Did you believe in Lily's innocence...or guilt? Why?

I felt that Jennifer duBois was ambiguous about whether Lily was guilty or innocent...deliberately. I think the reader's reactions to Lily and Eduardo actually says a lot about the reader's own view of the universe. Lily believed "the whole world revolves around the gaping vacuum of her needs." Eduardo trusted the rules and his own instincts to a fault. What impression were you left with...and why?

I believe in her innocence, just because there was no good reason for her to commit the murder. Unless she was so under the influence of the pot they smoked that she wasn't thinking clearly.

I agree with jills. I ended the book feeling ambiguous about Lily's guilt or innocence, which I think was intentional by the author. There was no definitive statement(s) in the book about whether she had committed the crime or not.

I do think the author intentionally left Lily's guilt or innocence ambiguous. I tend to think she was the only logical suspect. By the end I had trouble caring.

Although the ending is ambiguous, I think legally she was wrongly convicted. It sounded like the case was largely circumstantial. Much more likely: Lily forgot to lock the door, Ignacio came home with or followed Katy and killed her. The end. I loved, though, how the author not only never truly answers the question, she also raises the possibility that even if Lily didn't do it, maybe she was capable of it. Maybe that was what she was really being judged for, by Eduardo and by everyone who condemned her.

I so agree with Dorothy's !

I agree that duBois did a masterful job of guiding the reader to...indecision. The expected arc would be that the lack of hard evidence would clear her, but that's just not how they roll in the Italian court system. The fact that duBois titles the book "Cartwheel" seems to deliberately pull our attention to Lily's oddness, her inappropriate behaviors that so thrill the media commentators. Do we accept the media's opinions, that Lily is indifferent after Katy's death, she must be hiding something, she's certainly behaving as if she is guilty? And then, as a natural extension of this question, should we ever accept the manipulations of the media?

It was a pretty indecisive ending as others have mentioned. I think in a lot of ways Lily was kind of an innocent, protected child but I could imagine that because of this she could have been guilty of the crime. Again, with so much hype of the media and an entirely different court system, I am not positive.

ditto...my thoughts exactly

my "ditto" was supposed to post to Dorothyt - sorry about that.

I did believe in her innocence if only because there was no clear motivation for her to commit the crime.

Agree with Dianec !

I always thought Lily was innocent. There was nothing in Lily's life to make me think she would become a murderer. Maybe if she was completely stoned on crack, she might do something out of character. It seems unlikely that she would do something that extreme, however.

I want to think that Lily was innocent. The lawyers, her actions, american ways and belief in truth were stacked against her. Dubois did make me wonder if Lily was hiding some little piece of info.

Hard to say and isn't that the point. The book ultimately led us to at least understand murder as a possibility though not a likelihood. Did she do it, probably not but could she have done it? Maybe...

Dianec, I tend to agree with you. At one point, when the drug dealer gave his version, I thought: "No, he's too slimy to believe." But then I realized: wasn't that the POINT? That perception guides reality? DuBois DID do a great job of leading me to...indecision.

It was a little more difficult to believe in Lily's guilt than her innocence. The case was mostly based on supposition and the evidence was circumstantial at best. Her attorneys, who had a reputation for being among the best but unfortunately were hired late, didn't seem to be very involved in her defense. Lily's somewhat self-centered and a bit off-kilter opinions and actions did not warrant her being labeled a murderer. But who can really say?

I was unsure about her innocence or guilt until she flatly says "she did not do it" - but the caveat that she COULD have done it was a tilt toward her character. The evidence was so circumstantial it would be hard to convict. Her lawyers were pretty cavelier about defending her, and If I were her parents I would have hired the very best and not relied on the Argentinians. Maybe Sebastien should have ponied up some of his wealth to get her some top notch representation. I think she was railroaded because she was a wealthy American woman.

I wanted to believe in Lily's innocence. As I read, I expected that it would become clear whether or not she was guilty. In fact, this was never wholly made clear to me but by the end I realized that was not the point. The novel was a study in the various pressure points of highly publicized crimes in today's world: social media, the press and media, the easy availability to law enforcement of a person's email messages, social media posts, voicemail, etc. Not one of the main characters retained their certainty about Lily's innocence or guilt due to these pressures. I found that to be the most disturbing aspect of the story.

This was left unclear.....intentionally. I think most readers would be swayed by whether they liked or disliked Lily.......just as people attribute guilt or innocence to Amanda Knox.