Climber Charles Barrett Arrested for Yosemite Sexual Assaults

Senor Arroz wrote:

Surely you know, Alan, that "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal concept, not a social one. He deserves his day(s) in court before being convicted of a crime. That doesn't mean we, as individuals or as a collective society, have to wait until the outcome of a trial to decide how we feel about a person or their actions. There are plenty of folks in this community with additional information that informs their judgement. And, as someone else noted, it's really rare for sexual assaults to even be charged. DAs are very reluctant to bring cases they can't prove. 

Still best to wait for a conviction before redacting FAs.

This is so crazy! I haven't seen Charlie in almost 15 years, back when Joshua Tree had free camping, so at that time, I imagine he could have been a very different person, but he was quite young, in his early 20s, and not exactly what I would call mature. He and the rest of the boys (and a couple of the girls I can specifically remember) were constantly engaging in what might be called "locker room talk", puns, and innuendo. Everyone was constantly soloing in costumes and it was far too common to see the boys wearing their girl friends hot pants, bikinis, or nothing at all! There was even a recurring caveman/woman? costume consisting of a mini skirt, tube top, and a large club that always ended hanging between the legs while they climbed. Lots of grunting, monkey sounds, and jokes that would be considered offensive by today's standards. But honestly, those sounds and jokes were constant, costumes or not, from the entire crew.. We saw far more of those guys than was necessary, seemed like someone was always sitting in gum even though we could never figure out who was chewing it, but I can't remember it causing anything beyond laughs and smiles. one thing I do remember, wether we wore costumes or not, Charlie was ALWAYS carrying a giant club with him, and as a result, no matter how crude the jokes got, we usually found him cute and funny and easy to be friends. He was a goofy type, he could be rude or crass, but I never saw him as mean. 

But a lot of years have passed since those days and everything could change, I just hope it isn't true. At this point, it's a classic case of she said, he said, and all the details are coming from the she said. There are so many strange details that don't connect the way intuition would suggest. My only thought on how it would happen 2 days in a row would be if they were on a wall together, which seems unlikely in August, but I bet one of his friends could figure that out. Also odd the accusations DEescalate in nature. Normally someone would test the waters first and if he gets away with that, try something more daring next. Someone mentioned a rape kit earlier, though I have NOT seen any official mention of one. If such was collected, then the incident would have to have been reported immediately. Why did DA wait 6 years to file complaint? It just doesn't make any sense! I do hope it's some big "misunderstanding" but domestic abuse is one of those charges where no matter what the circumstances are, if she says he took advantage of her without consent, he goes to jail, no questions asked, and is guilty until proven innocent. If he did force himself upon her, he deserves to be locked up and rot in there. Either way, Karma and God always know the truth and will even the score. For the next month or two, we just wait. The whole thing is just very sad.

Looks like the climbing “community” learned exactly nothing from the “Me Too” movement. Downplaying accusers, excuses based on unrelated behavior, gas lighting, reticence from fear of vindiction, we got it all here folks.

Truth of the matter is that sometimes friends do bad things and charges wouldn’t be brought if there wasn’t a strong sense of a conviction. He’s toast.

Tradiban wrote:

Looks like the climbing “community” learned exactly nothing from the “Me Too” movement. Downplaying accusers, excuses based on unrelated behavior, gas lighting, reticence from fear of vindiction, we got it all here folks.

Truth of the matter is that sometimes friends do bad things and charges wouldn’t be brought if there wasn’t a strong sense of a conviction. He’s toast.

I finally agree with you

Meghan Mennard wrote:

This is so crazy! I haven't seen Charlie in almost 15 years, back when Joshua Tree had free camping, so at that time, I imagine he could have been a very different person, but he was quite young, in his early 20s, and not exactly what I would call mature. He and the rest of the boys (and a couple of the girls I can specifically remember) were constantly engaging in what might be called "locker room talk", puns, and innuendo. Everyone was constantly soloing in costumes and it was far too common to see the boys wearing their girl friends hot pants, bikinis, or nothing at all! There was even a recurring caveman/woman? costume consisting of a mini skirt, tube top, and a large club that always ended hanging between the legs while they climbed. Lots of grunting, monkey sounds, and jokes that would be considered offensive by today's standards. But honestly, those sounds and jokes were constant, costumes or not, from the entire crew.. We saw far more of those guys than was necessary, seemed like someone was always sitting in gum even though we could never figure out who was chewing it, but I can't remember it causing anything beyond laughs and smiles. one thing I do remember, wether we wore costumes or not, Charlie was ALWAYS carrying a giant club with him, and as a result, no matter how crude the jokes got, we usually found him cute and funny and easy to be friends. He was a goofy type, he could be rude or crass, but I never saw him as mean. 

