Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop

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.

In October 2012 a NYC policeman called Gilberto Valle was arrested and charged with planning to abduct to kidnap , murder and eat young women . Later convicted the verdict was later overturned and this documentary called THOUGHT CRIMES tells the bizarre Valle story and asks when should discussing something on the internet be treated as a planned crime in the real world

An interesting documentary from Erin Lee Carr but perhaps not as interesting as it could have been . You see the point it's bringing to our attention - when does the internet world enter the real world ? The problem is we now live in the internet age and you can't blame the state for thinking what someone writes in a forum is what they're planning to do in real life . Let's be honest here - there's no such thing as privacy on the internet . You open an account on Facebook you're inviting potentially hundreds of millions of people to spy on you . You've had a terrible time with airport security and mention on a Twitter account that you hope someone bombs the airport you can't really complain if you get a visit from the police . An let's not forget the excuses from TO CATCH A PREDATOR and the British equivilents by Stinson Hunter and Letzgo Hunting where potential predators whine they were in an 18 plus chat room and they didn't believe someone claiming to be under the age was consent was an actual schoolgirl

This is the problem with THOUGHT CRIMES Valle can claim he wasn't going to abduct and murder women he knew but the thing is he did break several codes of conduct . One very important thing Laurie Penny points out is that he accessed a police computer database to get information on women he knew . It's strange that an American documentary feels the need to ask a Brit like Penny for her worthless opinion but she is right in what she's saying and when I'm agreeing her that might tell you something . THOUGHT CRIMES does open a can of worms of sorts but it constantly reminded of what one of the blokes caught on TO CATCH A PREDATOR said "Don't go messing around on the internet because it might really get you in to trouble" . Never a truer word spoken

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

"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.

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.