Report 47  – The first witnesses take the stand

The first week following Ian Lundin and Alexander Schneiter’s testimonies marked the start of the questioning of the first witnesses. The first witnesses to be heard in court were Torun Lindholm, Professor of Psychology at Stockholm University and Anette Carnemalm, psychologist and psychotherapist, Head of the Red Cross Treatment Centre for Persons Affected by War and Torture. This week’s testimonies stood out in several ways. The individuals heard this week are not connected directly to any of the events or allegations of the trial itself, but they provided crucial insights into the complexities of memory, trauma, and PTSD, especially in the context of recalling traumatic events. Torun Lindholm offered a researcher’s perspective, focusing on the mechanics of memory and how external influences can shape it. In contrast, Anette Carnemalm shared a practitioner’s viewpoint, drawing on extensive experience working with individuals affected by war and torture. She discussed the impact of trauma on memory and the challenges of recounting such experiences.

Torun Lindholm – The ability to remember

The first witness called to the stand was Torun Lindholm, whose testimony spanned the morning session. During this time, the prosecution, the plaintiff‘s’ counsel, and the defense teams each had an opportunity to ask her questions. Following a witness oath, the prosecution began by outlining their focus for the hearing: they would ask questions regarding memory, particularly questioning whether it is possible for witnesses to recall events that took place over twenty years ago, especially those experienced under intense stress. The central themes of the hearing with Torun Lindholm focused on the complexities of memory, particularly in relation to traumatic events, and the factors influencing memory recollection. The hearing addressed several key areas, including the stability and malleability of memory, the effects of time and stress on recalling traumatic events, and the role of emotional memory. The hearing also explored how memory retrieval techniques, such as cognitive interviews, and external influences like group pressure or suggestive questioning, can impact memory accuracy.

Torun Lindholm is a Professor of Psychology, with a career spanning over 30-40 years. She is currently based at Stockholm University’s Department of Psychology, where she specializes in social psychology, particularly the study of memory and how people recall traumatic events. Throughout her career, she has held lectures for a range of professionals, including judges, prosecutors, and police officers. Her lectures focus on topics like the role of memory in witness testimony. Lindholm has also served as an expert witness in various trials, having testified many times on the subject of memory. Her research has consistently revolved around understanding how people remember distressing experiences, and the mechanisms by which these memories are encoded, stored, and retrieved.

The ability to remember

The first theme of the prosecution’s questioning was the complexities of human memories, particularly in relation to traumatic events. Torun Lindholm emphasized that while traumatic memories often stand out as more vivid and detailed, the basic structure of memory—whether the event is pleasant, neutral, or traumatic—remains the same. However, she explained that people typically retain central emotional elements longer – highlighting that people tend to remember the emotional core of an event, such as the face of a perpetrator, while peripheral details often fade away. She referred to research on Auschwitz survivors, noting that even many years later, survivors could vividly recall the central emotional aspects of their experiences, with 60-80% able to identify the perpetrators involved.

Lindholm also clarified that while memories tend to fade over time, emotional memories generally remain intact longer than neutral ones. However, when multiple traumatic events occur, it becomes more difficult to distinguish between them. She also noted that although memory deteriorates over time, emotional memories persist longer. Shortly after an event, people always remember events better, but if someone is traumatized, they may have trouble recalling memories. In cases of multiple traumatic events, memories can blur together, making it harder to separate them.

External factors

Next, the prosecution focused on how age, gender, and education influence memory retention. Lindholm explained that memory retention is sharpest between the ages of 10 and 20, and most people can recall memories starting from around the age of five or six. Regarding gender, she noted that women often perform better at facial recognition and may have an advantage in recalling episodic details, particularly after their 30s. In discussing the potential impact of education and illiteracy on memory, she explained that while education does not directly affect memory, people are more likely to retain information in areas where they have expertise or familiarity. However, she admitted that she had not directly studied the effects of illiteracy on memory, though she speculated that societal or cultural differences would not significantly alter memory processes.

When asked about the effect of talking to others who experienced the same event, she confirmed that it can sometimes distort memories. People might adopt details from others’ recollections, but central emotional memories are usually retained as people may incorporate details they’ve read or heard about. However, they still remember emotional events and a memory shouldn’t be disqualified just because a person has read about it.

The prosecution also asked questions concerning cultural differences in memory recall. Lindholm suggested that people from non-literate cultures might develop unique strategies for remembering events, which could sometimes be more effective. However, she could not provide definitive answers due to the lack of research on the subject.

