To the House of Commons
The Petition of Sandra Uttley LINK
Declares that the terms of the Tribunals of Inquiry Act
1921 were not met in Lord Cullen’s Inquiry into the Shootings
at Dunblane Primary School in 1996.
A decision was taken by both Houses of Parliament that
this Tribunal should carry out an investigation into the true circumstances
surrounding the massacre at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996
and that Lord Cullen should report back to Parliament with his findings.
The truth, however, was concealed, and I therefore allege improper conduct
at the Inquiry. It is not surprising that Lord Cullen is so adamantly
against plans for a Supreme Court …
At the time – before devolution – the Lord
Advocate was a member of the British Government with a duty not only
as public prosecutor for Scotland, but also as chief law officer and
legal adviser to the Government. The manifest tension between
the Lord Advocate’s independent, impartial role as public prosecutor
and his other role as law officer to Parliament was never resolved.
Because the Lord Advocate has no effective check on his powers a situation
has resulted whereby it is now impossible to resolve this conflict within
the Scottish Executive. In legal affairs, the Lord Advocate, as
a member of the Scottish Executive, is equal in power with the First
Minister. Neither the Lord Advocate LINK
nor the First Minister LINK
is prepared to address the problem of the Dunblane cover-up. LINK
This situation was allowed to develop by Westminster and must therefore
be remedied by Westminster. When power was handed back to
Scotland – with jurisdiction over its own legal system –
it failed to secure any checks and balances against the absolute power
of the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate in particular.
I respectfully request that:-
1/ the British Government censure the Lord Advocate
for instigating and perpetuating a cover-up of the truth at the Dunblane
Inquiry, in dereliction of his duty;
2/ There be a resolution and clarification of the Lord
3/ The Petitioner further requests that the House of
Commons instigates a New Inquiry to establish the truth about why 16
schoolchildren and their teacher lost their lives on 13 March 1996.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.
The Petition of Sandra Uttley (continued)
This is a formal complaint of improper conduct on the part of all the
counsel involved in the Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary
School in 1996. As a matter of urgency, there should be a New
Inquiry which would involve the release of all the documents that have
been sealed away for 100 years.
In his opening address at the Cullen Inquiry into the
Shootings at Dunblane Primary School, the Lord Advocate (The Right Honourable
The Lord Mackay of Drumadoon QC) addressed Lord Cullen:
“Sir, you will recall that at the Preliminary
Hearing I made reference to my decision to grant an immunity from prosecution,
and I wish to make my position clear on that matter. I wish to
make it clear that anything which any witness says in evidence before
the Inquiry will not be used in evidence against him or her in any criminal
proceedings in Scotland except in relation to any offence of perjury
or against the course of justice”.
I have proof that several witnesses perjured themselves
at the Inquiry, including certain police officers. They are therefore
guilty of perverting the course of justice, which is a criminal offence.
On 21 March 1996, the following question was asked
in The House of Commons:
Mr George Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State
for Scotland on what basis the inquiry into the Dunblane shootings will
be established; and what will be its terms of reference. (22729)
Mr Michael Forsyth: The inquiry will be established
under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. This procedure,
which was followed in the case of the Aberfan inquiry, will enable evidence
to be taken on oath, as Lord Cullen wishes, and will attract the provisions
of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. I propose that the inquiry’s
terms of reference should be:
“To inquire into the circumstances leading up
to and surrounding the events at Dunblane Primary School on Wednesday
13 March 1996, which resulted in the deaths of 18 people; to consider
the issues arising therefrom; to make such interim and final recommendations
as may seem appropriate; and to report as soon as practicable.”
For more than a year, I have been in correspondence
with Lord Cullen, the Lord Advocate and the First Minister with my concerns
about the Dunblane Inquiry. As the Inquiry was established prior
to devolution and the corruption of the inquiry happened under John
Major’s Government in 1996, I respectfully argue that the House
of Commons must be held responsible for this matter and must seek to
redress the wrong doings of the last Government. In particular the following
questions must be addressed:
1/ WHERE DID HAMILTON GO ON THE MORNING OF THE TRAGEDY?
