Sandra Uttley - Dunblane Unburied - Radio Interview

[triple-sod]

After listening to this I bought the book, well worth a read.
I?m not quite sure if I fully accept the ?2nd gunman? theory, however when you look into the case there are certainly many unanswered questions.  

Sandra Uttley - Dunblane Unburied - Part 1a of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6i2dkLauUo

Sandra Uttley - Dunblane Unburied - Part 1b of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk2HHpLj9bs

Sandra Uttley - Dunblane Unburied - Part 2 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk1WCYoT8ho

[Spike]

 

If you like that, then when M Ryan finally got cornered in the school, at Hungerford, I have it on good authority that it wasn't him that shot himself.......

Spike.

[triple-sod]

Could be worth looking into that,

I think with Thomas Hamilton though, the really interesting questions are not about that terrible day in the gym but the 20 years previously....

From what I?ve read and seen I?d say at the very least he was involved in a pretty high level paedophile ring, and it was this which allowed him to maintain a firearms certificate and avoid scrutiny. 

[UltraBruce]

@Triple I have a copy of dunblane unburied and it certainly makes you wonder.... About lots of things.

@spike, I might have to remove your comment for being toooo intriguing!! You have to spill!!

[The Pianist]

I may be wrong, but I believe Spike is referring to the book written by the first paramedic to get to Hamilton... Unless that book is the topic of this thread?

[Spike]

 

No, no! Hamiltons case showed up several "anomalies" after the event. A person I knew back then pointed out a few odd actions and made reference to the "suicide" of Ryan and how he died, and the fact that although the police were there they arrived later! Possibly after he was dead and that there were some guys from Hereford on exercise in the forest at the same time. Why did he run to the school? How did he get in? And why should he shoot himself, when he could have got away? The whole thing was iffy to begin with. If you look up the events and afterwards, they make no sense from any point of view. My source at the time had contacts  in several agencies and his info was that Ryan was shot by a soldier, with a high power rifle. Hence no post mortem.

Spike.

[UltraBruce]

@spike, I remember reading many years ago the account of an SAS soldier who was travelling back from a training exercise with his team. They had been abseiling down a building that was marked for demolition and blowing entry holes in the side the building.

Anyway, his story claimed that they heard on the radio what was happening in Hungerford and offered their services. He pointed out that a small quantity of CR gas in the school (not CS) would likely persuade Ryan to give up the fight.

The official line was that there offer was declined.

If I'm honest, I have never looked into the circumstances of Ryans death and any possible irregularities. I have only looked at the events leading up to it and the massacre itself. Anyone have a good source of info on it? Any books written about it?

[Scottish Voluntaryist]

Truthfully I think a lot of things are best kept buried.

The emotional tidal-wave caused by Dunblane was used to completely disenfranchise gun owners, I don't think it wise to let the Genie back out of that bottle.

I read Sandra Uttley's website some years ago.  I wasn't convinced.  Much of what she claimed seemed sensational, but she was unable to provide reliable sources for those claims.  The most striking claim was that when Hamilton killed himself, he shot himself in the head twice.  Again though, no evidence so I'm not buying.  It's not in the coroners report, or any other official document.

The only thing she suggested that I considered plausible was that Hamilton's padeo-ring contained high ranking Police officers who helped him keep his FAC, and this was covered up after the fact.  These officers were presumably dealt with quietly behind closed doors.

That I believe is at least possible.  At the very least, even if his contacts weren't paedo's someone was undoubtedly shielding him.

What I absolutely don't believe is that the UK government had 16 little children assassinated as a pretext for removing guns.  That is absolutely nuts and anyone who says so needs their head examined.  There were never that many shooters in the UK as to pose a threat - and shooting was never that well regarded.  If they had really wanted the guns, they could have got them without going all conspiracy theory.  

Of course, Uttley doesn't say this outright, but she hints at it strongly.  Certainly she believes that Hamilton was a patsy and the real killer was a government agent of some sort.

I think the woman has a screw loose.

[triple-sod]

Truthfully I think a lot of things are best kept buried.

The emotional tidal-wave caused by Dunblane was used to completely disenfranchise gun owners, I don't think it wise to let the Genie back out of that bottle.

Very true, it?s a sad fact of life that logical argument often fails in the face of raw emotion.

In the case of Dunblane it?s unsurprising that people were so forthcoming in their calls for a ban. They were shaken to the core, and as illogical as the legislation was, it gave them the feeling something was ?being done?......  

