INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE
THE HARSHEST AND THE MOST HORRIFIC TRUTHS ABOUT THE DUNBLANE MASSACRE ARE: THAT YOU EITHER DEEP DOWN, DON’T ACTUALLY WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT THAT DAY, OR, YOU CHOOSE TO WILLFULLY IGNORE THE TRUTH, OR, YOU JUST DON’T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH ABOUT THAT DAY.
Almost two decades have now passed by since that unforgettably horrific and vile tragedy that took place in a school gymnasium in a quiet little Scottish village that most of the rest of the world (and even a fair part of Scotland) had never heard of until the 13th of March 1996. Regrettably on that infamous day the name of that, up until then, remote rather unknown little Scottish town was indelibly seared onto the soul of much of humanity forever… (Just by the sheer inconceivability of the unbelievably evil and heinous acts committed there that fateful morning). So much so, that to most, even the name alone to this day stirs something visceral and primal inside almost ALL those people who remember it…
Twenty years on, and to me, perhaps the biggest remaining tragedy of ALL concerning that day is still causing some people out there extreme discomfort, despair, pain, and misery. – Yet this is a misery, pain and despair that has never really mentioned by anyone. It is that uniquely unremitting pain of injustice. And that of the conspiracy (of silence, and/or ignorance) to avoid the facts in order to selfishly get on with our own lives.
For if the true facts ALREADY OUT THERE are considered, only someone CHOOSING not to face the stark realities of the case could EVER allow this matter to just rest, – that would be utterly impossible to do.
Sandra Uttley’s “treatment” is the prime example, this fine selfless and extremely brave lady has paid a terrible price for merely exposing the ENTIRITY OF THE TRUE facts of the case, (ALL facts that those in power preferred you not to see) FACTS THAT HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE CHILDREN IN THAT SCHOOL.
– FACTS THAT WOULD CHANGE HOW WE ALL WOULD SEE THAT DAY.
– WHICH MIGHT WELL BE THE REASON THAT THEY INVENTED A LAW – “THEY” BEING, WELL, NO-ONE ACTUALLY, WHEN IT IS TRACED TO WHO IT WAS THAT ACTUALLY GAVE THAT ORDER TO JUST RANDOMLY INVENT A LAW – OUT OF THIN AIR – TO PREVENT DISCLOSURE OF WHAT TURNS OUT TO HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLY RELEVENT EVIDENCE TO THE CASE, AND FOR AN UNHEARD OF 100 YEARS
– WHICH REALLY DOESN’T LOOK SUSPICIOUS AT ALL, I MEAN LAWS ARE INVENTED ALL OF THE TIME, FOR NO REASON, BY NO-ONE….NO ACTUALLY, WAIT A MINUTE, THAT IS UTTER RUBBISH….
– JUST WHY WERE THESE LAWS INVENTED BY “NO-ONE” IN ORDER TO KEEP VITAL EVIDENCE FROM BEING PRESENTED TO EITHER THE PUBLIC, OR THE INQUIRY? AND, WHY DON’T YOU CARE? – WHY DON’T THE FAMILIES CARE? – AND WHY DON’T THE PRESS CARE?
If the families or surviving victims don’t want REAL justice, then no matter what proof, facts, or data is put before you by Sandra, me, or anyone else, and no matter how damning that evidence clearly is… the conspiracy of silence prevails, end of story.
In point of fact, I know and can attest for an absolute concrete fact that the brave and still defiant Sandra (private lol) is still paying a price for her truly brilliant investigative work today, and most assuredly as well for her stance against police incompetence. (But, that I think clearly all stemmed from her original research which was honestly attempting to be doing nothing more than bring the FULL facts of the Dunblane case into the public eye – SO THAT YOU – YES YOU THE PERSON READING THIS – COULD HAVE (PERHAPS) HAVE MADE A GENUINELY INFORMED OPINION ON THIS MATTER).
– As they say though, “No good deed goes unpunished”, and at times this lady sure has been punished just for putting her own time, and life aside, solely in order to be fighting for some justice for YOU at the end of the day. – Sandra has benefited IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER for presenting her findings, or for the countless hours of diligent work that went into preparing them beforehand, or the checking and re-checking, or the tenacious freedom of information battle of wits that she dug in and fought, and kept fighting, and ultimately prevailed at, on key points, ALL just in order to have the truth brought out, and nothing more.
Sandra has asked for nothing in return for this great favour that she done, justice, Scotland, and us ALL.
If I was to open up about my thoughts on this for a second, I’d have to be truly candid and admit I’m in a little pain over the injustice of this whole matter too, not only just solely for the victims who were obviously the ones who bear the brunt of all our sympathy, or indeed just for their devastated families, but also for the good hearted honest and dedicated to true social justice campaigners, or to be more apt, “The ones who actually fought in the trenches” like Sandra Uttley.
– She has never asked for so much as a single thankyou for what she put herself through, she seeks no following, and had no “reward” in mind for doing her work, apart from maybe peace of mind when she’d finally finished compiling it.
The lady is ONLY concerned with justice, she shuns praise, and even told me to take her off the pedestal she imagined I had her on, – simply for respecting the sheer selflessness of her endeavours and labour.
The REAL good people don’t want thanked, or recognition I’ve noticed…
They just want results, and most of all, they merely want justice.
Far from being thanked for her dedication to bringing the truth to bear on the story – she was basically ignored or vilified by the mainstream media, which TO THIS DAY STILL avoids her facts and findings like vampires swerve garlic and sunshine I might add.
