the gang in 1795...

[MagnusTrask]

In 1840... It had something to do with the US supposedly accepting colonial laws, in some agreement at some point... and somehow, it seemed as if the fact that colonial law allowed witch trials superceded any later federal law or state law...?     Which is ridiculous, since in law, it's whatever law as enacted most recently that counts.

They got one thing right.    Maine was made a state in 1820, 20 years before 1840.

I've never liked courtroom drama.    I do remember that Perry Mason was the most popular drama in syndication, though.

[Willie]

I think the 1795 stuff was done quite well.  Victoria's main accuser was Abigail, who spent her whole life seeing the devil all around her, and probably enjoyed pinning all her superstition on someone tangible.  Then there was Trask, who was a fanatic who didn't mind blackmailing people into offering false testimony, and was also tricked by Angelique with the burning tree and Vicki running out of the old house when he was performing his ceremony at the front door.  Joshua didn't care much about servants, as Ben was probably innocent of any real wrongdoing yet he kept him as an indentured servant, mistreating him badly.  So we can't expect him to be her defender.  I'll give him credit though, he thought the whole witchcraft thing was hogwash and only gave in once a fair amount of outside pressure was put on him.  Naiomi was drinking sherry from dawn to dusk and very upset with family problems, so we can't expect her to have been the slueth that outed the real witch.  Barnabas never believed she was a witch, but he was dealing with all sorts of emotional difficulties at the time - the love of his life marrying his uncle (and he was still pining after her 200 years later).  And he did have some sort of romantic involvement with Angelique, which can easily blind a person to their faults.  And then of course there is Vicki - I'll never forget the scene where Barnabas used his influence to get a judge to have a meeting with her, she could have easily denied the whole thing and it would have almost certainly went away at that point, but no, she starts blabbing about coming back in time and everything else.  She convinced a judge (who didn't believe in witchcraft) that she was probably a witch.  I think she deserves all the criticism she gets, and then some.

Overall, everyone in the family was very upset with all the events taking place, so it's very easy to understand why no one sat back and thought "who is benefiting from all this?" like they were Columbo or something.

[MagnusTrask]

only gave in once a fair amount of outside pressure was put on him.

Not something I really want to give Joshua a lot of credit for.

I should point out something that people here probably know in the backs of their heads, but which none dare blurt out loud... people now are in large part idiots.    The majority now just possess different triggers for their fanaticism or ganging-up/mobbing tendencies.    Cries of witchcraft don't do it anymore, because that's been thorouhly discredited.    It's a pop cliche now, going on a witch-hunt.   It's synonymous with unfairness.    McCarthyism along with it, fortunately.   

The triggers are less easy to characterize in words, now, but maybe someone in the 22nd century will do it, looking back at the 21st.    Islam=terrorism, that's an easy one.    US=Great Satan, too.     Mobbing against not only gays but anyone not seen as 'macho' enough, or whatever the fashionable word is now, for that, especially in school.    Liberal=depraved.

[michael c]

i agree that in general 1795 was very well done.i love it.

it's true that miss goody-two-shoes' "honesty is the best policy" didn't serve her particularly well here.

but i just think someone should have noted that angelique was the one who benefited the most here and perhaps questioned that.but obviously the writers needed for there to be a dramatic way for vicki to return to the present and they found it.

[MagnusTrask]

I hope people won't take my last post in the wrong way.     I'm afraid that the problems I see are with the majority of people and of course I hope I'm wrong.    I wasn't attempting to point fingers or put anyone down, certainly not anyone here, but to say that 1795 was believeable to me because humans may not be all that different now... and I hope my saying this doesn't make me appear mean.    I can't put this any better at the moment.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

but i just think someone should have noted that angelique was the one who benefited the most here and perhaps questioned that.

Well, doesn't Vicki draw that conclusion - albeit after Ben has already testified that Angelique was the witch. And shortly thereafter Peter gets Natalie to admit to the same. Though, of course, both realizations come way too late to change Vicki's fate...

However, the writers took a stab at explaining it, because even Desmond brought up the Consitution. They said some nonsense about the law being outside the Constitution because it was enacted prior to the Revolution, or some such idiocy. It didn't ring true, but it moved the storyline along, or so they thought.

Well, I don't know how nonsensical it might be, but, as I've made note of in the December 8th's slideshow:

1970: Ep #1162 - Quentin is charged with witchcraft under law 119,
dated the 23rd of April, 1696, which the articles of Maine's statehood
specify the state keep even though it was a part of Massachusetts
at the time

so, it *might* have been quite true.

in law, it's whatever law as enacted most recently that counts.

Actually, that's not always true as far too many people have learned that they can be charged with crimes under antiquated laws. So long as the laws are still on the books because no one has had the foresight to actually move to repeal them and have them removed, they're still enforceable no matter how ridiculous it may be to do so. Sadly, throughout history it's generally the minorities that fall victim to them, as, for example, gay people and blacks have been particularly subjected to this practice. And not in any way to make light of that situation, but just imagine what might have happened to Vicki if she had been a black lesbian accused of witchcraft...

