Review: The Family Next Door by John Glatt
Like most true crime cases, ‘The Family Next Door’ is a dark story. Anyone easily triggered by discussions of child abuse and neglect, I urge you not to read this book.
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 it’s a jumble but helpful if you’re considering this book or want a peek into the case if you’re unfamiliar.
‘The Family Next Door’ 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 “huh that’s weird”.For the few teachers that Jennifer (the eldest child) had, a very dirty child was in your presence every day: Why weren’t there phone calls to the police? Where was your natural desire to give a shit for a child that obviously needed it? Unlike Gabriel’s case, no one died, but years of abuse could’ve been stopped. For anyone reading this who sees something suspicious or concerning repeatedly with children: it’s okay to call the police. The worst that could happen is you inconvenience them. The best is that you save a child.
The term “House of Horrors” is used to discuss this case. It’s not an original term and maybe it’s because I’ve seen it in other cases that I hate it’s 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 won’t name their abuser. He doesn’t deserve it. But through some of the worst abuse I’ve ever heard and for all three of them to survive, “House of Horrors” 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 couldn’t 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. We’re 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 “small” 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 you’re 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 children’s 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. It’s 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 husband’s head with a frying pan. This leads to the pair divorcing but you have to look at the situation with a question mark. It’s 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?
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 wouldn’t return to their hometown until her parents promised not to press charges against David. Louise’s 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. It’s 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. It’s 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 she’d spent her childhood taking care of her sisters and now she had to do it again with her children. This time, she didn’t want to. Yes, Jennifer attended school until the third grade, but she was never clean or truly taken care of.
In my personal opinion, I think with the unresolved childhood trauma and David’s 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 didn’t manifest until she turned forty. John Glatt, the author of the book, called it a “midlife crisis” which I don’t agree with.
However, this is absolutely no excuse for the decades of abuse she inflicted on her children.
During the preliminary trial in June of 2018, David Turpin’s 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 children’s police interviews, they were asked and said he didn’t 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 Louise’s and David’s 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 let’s 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 David’s 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 would’ve had if this case happened 35 years ago. Without the support of the internet friends she’d made, would Jordan have mustered the courage to call the police?
“The Family Next Door” is not a book I’d read again. Yes, it’s 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 wouldn’t 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. It’s on the dull side of learning facts. If there was another option to learn about this case, I’d take it. John Glatt is a notable true crime writer. I’ve never read anything else of his and I’m tempted to now, just to see if it’s similar. Is this one written in such a way because it’s a new case with little surrounding details. Would older cases feel less cold?