I read Sandra Uttley's website some years ago.  I wasn't convinced.  Much of what she claimed seemed sensational, but she was unable to provide reliable sources for those claims.  The most striking claim was that when Hamilton killed himself, he shot himself in the head twice.  Again though, no evidence so I'm not buying.  It's not in the coroners report, or any other official document.

If they were going to go to the trouble of killing him the coroner?s report would be a white wash wouldn't it.....

One thing I?ll say though, is even if the ?2nd gunman? theory is completely false the paedophile ring allegations would have given them a lot of motives to make sure he didn?t get captured alive. After all there is a lot of evidence that he didn?t plan on shooting himself, but instead going on the run.  

The only thing she suggested that I considered plausible was that Hamilton's padeo-ring contained high ranking Police officers who helped him keep his FAC, and this was covered up after the fact.  These officers were presumably dealt with quietly behind closed doors.

That I believe is at least possible.  At the very least, even if his contacts weren't paedo's someone was undoubtedly shielding him.

As I said that?s what I think, he clearly had friends in very high places and that?s documented fact. Now quite how a lower middle class ?weirdo? would even come to know such influential people, let alone receive favours from them (as in the case of the senior police officer who intervened in his F.A.C application) begs a lot of questions.

What I absolutely don't believe is that the UK government had 16 little children assassinated as a pretext for removing guns.  That is absolutely nuts and anyone who says so needs their head examined.  There were never that many shooters in the UK as to pose a threat - and shooting was never that well regarded.  If they had really wanted the guns, they could have got them without going all conspiracy theory.

 

Well I think it?s safe to say that Dunblane was a big bonus for the government when it came to the handgun ban. I do think your right though, it seems very unlikely that they would do such a thing simply as a pretext for banning handguns. As you say they could have probably gone ahead with it anyway with little or no outcry. Indeed I know plenty of shooters who agreed with the  ban, even before Dunblane they saw many handgun disciplines as a blight on their sanitized sport.    

The way I see it had the massacre not occurred they would have probably waited until labour were in change and perhaps they would have allowed a system where handguns were retained at clubs. Yet there would have still been some amendment to the legislation.

Still the whole case does make a mockery of the idea that the police can be trusted to decide who should and shouldn't get a gun.

[3070dan]

when Hamilton killed himself, he shot himself in the head twice.

I have gone over Uttley's website in the past, her theory is that someone else shot Hamilton twice in the head. From what I can remember of it, she believes that he was struggling with two other armed men who entered that gym, and that is why it took two shots to kill him. She believes that the 38 caliber revolvers that were at the scene, did not belong to Hamilton, that he only possessed the two 9mm pistols.

[Scottish Voluntaryist]

when Hamilton killed himself, he shot himself in the head twice.

I have gone over Uttley's website in the past, her theory is that someone else shot Hamilton twice in the head. From what I can remember of it, she believes that he was struggling with two other armed men who entered that gym, and that is why it took two shots to kill him. She believes that the 38 caliber revolvers that were at the scene, did not belong to Hamilton, that he only possessed the two 9mm pistols.

Well that's the point she was trying to make, one cannot shoot oneself in the head twice.

But she provides no objective evidence that he was shot twice.

I do not consider her credible.

[3070dan]

when Hamilton killed himself, he shot himself in the head twice.

I have gone over Uttley's website in the past, her theory is that someone else shot Hamilton twice in the head. From what I can remember of it, she believes that he was struggling with two other armed men who entered that gym, and that is why it took two shots to kill him. She believes that the 38 caliber revolvers that were at the scene, did not belong to Hamilton, that he only possessed the two 9mm pistols.

Well that's the point she was trying to make, one cannot shoot oneself in the head twice.

But she provides no objective evidence that he was shot twice.

I do not consider her credible.

Alot of the information that was put together by Lord Cullen was made secret by the government. That to me suggests that they are hiding something. What to you would be good enough evidence?

[Scottish Voluntaryist]

Alot of the information that was put together by Lord Cullen was made secret by the government. That to me suggests that they are hiding something. What to you would be good enough evidence?

Evidence from someone who was actually there would be nice.

She provides no evidence at all for her most fantastical claims (i.e. the two shots and second gunman claims).  The few backed up claims she actually makes are cherry picked witness statements chosen to support her claims while ignoring everything else.

She only became interested in a conspiracy after researching it on the internet shortly after she was jilted by a man who was a key figure in the Snowdrop campaign.  This was already many years after Dunblane.

You don't have to be Sigmund Freud to see the woman is a crank.

