Defending Jacob
discussion
Was Jacob guilty - What would you do if it was your child?
I don't think I ever prayed Jacob was innocent. I hoped early on, but the way he reacted in some of those private moments with the family was pretty damning. Jacob clearly seemed incapable of empathy, but Andy's the one who made me angry. That he never told his wife his own family history was more than hiding or denial, it meant he didn't fully sympathize with his wife's right to know about it. He lacked empathy and consideration for her too. The way he described her as time went on and he saw the changes in her physically. Sometimes his descriptions of her were cruelly accurate. Is that how you would describe anyone you loved? He did not talk about her in ways that seemed loving to me. It seemed more like he was comparing the wear and tear on her as if she were a favorite car, or some sort of possession.
And near the end, the lack of compassion for Jacob's girlfriend was just as shocking. It didn't even seem to register with him.
From the moment he hid the knife (I couldn't believe he'd actually done that), it was clear that he no longer worried about others. He says he was covering for Jacob, but wasn't he also afraid that his history would be exposed too? He wasn't just covering for his son. He would have reacted more the way his wife did if that was just it. Clearly she was tortured and fully understood things from how others felt it; but I never got the sense that Andy was haunted. Trapped, angry maybe or strategic but not emotionally compromised.
The longer you listened to Andy the more you realized that he had learned to pass as a "normal" person, learned what to do, how to act and avoid thinking about unpleasant things. He even learned to be a husband to his wife, but didn't he say a couple of times that he wasn't sure about what she wanted? Her emotional needs seemed something of a puzzle to him.
Father and son both lacked empathy, or whatever you want to call it that allows you to consider and sympathize and conceive of others and their feelings. What a nightmare.
Great book. Just pulls you right in. At one point while reading, I caught myself wondering (just for a second) when I'd hear the next report on the news about the case... :) Thought about it for days afterwards.
I found the most compelling and heart wrenching issues to be the guilt that both parents experienced (resulting in Andy's denial and Laurie wondering what she did wrong. The second issue was "what if we don't do something and it happens again." I am a psychologist and I don't think that Jacob could have been helped much. Personality disorders are very hard to treat because the person doesn't experience any pain or discomfort because of their illness. The people close to them feel a lot of pain. The book does force us to think about the very complex relationship between inherited (genetic) tendencies, environmental/parental influences, and personal free will. Andy had the mutation but didn't kill, but did the coping mechanism he used (denial) to protect himself from being like his father actually make it impossible for him to help his son find a way to be strong?
Ange wrote: "Michelle wrote: "Ange wrote: "Carol wrote: "I found this book intriguing, the parents sympathetic and Jacob guilty. I doubt treatment would have helped him, he'd have needed to feel something firs..."I'm not sure the grandfather wanted to "protect" his grandson. I think he had other motives to do it including seeing his son (he hadn't seen him since Andy was a kid) and I think he just wanted to jack the family around. In no way do I think the grandfather was trying to help anyone other than his own motives.
I'm pretty sure that Jacob was guilty. Even if he didn't commit the initial crime he was really disturbed. I was upset with Andy's denial that there was anything wrong. I know that no one likes to think that his child is a criminal but after hearing what the psychiatrist had to say I would have thought that Jacob should have been receiving treatment.I think Andy's stubborn refusal to admit that there was anything wrong was what caused Laurie to take drastic measures to prevent Jacob from harming anyone else.
I absolutely loved the book and found it really made me think, as I see the same with all of you. What really bothered me was the question posed in this forum- DID he do it? I thought I would be sure by the end but the ending just threw me for a big loop. My guess would be that he did in fact kill the girl but maybe not Ben. Doing one doesn't necessarily mean the other has to be true. And I have to look back and find it, but I thought somewhere in the beginning narrative Andy gives it away by saying something the the effect of "in the end it doesn't matter and it was in fact Patz who was guilty" but of course in a more obscure way. I was about to return the book to the library but now I might go get it and try to find that quote.
