Imperfect memory is not proof of dishonesty: Frank Stronach trial

Frank Stronach (screengrab from CBC The National via youtube)

We are closely following the sexual assault trial of Canadian billionaire businessman Frank Stronach, and we need to address what we are hearing in that courtroom so far.

Earlier this week, the trial heard from the fifth victim-complainant testifying against Stronach in this trial. There are seven total.

This is a historic sexual assault trial with some of the allegations dating back decades - so memory is a key factor at this trial.

During cross-examination, Stronach’s defence counsel Leora Shemesh referred to inconsistencies in the victim-complainant’s recall of events.

"I'm going suggest to you what you were really upset about is that you didn't get the relationship or the love that you were looking for.”
(Defence)

"No, I was devastated and upset about what he did to me. He violated me.”
(Victim-complainant)

“She must be lying” is a discredited rape myth.

The narrative that women lie about or later reinterpret the details of sexual assault because they feel rejected, regret or emotional dissatisfaction is a longstanding and debunked rape myth. There is no credible body of research that supports that framing.

By contrast, decades of established research show that when we’re faced with a perceived threat or trauma, the brain’s defence circuitry takes over, putting us in “survival mode”. This affects the way we respond in the moment, and also affects how memories are encoded and later recalled.

For this reason, those who have been through a perceived threat or trauma - including sexual assault complainants - often have memory gaps and inconsistencies that they can’t explain, and might give statements and testimony that sounds inconsistent.

These reactions are normal and often predictable. But at sexual assault trials it almost always results in the victim-complainant being accused of dishonesty and manipulation.

This trauma can also cause confusion that leads victim-complainats to delay reporting what happened to them, and blaming themselves for what happened. This is also used against them at trial.

Power imbalance is another layer that shapes whether someone comes forward — and when.

When allegations involve individuals like Frank Stronach with a lot of wealth, status or influence, the barriers to reporting are not minor. The potential for loss of reputation and livelihood, direct or indirect retaliation and potential public scrutiny all weighs heavily well before someone ever steps into a courtroom.

To be blunt: no one remembers events from 20, 30, or 40 years ago like a crystal clear video recording.

That applies to complainants and accused alike. Human memory is imperfect and trauma can preserve core experiences while minor background details fade or shift over time. That is established science.

But when courts talk about credibility in historical cases, they must do so with a realistic understanding of how memory works and not with the false expectation that a perfect memory exists decades later.

Imperfect is not, on its own, proof of dishonesty.

We are not commenting on guilt or innocence. It’s about the familiar patterns that we see every day in both high profile and non-high-profile sexual assault cases.

Sexual assault trials must focus on evidence and consent and not stereotypes or outdated rape myths about how a “real victim” should behave, feel, or when they choose report.

We must do better than repeating these myths in our courtrooms.

We are watching, and we will continue to call out systemic bias when we see it.

- Beyond The Verdict