What exactly was the object alleged to have caused N’s injury?

In the materials reviewed in this case

In the materials reviewed in this case, the physical object at the centre of the alleged throwing incident is surprisingly difficult to identify with precision.

It appears under different descriptions: tikkaat (ladder), keittiötikkaat (kitchen ladder), jakkara (stool), and a stool-like or IKEA object. In the pre-trial record, N described a heavy kitchen ladder weighing approximately 10 kg and said that he had made it himself from real oak. In the court account, the object is described differently.

Imagine a criminal case in which the prosecution says: “This particular object was thrown, it hit the victim, and it caused the injury.” A basic question immediately follows: What particular object?

Not “a ladder.” Not “a stool.” Not “an IKEA jakkara.” Not “a kitchen ladder.” Not simply “the thing that hit the leg.” Those words may describe an allegation at different stages, but they do not by themselves establish the physical identity of the alleged instrument.

In the material reviewed here, the terminology changes:

• the pre-trial record describes keittiötikkaat — a kitchen ladder;
• N describes it as heavy, approximately 10 kg;
• he says in the pre-trial record that he made it himself from real oak;
• the court account uses tikkaat/jakkara and describes the object as stool-like;
• the court narrative also refers to an IKEA-type object.

These are not merely different translations of one perfectly identified object. They raise a preliminary forensic question: was the physical object itself ever identified with enough precision that an independent reader could know exactly what object the evidence is talking about?

This is especially important because the case contains a photograph of N’s leg injury. A photograph of an injury identifies the injury. It does not, by itself, identify the instrument that allegedly caused it.

Those are two different evidentiary questions:

The first question can potentially be answered by a photograph. The second cannot be answered merely by showing the photograph of the bruise.

What would allow a reader to identify the object?

A reader should be able to look at the case materials and say: “Yes. This is the exact object alleged to have been thrown.”

A sufficiently clear evidentiary identification should allow the reader to understand its form, dimensions, material, construction, approximate weight, distinguishing features, location and—where relevant—how it was documented, preserved or examined.

Not every object in every criminal case must necessarily be seized, fingerprinted or subjected to laboratory testing. The law does not turn every household item into mandatory forensic evidence. But when a specific physical object is relied upon as the alleged instrument by which the charged injury was produced, the investigation must provide a sufficiently clear basis for understanding what object is being relied upon and what evidence connects it to the alleged act. Finnish pre-trial investigation law requires the investigation to clarify the suspected offence, its circumstances and the damage caused, and to take into account evidence both against and in favour of the suspect.

That is the gap this audit examines.

The legal standard: an investigation must establish the facts, not construct a story

This object-identification problem is not merely a matter of editorial neatness. It has to be examined against the legal duties governing a Finnish criminal investigation.

In this case, if the alleged mechanism of injury is a particular physical object being thrown at N’s leg, the identity and circumstances of that object are directly relevant to the alleged offence and its consequences.

These provisions reinforce the basic principle: the State’s investigative power is justified by the need to clarify the case, not by the need to preserve a preferred narrative once an accusation has been made.

What these provisions mean for the unidentified object

None of these provisions says that every household object must automatically be seized, fingerprinted or sent to a laboratory. We should not claim that.

What they do establish is more fundamental: the investigation must clarify the suspected offence, its circumstances and the damage; it must examine evidence both against and in favour of the suspect; and the suspect must be treated as innocent while that investigation is conducted.

Therefore, when the alleged mechanism of injury depends upon one specific physical object, the obvious forensic questions cannot simply disappear:

The missing evidentiary link

The allegation requires more than the existence of a bruise. The evidentiary chain would have to connect:

The fact that N attributed the object to TG is evidence of his account. It is not, by itself, independent physical evidence that TG handled that particular object.

What the record says about the throw

In the recorded testimony, N ultimately answered the direct question whether he had seen TG actually throw the object with: “En nähnyt sitä” — “I did not see it.”

He then explained his attribution as an inference: the object struck his leg; he looked up; TG was standing on the upper landing with a cleaning brush; therefore, in his view, it was logical that she had thrown it.

The court itself did not state that N had directly seen the throw. Its wording was qualified: he had not “properly” or “exactly” seen the throwing situation. That distinction matters because direct observation and inference are different evidentiary propositions.

The physical object and the physical scene

N also pointed to a location in the police photograph and said: “Отсюда она бросила” — “She threw it from here.”

That statement identifies a proposed throwing point. It does not independently establish the object’s identity, its position at the relevant moment, or the trajectory of the alleged throw.

The scene itself raises questions that can be tested only through the physical evidence: the partially obstructed doorway, the narrow passage, objects and barriers near the entrance, and the confined upper landing.

The forensic question is therefore not simply whether a heavy object could cause a bruise. It is whether the particular object described in the evidence could have travelled from the particular point identified by N, through the documented scene, and struck the particular part of his leg in the manner alleged.

The forensic identification checklist

Before relying on the object as a physical link in the chain of proof, the record should make its identity and evidentiary status clear.

The simplest possible problem

Here is the problem in first-grade language:

There is a photograph showing that the person has a bruise.

But then ask:

If those questions cannot be answered from the evidence, then the evidentiary chain has a missing physical link.

The central forensic question

The issue is therefore not whether a heavy household object could cause a bruise. Of course it could. That is not enough.

The issue is whether the case establishes the complete chain:

N’s statement may provide evidence about what he says happened. His pointing to a place in a police photograph may provide evidence about where he believes the throw originated. But those statements should not be silently converted into independent physical facts.

That distinction is the heart of the object-identification problem.