Thank you for your fantastic talk! I had read Eleanor Scott's work in the Women's Weird collections but didn't know much about her. I really enjoyed learning more, and you've inspired me to buy more of her stories! :)

So I think we can see what was and was not used in trial arguments arising not only from contemporary beliefs; but from broader perceptions of the individuals involved, and how these had to be negotiated in the high-stakes environment of a capital trial. 13/13

You are then asking people to accept that they are not only wrong about you, the person they suspect of being a murderer, but that they have been manipulated by the Devil. A daunting prospect! 12/13

Under these circumstances, one might plausibly argue that the ghost is a malicious lie on the part of the witness. But to argue that the ghost is *real but demonic* seems a much bigger ask for your audience. 11/13

The defendant is therefore not only defending themselves against a ghost; but against ideas that matched the suspicions and personal perceptions of those who knew them. 10/13

In the 1690 trial of William Barwick for the murder of his wife, for example, the ghost doesn’t seem to name her murderer; but her appearance combines with the fact that Barwick previously lied about her whereabouts to confirm Barwick’s guilt in the eyes of the witness. 9/13

One possible explanation may lie in how and when the supernatural was utilised, to lend strength to the suspicions of the community in the absence of material evidence. Crucially, ghostly accusations never seems to be *surprising*. Rather, they confirm the most likely candidate. 8/13

This seems, on the face of it, an obvious defence to make, when you are facing execution on the word of a supernatural being. So, why was it not made? 7/13

Interestingly, while seventeenth and eighteenth century murder reporting frequently cited the Devil and demonic influences in relation to the crime itself, I have found no examples of supernatural evidence being refuted by the defence as demonic subversion masquerading as divine providence. 6/13

This led to a great question from
@romgothsam.bsky.social about how these ideas coexisted with contemporary ideas about demonology and demonic interference into people’s lives. 5/13

“Strange and amazing it may seem to Mankind, that [Ghosts] should be affrighting and troublesome for the Living […]; yet this no doubt is by the Permission of a Divine Power, who, though he can restrain the Power of Darkness, […] yet sometimes he suffers such things to be, to bring Secrets to Light”

One of my arguments was that during this period, the appearance of ghosts could be viewed in providential terms. As one 1691 pamphlet put it: 3/13

My talk explored examples of the supernatural in the discovery and prosecution of murders during the early modern period; setting these real examples alongside the fictional trial in M.R. James’s ‘Martin’s Close’. 2/13