Love a book that keep you thinking long after its done!
Oh and one other thing...what on earth were they doing on vacation after the trial and not putting Jacob in therapy? Even if he WAS innocent, everything they learned about their son during the trial should have been a GIANT red flag and he they should have made him continue therapy. I guess it's just more to show how hard they were struggling with who their son really was.
I thought it was a very good book. I felt we were left in the quiet about the parents reaction to the cutter porn and the story that was written. Surely Andy would have confronted Jacob, while I am sure Jacob would have shown indifference, this was one of the main pieces of evidence so that conversation needed to be in the book. Also although Andy did follow putz around a bit, I dont think he did anywhere near enough given that he had a confession from that boy. Surely you would pour ALL your resources into following that end. In terms of Jacob being guilty yes he was. I think most of us never would have doubted except for Andy the narrator making comments around putz. It was natural to assume that t hese comments were because of Andy's after the fact knowledge. When of course they were all just part of Andy's blindness. Don't know how I feel about the use of the narrator in this way.
I found it interesting throughout how Andy inserted small comments referring to the end and how much Laurie was traumatized. I did think Jacob was guilty all along but really didn't see the end coming. I couldn't help but think of Van der Sloot. Landay was so convincing with the "voice" of Andy and the language used by the teens. I really think Laurie was trying to rid the world of her less than normal child rather than have spend his life in prison. Also, I do think she intended to kill herself. Andy does make some references to the demise of his marriage so apparently they do split as a result of her choice to kill Jacob. I found this book very interesting and really touched the mother part of my brain. Great read!
Halfway through the book I was convinced that Jacob was guilty. It was hard not to because the father's narrative seemed to point that way almost from the beginning. I found the family extremely unlikable. The father was so arrogant in his belief that he was so much smarter than the prosecutor. The mother was so permissive. It amazed me that on their "celebratory" vacation they were so casual about the possibilty of their son having sex with that poor girl. He was only 14. But I guess once your kid is acquitted of murder, casual sex on the beach at 14 is ok. It angered me how the mother thought she could just approach the victim's family in the supermarket. I really started to dislike the kid when the dog episode was revealed. Of course it was just another black mark against the kid. The book grabbed your interest from the start and kept you reading. I agree that the child abuser angle was an unnecessary distraction but otherwise the book was good and definitely worth reading.
This is the best book that I've read this year. I was completely engrossed in this book. As a parent, my heart sank at the thought that my child could have issues such as Jacob and that I could be blind to them. It was a powerful book.
This is a book that will stay with me for a long time and I have been recommending it to friends so that I can discuss the story but in particular the ending. It was a very gripping and harrowing read, especially the way the family's life completely changed and peoples' attitudes towards them, even before Jacob's trial. You just knew something bad was going to happen but the ending for me was totally unpredictable and therefore the more shocking.
The book implies that Jacob was a sociopath and guilty of both crimes. We only hear from Andy and he truthfully doesn't know. So the reader is left in the same position as him. Andy chooses to believe he was innocent. Here is my take: Most people will think Jacob murdered both people and I acknowledge this. It creates, though, a VERY DISTURBING situation for me. A kid is born into a loving, caring family and by 14 he is killing people. The implication is that he was born with the gene and that is the main reason he is now killing people. True, the family might have missed some signs but all the info in the book says those signs were minimal (no teacher red flags, just disruptive at very early age, and withdrawn lately). That is such a disturbing result: so deterministic, we-are-what-are-genes-say-we-are, so negligent of free will, that I just can't go with that. That is so disturbing to think my kids could have that propensity.
I thought this book was phenomenal so while I realize the above, a small part of me chooses to believe Jacob had mental problems and just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time TWO TIMES. yeah, crazy. But then the book is not as disturbing. Instead of having monsters born from genes, we have bizarre events blending together to create a pressure-packed situation and a new monster: Laurie, a mother who would actually kill her own kid.
