Looking more at unsolved rapes, not murders in ONS phase
Feb 18, 2018 11:47:29 GMT
via mobile
lisacarolfremont likes this
Post by ant27 on Feb 18, 2018 11:47:29 GMT
"I feel the murders worked until they didn't, and then he resorted to it when needed in 1986 (A possible struggle was noted from where the wounds were positioned). The murders were barely even connected at first, spread across jurisdictions, and the MO of the rapes wouldn't be associated with this area until 2001. So if he still stuck mostly to his rape attacks with the murders being an extension for a few of them; he was attacking across jurisdictions in an area far more vast than Sacramento, committing rapes that expired with the statute of limitations and no longer have evidence (he could've even been caught, served time and released before any DNA was collected in those days). What i think explained his long break before and after 1986 is he simply didn't always murder, but that his usual rape only MO would have been invisible down there and he kept pace with his EAR attacks."
Great first post, Ant27! I don't know if I agree or disagree with you, yet. If we say that his practical murders were O/M, D/S and Janelle because they resisted why did you think that he murder the Smiths, the Harringtons and Manuela? From the reports I read none of them put up a struggle and were compliant. In my opinion, it seems to me that he enjoyed the murders. It was like the cherry on top of a sundae (which was the rape and terrorizing the victims before they were killed). Also, does anyone know if he used the dishes on Lyman and Keith?
Thank you!
And i do think he enjoyed the murders, and that he was always moving towards that point. Somewhere here someone mentioned an interview with a serial killer, and how they overcome a lot in building up to that first murder, but aferwards it becomes almost trivial to kill. Practical neccessity, control, avoiding capture, led to his first murders. So I think after he started murdering and got away with it, practically he could have just killed afterwards for the sake of being able to take his time getting away, unlike the rapes where he had little time. The murders did express that unrestrained violence that seemed to be growing under the surface as things went on, but i also think he enjoyed taunting living victims as his satisfaction, and knowing he would leave an impression on them for the rest of thier lives. Anyways, it wasnt all a simple decision, many deep seated urges, complexes and practical matters probably formed a web of motivations that evolved over time. Why he murdered isnt a simple answer, but the killing aspect itself never struck me with having the same ritualism, fetishism and focus as what we’d see as our archetype of a serial killer. I just think a lot of people can accidently impress that archetype onto any serial killings, and making a compelling counter point is a good excersize in seeing everything objectively. So its just a useful point of view to consider even if its not personally agreeable. I’m open to differing arguements too. But yeah, A psychopath could kill without all the moral and emotional wieght we view the death of others with. It could just be practical to them.