2.2. While the competence of Cypriot doctors is not normally a subject for investigation by the British police, the fact that their actions may have led to an injustice in this country may justify such action, however, my wife's part in this case is within their jurisdiction as she was in this country while the disputed prescription was administered and could be extradited to stand trial if a case is found.
2.3. As a result of the prescriptions I was given almost my entire family were arrested, including my wife. She spent nine weeks in custody and two years on remand until she was acquitted at the judge's direction when one of our trials was abandoned. I spent a total of three years and four months in prison. The case has cost millions of pounds and has involved the police forces and governments of two countries and many expert witnesses. The legal profession has manipulated the evidence and facts of this case in order to secure a wrongful conviction against me. Almost all of the evidence presented herein was suppressed or distorted to achieve this aim. I believe that this was done on behalf of the alleged victims who were anxious to avoid political embarrassment and were prepared to coerce the normal judicial process.
3.2. In Cyprus the addiction was exacerbated for a number of reasons and I soon began to experience psychiatric symptoms, a fairly typical reaction to long term use. As a result I sought medical advice and ended up under the care of a Cypriot psychiatrist, Dr Panos Sophocleous, in early 1985.
3.3. Mr S Mesjner, junior defence counsel, reports seeing independent evidence to suggest that he was mentally ill, was well known to over-prescribe and that he was struck off. I understand that he was also addicted to psychiatric drugs and that his medical qualifications were bogus, however, at that time I did not know any of this. He mis-diagnosed my condition as a serious mental disorder and compounded my symptoms with massive overdoses of powerful schizophrenia drugs and more hypnotics. British medical experts agreed that he also administered obsolete and dangerous treatments which he has tried to deny. Miss Postgate gave evidence on oath that he had originally given her a different account of my treatments to those which appeared in his records and that he altered his records in her presence.
3.4. I began to experience delusions, paranoid ideas and underwent a dramatic personality change. In mid 1986 my wife arranged for me to see another doctor because I was getting progressively worse. The new psychiatrist, Dr Takis Evthokas, may have realised what had happened to me and put me on a course of treatments to reverse the effects of the previous drugs, although Dr Sophocleous had given him an inaccurate account of his treatments.
3.5. There is a great deal of inconsistency in both of their statements and it seems that neither of them has told the entire truth. It was a crucial aspect of my defence to establish exactly what these doctors had prescribed but the consequences of this were politically unacceptable and this part of my defence was sabotaged by my own lawyers. My wife was acquitted and the trial was abandoned when it became apparent that I wished to pursue this line of questioning.
4.1.2. Nothing had ever taken place between her sister and I but one of the side-effects of the drugs was to induce sexual fantasies of a vivid nature which enabled me to believe that an affair had actually taken place and to convince my wife of this even though her sister persistently denied it. This phenomenon has since been described in scientific medical papers and featured in a well reported trial recently.
4.2.2. One of my drug-induced delusions was that the British Secret Intelligence Service had deposited a vast fortune on my behalf in a numbered Swiss bank account as a reward for my services to the Crown. I told my wife that this was my pension. She may have believed me and expected to inherit a lot of money if something were to happen to me.
4.2.3. Although these delusions sound ludicrous, I should point out that I had worked for a number of secret Government departments both in the UK and abroad in the field of espionage technology. My wife became peripherally involved in some of my assignments and she was working closely with the Head of Station at the British High Commission in Cyprus where she was employed, therefore, there was a reasonable basis for her to believe them. She was also told by Dr Evthokas that one of my medications behaved like a "truth-drug", which enhanced my credibility.
5.2. My wife's sister, Miss Litsa Hallouma, was then dating a pharmacist whose first name was Louis, he worked for the Cypriot Ministry of Health in the department responsible for the licensing and use of prescription drugs in Cyprus. He had access to their adverse reaction reports, etc. He was also writing a book on poisoning and antidotes. Miss Hallouma occasionally typed-up his manuscripts.
5.3. My wife accompanied me to most of my consultations with Dr Evthokas who gave her the responsibility of administering my complex daily medications and she also cashed in my prescriptions at our local pharmacist, Mr Georgiades.
5.4. I recall Dr Evthokas explaining to her that at least some of my bizarre symptoms were due to the drugs, especially in relation to amnesia and he described one medication, HALCION, as having a "truth-drug" like effect. Other doctors she consulted warned her that my drug treatments were excessive and dangerous.
5.5. With hindsight, it seems that my wife had access to expert medical knowledge regarding my drugs and the effects they might have on me. She acted as an intermediary between myself, the doctors and pharmacist at a time when I was unable to manage my own affairs, therefore, she had ample opportunity to alter my prescription to serve her own ends.
6.2. Dr C H Ashton's report explains the effects of these drugs. It is clear that taking everything on exhibit #17/p196 could precipitate a very serious and dangerous adverse mental reaction in someone normal. I was taking all those drugs under my wife's supervision. Either they were prescribed exactly as she said they were, in which case Dr Evthokas is guilty of gross negligence or this was a near lethal concoction administered by her to get me out of the way without arousing any suspicion of foul-play.
