Good grief. You only seem to take a few words of what I say at a time. I said that there is no proof to the motive they are claiming. That's it. That's all I was saying. There is no evidence to his claim of sexual assault because he had thousands of porn. What if he just killed her because he wanted to and because he could? That would have nothing to do with his porn. What would be the motive then? He liked little girls? No, then his motive would be that he killed her because he could. What if it was as simple as that?
YOU SAID...I said it can't be proven. Unless there's proof he took her for sexual reasons, you can't make the motive stick. I completely understand the porn, rape, kid aspect. There is no provable evidence that that is what DW did. That's all I'm saying. There is no proof and therefore, there's doubt.
I SAID: I'm not so sure you're right on this one. Think of it like those cases in which a person is convicted of a murder without the body..
YOU SAID: "No proof and no evidence" doesn't seem to matter, does it?
I SAID: Of course evidence matters...but he's not being charged with rape..he's charged with kidnapping, murder and the child porn which shows what kind of state of mind he would have been in. ALthough I wonder what the jury thought when they heard him say he had a blackout.
YOU SAID: Good grief. You only seem to take a few words of what I say at a time. I said that there is no proof to the motive they are claiming. That's it. That's all I was saying. There is no evidence to his claim of sexual assault because he had thousands of porn. What if he just killed her because he wanted to and because he could? That would have nothing to do with his porn. What would be the motive then? He liked little girls? No, then his motive would be that he killed her because he could. What if it was as simple as that?
So to your last comments, sure, it could be simply cuz he killed her cuz he's could..but that doesn't make sense. WHY?