Dunblane

William Burns

By

 

My letters accusing Cullen of conducting a Masonic Whitewash are put on his 100-year Closure Order to airbrush them from public records.

All the text in red is an added feature by the editor.

Lord Cullen tried to "GAG" my (William Burns') letters to him for 100 years regarding his inquiry into the Dunblane Massacre.  The letters I sent to Cullen before, during and after the inquiry, asking him to resign as head of the Inquiry if he was a Mason, were yoked together with Thomas Hamilton and police material in an attempt to justify burying the correspondence in his nonstatutory, 100-year Closure Order.  This was an attempt to cover up for his DUNBLANE INQUIRY WHITEWASH. My correspondence with him was mentioned in many websites and referred to by many newspapers, without revealing my identity or the content of the letters.  For years, I was unaware of Cullen's 100-year closure order, otherwise I would have made their content public immediately, gagging order or no gagging order.

Read the embargoed letters below and ask yourself: "What are Lord William Douglas Cullen and the legal establishment trying to hide?  Who or what are they trying to protect by gagging this correspondence?"

This is my first letter to the Cullen Inquiry, put on Lord Cullen's nonstatutory, therefore illegal, 100-year closure order.   The others follow.

William Burns
18 Shore Road
SOUTH QUEENSFERRY
Lothian EH30 9SG

Tel: 0131 331 1855

11 April 1996

Mrs Glynis McKeand
Clerk to the Cullen Inquiry
Parliament House
Edinburgh EH1 1RQ

Dear Mrs McKeand

With reference to the "Notes of Preliminary Hearing" about the "Dunblane Public Inquiry", published in The Scotsman on Wednesday, 10 April 1996, it is in the public interest that Lord Cullen be asked if he is a Freemason, given the widely held view by the public that Thomas Hamilton's Masonic affiliation was probably the reason that the Ombudsman overturned an earlier decision by Central Regional Council in 1983 to prevent Hamilton from running youth clubs, and that his Masonic affiliation probably facilitated his application for a gun licence.

If Lord Cullen is in fact a Freemason, or anyone else involved in the inquiry for that matter, it must be insisted that they resign forthwith from the inquiry because it is far too important to allow the Masonic implication to be whitewashed by furtive operatives in the Freemasons, intent only in "diverting a discourse" - a Masonic ruse - from the involvement of Freemasons and Freemasonry.

Yours sincerely
WILLIAM BURNS
PS
Please consider this letter a formal invitation to Lord Cullen to announce his membership or nonmembership of Freemasonry.

[In response to that first letter, I received a phone call at 9.45am on Thursday, 18 April 1996 (exactly one week later) from Glynis McKeand, the Clerk to the Dunblane Public Inquiry.  She said she brought Lord Cullen's attention to this letter and he declared "he is not, and never has been, a Freemason".  (Curiously, almost exactly 7 years later, 8 April 2003, Lindsey Anderson, answering the selfsame question, in defence of the Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, used the EXACT same terminology as Glynis McKeand.  Is this a stereotyped answer to defend uncomfortable difficulties faced by their bosses in the Masons?)  Regardless, the fact is, Lord William Douglas Cullen is a member of the exclusive and secretive "Speculative Society of Edinburgh" numbered at 1702 on the membership roll.  The "Spec" was founded on 17th November 1764 by Masons belonging to Lodge Cannongate Kilwinning No 2.   Unbeknown to me at this time, the whitewash had already begun!]

*********************************************************

[My second letter to the Dunblane Public Inquiry, which began on Wednesday, 29 May 1996 and ended on Wednesday, 10 July 1996 - its 26th day, put on Cullen's nonstatutory, therefore illegal, 100-year closure order.  N.B. This second letter was sent while the inquiry was in progress.]

William Burns
18 Shore Road
SOUTH QUEENSFERRY
Lothian EH30 9SG

12 June 1996

Dear Sir

According to a significant number of witnesses at the inquiry, it seems as though many loopholes were conveniently made to accommodate Thomas Hamilton in his quest to run youth clubs and purchase guns, despite the fact that, respectively, Central Regional Council and Detective Sergeant Hughes reported him as being unfit for such eventualities.  Given that Hamilton was a Freemason, I am deeply concerned why certain witnesses were not probed about possible Masonic affiliations, and if there were, where exactly that affiliation affected any decisions in the past which might have served Hamilton's idiosyncratic interests, which were contrary to the public interest.

