So I'm trying to figure out why the assumption of the prefiler or Rebecca is that he would have eventually murdered. Was it because he had identified a victim in wee Aubrey? But that could have been for molestation, or even just staring at her for jackoff purposes.

The other victims seemed to have a more clear intent.

So I'm trying to figure out why the assumption of the prefiler or Rebecca is that he would have eventually murdered.

Rebecca had a whole spiel about it. He would know his feelings were wrong, and he would hate the girls for making him have these feelings, and to stop these oh-so-wrong feelings, he would have to eliminate what was causing them, i.e., the girls.

He would know his feelings were wrong, and he would hate the girls for making him have these feelings, and to stop these oh-so-wrong feelings, he would have to eliminate what was causing them, i.e., the girls.

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.

Feeling guilty, and being guilty, and doing something that requires the disposal of a body and a web of elaborate lies, are three very different things. It takes some work to go from one step to the next, and that step to the third state of being is the biggest.

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.

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

In principle I'd agree about people getting off on stuff they'd never do -- but if its real snuff porn he's getting off on real people really dying. I don't see a big leap between that and doing it yourself.

Hmm. Just had a thought.

What if, because (given Rebecca's profile) Roger hates himself for feeling the way he does, and hates the girls for making that feeling happen, that rather than go through with molestation AT ALL, he goes right to killing them?

In his mind, maybe if he kills them, he thinks the temptation won't be there. Because, as I think more on Rebecca's profile, she never said he would molest, just that he hates wanting to, so before he can, he'll get rid of the girls, so he can't.

ETA: And apparently, I was beaten to it. Damn my slow "brain-to-keyboard" ratio. And I hope Tim doesn't mind, but I'ma quote him (almost).

That may be a big step, and it may be improbable....but not impossible.

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

Seconded.

I think in Rebecca's profile she also said that killing the girls wouldn't bring him peace for long, and that he'd just start obsessing over them again. So if he buys that killing the temptation will end it because of her profile, wouldn't he also buy that it wasn't going to work?

an episode about a man who murders ice cream sandwiches

ETA: If Tim makes a show about a man who murders Klondike bars, maybe he can get some of that nifty product placement dosh.

Also, as far as I recall, she never straight up says he'll kill them. She says he'll "do it" to "feel normal" and then he'll "do it" again and again.

Do what? She never actually says (I think). It's possible she agrees with my logic, thinks he's a molestor-in-training, considers letting murderer kill him anyway because, hey, she hates molestors, but comes through on the side of the good.

Just because pre-filer thinks he might be a killer doesn't necessarily mean Rebecca agrees. I like this theory, and have had it all along in fits and starts, I just wish it were made more evident if it's supposed to be the truth, because all the implications point towards her thinking he's gonna murder.