The law is an unpredictable beast and is not for the faint-hearted.
Jim Curran, in his autobiography, described with remarkable restraint his anxiety as to the outcome of the impending legal case — Right may not always make Might — yet as his professional career could be threatened it was necessary that the case should be undertaken as a safeguard.
His re-telling of that period, considering what was ranged against him — Jim Perrin, it might seem, secure with the protection of his Friends in High Places (and their ‘top’ lawyers; and their insurers… ) and the inevitable legal uncertainties — was not extreme: on the contrary, he wrote in measured terms and, one senses, More in Sorrow than in Anger.
What must he have felt as he had become aware of the shameless attempted assassination of his character, by Jim Perrin? Once his decision to seek redress was decided, what must he have feared when a date for the court hearing had been set?…
And we wonder what others have felt, who over the years have found themselves — through no fault of their own — at crossed-swords with Jim Perrin? We have always known that he does not engage in fair fight and it is our experience that he can be called a ‘back-stabber’. We know of other undeniable examples (and have shown several in the course of our posts) of the underhandedness of Jim Perrin, and we continue to be amazed that he has been allowed to get away with such behaviour for at least two decades: again and again we ask ourselves — ‘Why?’
Then came a quite unexpected twist in the story…
* * * * *
Stephen Venables, like Jim Curran another exceptional climber and author, had kept — and now sent to him — two letters which had been written by Jim Perrin some years earlier: letters which were the absolute evidence of what can only be called Jim Perrin’s sharp practice and in which he had offered to influence the judges himself — to influence them in Stephen Venables’ favour in a forth-coming book competition. (These letters still exist… ) When also considered with the letter he had sent to the Boardman-Tasker Committee in 1987, falsely accusing Jim Curran of that very misconduct they clearly show Jim Perrin’s perfidious nature.
How much similar pressure might this patently duplicitous man have overtly or covertly applied in the course of his literary ‘career’? How many other such letters might he have written? We remember, as though it was yesterday, the ‘anonymous’ letter sent to our late sister’s landlord written within only eight weeks of her death: a letter in which he told vile lies about her children in an attempt to cause their eviction from their family home. Ref. Jim Perrin writes an anonymous letter.
For the full significance of that latest development in Jim Curran’s legal case we will be quoting at length from his own text: he was pleased to give us his permission to do so — he holds the copyright — and his own words simply cannot be bettered.