Exhibit 62


The Context:

Risdon has recently been served with a writ by DG for libel.

This would appear to be history re-visited (See
Exhibit 53).

On his own and another blog (See
Exhibit 61) Risdon has claimed that he has made a video of a conversation between himself and Detective Ray Berke of the NYPD, the American police officer in charge of investigating DG and BM for their heist in New York in March 1990.

Very excitingly, Risdon has claimed that his video, which he has withheld for two years, ‘proves’ his version of events!

Out of anger owing to the legal action which DG has instituted against him, the gloves are off and Risdon now delivers his thunderbolt by posting the said video in three parts on You Tube.

These three parts are reproduced hereunder:


Click on the image above to download.


Click on the image above to download.


Click on the image above to download.

One is reminded of Risdon’s somewhat delusional claim made in a blog which he had been forced to remove from his website after DG’s solicitors had successfully pursued him for libel on a previous occasion (See Exhibit 53):

“This places me in the position of a man cradling a blunderbuss, while a small boy buzzes round annoyingly with a pea shooter.”

It is for the reader to determine whether or not this You Tube video represents “blunderbuss” type evidence.

In essence the contents of this three part video can be stripped down to two principal arguments:

1.Risdon’s “I woz framed!” argument which can be seen in Part 1 and
2.Berke’s argument of “I knew it was a set-up from the very beginning” which can be seen in Parts 2 and 3.

Dealing with these two arguments in turn.

Risdon’s “I woz framed!” argument:

Risdon’s excuses for his participation in DG and BM’s New York heist and his subsequent grassing have already been dealt with in the Comments to
Exhibits 47, 48 & 49.

We have seen how these explanations for his behaviour evolved over the years from his original excuse of:

•having thought that he was participating in a mere £25,000 “book-keeping exercise”
•to his desire to protect the public from DG’s increasingly dangerous schemes (See
Exhibit 56)
•to his sense of civic responsibility which had led him to hand the culprits over to the police a mere month after the events in question and after “much soul-searching” (See
Exhibit 48)
•and finally to his desire for “maximum retribution” after realising that he had been “framed!” (
See Exhibit 49).

Here, Risdon cynically seizes on a no doubt entirely innocent mistake on the part of Detective Berke of the NYPD.

To re-cap on the sequence of events:

•In March 1990 Risdon had acted as the gunman in DG and BM’s gems heist in a hotel in New York and had been very impressed by how DG and BM had got away with it.
•A year later, in March 1991, Risdon had attempted to imitate DG and BM’s heist by going to a branch of the Midland Bank to remove a heavily insured diamond using a false passport.
•Upon presenting himself at the Bank’s counter and showing his false passport Risdon had been arrested by officers of the Regional Crime Squad. His cunning plan had been so absurdly conceived and organised that he had been caught at the first stage. (See Exhibits 1- 45)
•From the virtual outset Risdon had attempted to trade information regarding DG and BM and their sting in return for leniency. This can be seen explicitly in his police interviews (See
Exhibits 8, 9 & 10)
•Risdon’s angling for ‘informal chats’, outside of ‘formal interview context’ (See
Exhibit 9) had led to a series of off the record meetings in a pub on the Embankment after he had been charged and released from Wormwood Scrubs on bail and during which he had sung like a canary.
•These ‘informal chats’ had led in turn to his grassing of DG and BM, his giving a formal statement to the police on 10th May 1991, charges against him being dropped three days later (See
Exhibit 7) and his agreeing to be the Prosecution’s star witness against DG and BM.
•Officers from the Regional Crime Squad had then telephoned the NYPD to inform them that Risdon was giving evidence against DG and BM, having been caught red-handed attempting his crime (See
Exhibit 1).
•Risdon had then travelled in 1991 with officers of the Regional Crime Squad to America in order to reconstruct the events surrounding the staged robbery that had occurred in a New York hotel one year previously in March 1990. It was during this trip to New York that Risdon had first met Detective Berke.

In Part 1 of this video Detective Berke makes clear that when he first met Risdon he had thought that the artist’s impression given by DG and BM resembled him (Risdon).

The artist’s sketch in question (See
Exhibit 47) is reproduced hereunder, together with a photograph of Risdon taken at the time for comparison.

The reader will note that the faces do not resemble each other remotely.

Moreover, as was made clear during the trial, the description of the perpetrator given by DG and BM for the artist’s sketch above – the principal ‘robber’ - was of a slim, Eastern European looking man 5 foot 10 inches to 6 feet tall.

