I found the logic used by Margaret's accusers at the trial a little hard to follow, although I was reading quickly.  But perhaps that's the point - there wasn't much logic to the accusations and proving "guilt" was quite a convoluted process.  This section was a litle weak for me but I still continue to enjoy the book.  True, it's not a strongly plot driven book, but I like the how the period details are woven in.  And, although Margaret is kind and intelligent and has a very special gift, she isn't portrayed as an ever perfect, larger than life character but rather one who is subject to all the vulnerabilites of a woman in that society.

Donna,

There's no need for me to comment, when you say it all so perfectly! My one teensy criticism about this part is that we never get a clear idea of who was behind the push to have her arrested. There are a couple of vague references to making people jealous because of her healing & midwifery skills, but I feel like another paragraph or two of explanation somewhere along the lines would have been good.

The book - to me - really starts to pick up after her 'trial.' For one thing, the two story lines feel like they are coming closer together and for another I just LOVE her husband!

RE: proving guilt ... I don't things had improved much by the Tudor years. I'm reading The Chalice right now (& enjoying it very much). And, the only real difference I can see is that the power over life and death; over innocence or guilt rests with Cromwell & the King vs. the priests. What power the priests had - they held power over their parishioners' immortal souls, and as the only literate people in a village or town (usually), they held huge power over day-to-day lives. Who was to challenge them?

Kelly

It's just shocking to me how the "trials" of a suspected witch were conducted.  It just boggle the mind!  I too was a bit disappointed that we never found out who was behind the charges against Margaret.