The Facts


Do you have information about this man to share?  Mail us on!


  1. Peter Risdon was not a remotely decent bloke at all. All the evidence shows him to be a thoroughly unpleasant, envious and treacherous man – qualities he displayed long before he had even met DG and BM and long after informing against them to the police. Early indications of his instincts come with an armed robbery in Scotland for which he is able to obtain a ‘not proven’ verdict owing to string-pulling on the part of one of his criminal associates who had a relative in the police. A mortgage scam in Scotland also features. Perhaps most indicative of all is his relationship with friends and family members. The authors of this site have much evidence in this regard which they have withheld but a clue as to Risdon’s character can be gleaned from his less than chivalrous treatment of his common-law wife at the time of his arrest for his attempted diamond fraud. Such was his treachery that he would regularly mock her in front of his work colleagues, despite her standing by him, for being too “ugly” and would brag that he would dump her in favour of a more glamorous model as soon as he came into some money. Peter Risdon, being a physical and moral coward, was, in short, a man far more dangerous to his friends than his enemies. He considered himself clever for informing on DG and BM – and others in different contexts – and obtaining lenient treatment in respect of his petty criminality without appreciating how normal human nature operates. For he failed to realise that, far from considering him clever, the common man views the traitor as the worst of all men. Indeed, manyPeter Risdon posing with revolver of the police officers investigating the DG/BM affair, together with the prosecution team, openly admitted their contempt for ‘grasses’, despite benefiting from their treachery. And it is a theme repeated throughout human history – the snitch is always despised. By everyone. And largely because the traitor’s job, far from being clever, is easy. Anyone, in any context, in whom people have confided for whatever reason – in battle, in business, in love, can betray. Nothing is more simple and, thereby, more contemptible. Risdon understood this lesson too late and much of his life ever since has constituted an attempt to justify actions on his part that were prompted not by noble motivations but by fear, cowardice, treachery, envy and self-hatred. He would have been far better advised to come entirely clean in his various ‘explanations’ or, at the very least, to let sleeping dogs lie.
  2. In the late 1980s, Risdon works for the Counter Spy shop in South Audley Street, London – a company that specialises in counter-surveillance equipment. He is fascinated by James Bond type gadgets and fantasises, inter alia, about developing a ray gun that can be aimed at the windows of buildings in order to listen in to conversations behind their walls.
  3. It is also at this point that he embarks upon one of his trademark tricks – charging his clients for sweeping their offices only to plant listening devices in the hope of being able to blackmail those clients subsequently. He will later  claim in an review of DG’s book using the pseudonym of ‘Unforgiven’ that his reason for bugging DG’s telephone (by means of which he obtained The Johnson Tapes referred to above) had been for self-protection (See Exhibit 49) and that he had done this only after he had realised that he had been “framed” by DG and BM and duped into acting as the gunman in a robbery of precious gemstones in a New York hotel, an event that he had originally assumed, according to his statement given to police in May 1991, was part of a “25,000 book-keeping exercise.”
  4. Such an excuse simply does not hold water. If this was indeed the case then why was it that he had bugged a number of premises, quite apart from DG’s, in the hope of being able to blackmail his clients at a future date, long before he had taken part in DG and BM’s “book-keeping exercise?” (See Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3)
  5. Peter Risdon leaves the Counter Spy Shop in around 1988 to set up ‘Electronic Techniques and Services Ltd’ with BMcL (See Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3). Here he boasts to his colleagues about being “University-educated”, claiming to have graduated from Prince William’s alma mater St. Andrew’s University in Scotland. This is yet another typical Risdon lie. Although Risdon may well have started a university course he certainly never graduated and, as with every venture he has embarked upon, flunked, and then lied about it. This desperate need for affirmation will reveal itself in similar lies on the part of Peter Risdon – one particular, almost touching example, coming some years later when he claims to have single-handedly “broken the (UK) opticians’ monopoly”, a ludicrous assertion which he makes in several places, including Exhibit 52 and Exhibit 60. He then waits for the man actually responsible for leading the campaign against the opticians, Patrick Trevor-Roper, who owned a handful of shops of which Risdon was a mere employee, to die, before anonymously posting this claim on Mr Trevor-Roper’s Wikipedia page. Embarrassingly for Risdon, however, he is unmasked as the author of this posting, all of which can be seen in Exhibit 60. (See also certain parts of the dialogue in Exhibit 61, including a post which he makes using the pseudonym “Anthony”).  It is also at ‘Electronic Techniques and Services’ that he embarks upon many acts of petty criminality including forging his business partner’s signature to draw monies from the company bank account, stealing tenants’ computers, defrauding his creditors and so on (See Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3). Eventually, his various companies, in a pattern that is to be repeated throughout his life, go bankrupt owing to mismanagement and fraud in what are usually hamfisted attempts to imitate the ‘long fraud’, a speciality of the Richardson brothers for whom Risdon had much admiration.
