Defending Jacob question

I was pretty sure that he was guilty the entire time. Little creep.

Although there were parts of the book I didn't enjoy, this part, where we never find out Jacobs guilt or innocence, is what made the book good. Readers were politely left to draw their own conclusions.

I liked the reader who pointed out the long night of some animal being tortured to death. I admit it never occurred to me it was the son, Jacob, but now it makes sense. I agree with that assessment.

As for Jacobs guilt I find him innocent of Ben's murder but guilty of Hope's. Jacob was definitely a young man with serious problems and an unchecked parental license to do his own thing. Yes, I do think the parents should have been more like parents and less like friends but, I by no means believe what Jacob became, a murderer, puts the blame on them. Each person is responsible for themselves and have their own agency to act or react. No one can make someone good or bad, each person does that for themselves.

Anyway, as for Ben, I just didn't think the evidence was their to prove guilt. All the points Lisa gave are my opinion as well. Still, he was a disturbed boy, and though I don't think he committed the Ben murder I do believe he romanticized murder. I think the whole trial was a quick crash course for Jacob into becoming a murder not just in thought but in deed as well. He was prepared. And when Hope presented herself, well........ he couldn't resist. He was in another country, using an assumed name. It was the perfect opportunity to test out the waters of killing. In the end Laurie knew. She only suspected and worried it was possible at first, because it was a possibility but not a fact. The murder of Hope was proof. Laurie knew and by then, I'm pretty sure mom was right.

Glad I found this conversation. I just finished the book a week ago (read it for a book club). I do think Jacob was guilty and just had zero remorse for anything. I think he was a seriously screwed up kid. I felt bad for the mom, and Andy, besides being a stick in the mud, had his head buried in the sand at anything to do with his family. It did bother me, that the night during the trial that Andy and Laurie heard an animal being tortured and they didn't go investigate...head in the sand again. I think that was Jacob. And yes, he killed the girl in Jamaica. I felt bad for Laurie but wow the end still surprised me...

Of course Jacob was guilty. His father was guilty of loving him to the point of losing objectivity. As a lawyer, I understand.

As I said in my review: "We often forget that we are each the direct descendants of those who survived this brutal place we call earth."

As the mother of a 14-year-old boy, this was a very rough, but gripping read. Not only did I have a nightmare last night about my boy being killed like Ben Rifkin in the book. (Totally terrifying. Worst dream ever. In the morning, I went in his room and he tolerated my hugs and kisses as I rejoiced in waking up in a world where he was ok. Gawd. it was the worst dream.) Not only the nightmares, but the fear that I have NO idea how I'd react. Granted, I don't have any grounds for doubt, as Lori, as he repeatedly demonstrates concern and empathy for people and animals (Even as I write this he's taking care of a baby bunny his cat brought.) If he'd demonstrated the opposite behavior most of his life, as Jacob had, I don't know what I'd do. My dad would fight to the bitter end for any of us - but is that right?

I feel our responsibility as citizens and parents is to pay attention to our kids. We live in a society of "everyone gets a trophy" and at the same time parents expect their kids to be perfect - this class and that class and these grades and that sport - and when they fall short, they are shamed, more often just diminished, or the failings are glossed over. Parents today put so much of their own success on their kids, that they end up living or dying by their kids success or failure.

Paying attention - not to what we think they should be or what we want them to be, but WHO THEY ARE is so important, and so easy if we pull our egos out of it. (I've written on this before - https://yellingunderavalanches.wordpr...) Loving our kids isn't enough, we need to know them.

Lori and Andy - Lori knew her kid, and ignored it. Andy loved him, but didn't know him. That's a perfect storm.

Final comment - most gut-wrenching closing sentence of any book I've EVER read. it will be a long time before I can get that out of my ears.

I think he was guilty. But hated the ending. Chickens way out. think his mother was as damaged (in the end) as he was. Sad.

I just finished this book, and my thoughts while reading it were, at first, Jacob seems more and more guilty. But then, less so.