But a lot of years have passed since those days and everything could change, I just hope it isn't true. At this point, it's a classic case of she said, he said, and all the details are coming from the she said. There are so many strange details that don't connect the way intuition would suggest. My only thought on how it would happen 2 days in a row would be if they were on a wall together, which seems unlikely in August, but I bet one of his friends could figure that out. Also odd the accusations DEescalate in nature. Normally someone would test the waters first and if he gets away with that, try something more daring next. Someone mentioned a rape kit earlier, though I have NOT seen any official mention of one. If such was collected, then the incident would have to have been reported immediately. Why did DA wait 6 years to file complaint? It just doesn't make any sense! I do hope it's some big "misunderstanding" but domestic abuse is one of those charges where no matter what the circumstances are, if she says he took advantage of her without consent, he goes to jail, no questions asked, and is guilty until proven innocent. If he did force himself upon her, he deserves to be locked up and rot in there. Either way, Karma and God always know the truth and will even the score. For the next month or two, we just wait. The whole thing is just very sad.

That’s awesome that he was cute and cuddly. There are a multitude of reasons why he would be charged with SA over 2 days- mainly the SA started at 11:00pm and the victim was then forced into anal and digital vaginal penetration again at 12:30 am. Karma and god do nothing, but the legal process will take much more than a month or two. People can draw this stuff out years. All we can really hope is that his other victims come forward (they are there.)

Bill W wrote:

Still best to wait for a conviction before redacting FAs.

Careful, Senior Arroz might lock the thread again if you do anything less than publicly condem whatshisface.

Sarah Z wrote:

Karma and god do nothing, but the legal process will take much more than a month or two. 

Most common sense thing I have read on mp.com in 20 years.

Reports and often subsequent convictions of well known and respected people for all sorts of crimes make me very caution of who I put on a pedestal especially if I do not know them very very well.  I can respect a persons accomplishments but not a person's character. 

Sociopaths are often likeable and charismatic people.  Often it is hard to identify a sociopath until after you have been deeply hurt, especially with your first encounter with sociopath and you are willing to trust what you see on the surface is the real person.  Because sociopaths are likeable and charismatic others in your peer group often do not believe what the sociopath did.  Often sociopaths are just playing with you for their own entertainment and feel nothing for you and sometimes the pain they cause is the entertainment.

Like many I will wait and see how this particular case turns out but in the mean time I will have nothing to do with him, not that I know him or would have anything to do with him in any case.  

Senor Arroz wrote:

Surely you know, Alan, that "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal concept, not a social one. He deserves his day(s) in court before being convicted of a crime. That doesn't mean we, as individuals or as a collective society, have to wait until the outcome of a trial to decide how we feel about a person or their actions. There are plenty of folks in this community with additional information that informs their judgement. And, as someone else noted, it's really rare for sexual assaults to even be charged. DAs are very reluctant to bring cases they can't prove. 

Senor, I tried to respond yesterday, but found that the thread was 'locked', so I'm glad that it has now been reopened.

First, I do not know Charles Barrett at all, nor do I have an opinion about his guilt or innocence (and any opinion I might form would not be based on press releases or stories in the media (social and otherwise) as I know how distorted those often are). I understand that individuals might have some more direct knowledge and surely they are entitled to their own opinions. What I am concerned about is that he is being publicly pilloried without having had the chance to defend himself in court. I strongly disagree that " 'innocent until proven guilty' is a legal concept not a social one". Maybe that is the case for some, but, if so, that totally undercuts the fundamental concept of a just society. It means that based upon an accusation and possibly 'gossip' an individual can be permanently condemned even if it turns out that the accusation is not true or. at least, not supported by sufficient creditable evidence. Yes, a verdict of 'not guilty' does not definitively mean that a person did not commit the crime, but that is the best out imperfect system can do (and no such system yet designed by humans is 'perfect') and to then to consider that even despite such a verdict the accused was actually guilty really makes our legal system meaningless. In any circumstances,having had such an accusation made against someone will haunt them, at least to some extent, for the rest of their lives, whatever the outcome in court, and in our current age of instant and widespread communication via social media and elsewhere, such a 'taint' spreads even further, especially within a relatively small and connected community such as ours, than it it did in the past.

I also, from very direct and long-term professional experience, disagree with your statement that "it's really rare for sexual assaults to even be charged. DAs are very reluctant to to bring cases they can't prove". That may have been the common approach in the past and may well still be true in certain jurisdictions, but it is far from always the case. In some jurisdictions DAs don't want to face the possible 'backlash' of not going forward on such complaints. Again, from my own experience, I have been involved in multiple cases that, once all the evidence was heard, were quite clearly false accusations and numerous others where there was sufficient doubt to result in acquittals (as well as others where my clients were convicted), so this type of 'virtual lynching' is something that I find to be very disturbing.

