RB 54

100 probable, indiciaproxima or remota. In general, the latter kind sufficed to proceed to inquisitio specialis.^^ As the author goes on, the circumstantial evidence is further divided into two groups: those applicable to all crimes {general indicia) and those specific to certain ones {special indicia). Here, Nehrman provides the reader with some examples of what he has in mind. Among the general indicia, at least the following could be counted; - someone has appeared at the scene of the crime without an acceptable explanation, especially if he or she first denies having been there and admits it only after his traces have been detected; - someone has accompanyed the suspects, - or has previously been found guilty of a similar crime, - hides or flees, - has obtained criminal instruments; - sometimes, when a person has been turned in by his accomplices, or - when someone is caught lying in court; - or when the accused becomes visibly scared or blushes in court, although the judge has to be careful when drawing conclusions from this, “for calmness can also result from sheer cold-bloodedness or inexperience in appearing before the court”; - or when there is an extra-judicial confession.*^ Special circumstances were specific for certain crimes only, such as witchcraft and murder. Nehrman gives examples of circumstantial evidence particular to murder: - someone is found with a bloody weapon at the scene of the crime, or with bloody clothes; - when someone has searched for the victimthe same day he was killed; - when the accused has always been eager to fight; - when he has sharpened his axe, which fits the wound on the victim; - when the suspect has, after committing the crime, gone to the widowto negotiate a compensation; - when he or she has threatened the victim; - or been in a quarrel with the victim; - or when the suspect has been seen to be bloody.'** The purpose of inquisitio specialis, for Nehrman, was to “bring the truth into the light of day, so that the guilty shall be punished and the innocent gain their freedom.”*'^ As is generally the case with the Roman-canon procedure. Nehrman refers to the wording of certain paragraphs: PS 4:1 {skiälig mistayicka, reasonable suspicion). Misdemeanour Section (fromnow on: MS) 27 and 52:2 {wdhn, roughly: circumstancial evidence). Ihid. p. 76. Ibid. pp. 79-83. Ibid. pp. 144-145. Ibid. p. 142.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=