To answer questions about
The Institute,
please sign up.
Bethea Scovic
The book explained that the deaths had to look like random deaths. Accidents, suicides, etc. Assassins couldn't do that without it being obvious or getting caught at some point. The children could do it without it being traced to anyone. No suspicions were raised.
Lisa
Ugh! I'm so glad you brought this up. I loved the book, but had a huge problem with this. I thought it should have been addressed in the end and was going crazy that it never came up. I'm surprised more readers weren't bothered by it.
Rachael
This answer contains spoilers…
(view spoiler)
A
I wondered the same thing. It was the one weak point of the plot. I kept waiting for an explanation for it but it wasn't there.
H. Atmenmeer
This answer contains spoilers…
(view spoiler)
Michelle Size
I agree. It seems like it would be far easier to kill someone and make it look like an accident than do this elaborate operation where you kidnap kids, murder their parents and then keep them locked up and going through these tests and procedures. Not to mention that in reality big conspiracies where there are lots of staff don't stay secret for long.
Binya
I think because killing random people and kidnap random children and make it look accidental is far less suspicious than killing some important figure.Moreover, the number of children gone is missing is high anyway so no one is going to bother finding the relation between each case like Wendy said in the book in her discussion with Tim about the missing children of the U.S.
Rebekah
I agree. It was a neat way to eliminate people without anyone suspecting any master plan, but not necessary considering the cost/benefit ratio.
Angela
They had to make the murders look like a accident
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more