Defending Jacob
discussion
Was Jacob guilty - What would you do if it was your child?
Why would she commit the initial murder?
Omg..I thought the very same thing. That it was the mother. I did comment that way because I thought people would I was crazy, but she was such a milk toast. And very protective of her son and maybe even a little jealous.
I communicated via messages through Goodreads with the author because I had some questions. He told that Jacob was guilty.
But why did she kill Jacob's classmate? What evidence is there for that in the novel?
Very cool. At least we know now. Thanks
Emily, it has been a long time since I read it, not remembering that part, refresh my memory with more details. I gave my book to someone to read, never got it back,I am so mad about that!
Diane wrote: "I communicated via messages through Goodreads with the author because I had some questions. He told that Jacob was guilty."Diana I would be very interested in viewing what you and Landay talked about!!! Please send me a message if you can.
Candace
Diane wrote: "I communicated via messages through Goodreads with the author because I had some questions. He told that Jacob was guilty."Diane I would be very interested in viewing what you and Landay talked about!!! Please send me a message if you can.
Candace
☯Emily wrote: "But why did she kill Jacob's classmate? What evidence is there for that in the novel?"All a mother's "protection", she was unstable. There wasn't any evidence of it, but reading through it, that was my initial thought all along. Especially how she tried to overlook things and how she tried to avoid the subject. It's just a thought and a theory, not a fact. I could be totally wrong but it makes you think ;-)
Interesting thought, I never thought that, except that she did cause the accident to kill her son. Why would she want to kill Jacob's classmate?
Just finished it. So my verdict is... I think Jacob was guilty for both crimes... What was interesting, though, was that even with the murder gene argument which Laurie seemed to be afraid of, in the end, it was her that killed her own son in a brutal way. I couldn't imagine what thoughts might have gone through Jacob's head in those last seconds of his life. I was frustrated with Laurie in some parts, like during those meetings with the psychiatrist. But she was willing to admit and help her son if he needed help. She was more open, although I felt at times, she was being so negative and not trusting at all... But I don't blame her. Because I think he's guilty. It was just a really interesting book. I felt like I got done watching one of those crime documentaries on TV! No closure, you just don't know for sure!
It was a tough read because we had a Tough Love child that we worried abould. I think the parents for the most part handled things well. I would not have done what the mother did in the end.
I don't know that I would have done anything that drastic but that boy would have been in therapy ASAP after the trial with the therapist that analyzed him. Even if he was not guilty, (which I am not 100 percent sure, but close) his psychological problems should have put him there immediately. I think Andy's issues with his own father and his ability to overcome the tendency to violence made him too hopeful for a positive outcome. He believed if he were a good father, his son would be alright. I do think if he had told Laurie the truth at least when Jacob was little they could have taken steps to intervene early in life, with perhaps a different outcome. We left with the impression that if you have a sociopath for a child - kill him. Laurie loved him but felt she had a responsibility to kill "a rabid dog." Perhaps the psychiatrist/or parents could have had him committed.Do propensities for various unhealthy behaviors exist? Absolutely! Can they be mitigated with the right treatment very early in life. Absolutely! Sadly, Andy's attitude is all too common. "If I can overcome it- so can he. His blind eye did as much damage as the genetic one did.
Put him in a dog suit and leave him at the pound?
I had a hard time identifying with Andy but I guess with his family history and his career as a DA he was all about beating the system at all costs. I'd call it denial but I can understand his motivation. What got to me was how he dismissed Laurie's valid feelings. I think she was worried about Jacob all along but put her hope and trust in Andy's insistence that he was just a normal kid. When she learned that Andy wasn't trustworthy (his omission of his family history) it hit her really hard.
I could never conceal evidence. It would be heartbreaking to be in their position but I just couldn't do it.
Ok, I had to read the book again, and Jacob is guilty. I feel for the mother because no matter what they found out his Dad would not see the truth. I guess if it is your son it is difficult to face the truth so I understand his problem.
So if Laurie killed Ben, then how did Jacob's thumbprint get inside Ben's jacket? That was really the most damning piece of evidence (and actually the only real evidence in the trial). We saw that his story of seeing if Ben was OK didn't hold up.I wish there were a little more to suggest Laurie had done it, because that would be very interesting....