A few things that don't make sense to me with regard to the Rifkin murder -- (1)Jacob had no blood on him (except for his thumb) and he was seen by many classmates right after the murder occurred, yet no one suspected anything amiss. (2)Jacob was able to kill a bigger, tougher kid, who did not fight back at all (3) The words the Rifkin kid was heard to say -- "stop, you're hurting me" sounds like he's begging for mercy from an authority figure and/or person bigger than himself.

Still it was too big a coincidence when Hope turned up dead too. So I really don't know what to think.

I wasnt sure he was guilty until the end. Im not a mother but i feel like my mother knows me better than i know myself. A mothers know their children and what their child are capable of doing.

I don't know. All the incriminating evidence against Jacob comes from one source Darryl Yoo (i think was his name). But Darryl was not scared of him, and was still his friend. Darryl never heard him threaten to kill anyone or act violent. He admitted Jacob never said he wrote the story about the murder.

We never were allowed to see Jacobs real character, his emotions, his thoughts. How do we know hes a killer? We get a skewed version of Jacob from his father who is so scared of his past he sees nothing clearly.

Lastly, the character of the mother was strange. Andy never saw her as she really was, just some savior who rescued him. it seems she was neurotic, everything needed to be perfect. The perfect family or she was beyond upset. With the psychiatrist she immed threw her son to the wolves and was only worried how it made her look as a mother. When she kills her son, i felt it was all about her. It put her out of her misery. Her whole life was about her. The perfect wife, perfect mother, leader of all the mothers at school, etc.

I don't think we can say he was guilty with the shallow picture we were presented.

We will be discussing Defending Jacob tonight at my book club. We shall see what the consensus is here...

I believed he was innocent up until the murder on vacation. Then I believed he was guilty of both. I think the mother was more objective than the father and believed he was gulity, but took his life moreso out of fear of what his life would become - of always being an outsider and never finding a "real life" anywhere, as well as feeling guilt herself over the 2nd death and not wanting to see future deaths. The attempt to take both lives - hers and his - was the only fair way she could think for the two of them to be ended. She was with him when he died, and he felt love in the end, which he would not have felt from prision. She could not live with the knowledge of what he was. I thought it was a fitting ending.

I thought Jacob was guilty early on. Andy was doing more than protecting his son, he was fixing evidence and attempting to shape the story. I agree with others' comments that he had his head in the sand, but perhaps he felt some responsibility because of his own father's guilt.

Jacob was an unlikeable child and did exhibit some behaviors that led me to believe in his guilt. I read this book some time ago, and one scene stands out in my mind. It's when the family goes grocery shopping and runs into the victim's family. Andy attempted to approach these people which absolutely shocked me. They seemed to have the false assumption that if their son was proved to be not guilty, they could continue their lives in that town. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

I think the mother's stress and subsequent action was fueled not only by the trial but by Andy's bullheaded blindness to what was going on.

But yeah, that Jacob was guilty and we probably only know half of what craziness he had gotten up to before that first murder.

I do believe it's true that when a person, Andy in this case, decides not to see something specific, i.e. that is the son of a murder, and then deal with that through some form of therapeutic activity, that the person looses the ability to see other things. In this case what Andy couldn't see was both himself, Jacob-and Laurie. Andy responds to the case with a series of unethical behaviors; lying about his past, tampering with evidence, repeated lying, etc. Still, I think it was Andy that killed Ben. Andy's ethical problems lead me to believe that he's an unreliable narrator; that he somehow learned Ben was bullying Jacob and he killed Ben to make that stop.

With all the talk about the "murder gene" I think it's reasonable to assume from a plot standpoint that the influence of the gene plus environment wouldn't skip a generation.

I do think that Jacob killed Hope however, having learned a great deal from the investigation and trial process how to beat the rap, so to speak.

