I don't know anything about this person.
I find the focus on his internet presence and actions uncomfortable.
If he has severe MH issues then that should be taken into account at the trial.
If he was being harrassed online and manipulated bullied etc then those who stepped over the line should be found and action taken of whatever type is available.
Also questions about how this did not come to attention of (??? not sure how works in USA) IE failures, gaps etc.
Ok good.
He has been arrested for raping his mother who has dementia. Repeatedly.
He did not disclose this to his followers (AFAIK) which presumably means he knew it was not something that it's ok to do.
The points about goading to extreme acts for followers is different then.
Is there any evidence he was pushed to do this by his audience? If so I will reconsider. Esp if he shared images or said he'd done it in DMs to people who wanted him to.
The suggestions that he didn't understand consent are ridiculous. Again, why would he have not talked about it etc?
Sorry no. It sounds like he was vulnerable and others got enjoyment from pushing him further.
That's bad obv.
I do not buy at all that it's any full or partial explanation or reason for mitigation.
Because if he believed it was fine the situation doesn't sound like he would have kept it to himself.