PDA

View Full Version : Salem Witches Finally Exonerated ......



Swanspirit
November 1st, 2001, 01:02 PM
From my friend in Salem ......

Better late than never............

The Salem Evening News
Online Edition Thursday, November 01, 2001


More than 300 years late,
five women get some justice

By DAVID KIBBE

Ottaway News Service

BOSTON -- Five women who were falsely
accused of witchcraft and hanged on Gallows Hill
during the Salem witch trials of 1692 got their
good names back this Halloween.

With a flick of the pen, acting Gov. Jane Swift
yesterday exonerated the five women, the last of
the witch trials' 20 victims to be cleared by the
Legislature since their executions three centuries
ago.

Swift signed the bill in her office with no fanfare,
but word quickly spread around the nation to
descendants of the accused witches.

Massachusetts law now explicitly states that
Bridget Bishop, Susannah Martin, Alice Parker,
Margaret Scott and Wilmot Redd were innocent.

One of the descendants, Shari Kelley Worrell,
learned she was an eighth-great-granddaughter of
Susannah Martin while studying her genealogy in
1988.

"It was important for me to clear her name," said
a happy Worrell, a former flight attendant who
was born in Massachusetts and now lives in
Illinois. "I don't want people to think she was a
witch."

The bill took a winding course through the
Legislature. It was filed three years ago by Rep.
J. Michael Ruane, D-Salem, at the urging of a
constituent, Paula Keene, a Salem public school
teacher.

Keene became fascinated with the witch trials
while studying American history at Salem State
College.

The Legislature had already cleared the names of
most of the victims, with the latest exoneration
coming in 1957. For an unknown reason, the
names of the five women were left off previous
legislation.

The bill languished until Rep. Paul Tirone,
D-Amesbury, took an interest in it this year. He
learned that Susannah Martin is from Amesbury,
and his wife traced her ancestors back to another
victim, Sarah Wildes of Topsfield.

With Ruane's permission, Tirone began pushing
the bill.

He was interviewed by the CBS Evening News,
and began getting e-mails from descendants. By
coincidence, Tirone was holding the gavel in place
of House Speaker Thomas Finneran when the bill
was passed Tuesday.

"We chased it all the way through," Tirone said.

Swift quickly signed it.

"The timing happened to be appropriate that it
landed on our desk in time for Halloween," Swift
spokeswoman Sarah Magazine said.

The witch trials only lasted seven months, but the
dark chapter in the state's Puritan past continues
to intrigue tourists and historians more than 300
years later. The Salem Witch Museum gets more
than 200,000 visitors a year, and books and
scholarly papers are still being written on the
subject.

Plans are under way for a memorial service and
possibly a witches memorial at Gallows Hill,
where 19 of them were hanged.

The 20th victim, Giles Corey, was crushed by
stone weights over two days for refusing a trial.
Nearly all of the accused were placed in
unmarked graves on the North Shore, because
authorities forbade their burial in consecrated
ground.

"They are now legally and technically set free into
eternity," said Keene, the schoolteacher who
originally pushed for the exoneration.

"We believe that they are really resting in peace."

Love and Light
Swannie

Margie
November 1st, 2001, 01:08 PM
To clarify for myself-They signed the papers declairing the women "innocent" of being witchs. Not saying, if they were witches it's ok-but saying they were "innocent of the crime" of whitchcraft. Maybe they were witches. Would they really want to be cleared of being witches?

Correct me if I misread!

Old Witch
November 1st, 2001, 02:12 PM
Good point!


:elf:

Myst
November 1st, 2001, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Swanspirit

...
BOSTON -- Five women who were falsely
accused of witchcraft and hanged on Gallows Hill
during the Salem witch trials of 1692 got their
good names back this Halloween.
...
Massachusetts law now explicitly states that
Bridget Bishop, Susannah Martin, Alice Parker,
Margaret Scott and Wilmot Redd were innocent.
...
"It was important for me to clear her name," said
a happy Worrell, a former flight attendant who
was born in Massachusetts and now lives in
Illinois. "I don't want people to think she was a
witch."


You have to understand that back then Witchcraft meant you were a poisoner, hexer, or a minion of the devil. Even if these women were Witches as we now Witches to be, they probably weren't poisoners, hexers, or minions of the devil.

Even so you're right, the wording isn't the best.

Xander67
November 1st, 2001, 03:27 PM
but what about the people in the Jury and the other Townspeople ....the real "minions of the devil" who used those girls as scapegoats to draw attention away from thier works to make what they were doing look good ...ha! this article is a slap in the face .... In my opinion those girls saw something, and it must have been pretty bad....and perhaps out of fear of the girls telling anything they came up with this "they are witches" crap!
to make them look bad...

Laiste
November 1st, 2001, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Myst


You have to understand that back then Witchcraft meant you were a poisoner, hexer, or a minion of the devil. Even if these women were Witches as we now Witches to be, they probably weren't poisoners, hexers, or minions of the devil.

Even so you're right, the wording isn't the best.

Thanks for clearing that up Myst! I was a tad confused by the wording of the article myself.

Margie
November 1st, 2001, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Myst


You have to understand that back then Witchcraft meant you were a poisoner, hexer, or a minion of the devil. Even if these women were Witches as we now Witches to be, they probably weren't poisoners, hexers, or minions of the devil.

Even so you're right, the wording isn't the best.

You did clarify some points there. But even the present relatives don't know if they WERE witches-do they? Maybe the women were "accurately accused" of being witches-just wrongly assasinated for what was percieved as a "crime".

Xander67
November 1st, 2001, 04:25 PM
exactly my point... what they meant by being a witch was clearly spelled out, an evil monsterous person ...etc...
I think that they may have saw something they shouldnt have..
but hey, when you consider who is telling the "official story" we may never know the real truth

Margie
November 1st, 2001, 04:28 PM
Right.

Xander67
November 1st, 2001, 04:33 PM
sorry for the shouting ...it is turning out to be a very interesting day for me...

Margie
November 1st, 2001, 04:34 PM
What shouting? I have a feeling the shouting hasn't quite begun yet. :D

Xander67
November 1st, 2001, 04:42 PM
heheh, yeah im glad we got to have a civil conversation about this before the battle actually starts and they have to close this thread LOL

Myst
November 3rd, 2001, 01:51 AM
Oh no I agree that you're right Margie - they didn't portray it properly. Just suggesting that we know what they really meant. And I mean, it's a start, right?

Xander67
November 3rd, 2001, 01:57 AM
:)
I suppose so Myst,
its the effort that counts

Margie
November 3rd, 2001, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by Myst
Oh no I agree that you're right Margie - they didn't portray it properly. Just suggesting that we know what they really meant. And I mean, it's a start, right?

Right-I mean if they didn't explain themselves properly-it's WAY open to interpretation. Mine's just one way it could be taken.