[Ed ~ This is my, William Burns', letter
to Lord Cullen demanding his resignation from the judiciary for his
ignominious role in the Dunblane Inquiry whitewash and his subsequent
illegal 100-year closure order on the Dunblane Inquiry files to cover
up the involvement of high-profile Masons and paedophiles. LINK
Read my follow-up letter to Lord Cullen addressed
to him at the House of Lords. LINK
18 Shore Road
27 February 2003
Lord William Douglas Cullen
11 Parliament Square
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. LINK
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”. LINK
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 it. LINK
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
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
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:
- Did you ever take the oath of entered apprentice at 1st degree
for the purpose of entering into Masonic association?; LINK
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. 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, 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 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
Thomas Hamilton’s friends:
- James Gillespie.
- Geoffrey Clive Wood.
- Robert Campbell.
- William MacDonald.
- David MacDonald.
- Ewan Anderson.
- Katherine Anderson.
- James Williams.
- William Campbell.
- 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. LINK
- Sam Davie, “friend” of Hamilton who was never interviewed
- George Robertson. LINK
- Michael Forsyth. LINK
- Malcolm Rifkind. LINK
- 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. LINK
- Certain police officers within Central Scotland Police. LINK
- Thomas Hamilton’s neighbours.
- Ron Taylor, head teacher at Dunblane Primary School March 1996.
- John Ogg, DS with Central Scotland Police.
- The Ombudsman who in 1983 overturned the decision of Central
Regional Council in favour of Hamilton.
- William Houston.
- 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.
- Ian Mackenzie, a retired police superintendent who rejected
Detective Sergeant Hughes’ call not to renew Hamilton’s
firearms certificate in 1989 and 1992. LINK 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.”
- 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. LINK
- 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.
- 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. LINK
- 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
- Detective Sergeant Gordon Taylor.
- 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”.
- Andrew Neil, editor of The Scotsman, who was going to carry
out a big investigation into the 100-year rule and then dropped
- Anthony Busuttil, forensic pathologist, who examined Hamilton’s
- Ann Anderson, former police officer with CSP.
- Paul Hughes, author of report on Hamilton. LINK
- Doreen Hagger, witness to Hamilton’s abuse of boys. LINK
- 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
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. LINK
[Ed ~ Lord Cullen
did finally step down from the judiciary, before he was perchance
turfed out (25 November 2005) and allowed to flee to the House
of Lords. Read my follow up letter addressed to him to the Lords.