First, Bishop states that "I know nothing of [witchcraft]. I am innocent to a witch. I know not what a witch is" (386). Her examiner, John Hathorne, responds "How can you know you are no witch and yet not know what a witch is" (386). Later on, he also says "It may be you do not know that any have confessed today, who have been examined before you, that they are witches" (386). She replies that she knew nothing of it at which point "John Hutchinson and John Lewis in open Court affirmed that they had told her" (386). Through this, it is shown that she is inconsistent in her answers and perhaps outright lying. Bishop is accused of the latter, but states that she had not heard them. Still, this evidence seems to be taken with a good deal of consideration even though it can only be classified as a "presumption" as Perkins describes it. .
As stated by Perkins, "though presumptions give occasion to examine, they are no sufficient causes of conviction" (371). He goes on to say "And yet experience shows that ignorant people, who carry a rage against them, will make strong proofs of such presumptions, whereupon sometimes jurors do give their verdict against parties innocent" (372). As for the lesser sufficient proofs, such as the spectral evidence in this case, he believes "the best that may be said of them is that they be all either false or uncertain signs and unavailable for the condemnation of any man whatsoever" (372). That would mean that both the evidence of the torn coat and Bishop's inconsistency during questioning would have to be disregarded in the matter of convicting her.
That leaves the matter of finding a true proof by which to convict the accused. Elizabeth Hubbard, Ann Putnam, Abigail Williams, and Mercy Lewis all agree that Bishop had hurt them. Since they are four upstanding citizens and only two witnesses are needed for a conviction, it may seem as if that is all that was needed.