As you know, I wrote to Glynis McKeand, the Clerk to the Cullen Inquiry on 11 April 1996 after being invited to do so, by way of a public notice of a preliminary hearing published in The Scotsman on Wednesday, 10 April 1996, about my concern over whether or not you yourself were a Freemason.  In a phone call from Mrs McKeand at 9.45am on Thursday, 18 April 1996, she assured me that, after she had shown you my letter, you assured her you were not now nor ever have been a Freemason.

My mind was put considerably at ease by this information.  Having said that, since the inquiry got under way there have been far too many instances when testimonies that demanded a response which invited the obvious questions about Masonic affiliations, were sinisterly not asked, making me feel as uneasy about the whole affair as I was after first learning of Hamilton's Masonic affiliation.

For example, a 1991 memo from Detective Sergeant Hughes calling for Hamilton's firearms certificate not to be renewed, supposedly - and conveniently for Hamilton - went missing.  The man who was responsible for checking the accuracy of records held in the firearms department and for checking the certificates themselves was the now-retired police superintendent Ian McKenzie, who signed Hamilton's renewals in both 1989 and 1992.  Mr McKenzie told the inquiry: "Detective Sergeant Hughes's reference to Hamilton as being 'an unsavoury character and an unstable personality' would not be sufficient for him to have made further inquiries."  He also said that Detective Sergeant Hughes's report was "not sufficiently adverse" to have recommended revocation of Hamilton's gun licence.  Under such apparently incriminating circumstances, it seems a scandalous indictment on the inquiry that retired police superintendent Ian McKenzie was not queried about whether or not he is a Freemason.  If the crucial questions are avoided, the inquiry will be a complete waste of public money.

If, however, retired police superintendent Ian McKenzie is not a Freemason and his opinion is to somehow be accepted that there was nothing in Detective Sergeant Hughes's report to have recommended revocation of Hamilton's licence, we must accept the possibility that absolutely anyone in possession of firearms can become mentally unstable and later deranged enough to shoot people.   In which case, all guns and gun clubs should be proscribed by law.  The only alternative is to abolish firearms' laws and allow everyone to purchase guns.  And we all know which of the two options is more preferable.

The Ombudsman's reasons for overturning an earlier decision by Central Regional Council in 1983 to prevent Hamilton from running youth clubs is a great matter of concern, as is whether or not he is/was a Freemason.

I am sure you will appreciate my concern and will in future prevent from effecting a whitewash any Freemasonic witnesses who try to "divert a discourse" (a Masonic ruse).  I also hope you will ensure in the course of the inquiry that no stone will be left unturned as regards Masonic affiliations and cover-ups.  In the meantime, I will watch the inquiry as it progresses, or retrogresses, with ever-increasing interest.

Yours faithfully
WILLIAM BURNS

*********************************************************

[First written response from the Dunblane Inquiry.]

Dunblane Public Inquiry Office
Albert Halls
Albert Place
Dumbarton Road
Stirling

18 June 1996

Dear Mr Burns

DUNBLANE PUBLIC INQUIRY

Thank you for your further letter [of] 12 June 1996.  Lord Cullen has read it and asked me to acknowledge it on his behalf.

Yours sincerely
G MCKEAND (MRS)
Clerk to the Dunblane Public Inquiry

[Is this mere "acknowledgement" an adequate response to all the points I raised in my first two letters?  Mouse over Cullen's image above.]

*********************************************************

[This is my third letter, put on Cullen's nonstatutory, therefore illegal, 100-year closure order.]

William Burns
18 Shore Road
SOUTH QUEENSFERRY
Lothian EH30 9SG

30 June 1996

Dear Sir

As I pointed out in my letter of 12 June 1996, many loopholes were made to accommodate Thomas Hamilton in his quest to run youth clubs and purchase guns.  These loopholes, it was feared, were created by Hamilton's "brothers" of Freemasonry.

Many witnesses, I have been cataloguing, from senior police officers (curiously, mostly retired officers) to procurators fiscal, could not justify with credibility their "excuses" for accommodating over many years Thomas Hamilton's more than questionable idiosyncrasies.  Not one of the dubious witnesses was questioned about his Masonic affiliation, so it has to be assumed that the inquiry was set up precisely to protect Masons who played a large part in helping Hamilton over the years.  It is clear to anyone with an open and objective mind that a whitewash is on the cards with Hamilton alone blamed.  It is a shameful indictment on the Scottish legal system.

