Exhibit 10

Image76
Image77

Back to Top up arrow

Image78

Back to Top up arrow

Image79

Back to Top up arrow

Image80

Back to Top up arrow

Image81

Back to Top up arrow

Image82

Back to Top up arrow

Image83

Back to Top up arrow

Image84

Back to Top up arrow

Image85

Back to Top up arrow

Image86

Back to Top up arrow

COMMENTS ON SECOND POLICE INTERVIEW OF PETER RISDON 12TH MARCH 1991

The passage beginning at the top of page 4 to the top of page 5 is highly problematic for Peter Risdon in view of the various ‘explanations’ for his criminal actions that he will give over the coming years.

This passage is the first place that DG’s name is mentioned by the Police investigating Peter Risdon.

Now, if Risdon had been truly horrified to learn shortly after DG and BM’s New York heist that he had been duped into partaking in a robbery of gemstones when in fact he had believed that he had simply been assisting in a “25,000 book-keeping exercise” (as he was later to claim in his statement to police); if he had been so angry to learn that he had been ‘framed’ by DG and BM that he had bugged DG’s phone (as he was later to claim); if he had been so guilt-ridden and ‘ashamed’ by his actions (as he was later to claim); then as night follows day at this point he would have used this perfect opportunity and said something to the effect of: -

“I’m so glad you’ve brought DG’s name up, officers. Thank Heavens, because I’m afraid that I was duped into doing something I had no idea about at the time. And in fact I was so shocked to discover that it was a robbery rather than a “book-keeping exercise” that I had been involved in that I even bugged DG’s phone afterwards and here are the tapes I made of his various telephone conversations.”

Instead, at this crucial point, he says NOTHING about his role in DG and BM’s heist.

We have already seen how he is not prepared to talk about that role in “formal interview context” and that he has explored from the virtual outset how to capitalise on information regarding DG and BM (See
Exhibit 9 and comments thereon), but he is unwilling to show his hand “at this moment in time” because this would entail him being taped and having to come up with an excuse for his actions that could be used against him at a future stage. In short, he would much rather do it off the record, in ‘informal context’ when he is not next to a tape recorder and after he has put out feelers about doing a deal.

And the record shows what happens next:-

Risdon is charged, having admitted that he had attempted to deceive the bank at the end of this particular interview (see pages 10-11). He is remanded in custody in Wormwood Scrubs. He then posts bail and attempts to blackmail DG and BM. They refuse to cave in. Risdon engages in a series of meetings with police at a pub on the Embankment - meetings during which, mysteriously, either no notes are taken by police (contrary to regulations) or during which notes are indeed taken, only to disappear by the time of DG and BM’s trial.

It is only at this advanced stage that the man who has been shocked to learn that he was unwittingly roped into being the gunman of a robbery of gemstones then gives his formal statement to police in which he grasses up DG and BM. And it is in this statement that the first of his long line of excuses is given.

As we have seen:-

a)He had thought that he was only partaking in “a 25,000 book-keeping exercise” and
b)“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.”

And it is just after he gives this statement to the police that again, as we have seen, all charges against him are magically dropped by The Crown Prosecution Service (see
Exhibit 7).

Pages 10-11 are also important because Risdon will be at great pains to claim in a number of blogs in recent times that he was somehow ‘innocent’ of any wrong-doing as regards this particular matter of the diamond in the bank is concerned, and that the collapse of his trial proves this.

In fact, the prosecution’s case was never even put to the jury for consideration for one simple reason:

His co-conspirators, unlike him, were not grasses, as was established by police investigating Peter Risdon when they flew to South Africa and interviewed his co-conspirator (see
Exhibit 12). And without any real witness there was never going to be a case to answer.

But Risdon’s plans are very easy to glean from the evidence, as the police themselves make clear repeatedly throughout that evidence (see
Exhibits 8-10 & 12).

Moreover, Risdon himself confesses his guilt here – at least as far his attempt to deceive the bank is concerned.

As he puts it himself to the police:

“I’m not going to insult your intelligence.” 

(That’s a first).

Back to Top up arrow

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