His defence was the obvious one, it was harmless fantasy. There was never any intention to act upon it.
This is where the waters become a little muddied.
The prosecution argued that although initially it was just a fantasy, the cop carefully detailed a plan to abduct a named female, childhood friend from another state, to be his first victim.
Chat logs went on to expose his plan to visit her beforehand, to gather intelligence on her.
He'd even gone as far as illegally accessing the police database to check not just her records, but the records of multiple women he had named and shared pictures of on the website.
The fantasy theory lost a bit of footing when it was discovered that he actually made this trip and phone texts were submitted containing questions he had asked her about the details of her place of work.
Upon his arrival back in his home state, he immediately logged on to the fetish site and reported back to his alleged co-conspirators, excitedly stating how juicy and delicious she looked.
In the meantime, his wife, concerned at the amount of time he was now spending on the computer, had installed spyware, which alerted her to the dark and disturbing nature of her husband's fetish.
Even more disturbing was the discovery that she, too, had been named to be spit roasted and served amid a backyard barbecue. Cropped photos of her face were copied and pasted on to ghoulish images of dead bodies.
She immediately left her husband and reported him to authorities, who then set about making their case.
He was found guilty by a jury of his peers but the judge overturned the verdict. The prosecution has since appealed the decision and is awaiting a new trial.
Civil/human right supporters argued the prosecution had gone too far. If thinking sick thoughts were to become a benchmark, we would need to lock up authors like Stephen King, they claimed.
I argue that point. For one, an author's works are openly sold as fiction. Their thoughts, although not to everyone's taste (excuse the pun), are shared very publicly in print and not kept as a dirty little secret from those closest to you.
But surely we are entitled to have our own private thoughts and fantasies, regardless of how repulsive they may be to others.
Yet history shows, too many times, how private thoughts have brought about the sickening reality we now know to be serial killers. Do we not also have the right to be protected from them?
If there is anything to be learned from this case, it's beware the Google search box. While some may argue it's the perfect way to harmlessly explore your dark side, others will counter that it is in fact a window into your very soul. The true you. Each search as intimate as a page in a deeply personal journal. A daily diary of desire made up of keystrokes.
You can delete the search history but you can never delete the thought.
Conviction or not, the Cannibal Cop has lost his job, his home, his wife and child. His thoughts have basically cost him his life. But have more lives been potentially saved in the fallout? And what of the repercussions? Is this just the beginning of a whole new crimewave?
If, like me, you thought the security of your emails and selfies were all you had to worry about, think again ... but be very careful where you "think" it.
-Kate Stewart is a politically incorrect columnist of no repute. She does welcome your feedback - investik8@gmail.com
