The judge (Horkins) in this ruling told the witnesses that navigating this proceeding is “really quite simple”.
All he asks is that they “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
What happens when the truth isn’t that simple?
When trauma is involved, the truth— the reality of an experience, the story—is not clean cut. With trauma, the truth is never so simple.
A little psychoeducation, if you’ll bear with me:
Trauma memories do not have clear beginnings, middles, and ends.
This is not widely understood, and it needs to be.
When we experience trauma, our bodies and brains undergo an involuntary instinctual response that interrupts normal neuropsychological functioning.
Put simply, our brains often can’t physiologically encode traumatic memories in a linear or coherent fashion.
Our memories of trauma end up being without narrative organization and may be stored in a nonverbal realm of the brain.
Which makes it inherently problematic in cases like this where the outcome relies on the witnesses’ ability to recount the assault or trauma.
The judge is asking for something that our brains cannot physiologically accomplish under the weight of trauma. Continue reading