Review: The Family Next Door by John Glatt
Like most true crime cases, âThe Family Next Doorâ is a dark story. Anyone easily triggered by discussions of child abuse and neglect, I urge you not to read this book.Â
This review, as most of mine, are a compilation of my thoughts and unofficially educated opinions from the case. I take the decades of true crime observations and make potentially obvious connections to the facts put forward. I agree itâs a jumble but helpful if youâre considering this book or want a peek into the case if youâre unfamiliar.
âThe Family Next Doorâ is about the horrible abuses that 13 children faced behind closed doors, inflicted by their parents, Louise and David Turpin. From the beginning, rang bells of similarity to Gabriel Fernandez and his murder. Like the eight-year-old child, the growing thirteen Turpin children were kept away from the public but there were multiple chances for them to be saved if only people took their heads out of the sand. For neighbors, watching a dozen children pacing their house throughout the entire night, every night: What the hell did you think they were doing? You had enough brain cells to know those were children. You knew enough to go âhuh thatâs weirdâ.For the few teachers that Jennifer (the eldest child) had, a very dirty child was in your presence every day: Why werenât there phone calls to the police? Where was your natural desire to give a shit for a child that obviously needed it? Unlike Gabrielâs case, no one died, but years of abuse couldâve been stopped. For anyone reading this who sees something suspicious or concerning repeatedly with children: itâs okay to call the police. The worst that could happen is you inconvenience them. The best is that you save a child.
The term âHouse of Horrorsâ is used to discuss this case. Itâs not an original term and maybe itâs because Iâve seen it in other cases that I hate itâs been reused here. The most notable was for the 2013 case of Michelle Knight, Amanda Berry, and Gina DeJesus, who were held captive for eleven years. I wonât name their abuser. He doesnât deserve it. But through some of the worst abuse Iâve ever heard and for all three of them to survive, âHouse of Horrorsâ fits. Maybe it has to do with my natural need to rank things in my brain.
I was familiar with this case. I was a teenager when the news broke. I couldnât remember the details that were released. The abuse of thirteen children (ranging from 2 to 29 at the time of rescue) was senseless and uncomfortable. Weâre used to hearing about sexual abuse and more vicious physical abuse. Yes, the Turpin children were physically abused and I take nothing away from their ability to survive. To build an image, it was repetitive âsmallâ abuses that left children scared of their parents, probably waiting for someone to blow their gasket. Like when Louise Turpin (the main perpetrator of abuse in California) blew up, choking her daughter, Jordan and threatened her life for watching a Justin Bieber video.
If youâre familiar with what can lead to people committing crime, there are moments in a personal history where you can almost pinpoint the brain trauma or what leads to their future path. Louise Turpin, the childrenâs mother, was sexually abused by her maternal grandfather, John, her entire young life. She kept herself acting as his main target, shielding her younger sisters. Itâs said that Louise had maternal behaviour with her younger sisters. Her mother, Phillis, was given money by her father for allowing the assaults. The girls knew their mother was being paid, being prostituted to their grandfather. When Louise was 14, her grandmother walked in during the abuse and in anger, delivered a blow to her husbandâs head with a frying pan. This leads to the pair divorcing but you have to look at the situation with a question mark. Itâs a logical assumption that her husband had abused their own daughters. So was she that naive to have never noticed or did she just ignore it?Â
Transitioning from the sexual abuse, Louise was groomed from the age of ten by David Turpin, eight years her junior. He admits to first being attracted to her at that age. Just to make it blunt, David was eighteen. At her age of fifteen, they ran away and eloped. The couple wouldnât return to their hometown until her parents promised not to press charges against David. Louiseâs father, originally against the idea of his daughter dating a man, gave her up without a fight. Louise was repeatedly thrown to the wolves in her childhood. What made it worse was those wolves were supposed to be her protectors. Itâs no wonder her concept of love was warped from such a young age.
The childhood of David Turpin was unremarkable other than his odd haircut, choice of clothing, and his extreme intellect that led to well paying jobs. His family was generational high within the church and that influence showed in how David raised his children. His brother became a reverend, writing a book about the importance of fasting to a relationship with god. Itâs suggested David used this book as a loose foundation for his ideals of raising his kids.
When Louise and David had their first children Jennifer and Joshua, it was like a switch flipped inside of Louise. It was as if she realized sheâd spent her childhood taking care of her sisters and now she had to do it again with her children. This time, she didnât want to. Yes, Jennifer attended school until the third grade, but she was never clean or truly taken care of.Â
In my personal opinion, I think with the unresolved childhood trauma and Davidâs religious manipulation, Louise dealt with postpartum psychosis. The more children the couple had, the worse her mental condition got. When they eventually got to trial (because, spoiler, they got caught), she was diagnosed with histrionic personality disorder. She perfectly fits the symptoms, but it makes me wonder if it evolved from PPP as her hypersexuality didnât manifest until she turned forty. John Glatt, the author of the book, called it a âmidlife crisisâ which I donât agree with.Â
However, this is absolutely no excuse for the decades of abuse she inflicted on her children.Â
During the preliminary trial in June of 2018, David Turpinâs defense lawyers did the obvious and tried to separate him from the abuse conducted by Louise. Their biggest argument was pointing out David was at work for most of the day. During the childrenâs police interviews, they were asked and said he didnât inflict abuse while in California. It was noted by the prosecution that the children were just as terrified of their father as they were of their mother. Both Louiseâs and Davidâs attorneys tried to get any evidence that was carried over from the family living in Texas dismissed. They claimed it was irrelevant, happening in a different state. From a nonbias perspective, it makes sense for the defense to try and get that evidence thrown out. Without that history, their clients, especially David, have a better chance at lesser sentences. Because letâs be honest, there was no way they were getting let go without punishment.
The only charge I thought had potential of being dropped was the lewd act committed by David Turpin against his daughter, Jordan. There was a very definitive story of what happened (other than if her pants were pulled down once or twice) but the defense made a compelling argument regarding unknowing what Davidâs intention was. We all know what his intention was, especially when remembering Jordan was the same age Louise was when they got married, but if the defense could put a question mark in the minds of the judge and a future jury, it would risk that verdict.
Reading the sections where the children had the ability to go on the internet made me wonder what kind of life they wouldâve had if this case happened 35 years ago. Without the support of the internet friends sheâd made, would Jordan have mustered the courage to call the police?
âThe Family Next Doorâ is not a book Iâd read again. Yes, itâs well researched with a lot of information coming from the preliminary trial and witnesses. I noticed information, like the ninth child James desiring to kill small animals, was talked about in the chronological timeline but then repeated word for word during the prelim. I assume Glatt took the description from the witness statement and I wouldnât ask him to change that, but something to make it a gentle reminder as opposed to how blunt it felt.
Most of the book reads like a script for a Youtube video. Itâs on the dull side of learning facts. If there was another option to learn about this case, Iâd take it. John Glatt is a notable true crime writer. Iâve never read anything else of his and Iâm tempted to now, just to see if itâs similar. Is this one written in such a way because itâs a new case with little surrounding details. Would older cases feel less cold?
