Sorry Zenster, I missed that bit. I only briefly scanned the article and thought it might be of interest to some posters here.
Apologies if I misled anyone. It was unintentional.
Not to fear, Goo. If Scottie really is guilty, then he should fry very slowly. I too had the same thoughts as you when I read that article. However, when I saw the caveat, I wanted to make sure it was posted here for accuracy.
I’ve also heard “Mallet Against Malefactors” as an acceptable translation of <i>Malleus Maleficarum</i>, as it retains both the condemnation and the aliteration of the original while re-establishing the colloquial feel of the Latin title.
Works either way, though; both titles make it clear that this is not something from the “Chicken Soup for the Soul” series.
In US courts today, it is perfectly acceptable to listen to testimony from the accused’s “mortal enemy.”
- Rick
And so was Abraham, right? 
When the voices tell you to do something, how can you tell whether you’re mentally ill or hearing the voice of God? I imagine that one would work under the presumption that one is hearing the voice of God; after all, one can only suffer finite punishment at the hands of man for disregarding man’s law, but one can suffer infinite punishment at the hands of God for flouting His instructions. It’s a simple cost-benefit analysis …
Bricker that may be, however, the testimony that was given at “witch trials” was things like “I saw her calling to satan to send a plague to this village.” or “She stole my seed from me while I slept.” or “I saw her having relations with a demon.” or even “She sent an illness to my crops, livestock and myself.”
The testimony that was accepted was not only outrageous because it could not be proven one way or the other, but because the people who testified were often actively trying to acquire the accused’s lands. If the accused were convicted/executed the “mortal enemy” would be able to get the lands, and even all the person’s possesions for a pittance. That’s why it was so wrong. The “mortal enemie’s” testimony was treated as being “gospel truth” and nothing the accused could say would “erase” it.