I can't believe some people were so sympathetic to her on this message board. From the start, she was selfish. It was her selfishness that led to the last act. She did not kill Jacob to protect others; reread the book, she killed her kid because it was a black eye on her. She was SELFISH and that is what her last act was, not moral. How can a mother kill her child? That last part was heart-wrenching to me, no matter if Jacob was guilty or not.
I just finished reading this book and I really enjoyed it. It took me on a rollercoaster ride of emotions. The ending really took me by surprise....
I felt he was guilty before the very end, but the girl going missing confirmed it. However, if he truly was a sociopath, consulting a psychologist or psychiatrist before or after would not have helped him. I completely understand what the mother did, but don't know if I would have had the courage to do if I were in her place.
Esmeralda wrote: "I think Andy's stubborn refusal to admit that there was anything wrong was what caused Laurie to take drastic measures to prevent Jacob from harming anyone else...."I wouldn't blame Andy for his wife's actions. She clearly had many other options than the one she took. I think the mother's actions showed how poorly developed the mom's coping mechanisms were.
I do think Jacob was guilty and the two diverse parental reactions were very intriguing. It showed the range from total denial to self blame both relatable by most parents.
I love it when a book can surprise me which this book did! Great read!
Alison wrote: "Esmeralda wrote: "I think Andy's stubborn refusal to admit that there was anything wrong was what caused Laurie to take drastic measures to prevent Jacob from harming anyone else...."I wouldn't b..."
That's the crux of it: do you feel responsible to your child (to protect him) or do you feel responsible for your child (to society). My prayer is "please protect my child from harm and from doing harm."
Jennifer wrote: "Oh and one other thing...what on earth were they doing on vacation after the trial and not putting Jacob in therapy? Even if he WAS innocent, everything they learned about their son during the tria..."If he truly was a sociopath, which it really does seem like he is - all the therapy in the world would not have helped. You can't grow a conscience if you are born without one. So the murder gene theory may or may not be accurate - because a sociopath can just pop up anywhere without any heredity involved.
I HIGHLY recommend Jodi Piccoult's "House Rules" which has a similar theme. The young man who is accused of murder has Asperger syndrome, a form of autism which typically presents with difficulty empathizing. It's a beautiful portrayal of a family in crisis and a wonderful mystery as well!
Ange wrote: "I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I kept finding myself wondering if I would be just like Andy if I were ever in his position. What a tough situation! Was Jacob guilty or just in the wrong place a..."Yes! As the mother of a 14 year old son (who collects knives!) I was very anxious reading this book! Chilling ...
As a parent I hope that I would have the courage to see that my child needed help and would then hire one of the best lawyers to make sure he received the help he needed instead of a long prison term with nothing being done to aid him. Too many parents keep looking the other way and end up with monsters on their hands not to mention the blood of innocents.
Jacob did kill Ben and Hope. I just wonder what verdict might have been if Father O'Leary had not gotten involved.
I kept going back and forth with whether Jacob was guilty or not. Because of the ending, I believed that Jacob was guilty. I loved the book and have come to appreciate my own children more. It was a thought provoking and exciting book. I was so intrigued that I finished the last 35% of the book in less than 24 hours. I could not put it down.
Although I really wanted Jacob to be innocent, the evidence pointed the other way. Andy spent his entire life denying his past - working very hard to overcome his heritage, I think I might have reacted the way Laurie did - unfortunately.
Debbie wrote: "Although I really wanted Jacob to be innocent, the evidence pointed the other way. Andy spent his entire life denying his past - working very hard to overcome his heritage, I think I might have re..."No, I would never want to kill my own child, I would have gotten him the proper help.
As a parent I would like to think that if my child does something wrong i would not condone it, not cover it up, not make up excuses for my child's behaviour and not blame others. I would make sure my child takes ownership of the crime, I would make sure he understands that if he has actioned something he must then deal with the consequences. I would also ensure that if help was available I would seek it. I got the feeling through out the book that both jacobs parents minimilised his behaviours and allowed him to continue to behave this way without question.
