The discussion between Andrew Barber and Dr. Elizabeth Vogel about behavioral-genetics testing begins as preparation for Jacob Barber’s defense and becomes a confrontation with the Barber family’s history. Vogel proposes taking DNA samples from Andrew and his estranged father, William Barber, to investigate genetic factors that might be relevant to the case. Her explanation makes the evidence double-edged: it could support a prosecution story about inherited violence, or help the defense argue for mitigation. The session ends not with certainty about what a test could prove, but with Andrew agreeing to face a family history he had kept at a distance for decades.

A New Question in the Defense

Near the end of summer, Andrew and Laurie attend their weekly meeting with Vogel. Before the session properly begins, Vogel warns Andrew that the hour will be difficult, then explains that the discussion concerns the case’s biological issues and that she needs a DNA sample from him. She describes the procedure as a quick swab of the mouth, using a sterile cotton swab to collect saliva. The ordinary simplicity of the proposed test contrasts with the weight Andrew immediately attaches to it: he thought the genetic question had been set aside.

Vogel does not present the sample as a straightforward route to an answer. She tells Andrew she cannot determine what would be admissible in court; that is a legal question for him and Jacob’s attorney, Jonathan Klein. Her role is to explain how behavioral genetics might figure in the defense’s preparation. She stresses that the evidence cuts both ways. The prosecution might use it to suggest that Jacob is violent by nature, making it more likely that he committed the murder. The defense, if the case reached a point where the prosecution had likely proved that Jacob killed Ben Rifkin, might instead introduce genetic evidence as mitigation.

The distinction unsettles Laurie, who asks what mitigation means. Andrew explains the possible legal difference between first-degree homicide and second-degree homicide or manslaughter. He describes first-degree murder as carrying mandatory life without parole, while a second-degree conviction would make Jacob eligible for parole after twenty years, at age thirty-four. The discussion is not a prediction that Jacob will be convicted; it is a glimpse of the fallback calculations the defense may have to make if the case turns against him.

Predisposition, Not Destiny

Andrew explains the legal logic that makes the issue consequential. Criminal law, as he describes it, presumes intentional acts to be products of free will and is generally resistant to excuses based on hardship, illness, intoxication, or anger. Such circumstances can nonetheless matter to how a crime is classified and to sentencing. In theory, factors affecting free will—including a genetic predisposition to violence or low impulse control—might therefore be relevant as mitigation. Andrew doubts that a jury would accept such an argument, especially in a case involving the killing of a fourteen-year-old boy.

His resistance is also personal. Andrew protests that he has never hurt anyone, has no temper, and did not grow up in a violent home. He recalls that his mother did not let him play football and that, as a boy, he played the clarinet while his friends played football. Laurie places her hand over his, a gesture that calms him and matters precisely because such gestures between them have become less common.

Vogel answers Andrew’s fear of genetic determinism by separating predisposition from identity. Genes, she says, do not act alone: behavior emerges through the interaction of nature and nurture, and the same genetic sequence can have different outcomes in different people and environments. Andrew’s own life, in her view, demonstrates the importance of individual agency. She cautions against treating an emerging science as a simple explanation of behavior, and says that a genetic finding would not, by itself, tell them who Andrew is.

What the Tests Might Examine

When Andrew asks what Vogel is looking for in his saliva, she first emphasizes the limits of the science. Human behavior has complex causes; there is no simple genetic trigger for a particular behavior, and the meaning of “criminal” is legal rather than scientific. She then identifies two gene variants associated with male antisocial behavior that might be relevant to multigenerational patterns of violence in families like the Barbers’.

The first is an allele of the MAOA gene, which controls an enzyme involved in metabolizing neurotransmitters including serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. Vogel explains that it has been called the “warrior gene” because of its association with aggressive behavior, and that the mutation is known as MAOA Knockout. It had previously been argued in court as a trigger for violence, but that argument was rejected as too simplistic. Vogel says understanding of gene-environment interaction has since improved, potentially making a more careful account possible.

The second variant is in the serotonin transporter gene, SLC6A4, located on chromosome 17. Vogel describes it as encoding a protein involved in the serotonin transporter system and the reuptake of serotonin from the synapse into the neuron. The technical explanation becomes too much for Andrew, who raises his hand to stop her. The exchange underscores the gap between the intricacy of the proposed biological evidence and the legal demand to make it legible as part of a case.

The Father’s Sample and Andrew’s Choice

Vogel then adds that she also needs a sample from Andrew’s father. Andrew says he has not spoken to him since he was five and does not know whether he is alive. Vogel tells him that William Barber is alive and is being held at Northern Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut. She has already tried to contact him, but William will not meet with her; he says Andrew himself has to ask.

The news unsettles Andrew not only because his father is alive, but because Vogel has already reached out to him. Andrew had treated that relationship as closed history. Vogel’s actions reveal that she regards it as a live part of the present inquiry: obtaining William’s sample could help investigate the possibility of a multigenerational pattern, while contacting him forces Andrew to approach a father he has not seen since early childhood.

Andrew initially balks at the idea of disclosing the defense’s plans to the district attorney. Laurie brings the question back to Jacob, asking how far Andrew would go for their son. Andrew says he would go to hell and back; Laurie’s reply makes clear that, for her, this means he must proceed. The testing discussion thus changes from a scientific proposal into a choice about parental responsibility, family estrangement, and the risks of using genetic evidence in a criminal defense.

The Case’s Competing Stories

The later courtroom argument shows why the proposed research matters, without resolving what any genetic test could establish. Neal Logiudice presents the murder as a story of a boy with a lethal temper who “snapped” after being teased. He emphasizes that Jacob took a knife into Cold Spring Park and had an idea in his head, while acknowledging that the trigger for the killing may never be known. The prosecution’s need to supply a motive exposes the uncertainty at the center of its account; Logiudice can offer theories and probabilities, including “murder genes,” but not a definitive explanation.

That courtroom language echoes the danger Vogel identified in the therapy room: a genetic predisposition could be made to sound like proof of an innate, fixed identity. Her account insists on a more complicated relation between biology and conduct, while the prosecution’s narrative risks collapsing predisposition into character and character into guilt. The proposed samples therefore matter not as a simple answer to whether Jacob committed the crime, but as evidence that either side might try to enlist in its account of who he is and how responsibility should be understood.

The session does not settle the family’s genetic history or Andrew’s estrangement from William. Instead, it opens both questions at once. By agreeing to go forward, Andrew accepts that the defense may have to examine the history he has treated as past, even as Vogel cautions that no genetic sequence can stand in for a person’s whole life or determine what that person will do.