I almost guarantee you the only thing the 100 year injunction is protecting is a few high ranking cops and maybe an MP - not a conspiracy to commit mass murder.  Several policemen concerned with administering FACs came through this looking as if they were either corrupt or incompetent.  Once the 100 years is up, I guess we get to see which.

[3070dan]

Evidence from someone who was actually there would be nice.

I have just listened to the radio interview, and she did manage to speak to someone who was one of the first people to show up to the scene, after the massacre had just heppened. This person was an off duty police officer who was dropping his child off to the school. He went to the gym to help out with things, and when he first got in there, he said that he saw no revolvers there. According to Sandra, this mans account of what he saw there was not taken into account by the people who came to investigate the incident.

[Scottish Voluntaryist]

Evidence from someone who was actually there would be nice.

I have just listened to the radio interview, and she did manage to speak to someone who was one of the first people to show up to the scene, after the massacre had just heppened. This person was an off duty police officer who was dropping his child off to the school. He went to the gym to help out with things, and when he first got in there, he said that he saw no revolvers there. According to Sandra, this mans account of what he saw there was not taken into account by the people who came to investigate the incident.

That's a logical fallacy.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  What she is saying is akin to "Walk into a room with something horrible in it.  Did you notice the light switch?  Ah ha - then there can't have been a light switch, can there??"

If I'd been the first person in that gym, you can bet a revolver is not the image that would stay with me.

I would suggest the reason this officer's testimony on this matter was not counted, was because on the matter of the firearms present he was not an appropriate witness.  He had bigger things to worry about than taking down serial numbers.

[PhilM]

I almost guarantee you the only thing the 100 year injunction is protecting is a few high ranking cops and maybe an MP - not a conspiracy to commit mass murder.  Several policemen concerned with administering FACs came through this looking as if they were either corrupt or incompetent.  Once the 100 years is up, I guess we get to see which.

That was the impression I got. You must understand that the Dunblane slayings took place only a few years after I had returned from RSA. As a consequence I found myself in the curious position of seeing all elements of the ban-gun brigade through the eye?s of a foreign observer. What I witnessed was disturbing - little more than mob rule!

I commented on the DM board;

Folks must understand that the reason why pistol owners are still very angry over the handgun ban is that they, through the application of schyster politics, found themselves at the rough end of a demonising program. A program which was kept rolling by an organisation that had through a catastrophic judgement error, put that killer in the school house in the first place...the police themselves.

Gun owners are usually conservative minded people. They are strong supporters of the police in their efforts to fight crime - particularly gun crime. So you can imagine how they felt, when having curried favour with like minded top cops the new socialist state turned on them and hung them out to dry.

The intent was clear - to shift culpability from themselves back into the shooting community. One of the mouthpieces of this program was senior cop by the name of Brian McKenzie. Later he would be rewarded by his socialist pals... with a peerage!

Here we have a senior policeman telling the non shooting general public that the legalised theft of private property will result in a reduction in crime. 

Indeed, McKenzie looked very sheepish when he was challenged on TV by Mike Yardley on this very point. His embarrassment was clear when his real motives came under scrutiny. As a result of feeble excuses put forward,  *Yardley allegedly branded him a liar...live on air!

This is the same self aggrandising clown (McKenzie) who went on record in the DM and promoted the idea that;

"...it is right that the police should be trained to shoot to kill". This idiot has absolutely no idea on what the intent is with regard to "fully equipped" self defence. NONE!!  Yet, arguably he and others like him were instrumental in taking away firearms from those who do!

I agree with you. I believe that the 100 year non disclosure is little more than vested interest individuals utilising the mechanism of law not only to protect themselves, but also the trusted institutions of the state itself!

*The Mike Yardley comment I got second hand. Apologies if incorrect.

[triple-sod]

I almost guarantee you the only thing the 100 year injunction is protecting is a few high ranking cops and maybe an MP - not a conspiracy to commit mass murder.  Several policemen concerned with administering FACs came through this looking as if they were either corrupt or incompetent.  Once the 100 years is up, I guess we get to see which.

You?re probably right, certainly though the 100 year injunction indicates there is a lot more than meets the eye. Over in the states they only sealed the Martin Luther King files for 50 years.

[3070dan]

Evidence from someone who was actually there would be nice.

I have just listened to the radio interview, and she did manage to speak to someone who was one of the first people to show up to the scene, after the massacre had just heppened. This person was an off duty police officer who was dropping his child off to the school. He went to the gym to help out with things, and when he first got in there, he said that he saw no revolvers there. According to Sandra, this mans account of what he saw there was not taken into account by the people who came to investigate the incident.

