Talk:Pricking

Unclear?

In the second section of this article, it refers to tools being used that could release blood to ensure guilt. This does not appear to make sense, because the accused would only be named a witch if the area of skin did not bleed. If the tool released blood, this would seem to prove the accused not guilty, and the 'expert' would not be paid for a successful find. Am I reading this wrong, or can someone who understands this concept modify the article to make it more clear? *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If i knew more about this I would replace that sentence with: "Through sleight of hand, the sharp end could be used on "normal" flesh drawing blood and causing pain, while the blunt end would be used on supposed witch's mark. The lack of blood could appeared to prove the existence of a witch's mark mounting further evidence against the accused." Jisjustme (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you; the wording in this piece is entirely ambiguous. Unfortunately, I have no idea which way would be considered correct. :| 12.19.84.33 (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering about that as well. It doesn't make sense at all, and yet another such mention is made in section two; it says that some pins contained blood that could be released on demand, adding further evidence. It doesn't add up to the first few sentences in the article. And besides, from what I've always read, it was a lack of pain and blood that condemned witches. I agree with Jisjustme concerning the re-wording of the sentence. 24.36.150.124 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)