Not unless she produces the witnesses. In that case, I'd then have to decide if they are credible. Of course, if she fails to produce the witnesses, then I'd judge her less credible than if she never claimed to have them.
But even if her witnesses perform well under oath, defense is going to ask the jurors over and over and over: Why on earth would a man who wants to hush something up insist on a cover-up in front of witnesses???
Can you think of a reasonable explanation for that? I can't. And I've really ransacked my brain trying to do that. I have to admit defeat. Help me out here. Lenihan was bright enough to become a priest. And if he did everything Haigh has accused him of, then he was bright enough to control her and keep her quiet through several years of abuse -- abuse he was smart enough to not get caught perpetrating. How is it that he suddenly became a moron when telling her to abort the child?
"Happens every day, I'm sure.
"What will this priest tell her next -- in front of witnesses? To desecrate the sacrament? Blaspheme the Holy Ghost?
"Father Lenihan is depending on your good common sense today. He is depending on you to ask yourselves if this account you've heard makes sense. I'm confident that his trust in your good judgment is well-placed."