Memory retrieval

In response to questions about memory retrieval techniques, Lindholm discussed the cognitive interview method, in which interviewees are encouraged to recount an event in detail without interruption. When asked about the influence of the interviewer’s language and knowledge of the event in question, Lindholm emphasized the importance of asking open-ended questions, as suggestive questioning could distort memories. She also discussed that being interviewed in a non-native language might complicate memory recall, though it doesn’t necessarily affect the accuracy of the memory itself. She stressed that it depends on the circumstances under which the memory is recalled.

Lastly, the prosecution asked about the effects of PTSD and aging on memory retrieval. Lindholm explained that people with PTSD do not forget their traumatic experiences but instead experience intrusive flashbacks. Although PTSD does not cause memory loss, it can make memories more disruptive and distressing. She noted that while age can lead to some memory decline, individuals often maintain sharp memories well into old age, though some decline is inevitable.

Defense cross examination

As the defense took over questioning, they challenged some of Lindholm’s conclusions, focusing on the malleability of memory. The defense’s questioning focused on the malleability of memory and the influence of external factors such as expectations, group pressure, and the retrieval process. The defense referenced Lindholm’s own research and article on memory distortion and asked her to elaborate on how external influences, like suggestions from family members or media, can implant false memories. Lindholm acknowledged that memory could be malleable, citing the “Lost in the Mall” study (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995), in which participants were convinced they had been lost in a mall, despite the event never occurring. She explained that such distortions are possible, particularly when external influences, such as a family member confirming the event, prompt individuals to accept fabricated memories.

The defense further referred to a study involving a razor blade and a drawing of a subway car (Allport & Postman 1947), in which details shifted as the image was passed along. In the study a drawing of a subway scene in which a person is holding a razor described by individuals in a chain. Over time, in many groups, the description altered, transferring the razor from the white man to the black man, who was sometimes portrayed as threatening. Lindholm explained that these shifts were a result of stereotypes but noted that the study’s design was incomplete and needed to test reversed roles for a conclusive result, meaning that more research would be needed to draw firm conclusions.

Impact of expectations and external factors

The defense raised the question of whether external expectations could influence memory. Lindholm agreed that expectations could shape memory recall but stressed that the influence depends on the context of the event and the circumstances under which the memory is retrieved. The defense raised concerns about whether external encouragement, particularly from prominent figures like religious leaders, could influence witness testimony, possibly referring to the defense’s belief that other plaintiffs or witnesses had been influenced in how they testified. Lindholm agreed that external encouragement could influence individuals, but once again highlighted the importance of understanding the circumstances surrounding how memories are retrieved before concluding that a memory is false.

The defense continued, questioning whether the involvement of a prominent figure, such as a religious leader, in identifying witnesses could create pressure on the witnesses that influences their memory recall. Specifically, they asked whether being prompted to address specific topics first—such as the oil, the road, and the attacks—could affect a witness’s memory. Lindholm confirmed that while external pressures, like those from trusted figures, could influence memory, it’s not safe to automatically assume that memories are false. She reiterated the need to carefully examine the context and circumstances in which the memory was retrieved.

In a related line of questioning, the defense asked whether group pressure or groupthink could distort memories, particularly during an investigation where a group might drive a particular narrative. Lindholm acknowledged that if a group agrees on a specific version of events and excludes those who disagree, the pressure could influence individuals, potentially distorting their memories. However, she again emphasized that it is crucial to assess how the memory was retrieved to determine whether group pressure played a role in distorting it.

The defense further inquired about the potential problems with filtering out individuals and interviewing them before they are selected to testify in a trial. Lindholm answered that it is essential to evaluate how the statement was obtained. For example, if a witness had been threatened, that would need to be considered when assessing the reliability of their memory. Lindholm consistently emphasized that while external pressures can influence memory, it is critical to examine the specifics of how memories were obtained before determining whether they are reliable or false. Memory recall is shaped by many factors, but not all memories should be assumed to be false by default. 

Conditions affecting the ability to recall

The defense continued by questioning how the timing of police interviews, particularly cognitive interviews, could affect memory recall. Lindholm emphasized that initial memories tend to be more accurate, and subsequent interviews can be influenced by external factors, including the conditions under which they were conducted.

The defense focused on the conditions under which memories are recalled. They began with raising the issue of contradictions and discrepancies in testimony, asking whether the conditions in court, such as the way questions are posed to a witness, could impact the credibility of memories. This seemed to be in reference to accusations of discrepancies between what some of the plaintiffs had said in police interviews and their subsequent testimonies during court hearings. Lindholm agreed that contradictions and discrepancies, particularly when central details differ between interviews, could be valuable in assessing the reliability of a memory but emphasized that the circumstances surrounding the recollection must be considered. She explained that while initial memories are often more reliable, she stated that factors such as age and the timing of the interview could also affect memory consistency. A well-conducted interview should help witnesses recall their memories accurately, though the effects of different questioning techniques are still a topic of ongoing research.

