carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
IIRC John Douglas said the covering of the body was indicative of nothing. At trial is was simply another of the pseudo-evidence simply put out there by Mignini.
Apparently, Judge Massei is silent on the subject, even in convicting the pair in 2009. Still guilters seem to reserve the right to dredge up this factoid, regardless of whether or not any of the courts found it as anything ore that Mignini's gas-bagging.
I thought John Douglas said it indicated regret, which is something I agree with. I think Rudy acted on impulse when he was in his fugue-like criminal state after the break-in and came across the defenseless woman by herself while he was armed with a knife. And when it was all over he realized the gravity of his actions, and putting the blanket over her was his infantile attempt to sweep his actions under the rug.
On the other hand a couple of psychopath thrill killers would have no reason to cover up the very sex crime they were trying to stage.
Without getting in to it too much (!) it has been a long time since I have read anything by Douglas. Maybe the way to put it (again if I at all remember correctly) is that by itself, covering the body means nothing. For Douglas's purposes as a "profiler" he uses his own findings (in polling actual killers as to what they actually did) to help narrow a field of potential suspects, esp. when the investigation appears like it is stalling. That's the whole point of profiling, by not wasting time on what real-perps never report as their habit.
It does not mean that in the one case in front of them, it could not be. Again, what it means is to narrow a field of suspects. If Douglas had been consulted in the investigation of this case, he would have said, "Look for a first time, opportunistic perp, not someone with experience." Douglas might have even guessed that the murder was because of something like a robbery gone wrong.
Perhaps back to the issue at hand. John Douglas has reason to suggest what he suggests - actual interviews with actual perps. Mignini just makes it up as per his dietrological fantasy.
I agree the blanket isn't a piece of evidence nor useful in solving the crime. But if it's consistent with either of the two proposed scenarios it's the one that actually happened, the one with Guede killing after his break-in.
Oh Bill, Faffle, faffle.
IIRC, Douglas mentioned this in his chapter in the book, Rudy Guede, The Forgotten Killer.
Also, I believe it is common to police literature, and known to be a symptom of a novice murderer, almost always male.
The police meme that its indicative of a female mindset is pure invention.
Now I may be wrong. But do you really want to bet?