Week 5 Discussion: Evidence in Salem by Michelle Larson

mslarson0409 — 2025-10-06 06:40:46 UTC

📜 Salem Primary Sources Packet
Read these three excerpts—Cotton Mather, Thomas Brattle, and Abigail Hobbs—before posting your discussion response.
As you annotate, use the Guiding Questions to help you pause, notice, and reflect. Aim for 4–5 margin notes per excerpt.
✨ Let your curiosity lead. What feels strange, powerful, or unsettling? What counts as “evidence” here—and why?

🌕 Week Five Discussion: Evidence in Salem (20 pts)

mslarson0409 — 2025-10-06 06:43:37 UTC

After reading and annotating the Salem Primary Sources Packet, post a short reflection (150–200 words) responding to:

– What types of evidence appear in the three excerpts? Name at least three.
– Which types would be inadmissible in a modern courtroom, and why?

You’re welcome to upload a photo of your margin notes or share your thoughts directly in writing.

Use brief citation markers (e.g., Mather, line 4) to support your ideas.

✨ This is a space for curiosity, not perfection. Let your questions and reactions guide you.

📊 How this will be graded (20 points):

– Identifies 3 types of evidence (7 pts)

– Connects to modern standards (7 pts)

– Clarity and specificity (6 pts

week five

mnohs25khilgert — 2025-10-07 13:34:24 UTC

What it seems to me is most evidence is based on what that person thinks. This style would not hold up in a court room today. In Cotton Mather religion was used to make the case. In Brattle's is more so finding things that don't add up. In Abigail Hobbs Is a personal bias.

Discussion of Salem Witch evidence

mnohs26jvest — 2025-10-07 16:52:07 UTC

The statements and accusations are purely based rumors. This type of "evidence" would not be submissible in court because you need actual evidence. If you were to be called a witch, you would need proof that they are, like vidial proof or in their time, you would need so many witnesses that watched them practice witchcraft. Statements or rumors are one type of evidence that seems to be present in each excerpt. Another type of evidence that seems to be present is personal experience. Abigail Hobbs describes her experience on what was happening to her and what her experience was like. This could be submissible in court because she is telling her side of story of what she was experiencing, but it may not be submissible either because she is telling about something that is most likely not real. Another type of evidence that seems to be present as well is a person talking about how the witch trials work or what the devil is doing. They explain what a so-called witch would happen to them. Thomas brattle explains what the afflicted go through. they are casted into a fit. And Cotton Mather says what the devil is doing in the town. the devils, which would be called demons because the devil is the kind of demons, so demons would break into the town, go the centre of the town, and after a little time, shrieks of good people are heard throughout the town, and they are tormented by the invisible hands. This type of evidence could be submissible in court because if suspicious activity is being enacted abundantly, the court today might say the devils' work is being present there but might not say there is because it is only suspicious activity, and not actual crimes happening. So, in summary, the three types of evidence present are personal experience, explanation of what afflicted go through or what works are going through the town, and rumors, and one would not be submissible while the other two could be but most likely will not.

mnohs25ebianchi — 2025-10-07 18:38:31 UTC

Each of the three excerpts shows a different kind of thinking behind Salem's trials. Cottom Mather uses religion and fear to support the accusation, making his case with the stories of invisible suffering and spiritual danger. That kind of evidence wouldn't work today because it's based more on belief than facts. Thomas Brattle takes a more logical approach, questioning how people were convicted with no real proof, just emotions, rumors. He points out flaws in how the trials were handled, which would be a big issue in a real courtroom now. Abigail Hobb's testimony shows personal bias and pressure. She admits to things that don't make sense, probably just to avoid punishment. Her words seem confused and emotional, lacking reliability. In modern courts, we require solid evidence that can be observed, verified, and tested, rather than dreams, visions, or fear-based conjectures. These excerpts show just how dangerous it is when people let fear and pressure take over reason and fairness.

