COMMENTS ON EXHIBIT 57
As was made clear by the Prosecution and reported upon by the media throughout DG’s and BM’s trial, DG and BM exercised their right to silence throughout the affair - in sharp contrast with Peter Risdon’s own collapse and the verbal diorrhea into which he dissolves during his various police interviews (See Exhibits 8, Exhibit 9 & Exhibit 10). In fact the only time DG talked to the police at all was in order to provide a statement that was beneficial to Peter Risdon! (See Exhibit 46). The contrast with Peter Risdon’s cowardice and treachery could not be greater.
DG’s and BM’s interviews under caution were spread out over a few days and amount to hundreds of pages. Although in his interview BM cracks a few jokes, he basically says nothing and DG’s own responses to questioning are consistent throughout: “I have nothing further to add” being his regular refrain.
In this particular exhibit a few salient passages from DG’s interview under caution are reproduced because they are significant in four respects (taken from pages 317, 318 and 323 of the said interview):
- Over the years Peter Risdon has attempted to project his own self-evident incompetence and inadequacy onto others, specifically DG and BM. (See for example Exhibits 49, Exhibit 55 & Exhibit 59 and Comments thereon). However, both the Trial Judge and the Prosecution had a somewhat different opinion regarding the events in question, as any interested reader can glean for themselves from some basic research on the internet and as is obvious by virtue of one basic fact – they were paid out by Lloyds of London in record time (See Exhibit 55). And in this particular exhibit we have the police officer in charge of the British side of the investigation commenting along much the same lines. In fact, far from considering DG and BM incompetent as he tries to maintain in his Amazon.com review (See Exhibit 49), Peter Risdon was so impressed by their heist in New York that he attempted to imitate them but laid his plans in such an asinine manner that they backfired at the first stage. Moreover, his sense of pique at this fact was one of the motivating factors in his subsequent grassing of DG and BM. Indeed, as they made clear, the police were prepared to overlook a life of petty criminality on Peter Risdon’s part precisely because they considered him, in their own words, a “zero” and no threat at all.
- This passage, as with Exhibit 55 and BM’s explanation of events prior to his sentencing (which was accepted by the Trial Judge and subsequently by the Court of Appeal), also nails Peter Risdon’s lie that DG’s and BM’s coup had somehow been intended to be to the detriment of their shareholders (see Risdon’s Daily Express Review in Exhibit 48, for example). The opposite is the case, for it was in fact their company (of which they held under 10% combined) and its shareholders that were by far the largest intended beneficiaries of their actions (See also Exhibit 55 and Comments thereon), although it is true that DG and BM did also benefit personally from the sale of the “stolen” gems to the detriment of Lloyds of London. The police officer’s own words in this interview are, therefore: “your shareholders were happy and you had the proceeds of what was left over.” (See bottom of page 317 of this exhibit).
In short, all the evidence is consistent with DG’s and BM’s version of events from the outset, which is that the New York heist had been intended to get their company out of financial difficulty as well as to settle an old score on the part of DG (since his father had been ruined by Lloyds of London) – a killing of two birds with one stone.
- Peter Risdon’s various excuses given over the years for his criminality and for why he turned supergrass (See Exhibits 48 & Exhibit 49) require him to deny his role as an “accomplice” in his various crimes, and for him to take on the role of innocent dupe, or patsy (“I woz framed!”) instead. It is of course too much to accept that not only did Peter Risdon have no real idea why he was paid to procure a gun in New York, discharge it in a hotel room, tie up two young men and make off with £2 Million pounds worth of gems, but that he was equally naïve when one year later it would come to his walking into a bank in order to obtain a heavily-insured uncut diamond with a false passport in the name of an individual who had attempted just such a scam only a short time previously at a different branch of the same bank. And the police themselves had no such illusions.
The wording of the officer is quite clear here: “your accomplice” being the term he uses to describe Peter Risdon (our emphasis, see middle of page 323 of this particular exhibit). Likewise this same officer would use an almost identical term when it would come to interviewing Risdon’s co-conspirator in South Africa a few months later in relation to his failed diamond insurance scam: “your fellow-conspirator” (our emphasis – see Exhibit 12). And in exactly the same way the police officer in charge of the American side of the investigation is unambiguous – Peter Risdon was DG’s and BM’s accomplice, who grassed on his colleagues to get off his own crimes (see Exhibit 1). Indeed, even Peter Risdon’s own business partner, BMcL, makes it plain in Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3 that Risdon’s presence in the Midland Bank with a false passport had been part of an attempted insurance fraud.
There is no hint at any stage therefore that Peter Risdon was a dupe or a patsy as he has tried to claim over the years (See Exhibit 49 and his Wikipedia editing in Exhibit 58, for example). He knew exactly what he was doing and to claim otherwise demonstrates not only his underestimation of most people’s intelligence but constitutes a clear admission of his own shame and embarrassment at his cowardice and treachery.
- The chief investigating officer’s comments on the bottom of page 317 and the top of 318 should be noted. Here he is correctly analysing a crucial aspect of DG and BM’s scheme, namely their laying of an evidential trail that would prove the existence and value of the stones in respect of which they would make the insurance claim after the robbery occurred. This modus operandi should be familiar to the reader because Peter Risdon attempts to replicate it a year later with respect to his attempted insurance fraud involving the large un-cut diamond. (See Exhibits 16-45 in particular).In short, it is yet again perfectly clear what has happened here: Peter Risdon knew exactly what he was doing when he flew to New York with DG and BM and procured a gun and fired it in a hotel room; he was impressed with what they managed to pull off and attempted to imitate them one year later. His incompetence, however, led to him being caught at the very first stage of his attempted insurance fraud and, far from going to the police out of a crisis of conscience a mere month after the events in question (See Exhibit 48), or because he was worried about DG’s increasingly dangerous behaviour (See Exhibit 56), or because he had been ‘framed’ by DG and BM (See Exhibits 49 & Exhibit 58), in fact he squealed almost as soon as he was arrested, a whole year after the New York robbery had occurred.
Finally, the date of the interview should be noted: 2nd July 1991. DG and BM had been arrested 24 hours previously - yet further evidence of the correct chronology of events which nails Peter Risdon’s very stupid lies.
Thus, the robbery in New York occurs on 1st March 1990; DG and BM’s company is paid out 6 weeks later on 12th April 1990 (See Exhibit 55); Peter Risdon is caught attempting to imitate DG and BM almost exactly one year later on 11th March 1991 and is arrested (See Exhibits 8, Exhibit 9 & Exhibit 10); he angles for off-the-record chats with the arresting officers in those interviews and is granted his request after his release from Wormwood Scrubs on bail; as a result of those informal chats which take place in a pub on the Embankment and a statement which he gives to the police against DG and BM in May 1991, all charges against him are dropped in respect of his attempted insurance fraud involving the large uncut diamond (See Exhibit 7) and DG and BM are arrested a few weeks later and are interviewed, as this Exhibit shows, over the first few days of July 1991.
All of which is a far cry from Peter Risdon’s various versions of events - including where he states in his review of DG’s book written in the Daily Express that he went of his own accord to the police after “much soul-searching” a mere month after the robbery in New York (See Exhibit 48); or where he claims in his Amazon.com review that he hadn’t even been charged with any offence (See Exhibit 49); or where he states in his story for the News of the World that his worry about DG’s increasingly dangerous behaviour had prompted him to go to the police (See Exhibit 56), for example.