176 This is because courts tended only to refer to former statements in the same case when the statements were considered similar enough instead of recording witness statements in their entirety. In the writings of Nehrman, the requirement of witness concurrence was, in theory, clear: the statements had to be similar as to their essential elements; insofar as “side elements” {“biomständigheter”) were concerned, no complete agreement was, however, required. In legal practice, this requirement, however, was interpreted permissively. Sometimes, even as to essential elements of the crime, no concurrence was requested. It appears that, in the first place, to have the two eyewitnesses was considered of paramount importance. The details of the statements as to the number of blows or whether the wrongdoer had a weapon or not have often been deemed of secondary significance. The practical Importance of eyewitnesses is demonstrated by the frequent attempts by the accused to disqualify them. The second conclusion to be made on the basis of the case material has, again, to do with the phrasing of the decisions. In a number of doubtful cases in which there remained important differences between witnesses, a lower court’s referral to the concurrence {“sammanstämmighet”) between statements has been erased in the upper instances, although the result of evidentiary evaluation has not necessarily changed. Farmhand Johan Jacobsson Salobacka had on the 23rd of September 1849 gotten into a fight in which he had been slain. For the crime, farmers’ sons Eric Henricsson Präst and AbrahamJacobsson Korfbacka stood charged. Because of their state of drunkenness at the time of the crime, the accused could not remember anything of the incident, but both assumed themselves innocent. Three eyewitnesses had seen the occurrence; their testimonies were not, however, thoroughly concurrent. According to Susanna Hede, Korfbacka had hit the vietimon the head with a piece of wood, and Präst, with a w'ooden log, on other parts of the body. Maria Hede asserted that Präst had hit Salobacka “on the body” with the w'ood, whereas Elisabeth Kunters claimed to have seen Korfbacka strike the victimon the head with his fist. In addition to that, Kunters had seen Präst standing beside Salobacka, wTo was lying on the ground, with a piece of wood in his hand. Elisabeth Kyhr, heard without oath, had seen Korfbacka strike Salobacka on the head with a piece of wood and Präst hit the victimon the body with a similar weapon. As for Präst’s culpability, there were, thus, three concurrent testimonies. On the contrary, the testimonies on Korfbacka differed as to the weapon he had used. The Hundred Court, however, pronounced both of the accused guiltv on the basis on the “concurrent testimonies triven bv the witnesses heard under oath.” The High Court of Vaasa returned the case for a new trial, paying special attention to the differences betw'een the testimonies of Susanna Hede and Kunters and to the fact that Maria Hede and Kunters appeared not to have undertaken their observations simultaneously. In the new trial, however, the discrepancies •" See, for instance, Kattilakoski, pag. 104/1825. 41
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=