Perhaps all inquiries are whitewashes, inasmuch as they are primarily designed to protect Masonic involvement, but none could be so obvious as the Cullen Inquiry, given that the public were previously made aware of Hamilton's membership.  It is doubtful, however, if there was ever an inquiry which held such monumental public feeling and sympathy.  Civil servants, who previously "defended a brother's character in his absence as in his presence" (the fifth of the Five Points of Fellowship - the strongest oath of brotherhood)" are unquestionably intrinsic to Hamilton's later Massacre, regardless of what the Cullen Inquiry's formal findings are.  The inquiry will be judged on the questions which were blatantly avoided rather than those that were asked.

What is tragic, and a far-reaching indictment on our society, more so even than the Massacre itself, is the subsequent cover-up.

Yours faithfully
WILLIAM BURNS

*********************************************************

[Second written response from the Dunblane Inquiry, an answer prompted by Lord Cullen.]

DUNBLANE PUBLIC INQUIRY OFFICE
Parliament House
EDINBURGH EH1 1RQ

15 July 1996

Dear Mr Burns

I refer to your further letter to Lord Cullen dated 30 June 1996.  Lord Cullen has passed your letter to me for response.

=

I =note that you are of the view that Thomas =Hamilton was a Freemason =and that further questions about Masonic =affiliations should have been asked at the Inquiry.

=

I should however point out that evidence was given which indicated that Thomas Hamilton was not a member of the Masons [Ed. ~ by R.C.H. Deuchars - a Mason] and that he had written disparagingly about connections between the police and "brotherhood organisations" which had conspired against him.  [Ed ~ Lord Cullen actually exerted influence on Glynis McKeand to make that statement, thereby attempting to distance himself from the fact he influenced her reply.  Read his "embargoed" in-house note to Mrs McKeand by clicking here]

Yours sincerely
G MCKEAND (MRS)
Clerk to the Dunblane Inquiry

[As touched upon above, the terms of this letter were framed by Lord Cullen himself; in which he admitted there was "nothing specifically [mentioned] about the “Brotherhoods.
[Irrespective of claims to the contrary, it is an arrant prevarication to say that evidence was given which indicated Hamilton was not a Mason.  This was claimed precisely to "divert the discourse".  On Monday, 3 June 1996, the fourth day of the "Inquiry", the only witness who was asked if he was a Mason was R.C.H. Deuchars - who is a Mason.  He admitted that he had never socialised with Hamilton and simply said he did not "think" Hamilton was a Mason, but that he didn't know.  A spokesman for Grand Lodge reported to Central Scotland Police (put on the 100-year embargo): "It is my personal 'opinion' that should Thomas Hamilton (accused/deceased) have been a Mason at any Scottish Lodge, this would have come to light immediately after the Dunblane incident.  Mere opinions, or "evidence" that is not corroborated, cannot be accorded an enhanced status akin to corroboration.  But these opinions have lesser credibility than even conjecture, seeming more like "wishful thinking", or worse, from Masons intent only on protecting the reputation of Freemasonry in general.]

*********************************************************

[This is my fourth letter, put on Cullen's nonstatutory, therefore illegal, 100-year closure order.]

William Burns
18 Shore Road
SOUTH QUEENSFERRY
Lothian EH30 9SG

19 July 1996

Dear Sir

Thank you for your letter of 15 July 1996 in response to my earlier letter of 30 June In re the Dunblane Public Inquiry and the whitewash over Thomas Hamilton's Masonic affiliation.

You say that "evidence was given which indicated that Thomas Hamilton was not a member of the Masons", but, of course, we all know that the simplest way to cover up for his Masonic affiliation is to get any Tom, Dick or Harry to testify that he was not a member.

Having said that, I assume your legal experience and prying mind would not accept any old amateurish whitewash and trust you received from Grand Lodge of Antient Free and Accepted Masons of Scotland, George Street, Edinburgh, a copy of its entire past and present membership to back up such lacklustre "evidence".

And given that when bungling on a large scale is sustained by professional people in the face of almost wholesale dubiety from an amateur public, I, for one, realise that the bungling was controlled and so retain my right to distrust the Cullen Inquiry in its entirety and must therefore bid you to provide me with a copy of that Masonic membership list.  After all, it is a "public" inquiry!

The Lodge of which Thomas Hamilton was a member has been reported in the press, but he may well have been a member of more than one Lodge.  Perhaps it would be worthwhile concentrating particularly on the 86 lodges affiliated to the Provincial Grand Lodge of Glasgow (Grand Master: Henry Jeffrey, 13 Faskally Avenue, Bishopbriggs, Glasgow G64 3PJ) and the 24 lodges in the Provincial Grand Lodge of Stirlingshire (Grand Master: Colin Wyse, 53 Lochbrae, Sauchie, near Alloa, Clackmannanshire FK10 3HJ).