It took me a while but I did begin to feel that Jacob could have done it after a while. I think it was his treatment of the dog he'd "found" that swayed me. I must say though that I also felt a sense of dread like, "Oh no...I hope my hunch is not correct" and I can only imagine how a parent like Laurie would be able to process such a feeling. I think the toll it took on her was one of the most tragic aspects of the story.
I could feel pretty certain from the earliest that Jacob did the initual murder. In a way in, in sympathy to both Andy and even Jacob I wanted to find out otherwise. But that eroded bit by bit. I am an outsider as a reader. Andy, the father was an Procescuter. He is the last person to want to accept that it was his son. His wife had more insight and it was destroying her. Jacob walked free to commit another murder. Then what was left blew up.
I believe that true sociopaths only feel emotional when they get caught, and then only as it relates to themselves. Remember what a great deceiver Ted Bundy was for all those years. Everyone he worked with thought he was such a nice guy. I really did enjoy this book, but the father was in such obvious denial that I wanted to scream at him most of the time, "Look at the facts! What would you think if this was not your child? Would you not see signs that something is wrong?"
I think Jacob was quilty which was a shocking ending to a great read
Strangely enough, you could almost feel sorry for the kid, because he knows he is different, and the natural compulsion to destroy and kill is still there. Yet he wants to be loved by his Parents and accepted anyway.
I am not sure how I felt about the book. It was ok. I felt that there was a lot going on and sometimes it got muddled to me at least. But then again I listen to it instead of reading it. I was not happy with the ending. I do believe the author wants you to know that Jacob was guilty. But it could have gone a couple of different ways. Either parent because of bulling and maybe the girl really did just drown. I know I am probably thinking way to deep and too much. LOL... but it was certainly worth the read.
I don't understand what everyone knows happened on the last page. I don't understand the end. How does the ending prove Jacob was guilty? How do we know for sure he is guilty? And what did Lojiudice want Andy to say that would indict Laurie when he said "What happened to your son?"
@Carol; I think the point was that we don't know and we will never know for sure. The reader would have to make their own judgement call or live with ambiguity. "And what did Lojiudice want Andy to say that would indict Laurie when he said "What happened to your son?" My take was that the 'on-the-ground' literal answer would be that he wanted Andy to fess up, finally come out his deep denial; for reasons of his, (Loguidice's) own. He needed this great win for his political career. The figurative or philosophical answer is again to question the reader in what they thought.
That was just my take.
Ange wrote: "Honestly, I felt there was something wrong with Jacob and I found myself getting mad at the mother for pointing it out! Then I was getting mad at myself for getting mad at her. If Andy had just p..."
I leaned toward Jacob's guilt after Andy found the knife that was a match for the type of wound, but I kept hoping I was wrong. However, Jacob's sociopathic behavior tipped the scales for me. The resort at the end made me feel just as light and happy as the Barbers, but I know the weightlessness could not last. I feel sorry for both Andy and Laurie, but I felt they should have taken the psychiatrist's advice and gotten help for Jacob as soon as the trial concluded.
I find it problematic that a lot of comments mention the salvation of Jacob. Had he been given treatment or what if Laurie/Andy did this or that. So much to say that there is any sort of rehabilitation for hardened crime- murder, rape, child molestation etc. Which I do not believe exists in the real world. And even given the fact that Jacob had his chance to start anew after he was acquitted of the Rifkin murder and no less than 1 year (not sure of the exact timeline) he murders Hope while on vacation with his parents exemplifies his utter and total lack of redemption.
It also shows the escalation of his crimes and evolution of Jacob as a murderer. Not to justify the Rifkin death but there is a difference and slight understanding of how he could have been capable of murdering his classmate and bully, versus the killing of his vacation girlfriend whom he knew for no more than a week! The methodology may be different but the bottom line is the same... Jacob could not have been saved. He would have only kept killing.
