Eugene’s answer to “Did Jacob really kill the boy? At one point the dad mentions that the pedophile is the real killer.…” > Likes and Comments
Like
So you think Laurie killed the girl on holiday? That's really weird!
I actually wondered the same thing. If by chance it was the mom that killed both children to protect her son. I think it is more likely that it was Jacob.
Think about it. Why would someone commit another murder that quickly? The trial just ended and declared him innocent, and they went on a vacation. But, the whole 'Jacob is still guilty' still lingers. So why would Jacob murder the Hope girl at such timing? Wouldn't this automatically make him guilty? Why would he be so stupid enough to do that?
And, if he had indeed committed the first murder, he did not leave too much incriminating evidence behind that could indict him immediately, this shows that Jacob is adept and retains some form of intelligence to get away with a murder.
So, why would such a guy commit murder right after his trial barely ended?
But why would Laurie kill Hope at all? Hope liked Jacob, admittedly didn't know his real past, and wasn't doing anything ever that construed of bullying or picking on Jacob. It wouldn't make any sense for Laurie to kill the girl who likes Jacob the most and makes him happy.
I think Jacob told the girl his past to boast and then they had an argument and he had to kill her because she knew too much. It also shows he was capable of committing the first murder.
So Laurie killed Hope because she couldn't stand Jake being bullied, when his bully was already dead? If you honestly believe that, you are bigger enigma than Jake.
Why did Jake kill so soon after he was exonerated? Traits of a sociopath include a lack of empathy, a disregard for social norms of right and wrong, impulsivity, and excessive risk-taking.
He just got a taste of getting away with murder and he craved more of that. The thrill most likely did not just about committing the act itself. But also from playing the dangerous game of leaving behind just the right number of clues. That was why he left that bloodstain on his hand when he killed Ben. He could have easily washed it off. Why he wrote the exact account of his murder. When he killed Hope, there was no way he wouldn't have noticed the splatter.
And after the first murder, his improved knowledge of criminal law gave him a good idea about the amount of circumstantial evidence he could leave behind and still escape conviction. I think there's also a part of him that enjoyed seeing how people who were close to him react to knowing his secret. First it was Derek, then his parents.
There's no way we would know that Laurie killed Hope. The writer puts us in a Jury position, where we, unlike the jury in the book, know all the facts, that did not make it to trial, and would be substantial evidence:
1. Andy found the knife in Jacob's room.
2. Laurie put an old knife in the park to mislead the detectives, afraid what could've happened if they found out about their son carrying a knife, potentially being the murder weapon.
3. Father O'Leary probably threatened at gunpoint to kill Patz in order for him to confess to the murder, and after he did write the note, he hanged him anyway. Now except from Mathew McGrath, who was a proven liar, and Patz's walks in the park and fumbling with little boys, there's no evidence he actually knew Ben.
If all these facts would made it to court, Jacob would've been found guilty, and his parents would've been indicted with conspiracy of murder.
As for Hope, splatters of blood in his swimming trunks, confirm what would've confirmed with Ben Rifkin's case. He was present at the time of the murder or after the murder had occurred, and did not say nothing about it. Andy told him to jump in the sea probably to clear of any tracks leading to him, as he did previously with the knife, cleared the tracks leading to Jacob.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
PrettyFlamingo
(new)
Aug 24, 2017 05:21AM
So you think Laurie killed the girl on holiday? That's really weird!
reply
|
flag
I actually wondered the same thing. If by chance it was the mom that killed both children to protect her son. I think it is more likely that it was Jacob.
Think about it. Why would someone commit another murder that quickly? The trial just ended and declared him innocent, and they went on a vacation. But, the whole 'Jacob is still guilty' still lingers. So why would Jacob murder the Hope girl at such timing? Wouldn't this automatically make him guilty? Why would he be so stupid enough to do that?And, if he had indeed committed the first murder, he did not leave too much incriminating evidence behind that could indict him immediately, this shows that Jacob is adept and retains some form of intelligence to get away with a murder.
So, why would such a guy commit murder right after his trial barely ended?
But why would Laurie kill Hope at all? Hope liked Jacob, admittedly didn't know his real past, and wasn't doing anything ever that construed of bullying or picking on Jacob. It wouldn't make any sense for Laurie to kill the girl who likes Jacob the most and makes him happy.
I think Jacob told the girl his past to boast and then they had an argument and he had to kill her because she knew too much. It also shows he was capable of committing the first murder.
So Laurie killed Hope because she couldn't stand Jake being bullied, when his bully was already dead? If you honestly believe that, you are bigger enigma than Jake.Why did Jake kill so soon after he was exonerated? Traits of a sociopath include a lack of empathy, a disregard for social norms of right and wrong, impulsivity, and excessive risk-taking.
He just got a taste of getting away with murder and he craved more of that. The thrill most likely did not just about committing the act itself. But also from playing the dangerous game of leaving behind just the right number of clues. That was why he left that bloodstain on his hand when he killed Ben. He could have easily washed it off. Why he wrote the exact account of his murder. When he killed Hope, there was no way he wouldn't have noticed the splatter.
And after the first murder, his improved knowledge of criminal law gave him a good idea about the amount of circumstantial evidence he could leave behind and still escape conviction. I think there's also a part of him that enjoyed seeing how people who were close to him react to knowing his secret. First it was Derek, then his parents.
There's no way we would know that Laurie killed Hope. The writer puts us in a Jury position, where we, unlike the jury in the book, know all the facts, that did not make it to trial, and would be substantial evidence:1. Andy found the knife in Jacob's room.
2. Laurie put an old knife in the park to mislead the detectives, afraid what could've happened if they found out about their son carrying a knife, potentially being the murder weapon.
3. Father O'Leary probably threatened at gunpoint to kill Patz in order for him to confess to the murder, and after he did write the note, he hanged him anyway. Now except from Mathew McGrath, who was a proven liar, and Patz's walks in the park and fumbling with little boys, there's no evidence he actually knew Ben.
If all these facts would made it to court, Jacob would've been found guilty, and his parents would've been indicted with conspiracy of murder.
As for Hope, splatters of blood in his swimming trunks, confirm what would've confirmed with Ben Rifkin's case. He was present at the time of the murder or after the murder had occurred, and did not say nothing about it. Andy told him to jump in the sea probably to clear of any tracks leading to him, as he did previously with the knife, cleared the tracks leading to Jacob.
