Climber Charles Barrett Arrested for Yosemite Sexual Assaults
|
J E wrote:
‘“Charlie is a very strong, naturally talented climber,” Alex Honnold said …’ And whoever wrote the TQ piece went on to say CB was … ‘“A friend of Honnold’s …’ The ‘friend’ part wasn’t Honnold’s statement. You’d have to hear more from Honnold or direct quotes from Honnold to corroborate there was much of a friendship there. Later in the Outside article, Honnold is quoted in what seems like a lengthy discussion about his relationship with CB - “I would see Charlie once every few years for like a day or two,” - and that that he had heard rumors that were explained away as in blame on both sides, and acknowledged that he had a “blind spot” about him ….” I do not personally know Honnold and am not a “follower” of him. Still, I am left wondering what exactly it is that he has not already admitted that was additionally his part in all this. And I think it was a serious mistake of the Outside piece to re-quote the third-hand part of them being friends and then only way way way later in that lengthy article to present Honnold’s first-hand view of the relationship. |
|
Leigh Shoffner wrote: So wait...what about that fact that she told others on separate occcasions, long before the confirmation hearings, about the attack and the identity of the attacker? Or the fact that it is not only possible but highly likely that thirty years later you might not recall details about when and where a party took place when you were 15, especially if there was alcohol or violent trauma involved? Or that Brett "frat boy" Kananaugh has an confirmed history of chronic binge drinking and deeply sexist and misoginistic attitudes? Or that the victim might have very good reasons to be terrrified of going to give testinomy and might make up excuses to try to avoid this? Or that the whole affair just mirrors the typical situation of a mann in power using his reputation and anger to discredit his female accuser? Frankly, to cast doubt on Christine Blassey Ford, in the context of this thread, is shocking. YOUR ATTITUDE is why CB and so many others like him escape consequernces for so long. You've either internalized all the MAGA conspiracy crap, or you have internalized prevailing attitudes toward women. (I've left some spelling mistakes in my text to trigger you). |
|
Bruno Schull wrote: Why wasn't Kavanaugh criminally charged, if it's so clear he did it? |
|
FrankPS wrote: There could be several reasons. One is that the Statute of limitations has likely run. Two, he was a minor. This would make the prosecution of a defendant as an adult problematic and as a minor impossible. Three, prosecutors take to trial cases where a conviction is likely. Four, the alleged victim may not be cooperative. Can you prosecute without victim testimony? Sure…but you better have something like DNA. |
|
Frank Stein wrote: 4. Because she didn't come forward with the allegation for 30 years (same as your #1). 5. Because she's not believable (basically, the same as your #3). Not so hard to believe that a conservative nominated to the Supreme Court would have false accusations leveled against him. These false accusations tarnish the credibility of women that are actually assaulted. |
|
What they could say: "While Charlie Barrett wasn't a close friend, I'm appalled that he may have used his distant relationship with me to build credibility in the climbing community to further his agenda of terrorizing, assaulting, and raping women. Thanks to the investigators and prosecutors for putting him behind bars" It's not hard. |
|
FrankPS wrote: it’s actually not hard to picture the collective yawn of a legislative body who refused to give it a fair look or hear other credible allegations but that hearing neither established guilt or innocence there is undoubtedly a certain basket of certain people in the country that are willing to overlook sexual violence by their compatriots though, whether climbers, politicians, etc. |
|
Ok, let’s really take this thread off into the hinterlands… how about the fact that we have a candidate for President (and with a reasonable chance of being elected) who is essentially a convicted rapist, a serial adulterer, brags about grabbing p@ssys, had sex with a porn star while his wife was pregnant, paid hush money to cover it up, etc, etc… yet STILL there are millions who continue to support the guy. What does that say about the amount of misogyny built into the American cultural fabric? I’m suprised no one has brought up this giant elephant (sly political reference) earlier. |
|
FrankPS wrote: Yes, we all agree on 1-4 as being why he wasn’t charged. That’s essentially irrelevant. Legal details have only a tangential relationship with the underlying truth or reality. But as to point 5, we disagree…. I went to a similar school and had a similar social scene as Kavanaugh. This type of behavior was common — and casually admitted to by the very perpetrators at least at the time. There could be many Ms Fords that step forth. The maddening thing is that these shitbirds know their audience when they do such things and only do it in “safe company” . While I have no direct knowledge of the Kavanaugh/Ford specific situation, I have enough experience with Kavanaugh/Ford clones, and as a former interrogator in another life, have experience reading people, after watching all the testimony and evidence, I wouldn’t bat an eye betting the house that Ford was telling the truth, not Kavanaugh |
|
Plea: Andrew Rice wrote: Bait: Leigh Shoffner wrote: Bite: Bruno Schull wrote: This is why we can't have nice things. Good riddance to CB. Hope he gains some perspective while he's counting the cracks in the wall for the 1571st day in a row. Looking forward to using the predator's guidebooks as fire starters. And wondering how even more good can come of this than one extremely important conviction. |
|