Yours faithfully
WILLIAM BURNS

*********************************************************

[Third written response from the Dunblane Inquiry.]

DUNBLANE PUBLIC INQUIRY OFFICE
Parliament House
EDINBURGH EH1 1RQ

23 July 1996

Dear Mr Burns

DUNBLANE PUBLIC INQUIRY

I acknowledge receipt of your further letter to Lord Cullen dated 19 July 1996 relative to the above.

I have nothing to add to my letter of 15 July save to point out, under reference to your last paragraph, that it was open to any member of the public to make available to the Crown any information considered to be of potential assistance to the Inquiry.

Yours sincerely
G McKEAND (MRS)
Clerk to the Dunblane Public Inquiry

[The information and concerns I imparted to the Crown should not have been considered "POTENTIAL" but "ACTUAL" assistance to the Inquiry.]

*********************************************************

[My fifth and final letter to Lord Cullen that he put on his nonstatutory therefore illegal 100-year closure order.   N.B.: This final letter was sent after the inquiry had ended.]

William Burns
18 Shore Road
SOUTH QUEENSFERRY
Lothian EH30 9SG
16 August 1996

Dear Sir

Thank you for your letter of 23 July 1996 in response to my letter of 19 July 1996 re the Dunblane Public Inquiry.

You say that "it was open to any member of the public to make available to the Crown any information considered to be of potential assistance to the Inquiry" but you appear to be ignoring the information, fears and advice that I forwarded to the Cullen Inquiry on 19 July, 30 June, 12 June and 11 April 1996, which should not just have been of assistance but crucial to the Inquiry.  For instance, the advice that the cover-up by many professional people in the legal system and elsewhere whose only priority was to "support a [Masonic] brother's character in his absence as in his presence": the fifth of the Five Points of Fellowship; the strongest oath of Masonic brotherhood, was the single most important factor in fostering a dereliction of duty of the highest order.

I am sure if you had a mind you would have uncovered a myriad of Masonic subverters and dubious characters among the witnesses.  For example, why has no one questioned the ratio of gun licence holders of Freemasons with the rest of the general public?  Are you all frightened that the unacceptable statistics end up in the public domain?

So, who, as well as Thomas Hamilton are, or were, Freemasons?  Is the Ombudsman a Freemason, the man who in 1983 overturned the decision of Central Regional Council in favour of Hamilton?

Is the former Education Convenor of Central Region, Robert Ball a Freemason, the councillor who referred to Thomas Hamilton as "one of his punters" when speaking to William Houston, a staff training development officer with Stirling Council?  Given that Robert Ball backed Hamilton's successful bid last year to keep his boys' club open in the face of opposition from his Labour colleagues on the council, and despite the fact he was aware of the widespread but unofficial practice of denying Hamilton the use of council premises, together with the fact that he also knew that Hamilton had appeals to the Ombudsman rejected in 1989 and 1992 against decisions by Lothian and Fife to terminate lets of premises, it seems very sinister that he was not asked at the Inquiry if he was a Freemason.

Is Norman Lynch, of Central Scotland Police Force a Freemason, the man who worked in the computer system for firearms licensing and tried to justify to the Inquiry Hamilton's reasons for requiring his excessive number of guns and amount of ammunition?

Is the retired police superintendent Ian McKenzie a Freemason, the man who rejected Detective Sergeant Hughes's call not to renew Hamilton's firearms certificate in 1989 and 1992, flying in the face of Detective Sergeant's 1991 memo, which stated that Hamilton was "an unsavoury character and an unstable personality and a scheming, devious and deceitful individual who is not to be trusted"?

Is the Chief Constable of Grampian, Dr Ian Oliver a Freemason, the former Chief Constable of Central Scotland who was a member of the firearms consultative committee, was chairman of the association's committee responsible for firearms matters, who testified "he knew" Hamilton, and who more recently (14 August 1996) irresponsibly suggested that "a ban on handguns was asking too much"?

Is the former Deputy Chief Constable of Central Police, Douglas McMurdo a Freemason, the man who has now been promoted to the post of assistant to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, but who had signed Hamilton's firearms certificate in 1989 and 1995, and corresponded with him at length over his various complaints against the police force?

Is the retired fiscal at Dumbarton, James Cardle a Freemason, the man who decided not to take action against Hamilton after allegations were made against him by police investigating claims of assaults on boys at a summer camp at Inchmoan Island in Loch Lomond?

