Exhibit 47



This photofit should be examined in the context of various excuses that Peter Risdon has given over the years for why he informed on DG and BM.

A summary of these excuses can be found in the document entitled “Comments on Amazon.com ‘review’ by Peter Risdon 2004” (
See Exhibit 49).Peter Risdon (1991)

In addition, reference should be made to
Exhibits 48 & 52 and comments thereon.

But in particular, reference should be made to Exhibit 62, where Risdon makes the ludicrous claim that a video which he has posted on You Tube and which centres on this photofit somehow ‘proves’ his claim to have been “framed.”

As the reader will see, this video does nothing of the sort and simply adds yet
further evidence of what an incompetent liar Peter Risdon is.

One of Peter Risdon’s more absurd excuses was that he decided to grass on DG and BM in “total retaliation” (See Exhibit 52) only after he realised that he had in fact been “framed” by them. And, to bolster this argument he claims that the photofit which concerns us here is in fact of him!

As the reader will see, the photofit looks nothing like him – with or without a moustache.  Furthermore, Risdon knows this perfectly well and even reveals this himself when he names the individual it was supposed to resemble on one particular blog (See
Exhibit 52).

By way of background, DG and BM had anticipated being interviewed separately by police after they had been ‘robbed’ and realized that they would need to come up with a similar description of their ‘robbers.’ To this end they did the logical thing - they thought of the first mutual acquaintance that came to mind and agreed on describing that person, their chief ‘assailaint’, so that their descriptions would match. (It would hardly look convincing if one of them described a six foot four, eighteen stone, body builder with a beard and the other a five foot two, eight stone, clean-shaven jockey). And so they thought of someone they had both known at University and who would be unknown to police.

Risdon’s claim that the photofit was meant to look like him is a patent lie and, as stated above, Risdon himself knew perfectly well the identity of the individual it was supposed to resemble. In fact that person’s name had been first revealed in an article in Vanity Fair with which Risdon himself had collaborated in 1993. Indeed, Risdon even names this person himself on one particular blog (See
Exhibit 52).

Having realized that his lie won’t work for precisely the reasons given in the preceding paragraph, Risdon then changes his story in the same blog. Now, supposedly three descriptions of their ‘robbers’ were given by DG and BM – the inference being that while the photofit which was reproduced in DG’s book and in this site may not, after all, have been of him, there were in fact two others – one of him and one of his former business partner, BMcL, no less!

As always with Risdon, it is not just that he lies but that he does so in such asinine ways.

We have already seen that BMcL has a somewhat different version of events to Peter Risdon (See
Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3). And, as all the evidence shows, including the transcripts of the trial themselves, only one description of their ‘robbers’ – namely their chief assailant – was given to police and only one photofit was ever made, namely the photofit reproduced in this site and in DG’s book.

Back to Top up arrow

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