As a "professional rock climber" he shouldn't have any trouble making bail.

Yoda Jedi Knight wrote:

Careful, Senior Arroz might lock the thread again if you do anything less than publicly condem whatshisface.

Wasn't me that locked it, Padawan, and I don't have a strong opinion about what others post in this thread other than that I do believe victim shaming is out of line.

Andrew Rice wrote:

Wasn't me that locked it, Padawan, and I don't have a strong opinion about what others post in this thread other than that I do believe victim shaming is out of line. FWIW, I worked very closely with a rape treatment center for several years and I've seen the incredible reluctance of law enforcement to arrest rapists and for prosecutors to bring them to trial. Not saying this means Charles Barrett is guilty by virtue of being arrested but, simply, that in my experience prosecutors don't rush into these things carelessly or without credible evidence that makes them think they're going to win. 

Thanks for the clarification

Alan Rubin wrote:

Senor, I tried to respond yesterday, but found that the thread was 'locked', so I'm glad that it has now been reopened.

First, I do not know Charles Barrett at all, nor do I have an opinion about his guilt or innocence (and any opinion I might form would not be based on press releases or stories in the media (social and otherwise) as I know how distorted those often are). I understand that individuals might have some more direct knowledge and surely they are entitled to their own opinions. What I am concerned about is that he is being publicly pilloried without having had the chance to defend himself in court. I strongly disagree that " 'innocent until proven guilty' is a legal concept not a social one". Maybe that is the case for some, but, if so, that totally undercuts the fundamental concept of a just society. It means that based upon an accusation and possibly 'gossip' an individual can be permanently condemned even if it turns out that the accusation is not true or. at least, not supported by sufficient creditable evidence. Yes, a verdict of 'not guilty' does not definitively mean that a person did not commit the crime, but that is the best out imperfect system can do (and no such system yet designed by humans is 'perfect') and to then to consider that even despite such a verdict the accused was actually guilty really makes our legal system meaningless. In any circumstances,having had such an accusation made against someone will haunt them, at least to some extent, for the rest of their lives, whatever the outcome in court, and in our current age of instant and widespread communication via social media and elsewhere, such a 'taint' spreads even further, especially within a relatively small and connected community such as ours, than it it did in the past.

I also, from very direct and long-term professional experience, disagree with your statement that "it's really rare for sexual assaults to even be charged. DAs are very reluctant to to bring cases they can't prove". That may have been the common approach in the past and may well still be true in certain jurisdictions, but it is far from always the case. In some jurisdictions DAs don't want to face the possible 'backlash' of not going forward on such complaints. Again, from my own experience, I have been involved in multiple cases that, once all the evidence was heard, were quite clearly false accusations and numerous others where there was sufficient doubt to result in acquittals (as well as others where my clients were convicted), so this type of 'virtual lynching' is something that I find to be very disturbing.

Thanks for this really thoughtful response, Alan. I respect your POV. Obviously our lived experiences around this particular topic are different. Also, sent you a PM. 

climber pat wrote:

Reports and often subsequent convictions of well known and respected people for all sorts of crimes make me very caution of who I put on a pedestal especially if I do not know them very very well.  I can respect a persons accomplishments but not a person's character. 

Sociopaths are often likeable and charismatic people.  Often it is hard to identify a sociopath until after you have been deeply hurt, especially with your first encounter with sociopath and you are willing to trust what you see on the surface is the real person.  Because sociopaths are likeable and charismatic others in your peer group often do not believe what the sociopath did.  Often sociopaths are just playing with you for their own entertainment and feel nothing for you and sometimes the pain they cause is the entertainment.

Like many I will wait and see how this particular case turns out but in the mean time I will have nothing to do with him, not that I know him or would have anything to do with him in any case.  

Don't know of any studies to back this up, but I think long term alcohol abuse will turn people into shells of themselves, and likely into sociopaths who do what they want and feel nothing at all. I've known several, and all were alcoholics. Alcohol is one of the worst plagues mankind has ever seen, and very likely a major factor in these alleged tragic crimes. 

Matthew Jaggers wrote:

Don't know of any studies to back this up, but I think long term alcohol abuse will turn people into shells of themselves, and likely into sociopaths who do what they want and feel nothing at all. I've known several, and all were alcoholics. Alcohol is one of the worst plagues mankind has ever seen, and very likely a major factor in these alleged tragic crimes. 