I think he definitely was guilty. I mean with the whole set up between Andy's father and that sexual predator.. also the fact that Hope was dead and there was some evidence of her windpipe being crushed.. plus Jacob was reading all of those stories online. I think he definitely did it.

What is largely absent from most comments is how difficult it is to know for sure if someone is absolutely, 100% guilty. That's why capital punishment bothers me: I think there's almost always more room for doubt about someone's guilt than the numbers on death rows would seem to indicate.

The reason why I liked the book is because it made me think about how hard it is to be objective about a person's behavior, especially when it's someone we care about.

Another question I'd like to discuss is: why did the mother do what she did at the end? What did she think she was accomplishing? Was she still trying to protect her son by not allowing people to know for sure what he'd done? Did she find it impossible to go on living with the knowledge that her son was a murderer? And does her act mean that she actually did believe that he was the murderer?

Interesting questions.

My immediate reaction was that the mother committed both murders. Protecting her son from a bully. The murder of hope was curious. Was the mother the crazy one or her son known to her as the murderer?

I felt Jacob was guilty. I loved the portrayal of both parents and different ways of reacting to their suspicions of their son's guilt. I think the author did a great job of portraying the complexities of human emotion in dealing with something like this portrayed by both parents. In my real life work I deal with prisoners and more than once I have met mothers of adult children who committed horrific crimes that end of completely socially isolated due to judgements they experience from everyone as well as judging themselves many not even leaving their homes for years. I think the parents of Jacob suffered in a different way than victims parents but they still suffered.

I think perhaps they could have got help for Jacob earlier in his life but it might not have made any difference at all to the outcome - there are no certainties. I liked how the author left it up to reader to decide. It always easier to look back and say - perhaps if we did this or that the outcome might have been different - but who can ever know. Other people have spent years getting help for their children who still go on to hurt other people. And what is "help" anyway. Every psychologist and psychiatrist could have a different diagnosis and treatment method and all would think they are correct and it all just theory and guessing and well intentioned but nature of human beings and motivations and intentions are so complex - it all just educated guessing. I think it must be hell to have a child murdered and hell to be the parent of a murderer.

So many things in this book to like, e.g. Landay's simile of the criminal justice system as a meat grinder (which, sadly, I suspect is true). Whatever the ambiguities were in Jacob's he certainly doesn't seem to have much respect for our legal system - that it's as much about politics as it is about justice. My feelings about Jacob were affected by the defense legal expert's harsh and unflattering appraisal of him. If it had come to trial, the Hope murder evidence would likely not have been allowed, and I'm not sure how I would have voted, had I been on the jury. Andy's vehement faith in, and Laurie's suspicions of their son was a wonderful sketch of strong emotions and tensions in an intimate relationship. One thing I found fascinating was these two parents, whose lives were absolutely taken hostage by their son's actions, and his apparent detachment from it all, including them. It was a terrific read, and I vote guilty.

I felt pretty sure he was guilty !

Yes, in my opinion. I liked how our "evidence" of his disturbed behavior came mostly from sources outside of his family through the sessions with the psych, Andy's renegade detective work and court testimony.

His mother knew... his father couldn't face knowing. His zeal in making Jacob over into a normal child and dismissing anything to the contrary (including his wife's point of view) was consistent thorough out the book. Laurie was left isolated by her fear of Jacob's guilt, her guilt of being a bad mother and the lost trust in her husband.

But I love that the book allows the reader to draw their own conclusion.

I wasn't sure until the thug admitted to beating the confession out of the pedo. Then I felt sure. And there was the "cutting room" post, as well as the very disturbing revelation by his friend that he tortured a stray dog to death. Then of course the shades Joran van der Sloot when the young lady went mysteriously missing and then came up dead on a family vacation. Yes, I think he did it. I think the kid was a psychopath and he killed two times. I think it's hard to avoid that conclusion.

I am pretty sure he was guilty.

