Author Topic: Peter Eaton  (Read 5857 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #75 on: September 02, 2014, 12:27:AM »
the fact dident nevile never gave her any responsibility in the company says to me she had no head for bushiness.

She probably had no head for farming.  He gave Jeremy a share to get Jeremy interested in it and to teach him.  If Jerey refused to work on the farm then I am sure he would not have given it to him.  He didn't do it to shaft Sheila, Nevill's goal was to keep his legacy going after he got too old and even after his death but if that didn't happen then they have to share the spoils.

 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17253
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #76 on: September 02, 2014, 12:29:AM »
ho he dident do it to shaft her he just thought she wasn't up to it.

well to be honest as hes dead and dident keep a diary we dont have a clue what he was thinking.

but thats what i think he thought.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 12:31:AM by nugnug »

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #77 on: September 02, 2014, 08:25:PM »
ho he dident do it to shaft her he just thought she wasn't up to it.

well to be honest as hes dead and dident keep a diary we dont have a clue what he was thinking.

but thats what i think he thought.

While we don't know if he tried to get Sheila to become a farming partner I don't think it is going out on a limb to say that she would have rejected such an offer if it were made to her.  Does anyone seriously think that Sheila would have said yes to working on the farm in exchange for a share in the ownership and thus lived there instead of London?  I sure don't. There is a big difference between occasionally helping out on the farm and making it your profession. 

Jeremy had no better options so got sucked into the farming world.  Sheila had her own world she just visited the farm.  Jeremy was jealous of that even though she had schizophrenia and thus not one to envy.     

 

Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #78 on: September 02, 2014, 08:32:PM »
Where do you get the idea that Jeremy was jealous of Sheila ? It's nonsense and also a childish thing to say.
He certainly wouldn't have been jealous of her illness !!

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17253
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #79 on: September 02, 2014, 08:53:PM »
he may of been i cant see that theirs any evidence to prove it.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #80 on: September 03, 2014, 02:27:AM »
he may of been i cant see that theirs any evidence to prove it.

His comments to Julie and Colin in particular are very telling.  He told Colin how he hated his family controlling him with money and was bitter about Sheila being given a place in London to live withou having to work for it.  He wanted to live in London and no to have to work for what his family gave him.

What he got in terms of the 1/3 of the 50 acres, a small portion of the Caravan site and 20% of the company may in fact have been worth more than Sheila's flat but he had to work for it while she didn't and the city life is what he wanted because that is where the fun is.  He wanted to go to clubs and fancy restaurants not country dives.   

that is why he quit farming as soon as they were dead and left the running of the farm to others prior to his conviction.  He was done with it and would have sold everything, moved to London and probably blown through all his money in a matter of a few years then been in a quandry.   
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #81 on: September 03, 2014, 08:07:AM »
June had Sheilas' life mapped out. It was her who wanted Sheila to take an interest in the business side of it as this is one reason that Sheila went to  secretarial classes paid for by her parents,but London was a magnet for partying,so that idea went to the wall. Then it was June whose suggestion of the Lucie Clayton school that might have had appeal,but failed again.

The whole problem lay with the mother and daughter relationship where personalities clashed and both women were forever pulling against each other. Nobody but nobody can lead a life of being controlled,I don't care what anyone says,and sooner or later one of them,or both,are going to snap-------and that's exactly what happened.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33784
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #82 on: September 03, 2014, 08:36:AM »
June had Sheilas' life mapped out. It was her who wanted Sheila to take an interest in the business side of it as this is one reason that Sheila went to  secretarial classes paid for by her parents,but London was a magnet for partying,so that idea went to the wall. Then it was June whose suggestion of the Lucie Clayton school that might have had appeal,but failed again.

The whole problem lay with the mother and daughter relationship where personalities clashed and both women were forever pulling against each other. Nobody but nobody can lead a life of being controlled,I don't care what anyone says,and sooner or later one of them,or both,are going to snap-------and that's exactly what happened.


