Defending Jacob (34 page)

“The body was lying in a twisted position when you arrived at the scene, is that right, Detective?”

“Yes.”

“So, given the fact the body had been moved, some evidence had been lost even before you arrived. For example, the position of the body can often help you reconstruct the attack itself, isn’t that right?”

“Yes, it is.”

“And when the body is flipped over, the effect of lividity—or the blood settling with gravity—is also reversed. It’s like turning over a sand timer: the blood starts to flow the other way, and the inferences you usually draw from lividity are lost, isn’t that right?”

“Yes. I’m not a forensics expert, but yes.”

“Understood, but you
are
a homicide detective.”

“Yes.”

“And it’s fair to say that, as a general rule, at a murder scene when the body is disturbed or moved, evidence is often lost.”

“Generally true, yes. In this case, there’s no way of knowing if anything was actually lost.”

“Was the murder weapon found?”

“Not that day, no.”

“Was it ever found?”

“No.”

“And besides the single fingerprint on the victim’s sweatshirt, there was nothing at all that pointed to a particular defendant?”

“Correct.”

“And of course the fingerprint was not identified until much later, right?”

“Yes.”

“So the crime scene itself, on that first day, did not yield any evidence that pointed to a particular suspect?”

“No. Just the unidentified fingerprint.”

“So it’s fair to say that at the beginning of the investigation you didn’t have any obvious suspects?”

“Yes.”

“So in that situation, as an investigator, wouldn’t you want to know, wouldn’t it be relevant information that a known, convicted pedophile lived adjacent to that park? A man with a record of sexual assaults on young boys of about the victim’s age?”

“It would.”

I could feel the jury’s eyes on me as they seemed to understand, finally, where Jonathan was going—that he was not simply settling for a series of small hits.

“So it didn’t seem improper or unusual or the slightest bit odd to you when Andy Barber, the defendant’s father, focused his attention on this man, this Leonard Patz?”

“No, it didn’t.”

“In fact, based on what you knew at the time, he wouldn’t be doing his job if he
didn’t
check out this man, would he?”

“No, I don’t think so.”

“And, in fact, you learned in your subsequent investigation that Patz was indeed known to walk in that park in the mornings, isn’t that true?”

“Yes.”

“Objection.” There was not much conviction in Logiudice’s voice.

“Overruled.” Plenty of conviction in the judge’s voice. “You opened the door, Counselor.”

I had always disliked Judge French’s tendency to let his sympathies show. He was a ham, and generally his emoting favored the defense. His courtroom always felt like a home game for the defendant. Now that I was on the defendant’s side, of course, I was delighted to see the judge so openly cheerleading for us. It was an easy ruling, anyway. Logiudice had opened this subject. He could not now prevent the defense from exploring it.

I gestured to Jonathan and he came over to accept a piece of paper from me. When he read it, his eyebrows rose. I had written three questions on the paper. He folded the paper neatly and moved closer to the witness stand.

“Detective, did you ever disagree with any of the decisions Andy Barber made when he was leading the investigation?”

“No.”

“And, in fact, isn’t it true that you also wanted to pursue the investigation against this man, Patz, at the beginning of the investigation?”

“Yes.”

A juror—Fat Somerville Guy, in chair number seven—actually snorted and shook his head.

Jonathan heard that guffaw over his shoulder from the jury box, and he looked like he was about to sit down.

I gave him a look that said,
Go on
.

He frowned. Outside of TV shows, you do not go for the kill on cross-examination. You land a few shots then sit your ass down. The witness, remember, has all the power, not you. Plus, the third line on that page was the archetypal Question You Never Ask On Cross: open-ended, subjective, the sort of question that invites a long, unpredictable answer. To a veteran lawyer, the feeling was like the moment in a horror movie when the babysitter hears a noise in the basement and opens the creaky door to go down and investigate.
Don’t do it!
the audience says.

Do it
, my expression insisted.