Is the former fiscal depute at Stirling, William Gallacher a Freemason, the man who refused to grant a warrant to search Hamilton's home in 1993, despite receiving a report from Detective Sergeant Gordon Taylor about a complaint from a parent that Hamilton had taken photographs of her son in a "questionable" position, and despite seeing a large number of photographs taken by Hamilton of boys in a variety of poses in skimpy gym gear which were "troubling", and despite a report that highlighted potential criminal offences, including dishonesty, lewd and libidinous practices, and a contravention of the Children and Young Persons Act?

Strange though it may seem, Freemasons appease their consciences among themselves with a self-righteous, but self-deceptive justification for possessing firearms by claiming they must hold on to them in the wholly unlikely event that civil unrest and revolution might break out.  It is an absurd claim which alludes to the pretension in their Symbolical Lecture of the Holy Royal Arch exaltation ceremony that only Freemasonry can "survive the wreck of mighty empires and resist the destroying hand of time".

That may sound far-fetched, and Freemasons may use their old tried and tested ruse of "diverting a discourse" by claiming that detractors are paranoid, but it is them who are paranoid about their silly myths and not so silly bloodcurdling oaths.

Enoch Powell let the cat out the bag on Sunday, 10 July 1988 when on an Independent Television programme called, "The English Revolution", he revealed: "In England there exists institutions that pull together to overcome political difficulties."  We all know of the institutions that are pulling together to cover up for the dereliction of duty by a variety of professional Freemasons in the handling of the Thomas Hamilton saga!

That could and will be claimed to be an innocuous statement to unknowing members of the public, but when we consider Powell's erstwhile colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party some years ago, waving their gun licences in the air, defiantly and flauntingly, on the hills of Derry, we know their "brothers" in the higher echelons of society are part of the larger conspiracy.  But you can't fight a conspiracy if you say it doesn't exist; and Freemasonry and conspiracies walk hand in hand!

As I said in my letter to the Cullen Inquiry of 12 June 1996, the only alternative to proscribing guns and gun clubs is to abolish gun laws and allow everyone to purchase guns; and we all know which of the two options is the more preferable.

And as I said in my letter of 30 June 1996, what is tragic, and a more far-reaching indictment on our society, more so even than the Massacre itself, tragic though it was, is the subsequent cover-up and whitewash..

Yours faithfully
WILLIAM BURNS

*********************************************************

[Fourth written response from the Dunblane Inquiry.]

DUNBLANE PUBLIC INQUIRY OFFICE
Parliament House
EDINBURGH EH1 1RQ

19 August 1996

Dear Mr Burns

I acknowledge receipt of your further letter dated 16 August 1996 to Lord Cullen.

Mrs McKeand is at present absent from work but is expected to return on or about 26 August whereafter your letter will be drawn to her attention.

Yours sincerely
Dorothy N Gordon
PS to Mrs G McKeand

*********************************************************

[Fifth and final written response from the Dunblane Public Inquiry, all of which were put on the nonstatutory, therefore illegal 100-year closure order.]

DUNBLANE PUBLIC INQUIRY OFFICE
Parliament House
EDINBURGH EH1 1RQ

23 August 1996

Dear Mr Burns

Further to my personal secretary's letter of acknowledgement I have to advise you that your letter of 16 August 1996 has been considered and that I have nothing further to add to my last letter to you. 

Yours sincerely
GLYNIS McKEAND (MRS)
Clerk to the Dunblane Inquiry

[Surprise, surprise!  Of course, this would no doubt be but another response framed by her boss, Lord Cullen.]

Lord Cullen

Lord Cullen
Copyright © 2016 William Burns. All rights reserved.

Dunblane

Dunblane Massacre
Click here to view the full list in the Dunblane Whitewash catalogue
Emma Crozier
Kevin Hassell
Victoria Clydesdale
Ross Irvine
David Kerr
John Petrie
Hanna Scott
Joanna Ross
Sophie North
Emily Morton
Maegan Turner
Brett McKinnon
Abigail McLennan
Charlotte Dunn
Mhairi MacBeath
Melissa Currie
Gwen Hodson/Mayor - schoolteacher
List of the victims of the Dunblane Massacre
The stained glass window in St Blane's Church, Dunblane, which commemorates the victims of the 1996 Massacre
Google chrome is the adopted web browser for this site
We know that the above victims were killed by Thomas Hamilton, but, although we may not care, we do not know for sure who killed Thomas Hamilton, and why that person was carrying a revolver at the time!
Dunblane Cover-up
<