Saducismus Triumphatus: Evidence Concerning Witches and Apparitions

...of a child standing upon Walker’s shoulders during the time of the trial. At that time, the judge was very much troubled and passed sentence the same night the trial took place, which was a practice never used in Durham before or since. From these two testimonies, several things in Mr. Webster’s story may be corrected or supplied, though it is evident enough that they agree on the main points. For instance, there is only a small disagreement regarding the year: Mr. Webster says it was about the year of our Lord 1632, while Mr. Smart says 1631. However, unless they hold court sessions original: "Assizes" only once a year in Durham, I do not quite understand how Sharp and Walker could be arrested shortly after St. Thomas's Day December 21st, as Mr. Webster has it, and be tried at the next Durham court session, yet have that be in August according to Mr. Smart's testimony.

From Mr. Lumley’s testimony, the young woman’s first name is provided, as well as the name of the town near Chester-le-Street—namely, Lumley. The circumstances of Walker sending away his relative with Mark Sharp are also supplied from Mr. Lumley’s narrative, and the timeline is corrected: he states it was about fourteen days after the murder before the ghost original: "Spectre" appeared, whereas Mr. Webster suggests it was a long time.

Two more errors in Mr. Webster’s narration are also corrected by Mr. Lumley’s testimony: the distance of the miller from Lumley, where Walker lived, which was six miles, not two miles as Mr. Webster has it; and also that it was not a mill for grinding corn, but a fuller's mill original: "Fullers Mill"; a mill used for cleaning and thickening cloth. The detail of the apparition pulling the blankets off Graimes's bed night after night—omitted in Mr. Webster’s story—may be supplied from Mr. Lumley’s account. Furthermore, Mr. Smart’s testimony puts it beyond doubt original: "out of Controversie" that the trial was at Durham and before Judge Davenport, which was omitted by Mr. Webster.

And whereas Mr. Webster says there were some who reported that the apparition appeared to the judge or the foreman of the jury, he admits he has no certainty of that. This confession of his is a sign that he would not write anything in this story of which he was not certain regarding the main facts; however, there is a very timely addition for this from Mr. Smart. He affirms that he heard a Mr. Fairhair give evidence under oath that he saw the likeness of a child standing on Walker’s shoulders during the trial. It is likely this Mr. Fairhair might have been the foreman of the jury. Because the judge was so very much troubled, it is possible that he also saw the same apparition, as Mr. Webster says reports claimed, though the mistake in Mr. Webster's account is that he thought it was the apparition of a woman. This appearance of the child, however, was very fitting and appropriate, placed