These enchanting truths about the Salem witch trials are captivating

For a scary period of 9 months in the far-off 17th century, a small town known as Salem in the British Province of Massachusetts Bay descended into what could only be described as madness. People began to accuse one another of strange, supernatural deeds. Neighbor was pitted against neighbor, friendships were ruined and even marriages were torn apart. The innocent found no shelter, neither did the accused. It's still send shivers down our spine today, even after 325 years. In 1692, right before the infamous witch trials began, Salem, Massachusetts was struck by a widespread smallpox. This terrifying disease added fuel to the panic, setting the stage perfectly for the trials to unfold. Cotton Mather, a town reverend, accused a lady named Martha Carrier of using witchcraft to bring about the plague, branding her a “rampant hag.” However, looking at the records, it becomes clear that Carrier was an independent and strong-willed woman, which unfortunately, wasn't viewed favorably in those times. The start of the witch trials can be traced back to two girls, Abigail Williams and Betty Parris. They began to act unusually, experiencing strange fits and insisting that unseen spirits were tormenting them. A doctor was brought in to examine them, and finding no physical ailments, he suggested magic might be behind their disturbances. In reaction to this, the girls pointed their fingers at three women, a slave called Tituba, Sarah Good, and Sarah Osbourne, declaring them as witches. This event ignited the flame that rapidly spread throughout the whole community of Salem, creating a wildfire of suspicion and fear.

The trials back then didn't look like what we think of as judicial proceedings now — no defense attorneys and stringent regulations about the evidence. They were held under the English law of that period and often, it was the person on trial who was greatly at a disadvantage. This led many to admit guilt just to avoid the hassle, despite being innocent. A peculiar aspect of these trials was that people admitting to witchcraft wouldn't get the death penalty, though some of those who insisted on their innocence were executed.

The common method to determine if someone was guilty of being a witch was quite unscientific, to say the least. The most recognized of these tests involved tying the suspect's finger to the toe on their opposite foot. Then, they would be cautiously lowered into a large body of water, which was generally a lake. It was firmly believed, if they managed to float, they were deemed to be witches, according to the rules. However, if they sank, they were considered innocent. While it might seem fair on the surface, as the chances of floating were slim, it was rather unfair. Even if they were pronounced innocent, it wouldn't be much of a consolation if they ended up losing their lives by drowning during the test.

The next experiment was just as revolting as it was ineffective. It demanded the concoction of a "cake" utilizing flour derived from rye grains mixed with the bodily fluids of the individual suspected to be under a curse. This cake was then presented to a dog to consume. The dog was to be observed for any similar "symptoms" as the person thought to be cursed. Should the dog display such symptoms, it would be seen as confirmation of witchcraft. The dog was then supposed to identify the witch. Dogs were selected for this task, rather than say cats, based on the belief that dogs had strong ties with the devil.

The third trial was possibly the most brutal one since it gave the power to the person making the false charge to determine whether the accused was guilty or not. Strangely, the folks living in Salem thought when a person was spellbound, and they were touched by the individual who had bewitched them, the fit they were having would cease. Consequently, the person who was accused was asked to come and touch the people who had accused them when they were having a fit. And, as if by some cruel design, their fit would halt, thus solidifying their guilt in the eyes of the people.