya Rook. 

    Sarah Jack: Hi, Maya. 

    Maya Rook: Hi. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Hello. 

    Josh Hutchinson: It’s nice to meet you. 

    Maya Rook: How’s it going? It’s nice to meet you. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Great. 

    Maya Rook: Seen you both a lot on the internet. So I feel like I know you already.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah, same here. Do you wanna talk a little about folk magic? Figure folk magic is a [00:06:00] good thing to talk about right around Halloween. 

    Maya Rook: I’ve done some work on the folk magic of Salem. I’ve been really intrigued, because I think a lot of people are drawn to the Salem Witch Trials because of an interest in magic or witchcraft, and it lures people in and it has this air around it.

    Maya Rook: And then you start learning about the trials and you realize that they’re just really incredibly brutal and dark, and that there wasn’t actually the kind of magic that I don’t know that a lot of pop culture shows as happening in Salem. So I got curious, though, from going through the records and just reading so much and researching the trials, is there any evidence that folk magic was practiced during the Salem Witch Trials?

    Maya Rook: And you can find elements of folk magic throughout it. So I’ve spent some time going through secondary sources, primary sources, and trying to cull out where is the actual magic in Salem. The big things that I have [00:07:00] found are the witch cake incident is a big example of folk magic, the use of poppets, those show up throughout the trials, different forms of divination, as well, and fortune telling. We see that in the trial records, too. 

    Josh Hutchinson: I understand one of the popular legends out there is probably not true that supposedly may have started the thing, the whole Venus class thing. Can you tell us a little about that? 

    Maya Rook: Yeah, absolutely. So yes, there was one report from John Hale a few years after the Salem Witch Trials, and he said that he was told by one of the afflicted girls that they were practicing this form of divination, the Venus glass and egg is oftentimes what they called it in 17th [00:08:00] century New England.

    Maya Rook: But the practice actually goes back to ancient Greece. So it’s pretty old. It’s called oomancy. And it’s the use of egg in water to divine one’s future. So we do know that this was a practice that people would’ve used during this time. Typically young girls would crack an egg, put it in water and then try to read the shape within it to see who their future husband might be.

    Maya Rook: And so John Hale says that one of the girls was playing with this before the afflictions began and they saw a coffin, right? So they got really spooked and it has been this one source, which we don’t even know who the girl is that he’s talking about, has been used to create all these legends around Salem.

    Maya Rook: A lot of people say oh, was Abigail and Betty, and then Tituba gets thrown in there too, that they were doing this magic together, and then they got really scared. And then the girls were afraid they had let the [00:09:00] devil in, and then they started exhibiting the afflictions. So would the girls have been playing with this? Possibly because it was a practice that people did, but to me, I don’t really see a lot of credibility in it.

    Maya Rook: He doesn’t say who the girl was. So if you look and try to figure out who it possibly could have been, cuz he says that she died by the time this was published, and this is just a few years after the trials. So there’s only about four girls it could be. And I think it’s Mary Beth Norton, and she posits that it’s probably one of the older girls, because she doesn’t think somebody like Abigail Williams, being only 11 years old, would’ve been playing this particular game, trying to figure out who her husband was. That it actually would’ve been one of the older girls, but yeah, people love to latch onto that story.

    Maya Rook: I’m a history teacher. I get papers from people and they outline this because it’s in the sources. We have historians who have said that this happened, based off this one source. 

    Sarah Jack: I noticed one of the [00:10:00] sources that I think sometimes people come across is the book written by W. N. Gemmill, and he has no sources cited from where he wrote his book.

    Sarah Jack: And I was actually going to ask you what materials he may have been looking at when he wrote his book. I find it very interesting that he called the afflicted girls, the circle girls, named the 10 of them, said they were meeting nightly with Tituba. Where did he get that information to write about it?

    Sarah Jack: And that was in 1924. 

    Maya Rook: That was in 1924. Interesting. I was gonna ask that because it makes me wonder now. Marion, L Starkey wrote The Devil in Massachusetts in the forties, and she really plays on this whole thing, but now I wonder if maybe she was looking at his book, and that’s where she got those ideas.

    Maya Rook: It very well could have come from his imagination, but there are some sources in the late 1800s that start to play with the idea of Tituba teaching the girls [00:11:00] magic and witchcraft. So it could have just been part of that progression as well. 

    Sarah Jack: Yeah. I noticed The Witchcraft in Salem Village by John Fisk really paints Tituba in this light, that she was pulling them into her magical world, and he has something cited, but a lot of his descriptions would just be coming from his pen, it appears, so Gemmill would’ve had the opportunity to read Fisk, possibly. 

    Maya Rook: And if we look back at the first real full-length history in the 1860s by Charles Upham, he says in there that Tituba and John Indian may have originated the Salem Witchcraft.

    Maya Rook: So I think he plants the seed there, and then other people pick up on it, and it becomes this legend, really, that has no roots. The only magic that Tituba could have been said to have practiced during the Salem Witch Trials [00:12:00] was her help baking the witch cake, which was an English folk magic custom that was taught to her by Mary Sibley, an English Puritan woman.

     It’s so unlikely that Tituba would’ve been teaching the girls these things. 

    Sarah Jack: And I found it also interesting, when we look at Tituba’s examination and she’s naming witches and asked questions and pressed, she, in that circumstance, is saying, no, I did not bring magic over, but yet many authors and writers have portrayed her as most likely having done that.

    Sarah Jack: And we can’t obviously take what she said then as any truth, because her whole thing there is untruth, but I just was like, oh, that’s interesting, she just said, no, I didn’t use magic before.

    Maya Rook: That happens with another enslaved woman, as well. There was two others in the trial Candy and Mary Black, and I can’t remember, I think it was Candy who [00:13:00] said this. They ask her, cause she’s from Barbados, if she was made a witch in Barbados and she makes it very clear that she was not. She did not become a witch when she was in her home country, that it happened while she was in Massachusetts.

    Maya Rook: So I think that’s very interesting that they’re looking. We look for people to blame even as we get into historical accounts in the 1800s, 1900s, like who could have been, who could have been responsible for this? And the same thing is happening then too, right? People are just pointing fingers, looking like, where could this possibly have been coming from?

    Maya Rook: And, in a lot of ways, the only people they can really blame are themselves, because it’s from their own minds and beliefs that all of these fears are originating. 

    Maya Rook: Yeah. And I don’t know if you found this, I’ve been just researching and teaching on the trials for years, but it’s almost like the more I know, the more I realize what I don’t know, and it just keeps expanding. There’s so many different directions and different paths that you can go down and keep exploring. 

    Sarah Jack: Absolutely. I think I this week [00:14:00] referred to it as peeling my witch hunt onion. I’m like, oh my goodness, it’s another layer, but I often personally think about seeing the trees for the forest. You just see more and more trees and you see the bark on the trunk and how old that tree is and who else has been looking at that tree.

    Sarah Jack: And I don’t know. I totally agree with what you’re saying. 

    Maya Rook: Yeah. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Could you elaborate on the witch cake? 

    Maya Rook: So the witch cake, I always find that one of the most fascinating parts of the trials, and when I tell the sort of narrative of the trials, I think it’s this beautiful way that really draws people in, cause they’re like, oh, witch cake, what could it possibly be? So the witch cake incident happens pretty early on Abigail and Betty have been afflicted. They can’t figure out what’s going on. Then they get diagnosed as being Bewitched. And one day, this would’ve been in February, the Parrises are out of the house and their neighbor, Mary Sibley comes over [00:15:00] and the story goes that she is determined to figure out who the Witch is.

    Maya Rook: So she instructs Tituba and her husband, John Indian, they’re both enslaved in the Paris household, how to make a Witch cake. And I believe the earliest records we have of witch cakes is in the early 1600s, but essentially what it is it’s called it’s a combination of sympathetic magic and counter magic. So they take urine from the afflicted girls, which must have been an interesting endeavor so they take the urine from ththe girls. They mix it with rye flour, and then they bake it in the ashes and feed it to a dog. So it’s called sympathetic magic because it’s believed that the witch has this connection to the body of the girls, that she has bewitched them, cursed them.

    Maya Rook: So if they can take something out of the girls, like the [00:16:00] urine or hair or blood, something that comes from the body, but the witch has a sympathetic connection to that excrement basically, right? So they take it and then it can be manipulated. So it’s manipulated into this cake form, which I always imagined is probably more like a really hard biscuit, like hard tack or something and that once it’s manipulated, they can do something to it that might affect the witch.

    Maya Rook: So there’s some debates about how this actually worked. Some people think that maybe it would make the witch reveal herself. Some people think that it might actually hurt the witch. Some people thought that by feeding it to the dog, it might transfer the bewitchment to the dog. This is also known as counter magic because it was using this folk magic tradition as a way to try to counter the harmful magic of this witch. But in the case of the girls it’s not successful.

    Maya Rook: My understanding is that the Witch cake happens [00:17:00] after the examination that they have the confirmation that they’re bewitched. And so then it’s okay, if there bewitched, there must be a witch out there somewhere, who could it be?

    Josh Hutchinson: I feel bad for the dog. 

    Maya Rook: Yeah, me too.

    Josh Hutchinson: That’s pretty gross. 

    Maya Rook: We don’t really know much about the dog. I did find out that other ways that people might use witch cakes would also be to bury them in the ground or to burn them. So there is this element of that the cake is being destroyed in some way. That is so it can cause harm to the Witch.

    Josh Hutchinson: So when they burned it, would they have believed that the witch would then be burned?

    Maya Rook: My understanding is it would just potentially harm the witch or be able to cut that tie of magic.

    Josh Hutchinson: Were other methods of detecting witches employed? 

    Maya Rook: It seems like with the Salem Witch Trials, a lot of the methods for determining witches were just accusations from people. In the records, people will like, oh, I got an argument with them.

    Maya Rook: And a lot of times it’s [00:18:00] livestock, right? Like my livestock got ill suddenly afterwards, or there was some strange incident that occurred after I had an issue with this person. So a lot of times just seems like it’s stories that people then interpret. Okay, then maybe that person is a witch. Once somebody has been accused and if they are arrested for it, they’d be examined.

    Maya Rook: So a lot of times they did look for some kind of witches mark on them. So they would usually strip the people naked and then, and look for this mark. Sometimes it was believed, described as like a third nipple or something like that. And I always think the thing with the witch’s mark is if you go looking for it, you’re probably gonna find something. It could be a mole. It could be a skin tag. It could be like a weird birthmark. It could even be a bug bite, just like something that is a little bit different. Cause if you wanna find it, then I think you will. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. I think everybody has at least one of those things. But they wouldn’t have used [00:19:00] other folk magic methods for detecting witches?

    Maya Rook: Oh I feel like there, there are some incidents that show up, which are not the sort of top of my mind, but I remember encountering them and thinking isn’t this person using folk magic to try to determine if this person is a witch or not?

    Josh Hutchinson: But there was a case where they burned a cheese or something and Rachel Clinton showed up or somebody like that, but that might have been an accident.

    Sarah Jack: Did it work that time?

    Maya Rook: Oh, that I don’t know. It does also make me think though, of some of, one of, one of the incidents was with poppets, which I mentioned before. So poppets are similar to the way we might think of voodoo dolls in popular culture. Whatever you do to the doll or the poppet happens to the person it’s supposed to represent.

    Maya Rook: So again, that case with Candy, she confesses to the crime of witchcraft and she says that she has poppets. They ask [00:20:00] if there’s poppets you, I want we wanna see them. So they allow her to go and retrieve the poppets and she comes back with like some grass and some rags, a handkerchief, that’s tied into knots and it’s described that they, afflicted girls say, oh she, she plays with the handkerchief and that’s what torments us. So they ask candy to untie the knots. It doesn’t do anything. They make her eat the grass that doesn’t do anything either the girls are still afflicted. So then the magistrates start playing with the handkerchiefs and trying to see, oh if we do it, will it stop the affliction?

    Maya Rook: So I’m reading this. I’m like, okay, the magistrates are playing with magic right now. And I love it cuz it gets really out of hand where they try to burn one of the rags and then the girls complain of being burned. They dump it in water. They act like they’re drowning. Someone runs out towards the river.

    Maya Rook: So it’s just this incident where things really start to go off the rails. the trials. 

    Sarah Jack: We need an illustration of that little segment [00:21:00] for sure. 

    Josh Hutchinson: That’s amazing. The magistrates are doing witchcraft. 

    Sarah Jack: I can just see the. Comic strip or the, the graphic novel art on that one.

    Maya Rook: Absolutely. 

    Josh Hutchinson: I know there were some other methods of divination. Could you tell us about those? 

    Maya Rook: I do know. So the Venus glass and egg, or the oomancy definitely shows up. And then the other one that stood out to me was the sieve and scissors, which also goes back to again like ancient Greece. And that shows up a couple times in the trials.

    Maya Rook: And I remember one of the cases, the sieve and scissors is just basically a way another fortune telling technique where you turn, I think you like turn the sieve with the scissors. And in one of the cases, the person who was being examined said that. She ended up confessing that she was using it to try to find [00:22:00] something out.

    Maya Rook: And this basically led to her making, being approached by the devil and making a pact with him. So it’s almost shown as like a gateway drug, where it’s she was messing around with the sieve and scissors and thought it was this innocent way to figure out the future, and then all of a sudden she’s in the pact with the devil.

    Maya Rook: So it’s almost like they planted this little seed and she admitted to playing with that. And then it just spun out into this larger tale.

    Sarah Jack: I was thinking some of the other accused witches that entered into a pact with the devil, they were approached at night in their beds. I believe some of them. So this, I wonder this is interesting, cuz that is very different if it happened, like while she was working with her magic. 

    Maya Rook: Yeah. It’s Sarah Hawks. And she says she confesses at this last spring, after she had turned the sieve and scissors, the devil came to [00:23:00] her and got a promise of her, and then it goes on and says, she saith she went to the Salem Village meeting of witches with Goody Carrier. She promised to serve the devil three or four years and to give him her soul and body and that she signed a paper he offered to her.

    Maya Rook: So there’s this very simple folk magic custom. And then yeah, right away, the devil is there. 

    Sarah Jack: He’s there. She’s got a contract with details. 

    Maya Rook: It’s crazy.

    Josh Hutchinson: Oh, I believe there were a couple people who were supposedly practicing fortune tellers or soothsayers. Is that right? 

    Maya Rook: Yeah. Dorcas Hoar, who is one of my favorites in the trials was said to be able to tell people’s fortunes. So that comes up and it also is said that she was able to tell her own fortune that she predicted that basically, that she would have a miserable life while her husband was still alive.

    Maya Rook: But then after he died that she, she would come [00:24:00] into better fortune. And so then this comes, this is oh, this came true. So she predicted her own fortune. I always thought that was really funny. But yeah, I know she is, and then there’s a man as well.