Facts they still dare not print and haven’t all these years, just why is that?
SHE HAS GIVEN ALL THE PROOF NEEDED – YET THE MEDIA HAS NEVER REPORTED IT.
(PROOF THAT INCONVENIENTLY MADE THE ENTIRE “ACCEPTED” OR OFFICIAL NARRATIVE LOOK LIKE AN UTTERLY RIDICULOUS AND CONCOCTED FAIRYTALE)
WHICH ODDLY, ON ITS OWN, APPARENTLY WASN’T AN ISSUE WITH ANY OF THE FAMILIES INVOLVED – OR THE ENTIRE SCOTTISH JUDICIARY – OR MEDIA – OR EVEN WORSE CONSIDERING – THE SCOTTISH AND BRITISH PUBLIC AS A WHOLE!
– UNLESS SOME OF YOU PEOPLE (YES YOU) LEARN TO ADJUST YOUR OPINION TO FIT THE FULL SET OF KNOWN FACTS (INSTEAD OF DOING THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE, IN THAT MOST PEOPLE’S OPINION IS PRESENTLY BASED ON A MYOPIC NARRATIVE, THAT IS ITSELF BASED ON A MERE SLIVER OF THE AVAILABLE FACTS ON THE ENTIRE AFFAIR).
UNTIL ALL PARTIES CONCERNED (INCLUDING SURVIVORS/FAMILIES) CONFRONT ALL OF THESE FACTS – THEN THERE WILL NEVER BE JUSTICE FOR ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH DUNBLANE.
– AND THAT SADLY WOULD MAKE IT AN ETERNAL TRAGEDY.
– WITHOUT THE INPUT OF ONE OF THE PARTIES THAT ARE MENTIONED ABOVE
– IT FOREVER SHALL BE.
The reason for a large part of my discomfort is my that my mind and conscience just won’t allow me to take what can only be described as the “easy path” and just swerve this subject. The reason for that is both simple and at the same time, very disturbing all at once. – For me….
JUST ONE FACT I FEEL TRUMPS ALL OTHERS….
The biggest tragedy about that day was, in truth, the VAST mountain of facts, statements, testimonies, and other forms of hard evidence, that were NOT brought to light at Lord Cullen’s enquiry, about the chain of the events that took place that day, or about the suspected perpetrator, and especially with regards to his background and his past with the police and other figures.
– Facts that I will remind you, only did make it into the public domain because of the countless hours of hard work and the sheer tenacity of Sandra more than anyone else, (although I know many others chipped in) that showed without any shadow of a doubt that the official story and the official enquiry were nothing but a shoddy tapestry of mistruths, error, and even downright lies.
MANY OF THE FACTS DEEMED “IRRELEVENT” WERE VERY RELEVENT AND MANY OF THE MATTERS DEEMED “SENSITIVE” HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VICTIMS THAT DAY AT THAT SCHOOL.
THEY ARE ODDLY ALSO THE FACTS PURPOSEFULLY BEING HIDDEN FROM PUBLIC SCRUTINY UNTIL THE END OF THIS CENTURY. – THE PORTIONS OF THESE “HIDDEN FACTS” THAT SANDRA DID BRING TO LIGHT ALL RATHER ODDLY PAINT A VERY DIFFERENT NARRATIVE THAN THE “OFFICIALLY ACCEPTED” ONE THAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO US. AND STILL IS IN FACT.
THE OFFICIAL STORY FALLS TO PIECES RAPIDLY WHEN ANY OF THESE FACTS -THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHILDREN OR TEACHER KILLED IN THAT GYM – ARE INTRODUCED INTO THE CHAIN OF EVENTS.
AS I SAID THEY SEEM TO HAVE BEEN DEEMED SENSITIVE ENOUGH TO HAVE A 100 YEAR GAGGING ORDER INVENTED OUT OF THE BLUE AS A LAW TO PROTECT THESE, LET’S BE BLUNT HERE, – “STATE SECRETS” FROM EVER BEING EXAMINED. – REMEMBER THAT – THEY INVENTED THIS 100 YEAR RULE OUT OF THE ETHER – AND ONLY FOR THIS CASE ALONE IN SCOTTISH LEGAL HISTORY HAS SUCH AN ORDER BEEN PLACED ON IT (UK CABINET SECRETS ARE ONLY COVERED BY A 30 YEAR BAN FOR EXAMPLE).
THIS WAS DEMONSTRABLY A CONCERTED EFFORT TO KEEP CRUCIAL FACT OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE, AND IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN ORCHESTRATED AT THE VERY HIGHEST LEVEL SPECIFICALLY TO KEEP THOSE SENSITIVE FACTS OBSCURED FROM SCRUTINY. IF YOU WERE TO INCLUDE THE APPARENT D-NOTICE ON REPORTING ON, OR INVESTIGATING I WILL SOON MENTION, ADDED TOGETHER –YOU HAVE A BIZARRE SET OF UNIQUE LAWS AND PROCEDURES ALL BROUGHT TO BEAR, ALL AT ONCE, AND ONLY ON THIS SINGLE CASE.
– AND ALL CONCERNED WITH DOING NOTHING ELSE WHATSOEVER THAN HIDING THE FACTS AND THEREFORE THE HONEST TRUTH ABOUT THE WHOLE AFFAIR.