I was never fully convinced either way, which is exactly the way I think the author wanted it. My book club read this book and it created so much conversation and divided views. The author kept presenting equal evidence to both sides, it was tough to feel 100% guilty or not. I would def love to ask the author some questions :)

He was guilty. I really liked the book. I like it when it keeps me guessing until the end.

I don't think you are even supposed to be in doubt of his guilt once you know his grandfather "fixed" the death of the molester.

I started to wonder if Andy was going to somehow be infiltrated in the killings. he has the killer gene too. I thought that jacob was innocent but then when we learn of O'Leary's involvement in patz's death I suspected jacob. then the death in jamaica confirmed that. I'd like to read the book from Laurie's side of things. She is a frail weak person from Andy's perspective. She knew the truth all along while he was totally blind to it

Also, I remember mention of Patz having a knife like the one Jacob had – Patz used it for Ben's murder, and then Jacob took it from him to hide it and cover for him.

My theory is that the new kid Patz was going after was actually Jacob (notice all the references to Jacob being a "fag"). Jacob agreed and started seeing Patz, and they were caught one morning by Ben. Ben obviously would have never stopped teasing/bullying Jacob for that, so Patz took care of the problem. This accounts for the theories of the attacker being larger than Ben, and it gives a plausible motive. Jacob was bent towards murder after witnessing Ben's and after learning about his own family history.

I found it interesting that with all the concern that Andy had passed the "murder gene" on to Jacob, in the end it was the mother that demonstrated the ability to kill - and her own son, no less.

Wow did this book disturb me. I hate it that this family was so messed up when they were trying so hard to live and love well. It actually hurts. So many questions and dilemnas to sort out - family genetic history, unconditional parental love, a child without a moral compass that got to explore stuff that shouldn't have even existed, let alone be so available. He did it. Ben's murder, the animal torture, the S&M killing of Hope. Horrible. The Mom, who finally got it and had to stop the possibility of more the only way she knew how. Completely destroyed, yet has to continue to breathe. Dad - :-(. I so wanted Jacob to be innocent, not just for that ficticious famlily, but for us, for me. The only way for me to get past the tragedy of our fallen state is to look up and know redemption is possible.

YES HE IS!
and I pitied his parents..

I think he was my perception of the end was that at the end the mother thought she was being merciful to her son she could not live with herself knowing that her son was genetically predisposed to the MAOA. Gene which may have contribute to his violent behavior she blamed her self and that was the last selfless act for the love of her son.

Jacob was guilty.

I don’t remember responding to this. I think I did, but he was absolutely positively guilty. Make no mistake. Dad was clouded by over loving, as was mom at first. As we all would be. But after the island incident Mom woke up. She couldn’t admit a word. She had to take action. She did just that. Removing a psychopath from society, as well as herself because who could live with that guilt? With knowing, without their beloved child?! Dad chose to ignore a lot of “ I am totally guilty “ signs. But I wonder as a mother of 2 boys, would I? Or would I be as strong as Jacobs mother. Ugh. No one ever wants to go there. Great book though. Could be discussed forever. Message me if you’d like to chat more about it.

I don’t think it was the mother, at least definitely not the first kill. She had no motive or time. Who would set their own son up. Impossible. Whoever suggested that cannot possibly have kids. Yes we could kill for them, but never let it come back to them in any way. Cannot be mother. It was Jacob.

Absolutely

I just finished this book yesterday and I was curious to think what other people thought about who was guilty and who was innocent and there are some things brought up that I didn't really think of. But I honestly thought the dad did it just because of the murder gene, and how he said he had never hurt a fly. And because he was a DA, he knew the ins and outs of the legal system, when and what evidence to get rid of and just because he was so sure his son did not do it. Also, he knew how to answer questions correctly so people never suspected his guilt. And the scene at the end when Ben's dad had that knife and Andy said he recognized it, that just stuck out for me and made me think Andy did it. I then think that Jacob did kill Hope because he was constantly fantasizing about murder and after going through the whole trial, he was so tempted to. He was in a foreign country and he was unknown so he took the opportunity. I was disappointed with the ending at first, how Jacob's mom killed him but now it makes sense. She knew he killed Hope, deep down. So she wanted Jacob to know during his last minutes of life that he was with someone who truly loved him, rather than having to be in prison his whole life. I think all three of them committed crimes, all because of that "murder gene", it being ironic how all three of them did something. That's just my interpretation!

