Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop

This was a strange case and even stranger that this former New York City policeman and his parents would allow themselves to be filmed in such detail to complete this documentary. Not surprisingly there was no formal comments from his former employer, the FBI, the NYPD, nor from his ex-wife and/or her family.

On the other hand, Gilberto Valle, is under a no contact order from his ex-wife, and has been unable to see his daughter. I think the punishment fits his crime.

There should be a law whereby certain individuals are banned for life from accessing anything on the internet. We could call it Valle's Law.

I give this documentary a decent 7 out of 10 IMDb rating.

"Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop" (2015 release; 88 min.) is a documentary about NY cop Gilberto Valle. As the movie opens, we see Valle participating in a chatroom, having "ugly thoughts" about what he'd to to certain women. We then go back in time as we get to know Valle, a New York cop with a lovely wife and young daughter. When his wife discovers (through spyware) what Valle has been doing while on the computer, she contacts the police, and Valle is arrested for conspiring to kidnap. Did Valle cross the lien between free thought and punishable action? At this point we are 10 min. into the documentary, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this was the first feature-length documentary from producer-director Erin Lee Carr. I recently watch her more recent work (2017's Mommy Dead and Dearest, and this year's outstanding At the Heart of Gold: Inside the USA Gymnastics Scandal and equally riveting I Love You, Now Die), which establish Carr as one of the country's best documentarians, period. For her debut feature-length, Carr looks at the infamous "Cannibal Cop" case, which presents a tough legal issue: where does one cross the blurry line between free thoughts (you can literally think the most ugly and repulsive thoughts as long as you don't act on it) and punishable actions. It appears that many reviewers here (and of course the jury) are not able to look beyond the ugly and disgusting thoughts of this despicable man. The theme of "thought police" have been explored before, including in "1984" and Steven Spielberg's "Minority Report", but it's once thing to see it in a fictional setting, it is quite another to be confronted with an actual real life scenario. Please note that since this documentary was released in May, 2015,, the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled on the appeal in December of that year (not going to spoil it, but you can easily look up the court's ruling).

Bottom line: this is not an easy documentary to watch because of the underlying disturbing nature. But it would establish Carr as an up-and-coming true crime documentarian, and her reputation has only grown with subsequent documentaries she has made. Meanwhile, I'd readily suggest you check out "Thought Crimes", be it on VOD or on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

Gilberto Valle, a New York cop, is a member on a website dealing with sexual fetishes. Together with two other guys they talk about his plans to kidnap 24 women, roast them and eat them. He also makes preparations. But at the same time they all specifically say that it's pure fantasy and none of them actually mean that. The place where he says he has a big oven is actually a basement with laundry machines. He is trialed for conspiracy (not attempt, which is totally different).

Where is the limit between fantasy and actual intent to commit a crime? Can you judge someone based only on his deviant thoughts? Why is it OK for a writer such as Stephen King to write horrible stories about murders, but not for a "regular" guy to have fantasies? This is a very unusual case and a very interesting documentary.

If you're interested to know what happened with the trial after the documentary, you can read about it on Wikipedia.

Highly recommended

After being charged with conspiracy and having a judge overturn it... it sort of COMPLETLY undermines THREAT LAWS. Your not allowed to threaten Death to another person.. but is it only a threat if you tell the person you're threatening? What if you told everyone in SoCal media that you wanted to murder a politician... you'd be charged with uttering threats.. maybe not conspiracy unless you had an actual plan in play.. but the threat is real... had he not been exposed would he have gone through with it? Unknown.. just like the threat of death on another person.. it still was a threat.

Very good documentary. But it's chilly how this man doesn't seem regretful at all. He just feels regretful that he got caught. It's one thing to have fantasy, but the fact that he was using his power as police to stalk and research for these women?

And at which point shouldn't people be not responsible for planning and talking about it online.