Hi, just finished watching PMPT, and was prompted to come read the forum. I noticed that only a few people over the years (2003 until present) specifically postulated that this crime was generational: What I'm wondering is why nobody seemed to take this to the logical conclusion? People have said that they characterized one of the potential actors in this case as an 'Intrusional Narcissist' We know that sometimes the female/mother in an abuse scenario will enable, cover up, deny or collude with the father/abuser. We also know that the next generation will act out, and will sometimes cover up, deny or collude with the acts. Sometimes a few members of the family (here, one of the daughters) will be spared the abuse. They may be more likely or equally likely to cover up, deny or collude with the abuser. Actually, due to embarrassment and being in denial, even the formerly abused children will deny or cover up. The characteristic of the intrusive narcissistic wife/mother will often be a weak husband/father. This person might not feel satisfied in a relationship with an adult. To maintain the balance in the relationship the wife/mother will often cover up the deeds of the husband/father, sometimes to the point of blaming the victim. Anyone with me? To me, the answer to this case is like a large elephant in the room. Everyone talks about it, walks around it, but due, perhaps, to some aspect of the case, omits the scenario from their theory. One thing that seems to make the case more complex is that the abuser and the killer may have been different people but intimately related. So, in their characterizations, the 'experts' try to profile and mix the two making the resultant 'killer/abuser' seem to be some kind of monster, where as individually they may just have been an abuser/enabler pair.