Risdon is some 6 feet 5 inches tall and cannot be said to look Eastern European.

Where Berke is quite correct, however, is in stating that DG and BM had anticipated that they would be separated when questioned by the American police after the “robbery” had occurred and that their descriptions would need to match.

As stated in the Comments to
Exhibit 47:

“To this end they (DG and BM) did the logical thing - they thought of the first mutual acquaintance that came to mind and agreed on describing that person, their chief ‘assailant’, 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.”

Berke can be forgiven for his mistake. After all, at the time he first met Risdon he could not possibly have known who DG and BM had had in mind.

With Risdon, however, the story is entirely different because he knew EXACTLY who DG and BM had thought of and is therefore not guilty of any innocent error but is outright lying in this video - and deceiving Detective Berke, what is more.

Indeed, Risdon had collaborated in his usual publicity-seeking style with an American glossy magazine shortly after DG and BM’s convictions and the article which had appeared had stated explicitly who that person had been.

Nor had Risdon made any attempt to correct the author of the said article and tell them “sorry, but you’ve got it wrong. The man in the photofit was not so and so; in fact it was me.”

The relevant extract from this article is produced hereunder; (the individual’s name, as has the author’s, have been withheld for the sake of discretion - although the said individual’s name is a matter of public record and no secret - since it has never been the aim of this website to embarrass innocent third parties, but merely to expose Risdon’s very stupid lies).

Extract 1 magazine

Furthermore, letters from both the individual concerned and the author of the article itself in the edition that followed the appearance of the said article make crystal clear that the individual who DG and BM had thought of to make their descriptions of their chief assailant match was most certainly NOT Peter Risdon.

These letters are reproduced hereunder and speak for themselves.

Letters magazine ref photofit

In addition, shortly after his conviction, BM had given an account to the police of the events which had led to DG and BM’s conviction in which the individual’s name had again been explicitly stated. This is also confirmed by the letter from the author of the article as reproduced immediately above.

Marsh’s version of events was accepted by both the Trial Judge and the Court of Appeal as having “gone the whole way.”

In short, apart from Berke’s innocent mistake, which Risdon attempts to twist, the identity of the individual who DG and BM had thought of at random in order to make their stories tally has never been in any doubt whatsoever, including on the parts of the Prosecution itself and, of course, Risdon himself.

Finally, a photograph taken of a particular Oxford club, of which DG was also a member, showing the individual in question - who was of Eastern European origin and 5 foot 10 inches to 6 feet tall and not, like Risdon, 6 feet 5 inches tall - is reproduced hereunder.

The reader will see the resemblance very clearly.


In sum, Risdon is caught out lying, yet again.

Moreover, it should be remembered that when lying in this video he even contradicts yet another false version of events which he has given previously.

As so often with Risdon, it is his own words which hang him.

Thus, while in this video, made in 2010, he states that DG and BM had given the police a description of him as their principal robber when the NYPD were making up their photofit, he has previously come up with a completely different version of events some three years previously in a blog which can be seen in
Exhibit 52 and where he has stated that DG and BM had in fact given no less than THREE different descriptions of THREE different assailants, one of which was Risdon and then:

“The third was of an older man, who Guppy and Marsh in their statement claimed had been the leader of the gang. This was a drawing of my partner at the time, Tom (Risdon’s nickname for Brian McLaine – See
Exhibit 2), whose past, they felt, lent credibility to the claim that he had been an armed robber in New York.”

(These words, written by Risdon, can be seen in
Exhibit 52).

Again, what a patent and stupid lie.

We have already seen the said ‘Tom’ - Risdon’s business partner’s - somewhat different version of events in an affidavit which he had sworn in 1992. (See
Exhibit 2, Statement of Brian McLaine).

Moreover, at no point did the Prosecution or anyone else even suggest that DG and BM had given descriptions of THREE individuals.

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 the police and only one photofit was ever made, namely the photofit reproduced above and in
Exhibit 47, a photofit which, to repeat, did not match Risdon at all but was of a mutual University acquaintance of DG and BM – a fact known all along by Risdon.

Not surprisingly, therefore, in the video reproduced above nowhere does Detective Berke make any allegation regarding THREE descriptions having been given by DG and BM, precisely because he knows that this would be untrue.

It should also be pointed out that at no stage prior to his writing a review of DG’s book on Amazon.com using the pseudonym of “Unforgiven” (See
Exhibit 49) has Risdon himself made the slightest suggestion that DG and BM’s description of their assailant had been of him!