Makaila O. Week 5

mnohs25molmscheid — 2025-10-07 18:38:53 UTC

In the three excerpts about the Salem witch trials, several types of evidence appear. There is testimonial evidence, where villagers describe what they saw or experienced. There is spectral evidence, in which witnesses claim a witch’s spirit or shape appeared to them in visions or dreams. There is also circumstantial evidence, like finding a poppet or personal item believed to be used for witchcraft. Most of this evidence would be inadmissible in a modern courtroom. Spectral evidence is completely subjective and cannot be proven, making it unreliable. Testimonies influenced by fear, rumors, or mass hysteria would be questioned for credibility. Circumstantial items like poppets would need a clear, factual link to a crime to be considered valid. The Salem trials show how dangerous it is to rely on unverified or biased evidence, as innocent people were punished. Studying these trials reminds us why modern courts require proof based on facts and reliable witnesses rather than fear or superstition.

w5 discussion

mnohs25bniedzielski — 2025-10-08 15:01:14 UTC

After finishing the three passages, it's easy to see that the individuals of Salem depended on some dubious evidence. One of the major ones was spectral evidence, and what that is, is someone saying they saw a ghostly apparition of a person inflicting harm on them (such as in Cotton Mather's version). That wouldn't cut it in a contemporary court—it's feelings and visions rather than facts. There were also confessions, such as in Abigail Hobbs's statement. But she appears to have admitted because she was scared, not because she was guilty. Nowadays, that would be coerced and probably not acceptable. The third type was character/reputation, where people based judgments on how "godly" or suspicious others looked (Thomas Brattle notes this one). Nowadays, personal judgment of this sort would be prejudiced and is generally not acceptable as definite evidence.

Overall, the trials also depended more on assumption and fear and less on actual evidence. It's actually scary how quickly somebody can be brought up on charges and punished with no hard evidence.

Week 5 discussion

2025-10-08 16:06:49 UTC

After I finished the three passages In my opinion the people of Salem accuse people based on a few things. First is the cries of a bunch of young girls who say they were tormented by something. Then people are accused just a neighbor mentioning something they found weird about you could be detrimental to your reputation. People just accused others based on the bad things that happened like getting sick, having a bad harvest, and etc. The people were believed to send their "spirits" to attack other from orders of the devil. People feared the devil so much they killed the people that were accused but refused to admit they were a witch. The evidence what would be inadmissible today would be the the confession if someone confesses they are usually seen as guilty. another one would be the word of another person who is closer to you would be another inadmissible piece of evidence. There Was three types of evidence and that was "dreams, visions, and "spectral evidence" which is your spirit tormenting them" but none of them would be valid reasons for death in today's courts. Cotton Mather used religion, personal thought, and fear to accuse someone of witchcraft. Thomas used his emotions when asking why people were convicted his emotion approach helped a little, but Abigail admitted to being a witch was confusing. Her evidence or reports are personal thoughts so maybe she just convinced herself she was a witch which couldn't of been real so, but it doesn't make sense why she accused so many people of also being a witch without any evidence but most of them had to go through the trial because they were accused.

wk 5

mnohs24dhouck — 2025-10-08 16:26:56 UTC

In the first excerpt he's using spiritual evidence. He thinks because the children are shrieking that they are being tormented. In the second excerpt it is fake evidence aka evidence that has no way to prove true or false. Someone thinks they were cursed and starts panicking they say that Sarah was the one who did it, so they make Sarah touch him which they believe would make it stop after she touches him he stops panicking making it seem like Sarah is a witch. In the third excerpt the evidence is testimony but it's based in fear (if you don't accuse someone else you could be accused). All of it wouldn't work in court because it is mostly hearsay. Also your supposed to be innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.

