Well Poirotry...I dont want to let the fact that I have not agreed with some of your past posts to cause me to not comment on
this one.
I think I understand the point you were trying to make. Part of finding a criminal and part of (hopefully) stopping future criminals is to understand the psychology behind their actions. Some people make a whole career out of profiling and they render a valuable public service. I dont think I could ever be very good at that because you have to really climb in their heads and look at some pretty gritty things very analytically and dispassionately. I usually get too creeped out and feel like I need a shower so that kind of skill remains one that I admire in others but dont have the ability to do.
So back to what you said...if I read you right, I think you were attempting to contrast and compare two things that JH has admitted to.
A) forcing his victim to perform oral sex on him
B) shooting his victim in the head and chest at a very close range.
It has bothered me from the beginning that there was no rape. (See how bad I am at this...? I have already phrased that wrong!) Ok, trying again....the typical way for this type of crime to go would have been for there to be a rape, sadly enough.
But there wasnt. At least that he has admitted to or that has been released publicly. Instead he admits to forcing his victim to perform oral sex
on him.
Why? Why did he say that? Is that what really happened?
Did
that even happen?
Did he make it up like some kind of weird bragging rights?
Was it part of a sexually fueled script that he had rehearsed in his head based on the type of *advertiser censored* he most preferred? Even if it didnt happen that way did he go ahead and say it because that is the way he had "thought" (fantasized) it going ahead of time?
I just dont know the answers but I can see the need for questions.