Lookout, , you've set that out so well one cannot fail to see that it could equally well be ascribed to Jeremy. Sheila had kicked against all the plans her parents had for her and by so doing had got herself  a smart "residence" in London, a partying lifestyle and VERY importantly, DISTANCE between her and her parents. Jeremy, on the other hand, HAD, more or less, toed the parental line. HE hadn't caused his parents the problems which Sheila had. It HAD to have seemed to him that whilst Sheila's bad behaviour was rewarded -SHE had her freedom and financial support- HE was stuck doing his parents bidding which earned him a two up two down tied to the job which tied him down. Sibling rivalry can distort the clearest thinking.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #83 on: September 03, 2014, 09:18:AM »
Morning April/lookout

whilst both posts make sense I tend to think Jeremy was the one who was most tied with the farm and living so close to his parents Sheila had the freedom of London and out of reach of her parents especially June.  How controlled was Jeremy I suspect outwardly he was but inwardly he was his own person and rebelled against their control.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #84 on: September 03, 2014, 09:35:AM »

Lookout, , you've set that out so well one cannot fail to see that it could equally well be ascribed to Jeremy. Sheila had kicked against all the plans her parents had for her and by so doing had got herself  a smart "residence" in London, a partying lifestyle and VERY importantly, DISTANCE between her and her parents. Jeremy, on the other hand, HAD, more or less, toed the parental line. HE hadn't caused his parents the problems which Sheila had. It HAD to have seemed to him that whilst Sheila's bad behaviour was rewarded -SHE had her freedom and financial support- HE was stuck doing his parents bidding which earned him a two up two down tied to the job which tied him down. Sibling rivalry can distort the clearest thinking.





Hi April,I purposely left Jeremy out as besides him not fitting into a scenario of murder ( my thoughts ),he also tended to do his own thing anyway but at the same time he had the sense that if he worked hard,he could also play hard too. Sheila just couldn't settle to anything even though choices and opportunities were there-----on a plate. Between her and her mother,the old saying came into play," you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink ",and this pull was evident in every way with mother and daughter.
It wasn't a case of making flesh of one and fowl of another as regards Jeremy and Sheila because the parents treated them equally from their schooling onwards. Nobody on this earth can predict how their children are going to turn out,whether adopted or not,as each person is an individual with individual needs,etc. June was going out of her way to " mould " Sheila into a person the same as she was who'd had the same stark and stern upbringing as someone brought up in the Victorian era.
I would say that both children respected their parents,and it was this respect that stopped Sheila from kicking off verbally,which I think would have got rid of all the pent-up emotions that the girl had,especially as she wasn't allowed to speak of them. June was hard and difficult for Sheila to approach over anything as Sheila used to tell her friends everything,an example being that on Sheilas' last stay in hospital,June had passed it off as just being " one of those things ",which upset Sheila greatly that she'd told her friend Sonja that she felt as though her problem could be solved by sending her here or there,a very simplistic approach to what was a devastating illness.

If only we had the full unabridged version of Sheilas' illness as the answer to this crime would be there. 

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33784
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #85 on: September 03, 2014, 10:55:AM »




Hi April,I purposely left Jeremy out as besides him not fitting into a scenario of murder ( my thoughts ),he also tended to do his own thing anyway but at the same time he had the sense that if he worked hard,he could also play hard too. Sheila just couldn't settle to anything even though choices and opportunities were there-----on a plate. Between her and her mother,the old saying came into play," you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink ",and this pull was evident in every way with mother and daughter.
It wasn't a case of making flesh of one and fowl of another as regards Jeremy and Sheila because the parents treated them equally from their schooling onwards. Nobody on this earth can predict how their children are going to turn out,whether adopted or not,as each person is an individual with individual needs,etc. June was going out of her way to " mould " Sheila into a person the same as she was who'd had the same stark and stern upbringing as someone brought up in the Victorian era.
I would say that both children respected their parents,and it was this respect that stopped Sheila from kicking off verbally,which I think would have got rid of all the pent-up emotions that the girl had,especially as she wasn't allowed to speak of them. June was hard and difficult for Sheila to approach over anything as Sheila used to tell her friends everything,an example being that on Sheilas' last stay in hospital,June had passed it off as just being " one of those things ",which upset Sheila greatly that she'd told her friend Sonja that she felt as though her problem could be solved by sending her here or there,a very simplistic approach to what was a devastating illness.

