THE first question raised is what should be done if, as is generally the case, the denounced person denies everything. The response is that the judge has to consider whether or not three things – bad reputation, the indications of the deed, and the statements of the witnesses – all point in the same direction. If they do, this is generally the case because sorceresses are immediately branded with a bad reputation because of crimes in some village or city. Indications of the deed are obvious, for instance in the form of children affected by sorcery or domestic animals, which are quite often diseased or deprived of milk. The number of witnesses is also written down. Although the witnesses are individual, one for instance making a deposition that she affected his son with sorcery, the second saying this of a domestic animal, the third mentioning bad reputation, and so on with other instances, they nonetheless agree on the essence of the deed, that is,|on the subject of acts of sorcery and the fact that the sorceress is suspect. These witnesses are not sufficient for condemnation in the absence of a bad reputation or even with it, as was discussed above in Question Three, but with the addition of indications of the deed she could, on the basis of these three elements together, be considered to be not a strongly or violently suspected sorceress (about these suspicions there will be an explanation below), but to be manifestly caught in the Heresy of Sorceresses, provided that suitable witnesses (ones not acting on the basis of enmity and sufficient in number, for instance six, eight or ten) coincide under oath. Consequently she would be subject to the penalties in Chapter “Ad abolendam” § “Praesenti” (“Heretics”) and in the second Chapter “Excommunicamus” (whether she has confessed the crime or not).