Sexsite visiter of barely legal. OK.
He admitted he preferred young. OK.
Had pic's of both victims. OK.
Any other pix? huh? OK.
Nowaday's he would have been strung up on just that,
If he hadn't gotten off w/true killer caught.
Was he a pedo, But not murderer?
In todays standards yes.
Cops and society want blood before truth.
I don't know what your legal or criminal justice background is, but that's not enough to get someone convicted in a court of law. Especially someone rich and white.
shareTowards the end of the movie it's impossible not to feel for Henry. He didn't deserve the "grilling" he got at the police headquarters, and he certainly didn't deserve the treatment his wife was giving him.
We know he's not the killer, but one question remains: to what degree Henry Hearst was a deranged man?
I'm sure quite a few (older) men smile sympathetically when he asks Victor "who do you talk to in a Martini bar? The best looking girl you can get away with". But craving for young women is one thing, craving for young girls is another.
After all, he groomed his wife since she was 14 (him being around 40 at the time) not to mention he had his eyes on her since she was 11.
In one flashback we see him very affectionate towards his niece (given the circumstances, you'd be forgiven to think they were a bit too intimate and playful) and in the next he bangs a street worker which could have been only 3-4 years older than Camille.
Where do you draw the line? Was Henry a sick man? Was he "a danger to society" by today's medical/legal standards?