Exhibit 46

a
b

Back to Top up arrow

COMMENTS ON STATEMENT OF DG

The context:

Peter Risdon has been arrested under two weeks previously by officers of the South East Regional Crime Squad attempting to withdraw a heavily-insured rough diamond from the Midland Bank using a forged passport in the name of the diamond’s purported owner, his fellow-conspirator.

The Police have made clear their suspicions and it would not take a genius to work out what Risdon’s plan had been – to make a fraudulent claim against the company that had insured the diamond in question (see
Exhibits 8, 9 & 10).

In six months’ time police investigating Peter Risdon will travel to South Africa to interview Risdon’s co-conspirator who, like DG and BM and totally unlike Risdon, will keep his mouth firmly shut. Again, police will state the obvious – Risdon’s plan had been to make a fraudulent insurance claim. (See
Exhibit 12)

At this stage Risdon has put out feelers for doing a deal with police and speaking to them in ‘informal context’ about his role in DG and BM’s New York heist one year previously. (See
Exhibit 9 and comments thereon).

A series of ‘informal’ chats will indeed occur after Risdon’s release from Wormwood Scrubs on bail between Risdon and his investigating officers in a pub on The Embankment.

Peter Risdon has also planned virtually from the outset to blackmail DG and BM about his role in the New York heist, as his business partner makes clear (See
Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3).

Peter Risdon has also already endeavoured to blackmail the pair using his common-law wife whom he has betrayed and frequently mocked for being ‘too ugly’ for him.

He will attempt to blackmail them again on a number of future occasions and DG and BM’s response will be, as it has always been, robust.

One of the investigating police officers will make reference to Risdon’s blackmail in an interview given to Vanity Fair shortly after DG and BM’s incarceration (1993) and make clear his theory that one of the motivating factors in Risdon’s grassing up of the pair had been pique at their not responding to that blackmail.

DG’s position in this statement is consistent with his behaviour throughout the affair, including during his own police interviews upon his arrest a little over three months after this statement – to keep silent. (See also
Exhibit 57)

At this point he could quite easily have panicked like Risdon. He could have suggested a few ‘informal’ chats with police, in the manner of Peter Risdon. He could have tried to shunt the blame on to his partner – as Risdon does regarding his criminality whilst a director of a number of companies, blaming BMcL whom he calls “an old armed robber” and “another director who was responsible for financial admin.” (See
Exhibits 50, 51 & 52 and comments thereon). He could have told police what Risdon’s plan had been involving the diamond in question – namely to commit an insurance fraud and de-camp to Greece, thus discrediting the man who would be the prosecution’s star witness against him and BM. He could have confessed to the events in New York and told them that Risdon was a willing participant, thereby forcing police to charge Risdon alongside him and BM and earning maximum credit from the Court when it came to sentencing.

But he doesn’t do any of this. He knows from the moment the shot is fired in that New York hotel that he is committed and can never deviate. He sticks to the plan and he and Marsh, unlike Risdon, refuse to rat on their associates or to name any third parties.

In this statement therefore, he says the absolute minimum that he can without arousing suspicion by being too cagey.

Back to Top up arrow

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