I imagine Ang knows how the tree is supposed to look to prove witchiness, and acted accordingly... if V had been there still, he'd have been discredited though not completely, and would have taken awhile to build himself back up. I can see him, hands clasped, saying "The witch is even more powerful and cunning than we at first supposed!!" (We meaning him.)
"I am defending the right of this girl to be judged innocent until proven innocent!" It's a famous blooper, but this time it made sense to me. It's as if he believes so much in Vicki's innocence, that he doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of her being proven guilty. First they must presume her innocent, until she is finally found innocent, not guilty, because innocent she is.
My question is, What are the writers trying to tell us by implying that Barnabas's very rationalism turns out to be a dreadful mistake???
I think they're trying to have it both ways, presenting an exciting story about an (existing) evil witch, and commenting on the hysterical, intolerant witch-hunting mentality that destroyed so many people back then (largely because witches don't exist), still did, and always will in some form probably. We're supposed to fight this with rationalism, in the real world of the viewers, anyway. It had only been a few years since the McCarthy hearings. They did as good a job as anyone could of jamming those two opposite things together, I think. I'd have hated it, if they'd made witch-hunters the heroes. Even if witches had been real, there'd have been Trasks using this to fuel their egos and careers, and getting the wrong people convicted.
What does "the quick and the dead" signify? Why the little tree voodoo doll? Why not just set the tree on fire? Oh, so the other trees will be fine, and it will look supernatural. Never mind. Still looked silly.
