
Witches of Belvoir 'may have been framed' (2013) - diodorus
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-24748721
======
goto11
The article says "there is evidence" that the Duke of Buckingham poisoned the
sons of the Earl of Rutland but framed the witches. But it doesn't say
anything about what evidence. It is not clear if this is just speculation or
if someone really did solve a 400 year old murder case.

------
vzaliva
what is an alternative to "being framed as a witch"? Being an actual witch? Of
course they have been framed!

~~~
sxp
This gets into etymological arguments about what a "witch" is.

> The sisters, who were known to be herbal healers, swore their revenge, the
> story goes.

A "witch" in certain contexts could be an evil apothecary:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft#Hebrew_Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft#Hebrew_Bible)

> The precise meaning of the Hebrew כָּשַׁף, usually translated as "witch" or
> "sorceress", is uncertain. In the Septuagint, it was translated as
> pharmakeía or pharmakous. In the 16th century, Reginald Scot, a prominent
> critic of the witch trials, translated כָּשַׁף, φαρμακεία, and the Vulgate's
> Latin equivalent veneficos as all meaning "poisoner", and on this basis,
> claimed that "witch" was an incorrect translation and poisoners were
> intended

Witch hunts and witch trials normally involved framing people for bullshit
reasons, but that doesn't mean "witches" didn't exist at some point. They were
just herbalists using science instead of magic.

~~~
goto11
> They were just herbalists using science

That is a stretch. The witch in the book of Samuel summons the spirit of
Samuel from the dead. So clearly she is more than just an herbalist or
poisoner, even if the word _could_ be translated like that. And I don't see
any basis for "using science".

The definition of whichcraft in early-modern Europe was using magic to harm
other people. Poisoning fell under this, but using herbal medicine for benign
purposes was common and not illegal.

