The jury in the trial of a former sports coach accused of abusing four girls more than 40 years ago has begun its deliberations.The 77-year-old was originally charged with 79 counts, but pleaded guilty before the jury to five of them.He pleaded not guilty to a total of 73 counts of indecent assault and one count of attempted rape of four girls in the 1970s and 1980s.The offences are alleged to have occurred in various locations in the State on dates between 1971 and 1981. He can’t be named for legal reasons.On Wednesday, jurors were directed by Judge Mícheál O’Higgins to return not guilty verdicts in relation to 33 counts of indecent assault relating to two complainants, following legal submissions and “in the absence of evidence to support them”.The man initially faced 29 counts of indecent assault in relation to the first complainant on dates between 1975 and 1977. The jury has been directed by the judge to return not guilty verdicts on 16 of these 29 counts.The counts he pleaded guilty to pertain to a further five counts of indecently assaulting this complainant on dates between May and September 1976.In relation to the third complainant, the man denied 41 counts of indecently assaulting her and one count of attempted rape on dates between 1971 and 1975. The jury has been directed they must return not guilty verdicts on 17 of the indecent assault counts.In relation to the second complainant, the man has denied two counts of indecently assaulting her on dates between 1975 and 1977.He has pleaded not guilty to one count of indecently assaulting the fourth complainant on a date between 1980 and 1981.After hearing closing speeches from the prosecution and defence and O’Higgins’s charge, jurors were sent out on Wednesday afternoon to consider their verdicts in respect of the remaining 41 counts.Closing the prosecution’s case earlier, James Dwyer SC told jurors that “these are old allegations dating back decades and that makes your task harder”.He noted that the law doesn’t say that older cases can’t be tried, but that a defendant shouldn’t be disadvantaged because it can be harder to defend these cases.Dwyer noted that the man has pleaded guilty to five counts of indecently assaulting the first complainant and that he had admitted “he committed the disgusting crime” of child abuse.But, he warned jurors, this “doesn’t prove he did it on other occasions” and the prosecution must still prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. He also told them to put any sympathy aside when they begin their deliberations.He submitted that the women’s complaints were independent of each other and there was no suggestion of collusion. He said that if jurors are satisfied with the truthfulness and independence of each woman’s evidence, they are entitled to take into account the “inherent unlikelihood” of several people making similar allegations against the same person. He said the man’s MO [modus operandi] was “brazen” in 1970s Ireland, where he was a “powerful figure” and child sexual abuse was “hidden and not something spoken about”.He noted that in relation to the charges of indecent assault, the law states that anyone under 15 cannot give consent, but this is not the same for attempted rape.Dwyer suggested that there was no consent, noting factors including the third complainant’s age at the time, her lack of knowledge of the “facts of life”, and “years of abuse and grooming by this man”.In his speech, Patrick Gageby SC, defending, said the defence agrees that “the abuse by a person in authority of children is a criminal offence and revolting”.He said “no part of what the defence is saying is to excuse any misconduct at all nor by the way is the question of consent an issue in the case” from the defence perspective.Gageby submitted to jurors that there was a “curious lack of curiosity in the investigation team”, noting there were no photographs of where these alleged incidents occurred or attempts to extrapolate what some locations may have looked like decades ago.He suggested that there is “clear” evidence that the third complainant had “evolving memories” referring to differences between some of her evidence during the trial and her statement to gardaí in relation to the allegation of attempted rape.In relation to the second complainant, who alleges that one incident of indecent assault took place in a changing room, Gageby noted that his client had an office in the sports complex at that time.He suggested to jurors there is an “oddity” in the fourth complainant’s description that his client was wearing tinted glasses at the time of this alleged incident.Noting that his client had pleaded guilty to five counts in relation to the first complainant, Gageby submitted that this could be said “that tells all, that’s good enough, he’s that kind of fellow”“But that is not the trial as the judge will explain to you,” he said, reminding jurors that they must consider each count separately.He suggested that “it isn’t safe to convict” his client.After deliberating for just over an hour, jurors were sent home and asked to return on Thursday to continue their work.