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 nor the First
Minister is prepared to address the problem
of the Dunblane
cover-up. 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
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
2/ There be a resolution
and clarification of the Lord Advocate’s
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
And the Petitioner remains,
The Petition of Sandra
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)
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
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. 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). Thus,
ADC Graham Capes – with the blessing
of all the counsel at the Inquiry –
committed perjury and so perverted the course of justice.
And the question remains,
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
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
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 MORNING?
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
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
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
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 ORDINARY CALL?
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?
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
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? 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
10/ WHY WERE THE FIRE EXIT
DOORS OFF THE GYM STOREROOM LOCKED?
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
11/ WHY HAS HAMILTON'S
POST MORTEM BEEN KEPT FROM THE PUBLIC?
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
12/ HOW MANY EXIT WOUNDS
WERE THERE FROM HAMILTON'S HEAD?
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?
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".
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 tape?
15/ JUST WHAT DID THEY
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
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 being blackmailed?
19/ QUEEN VICTORIA
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. 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.
[Ed ~ Address
removed at the behest of the Petitioner.]
Tel 01947 840071