[adamsgirl]

You're right, MB, about antiquated laws. In fact, there are laws regarding not tying your camel to a lamppost and such nonsense STILL on the books in Midwestern states. There are laws also saying that women can be beaten on the steps of a courthouse by their husbands, but no on Sundays. It goes on and on!

[IluvBarnabas]

I have to admit.....as ridiculous as it was watching a witchcraft trial taking place in 1840, in a period where those type of trials were long extinct (at least in the U.S.), I actually enjoyed it a lot more than the one in 1795.

I mentioned this in another thread awhile ago: Desmond made a hell of a lot better defense attorney than Peter Bradford did.

SPOILER ALERT:


Desmond made the argument (and a convincingly and reasonable argument) that no witchcraft trial had been held since the 1690's....why Peter didn't make this same argument in 1795, I don't know.

For dramatic purposes, the show had to have the court rule Quentin COULD be tried for witchcraft (and no doubt would have ruled the same for Vicki if Peter had been bright enough to bring it up), but in the real world, the court would have laughed out any charges of witchcraft by 1840 at least. The worst Quentin would have been tried for would have been for Randall Drew's murder, but the evidence was rather a bit too circumstancial to ensure a conviction (besides Gerard didn't want to see Quentin nailed merely for murder, he wanted to see him executed for witchcraft).

Fortunately for Gerard, and unfortunately for Quentin, the judges ruled that Quentin could be tried as a warlock since no one apparently had the smarts (on the show that is) to throw out those ridiculous superstious laws regarding witchcraft trials.


Which raises a question....I know they had to have written something that outlawed the practice of trying someone as a witch....I just don't know exactly when....was it immediately after the Salem Witch Trials, or later?

[Joeytrom]

In 1840, could Judah Zachary have placed a spell on the court making them believe a witchcraft trial was legal to ensure Quentin would be hanged?

[Gerard]

In 1840, could Judah Zachary have placed a spell on the court making them believe a witchcraft trial was legal to ensure Quentin would be hanged?

No.  The only who would've had powers to do that would've been lobbyists and PAC members.

Gerard

[arashi]

In October of 1692 Governor Phipps ordered that spectral evidence was no longer admissible in court, which is kind of interesting because all they used to accuse Vicki in 1795 was spectral evidence and the word of an unordained religious fanatic!

[adamsgirl]

Interesting, arashi! Apparently, the writers didn't do their homework. Then again, as kids, who knew? I just remember agonizing over poor Vicki being framed. I suppose, by then, the writers knew who their audience was and played to that, facts be damned -- LOL!

[David]

Just for the record:

Vicki is dumb. She sets herself up to walk into
traps and Peter Bradford is a BAD lawyer.

But 1795 as a story is magnificent!
JF, Joan and Louis really captured the tragedy of what happened to the Collins family.
Episodes like Josette coming out of her grave, Barnabas' first night as a vampire, the Bathia Mapes episodes, are scary as hell, even now.

And for a soap to do a story like this in the 1960s took guts.
Hell, this story would be ahead of it's time on daytime TV today!!

David
 

[MagnusTrask]

spoiler



I was disappointed by the end of 1795 though, and it seemed to be coming apart a bit.    Suddenly Natalie can summon a witch or witchy personage to the front door.    They can't be faulted for the fact that so many characters were dead by this point... but with fewer characters, less happens. 

Mainly... was this an altered timeline set in motion (knowingly or unknowingly) by Sarah's ghost, where Barnabas, even as a newly-minted vampire, was a nicer one than he would have been, because of Victoria's presence, and his concern for her?   Was he "originally" simply bloodthirsty, overwhelmed by the effects of the curse and bitterness?    Was the pivotal moment when he announced an impending bloodbath, then immediately changed his mind?   Did he not change his mind "the first time"?

I was very surprised to find Barnabas actually agreeing to be destroyed, though I need to keep reminding myself that he never agreed to be chained in the coffin... which I was going to say he'd never agree to do, since it's unequivocally a fate worse than death.... but when he popped back to 1796.... that was an impossible mess though, and I'm not getting tangled in that today.

Anyway, before seeing the end of 1795, I pictured Barnabas somehow being dragged off kicking and screaming to be chained up, which no one would have the power to do, granted, but I had thought the whole point was that he'd become an all-out monster, who then stewed in his maniacal juices till 1967.

Maybe they thought that showing Barnabas coming full-circle, becoming his 1967 self again in late 1795, would defeat the purpose of preparing viewers for him to become the protagonist.... it's good storytelling though.    It demands memory from the viewers, and those who have memory would have been rewarded.    What a moment it would have been, that torturous moment of out-of-control monstrous Barnabas being forced into the coffin, after his being so decent early in 1795, then we see him in 1968, but very differently.

[jennifer]

Though the official Puritan era was long over by 1795, Puritanism as a state of mind still existed, as it does today.

Just watch any random episode of the 700 Club & listen to Rev. Pat espouse the same kind of lunacy that inspired the Salem Witch Trials!

so true i work with a few people that are into that show
i just want to run from them sreaming