Jim Perrin loses a court case? (Well, no! The matter was settled ‘OUT of court’!)

In the 1990s Jim Perrin libelled a fellow climber (Jim Curran) so vilely, impugning his climbing credentials, that he was to be sued for it: a date was fixed for the trial.

Spectacularly, further damning evidence was produced against Jim Perrin and an offer was made in settlement — of many tens of thousands of pounds — within only days of that trial. Today the figure is enormous — then it was a fortune — a sum however which ‘luckily’ was covered by the insurers of the magazine that had published the libel of which Jim Perrin was guilty: he would, it seems, have the Luck of the Devil and, as we have written elsewhere, ‘he sailed away Scot-free’.

Nevertheless the details of this case are well known in the climbing community — and to us through close friends in that community: it is a brush with which he has been tarred ever since. He has learned though to be more circumspect in his writing and over the years has developed a unique style which we believe to be — and have described as — ‘Libelling libel-lessly ref. our post Jim Perrin writes libellously? and it may be observed that he uses this ‘style’ frequently, and to great malicious effect.

Jac was aware of that history of litigation (her ‘first love’ had climbed with those involved), yet now Jim Perrin somehow managed to convince her that it was all a mistake, a serious ‘misunderstanding’. Clearly the legal profession had thought otherwise and so Jim Perrin necessarily determined not to make the same mistake when writing his latest book, a biography — asked to meet with foremost climber and spokesman for climbing, Chris Bonington, prior to the book’s completion. This was to check his text and to clarify any ‘difficult issues’ so that the author might not again fall into the trap which had, presumably, been such a shock after the unnerving experience some years before.

*       *       *       *       *

During the preceding sequence of posts we have shown that Jim Perrin, when he moved to our sister’s house, was not — as he had led her to believe — In Funds, but rather was in a most precarious position financially, and we have seen the evidence which proves, that by then, he was skating on very thin ice indeed: he needed to sell his house before the ice cracked and he went under.

For him to imply — to state — that he had used all his resources on Jac in their short time together is yet another of his many fictions; he is not — as we have proved again and again — an honest man: in fact we know, by now, that Jim Perrin is a man capable of the most duplicitous behaviour and we have shown throughout our postings examples of that characteristic which almost Beggar Belief.

Amongst the many falsehoods he has told about Jac this one in particular has, no doubt, been very useful to him in the several relationships in which we know he has been involved since she died and there will be some — unaware of his past history or of the liabilities and legal responsibilities connected with it — who will believe his ‘stories’ in West of how he ‘used his equity to pay off Jacquetta’s debts’ during their short time together.

He has tried to explain away any lack of financial stability by blaming it on Jac: as he wrote, using the alias ‘Melangell’, (The Guardian comments thread, 07/08/2010):  ‘He had spent everything he had on Jacquetta in her last couple of years.’ — but we knew, and since have proved, that this was not the case; it was not true: although, newly charmed by him — and  unknowing, and believing his lies (as did our sister) — there may yet be those who will think him a treasure among men…

Jac’s sisters.