I'd be far more reasonable and would take my son into the basement, cuff him to a chair and make him tell me all. Then I'd ship him out of the country
In a way it reminded me a bit of the "The Bad Seed's" darker nature. I thought the ending was terrific
Shelly wrote: "I could not put it down and the ending totally shocked me as I too was praying he was innocent"Agreed
Patricia wrote: "I think that Jacob was guilty. His parents just didn't realize what a monster he was until the end."You THINK he was guilty?
Janet wrote: "Well, I think the heredity angle is a load of crap. As one reviewer noted, if there really was a "murder" gene, why didn't Andy manifest? Are we to believe it skipped a generation? I do believe ..."Oh but there certainly is a sociopath gene. Read up on Bundy, Ted. Etc. There are obviously other factors, but yes.
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..."One of the things I loved about it, was that he was a Prosecutor and used to convicting with far less evidence.
Deb, no. DA's are all about being a part of the system. They swear an oath to do Justice no matter what. Defense attorney's challenge the system or government.
Hold it. Did someone here actually suggest, the mother killed the boy at school that Jacob was tried for? Really?
Millie wrote: "I don't know that I would have done anything that drastic but that boy would have been in therapy ASAP after the trial with the therapist that analyzed him. Even if he was not guilty, (which I am n..."Yes
AJ wrote: "Jacob was not guilty. We discussed this in our book club and almost EVERYONE disagreed with me, but....I believe that his mother was the one who was guilty all along. I believe that she thought s..."
AJ, you came up with this theory? You're kidding right?
Renee wrote: "I thought this book was thought-provoking & loved it. I'm not a parent (other than mama to two furbabies)but I tried to keep an open mind, but honestly, I thought Jacob was guilty from the very be..."Renee you are so right on target, at least in my opinion. I had no doubt from the beginning of Jacob's guilt. Andy was in too much in denial for it to have been otherwise. I have no children either but have had more than one very close relationship with sociopaths. One of the reasons I don't have children. Also thought Laurie did the only thing she felt she could do to insure the "evil" did not happen again because she couldn't bear it. Andy would survive without her and Jacob and what she did was all she could think to do to make things turn out right. Good read
Hold it. did you say you didn't have children because you'd known some sociopaths? Can you please expound on this?
Mark wrote: "Hold it. did you say you didn't have children because you'd known some sociopaths? Can you please expound on this?"In my family. Enough said.
Yes, but if you are literary, you need to write about this. Fascinating.
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..."My 2 cents. Once I heard about the lost dog .. I wanted Jacob dead.
From the time that Jacob's "friend" told us about the lost dog and that he'd had to "bury it", I never thought he was innocent. When Patz "hanged himself", I wasn't fooled. People that abuse animals.. this is the first sign that they're not fit for society. As soon as "Hope" came on the scene, I knew he'd kill her too. The real question to my mind was when would the parents take responsibility for this monster they unleashed? I guess Andy never would have, but Laurie.. yay for Laurie.
Unfortunately, Jacob was guilty. But this wasn't about Jacob it was about the parents struggle with a child that isn't 'normal.' If you have a child that isn't 'normal' you can identify with the struggle to justify your child all the while blaming yourself for how you raised your child. In the end, a mother knows her child better than anyone. While it's a father's job is to stand by his kid; regardless of what the world or his mother thinks.
It may be a father's job to stand by his kid, but he really went overboard. He was willing to risk the life of countless other people his son might have met in the future. It would have been better if he had sought help for Jacob. It might have saved his life.
Jacob was certainly guilty rather than a victim of "wrong place, wrong time". There were a number of behavior warning signs but do parents really see that or do they try to justify it somehow? Jacob reminded me of Joran Van Der Sloot (Natalie Holloway case). As a parent do you stand by your child without question (Andy) or does doubt lead to being fearful of your own kid (Laurie). Opposite ends of the same stick and a big part of why I enjoyed this book so much.
@Paul:Yes, he reminded me of Jordan Van Der Sloot also!
