2021 Judicial Reform Summer Film List | Iceland: Out of Thin Air

"Out of Thin Air" is an Icelandic documentary about a miscarriage of justice, chronicling a well-known wrongful-conviction case in Iceland in 1974. The documentary opens with an aerial view of a vast, barren expanse of ice. That desolate landscape introduces the case's most poignant theme: memories can emerge from nothing, and human memory is fragile and unreliable.

Repeated Interrogations, Solitary Confinement, and Confused Memories

The case began in 1974, when six people came under suspicion in connection with two disappearances. Investigators found no relevant evidence. Yet in Iceland's relatively close-knit society at the time, the bizarre disappearances, amplified by sensational media coverage, caused widespread fear and anxiety. Under intense pressure from public opinion and their superiors, police adopted increasingly aggressive investigative methods.

Police used psychological coercion and improper interrogation techniques against the six suspects. Sævar was interrogated 180 times, for a total of 340 hours, and held in solitary confinement for 615 days; prison guards even exploited his fear of water by repeatedly forcing his head into a sink. Erla was interrogated 105 times and held in solitary confinement for 241 days, while Tryggvi spent as many as 655 days in solitary confinement. These abuses ultimately distorted the six individuals' memories and led them to confess to events that had never occurred. The six were later convicted on the basis of those confessions. Sævar received the longest sentence-17 years-and died without ever having cleared his name of this "unfounded" crime.

Source|Netflix

Seeing Reality Through the Documentary

Interviews are the documentary's principal storytelling device. Erla, one of those wrongfully convicted, guides viewers step by step back to the time of the events and the circumstances surrounding the case. Because there is no actual footage of the improper interrogations in prison, the film uses actors to reenact the recollections described by those involved, giving viewers a visual point of reference from which to imagine what happened.

In addition to revisiting the investigation, the film documents the long road to exoneration. Most poignant is Sævar's story: after his release, he repeatedly proclaimed his innocence in the media and pursued legal remedies, but none cleared his name. Only after his death did a journalist uncover new evidence and the Ministry of Justice establish an investigative committee, opening the way for a retrial. In September 2018, the High Court of Iceland overturned the convictions and acquitted all six. The miscarriage of justice was finally rectified after 44 years-but Sævar did not live to see it.

Was such a tragedy unique to Iceland in 1974? Perhaps not. The documentary notes that each defendant accumulated nearly a hundred interrogation records, suggesting prolonged efforts to piece together statements through improper questioning. This recalls Taiwan's still-unredressed Chiu Ho-Shun case. The reenacted torture scene in which Sævar's head is forced into water also calls to mind the Su Ping-Kun and Kuo Chung-Hsiung cases. Around the same period, Taiwan's Li Shih-Ko robbery case also led to the wrongful accusation of taxi driver Wang Ying-Hsien, who was tortured by the investigative team and forced to confess. While police were taking Wang Ying-Hsien to locate the tools used in the crime and the stolen money, he jumped from Xiulang Bridge into the Xindian River, taking his own life to affirm his innocence. Soon afterward, the real robber, Li Shih-Ko, was arrested and Wang Ying-Hsien was vindicated, but his life could not be restored.

Have We Moved Far Away from These Wrongful Convictions?

In the documentary, senior police officials and judicial personnel, under pressure from public opinion and sensational media coverage, assumed from the outset that the six were responsible for the disappearances and murders. This shows that even law-enforcement officers with rigorous legal training may, under immense external pressure, lose sight of the fundamental principle of the "presumption of innocence."

In today's Taiwan, television news and online media are major sources of information. Yet whenever a major criminal case occurs, the media often sensationalize suspects' backgrounds and case details as though guilt had already been established. It is also difficult to understand how the media can obtain so much information about suspects and report case details so extensively despite the rules governing non-disclosure of investigations. More troubling still is how readily audiences echo such reporting. This forces us to ask: could the rush to judgment portrayed in "Out of Thin Air," driven by public pressure, one day happen around us-or has it already happened without our realizing it?

The citizen-judge system, which will take effect in two years, will allow citizens to participate in trials of serious criminal cases. It will therefore be even more important for the public to keep fundamental legal principles such as the "presumption of innocence" in mind. I recommend this film as a cautionary reminder of the need to prevent similar tragedies.