Climber Charles Barrett Arrested for Yosemite Sexual Assaults

climber pat wrote:

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!!  

This sounds eerily similar to my experiences. The foreshadowing happened 2/3 and I dismissed it. And in general, I'm not saying I'm right, just sharing some hypotheses from my experience being around ASPD types and also all the other alcoholics I know. Alcohol, and other drugs, destabilize moods, and even more so in people that are already unstable. And yes, some monsters need nothing to do harm, those exist too.

I also believe we're just peeling back the curtain on ASPD. It's becoming much more apparent how widespread this disorder is. Seems like more than ever, thanks to social media platforms designed specifically to spray as hard as possible, people are proudly narcissistic. The level of narcissism in the world is growing in direct correlation to how many IG/TicTok videos get posted. 

Charlie is on MP why don't you just talk to him about it?

Erik Strand wrote:

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. 

He was certainly a drug addict but the lack of caring or remorse also indicates a sociopath.  I came to the sociopath conclusions after watching him for a long time and understanding the his charming personality was used to enable his actions along with the absolute absence of caring or remorse towards his victims. 

Addiction and sociopathy are not mutually exclusive.    

climber pat wrote:

He was certainly a drug addict but the lack of caring or remorse also indicates a sociopath.  I came to the sociopath conclusions after watching him for a long time and understanding the his charming personality was used to enable his actions along with the absolute absence of caring or remorse towards his victims. 

Addiction and sociopathy are not mutually exclusive.    

This is such a can of worms statement. First off, the American justice system encourages lying to get a better sentence. Secondly, is that you would not be in the same room as him for psychology sessions to watch him gleefully lie to a therapist to get what he wants. That isn't how therapy sessions work. I've gone to them for over ten years. It sounds like you watched him avoid punishment. My dads done it dozens of times. He had the option of like 15 years in prison for making meth, for go to rehab and do 18 months. He took the rehab and dudes already in jail again for drugs lol. From my experience, the only people I see doing unremorseful actions are addicts(another can of worms, since drugs are not the only addiction). The russian school mass shooting was done by people who were doped up in order to lower their levels of caring for the kids they took hostage.

I've watched everyone, especially three year old's, use charming personality in order to get what they want. You watch too many psych tv shows.

Things like sociopathy, ADHD, or any psychological disorder have levels to them. It isn't black and white. Nearly everyone has a degree of sociopathy to their personality, some have it to a probematic degree, but not many

The only thing worth reading in this thread.

Andrew Rice wrote:

Per US Govt. press release:
A three-count indictment was unsealed Tuesday after the arrest of well-known professional rock climber Charles Barrett, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert said in a news release.

According to court documents, in August 2016, the now 38-year-old Barrett forcibly committed sexual assault on two occasions and committed abusive sexual contact on a third while in Yosemite National Park.

Do You Have a Tip About This Case?

The U.S. Attorney’s Office asks that if you have information about this case or believe you may be a victim of Barrett’s, call (888) 653-0009, or email nps_isb@nps.gov.

The National Park Service is investigating this case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kimberly Sanchez, Michael Tierney, and Jessica Massey are the prosecutors.

CBS News Story about the Arrest. 

Darren Mabe wrote:

Charlie is on MP why don't you just talk to him about it?

Dont know if you can log into MP from a jail computer.

Andrew Rice wrote:

Per US Govt. press release:
A three-count indictment was unsealed Tuesday after the arrest of well-known professional rock climber Charles Barrett, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert said in a news release.

According to court documents, in August 2016, the now 38-year-old Barrett forcibly committed sexual assault on two occasions and committed abusive sexual contact on a third while in Yosemite National Park.

Do You Have a Tip About This Case?

The U.S. Attorney’s Office asks that if you have information about this case or believe you may be a victim of Barrett’s, call (888) 653-0009, or email nps_isb@nps.gov.

The National Park Service is investigating this case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kimberly Sanchez, Michael Tierney, and Jessica Massey are the prosecutors.

CBS News Story about the Arrest. 

Agreed

Adam Burch wrote:

I'm still praying to God the DA brings charges for this one of these days.

That was disturbing on so many levels.  Indictment warranted. 

I’ve only seen the guy’s name as an FAist around here. I certainly hope justice is served, horrible allegations. I can’t imagine the damage caused.

Also, the Aguile cowboy solo demands further investigation.

