 |
 |
David Arthur Widdowson
Imperial College of Science, Technology and MedicineDepartment of Chemistry
|
|
Dr Widdowson was a defence expert at the fourth trial of Mr Panos Koupparis. He introduced himself in the following extract from the official trial transcript and went on to give his opinion concerning the viability of the alleged threat contained in the so-called demand documents.
| Volume IX, Pages 15-37, Monday 26th June, 1989 The Official Transcript |
|---|
(In the presence of the jury)
DAVID ARTHUR WIDDOWSON: Sworn
Examined by Mr. Beckman
[...]
MR. BECKMAN: What is your full name? A. David Arthur
Widdowson.
Q. Your personal address? A. My personal address is 2 West
Wood Gardens, Barnes, London.
Q. Your occupation? A. I am a university teacher, a
university reader.
Q. In what subject? A. Organic chemistry.
Q. At which university? A. At Imperial College, London.
Q. Presumably in the Department of Chemistry? A. Indeed.
Q. Your qualifications - and can you, unlike the man whose
writings we are examining, avoid the use of mnemonics?
A. Yes, I have a Doctorate of Science, Doctorate of
Philosophy, a Bachelor of Science and a Diploma of Imperial
College. These are all awarded - except the Bachelor they
are all awarded for researches in organic chemistry.
Q. Would it be not too conceited of you to say you are
reasonably well qualified in the subject? A. I think so,
yes.
|
There is no suggestion that Dr Widdowson was part of the politically-motivated Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice that permeated the trial of Mr Koupparis. It seems that he may have been unwittingly duped by the trial lawyers into playing the role of a decoy while the defendant's irrefutable defence was sabotaged, resulting in his wrongful conviction.
We believe that Dr Widdowson would not have taken part in that fiasco if he had been aware of Dr Heather Ashton's expert pharmacological report and its implications under English Criminal Law.
Dr Widdowson was called to establish that the chemical threat within the alleged blackmail offence was not scientifically viable. Such an argument could never have formed a valid defence because, under English law, blackmail is a crime of specific intent. This means that the prosecution had to persuade the jury that Mr Koupparis had a 'guilty mind' or mens rea regardless of whether the threat was viable in scientific or practical terms.
Dr Widdowson's testimony was of no consequence because Dr Ashton's report established an irrefutable defence to any crime of specific intent, namely that Mr Koupparis could not have formed the necessary mens rea because he was suffering from an involuntary, drug-induced psychosis at the time of the alleged offence.
Mr Koupparis' defence was so powerful that he could have established his innocence against charges of multiple murder - it was this defence that was sabotaged by his own lawyers in order to avoid embarrassing the president of Cyprus, Mr Spiros Kyprianou, who had recently lost the 1988 elections (postponed from 1987 after Mr Koupparis and his family were arrested).
Equinox: broadcast on 26th November, 1995.
A fascinating chemical forensic detective story. Why did a young woman leak a nerve gas as she lay dying in a hospital in California?
Synthetic Posters and Papers
Received 27 April 1995: