COMMENTS ON EXHIBIT 55
The reader will note the date of the cheque in this exhibit: 12th April 1990.
Since the staged robbery of gemstones in New York had occurred on 1st March 1990, a mere 6 weeks had elapsed before Lloyds of London paid out – something of a record for such a large amount.
This simple fact on its own nails a number of lies:
1. That there was the slightest suspicion that the robbery in question had been staged. It is inconceivable that such a large amount by the standards of the day should have been paid out in so short a time by an insurance company, (especially when we consider that insurance companies are notorious throughout the world for finding even the tiniest excuse for not honouring their commitments), had there been the remotest doubt about the authenticity of the claim and this is consistent with the Loss Adjuster’s Report which stated that: “We have confirmed with the police that in their mind, there is no doubt that this is a genuine loss.”
2. That Peter Risdon had gone of his own accord to the police a mere month after the robbery in New York and having undergone “much soul searching” as he put it so absurdly in his Daily Express review of DG’s book in 1996 (See Exhibit 48). For this would mean that the authorities had been informed of the facts roughly two weeks prior to this cheque having been signed!
In fact, we have already seen how Peter Risdon only informed to the police a full year after his participation in the robbery when he was caught red-handed attempting an insurance fraud involving a large uncut diamond in a branch of the Midland Bank and how he explored from the virtual outset how to inform on DG and BM in return for lenient treatment (See Exhibits 1-47).
We have also seen the series of fatuous excuses he has given over the years for his actions, ranging from: “I thought I was participating in a £25,000 book-keeping exercise” to “I woz framed!” (See Exhibits 48 & Exhibit 49)
The most staggering aspect however is the stupidity with which Peter Risdon constructs his lies. He must surely have known how easy it would be to disprove them and that his chronology of events could never tally with the facts.
It all smacks of panic; the sort of panic which caused him to crumble within minutes of being arrested and which has caused him to inform on every associate he has ever done business with. In short, the evidence suggests that, as well as being deeply unsavoury, Peter Risdon is a bit of a girl.
3. That DG’s and BM’s motivations had been greed-based and at the expense of their company’s shareholders, as Peter Risdon suggests in Exhibit 48. The beneficiary of this cheque is clear – the company (of which DG and BM owned under 10%), and its shareholders. This is not to state that they did not benefit personally. They did (in respect of the ‘stolen’ gemstones that were to be liquidated subsequently) but by far and away the largest beneficiaries of their sting were their company’s shareholders and the only ‘victim’ Lloyds of London.
As BM made clear in his statement to the Court subsequent to his conviction and prior to his sentencing, the prime motivation had been to bail out the company which had got into financial difficulties as well as being intended to settle an old score in DG’s eyes. (His father had lost a fortune at the hands of Lloyds of London). Both the trial Judge and the Court of Appeal accepted this version of events, stating that in their opinion BM had “gone the whole way” in his account. Furthermore, this is consistent with the police’s own conclusions from an early stage in their investigations as can be seen from the chief investigating officer’s remarks during DG’s interview under caution (See Exhibit 57 and Comments thereon).
On a tangential note, not strictly relevant for the purposes of this website, this Exhibit is interesting with regards to the Johnson Tapes (See Comments on Exhibit 2). Thus, certain elements in the media, largely in an attempt to discredit DG and more particularly BJ, have suggested that DG sought to have the News of the World journalist at the centre of the tapes beaten up because he was investigating DG’s activities owing to a suspicion that the insurance claim was bogus.
The evidence clearly shows that at the time the tape was made, ie. in 1990 and a full year before DG and BM were arrested (in July 1991), there was not the slightest suspicion regarding the robbery – otherwise Lloyds would never have paid out and certainly not so rapidly.
As was made clear by the parties involved in the affair, namely DG himself, BMcL (See Exhibits 2 and Exhibit 3) and also by BJ (in a number of sources that can be gleaned from the internet), DG had been motivated by the fact that the journalist in question had been attempting to libel members of DG’s family in typical News of the World style. It is for the reader to judge whether wanting to have a piece of English tabloid scum taught a lesson in such circumstances constitutes a moral outrage.
It was this cheque and what it represented – a coup which had netted a fortune by the standards of the time – which fired Peter Risdon’s imagination and which explains his motivation for his attempted insurance fraud involving the large uncut diamond one year later (See Exhibits 1-47). In short, Peter Risdon had seen what DG and BM had accomplished and had decided to have a go himself, assuming that he was intelligent enough to pull it off. The evidence demonstrates just how deluded such an assumption was, for it would be difficult to imagine a more inept and asininely executed plan than that which he put together: using a fake passport in the name of a man who had attempted a virtually identical scam at a different branch of the very same bank only a short while previously!