Climber Charles Barrett Arrested for Yosemite Sexual Assaults

Long Rangerwrote:

Another strategy is to just apologize for a stupid comment and we can all move on instead of yet another side quest. This thread is already difficult to manage signal vs noise. The topic is pretty serious. 

Sorry, nothing to apologize for.  My point being misconstrued does not decrease its relevancy.  

Russ Wallingwrote:

I think you missed the point.  I did read the article.  Let me clarify my position for you:  The article (and his life of crime as it is) bringing all this stuff to light puts him in the position of a pariah, and from the article and his actions, it is well deserved.  There is no way after reading the article anyone could support this guy, and I certainly don't, in any way.  The article made him look really bad, probably not as bad as he really is, and the actual point is nobody could be objective toward him after reading the article.  So, yeah, the pool is tainted, he is a flying piece of shit, and decades ago someone should have ended his misery.

you've got some balls to make that statement.

It's not like a high percentage of people are reading Outside magazine so jury selection should be no problem. 

As to me using the term "colored", would it somehow be better if I had said "people of color"? I see no real difference and that article is behind a pay wall.  I wonder what judge Magot says at home.

Eric Marxwrote:

I thought it was interesting that the article never actually touched on "How he got away with this for so long" other than some vague references to him being white and a strong climber. It's a well-presented timeline though. Hopefully the current round of justice sees this POS put away for a very long time.

[Insert screed here]

You could fertilize the lawn with this post.

Bb Cc wrote:

Does this taint a jury pool? Is that addressed during jury selection? I believe these questions relate directly to the pending trial’s progress and outcome.

Anyone versed in jury management that can dare to provide a brief synopsis?

While I didn't practice in California, so can't say specifically what happens there, but in most (all?) jurisdictions, as part of the jury selection process, prospective jurors will be questioned by  the judge and/or the attorneys for each side whether or not they have heard or read anything about the case or the parties involved. Often the questions are more specific, especially if the case is one that has been the subject of significant pre-trial publicity. If a potential juror does express familiarity with the facts of the case, there will usually be a more detailed follow-up inquiry, quite likely resulting in the potential juror not being chosen to be on the trial jury.  Our system relies on the fact that most people will respond honestly to such questions--and the overwhelming majority do so.

Eric Marx--the amount of ignorance that you express in your comments above is astounding--even within the context of this Forum.

Bb Cc wrote:

Does this taint a jury pool? Is that addressed during jury selection? I believe these questions relate directly to the pending trial’s progress and outcome.

Anyone versed in jury management that can dare to provide a brief synopsis?

Unlikely to do so. This is what voir dire is for during jury selection, and honestly, Outside does not have that wide of a circulation.

Additionally, the jury instructions as well as jurors’ individual commitment to be fair and impartial should be adequate to minimize the chances of a successful appeal. 

Eric Marxwrote:

I thought it was interesting that the article never actually touched on "How he got away with this for so long" other than some vague references to him being white and a strong climber. It's a well-presented timeline though. Hopefully the current round of justice sees this POS put away for a very long time.

HOW he was able to get away with this for so long:

1)Lack of institutions for severely mentally ill people who haven't yet crossed the line into heavily punishable crimes. In 1960, this guy would have been committed 15 years prior.

