189 was not holy for the JDS either, for there are thirteen cases in the material in which all of the instances convicted, even though the evidence presented was clearly deficient from the point of view of written law and the legal theory of proof. In all of these cases, the evidence is, to be sure, very convincing. In five cases, for instance, the crime has one eyewitness®^; in one, an oathless eyewitness was produced,®^ whereas one of the convictions was evidently based on a statement of a co-accused.®^ Matts Mattsson Ladvala, a farmer’s son, and Isaac Keltto were, at the Hundred Court of Isokyrö, charged with the killing of Jakob Keltto. Both of the accused refused to confess, but the prosecutor Nils Gustaf Polviander supported his charge with convincing evidence: he produced one eyewitness to be heard under oath, and as many as three oathless ones. All of them rather identically, testified to the guilt of the accused. All instances convicted both of the accused. (The Hundred Court of Isokyrö, March 29, 1830; the High Court of Vaasa, May 24, 1830; theJDS, April 14,'l831.)8® However, not all the cases of this group were clear. The following case will, without doubt, make legal practice, again, seem heterogeneous and disharmonious. In Uusikaupunki, Maria Sahlman, a fisherman’s wife, had been killed on the night between the 15th and 16th of May, 1850. The victimhad also been robbed of money and other belongings. Berndt Schauman, the prosecutor at the City Court of Uusikaupunki, charged Isaac Wahlgren, a carpenter’s apprentice, with the crime, presenting the following as his principal evidence: - when arrested, the defendant had been found with several belongings of the deceased; - regarding his whereabouts on the night of the killing, the accused had given information that later had proved false; - there were witness testimonies about a man who looked like the accused and had been seen near the site of the crime on the night in question; - bloodstains had been found on Wahlgren’s clothes, and he had given no credible explanation for them. Wahlgren was convicted in all instances to death and sent, after being pardoned by the emperor, to Siberia (The City Court of Uusikaupunki, July 4, 1850; the High Court of Turku, September 28, 1850; theJDS, June 27, 1851).®‘^ It may be assumed that the fact that the defendant was a wandering person and a criminal by lifestyle may have affected the courts’ eagerness to depart from the rules of proof - the Wahlgren case is by no means a typical nine8-“’ Saari - Johansson - Sandala, pag. 156/1830; Matts Ladvala, pag. 231/1830 (see below); Feodoroff, pag. 136/1835; Salo, pag. 369/1844; and Yli-Kertula, pag. 3/1846. 8'’ Israelsson, pag. 112/1850. 87 Forssell, pag. 122/1851. 88 Pag. 231/1830. 8“^ Pag. 268/1851.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=