    Maya Rook: Yeah. Dorcas also had it said she had an elf lock, so her hair was like knotted together. I imagine like a giant dreadlock, and it was said to be four feet long. And they believed that it was a place where she could hold power. So during her trial, they actually cut her elf lock off. Which was, yeah, I think that’s should be considered torture. You shouldn’t just cut somebody’s hair they’ve been growing for that long off of them. 

    Josh Hutchinson: That sounds like Samson, cut his hair off and he loses his power. 

    Sarah Jack: Yeah, absolutely. I wonder if what they did with the hair, I’d like to know, did they bury it? Did they burn it? Did they construct something out of it? I don’t know. I wanna know. I wonder what color hair she had.

    Sarah Jack: It’d be just interesting, [00:25:00] if she had like a really dynamic hair color too, or maybe it wasn’t. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. I don’t think they remarked about hair colors very often. Except when they’re describing like George Burroughs as being dark, he might have had dark hair. 

    Maya Rook: Yeah. And I think she probably was, I think she was on the older side, so she might have had gray hair also.

    Josh Hutchinson: They were accused of doing so many things that they couldn’t have done. Could you tell us Some of the powers that the witches were said to have? 

    Maya Rook: The powers, when with the Salem Witch Trials, it seems like a lot of the powers that these men and women were said to have was really having this like power to harm over the people of Salem, the power to change into different forms. So you have these instances where somebody’s like turning into a cat or turning into, I think a Wolf follows one of them home, turning into a bird and they could change shape that they [00:26:00] could harm people in different shapes that they could actually appear in the shape of somebody else as well. And so tricking people.

    Maya Rook: So that you’d think that one person was there, but it was, the witch was actually just throwing their specter around. So that’s pretty big, and the use of their specter to be able to leave their bodies and to go to other locations would be a major power .Of being able to fly as well.

    Maya Rook: We do see incidents, reports that the witches would fly. And I think we might have mentioned this before, but like the, these meetings and Sabbaths of the witches where they would gather together in the darkness of night. And a lot of times, and we see, especially with the Salem Witch Trials, they’re kind of inverting Christian practices.

    Maya Rook: So they talk about these, basically these dark sacraments, like they’re drinking blood and reversing a communion during the Sabbath 

    Josh Hutchinson: I get [00:27:00] confused on their flying, because Tituba describes it as she gets on a pole and then she’s instantly at her destination, but then there’s descriptions of Martha carrier or somebody maybe Abigail Faulkner actually their pole breaks and they crash to the ground.

    Josh Hutchinson: So they’re actually in the air moving. 

    Maya Rook: Yeah, the one that always stands out to me is Tituba she’s like and we we were there presently. Like they just, all of a sudden she’s, many miles away from where they started. Maybe the, they couldn’t always get their stories straight about what these witches were doing. They just knew that, they were doing it, they were doing something terrible and evil in the night.

     I was just wondering when you spoke about the witches that would have tricked their victims into thinking they were somebody else, is there any specific case that we know that was in? 

    Maya Rook: Yeah nothing specific is bubbling to the surface right now. But [00:28:00] I do know that this kind of is one of the things that made people call it into question. When people start questioning the trials, it’s do we actually know that the specters that are appearing are of the people that they appear to be.

    Maya Rook: It could this be another trick? How much can we trust that it’s actually them? 

    Josh Hutchinson: Increase Mather. He seems to imply that the devil could be impersonating an angel of light. How widespread do you think his belief was towards the end of the trial? Was that something that was catching on and affecting the outcomes?

    Maya Rook: I think that it definitely catches on you start to see the doubt really creeping in really around this time of year. As we wrap up September, begin to get into October. And I think that, this community has been through so much over the last few months and there’s a lot of fear that kind of fear can only.

    Maya Rook: Sustain itself for a certain amount of [00:29:00] time. It’s really difficult to live with that kind of mindset where you’re suspicious of everybody and you’re afraid you’re gonna be Bewitched and people are watching really horrible things happening. You have Dorothy Good. Who’s a child who’s been in prison for months at this point in time.

    Maya Rook: Her mother and her infant sibling are dead. You have a man has, who’s been pressed to death. He’s been tortured to death in front of everybody. You’ve had a former Reverend who’s been hanged. You’ve had people who are full members of their church being excommunicated and hanged. So I think that, and then for other people, their loved ones are in prison.

    Maya Rook: And they’re about to face the winter time. They know it’s gonna be really horrible conditions and people become desperate. They wanna get people. And I think it begins to shift people’s mindsets. You start seeing the petitions increasing September, October. And so I think that idea, people are looking for ways to start prove it the [00:30:00] other way.

    Maya Rook: And so like that kind of that that comment, the devil could be tricking them. I think it becomes very valid in people’s minds. 

    Maya Rook: And I think people were starting to realize that, the people who are dead, what if they were wrong? They can’t bring them back, but maybe they can prevent other innocent from people from dying. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Who are the afflicted girls as a group, and who are some of the individuals that are key? 

     I was looking back in my notes today and in Marilynne K. Roach’s book, she has a, an incredible index, and she lists 73 people total as being afflicted.

    Maya Rook: So it’s really high. But a lot of times when we talk about the people who are afflicted, we’re talking about this smaller group and it’s just about 10 girls. So two of the really big names where it starts would be Abigail Williams and Betty Paris. They’re the ones that have the initial afflictions and they’re only nine and 11 years old.

    Maya Rook: So they’re quite young and they [00:31:00] are an interesting case cuz they, they live in the Reverend Samuel Parris’s household. So this place, this home where he’s supposed to be this spiritual leader in the community and that’s where it all starts. It’s almost like something was rotten at its core, in Salem, and it’s in his home, and there’s a lot of theories about what could have started their afflictions, but it is the spark I think that leads to everything that happens. And it doesn’t stop with them. It spreads to all these other people. So Ann Putnam Jr would be one of the other major names, and she’s probably one of the most in a lot of ways, one of the most well known, because she makes an apology several years later. So Ann Putnam was just about 12 years old and she’s becomes one of the most active people in the trials.

    Maya Rook: Abigail Williams sticks around, as well. She’s also well known, because she’s transformed into a character in the play of The Crucible. Now Betty Paris, interestingly drops off [00:32:00] from the trials. They remove her from the situation just maybe a month after the trials start, because she’s not getting better and they don’t want her to be a part of everything that’s going on in Salem.

    Maya Rook: But Ann Putnam goes on to become so active, her mother as well. Her family makes a lot of accusations, and it seems like there’s ties of other young girls to Ann Putnam. So she’s been presented a lot of times almost as like a ringleader of the afflicted girls. And she’s the only one to ever apologize for her role in the trials, which is a whole thing we could unpack, because that apology, it happens many years later, and essentially she wants to join the church, and to do she has to make this public apology. And I can give her props. And I’m like, you did say that you were sorry. And she does specifically name Rebecca Nurse and her [00:33:00] role in that trial. But she also says that she was tricked, that she was deluded by Satan. She deflects and is almost like I didn’t really know what I was doing.

    Maya Rook: Yeah. So I go back and forth. Depends on what kind of mood I’m in if I’m like gonna be kind to Ann Putnam Jr or not. , 

    Josh Hutchinson: It’s like the devil made me do it.

    Sarah Jack: I’ve seen in some comments from descendants or just people researching and commenting on social media. They recognize that for them, the devil was an actual you know a real problem, that he was pulling people in. And if she still believed that but was sorry that she got pulled in, then it’s an easier apology pill to swallow. But I know the first time that I read that, cuz Rebecca nurse is my ancestor. So I was like, that’s what apology that the Nurses got for that.

    Sarah Jack: But reflecting [00:34:00] on just who, what player the devil was in the problems that happened, then I cool off for a minute. 

    Maya Rook: Yeah. And Ann Putnam, Jr. also, she didn’t have a very good life. Her parents die. She ends up taking care of her siblings. She’s the eldest. And she dies pretty young as well. And she never marries. So I don’t think that things turned out very well for her. 

    Maya Rook: I’d love to give the ages because we, a lot of times we think of ’em or like oh the afflicted girls. And so in our imaginations, they’re all pretty young. Like they’re children, but Betty and Abigail are the youngest, so they’re 9 and 11. Ann Putnam, Jr. Is 12, and then we jump up. So Elizabeth Hubbard is 17, Mary Walcott is 17, Mercy Lewis is 18, Mary Warren is 18, Susannah Shelden is 18, Elizabeth Booth is 18, and Sarah Churchill is 25. And she’s [00:35:00] put in with the afflicted girl group, which seems like she’s a little bit old to be hanging out with them.

    Maya Rook: But they’re the ones who are pointed to as being this core group of the afflicted girls.

    Josh Hutchinson: But then there were also some afflicted adults as well. Weren’t there? 

    Maya Rook: There were, there was many afflicted I already mentioned, like Ann Putnam’s mother also becomes afflicted and yeah, 73 total are in Roach’s accounts that she’s put together from the records, which is a lot. Even John Indian, Tituba’s husband, becomes one of the afflicted.

    Maya Rook: And my guess with him is that I always wonder did they have some way that they met with each other and they talked and, are just like, you need to save yourself basically by pretending like you are afflicted. Otherwise you’re gonna get accused as well. 

    Josh Hutchinson: I know Mary Warren, she starts as afflicted, but then she gets accused herself.

    Maya Rook: She does get accused herself. Yeah. She is afflicted. And then she begins to say that she’s like getting better. Yeah, she’s [00:36:00] doing well. And so there’s this reaction from the afflicted girls and say it’s because she’s actually a witch. And if you look at her trial records, It just goes back and forth. It’s so intense where she appears to be both afflicted and being accused of afflicting others at the same time. Yeah. So pretty wild case. 

    Sarah Jack: One of the things that you mentioned in one of your podcast episodes that I listened to recently was you pointed out that the afflicted girls don’t really have, we don’t have their perspective.

    Sarah Jack: I think that is a huge hole, but I was just thinking, oh we have Ann Putnam, Jr’s apology, we have a little bit, she’s still connecting it to trickery of the devil. And then you mentioned this gal who was afflicted and accusing. So we really have very little of their perspective. What would they say about it? We don’t know. We know what they were [00:37:00] saying about what was happening, 

    Maya Rook: We are so blessed to have all of these records from the trials, but they’re also, they’re not perfect records, right? It’s not like there was a video and a microphone that was recording everything.

    Maya Rook: You have people who are in the room who are writing things down while it’s happening. You also have people who are writing things down afterwards and summarizing what went on. And we don’t know exactly, sometimes there’s direct quotes written down, but how accurate are they? So it is interesting.

    Maya Rook: While we have descriptions of what the girls were saying and doing, and maybe even particular things they said during a case, we don’t actually have anything that’s from them. It’s this is what my experience was. It’s one of the reasons I really love if you’re familiar with Katherine Howe the writer she wrote this book conversion, and she plays with a present day situation, but she links it back to the trials, and we see it through [00:38:00] Ann Putnam’s eyes. And, obviously there’s a lot of things that are being fabricated there, but I just appreciated adding this human element to it. What would it have been like to be a 12 year old girl during this time? And how might you get pulled into this situation?

    Josh Hutchinson: Could it have been stress related, specifically in the Paris household? 

    Maya Rook: Yeah. That kind of gets into the, again, the conversion disorder theory that, people will take things, mental anguish, and then convert them into physical symptoms so that these girls could have been experiencing intense emotion, stress, pressure, whatever, and then it manifests this way that they might not even been aware necessarily that they were doing it at least, perhaps not in the beginning, when the symptoms start.

    Maya Rook: So the Paris household does seem like it was a pretty intense place. And I think that there probably was a lot of pressure, because things were not going very well for Reverend Paris.

    Maya Rook: And he was upset about his situation as a [00:39:00] Reverend not getting enough, people weren’t really coming to the meetings. He wasn’t getting the proper pay and the firewood that he was supposed to be getting. So there could have been a lot of pressure on the family. Like they’re hearing about all of these issues that are going on.

    Maya Rook: And then at the same time, we don’t know for sure, but perhaps, he wanted his children to present themselves in a particular way. Like they’re an example to the rest of the community that he would’ve wanted them to display their good, puritan behavior. So I think that it is quite likely that they could have been experiencing stress that would manifest this way.

    Maya Rook: Yeah, I think of all the theories about why the girls were afflicted. The conversion disorder offers me the most substance. There’s probably a lot of other factors going on, but I think that that one comes up for me a lot.

    Sarah Jack: I was thinking about when it started, and the congregation would’ve been hearing the reverend’s children are [00:40:00] afflicted. The other thing that I think about is how he was in a lot of stress with his congregation. There was a huge financial stress there for him, and then you look at the trials and over the course of it, how costly it was for all those villagers, all those church members. I just think that’s very interesting. Everyone was having a hardship, these families who had their loved ones in the prison. I think it was Giles Cory, he didn’t get to go on the ferry to say goodbye, because he couldn’t afford it. 

    Maya Rook: He’s been popping up this just the, anniversary of his pressing to death. But I think that’s a great point about the finances, and I think it’s something that a lot of people don’t realize was just how much it cost to be in prison, and people were racking up a bill the entire time. They’re paying for the chains that hold them in place. They’re paying for, whatever kind of like food or water they [00:41:00] might be getting. And so it was really hard even to get bailed out, because the bills could get so high and a lot of people just didn’t have money. And that’s what happens with Dorothy Good being so little, under the age of five, but it took another person coming in to pay for her bail so that she could actually be released, cuz her father couldn’t do it.

    Josh Hutchinson: With the afflicted girls and maybe some of the root causes, some of them were refugees from the war, and I wonder how that might have affected them. 

    Maya Rook: Yeah. So there was a lot of warfare going on in the areas of the frontier at the time. So actually I’m up in Maine. And so the trials, people don’t realize all the time, but they affected as high up as here.

    Maya Rook: So there was warfare going on, and some of these girls have been orphaned. Some of them are refugees. They’ve experienced war and death and that fear firsthand. [00:42:00] So again, if we look at that idea that these girls might be converting some of their stress, if they’re suffering from what today, we would call post traumatic stress disorder. If they’re converting that into these afflictions it makes a lot of sense. They’ve experienced really horrific situations being in warfare, losing their families. And then there’s also this kind of association with being on the frontier and being closer to the indigenous people, and in these areas were seen as being very dark, that there was more opportunities for the devil to be out, to be lurking. So even when they lived in these areas for however long they might have been there, they probably also had a lot of things planted in their minds, a lot of fear about where they were and that the devil could be just around the corner, ready to lure them away.

    Josh Hutchinson: I know Abigail Hobbs, she mentioned that when she lived at [00:43:00] Casco Bay, which is the area that’s now Portland, that’s where she got converted to witchcraft. I happen to be related to Mercy Lewis. I have a theory that some of these afflicted girls, another thing that they did was bring these stories down to the Salem villagers. Mercy Lewis lived in the household with Ann Putnam Jr., so she must have shared some memories at some time. And I wonder how that could have affected the younger children.

