COMMENTS ON FIRST POLICE INTERVIEW OF PETER RISDON 12TH MARCH 1991
- Risdon makes mention (bottom page 1) of his common law wife and little daughter. While Risdon has seen fit to make unsubstantiated and patently ludicrous allegations against DG in particular in a number of web postings (which he has now had to remove after DG successfully brought libel proceedings against him – see Exhibit 53), the authors of this website have considered it more appropriate to stick to the facts and refrain from revealing highly embarrassing and damaging aspects of Risdon’s personal life. Suffice to say that Risdon’s family life has proved to be as great a fiasco as his professional life, (if we can call it ‘professional’), demonstrating on his part a pattern of deception and gross irresponsibility. In conformity with his business partner’s evidence, Risdon was unpleasant enough to mock his common-law wife’s looks to his colleagues at work, boasting that he would leave her and their daughter as soon as he had made sufficient money.
- On page 13 of this interview, the police officer makes very clear what Risdon’s real motivations in attempting to retrieve the diamond from the bank were:
“How if I put it to you Peter that the actual reason’s to claim against the bank at a later date.”
To which Risdon replies: “I’d prefer not to comment on that at the moment.”
When asked if he knew whether the diamond had been insured, Risdon’s reply is:
“I did know that it was insured. Yes.” Risdon must assume that people, including the police, are incredibly stupid if he imagines that they would be unable to work out precisely what his cunning plan had been.
- On page 15, Risdon again lies to the police.
He claims not to know about the provenance of the diamond in question, nor about the fact that it had been stolen. This is flatly contradicted by the evidence of his business partner (See Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3) who makes it clear that Risdon knew perfectly well that the stone had been stolen in circumstances involving a murder.
- At the top of page 16 of this interview the police officer repeats again the real reason for Risdon’s attempt to retrieve the diamond from the bank – to make a fraudulent insurance claim. Risdon had played a role in the DG New York heist exactly one year previously and it is too much of a coincidence for anyone to accept that Risdon’s presence in the Midland Bank in these circumstances was innocent. In essence Risdon was attempting a re-run of DG and BM’s venture and had proceeded in such an asinine manner that he was caught at the first stage.
- The bottom of page 18 is interesting in that it reveals how, at this early stage, Risdon’s mind is operating. As we see from the affidavit of Risdon’s business partner (See Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3), one of the individuals Risdon had considered selling the diamond to was in fact DG himself. (This plan had had several ludicrous permutations including robbing DG of the diamond after he had parted with the cash for it and threatening to squeal on him to the police about his role in the New York heist if DG did anything about it). Risdon’s actual words in this interview are that “there is a very good reason” (for not commenting about who he was thinking of selling the stone to)... I can’t comment on at the moment in a context like this” (our emphasis). Risdon will use a virtually identical turn of phrase on page 23 where he states: “I’m trying to protect a couple of people (ie. DG and BM) for reasons which I don’t propose to go into in formal interview context” (our emphasis). It is very obvious what is happening at this point. Risdon’s brain is working overtime on how to trade information on DG and BM for leniency and he is exploring that possibility here. Wishing to talk about things in an ‘informal context’ is a clear euphemism for grassing on his accomplices when the tape recorder is off, and doing a deal with the police. And indeed, as the evidence shows, once he is released on bail from Wormwood Scrubs, his wishes are granted. Police will indeed meet with him on several occasions in precisely the ‘informal context’ that he had sought, in a pub along The Embankment. These meetings, regarding which, curiously, either no notes will be taken by police or else what notes are taken will be lost by the time of DG and BM’s trial, will culminate in Risdon providing the police with a statement against DG and BM in respect of the events that had occurred in New York one year previously. This statement, in which he will excuse his role in the New York heist on the grounds that he had thought he had partaken in a mere “£25,000 book-keeping exercise”, will be given in May 1991. As Exhibit 7 makes clear, by miraculous coincidence all charges against Peter Risdon will be discontinued a few days later.
- Again, the contrast with Risdon’s colleagues is extreme. For example, we will see in Exhibit 46 DG being interviewed by police about Risdon’s activities and DG keeping his cool and saying nothing that would prejudice Risdon, despite the fact that by this stage Risdon had secretly bugged his telephone in the hope of blackmailing him in the future and that Risdon had already explored with police the possibility of grassing on him and BM. Likewise, when police attempted to drive a wedge between DG and BM when they arrested them, promising BM, for example, leniency in return for him turning on DG, DG and BM didn’t buckle and maintained a united front.
- Again, see page 22 where Risdon states: “I was gonna show it (the diamond) to an individual (DG) who I prefer not to identify at this moment in time.” (our emphasis).
- On the same page (middle, 22) the interviewing police officer points out the obvious: that Risdon is a natural liar. Again, notice Risdon’s turn of phrase in this particular passage: “I am trying to protect a number of people who at the moment (our emphasis) I would prefer to continue to do that.” You do not need to be a genius to work out exactly what Risdon’s mental processes are here.
- Although on page 26 Risdon claims ignorance of the fact that his accomplice, William Davis, had attempted a similar sting with the Midland Bank involving another stone, he stretches credibility too far. The facts: Risdon has been the gunman in an insurance sting exactly one year previously; he has told his business partner (See Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3) exactly what his intentions are, namely to commit an insurance fraud; his accomplices in this matter have already attempted to commit an insurance fraud at the Midland Bank using a similar modus operandi; he and those accomplices have had the diamond in question insured for hundreds of thousands of pounds; he has prepared to leave the country to go ‘on holiday’ on the assumption of being paid out by the insurance company; the police officers make clear in these interviews and in an interview with his accomplice in South Africa (see Exhibit 12) that his intention was to make a fraudulent insurance claim; and yet Risdon, in a number of web postings and newspaper articles, expects us to believe that his attempt to retrieve the diamond from the bank was entirely innocent! He must think people a little dim.
- On page 27 the police repeat, yet again, the obvious: Risdon’s plan was to commit an insurance fraud.