Though scientifically invalid, polygraphs function because subjects *believe* they work. This belief creates a self-sorting effect: those with something to hide are less willing to take the test, while the innocent are more willing. Information is revealed through the choice itself, not the test's results.

Despite their desperation, the Dauphin's court didn't blindly trust Joan. They subjected her to a rigorous vetting process, including a physical examination to confirm her virginity and a theological inquiry by scholars at Poitiers. This was a form of medieval due diligence to mitigate the immense risk of backing a fraud or heretic.

After months of defiance, Joan suddenly recanted at the sight of the execution pyre. She later admitted her reason was brutally simple: "I did it for fear of the fire." This reveals the immense psychological pressure she faced, framing her ultimate defiance as a return to her core identity despite the fatal consequences.

A systematic, four-part protocol systematically breaks down resistance to confession: Socialize (people will understand), Minimize (it's not a big deal), Rationalize (it made sense), and Project (it wasn't your fault). This process alleviates the core burdens of guilt, framing confession as an attractive path to relief.

Priests manipulating trials by fire was a feature, not a bug. A defendant's willingness to undergo the ordeal signaled their innocence to the priest. The priest, acting as 'God's instrument,' would then rig the test to ensure an acquittal, reinforcing the system's perceived divine legitimacy.

The justice system was not about proportional punishment but spiritual performance. An accused person faced a terrifying sentence, only to be saved by a powerful patron's intervention. This process of fear and mercy was designed to spiritually reform the sinner, mimicking divine judgment.

Asking, "Is there any reason [evidence] of you might exist?" creates a powerful dilemma for a guilty person. They must either lie and risk being proven a liar, or place themselves at the scene of the crime. An innocent person, by contrast, will answer quickly and without hesitation.

The presiding judge, Pierre Cauchon, went to great lengths to follow established inquisitorial rules. Knowing the trial would attract massive international attention, he aimed to create a legally sound verdict that would appear legitimate and unassailable to hostile observers, making it far more than a simple show trial.

Peter Leeson's theory that ordeals functioned via Christian belief is supported by a secondary fact: the system was not applied to non-believers. In medieval Europe, Jews were exempt from ordeals and judged by other means. This specific exclusion validates the core hypothesis that faith was the crucial mechanism.