    Maya Rook: Yeah. I think that if those stories were being shared, then I think that would’ve a big effect. Stories are how we make sense of the world, and if they’re being told stories about firsthand accounts of warfare, that’s like getting a horror story, horror movie, put into your mind, except it’s very real. So I think that could have definitely contributed to a lot of fear that they experienced.

    Maya Rook: And it also seems to have contributed to their descriptions of the afflictions or like [00:44:00] seeing, they might describe people that look like indigenous people as being associated with the devil. So sometimes it seems as though they’re pulling from those experiences that they had on the frontier.

    Maya Rook: Between the three of us, we probably have a lot of ancestors in the Salem Witch Trials, and we could be related. That’s possible. 

    Josh Hutchinson: We could well be I’ve found about 72 connections so far to the Witch Trials either directly or aunt, uncle, cousin, that kind of thing. And I know I’m related to Sarah, because we’re both descendants of Mary Esty.

    Maya Rook: Oh, wow. Yeah, my big one is the justice Dudley Bradstreet. So I’m descended from the sort of the Bradstreet clan of the Mass Bay Colony, and he was responsible for issuing a lot of arrest warrants. And then when he said, I’m not gonna do this anymore, and he steps [00:45:00] down from his position, he refuses to issue any more warrants, he’s pretty much immediately accused of Witchcraft, but he flees the area and this waits basically until things have settled down for to come back again.

    Josh Hutchinson: He was accused, but I don’t believe he was ever indicted. 

    Maya Rook: No, he’s just accused. I don’t think there was any like arrest warrants or anything put out for him. And this would’ve happened in September. So things are already starting to they’re intensifying with the trials themselves, but other areas are winding down. And I think because he was a more prominent individual, it probably protected him a bit in that way, too.

    Josh Hutchinson: I noticed that some of the other critics, like Samuel Willard was speaking out about it, and somebody would name them, and then the other adults in the room would say, not him. 

    Maya Rook: Having some element of power, prestige in the community definitely seemed to help, but not always. 

    Josh Hutchinson: They did go after the Englishes pretty hard, and John Alden.

    Sarah Jack: [00:46:00] One of the things I wanted to ask you about Tituba was you mentioned how her image has changed over time. And I thought that is such a very important point. And what we know more of her now is newer and it hasn’t really taken center stage for her yet of who she is. She’s still followed by the previous descriptions of her, but I thought that was a really important point that you made about her.

    Maya Rook: Tituba has shape shifted so much over the years, and I always like to point people towards Elaine Breslaw’s work, because I think she was really instrumental in giving us a clearer image of who Tituba really was. So a lot of times Tituba is presented as being an enslaved black woman of African descent to the point where it’s just taken at sort of face value that’s [00:47:00] who she was.

    Maya Rook: And that went through a whole development, but I really see The Crucible as a thing that fully cemented it in people’s minds. But if we look back at her life, it appears she was actually an indigenous person, likely from South America and that she was kidnapped and taken to Barbados where she lived and then was purchased by Samuel Parris, served him, and then was brought to Massachusetts. And part of the evidence I love looking at language, and I think that it’s really helpful when we look at the records, because if you look at the way that Tituba is described in every account, it’s Indian servant, Indian woman, Indian servant woman. But like her racial and cultural identifier is always Indian. And then we know from other aspects that she was purchased from Barbados.

    Maya Rook: So because of the way the Puritans saw the world, if a person had any African [00:48:00] features, if there was any chance of African ancestry, if they were black at all, they would’ve used the term Negro to describe them in the court records. And we do see that with two other individuals, as you mentioned before, candy and Mary Black, but we don’t see that with Tituba and in all the accounts afterwards, anything that’s written about her, the years immediately following the trials, there’s no indication. So it’s really not until the 1800s that transformation occurs. And at first she’s presented as oftentimes being quote “half Negro”, ” half Indian,” or “half savage”.

    Maya Rook: And then at some point, even the indigenous connection drops off, and she’s presented as being a black woman. And then by the time we get to The Crucible, it’s she’s doing things in the woods with chickens and it gets into almost like she’s practicing voodoo and all of this stuff. And that’s the way that she’s largely been remembered in our culture. I have a whole presentation, talk, discussion around this. I’m like, I wanna get it out in the [00:49:00] world of who Tituba really was, as much as we can understand her. 

    Maya Rook: Although I do think that it’s important that she be has become a figure for other people, there is literature and artwork and poetry of Tituba as the black witch of Salem that is very meaningful to people, so I don’t think we should dismiss that either. But she is a figure that has taken many different forms over the years. 

    Sarah Jack: It’s so relatable to the actual portrayal of witches over the centuries, how that image has changed. 

    Maya Rook: It’s really fascinating to see how that’s developed over time. And that’s been some of my favorite research, actually has been on Tituba and diving into what do we know about her? And then looking at the historiography, how have historians portrayed her over time and tracing that development and watching the shifts and how has literature impacted it.

    Maya Rook: Because even in the late 1800s, a couple plays come out that include [00:50:00] Tituba that start having her practicing magic, that have her as half black, half Indian. And it almost seems like that literature, those cultural elements enter the scene and then historians actually get inspired by that.

    Maya Rook: And then they put that into their stories, right? So there’s this back and forth going on, this interplay between the popular culture and the historical work, that form the image of Tituba.

    Sarah Jack: That’s a beautiful explanation of it. I agree with you. I think that who she has symbolized and what she has meant to so many writers and anybody, I think any type of positive strength that one of these victims can be for their descendants or for someone who just looks at them and recognizes they were in a really awful situation and they survived.

    Maya Rook: And it’s one of the great mysteries of [00:51:00] the Salem Witch Trials is what happened to Tituba. She’s the first to confess, one of the first people to be imprisoned. And she’s one of the last people to be set free. And then we just have no idea. She’s disappears. 

    Sarah Jack: I hope we find out I that’s one of the things I love about witch trial history is, you never know what’s gonna pop up in a journal or on a record someone’s looking at. It’s right there, and we’re gonna find out.

    Sarah Jack: That’s what I hope.

    Josh Hutchinson: Yeah. One of our hopes is that all of the victims will be known as the humans that they were.

    Sarah Jack: Absolutely.

    Maya Rook: I love that. 

    Sarah Jack: And I think talking about the history and the different pieces that are interesting to people gives us the opportunity to talk about the individuals. So the ones that came up in our discussion today, that’s humanizing them, and we’re looking at the situation they were in and thinking about them as an individual. I think it’s one of the other great things [00:52:00] about talking about witch trials. 

    Maya Rook: Yeah. And I think to go back to where we started this discussion around folk magic, it’s that, a lot of people are drawn to Salem because of the, oh was there real magic? There’s witches, you know what’s going on there? And it’s so magical and spooky, and that captures people’s attention. But if you can use that as a hook to draw people in and then present this very human story, that’s where the real power is, I think. And that’s where people make a true connection to what happened. 

    Josh Hutchinson: In many ways, Salem is so sensationalized. The witchcraft element is really played up, magical aspects and possibilities are played up. But I think that, like you said, is a good way to draw people in and get them interested in the history. And the true story is so much more powerful to me than those legends out there about the magic in witchcraft, the story about [00:53:00] the persecution and the endurance of a lot of those people going through that suffering.

    Sarah Jack: I was gonna ask Maya if she wanted to share anything from her, what you’re working on or, what you would like to say today about your work? 

    Maya Rook: Yeah. So in my sort of general life, I wear many different hats.

    Maya Rook: I’m a cultural historian, I teach college history, and I’m also a yoga meditation instructor, but the Salem Witch Trials has just been this longstanding passion in my life and especially with my work with education and researching history. So a lot of this has culminated in recent years, I’ve created just many different talks.

    Maya Rook: So we’ve talk touched on some of those topics already, like the folk magic, the afflicted girls, Tituba. I have one looking at, specific people that are involved in the trials, like the first people to be accused [00:54:00] of witchcraft, Salem in popular culture. All these different elements. So all these different dives.

    Maya Rook: And then one of the other ways that I’ve been presenting this work to the world is through my Salem Oracle account, which is, I think how I’ve got connected with both of you. So @SalemOracle on Instagram and Twitter is a day by day account of the Salem Witch Trials. And so I try to use this like daily touch in, on the trials as a way to make it more real for people. I found as a historian, especially when you’re telling a story about I have a one, one of my, big talks is just like the Salem Witch Trials. It’s an overview. We pack a lot into an hour for that particular talk. But there’s certain things you just have to gloss over and, be like over the course of these three months, blah, blah, blah, this happened.

    Maya Rook: So to go into the day by day details of it really makes you, I think, have a better sense of what really happened and what it might have been like to [00:55:00] watch this unfold in person. So this is the second time around the second year that I’m doing it. I did this once before with the Donner party actually similar idea, and I did that for three.

    Maya Rook: And every year you learn something new, and it becomes more real and it becomes more human. So I think we’ve already really touched on, a big part of what I wanna do with this work is to humanize the trials, to make the past something that people can relate to, to understand, to touch and to look at.

    Maya Rook: And I also love the magical element, the sensationalism, but to be able to separate those two things to appreciate the sort of that fun, magical quality, but then to be able to see the trials for what they were and the people for what they were, not as witches but as human beings.

    Maya Rook: So I think that’s a really important part of the work here. 

    Josh Hutchinson: To touch on pop culture, which is another thing you talk about I like to separate the pop culture from the fact, [00:56:00] because a lot of the pop culture it’s off base, but it’s entertaining. And you can learn a little bit from every movie that comes out that’s about witch trials. So what are some of your favorite pop culture elements about Salem? 

    Maya Rook: I will say my favorite pop culture witch probably is Sabrina the Teenage Witch, the version played by Melissa Joan Hart. Sabrina spent through many different iterations, but the show that came out in the nineties. And there are some connections, of course, to Salem. She has a cat named Salem, who’s actually a warlock who is being punished by having to be in a cat’s body for like a hundred years or something like that, but he’s named Salem. But early on in the show, they actually do like a field trip to Salem, her school does, and she’s afraid. She’s like I don’t wanna go to Salem. I’m not going. They weren’t very kind to witches, and her aunts were like, [00:57:00] oh, you don’t have to be afraid. There were no real witches in Salem. Only thing you have to be worried about. There is overpriced souvenirs so you know they have fun. They play with that kind of stuff

    Maya Rook: On a more like more serious note, I think one of my favorite pop culture, representations of witches in New England, it’s not specific to Salem, but the movie The Witch that came out a few years ago, I think is really incredible and really powerful. And I really like that they didn’t make it about the Salem Witch Trials, that they fabricated the story about a family, like basically on the frontier, which we’ve been talking about, that element on the edge of the settlement, by themselves and fears that develop around the daughter being a witch, because it allows us to look at what common beliefs around witches and witchcraft were at that time through the lens of this family. But we don’t have to worry about is this accurate to Salem or not? It’s almost like its own [00:58:00] little case study, little horror movie. And I just found from my studies of the Puritans in general of Mass Bay Colony, of the Salem Witch Trials, of my understanding of witches and witchcraft, I just thought they captured so much there.

    Maya Rook: It really immerses you in the experience, so I think that’s a really incredible pop culture portrayal of witches during this time or fears around witches, rather I should say. 

    Maya Rook: And I think something that’s interesting about Salem is that even if people don’t know the details of the Salem Witch Trials, almost everybody in the United States has heard of the Salem Witch Trials. They have some idea, some association, so it shows up in pop culture a lot. There’s a lot of mistakes that are made. I’m sure you’ve encountered this many times, where you have this, a popular depiction and a kind of offhand thing about Salem, and it’s like about witches being burned, and we’re on the sidelines. No, no witches were burned. They were hanged , but it’s just the way that people, they just make this [00:59:00] assumption about it.

    Maya Rook: So we see that show up a lot throughout our culture, I think. But it’s becoming little more nuanced. It, it does seem like people are interested in actually learning about what happened during the trials, which I I’m really happy to see, and it’s not, it’s really not that difficult to get a good, solid rundown of more. I have a hard time as a historian saying like the truth, because that’s always iffy, but just getting a more, maybe a more clear picture of what really happened during this time.

    Maya Rook: This has really been a pleasure. I appreciate that you asked me to participate in this. I love that you are putting this podcast together and you’re gonna be sharing this and bringing in different people for interviews.

    Maya Rook: There’s just so much to, to explore in this realm. And the more ways that we have to do it, I think the better. 

    Josh Hutchinson: I feel like we could go on the three of us chatting for hours about this because we’re all interested in the same thing. And it’s been really [01:00:00] lovely to meet you, and you’ve been a great guest.

    Maya Rook: Yeah. Thank you both. Yeah. 

    Sarah Jack: Thanks, Maya. 

    Maya Rook: All right. Bye everybody.

    Sarah Jack: Bye.

    Josh Hutchinson: Bye.

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you for sharing how ongoing witch hunts are affecting another part of the world, Sarah. 

    Sarah Jack: You’re welcome. 

    Sarah Jack: And now we’ll hear from Tom Mattingly in Jami Milne of Ballet Des Moines about their upcoming ballet Salem.

    Tom Mattingly: I have always loved ballet as a vehicle for storytelling, and I think that there can be so much left to interpretation with the subject of witchcraft and that interpretation lends itself really well to ballet. So what I’ve done with Salem is I’ve taken inspiration from the historical events to create a fictional story, one that could have happened during the time, but isn’t necessary a recreation of actual events.

    Tom Mattingly: Fear itself is very powerful, and when we [01:01:00] are led by fear rather than reason, there are horrific consequences.

    Tom Mattingly: The character of fear is very important to this ballet. Fear is played by one of the male dancers in our company, and he is not a townsperson of Salem, but he is a constant presence and influence on the entire cast, so he really interacts a lot with the girl. The girl is the one who is making the accusations of witchcraft. She feels fearful from the pressures of the people around her, and especially her father, the preacher, to continue accusing and testifying against the people of Salem.

    Tom Mattingly: The Salem Witch Trials has always been a captivating subject. One of the main reasons I chose the witch trials for a ballet is because I knew it was something that would capture people’s attention. 

    Tom Mattingly: I hope that people are moved by what they see and think about how they view others, if they’re viewing others with kindness, [01:02:00] with the benefit of the doubt, if they’re giving a chance to these people that they don’t know. I hope that they are inspired to learn more about the Salem Witch Trials themselves.

    Tom Mattingly: It is a fictional story that I’m creating, but every element is based on historical fact. A lot of it is different people from the past kind of combined into become one character, like the Mathers with our preacher. There is one character who attempts to defend his wife, who has been accused, and he himself gets accused of witchcraft and demonic possession. Even down to the costuming, it’s going to be a modern reinterpretation but based on the strict puritan dress codes of the time with the muted colors, being covered up, those natural fibers, no lace, no ribbons, very much bare bones, utilitarian in a lot of ways.