If only we had the full unabridged version of Sheilas' illness as the answer to this crime would be there.


Lookout, that I'm not taking Jeremy OUT of this sibling rivalry equation, doesn't, on it's own, put him INto a scenario for murder.

I'm trying to see Sheila as she and her exploits MAY have been seen through the eyes of her younger brother. That he "played it differently" from Sheila doesn't mean he didn't FEEL the same as her. It is said that, to a child, ANY attention, no matter how negative, is better than NO attention. If Jeremy saw his parents' constantly being attentive to Sheila's needs it would mean that he felt HIS needs were being ignored.

(I have very dear friends whose son, in his late 40's has only recently told them how much he'd hated boarding school and how miserable he'd been the whole time he was there. Horrified and feeling guilty, they asked him why he'd never told them. He said there'd have been no point, all their attention was given to his sister. They admitted to me that this was probably true. He had been a "good" child. In their eyes, not requiring their attention. She on the other hand had been difficult and demanding of attention. My late partners two sons, individually, told me exactly the same story)

It strikes me as odd that, despite their expensive educations, neither Sheila nor Jeremy qualified for anything -in a world of less money, their lives would certainly been far less comfortable if they'd had nothing to rely on save the wages of unskilled work- one reason for this MAY be that they had both been pushed down roads inappropriate for them. For similar reasons, I too, left school with no qualifications - more correctly,that I was permitted to make use of.

We know that at LEAST 50% of the Bamber children was not cut out for life in the country. ONE managed to escape. The other toed the line. I'm inclined to think the line finally ran out.

It also occurs to me that I've spent MOST of my time on this forum focusing on Sheila. THIS may have been the story of Jeremy's childhood.
 
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 10:57:AM by April »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #86 on: September 03, 2014, 11:37:AM »

Lookout, that I'm not taking Jeremy OUT of this sibling rivalry equation, doesn't, on it's own, put him INto a scenario for murder.

I'm trying to see Sheila as she and her exploits MAY have been seen through the eyes of her younger brother. That he "played it differently" from Sheila doesn't mean he didn't FEEL the same as her. It is said that, to a child, ANY attention, no matter how negative, is better than NO attention. If Jeremy saw his parents' constantly being attentive to Sheila's needs it would mean that he felt HIS needs were being ignored.

(I have very dear friends whose son, in his late 40's has only recently told them how much he'd hated boarding school and how miserable he'd been the whole time he was there. Horrified and feeling guilty, they asked him why he'd never told them. He said there'd have been no point, all their attention was given to his sister. They admitted to me that this was probably true. He had been a "good" child. In their eyes, not requiring their attention. She on the other hand had been difficult and demanding of attention. My late partners two sons, individually, told me exactly the same story)

It strikes me as odd that, despite their expensive educations, neither Sheila nor Jeremy qualified for anything -in a world of less money, their lives would certainly been far less comfortable if they'd had nothing to rely on save the wages of unskilled work- one reason for this MAY be that they had both been pushed down roads inappropriate for them. For similar reasons, I too, left school with no qualifications - more correctly,that I was permitted to make use of.

We know that at LEAST 50% of the Bamber children was not cut out for life in the country. ONE managed to escape. The other toed the line. I'm inclined to think the line finally ran out.

It also occurs to me that I've spent MOST of my time on this forum focusing on Sheila. THIS may have been the story of Jeremy's childhood.






