In a note concerning Jim Perrin’s academic history we have read that he was ‘a graduate in English from Bangor University.’ This is true — he was awarded a 2:1 — and it further stated that he was ‘a PhD student’. Although the implication was that he had remained at Bangor, it was not the truth — actually he left.
However, nowhere has been seen any further reference to Jim Perrin having finally obtained his doctorate. He has certainly implied that he did (on the back of one of his books is the information that he used material found in the course of his PhD research); and he has deliberately encouraged others to believe it — the Scottish author David Craig for one, whom we quoted in the ‘Banff blog’.
Jim Perrin, by first ‘implying’ — as we think he did — and later allowing his ‘implication’ to become embedded as ‘a fact’ (he was, after all, featured in 2006 as ‘Dr. Jim Perrin’ on the Banff site with a photograph and details of his location), has — in our opinion — clearly demonstrated with this example alone what we believe to be his deceit: his ‘modus operandi’.
We have shown many other examples in our posts on this site, and have found ourselves wondering (in view of what we think is his exceptional ability for self-promotion) if, in fact, he was even justified in calling himself ‘Doctor Perrin at all’? He did so, readers may remember, in the hand-written and mendacious anonymous letter which he sent to our late sister’s landlord ref. Jim Perrin Writes An Anonymous Letter — which we followed with a sample of his handwriting, a full transcript, our explanation of his motives and a most conclusive (and damning) professional analysis. This letter was anonymously written less than eight weeks after Jac had died.
‘When Jacquetta and her partner the doctor were there it was fine.’ We note he is not claiming ‘husband’, but of course he hadn’t then written ‘West:’…
* * * * *
Surely though, if Jim Perrin had earned his PhD he would, by now, have proclaimed it from the summit of Snowdon.
In our recent posting, ref. Banff Mountain Book Award — Should Jim Perrin be Trusted to Judge His Peers Impartially? we have shown that he has been, as far back as 2000, calling himself Doctor Perrin: he claimed this — we have the evidence — in 2000, and in each following year up to, and including, 2006. We have not researched more recent years.
Because, since our first meetings with him, we have had had an inkling that this was not the case — in fact we entirely doubted his veracity — we began ‘to make enquiries’… So far, none of those with whom we have been in contact, including several universities, have found any record at all of what we believe to be Jim Perrin’s (phantom?) PhD.
Indeed, it is of particular interest that when a request to one university was made on our behalf, concerning his possible PhD thesis, Jim Perrin was emailed by them. That email did not receive a ‘failure of delivery’ response and must, therefore, have reached Jim Perrin — to have ‘got through’ — said the person who made the initial enquiry for us — and, they told us:
‘As someone who is freelance and highly mobile he will be even more dependent on email than most people and his system would have to work and, I’m sure, does: so the request from the university has been ignored.’
The university had emailed our enquirer to say: ‘After much searching I can’t find any more details on his PhD thesis and where he studied, so I have found an email address for Jim Perrin and tried emailing him for more information. I will let you know if he replies.’ Jim Perrin did not reply.
* * * * *
The following is quoted accurately from some of the official advice which we have received on the subject of Jim Perrin’s PhD whilst we (and gratefully acknowledging here the help of others) have been tracking our various leads:
‘An individual purporting to be a doctor should be asked to produce some sort of documentation (i.e. their PhD) before the title of doctor should be stated on their documentation. If the gentleman in question is unable to prove that he has a PhD or is in the process of completing his doctorate he should be advised that he will be listed as Mr. until such a time as the relevant evidence can be produced.’
Might it be perhaps that, after all, Jim Perrin does have the evidence that he gained his PhD? So far, no record of it can be found.
NB. The link in paragraph three of our post which showed the photograph of ‘Dr. Jim Perrin’ has subsequently been disabled. Clearly, as it was certainly incriminating, he has chosen to remove it. But: ‘we have a print-out’…