  6. In March 1990, DG and BM make the fatal error of hiring him as the gunman in their New York heist (in respect of which Peter Risdon would turn supergrass one year later, after DG and BM had succeeded in being paid out by Lloyds of London insurers). They inform Peter Risdon of their plan – to make an insurance claim against Lloyds of London which had insured their company’s gemstones for some 2 Million Pounds, a coup that was intended to get their company out of financial difficulties as well as settling a family score; (DG’s father had been a name at Lloyds and had been ruined as a result). DG and BM in fact have severe misgivings about involving Peter Risdon but he had done some work for them previously (manufacturing crates designed to conceal gold destined for India) and he pleads with them to be involved, arguing that he would be useful as he could obtain a gun in New York and that he desperately needs some money for his services. Against their better instincts and, fatally, DG and BM agree to let him participate.
  7. In March 1990 the New York heist occurs without a hitch. The Loss Adjuster’s report states: “We have confirmed with the police that in their mind, there is no doubt that this is a genuine loss.”
  8. Lloyds of London are fooled and DG and BM’s company is paid out within a few weeks of the robbery occurring. (See Exhibit 55)
  9. Risdon is impressed.
  10. At first he toys with the idea of blackmailing DG and BM over his role in the affair (See Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3).
  11. Then, about two months after the robbery he invites them to his offices and suggests a re-run of their heist but this time involving him as their partner. DG and BM politely decline his generous offer.
  12. A few months after this Peter Risdon hatches a cunning plan with the uncle of one his work associates. The plan is to insure a large rough diamond that had been obtained in South Africa in circumstances involving a murder for several hundred thousand pounds; to show this diamond to a number of dealers in London in order to confirm its existence and value with the insurers (see also Comments to Exhibit 57, sub-para 4); to deposit the said diamond in the Midland Bank in the name of the owner, William Alexander; for Peter Risdon to turn up at the bank with a fake passport in the name of Mr Alexander where he would withdraw the diamond; for the genuine Mr Alexander to present himself at the bank some time later where he would be staggered to learn that his diamond had been fraudulently withdrawn and at that point to put in an insurance claim and split the proceeds with his partner, Peter Risdon.
  13. Unfortunately for Peter ‘Norman’ Risdon, however, the plan backfires in its early stages, largely because his partners in crime have already attempted an almost identical scam – unsuccessfully – at a different branch of the same bank some time previously.
  14. Peter Risdon will be challenged to provide an explanation for this sequence of events in a blog some sixteen years later (see Exhibit 52). The best excuse he will be able to come up with, having thought about it all that time, is that he had simply attempted to withdraw the property of some ‘charming fellows’ as a favour for them because they had been unable to attend the bank in person owing to engagements abroad in South Africa.
  15. This ‘explanation’, together with the ‘explanation’ given by him for his involvement in the DG/BM heist (“I thought it was part of a 25,000 book-keeping exercise”), must rank among the most absurd excuses for criminal activity ever given in the history of law-breaking.
  16. After Peter Risdon is arrested in March 1991 red-handed by officers of the Regional Crime Squad 9 in the Midland Bank attempting to commit his diamond insurance fraud referred to above, he partakes in a number of Police interviews (see Exhibits 8, 9 & 10). The chronology with regards to Risdon’s arrest should be noted: because his subsequent grassing of DG and BM occurs a whole year after his participation in DG and BM’s New York heist and not, as he would maintain, a mere month later when he had, according to his version of events, been prompted by “much soul-searching” to hand them in to the police (see Exhibit 48).
