William Burns
18 Shore Road
South Queensferry
EH30 9SG
Tel: 0131 331 1855

9 May 2003

 

Lord William Douglas (Sullen) Cullen
Member of the Secretive, Exclusive & Highly-Suspect “Speculative Society of Scotland”
Judicial Office
Parliament Office
House of Lords
Westminster
LONDON
SW1A 0PW


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 abused?

“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 School.  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 Order'.

“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.

“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.  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 it.  I note that your name, William Douglas Cullen, appears in the Speculative Society of Edinburgh’s Roll of Extraordinary Members at number 1702.

“I wrote to the Cullen Inquiry on the 11 April 1996, prior to its commencement, with the following comments:

“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 a 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 a 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.   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:

  1. Did you ever take the oath of entered apprentice at 1st degree for the purpose of entering into Masonic association?; or
  2. Were you obliged by any expectation of loyalty that had the potential to produce an unbalanced judgement in a tribunal such as the Cullen Inquiry?

“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.  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, 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), 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 have it.

“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:

  • Witnesses who were not called to the original inquiry
  • Some of them gave statements and were not called.  Others have never been asked to give statements.  Included in this group are all the boys who attended Hamilton’s summer camps, in particular the Loch Lomond camp in 1988.  As these boys are now adults, it should be their choice whether they wish to give evidence or not.  Most of these boys were adults even at the time of your Inquiry in 1996 and could have decided for themselves whether they wished to give evidence.

“Previous witnesses who should be called back to give evidence.

Thomas Hamilton’s friends:

  1. James Gillespie.
  2. Geoffrey Clive Wood.
  3. Robert Campbell.
  4. William MacDonald.
  5. David MacDonald.
  6. Ewan Anderson.
  7. Katherine Anderson.
  8. James Williams.
  9. William Campbell.
  10. Robert Ball, the former Education Convenor of Central Region who referred to Hamilton as “one of his punters” when speaking to William Houston, a staff training development officer, subsequently with Stirling Council.
  11. Sam Davie, “friend” of Hamilton who was never interviewed at all.
  12. Robert Bell, Malcolm Rifkind’s friend and his then Chairman of the Conservative Party for the Edinburgh Pentlands constituency, who sold Thomas Hamilton guns and was reported to have said that he would sell the guns to Hamilton again.
  13. Thomas Hamilton’s neighbours.

“Also:

  1. Ron Taylor, head teacher at Dunblane Primary School March 1996.
  2. John Ogg, DS with Central Scotland Police.
  3. The Ombudsman who in 1983 overturned the decision of Central Regional Council in favour of Hamilton.
  4. William Houston.
  5. Norman Lynch of Central Scotland Police Force who tried to justify to the Cullen Inquiry Hamilton’s reasons for requiring his excessive number of guns and amount of ammunition.
  6. Ian Mackenzie, a retired police superintendent who rejected Detective Sergeant Hughes’ call not to renew Hamilton’s firearms certificate in 1989 and 1992.  DS Hughes stated in a 1991 memo that “Hamilton was an unsavoury character and an unstable personality … and a scheming, devious and deceitful individual who is not to be trusted.”
  7. Dr Ian Oliver, Chief Constable of Grampian and former Chief Constable of Central Scotland who was also a member of the firearms consultative committee, and who testified he knew Hamilton.
  8. Douglas McMurdo, former Deputy Chief Constable of Central Police who was promoted to the post of assistant to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, and who signed Hamilton’s firearms certificates in 1989 and 1995.
  9. James Cardle, the retired fiscal at Dumbarton 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 in 1988.
  10. William Gallacher, the former fiscal depute at Stirling 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 him seeing a large number of photographs taken by Hamilton of boys in a variety of poses in skimpy gym gear that 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.
  11. Detective Sergeant Gordon Taylor.
  12. Jenny Booth, journalist, who apparently read what was hidden under the 100-year closure order sometime in the late 1990s, and then “sat on it”.
  13. Andrew Neil, editor of The Scotsman, who was going to carry out a big investigation into the 100-year rule and then dropped it.
  14. Anthony Busuttil, forensic pathologist, who examined Hamilton’s body.
  15. Ann Anderson, former police officer with CSP.
  16. Paul Hughes, author of report on Hamilton.
  17. Doreen Hagger, witness to Hamilton’s abuse of boys.
  18. And many more…

“You will have gathered by now that there is no redeeming feature here for you.  You must come clean.  It would be in your best interest to spill the beans yourself, rather than become involved in protracted denials that will ultimately make you look silly - on top of your high-level cover-up.  This sordid affair is already in the public domain and just simply won’t go away.

"I look forward to hearing your response very soon, which I trust will be restricted to the matters contained in this letter, and, in the meantime, I anticipate news about your resignation from the judiciary."

Yours sincerely
WILLIAM BURNS

Copyright © 2016 William Burns. All rights reserved.

William Burns Demands Lord Cullen's Resignation

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
Click here to view the full list in the Dunblane Whitewash catalogue
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!
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
Dunblane Massacre
Dunblane Cover-up