Having already dealt with Jim Perrin’s false and unworthy claims that he had no money because ‘he had spent it all on Jacquetta’, we have also shown in the recent sequence of posts how he had planned to take over the tenancy of her house — telling her children within only a day or two of her death that it was his intention to do so: and, in the years before he was involved with Jac, and since May 2005, he has (we know) used various tactics with several young women to relieve them of their ‘funds’ and property.
In our view it is shameful that some who know of this aspect of Jim Perrin’s history (themselves having influence) choose to ignore it; it is almost to condone his behaviour; the behaviour which has hurt so many and caused such heartache: Silence Gives Consent.
Thus we feel it is useful (and many have also told us so) that Jim Perrin’s way of conducting himself over the years, and more recently, should be brought to the attention of anyone who may, in their turn, risk becoming a victim as did our sister. If we have, in the process, hurt his would-be ‘spotless’ reputation that is perhaps unfortunate but since writing these posts about her we have been told that it was not the first time that Jim Perrin had attempted — by various means — to ‘use’ the assets of his partners: in our opinion he has so successfully perfected the technique by which he compartmentalises his relationships that, of the young women involved, each was, until later, unaware of his machination. ‘What cannot a neat knave with a smooth tale make a woman believe?’ *
This was certainly true of our sister as she had, at first, no idea (nor had she until some months after meeting him and becoming emotionally attached to him) that Jim Perrin had indeed a wife and a baby from whom he was only very recently ‘separated’, ref. our post Jim Perrin takes to the hills and Jac never did know of his extra, parallel, relationship (and a small baby) with yet another ‘partner’, because she died before that was made known to us.
* * * * *
Yes, he had lived at Jac’s house for eighteen months but much of his treatment of her and of her children during that time was such that when she recovered from her cancer she would no longer have welcomed him there; she told us this, ref. our post Jim Perrin’s fiefdom and as she had many times refused to marry him and had refused to make a public affirmation when he pressured her, and as she grew to realise what kind of man he was and reacted accordingly (he wrote to her ‘You were showing an absolute refusal to relate… on the topic of marriage you consistently slipped the point …’ ) his days there were numbered. Already, and only months before she died, Jac was making plans to rid herself of him so unsatisfactory was he in so many ways and the cause of such continuing unhappiness, fear and deep disillusionment.
All the more despicable then that he attempted to appropriate her house by trying to convince her children that he had the right to stay there: his claim, his dishonest ‘story’, that ‘it had been their mother’s last wish’ that he should, was merely a singularly distasteful ruse; and a particularly heartless attempt to influence them as he told them this. Jac had only just died and had not even had her funeral service… Callous? Machiavellian? Ruthless? There are dozens of words; but the essence of it all was emotional blackmail. How else can his dishonest words be described? — or his use of the phrase ‘that it was [their] mother’s last wish that he should take over the tenancy’, to achieve his goal?
Had Jim Perrin been an honest man — and we have proof of his many grave dishonesties — (in the words of one who has contacted us ‘It seems this leopard has not changed his spots.’) he would have no need to fear ‘character assassination’. See Author Jim Perrin writes more flim-flam.
Surely this author should be judged not only by his words, but also by what we, and others, believe to be his nefarious deeds… As Maya Angelou wrote: ‘When a man tells you who he is through his actions, believe them.’
*John Webster ‘The Duchess of Malfi’ 1623