•Not in his statement to the police of 10th May 1991
•Not in his police interviews (See
Exhibits 8, 9 & 10)
•Not in his evidence at DG and BM’s trial
•Not in his endless peddling of stories to the British Press (See for example
Exhibit 56)
•Not in his review of DG’s book in the Express (See
Exhibit 48)

NOWHERE until fourteen years after the events in question, writing as “Unforgiven” on Amazon.com (See
Exhibit 49), as stated above.

It takes the man fourteen years to come up with this most absurd of excuses for his cowardice and grassing, therefore.

Having established that only one description was given by DG and BM of their principal ‘robber’ and that only one photofit was ever drawn up, and that Risdon himself knows perfectly well that the said description is not of him, the next logical question is: how then does he seize on Berke’s initial error and try to twist it to his advantage?

By attempting to make two plus two equal five – in other words by claiming that he had been “framed!”

Risdon’s claim, a claim which - to repeat - he has NEVER made once until fourteen years after the events in question and which in fact contradicts his previous excuses (See Comments to
Exhibit 49) is given in Part 1 as follows:

“He (DG) told me to shave it off (my mustache) as soon as we got back. He said ‘shave it off. You were seen. A maid saw you. He described this guy. The police have a description of a guy with a big mustache. Shave your mustache off.’ And he (DG) was trying to get me to change my appearance so that he could say that he hadn’t recognised me. I was just this acquaintance from London who he’d mentioned that he was going on a trip with gems and that I’d decided to rob him…If it went wrong then he could say ‘hey I was robbed and there’s the robber...”

Click on icon to download or play

This argument is a repetition of one he has used previously in a blog on his own website and which is quoted in the Comments to
Exhibit 49:

“Luckily, for him (DG), he had a fallback plan. He had given the N.Y. police my description, from which they had produced an artist's impression of me - without a moustache. That was why he had asked me to shave. His plan was to say he had really been robbed by a slight acquaintance to whom he had mentioned the N.Y trip but who he didn't know well enough to recognise without his moustache. Yes, his fallback plan was to frame me for robbing him, to disappear to another country while I was arrested and convicted, then reappear a few years later when there had already been a conviction and the appetite to investigate him would meet with budgetary obstacles. That was a difficult situation. I decided on maximum retaliation. Not only did I go to the police and tell them what had happened.”

This excuse of Risdon’s is so ludicrous that it hardly deserves comment.

In his statement to the police of 10th May 1991, Risdon had stated the following regarding what had happened after he had left DG and BM’s hotel room, having committed the staged robbery.

His exact words:

“…I left the room. No-one saw me leave. I made my way to the lift. I pressed the call button. The lift took a little time to arrive so I considered taking the stairs. I walked beyond the lift to the next turn in the corridor. In this corridor I saw a maid with a trolley. Rather than walk by her to get to the stairs, I returned to the lift. As I got down two workmen were in it.”

Now if, as Risdon states, the police had told DG that a maid had indeed seen him with his massive mustache (not to mention the two workmen in the lift referred to by Risdon), then we need hardly explain to the reader why DG would have told him to shave his mustache off – precisely so as NOT to get recognized! And not, by Risdon’s twisted logic, to get recognized!

In fact, Berke makes the obvious point - Risdon has not the slightest evidence to substantiate his absurd claims, stating:

“it’s speculation on your part because it didn’t happen.” (our emphasis)

Click on icon to download or play

And Berke is quite right, it didn’t happen because the excuse would have been so daft that it would never even have occurred to DG and BM to rely on it!

And if they had intended to rely on it then why didn’t they do so in their defence during their trial?! Why didn’t they scratch their heads in the witness box and say:

“Wait a minute, ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, but it’s all becoming clear to us. It must have been Risdon who robbed us. That’s it! Of course! He’d obviously grown a mustache for the robbery which is why we didn’t recognize him at the time but it all makes perfect sense to us now! And just look at the photofit! Add a mustache and what do you get? Risdon!!!”

It goes without saying that DG and BM didn’t rely on such an excuse because there is only one person on the planet who could come up with such a fatuous line – Peter Risdon.

And if Risdon himself had seriously thought that he had been “framed” as he puts it, then why on earth did he not make this point in either his police interviews (See
Exhibits 8, 9 & 10) or in his statement to the police of 10th May 1991 or during his evidence at trial or on the countless occasions he tried to peddle his story to the press? (See, for example Exhibits 48 & 56).