Grace G Wk 5

mnohs26ggarletz — 2025-10-08 22:39:48 UTC

in the three excerpts about the witch trials more than one event appeared there is evidence of testimonies where the people of Salem describe what they heard and saw this wouldn't hold up in a court room because it is all hearsay. There is circumstantial evidence, where personal items that are believed to be used in witchcraft, majority of this evidence is not proper enough for a courtroom, the evidence and the final major piece of evidence is spectral evidence and what that is referring to is someone claiming they saw something (hearsay) like Cotton Mathers version. this would NOT hold up in a courtroom today, you need factual and real evidence.

week 5 discussion- evidence in salem

mnohs25eheller — 2025-10-10 00:48:28 UTC

The three excerpts Cotton Mather’s account of invisible torment, Thomas Brattle’s critique of courtroom methods, and Abigail Hobbs’s testimony show how fear and beliefs of the people shaped the Salem witch trials. Mather’s account is where accusers claimed to see the spirits of witches harming them. Hobbs’s confession is testimonial evidence, but it was made under pressure, and maybe fear. Brattles provides observations and logical evidence, questioning the courts for there claims without physical proof or investigations. In a modern courtroom i think both spectral evidence and confessions would be inadmissible because they are based on imagination, fear, and possibly manipulation rather than facts. Modern days legal systems require more evidence. Brattle’s observations, would hold up as credible today. But Overall, these excerpts show how unrealistic the “evidence” was and what it led to.

Wk 5

2025-10-10 15:43:42 UTC

This evidence consists of spectral, confessional, and testimonial evidence in all three Salem Witch Trial Excerpts. Mather's account is dependent upon spectral evidence since the complainants are alleging to have had in- visible spirits or to be afflicted by unseeable torments by witches. Criticism in this kind of evidence and methods of courtroom bias is stated by Thomas Brattle who sites invisible as well as imaginary signs as... testimony. Abigail Hobbs's testimony is confessional evidence because she confessed to witchcraft under threat or duress. No excuse of being due processes found in modern courts because they rely on physical evidence and violate due process. Contrary to this, modern laws refer to more reliable and observable evidence, for instance, documents or material facts but never visions or emotional claims. These distinctions measure well the way justice was carried out in 1692-more fear and innocent beliefs than actual facts and fair dealings-behind its tragic fallout and fatal consequences for educators.

Salem Trial

mnohs26nplank — 2025-10-10 17:02:50 UTC

In the excerpts several types of evidence appear. The first is spectral evidence where there was people claiming that spirit or ghost like figures attacked them. The second type of evidence was dreams and visions which were also used as a type of evidence that the witches were working and striking fear into people. A third type was witness testimony. This meant that no matter what they truly saw or believed people like neighbors, and friends could accuse other people just because of misfortune or strange behavior. These three types of evidences had no real proof and they were all purely off of suspicioun or hatred. In a current day courtroom none of these types of evidence would work or even be admissable in a courtroom. Any sort of gossip or rumors would not be able to be used in a courtroom and could not serve as any sort of evidence. It is clear that many innocent people suffered for the Salem witch trials and it shows how much the justice system has upgraded and shows why fail rules and a fair trial are so important to the current justice system.

Week 5:

mnohs25molmscheid — 2025-10-10 21:23:16 UTC

After reading the Salem primary sources packet, I noticed that the evidence used in the three excerpts is very different from what we would accept in a modern courtroom. The excerpts include spectral evidence, where people claimed to see the spirits or shapes of the accused harming others; hearsay, where someone reports what another person said about the accused; and confessions obtained under pressure or fear, which may not have been true. These types of evidence were considered valid in 1692 because of the strong belief in witchcraft and the fear it caused, but today, they would not be allowed in court. Spectral evidence is unreliable because it is based on visions and personal belief, hearsay is not trustworthy since the original speaker isn’t present, and forced confessions are considered coerced and invalid. Reading these sources helped me understand how fear and superstition shaped the trials and caused innocent people to be punished. It also shows how modern legal systems have changed to protect fairness and prevent wrongful convictions, ensuring evidence must be credible and verifiable.

