Torture Leads to False Confessions: Witchcraft Trials
By: Bethany Koshak
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries many scientific discoveries had
not yet been made. Things like what causes the weather to change to why home
remedies can help heal the sick were still mysteries to the people of this time. So if
there was a drought that devastated the crops, for example, Europeans would look
for something to blame. This is where witchcraft comes in. Many people believed
unexplainable things that happened were the result of the witchcraft. They believed
the power of this witchcraft was gained by People who made a pact with the devil.
Eventually witchcraft became a capital crime, and when not enough evidence could
be found to convict a witch, courts had to rely on confessions. Several trials in the
early seventeenth century give evidence of the common belief that, “torture was
thought of as the most efficient way of obtaining a confession” and it soon became a
widely used tactic in trials.1
In the sixteenth century, from the spread of torture as a technique in
witchcraft trials, new questions arise: why did people at the time believe that
confessions created via torture were sound evidence to be used in the conviction of
the defendant? Did the testimonies of accused witches change before during and
after torture is used in the proceedings? And if so, was torture an effective way of
extracting the truth, or were the accused just saying what had to be said to end the
torture? I hypothesize that, confessions extracted during witchcraft trials via torture
were accepted as sound evidence of guilt because of statements made by the clergy
and nobility. They were also accepted because of the structure of most trials which
1 Louise Nyholm Kallestrup, “Lay and Inquisitorial Witchcraft prosecutions in Early Modern Italy and Denmark”,
Scandinavian Journal of History, 2011, 270.
made it seem as though the confessions were not resultant of torture but of true
guilt. I also hypothesize that, the accused, at the start of their trial, stated that they
were innocent of witchcraft; in the way the accusers define it. However after torture
was used the accused change their pleas to guilty. This change in testimonies is
evidence that confessions of witchcraft were largely influenced by torture. It is also
evidence that the accused were confessing to end the torture and not because they
were actually guilty.
Although the process of criminal proceedings was evolving to resemble a
structure similar to what we use today, witchcraft trials were the exception to this
evolution. Trials concerning witchcraft did not have to follow the normal trial rules.
For example in most trials confessions would not be extorted by threat or force,
however in the case of witchcraft trials this was completely acceptable.2 In 1468
Pope Paul II declared witchcraft to be a “Crimen Exceptum”, a declaration that gave
secular and ecclesiastical courts complete freedom when dealing witches.3 This may
well have been the first act that lead to torture becoming an acceptable way to
extract a confession. Not long after this, in 1484, Pope Innocent VIII authored a
famous bull called Summis Desiderantes Affectibus, the purpose of which was to
remove a juridical obstacles preventing torture from being used as an interrogation
tactic.4 This bull later became the preface to the Malleus Maleficarum or the
Hammer of Witches written in 1487 by Kramer and Sprenger. Both of these
documents advocated the use of torture in trials of witchcraft, as a way to extract
Darren Oldridge, “The Crime of Witchcraft in Europe, Christina Larner,” in The Witchcraft Reader, 2002, 172.
Jaroslav Nemec, Witchcraft and Medicine, 1974,
4 Alan Charles Kors, Edward Peters, “Pope Innocent VIII: Summis desiderantes affectibus,1484,” in Witchcraft in
Europe (Place: Publisher, 2001), 177-180
2
3
confessions. These three documents were responsible for witchcraft becoming
known as a crime that was, “not amenable to normal principal of proof”, or normal
standards of interrogation and court procedures5. Since the clergy established
witchcraft as crimen exceptum, people easily accepted confessions created via
torture as acceptable. Another aspect of witchcraft trials that made the use of
torture acceptable was how the order of the trial was conveniently set up. First the
accused would be asked to confess in some way, if the did not confess they were
tortured until they did. Once the accused did confess they would have to confess
again while not being tortured for the confession to be valid. However, “even
‘voluntary’ confession was inextricably tied to coercion: if a suspect refused to
‘voluntarily’ reiterate a confession extracted under torture, she would not be
declared innocent, but rather sent back to the torture chamber.”6
The analyses of several different witchcraft trial records provide us with
evidence of changing testimonies of the accused, from innocent to guilty. Some of
these trials include the trial of Tempel Anneke7, the examination of Gellis Duncane
of Scotland8, the trial of Johannes Junius9, and the trial of Suzanne Gaudry10.
