We undertook the unravelling of some of Jim Perrin’s financial affairs with the primary objective of showing how untruthful he was about them — not only to our sister during her short time with him (and, what he wrote about them after she died) — but also to many other women.
Throughout his book West he has written of her with a marked and peculiarly inventive dishonesty: and he also wrote, at the time of her death, that she was the cause of his poverty. If this were true it would, nonetheless, have been churlish, lacking in gallantry and disrespectful to one he had purported to love: it was not only unkind to write of Jac as he did but it was, of course, entirely untrue. How ignoble must be the mind of a man who wrote in that way.
Jim Perrin is not one of Nature’s Gentlemen and in our opinion he lacks not only integrity but generosity of spirit, and is capable merely of the pretence of empathy. We have said of him in a previous post that ‘we believe he is a hollow man’ — and possibly one with sociopathic tendencies.
* * * * *
Using the evidence available to us we have uncovered much that shows how he actually managed his finances over the years and — with what we already knew, and the extra help of many who have contacted us — how he controlled his partners in relationships: we have, as well, learned a good deal else about him. We feel this information has been revealing not only for Jac’s sake, but also for others who may cross his path and be able to recognise his behavioural patterns for themselves.
However, it was never our intention deliberately to ‘assassinate Jim Perrin’s character’ (as Rob MacNeacail has recently suggested to us)* — rather, to put the record straight whenever we could; and we had no idea how the site would develop, although — and thinking at the beginning only of how he had impacted upon our sister — it is remarkable that so many have contacted us and have been willing to give incontestable information of their own: we now realise that the details which we have been posting are recognised by others and are of great significance.
It is surprising, but we believe that Jim Perrin has himself further fuelled our site by covert attempts to discredit us, using (we feel certain) several aliases on Amazon, and The Guardian comments thread; we were never discouraged, finding them so obviously to be ‘plants’ and they showed more of the nature of the man than perhaps he was aware.
We thought that by his spurious interventions he made our case for us — which is, in part, that in our opinion Jim Perrin is frequently guilty of using anonymity to influence others— and he in no way lessened our resolve to expose him for the man he is by posting not only evidence of his actions, but also, in many cases, his OWN words.
If we have adversely affected his reputation — well then — we have only sought to record what over the years he has successfully manipulated or concealed. In this context it is revealing that Jim Perrin has as yet shown no sign of succumbing (let alone having been in any way inconvenienced) to his much self-publicised ‘Terminal Lung Cancer’. His precise descriptions of his ‘symptoms’ and of his ‘diagnosis’ on pages 149, 301 and 302 of West leave no chink for the possibility of misdiagnosis — his latest get-out clause.
It may now be seen for what it was; the claim of a fantasist who is not so scrupulous: in our opinion he is — and not only in the case of his ‘cancer’ — a man with no conscience.
* * * * *
His willingness to lie about our sister (and about so much besides) was such that we felt we had to prove him to be untruthful, and we wished to show how he operated in his relationship with her — his subtle abuse of her: physically, mentally and emotionally — and how cynical was his attempted appropriation of her ‘self’ after her death.
He has been a leech upon her memory with his use of romanticised and sexually exploitative flim-flam and invented dialogue: and as Jac is no longer alive the law allows her no redress. The latter is a despicable form of writing: putting in quotes words ‘claimed’ to have been spoken by people who have died…
She was distressed and appalled by his behaviour towards her and to her children in her life-time; his unwarrantable ‘faux memoire’ after her death is nothing more, when the falsities are stripped away, than an excuse To Bare His Quivering Soul in what he hoped would be a profitable book. Lest we are thought unfeeling we know that since our sister died he has had a succession of partners: so lightly — in reality — did he bear the tragedy of her loss: so shallow was his ‘love’ for ‘Jacquetta’.
Should he be forgiven? — as Rob MacNeacail has said: ‘He is a writer and writers will write’; or, that sophistic defence aside, should he be exposed at last as a charlatan? Which is what we sincerely believe him to be…
If, in the course of our posts, his real nature has been ‘exposed’ — then, so be it.
* A later note: we now believe that in this case Jim Perrin had a considerable influence on the comment a portion of which we quoted here, and in a future post we will explain our reasons.