18 Shore Road
Tel: 0131 331 1855
9 May 2003
Lord William Douglas
Member of the Secretive, Exclusive & Highly-Suspect “Speculative
Society of Scotland”
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 abused?
“My letters related
strictly to the Masonic involvement in the
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
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.
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
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.
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
“I wrote to the
Inquiry on the 11 April 1996, prior to its
commencement, with the following comments:
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.
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
“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:
“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
“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.
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: