The Closing Case Of Giles Corey V. Putnam

I am here today to defend my client, Thomas Putnam, who has allegedly been sending his daughter, Ruth, out to falsely accuse neighbors of witchcraft. The reason, as declared by Giles Corey, is to buy off his convicted neighbor’s land in order to expand his estate. However, I am here to refute these inadequate claims with the clear and defined truth. Nevertheless, I will not claim that my client, Mr. Putnam, is a complete saint as he (and with numerous others) has his flaws. Yet, with Mr. Corey raising these erroneous claims, I will not stand here and let his faulty and inaccurate logic falsely persuade the jury. In examining his testimony, I am hoping you all will see the reasonable doubt that is so glaring to me. As far as witchcraft goes,

Putnam was neighbors with the man whom his daughter accused of witchcraft. Mr. Corey’s so called “source” claimed that Mr. Putnam was using his daughter in order to steal land. Nonetheless, it would make sense for Mr. Putnam to mention his neighbors, being they are the closest to his abode and family. During these times, it is apparent that anyone can be a witch, and that includes neighbors. Thus, in mentioning names, Putnam should name neighbors as possible culprits as he should want to protect his family. Mr. Putnam clearly wants the town of Salem to be clear of witches. This is evident when he presses Reverend Parris to recognize witchcraft so a witch hunt may commence. After all, he believes that a witch has put him through the hell of losing seven children. With his own daughter acting strangely now, Mr. Putnam would indubitably wish that the town kill any and all witches in fear that he may lose another child. Per contra, many in the town know my client for his greed and thirst for land. During the disputes he had with Mr. Proctor, one can pick up on his passion for land. Such is the reason why some, like Mr. Corey, are subject to believe greed has something to do with the recent conviction of his neighbor. Alas, despite my client’s flaw, it is purely a false accusation being that other claims hold more factual truth. Such a claim being the one aforementioned, where he wants to protect his only living daughter from the forces of evil. Truly, Mr. Putnam wants to have a distinct providence over him and his family. Therefore, the jury must see and justify his actions. In no way was Mr. Putnam using his daughter for malpractice, but rather he wants the best for himself and his family by calling out possible