Rob MacNeacail wrote to Jac’s sisters, via ‘Amazon’, on the 15/10/2010:
‘Whilst you may decide to insist that Jacquetta wasn’t married to him, [Jim Perrin] this isn’t really the point, if a man who has lost his loved one feels they were married, does it matter?’
* * * * *
Oh yes, it is ‘the point’! — and it certainly ‘does matter’. Given their particular circumstances it was highly dishonest to claim it. Had their relationship been happy they might indeed have considered themselves ‘married’. But the time which they shared was so short, living together for barely eighteen months and our sister, in that last year, was so beleaguered with their personal conflicts that she had made the decision to ask him to leave as soon as possible: Jac certainly did not consider herself to be married to him and had on many occasions refused his suggestions that they should be so; this was even from the outset of their relationship, before it’s deterioration. He was well aware of this; there could have been no misunderstanding…
The relationship was not as Jim Perrin represented it in West and he, in the full knowledge of its breaking down (with the evidence of his own actions and words — see his letters to her on this site) has written entirely with the success of his book in mind. He has quite shamelessly used libel; ‘libel-less libel’; misrepresentation and other spurious ‘effects’. He has not hesitated to use sophistry, and as we can comprehensively prove has told the most outright, and outrageous lies.
The contents of our posts are more revealing of Jim Perrin’s relationship with our sister Jac than are all his words… People may say ‘ah, but’ — and remark the adages that no-one knows what goes on behind closed doors; there are two sides two every story etc. But in this case we knew that Jac had become profoundly unhappy; not only had she in no uncertain terms confided this in our conversations but, as well, the evidence we have shown in our posts (several letters written to her by Jim Perrin himself — and some of these within only months before she died) will confirm the truth of what we say. It was truly wicked and entirely self-serving of Jim Perrin to write of our sister as he did and so blatantly to misrepresent her life after her death.
If, as Rob MacNeacail says, ‘He’s a writer and writers will write’ and if, by this implication, all is grist to the mill then we believe — and have shown proof — that in our sister’s case Jim Perrin is not ‘an honest miller’; and indeed at one stage he said that he would leave her. Ref. our post Jim Perrin’s Christmas.
* * * * *
So, the ‘point’ is that knowing how very troubled and anxious our sister had become and how deeply the divisions between them were cutting and that she was not intending, ever, to marry him; nevertheless when she could not answer for herself he ‘used’ her in his book. In one of the letters which he sent her less than four months before she died he wrote:
‘Yes I have treated you very badly at times, been highly over reactive at times…’
‘You were showing an absolute refusal to relate. By then I was beginning to feel pretty insecure. Things were clearly not going too well between us. On the topic of marriage you consistently slipped the point …’ (Our italics).
Now that, Mr MacNeacail, (and in Jim Perrin’s own words) is ‘the point’! Jim Perrin’s behaviour during their relationship, not only to her but to her children (including a physical assault on one of her sons) was such that Jac was determined to end it. She did not want to marry him and had told him so repeatedly — and he knows very well that she did not; therefore, to have written as he has now done, after her death, is worse than outrageous: it is the author’s mocking travesty of the truth… It shows yet again Jim Perrin’s clearly pathological need to dominate ; and in this case, and even more reprehensible, to posthumously maintain his control over our sister.
N.B. So ‘married’ did Jim Perrin feel to our sister, so profound was his love for her, that within one year of her tragic death from cancer he had formed a relationship with two other young women (both were traumatised by their times with him) and since then has become involved with a further four — that we know of.
Most ended in betrayal and deep distress for the women but the latest seems the longest relationship so far to have lasted. We have every reason to believe what a close friend of hers has told us, that Jim Perrin has forbidden her to log on to our site. Should she have learnt of it from others he has so blackened us — saying we ‘have an axe to grind’ and calling it ‘a hate blog’ that she probably has no inclination to do so. We can quite understand why he is concerned that she might read our posts but how unusual a woman she must be to have no curiosity in a case such as this, and to obey Jim Perrin’s command… perhaps intimidation prevents her! It is surely more likely that most women would feel compelled to read — if secretly — what might be important or revealing and yet had been forbidden to them?