ABSTRACT
Like the stories of the Sutton and Flower witches discussed earlier, the case of Joan Buts is typical. Goody Buts was believed to have consorted with the Devil and she admitted to having a passionate, outspoken nature. According to the author, she promptly appeared at her victim’s home, contrary to her will and cursing freely, when the family followed a doctor’s advice to bury the girl’s urine in the earth and burn her clothing. Despite all the evidence that suggested maleficium (evil doings) – including consorting with a familiar, hurling stones at windows, thrusting balls of clay with pins and thorns, and bringing about a languor that allegedly resulted in the death of Mary Farmer – Joan was acquitted for lack of evidence. This is a reminder that witchcraft trials were not mere formalities and that they were less likely to result in conviction as the seventeenth century wore on. Paradoxically, the number of witnesses (nineteen or twenty) and the length of the trial (three hours) – both of which were extremely unusual at a time when most trials took fewer than 30 minutes – might have convinced the jury that the community was protesting rather too much and that they had other reasons to disapprove of Joan’s behaviour. But, although Joan was acquitted, the trial likely served an important function in the community. The judge, no less than the lord chief justice of the King’s Bench, the senior judge in England, took the opportunity to chastise Joan for her outspoken ways. This case was a roundabout way of returning Goody Buts to her proper gender and social role in her community.