“Detective,” he began, “I know this is awkward for you. I’m not asking you to express any opinion about the defendant himself. I understand you have a job to do on that score. But limiting our discussion to the defendant’s father, Andy Barber, whose judgment and integrity has been called into question here—”

“Objection.”

“Overruled.”

“How long have you known the older Mr. Barber?”

“A long time.”

“How long?”

“Twenty years. More, probably.”

“And having known him over twenty years, what is your opinion of him as a prosecutor, with respect to his ability, his integrity, his judgment?”

“We’re not talking about the son? Only the father?”

“That’s right.”

Peterson looked directly at me. “He’s the best they’ve got. The best they used to have, anyway.”

“No further questions.”

No further questions
meaning
Fuck you
. Logiudice would never again focus quite so explicitly on my role in the investigation, though it was a note he touched on a few times in the course of the trial. No doubt, that first day he successfully planted the idea in the jurors’ minds. For the time being, that may have been all he needed to accomplish.

Still, we walked out of the courtroom that afternoon feeling victorious.

It didn’t last.

D
r. Vogel informed us grimly, “I’m afraid I have some rather difficult things to say.”

We had all been feeling drained. The stress of a full day in court leaves you bone-tired and muscle-sore. But the doctor’s gloom put us on red alert. Laurie focused on her with an intent expression, Jonathan with his usual owlish curiosity.

Me: “I promise you, we’re used to bad news. At this point, we’re bulletproof.”

Dr. Vogel avoided my eyes.

In hindsight I hear how ridiculous I must have sounded. We parents often talk with ridiculous bravado when it comes to our kids. We swear that we can take any abuse, beat any challenge. No test is too great. Anything for our kids. But no one is bulletproof, parents least of all. Our kids make us vulnerable.

In hindsight I see too that this meeting was exquisitely timed to break us. Only an hour or so had passed since court had adjourned for the day, and as the adrenaline receded, so did our sense of triumph, leaving us doped, punch-drunk. We were in no shape for bad news.

The scene was Jonathan’s office near Harvard Square. We were seated around the circular oak table in his book-walled library, just the four of us, Laurie and me, Jonathan and Dr. Vogel. Jacob was out in the waiting room with Jonathan’s young associate, Ellen.

When Dr. Vogel turned away from me, when she could not look me in the eye, she must have been thinking,
You think you’re bulletproof? Just wait
.

“How about you, Laurie?” the shrink said in her solicitous, therapeutic voice. “Do you think you can handle this right now?”

“Absolutely.”

Dr. Vogel’s eyes moved over Laurie: her hair, which kinked up like stretched springs, and her complexion, which now looked jaundiced, with dark bags under her eyes. She had lost so much weight, the skin sagged and pouched on her face and her clothes drooped on her bony shoulders. I thought: when did all this deterioration happen? All at once, with the strain of this case? Or gradually, over the years, without my noticing? This was not my Laurie anymore, the brave girl who invented me and who, it now seemed, I had invented for myself. She looked so wasted, in fact, it occurred to me that she was dying before our eyes. The case was consuming her. She was never built for this sort of fight. She had never been hard. She had never had to be. Life never hardened her. It was not her fault, of course, but to me—who felt unbreakable, even this late in the events—Laurie’s fragility was impossibly poignant. I was prepared to be hard for both of us, for all three of us, but there was nothing I could do to protect Laurie from the stress. You see, I could not stop loving her, and I still cannot. Because it is easy to be hard if you have a stony nature. But imagine what it cost Laurie that day as she sat bolt upright at the edge of her chair, gamely focused on the doctor, ready for yet another blow. She never stopped defending Jacob, never stopped analyzing the chessboard, calculating every move and countermove. She never stopped protecting him, even in the end.

Dr. Vogel said, “Why don’t I just explain my conclusions a little bit, then afterward I’ll answer your questions if you have any, okay? I know it’s very, very hard to hear difficult news about Jacob, but brace yourselves for just a few minutes, okay? Just listen, then we can talk.”

We nodded.