"As a parent do you stand by your child without question (Andy) or does doubt lead to being fearful of your own kid (Laurie)"
As a parent, I think there is a 3rd path, (well, there's probably a lot of alternative paths) to dealing with a potential problem like this. You, (the figurative 'You") can stand by your child without ignoring a potential problem. They should have gotten him help/treatment when the psychologist recommended it, but moreover; a problem like this doesn't happen overnight. In a real-life situation, it rarely hits you only when they are teens and suddenly accused of murder! If you're paying attention, you see the signs and work with your child to correct their behavior when they are little. By the time their teens, it's really too late to start parenting. Little by little, over the course of about 18 years, it's you're job to prepare them for life as a functioning member of society.
And I found the whole 'bad-blood' angle rather frustrating and wrong-headed, so I don't think it should have mattered that Laurie didn't know of her husband's past. I don't believe we are pre-destined to specific actions, only more hazy or generally defined basic instincts, aptitudes and impulses which can be channeled in a number of directions.
Mark wrote: "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 ..."I loved that about this book too, Mark. I think it was brilliantly written.
In my opinion it is second only to Presumed Innocent as a legal/thriller. I agree Jacob was a virtual clone of Van Der Sloot. The evidence of guilt was more than enough to convict and satisfy me that Jacob was the killer. And the blood on his bathing suit in Jamaica with the disappearance of the young girl sealed it if ever there was any doubt.I am amazed that so many people gave it a 1 star rating. As a former DA for most of my life, I found the transcripts and trial testimony fascinating. Sure there were liberties taken with some evidentiary rules but that didn't detract from the anguish and tension created by the story. To me this is better than any of Grisham's legal novels.
Dead on, Harold. Thank you
Harold wrote: "In my opinion it is second only to Presumed Innocent as a legal/thriller. I agree Jacob was a virtual clone of Van Der Sloot. The evidence of guilt was more than enough to convict and satisfy me th..."
Grishams latest may be his best
My biggest issue with the book as that the parents DIDN'T DO ANYTHING about Jacob. The psychologist TOLD them that Jacob needed counselling when this was all over, & instead they go on a 2 week vacation AND let him hang out with a girl - alone. They didn't rebuke him when he gave her a false name. Why wasn't he in counselling while awaiting trial?! Why did they NOT know about his Facebook page?! How could they overlook what he can do on his iPod?! Why did they not know about the bullying?! Also, why bring up the "murder gene" idea if we don't even get to hear about it? What was the point in that?!
Jacob was such a two-dimensional character, we didn't even really KNOW him. We didn't know his thoughts on anything.
Then Andy did some "investigating" of his own - because he'd do ANYTHING for his son. Yet, nothing came of it! He did a crap job of investigating -- including barging into someone's house & talking to a minor (which was the most ridiculous conversation ever. He just kept asking poor Derek Yoo the same questions over & over.)
(sorry, didn't like the book, can you tell?!)
Leah I can't agree with you on most of your points but as a lawyer I can try to help with one major point; namely the murder gene.Testimony about such a gene would be inadmissible everywhere in the U.S. if the state were trying to use it to prove that Jacob had a propensity for violence because he had the gene that was inherited (through 4 generations) and therefore is more likely to have killed Rifkin. That's why the judge ordered the prosecution not to bring it up and there was almost a mistrial because he did bring it up once.
There is some science to substantiate that such a gene does exist but for it to be admissible, there must be some expert testimony to prove to the judge that it is sound science and that it is reliable enough for the jury to hear it. BUT THAT WOULD ONLY HAPPEN, if at all,(and I doubt whether it would be at this juncture) if the DEFENSE wanted to use it in their case as some kind of partial mitigation of the crime. In other words if the defense lawyer Jonathan felt that Jacob was likely to be found guilty, he may have changed his strategy and admitted the crime but used the gene as a mitigating or lessening factor to reduce the crime from murder 1 to manslaughter a much less serious crime.
But he never had to make that decision because of the murder of Patz. In truth there has been one court that allowed a defendant to introduce such evidence to reduce his sentence. I hope that explains it.
I think Andy investigated as much as he could because he believed the sex offender did the killing. As you say he committed criminal trespass by going into Derek's home. He was on leave and couldn't order the police to do anything. He was essentially broke and couldn't afford much else. What he did do would have gotten him disbarred in many states. I'm sorry you didn't like it. I loved it.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I believe that his mother was the one who was guilty all along. I believe that she thought she was protecting Jacob so she committed the initial murder. I also believe that she thought that Jacob would never overcome what others believed about him so she intentionally crashed the van at the end to kill him so that she could "relieve" him of the world.