We undertook the unravelling of some of Jim Perrin’s financial affairs with the primary objective of showing how untruthful he was about them — not only to our sister during her short time with him (and, what he wrote about them after she died) — but also to many other women.
Throughout his book West he has written of her with a marked and peculiarly inventive dishonesty: and he also wrote, at the time of her death, that she was the cause of his poverty. If this were true it would, nonetheless, have been churlish, lacking in gallantry and disrespectful to one he had purported to love: it was not only unkind to write of Jac as he did but it was, of course, entirely untrue. How ignoble must be the mind of a man who wrote in that way.
Jim Perrin is not one of Nature’s Gentlemen and in our opinion he lacks not only integrity but generosity of spirit, and is capable merely of the pretence of empathy. We have said of him in a previous post that ‘we believe he is a hollow man’ — and possibly one with sociopathic tendencies. Continue reading
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. (Here it is appropriate to mention that there would be no way we could write this if we did not have absolute proof… )
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?’ * Continue reading
Jim Perrin had planned to take over our sister’s house. Within months of their meeting he persuaded her that he should live with her — ‘coerced’ is certainly not too strong when one considers his letter of August 18th 2003, ref. our post Jim Perrin – A Cuckoo in the Nest? — and whilst we know that in the first months she was very much under his influence yet the pressure he exerted was not only intense but dishonourable. She was given little time to think before he put his plan into action; he knew that she was still sharing the house with her long-term partner — they had been there for some sixteen years — but for his plan to succeed he needed to ensure the departure, the ‘eviction’ of this substantial impediment.
Although Jim Perrin’s overwhelming necessity was to ‘disappear’ and to escape the recent attentions of the Child Support Agency there was the additional matter of his precarious personal resources. After juggling his mortgage and (we saw the evidence) several overdrafts, credit cards and loan companies, for him to live in our sister’s house would be the perfect solution to many of these difficulties. Financially speaking he was on very thin ice indeed: never having sufficient funds to pay off Peter after robbing Paul.
He had pressed her (oh how hard he had pressed her) to marry him legally — this , we thought at the time, was because he felt he would then have entitlement to her property. Jac used to tell her ‘Welsh’ sister of his latest attempts: of how he repeatedly asked her to marry him saying that he ‘would not believe she loved him if she refused’ — this was nothing more or less than emotional blackmail — and that his ‘happiness would only be complete if she consented’. But she did not want to marry him, agreeing with her sister’s sentiment, (so frequently expressed during their night-time conversations that it had become an on-going joke between them), which was that in this relationship ‘a ring on your finger would be a ring through your nose!’ Instinctively Jac knew this — which is why she refused to countenance the possibility and consistently refused to give in to his blandishments.
* * * * *