Lindholm also discussed the significance of a statement’s logical structure and the level of detail in evaluating memory. She stated that while the amount of detail is important, understanding how the statement was retrieved is crucial for determining its accuracy. Throughout the cross-examination, Lindholm consistently reiterated that while external factors can influence memory, the reliability of a memory cannot be determined solely by the presence of these factors. Each memory must be assessed individually, considering how it was retrieved and the context surrounding it.

The plaintiff’s counsel questions

During the plaintiffs’ counsels’ questioning, they addressed the role of interviewer identity and trust in memory accuracy. Lindholm explained that while there is no specific research on distrust, trust in the interviewer is crucial for optimal recall. She noted that individuals tend to recall memories more effectively when they feel they are not threatened by the person asking questions, though no clear research suggests that interviewers are inherently more or less reliable.

The plaintiffs’ counsel also inquired about the impact of pressure questions on memory. Lindholm affirmed that pressure could indeed disrupt memory retrieval, especially if the individual feels overwhelmed or traumatized. She highlighted that trauma could make it difficult for people to accurately recall when certain events occurred, even if the details of the event itself are remembered. She emphasized that waiting until the individual has calmed down before questioning is important for accurate memory recall.

Similarly to the prosecution, the plaintiffs’ counsel also asked questions regarding the relationship between education, societal context, and memory. Lindholm admitted to being unfamiliar with specific studies on this topic but suggested that in collectivist societies, people may have a better ability to recall events compared to individualist societies. Lastly, the counsel questioned the connection between emotional experiences and memory. Lindholm reiterated that emotional memories tend to be more easily recalled due to the intensity of the emotions associated with them. However, she acknowledged that, over time, recalling events from earlier periods becomes more challenging, even though the emotional core of the memory often remains intact.

Follow-up questions from the defense

Following the plaintiffs’ questioning, the defense had some follow-up questions about detecting dishonesty in testimony. Lindholm responded that there are no definitive signs of deception and that identifying when someone is lying based on their behavior alone is extremely difficult. She explained that, in cases involving non-traumatic memories, shifts in detail may indicate that a statement is less reliable. However, in cases of traumatic or emotional memories, the core details tend to be more firmly remembered, even if peripheral details are forgotten or altered. This does not necessarily mean the memory is false, as the emotional impact of the event preserves the central memory

Anette Carnemalm – The ability of individuals affected by PTSD to recall memories

The second witness to be heard was Anette Carnemalm, a psychologist and psychotherapist with a specialization in trauma. With over 20 years of experience in the field, she has worked extensively with individuals affected by war-related trauma, torture, and displacement. For the past decade, Carnemalm has served as the Head of the Swedish Red Cross’s treatment center for war victims, where she also conducts torture injury assessments. These assessments are governed by the Istanbul Protocol, a UN document that sets international legal standards for documenting and investigating allegations of torture and ill-treatment. Carnemalm has held lectures and participated in UN workshops focusing on trauma, torture, and PTSD, particularly with patients from conflict zones such as Ukraine, Syria, and the Western Balkans.  In her role at the treatment center, she encounters patients from various regions, including the Middle East, Africa, and the Western Balkans, many of whom have experienced torture, conflict, or forced migration. These individuals often struggle to recall specific details due to the nature of their trauma. 

The hearing was held during the afternoon session and the central themes were the impact of trauma on recollection of memory, long-term effects of PTSD, the various factors that influence how individuals remember traumatic events and the importance of creating a safe environment and using trained interpreters during interviews to ensure accurate and authentic memory recall for trauma survivors.

PTSD and memories

The judge Tomas Zander opened the hearing by explaining that the prosecution called Carnemalm to address the theme of the ability of individuals affected by PTSD to recall memories. Following the witness oath, the prosecution asked Carnemalm to elaborate on trauma and trauma treatment. When asked by the prosecution to define trauma, she described it as an event that evokes intense emotional reactions, often involving fear or violence. She clarified that while traumatic memories are generally more vivid and persistent than ordinary memories, they are still susceptible to alteration or influence, particularly in individuals with PTSD.  The prosecution followed up by explaining that some individuals in this trial have experienced armed attacks, been injured, or witnessed injuries to others. They then asked whether such traumatic events could result in PTSD, to which she responded affirmatively, explaining that PTSD can result from these types of experiences. 

