Quick Menu Home Page Dunblane Letters Gagged Petition to end 100-year Gagging Order Oral Hearing of Petition PE652 Petition to out Masonic Membership Dunblane Abuse School Dunblane Killer Attacked Dunblane QVS Dunblane - New Inquiry MSPs Forsake Dunblane Dunblane Tragedy Dunblane Primary School Dunblane Cover-up Dunblane Digest Dunblane Paedophiles Dunblane Masonic Link Cullen Denies Masonic link Dunblane Petition PE948 Crown Office Criticised Realm Patrons Question Boyd 20th Anniversary Remembered Promises But Still No Investigation Dunblane Latest Dunblane Full Index Freemasonry Exposed Exposing The Illegal Poll Tax Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers Vehicular Homicide Of Diana - Poem

[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 ]

William Burns
18 Shore Road
South Queensferry

EH30 9SG

27 February 2003

Lord William Douglas Cullen
Supreme Courts
Parliament House
11 Parliament Square
Edinburgh
EH1 1RQ

Dear Sir

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.LINK  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 1702.LINK

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 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:

1. Did you ever take the oath of entered apprentice at 1st degree for the purpose of entering into Masonic association?;LINK  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.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 evidenceLINK, 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 thatLINK), 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:

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.LINK

Yours faithfully
WILLIAM BURNS

[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 to him addressed to the Lords.LINK]

WWW Dunblane Whitewash