    Tom Mattingly: Same thing with the set design, too, of these furniture pieces that can be used in many different configurations so that [01:03:00] our meeting house can serve as a place of worship. It can serve as the home for the trials themselves in the courthouse. Our set even has a different modular design to become the gallows when one of the characters is hanged.

    Jami Milne: Tom and I were talking just this last week, and he said, “everyone knows the end of the story here. There’s not a surprise, because we all know the Salem Witch Trials and what happened.” 

    Jami Milne: I don’t want anyone to forget the power of a somber ending and this idea that great change can come, feeling so emotionally disrupted that you have no choice but to think differently upon leaving. And I think that will really be the power of audiences walking in the doors and then leaving with very different emotional state.

     The music for Salem will primarily be Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring.

    Tom Mattingly: Rite of Spring is typically the story of ritual sacrifice, and in a way, [01:04:00] I feel like that’s what happened with the Salem Witch Trials. It became this ritual of accusations, trials, and hangings that just continued over and over until it was finally put to an end. And it’s an amazing score. It’s difficult as a dancer, because it’s difficult to count and the melodies are so surprising, but the overall effect, I think, is incredible, and it takes this kind of animalistic quality. And the dancers are really able to embody it, especially in these group scenes at the church or at the gallows. It’s really moving. 

    Tom Mattingly: Salem will be performed at the Stoner Studio Theater in downtown Des Moines, October 20th through the 29th.

    Tom Mattingly: Tickets can be purchased at balletdesmoines.org.

    Josh Hutchinson: And thank you all for listening to another episode of Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast.

    Josh Hutchinson: You want to set your calendar for this one, folks. Next week, we’ll be talking with the renowned [01:05:00] historian and emeritus professor Dr. Malcolm Gaskill, author of Witchfinders, Witchcraft: A Very Short Introduction, Between Two Worlds: How the English Became Americans, and The Ruin of all Witches: Death and Desire in an Age of Enchantment, which releases in the United States on November 1st. That book details the story of a witch trial in Springfield, Massachusetts.

    Josh Hutchinson: Once you hear that episode, you will have to buy that book immediately at your local book seller or online, and you’ll be thrilled.

    Sarah Jack: He wrote it. We’re talking about. We’re so excited to have this special opportunity. This timely opportunity. 

    Josh Hutchinson: We’re excited to have this opportunity to introduce this book to you.

    Sarah Jack: You’re gonna buy it. 

    Sarah Jack: [01:06:00] Please follow us wherever you get your podcasts.

    Sarah Jack: And check out our website, thoushaltnotsuffer.com.

    Sarah Jack: Our website will keep you up to date on what’s happening with our podcast. 

    Sarah Jack: You can look forward to our upcoming weekly newsletters.

     We’ll have links to everything in our show notes.

    Sarah Jack: Bye. 

  • Episode 2 Transcript: Should Connecticut Witch Trial Victims be Exonerated?

    Listen to the episode

    Josh Hutchinson: [00:00:00] “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Exodus 22:18. Welcome to Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast. I’m Josh Hutchinson. 

    Sarah Jack: And I’m Sarah Jack. 

    Sarah Jack: We made it.

    Josh Hutchinson: We did?

    Sarah Jack: Through episode one.

    Josh Hutchinson: We’ve survived this long. 

    Sarah Jack: Now you’ll never get rid of us. 

    Josh Hutchinson: In our first episode, we learned the history of the Connecticut witch trials. On this one, we learn about efforts to clear the names of the victims. 

    Sarah Jack: Today, we’re introducing the Connecticut Witch Trial Exoneration Project. We will learn about their efforts to clear the names of those wrongfully accused of witchcraft in colonial [00:01:00] Connecticut. The project includes Beth Caruso, Tony Griego, Mary-Louise Bingham, Josh, and me.

    Josh Hutchinson: We’ll learn how the project came together and what they’re doing to push for exoneration. 

    Sarah Jack: Before we get down to business, I have an idea. 

    Josh Hutchinson: What’s that?

    Sarah Jack: Let’s tell a story. 

    Josh Hutchinson: What kind of story?

    Sarah Jack: A story about an unfortunate woman accused of witchcraft. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Do you have one in mind? 

    Sarah Jack: I do. 

    Josh Hutchinson: What is it?

    Sarah Jack: Last week we learned about the first woman executed for witchcraft in England’s North American colonies. This week, I want to talk about the second woman executed in Connecticut. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Who was that? 

    Sarah Jack: Her name was Mary Johnson, and she came from Wethersfield. 

    Josh Hutchinson: What do we know about her? 

    Sarah Jack: Unfortunately, there isn’t much -information about her personal life. However, we do know she was charged with witchcraft in 1648 and that she confessed.

    Josh Hutchinson: She confessed?

    Sarah Jack: According to the court records, she confessed to familiarity with the devil. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Do we [00:02:00] know any more about that? 

    Sarah Jack: Cotton Mather wrote about her in a book published in 1702.

    Josh Hutchinson: The same person who wrote the defense of the Salem witch trials. 

    Sarah Jack: Unfortunately he’s the best source we have.

    Josh Hutchinson: What did Mr. Mather write about Mary Johnson? 

    Sarah Jack: He wrote that she was discontented when Satan appeared to her. To content her, he had a devil help with her work. 

    Josh Hutchinson: A devil did chores for her?

    Sarah Jack: He cleaned ashes out of the hearth and drove away hogs that broke into her master’s field. But that’s not all he wrote. 

    Josh Hutchinson: What else? 

    Sarah Jack: She committed uncleanness, both with men and with devils.

    Josh Hutchinson: That’s what Cotton Mather wrote about her?

    Sarah Jack: Yes, and he said she admitted to killing a child.

    Josh Hutchinson: What awful accusations against an innocent woman. 

    Sarah Jack: And now for a decidedly more wholesome discussion. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Perfect time to talk about exonerating innocent people. 

    Sarah Jack: We’ll begin our exoneration discussion by talking again to Tony Griego and Beth Caruso, and then we’ll connect with [00:03:00] Mary-Louise Bingham to learn more about the legislative effort. 

    Josh Hutchinson: And now the interview. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Tony. How did you get involved in early legislative efforts for the accused Connecticut witches?

    Tony Griego: It’s an interesting story, and it started October 21st, 2005, when several people attended a presentation given by the state historian, Walter Woodward, a bout the Connecticut witch trials in Torrington, Connecticut. Several people, myself included, were there.

    Tony Griego: He gave a great presentation about the trials. Many people weren’t even aware of all the events that had taken place here, but at the end of his discussion, a group of us approached him and asked him, has anybody ever done anything to clear the names of these individuals? And he said, no, he says, but it sounds like an interesting idea.

    Tony Griego: From that point on, we formed of an ad hoc committee about four or five people, and our goal was to get some kind of [00:04:00] recognition, exoneration, pardon, anything that would clear these names of the people that were, at the time we focused on the 11 people that were hanged. 

    Tony Griego: Initially there was a mother and daughter team who were descendants of Mary Sanford. They were the spearhead of the group. They got a lot of good press with several newspapers, New York Times, the New London Day, many papers told about what we were trying to accomplish. It got to a point where they actually contacted a state representative in their district, who presented a proclamation before the general assembly here in Connecticut. And there was three descendants, the two mother and daughter and another descendant who testified. Now, when you testify before the general assembly, you’re allowed to speak for three minutes, which they did, but at the end of their [00:05:00] presentation, the three of them, members of the general assembly asked them questions.

    Tony Griego: And the question and answer period lasted 45 minutes. At the end of it, it never made it to the floor, and it was never voted on. We resubmitted again in 2009, and again, it failed. So some of the interesting things that I found during my research is number one, in the state of Connecticut, the governor does not have the authority to pardon anyone. That falls to the board of pardons and paroles.

    Tony Griego: So I wrote to the board, and I got a letter a short time later, and they stated that they do not pardon dead people, basically, so it came to a dead end. The next step, I says at the time we came under the authority of the queen at that time was the king of England. So I wrote to the queen of England. Again, a short time later, the members of their staff, her staff, wrote me back saying that we basically think it’s a colonial [00:06:00] problem, and every single one of those cases would have to be reopened. And that’s almost impossible because many of the colonial records here in Connecticut pertaining to the trials missing, so the next step was I started writing to all my state representatives from my district. And to be perfectly honest, I never got a response from any of them.

    Tony Griego: And it just continued to a point where I wasn’t making any headway at all until in, I think it was 2015, I happened to pick up the Hartford Courant one day, and there was a big article page three, and it was about Beth Caruso speaking about Alice Young. So she was gonna be doing a book signing at the Windsor Historical Society, and I went and I met with her and I told her what I was growing through and how frustrated I was. And we had agreed to work together. Beth actually set up our Facebook page. So that’s where we are [00:07:00] today.

    Beth Caruso: Tony talked about when we first met. Shortly after that, we did decide to work together, since the mayor had expressed that interest in doing something for our two witch trial victims in Windsor. So Tony and I got together. We decided we had to raise awareness about the Connecticut witch trials, since very few people across the country, let alone Connecticut, knew about them.

    Beth Caruso: So in February of 2016, we launched our Facebook page called CT WITCH Memorial. And our purpose of it was to tell the witch trial stories as much as we could find about the Connecticut victims, as well as any events that were taking place in Connecticut that other people were doing, so that they could learn about them in multiple ways. And it went [00:08:00] from there. 

    Beth Caruso: About a year later, we got word from Mayor Trinks in Windsor that it was a good time to bring a resolution forth before the town council to recognize Windsor’s two witch trial victims, Alice Young and Lydia Gilbert. The effort was very successful. The First Church of Windsor got involved, and that’s very significant, because the First Church would’ve been very involved in the original witch hangings, and we know that because of some commentaries by the ministers from that time. So it was historic that the ministers got involved. 

    Beth Caruso: One of them, Char Corbett, who’s no longer in Windsor, but who was at the time and played a huge role, gave a historic apology on behalf of the first church of Windsor. And her speech was so powerful [00:09:00] that it was almost like she shamed every single town council member into voting for this because it was powerful. You couldn’t walk away from that speech and say, oh, it’s fine that we don’t acknowledge these victims. She stressed just how much they lost, their families lost.

    Beth Caruso: Besides the lives of their loved ones, their families suffered trauma and stigma for generations. And so it was significant. It was important, but it was just the town of Windsor. So we wanted to go on from there. 

    Sarah Jack: Beth and Tony have an important collaboration called the Connecticut WITCH Memorial. Tell us what the name stands for and what your mission has been. 

    Beth Caruso: CT stands for Connecticut, of course, WITCH is actually an acronym, and I have to give credit to my husband, Charles Button, too. We were out [00:10:00] for lunch one day, and I said, we gotta come up with something for this new Facebook page. And so we came up with WITCH as being Witch Interrogations, Trials, and Colonial Hangings. So Connecticut Witch Interrogations Trials and Colonial Hangings Memorial, because there is yet to be a place to memorialize the Connecticut witch trial victims. So we wanted our stories and our Facebook space to act as a temporary memorial until more could be done, and we still see it that way. 

    Tony Griego: When Beth first started it, she gave me pretty clear instructions, what she thought we should be doing. And one of the things that I was really interested in doing was estimating from different [00:11:00] sources exactly how many people were we talking about. Originally, in my first adventure with this, it was 11 people, the 11 people that lost their life because of the trials.

    Tony Griego: But it goes beyond that. Depending on what sources you look at and how you figure it out, it’s anywhere between 42 and 46 people that experienced witchcraft trials here in Connecticut. What I decided to do was, for our page, give a brief synopsis. I’m a retired policeman , and at the end of my shift, I had to give my supervisor a synopsis of what took place during the shift.

    Tony Griego: And that’s exactly what I wanted to do, put a short story together so that everybody would have some kind of an understanding about what these people were charged with, what they went through. And what were the ultimate results. And in some cases it was just absolutely bizarre, but that was really important for me to get their stories out, [00:12:00] even though they’re just short stories.

    Tony Griego: And there’s so many people that commented on them, and one of the things that I found very interesting was most of the comments– I’m gonna say a very good percentage of the comments– people made a comment first that said, I’m the 10th great granddaughter of so-and-so, s o we were getting all these people who were descendants, not just people that were interested in witch trials or what took place in Salem and other places, but these were descendants, and I know that in a court of law, people that have standing in an event have more power than just a guy off the street. So with all these descendants all across the country, and I’m looking at two of them right now, this movement is gonna make some positive direction. 

    Beth Caruso: That really brings us to the role that the recent interest in ancestry has played in all this. [00:13:00] A lot of people they go on Ancestry or another type of ancestry site, and they say, oh, wow, wait, look at this. I’m all the way back in the 1600s, and oh my, my 10th, 11th, 9th, great grandmother was called a witch. I gotta learn more about this, and people Google and they find our site. So right now we have about 2,500 followers, and as this movement gets bigger, people hear about us and, thankfully, with Josh, you and Sarah, both of you, you are contributing so much now with your own sites that are also telling the stories of the Connecticut witch trials in a whole array of social media, and it really is truly helping to get the word out. 

    Sarah Jack: I have always been very [00:14:00] interested in my ancestry, and starting in high school, I started doing research, with a great aunt, on my family, and at that time I discovered that I descend from two of the accused witches who were hanged in Salem, Rebecca Nurse and Mary Esty.

    Sarah Jack: And over the years, as I continued doing my research, I discovered more about New England, its history, and the branch that I was working on was in Connecticut. This was about three years ago, and I saw some history on Winifred Benham and Winifred Benham, Jr., that they were accused witches, and I was so puzzled, because I wasn’t working on my Massachusetts history then, and I had never heard of this, and I just couldn’t even understand. Is this a story? [00:15:00] Did this really happen? Were they an actual family? And I started digging around online and one of the things that Google threw my way was the Facebook page for the Connecticut WITCH Memorial. And I was so excited to see it. I still didn’t understand the status of the Connecticut witch trial history.

    Sarah Jack: I saw the word Memorial, and I knew Salem had a physical Memorial, so I thought, oh great, I’m gonna find the location of the Connecticut WITCH Memorial. And I quickly realized that Facebook page was telling us all about this important history. There was so much information there, but that there was not a memorial for all of those victims.

    Sarah Jack: And it just really disappointed me, and I wanted more people to know, and I was also still gathering [00:16:00] my own perspective on the witch trial history and researching as a family historian. And just trying to get perspective on the history and the 17th century, these families, how did they end up in witch trials?

    Sarah Jack: And I decided to create the Facebook page. I wanted to bring descendants and family researchers together over the scope of which trials. I wanted a place where I could share what Tony and Beth were posting and giving us, but also, and there’s a Facebook page called Salem Witch-Hunt that I recognized was sharing a lot of important historical information.

    Sarah Jack: I wanted to be able to bring those two pieces together for people to discuss and talk about what they were learning. And I wondered who else was out there. What other authors, researchers, historians, family lore [00:17:00] is sitting in somebody’s personal knowledge and they wanna come together and share it?

