My question is why would you tell me I'm wrong (or lying?) about what I attempted to do? I tell you that the book challenges the reader to respond to a complex character and form their own opinion. I tell you the challenge is to mix together the issues of his guilt, crimes, youth, charisma - to consider how long a shadow crimes of youth cast down our years - to consider to what degree if any youth and background extenuate - to see what elements of the character resonate with readers - to examine our own reaction when the evil-doer is charming and how that contrasts with our feelings when a coarse and ugly villain does those same things - I say all that and people often appear to insist that whilst they end up hating/disliking/condemning Jorg ... _I_ am desperately trying to make them love him? Surely that would mean I've done a piss-poor job of it? Duh, if I wanted to make everyone love him why wouldn't I just make him an nice person who does nice things? I can't follow the logic of that line of thinking.
But surely the reader's reaction to Jorg will be very much coloured by the fact that Jorg is the viewpoint character. Readers want and attempt to identify with viewpoint characters, it's a basic fact of reading life, and you need them to do this otherwise they won't engage with and therefore finish the book. You can argue that you don't want readers to like him, but that strikes me as being disingenuous. By writing him as the viewpoint, you have automatically made him more sympathetic than he would be as a similar non-POV character or as someone the reader meets in the street. So I would suggest it's not a real challenge, or at least you've stacked the deck in his favour.