The death of a child, and I mean anyone’s child, under ANY circumstances, is, I’d imagine quite probably THE worst thing that any parent could ever have to endure or experience in their lifetime, I personally have no children myself, yet that thought, even to me, a man who has no children of his own, that one particularly harrowing thought, when seriously considered and pondered upon, can and does hit upon a particularly sensitive nerve deep down inside any human being that nothing else I can imagine quite can. – So I’d like to state this before I begin…
My heart genuinely goes out to ALL of those people who were personally affected by the heartless and mind numbing slaughter that took place on that uniquely sad and terrible day – I can only hope that those individuals more than anyone else don’t despise or get angry just because I’m bringing this matter back up again, as I’ve said I hope I’m not pre-judged for only speaking about what the facts alone point too (and often make abundantly clear) or for doing what is at the end of the day, just the right thing by stating to you the whole truth, as I see it, that and that the facts I will furnish you with will bear witness too and make very clear, directly to you straight from my heart using only my best judgement and conscience. In truth there is quite a big part of me that is saying even as I type “I don’t want to do this”, – because no matter what they say, most people DO in fact punish the messenger, but at the same time I already know that I have no choice, I can’t just turn away from this matter now just because of fear of rocking the proverbial boat, or because of whose particular cages will be getting rattled by my words, In truth, it would haunt my conscience, mind, and my heart forever – if I was to be a coward unto myself first of all, (never mind to ALL the victims, past and present) by taking that easier path that I have just mentioned to you a bit earlier, I’d be taking that path I think, if I just stand mute on the matter – given the known facts* uncovered and put in the public domain since that day. I cannot do that. I’m Sorry.
*(Or unknown to you, as the case may well be (for a fair portion of you I would suspect), – but YOU can be the sole judge of that for yourself after reading this).
I know full well that most of the people who tragically lost one of their most cherished gifts that anyone can receive in this existence on that particular day will have done what everyone has to do eventually after a huge loss of that magnitude. – In their own way, (no doubt after a very, very, long period of grief and emptiness), I would imagine that they all have tried their hardest to just get on with their lives in as best a way as they can. – Not because they had ever “moved on” from this, because we all know (I imagine) that this is not the sort of thing that any parent would ever be able to truly move on from or ever be able to forget. But what else could these people do? They couldn’t just give up, no matter how much their world had been torn to shreds, and turned upside down, and inside out. Afterwards – They just had to get on with life. – To each and every single one of those people – I wholeheartedly extend my deepest, sorrow, sympathy, and truly honest regret – not only for your personal loss on that day, and not only for the many many untold sorrows that your unfathomable loss has undoubtedly caused each and every single one of you from that day up until this one…
I must also express my deepest regret for these very words that I’m typing right now, AND THIS IS DESPITE THE FACT THAT they are true, CHECKABLE and honest (as are ALL of the available facts mentioned herein), as far as my intellect, reasoning, heart, and most importantly my conscience, can fathom.
ONE OF THE SURVIVORS, OR FAMILY MEMBERS, WHO MUST KNOW THE TRUTH HASN’T BEEN FULLY BROUGHT TO LIGHT NEEDS TO SPEAK OUT FIRST HERE.
– I’m to you in advance merely because of what I will be presenting, I’m very sorry, but I’m afraid that I’m going to be opening up an old wound that I know will still be a very raw one for many. And, as I’ve just said, unfortunately this “wound” that I will be opening up, is one that in all likelihood, has never “healed” in any real way for many if not all of those affected by the misery of that day (A day that I personally believe was poured onto the conscience of the world as a whole). – I thought about that fact, and about the feelings of those who still suffer now because of that day long and hard before I began putting this piece together, I’m from Scotland myself, so I know exactly how most people in this country will feel about this topic being brought up again. – I may as well be frank from the outset, this piece, like most of my other work, will probably be making me no new friends, – I may even lose a few more. I know that I will not benefit from this in any way shape or form, in truth I already know from my past experiences what the so called thanks coming my way for writing this is.
As far as I can see it, Sandra Uttley is one of those unique and unsung heroines who I honestly believe is owed a great debt by all of the citizens of this world, I don’t care if you choose to acknowledge that fact or not, for me, my own heart and conscience are the soul arbitrators on such matters, and they require me to pay off a little of MY part of this collective debt (that I said, I personally feel we ALL owe to this truly remarkable lady). I hope to pay off my part of that debt by putting together and presenting this collection of evidence (that is already in the public domain) but in a new manner that might help anyone choosing to read this to not only attempt anew to help to get justice for those who were gunned down that day, but also to try and see if by presenting these undeniable facts, (that I will stress one more time, are merely a collection of facts that were ALL taken from the public record)
– Hopefully in the process of doing so I’d also like to try to get a little bit at least of that much deserved justice and indeed vindication, that I for one think the incomparable friend to all humanity Sandra Uttley deserves.
I will not be presenting these facts to you in any sort of real chronological order, or even by some ghoulish order of their sheer barbarity, or for that matter in order of their perceived “shock value”.
The facts are already out there, and as utterly shocking and revelatory as just those facts were, either by, trickery, apathy, ignorance, or malfeasance, (or maybe a combo of all four? – a little from column’s A, B, C and D – In my personal opinion that’s what I suspect) most of the British public have “chosen” or been directed to ignore the harsh brutal AND OFFICIAL NARRATIVE DECIMATING truths already revealed by Sandra and many others, so for that reason I think there’s absolutely no point in me just trying to tug at your emotions by hammering the same old points home.