Let us remember Risdon’s own words in his blog (reproduced above) - by which he didn’t go to the police because he’d been caught red handed trying to commit a fraud involving a large uncut diamond one year after having been DG and BM’s accomplice – no - but because he had discovered that he’d been “framed” and had decided on “maximum retaliation.” 

In which case why wait an entire year to spill the beans on DG and BM? A year in which he was only too happy to assist in a gold smuggling operation to India. And a year in which as we have seen in Exhibits 1-45 he planned an insurance fraud involving a large uncut diamond.

And why, when he was first arrested by the police in March 1991 attempting his diamond insurance fraud, did he not immediately seize on the opportunity to tell them about about his involvement in DG and BM’s sting in New York one year previously? Why didn’t he say “what luck to bump into you guys because I’ve discovered that I was “framed” for something I did a year ago.” Instead, as his police interviews make crystal clear he hints strongly that he wants to trade information about DG and BM but outside of “formal interview context” – ie. in private, when the tape recorder is off. (See Exhibits 8, 9 & 10 and comments thereon).

And why, during his evidence given at DG and BM’s trial, didn’t he say something to the effect of:

“The rotters! They framed me! That’s why I’m giving evidence. Not because I’m a filthy little grass, a coward and a fantasist but because I was framed and that’s me in the photofit!”?

The reason he didn’t say this during the trial is of course because the Prosecution would have told him “come up with such an absurd story and DG and BM will walk free!”

Risdon expands on his story a little later on in Part 1, stating:

“His (DG’s) plan was to go to South America for 6 years and have me sent to prison for robbery. When he came back I’d have been in jail for 6 years. There’d have been no appetite to re-open the case. They’d have had a conviction. It would have been a done thing and he could have resumed his life.”

Click on icon to download or play

Only Risdon could come up with such an asinine plan.

No wonder even his work colleagues called him “Norman Risdon.”

So, by this logic, DG and BM disappear to South America for 6 years, something which would arouse no suspicions on the part of the police, who wouldn’t bother investigating Risdon’s defence that he had been hired by DG and BM to act as their gunman but would simply take DG and BM’s word for it that Risdon had robbed them as they lie low in South America. Moreover, the police wouldn’t find it suspicious that DG and BM don’t turn up to identify Risdon at his trial for that robbery. Instead, DG and BM would simply lie back on a beach somewhere, click their fingers and “have him sent to jail for 6 years.” Furthermore, their cunning excuse would be that they hadn’t recognized him as the robber because he’d had a mustache when he’d robbed them!

In addition, when DG and BM were eventually to return to the UK six years later the police would ask no questions, and nor would the press because they’d have “lost appetite” – just as they would “lose appetite” for Ronnie Biggs 38 years after the Great Train Robbery and for Asil Nadir 17 years after he absconded from Britain to Northern Cyprus and for all the countless other individuals the British police extradite from all over the world every year in respect of allegations sometimes going back decades. And if Lord Lucan were suddenly to show up some 39 years after disappearing from Britain when his family’s nanny had been murdered, they’d also “lose appetite!”

The fact that Risdon is not embarrassed by such patently ridiculous arguments confirms everything that has been said about the man.

To be fair to Berke and, as stated above, he sees the point immediately and reminds Risdon that he has no evidence for his claims, stating several times “that’s just speculation on your part” – an understatement if ever there was one.

Risdon then attempts to slip in that he had found further evidence that DG had tried to “frame” him as a result of tapes which he had made when he bugged DG’s phone.

This is again, a clear and stupid lie.

As is well known, the only matter of any interest in the tapes which Risdon had obtained by bugging DG’s phone – (a favourite trick of Risdon’s which as his business partner explains he did to many of his clients and associates with a view to blackmailing them subsequently (See
Exhibit 2)) – was DG’s conversation with a young Boris Johnson in which DG is heard attempting to discover the address of a News of the World journalist who had been attempting to libel certain members of his family and who DG wanted to punish as a consequence.

The transcripts of those tapes were given to the police by Risdon and the police were then obliged to pass them on to DG and BM’s solicitors as ‘Unused material’ before the trial. Risdon then sold them to the press.

It goes without saying that NOWHERE is there the slightest suggestion in any tape recording that DG or BM had attempted to ‘frame’ Risdon. And if there had been it would certainly not have been disclosed as ‘unused material’ but would have been very much ‘used’ material!

In fact it would have formed a central plank of the prosecution’s case against DG and BM.

