The majority of the details which Jim Perrin has given about Jac, and of the period they spent together, are outright lies. We are able to prove so much of what he has written to be untrue or gross exaggeration.
Apart from those lies which he has told in his books, and in his interviews and broadcasts, in our opinion other ‘tools of his trade’ are the use of implication and of innuendo – these, we believe, have become integral elements of his modus operandi.
There are quantities of examples in ‘West:’ – illustrative of how he develops his themes. Firstly he states as a fact something which may be, or very often is not, true and continues to lead the reader to visualise as ‘truth’ the picture which he has painted for them.
On p.3 ‘I started the engine of the old black Citroen. It had been Jacquetta’s favourite. She called it our ‘’gangster car’’ – – -‘ (SUCH RUBBISH) and, on p.4 ‘My son Will had borrowed it from time to time, for the style of the thing – – – ‘.
And this, p.130,
‘My old Citroen parked on the forecourt of the house came in for its fair share of
attention too, most of it friendly from the older men of the village, – – – ‘
The implication is surely – and the picture perhaps created in readers’ minds – of the long-nosed Citroen of the ‘Maigret’ films for example? The Lt 15s?
Later he wrote ‘the car creaked up on its suspension – – – ‘, (not, then, the Lt 15 implied before) although the several future references in the book to ‘the old black Citroen’ serve to ‘set’ the gangster car image.
But Jim Perrin’s car was not ‘old’, it was merely a not very new XM which he had importunately – and unsuccessfully – pressured Jac’s children (only three days after her death and before her funeral service) to exchange for the younger Xantia which had been hers.
The main paragraph was written as early as page three of the book, but it is with the rest of the paragraph that we take issue.
‘- – – ”our gangster car (and in it, daredevil and subversive to the last, she’d collected a speeding ticket that had arrived days after her death. This time [implying others?] I was spared the need for tactics or argument to save her licence.)”
We know that he made a payment of £60, the fine for “a speeding ticket”? to the clerk to the justices on 30/5/03, but we have shown in preceding blogs the chronology of Jim Perrin’s relationship with our sister. They were not living together in May 2003, the date on which the payment was made.
It can by now only be surmised as to which of them incurred that particular fine; which of them was the most likely to have been at the stage of needing their licence to be “saved” – this of course indicating it to be already point-laden? Our sister, or Jim Perrin – he who was travelling around the country in the course of his career? But, in any event, that was back in 2003.
Our sister died two years later, in 2005.We have today (8/10/11) spoken with the police about the paragraph we have quoted and they told us that a ticket for a speeding offence “is usually sent within 2 to 5 days but that it can take as long as a fortnight in busy times such as bank holidays”.
Jim Perrin wrote: ‘She’d collected a speeding ticket that had arrived days after her death’.
Jac had been driven to Yorkshire in January – she was by then already so fragile, and we know that for many weeks she was no longer able to drive herself. She was certainly not doing so within over a month of her death, and for the last week of her life she was in hospital.
It may be remembered that Jim Perrin was so controlling that he had immobilised Jac’s vehicle (by underhandedly changing her security code) ref: ‘The Serious Rift’, so that she could not use it!
As for “daredevil and subversive to the last,” NONSENSE. Jac was neither and it is wicked to so describe her. It is an insult to her, and by the obvious twisting of his ‘facts’, to the intelligence of his readers.
The police confirmed that there is no way our sister, in the circumstances we have described, could possibly have “collected a speeding ticket” in that time frame.
We have frequently noticed that this author shows a tendency in his writing to attribute to others the traits of which he is himself so manifestly possessed.
It is our opinion that he lies for effect.