    Sarah Jack: So my first intention was to gather people and information to a place where it could be researched further, but I’m thinking this Memorial thing. To happen. When I first opened my social media, I did reach out and introduced myself to Beth and Tony, and they were so warm and welcoming and it really encouraged me to continue on with my idea.

    Sarah Jack: The other social media piece that I have used is Twitter, and that has also brought many of us together, including Mary Bingham. As the social media community has continued to grow on Beth and Tony’s page and on Salem Witch-Hunt and on The Witch Trial Hysteria History of the American Colonies, it has brought more people together, more ideas, more energy, and given momentum and [00:18:00] direction towards finding the acknowledgement that Connecticut has not offered. 

    Beth Caruso: And now is a good time, and I think coming on the heels of the Elizabeth Johnson, Jr. exoneration in Massachusetts and all of us forming a strong coalition, it really does give us more energy and more force to come to the Connecticut legislature with. In the beginning, Tony and I were, we have been very protective with the information on our site, that it be devoted to Connecticut.

    Beth Caruso: A lot of people who would write books about the Salem trials would ask to have their information, and we usually said no, because we didn’t wanna be, to liken it to something like the Brady Bunch. We didn’t wanna be like Jan, the forgotten sister. Everybody’s focused on Marcia. 

    Beth Caruso: For so many years, Salem has been the sole [00:19:00] focus. A lot of it is because the trials were later, they involved more people, and they had a lot more documentation. We wanted our site to be just devoted to Connecticut, to get the Connecticut stories out there, since people had never even heard of them, but now that we are at this point, I agree. It’s a wonderful thing to join forces. And in the future, I think people are gonna have more information just about how connected the Connecticut trials were to what happened in Massachusetts. 

    Sarah Jack: I believe that they do each need to stand alone on their history, but now that there are these connecting channels, that is a strength for the history too.

    Sarah Jack: Both pieces are important. People need to know where they can go to get [00:20:00] Connecticut information and CT WITCH Memorial Facebook has been a great location for that, and the Salem witch hunt, Facebook page and social media has been a really great place for people to find all of those documents and the authors.

    Sarah Jack: And so I think those are two really important legs of witch trial history. And then I believe this piece now where we’re seeking clear acknowledgement for the victims in Connecticut. And if there’s been anyone else in new England that needs that acknowledgement. This will all come together. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Tony, what does the current exoneration project mean to you?

    Tony Griego: It means that there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. So many people have worked on this since my knowledge goes back to 2005, but now it seems to be reinvigorated again, and people hear the term witch hunt all the time on the daily news today pertaining to other type of witch [00:21:00] hunts. We won’t get into politics of course. It’s just time. All these people went through these terrible agony that affected their families and the generations to come. And the state of Connecticut has never acknowledged that. They’ve never offered any expression of regret, nothing. 

    Tony Griego: There’s really only three sites left in Hartford that have a direct connection to the trials. The old state house, where some of the trials may have been held. Some of the executions may have taken place. There is what they call the South Green, originally. It’s now Barnard Park in Hartford. That’s where witches had a night of merriment that led to a trial. And lastly is the ancient burial ground in Hartford, which is a wonderful historical site. There’s no witches buried there, but all the magistrates and the jury people are there. 

    Tony Griego: At one point we had [00:22:00] efforts to get a Memorial, and i t seems like none of these sites would, were interested. What I found out was the state house is actually governed by the general assembly. The ancient burial ground, which is attached to the church there, it’s not part of the church it’s owned by the city of Hartford as is south green. It’s a city park and there was just really no interest for a Memorial. And in many of my letters, I would state that gee, every year in October, Salem, Massachusetts brings in a lot of money, and Connecticut could jump on that bandwagon, and we’ve neglected it for all these years.

    Josh Hutchinson: Alice Young was executed more than 375 years ago, so why is it important now to exonerate her and the others? 

    Tony Griego: In a modern age, we know that which hunts are [00:23:00] wrong. We know what happened in Salem. Some people know a little about what happened here in Connecticut. The bottom line is those hunts were wrong. Those people suffered for reasons that go beyond reasoning. So we think it’s time that like Massachusetts and New Hampshire and Virginia it’s time to make amends for that. And that’s hopefully what we’re gonna accomplish. Now is the right time.

    Beth Caruso: I also think when we’re talking about exoneration of Connecticut’s witch trial victims, that it’s easy to push it off and say, oh, this is something that’s disconnected to our present day. It’s in the past, but as a lot of psychiatrists and psychologists have talked to us today, as far as trauma, there is generational trauma. So we have to think of that. We also have to think of [00:24:00] how we witch hunt in present day, maybe not literal witch hunts, but targeting people. Just for the fact that they’re different or they don’t fit into a precise box of what a certain group would want them to fit into. It’s a statement that we just need to accept people for who they are, differences and all, and accept that those differences can actually enrich our society instead of pointing at them as other. And this is a theme. it keeps coming up over and over again, whether you’re talking about a more recent past like Nazi-ism or whether you’re talking about present day America, where people are being singled out.

    Beth Caruso: And then of course you have [00:25:00] actual witch hunts that are still happening in places like Africa. Us talking about this, not only do I think it, is it historically correct to do and the right things for the people who died unjustly, but it’s also right for their families, their descendants, and as a strong statement and commentary.

    Beth Caruso: About how this type of hurting the other, because the other is misunderstood is in and of itself a very appropriate statement.

    Sarah Jack: I think it’s safe to say Connecticut communities may not want to have Witch City overtake them like Salem’s called Witch City, but I feel like it’s an opportunity for the communities in Connecticut or the [00:26:00] community of Connecticut as a whole to build this acknowledgement into something that they want it to be.

    Sarah Jack: We can never get away from the stigmas of the historical evil witch, but we can create memorials and memory and acknowledgement of these individuals that had that attached to them in the way that we want to, and my hope would be for Connecticut to see a vision where they can create something that they’re proud of that is acknowledging the history and teaching the history.

    Sarah Jack: What are your feelings about that? 

    Beth Caruso: An obstacle I’ve come across quite often is the attitude about, oh, our venerated, wonderful ancestors, founders of this town or that town, [00:27:00] and if you go back and read ancestry books from the 1800s that all the time, our honorable, hardworking ancestors, aside from some witch hunts, that was their only blemish.

    Beth Caruso: Come on. Let’s get real. They were human beings. Like we are human beings, they made mistakes and things were dramatically different culturally. How they treated Native Americans. If the ancestors were Puritan, how they treated people, other religions was horrible. It doesn’t mean that ancestors didn’t have virtues or good points to them, but let’s get real in how we look at them.

    Beth Caruso: And there shouldn’t be a sense of overwhelming guilt or shame either. That’s not what I’m saying. [00:28:00] I’m just saying, let’s look at things realistically, and let’s say, it’s okay. It’s okay to look at our ancestors as less than perfect people. I challenge every single person to find a family tree where all their ancestors are perfect people.

    Beth Caruso: No, they’re not. Every single family tree has the black sheep, the people that committed some crimes, the people that were just not the nicest people, who did some terrible things. And that doesn’t make the person who has the family tree or who researches it the same people. It’s the same family, but you’re different people.

    Beth Caruso: So this fantasy, this gilded picture of the past, it’s really an obstacle to looking at what really happened. And [00:29:00] in looking at things that way, people need to understand they’re denying somebody else’s history. They’re denying what happened to Native Americans. They’re denying what happened to these witch trial victims. They’re denying what happened to enslaved people.

    Beth Caruso: These things need to be acknowledged, and it can be used as an opportunity to look at human beings in a more interesting way. Okay, we all have our dark sides and our light sides. None of us are perfect people. There are things about humans, which can be wonderful.

    Beth Caruso: Some are very altruistic and creative, yet there are dark parts of all of us that we work on containing, jealousy and so on. So I would say to people who wanna cover this up, who don’t wanna do wrong by their ancestors by [00:30:00] saying, oh, this person, maybe wasn’t perfect to let go of that. It’s not helping anybody.

    Beth Caruso: And I think the story that can be written from the actual history, from reality, is much more fascinating and much more interesting, and nobody’s singled out, because everybody has this dark side, light side to them, and everybody’s ancestors have this also. So let’s just accept people as they are and learn from it.

    Sarah Jack: Tony, I know you mentioned when you were talking about the Hartford witch panic, you just talked about them, not recognizing some of the history. How do you think we can get over some of these obstacles or how would you like it to be if we were able to get over the obstacles?

    Tony Griego: It’s important, the role that descendants play in the efforts to change this. For [00:31:00] the longest time, there weren’t that many descendants that were involved in it. There were some, but now with both your groups, it’s increased, and it gives us the opportunity to let people know that there was 46 people in Connecticut that suffered through trials, but there’s thousands and thousands of their descendants. I think it’s really time, and you have to understand that it was not only Hartford. New Haven also had its share of which trials. To its benefit New Haven never hanged anybody.

    Tony Griego: All of the hangings took place in either Hartford, Stratford, or Fairfield. It was basically the whole colony of Connecticut that was involved in these trials, and it’s time to change that, to recognize that.

    Tony Griego: And I might add I’m also very happy that we have a state representative, Jane Garibay, who’s on board. 

    Beth Caruso: Jane Garibay is actually my representative. She covers Windsor and Windsor Locks, and I did have a conversation with her about three years [00:32:00] ago about bringing forth exoneration for the Connecticut witch trial victims. It wasn’t a good year for her to do it, and then COVID happened. So we didn’t really touch base since then. So when Mary reached out to me and asked, what could we do to make this a law in Connecticut that these Connecticut witch trial victims are recognized? Jane Garibay came to mind immediately because she had been interested before.

    Beth Caruso: Mary was the one who reached out to her this time, so I was very happy that Mary did that. And really she got the ball rolling again, where it had been paused for several years. 

    Sarah Jack: Mary, I watched your YouTube exoneration message as soon as you released it, and its energy was one of the reasons I was so excited to help create the Connecticut witch trial project. I knew your video [00:33:00] was going to be a great tool that would spread the word and grow support from the community. Tell us how you were inspired to make the message and what lawmaker responded positively. 

    Mary-Louise Bingham: After we had heard Diane Dizoglio give her speech on the Senate floor, regarding the exoneration of Elizabeth Johnson Jr., I had agreed, with myself first of all, that it was time to go after Connecticut.

    Mary-Louise Bingham: And I knew of Beth Caruso, and you, Sarah, had put me in touch with her, and I saw her tweet that she was very disappointed that nobody had done anything to honor Alice Young, who was hanged 375 years ago, late in May. And so I did reach out to her and she reminded me that she had gotten in touch with Jane Garibay and then COVID hit, so nothing got [00:34:00] done, and she encouraged me to do and so when I emailed Jane, I thought, maybe I won’t hear from her, but maybe I will. But that same day she emailed me back. And when I saw the email at 11 o’clock at night, I sat straight up in my bed and I was like oh, my God, this is going to happen, because Jane said specifically in her email, this is ridiculous that this has not been done.

    Mary-Louise Bingham: So I thought, oh my gosh, this is gonna happen. 

    Sarah Jack: It was really exciting when all those first main pieces came together, and we realized this project was forming. 

    Mary-Louise Bingham: And it looks like it’s going to go much faster in a couple of months than we ever anticipated that it’s gonna go. So very excited about that too.

    Mary-Louise Bingham: And, but my only disappointment is that there are some of those first names of those women [00:35:00] that we don’t know yet, but we’re in the process of finding out their true given names, cause that is very powerful, and once we get everything written that we need to get written to have their full names in there is so important, because who wants to be known as anonymous Knapp or anonymous Bassett. We wanna know their first name and their last name. 

    Sarah Jack: We do want to know them, and there’s lots of descendants that want to know those names that will be identifying grandmothers, grandfathers for descendants as well.

    Josh Hutchinson: They’re more than just goodwives. 

    Mary-Louise Bingham: That’s right. And that’s why I said anonymous because they are anonymous in that sense. We need to know their names because it also gives more of their story, too, a very important part of their story. 

    Josh Hutchinson: We’re wanting to humanize these people. It’s been [00:36:00] 375 years. It’s a little easy to think of them more abstractly as just data on old records, but they are human beings.

    Mary-Louise Bingham: That’s right, and they existed. They lived. They have stories to tell and stories that live on through their descendants, and that is why I still believe very strongly, as I did from day one, that everybody needs to be exonerated. Their convictions need to be overturned. We need to try our best to find out who exactly was convicted and who was not convicted, even though everybody needs to have an apology, at least. But those convictions that we know of, they definitely need to be overturned. And I believe they will be. 

    Sarah Jack: I agree with you. I am really excited. A lot of people are gonna have to get involved and be [00:37:00] bold and take the steps that need to be done to make this happen, but I believe in them. I believe they can do it. 

    Mary-Louise Bingham: We definitely still are looking for more descendants and especially descendants that still live in the Connecticut area. Because even those people that have lived in Connecticut for a long period of time, a lot of them, as you well know, don’t know the history, and they don’t know that they were the first colony to hang somebody who was accused of witchcraft, and the more that we are visible, and the more people that we can gather with us, the more people will realize that this is important, and it needs to be done for the descendants and to clear the people’s names that didn’t no wrong, and it [00:38:00] breaks my heart when we see articles in newspapers stating that why now, why this, it was 375 years ago. We need to do it. We need to write the wrongs of the past so that history is not doomed to repeat itself, as said by state senator Diana DiZoglio in Massachusetts. 

    Mary-Louise Bingham: And like you have said, Sarah, and I’ve done some research myself and looked on YouTube and seeing the videos of those people, especially those people in Africa that are still being accused of witchcraft today, and they are not witches. And I’m not saying that there aren’t people that are practicing a different form of witchcraft, like Wiccan and paganism, that is a more peaceful religion and good people are practicing that. It’s not that type of witchcraft that I’m talking about. I’m talking about the people that are [00:39:00] being accused of bewitchment, as our own ancestors were accused of way back when in the 1600s. And the fact that there are those that are being accused of that type of witchcraft and they are not guilty. It just, that also breaks my heart, as well. 

    Sarah Jack: Yeah. That’s a very good reason for our country at every community level with this witch trial history, at the local level, at the state level, at the federal level to stand and say that witch hunting is not just.

    Mary-Louise Bingham: Witch hunting for other things or scapegoating is not appropriate. It’s not acceptable. People need to own their own responsibility and their involvement in the things that they do in their own lives that affect their community, but finger pointing towards others and blaming others for [00:40:00] something that, that person did not do is not acceptable anymore in my mind and in my heart, not acceptable. And in my own life, I am not willing to be a part of it. 

    Sarah Jack: Mary, when you talked about how descendants are so shocked to find out that there were witch trials in Connecticut, I was one of those family researchers that happened to, and it was really amazing to watch author and actor Zachary Levi show that shock on who do you think you are on TV. That moment when they captured his shock, his concern for his grandmother, what happened to her. How many thousands of us have felt that?