2)A weak, far left justice system in California, which prioritizes the criminals over the victims, and less harsh sentencing across the board. This ranges from all of the District Attorneys, legislators creating and rewriting the law, the judges creating the sentencing, and all the way down the chain to Defense attorneys creating every irrelevant argument they can think of why as to why he should be granted leniency. This includes the public constantly railing against the harshness of the justice system and voting in the legislators and DAs. If Yosemite happened to be in Texas or Iowa this guy would have been jailed 15 years ago.
3)Downstream cultural ideas around promiscuity. It's mentioned that K.G. shows some amateur erotic photos of herself bound and topless to Barrett on their FIRST meeting. She's perfectly within her rights to do that. It's certainly not a normal thing to do and shouldn't be normalized. It shouldn't be normalized because there's always the off-chance you show these photos to a raving lunatic trash-human who decides it means you want to be sexually assaulted in the middle of the night because you like bondage.  I carry a gun almost everywhere I go. I'm a grown and capable man. I don't take my gun and walk down a dark alley in Brooklyn at 3am, because I realize there is a distinct possibility of myself being robbed, even though I could(hopefully) defend myself. I do the opposite, by doing everything I can to minimize risk to myself and my family. If you only had sex with somebody you were married to, or intended to marry, you'd never open the door for any type of relational sexual assault to occur or escalate. That applies to both men and women. Going further culturally downstream, the ubiquitous use of birth control has only harmed women in this aspect.

So that's "HOW" that was able to continue for 20 years.

Bear in mind, if it was up to me the minimum sentence for punching a woman unconscious would be somewhere around 10 years, with no parole, and a lifetime order of protection, let alone any form of sexual assault which would be closer to 20-life.

Advocating for stronger sentencing for violence against women is good, but the slut shaming, victim blaming attitude you have is exactly why these crimes are seldom prosecuted. It has nothing to do with California politics. It has to do with people who think like you.  

“This man has been a parasite in our community for decades and we (myself included) have enabled him,” he wrote. “Charlie is a talented climber and extremely gregarious plus his history of mental health issues made it easy for all of us to make excuses for him. We as a community failed. We failed his victims and allowed him to continue victimizing. I hope that he is finally held accountable and that the women he violated find some closure. Let’s do better.”

Wickwire recalls instances where other climbers lied about their ascents and were quickly banished. “No one would climb with them or believe what they said,” he points out. But when it came to stories about Barrett’s violence against women, people were too willing to look the other way—even after Barrett was arrested and a detailed indictment from a federal investigation was posted online.

Maybe the most poignant part of the article in relation to the community's response.  

We are not always aware of our ingrained biases our inherited privileges. Someone has expressed deep hurt and irreparable loss. To say, "We got the bad guy, carry on."  in the guise of sensitivity, is insulting and incredibly vain. 

Eric Marxwrote:

If you only had sex with somebody you were married to, or intended to marry, you'd never open the door for any type of relational sexual assault to occur or escalate. That applies to both men and women. Going further culturally downstream, the ubiquitous use of birth control has only harmed women in this aspect.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Alan, I'm a detective here on Long Island, in another state with a horrific justice system(NY) and have been for over ten years. I am personally responsible for sending several people to prison who have committed sexual assault, however brief or lenient the sentencing was.

I know my conservative worldview isn't popular in the very left-leaning climbing community. I don't care, the truth is the truth and I present it as kindly as I can. Pretending he got away with this because he was popular and white doesn't solve any of the problems. 

Eric, consider you may be what's called, "victim blaming".

Eric Marxwrote:

Alan, I'm a detective here on Long Island, in another state with a horrific justice system(NY) and have been for over ten years. I am personally responsible for sending several people to prison who have committed sexual assault, however brief or lenient the sentencing was.

I know my conservative worldview isn't popular in the very left-leaning climbing community. I don't care, the truth is the truth and I present it as kindly as I can. Pretending he got away with this because he was popular and white doesn't solve any of the problems. 

If you think the problem is limited to "liberal" areas of the country I suggest you read the report on sexual abuse and it's cover up in the Southern Baptist Convention. While not as well known as the Catholic church scandals it was just as bad.

Edited to add a link: 380 church leaders in 20 states.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/february/southern-baptist-abuse-investigation-houston-chronicle-sbc.html

Long Ranger, consider that a rational, logical approach to keeping yourself safe and living a better value system has nothing to do with "victim blaming." It's real, practicable solutions to have agency over yourself. Because bad people exist and you need to keep yourself safe from them.

