Certain aspects of the story make me feel it is probably a fabrication. In particular, he glosses over the hours the kid spends at public school (no public school is THAT structured), and he doesn’t seem to have an IEP in place, which would be outrageous under the circumstances, if they existed.
I read a few entries.
They just scream “fake.”
We Need to Talk About Kevin seemed more realistic to me, and I knew that was fiction when I was reading it.
The defenders mostly seem to take the stance of “But there are pathological kids out there! I have/know one, and they’ve done all these terrible things!” And I’m sure they have, but that doesn’t reflect on Harry/Lucas. What Harry describes does not seem terrible.
The weird thing is even though I don’t think it’s true, is that I’d assume that most people writing something as sensationalist as this would add in graphic or violent details. Even the Bad Seed which was written decades ago had some death. There’s no hint of animal torturing. Mostly it seems to be stuff like taking kids’ toys and not bringing home his schoolwork and lying. Which would be frustrating if you were the parent, but I don’t see sociopathy there. And my first thought wouldn’t be that he’s probably going to become a rapist before he’s in high school.
Also, I feel like we were supposed to be more disturbed about the masturbating with animals thing than I was. And Harry really did freak out over that. To be honest, if I were ripping up animals to use as a masturbatory aid, I’d probably lie about it too–it’s not like the kid can just go out and buy a vagina sleeve.
Did you skip the post where he said Lucas broke into a neighbor’s house, rifled through their underwear drawer, masturbated and took photos of his erect penis, and left the photos for the neighbor to see? That’s not what I would call “normal” behavior.
True, but the guy seems to have made up his mind that Lucas was a psycho well before that incident. And while the neighbor’s house story is creepy, I just don’t see that that’s necessarily psychopathic.
The guy updated his blog so I thought I’d post it again. Apparently “Lucas” is going to be in a facility with less security.
Though I was actually going to post again even if there hadn’t been an update. I’m fascinated! The updated blog gave me an excuse.
The last lines of the blog post:
are so incredibly hokey that this HAS to be some kind of fake, or a viral tie in, or something.
There is just something off about the blog. He goes into far too much detail about the diagnostic criteria for Psychopath. It seems way too focused on the sexual nature of Luther’s problems, or perhaps those are Luther’s only problems. I don’t really understand how this kid has been in trouble for so long just based on the actions described in the blog. A lot of the actions represented were wrong and/or creepy, but I don’t see “lock him up and throw away the key” stuff.
The biggest red flag I see is that the author keeps on trying to put the most negative light on Luther’s actions. My understanding of Psychopaths is that they usually do something majorally fucked up. Like throwing a cat into a furnace to see what happens.
I see sexual deviant, not psychopath.
It also seems like the sexual stuff really creeps out the writer. I agree that thinking of your relatives doing sex type things is sort of weird but the blogger seems to think that masturbating with the stuffed toy is this incredibly perverse thing. And that ripping up “Tiger” (the toy) is akin to raping it or something. I’d just file it under “Kid experimenting with masturbation.” I’ve gone through my share of vibrators myself, and I know it’s not quite the same but that’s because kids can’t just go buy a sex toy–sometimes they have to experiment with what they can find.
As has been mentioned, spying on people by making holes in the wall seems really weird (what is their wall made from?). And how could he stare at the mom in the bathroom under the door?
I think it’s genuine. I work in the juvenile court system and the procedures and reports all ring true to me.
All right, that last one got to me. What he’s describing, talking about Lucas knowing he shouldn’t run into the street after the ball, describes the experience of almost any teenager.
My son’s school (note: a normal high school for normal children) offered a 3-session class on adolescent development, and one of the things we learned was that at various and unpredictable times during adolescence the prefrontal cortex actually goes dark. Whatever stuff is contained therein is inaccessible to the adolescent, at that moment. And that is one reason they do super-dumb stuff and you when ask them why they just look puzzled and say, “I dunno.”
