It's honestly clear to me too. My post followed yours but was belated in asking about another post where it was stated that he described it as "something that happens as a result of trauma". That's not from the affidavit.
I always wondered if there was sometimes miscommunication even with the translater. It seems they would also have to translate the meaning, as well. Probably why there is a need for two translaters.
I think you are right, he is not the sharpest tool in the shed, or sharpest tac, or whatever the saying is. I'm actually surprised he avoided getting caught for so long. If a sharp eyed cop hadn't noticed the vehicle, he may have still been free right now.
Some people may (or obviously do) think it means the same thing, but as someone who has experienced both, I can tell you that it doesn't to everybody. When I was young, I had some somewhat traumatic experiences, and I also did some rather heavy drinking as a teen. I can guarantee you there's a big difference between blacking out (from too much alcohol in my case) and blocking out memories of things too hard to face. One of the biggest differences in my mind is that a "black out" is usually a permanent loss of the memory or the memory never formed; blocked memories can return, and sometimes in unusual or very inconvenient ways and times. Of course, that doesn't mean he uses the same definitions as I do, but it also isn't necessarily true that he would consider them to be the same thing either. MOO
The oldest trick in the book.
Exactly! Thank you for describing it better than I ever could. That is how I differentiate the two as well. Just as you said, people use both in different ways. You can usually tell what they mean by the context of the story....thank you for clearing up the confusion, confusion.
It’s impossible to say for sure. For some offenders, the murder is the fulfillment of the sexual desire.
That’s how I view it as well. There are two motives for him doing this. To save face, and avoid explaining his hideous act. Or to absolve himself of responsibility, perhaps to a legal end.
I would think that abduction and sexual assault with no murder would be high risk because he'd have a live witness on his hands. I think killing her was a next logical step for him.
That’s a very practical view that very well may be the case (it most likely is). My point is that for certain lust killers, serial killers especially, the killing is the most satisfying part. It is done to fulfill a need, and not necessarily to eliminate a witness.
We actually have a pretty good idea of what the condition of any body would be after 33 days. I cant imagine how there could be any skin, or tissue,organs, etc to easily detect SA.
Without a doubt, especially as it was seemingly so violent.
