Jurors Advised to Approach Barron Trump's Testimony with Care in London Court Case
In a significant development at Snaresbrook Crown Court, jurors have received explicit instructions to treat the account provided by Donald Trump's youngest son, Barron Trump, with considerable caution. The court heard that the 19-year-old contacted UK police after reportedly witnessing his friend being assaulted during a video call on January 18 last year.
The Emergency Call and Subsequent Evidence
The trial heard a transcript of the call Barron Trump made to City of London Police, in which he stated: 'Oh I'm calling from the US, uh I just got a call from a girl, you know, she's getting beat up.' This communication formed part of the prosecution's case against Russian national Matvei Rumiantsev, a 22-year-old resident of Canary Wharf.
Rumiantsev faces multiple serious charges including assault, actual bodily harm, intentional strangulation, perverting the course of justice, and two counts of rape. These allegations span from November 1, 2024, to January 23, 2025, all of which he vehemently denies.
Judicial Guidance on Hearsay Evidence
Mr Justice Bennathan provided crucial legal directions to the jury on Monday, emphasising the limitations of Barron Trump's account. 'Barron Trump has not given evidence on oath and been tested in cross-examination,' the judge noted. He elaborated that had Trump testified formally, he could have been questioned about several critical aspects.
These potential questions might have included whether he obtained a clear view of the incident, whether he actually witnessed the assault firsthand, or whether he reached conclusions based primarily on the complainant's screams. The judge also highlighted that Trump's close friendship with the alleged victim could have influenced his perception of events.
'The law allows you to receive and accept hearsay evidence, but you need to be careful because it has not been given on oath and the lawyers have not been able to test, challenge or clarify it by asking questions,' Justice Bennathan explained to the jury.
Prosecution's Argument and Defendant's Response
Prosecutor Serena Gates presented the prosecution's closing argument, suggesting that Rumiantsev's alleged actions stemmed from jealousy regarding the woman's friendship with Barron Trump, possibly influenced by Trump's 'public profile.' She urged jurors to consider the 'urgent' and 'worried' tone evident in Trump's emergency call.
The court heard detailed accounts of the evening in question, January 17-18, 2025, during which Rumiantsev and the woman had been drinking together. While Rumiantsev acknowledged consensual sexual activity during this period, he categorically denied all allegations of violence, including claims that he raped, strangled, and assaulted the woman.
Rumiantsev, who has experience in freestyle wrestling, admitted the physical disparity between himself and the complainant but maintained he never strangled, hit, or kicked her. He described becoming aware of her friendship with Barron Trump in October 2024 and expressed discomfort about their communication.
Defendant's Testimony on Jealousy and Motive
During cross-examination, Rumiantsev addressed questions about potential jealousy toward other men in the woman's life. 'What I was really unhappy about was that she was frankly leading him (Barron Trump) on,' he testified. He clarified his emotional state, stating: 'I was jealous to some extent,' while disputing the prosecution's characterization of him as someone prone to violent outbursts due to jealousy.
Rumiantsev explained an incident from November 3, 2024, saying: 'I started to explain that I felt upset as well about her talking to Barron Trump. I was in no way controlling but I was trying to make her know that if she feels unwell seeing messages I had with girls 10 years ago, she could maybe understand how I felt when she was sat there this moment texting someone else.'
Ongoing Legal Proceedings
The trial continues with jurors carefully weighing the evidence presented. Mr Justice Bennathan reminded all parties that the central question remains whether Rumiantsev attacked the complainant, not the nature of her relationships with others. The court's emphasis on treating Barron Trump's account with appropriate caution underscores the complex evidentiary considerations in this high-profile case.