    Mary-Louise Bingham: I remember when I found out about Susannah North Martin, she was the first one I found about for me, and I was so shocked that I sat in front of my computer, and I [00:41:00] did the Google search for hours, and I was like, wow. So I, but hers was more like, I wanna know more about her, what her trial was like and so on and so forth, but it was six months later when I found out about Sarah Wildes, and that’s when I looked at the screen, I looked at my keyboard, and I bent my head, and I just started to cry. And I was like, no, really? I cannot believe this. And then it was genealogist Gail Garda who found out about Mary Esty for me, and I was shocked, but yet I felt very proud at that time. And I know, a lot of people say you own no ownership in who your ancestors are, so why are you proud?

    Mary-Louise Bingham: But I was. I did have a sense of pride, but I never knew that I was descended from the Esty family, and I do recognize today [00:42:00] that it is what it is, but also knowing about Mary Esty and knowing what a strong woman she was, I felt like, wow, this is pretty powerful. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Mary, you seem confident that Connecticut will take action to exonerate the accused witches. What gives you that confidence? 

    Mary-Louise Bingham: After speaking with Jane Garibay a couple of times, I feel like she is a true powerhouse and that she feels it’s the right time, and she’s able to gain all of the support that she’s gaining at the state level.

    Mary-Louise Bingham: And also we’re on the coattails of what just happened with Elizabeth Johnson Jr. I feel like it’s time. Everybody that I’m speaking to on behalf of this feels like it’s time. The amount of people that have signed the petition. I just have that feeling, that confident feeling that it’s time.

    Sarah Jack: I think the petition’s been [00:43:00] really important because when people come across the petition, it spurs them on to learn more of witch trial history, and they talk about it, and they share about it, and that brings more people into the fold. 

    Josh Hutchinson: I just wanna back up just a minute for the listeners at home. Can you just tell us about the petition. We’ll have links to it in our show notes, but what is the petition asking for?

    Mary-Louise Bingham: Petition is Exonerate Wrongfully Accused of Witchcraft in Colonial Connecticut. I wanna say I started this petition very late in May, and I just describe on it a little bit about the history and why it’s important to do this now and who we are as team members and people that are helping us all along the way, such as descendants, authors, historians, and people who [00:44:00] just care about reversing social injustice, and I think that’s most people that walk the face of the earth right now, so that’s a good thing.

    Mary-Louise Bingham: So I am proud of all of us that we have as many signatures as we do. And also a big shout out to the people that are actually donating money for this petition, because the more that we donate, the more that change.org will send it off and advertise it more, so that’s a good thing as well.

     It’s been great talking to you again that stuff’s all. 

    Mary-Louise Bingham: Thank you very much. Thank you. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Good night. Thank you. Okay. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you everybody for coming. 

    Sarah Jack: Thank you so much, Mary. 

    Tony Griego: Thank you for your help. 

    Beth Caruso: All right, bye. Thank you. Bye-bye thanks. 

    Sarah Jack: Welcome to witch hunt happenings in your world. This is about real people targeted, abused, murdered, or in danger of death due to witchcraft superstitions today. [00:45:00] Witch hunts are a human rights violation, often due to religious hatred. This is the exact case for what is happening with many of the accused witches in Africa.

    Sarah Jack: You heard that right. There are many. The Advocacy for Alleged Witches works to stop the toleration of witch accusations and hatred, while defending the rights and dignity of alleged witches. It exists to end all forms of human rights abuses linked to witchcraft allegations in African countries. It is doing this by engaging in a decade of activism against these witch persecutions.

    Sarah Jack: Yes, you heard that right, too, a ten year attempt to disrupt witch hunting behaviors. . Is ten years of reasonable timeframe to reset social norms of superstition and hate? Leo Igwe, Nigerian human rights activist and humanitarian, is leading the charge to do just that.

    Sarah Jack: You can get the latest crisis info every week, because he’s actively highlighting stories of victims and [00:46:00] survivors of witch persecution through articles and with his account @ leoigwe on social media posts. That’s @ L E O I G W E. He’s engaging state and non-state actors in the field of witchcraft accusation.

    Sarah Jack: Lobbying locally, regionally, nationally, and globally by asking leadership to intervene with protection for alleged witches and education for the accusers. And he seeks out institutional partnership to support these objectives. AFAW facilitates trainings, workshops, and seminars for various interest groups on witchcraft allegations and witch-hunting.

    Sarah Jack: It organizes public education and enlightenment campaigns to reason people out of the misconceptions that drive witch persecution and other harmful traditional practices. It wants its culture to know that the fear of witches is an unfounded myth and an imaginary crime, that these [00:47:00] accusations of causing harm are based on hearsay and misinformation, panic and anxieties, fear and superstition.

    Sarah Jack: The AFAW’s decade of activism drives the notion and demonstrates that witch persecution, killings, and trials are forms of human rights abuses that should not be tolerated in the name of religion, culture, or tradition. Leo Igwe, superstition, community witch hunts, and a decade of activism will come to your mind now, when you hear the phrase witch hunt, you share the world where this is happening. Witch hunting is not a past only, nor is it largely about perceptions of political bullying, unless politics are causing human rights violations. As you have learned, that does occur. Be sure to share what you’ve learned here.

    Sarah Jack: Be a part of the decade of activism by being a voice of justice for your world neighbors. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Thank you for another informative news segment, Sarah.

    Sarah Jack: And thank you everyone for listening. 

    Sarah Jack: [00:48:00] And now we’ll hear from Tom Mattingly in Jami Milne of Ballet Des Moines about their upcoming ballet Salem.

    Tom Mattingly: I have always loved ballet as a vehicle for storytelling, and I think that there can be so much left to interpretation with the subject of witchcraft and that interpretation lends itself really well to ballet. So what I’ve done with Salem is I’ve taken inspiration from the historical events to create a fictional story, one that could have happened during the time, but isn’t necessary a recreation of actual events.

    Tom Mattingly: Fear itself is very powerful, and when we are led by fear rather than reason, there are horrific consequences.

    Tom Mattingly: The character of fear is very important to this ballet. Fear is played by one of the male dancers in our company, and he is not a townsperson of Salem, but he is a constant presence [00:49:00] and influence on the entire cast, so he really interacts a lot with the girl. The girl is the one who is making the accusations of witchcraft. She feels fearful from the pressures of the people around her, and especially her father, the preacher, to continue accusing and testifying against the people of Salem.

    Tom Mattingly: The Salem Witch Trials has always been a captivating subject. One of the main reasons I chose the witch trials for a ballet is because I knew it was something that would capture people’s attention. 

    Tom Mattingly: I hope that people are moved by what they see and think about how they view others, if they’re viewing others with kindness, with the benefit of the doubt, if they’re giving a chance to these people that they don’t know. I hope that they are inspired to learn more about the Salem Witch Trials themselves.

    Tom Mattingly: It is a fictional story that I’m creating, but every element is based on historical fact. A lot of it is [00:50:00] different people from the past kind of combined into become one character, like the Mathers with our preacher. There is one character who attempts to defend his wife, who has been accused, and he himself gets accused of witchcraft and demonic possession. Even down to the costuming, it’s going to be a modern reinterpretation but based on the strict puritan dress codes of the time with the muted colors, being covered up, those natural fibers, no lace, no ribbons, very much bare bones, utilitarian in a lot of ways.

    Tom Mattingly: Same thing with the set design, too, of these furniture pieces that can be used in many different configurations so that our meeting house can serve as a place of worship. It can serve as the home for the trials themselves in the courthouse. Our set even has a different modular design to become the gallows when one of the characters is hanged.

    Jami Milne: Tom and I were talking just this last week, and [00:51:00] he said, “everyone knows the end of the story here. There’s not a surprise, because we all know the Salem Witch Trials and what happened.” 

    Jami Milne: I don’t want anyone to forget the power of a somber ending and this idea that great change can come, feeling so emotionally disrupted that you have no choice but to think differently upon leaving. And I think that will really be the power of audiences walking in the doors and then leaving with very different emotional state.

     The music for Salem will primarily be Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring.

    Tom Mattingly: Rite of Spring is typically the story of ritual sacrifice, and in a way, I feel like that’s what happened with the Salem Witch Trials. It became this ritual of accusations, trials, and hangings that just continued over and over until it was finally put to an end. And it’s an amazing score. It’s difficult as a dancer, because it’s [00:52:00] difficult to count and the melodies are so surprising, but the overall effect, I think, is incredible, and it takes this kind of animalistic quality. And the dancers are really able to embody it, especially in these group scenes at the church or at the gallows. It’s really moving. 

    Tom Mattingly: Salem will be performed at the Stoner Studio Theater in downtown Des Moines, October 20th through the 29th.

    Tom Mattingly: Tickets can be purchased at balletdesmoines.org.

    Josh Hutchinson: And now we bring to you special interview with Michael Cormier and Myriam Cyr of Punctuate4 about Saltonstall’s Trial, a play about the only judge who quit the Salem Witch Trial’s Court due to concerns about the nature of the proceedings. 

    Josh Hutchinson: If you’re in the Boston area, please attend the stage reading on Thursday, October 27th at 7:00 PM at the Modern Theater in downtown Boston. The reading will be followed by a talkback with Marilynne K. Roach, author of The Salem Witch Trials [00:53:00] and Six Women of Salem, and the presentation is brought to you free of charge by the Ford Health Forum at Suffolk University. Visit punctuate4.org for tickets.

    Josh Hutchinson: And now Michael Cormier and Myriam Cyr. 

    Michael Cormier: I am an amateur historian about the Salem Witchcraft Trials, been for a very long time. And I kept in my reading, coming across the name Nathaniel Saltonstall. And of course, Haverhill, Massachusetts has the name Saltonstall all over it, because that’s where the family started, very famous New England family.

    Michael Cormier: And every time I’d read about him in the books, it would have maybe a paragraph that would say that he was appointed one of the nine judges on the trials. And of all those judges, he was the only one who quit in protest over the conduct of the trials. [00:54:00] So I was always wondering what would make this man do that when nobody else did?

    Myriam Cyr: And then the story is really about how this judge is going to be taught by the women who were accused to see the truth, as opposed to the fake news that was being put forward. And what’s amazing about the play is that it speaks so much to cancel culture and fake news and what is truth and what is not truth.

    Michael Cormier: And it highlights the Saltonstall family as a family that’s being immersed in this whole tragedy from the point of view of the powers that be. Because Nathaniel Saltonstall was a Harvard graduate and grandson of English aristocracy. He was he was a well connected man.

    Michael Cormier: He didn’t have to do what he did, so the struggle has a lot to do with, are we part of this whole community? Do we protect those people who are helpless? Or [00:55:00] are we this upper crust of the Puritan society, and therefore we’re gonna go along with the program no matter whether they’re right or wrong.

    Myriam Cyr: The play has a lot of drama, and it’s very exciting, and it’s a little bit like a, who done it in certain parts.

    Myriam Cyr: And so it’s a very entertaining evening, and we see the witches on trial, the accused on trial. So we’re very excited to share it with the public, and what’s really exciting is that we have really all through all the steps of this process, we have kept checking in with the public as to what worked and what didn’t work.

    Myriam Cyr: So we’re very excited and we can’t wait to see people’s reactions to it.

    Myriam Cyr: We do have three Elliot Norton Award winners that are part of the cast and who are lending their voices to this and sometimes stage readings can be even more exciting than plays themselves because as a [00:56:00] member of the audience, you can imagine what all of this will look like, because you really have the words to rely on and the images that in the powers that these words conjure and it is, it’s like a spell. It’s like entering a spell. And there’s gonna be music, and there’s gonna be sound effects and but it will be very exciting.

    Myriam Cyr: Saltonstall’s Trial can be seen at the Modern Theatre in downtown Boston at 525 Washington Street, Boston, 7:00 PM on October 27th, which is a Thursday, and there will be a talk back afterwards with Marilynne Roach, who’s the author of Six Women of Salem and is very famous. She was interviewed on Jon Stewart, and she’s one of the world’s leading expert on the Salem Witch Trials. 

    Myriam Cyr: If you go to [00:57:00] punctuate4.org, you will see a button that says reservations, and it will lead you to where you have to go. And also it’s a free event. And that is thanks to the Ford Hall Forum in Suffolk University who are sponsoring us.

    Josh Hutchinson: This has been Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast. 

    Sarah Jack: Visit thoushaltnotsuffer.com for show notes and transcripts, and to learn how you can support us. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Follow us on Twitter @thoupodcast, Instagram @thoushaltnotsuffer, and Facebook @thoushaltnotsufferpodcast.

    Sarah Jack: If you have questions or feedback, email us at thoushaltnotsufferpodcast@gmail.com. 

    Josh Hutchinson: Like, subscribe, or follow wherever you get your podcasts. 

    Sarah Jack: And if you like the podcast, please rate and review.

    Josh Hutchinson: And tell your friends and family about Thou Shalt Not Suffer: The Witch Trial Podcast. 

    Sarah Jack: Bye.

    Josh Hutchinson: Bye. [00:58:00] 

  • Episode 1 Transcript: Connecticut Witch Trials with Beth Caruso and Tony Griego of CT WITCH Memorial

    Listen to the episode

    [00:00:20] Josh Hutchinson: Hello, and welcome to the very first episode of Thou Shalt Not Suffer a podcast about which trials we hope you’re as excited as we are. Before we begin, though, allow us to introduce ourselves. I’m Josh Hutchinson. I’m a writer and a descendant of a woman executed for witchcraft in Salem, Mary Esty. For the past eight years, I’ve been sharing information about Salem on social media. Look for me on Twitter @salemwitchhunt.

    [00:00:47] Sarah Jack: I’m Sarah Jack AKA @restingwitches on Twitter. I’m a descendant of multiple women, tried for witchcraft in new England, and I run a Facebook group dedicated to sharing witch trial history, [00:01:00] check the show notes for links to all our social media. In June, we came together with a group of others to form the Connecticut Witch Trial Exoneration Project, an organization dedicated to clearing the names of those accused of witchcraft in colonial Connecticut.

    [00:01:13] Sarah Jack: Stay tuned for future episodes, as we interview leading figures in the study of witch trial history, as well as activists working to stop witch hunts today and recognize the victims of yesterday, 

    [00:01:24] Josh Hutchinson: We’ll have exciting discussions and bring you lots of history.

    [00:01:27] Sarah Jack: Before we get into today’s episode, we want to share some exciting news from Massachusetts, where the state has recently exonerated the final person convicted of witchcraft during the Salem witch trials.

    [00:01:39] Josh Hutchinson: At last, all convicted in that witch hunt have had their names restored. 

    [00:01:43] Sarah Jack: Yes, governor Charlie baker signed the budget into law on July 28. The budget included a provision to add the name of Elizabeth Johnson Jr. To the list of those exonerated. 

