Exhibit 59


This exhibit constitutes an analysis of three comments made by Peter Risdon in different contexts that share a common theme – namely Risdon’s complete inability to understand loyalty in others and his resulting need to assume that everyone else stabs each other in the back: just like him.

These comments consist of a letter which Peter Risdon wrote just prior to the publication of DG’s autobiography to the Evening Standard in November 1996, postings made by him on a number of websites which attempt to justify his selling of the Johnson tapes themselves in March 2009 (prior to this date the transcripts of the tapes rather than the recordings themselves had been sold to the News of the World) and a comment made to the Daily Mail in which he implies that his former business partner, BMcL, had wished to double-cross DG.

Thus, in November 1996, just before the publication of DG’s autobiography “Roll the Dice”, Peter Risdon had got wind of those parts of the book that related to him. With his usual panic, and desperate to limit the fall-out from his renewed exposure as a petty criminal and supergrass, he then contacted every newspaper that would hear him. Needless to say, virtually all of them ignored the man, save the Express who would publish his review of DG’s book, as we have seen in Exhibit 48. On reflection, Peter Risdon must now wish that he had never written the review in question because its contents prove beyond any doubt his pathological disregard for the truth. Apart from the Express, however, the Evening Standard also published a small letter written by Risdon entitled “When two crooks fall out.”

In this letter Peter Risdon came up with yet another line in his very confused version of events: that DG and BM had fallen out since their release from jail. This, as with virtually everything which Peter Risdon states, was total fabrication, and in fact DG and BM remain the best of friends to this date.

One does not need to be Sigmund Freud to work out Risdon’s psychology here. He desperately wants and in fact needs to believe his own stories, in particular that others are somehow like him, in order to prevent a psychological implosion.

He bitterly resents the fact that others are far from like him though and that DG and BM did not betray each other but stood, in the words of the Prosecution, “shoulder to shoulder,” despite attempts by the police to prise them apart, and that they did not inform on others to save their own skins despite the suspicion on the part of the police that others had been involved, particularly in liquidating gemstones.

In a similar vein, when he recently sold the Johnson tapes to the press (NB: the tapes themselves and not just the transcripts of those tapes which he had already sold to the News of the World at the time of the trial), Peter Risdon came up with the usual fantastical excuses for his behaviour. In that particular instance, he argued for example that such an action had been in the public interest as he considered it important for the public to know whether DG and BJ were still friends.

See for example: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/03/31/the-trouble-with-boris/, where Risdon writes the following:

“This is where my own feelings entered into my calculations. I’m sick of the political class applying one set of rules to the population of the country and quite another to themselves, their friends and families. Expenses claims and scandals in which Parliamentary allowances were skimmed off in salaries for family members have become so frequent, so commonplace, that we now hardly notice them; dole claimants who behaved in the same way would be fined or imprisoned. Smoking has been banned in pubs but not in the bars of Parliament; their drink remains subsidised by the taxpayers even while they debate raising taxes on alcohol for the rest of us.

And Boris Johnson is a senior politician with some responsibility for policing in London, yet he is a man who has consistently refused to condemn or distance himself from his criminal friend. If the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police had maintained such a connection and it were discovered, he’d have to resign.”

Who does Peter Risdon think he is kidding?

This argument, that his motivations had been to secure the public interest, is one that he has used a number of times previously. The truth of course is that selling the tapes in question to the press had been motivated by his usual publicity-seeking, his desire to make some money and by pique at having been exposed as a petty criminal and supergrass on this website.

Likewise, his own website is replete with arguments that the public interest must be protected at all costs for the benefit of Democracy itself and with his typical delusion he imagines that through his persona as ‘Freeborn John’ he fulfils just such a role.

Peter Risdon should be commended for his sense of civic duty and his instinct to uphold the public interest, an instinct which, as the evidence in this site demonstrates, has compelled him to:

  • Participate in an armed robbery in Scotland
  • Engage in a Mortgage fraud in Scotland
  • Participate in a high profile gems heist in New York
  • Withhold the fact of his participation in that gems heist from the police, despite being shocked to discover that he had been party to something that turned out to be slightly more than the ‘book-keeping exercise’ he had originally assumed it to be, until, quite by coincidence he is arrested one year later in a bank attempting an insurance fraud involving a large un-cut diamond
  • Steal from his business partner by forging his signature on company cheques
  • Run two companies into compulsory liquidation
  • Steal from the clients of those two companies
  • Steal from the creditors of those two companies
  • Illegally tap his clients’ telephones, homes and business premises in the hope of being able to blackmail them subsequently – an offence for which he was arrested, charged and cautioned under the relevant Interception of Telecommunications legislation
  • Rip off the Revenue to the tune of some 300,000 in respect of two further companies that were forced into liquidation as a result and in respect of which he was prosecuted by the DTI and disqualified as a company director
  • Obtain a forged passport which he then attempted to use in the insurance fraud involving the un-cut diamond mentioned above

