The other explanation for Bartleman's shocking claim.

To listen to commentators after James Bartleman delivered his stunning testimony at the Air India inquiry last week, only two conclusions could be drawn.

Bartleman told the inquiry that in June 1985, when he was director of security and intelligence at the Department of External Affairs, he saw raw intelligence stating that there would be an attack on the Air India flight from Montreal the following weekend and that when he took this to an RCMP officer, he was told, in effect, yes, we've already seen that -- now buzz off. In all the endless investigation of the crime, and the investigation of the investigation, not a hint of this story had ever been heard before. How on earth is it possible for such an important piece of information to suddenly surface 22 years later?

One possibility is that Bartleman is lying. This was immediately dismissed. The man has a sterling reputation, which is why he is lieutenant-governor of Ontario. Besides, he has absolutely nothing to gain. So let's take this off the table.

As the pundits saw it, that left only one conclusion: This really happened. And that is truly stunning. It means the Air India bombing could have been -- perhaps should have been -- prevented. The authorities didn't just botch the investigation and let justice slip away. They blew the chance to save all those lives.

Maybe that's true. I don't know. I do know, however, that it's wrong to say there are only two possible explanations here. There is a third possibility: The memory that Bartleman believes to be true may, in fact, be false.

Scientists' understanding of how memory functions has expanded massively in the last several decades, and what has been proved beyond doubt is that memory does not function as most people think it does. It is not a video recorder. It does not simply take our experience and put it in storage for later retrieval. Memory is an organic function of the brain, and like all organisms it is forever changing.
[Top]

"There's a pair of white gloves that live in my memory," wrote John Kotre in the introduction to his book on memory, White Gloves. "I can see them now, lying on top of some old clarinets in the cramped, dusty attic of my grandmother's house, back in the niche where the roof meets the floor. Nearby is a black clarinet with a cracked skin. The case itself is open and you can smell the must of its lining." The gloves belonged to his grandfather, Kotre explains, and they are deeply meaningful in his family.

But Kotre didn't know his grandfather, who died before he was born, and he never saw the white gloves. He had only been told of the gloves by his father. His memory -- detailed, precise, rich and vivid -- was entirely fabricated by his brain.

This is not at all an unusual story. Memories are forever shifting, evolving, transforming. Usually the changes are trivial, or at least inconsequential. When I went back to verify Kotre's story of the white gloves, I discovered that my own memory had changed so much that the story as I remembered it bore little resemblance to the story as I had read it.

But we can also invent memories about the gravest matters. In 1999, when the Associated Press investigated reports that American soldiers had massacred civilians during the Korean War, AP reporters spoke to Edward Daily, a veteran and author of three books about the unit believed to have been involved. Daily was more than co-operative. He confirmed the massacre and said the memories haunted him still. But as the reporters dug deeper, they discovered that while the massacre had happened, Daily had not been present. Daily was shaken.

"I still remember it vividly. But they are saying I was with a different company. I've seen their documents. How do you deny that?" he told AP. "I feel like I'm in a dream world."

Still more surprising was the reaction of soldiers who actually had participated in the massacre. Daily had called around and spoken with many as the reporters conducted their investigation. And in their memories, they saw Daily at the massacre. "I know that Daily was there," one insisted. "I know that. I know that."
[Top]

In 1993, Dutch psychologists devised a simple test to see how easy it would be to get people to fabricate memories. Ten months earlier, a plane had crashed into an Amsterdam apartment building, killing 43 people. It had been a huge news story. So the psychologists asked students if they had seen "the television film of the moment the plane hit the building?" Two-thirds of respondents said they had. They also recalled precise details such as the angle of the plane and its speed. This was quite an astonishing finding because, in reality, there was no film of the collision.

Major news events like the Sept. 11 attacks or the Columbine massacre have also been used in another simple test of memory. In the days after an event, psychologists ask first-year university students to write down the circumstances under which they heard what had happened. What were you doing before you heard? Who told you? How did you react?

Four years later, the same students are tracked down and asked to complete the same exercise. It should be easy. Everyone remembers where they were when they heard about the Sept. 11 attacks. That's the sort of experience that is etched into memory forever.

Or so we think. In fact, the students' accounts routinely change. Typically, the alterations are minor but they can also be quite dramatic.

The one thing that never changes is the reaction when people are shown that their current memory is flawed: They hate it. Some will even insist that it's the earlier account that's false. Memory is the foundation of our efforts to make sense of the world, and to be told your foundation is not nearly as solid as you imagine is frightening and unwelcome.

Now, I do not know if, as one of Bartleman's old colleagues testified on Monday, the lieutenant-governor's memory "is playing tricks on him." I am simply saying that memory is organic and it is quite possible for a memory -- even a memory as clear and vivid as Bartleman's -- to be wholly false.

Before we rush to judge and condemn, that possibility must be investigated.

You can contact Dan Gardner at the Ottawa Citizen.
E-mail: dgardner@thecitizen.canwest.com

Back to Columns

Home

Copyright © 2005  Dan Gardner
Website Design & Management by:  GRA Web Site Design Ottawa