– instead I will be putting under the Keernsoscope, and then before you, some facts or incidents about the affair that I feel may have not received the full attention or indeed due diligence that they perhaps warranted, I also feel in my gut that they may perhaps be some salient points or weakspots for both looking into in more detail (if anyone, outside of those who can change the whole story merely by being honest, ever truly wants to get to the bottom of this riddle) and also because logically these issues should permanently grip any curious mind enough for it to be genuinely troubled permanently by the quite absurd and blatant lies that the facts alone conclusively prove we were ALL told before, during, and after the “official” enquiry. If I can’t solve this, I can at least try in my own meagre way to do my little bit to make sure that it remains unignorable.
A large part of the reason for this obfuscation of facts was that, what can only be termed a D-Notice on not reporting or investigating the crime, was sent out to ALL media before the inquiry.
Here Sandra tells you all about it in her own words.
“A lot of people ask how a conspiracy on the scale I allege could have been covered up, when so many people had to have been involved. Let me explain. Immediately after the massacre happened, there was inevitably a lot of media coverage and a lot of probing questions were asked.
Then a curb was put on media reporting by the Crown Office and Lord Cullen. It was said this would prejudice the evidence of witnesses called to the Dunblane Inquiry. In an article in the Scotsman (5 April 1996) Ian Bell explained:
“Scotland’s most senior law officer threatened editors with proceedings for contempt if they continued to investigate the circumstances of the Dunblane massacre.
As though to sharpen the point, the Crown Office said the remarks of Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, the Lord Advocate, were themselves “not for publication or broadcast”.
The curb on reporting is not to be reported”.
– A curb on reporting and even reporting the curb on the curb is just a D Notice by another title, (whichever way you choose to dice it). – Here is the D Notice definition from Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia: A DA-Notice (Defence Advisory Notice)—called a Defence Notice (D-Notice) until 1993—is an official request to news editors not to publish or broadcast items on specified subjects for reasons of national security. The system is still in use in the United Kingdom.
So for some reason a national security net was seemingly by proxy thrown around this case right from the outset, even if it was done informally, the banning of any media investigation (most important) and also reporting certainly fits all the criteria that would qualify this as being a D notice event, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY WEREN’T ALLOWED TO SAY THE BAN WAS EVEN IN PLACE – WHICH IS A CLASSIC SIGN OF THIS PARTICULAR METHOD OF GAGGING THE MEDIA, AND, IT ALSO WRECKS ANY CHANCES OF SOME REAL SERIOUS INVESTIGATING FROM EVER HAVING BEEN DONE ON THIS MATTTER BY THE MEDIA RIGHT FROM DAY ONE, THIS WAS CLEARLY A POLITICAL “HOT POTATO” FOR REASONS THE PUBLIC WERE NOT PRIVY TOO, AND THOSE MATTERS ARE THE SORT OF THINGS THAT COULD LOSE ANY JOURNALIST THEIR JOB QUITE EASILY (AT THE VERY LEAST) – EVEN JUST FOR MERELY MENTIONING ANYTHING ABOUT, WHAT IS IN REALITY, NOTHING MORE THAN A STATE IMPOSED BAN ON INVESTIGATING CRIME – THAT MAY, OR MAY NOT BE, INVOLVING ASPECTS OF THE STATE ITSELF. – REMEMBER THAT NORMALLY THESE BANS ARE ONLY EVER IMPOSED TO PROTECT NATIONAL SECURITY TOO.
These are points that I feel cannot be explained away easily (if at all) like some other matters have been on Dunblane, and mainly for that reason they will be the main focus of my attention during this article. You can read Sandra’s own work by either buying her book “Dunblane Unburied” or if you cannot afford to do so, you can go to one of her facebook groups where you can support her in her ongoing fight, or, very generously she posted a link on a page in order for those who can’t afford to buy a copy to still read an abridged version of Sandra’s book, for free.
The first matter I would like us to focus our attention on is a boat of all things, my own personal feeling is that the whole affair concerning this “cabin cruiser”, how it came into the unemployed Mr Hamilton’s possession? Where had it come from before that? What links are there with this investigation and all the goings on up in Loch Lomond, which is just across the Clyde mere miles from my home? I think by concentrating on this specific topic first of all could be the best way to not only easily show Hamilton most definitely did have hefty connections, ongoing relationships, and dealings with, many police officials from the late 1970’s on. – (Oddly all airbrushed out of the official narrative, in file 13, room 101, the memory hole). – Those relationships were not mere casual or indeed passing ones either – they were often long standing, and numerous, and his pals came from the ranks spanning from the mere footsoldier constable to the very chief constable himself.
A boat was apparently given to this loner, with no police connections, (some say by high ranking police connections), this boat later blew up and sunk with Hamilton aboard – Yet more police officials who knew Hamilton for years helped salvage the boat for their best buddy, (but never really knew him come the enquiry), and who were quite oddly also never really mentioned in the standard version of events concerning this archetypal lone nutter known paedophile, kiddie worker, – yet at the same time social hand grenade who was just waiting to go off.
We were even told that it was these coppers (Mill and Ogg) who went and salvaged this boat using a specialist diving team, for free, as a favour, for their very close yet somehow non-friend Hamilton, and all at the expense of the public purse I believe. – HMMM. NO FAVOURITISM OR CLOSE FRIENDLINESS BEING SHOWN THERE AT ALL.
Who insured that boat? Was a claim made? Why was a boat blowing up either not in local papers, or investigated by the police? Salvage law says you keep what you recover, so in reality Hamilton was “gifted” this boat twice, as technically it belonged to the police team who salvaged it. How very very lucky for Thomas eh?