No studies are going to back that up; however if you flip the correlation, you might find a study that backs up sociopaths being more likely to be addicts.  Alcohol is not the devil; the devil just indulges a little too much.

https://rehabs.com/blog/the-curious-link-between-sociopaths-and-addiction/

Todd Jenkins wrote:

No studies are going to back that up; however if you flip the correlation, you might find a study that backs up sociopaths being more likely to be addicts.  Alcohol is not the devil; the devil just indulges a little too much.

https://rehabs.com/blog/the-curious-link-between-sociopaths-and-addiction/

Very likely true. I've never given it any thought until now, but 3/3 seems to make a strong case one way or the other. I will say you're wrong about one thing, alcohol is the problem. And I say that never having a problem with it myself, I don't get the appeal personally. Surely you wouldn't claim the same about opium, heroin, etc. The drug is the evil, and some just give in to it more than others. It's one drug that no matter how little or much you partake in, it steals a little of your soul. If you can't have an absolutely pleasant and enjoyable time without it or even without thinking of it, then it already has a piece of you.  

Alan Rubin wrote:

I also, from very direct and long-term professional experience, disagree with your statement that "it's really rare for sexual assaults to even be charged. DAs are very reluctant to to bring cases they can't prove". That may have been the common approach in the past and may well still be true in certain jurisdictions, but it is far from always the case. In some jurisdictions DAs don't want to face the possible 'backlash' of not going forward on such complaints. Again, from my own experience, I have been involved in multiple cases that, once all the evidence was heard, were quite clearly false accusations and numerous others where there was sufficient doubt to result in acquittals (as well as others where my clients were convicted), so this type of 'virtual lynching' is something that I find to be very disturbing.

Data gleaned from personal experience is far too limited in its scope and thus leads to opinion that is biased by that limited scope. Data gleaned from exhaustive studies helps to see what's actually happening a majority of the time and allows us to see what can be done that actually might affect a majority of those affected. 

The primary data source on the Rainn.org site, that's been linked already on this thread and supports the ridiculously low reporting to charging rates, use is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is an annual study conducted by the Justice Department interviewing tens of thousands of Americans each year

"but it is far from always the case" is just another way of saying the "there are outlier instances" and the whole point of studies done with large data sets is to filter out the outlier instances to give an actionable picture. Because, after all, often the entire goal of pointing out the outlier is to prevent action upon the general case supported by the majority of the data, which is a weird place to put one's self imo. 

Matthew Jaggers wrote:

Don't know of any studies to back this up, but I think long term alcohol abuse will turn people into shells of themselves, and likely into sociopaths who do what they want and feel nothing at all. I've known several, and all were alcoholics. Alcohol is one of the worst plagues mankind has ever seen, and very likely a major factor in these alleged tragic crimes. 

I am not quite sure what you want backed up by studies.    Here is a definition and signs of a sociopath.  webmd sociopath signs As for the entertainment aspect, that is really my interpretation of the behavior of some of the sociopaths I have been unfortunate to interact with and let pass my guards.  But what other reason could there be?  Perhaps some other gain like money or consideration which my sociopaths were not able to acquire from me.

One of my sociopaths was not a problem for many years until he started using crack cocaine.  :(  Then everything that came out of his mouth was a lie and an attempt to manipulate those around him, including his therapists which I think he enjoyed judging from the gleam in his eyes while he played the therapist for fools telling them what they wanted to hear.  In hindsight I guess the point of his manipulation was not so much his entertainment but to maintain his social standing so he could continue hurting others and maintain his employment.   Eventually his entire peer group got a clue and cut off contact.  It took about a decade for most of his peer group to come to terms with the problem and cut him off.  Interestingly most of the peer group cut him off about the same time without any collaboration.  Interventions happened almost immediately after his cocaine addition became well known.  About the same time his cocaine addition because public knowledge manipulation became extreme and ASPD diagnosis would have been possible.  

Whatever the drug, alcohol, heroin, cocaine, etc drug use makes the situation much worse.  I am fully aware that for the most part people can partake in many recreational drugs without problems but for some the drug is a severe problem that makes the problem extremely harmful. 

Two other sociopaths I dealt with did not have any addiction problems or even use drugs.  I think they were both into it for the entertainment and gave up when I would not cross certain lines and was no longer "fun".  At that point both of them just moved onto someone else.  Both of these also gave clues during our 1st few interactions.  One set of clues were something like telling me they were not a good person.  Another warning was an up front admission that they do not form long term friendships/relationships.   These warning are given once, probably to see if you are paying attention and make the 'game' more challenging.   If someone tells you something like this take them at their word and move on!!  

https://americanalpineclub.org/safeoutside

The "Safe Outside" Facebook page 

https://m.facebook.com/safeoutsidenow/

made reference to this indictment being related to an initiative begun 1n 2018.

You dealt with a drug addict, not a sociopath. As someone who lost both of his parents because of drug addiction, and also gone to therapy for the better part of 10 years; I can confidently say that drugs will totally change someone into something that is unrecognizable. Alcohol is also a drug and causes a lot of good people to do bad things.