Yury wrote:

Your apparently wanted to say:
"If we aren’t going to dog pile on Charlie then we are DEFINITELY NOT going to shame accusers."

So far we do not have any victim.
We have only accusers and accused.

In a similar case a few women accused Jian Ghomeshi of multiple sexual assaults each.
Jian was acquitted.

Basically these ladies slept with him with a hope to get promoted.
After they have not received anything they filed police reports.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jian_Ghomeshi#Criminal_charges_and_trial

Awesome. Stats I’ve heard lean overwhelmingly in favor of perps completely getting away with sexual assault than false accusations.

I’m not saying he is guilty or not, hopefully the truth of that will come out in criminal proceedings.

Bail was denied in this case last Friday. The Federal judge cited flight risk and the accused presenting a threat to others as the reason for denying bail. 

Please, innocent until proven guilty. Of course, take whatever precautions you need super seriously, but withhold final judgement until the trial. I have been accused of things by a crazy family member and also a crazy coworker and it sucks when people don't look at the evidence and just listen to words. 

Daniel C wrote:

Please, innocent until proven guilty. Of course, take whatever precautions you need super seriously, but withhold final judgement until the trial. I have been accused of things by a crazy family member and also a crazy coworker and it sucks when people don't look at the evidence and just listen to words. 

What are you talking about, Daniel? Innocent Until Proven Guilty is the burden of proof for a jury to convict someone in a criminal trial. It regulates the ability of government to punish someone for alleged (until proven) crimes. It's not the burden of proof to have a conversation about someone or to hold an opinion about something they did. Do you get so upset every time there's a conversation about someone being arrested for an (alleged) crime like a murder, a bank robbery, etc.? Or only rape? 

Andrew Rice wrote:

What are you talking about, Daniel? Innocent Until Proven Guilty is the burden of proof to convict someone in a criminal trial. It's not the burden of proof to have a conversation about something or to hold an opinion about someone. 

The court of public opinion.

Andrew Rice wrote:

What are you talking about, Daniel? Innocent Until Proven Guilty is the burden of proof for a jury to convict someone in a criminal trial. It regulates the ability of government to punish someone for alleged (until proven) crimes. It's not the burden of proof to have a conversation about someone or to hold an opinion about something they did. Do you get so upset every time there's a conversation about someone being arrested for an (alleged) crime?

For me, it depends on the level of evidence, but in general I do think judgement should be withheld until the final verdict, unless there is like overwhelming amounts of evidence. I don't get upset, i'm just trying to reccomend a better path. If you ever get accused of something terrible that you would never do, you will get it. I have zero understanding of what went on in this case, I am just speaking on a general level here as well

Daniel C wrote:

Please, innocent until proven guilty. Of course, take whatever precautions you need super seriously, but withhold final judgement until the trial. I have been accused of things by a crazy family member and also a crazy coworker and it sucks when people don't look at the evidence and just listen to words. 

So two separate “crazy” individuals accused you of something? Was it the same thing? Seems weird.

Absolutely, Charlie deserves his day in court but the feds bringing these charges so far after the encounter indicates they got him good.

Tradiban wrote:

So two separate “crazy” individuals accused you of something? Was it the same thing? Seems weird.

Nope. But the first crazy is in jail after doing the same thing she did to me, to my younger sibling. 

Tradiban wrote:

So two separate “crazy” individuals accused you of something? Was it the same thing? Seems weird.

Absolutely, Charlie deserves his day in court but the feds bringing these charges so far after the encounter indicates they got him good.

It merits highlighting--these are federal prosecutors, who have around a 95% conviction rate.  Different from state/county/local DAs, the feds generally don't bring cases they haven't already won.

*edit.  I don't like hyperbole, so I went with a low estimation from what I remember, but decided to look it up after posting.  It's much higher than 95%. It is worth noting that the feds really like their plea deals and most cases don't go to trial.

Data published by the Pew Research Center in 2019 highlighted how federal prosecutors have a 99.6% conviction rate. To put those numbers in perspective, U.S. Attorneys filed 79,704 cases in 2018. Of those, only 320 resulted in acquittals. 

Senor Arroz wrote:

Being judged by the public is a real thing. Actions have consequences. 

Do you mean that, in your opinion, being judge by the masses are part of whatever penality one should face for actions XYZ?

If so, if an individual turns out to be innocent of any wrongdoing, restitution for prejudices from the masses should be done through which mechanism?

Wouldn't it simpler, smart actually, to let justice run its course?