Exhibit 07

Crown Prosecution Letter 1
Crown Prosecution Letter 2

Back to Top up arrow

COMMENTS ON LETTER FROM CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

This Exhibit flatly contradicts Peter Risdon's various ‘explanations’ and the excuses given by him over the years for his involvement in the DG/BM New York heist and subsequent grassing.
Reference should be made to
Exhibit 49, a ‘review’ written by Peter Risdon on Amazon.com of DG’s book ‘Roll the Dice.’ Here he writes: “No deals involved, no grassing - the man wasn't even charged with any offences.”
This is a clear lie.
Likewise, reference can be made to his claim in his Daily Express ‘review’of DG’s book published (See
Exhibit 48), in which he writes:

“But then a month later (ie. a month after the New York heist which took place in March 1990) … I did a lot of soul-searching, reached some unflattering conclusions about myself and decided to turn Guppy in to the Police.”
Again, a patent lie.

The evidence shows unambiguously that far from going to police “a month” after his participation in the New York robbery (March 1990), a whole year had passed before the police in fact went to him and arrested him red-handed with a forged passport in a bank attempting an insurance fraud involving a large uncut diamond (March 1991).

And it was only at this stage, or in fact a couple of months later, after he had spent a week on remand in Wormwood Scrubs and had subsequently met with police in ‘informal context’ on several occasions in a pub on the Embankment, that he grassed on DG and BM, putting it rather euphemistically in his statement to police:

 “The events surrounding my arrest have given me the opportunity to meet police officers from Scotland Yard and, therefore, the chance to explain exactly what happened in New York.”

It was also in this statement to police that Peter Risdon made his ludicrous and now notorious excuse for his role in the New York robbery:

 “I believed that it (the robbery) was part of a 25,000 book-keeping exercise.”
Paragraph 7 of the Crown Prosecution’s Letter shows that the charges against Peter Risdon were then ‘discontinued’, by magical coincidence, just after he had given this statement to the police.

The charges against Peter Risdon were subsequently re-introduced in late 1992, upon advice from Prosecuting Counsel (See Exhibit 6), some eight to nine months after being dropped, predominantly because a complete ignoring of Risdon’s criminality was considered too unsubtle by the Crown Prosecution Service, even by the standards of the South East Regional Crime Squad. However, by that stage, Police officers investigating DG and BM had already travelled to South Africa and confirmed that Risdon’s criminal partners would not, unlike him, be turning police informer against him. (See
Exhibits 11 and 12).

With no witnesses the case against Peter Risdon was never going to go very far and indeed it was never even put before a jury, being dismissed by the trial judge soon after the trial against him had begun.

In his website and a number of blogs including
Exhibit 52, Peter Risdon claims that this fact somehow exonerates him.

However, as the police themselves make clear in their interviews with both Peter Risdon himself (see
Exhibits 8, 9 & 10) and with his chief accomplice in his attempted insurance fraud involving a diamond (see Exhibit 12), they were never in any doubt about his criminal intentions.

The fact moreover that they charged him would tend to corroborate this, unless of course Peter Risdon is arguing that the South East Regional Crime Squad were in the habit of charging people they knew to be innocent of any wrongdoing.

Indeed, Risdon himself confesses his guilt at the end of one of his police interviews – at least as far his attempt to deceive the bank is concerned (See
Exhibit 10).

As he puts it himself to the police at the end of that interview:

“I’m not going to insult your intelligence.”
As one of the investigating officers in the case made clear in an interview in Vanity Fair shortly after DG and BM’s incarceration in 1993, one of Risdon's motivating factors against DG and BM, apart from a desire for leniency in respect of his criminal endeavours, was his anger at their refusal to give in to his blackmail. Consistent with the investigating officer's version in this Vanity Fair article, Risdon's business partner makes clear in his affidavit (See
Exhibits 2 & 3) that Risdon had cooked up several plans to blackmail the pair. In fact, Risdon had even attempted to blackmail DG and BM at about the time that he informed on them to the police.

DG and BM’s response to Risdon's attempted blackmail was short and robust.

Some people may consider that they should have given in to Risdon’s blackmail and that it may have prevented him squealing. This is indeed possible but DG and BM reckoned that such a solution would only have been for the short term and that, knowing his character, he would have returned repeatedly. Risdon’s conduct throughout his life suggests that they were correct in their assessment. The better argument is that – (on the assumption that their plan for New York would go ahead) - they should have followed their initial instincts and have had nothing to do with him. And this was in fact the conclusion reached by the majority of people who have analyzed these events – including certain of the police officers themselves.

Back to Top up arrow

[Main] [The Fantasy] [The Facts] [Exhibits] [Conclusion]