***Tom Cullen Article 1970***

[How Brown]

This one contains a couple of comments which I thought would be interesting to consider.

1. That Cullen decided not to mention the Stowell story about PAV in his book. Unless I'm mistaken, Cullen only wrote the 1966 "When London Walked In Terror"

The "problem" is, is that Stowell's article in Criminologist appeared in 1970.

How could Cullen put something in his Ripper book which did not appear until 4 years after the release of his 1966 book ?

2. That PAV, according to Cullen, could barely read.

Carroll (Iowa) Daily Times Herald
November 30,1970
*************

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/Forums%20March%202010/June%202010/cull1.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/Forums%20March%202010/June%202010/cull2.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/Forums%20March%202010/June%202010/cull3.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/Forums%20March%202010/June%202010/cull4.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/Forums%20March%202010/June%202010/cull5.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/Forums%20March%202010/June%202010/cull6.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/Forums%20March%202010/June%202010/cull7.jpg

[Nemo]

Yes, Cullen seems to imply that the Duke of Clarence theory was able to be identified via his research, before the 1970 article

I don't think I've come across the unfrocked priest theory - might it be connected to magical or Satanic practices?

Nice also to see Tom's faith in the police force not holding anything back, regardless of who the murderer might turn out to be

[Robert Linford]

Hi How

Maybe Cullen was referring to a theory doing thr rounds - after all, Stowell needn't have been the first to invent the PAV theory, surely?

[How Brown]

Bob,Nemo...

I don't know what it is about that claim by Cullen, but it sort of makes me think Cullen wants it to appear as if he had the opportunity ( in essence, he knew of this PAV story before it appeared in 1970 ) to go over the theory in his 1966 book but didn't.


Bob:

I have yet to see anything prior ( in the newspapers ) to 1970 which mentions PAV in the manner the Stowell article did in 1970. Maybe some of tenured Ripperologists such as Mr. B or SPE, Simon Wood, etc...would know.

[Rob Clack]

I'm going by memory here.

Colin Wilson heard about Stowell's theory (from Stowell himself) around 1962 after Colin Wilson published some articles in The Evening Standard. So it's possible Cullen heard about it before his book came out. And I have a vague recollection Stowell theory being published in the early/mid sixties but I can't remember where but I don't think it was in an English book and I'm not sure if P.A.V was named in it.

Colin Wilson wrote about meeting Stowell in 1962 in one of his later books (maybe 1990s) but I can't remember which book it was in.

Rob

[How Brown]

Thanks a ton for that Rob...because if you are correct then that Stowell story had been in circulation ( amongst Ripperologists...or just Wilson) for 8 years prior to the Criminologist article.
Thanks old bean :thumb:

[John Savage]

Hi Rob,

Good post and I think you may be referring to "Eduard VII" by Philippe Julien, published in France 1962, and reprinted in English 1967.

For the full SP I would recommend Stewart Evans great essay " On The Origins of The Royal Conspiracy", which can be found at:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-evansorigins.html

Rgds
John

[How Brown]

Proof that it pays to ask questions on matters such as this.
Great link John...thanks old bean.... and again thanks to Rob for responding initially to the question.

[Paul]

Dr Stowell discussed his theory with Colin Wilson in August 1960 and it appears that the theory was discussed quite widely, even leading to the reference by Philippe Julien in 1962. Colin subsequently sent Dr Stowell Ripper books by both Cullen and Odell, which he inscribed. I guess the theory was bandied about quite a bit in the relatively tight-knight Ripper community of the time.

[Mike Covell]

Colin Wilson claims that he had written a series of articles for the Evening Standard, and Stowell had written to him. They exchanged letters, and then a meeting was arranged at the Athenaeum Club.

P. 423 The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper, 1999.

The A-Z, 1992 edition P. 437 claims,

In 1960 Colin Wilson was invited by Stowell to lunch at the Athenaeum Club.

[Mike Covell]

Cross posts, cheers Paul.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

I regard Tom Cullen as the greatest prose stylist ever to write on this subject, at least from what I have read.

I love 'Autumn of Terror' despite it making many mistakes, both ones which were avoidable and ones which were unavoidable.

Regarding this article, Cullen is a strong secondary source against the Royal 'Theory' because he was a Marxist, and yet dismissed the emerging Royal Watergate mythos [the real Watergate, of 1973/4, would help propel this rubbish into the epicentre of popular culture].

Cullen's book also made a case for Druitt, as the chief suspect -- and as a deranged social reformer -- which many found so unconvincing that it helped give birth to the conspiracy nonsense, rising out of its ashes [eg. Leftist Cullen thought it irrelevant that Macnaghten got it wrong about the drowned doctor being a barrister, as the the police chief got the man's class correct].