Instead nowhere did the Prosecution advance such an argument nor, as we have seen, did Risdon himself at the time.

The authors of this site therefore challenge Risdon to a bet of ten thousand pounds to produce any tape whatsoever where even the slightest suggestion is made of an attempt to ‘frame’ him.

He can post such a tape on his website together with a sworn affidavit on pain of perjury.

In addition to all the above, on a number of ‘Tweets’ Risdon has argued that in this video Detective Berke somehow corroborates Risdon’s claim that he had been “framed.” (See Exhibit 64)

Oh no he doesn’t.

To repeat, nowhere in this video does Detective Berke say any such thing. Quite the reverse – he reminds Risdon that “it never happened!”

Moreover, he is utterly explicit about the circumstances under which the British Police first contacted him about Risdon:

“Approximately a year later I was sitting in my office. I was telephoned by Scotland Yard and they explained to me that they had Peter Risdon in custody and that he was giving evidence against DG and BM. Apparently he had been caught, as most cases are solved, doing something else and rather than go to jail he was going to give up somebody else.”

Exhibit 1 and also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS5cnNFtnaw).

An example of such ‘tweeting on the part of Risdon is reproduced below:

Ridson Tweet 1

Risdon Tweet 2

Once again, what typically stupid lies.

Of course Risdon knew that in bugging DG’s phone (and those of other clients) he had committed an offence – he was arrested and cautioned for it under the Interception of Telecommunications Act 1985!

In summary, NOWHERE was this “I woz framed!” line stated by Risdon until FOURTEEN YEARS AFTER the events in question:

•Not in Risdon’s statements to the police
•Not in his police interviews
•Not in his testimony at trial. Quite the reverse in fact, Risdon opening his cross- examination evidence with “I’m still really rather fond of him (DG) you know!”
•Nowhere was even the slightest hint of such an allegation made in the prosecution’s case
•Nor was such an argument even suggested by the trial judge
•Nor by the appeal court judges
•Nor by Risdon himself in ANY of his endless contacts with the media subsequently (including his selling of his story to The News of the World, (
Exhibit 56), his review of DG’s book in The Express (Exhibit 48)) and his collaboration with an American glossy magazine as referred to above in this exhibit.
•Not by the police in any comments given to the press
•Not even by Berke himself who at no stage even in this video posting confirms such a line.

In fact Risdon himself states in unambiguous terms the circumstances under which he grassed to the police and those circumstances had had nothing to do with “maximum retribution” or being “framed” or “after much soul-searching” or out of a sense of civic duty.

Instead, in his statement to the police of 10th May 1991, his own words:

“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.”

In other words, in simple English:

“I have decided to spill the beans one year after the events in question as a direct consequence of being arrested by you guys on an unrelated matter.”

Or, in even simpler English:

“I’ve lost my bottle so I’m grassing.”

And this ties in perfectly with what Berke says in
Exhibit 1:

Once again:

“Approximately a year later I was sitting in my office. I was telephoned by Scotland Yard and they explained to me that they had Peter Risdon in custody and that he was giving evidence against DG and BM. Apparently he had been caught, as most cases are solved, doing something else and rather than go to jail he was going to give up somebody else.”

Risdon is simply projecting onto others his own sordid thought processes, therefore.

Specifically, betrayal is not DG nor BM’s style.

Nor has it been suggested anywhere – either in the trial itself by any witness including Risdon himself at the time of that trial, nor subsequently in any dealing - professional, social or otherwise - that it is their style.

Nor was betrayal the style of anyone else connected with the matters in question. DG and BM remained loyal to each other, the Prosecution stating during their trial that they were “two strong young men” and that they “stood shoulder to shoulder.” Nor did DG and BM sell stories about their high profile friends and betray confidences to the Media in the manner of Risdon, despite being far better connected than him. To this day they remain the best of friends.

Nor was any individual connected with these matters – apart from Peter Risdon – a registered and paid police informant.

Nor did Brian McLaine (‘Tom’) grass them up either when he could have made a fortune doing so to the Press. Moreover, the only statement given by DG to any third party about Risdon was a statement to the Police in which he exonerates Risdon after Risdon had been arrested attempting his diamond fraud and DG knows perfectly well what Risdon’s intentions had been. (See
Exhibit 46).

DG could very easily have told the police exactly what Risdon’s imbecilic scheme had been and given evidence against him. He didn’t.

Betrayal, however, is very much Risdon’s style.

