sören koch 1547 which said that the testimony of a person who had been convicted for unethical behavior, was not to be trusted. On these grounds the woman was held not guilty, even though the first instance had come to the opposite result. In my studies of the witchcraft-trials in Finmark I found several comparable examples where the court of appeal acquitted women accused of witchcraft on rational grounds and often against the will of the local authorities.59 In another occasion an appellate judge acquitted a woman who voluntarily had confessed having killed her child directly after birth. This was a capital crime which, according to the applicable law, had to be punished by death.60 However, the appellate judge’s investigation revealed that there was no actual proof of a pregnancy or of the birth of a child and that it was more likely that the accused woman had mental problems. She was therefore acquitted of child murder, but punished for committing perjury.61 The abuse of the legal system in the witchcraft trials was probably also the reason why certain crimes related to the use of magic had to be appealed before the sentence could be executed.62 While more specific rules on that issue had existed previously,63 the Norwegian Code (Norske Lov) 59 See cases against Malena Jacobsdatter (23 June 1663); Ragnhild Endresdatter (25 June 1663); Marj Ollsdatter (25 June 1663). The first named woman was imprisoned again in 1671, even though she had been found not guilty by the lawman. The lawman reacted by not just ordering her release but at the same time by punishing the local deputy who had ordered the imprisonment. Also in 1680 was a woman acquitted by the predecessor of the lawman that had decided the former case; cf. Willumsen, fn. 57 p. 123 ff. For the critical position of the local magistrate regarding this new enlightened policy of the lawmen, see Lillienskiold, Hans H. 1695 p. 234 ff. 60 Cf. Norwegian Code (1687) bookIVchap. 6 § 7 [4-6-7]. 61 For more on this case see Falkanger, Aage Thor 2007 p. 128 ff. and for the problem of falsified confessions in general Sunde, Jørn Øyrehagen 2010b p. 205 f. Sunde refers here to a comparable trial that took place in 1776 (Ellen Kristoffersdatter) where an investigation of the convicted’s past had shown that she had a history of perjury related to fake pregnancies. A medical examination revealed that she had a rare physical condition that made her stomach swell from time to time so that it seemed reasonable to believe her to be with a child. 62 See Norwegian Code 1-22-53. 63 Cf. Kalundborg Recess of 1576 § 8. This provision contained a presumption that the evidence base was thin if an accusation comes from a person convicted of immoral behaviour. This presumption is no longer part of the Norwegian Code 1-22-53. 295
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=