As much as I love the 1795/96 story, the pushing of the historical envelope by having a trial for witchcraft always irked me. No matter how superstitious some of the residents of Collinsport might have been, trying someone (and executing them, no less) for witchcraft, in historical accuracy, just would not have happened. But.....there could've been a way around it. Trask and his disciples, let's say, wanted a witchcraft trial but knew that no matter what legal shenanigans they attempted would not make it happen, so they decide to attack it from another angle. Instead of Vicki (or Phyllis) being tried for witchcraft, why not have her tried for murder, using witchcraft as a tool? They could argue: okay, we all know that witchcraft was used and we also know that it no longer is a crime to practice it. However, it is a crime to murder and we can prove that witchcraft was the tool to commit it. So, we'll prove that Vicki was a witch - which ain't no crime - and she used it to kill (in this case Jeremiah and the hosts of others dropping dead all around) and that is a crime. After all, it's not a crime to own and use a gun, but it is a crime to murder someone with it. It's not a crime to own a hatchet, but it is a crime to murder someone with it. It's not a crime to have two hands, but it is a crime to strangle someone with them.
If the writers had used that approach, not only would it have been more historically accurate, but would've been even more interesting, IMO. I won't even get into the whole witchcraft trial in 1840/41.
Gerard