A registered and paid police informant he has betrayed and grassed people up all his life, and not just DG.
As all the evidence surrounding these matters clearly demonstrates, only one individual betrayed the others, grassed them up, blackmailed them, sold his story for money and subsequently came up with ridiculous excuses to justify his cowardice, envy and treachery – Peter Risdon.

Finally, Risdon’s three part video demonstrates his habit of sweeping inconvenient details under the carpet.

Thus, this video is far more interesting for what Risdon does NOT state than what he does. In particular, how he:

•Conveniently fails to address the very first question which anyone watching this video would ask, namely: “Hang on a minute, Mr Risdon, but what exactly did you think you were doing in that hotel room when you tied up two young men, fired off a gunshot and disappeared with nearly two million pounds worth of gemstones? Playing tiddlywinks? And if you didn’t know full well that you were up to no good then you must be pretty stupid, musn’t you?”
•Conveniently forgets to mention his original answer to this question which was that he had thought he was participating in a “book-keeping” exercise!
•Conveniently forgets to mention his being arrested attempting an insurance fraud involving a large uncut diamond one year after DG and BM’s heist.
•Conveniently forgets to mention his history of petty criminality and the fact that he is a registered police informant.
•Conveniently forgets the circumstances under which Ray Berke was first contacted by Scotland Yard regarding his arrest and his turning grass against DG and BM (See
Exhibit 1).
•Conveniently forgets being caught out lying when he writes to the Daily Express that he had handed the culprits over to the police a mere month after acting as the gunman in their sting as a result of “much soul-searching” when in fact he had waited a full year until being caught red-handed attempting his own incompetently planned insurance sting, having spent that year assisting in a gold smuggling operation to India, (See
Exhibit 48) such had been his crisis of conscience.
•Conveniently forgets how the chief investigating officer in Britain had referred to him explicitly as a “co-conspirator” and not some innocent dupe in his attempted insurance fraud involving the large uncut diamond (See
Exhibit 12)
•Conveniently forgets to mention how the same officer referred to him again, not as some “dupe”, but as a fully-fledged “accomplice” in DG and BM’s sting (See
Exhibit 57) – the line adopted by the Prosecution throughout DG and BM’s trial.
•Conveniently forgets to mention his attempts to blackmail DG and BM (See
Exhibit 2), as referred to even by one of the investigating police officers in an article that appeared in a glossy magazine shortly after DG and BM’s conviction.
•Conveniently forgets to mention his business partner’s description of his business practices (See
Exhibit 2)
•Conveniently forgets to mention how this description of his business practices, given in 1992, tallies perfectly with his subsequent fraudulent bankrupting of two companies in respect of which he was prosecuted by the DTI and was disqualified from being a company director (See
Exhibits 50 & 51)
•Conveniently forgets to mention his peddling of his story for money to virtually every media outfit in the UK at the time of DG and BM’s trial (See
Exhibit 56)
•Conveniently forgets to mention, as demonstrated above, how he has known for some twenty years EXACTLY who DG and BM had thought of to make their descriptions match when the New York Police compiled their photofit and how that person was most certainly NOT him.
•Conveniently forgets to mention DG’s legal action against him for defamation in which he is humiliated and exposed as a liar (See
Exhibit 53)
•Conveniently forgets his statement to the police in which he admits the circumstances of his grassing of DG and BM in the clearest of terms. (“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.”)

Detective Berke’s “I knew it all along” argument:

It has never been the purpose of this website to embarrass third parties, including Detective Berke, but only to highlight Risdon’s stupid attempts to lie about the circumstances surrounding his grassing of DG and BM.

Nor has it been the purpose of DG and BM to brag about the events in New York. Those events occurred over twenty years ago and the record shows that the only reason for the revelation of the material on this site has been to counter Risdon’s fables. Otherwise, why wait so long after the events in question to post material most of which has been in existence for over 15 years?

Nor do the authors of this site detect any ill will from Berke towards DG and BM and DG BM certainly have no ill will towards him.

No doubt Detective Berke was embarrassed by the fact that DG and BM were paid out in such a short time by Lloyds of London and no doubt too he may have felt the need to save a little face.

However, in his shoes the authors of this site would be almost more annoyed with Risdon than with DG and BM because Risdon has known for some twenty years exactly who DG and BM had thought of to make their descriptions match when the New York Police were compiling their photofit and how that individual was most certainly not him.

In other words, for his own purposes Risdon cynically exploits Berke’s mistake and, if anything, makes Berke lose even more face.

