175 It was through the permissive attitude toward confession as a method of proof that courts, in the era of legal proof, allowed themselves somewhat more latitude. This is one of the points in which the shift fromthe legal theory of proof to the free evaluation of evidence is seen to be gradual and less abrupt than may have been assumed. Thus, in the case material of this study, the practical importance of circumstances supporting confession, required by law, is meager. Since there was no lawful requirement as to what kind of circumstances were necessary, any evidence that could be taken to render a confession credible sufficed in practice. Witnesses In the legal theory of proof and the Law of 1734, in addition to a confession, full proof could consist of statements of two “classical,” concurring witnesses.The wording of the law is not clear as to whether the two witnesses are required to have personally seen (or heard) what they testify about. This is, however, clear in both Swedish^^ and the ins commune^'^ doctrines: should it be allowed that full proof consists of “two concurring witnesses” testifying about circumstantial evidence, the essential strictness of the statutory theory of proof would be deprived of most of its meaning. In practical decision-making, however, the basic rules governing the requirement of two eyewitnesses caused a need for further definitions. According to the law and the legal literature, the two statements had to be “concurring.” Did the statements need to be identical, or was it sufficient that they correspond to each other as to their essential elements? Was hearing a crime take place comparable to an eyewitness perception? In the following, I shall seek to explain how these questions were answered in the Finnish legal practice during the era of legal proof. The Requisite of Concurrence The case material shows that the demand of concurrence between witness statements was, in the era of legal proof, relaxed and limited to the essential elements of the statements. In many cases, the statements have been identical, so that no question as to their concurrence probably arose in the first place. The original similarity of statements is, however, sometimes difficult to assess. -''7 “Tvd sammanstämmiga vittnen," PS 17:29; Nchrman 1759 pp. 176-177; and Levy 1939 p. 69. Nehrman 1751 p. 244; see also Calonius 1813 p. 61. Levy 1939 p. 71. See, for example, Henric Mattsson Norrback, pag. 211/1829; and Simon Feodoroff Bajarincn, pag. 180/1850.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=