Police officers (Mill’s officers, and Mill) also regularly visited these sailing and camping retreats on and around Loch Lomond for no real reason other than to see their best-pal/the unknown-pariah (for what reasons we can only speculate). That they often felt the need to visit this guy, that at the same time supposedly had no friends, that none of them really knew, even though they had quite steady ongoing relationships, phonecalls, chats, and meetings with him is documented fact that has already been in the public domain for many years. IF YOU CARED.
There have also been some accusations alleging that the boat was somehow “gifted” to Hamilton. That is a point that has not had the attention it merits, there would have to be some sort of transference of title at least, was the boat already there, or was it transported there?, insurance, registration with harbour master, health and safety, these would have left breadcrumbs for the curious…Maybe that Sun journalist pretending to care with Sandra recently as we approached the 20th anniversary can research that stuff?
– HE CERTAINLY DIDN’T WANT TO USE THE ALREADY INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE SPANNING EVERY SINGLE PAGE OF SANDRA’S BOOK!!!
– THE SUN MAN WASN’T HAPPY USING THESE READILY AVAILABLE REAL FACTS, OH NO THEY WANTED ONLY TO SPEAK TO SANDRA.
HOW VERY QUEER, THE FACTS AREN’T OF INTEREST, BUT SANDRA IS?
There are also those who say the boat was confiscated from someone under the Proceeds of Crime Act, or some other asset seizure operation, and that then, for whatever reason, this cabin cruiser “magically” ended up in the hands of a skint unemployed loner with lots of police friends (who later lied about their very cosy boat yard, summercamp and salvaging, type relationship with Hamilton that most of you probably never knew anything about up until just now). (Or the ones who did know about it haven’t bothered asking questions that they should be about it.) – If it was confiscated, that could only have been done under the Drug Trafficking offence Act of 1986, or The Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (c. 37) which is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It largely replaced the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. – Where the defendant is convicted of a drug trafficking offence and the prosecutor applies to the Crown Court for a confiscation order the court must determine whether the defendant has benefited from drug trafficking.
If at any time the defendant has received any payment or other reward in connection with drug trafficking carried out by him or another he will be deemed to have benefited from drug trafficking and the court must make a confiscation order. The Drug Trafficking Act 1994 came into force on 3 February 1995.
(1995 hmm. A bit late for Thomas’s boat, so that only leaves confiscation under the 1986 Act. Unfortunately, it was revised as it was very difficult to prove connection between assets and criminal profits, hence the further amendments since then. – That means it is highly unlikely that anyone could have confiscated this boat legally, unless a judge, or a high police official acting under law, but for that there would need to be a papertrail Starting with the convicted drug dealer firstly, then the confiscation order, and then just how the devil a police department would decide to auction it to unemployed Thomas of all people in the first place (if that theory held any weight).
These next extracts are taken from the information gleamed by Sandra and others on both the boat and one police officer who was not only most connected to Loch Lomond for varying reasons, but who was also quite conveniently was also the exact same police officer most associated with both Hamilton (for decades) and this boat too. And who Hamilton turned to, to speak on his behalf to other cops!
“In his evidence at the Inquiry (Day 8, Friday 7 June 1996), (ex?) (Chief Inspector) Michael Mill states that he first knew of Thomas Hamilton around 1980-81, when he was stationed at Stirling. Asked in what connection he knew him, he replies, “He had a Do It Yourself shop in Cowane Street, Stirling”. Mill says he was a customer”.
“However, in one of the (original) “hidden documents” (that Sandra accessed and revealed after getting it via a Freedom of Information request or a 100 lol) (Chapter L, Vol 1) it states that “during the mid 1970s, Hamilton met and formed relations of sorts with members of the police diving team, police witnesses Anthony Bushnell and Michael Mill”. This was in the summer of 1976”. – Quote ends.
This team apparently trained at Loch Lomond, and it was there that they seemed to have an ongoing and odd relationship with Hamilton, the magic boat, and also his summer camps that lasted on right up until the 1980’s.
It was during this time period that this boat that the police-loving-sociopath, paedophile, loner-socialite procured from out of thin air, (Remember – out of absolutely nowhere, according to the official narrative(s)).
-Thomas “somehow” had the luck, or magical talent, (or connections?) to make an ENTIRE BOAT appear from nowhere just like that David Copperfield would.
(THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND, AN ENTIRE CABIN CRUISER, APPEARING FOR NO EXPLAINABLE REASON FROM OUT OF THE ETHER – Only an illusionist – OR PERHAPS MORE APTLY – A WHOLLY CONCOCTED ILLUSION – could ever make that “trick” happen).
I firmly believe that the whole boat episode is a vital nexus point both for very notable parties, and notable events, that perhaps hold a vital key to getting at those who are closer to the puppet masters really behind this enigma.
Sandra continues – “Other retired officers are asked the date when they left the force. Michael Mill is not asked this question. At the time of the investigation into the massacre, post 13 March 1996, he is described as a “serving police officer” in the hidden documents. By June 1996, he is a “former police officer”… I wrote to Central Scotland Police to ask the date Mill retired and my letter was passed on to Stirling Council’s legal department. Principal solicitor Peter Farquhar wrote, “I can advise you that under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998, you are not entitled to information which you request in relation to ex Chief Inspector Mill”.
At the Inquiry Mill is asked, “Did you know something of his ownership and use of boats on Loch Lomond?” – Yes I did. “How was it you came to know about that?” – “I was a member of Central Scotland Police Force Underwater Unit and we trained up at Loch Lomond on training exercises on a weekly basis”.
