Defending Jacob 1

I find it strange that Logiudice completely drops the case leading to Patz and seems to believe that it was Jacob who killed Ben. I don't find it professional at all to simply drop all suspicion on a case because there is evidence pointing to one person. He should explore both suspects in the case, so that if one is no longer a suspect, they still have the other under watch, should he try to flee. I think that it would be very easy for Patz to disappear, and should Jacob turn out to be innocent, they would have a very hard time tracking Patz down, if they can, at that. Logiudice very much reminds me of the character Jeremy Collet from The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Collet was a headstrong detective who had his mind made up that one person committed the crime, and pursued him across Europe only to find him innocent, and look like a fool doing it. It is possible that Logiudice was too proud to admit that he could be wrong about Jacob, and he is setting his  hopes on him being wright, and trying to make it seem so because he is too proud to lose a case like this. On the other hand, Logiudice is also like the character Inspector Javert in Les Misérables. Throughout Les Misérables, Javert pursues the character Jean Valjean after breaking parole and goes into hiding. Javert would not stop looking for Jean, and was completely and utterly determined to have justice be served upon him. It is possible that Logiudice is driven by a sense of justice like Javert as well as pride, or what is probably some combination of both.