In his original witness statement, Acting Detective
Constable Graham Capes said CCTV cameras picked up Hamilton's van leaving
Stirling on the morning of March 13, 1996 at 08.44 and 08.46. LINK
The journey to Dunblane primary school would normally take about 15
minutes but Hamilton did not arrive there until 9.30.
At the Inquiry, Acting Detective Constable Graham
Capes – on oath – said there were sightings of Hamilton’s
van leaving Stirling at 09.12 (the above CCTV times from his original
statement were ignored). LINK
Thus, ADC Graham Capes – with the blessing of all the counsel
at the Inquiry – committed perjury and so perverted the course
And the question remains, why?
I allege that someone knew that Hamilton planned to
do something that morning - not necessarily what he ended up doing -
and was intending to monitor his movements. Was Hamilton being
tailed? Was he under surveillance that morning? I allege
that Hamilton planned to kill the headteacher at Dunblane Primary School
and when his plan was foiled, he took his rage out on the class of children
and teachers in the gym.
So, where did Hamilton go in that missing half hour?
When you consider the lengths the Soham Inquiry went
to to establish the exact details of Ian Huntley’s movements on
the evening of Sunday 4 August 2002, it beggars belief that those representing
the different parties at the Dunblane Inquiry asked so few questions
about Hamilton’s last few hours.
I have written to Lord Cullen 3 times asking if he
or anyone else enquired into what Hamilton did in the missing half hour
on the morning of 13 March 1996. Lord Cullen's answer to this question
- via his secretary Glynis McKeand - is that he did not read any of
the preparatory material, including police statements. That is
some admission, given that there were over 1,000 witness statements
taken, yet less than 200 witnesses gave evidence at the Inquiry. ...
And, although Lord Cullen heard ADC Capes oral evidence
at the Inquiry, he hadn't - apparently - read his original witness statement.
This suggests that Lord Cullen does not know about the lie that was
told. This fact alone merits a New Inquiry.
I repeat my allegation that Acting Detective Constable
Graham Capes lied on oath at the Inquiry and that all the counsel present
were aware of this fact. In Chapter C of the productions given
to all the counsel at the Inquiry, Statement 701/C states the following:
Acting Detective Constable, no. 605, Graham Capes,
Criminal Investigation Department, Stirling – aged 26 –
service 5 and a half years.
The Police Officer viewing CCTV and Bank video tapes
from male fitting description of Hamilton on 11th March, 1996 and 12th
March 1996. Witness operated between 1st April 1996 and 3rd April
1996 along with non witnesses, Detective Constable Hughes and Detective
Constable Stolarek to identify Hamilton’s movements. This
was established during the Police enquiry.
Also including the movements of Hamilton within the
Clydesdale Bank, Murray Place, Stirling on Monday, 11th March 1996.
The video showed Hamilton as being within the Clydesdale Bank between
0952 hours and 0959 hours on Monday, 11th March, 1996.
What did Hamilton need money for if he planned to kill
himself on Wed 13 March?
The witness finally viewed tape number 000346 dated
3rd March (presumably this is a typing mistake – it should read
13th March 1996 - otherwise why was this evidence included?) At
0844 hours, camera number 6 shows a white van fitting description Ford
Escort motor van, registration number M394 KB0 travelling on Burghmuir
Road, Stirling heading north west towards Burghmuir Roundabout, Camera
number 4 at 0846 hours shows the vehicle travelling round the roundabout
and appearing to exit towards Kerse Road, Stirling.
2/ SO, WHO WAS THE MAN SEEN TALKING TO HAMILTON THAT
Given that Hamilton was seen by his neighbour Cathleen
Boswell Kerr, getting out of or standing beside a grey saloon vehicle
at some time between 0800 and 0840, any criminal court would wish to
establish who the driver of this vehicle was and where Hamilton went
between 0840 and 0930 when he arrived at Dunblane Primary School. Every
last detail of Ian Huntley’s actions on the evening of Sunday
4 August 2002 have been forensically examined. It seems, at the
very least, shoddy, that Hamilton’s movements on the morning of
13 March 1996 have so far evaded scrutiny. According to neighbour
Cathleen Kerr, Hamilton waved to the driver of the grey saloon car as
he drove off. Hamilton then walked over to his white hire van. Cathleen
Kerr said he was cheerful. Why did Mrs Kerr not give evidence
at the inquiry? What steps were taken to trace the driver
of the grey saloon car? Was the driver of the grey saloon
car a police officer?
