18 Shore Road
Tel: 0131 331 1855
9 May 2003
Lord William Douglas (Sullen) Cullen
Member of the Secretive, Exclusive & Highly-Suspect “Speculative
Society of Scotland”
[Ed ~ It ought to have been "Speculative
Society of 'Edinburgh' " - my mistake. LINK]
House of Lords
Dear Cover-up Cullen
In view of the announcement on Friday, 2 May 2003,
that you are to be “elevated” to the House of Lords, I
must remind you of my letter to you of 27 February 2003, to which
you have responded by fleeing from your position as the Lord President
and Lord Justice-General down to a cosier hideout in the Lords.
However, since you have not responded in writing,
I must reiterate the terms of that letter, to allow you to respond
in a more appropriate fashion:
“It has been brought to my attention by a number
of people, including sections of the press, that you put a 100-year
closure embargo on documents in relation to your pseudo-inquiry into
the Dunblane massacre. It was claimed that this embargo
was put in place to protect the names of the children who suffered
sexual abuse from Thomas Hamilton and others. Why then
was my five letters to you - which I sent to the Inquiry between 11
April and 16 August 1996 inclusive - put on closure for 100 years
when not one of them mentioned one solitary name of a child who was
“My letters related strictly to the Masonic
involvement in the whitewash. Masons covering up for fellow
Masons responsible for creating all the loopholes that allowed a crazed
paedophile to carry out his sordid practices with impunity over many
years on children at Dunblane Primary School and Queen Victoria Boarding
He was given this protection because he paved the way for many other
high-profile 'citizens-above-suspicion' who were similarly acutely
involved in the child sex scandal. It was precisely to
protect them that made Hamilton’s protection essential.
By committing suicide after he killed the 16 schoolchildren and their
teacher, Hamilton must have assumed that all the dirty linen would
come out in the wash. Even he could not have foreseen the enormity
of the subsequent whitewash.
“Your Inquiry into the shootings at Dunblane
Primary School on 13 March 1996 was carried out under the terms of
the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. In your opening
statement, you commented, 'I would emphasise that this is to be an
Inquiry held in public. As matters stand, I do not foresee that
I would require to exercise my power to direct that any part of it
should be held in private.' Obviously, at some point during
the gathering of evidence, you decided that certain aspects of the
inquiry could not be heard in public; hence the 100-year 'Gagging
“However, accountability lies at the heart
of the role of a tribunal appointed under the 1921 Act. On the
rare occasion when a matter of grave public concern needs to be investigated
thoroughly and to the full satisfaction of the public, a tribunal
is appointed under the terms of the above Act. There can be
no doubt that the events of 13 March 1996 constituted one of these
very rare occasions yet your Inquiry failed to generate public confidence.
In fact, it actually served to reinforce the suspicions of the general
public that there was something extremely sinister afoot.
“For example, Central Scotland Police were
given the crucial role of investigating the background to the massacre,
yet they themselves were heavily implicated. LINK
“During the Inquiry, you had greater difficulty
avoiding the very essence of the affair than
you would had you actually conducted a proper Inquiry.
Given that you alone decided which witnesses were to
be questioned, the questions that were allowed or disallowed, and
the intensity of the interrogation of those and of such as those,
you must take full responsibility for the cover-up. LINK
Your 100-year 'Gagging Order' illustrates your guilt beyond any shadow
of a doubt.
“I assume you are fully aware that at one time
Freemasonry was comprised entirely of 'Operative Masons'. During
the Middle Ages, these Masons were builders in the literal sense.
This was modified to accept 'Speculative Masons' after the Reformation,
supposedly due to the lack of 'Operative Masons', but more likely
because powerful people realised how influential Freemasonry had become,
and how beneficial it would be to take control of such a potent clandestine
society. In 1764, more than 200 years later, Speculative Masonry
became even more exclusive when the 'Speculative Society' grew from
I note that your name, William Douglas Cullen, appears in the Speculative
Society of Edinburgh’s Roll of Extraordinary Members at number
“I wrote to the Cullen Inquiry on the 11 April
1996, prior to its commencement, with the following comments: LINK
“With reference to the ‘Notice of Preliminary
Hearing’ about the ‘Dunblane Public Hearing’, 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 the
discourse’ – a Masonic ruse – from the involvement
of Freemasons and Freemasonry.
“PS Please consider this letter a formal invitation
to Lord Cullen to announce his membership or non-membership of Freemasonry.”
“I received a phone call from the Clerk to
the Cullen Inquiry, Glynis McKeand, at 9.45am on Thursday, 18 April
1996, in which she said she approached you with my letter and that
you declared you were not, and never have been a Freemason.
“To my everlasting regret, I accepted this
as the truth at the time without probing further because I believed
that Masons are not supposed to deny their membership when asked directly. I
should have been aware that they have ready-made answers to 'divert
the discourse' when questions are phrased in certain ways. Apparently,
for example, they can regard themselves as 'Masons' as opposed to
Freemasons and therefore are able to deny they are 'Free' Masons.
I can see the ruse here because how can anyone consider himself 'Free',
having taken an oath of secrecy to the Masons. LINK
Another ruse is to get someone else
to lie for you. To which end I shall ask you the question again
in unequivocal language that gives you no way of equivocating and
I expect an answer from you personally:
“I insist on a straightforward answer to a
straightforward question. Please try to display a modicum of
integrity for the first time in this ongoing saga.
“During the Inquiry, you picked and chose which
witnesses were called to give testimony. LINK
In your opening statement you admitted: 'Since this is an investigation
I will have the ultimate say as to whether or not a person should
be called to give evidence'.
“Of these witnesses, there was an arbitrary
system of cross-examination. Some witnesses were exposed to
rigorous questioning, whilst others breezed in and out of the witness
box with very few questions asked. You stated yourself
that you would decide the extent to which witnesses should be questioned.
This resulted in such anomalies that Doreen Hagger’s evidence,
for example, runs to forty A4 pages LINK,
whilst two of Hamilton’s friends – Geoffrey Clive Wood
and James Gillespie – ran to a mere eight and six pages respectively
with far too many potentially crucial questions not being asked.
This begs the question: 'Why were Hamilton’s friends given such
an easy time?'
“In your final analogy, you filtered the evidence
heard or presented to the Inquiry and left out whatever did not fit
with the picture you wanted to portray, that of the 'lone madman'
seeking revenge on Dunblane. In your opening statement
you admitted as much: 'The criterion which I will apply is whether
what is proposed is likely to be of assistance in achieving the objects
of this Inquiry.' What exactly were the objects of the
Inquiry other than covering up for all the high-profile, perverted
'citizens-above-suspicion' and Speculative Society members?
“It is rather disingenuous that in 1996 we
were led to believe that Hamilton did not actually abuse children
(or there was no definite proof of that LINK),
but in 2003 we are asked to believe the opposite, that Hamilton did
abuse children and that their identities must now be protected.
I repeat, the Cullen Report states: 'The only evidence which the Inquiry
heard as to any acts of indecency on the part of Thomas Hamilton comprised
two incidents' (page 25, paragraph 4.15). So why was there
a 100-year 'Gagging Order'? You can’t eat your cake and
“There are too many discrepancies that nothing
short of a brand new investigation and inquiry will suffice, with
no stones left unturned. One thing is sure; you will not
be allowed to put a 'Gagging Order' on my correspondence with the
Cullen Inquiry. It is already in the public domain and
there it will remain.
“Thomas Hamilton’s 'friends' have been
protected for the past seven years. It is time they faced full
scrutiny. A new inquiry should therefore be initiated into the
massacre at Dunblane Primary School. The following is a list
of witnesses who must be called: