IT 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.

And as there's nothing of any consequence in them anyway, why was it necessary for a closure order to be imposed, keeping the papers secret for 100 years?LINK

Furthermore, there is official confusion about exactly who imposed the closure order and even whether anyone had the necessary authority to impose such an order.LINK

There 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?

The release of the papers is said to show there was no proof that Hamilton was part of a paedophile ring.LINK   But if such a paedophile ring did exist, nobody would be naive enough to expect proof to be found in the released papers.

Hamilton had many visitors in expensive cars, some chauffeur driven.  None have so far been identified.  Why not?

For 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?

The decision 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.

Yet 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.

He does, however, confuse the matter by claiming in a letter in September that the Crown authorised the restriction of access to the copy productions.

In 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.

If the 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.

If 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 W SCOTT, North Berwick

Read William W Scott's letter to the Freedom of Information Unit, and other info'LINK.
Read exchanges between the Lord Advocate and John Home Roberston MSP and William W Scott and John Home Robertson MSP.LINK
Read the letter from the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee Mohammad Sarwar MP to William W Scott.LINK]

WWW Dunblane Whitewash