In this blog and the next two ones, we look at memory focusing specifically on the complainant in court alleging that they were sexually abused.
We find through our extensive experience reading trial briefs disclosed by the prosecution including the complainant statement or child interview and many other pieces of documentary information that we study in the process of preparing for trial, that memory recall is often fuzzy, disjointed and apparent to anyone listening (juries) that the person giving the evidence is not truthful and cannot be believed.
In some cases we have complainant’s giving evidence about events that happened to them 10, 15 or even 30 years ago. The majority of complaints are unable to recall details and keep it simple in other words I speak in broad terms with little definition no context and unable to answer questions such as what were you wearing? Where were you at the time and so on. As I have said in previous blogs the best way to remember a lie is to keep it simple.
There are odd occasions when we are faced with the complainant alleging historical offending and she has almost a perfect perfect recall of things she says happened 10 or 20 ago. What you’re about to read is designed to provide some insight into the social science and psychology behind such patterns of behaviour as those patterns relate to memory. There are three blogs for you to consider.
The first is nature of memory the second deals with genuine traumatic memory and false reconstructed memory. The third is red flags that suggest memory is genuine and red flags to suggest that memories may be reconstructed or influenced.
Nature of Memory
Memory is reconstructive, not a recording. Our brains don’t store events like a video camera; they store fragments (sensory details, emotions, meanings) that are pieced together later.
Gaps are normal. Childhood memories are often incomplete, and traumatic ones may be especially fragmented.
Trauma and Memory
Fragmentation: Traumatic memories may be recalled in bits—smells, sensations, or images—rather than as a coherent story.
Intrusive recall: Sometimes they come back as flashbacks, dreams, or sudden emotional/physical reactions.
Suppression or avoidance: Survivors may push memories away, consciously or unconsciously, to protect themselves.
Developmental Factors
Childhood encoding: At age 7, cognitive and language abilities are still developing. A child may not have had the words to fully understand or describe what happened, which affects how the memory is stored.
Interpretation changes: As an adult, she may reinterpret those childhood experiences with adult understanding, which can shift how the memory feels.
Reliability and Problems
Fading over time: Memories can lose detail across decades.
Suggestion and reconstruction: Later discussions, therapy, or exposure to related stories can influence how a memory is recalled.
False memories: While most trauma survivors’ memories are genuine, memory is vulnerable to distortion—details may be added, misplaced, or misattributed.
Consistency issues: Survivors may remember different aspects at different times, which is normal for trauma, but can be perceived as “inconsistency.”
Emotional and Psychological Impact
Recall can be destabilising. Remembering childhood assault may trigger anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms, or physical reactions.
Delayed recall isn’t unusual. Some survivors only begin to consciously remember or process childhood abuse years later, often triggered by life events, therapy, or parenting their own children.
In short: memory of childhood sexual assault can be fragmented, reinterpreted over time, and vulnerable to both forgetting and distortion, but it can also remain very vivid and distressing decades later.