  17. During his police interviews Peter Risdon provides the names and, where he is able, the addresses, of his colleagues. (See Exhibits 8, 9 & 10). It is also obvious from a reading of the transcripts of these interviews that from the virtual outset of the process he explores ways of trading information regarding DG and BM in return for leniency. Equally obvious is that the police officers concerned have all worked out very quickly what Risdon’s plan has been – to commit an insurance fraud.
  18. Peter Risdon is charged (see Exhibits 4 -7) and remanded in custody in Wormwood Scrubs pending posting of bail. During this period and after his release about a week later, Risdon uses his girlfriend (the one he mocked regularly for being too ‘ugly’ for him) to contact DG and BM in an attempt to blackmail them for money. DG and BM refuse to cave in. And indeed, at the time of his arrest DG had been contacted by police investigating Peter Risdon, had kept his cool and had sought to protect Risdon by giving a statement that was beneficial for him (See Exhibit 46). The contrast with Risdon’s treachery could not be sharper.
  19. Having been released from Wormwood Scrubs on bail, Peter Risdon immediately commences a series of ‘informal’ chats that he had been angling for in his police interviews (See Exhibits 8, 9 & 10) with officers from The Regional Crime Squad 9 who had arrested him. These ‘chats’ occur in a particular pub along the Embankment.
  20. During DG and BM’s trial some 18 months later, defence lawyers will ask for notes taken of these meetings to be produced in evidence. They will be informed that, mysteriously, none exist.
  21. As a result of these informal chats, and after Peter Risdon has supplied his now notorious written statement to police informing against DG and BM in which he explains away his role in the New York heist as the result of having believed that he was merely participating in a “25,000 book-keeping exercise”, all charges against Risdon are dropped (see Exhibit 7). It is in this same statement to police that Risdon also states, euphemistically: “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,” or, in simple English “I am grassing DG and BM up one year after the events in question as a direct consequence of you arresting me.” This admission in the plainest of terms could not contrast more with his subsequent attempts to justify his cowardice and grassing with the most ludicrous series of excuses. (See Exhibits 48, 49 and 62 in particular)
  22. Charges will be re-introduced for appearance’s sake and on the advice of Prosecuting Counsel in November 1991 but only after officers from the Regional Crime Squad 9 have flown to South Africa, have interviewed Risdon’s accomplices and have firmly established that, unlike Peter Risdon, they will not be informing against him (See Exhibits 6 & Exhibit 12).
  23. Not surprisingly, without witnesses the case against Risdon was never going to go very far and eventually it will be dismissed, not even being put before a jury for consideration – a fact that Risdon argues somehow ‘proves’ his ‘innocence.’
  24. Nevertheless, as has already occurred in their interviews with Risdon, during their interview with his South African accomplice, the police officers concerned make crystal clear their beliefs: Risdon and his South African accomplices had planned an insurance fraud in respect of a large uncut diamond deposited at the Midland Bank (See Exhibit 12). This theory is corroborated by all the evidence, and it is simply too much to accept that not only was Risdon an innocent dupe in March 1990 (despite discharging a gun in a hotel room in New York and making off with 2M worth of gems), but that he was just as much an innocent dupe exactly one year later when he walked into the Midland Bank with a fake passport and attempted to retrieve a heavily insured rough diamond.
  25. In July 1991, on the basis of Risdon’s grassing, DG and BM are arrested by the same team that had arrested Risdon four months previously. Certain police officers as well as members of the prosecution team will later confide that they had been prepared to overlook Peter Risdon’s career of petty criminality because they considered him a “zero” and “no threat” and viewed DG and BM as far bigger prizes.