In this video Detective Berke suggests that certain clues led him to be suspicious of DG and BM

Such clues included, inter alia:

-a certain overacting on the part of DG in particular
-the use of twine to tie up DG and BM as opposed to the more commonly used duct tape
-the fact that neither DG nor BM picked out any one from the thousands of photographs of known felons that were shown to them (actually this made eminent sense since to have picked out someone who could have been in prison at the time would have been totally counterproductive but this in not the place to split hairs)
-the use of an English term by the supposed chief ‘robber’ – “lie on your front” instead of “lie face-down”

And so on.

Now whether or not Detective Berke was actually suspicious at the time or rather should have been suspicious at the time with the benefit of hindsight is not for discussion here but one thing is beyond debate:

DG and BM got away with it and they got away with it for an entire year until they were grassed up by their accomplice Peter Risdon when he was caught trying to imitate them.

To be fair to Berke, he makes the point himself in Part 3:

hindsight is 20-20

There is another old expression: “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”

And the proof of the pudding could not be clearer:

A cheque for over £1.8 Million pounds made out by Lloyds of London six weeks after the occurrence of the gems robbery. (See
Exhibit 55).

A little short of £2 Million pounds would constitute a very large insurance claim today, but in 1990 it would have amounted to a fortune – perhaps £10 Million in today’s money.

Anyone who has had any dealings with insurance companies even for a paltry sum, let alone such a large one, will know that they are notorious the world over for using any excuse whatsoever to avoid paying out.

Is it remotely conceivable therefore that Lloyds of London would have paid out such a large sum and in such a short period had there been an iota of doubt as to the claim’s authenticity in their mind?

Would they really have written that cheque within 6 weeks if, when they made their inquiries with the NYPD they had been told “well, actually, the chief investigating officer smelt a rat from the very first minute?”

And indeed the Loss Adjuster’s Report was explicit, was exhibited during the trial and was quoted in the media:

We have confirmed with the (American) police that in their mind, there is no doubt that this is a genuine loss.”

This website’s beef therefore is not with Berke who may well be ‘gilding the lily’ here in order to save a little face but with Risdon who knows the truth perfectly well but lies outright in his usual style.

For example, Risdon has suggested that DG and BM were somehow ‘incompetent.’ (See Risdon’s words in
Exhibits 49 & 61). But such a claim is inconsistent with the evidence and indeed with what he himself has said in this very video.

Thus, Risdon says in this video:

And it was clever…

And Berke adds:

“Everything’s clever… the whole case was clever.”



Click on icon to download or play

It is clear that Risdon makes this claim therefore (See Exhibit 61) out of sheer frustration because of the total stupidity which he had demonstrated in the planning and execution of his attempted diamond fraud for which he was arrested one year after his participation in DG and BM’s New York heist. The evidence of Risdon’s life of petty criminality and slapstick incompetence straight out of a Keystone Cops movie is there for all to see and even Risdon’s police handlers openly admitted that they were prepared to overlook his career of petty criminality precisely because they considered him, in their words, “a zero” and DG and BM much bigger prizes.

In fact, the person who was by far and away the most impressed with what DG and BM had pulled off was none other than Peter Risdon himself.

And this is precisely why he did not go to the police a month after the New York robbery as he claims falsely in
Exhibit 48. Quite the reverse in fact. As the evidence shows he spent the next year supplying false bottomed crates and forged airway bills in respect of a gold smuggling operation to India and planning an Insurance fraud in respect of a large uncut diamond – hardly the actions of someone who is guilt-ridden and whose civic conscience has been pricked, nor of someone who is furious at having been “framed!”

As his business partner, Brian McLaine (‘Tom’) makes clear:

“Risdon told me that what in fact had happened with the South African diamond in the end was that he and the South Africans had tried to pull off an insurance fraud… Risdon told me that a similar scheme had been pulled off by the South Africans before…

Risdon told me that he had got a false passport in the name of one of the South Africans with his photograph on it. He told me that he went to draw out the diamond from a bank, and was suddenly surrounded by police and he was arrested.

He did not seem to be too bothered about it, and he told me that he was going to sort something out with the police. He did not go into anymore detail…”
Exhibit 2)

To repeat: it has never been the purpose of this website to brag about DG or BM’s exploits and the evidence for this is clear – no such bragging has occurred, no endless knocking on newspapers’ doors in an attempt to peddle their story or betray confidences in the manner of Peter Risdon.

