HAS been claimed that the release of papers submitted to the Cullen
Inquiry into the Dunblane tragedy
would dispel rumours that there was a cover-up. If
anything, their release adds to the mystery. As the documents
released aren't the originals, there's no way of knowing whether they
have been tampered with or whether all have been released.
of any consequence
in them anyway, why was it necessary for a closure order
to be imposed, keeping the papers secret for 100 years?
there is official confusion about exactly who
imposed the closure order and even whether
anyone had the necessary authority to impose such an order.
are still many questions which demand answers: although
some details of Hamilton's post
mortem have been known for some time, why is part of the
autopsy to remain secret for 100 years?
of the papers is said to show there was no proof that Hamilton
was part of a paedophile
ring. But if such a paedophile
ring did exist, nobody would be naive enough to expect
proof to be found in the released papers.
had many visitors in expensive cars, some chauffeur driven. None
have so far been identified. Why not?
nearly six years, I have tried without success to establish who authorised
keeping the Cullen Inquiry documents secret
for 100 years. And if there is
such authority, why was the Lord Advocate
[Colin Boyd] able to waive it suddenly?
not to release the documents - which, I am assured, was taken collectively
- was made on January 13, 1997 at a meeting attended by the Clerk
to the Inquiry [Glynis McKeand]
and representatives of the Scottish Record Office,
the police and Crown Office
and Procurator Fiscal Service.
in June, Lord Cullen wrote to me stating
unequivocally that those attending that meeting did not have the authority,
either individually or collectively, to decide what was to be done
with the copy productions, and did not do so. Accordingly, there
is no question of their having taken the responsibility for imposing
a closure order.
does, however, confuse the matter by claiming in a letter
in September that the Crown
authorised the restriction of access to the copy productions.
April the Lord Advocate's office
stated quite clearly that the Crown Office
and Procurator Service were not
responsible for the imposition of the closure.
authorities are so evasive about the existence of a closure
order, how can they expect to be trusted over any other
information regarding Dunblane? Quite
apart from that question, many other worrying loose ends remain. For
example, a great many witness statements and other facts are contradictory. And
the question of just how closely Hamilton
was acquainted with members of the local police
force has still not been resolved.
nothing else, all this and the sudden about-turn to release
some of the Cullen Inquiry documents
still arouse considerable doubts about the official version
of the tragedy and its circumstances.
W SCOTT, North Berwick