Salem, Spectral Evidence and Recovered Memory Syndrome

Authors Avatar by ldudgeon (student)


Hush-hush whispers in the shadows.  Unspeakable things which take place in the cover of darkness.  Suspicion and wariness.  Dysfunctional interpersonal relationships.  The word of one person against the word of another—a scenario with no witnesses.

A culture of repression.

These are all statements which may easily refer to the situation in late 17th-century Massachusetts, a situation ripe for the eruption of an event now known as the Salem Witch Trials.  We tend to think of Salem as a once-in-an-American-lifetime incident, something that came and went and disappeared from further repetition.  While certainly important to those involved at the time, most people today see little to no lasting impact of that period, much less see any kind of parallel to events of recent history.

Those adopting that particular attitude, however, might be mistaken in their beliefs.

Those initial statements—statements of fear, shame, and mistrust—may not only be applied to the Salem witch trials but also to a more contemporary development.  The repressed/recovered memory movement which began in the 1980s elicits some of the same images, issues and emotional responses that can be found when studying early colonial America’s reactions to the witch trials.  

To fully understand any possible correlations between the two, an evaluation of the trials in Salem, the use of spectral evidence and their correlation with the repressed/recovered memory movement must be undertaken.

During both what we today would term “preliminary hearings” and the trials concerning charges of witchcraft in eastern Massachusetts beginning in 1692, three types evidence might be brought against the accused.  The first, spectral evidence, will be discussed in more detail.  Spectral evidence was based upon the belief that once a person had contracted with the Devil, the Devil could then take that person’s form to cause mischief and harm, as well as to recruit others into his evil ways.  The second, non-spectral acts of malefic witchcraft, were “openly visible to anyone who observed the misfortunes of life, and chose to put a diabolic construction upon them.”  (Craker 1997, 332)  These charges were usually based on disagreements between neighbors or ill-will towards others in the village, and they could be as simple as looking the wrong way at someone, and then that person’s cow dying the next day.  The final form of evidence used in Salem was confessions.  Confessing individuals were in a sense publicly declaring they had made a pact with Satan and in the process verifying that those charges leveled against them were, in fact, true.

It is the use of spectral evidence in Salem that has long been the most controversial of the types of “proof” used to convict the accused witches.  A small group of mostly young women were responsible for nearly all accusations of spectral bewitchment.  Such testimony regarding spectral evidence could be quite persuasive.  Spectral evidence was an especially well-used device in the grand jury-type preliminary hearings.

“Sarah Good being Asked if, that she did not then hurt them who did it.  And the children being again tortured she looked upon them And said that it was one of them we brought into the house with us.  We Asked her who it was, she then Answered and said it was Sarah Osborne, and Sarah Osborne was then under Custody and not in the house; And the children being quickly after recovered out of their fit said it was Sarah Good and also Sarah Osborne that then did hurt & torment or afflict them—although both of them at the same time a distance or Remote from them personally—there were also sundry other Questions put to her and Answers given thereunto by her according as is also given in.” (Levin, 1960, 5)

The small group of accusers would typically name a “witch,” claiming that they had been asked to sign a paper or to make a contract with the Devil.  Falling down in the meetinghouse as the accused were brought in, these girls would appear afflicted by the witch, screaming in pain and torment.  Oftentimes, the girls would state that the defendant had appeared to them at night—even on nights the accused were locked away in jail.  Of course, no one but these girls could ever see the specters they claimed came to them with evil intentions.  However, this spectral evidence was sometimes bolstered by other “evidence” against those charged.  “After accusations of spectral appearance had been made by members of this select group, which was said to be ‘bewitched’, ordinary people from the community stepped forward with additional accusations of non-spectral acts of witchcraft against thirty of them.”  (Craker 1997, 332)

Not everyone, however, was enchanted with the power of spectral evidence.  Early on during the trials, questions were raised concerning the reliability of evidence used to convict.

 “However tainted [Bridget] Bishop’s reputation—she had, among other things, been accused of witchcraft before—the disposition of her case stirred misgivings.  This included the resignation of one of the Court’s judges as well as a consultation by the governor and council with leading ministers regarding the judicial process, particularly its use of spectral evidence.”  (Latner 2008, 139)

Among that group of ministers were the Mathers, Increase and Cotton, father and son.  In discussing what types of evidence should be used in court, Cotton Mather considered the use of spectral evidence as acceptable—on a presumptive basis.  “There are Presumptions, which do at least probably and conjecturally note one to be a Witch.  These give occasion to Examine, yet they are no sufficient Causes of Conviction.”  (Craker 1997, 336)  Spectral evidence, it seems, was presumptive but not conclusive.   In order to convict a witch, other, supporting evidence must be provided.

“By this formula, spectral evidence could be used to indict, but not to convict.  For this, either confession or evidence of non-spectral acts of witchcraft would be required.  But the confession must be credible, and the testimony concerning non-spectral acts of witchcraft must be by at least two persons of good character, and must either expressly or inferentially reflect actions accomplished with the aid of Satan.”  (Craker 1997, 336)

Thus, even if a group of accusers claimed to see the shape of the accused and assigned to that specter various claims of bedevilment, Cotton Mather argued that, as much as the spectral evidence should be believed, other forms of verification were required.

Join now!

        Increase Mather, Cotton’s father, went even further.  Interestingly, Increase Mather had argued as early as 1684 that spectral evidence, taken in sole consultation in establishing a witch’s guilt, was not to be trusted.  (Harley 1996, 315)  Increase was more vocal in his belief that spectral evidence was not a valid form of substantiation of a person’s status as a witch, although he did not deny that specters could appear.  “A Man that is in one place cannot . . . at the Same time be in another.”  (Mather 1693, B2)  The radical shift in attitude evident in Increase Mather’s writings ...

This is a preview of the whole essay