3/ WAS THE ASSEMBLY TIME FOR PRIMARY 7 CHANGED ON THE
MORNING OF MARCH 13, 1996?
There are differing versions of which group of children
would normally have been in assembly at the time Hamilton arrived.
Why was this issue not cleared up at the inquiry? Had someone
been alerted that there might be an unexpected visitor to the school?
Evidence from an un-named pupil was read to the inquiry. In
it the boy stated that Hamilton regularly asked him what time the assembly
started and was told 9.30am. Hamilton asked him if the younger children,
like the primary 1s to 4s went to the assembly at a different time to
the primary 5s to 7s. The pupil told him the Assembly was on a
Wednesday morning and that "the younger ones went after us."
This suggests that Assembly for the older children
normally started each week at 9.30am. But in his evidence
at the inquiry, headmaster Ron Taylor said the following:
"The assemblies take place at the moment on a
Wednesday morning, but they are rotational, because we cannot get all
the children into the hall at the one time, so we rotate them.
On one Wednesday there would be the infants' assembly, which is Primaries
1, 2, 3 and 4, followed by a senior assembly Primaries 5, 6 and 7.
These dates would be rotated in relation to when was the best time for
the assembly. On one Wednesday there would be the infants' assembly,
that is Primaries 1, 2 and 3, then an assembly for Primaries 4, 5 and
6, and a senior assembly for Primary 7. These dates would be rotated
in relation to when was the best time for assemblies".
When he was asked later if this had been a senior assembly
what time would it normally have finished his reply was:
"It varied. It would normally have
finished about 9.40."
Certainly, Hamilton appeared to believe the pupil about
Primary 5s to 7s having assembly at 9.30am every week not every other
week as Ron Taylor is suggesting.
Another schoolboy witness who did not give evidence
at the inquiry, said in a statement to police that he asked Mr Hamilton
on Monday 11th March if football would be on at the Thursday club in
Dunblane. Hamilton replied that it wasn't, as he was "going
to see a man in Dunblane".
4/ DID HEADTEACHER RON TAYLOR MAKE A 999 CALL OR AN
If Mr Taylor made an ordinary call to Stirling Police
HQ, who did he phone? On the first day of the Inquiry, Detective
Chief Superintendent John Ogg clearly states in his evidence it was
an 'ordinary' call, not a 999 call. On the second day of
the Inquiry, Ron Taylor said he did not know the number of the local
police station (even though the Dunblane office number is an extremely
easy number to remember, 822222) so he dialled 999 (I believe that Mr
Taylor phoned Stirling Headquarters, not the local Dunblane office).
On the third day of the Inquiry, Acting Detective Constable Graham Capes
stated that he had been told by a sergeant that there was a tape of
the 999 call. This tape must be played at the New Inquiry so that
the matter of the crucial call for help is cleared up once and for all.
If ADC Capes lied about the CCTV times, it is possible he also lied
about the tape.
5/ WHAT TIME DID THE FIRST UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICERS
ARRIVE AT THE SCENE?
Lord Cullen said in his report that the ambulance
service arrived at the school at 9.57 am and the police at 9.50 am.
The ambulance times have been confirmed by ambulancewoman Alison Irvine
- not an inquiry witness - who made a statement indicating she and colleague
Lesley Haire did indeed arrive at the school at 9.57am.
However, she further stated that there were no police
cars or police officers there - just a man who told them he was an 'off
duty policeman'. She was told they were the first to arrive.
The ambulance staff then radioed their control room to say they were
dealing with a major incident. Police witnesses said at the inquiry
they were at the school at 9.50am. The Accident and Emergency
Department at Stirling Royal Infirmary received initial notification
of a shooting incident at Dunblane at 9.48am. Who from?
Why were no uniformed officers present at the scene at 9.57am when Lord
Cullen states they arrived at 9.50am?
6/ WHO WAS THE OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER?
