Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 23:42:47 GMT
Since, all of the Goleta attacks were unmarried couples, there were all kinds of rumors floating around in the neighborhood during those times that he was a moralist attacking who he considered "immoral" couples. Whether that was true or a ruse on his part to make LE think that, he most likely knew enough about the victims to know their circumstances, imo. EAR did his prep work about who he was striking and their circumstances, so it's no stretch to assume he did the same as ONS.
I don't at all think he had to see couples having sex to spur him into an attack, like some LE speculated. We know he attacked young girls and teens that were virgins.
I believe there is holdback info that if LE ever released, would show a very different spin on EAR's motivation besides him being a rapist who just randomly picked out pretty women and girls to attack.
Lyman being the primary target instead of Charlene, was taken as a serious possibility and investigated heavily by LE. The Irvine's thought Patti and Keith may have been murdered to retaliate against their family. Some LE thought the primary target in the first Goleta attack was the man. We don't know if Janelle's allegations of rape against the Marine played a part in her being murdered. The interactions assumed by some about her and her male friend that night were most likely false and that ONS didn't witness them doing anything sexual.
He may very well have had a criteria in his mind of who he would strike and why. The criteria may have been multi-faceted and not just one thing. Fidelity may have been one criteria in some of the attacks.
Something is telling me that it wasn't always about only the female victims and that the men (or parents) may at times have been the primary target he intended to harm in some of the attacks. Like lemur said about not only attacking Jane, but also the young son of her and her husband; it was in turn attacking Jane's husband on both counts even though he wasn't there. Whether it was in person or not that he was attacking someone; by attacking their spouse, partner, or child it would also harm others in their family. Like several LE have pointed out, it was devastating to the men of the women that were attacked, too, and very few marriages survived.
It makes one wonder do we know all there is to know? I would bet no way. I agree I am also not here to judge anyone's past transgressions. I am merely bringing it up to see it there is a pattern as to why they were chosen. We do know some were beaten way beyond what was necessary. Did ONS' parents have infidelity in their marriage. Interesting to consider.