That's a logical fallacy.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  What she is saying is akin to "Walk into a room with something horrible in it.  Did you notice the light switch?  Ah ha - then there can't have been a light switch, can there??"

If I'd been the first person in that gym, you can bet a revolver is not the image that would stay with me.

I would suggest the reason this officer's testimony on this matter was not counted, was because on the matter of the firearms present he was not an appropriate witness.  He had bigger things to worry about than taking down serial numbers.

He did notice the pistols, if the revolvers where in the room, he surely would of noticed them aswell.

[3070dan]

He had bigger things to worry about than taking down serial numbers.

Did I say he was taking down serial numbers?

[Scottish Voluntaryist]

He did notice the pistols, if the revolvers where in the room, he surely would of noticed them aswell.

Why would he?  Do you notice everything when you walk into a room?

It is an extremely weak argument to make that because one witness did not notice something, it cannot have been present.

Which is I suspect why the courts do not take Uttley's suggestions seriously.

Did I say he was taking down serial numbers?

No you didn't.  My point was that the policeman would not have been concerned with the identity of the firearms themselves at that particular moment.

Another point - did this policeman that Uttley is basing her whole argument upon believe there was some nefarious conspiracy?  Or did she take a single comment from his interview and scream "Ah ha!  So there was a conspiracy!".

[Buzz-Rision]

If you think Dunblane is an open and shut case you need your head examining.
The 100 year file sealing.
The freemason connections getting him his firearm cert and SGC.
Paedo-ring with him being the patsy.

The M Ryan is also fishy.  The killings are also theorised to be the work of a lunatic fringe of 'soldiers' who were using Ryan as a drugged-up patsy to take the fall for it...

[Ali3nat0r]

I'm gonna have to agree with Scottish Voluntaryist on this one. I do not believe any Western government would have an entire class of school children murdered, for any reason. There havn't been enough gun owners in this country to cause a threat to the government since before WW2. Britons were trusted back then.

[Scottish Voluntaryist]

If you think Dunblane is an open and shut case you need your head examining.
The 100 year file sealing.
The freemason connections getting him his firearm cert and SGC.
Paedo-ring with him being the patsy.

The M Ryan is also fishy.  The killings are also theorised to be the work of a lunatic fringe of 'soldiers' who were using Ryan as a drugged-up patsy to take the fall for it...

I can't decide if you're being sarcastic or not.  If yes, then very droll.

If not, only your first point about file sealing is evidence based.  The rest is classic foam-at-the-mouth conspiracy theory stuff.

I can strongly recommend David Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" for those who are interested in the definition of what exactly constitutes "evidence" and "proof".

A lot of conspiracy followers do not seem to understand the nature of causal inference.

A very mundane example of a conspiracy theory came from my neighbour lately.

Her theory ran like this:

• My favourite ornamental tree just got sick and died
• Weed killer will kill ornamental trees
• You recently used weedkiller on your lawn
• Therefore you put weedkiller on my tree

Of course, that completely ignored the fact that it would be very hard indeed to pour weedkiller over my garden fence by accident, and I had nothing to gain by deliberately killing her tree.

I elected not to argue with her about it.

[triple-sod]

I'm gonna have to agree with Scottish Voluntaryist on this one. I do not believe any Western government would have an entire class of school children murdered, for any reason.

True,
As I said before it wasn't as if banning handguns would have caused that much uproar anyway. On another forum I even witnessed a former pistol shooter stating that he agreed with the ban as ?towards the end there were a lot of weirdo?s getting into the sport?. 

There havn't been enough gun owners in this country to cause a threat to the government since before WW2. Britons were trusted back then.

To be honest I've never had much time for the idea of the government disarming the people from fear of armed insurrection. It always sounded just like the mainstream argument of the government restricting weapons to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

After all, there isn?t much difference between a group of men purchasing illegal weapons to rob a bank and a group of men purchasing illegal weapons to fight the government, is there?

Instead when you look at the firearms legislation in conjunction with acts such as the offensive weapons act of 1953, you see a government removing its subject?s means of self defence.  

Personally I think this was a deliberate process of social engineering designed to emasculate our people and turn us into a nation of spineless cowards.... at which point the chance of any insurrection, armed or otherwise is greatly reduced.

[PhilM]

Personally I think this was a deliberate process of social engineering designed to emasculate our people and turn us into a nation of spineless cowards.... at which point the chance of any insurrection, armed or otherwise is greatly reduced.

I'll go along with that. If you look back in history most if not all citizen disarmament programs originate in the leftist camp. Perhaps this country has been subjected to a slow moving insidious attack for ideological reasons.