I have to say, that logic is unassailable, but also totally generic.

True.

Because, as I think more on Rebecca's profile, she never said he would molest

She said he would do "it." It was never explicitly stated whether the eventual "it" was rape or murder. (Which I actually found a little annoying because, as Nutty points out, they're completely different profiles, and I would have liked to know what she was talking about. The prefiler's plastic bag example points to murder, but then, it was pretty clear that the reason Roger was going to kill them with a plastic bag was so that Rebecca could have time to save Roger's life. If the prefiler had decided that Roger was planning to shoot them in the head, Rebecca's "no, wait!" wouldn't have been nearly as effective.)

I have to say, that logic is unassailable, but also totally generic. You could apply that logic to anybody who has powerful feelings of guilt, and most people do not murder their parents/lovers/children/ice cream sandwiches.

Tim, please make an episode about a man who murders ice cream sandwiches. Thank you.

Personally I just want to know what kind of ice cream sandwiches Nutty's been encountering that can be left alive.

Personally I just want to know what kind of ice cream sandwiches Nutty's been encountering that can be left alive.

I'm thinking she has pictures of them on her hard drive in revealing poses.

But it's not generic - she's talking about 1 person's reaction to 1 action. When she's profiled before she's been deeply and creepily specific. Why should this be different?

Her descriptions of Roger's actions were deeply and creepily specific. Her rationales for those actions, however, were not.

Tim, please make an episode about a man who murders ice cream sandwiches. Thank you.

(Sorry, I had to...)

"Harold, it's Bateman, Patrick Bateman. You're my lawyer so I think you should know: I've killed a lot of ice cream sandwiches. Some Klondike Bars in the apartment uptown, uh, some Skinny Cows - maybe 5 or 10,um, a Sara Lee I met in Central Park. And Ben & Jerry. I killed Ben & Jerry with an axe in the cookie, its body is melting in a bathtub in Hell's Kitchen. I don't want to leave anything out here. I guess I've killed maybe 20 sandwiches, maybe 40. I have tapes of a lot of it, uh some of the M&Ms Sandwiches have seen the tapes. I even, um... I ate some of their fillings, and I tried to cook a little. Tonight I, uh, I just had to kill a LOT of sandwiches. And I'm not sure I'm gonna get away with it this time. I guess I'll uh, I mean, ah, I guess I'm a pretty uh, I mean I guess I'm a pretty sick guy. So, if you get back tomorrow, meet me at Harry's Bar, so you know, keep your eyes open."

Her rationales for those actions, however, were not.

I rewatched the scene. Nowhere in it do I detect any implication that her rationales were meant to expand to encompass anyone other than Roger. She's telling him why he'd do things. Not, anywhere I can see, is she even slightly implying that other people would behave the same way with the same stimuli. If it were that easy, would we even need profilers?

I think my problem is that I have a hard time buying into any of her profiling. I realize that Rebecca being a good profiler is part of her character's premise (along the same lines as "Angel is a vampire with a soul") but I just don't buy them. Because she makes her intuitive leaps with such little evidence (which is, of course, why she's good), there's almsot nothing I can evaluate on my own terms. I have to either accept that she's right until I'm shown otherwise.

So far, Roger's required the most suspension of disbelief.

I have to either accept that she's right until I'm shown otherwise.

Yeah -- that's where I am. We may be shown later that she's been off all the while, but I'm not going to sweat questioning her (or the writing of it) until then. You want her infallible, Tim? Then it shall be so.

(I have no idea how the word "either" got into that sentence. It's a sneaky little bugger.)