ABSTRACT
Circumstantial evidence is not a direct proof of one of the elements that constitute a crime. But an inference of one fact from another suspicious circumstances that bolster the impression of the suspect's culpability. The jury originated as a self-informed panel, familiar with the crimes committed in the local community. Presumptions, or circumstantial inferences, were not unique to witchcraft cases and were used in trials for other crimes, as well as in non-criminal cases. The discussion of presumptions in the context of witchcraft trials imported into the English criminal law a new conceptual basis for the acceptance and evaluation of circumstantial evidence. Gaule's include instances of circumstantial evidence such as reputation, suspected relatives of friends, some appearance of fact, habitual cursing, 'lewd & naughty' lifestyle and bodily marks. Facing the dilemma of proving witchcraft without eyewitnesses and with scant direct physical evidence, fact-finders had to rely heavily on circumstantial evidence.
