"Well yeah, but YOU'RE STUPID!"

If you play it backwards, that's EXACTLY what it says, along with, "Eat at Denny's."

The Janitor had a death closet and drawings of women with their throats cut; one man was placed in graves he had dug, and the pre-filer's conversation with the guy in the car included statements on killing.

I'd say that not only could any of these guys not followed through on it, but the first guy was comfortably in fantasy with props stage, and the guy in the car even further away.

I think Roger was the most arrestable of the bunch, honestly, although grave guy was well on the way.

The pre-filer, interestingly, was just being a proactive Web (who's willing to be executioner himself). But his "flaw" (which I agree with) was deciding where the irrevocable line was. And if he knew that the guy in the car would get up the gumption to kill someone, then I assume his knowledge is just as sound for the pedophile -- doesn't matter how many other pedophiles kill. This one, apparently, was going to.

It does open up a question about how that changes the prefiler if he were executing people who wouldn't kill. ETA: I wrote that before ita's comment.

Anyway, I re-watched the last two eps with BF last night. He liked them. And they both stood up to re-watch: little moments I missed before, like the repeated use of the word "control" in last week's ep.

Having rewatched, I actually disagree that the way the potential killers were all mentioned as "serial killers" was so out of bounds as to be unrealistic. I don't know about you guys, but certainly some things at work I have expertise in I speak generally and incorrectly about in order to be more efficient. I might call a set of documents "motions" even though CLEARLY there's a pleading in there. (Kidding, kidding. I barely know the difference.)

Actually, ita, I'm not sure I don't agree. In fact, I probably agree, I just thought it through more with Roger because he was the one we got the most evidence of.

I do think the janitor guy was much closer to the murder stage than Roger: they are both, as you say, in the "fantasy" stage but I doubt Roger's fantasies involve their throats being slit. Or, rather, their heads in plastic bags. He's a sexual fantasizer, and I'd say he's probably about as close to molesting as the janitor was to killing, maybe. Still, a different line. Unless janitor had a manifesto we're not aware of.

Son of Sam in the car, not so sure about. There is no doubt that, just like Roger, he easily has the potential of pulling himself out of his cycle in a moment of reverie. But, again, his porn was snuff porn. That directly involves killing, specifically.

I certainly don't think that any of them are arrestable really, though janitor may be commitable, and car guy has the snuff porn. I just think that the evidence of Roger points more towards possible future child molestor much more than possible future killer. Which seems to go against pre-filer's M.O.

In succintness: certainly none of the pre-filer's victims deserved death (yet). But what evidence there is points that, ASSUMING they all go through with their patterns, car guy, ak-47 guy, janitor guy, and dug-graves guy are all going to kill. Roger, it seems to me, is going to rape kids. Depraved and disturbing, yes, but outside the pre-filer's pattern, and never fully explained in the ep. Explained by Tim, though: he picked him to screw with Rebecca. I just wish that we didn't come off, in that final scene with him looking at the girls, with the feeling that Rebecca was convinced he was still going to kill.

I'd say that not only could any of these guys not followed through on it, but the first guy was comfortably in fantasy with props stage, and the guy in the car even further away.

Which is where I agree with infuriating!paul.

A lot of us here own weapons and porn and may have, on occassion, expressed violent fantasies about our bosses, or the POTUS.

Which, you know, is normal.

Owning the kiddie porn is illegal, and he should be prosecuted for that, but aside from taking pics, he's never acted on his fantasy. I assume there are a great many more people who fantasize about children, or rape, or the family dog, who never act upon that impulse.

He may have kept that impulse a pure fantasy, using the porn, but never actually acting out the fantasy.

little moments I missed before, like the repeated use of the word "control" in last week's ep.

Wow. You missed that? I was ready to start a drinking game. (Note: I liked the repeated use anyway.)

I doubt Roger's fantasies involve their throats being slit.

Why?

I firmly believe people get off on stuff they'd never do. Snuff porn does not a sexual killer make.

Basically, what Allyson said. I have no idea if they were going to follow through or not, any of them, but I don't see the rationale for singling one out and say he probably wasn't going to.

My impression of Rebecca's analysis (correct or not) was that Roger was going to kill the girls to punish them for turning him on, as well as to remove the object of his desire in order to cure himself of wanting them.

I'm not sure I buy into any of the pre-filing as valid -- if they hadn't commited crimes, then they were merely people with depraved fantasy lives, not criminals -- but for what it was, her reading of Roger seemed as valid to me as any of the others.

I don't see the rationale for singling one out and say he probably wasn't going to.

I think the previous victims were in the planning stages, which was prefiler's line in taking out the others. They had purchased weapons or dug graves, had made some sort of murder kit.

I can't remember all of them, but IIRC, that was the case for everyone but Roger.

He said, "you wanna know how you'll kill them?" and then pulled a bag over his head. Did he have a stash of plastic bags from Ralph's in his chest of kiddie porn? It seemed an assumption based on no evidence, and this was more about a game with Rebecca than his previous vigilante justice.

It's a pattern thing.

Let's take car guy and janitor guy. Car guy stares at, obsesses over, happy couples. He wants what they have, the happiness. His other obsession is watching pornographic videos of people dying. He likes watching people die.

I think there's a very good argument that this does not a killer make. In fact, I'd say there's a good chance car guy ISN'T a killer-in-waiting. But IF he's going to do something incredibly fucked up, the correlation of snuff-porn with his obsessions (especially since he apparently follows them home, and watches from outside, according to the pre-filer conversation AND owns a gun, that he recently bought for reasons unknown) seems to imply that he may kill. For kicks, for power, whatever. The pattern holds that death is his hook.

Janitor guy likse taking pictures of pretty girls, and thinking about them with knives involved. He likes taking these non-pornographic pictures and making them look as if the girls' throats are cut. We don't know why, but it seems clear that he gets off on the idea of girls bleeding. Girls dying. Thus, IF he decides to follow through on his fantasies (which, again, I don't think is necessarily true - pre-filer is not a good guy), he'll be slitting throats.

Roger, however, owns kiddie porn. Which, so far as I know, does not generally involve pictures of dead kiddies. If there were pictures of kiddie-snuff porn in there, or even kiddie-rape porn, we were never shown the evidence, or even had its existence implied. He also takes stalkery pictures of little girls. But he doesn't cut them, or shoot them, or whatever. The only thing we know is that he looks at them. Now, maybe when he looks at them he's fantasizing about chopping off their heads and putting them on stakes, I don't know, but no evidence is ever shown of that. Thus, the most obvious conclusion is that he likes to think about sexing little girls. Hence, if HE were to follow through on WHAT WE KNOW of his fantasies, he would sex little girls. Not, necessarily, kill them.

I don't think persecuting any of these victims is the right thing to do, and i don't necessarily think homicide is much worse, if any worse, than child molestation in many cases. But I do think Roger is outside the pre-filer's standard pattern. So if you side with Rebecca's thoughts, and think the pre-filer is choosing killer's correctly, then the natural assumption is that Roger is a killer too, and I don't love that it isn't really tackled. I want to revisit Roger in the future, and I don't want him to have killed, and I want Rebecca to struggle with her assumptions more: then, I'll be fully happy.

ETA: Also, what Allyson said.