The first thing worth considering is that the Europeans on the continent did not find the elements you're describing as "wacky" at all. They were genuine experiences thought to have occurred; there were certainly skeptics, but it hinders our understanding if we start partitioning off elements of witchcraft trials that make little sense to us. You're right to suggest elements like flying tested belief, and there were some demonologists in the Holy Roman Empire who targeted that aspect of witchcraft in their criticisms (Roper, Witch Craze: Terror and Fantasy in Baroque Germany, p. 104). One of the staples in English witch hunts was the animal familiars or imps that were used as evidence of consorting with the devil, and included in confessions (Gaskill, Witchfinders, pp. 29, 107-108). The appearance of children or animals acting as minions of the devil who sucked blood from the teat of a witch, is a similar power to the ones you describe.

Next, there were prohibitions on torture in England to extract confessions in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For example, the 1747 interrogation of suspected witch Magdalena Bollmann, where needles were inserted around her genitals, has no English counterpart (Roper, Witch Craze, p. 49). However, the English courts did legally use torture, it just was not a regular aspect of criminal procedure (Langbein, Torture and the Law of Proof, pp. 73-74). If we expand our definition of torture from the rack or thumbscrews to include severe mental and physical duress, then English witch hunts certainly included torture. The most famous examples are the East Anglian hunts by Matthew Hopkins in 1645-7, where it was common to deprive accused withes of sleep, "run" them (i.e. force them to run, stressing their bodies and preventing them from sleeping). Other incidents include the ordeal by water, which was illegal but still practiced by unlicensed hunters (Gaskill, Witchfinders).

A note on English legal procedure - the adversarial criminal trial was an invention of the 18th century. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the people involved in a criminal trial were the judge and the accused. The victim in the crime would be called as a witness, not as a party against the accused person. The idea was that a person's innocence or guilt could be determined by simple question and answer, and the attestations of the witnesses. In the eighteenth century after the majority of the problematic witchcraft trials (Langbein, Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial; Idem, "Historical Foundations of the Law of Evidence", Columbia Law Review, 1996, pp. 1168-1202). The impression that England always had adversarial trials comes from unrepresentative examples in Cobbett's State Trials, and popularized trials held by Hopkins, and the Salem trials. But even in these cases, the one who seems to be playing the role of a plaintiff's attorney is actually a judge. Hopkins was unique in his constant appearances in the court room, but he was always an expert witness, not a lawyer.

Lastly, you are right to suggest that the Devil's Sabbath, cannibalism, and sex with the devil were not integral parts of English witch trials. The sources for the Lancashire witch trial of 1612 do make mentions of something like a Sabbath, but nothing with the detail of their continental counterparts (Sharpe, Instruments of Darkness, pp. 75-78). To my knowledge, there is no scholarly consensus on why English witch craft trials failed to include elements of the Devil’s Sabbath, infanticide and cannibalism. Part of the answer is that there were simply less witch craft trials than on the continent. Sharpe argues that English witch hunts were more “individualistic” than continental witches, as in the witches were more isolated and thought to act alone, rather than in a coven (though Salem is an obvious exception). England also simply had less witch hunts and trials than Europe. The Hopkins trials from 1645-1647 saw about 100 people executed, and was the largest in English history. In comparison, the town of Bamberg saw 600 executions for witchcraft between 1623-1633 (Roper, Witch Craze, p. 15). A final suggestion is that in England, a witch trial was an abnormal occurrence; it was a sign that the normal means of maintaining the peace in a town or county had failed. In Europe, witch trials were a part of the cultural milieu – as Roper suggests, in many places there were 1-2 witch trials a year. Within the continent, there were more suspected witches, more extensive daemonologies, and a greater cultural obsession with witchcraft. In fact, the moments where items like the Devil’s Sabbath occur in English literature, scholars argue that these were imported ideas from Europe or perhaps Scotland, rather than indigenous.

Hopefully this helps clarify English witch hunting and trials, though I recognize the answers are somewhat unsatisfactory.

*Note - All references to Roper are to Lyndal Roper, not Hugh Trevor-Roper, whose works on witchcraft in England are suspect.