These occur in almost all reported trials of witches. The two types of mark were often confused, and many used the two terms interchangeably throughout the persecutions. Even some modern day historians make no distinction.

The devil’s mark resembled a scar, mole, birthmark or tattooing, whereas the witches mark was defined as a protuberance on the body from which the familiars were supposed to suckle.

The theory surrounding devil’s marks was that they were a type of ‘branding’ by the devil, much like a rancher brands cattle.

One of the main methods for determining whether a woman was a witch was to prick her. The theory of pricking was linked to devils marks. If none of these marks was visible on a suspected witch, then they were assumed to be invisible, and the witch was pricked anyway.

Pricking involved sticking a long pin into the skin, and if there were a devil’s mark present, then no pain would be felt and no blood would run out.

Here is an account of a typical pricking, carried out an a woman named Michelle Chaudron, of Geneva, and took place in Switzerland in 1652. Michelle was accused of causing two girls to feel continual itching in parts of their bodies.

However, the practise of pricking was soon brought into disrepute by prickers falsely identifying witches to collect money. One unidentified pricker was called to Newcastle by the magistrates there, and to be paid "twenty shillings a piece for all he could condemn as witches, and free passage thither and back again."

Thirty women were tried by him, he condemned twenty-seven of them. As a result, one man and fourteen women were executed. Due to his success, the pricker went to Northumberland, increasing his charges to three pounds for each witch convicted. Ralph Gardiner was responsible for producing a pamphlet condemning the practice, and of this unnamed pricker, he writes:

This man may well have used one of the ‘false bodkins’ which had a hollow shaft and a retractable blade.

These were the steps of torture used in witchcraft trials:

1. Preparatory torture. To force a confession of guilt. Methods: Stripping, threatening, binding, whipping, thumbscrews, stretching on rack or ladder. (In court records this torture was often not reported, and the accused was said to confess voluntarily.)

2. Final Torture. To force confession in cases of taciturnity, and to force naming of accomplices, who, having been defamed could then be tortured:

1. Ordinary torture, Method: strappado

2. Extraordinary torture, Method: squassation

3. Additional Tortures for special offences. To cause agony in retribution. Methods: cutting off hands or legs; tearing of flesh with red-hot pincers

4. Occasional tortures used at individual prisons. To satisfy sadism of judges or hangmen. Methods: no limit fixed to barbarity, e.g. pressed to spiked chair with fire underneath, scalding water baths etc.

5. Execution. Methods: Burning by fire. Possibility of strangulation before burning if accused did not recant, otherwise burning alive. According to religion, accused tied to stake, placed in straw hut or set on barrel of pitch. Green wood used for slow burning of impenitent witches. Occasionally, desecration of body before burning by smashing on wheel or hacking of limbs.