Dana Ewell

[Jane]

Makes a lot of sense JAPES! I can see his family knowing what his achilles heel is and that being money, so yeah I can imagine them using money as his carrot.

Being able to ask for a few hundred pounds here and there wouldn't satisfy him when he is aware how much money he could have to do as he please with no strings attached if his family were out of the way.

Mat, it often starts by appearing to be given generously, as in, "You only have to ask", but because there's another agenda, it soon turns to "but we only gave you £X weeks/months ago. What do you want it for this time? This is the last time you get anything from us"  That's often the time when the opportunity to cut lose has passed by. Anger, frustration I can understand. Murder is beyond my comprehension.

[maggie]

Mat, I can quite see that there may have been a time when money was used as a carrot, ie if Jeremy did WHATEVER he would be generously recompensed OR was used as a bribe to keep him in order/control him(?) Where money is offered, in my experience there are often strings attached and those strings CAN bind one to the place one LEAST wants to be...................however, I'm NOT saying it's an excuse to murder.

If that was the case it may have taught him the wrong value to put on money. 
  It's better to just give it rather than to use it as some sort of a reward, I think

[guest154]

Mat, it often starts by appearing to be given generously, as in, "You only have to ask", but because there's another agenda, it soon turns to "but we only gave you £X weeks/months ago. What do you want it for this time? This is the last time you get anything from us"  That's often the time when the opportunity to cut lose has passed by. Anger, frustration I can understand. Murder is beyond my comprehension.

Same here but I think that's because we aren't pshycopaths I guess! 

[Caroline]

If that was the case it may have taught him the wrong value to put on money. 
  It's better to just give it rather than to use it as some sort of a reward, I think

I agree, but just not to often. I imagine it's difficult not to spoil adopted children? I guess Neill and June thought that they could steer both of them in the right direction. I wonder if Jeremy ever contemplated staying in New Zealand?  It would have been better all round if he had.

[Jane]

If that was the case it may have taught him the wrong value to put on money. 
  It's better to just give it rather than to use it as some sort of a reward, I think

Maggie, I think this had probably been habitual. We talk about his arrogance but actually it was that laid back assurance of someone who'd NEVER had to struggle. He could afford to do menial work because he had a background of wealth to cushion him. His background would have opened doors, locally, at least. It's very different from someone on a low income without financial backing.

[maggie]

I agree, but just not to often. I imagine it's difficult not to spoil adopted children? I guess Neill and June thought that they could steer both of them in the right direction. I wonder if Jeremy ever contemplated staying in New Zealand?  It would have been better all round if he had.

I should think they were spoiled with material stuff when they were growing up and got used to believing money would always come to them and they could have anything they wanted.  That isn't good at all. I read reecently that adopted children who don't bond deeply with their adoptive mother can attach too much importance to objects and material things which may account for Jeremy's need for money.

[Jane]

I agree, but just not to often. I imagine it's difficult not to spoil adopted children? I guess Neill and June thought that they could steer both of them in the right direction. I wonder if Jeremy ever contemplated staying in New Zealand?  It would have been better all round if he had.

Part of the problem, Caroline, is that back then, all that was required to adopt a child was respectability and a steady income/healthy finances. Any affection for the child was seen as secondary. It was enough that "good" people were prepared to spend their money and give a home to children no one else wanted. It was that which constituted love.

[maggie]

Maggie, I think this had probably been habitual. We talk about his arrogance but actually it was that laid back assurance of someone who'd NEVER had to struggle. He could afford to do menial work because he had a background of wealth to cushion him. His background would have opened doors, locally, at least. It's very different from someone on a low income without financial backing.

Absolutely April, you do come across this situation quite often.  It's easy to drop out of college and bum around doing whatever takes your fancy at the time when you have a wealthy background and an assured income.
Nothing like a bit of struggling to teach the realities of life.

[Jane]

I should think they were spoiled with material stuff when they were growing up and got used to believing money would always come to them and they could have anything they wanted.  That isn't good at all. I read reecently that adopted children who don't bond deeply with their adoptive mother can attach too much importance to objects and material things which may account for Jeremy's need for money.

It's very easy to equate the amount of money spent with the amount of affection felt, VERY especially if REAL affection isn't given. It more and more becomes a question of more is more.

[maggie]

Part of the problem, Caroline, is that back then, all that was required to adopt a child was respectability and a steady income/healthy finances. Any affection for the child was seen as secondary. It was enough that "good" people were prepared to spend their money and give a home to children no one else wanted. It was that which constituted love.

It's true and I saw it in action years ago when I worked for Social Services.  Matching the colour of hair and eyes was near the top of the list as well.

[Steve_uk]

Coming back to the Dana Ewell case there certainly are parallels with Jeremy Bamber: a good-looking young man,who seemingly wanted for nothing,yet a certain tension existing between father and son as the son matured into adolescence. It's interesting that David mentioned an assassin for hire because that's what Dana Ewell did,suggesting that he wasn't comfortable in perpetrating the crime himself as he may still have felt some emotional attachment to his sister. There's an article about the murders here: https://krazykillers.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/nine-years-leaves-a-nasty-numbskull-nilhilist-nonplussed-and-nauseous/

and a youtube video here: https://youtu.be/mNFBHKkN3no