ABSTRACT
Analytically, physical evidence is a sub-category of circumstantial evidence guilt is logically inferred from the physical traces. This concept is misleading, however, as is demonstrated by the diversity of attitudes toward direct evidence in witchcraft cases. Although the use of ritual artefacts was prominent in popular witchcraft belief. It was barely considered by the learned writers of the major legal and theological tracts on the subject of the discovery of witchcraft, Bernard excepted. Medical and theological writers such as Perkins, Gaule, Cotta and Cooper did not elaborate much on ritual artefacts when discussing and evaluating evidentiary techniques. The vacuum left in the absence of direct evidence was creatively filled by evidentiary techniques that had the facade of physical or direct evidence. Direct evidence can be either physical evidence or testimony about overt acts that were perceived by the witnesses. Proving a crime by direct evidence is seemingly a straightforward, non-problematic issue.