Michael Mill was not prepared to admit at the Inquiry that this is how he first came into contact with Hamilton, 5 years earlier than he states.
WHY WAS THAT?
When asked about Hamilton’s boats, Mill provides a very detailed reply: “I was first aware he had one, a speed boat, it was a small boat and it was called Lady Sheila and he then purchased* another boat which was a large cabin cruiser and that was called Tropical Winter”. (*Just how did a skint loner purchase it?)
Mill was also aware that Hamilton had summer camps in the area. He is asked “When were you first aware of this?” – Probably about 1980, 1981; as I say we visited Loch Lomond on a weekly basis, we knew of the person at the boatyard and they knew Hamilton as well. Above, he says his first contact with Hamilton was in 1980, 1981 – as a customer, not through his police work.
– His earlier answer would suggest that Hamilton was already well known to him by 1980.
Mill is then asked about the 1988 police investigation into one of Hamilton’s camps. By 1988, Mill was sub-divisional officer at Dunblane Police Office.
He is asked, “Is it a fair summary of the position that Hamilton on a number of occasions tried to plead with you to say something, I suppose in his favour, in the course of this investigation?” – I don’t know if he was pleading with me….
“Did he visit you regularly?” – Mill – Yes, he did. “Was he pleading his case?” Mill – Yes he was.
“Did you get the impression he hoped it would filter through from you into other police officers’ ears?” Mill – Yes.
JUST WHY WAS THAT?
Here’s proof Hamilton was abusing boys at EXACT same time as this chummy relationship was occurring with certain police up at the loch.
Hamilton, The Boat & Sex
I was child sex victim of monster Hamilton; Boy’s ordeal on boat trip
Daily Record (Glasgow, Scotland)
Pervert killer Thomas Hamilton subjected a 12-year-old boy to a terrifying sex attack during a boat trip. …His young victim – who is now grown up – told of his ordeal in a written statement to the Dunblane Inquiry. ….The youngster was picked to go on a trip to Loch Lomond trip with seven other boys in the early 80s.
The man said sick Hamilton terrified the boys by throwing them off his cabin cruiser into the freezing loch. He said: “Hamilton was tying ropes around us one at a time and threw us off the boat and then pulled us back in.”
The little boy was so frightened that he hid in the cabin and refused to take part. But that night, Hamilton summoned him to the cabin where he slept. He was holding a telescopic pointer for maps in his hand when the little boy went in dressed only in his underpants.
He said: “He began to touch me between the legs and private parts. I was very scared and started to cry. “He told me to stop crying or I would be hit by the pointer.” The beast stripped off his own shorts after he forced the terrified youngster to lie face down on the bed. The man said: “At one point I was crying and he banged the pointer at the side of my face. It didn’t touch me but it hit the pillow.” Hamilton then told the lad to stand up and face the wall. The boy was allowed to go after his horror ordeal.
He phoned his mum the next day and begged her to take him home but she lived too far away and he had to wait to leave with the rest.
He said Hamilton’s boat – Tropical Linda – blew up a week after he went home.
So the police helped a paedophile, (reports had been made to other police under Mill so to suggest he was unaware of his proclivity is silly) yet they helped salvage that boat,
WHO PAID FOR THE REPAIRS TO IT? AND WHERE WERE THEY DONE?
According to The Guardian in 2003, “there have been allegations that the lengthy closure order was placed on the report after it linked Hamilton to figures in the Scottish establishment, including two senior politicians and a lawyer.” – NO OFFENCE BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PROVEN CLEAR LINKS TO THE POLICE TOO? AND ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS TO THE AFORE MENTIONED EX CHIEF INSPECTOR MILL. NO ALLEGATION – THAT’S A PROVABLE DIAMOND HARD FACT.
Now, from the Daily Telegraph: – Sandra herself states – “It is also blatantly obvious that Central Scotland Police, who were chosen to investigate the background to the murders, should never have been involved in a so-called independent inquiry. They were implicated in the events under scrutiny and continually provided Hamilton with renewals of his gun licence despite long-term and repeated warnings that this should not happen. It was known that Hamilton had friends in the police force, including one highly placed officer. (Mill)
– Sandra continued “I believe that Hamilton was a major provider of pornographic photographs and videos to a ring of men prominent in Central Scotland, including police officers who protected him from numerous allegations of physical abuse at boys’ camps and clubs he ran”. – quote ends.
From further on in Sandra’s work – “Central Scotland Police carried out the investigation for the Inquiry and thus, even if the Crown Office was not involved in the cover-up, Central Scotland Police was given carte blanche to withhold any witness statements they didn’t wish to be seen, for whatever reason.
This material was passed to the Crown who then summarised it and passed it on to the above named representatives, who in turn passed it on to their clients (or at least they passed on some of it).
These documents were not released to the press, and nor did Lord Cullen read any of this preparatory material.
There were a total of 1,655 witness statements taken, from a total of 1,240 witnesses.
Only 171 witnesses gave evidence at the Inquiry.
Thus the evidence of 1,069 witnesses was never heard.
Lord Cullen wrote his report on the basis of the oral testimony of just 171 witnesses. The fact that some of these witnesses, police witnesses included, lied on oath, was therefore not known to him (or was it?)
All the evidence prepared for the Inquiry was then locked away for an astonishing 100 years, until the Crown Office released some of the documents in October 2005. It was almost impossible to ascertain WHAT had been released, and what withheld.
