Donaldson sex abuse accusers 'not sufficiently reliable' for a guilty verdict, jury told

Donaldson sex abuse accusers 'not sufficiently reliable' for a guilty verdict, jury told 4 hours ago Share Save Add as preferred on Google Lyndsey Telford BBC News NI, at Newry Crown Court PA Media The two women accusing Sir Jeffrey Donaldson of sexually abusing them as children have been described as "not sufficiently reliable" for the jury to reach a guilty verdict. The former Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader's defence barrister Kieran Vaughan KC told the jury there were "significant and fundamental issues" with each of the complainants. Sir Jeffrey has pleaded not guilty to 18 sex abuse charges, including one count of rape, allegedly committed between 1985 and 2008. His wife, Lady Eleanor Donaldson, denies five related charges of aiding and abetting. She is facing a trial of the facts and is not participating in proceedings. In his closing speech, Vaughan urged the jury to "ignore the noise" and "focus on the evidence". He said: "We say you will see there are fundamental and significant issues with each of these complainants… they are not sufficiently reliable enough in order to drive you to a sure conclusion that he is guilty." Vaughan began his closing speech on Tuesday when he addressed the evidence of Complainant B, the older of the two alleged victims. On Wednesday, he stepped the jury through Complainant A's evidence, telling it she was a "very, very unreliable witness" and not one they could "safely rely upon". Vaughan said Complainant A was "somebody who's capable of leaving things out of her evidence if she thinks it suits her own ends". He added: "She's also capable of adding things in if it suits her own ends." He referred to a letter written by Sir Jeffrey to the complainant in 2020, which the trial previously heard she believed was an apology for the alleged abuse. Vaughan told the jury the complainant had not mentioned the context of the letter. The trial previously heard from Sir Jeffrey that the letter had nothing to do with the allegations. Vaughan also pointed out that the complainant failed in her police interview to mention alleged abuse she is said to have experienced at the hands of another man. He said that omission had "the hallmarks of a witness trying to portray a certain picture". He added "an honest witness would have nothing to hide" and would "paint a fuller picture". Vaughan said Complainant A's allegation of an encounter, in which the court was previously told Sir Jeffrey allegedly used a light to look at her private parts, had been a "misunderstanding". He said that despite what the complainant "suspects" happened, the evidence showed that "nothing happened". He said: "I invite you to consider her own words because you'll recall what she told police at interview was: 'I just was very confused, I wasn't quite sure what had just happened.'" He asked the jury: "If she can't be sure, if she's confused, how could you possibly be sure?" He said her other claims, which the trial previously heard included Sir Jef