And a lot of them do it. That doesn’t make them psychopaths. Lucas is quite a bit more extreme in some of them, but it sounds like he’s being described by someone who’s extremely prejudiced to see the worst.
I have had a friend and a coworker who attempted to parent kids who were adopted when older, having been more or less ruined by their parents. Attachment disorder, you bet. They all sounded much the same as Lucas in some respects, but were much worse in others–a lot more angry and violent. This father seems to assume it’s as bad as it can be (“Someday he will kill us for a cookie”) and that is not very helpful in the long run, although it probably will make him feel better.
But you don’t think that the blogger is reading a LOT into some pretty normal behavior?
He thinks that Lucas has a grandiose, over inflated sense of self worth from this:
Don’t most nonpsycho people consider themselves to be pretty good, even great, people?
He also says:
Don’t countless kids have that problem? It seems more like poor study habits/not getting the idea of studying than it is about being a psychopath.
There are a few other posts about the schoolwork problem. There was one where he was supposed to get a reward if he did all his homework or brought home straight A’s, and he didn’t. Again, that seems pretty normal to me. Not necessarily good, but not all that out of the ordinary for a young preteen/teen boy.
Lucas will be OK as long as he follows The Code of Harry.
<couldn’t resist>
Yes, they do. My daughter has ADHD with a Learning Disability. Even when we do check that her homework is done it occasionally doesn’t get turned in because somehow it gets lost between home and school. She also thinks she’s reading better than she often is because she makes context assumptions and fills in the wrong word(s) in a sentence. She’s certainly not a psychopath. Frustrating, yes. Psychopath, no.
If this is genuine, then the kid has serious issues. The cell phone story alone shows that. That is simply not something that 99.999% of kids would ever do. just because the kid does other things that aren’t necessarily psychopathic, but which the author portrays as such, doesn’t mean the kid’s not seriously disturbed. But why does it have to be one or the other? How about: the kid is totally messed up in his own way, as is the father in his.
Psychopaths have to come from somewhere. They are not that uncommon (not all of them are serial murderers). It is entirely plausible that the somebody, somewhere would be blogging about raising a psychopath.
I’d be more incredulous if it had been something like “Raising conjoined twins”. Either way, who cares, it may be fictional, but not incredible.
Why? Conjoined twins are easier to prove than psychosis. Granted, the photos could be faked, or not his kids, but the psychosis charge seems to depend a lot on perception, while twins are either conjoined or not.
And this guy lost me as soon as he “had to force” the kid to write a letter to Santa. If he’s going to set the bar for normal behavior that rigidly, I’m not sure the kid failing to reach it makes him broken.
I fully realize that this could be faked, but I’m still leaning toward genuine, with the father not necessarily writing everything that goes into his perceptions and descriptions. If I were faking this blog, I think I’d be able to do a much more detailed and credible job than this, and I’m a fairly mediocre writer.
I do question how he was able to see his mother under the bathroom door. In the interests of science, I just tested it out. We have a hallway door to the living room that is 1 1/2 inches off the floor, much higher than usual because of high-pile carpeting that was removed. I quietly crept up behind the door while my family was watching a basketball game on TV. Lying on the floor, it was impossible for me to see a thing besides feet. So I brought over a small mirror. I could see everything easily. No one noticed me there. I called to my family to look over, and they could instantly and easily see the mirror, even when I pulled it back as far as I could and still be able to see anything. Then I confirmed the results with a limber 16-year-old boy, just in case I’m too old and decrepit to prove a meaningful sample of one. He confirmed that he couldn’t see a thing either. So the only way the son would be able to see anything of value under the bathroom door would be with a mirror, but it would be risky as the mom might notice. But then, too, perhaps just the sounds of what he knew was taking place behind the door could have been enough for him. So it’s possible that it happened, but he either had to have used a mirror or he was simply listening to her and looking at her feet.
Really? The one thing I noticed was a lot of spelling errors- except they were usage errors rather than spelling errors- they were the kind that spellcheck might not catch.