COMMENTS ON PETER RISDON ‘REVIEW’ DAILY EXPRESS 26TH JANUARY 1997
This exhibit should be read in conjunction with ‘The Comments on Amazon.com ‘review’ by Peter Risdon 2004’ (Exhibit 49), which traces chronologically the various excuses given by Peter Risdon for his involvement in DG and BM’s New York heist and for his subsequent grassing.
See also Exhibit 62 and the comments thereon.
In particular, the following passage written by Risdon is worthy of note:
“But then a month later (ie. a month after the New York heist which had taken 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.”
This is an outright lie, and typical of Risdon in that it assumes that people will be dim enough to believe it.
The evidence in the previous exhibits shows very clearly 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 the 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.”
As we have seen, his excuse given in the same statement to police for participating in the New York robbery was:
“I believed that it (the robbery) was part of a £25,000 book-keeping exercise.”
The reader may consider that there is nothing quite like a spell in Wormwood Scrubs to prompt a little “soul-searching.”
Needless to say, in this ‘review’ Risdon also forgets to mention other inconvenient facts: his history of petty criminality, his defrauding of his company’s creditors, the manner in which he would regularly bug his clients’ premises in the hope of being able to blackmail them at some future date, his arrest by police on just such a charge, his selling of his ‘story’ and the Johnson Tapes to the News of the World, and so on.
In addition, Risdon claims that DG (and BM) intended to steal from their company’s shareholders.
The facts are the opposite.
The principal beneficiaries of their sting on Lloyds were in fact the shareholders of the company in which they had only a 10% or so stake. (See Exhibit 55 and Comments thereon) As well as being intended to settle an old score with Lloyds of London whom DG believed – rightly or wrongly – to have ruined his father who had been a ‘name’ at Lloyds, it was recognized by the Prosecution subsequent to the trial and by the Court of Appeal that a principal motive of DG and BM’s actions had in fact been to rescue the company which was in financial difficulty.
This is not to say that they did not personally benefit but they benefitted from Lloyds and not from the company and, as stated, by far the biggest beneficiaries of their actions were – at least until Peter Risdon turned Supergrass – their company and its shareholders.
After the trial but before sentencing, BM in particular gave an extensive account of his actions in mitigation which corroborates this version of events and it is interesting to note that nowhere in the trial transcripts is personal greed put forward by the prosecution as a motive for DG and BM’s actions. Both the trial Judge and the Court of Appeal who reduced BM’s sentence accepted this account, remarking that, in their opinion, BM had in his confession “gone the whole way.”
This is also consistent with the chief investigating police officer’s remarks given during DG’s interview under caution of 2nd July 1991 where he states: “your shareholders were happy and you had the proceeds of what was left over.” (See bottom of page 317 of Exhibit 57).
In this ‘review’ Peter Risdon also displays one of his trademark characteristics – an hypocrisy that is both breathtaking and indicative of an individual with no self-awareness. This, combined with his projection onto others of his own inadequacies. (Such hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness will also be evident in a blog to which Risdon will contribute in 2007-8 - See Exhibit 52 and also his own Freeborn John website - in which he will write rather snootily of “the now disgraced Clive Goodman” – a man who went to jail for doing no more than Risdon himself used to do on a regular basis).
He argues, for example, that DG “underestimates” the intelligence of his readers, a claim which coming from him of all people sounds a little rich.
Reading the excuses given by Peter Risdon over the years for his criminality and informing to the police it is difficult to imagine a series of explanations that could assume a greater level of stupidity on the part of those they are intended to deceive.
Risdon also accuses others of “fantasising.”
The evidence in this site should leave little doubt that such a term belongs with few people more appropriately than with Peter Risdon.
And then we have Risdon’s final paragraph. Here, Risdon turns his nose up at Blake Publishing while forgetting to mention his hawking of his story and the Johnson Tapes round the whole of Fleet Street, eventually selling them to The News of the World. (See Exhibit 56)
He is of course quite right about Blake Publishing. But the context should be remembered here. DG had just emerged from jail having borrowed money from friends to pay off a large fine. In sharp contrast to Risdon’s own behaviour, he did not want to betray those friends and thus made sure that he was able to pay them back.
Blake Publishing were willing to give him a large sum for his memoirs, a sum which DG could easily have increased by doing a Risdon and ratting on some of his more high-profile friends and associates. But he refused to do so. Accordingly, in his dealings with Blake’s, DG made it a condition that he would not be forced to say anything disparaging about certain of his friends, notably the Spencer family. Moreover, despite his falling-out with Spencer, he has maintained such a stance throughout.
And, indeed, as was reported in the press at the time (1997), DG even fell out with his publishers (Blake’s) precisely because he refused to buckle to pressure to sensationalise aspects of his story by spilling the beans on his friends. In fact, Blake’s ended up withholding a payment owing to DG and DG sued them successfully, even freezing their bank account!
In a similar vein, since that time (early 1997), as a search on the internet and in newspaper archives will confirm, with the exception of a piece that accompanied an article written by DG regarding the banking crisis that was published in the Sunday Telegraph, DG has consistently refused to talk to the media in any shape or form. He has given no interviews despite endless requests to do so, has refused to appear on any Television program, again despite endless requests for him to do so, and has not been quoted regarding himself, his family or his friends - to the extent of so much as one syllable - again despite endless requests for him to do so.
The contrast with Peter Risdon, who has lost no opportunity to brag on the net about his only claim to fame and who irritated the media to such an extent with his repeated approaches to them that the Sunday Times called him “the rangy Australian with a penchant for self-publicity”, simply could not be sharper.