It was only through making a total of (over a 100 I believe) requests for information to Central Scotland Police under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, that I started to discover just how much material had still been held back by the Crown”. Quote ends.
Sandra also makes the following points raised from examining the papers the inquiry didn’t want us to see, but that Sandra tenaciously wrestled from their clutches…
The injured teachers and some of the less critically injured children who survived the initial shooting spree were hiding in a storeroom inside the gym. Here’s what they said
Eileen Harrild testified that someone ELSE entered the gym BEFORE the gunman stopped shooting.
Mary Blake thought the gunman might have surrendered.
SO WHO WAS HE TALKING TO? AND WHY DID HE STOP SHOOTING?
ALSO WHY DID HAMILTON NEED TO SHOOT HIMSELF TWICE IN THE HEAD? –
AND WHY DID THE SCOTTISH JUDICIARY FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL NOT TO RELEASE THE AUTOPSY REPORTS? WHY ARE THEY UNDER THE 100 YEAR RULE? THAT’S UTTERLY ABSURD, HIS AUTOPSY HAS NO BEARING ON THE CHILD VICTIMS, OR THEIR FAMILIES. – ANOTHER FAVOUR WE OWE SANDRA INCIDENTALLY. SHE GOT THE FACTS RELEASED THAT THOMAS HAD APPARENTLY SHOT HIMSELF TWICE.
WHAT COULD THEY EVER WAN’T TO HIDE A BORING FACT LIKE THAT FOR?
THIS DERANGED YET DEADLY MARKSMAN SOMEHOW NEEDED TWO SHOTS TO HIT HIS OWN BRAIN FROM AN INCH AWAY IT WOULD APPEAR!
OH, AND ANOTHER WITNESS SAYS THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY HEARD HAMILTON SCREAMING BEFORE DOING SO. – NOTHING ODD THERE EITHER.
And here’s some quotes from William Scott’s letter to all politicians on the matter
The decision to impose the closure order was taken at a meeting on 13th January 1997. At that meeting was the Clerk to the Inquiry and representatives of the Scottish Records Office, the Police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Lord Cullen informed me by letter that those who attended that meeting did not have the authority, individually or collectively, to impose a closure order.
The Police were represented at that meeting on 13th January 1997 by Detective Chief Superintendent Ogg of Central Scotland Police. At the time, as widely reported in the press, many considered it wrong that Central Scotland Police undertook the investigation of the massacre when it was conceivable that their incompetence or mis-judged favouritism was ultimately influential in permitting the Tragedy to occur.
This may just be coincidence but it has been alleged that Mr. Ogg was in some way involved with the salvage of a cabin cruiser owned by Thomas Hamilton.
It certainly seems wrong that a senior member of the Police Force which was severely criticised a few months earlier should have been in a position to close for 100 years documents that that might damage the careers or reputations of some of his colleagues.
….At the time of the shooting there was an off-duty police officer in the school. He did not give evidence nor was his statement presented to the Inquiry. When I queried this the Lord Advocate stated that his presence was not required as a student teacher saw Hamilton shoot himself. The student teacher was not called to give evidence either although parts of his statement were read out at the Inquiry. Nowhere in the evidence given to the Inquiry did the student teacher state that he saw Hamilton shoot himself.
You may be wondering why I have brought up the subject of how Hamilton died since the majority no doubt consider the way of his going of little consequence. I bring it to your attention because it raises the very serious question as to the truth of what was put before the Inquiry and ultimately the findings of Lord Cullen.
It was intended that the statement made by the off-duty police officer be hidden for 100 years but was released under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.
He recounts in great detail his movements after arriving at the school and the people he met on his way to the gymnasium so his description of the situation in the gym should not have been ignored. Was there a reason for this?
The off-duty officer (FIRST ON THE SCENE) said that Hamilton had one holster, that there were two pistols, and that he was wearing a black boiler suit.
The scene of crime officer (WHO GOT THERE MUCH LATER) giving evidence to the Inquiry said that Hamilton had FOUR holsters, that there were two pistols and two revolvers, and that he was wearing black corduroy trousers.
Was one lying or were they both telling the truth?
There seems no reason why either of them should lie so how could they both be telling the truth? – They could both be telling the truth (BUT ONLY) if the body had been tampered with.
…. I wrote to the student teacher who according to the Lord Advocate saw Hamilton shoot himself. – He did not reply to me.
And from The Murder of Thomas Hamilton by Andrew S. MacGregor
It is stated within the Tayside Police report on the Dunblane Primary School report No. FSL 1010/96 that the gunman was equipped with 25 extended box type magazines capable of holding 20 rounds each.
That is 500 rounds of ammunition for the Browning pistol that was used to murder the pupils and teacher, and wound many others inside the gymnasium.
Of these magazines, 4 were found to be empty, and another three were partially empty. The actual pistol used in these murders when found by the police was devoid of any magazine, but still had a round in the firing chamber. In other words, the gunman had removed the magazine prior to using all the ammunition within the magazine. At this stage, we have a gunman whose apparent intent is to murder as many school children as he can. At the end of his shooting within the gymnasium he is still in possession of 13 fully loaded magazines, and three partially loaded magazines. There is nothing to stop the gunman from now going from classroom to classroom killing more children, if that was his intent.
HERE’S THE THING – IF THE FIRST POLICE OFFICER ON SCENE SAW HIM WITH BOILER SUIT ON, ONLY ONE HOLSTER AND TWO BROWNING PISTOLS, YET THE SCENE OF CRIME OFFICER SAID LATER THAT DAY HE HAD FOUR HOLSTERS ON, WITH TWO .357 MAGNUMS (THAT WERE INVISIBLE TO THE FIRST (OFF DUTY) POLICE OFFICER ON SCENE GRANT MCCUTCHEON).