    [00:01:54] Josh Hutchinson: This effort was spearheaded by an eighth grade civics class at north Andover [00:02:00] Middle School. Just goes to show the power young people can have when they execute their duties as young citizens. 

    [00:02:06] Sarah Jack: We plan to have much more on this in a future episode, when we can cover the story in depth 

    [00:02:11] Josh Hutchinson: For now, we want to thank teacher Carrie LaPierre and her students for their efforts. 

    [00:02:16] Sarah Jack: Thanks also to historian Richard Hite who first recognized that Elizabeth Johnson Jr. still needed to be exonerated. Now, before we talk to Beth and Tony let’s review the history of witch trials in Connecticut. 

    [00:02:28] Josh Hutchinson: Thank you, Sarah. I want to begin with a brief overview of the trials. Witch hunting in Connecticut occurred in three phases between 1647 and 1697. First, between 1647 and 1654, Connecticut tried and executed seven people for supposedly committing witchcraft against their neighbors.

    [00:02:50] Josh Hutchinson: The seven executed in this period were Alice Young, Mary Johnson. Joan Carrington, John Carrington, Goodwife Bassett, Goodwife [00:03:00] Knapp, and Lydia Gilbert. 

    [00:03:01] Sarah Jack: Wow. Seven for seven.

    [00:03:03] Josh Hutchinson: Gruesome conviction rate, right?

    [00:03:05] Sarah Jack: Deadly. What happened next?

    [00:03:08] Josh Hutchinson: In the mid 1650s, witch hunting cooled down as moderates led by John Winthrop, Jr. came into power in Connecticut and strengthened rules of evidence required to convict people of witchcraft. 

    [00:03:20] Sarah Jack: Sounds like a happy ending. 

    [00:03:21] Josh Hutchinson: If that was the end of things, it would’ve been, but Connecticut had no colonial charter from England. 

    [00:03:27] Sarah Jack: What does that mean? 

    [00:03:28] Josh Hutchinson: Unlike the Massachusetts bay colony, Connecticut had no legal right to govern itself.

    [00:03:33] Sarah Jack: What did they do?

    [00:03:34] Josh Hutchinson: In 1661, John Wintrhrop Jr. Went to London to get a charter from the king, leaving Connecticut in the hands of assistant governor, John Mason. 

    [00:03:43] Sarah Jack: And he didn’t do a good job. Did he? 

    [00:03:45] Josh Hutchinson: No, he did not. While Winthrop was away, an outbreak of witchcraft reportedly occurred in Hartford. The resulting panic led to the executions of four more individuals in 1662 and 1663. They were [00:04:00] Rebecca Greensmith, Nathaniel Greensmith, Mary Sanford, and Mary Barnes.

    [00:04:04] Sarah Jack: All well, Winthrop was away?

    [00:04:06] Josh Hutchinson: All while he was in London. When he returned, he quelled the panic, and no more colonists were executed for witchcraft in Connecticut, though accusations continued.

    [00:04:16] Sarah Jack: That wasn’t the end of things?

    [00:04:17] Josh Hutchinson: No. A third period of witch hunting in Connecticut occurred in 1692. 

    [00:04:22] Sarah Jack: Wait wasn’t Salem also in 1690?

    [00:04:25] Josh Hutchinson: Yes, and Salem may have influenced the witch trials in Connecticut during which five women were charged with witchcraft. 

    [00:04:32] Sarah Jack: What happened to them?

    [00:04:33] Josh Hutchinson: Two of the cases went to trial. One woman was acquitted and one was convicted.

    [00:04:38] Sarah Jack: Was she executed? 

    [00:04:40] Josh Hutchinson: No. Fortunately for her a commission. Overruled. The jury due to the lack of clear evidence 

    [00:04:46] Sarah Jack: was that the last witch trial in Connecticut? 

    [00:04:49] Josh Hutchinson: Not quite two other people were charged elsewhere in Connecticut in 1690. And a mother and daughter Winifred, Benham, senior and junior were tried and acquitted in [00:05:00] 1697.

    [00:05:01] Sarah Jack: The Winifreds are my ancestors. 

    [00:05:03] Josh Hutchinson: You’re related to the last two women tried for witchcraft in new England?

    [00:05:07] Sarah Jack: I am related to them. 

    [00:05:08] Josh Hutchinson: Is that how you got interested in witch trials?

    [00:05:11] Sarah Jack: It is, and I’m descended from both Rebecca nurse and Mary Esty of Salem as well. 

    [00:05:16] Josh Hutchinson: I’m also descended from Mary Esty. She’s my 10th great grandmother.

    [00:05:20] Sarah Jack: That makes us podcasting cousins.

    [00:05:22] Josh Hutchinson: It does. 

    [00:05:23] Sarah Jack: And now for more history on the Connecticut witch trials, we turn to Tony Griego and Beth Caruso of Connecticut WITCH Memorial. 

    [00:05:30] Sarah Jack: Beth. We’ve just heard a little bit about the Connecticut witch trials. Is there anything you’d like to add to that summary? 

    [00:05:36] Beth Caruso: I just wanna say that Connecticut witch trials are often ignored or not even known about.

    [00:05:43] Beth Caruso: So I’m quite grateful for you doing this podcast and giving them more life. People don’t realize that Connecticut actually started the witch trials in the greater American colonies. And [00:06:00] with that, were an influence on really getting things going, which led to the big shebang that is Salem much later on 

    [00:06:11] Sarah Jack: Tony, would you like to share anything on the history before we begin talking about the exoneration efforts? 

    [00:06:16] Tony Griego: As Beth said Connecticut was the first colony in America to hang somebody for witchcraft on may 26th, 1647. And for a very long time, that was completely overlooked. Alice Young’s name was not even mentioned in any known documents at the time until about 1880.

    [00:06:42] Tony Griego: John Winthrop, Sr. kept a journal, and in the spring of 1647, he made a notation in there that one of Windsor had been arraigned and executed as a witch in Hartford. Now people are well aware of that statement in [00:07:00] his journal, however, who the individual was completely left out.

    [00:07:04] Tony Griego: And that fact wasn’t known until many years later, probably around 1880, when local historian in Connecticut viewed the diary of Matthew Grant, who was the second town clerk in Windsor. And he made a notation in there, four hangings on a page. And one of those statements was May 26th, 47. Alice Young was hanged. 

    [00:07:30] Tony Griego: Again, this information wasn’t shared with the general public until the historian’s daughter wrote an article for the Hartford Courant in December of 1904 and told a long story about Alice Young, a nd that’s when the people of Connecticut and elsewhere f irst learned who the first person was hanged for witchcraft.

    [00:07:54] Beth Caruso: This historian his name is John Hammond Trumbull, and [00:08:00] he found out about this early Windsor church record through the minister in Windsor.

    [00:08:07] Beth Caruso: It came to his attention that this old book from the 1600s was in a pile of rubble of a house that was torn down and the house had belonged to the granddaughter of Matthew Grant. Hence the name, the Matthew Grant diary. Matthew Grant was the second recorder of information in Windsor, Connecticut in the 1600s.

    [00:08:32] Beth Caruso: And so this book just got lost. It was basically the old Windsor church record. It had a lot of vital statistics, but it’s mostly just church sermons. And on that inside cover, as Tony just said, was where it said Alice Young hanged May the 26th 47. Now Trumbull really didn’t tell the wider public about it at [00:09:00] all.

    [00:09:00] Beth Caruso: As Tony was saying, it wasn’t until his daughter, Annie Elliot Trumbull, was the one who made this entry on the inside cover of the Matthew Grant diary or the old Windsor church record known to the public through this article in the Hartford Courant. And if you can, I would encourage anyone to read it.

    [00:09:26] Beth Caruso: I really love this article that she wrote. It talks about her as a person, not just as a witch trial victim. 

    [00:09:37] Josh Hutchinson: You’ve written two books about the Connecticut witch trials. How did you get onto that subject? 

    [00:09:43] Beth Caruso: I was interested in this topic before I actually became an author. Thoughts had, come to my mind thinking maybe it would be fun to write something, but I never really pursued it.

    [00:09:55] Beth Caruso: But then I moved to Windsor, Connecticut, and a few years later, someone told [00:10:00] me that the very first person to hang for witchcraft was from this town, Alice Young. I was blown away by that because I thought the only witch trials had been in Salem, Massachusetts. So with that, I was pretty upset, angry, disappointed that most people, even in my own town did not know about Alice Young or had just heard about her in passing, but really didn’t know any details.

    [00:10:29] Beth Caruso: And I can’t really fully explain it to this day, but I was driven to research about her. Find out as much as I could. I came across a lot of brick walls, until one day the thought came to my mind that I should investigate the neighborhood where she lived and maybe I would find more information, and from there I really did.

    [00:10:56] Beth Caruso: And it was enough information for me to [00:11:00] base a historical novel on. Of course, it’s fiction, because as Tony said, there are few trial records, none for Alice Young. So I really had to fill in a lot of gaps. But in doing so I did find some real historical things going on. So with that book, One of Windsor, it led me to, bringing it to the mayor in the town of Windsor.

    [00:11:28] Beth Caruso: And he was all excited about it and said, we really should do something for the two women from Windsor who were hanged. And then, later on I wrote another book, The Salty Rose, cuz I had so much evidence and historical information that I gathered from One of Windsor. And that book largely focuses on Winthrop’s role in stopping the witch trials, his assistant John Tinker, who I think also played a role, the role that alchemy [00:12:00] played, as well as touching upon the Hartford Witch Panic.

    [00:12:04] Beth Caruso: And some other witch trials from that era. 

    [00:12:08] Josh Hutchinson: Beth, researching your books, you must have come across some fascinating information. What’s something that surprised you?

    [00:12:16] Beth Caruso: People had theorized that Alice Young’s hanging had something to do with an epidemic, an influenza epidemic, as it came through town in 1647.

    [00:12:30] Beth Caruso: And what amazed me and surprised me was that looking through the old Windsor church record or the Matthew Grant diary, all the vital statistics were really there to prove it. When you combined property records with those vital statistics, there was a cluster of children living immediately next door to Alice Young who died in [00:13:00] 1647.

    [00:13:01] Beth Caruso: And her only daughter lived, and looking at it from that epidemiological standpoint, it really blew me away. And I thought, even though we don’t have the exact written trial record, that’s pretty powerful information from primary sources. What those primary sources also show is that children and spouses of extremely important people in the town died that year as well.

    [00:13:31] Beth Caruso: Two children of the minister, one of the doctor. There was a child of someone who was in the legislature and the wife of someone in the legislature. And in that year, 1647, the death rate more than quadrupled. So with all those primary sources, I do think we have enough to suggest that the reason she was hanged was at least [00:14:00] partially because of the epidemic that came through town.

    [00:14:03] Josh Hutchinson: So they would’ve believed that she caused the epidemic through witchcraft then? 

    [00:14:08] Beth Caruso: Yes, because when people were accused of witchcraft in those days, it was for things that, as we see with John Winthrop Jr., who had more of a scientific mind, people could not really be responsible for a change in weather, knocking out a bridge or causing a pandemic or epidemic in town, natural events that we can explain with science now, but most people didn’t have science backgrounds or access to as science was just developing during those times. 

    [00:14:45] Josh Hutchinson: And how did stigma affect the future generations? 

    [00:14:49] Beth Caruso: Other generations were often viewed with suspicion. It’s interesting. In the case of Alice Young, almost everyone who surrounded her on [00:15:00] Backer Row, where she lived, fled town right after the hanging. At least within a year or two, all of them were gone, with the exception of one neighbor, Rhoda Tinker, who stayed for marriage purposes and then left sometime around 1654. And they were a larger family, the Tinker family, and I think they realized they were marked, and anytime there was suspicion or strange things that couldn’t be accounted for, they knew they were being looked at, and we have that evidenced in the fact that Alice Young’s daughter, Alice Young Jr.

    [00:15:45] Beth Caruso: She was here in Windsor, Connecticut. The man who’s called her father, John Young. He moved to Stratford shortly after this happened, but we know Alice Young Jr. Stayed here. [00:16:00] One of the few people that stayed here. Her marriage record in 1654, is that she is living in Windsor. She marries someone from Springfield, Simon Beamon, but interestingly enough, the marriage occurs after the conviction of Lydia Gilbert. Within about two weeks, she’s left town with her new husband, and later on, she gets slandered as a witch as does her son. So the reputation would follow someone. And we find this in other cases, people who were neighbors, who were friends with, who were family members of an accused witch later on could be accused themselves or be accused at the same time.

    [00:16:49] Beth Caruso: In the case of the Benhams, it’s mother and daughter, both who were accused at the same time. In the case of the Carringtons it’s both [00:17:00] husband and wife who were accused at the same time. Unfortunately, we don’t know the exact details of what happened with the Carringtons. The soiled reputation certainly lived on.

    [00:17:13] Josh Hutchinson: What would be involved in a night of merriment for witches?

    [00:17:16] Tony Griego: Several people got together during the Christmas season, which was banned by the Puritans. They danced on the green. They enjoyed some alcoholic beverages and word got out.

    [00:17:27] Tony Griego: It led to the Greensmiths, Rebecca confessed. And it’s just one of those strange events that took place that there’s really no recognition of it. You won’t read , anything in the history of Hartford about the Merryman unless you’re reading witchcraft books. 

    [00:17:45] Josh Hutchinson: So it sounds like it was basically a Christmas party, and people twisted that into somehow being about witchcraft.

    [00:17:53] Beth Caruso: That’s right. There were very few holidays that the Puritans were allowed to celebrate, [00:18:00] including Christmas. They were not allowed. They thought it was frivolous. But there were people from England who had always celebrated and they were gonna do it.

    [00:18:11] Beth Caruso: So they got together near the river in. And this event of merriment of having a Christmas party was basically used to name witches during the Hartford Witch Panic. Anne Cole was a young woman, a tween, a tweenager or teenager who started having fits during the Hartford Witch Panic. And. Reverend stone and some other ministers interviewed her and wanted her to name names.

    [00:18:47] Beth Caruso: So that’s when she reported the Christmas party. And drinking sock, which is a sweetened white wine. And at that time there were many native Americans that came through. [00:19:00] So the dark figures she reported in the night could have been just local natives that some of the people were friends with who were, celebrating with them, who knows? We don’t have the exact real story. But in any case, Anne Cole used it as an excuse to name names. And that’s what really got the Hartford Witch Panic going after Elizabeth Kelly, a young girl of eight died of a mysterious illness and named the first , Goody Ayers, who she thought to be a witch before she died. Other people that were named were Judith Varlett the Greensmiths, the Ayers.

    [00:19:48] Beth Caruso: And Mary Sanford, she hanged for witchcraft. Of course, the Greensmiths hanged. And Mary Barnes of Farmington. She was [00:20:00] hanged. But there were a lot of other ones who were accused and fled. The Ayers fled. There were a lot of people accused because of that Christmas party. 

