The author’s stated purpose in writing this account is, in part, to counter the dominant narrative of the crazed, irrational witch panic of Salem in the same year. What differences do we see between the two? In what ways does the Stamford trial undermine the Salem narrative? In what ways does it reinforce it?

A significant portion of the book examines legal procedure and philosophy of the time period, albeit largely with respect to witch trials. In what ways did criminal trials differ then? What might that tell us about the evolution of legal procedure in the United States?

It’s often difficult to fairly examine historical events, given how different the modern mindset is, and we see this frequently throughout the text. In what ways does our modern understanding of these events cloud our ability to fairly examine them?