Sex Crimes

Judge Overturns Conviction in 'Cannibal Cop' Case About Violent Online Fantasies

|

Of course there were jokes about … OMG GOOOOOALLLLLL!
Facebook

A federal judge has ruled that New York City ex-cop Gilbert Valle's online fantasies of kidnapping and eating women were exactly that – a fantasy. Though a jury convicted Valle in 2013 because they believed his online conversations indicated he wanted to carry out his rather unusual sexual fetish in the real world, a federal judge has overturned the conviction. From the Associated Press:

Judge Paul Gardephe ruled late Monday that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of Gilberto Valle, defense attorney Julia Gatto said Tuesday.

"The judge's well-reasoned decision validates what we have said since the beginning: There was no crime," she said. "Gil Valle is innocent of any conspiracy. Gil is guilty of nothing more than having unconventional thoughts."

I wrote about the case last year, worrying about whether he had been charged on the basis of his dark fantasies being extremely disturbing to the average person. But he had also used his access to a police database to actually track one of his fantasy targets. Judge Gardephe, though, in an 118-page ruling, determined there was no actual evidence to indicate a real plan to kidnap anybody. From The New York Times:

Judge Gardephe wrote that "once the lies and the fantastical elements are stripped away, what is left are deeply disturbing misogynistic chats and emails written by an individual obsessed with imagining women he knows suffering horrific sex-related pain, terror and degradation.

"Despite the highly disturbing nature of Valle's deviant and depraved sexual interests, his chats and emails about these interests are not sufficient — standing alone — to make out the elements of conspiracy to commit kidnapping."

Prosecutors are appealing the decision. According to the Times, they asked for Valle to be detained for the appeal, but the judge refused. He was released to home detention. His conviction for illegally accessing the police database still stands.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

21 responses to “Judge Overturns Conviction in 'Cannibal Cop' Case About Violent Online Fantasies

  1. Truly two classes of people. Good thing he did actually break the law. That’ll at least ensure he doesn’t keep his badge.

    1. Ummm, are you new here?

      1. Sorry, I may have been unclear:

        The judge upheld Mr. Valle’s conviction on a second count, of illegally gaining access to the law enforcement database, which carried a maximum sentence of one year. Mr. Valle was fired by the Police Department upon his conviction.

        Sounds like he’s out. Hopefully.

        I was just saying its a good thing he did do that (the unauthorized access), because the “I want to kill women” part wouldn’t have gotten him fired/convicted on its own, apparently.

        1. Police have done far worse and got their jobs back. We’ll have to wait and see. Besides, he can still be hired by another police dept.

          1. I’m hoping it’s a felony conviction. That would ban him from police employment, right?

            1. Bwahahaha

          2. Not in New York. If you’re terminated for cause (as this twerp was), you lose your certification. He might be able to get a cop job, but it won’t be in New York.

  2. I wonder if the person he tracked is aware of it?

    Yet one more reason not to go to New York.

    1. It’s not very fair to discount the entire city due to the morbid obsessions of one officer.

      Especially when you can wait until the next time deBlasio opens his gob for a good reason to avoid New York.

      1. That’s why I said “yet one more”.

  3. Wow, very mixed emotions on this one. One, how did this psycho get a job as a cop?…nevermind. Two, though I am not a fan of thought crimes, for this turd maybe we should make an exception. Three, ladies memorize this face, if you see this man, run. Wait, this is a libertarian site, there are no ladies here.

    1. He actually tracked one of his intended victims by inappropriate use of a police database. I think this moves away from typical thought crime because he actually targets individuals. He’s not just saying he hates jews, or whatever. The process has already gone so far as to choose specific victims.

      1. Then, that does change things. What was the judge thinking then? Nevermind. Restore this hero to the force!

  4. I didn’t know Warty was taking Prot?g?s?

  5. “Gil is guilty of nothing more than having unconventional thoughts.”

    With all due respect, isn’t that the worst crime of all?

  6. They sent him home with his mother. How does that conversation go?

    “What would you like for dinner, son?”

    1. +1 Hannibal Lecter

  7. Well, conspiracy requires two or more people. Who was the other conspirator, I wonder? If there wasn’t somebody else involved, then the conspiracy claim fails right out of the gate.

    Most likely, though, it failed because conspiracy requires more than just chit-chat about committing a crime. It also requires an “overt act” (or somesuch) toward committing the crime, where the overt act is itself illegal. His access to the database may have been illegal, but may not have been an overt act.

    1. There was another conspirator. A guy from England, I believe? I honestly can’t remember all the details but there was another guy, who I think also said it was just roleplaying.

  8. I want this guy on a permanent psych hold.

  9. Can’t we just keep the conviction in place? I’m sure that being a cop, there’s something awful he did we didn’t catch him on.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.