THE accused in the Safeway poison case, Dr Paul Agutter, went into the
witness box yesterday to deny repeatedly that he deliberately poisoned
his wife and covered his tracks by placing contaminated tonic water on
supermarket shelves without caring who bought it.
Dr Agutter also insisted that Ms Carole Bonsall, the new woman in his
life, was not putting him under any pressure to leave his wife and marry
her.
He denies trying to murder his wife, Alex, 39, by putting atropine in
her gin and tonic at their home at Kilduff Lodge, Athelstaneford, East
Lothian, on August 28 this year. He further denies placing tonic water
contaminated with atropine on shelves at Safeway's at Swanston,
Edinburgh, on August 24.
During more than two hours of evidence, Dr Agutter, 48, told the High
Court in Edinburgh that the only other ''crime'' he had been charged
with involved a parking ticket.
His counsel, Mr Neil Murray, QC, put to him evidence that suggested he
had the opportunity and the ability to obtain the poison and what the
tabloid press might regard as the motive to attempt to murder his wife.
''No, I had no motive,'' replied Dr Agutter, a lecturer in
biochemistry at Edinburgh's Napier University.
Mr Murray: You had a mistress, hadn't you? Dr Agutter: I would not use
that word.
Do you find that an offensive word? -- Yes.
Dr Agutter accepted Mr Murray's phrase that he had ''two ladies in his
life''.
He agreed he had spoken to turnkeys at Edinburgh Sheriff Court after
his arrest but denied admitting his guilt to them. He said the
conversation had taken place after three fellow prisoners set upon him
in the cells, giving him a cracked rib, two black eyes, a split lip, and
a loose tooth.
Dr Agutter agreed he might have been at Safeways on August 24 putting
two bottles of tonic water on shelves but said he had found them on the
floor.
Asked why he had not dialled 999 when his wife became ill on August
28, but simply left a message through his GP's answering service, Dr
Agutter replied: ''I take the view that our emegency services are badly
overstretched and I would only telephone 999 for an ambulance if I knew
I was facing an immediately life-threatening situation.''
He was asked to explain evidence which showed the concentration of
atropine in his wife's drink was markedly higher than the concentration
in a bottle of tonic he had bought at Safeway on August 24. Mr Murray
pointed out the obvious explanation was that the poison had been put
directly into his wife's glass.
Dr Agutter said another possible explanation was that powdered
atropine had been used to contaminate the tonic bottle and some of it
had become stuck around the neck before dropping into the glass when the
tonic was poured. That would have caused a higher concentration.
Questioned by Mr Andrew Lamb, Advocate-depute, Dr Agutter was reminded
about a meeting with his GP a week before the Safeway incident.
The GP gave evidence that Dr Agutter had felt suicidal because of a
number of problems, including the fact that he was under pressure to
leave his wife and marry Ms Bonsall.
''I never once felt under pressure from Carole of that sort,'' replied
Dr Agutter.
Mr Lamb: Is it not the position that your feelings towards your
situation persisted and that, as a consequence, you set out to poison
your wife deliberately?
Dr Agutter: No sir.
And, at the same time with a view to cover the tracks of what you were
doing, you adulterated tonic water at Safeways and allowed it to be put
on shelves regardless of who might buy the tonic with atrophine
poisoning in it? -- I did not do it.
That explains why the atropine in your wife's drink was substantially
higher than anywhere else. -- No sir, that's not the explanation.
The trial continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article