  26. During their search of DG’s premises, officers from the Regional Crime Squad 9 confiscate certain personal items including private letters written to DG by Earl Spencer, brother of the Princess of Wales. One of these letters will be reproduced in full on the front cover of the Daily Star shortly after DG’s conviction in February 1993 (See Exhibit 54). Sources at the newspaper will confirm a few years later to the publishers of DG’s book that the letter in question had been sold to them by police officers. A number of officers involved in the DG/BM case will subsequently be investigated by the Complaints Investigation Bureau of the Police (an English equivalent of the American ‘Internal Affairs’) regarding the sale of Earl Spencer’s letter to the Press as well as other unrelated and more serious matters. Those officers will resign from the force shortly thereafter in circumstances that have yet to be disclosed publicly. Interested readers can research for themselves the history of the South East Regional Crime Squad. It should not take them very long to get the picture.
  27. During their police interviews under caution DG and BM maintain their right to silence. BM cracks a few jokes but basically gives little away while DG says nothing at all see Exhibit 57). The contrast with Risdon’s verbal diarrhoea in his own police interviews could not be sharper (See Exhibits 8, 9 & 10).
  28. DG and BM attend a bail hearing 48 hours later and are released on sureties of 500,000 each despite opposition from the prosecution who argue that their star witness, Peter Risdon, is in fear for his life and terrified of DG. Such terror is also evidenced in Risdon’s statement to the police in which he states: “I do feel intimidated by Mr Guppy’s threats and I consider him to be a person to employ physical harm to those he sees as having crossed him.”
  29. During the bail hearing DG and BM’s defence barrister raises a laugh in court when he points out the inconsistency in the prosecution’s claim that Peter Risdon had acted as DG and BM’s ‘tough guy’ in their New York heist and Risdon’s fear of DG. “Some tough guy”, he remarks sardonically.
  30. It takes almost 18 months to bring DG and BM to trial during which time the police attempt to gather additional evidence against the pair by soliciting Peter Risdon’s help in planting a listening device on one of his associates who was known to DG (‘BH’) and who attempts to lure DG into making a confession while wearing a wire tap at a meeting in a London hotel. In fact Peter Risdon and a number of police officers are nearby while the meeting takes place. DG does not fall for the trap and reveals nothing during the said meeting but the extremely cosy relationship between officers from the Regional Crime Squad and their informer, Peter Risdon, a man they have arrested only a few months previously and who they know to be guilty of an attempted insurance fraud as well as all manner of petty criminality, is unusual and unhealthy, to say the least, although consistent with South East Regional Crime Squad practice at the time.
  31. Prior to DG and BM’s trial, Peter Risdon approaches virtually every single newspaper in England in an attempt to peddle his story and it is at this point that he sells the Johnson tapes, which by his own admission he has obtained illegally and over which he has been arrested and cautioned by the police, to The News of the World.
  32. DG and BM’s trial begins in October 1992 at Snaresbrook Crown Court and lasts some four months. It is extensively reported upon in the British media.
  33. Risdon gives evidence as the Prosecution’s star witness and attempts further to ingratiate himself with the media. He thoroughly enjoys the attention. Fame at last! He has truly arrived! He now has his chance to get even with a couple of youngsters whose successful heist he has tried to imitate and has made his own attempt look farcical. There is a moment during his testimony when, in an attempt to suck up to DG who is in the dock, he remarks to the defence barrister “I’m still very fond of him (DG), you know.”
  34. Needless to say, despite benefiting from his treachery, the press take a dim view of Peter Risdon and make clear from the articles published about the trial that they consider him a low-life, one journalist remarking that DG and BM’s single fatal mistake had been to involve him in their scheme, summing the point up succinctly: “if you lie with dogs, you catch fleas.”