I thought he was guilty throughout most of the book, but towards the end, I wondered if his friend Derek Yoo, who gave the police all the clues, might have actually been the guilty one, which would have been an ironic twist.

I also wondered from the last sentence if Andy had tampered with the car, but I doubt it. Even if he admitted to himself that Jacob was guilty, he wouldn't have have sacrificed his wife.

its complicated. the book doesn't give any concrete answers. though i would like to believe that Jacob was innocent, I feel like i'm fighting a losing battle.

This entire family was a mess. I love that the ending was open to interpretation, but there were a few too many vague things thrown in to throw the reader off guard. I am wondering if Laurie was actually this revered leader of the moms that Andy said she was, or if that was him being in denial, too. Andy will clearly go to great lengths to be right. As a DA, he had to know how damaging his behavior was, but he kept saying he was doing it for Jacob and didn't relent. At the first visit with the psychiatrist, Laurie was asking questions and bringing up pieces of his childhood that clearly showed she believed he had done it. And perhaps she blamed Andy? They had even discussed taking Jacob to a shrink, but never did. So Andy was able to stay living in denial about everything. Perhaps he was more domineering and emotionally bullying than he lets on in his retelling. He's shown himself unethical and unreliable. Laurie, being the child of a therapist and having an active interest in psychology, would have known some things to be concerned about but in the end they never got him help. You would think a mother would fight for her child and to get him help. They could afford it. But she relented throughout his childhood. What does this say about their marriage and relationship? Also, they mentioned there weren't a lot of play dates. One can draw the conclusion that if a toddler was behaving badly enough or hurting other kids that the parents would be viewed in a certain manner. So maybe Laurie wasn't the leader of all the wives the way Andy said. Maybe she had her own neuroses going on that made her want even more for everything to seem perfect. Both parents at some point say they did everything right, everything they were supposed to, etc., and then felt it unfair this happened. I think that clearly points to both of them (even if subconsciously) pointing out they believe he's guilty.
I am bothered by what Matt said about Patz and about the, "Stop, you're hurting me." To me, unless that was Jacob saying it to Ben and then stabbing in self-defense, it points to Ben saying it to someone older and bigger. So an authority figure or Patz. If it had been self-defense, Jacob wouldn't have been able to play it so cool the entire time. What if Jacob did it in self-defense, but the whole thing threw him over the edge and he embraced being a killer once he got away with it or was just too overwhelmed with curiosity about killing and finding out he could have a "gene" for it?

I think he was guilty. All the evidence points that way. Once we knew for sure that Patz was set up by O'leary, it seemed very obvious that Jacob was guilty.

Also...Jacob's explanation of that fingerprint being there is total BS. He claims that he saw Ben and rolled him over, but when the jogger saw him he was lying facedown and SHE rolled him over. So his explanation for that is obviously a lie. Patz might have been interested in Ben, but I don't think he did it. He tried to befriend Matt, I don't know if his prior crime point to him being a killed, still sick, but not a killer.

I didn't like that whole line about "stop you're hurting me." After one stab I would expect the kid to scream or something. 'stop you're hurting me' sounds like somebody was twisting his arm or something, not stabbing him in the chest three brutal times.

Wish I could answer that Cory but I read it two years ago and I forget. But, do you really think Jacob's mother would have committed a murder/suicide unless she was totally convinced beyond any doubt that her son was a sadistic and brutal killer? Could she have been wrong? I think she knew her child better than anyone and was realistic enough to know that her father-in law saved him from a certain conviction.

Jacob was creep who killed Hope and Ben.