WELL HERE’S THE THING – THE GUNS THE FIRST POLICEMAN ON SCENE FOUND WERE NOT THE TYPE THAT BLEW THOMAS’ HEAD OFF! – AT THE SECOND ATTEMPT REMEMBER.
HE ONLY SAW BROWNING AUTOMATICS, WHICH LOOK NOTHING LIKE REVOLVERS – ESPECIALLY TO A TRAINED POLICE OFFICER, WHO FROM HIS STATEMENT KNEW IT WAS AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON (THE BROWNING 9MM).
PLUS IF THOMAS HAD ON FOUR HOLSTERS – AS THE SCENE OF CRIME OFFICER STATED
– CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHERE HE PUT THOSE 25 EXTENDED 9MM MAGAZINES?
THE FOUR HOLSTERS WOULD BE COVERING ALL OF THE POCKETS OF THE BOILER SUIT THE FIRST ATTENDING POLICE OFFICER SAID HE FOUND HIM IN.
PLUS DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH WEIGHT THOSE 500 ROUNDS AND GUNS WOULD BE IN TOTAL? (Then there’s the .357 ammo too).
He’d have a very hard time being mobile under all that weight too, and he’d have been dropping magazines left right and centre, – seeing as would need both hands to hold the gun.
…According to information that came to light after the Cullen Inquiry,
Thomas Hamilton died from two bullet wounds fired into the roof of his mouth, one bullet exiting above the left ear, and another through the top of his head.
Constable Grant McCutcheon, the off-duty policeman who was the first policeman to enter the school gymnasium gave us some vital clues to the Dunblane massacre. McCutcheon stated: “I also saw, at the same time as all this, that the gunman was gurgling and breathing heavily.”
What this means is that Constable Grant McCutcheon had entered the gymnasium before Hamilton’s body had completed its death sequences, or in other words within under a minute of Thomas Hamilton being murdered.
McCutcheon also saw the school janitor John Currie at the body of Thomas Hamilton, and saw Currie moved one of the TWO pistols that were near the body.
Then there was the student teacher, David Scott who in his witness statement said that he saw Thomas Hamilton put a handgun up near his mouth.
I believe we now have sufficient evidence to question just exactly what involvement in the murder of Thomas Hamilton that the witnesses John Currie and David Scott played.
I further believe that these two witnesses would also be able to name the gunman who murdered the 16 children and one teacher and wound three teachers and another twelve children. End of article.
I would like to add the following – if someone had just been firing a gun or two (or four) off, when he fired the TWO shots he apparently needed to kill himself, JUST HOW DID THE JANITOR AND ASSISTANT TEACHER KNOW HAMILTON WAS DEAD?
HOW COULD THEY, (THE JANITOR AND ASSISTANT TEACHER), TELL IT WAS NOW SAFE TO COME OUT FROM WHEREVER THEY WHERE HIDING WHILST THE FIRST BARRAGE OF SHOTS WERE GOING OFF?
(UNLESS ANYONE IS SERIOUSLY GOING TO SUGGEST THAT THESE GUYS HAD LINE OF SIGHT VISUAL COMMUNICATION WITH HAMILTON DURING THE ENTIRE SHOOTING, AND THAT HE NEVER SHOT AT THEM, THEN, AFTER A COUPLE OF MORE SHOTS GOING OFF – WHICH WOULD SCARE ANYONE ELSE BACK TO COVER, THESE INTREPID ALL KNOWING SOULS, THEY MAGICALLY KNEW HE WAS DEAD)
HOW DID THAT CONVERSATION GO EXACTLY?
JOHN: I KNOW THOSE FIRST ROUNDS SOUNDED LIKE THEY WERE KILLING PEOPLE… BUT THERE WAS SOMETHING SUICIDAL ABOUT THOSE LAST TWO SHOTS…
DAVID: YEAH SOUNDS SENSIBLE, – LET’S RUN IN AND LOOK….
DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL?
– SO HOW DID THEY KNOW IT WAS SAFE TO ENTER THAT ROOM?
THIS, IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY INFEASIBLE I PERSONALLY BELIEVE, UNLESS TO SOME EXTENT – THEY WERE IN ON IT.
WHO WOULD WATCH WHILE A MAN WAS SHOOTING CHILDREN IN THE FIRST PLACE WITHOUT ACTING? (THAT’S IF WE ARE WORKING OFF COUNTER THEORY THAT THEY COULD SEE HAMILTON).
THE THING IS… – IF YOU COULD SEE HIM DOING THAT –
THEN SURELY HAMILTON COULD SEE THEM AT THE SAME TIME TOO?
NOT TOO MANY PEOPLE I’VE MET WOULD EVER PUT THEMSELVES IN THAT MUCH DANGER.
AND ONE LAST POINT – THE LINKS BETWEEN THOMAS BEING A MASON, THE POLICE WHO LOOKED AFTER HIM BEING MASONS, AND THE LORD PRESIDING OVER THE INQUIRY BEING ONE TOO…THAT IS ALL JUST ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE…
WRITTEN BY MARTIN KEERNS – FOR ALL THE VICTIMS OF THAT DAY, AND THOSE WHO STILL SUFFER, INCLUDING SANDRA, BUT MOSTLY THIS WAS JUST WRITTEN FOR JUSTICE.