When the prosecution inquired further about memory recall in relation to trauma, she elaborated on the distinctive nature of memories formed under stress. Traumatic experiences, she explained, leave a much stronger impression on the mind than everyday events. However, even these memories can become distorted or altered over time. She highlighted how some individuals respond to trauma with a fight-or-flight reaction, which can lead to tunnel vision. In these situations, only the most immediate threats—such as weapons—are vividly recalled, while other details, like time and location, may become hazy. This phenomenon, known as the “weapon focus effect,” is a common response to high-stress situations.

Anette Carnemalm also discussed the long-term effects of trauma on memory retention. While individuals tend to retain central themes of traumatic events over time, finer details may fade. She emphasized that the more intense and prolonged the trauma, the more likely the central memory will remain. However, PTSD can complicate the clarity and consistency of these memories. When asked about the ability to recall memories from events that occurred 20-30 years ago, she answered that the initial forgetting occurs shortly after the event, but the rate of forgetting slows as time passes. For example, patients she sees from the Western Balkans can recall violent events from the 1990s, but the specifics may blur over time.

Long-term memory retention

The prosecution questioned whether there are factors that can still influence memory recall after a long time, such as 20 years. Carnemalm explained that the more often an individual recalls a traumatic event, the better their memory will be. She noted that collective memory plays a role in how individuals recall past events, particularly major traumatic events that are shared by a group. These collective memories often become more ingrained and vivid as they are recounted over time, sometimes influencing an individual’s own recollection of their experience. She was then asked whether any factors could still influence memory recall after a span of 20 years. She explained that the frequency with which an individual recalls a traumatic event directly influences the clarity of the memory. Repeated recollections tend to reinforce memory retention, and collective memory—shared by a group—can also impact how individuals remember past traumatic events. These collective memories often become more vivid as they are recounted, sometimes reshaping an individual’s own recollection of their experience. Carnemalm also explained that late adolescence and early adulthood are typically times when people have the best memory retention. 

External factors

When asked about cultural factors affecting memory recall, Carnemalm pointed out that in societies with oral traditions or low literacy rates, memories are often shared collectively, shaping how events are remembered. These communal narratives shape how events are remembered. She also pointed out that gender differences play a key role, especially in societies where women occupy subordinate positions. Women who experience trauma, such as sexual violence, may be reluctant to share their suffering due to stigma or shame. For instance, a woman subjected to torture might minimize her experience, referring to it simply as “being a woman,” in an effort to protect herself and her family.

Carnemalm emphasized the importance of literacy and education in memory recall. She discussed how literacy and education significantly impact how people recall and express memories. Individuals with less formal education may struggle to articulate their trauma, often using different terms or descriptions to convey their experiences, especially in contexts where mental health is not openly discussed or understood. Cultural stigma and shame further complicate their ability to express the full extent of their trauma, as language may not adequately capture the emotions tied to traumatic memories.

She also stressed the importance of using open-ended, associative questions that allow individuals to speak freely about their experiences. She noted the importance of allowing contradictions and intervening when necessary to support the person as they process their memories. A critical component of this process, Carnemalm explained, is the use of trained interpreters. In her work with patients, she has seen firsthand how poor interpretation can distort the memory-sharing process, making it harder for individuals to communicate their experiences accurately. Accurate interpretation allows trauma survivors to access and express the words, emotions, and thoughts associated with their experiences. Given the complexity of trauma and the nuanced emotions involved, interpreters must be well-trained to navigate both linguistic and emotional challenges. Language, she stressed, is vital when discussing trauma—especially when expressing fear and distress in a second language. She explained that interpreting traumatic memories requires not just translating words but also conveying the emotions and thoughts behind them.

When asked about the necessity of creating a safe environment during interviews, she confirmed that the conditions under which a person recalls their trauma are crucial. To ensure that individuals can recount their experiences with authenticity, it is essential to create a setting where they feel secure and supported.

Cross-examination by the defense

The defense’s cross-examination of the witness was relatively brief, and they began by asking about the nature of PTSD and its relationship with memory. Carnemalm clarified that trauma refers to the event itself, while PTSD is the resulting mental health condition that requires therapeutic intervention. PTSD, she explained, heightens the emotional and psychological weight of traumatic memories, making them harder to recall with clarity.

The defense also raised questions about how to verify the truthfulness of statements made by individuals with PTSD. Carnemalm explained that, as a psychotherapist, her role is not to determine the truthfulness of a statement but to assess its consistency with medical and psychological evidence. When conducting torture injury assessments, she focuses on how an individual’s statements align with documented medical findings and the psychological impact of trauma, rather than making judgments about the truthfulness of the statements themselves.

Next report

The next report will cover the testimonies of witnesses Egbert Wesselink and Petter Bolme.