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.
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.
That moment when she says, "No. Roger's loose"?
Really cool moment.
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?
