Originally Posted by
bigroof
I’ve read large chunks of it. I think the verdict on DG is contentious to say the least. There are contradictory statements concerning the meeting at the boy’s house, which I feel is understandable considering the gap in time. What is not clear - at all - is how it came about that DG went to see the boy’s parents. The father recalls sending a letter to the club, which can’t be verified; it can’t be traced. The boy, now an adult of course, thought his father had phoned the club. DG recalls meeting the boy’s father at the training ground, and agreeing to a meeting. If Dario was sent, then it’s reasonable to assume that others, ‘higher’ than him, knew of the complaint, if not of the abuse. Dario says he told Ron Suart, who coincidentally had just assumed the role of caretaker manager, about the complaint following the meeting. The QC sets out his doubts about DG’s testimony, and has decided that he doesn't believe him, which is quite a big call. It will be interesting to see if Dario's solicitor advises any further action and/or statement.