Jonathan said, “For the record, none of this is discoverable by the prosecution. You don’t have to worry. Everything we discuss here and everything Dr. Vogel tells you now is privileged. This conversation is absolutely confidential. It never leaves this room. So you can speak frankly, as can the doctor, okay?”

More nodding.

“I don’t understand why we have to do this,” I said. “Jonathan, why do we even have to get into this if our defense is that Jacob didn’t do it at all?”

Jonathan made a V of his hand and stroked his short white beard. “I hope you’re right. I hope the case goes well and we never have to raise this issue.”

“Then why do this?”

Jonathan turned away slightly, dismissing me.

“Why do this, Jonathan?”

“Because Jacob looks guilty.”

Laurie gasped.

“I don’t mean that he
is
guilty, only that there is a lot of evidence against him. The Commonwealth has not put up their strongest witnesses yet. This is going to get harder for us. A lot harder. And when it does, I want to be prepared. Andy, you of all people should understand that.”

“All right,” the doctor said, wading in. “I’ve just given Jonathan my report. Really, it’s an opinion letter, a summary of my conclusions, what I would say if I was ever called to testify and what I think you could expect if this issue ever came up at trial. Now, I wanted to speak with you two alone first, without Jacob. I have not shared my conclusions with Jacob. When this case is over, depending on how it goes, we can have a more meaningful conversation about how to deal with some of these issues in a clinical setting. But for now our concern is not therapy, it is the trial. I was engaged for a specific purpose, as an expert for the defense. So that’s why Jacob is not in the room now. He will have a lot more work to do when the trial is over. But for now we need to speak candidly about him, which may be easier if he’s out of the room.

“There are two disorders that Jacob exhibits pretty clearly, narcissistic personality disorder and reactive attachment disorder. There is some suggestion of an antisocial personality disorder as well, which is a not uncommon comorbidity, but because I’m not as certain of the diagnosis, I haven’t included it in my report.

“It is important to realize that not all the behaviors I’m going to describe are necessarily pathological, even in combination. To some extent every teenager is a narcissist, every adolescent is dealing with attachment issues. It is a matter of degree. We are not talking about a monster here. We’re talking about an ordinary kid—only more so. So I don’t want you to hear this as a condemnation. I want you to
use
the things I’m telling you, not be overwhelmed by them. I want to give you the tools, the vocabulary, to help your son. The point is to understand Jacob better, okay? Laurie? Andy?”

We agreed, obediently, dishonestly.

“Good. Okay, narcissistic personality disorder. This is the one you probably know something about. Its primary characteristics are grandiosity and lack of empathy. In Jacob’s case, the grandiosity does not come across as dramatic or boastful, arrogant, haughty, which is what people commonly associate with it. Jacob’s grandiosity is quieter. It shows up as an inflated sense of self-importance, a conviction he is special, exceptional. Rules that might apply to others do not apply to him. He feels he is not understood by his peers, especially the other kids at school, with a few select exceptions whom Jacob identifies as special like him, usually based on their intelligence.

“The other key aspect of
NPD
, especially in the context of a criminal case, is lack of empathy. Jacob exhibits an unusual coldness toward others, even—and this surprised me, given the context—even for Ben Rifkin and his family. When I asked Jacob about it in one of our sessions, his response was that people die every day by the millions; that car crashes are statistically more significant than murder; that soldiers kill thousands more and get medals for it—so why should we worry about one murdered boy? Even when I tried to lead him back to the Rifkins and prodded him to express some sort of feeling for them or for Ben, he couldn’t or wouldn’t do it. All of which fits a pattern of incidents you have described throughout Jacob’s childhood in which other children have been injured around him, children flying off jungle gyms and being knocked off bicycles and so forth.

“He seems to regard other people not just as less significant than himself, but as less human. He cannot see himself mirrored in others in any way. He cannot seem to imagine that others have the same universal human feelings that he does—pain, sadness, loneliness—which is a sensitivity that ordinary adolescents have no trouble understanding at this age. I won’t belabor the point. The relevance of these feelings in a forensic context is obvious. Without empathy, anything is permitted. Morality becomes very subjective and flexible.