This is 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 in order to cover up
the involvement of high-profile Masons and
Read My follow-up
18 Shore Road
27 February 2003
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
Victoria Boarding School. He was given
this protection because he paved the way for many other high-profile
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.
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
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:
- Did you ever take the
of entered apprentice at 1st degree for
the purpose of entering into Masonic
Were you obliged by any expectation of loyalty that had the potential
to produce an unbalanced judgement in a tribunal such as the Cullen
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
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.
“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.
- Geoffrey Clive Wood.
- Robert Campbell.
- William MacDonald.
- David MacDonald.
- Ewan Anderson.
- Katherine Anderson.
- James Williams.
- William Campbell.
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.
- Sam Davie,
“friend” of Hamilton who
was never interviewed at all.
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
police officers within Central
- Ron Taylor,
head teacher at Dunblane Primary School
- 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.
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
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
- 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.
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.
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
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 it.
- Anthony Busuttil,
forensic pathologist, who examined Hamilton’s
- Ann Anderson,
former police officer with CSP.
of report on Hamilton.
Hagger, witness to Hamilton’s
abuse of boys.
- 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.
~ Lord Cullen did finally step down from
the judiciary (25 November 2005) and fled to the House
of Lords. Read my follow-up letter to him at
the Lords. LINK]