7.2. Even after our arrests she made no mention whatsoever of any of these undeniably pertinent circumstances. The obvious question is why? She was prepared to spend nine weeks in police holding cells rather than tell the truth and undoubtedly obtain her release, furthermore, she had no way of knowing that substantial sureties or bail would be forthcoming at that time. As it was she spent two years on remand awaiting trial for what was a very serious offence without ever making a single statement of any substance regarding my medical history, not even after she was released on bail and I was still in the psychiatric wing of Brixton prison.
8.2. Exhibit #17/p196 was served by the Crown. Miss Postgate showed it to Mr Georgiades who identified it as being one of two prescriptions my wife had asked him to prepare just prior to leaving Cyprus. Miss Postgate also reported that he had given her some original prescriptions from his files.
8.3. Dr Evthokas made a statement confirming that he had prescribed all the drugs listed in exhibit #17/p196 (except for VALIUM which was accounted for by Dr Sophocleous). Before Miss Postgate interviewed him he had sent a letter to me in prison with a list of drugs he claimed he had prescribed which did not correspond with his subsequent statement.
8.4. I have always maintained that, according to my wife, exhibit #17/p196 was the actual prescription that I was supposed to take and that she had made sure that I had taken it, however, Dr Evthokas claimed that I was not supposed to be taking the whole cocktail but only a tiny part of it at any one time and that I should also have been taking NAVANE, which is an anti-psychotic drug for treating severe mental disturbances, either natural or drug-induced. He also claims that he had prescribed other anti-psychotics.
8.5. According to Miss Postgate the pharmacist denied that he had dispensed NAVANE for me but it is listed on one of the prescriptions she says she obtained from him. I had never heard of NAVANE and I am certain that I was never given it. It is not amongst the medications I brought with me to London and it is not listed in exhibit #17/p196. Dr Evthokas diagnosis of "pseudo-schizophrenia" meant that I should have been on anti-psychotics and in a secure mental hospital, yet, I was out and about taking massive doses of drugs known to precipitate and potentiate psychoses! It does not make sense unless someone is lying!
9.1.2. These tapes also contain conversations between myself and Dr Nicolas Vites who was a police surveillance target at one point. He became convinced that I held the secret of extracting gold from sea-water, another of my delusions, as documents in police possession show. He refused to co-operate with the defence and never gave a statement, however, he did speak to my wife on the phone and expressed his concern over my state of mind. Dr Dolores Mouyiasi was also captured on these tapes talking to my wife and to me on various occasions.
9.1.3. They may also hold evidence vital to the investigation into whether my wife was responsible for precipitating my state of psychosis.
9.2.2. Exhibit #NP/676, a micro-cassette tape, was found in my briefcase on the day of arrest. It includes a conversation between myself and Dr Sophocleous which demonstrates the extent of my delusions and the adverse effects of one of the drugs I was prescribed. The defence was never given full access to this item and it was suppressed at the trial. It is still at Scotland Yard. A very unsatisfactory transcript, which was prepared by Mr S Mesjner, is attached along with the served police transcript for comparison illustrating how evidence was distorted and suppressed.
9.2.3. During the second trial a Cypriot policeman produced a number of police photographs of my home which were assigned exhibit numbers. Some featured a blue plastic lunch box which was the repository of the spare drugs and their instruction leaflets which I had been prescribed during over two years on medications. Despite numerous requests these vital exhibits were never produced for the trial, however, they should still be in the hands of the Cypriot police and will show the accuracy of the doctors' statements as to what they actually prescribed.
9.3.2. According to the arresting officer, Mr Alec Edwards, Dr Ashton's trial report has gone missing from the records department at the Old Bailey. There is some confusion as to which of several reports were used at the trial and how so many versions came into being. There is also no reasonable explanation as to why her oral evidence contradicted the conclusions of all her reports. A letter from her is attached confirming that she still upholds the conclusions of her original reports, copies of which are attached.
9.3.3. A number of letters and correspondence from my doctors were seized by the police in Cyprus and London, some of these have never been disclosed but they may be useful for cross-checking my Cypriot doctor's statements. These exhibits are still with the Cypriot police and anti-terrorist squad.
9.3.4. A part copy of a letter written by my wife and seized by the anti-terrorist squad is attached, the final part carries my wife's signature. It illustrates her feelings towards me immediately prior to our arrests. This document was suppressed because it matches the handwriting on another exhibit (TK/28) which the prosecution were trying to ascribe to me as part of their case.
9.3.5. Drs Evthokas and Sophocleous have stated that they were interviewed by the police in connection with my arrest, however, no such interviews have been disclosed and I recall that a Cypriot police witness denied this under oath. An attendance note attached confirms the position regarding Dr Sophocleous. Such interviews would be most useful to this line of enquiry.