In the trial of Tempel Anneke, an elderly woman who was accused of being a
witch, Tempel is asked the same or similar questions many times but each time
under a different set of circumstances. First Tempel is asked questions without
torture or the threat of torture. The 63rd question in the first round of questioning
Darren Oldridge, “The Crime of Witchcraft in Europe, Christina Larner,” in The Witchcraft Reader, 2002, 172.
Virginia Krause, Confessional Fictions and Demonology in France, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern
Studies, 338.
7 Peter A. Morton, The Trial of Tempel Aneke, 1663.
8 Kors, Peters, “The Proscutions in Scottland, 1591,” in Witchcraft in Europe, 2001, 318-322.
9 Ibid, “The Prosecutions at Bamberg, 1628,” 348-353.
10 Ibid, “The Trial of Suzanne Gaudry, 1652,” 359-367.
5
6
asks, “Whether she didn’t do harm to people, animals or also crops.”11 to which she
answers no. Later the she answers the same question under the full application of
torture under these circumstances her answer to the 63rd question then changes to,
“Says, people, cattle and sheep, but not fruits of the field, one shouldn’t do that.”12
This example of torture changing the testimony of Tempel, may simply be one
singular coincidence, however there are many more instances in her trial where we
see this happen.
Question 13 and 15 from the pre-torture round of questioning ask, “Whether
she didn’t frighten the thief as she had promised, so that he brought back some of
the things of Tiehmann’s,”and, “Whether she didn’t plug the thief into a drilled hole
in the name of the evil enemy, so that the fellow squeaked inside it like a heap of
mice?” To which she answered, “no, how would she come to do that, how would that
happen,” and, “that isn’t true in eternity.”13 After Tempel is tortured a similar
question is asked, if she had “tortured the thief who stole from Tiehmann,” to which
she then answers yes.14 This answer, which Tempel gives after she was tortured,
completely contradicts her answers to the other questions, and provides yet another
instance in which torture cause her to change her testimony.
Another set of questions from the trial of Tempel Anneke, which change from
pre to post-torture are questions 61 and 62. These questions ask, “Whether she
didn’t make a pact with the evil enemy, and through his help committed such
deeds,” and “How and in which form did he come to her, how did she join together
Morton, Tempel Aneke, Pg. 23.
Ibid, 103.
13 Ibid, 16.
14 Ibid, 143.
11
12
with him.” To the first of these questions, before torture is used, she answers, “no,
she didn’t make a pact, her dear Jesus Christ should save her from this, she had
nothing to do with the evil spirit,” and to the second question she remains silent.15
After torture is used and these questions are asked again, only this time her answers
are, “yes, that is so, and she did that,” and, “he came as a middle-sized man, that is,
and average man, who had black hair and wore a black coat.”16 In this example not
only does Tempel’s testimony change once torture is applied, but she also added
details to her so-called encounter with the devil. These details interestingly fit the
popular stereotype of the devil, and are stereotypes that she could have heard
anywhere.
As mentioned before some things, such as helping the sick, which we now
would explain with science, were once thought to be acts of witchcraft. In Scotland a
maid of David Seaton, named Gellis Duncane, would go out every other night to help
people who were troubled with any kind of sickness her ability to help the sick
made her master suspicious that she did not do those things by natural and lawful
ways. To ease his suspicions he examined her to learn how she was able to perform,
“matters of so great importance”. At first she gave him no answer so, “with the help
of others he tormented her with the torture of the pilliwinkes upon her fingers… and
binding and wrenching her hand with a cord or roape… yet she would not
confess.”17 Since she still did not confess they looked for a mark on her by the devil.
When they found the devils mark Gellis confessed all her doings were by wicked
Ibid, 23.
Ibid, 103.
17 Kors, Peters, “Scotland, 1591,” in Witchcraft in Europe, 2001, 319.
15
16
allurements and were enticements of the devil, and that she did these things
through witchcraft.18 Although in this account the confession of witchcraft did not
come during or directly after the physical torture it is safe to assume that the torture
and threat of future torture was a major reason for her to confess to being a witch.