    [00:20:09] Josh Hutchinson: It sounds like either you escaped or you were hung. 

    [00:20:12] Beth Caruso: Because in Connecticut, it wasn’t a speckled history of, sometimes you’re innocent. Sometimes you’re not. At that point, the first seven people who were accused and then indicted were also convicted and hanged. So your chances weren’t very good in Connecticut. And if you got accused, you were pretty wary of what was gonna happen next. And a lot of people did flee. no, they felt like they had to flee to save their lives and they had no issue leaving their property. In some cases, their children to escape the hangman’s noose.

    [00:20:55] Beth Caruso: And I 

    [00:20:56] Sarah Jack: was wondering someone like Anne Cole, she was, you [00:21:00] were saying a very young woman or teenager. Would that generation in that town have had a night of merriment before, or do you think it was like a new experience for them? 

    [00:21:15] Beth Caruso: Yeah, that’s a really good point. We’re talking about 1660s and Anne Cole being a teenager or a tween.

    [00:21:23] Beth Caruso: She, of course would’ve been in the colonies, and she would’ve lived only under strict Puritan rule. The people who were taking part in the party, they were from another culture like Judith Varlett was, she was Dutch. Or you had memories of having fun over a Christmas party in England. And so it might not carry the same gravity for the people who participated.

    [00:21:55] Beth Caruso: Also. We don’t know exactly what happened [00:22:00] with the case of the epidemic for Alice Young there, I think. It’s possible that some of these fits and things started because in that situation, there were kids who were gravely ill with influenza. As a nurse, I can tell you when kids are gravely ill like that, they might have high fevers.

    [00:22:27] Beth Caruso: They might suffer confusion from those high fevers hallucinations. Another thing that can happen are pediatric seizures. So that history went back about 15 years or so. And after that event, the witch trials really kick off. And as the stories are spreading and being shared, what are things that people are remembering?

    [00:22:56] Beth Caruso: Were there kids that had fits? Were [00:23:00] there kids that were talking about a witch bothering them? So what were the origins of all these type of stories? Because there seemed to be things in common, and that’s the young girls having the fits, having the seizures, being bewitched, talking about witches visiting them and pinching them or hurting them in some way in the middle of the night. And you see this in Salem, you see this in the Hartford Witch Panic . You see it with Ann Cole, you see it with Elizabeth Kelly before she died. So how much of this was a manifestation that took place because of hearing these stories over and over again. And how many times were they repeated?

    [00:23:56] Beth Caruso: Incessantly on the pulpits in [00:24:00] these first churches in the new world for the Puritans. So how much of that fed into the psyche as well? This is a, another aspect of what was Anne Cole doing or did she really have seizures? Would she have gotten a diagnosis of a seizure disorder?

    [00:24:19] Beth Caruso: Plenty of kids have that too. We just don’t know. It’s really fascinating. It would be so cool to go back with modern medical science and find out what was really happening. 

    [00:24:33] Tony Griego: I wanna throw something out and I want, I wanna get your opinion on this. I’m gonna throw this right in your lap.

    [00:24:39] Tony Griego: When the Puritans came from England to America, they came here with a charter from the king, which allowed them to govern themselves. Shortly after that, when people started moving away from the Boston bay colony, the folks that moved to Connecticut used what they call the [00:25:00] Warwick Patent, w hich was basically a document that allowed them to sell property.

    [00:25:06] Tony Griego: When Hartford started their government, it started, governing themselves. They had no charter from the king. It wasn’t until 1661 that Winthrop first, went back to England, to meet with Charles II to get an official charter for Connecticut. My gut feeling is the trials that were taking place here in Connecticut may very well have been illegal.

    [00:25:36] Tony Griego: They had no charter official charter from the king. Just a theory I have. 

    [00:25:41] Sarah Jack: I do think that would be significant especially because the legislation seems so, they’re so sticky about, there’s no path for this right now. There should not have been a path for witch trials then.

    [00:25:53] Tony Griego: I think unfortunately, because there’s so many documents that are missing, an attorney today might have [00:26:00] difficulty proving that point, but I just always think it’s odd that the witch trials here in Connecticut stopped because John Winthrop went to England and got a charter.

    [00:26:12] Beth Caruso: Winthrop junior might being agreeing with you right now if he were able to be with us, because the reason why he went to England was he was so concerned about Connecticut residents being considered squatters by the crown. So certainly anything that happened in Connecticut. Without the proper colonial authority could not be condoned because if they weren’t allowed to be here in the first place.

    [00:26:47] Beth Caruso: So I think that’s a very interesting point, a very good point. But again, I’m not a legal scholar. 

    [00:26:54] Sarah Jack: It’s such a good point because when, what I do know of the timeline with the [00:27:00] Salem witch hunt, convening the Court of Oyer and Terminer was significant.

    [00:27:05] Josh Hutchinson: Both the 1662 Hartford Witch Panic and the Salem Witch Trials have that in common that there was a charter question.

    [00:27:14] Josh Hutchinson: Both of them had a absentee governor in the beginning, who was across the sea getting a charter. So you’ve got that strong parallel there where there’s this question that Tony raised about was there really a legitimate government in the first place? Was the court legal? Was it just a kangaroo court?

    [00:27:36] Sarah Jack: And then I think about how Tony has experienced over the decades, the governments that he’s reached out to not sure if they take responsibility, finding a way to say it, isn’t our responsibility. Tony showing that it, there was nobody overseeing that legally probably.

    [00:27:55] Beth Caruso: And it’s also interesting that the [00:28:00] Lieutenant governor or the assistant governor was here and monitoring all of this and just letting things fly while Winthrop Jr. was away. He was captain John Mason, who was the Connecticut leader for the Pequot war. And he admitting to setting fire to a native Fort that killed, we don’t know exactly how many, approximately 700 people. But he, even though he was assistant governor, it’s not like nowadays where, oh, okay, if you’re in Connecticut, you have Lamont and then his lieutenant governor, Bysiewicz, Susan Bysiewicz they’re of the same political party. It wasn’t the same back then, because John Mason, Captain John Mason and John Winthrop, Jr. ,the alchemist [00:29:00] were very different from each other and had drastically different political views. So that’s another very interesting point about all of this. 

    [00:29:13] Josh Hutchinson: We’ve talked about John Winthrop Jr. A fair amount. Beth you’ve written a book about him. Can you tell us just a little bit to summarize who John Winthrop Jr. was? 

    [00:29:24] Beth Caruso: Sure he was the son of the leader of Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop, but he was pretty different from his father early on. He got interested in alchemy, which were ancient beliefs that were thought to be brought from Egypt on down through different cultures. And he was fascinated by them. He became a alchemical physician and in becoming an alchemical physician, he [00:30:00] became a caretaker in a way for about two thirds of Connecticut colony. He didn’t actually see everyone in person. A lot of families wrote him letters or leaders of different towns would write him letters saying this person is afflicted and these are the symptoms, and he would write back and say, give them this, and then he made his own, special alchemical powders and that send that on too, but his records are in Yale today and Massachusetts historical society is where his records are also just two places and they are not online. So I look forward to them being online one day, because I think they’re gonna be loaded with more information, but in any case, Winthrop Jr. got involved with the witch trials because he was asked during some [00:31:00] trials in the 1650s to come and assess whether the person being accused of witchcraft was truly a witch, or if they were affected by something medically. Now being a young scientist, we think of alchemy as nonsense now, but basically, it was the beginnings of early science, such as chemistry.

    [00:31:25] Beth Caruso: And so he did have a scientific mind and he did do a lot of experiments in nature. And he did not believe that the people who were accused of witchcraft in Connecticut could possibly do the thing that they were accused of. He was a very diplomatic as well, and so when he gave his opinion that someone was not a witch, which not once, did he call someone a witch.

    [00:31:55] Beth Caruso: He couched it in terms that the community could [00:32:00] accept, because of course they were targeting a person who they might not have liked in the community, they may have been suspicious of. And he didn’t want them to discredit his opinion altogether, so he would s ay things like, okay, yes. I understand, this person may have acted in a malicious way and the community’s right to be upset with them, but that doesn’t mean they’re a witch.

    [00:32:27] Beth Caruso: So he was very diplomatic in a way that people really had to listen to him and to his concerns. He basically stopped the witch trials after Lydia Gilbert because of his due diligence in this way. And he became governor of Connecticut colony and the witch trials pretty much stopped as far as death by hanging.

    [00:32:54] Beth Caruso: There were people who were still accused and there were still trials, but nobody [00:33:00] died for it. And then when he went away and the Hartford Witch Panic happened, things went crazy again. So you can imagine upon his return, seeing that four people hanged and witchcraft accusations were ripe again, he and a minister, Buckley, who was a friend of his and also an alchemist. They thought what can we do to stop these hangings once and for all? And they did a lot of work in introducing the two person rule where there had to be two people as witnesses. Before you’d have Anne Cole saying, oh, someone visited me in the middle of the night and pinched me or Elizabeth Kelly.

    [00:33:46] Beth Caruso: And that would be one person. And that would be enough sometimes to get somebody hanged for witchcraft. So with the two person witness rule, that really stopped that. So again, there were witch trials that [00:34:00] continued in Connecticut, but none were deadly. There was one conviction later on. But he as governor, he just blatantly refused to carry out the sentence.

    [00:34:12] Beth Caruso: So he really was influential in stopping the witch trials and at least slowing them down and making them less deadly than in Massachusetts. 

    [00:34:24] Josh Hutchinson: Sounds like we really could have used John Winthrop, Jr. in Salem because they had a way to get around the two person rule.

    [00:34:33] Josh Hutchinson: What they ended up indicting everybody on was the alleged afflictions that happened during the court proceedings using basically everybody, you would witness somebody writhing around on the floor saying that they’re getting pinched and multiple people would witness that. And that would count even though those people didn’t see the spectors, only the afflicted [00:35:00] person saw the spector.

    [00:35:01] Josh Hutchinson: But seeing the afflicted person writhing around was enough to hang somebody. 

    [00:35:06] Beth Caruso: I just wanna say what an honor it is to be in your inaugural episode of Thou Shalt Not Suffer.

    [00:35:17] Beth Caruso: I think this podcast will reach people far and wide and educate them about which trials from many times in many locations. And I think it will fill in a real need and interest in that way. So best of luck to both of you. 

    [00:35:39] Josh Hutchinson: Thank you. We’re rather excited about having this podcast start and it’s been quite a pleasure to have both of you as our guests in our first episode been quite a wonderful discussion.

    [00:35:54] Sarah Jack: Yes, it’s so exciting. And, but Tony, all of the [00:36:00] information you gave is so important, valuable. It’s a historical perspective none of us have. Beth, your research, your gift of writing, what you’ve given, we highly value it. And I, and I’m sure Josh is too, but I feel so privileged to have had this time with you on this interview.

    [00:36:19] Sarah Jack: And so thank you very much. 

    [00:36:21] Tony Griego: I just wanna say that I’m very excited that finally. I believe sincerely that we’re moving forward and it’s all because of folks like you, descendants who are gonna make this happen. 

    [00:36:35] Sarah Jack: I agree. When you talked about the key piece of the descendants for the future of what happens in Connecticut with this history, it is gonna be key.

    [00:36:46] Sarah Jack: And you guys have gathered so many descendants with your CT WITCH Memorial and the conversation between them and what’s happening with the exoneration [00:37:00] is growing. And I think it is going to be a powerful force.

    [00:37:04] Josh Hutchinson: It’s always great to talk to Beth and Tony. Now let’s hear from Sarah with another witch trial headline.

    [00:37:10] Sarah Jack: Witch Hunt Happenings in Your World. Let’s take a moment and consider the use of the words witch hunt. The phrase witch hunt is most used today to identify the pursuit of a marked individual or group. We see the phrase used in this way daily and broadly in situations that have a claim for unjust dealings. Witch hunt behaviors are known in these small and large situations that have persons or groups marked as canceled, other, or just trouble.

    [00:37:40] Sarah Jack: You are possibly thinking about the political witch hunts we are bombarded with. Maybe your mind went back to a place called the Salem Witch Hunts, or maybe the image of a bad woman on a pyre comes to mind. Yes, we think of these first, witch hunts politics, witch hunts Salem, witch hunts, witch [00:38:00] burning. 

    [00:38:00] Sarah Jack: What am I gonna say next? I’m gonna say witch hunts human rights, witch hunts Leo Igwe, witch hunts Advocacy for Alleged Witches, witch hunts fear, witch hunts ongoing. Yes. Ongoing fear of witches in this world is actually driving murder while you’re sleeping, making your coffee and enjoying your favorite pet. Innocent humans are suffering now as accused witches in countries in Africa, witch hunts human rights, witch hunts Leo Igwe, witch hunts.

    [00:38:33] Sarah Jack: Innocent humans are suffering now as accused witches in countries in Africa, witch hunts human rights, witch hunts, Leo Igwe, witch hunts, the Advocacy for Alleged Witches. This advocacy is a Nigerian campaign against superstition. It exists to use compassion, reason, and science to save lives of those affected by superstition and community murder. It is not a historic [00:39:00] issue. 

    [00:39:00] Sarah Jack: Thank you for letting me share an expanded view of the phrase witch hunt. When you tune into the latest episode of Thou Shalt Not Suffer Podcast, we will break to bring you a snippet of the latest witch hunt happenings in your world. Those witch hunts will be about real people, targeted, abused, and sometimes murdered due to witchcraft superstition. 

    [00:39:20] Josh Hutchinson: Thank you for that important update, Sarah. 

    [00:39:22] Sarah Jack: You bet. It’s very important to keep a finger on the pulse of what is happening right now with witch hunts in our world. 

    [00:39:31] Josh Hutchinson: It’s still sadly an everyday reality. 

    [00:39:35] Sarah Jack: Unfortunately, there is a lot of suffering in the world right now, due to witch hunts. And I’m gonna bring that news to you in our episodes.

    [00:39:44] Josh Hutchinson: And this has been Thou Shalt Not Suffer.

    [00:39:46] Sarah Jack: Join us next week when our guests are Tony Griego, Beth Caruso and Mary-Louise Bingham of the Connecticut Witch Trial Exoneration Project. 

    [00:39:56] Josh Hutchinson: Visit thoushaltnotsuffer.com for show notes, [00:40:00] transcripts, and links to our social media. 

    [00:40:02] Sarah Jack: Message us with feedback and episode ideas .

    [00:40:05] Josh Hutchinson: And learn how you can support us.

    [00:40:07] Sarah Jack: You can also find links to the Connecticut WITCH Memorial and to Beth’s books, One of Windsor and The Salty Rose

    [00:40:14] Josh Hutchinson: I highly recommend that you run out now and pick up copies of both.

    [00:40:19] Sarah Jack: And then enjoy reading them and talking to your friends about what you’re reading.