In short, as usual Peter Risdon is dishonest about his true motives. We read for example in Exhibit 53, the correspondence from DG’s lawyers to Peter Risdon where DG’s lawyers write:

“The same applies to your threat to publish various recordings of telephone conversations involving our client and others that you made at the time, which constitute an offence under the relevant telecommunications legislation. Furthermore, your contingent threat to publish such material, itself, amounts to a criminal act.  Please let us know your intentions in this regard.”

Peter Risdon’s rather pathetic ‘threat’ had occurred on a posting which he had made regarding DG and which he has since been forced to remove owing to the libel proceedings that were brought against him by DG (See Exhibits 52 & 53 and comments thereon).

In that posting, Risdon had written the following truly delusional and pompous words:

“This places me in the position of a man cradling a blunderbuss, while a small boy buzzes round annoyingly with a pea shooter… I have been showing considerable balance …Whether or not I continue to show restraint depends how irritated I get.”

The “blunderbuss” to which Risdon was referring was of course the Johnson Tapes, although, as is evident from the reaction which the release of these tapes occasioned, ‘damp squib’ would perhaps be a more appropriate term.

It is perfectly clear that what truly irks Peter Risdon is that just as DG and BM did not betray each other as he has betrayed everyone he has ever known or done business with, likewise neither did DG or BJ. If others can somehow be shown to be like him – devoid of honour and loyalty - then, psychologically, it would let him off the hook. But others are simply not like him, and mercifully, the Risdons of this world are in fact the exception and not the rule. DG and BM could have collapsed just like him and squealed against each other and indeed against Risdon himself, but they didn’t. Nor did BJ show disloyalty. And likewise, DG for example could have made a fortune by grassing up his high profile friends and selling stories to the press about them in the manner of Peter Risdon, but he didn’t.

In a similar vein to these two previous comments, Peter Risdon has also sought to suggest that BMcL wanted to betray DG with respect to the matter discussed by DG and BJ on The Johnson Tapes. In an article published in the Daily Mail regarding the Johnson tapes on 4th April 2009, for example, Peter Risdon suggests that BMcL had wanted to rip DG off, where we read:

 “Almost 19 years later, Risdon says of the plot: 'I knew the heavies (ie. BMcL, see Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3) Guppy commissioned to carry out the beating. They had a simple plan: take 50 per cent payment up front, then never do anything further.'”

We have already seen how BMcL has a somewhat different take on events. (See Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3). The truth is evident: BMcL tried repeatedly to warn DG and BM against Peter Risdon, advice they should have heeded; that he took DG’s intent to beat up the News of the World journalist in all seriousness - although he considered it primarily as DG’s way of letting off steam (See Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3); that he loathed Peter Risdon for his treachery, his cowardice and for stealing from him and running the company for which he had provided the start-up capital into bankruptcy - and that as soon as he heard of Risdon’s betrayal he went straight to DG’s and BM’s lawyers and provided them with an Affidavit regarding the events in question (See Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3).

It is inconceivable that a man of his background who will have had a natural aversion to lawyers or officialdom of any kind would have volunteered his affidavit to a firm of City Lawyers unless he had been genuinely disgusted by Peter Risdon’s behaviour and liked DG and BM and wished to protect them. And his behaviour is utterly inconsistent with what Peter Risdon alleges against him in the Daily Mail article referred to above.

Once again, Peter Risdon’s psychology is clear: if he can successfully attribute to others his own low-life world view then he appears less revolting in the eyes of the public and even in his own eyes.

However, the truth is that all the parties either directly or indirectly involved in the affair – with one exception, namely Peter Risdon - remained loyal to each other and did not scuttle like rats from a sinking ship and that their behaviour puts Risdon’s own actions into sharp relief, all of which is a source of deep shame and embarrassment for him. Only one person grassed, consistently betrayed the others, sought to profit from that betrayal in the most dishonourable and cowardly manner imaginable, knocked on every door in Fleet Street, sold his colleagues down the river to the News of the World, bugged his colleagues’ and clients’ offices, stole from his associates and so on. That man was Peter Risdon.

His ridiculous excuses and protestations that he is a man who acts in the public interest do not fool anyone. They simply make him look even more stupid and dishonest.

Back to Top up arrow

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