Another instance of torture influencing the confession of an accused witch
happened in 1628 in Bamberg, Germany. On June 18th Johannes Junius, accused of
witchcraft, was examined without the use of torture. When he was asked how and
in what way he had fallen into the crime of witchcraft he said, “he is wholly
innocent, knows nothing of the crime, he has never in his life renounced God, says
that he is wronged before God and the world, would like to hear of a single human
being who has seen him at such gatherings.”19 On June 30th he was questioned again
without torture, but again he did not confess to the crime. Since he would not
confess he was put through torture, “first thumb screws were applied… leg screws,
will confess absolutely nothing.”20 They then examined his body and found a bluish
mark on his right side. On July 5th with urgent persuasions he finally confesses to
being a witch. This is another instance where confession did not come during or
immediately after torture was used, however the constant mental torture these trial
proceeding would be combined with the physical torture defiantly played a role in
his eventual confession.
The trial of Suzanne Gaudry progressed in a in a way similar to that of
Johannes Junius. Before the interrogators used torture they asked her, “how long
Ibid, 320.
Kors, Peters, “The Prosecutions at Bamberg, 1628,” in Witchcrft in Europe, 2001, Pg. 349.
20 Ibid.
18
19
she has been in subjugation to the devil, and pressed that she was to renounce the
devil and the one who misled her.”21 She answered strongly by saying she is not a
witch, that she has nothing to do with the devil, and that he has not mislead her.
During torture, as she was being more tightly stretched upon the torture rack, and
urged by the interrogators to maintain her confessions said, “that it was true that
she is a witch and that she would maintain what she had said.”22 Also when she was
asked again how long she had been in subjugation to the devil she answered, “that it
was twenty years ago that the devil appeared to her, being in her lodgings in the
form of a man dressed in a little cow-hide and black breeches.”23 This trial record
gives us a good example of how the confessions change during the course of the
trial, mainly because of the use of torture.
Confessions gained through the use of torture couldn’t be trusted as the
truth. “Rather then forcing the guilty to speak the truth, torture can just as easily
force the innocent to lie.”24 Virginia Krause discovers this in her analysis of the work
of Michel de Montaigne, an outspoken critic of the witch-hunt and contemporary of
Jean Bodin. Torture was not an effective way of finding the truth because the
accused would in most cases say whatever had to be said to make the torture stop.
Those accused of witchcraft in many cases would claim their innocence at the
start of their trials, but by the end they would resign to confessing whatever they
had to stop the torture, even if it was not the truth. Since torture was the main
reason in most witchcraft trials that the accused confessed it is easy to see how
Kors, Peters, “The Trial of Suzanne Gaudry, 1652,” in Witchcraft in Europe, 2001, 364.
Ibid, 366.
23 Ibid.
24 Virginia Krause, 341.
21
22
those confessions were not a reliable source of the truth. Many people of this time
accepted confessions extracted through torture as enough evidence to put the
accused to death, this is because they were following the lead of the clergy and
nobility, and the trials were set up to make it seem as though the confessions were
not caused by torture when in reality they were.
Bibliography
Primary
Kors, Alan Charles. Peters, Edward. "The Prosecutions at Bamberg (1628)." In
Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. 2nd ed. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
Kors, Alan Charles. Peters, Edward. "The Prosecutions in Scotland (1591)." In
Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. 2nd ed. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
Kors, Alan Charles. Peters, Edward. "The Trial of Suzane Gaudry (1652)." In
Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. 2nd ed. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
Morton, Peter Alan, Ed. The Trial of Tempel Anneke: Records of a Witchcraft Trial in
Brunswick, Germany, 1663. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2006.
Secondary
Krause, Virginia. 2005. Confessional fictions and demonology in renaissance france.
Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 35, (2): 327-348
Kallestrup, Louise Nyholm. 2011. Lay and inquisitorial witchcraft prosecutions in
early modern italy and denmark. Scandinavian Journal of History 36, (3):
265-278
Nemec, Jaroslav. “Witchcraft and Medicine.” National Library of Medicine. 1974.
Oldridge, Darren. "The Crime of Witchcraft in Europe." In The Witchcraft Reader.
2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2002.