177 could not be cleared, and the Hundred Court’s new decision (March 19, 1850) was substantially identical to the former one. In the decisional grounds, however, no reference to the “concurrence” of the witness statements is made. The High Court (May 4, 1850) and the JDS (November 6, 1850) let the decision stand; for the High Court the case was proven “with full proof” and for the JDS, it was “legally proven. ’M’ Oathless Witnesses, Dubitable Witnesses, Auricular Witnesses According to the Lawof 1734, witnesses heard without oath - such as minors and relatives — could not, no matter how large their number, constitute full proof; their statements, even when based on a personal observation, were legaily considered as mere circumstantial evidence. According to Wrede, at the end of the century, the significance of oathless witnesses was that, by way of their testimonies, it was sometimes possible to trace evidence conducive to full proof."*^ The case material from the era of legal proof shows, indeed, that oathless witnesses were, in legal practice, normally not considered to make up full proof.'*'* Sometimes, however, together with a formally valid eyewitness or other strong evidence they could constitute full proof — which was again basically contrary to the PS of 1734. When farmer’s son Matts Ladvala was accused of the killing of Jacob Keltto, only one eyewitness was heard under oath and four - minors - without oath. The accused was convicted in all instances.'*^ Numerous extensions and reservations were thus made to the rule requiring two witnesses or confession as the basis of a conviction. However, sometimes the creative attitueJe worked the other way as well; there are cases in which the court has acquitted the accused even though the minumumlegal requirement of proof has been met. In these cases, the credibility of the witness testimonies has been assessed and deemed dubitable. The case of Matts Jylhä goes to show this. In the Hundred Court of Pirkkala etc., on March 24, 1819, and the High Court of Turku, June 21, 1819, Jylhä had ■*- Pag. 208/1850. See also Tasala, pag. 273/1829; Nikkincn, pag. 321/1829; Ponkinen, pag. 156/1830; Forssberg, pag. 329/1834; Blomster, pag. 90/1839; and John, pag. 524/1840. The JDS was, however, stricter in Sundblom, pag. 271/1829. In this case, the two witnesses saw the accused approach the victim’s bed and strike “intothe bed” (“inJt sängen”); immediately after this, the victim began to veil and died soon. The lower instances convicted, but the JDS decided for confessional imprisonment. In tact Wrede did not consider persons heard without oath witnesses at all; instead their statements had an “informative” character. Wrede 1910 pp. 212-213. See Kolpanen, pag. 123/1823; and Petelius, pag. 391/1835. Ladvala, pag. 231/1830; also Rekola, pag. 148/1830; and Jaakola, pag. 1 17/1835. In the case of Määttänen, pag. 199/1830, the accused was sentenced to death by the first instance only; the higher courts settled for absolutio ab instantia.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=