I can’t remember the name, but there’s a documentary similar to this. It’s about two brothers. One gets into an accident and loses his memories. His brother helps him piece it together but omits one thing: Their mother pimped them out when they were young children to her friends frequently and was extremely abusive. He doesn’t want his brother to have to live with the memories of it like he does. And the brother knows something happened but he won’t tell him. They’re older too and it’s really heart breaking.

As far as the agent knows, the victim is not aware that the images exist, or that the abuse has taken place. “Now imagine that victim is you,” they ask the reader. “Would you want to be informed of the crimes and the existence of the images?”

… Yes.

Even if it’s not enshrined in law, people have the right to understand the circumstances of their life. You don’t know how they would handle giving consent in situations if they had the complete picture. You don’t know if there are unknown consequences like the transmission of some asymptomatic STD.

Not informing them is a continuation of the violence done to them. It robs them off the opportunity to understand, create accountability, and keep themselves and others safe. It robs us all of a complete investigation into the violence.

It really feels like there are better options than just assume she doesn’t know. Even of you think people shouldn’t be told if they didn’t know, which is complicated at best, you don’t think maybe a interview with a social worker would be smart? Instead of just assuming? Kinda seems like the bare minimum to me.

A horrific possibility I’d never really considered, but if nothing else, that assumption that turned out to be wrong seems entirely unnecessary…

Grotesque all around :(