Lots of angry one-liners and no substance as to why us men shouldn't find a single woman to have sex with, love them, and marry them, and why that would be so bad for women. But it's MP after all.

Eric Marxwrote:

Lot's of angry one-liners and no substance as to why us men shouldn't find a single woman to have sex with and marry them, and why that would be so bad for women. But it's MP after all.

Hmm. Well, in my opinion: because as a man, I actually don't know what's best for women or their bodies, nor is it my place in life to police them. 

Eric, what you may also be doing is slut shaming. You are also ignoring the fact that most sexual assault is NOT done by strangers of the victim. 

I'm never going to be able to change your mind, but I'm of the opinion that you are using a lot of logical fallacies to try to push your point of view.

J Ewrote:

Advocating for stronger sentencing for violence against women is good, but the slut shaming, victim blaming attitude you have is exactly why these crimes are seldom prosecuted. It has nothing to do with California politics. It has to do with people who think like you.  

In his small world view somehow all the conservative states have it all figured  out, practically no crime and plenty of jail space. Better yet, somehow the liberals are to blame for rising crime everywhere,  them liberals own the courts and rig all the elections too, so unfair, total witch hunt...

Russ Walling wrote:

uh oh... jury pool is getting tainted...

No it didn’t. 

I am a climber based out of NC. Bred from a relatively unknown area, albeit with abundant world class stone, and a small but strongly bonded climbing community.

This season I was finally able to make it to the legendary Buttermilks, a destination I always dreamed of climbing since I began in the mid 2000s. The climbing was as advertised, a spectacular boulder field obviously, perhaps the best. I rolled in late night as I was coming from the Marin coast, I woke up first thing that next mourning and rode into downtown Bishop and bought a guidebook, authored by Charles Barret, and climbed for their for the next 7 days

I was already familiar with a bit of the areas history but I was completely unaware of the authors violent past until I read the Outside article last night and this thread this morning. 

I hail from a region where the very existence of a guide book for my home is a polarizing subject, based on access, environmental impact, dilution of community, amongst other things. It's an area stepped with stone and generations of climbers who wish to protect it, and having been born from from this I'm interested to hear some insight from local, bishop based climbers who call that stunning region their climbing home.

I am now frustrated I bought this book, and that it was so readily available in the very town and small community where Charlie wreaked his havoc. Its because I come from a small climbing community that I do not support his specific publication. If this unfolded in the areas in and around the people I call my home climbing community, I would not allow this book to be available, especially in town. For the sake of those women and others who were devastated by these events, and for the Bishop community. Who cares about those who travel from around the country and world to reap the benefits of this incredible stunning  area, they can simply get an older less detailed guide, talk amongst the community, gather info from word of mouth around the campsite and just deal with it. 

In my eyes it's about proping up Bishop and it's wonderful welcoming community that allows us the climb there and let those ease into their return who were driven out the by these horrific events so a better future can await.

That's my two cents.

All thoughts and opposing ideology welcome.

Russ Wallingwrote:

I think you missed the point.  I did read the article.  Let me clarify my position for you:  The article (and his life of crime as it is) bringing all this stuff to light puts him in the position of a pariah, and from the article and his actions, it is well deserved.  There is no way after reading the article anyone could support this guy, and I certainly don't, in any way.  The article made him look really bad, probably not as bad as he really is, and the actual point is nobody could be objective toward him after reading the article.  So, yeah, the pool is tainted, he is a flying piece of shit, and decades ago someone should have ended his misery.

Edit to add:  The "justice" system is once again an absolute fucking failure, many times over with this guy.  If it had done its job, even poorly, there would be less and less of these crimes.

There's a big world out there, Russ. Full of people who don't read Outside. You can't be serious that the media coverage of this particular set of allegations has "tainted" the jury pool. Much bigger cases than this (meaning by media attention) get tried all the time and the voir dire process sorts out and removes anyone with preconceptions about either side.

I understood your comment to be an attempt at humor but, honestly, I don't see anything funny about this case.