  35. The day after DG and BM’s conviction, The News of the World publish Peter Risdon’s story (see Exhibit 56). Up until this point Risdon’s excuse for giving evidence against DG and BM had been that he had been angry at the pair at having been duped or ‘framed’ into taking part in what he had been led to believe was a “25,000 book-keeping exercise.” In this article, however, the first of many changes to his story occurs where he argues that his motivation had in fact been his concern about DG’s increasingly dangerous schemes, one of which included hijacking a tanker in the Persian Gulf in order to sell the oil to Iran. A better grasp of Geography on the part of ‘University-educated’ Peter Risdon might have prevented such an elementary error, for most ten years olds will appreciate that the one commodity on the planet of which Iran has precious little need is in fact crude oil. A similarly poor grasp of elementary geography will be evident over a decade later when, in an attempt on a number of blogs to prove a convoluted conspiracy theory involving IP addresses, he confuses Pretoria, Gauteng with Cape Town, in the Western Cape Province in South Africa where DG resides. (See Exhibit 52)
  36. Very quickly after the trial and the accompanying publicity, Peter Risdon realises his plan has backfired. Far from considering him commendable or even treating him neutrally the press have in fact recognised him as the creep he is. In fact, one of the very police officers involved in investigating DG and BM makes clear in an article in Vanity Fair his belief that Risdon had grassed on DG and BM not only to avoid prosecution for his own criminal endeavours but out of pique that DG and BM had refused to give in to his blackmail.
  37. Granted, Peter Risdon has made a few thousand pounds out of The News of the World and from selling The Johnson Tapes but that money is quickly spent and in the interim he has been exposed throughout the land as a supergrass, causing him considerable embarrassment in front of his criminal associates as well as scuppering any attempt on his part to start again with a clean slate. In addition, a number of criminal associates on whom he has informed in different contexts are less than pleased with him. Accordingly, he goes to ground and keeps a low profile in the hope that the attention will go away and that he will be able to re-invent himself at some later stage.
  38. Three years later, in 1996, after DG has been released from prison and has published his book, Peter Risdon calls round Fleet Street again, in a desperate attempt to limit the damage from his exposure in DG’s book. His pleas go largely unheard although he is able to publish a somewhat partisan review of DG’s book on page 81 of the Daily Express on 26th January, 1997 (See Exhibit 48).
  39. In this ‘review’ his story changes yet again. Here he argues that “after much soul searching” he had decided to turn DG in to the police only “one month” after taking part in the New York heist. This is a stupid and patent lie. Needless to say, no mention is made of the fact that he had kept quiet about his role in the affair not for a month but for an entire year and had only decided to spill the beans after he had been caught red-handed in a bank effectively attempting to imitate DG and BM’s successful sting. (See paragraph 21 above where Risdon’s statement to the police in which he informs on DG and BM is quoted: “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”). Nor is any mention made of his attempted blackmail of DG and BM nor of his capitalising on his role in the affair by selling his story to the press. Readers might consider that there is nothing quite like a spell in Wormwood Scrubs and a cheque from The News of the World to prompt a little “soul searching.”
  40. After a few low-profile years, Peter Risdon resurfaces as a computer consultant, based in Cottenham, Cambridgeshire. He forms two companies, ‘Glasir Limited’ and ‘The Circle Squared Limited.’ These companies go bust in circumstances that lead to his prosecution by the DTI, to two ‘Unfit Conduct Reports’ being filed against him and to his disqualification as a Company Director in 2003. (See Exhibits 50 & 51)
  41. In 2007-8, having failed to mention these inconvenient facts in ‘explanations’ given on his own and various other blogs, Peter Risdon will be challenged on one particular blog (See Exhibit 52) to disclose the truth behind these failed ventures. His excuses will be typical: first, it was all a peccadillo and, second, it was all someone else’s fault in any case, namely a fellow director who “was responsible for financial admin.” Unfortunately for Peter Risdon, appended to the Unfit Conduct Reports mentioned above, are a ‘schedule of unfit conduct to the disqualification undertaking given by Peter William Risdon.’ In this undertaking Peter Risdon admits that it was in fact he who was responsible for the company affairs. It is also clear from this document that, far from his actions as a company director constituting a mere peccadillo, Risdon had systematically siphoned off almost 300,000 in moneys owed to the Revenue from the inception of these companies. (See Exhibit 51 and the dialogue concerning this matter towards the end of Exhibit 52). One can only speculate as to why Peter Risdon did not end up in jail for these ‘peccadilloes.’