Leigh Shoffner wrote: Can we possibly re-center this thread away from the politics and nastiness? We can hypothesize all we want about those situations but realistically, none of us were there. What has happened when we were there? While I brought up the possibility that CB's underlying anger was part of the lack of response by the community, I also have to remind myself that I have seen uncomfortable dynamics within couples myself and neglected to say anything for fear of alienating one or the other. When you get the hint of something wrong within a friend's relationship, how do you speak up? How do you actually tackle it? When is the right moment to say something to protect a person before it's too late and they've gotten stuck in a cycle of abuse? People have talked about bringing up names in threads and pushing up the problematic people in our community which seems like a great idea until/unless it's a tool used inappropriately to target someone who doesn't deserve it. Obviously, it's pretty clear that CB crossed an distinct line when he beat Hedlund to unconsciousness in front of friends but no one really spoke up other than Lonnie Kauk. Has anyone here had the experience of speaking up to protect a friend? What did it end up looking like? What was the fall out? How do we realistically protect the people we care about? |
|
Daniel Joder wrote: Could you please provide a bit more details about this conviction? |
|
FrankPS wrote: As the previous poster pointed out, first, because of the statue of limitations. And second, because that wasn't the purpose of the confirmation hearings. It was about BKs fitness to be supreme court justice. I reiterate, anybody who viewed those hearings, in todays world, with what we knpw of sexual assault, and not conclude that there was enough reasonable doubt to question the confirmation, that person is part of the problem, that person is exactly why CB was able to get away with so much for so long. |
|
And now this free wheels off into the politard zone…. I suppose that’s a little more comfortable an area for many….. I like your questions, Mel, they provoke us to think of our own lives. They are not easy to answer and for us to truly know how we would act. Also, props to Lonnie Kauk, as you point out, as troubling as the silence from those who were able to look over the flaws in their climbing pal was, Lonnie stood up. |
|
FrankPS wrote: Frank and Leigh, you both raisesd the point that Christine Blassey Ford's testimomy tarnished the credibility of "legitamate" victims. That is an example of ridiculous gas-lighting, and it should be called out as such. You are questioning the credibility of a victim, while at the same timer you are self-rightously proclaiming to care about the victims of these crimes. Bullshit. Yes, this is politiucal, but it's DIRECTLY related to this thread and to CB. You are both engaging in the kind of arguments that allowed CB to conduct his terror campaign. In addition, the alternative you propose is a conspiracy theory. Leigh, you said that you thought Christine had been used by for political purposes. How did these political operatives contact her? Did thery encourage her to come forward? Did they make promises to her? Did they pay her? Where's the evidence? It's nonsense. What would compel a woman to come forward, so long after a crime, with the near-certain knowledge that she would be attacked viscously, her credibility torn to shreds, her life turned upside down in front of the whole world (as it was), unless it was out of a sense of conviction and truth? Applying Occam's razor, it's cear that BK assaulted Christine Blassey Ford, and not that there was some deep-state political conspiracy. |
|
Colonel Mustard wrote: I suspect that he also paid for it. I never met Barrett or Kauk, but a while back, before these incidents entered the public space, I ran into a rando climber who claimed to know Lonnie. He told me that Lonnie had a really hard time finding climbing sponsors, even after sending Magic Line, because Lonnie was “really hard to work with and a kind of a jerk.” I wonder how much of that “reputation” was Barrett sabotaging Lonnie’s career as retaliation. It is also interesting that the snowboard industry had no issues with sponsoring Lonnie. |
|
Andrew Rice wrote: Why are you so angry, and what is with the YELLING? You misrepresented everything I said and put words in my mouth. Do you know what doxing is? It's putting personal information like addresses on the internet. I never said do that. Why are you suggesting I did? Yeah, things happen in the real world but we can use the internet to warn people about danger. Exactly like you did when you started this discussion. I am supporting exactly what you did and have been doing since August. But now you are ranting against me. Weird. Yeah no shit we should listen to victims, or not pressure women to get drunk. I never said anything different but you imply that I did. Confronting people is easy to say from a keyboard, did you ever do that btw? But just because you confront someone doesn't mean they are going to stop. We are talking about psychopaths and probably "hey don't do that anymore bro" might not work, in the REAL WORLD. I know cops aren't making cases based on social media. My point is that we can't rely on the cops. I said that like three times already and you ignored it. We need to warn potential victims before they become victims. How could anyone disagree with that? Also, do you know that the Mountain Project forum where you have posted about this like 100 times is also social media? What do you mean by keyboard vigilante, everything on this 35 pages that you started was written with a keyboard. PS: Props to people like Artem that are doing the right thing. It's interesting that you won't acknowledge what he's saying and what is going on there. Stuff like what he is doing is what is going to protect the next victims. You lecturing me about magazine articles is not going to help anyone. |
|
Daniel Joder wrote: Let’s not. |
|
In one of the documented attacks Barrett attacked his girlfriend at a camp where acquaintances were gathered round a camp fire. They heard the commotion and caught Barrett punching the woman in the head. Right there, right then - he should have been beaten himself to within an inch of his life. We protect people by punishing the offender, on the spot, and not stand around wringing our hands about what we should have done. Intervene, with overwhelming force. |
|
J E wrote: Sure. That isn’t hard now that there is a conviction - suspect Honnold would sign up to that. There has not been much time since the conviction so a little hard to be outraged about him at this point. Edit: So say “I apologized for his using me”? It seems meaningless or worse given what I posted about Honnold; though I’ll defer the value of it to the victims. Don’t know about Jorgensen. And perhaps those “old-guy climbers” - or whoever it was who simply stood by while CB laughed at Hedlund’s demand he leave in respect of the restraining order - will take the opportunity of the conviction to provide a truly impactful apology, eh. There, yeah, a lack of apology will have me outraged. |