April, what I will say is that both children were given equal chances as regards education and one wasn't treated any different to the other so far as that was concerned,so it was down to the children to either make or break.
In our household,it wasn't deemed as important for the daughter to be as encouraged in the education department as it was for the son,so as a consequence my brother received the most encouragement and also rewards when he gained his 11+ exam to grammar school. All this outpouring of " favouritism " towards him didn't make a scrap of difference to how I felt,as I wasn't the sensitive type. It was clear to everyone both within the family and outsiders that my brother was the shining example in the family,and just where I came in,I didn't know,but as I'd said,I wasn't particularly bothered either. At the time,anyway.
However,as I got older,I rebelled and did the opposite to what mum wanted me to do. Her idea was for me to leave school and " just get a job " ! That wasn't what I had in mind as I'd studied anatomy and physiology at school,as well as biology so my intention was to go straight to college,which I did.

In my late teens,for the first time,I'd heard that mum went into care at 10 years old after her mother died and she was left looking after a very sick father.She was going out scrubbing steps to earn a crust as there was no money. So the upshot of the way her mind worked was that she wanted me to work as hard as she had done and bring some wages in. No way. Dad was working and so was she in between going to her Sistership whatever that was. My life wasn't my own.

What I'm saying is this mother/daughter thing seemed to be something in the 60's and 70's and by no means did it always involve those having been adopted. It was a mentality that was carried from years previous,where a lot of mothers didn't " move with the times ". There were times when I did bubble up with rage,and I'm sure that if I hadn't been the level-headed and laid-back person that I was,I too could have done damage.
It's other people who drive you mad,not necessarily that there was anything amiss,mentally, in the first place. Sheila had reached the end of her tether as she had more issues in such a short life than many of us have in a lifetime.   

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17253
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #87 on: September 03, 2014, 12:11:PM »
His comments to Julie and Colin in particular are very telling.  He told Colin how he hated his family controlling him with money and was bitter about Sheila being given a place in London to live withou having to work for it.  He wanted to live in London and no to have to work for what his family gave him.

What he got in terms of the 1/3 of the 50 acres, a small portion of the Caravan site and 20% of the company may in fact have been worth more than Sheila's flat but he had to work for it while she didn't and the city life is what he wanted because that is where the fun is.  He wanted to go to clubs and fancy restaurants not country dives.   

that is why he quit farming as soon as they were dead and left the running of the farm to others prior to his conviction.  He was done with it and would have sold everything, moved to London and probably blown through all his money in a matter of a few years then been in a quandry.   

or he may havent wanted sometime off after suffering a terrble tragedy i mean if my family god forbid had been wiped out i dont think id fell like going back to workfor a while.

certanly not at the place it happened.

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #88 on: September 03, 2014, 12:43:PM »
or he may havent wanted sometime off after suffering a terrble tragedy i mean if my family god forbid had been wiped out i dont think id fell like going back to workfor a while.

certanly not at the place it happened.

As I´ve said before, if Jeremy had started work immediately after the tragedy, he would be branded as cold and unfeeling. He can´t win.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Peter Eaton
« Reply #89 on: September 03, 2014, 08:29:PM »
As I´ve said before, if Jeremy had started work immediately after the tragedy, he would be branded as cold and unfeeling. He can´t win.

Not by anyone rationa because life goes on.  People who party afterwards get criticized but whether it deserves criticism depends ont he nature.  There is a difference between continuing to live one's life and changing to all play and no work.  Some people will work more to avoid their grief.  Some will dwell on things and even try to do things they think would please those they lost including keeping their legacy going.

Jeremy didn't try to keep their legacy going he quit farming the same day.  He didn't try to bury himself in work he quit working.  He went around trying to find what he could sell so he would have money to part with and that was the extent of work he did. 

He expressed no remorse or guilt for supposedly leaving out the murder weapon. 

He reacted the way someone would who won a big lottery jackpot. Actually some people who win the lottery refuse to quit and still work anyway.     
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry