There were many particular incidents, which showed this kind of torture I’m referring to. Most noticeably, perhaps, was the incident in the lake, when Edmund accused Charles of having thrown a rock at his head, where Edmund nearly drowned himself. Kingshaw saved Edmund on this occasion, yet Edmund invented a lie framing Charles for having been responsible. Charles tried to befriend Edmund, but he had too much pride to accept his offer. His harsh childhood had made him create a wall of defence, which rendered him unable to love or trust anyone ever again. He became an insensitive, cold and lonely child who only cared for himself; he loved no one. He shut himself out to offers of care and warmth that came from Ms Kingshaw who attempted mothering the child when she first entered the household. It is the greatest shame that Ms Kingshaw and Mr Hooper were so involved in their own relationship that they ignored their own children who were destroying themselves in front of their parents’ noses. Children should always be prioritised in this sort of relationship between to parents starting a romantic affair. Instead, they were forgotten and left to their selves.
After any child has been in a difficult parental situation, their whole personality can change. They can clam up and shut themselves out from anyone offering them stability. The fact is that these two children had both had very difficult childhoods; they had both come from broken homes into a new family environment. They were not supported nor given any attention. At school, Kingshaw was tormented and bullied. He had nowhere to turn. Both at home and at school, he was ridiculed and isolated. Childhood is intended to be a time of happiness; the best days of your life- these days were miserable and they were the last days of his life.
Kingshaw’s abnormal upbringing had left him with unusual neurosis and fears. “Warings” is a dark, old house. It is a gothic, dull place situated in an isolated area. There were few children to act as friends to the prisoners in this mansion. There was little to do, except for exploring the local area and entertain them selves about the house. One of Edmund Hooper’s many complexes is to play mind-games on others. In this case, the victim was Charles Kingshaw. Hooper started a series of pranks designed to mentally destroy Kingshaw. He was playing a game, trying to break Charles Kingshaw. Such “pranks” included putting a large black crow at the foot of Charles’ bed during the night, having previously known that Kingshaw was terrified by crows. Kingshaw awoke, scared and embarrassed. He was trapped in someone else’s lair- imprisoned in a labyrinth of manipulation and strategy against him. No one could save him; not even his mother to whom he had previously been closer to but now to whom he felt estranged and disappointed. It was clear where her priorities lay- in Mr Hooper. Charles was fighting a psychological war against Hooper with no emotional support. This left him vulnerable and despairing, often crying himself to sleep. Hooper knew that he was fighting this war, and every “bomb” he fired at Kingshaw was carefully planned and delivered. Hooper would not be happy until he had won and defeated Kingshaw- it was a battle to the death. They came near to death several times, however, ultimately, the underdog was to lose. Kingshaw was emotionally weak and easily scared, he was neurotic and paranoid. Hooper was cruel and emotionally incapable. His childhood had left him completely unable to express or accept any kind of emotion. He cannot sympathise nor remorse over what has happened.
On a family excursion, Kingshaw insisted on climbing to the top of a castle. He went ahead and did this. Climbing was one of his abilities and something that he could do with no fear. He got to the top of the castle and proved to Hooper that he was capable of doing so. By doing this, at least, Kingshaw had conquered over Hooper in one situation. At the top, Kingshaw screamed, “I’m the king of the castle!” In his excitement, he forgot about the eternality of Hooper’s taunting. As soon as he descended the castle, after having been reprimanded, the command of Hooper began once again. For one moment, however, Kingshaw had experienced a complete feeling of triumph over his enemy, a physical and psychological one. Other such mind games played included Kingshaw being locked in a dark shed alone. One of Kingshaw’s phobias included a severe fear of the dark and of dead animals. In this shed, as Hooper was fully aware, there were both of these. On another occasion, both children ran away from the house- in fact, Kingshaw had originally run away, driven out by his opponent’s incessant evil taunting, and was followed by Hooper. When both boys were found, Hooper blamed Kingshaw for everything. This happened many times; for instance when they had run away and when Hooper near drowned in the nearby lake. When Hooper had shared responsibility with Kingshaw for an event, he accused Kingshaw of having been solely responsible. In their enamoured “romantic” stupor, the parents accepted this and punished the boy.
On the day of the death, Kingshaw had decided to confront one of his biggest fears. The cause of his hydrophobia is unknown, but is common amongst children between 8 and 12. He deliberately went out into a small lake near the mansion of Warings and slowly and unforced walked into the cool water. Perhaps Kingshaw chose to do this to in some way be victorious over Hooper again, reminiscent of the climbing incident. Kingshaw floated outwards towards the deeper water- he floated so far out, he for some reason felt forced to breathe in water, his lungs became saturated, and he drowned.
Whether this was suicide and he chose to do this him self, or whether he genuinely accidentally drowned is impossible to tell. All we do know are the facts, and the facts are that eventually, Kingshaw would have been driven to do this anyway after more torment from Hooper, if Hooper wouldn’t have actually killed him. This “childish rivalry” would have ended in death, indubitably.
So, who is to blame for this unusual, appalling death? I have described the circumstances surrounding the case. It is of my belief that Kingshaw did kill himself, ladies and gentlemen, finding himself incapable of continuing alone. “No man is an island”, it is said- Charles Kingshaw was an island. The constant battering of Hooper followed him everywhere. There was no escape, and there was nowhere to turn. He despaired and killed himself. But who drove him to kill his self? Was it Hooper? Did he consciously mean to drive Kingshaw to suicide or was he so “emotionally disfigured” his self to recognise what exactly he was doing? In which case is it the parents’ responsibility, for not having been aware of what was happening between their children, and not having shown genuine love nor attention to their children in such a strange situation after such a difficult childhood? Lest we forget, they themselves had personality issues and mistaken priorities, failed previous relationships; they were both widowed after all, and a lack of affection and emotional confusion must have distorted their acts. However was it their fault that Hooper’s personality was “disfigured” at all? It is to you, members of the jury, to decide…