Week 5

mnohs25mbates — 2025-10-10 21:35:44 UTC

The three excerpts use spectral evidence like invisible hands hurting people, the touch test where touching the accused supposedly stops fits, and confessions from people like Hobbs who says she saw the Devil as dogs. Obviously, one of this would work in court today. You can't prove invisible attacks happened. The touch test makes no sense either. Why would touching someone prove anything? And Hobbs is obviously terrified and just saying what they want to hear. Modern courts need real evidence, not dreams and superstitions.

week 5

mnohs25thanson — 2025-10-11 09:11:08 UTC

The first evidence is the influence of "invisible hands" on good people and people of high class. This would obviously not stand in court and the person saying this would likely be taken in for a psych evaluation. The next evidence is that "if the accused touches the afflicted and their fits go away they must be guilty." seriously are we joking? Anyone can pretend to have a fit just to stop when touched and get that person a guilty verdict. Obviously, this would not fly in court and the person attempting this would be kicked out of the court room. And then the third is just straight up crazy, what do you mean the "dogs and creatures" were "the devil" I mean i just don't get it. Once again if you said something akin to this in a court room you would be sent to a mental hospital. This "evidence" is nothing! Thin air at best.

week 5

mnohs25czasadni — 2025-10-12 00:46:56 UTC

The three excerpts include several types of “evidence” that reflect the beliefs and fears of the time. First, there is spectral or supernatural evidence, as seen in Cotton Mather’s claim that “Invisible Hands” are tormenting people. This assumes unseen forces are responsible for physical suffering. Second, there is behavior-based or reaction evidence, like Thomas Brattle’s description of accused people being forced to touch the afflicted, and the end of a fit being treated as proof of guilt. Third, there is visionary testimony, such as Abigail Hobbs claiming she has seen the Devil in the form of dogs and other creatures. In a modern courtroom, all of these would be inadmissible. Spectral and visionary evidence cannot be proven, observed, or tested, which violates standards of reliability and verifiability. Claims about seeing the Devil or being attacked by spirits rely on belief rather than fact. Behavioral evidence like the “touch test” would also be rejected because it mistakes coincidence or suggestion for causation, and it lacks any scientific or legal validity. Modern legal systems require physical proof, credible eyewitness accounts, and evidence that can be cross-examined—not superstition, fear, or imagination.

Salem Witch Trials

2025-10-12 17:02:07 UTC

It appears that most evidence is based on nothing but what someone thinks of someone else. One claimed to see spirits. One claimed to be able to use a "touch test", and one claimed to see the devil. Nothing used back then would be used in court today. Today, we use cold, hard evidence and not base anything on a feeling.

Week 5

mnohs25jseidel — 2025-10-12 21:21:19 UTC

Invisible Torment- Today we can't prove spirits or invisible attacks, so it wouldn't be accepted without physical proof.

Courtroom Methods- Touching someone and watching for fits isn't scientific; modern courts need clear, testable evidence, not reactions.

Testimony of Visions- Seeing the Devil or dogs isn't reliable; courts now require facts, not personal dreams or beliefs, to avoid false accusations.

These old ways relied on fear and faith, not facts, which is why they wouldn't hold up today. Modern courts focus on solid proof like DNA or witnesses, not supernatural claims.

week 5

2025-10-13 00:31:51 UTC

Most of the 3 are inadmissible but i will talk about the 3rd one mainly instead of the other two.

to quickly talk about the first 2, the first one is inadmissible because "invisible hands" isn't actual proof and seems more like a hysterical episode instead of actual proof.

and for the second one actual gives reason and logic instead of random mystical properties because he questions the methods.

I'll start with the 3rd one since Hobbs thinks that a few dogs are the signs of the devil. my guess is that the dogs he thinks are the devils are wolves instead of actual dogs. this makes a bit more sense then random dogs because wolves are far more dangerous and aggressive. this also makes sense on why fear shapes her answer and why she says the devil instead of wolves because most dogs are friendly. This wouldn't work in a modern courtroom and would be inadmissible in court because a witness saying that dogs are "the devil" isn't that useful. The reason why is because 1: it would be seen as hysterical instead of actual evidence. and 2: this is just a witness instead of an actual proof and evidence.