Nevertheless, to put Berke’s argument of “I knew it all along” into perspective, a few extracts from the Prosecution’s Opening Statement may add a little balance:

-“particularly bold in concept, well researched and meticulously executed” (DG and BM’s sting)
-“it was very, very carefully planned”
-“they deceived New York’s 17th Precinct police into believing the genuine plight of their robbery”
-(DG) “gave a brilliant performance”
-“such a performance was put up (by DG and BM) that they (the NYPD) believed them”

Likewise, the Trial Judge’s comments on the matter are also well-known, including, during the sentencing:

“The offences were in my view extremely well planned and very carefully executed enterprises.”

These, and similar comments, were reported upon extensively during the media coverage of the trial and are all well-known by Risdon and constitute a deep source of frustration to him, showing up the stupidity of his failed criminal ventures.

In addition, comments by the British police can be seen in
Exhibit 57, for example:

This was a very, very complicated cleverly thought out conspiracy” and “it was done in such a way that everybody would have been fooled.”

This exhibit,
Exhibit 57, an extract of DG’s interview under caution, also makes clear that Risdon had attempted in his failed insurance scam to imitate aspects of DG and BM’s modus operandi one year earlier – again, consistent with the fact that Risdon had been highly impressed by what DG and BM had managed to pull off, had attempted to replicate their sting but had been caught at the first stage owing to his incompetence.

Likewise, the Loss Adjuster’s Report has already been quoted above:

“We have confirmed with the (American) police that in their mind, there is no doubt that this is a genuine loss.”

Again, to save the blushes of certain third parties, until this point no mention even has been made of a letter written by the Deputy Police Commissioner of New York to the Chairman of DG and BM’s company expressing deep regret at the trauma suffered by DG and BM during the ordeal of their ‘robbery.’

This letter was produced as an Exhibit during the trial, was reported upon by the press and was known to Risdon and Berke.

Is it conceivable that such a letter would have been written had there been any doubt in the minds of the New York police that the robbery had been genuine?

Other awkward facts:

•At no stage did the New York police request for DG or BM to be re-interviewed.
•DG and BM were allowed to return to the UK after their ‘ordeal’ within a day of the ‘robbery’ occurring.
•As was reported upon extensively by the press during the trial, DG and BM returned shortly thereafter by Concorde to New York to retrieve the ‘stolen’ gems.
•No flagging of their names occurred at U.S immigration requesting that they be detained for further questioning.
•Instead DG and BM simply sailed through on their return trip a few hours later with the missing gems under the noses of both the US and British Customs!
•No evidence was adduced by Berke during the trial of his suspicions at the time of the staged robbery. Had he been suspicious from the outset and had he informed his superiors of those suspicions one would have expected to see Memos to his seniors to that effect or his case notes, for example.

In short, it is perfectly clear what has happened here.

Berke has felt somewhat humiliated and is looking to mitigate some of that embarrassment – a little like the security personnel who let Mohammad Atta onto the plane he flew into one of the twin towers and who stated in documentaries after the event that they had had their suspicions the second they saw him!

Finally, we come to Berke’s “James Bond character”, as he calls him.

Were this claim to have been made by Risdon, the authors of this site would dismiss it out of hand as yet another invention. Precisely because Berke is no outright liar in the manner of Risdon, however, this will have to remain a claim which one can neither prove nor disprove, despite the fact that it seems ‘too good to be true’, for which reason alone it should be treated with scepticism.

Certain facts, however, are beyond debate:

•No mention of this so-called MI5 character was made at the trial, including by Berke himself. Had it been, the Press would certainly have reported on it. Indeed, they would have had a field day.
•No evidence is produced by Berke to corroborate this claim, either in this video or anywhere else. Much more impressive would have been, for example, a contemporaneous letter written to his superiors stating something to the effect of: “guys, something in my bones tells me this is a set-up.” Instead, nothing – in itself implying that it was his colleagues at work and his superiors, rather than him, who messed up because he sensed all along that it was a set-up while they chose to ignore his warnings. It would be interesting to see what his superiors would say about this inference.
•Instead a certain “telex” is referred to by Berke which is supposed to exonerate him and of which, conveniently, no copy was made and which, again rather conveniently, is supposed to have disappeared without trace.

As stated, these are claims which one can neither prove nor disprove but only treat with caution which is perhaps why they were made in the first place.

The authors of this site wish Ray Berke every success with his endeavour to get his memoirs published.

Back to Top up arrow

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