13.6.2. Joseph Aaron of William Stockler & Co. acted for my wife and I in the criminal case. He took instructions from me and interviewed witnesses. He was aware of my medical history and medications. Counsel applied for a disposal under the Mental Health Act. When he withdrew from my defence it was primarily because of my state of mind. Furthermore, my wife and I had been employed by a joint venture partnership between Alexis Mardas and Aaron's partner, William Stockler. Mardas became a prosecution witness. Under the Law Society's code of ethics, Aaron should not have conducted my wife's defence let alone her divorce. He was subject to many conflicts of interest, however, he continued to participate in the legal conspiracy surrounding the case and ensured that the truth about my wife's role never surfaced at our trials and, later, in the civil courts. William Stockler was involved in my delusional activities but was not called as a defence witness. He continues to cite a conflict of interests for not assisting now.
14.2. On exhibit page 132, paragraph 20 refers to the statement of Mrs Kontou, exhibit 32 p133-134, a prosecution witness. Mrs Koupparis admits that she had not told the truth about her injuries. In paragraph 19 she continues to lie in a matter that can be checked independently. The fact is that it is illegal for a Cyprus national to be a shareholder of an offshore company. When she acquired that status in February 1985 she had to relinquish her shares. Mrs Koupparis has consistently lied and changed her story to suit her objectives and continues to do so.
19.2. Dr Evthokas told Miss Postgate; I had no letter of intro from Sophocleous, nor any confirmation of previous dosages from any source save PK and his wife. ... His wife was controlling drugs. ... I had his wife check on drugs. I saw her quite frequently.
19.3. At the top of the last page of her notes, p155, Miss Postgate wrote; Shown letter: His own letter and chemist's note. Beneath she wrote; Anafranil and Vivalan only prescribed. It is not clear from her notes which letter he was shown but the only way this can be reconciled is if he regarded his last noted prescription of 2nd January 1987 as a single, complete treatment. But his letter of 27th January 1989, exhibit 7, contradicts this view. The transcript suggests he was shown his letter of 26th March 1987, exhibit 38, p156, which makes no mention of medications. Miss Postgate already had the original letter of 27th January 1989 that he had sent to me at my request. It would have made more sense if she had shown him that letter because it deals with the medications and would have confronted him with the contradiction.
19.4. However, at the bottom of the page she wrote; His wife or mother requested last letter to confirm treatments. Letter: I sent a report to him - will give me (Postgate) copy. No such report has been disclosed. Although he has denied knowing that I was going to see a specialist in England, that is not true and I recall that he did write a full report of his treatments at my wife's request, my mother and mother-in-law had no contact with him at that time. I believe Miss Postgate's note refers to a copy of that report. The original was found by the Police but remains undisclosed. The report's disclosure would settle my prescription conclusively which is why it has been suppressed by the Police, prosecution and defence lawyers.
19.5. Amongst the unused material recovered from the Cyprus Police by Miss Postgate is exhibit 39, p157, a manuscript in Mrs Koupparis' handwriting. At the top of the page is Dr Evthokas' home telephone number followed by the words; prescription to cover not named of Anafranil, Ludiomil, Xanax, Halcion, Vivalan - Valium. Precisely the lethal cocktail on exhibit 35, p143. The rest of the page is taken up with an almost identical draft of Dr Evthokas' letter of 26th March 1987!
19.6. Miss Postgate also recovered an envelope addressed to me at my mother's London home and postmarked Nicosia, 6th April 1987. Exhibit 40, p158 is written in Mrs Koupparis' handwriting and is prominently marked MEDICAL. It was found amongst the unused material held by Scotland Yard. The Police continue to suppress its contents.
19.7. The significance of the above two items is as follows: My wife, on receipt of Dr Evthokas' full report, and on the pretext that she took objection to its mention of my obsession with her sister, persuaded him to write his letter of 26th March 1987, that she had drafted herself. This was then posted to me to avoid exposing the alteration of my prescription. I needed a letter of introduction for a specialist in London. I would not have continued to take all the drugs on exhibit 35, p143 unless I believed it properly represented Dr Evthokas' treatments.
She maintained regular personal contact with my doctors and was able to inform Dr Evthokas about Dr Sophocleous' drug dosages. Dr Evthokas gave her the responsibility of controlling and checking my drugs, she cashed in my prescriptions, she drafted the doctor's letter and the pharmacist's prescriptions, even requesting alterations when they were not what she wanted. She secretly consulted with Dr Mouyiasi about drug side-effects.
She has told a pack of lies throughout and now tries to deny all of the above. She was also instrumental in preventing me from getting proper medical treatment while we were in England, both before and after our arrests. Under the Galbraith guidelines there is enough evidence to commit Mrs Koupparis on a charge of attempted murder were the case not complicated by the politically motivated conspiracy to falsely convict me and maintain that status quo!