One of the first people to arrive on the scene was
an unnamed off-duty police officer. This man followed the headteacher
into the gym and instructed Ron Taylor and janitor John Currie to leave
the gun alone. Who was he? LINK
And why has his identity been concealed?
7/ WHY WAS THE ONLY EYE WITNESS TO HAMILTON'S SUICIDE
NOT CALLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE AT THE INQUIRY?
David Duke Scott is said to have seen into the gym
from the art class. But the location of the art class was not
shown in the aerial view photograph of Dunblane Primary School at the
back of the Cullen Report. So it is not possible to work out where
David Scott would have been in relation to the gym and whether he would
have had a clear view. Why is this detail missing?
8/ WHY DID LORD CULLEN WRITE IN HIS REPORT THAT HAMILTON
PLACED THE MUZZLE OF THE REVOLVER IN HIS MOUTH, POINTING UPWARDS AND
PULLED THE TRIGGER?
David Scott is only reported as saying - by a third
party - that he saw the gun "close to his face". He
did not say he saw Hamilton put the revolver in his mouth.
9/ WHO ENTERED THE GYM WHILST HAMILTON WAS STILL FIRING?
Eileen Harrild, the first teacher shot by Hamilton,
was asked at the inquiry to estimate the time gap between the shooting
ending and the first member of staff arriving. She said 'I
think possibly it was more towards the end of the shooting'. She
did not see who this person was because she had taken refuge in a storeroom. So
who entered the gym while Hamilton was still firing?
10/ WHY WERE THE FIRE EXIT DOORS OFF THE GYM STOREROOM
The injured teachers and children had to hide from
Hamilton in the storeroom. If the fire exit door had not been
locked, they could have escaped from the building. Were these
fire exit doors usually locked?
11/ WHY HAS HAMILTON'S POST MORTEM BEEN KEPT FROM THE
We know that he was given a full dissection.
Pathologist Professor Anthony Busuttil said the cause of death was "gunshot
injury". But this does not explain the manner of his death,
whether or not it was self-inflicted and if there were other gunshot
injuries that were not fatal. If it was a simple suicide
why have the details been included in the documents hidden from the
public for 100 years? Were there other injuries? What
wounds did Hamilton's body show? Can we even be expected to believe
what is in Hamilton’s post-mortem anyway, when his body was hastily
cremated and can now NEVER be re-examined?
12/ HOW MANY EXIT WOUNDS WERE THERE FROM HAMILTON'S
The parents of a child who was uninjured in the attack
on Class 1/13 that morning, gave a statement which suggests that Hamilton
was discovered lying with his head close to a wall … (and this
is confirmed by Scene of Crime Officer Malcolm Chisholm). The
parents of this child state that whilst they were in the gym they noticed
two bullet holes six inches from the floor and around two inches apart. This
was at the top end of the room and at the spot where they were informed
Hamilton had shot himself. They said there were no other bullet
holes in that wall but they saw a number of bullet holes in the other
walls. They had a theory explaining what might have happened,
presumably from what their child had told them. This theory suggests
someone fired into the walls at the bottom end of the gym at the point
where Hamilton had re-entered the gym. But the crucial documents
telling the truth of what might have happened have been hidden away
for a century. Is this deliberately to prevent the detail
of their theory being told until 2096? What do the words say that
have been removed? Why have they been removed? Did
Hamilton administer 2 gunshot wounds to his own head? LINK
13/ WHERE DID THE LARGE CASE CONTAINING ADDITIONAL
AMMUNITION FOUND NEAR THE GYM DOOR COME FROM?
Scene of Crime Officer Malcolm Chisholm says he was
told it belonged to Hamilton. There are no witnesses who testified
to seeing Hamilton carrying a large case into the school and certainly
not into the gym. In Lord Cullen's report, there is no mention
of this case. Scene of Crime Officer Malcolm Chisholm gave evidence
that on Hamilton's body there were "2 pouches - one appeared over
one shoulder and hung down and the other was over the other shoulder
and hanging down".
Lord Cullen wrote in his Report: "Over each shoulder
he had a canvas bag which contained ammunition. The bags had been
tied open so that they could not close accidentally. They also
had cardboard inserts so that they would not collapse". There
is no mention in Lord Cullen's report of the case of ammunition.
