William Burns
18 Shore Road
South Queensferry
EH30 9SG
Tel: 0131 331 1855
9 May 2003
Lord William Douglas (Sullen) Cullen
Member of the Secretive, Exclusive & Highly-Suspect “Speculative
Society of Scotland”
[Ed ~ It ought to have been "Speculative
Society of 'Edinburgh' " - my mistake.LINK]
Judicial Office
Parliament Office
House of Lords
Westminster
LONDON
SW1A 0PW
Dear Cover-up Cullen
In view of the announcement on Friday, 2 May 2003, that you are to be “elevated” to the House of Lords, I must remind you of my letter to you of 27 February 2003, to which you have responded by fleeing from your position as the Lord President and Lord Justice-General down to a cosier hideout in the Lords.
However, since you have not responded in writing, I must reiterate the terms of that letter, to allow you to respond in a more appropriate fashion:
“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. 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 the 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:
“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 evidence, for example, runs to forty A4 pagesLINK, 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:
“Previous witnesses who should be called back to give evidence.
“Thomas Hamilton’s friends:
“Also:
“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 sincerely
William Burns