  42. In this same blog (Exhibit 52) Peter Risdon also makes the following truly excrutiating remark: “All you'll achieve… is to continue to raise my profile. Carry on, though. It's working well for me.” (our emphasis). This is a highly revealing comment. It explains the nature of Risdon’s Freeborn John blog and his belief in his role as a defender of the people’s right to freedom of expression. It explains why even the press got fed up with his publicity-seeking, the Sunday Times referring to him as the “rangy Australian with a penchant for self-publicity” and the Sun as a man who “would sell his own mother.” (See Exhibit 56, where he sells his story to the News of the World). It explains why he enjoyed giving evidence so much, why he banged on every door in Fleet Street prior to and after the trial and why he has sought to benefit from the Johnson Tapes which he obtained under such dishonourable circumstances (See also Exhibit 59 and Comments thereon). It also explains his desperate and genuinely sad need for validation as evidenced in claims that he once met Robert de Niro, that he corresponded with Lord Harris of High Cross, his ludicrous claim to have single-handedly “broken the UK Opticians’ monopoly” (See Exhibit 60) and his invented claim to have graduated from St. Andrew’s University (See Exhibit 61).
  43. During this period Peter Risdon is married but that marriage collapses and he is divorced in circumstances that the authors of this site have withheld.
  44. In 2004, some fourteen years after his role in the DG/BM heist, Peter Risdon is still so eaten up by his exposure as a supergrass and the consequences this has had for his life that he writes a review on of DG’s autobiography using the pseudonym ‘Unforgiven.’ (See Exhibit 49) In future postings on a number of sites including his own Freeborn John webpage, Peter Risdon will talk of others being ‘sock puppets.’ In light of his ‘review’ and other postings made by him, this constitutes classic Risdon hypocrisy.
  45. In this review, Risdon’s story seems to have changed yet again and once more he simply digs himself further and further into a hole. Here he boasts of bugging DG’s home telephone and car and claims that it was for self-protection having discovered that he had been ‘framed’ by DG and BM. We have already highlighted the absurdity of this claim and no mention is made by him of the fact that he had regularly bugged other clients’ offices for the sole purpose of attempting to blackmail them subsequently. Nor is any mention made of the fact that he had been arrested and charged having been caught red-handed in the Midland Bank attempting to commit an insurance fraud. Instead Peter Risdon asserts that he “wasn’t even charged with any offences”, a claim that is a patent lie.
  46. In a number of postings made at a later date on websites (including Exhibit 52), Peter Risdon’s line that he was somehow ‘framed’ by DG and BM seems to evolve a little. While it is difficult to follow entirely the thread of Risdon’s increasingly convoluted and ill-thought out theories, he seems to suggest, having cogitated matters for some fifteen years, that not only had he been ‘framed’ into taking part in something that he had originally thought to be a “25,000 book-keeping exercise” but that DG and BM had originally provided investigating police officers in New York with a photofit of one of the ‘robbers’ that matched him (Peter Risdon) perfectly. This photofit can be seen as Exhibit 47. Apart from the obvious fact that it looks nothing like him, the logical inference of Risdon’s latest claim is that DG and BM went to all the trouble they did – hiring a gun man, getting robbed at gun point in a hotel room in New York, getting paid out almost 2 Million Pounds in record time by insurers, giving police for obvious reasons an invented description of the principal ‘robber’ that could not be linked to them in any way, getting away with all of this for a year, only to be able to say at some future date to the police in their defence in case it all goes wrong “by the way, we lied. We did know the robber after all. It was Peter Risdon! Look, that’s him in the photofit!” Risdon seems to have got the roles confused here – he is the one who is Norman Risdon, not anyone else. It is possible that by the time of this latest ridiculous excuse years of excessive cannabis smoking have exacerbated a predisposition in him to think incoherently. In 2012 Risdon develops his “I woz framed” line a little further with his posting of a Video in 3 parts on YouTube, only to dig himself further into a hole (See Exhibit 62).