14/ WHO SAW WHAT?
Why did police photographer Ian McDiarmid state that
there were boxes of ammunition found in the rear bedroom of Hamilton's
house when Detective Chief Superintendent John Ogg stated the ammunition
was found in the lounge and the magazines were marked with coloured
15/ JUST WHAT DID THEY FIND?
Some witnesses suggest Hamilton had two guns at the
primary school, others four. Malcolm Chisholm and David Gould
differ over the details of their examination of the guns. Why
were these vital issues not properly clarified at the Inquiry? Why
has the Scene of Crime report been hidden away until 2096? Who
are we supposed to believe? Malcolm Chisholm or David Gould?
16/ WHY THE DELAY?
Why were photographs of the crime scene not taken
until late in the afternoon? Why, despite concerns that Hamilton's
body might be booby-trapped, was the bomb disposal centre not alerted
till 2.30pm? And why were there people present in the gym when
the bomb disposal expert arrived, at the very late hour of 3.20pm?
The gym was supposed to have been evacuated at noon because of concerns
about a booby trap. Why did the Scene of Crime Officer Malcolm
Chisholm say in evidence that "it seemed ages" before they
were allowed back into the gym, when David Gould stated in his evidence
that he was only in there about 15 to 20 minutes? Chisholm states
that in the 2 hours or so that he believes they were out of the gym,
they "took time to have something to eat". Are we really
supposed to believe this?
17/ MOVING OR MOVED?
Head teacher Ron Taylor said he thought Hamilton's
body had moved. Did he mean it was "moving" or had been
"moved"? If Hamilton's body was moving and he was still
alive, was he refused medical treatment? Why did Dr Jack
Beattie only refer to there being one dead adult in the gym when there
were two? If Hamilton's body had been moved, who moved it?
And why? At some stage between being found in the gym and it being
removed from the gym, Hamilton's body became partially unclothed.
What was the reason for this? And who took the clothes?
18/ WERE WE TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT HAMILTON'S FINANCES
AT THE INQUIRY?
Police statements show that he obtained 2 credit cards
and apparently spent freely at the end of 1995 and early 1996, despite
being unemployed. This was obscured at the Inquiry. What
inquiries were made to ascertain whether Hamilton was blackmailing or
19/ QUEEN VICTORIA SCHOOL
Hamilton had links with the Queen Victoria School in
Dunblane. There are suggestions from a former housemaster that boys
there were abused and that Hamilton was a regular visitor. LINK
Who were Hamilton's contacts at QVS?
20/ WAS HAMILTON PROTECTED BY A SENIOR POLICE OFFICER
FROM THE MID 1970s THROUGH TO 1996?
Another police witness who would appear to have lied
on oath is Acting Chief Inspector Michael Mill. In Chapter L,
it is made quite clear that Mill first came into contact with Hamilton
in the mid 1970s when he was part of Central Scotland Police Underwater
Diving Team at Loch Lomond. Yet on oath, Mill claims he first
knew of Hamilton around 1981, through Hamilton’s wood shop.
I allege that it was Mill who introduced Hamilton to the island of Inchmoan
on Loch Lomond, where Hamilton carried out his sadistic treatment of
boys at the euphemistically named “summer camps”.
I would further allege that DCC Douglas McMurdo carried the can for
Michael Mill in order to protect Central Scotland Police from legal
action by the bereaved and injured children's parents. Mill was
responsible, in 1986, for authorising a second weapon of the same type
and calibre that Hamilton already had, on the basis that Hamilton was
“active in competition shooting”, which everyone knew not
to be the case.
It was always assumed that Hamilton had to have been
supported by a senior police officer in Central Scotland Police to have
been allowed to possess two 9mm Brownings. It was also always
assumed that Hamilton had to have been protected by a senior police
officer in Central Scotland Police to have continued for so long with
all of his activities, when the majority of right-minded people knew
exactly what Hamilton was about. What we never knew before was
WHO this officer was. LINK
[Ed ~ Address removed at the
behest of the Petitioner.]
Tel 01947 840071