The Fourth Cardinal Result: Elvira?s Long-Lasting Absence of Memories of Sexual Abuse

The numerous interrogations and other events have provided detailed and comprehensive information about the development of Elvira's "memories". At a large number of exact dates it is fully verified that Elvira did not yet have any memories of any assaults.

Her anorexia therapist arranged a meeting for February 3, 1992. The documented participants were the therapist herself, both sisters, their mother and both their maternal grandparents, but not the father. There is no formal documentation as to whether Fanny Mollbeck was present. But Elvira had at that date been living alone with the Mollbeck family for some time; Mollbeck had a close relationship with the social services and Mollbeck was particularly eager to participate in every event involving Elvira's past life as well as her current ailments. It is therefore extremely improbable that she did not participate in this meeting.

We know from the documents that at that date Elvira stated that she had no recollections of sexual abuse.

When she started incest therapy, she understood that the proximate goal was that she should recall events of sexual abuse. It is documented that Mollbeck told Elvira not to say anything to Ingrid about sexual abuse. We may guess that Elvira was also told to conceal the nature of the treatment to her biological mother.

On 1992-02-29 Elvira met social worker SW-1 for the first time and had no recollections of abuse.

On 1992-03-07 she met the incest therapist for the first time and had still no recollections of abuse. This therapist stated in a police interrogation in June that in the beginning Elvira did not recount any concrete events, and whatever she said was cloudy and obscure. She said nothing about any recollections or even about any "images" until AFTER the first police interrogation, that is, after 1992-04-28. The incest therapist also stated that Elvira at a later date (which can only have been in May or June) had got "an image" of her father lying on top of her. "She had asked herself if it was possible that this could have happened" – a clear sign that she did not experience this image as a recollection.

On 1992-03-19 Elvira visited the general practitioner, accompanied by Mollbeck. Elvira felt much pain after a fall down a stairway. Until that date the doctor had suspected that Ingrid, but not Elvira, was an abuse victim. But now she learned that Elvira regularly received incest therapy, and that Elvira had no recollections of abuse. The general practitioner immediately enlarged her suspicion to comprise also Elvira. The next day she reported to the social services that both sisters had probably been abused by their father. She provided no evidence whatsoever to support her report.

On 1992-04-22 two other social workers, SW-2 and SW-3, made a house call at Mollbeck. Apparently, Elvira was at school at that time. I shall postpone most of what happened during this visit. But on the basis of Mollbeck's [manifestly false] claims about what Elvira had told her, the social services changed the nature of their work with this family. While they had until that date perceived the main problems of the daughters to be the mother's deafness and the father's bisexuality and unemployment, they now worked on the assumption that Elvira had been sexually abused.

1992-04-27 is the date when Elvira broke down at school. On the same day she talked with social worker SW-1. It is not clear if Mollbeck was present during this conversation. And if she was, we cannot be sure what allegations were put forward by Elvira herself, and which were merely "confirmed" by her (or possibly not even confirmed), after Mollbeck had "passed on" what Elvira had allegedly told her "previously". Be that as it may, four allegations were asserted at this meeting. (1) Elvira's father had had sexual intercourse with her "during all these years". (2) She had "an image" in which her father performed coitus with her, while Ingrid was sitting on the bedside. (3) She was convinced that her mother was aware of her father's assaults. (4) She believed that her father also abused other children.

On the very next morning (1992-04-28, at 08:15) SW-1 and SW-2 made a personal visit to the police station and reported Oswald. Their report includes the information that Elvira had procured young boys for her father's (alleged) homosexual paedophilia. This is an activity that Elvira has always denied, and the only person who has ever postulated such an activity is Mollbeck. Hence, if the latter activity was recounted while Elvira talked to the social workers on 1992-04-27, Mollbeck must have been present at this meeting, and she must have been the one who put forward this accusation. – On the other hand, if this claim was not put forward during this conversation, the social workers had mixed up what Elvira and Mollbeck, respectively, had said on different occasions. And this behaviour would be indefensible behaviour.

Note also the poor logic. If Elvira had procured young boys, how could she possibly have no more than a belief that her father abused other children

Elvira was interrogated by the police on the same day (1992-04-28) as the social workers reported the case. Still on this occasion and at that date she had no recollection of any sexual abuse. By contrast, she was absolutely sure that no assault at all had occurred during the last 5½ years, viz. after the family had moved from an apartment to a villa in September 1985. Elvira also delivered an explanation for the absence of abuse, viz. that after the move "we" were too old. "We" can only mean both Elvira and Ingrid

If no assaults had taken place after the move to the villa, and if Elvira did not recall any assault perpetrated before the move, her mother could not have been aware of any assaults recalled by Elvira. Nor could her father abuse other children in addition to abusing her. And we have already seen that Ingrid denied both the bedside event and any indecent behaviour of her father.

A few days after 1992-04-27 Elvira went to social worker SW-1 again and said that she had never been sexually abused. She also said that she had been pressurised to make false allegations.

After her retraction SW-1 took the position that a trial could not be based solely on Elvira's accusation. But because SW-1 was no longer eager to achieve a conviction at any price, she was strongly mobbed at her place of work, and had to quit her job. She also understood that she would be mobbed anywhere within the social services in Sweden. So she took a job in India. (At the request of Helena's defence counsel she came back to Stockholm and testified during the proceedings in 1994.)

Consequently, there is a large body of evidence confirming that Elvira had no recollections of any sexual assaults during the months of February, March and April of 1992, when she was repeatedly questioned by a number of professionals. In stark contrast to this, the father was already in September and November unanimously convicted by 11 (eleven) judges of two courts. And he was convicted both of having sexually abused Elvira, and of having hired her out as a prostitute at sex clubs. – The mother was convicted of the same crimes by the court of appeal, although she had been acquitted by the district court.

Note one further and important circumstance. During the four first police interrogations (1992-04-28, 1992-05-04, 1992-06-04, 1992-06-09) there is no trace of any of those crimes for which Oswald was convicted already on 1992-09-02. Instead there are accounts of such things that are comparable with the nail polish event and other similar events. These will be scrutinised in due course.







Next chapter

Uppdaterad: 2009-11-19

Yakida