  47. Having failed in everything he has touched in his personal and professional lives, Peter Risdon assumes the identity of ‘Voltaire’ and organises a ‘March for Freedom of Expression’ to express solidarity with those who have published insulting cartoons of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) in Denmark. (25th March 2006). Here at last is a real chance to realise his destiny. However, despite the pre-demonstration hype, this ‘march’ turns out to be not quite the Nuremberg Rally he had anticipated and a few fringe groups turn up. It is at about this time that he also sets up his Freeborn John website, one of the saddest sites in the history of internet. Again, in his own classic style Risdon assumes that he is important and that anyone will be remotely interested in what he will have to say. It is for the reader to determine whether such an assumption is justified or tragically deluded. In this site he regularly posts complimentary comments to himself using pseudonyms, including female aliases. Rather embarrassingly, Risdon’s attempts to model himself as a ‘liberal’ and champion of Free Speech will be exposed as schizophrenic when he is exposed a few years later as a blogger for the English Defence League writing as ‘Peter Pedant.’ (See Exhibit 63; also: ).
  48. It is at this point in his meteoric political career that Peter Risdon appreciates his problem – sooner or later people will discover his history as a notorious supergrass and petty criminal. So, in classic Norman Risdon style, he comes up with a cunning plan: to provide an ‘explanation’ of events which he posts on his website in late 2006. In the original version of this posting no mention is made of his somewhat unsalubrious past, save for a reference to being prosecuted for selling spectacles without the appropriate license and a slap on the wrist for possession of marijuana. No mention of his mortgage frauds, his armed robbery, his companies going bust, his petty criminality, his association with BMcL and so on. Just a glossing over his role in the DG/BM affair, reaching a crescendo with a plea that he is ‘ashamed’, a claim that sounds too ham to ring true.  When challenged at a future date in a blog to elucidate on his attempted diamond scam, Risdon will go back and edit his original ‘explanation’ to include a mention of the affair but only in the most rudimentary manner.
  49. At the end of this posting, Peter Risdon, the man who accuses others being sock puppets, writes to himself, sometimes using female aliases, in terms of being “so brave.”
  50. Slowly, on a number of blogs, the truth emerges and Risdon’s cunning plan has backfired. A video of the New York police officer who originally investigated DG and BM is posted on You Tube (See Exhibit 1). In his increasing anger, and unable to control himself, Risdon simply makes matters worse for himself, eventually prompting DG to initiate libel proceedings against him. A number of self – evidently ludicrous allegations that are never backed up by a shred of evidence are posted on his website on a page entitled ‘Darius Guppy.’ Such allegations include, for example, that he possesses a photograph of DG taken at the time of his arrest emerging from his house wearing sunglasses, despite the fact that the arrest occurred in the early hours of the morning when it was dark and that there is no record of sunglasses on DG’s custody record. However, Risdon’s principal allegation is that DG had paid someone to pour paint stripper over his car and that he had then telephoned him to claim responsibility using an Irish accent. (Quite why the people DG has ‘hired’ would be too frightened to phone themselves to ‘claim responsibility’ is one of many inconsistencies in his story). In the same blog he even asserts that his life has been threatened by an Islamic Fundamentalist. In particular, Risdon claims that a police investigation and British Telecom nuisance calls department report prove DG’s guilt.
  51. When first contacted by DG’s solicitors, Risdon’s reaction is to post a further page on his website entitled ‘libel news.’ Here he compounds his problems with even more ludicrous assertions including that DG had bugged the prosecution’s rooms during his trial, an allegation which, coming from him of all people, simply proves his hypocrisy, lack of any self-awareness and tenuous grip on reality. Libel action or no libel action, the allegations remain! he thunders.
  52. In solicitors’ correspondence (See Exhibit 53) DG’s lawyers ask Peter Risdon to provide the ‘proof’ of their client’s ‘guilt’ which Peter Risdon has claimed on his website to possess and it is obvious from a reading of that correspondence that no such evidence in fact exists. In sum, Peter Risdon has been caught lying, yet again, and is forced to make a humiliating retreat. He removes the offending postings from his website, undertakes not to repeat the allegations and pays a contribution to a cancer charity of DG’s choice. To use one of his favourite expressions, Peter Risdon “has picked a fight and lost.”

Back to Top up arrow

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