Anabelle wrote: "Jacob could not have been saved...."Andy felt he did free (save) himself, so he night have held hope for his son to do the same.
Anabelle wrote: "after he was acquitted"
It was the intervention of his "criminal" grandfather that got Jacob acquitted. Would Jacob have fared better had he been convicted?
I think so, Jamshid, because a couple of books/articles on criminal psychology I've read over the years indicate that when a person, especially a young person, literally "gets away with murder," he/she often develops an "I-can't-get-caught" mentality. Sometimes that helps the police to catch them, in fact, because they get sloppy about covering things up. I think we see this when Jacob murders that girl. (In my view, he was guilty of that one for sure. For one thing, if he wasn't, why would Landay have put the girl in the book? But I realize not everyone on here agrees with me.) Afterwards, he hangs out with his parents with bloodstains on his clothes. I see this as something a killer growing overconfident would do. He'd kill again, I believe.
Jacob was definitely sociopathic. He definitely showed no remorse or even fear or nervousness throughout the book. His parents were afraid and nervous, but he was just business as usual. He should have gotten convicted.
I finished the book last night. I was surprised that the ending was a cliffhanger. I can argue both sides on who is guilty.
I finished this book in one sitting; I couldn't put it down! I felt myself getting really angry with Laurie. I understood how emotionally invested she was, but I felt my blood boiling every time she spoke to Dr. Vogel. It was as if she wanted to incriminate Jacob more, as if she had already decided for herself that he was guilty, and she just needed someone to agree with her. I also thought she kept blaming herself too much, which annoyed me. She didn't seem to focus as much on Jacob as she did on where she went wrong as a mother. Then again, I'm not a parent! I do believe Jacob did it though.
I found the book very disturbing because of Jacob's age. I am retired and that is the age I taught. When the girl was found dead, I didn't think there was any doubt he was guilty but I see that some people are unsure. I wondered if Landay has answered that question.
I'm a little confused, at the end what side is Andy on? Is he protecting Laurie? I chose to believe that Jacob was innocent. I don't know why but I am caught up on why would he kill that girl? Yes a sociopath doesn't have empathy but if Jacob killed Ben then he had a reason, so he would kill with reason. What would be his reason to kill the girl he liked?And why did Laurie kill her son? Because she didn't want him to kill anymore or what? And for everyone who thinks he killed the girl...I;m confused (I listened to it on audiobook) so I don't remember anything about the girl having any wounds (they decided she drowned with a crushed windpipe which wouldn't cause bleeding).
I think the most wonderful thing about this book is proven in all the comments....everyone here likes to say there is nothing therapy etc could do for a sociopath and by introducing the "murder gene" in the trial and putting it into your mind (like they wanted to do to the jury) it was inside him and he would kill again there was NO redemption and the jury whether there was evidence or not would have been forced to find him guilty! So I think Landay did a great job because if you can take a step back you look at how you feel about what you were told during the trial and see how you would have voted....but then remember that feeling/thought what if he really is innocent?
Just my opinion, but I think Jacob did kill the girl. We don't know why, she may have done or sad something that made him mad and he lost his temper. Sort of the way his ancestors did. And my take on the story was, just what you said, Laurie killed him because she felt it was the only way to be sure he would never kill again.
I believe he was guilty
Jacob was definitely guilty. The more interesting questions lie in his parents individual reactions to that truth (denial and hopelessness). To me, as a parent, the denial reaction is the more believable.
The mother new all along she was in a state of hopelessness. The father was in denial.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I'm not a parent but I do know that no matter how strongly I felt that my son was guilty, I would not be able to take his life. Throughout the whole story, I feel like Laurie was TOO ready to say her son was guilty, it was as if she didnt even want to give him a chance. Andy on the other hand, tried to keep a clear head and have faith in his son, even if it meant being wrong in the end. As soon as Laurie found out about the "murder gene", Jacob was guilty in her eyes. And Andy was left trying to be the parent and get his son through the trial.