I thought the ex accused him of rape, then recanted. Then the investigating officer became so determined to prove him guilty, he started following him and then got caught up in the fantasy and started committing the actual crimes (the rapes and then the murders? because they started out as rapes and then progressed to murders, right?) against the women who associated with Brandt--making him a natural suspect on all of them.

This is what I thought happened, too. I'm not sure that it's known, but it's not contradicted by anything, and it makes sense.

Well, the fact that the rapist took the victim's underwear and Strong kept the dead women's hair is a little confusing to me, but I can ignore that easily.

I wasn't saying that Rebecca was fair, or needed to be -- I was saying that I disagreed with what I'm reading you as saying - that it wasn't a fair (as in mine -- watch the world revolve around ita, why don't we?) reading of the text.

oooooohhhh! 'kay :)

So far as they knew, he immediately fled the scene (his home, to boot) upon releasing Rebecca. I'd say that qualifies as freaking out, even if it was warranted by events

I thought that Strong kidnapped him after Rebecca left..

And I got the impression that Brandt was never guilty of anything (other than being an asshole). I thougth that the girl initially filed a fake rape charge against him because she was mad that he broke up with her, Strong spent 5 months building a case, and then she recanted. Strong then lost it, and started raping women and blaming it on Brandt (maybe initially to try to frame Brandt). Then Strong escalted to killing.

An analogy to what I mean-- a guy reads a book about sculpture, buys a spot welder and welds together a bunch of scrap metal and calls it art. To him, it is art, he worked very hard at it, and it's legitimate. However, critics and dealers may call it junk.

But how is that different from any artist? Is playing at it something that's determined by their attitude, or their results? For me, playing at something is dilettantish -- it means you aren't taking it seriously. Overzealousness, arrogance -- a whole 'nother abll of wax.

He didn't release her because she said the safe word, he released her because she scared him

Or he released her because he realised he was wrong. I don't think the text was explicit.

were he not involved in BDSM, I have no doubt he'd have some other thing to assist in the manifestation of his arrogance

Not arguing with you on that point.

Brandt makes that link by non-consensually handcuffing her. It starts as seduction and she's going with him, then he breaches that trust and recalls her emotional traumas.

I think it was a lack of judgement on his part -- since she did seem to be going along with his seductive routine, he assumed she'd be up for a little hardware. Which is a horrible situation in which to lack judgement.

Is it sexual violence? I'd have to say no. A horrible lack of judgement, yes. So I *don't* think that Brandt makes the link between S&M and sexual violence.

As always, beagles vary.

I'm with Steph, so I'm glad she's more eloquent than I am. I think the cuffing was dumbdumbdumb and Brandt's an idiot, but I think Brandt read consent where there was none, rather than intentionally crossing the line. On the other hand, since at the time we were believing Brandt was the perp, it wasn't at all clear.

Also, what does Unsub mean?

Unknown subject. Took me forever to get that one.

Is it sexual violence? I'd have to say no.

It was both sexual and violent. The fact that it wasn't malicious doesn't make it excusable.

I thought that Strong kidnapped him after Rebecca left..

That was what I got out of it too. But Web and Rebecca and Paul had no inkling of that at the time of the reenactment.

I side with Kristen here. Brandt is, what I'd call, a wanker. Toss pot. Who happens to like BDSM. It's not the BDSM which is his problem, it's more the fact he's a toss pot.

I had to look up what TOGoM meant. I remember watching TOGoM a while ago, shooting script to hand, thinking "This should be great". And then I watched it. And kinda thought, if I see Tim, I'll not mention that one - it didn't quite work out how I'd pictured it.

Not that I'm saying I can do better mind, to clarify. Hell, I write in the perspective of a cat sometimes.

It's not the BDSM which is his problem

Who's saying it was, though? The text didn't seem to, and I'm not reading anyone here doing it either.