Week 5 Salem Witch Trials

nabilsoldaad26 — 2025-10-14 14:40:23 UTC

In the three excerpts, what I personally noticed is that several different kinds of evidence was being used and questioned. In Cotton Mather’s account, “spectral evidence” was the main visions, things like invisible torment, and claims of the Devil’s presence are treated as GENUINE proof of witchcraft. Abigail Hobbs’s testimony also tells us that FALSE confessions and accusations were being made so that the people on trial could save themselves from getting hanged. Thomas Brattle’s critique, uses logical reasoning and observations, and they argue that invisible crimes can’t be proven fairly.

In a modern courtroom, spectral evidence and pressured confessions would NOT inadmissible because they can’t be verified or trusted. Modern law demands factual, observable, or documented proof and this protects people against testimony that are influenced by fear. Brattle’s method of reasoned argument is a lot more closer to modern standards. These excerpts show us exactly how fear and belief/religion once outweighed fairness and truth in the justice system.

2025-10-14 17:42:48 UTC

Cotton Mather assumes that an army of devils and invisible hands are tormenting people. Thomas Brattle claimed to be able to use a "touch test" where if he touched someone freaking out after being accused, they would snap out of it. If they didn't, they were guilty. Abigail Hobbs also claimed to see the devil. I can't read the rest of it though. Nothing here could be used in a modern court though. Everything here is basically based on a feeling or thinking they saw something with no way to back it up.

Week 5 Salem Witch Trials

mnohs25kschmidt — 2025-10-21 19:17:12 UTC

I have found that each of these articles have gave off multiple different perspectives of evidence to the Witch Trials. For example in the Cotton Mather excerpt it talks a lot about devils breaking into the house of good people, these devils used their invisible hands to torment people hereby showing us some marks of evidence. Thomas Brattle's article talks allot about touch, if you touch them they will come out of their fit, which in reference I don't exactly know what its talking about, or why touch is necessary. It states the party accused must be guilty. In the last article about Abigal Hobbs it talks about the dog being the devil which means she saw the devil as well. All of the articles having something to do with the five senses being the one they used is touch but they also feel or think, they could just be imagining but their was no actual evidence of the devil being a dog. During modern day most of these would not be admissible, but in the 1600s I feel like they let it go or since it was Salem it was used as an impact in the eerie mist of the town.

Week 5 Discussion

2025-10-26 00:06:52 UTC

In Cotton Mather’s prompt, he uses religious belief and fear as evidence. He says that invisible devils are attacking people, and the “shrieks” and “torments” are proof of witchcraft. This isn’t factual or physical evidence, but emotional and faith-based. In the end, this is an assumption that the Devil is real and actively causing evil and chaos in the world. In Thomas Brattle’s excerpt, his evidence is rationally, logically and reasonably based. He has observable proof instead of superstition. He questions the court’s method, showing that touching the “afflicted” and stopping their fits doesn’t prove guilt. He uses logic to challenge unfair accusations. Abigail Hobbs uses confession and spectral evidence, based on visions, what she claims to see, or what the Devil supposedly told her. This kind of evidence is based entirely on fear and imagination for survival, not facts. Her confession was likely influenced by pressure from the judges and the disorder around her. Most of the evidence from these excerpts would be inadmissible in a modern courtroom. Cotton Mather’s claims about “an army of devils” and Abigail Hobbs’s statements about seeing the Devil or hearing him speak would not be allowed because they rely on religious beliefs, not factual proof. Even the method Thomas Brattle criticizes would be inadmissible today because it isn’t scientifically reliable or based on objective evidence. So, none of the evidence in these excerpts would be admissible in modern courtrooms.