THE actor Eric Cullen stood condemned yesterday at Hamilton Sheriff
Court, the helpless abuse victim who had himself become tainted by
paedophiles.
A strong sense of injustice will persist around the case particularly
after the tacit admission by various authorities that the charges might
not have been taken but for the celebrity of the accused.
The rise and fall of Eric Cullen contains many complex elements,
including that of genuine tragedy. That aspect, the horrifying sexual
history of the actor, did not appear to weigh heavily with the court.
One thing was also clear in court: Eric Cullen was not portrayed by
the Crown as a paedophile or as a sexual abuser of boys as the months of
rumour would have him.
It is also clear that Cullen opted to plead guilty to get the matter
out of his life so that he can begin a new chapter, but that is hardly
what justice should be about.
Equally, the vicious rumours that Cullen's sudden illness immediately
before his scheduled court appearance was nothing more than a dodge to
escape his just desserts is totally unfounded. The Herald has had access
to the medical reports on Cullen, compiled by a psychiatrist with a
national reputation, and they clearly indicate a man suffering acute
clinical depression who finally cracked under a load which had become
unbearable.
One couple in particular, the broadcaster Bill McFarlan and his wife,
Caroline, have been steadfast in their defence of Cullen.
McFarlan points out that the police fingerprinted all of the video
tapes in the house and found no fingerprint of Cullen's on any of the
offensive material. He simply had not used them.
Friends say he is totally shattered. He has lost more than #150,000,
possibly #200,000, in earnings in the last 18 months but he has lost
much more. There is a very public loss of innocence.
Yet it was Cullen's unthreatening persona, the ill-starred, 4ft 4in
comedy figure which made him loved.
He has been a hero to thousands of children, appearing at charity
events, opening fund raisers, producing and directing shows for schools.
His television show for children, Wemyss Bay 902101 was a hit and his
Wee Burney was one of the reasons Ian Pattison's show was required
viewing to English and Scots alike.
Underneath the clownish figure from Rab C Nesbitt lurked an entirely
different Burney; just how sinister depends on whose version of events
you accept.
The Crown clearly takes a simplistic view: that Cullen had
reprehensible tendencies, which, taken with the other pornographic
material in his possession meant there could be no convincing
alternative explanation for the photographic collection in his
possession. But they were unable to find among the vast haul of evidence
at his home any indication that he had ever physically abused boys.
Bill McFarlan maintains that none of the photographs actually belonged
to Cullen but that they were the property of his abuser, Frank Currens,
42. He was by contrast a classic paedophile. He is now serving a 14-year
jail sentence.
Cullen and his friends argue that he, Cullen, was a victim, first
sexually assaulted and abused by a relative in his adoptive family at
the age of 13 and then passed on to Currens who continued the abuse
until Cullen was 21.
That experience would not be unusual in a circle of child abusers -- a
safe victim being passed from one pervert to another for gratification.
On that first occasion, Cullen told The Herald, the relative had taken
him to the church where he was organist because the young Eric had
already shown his musical aptitude at the piano. Cullen loved music and
he trusted the man.
His innocent trust was rewarded in a lay-by near Hamilton by a crude
and brutal introduction to sex. He was a child who had never grown; he
dared not tell anyone. Like many abused youngsters he was thereafter
consumed by guilt, knowing that something terribly wrong had taken place
but thinking that he was part of the wrong.
By that time it had been long apparent that Cullen was not going to
grow; technically, he had been born achondroplasiac, a dwarf. He was
also born, he says, out of wedlock in Stranraer. Cullen was stigmatised
not once but twice.
Police insist they asked extensive questions of others and could find
no corroboration of Cullen's allegations that he was abused and then
blackmailed into keeping quiet.
The official line is that no other inquiry can take place until Cullen
himself makes a complaint against specific individuals. He and his
lawyer are considering that option.
Cullen assisted the police in identifying some of the young boys who
appeared in the photographs found in his home, but these were only
youngsters pictured by him in a totally innocent context. He could not
and did not identify any children in the pornographic pictures taken by
Currens.
It emerged that most of these youngsters came from Strathclyde and the
majority from the east side of Glasgow. In all, between 80 and 90 boys
were identified and the families visited.
By noting similarities in the videos, police realised that much of it
had been filmed locally in Strathclyde. The officers gradually built up
a picture of the man who kept reappearing.
At Curren's appearance, the High Court was to be told that the
material found in another house in the West of Scotland, which was not
disclosed at the time but which now emerges as Cullen's home, in which
Currens was seen performing sexual acts with youngsters, led to his
arrest. Eric Cullen's friends insist that Cullen had told the police
from the beginning that Currens was the man they really wanted.
One of the detectives told The Herald: ''These videos were horrendous,
the worst any of us had ever seen.''
He added: ''These were children who did not know about sexuality, what
was good or bad. This was their introduction to sexuality. It was a
constant parade of sexual practices with boys, no male-female sex.''
The side effects on the police themselves were disturbing. One officer
found himself going home and shoving his child away when he climbed on
his knee.
None of the videos filmed by Currens had been made at Cullen's home.
However, his involvement was becoming deeper, eventually reaching the
point where Currens used his house as a convenient dump for his
collection of pornography and could do so knowing that Cullen could
never object. It was a subtle form of blackmail, but blackmail none the
less. The Crown recognise this side of the case by the way in which they
have framed charges against Cullen.
But a question mark will always remain over Eric Cullen. How much did
he really know about the activities of Francis Currens involving
children and, if he knew anything, why did he remain silent?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article