I just finished the book about an hour ago and I immediately needed more answers. Did Jacob kill both Ben and Hope? I had really hoped the whole time that he was innocent but after reading all of these comments... his guilt seems hard to disprove.

For the people who think that Andy killed Ben, I am wondering how that could be so. Yes, he is a slightly unreliable narrator because of his blatant lack of respect for evidence (smashing Jacob's iPod, throwing his knife away) and how he turns a blind eye to all of the clues that point to Jacob (The Cutting Room article, knife in his drawer, blood on his hand, ignoring his psychological issues that his friend Derek Yoo obviously saw). However, what would be his motive? Andy only found out that Jacob was being bullied by Ben after Ben was killed, and Andy seems to genuinely think that Jacob is a normal kid throughout the whole book, so why would Andy think that anything was wrong with Jacob socially? Wrong enough to have to kill a 14 year old kid? Unless Andy was toying with the reader the whole time and actually saw Jacob's disturbing traits but hid it from the reader the whole time in order to move the spotlight away from him. But I think that idea is too farfetched.

However, as someone previously mentioned, the "Stop, You're hurting me!" comment makes me think that he was being attacked by someone bigger and stronger than he. Still, that doesn't necessarily mean Andy did it. Could have been Patz, the person actually accused of the crime.

Even when I found out that O'Leary possibly forced the confession and murdered Patz, I still didn't really think Jacob was guilty. Sure he was a messed up kid but I still believed he was innocent. But when Hope washed up dead on the shore with a possible broken windpipe, I started to reconsider my own personal verdict.

After reading everyone's comments and rethinking all of the evidence (especially the "cat fight" outside that night, which I never suspected anything of but now I feel was certainly Jacob), I do think that Jacob was guilty of both murders. I thoroughly enjoyed this book for this very reason. It gets the reader thinking about the characters and what it means to truly be innocent. I loved the ending and how it really showed how far a mother would go to protect her child (even though it may not seem like she was protecting him at first glance). I too wish that we saw some guilt or remorse from Jacob, but that isn't a realistic quality of a sociopath or a serial killer and so I believe the author realized this and did a good job of keeping Jacob's character realistic.
Great book, one of the best I've read in a while!!

I didn't finish reading all your comments but I just finished the book
Thanks very much for pointing out about the cat being tortured or whatever. I was wondering "what is the point of this?" Now I know. I think in a way it was like "The Bad Seed" and I do agree with the person who said it was too vague. I think Jacob would have had more blood on him but that might have just been something that just didn't make sense. Also, how can someone who stabs a victim 3 times get them precisely in the same line in a row? Wouldn't the victim move or falk down making much less precision of the wounds being more crooked? Sometimes during the book I thought it was his dad because he knew Ben was bullying him and wanted to put an end to it. The vague part I mean is that jacob never really said anything in his own defense not even to his parents. Why wouldn't he??? Since it seemed so likely it was Jacob, that's what made me think it was his dad. And for a minute towards the end, I was thinking it was Lori who killed Hope but for what readon I wasn't sure since it was now her being the defendant to the Grand Jury. If I remember they discussed the victim being Hope first, before mention of Jacob. The twists at the end did get me so I was excited to keep listening. Last thing I want to say, do you think they would indight Lori and if so, would she be found guilt of murdering Jacob. It's like the crime you get away with but of course you will commit another that you won't. Oh I know onw more thing, did anyone think that when the father lost his temper, he had "the murder gene"?

His mother thought so!

I ended the book thinking he was guilty

Absolutely !!!

I felt that he was guilty throughout the whole book but wanted to believe that I was wrong. Sadly, I don't believe I was and I do believe that Jacob was guilty.

This book was sooo annoying: repeating the same limited evidence, delaying chasing up obvious leads or making the kid answer the tough questions. It was so frustratingly evasive. How could the father just get away with tossing the knife. It was way too drawn out for two thirds of the book and then raced through the girl's death and the totally unbelieveable ending. What a shocker...