Climber Charles Barrett Arrested for Yosemite Sexual Assaults

Ezra Hendersonwrote:

[Citation needed]

[Citation needed]

Not sure how this is related to claims of sexual assault.

Ignoring the fact that the allegations were sent in before the start of the conformations, and ignoring the other 3 allegations. 

You might want to make sure your grammar check is working. I put some issues in bold.

It’s crazy that someone can look at the last 36 pages and then type something like this. If anything, this should have taught us that people who are sexually assaulted are often under intense pressure from their assaulter. And now they are forced to publicly go on trial against their abuser while the entirety of the country is watching? Don’t make this political. Read the thread, and learn from it. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

 I also think it's weird that a USA Climbing youth coach was arrested and jailed over molesting youth climbers and it was never even discussed on MP. Why do you think I would disagree?

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/123513640/seattle-vertical-world-coach-sentenced-5-years-for-3rd-degree-child-rape

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/121956579/child-rapist-climbing-coach

Andrew Ricewrote:

I'm not angry at all, Ryan. You attributed a bunch of ideas to me that weren't mine. You mischaracterized me as a lawyer. I corrected those mischaracterizations. I haven't put words into your mouth, which would look like, "Ryan Squaw said _____." and a bunch of stuff you didn't say. Me expressing my thoughts about what is right isn't putting words in your mouth.

I thought you were a lawyer because you've been using a lot of legal phrases. It was a misunderstanding. I actually said you were a good lawyer and it was not meant as an insult. If this somehow hurt you, I apologize. 

But what you have said about me is pulled out of nowhere. I never said doxing and you seem to be trying to put me into the magazine stories as if I was there. I've never even been to Bishop.

Yep. But this discussion wasn't why Charlie was arrested. It's not why he was convicted. The only thing it did is bring the case to the attention of some people who otherwise might not have known about it.  It's a discussion, among members of a community, about something that happened in our midst, including people that many of us know. That's it. A conversation. Hopefully it makes people think. Maybe it helps prevent future incidents of the sort. But Charlie Barrett is definitely not in jail today because of a conversation started on MP after he was arrested.

Ok, but there was a lot of stuff where you were asking for documents as if you were trying to help the case. And just last week you were giving updates like you were a news reporter with inside information. But whatever.

But if someone had posted something earlier, maybe he would have not been able to commit the crime at all. Maybe the victim would have known to avoid him. That is really the only point am I trying to make.

If someone actually assaults you, and you want to spread the word far and wide on social media, be my guest. Certainly, the climbing community has used online forums to curtain other anti-social behavior like gear stealing and bolt chopping. But if your primary takeaway from the Charlie Barrett episode is that we need more online accusations when, in fact, people who were being told first hand, in person, by victims, did absolutely nothing to help, then I kinda feel like you've missed an important point. Feel free to disagree. 

My primary takeaway is the same as yours. People should do something instead of nothing. Maybe the only difference is that you are focused on what happened in the past, based on the magazine stories. I don't know if they are the whole story. Maybe some people did listen or comfort. The magazine author doesn't know or tell every detail.

What we do know is that nobody reported any of this online. Before you complained that Climbing magazine didn't mention anything bad that CB did when they wrote an article about him. Well climbing magazine is online. We are saying the same thing.

Getting the word out in the future can help people. Why not get the word out online. Why would anyone push back on that?

I totally agree with Artem. It's weird that MP deleted the things he describes. Why do you think I would disagree?

Because you just said, again, that you don't think we need more online accusations. You keep stressing over the magazine article that said people did nothing but ignore the something important that someone is actually doing right now.

This isn't just about CB. It's about the victims that are out there in the future.

You have been the person that is managing the conversation. Artem has posted some really important information. There are real sexual predators out there now and we know their names. But you don't respond to him with the same interest you have about magazine articles and campfire stories about a guy already in jail. And if you think I'm so dense, why do you bother responding to what I say instead of the real reports of a real criminal.

What Artem posted is what everyone should be talking about here. You've been steering the conversation and even controlling who can post, but you just skipped over this super important information. 

I guess this is what happens when celebrities are part of the story. This whole thing is weird.

Well, welcome to the pig wrasslin' in the mud contest, Ezra.

Oh, and thanks for the grammar lessons!  Pedantry must be a hobby of yours.  As to the double spacing I'm old enough to have taken typing class in high school.  We were taught to double space between sentences.

Artem Vee wrote:

I named names of a legitimate climber pedophile who got busted in a sting and my post got taken down. It was to raise awareness that he was a predator, but I guess MP thinks privacy is more important than kids not getting molested.

Bump for this. I've watched abusers weild MP moderation as a shield and weaponize PartnerFinder since 2019. 

John Clark wrote:

You could maybe lock this rapidly decaying cesspool up again, Andrew

Locking threads is weak sauce.   Calling for threads to be locked is even weaker.   Unsubscribe and ignore is your option.  

Andrew’s call to shift gears is perfectly fine

Ryan Squawwrote:

Getting the word out in the future can help people. Why not get the word out online. Why would anyone push back on that?

Why? Because innocent people can be negatively impacted by that kind of public airing that is not based on a conviction. We don’t have to look too far off in the news to see that happening in …. cough … politics … cough .,. real time with innocents impacted for years.

Just don’t let the fear of harming innocents turn into doing nothing. If one must do something in an “external” way, encourage the person who knows facts to file a complaint with the local police. And then support the person throughout what follows.

Don’t have the facts first hand? There really isn’t much of substance to report in a public forum without also being a danger to innocents. 

J Ewrote:

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. 

How did CB use his distant relationship with H to further his agenda? 

Bill Lawrywrote:

Why? Because innocent people can be negatively impacted by that kind of public airing that is not based on a conviction. We don’t have to look too far off in the news to see that happening in …. cough … politics … cough .,. real time with innocents impacted for years.

Just don’t let the fear of harming innocents turn into doing nothing. If one must do something in an “external” way, encourage the person who knows facts to file a complaint with the local police. And then support the person throughout what follows.

Don’t have the facts first hand? There really isn’t much of substance to report in a public forum without also being a danger to innocents. 

There was a guy a page back that said everyone should beat the crap out the guy and that post got a whole bunch of likes. But if I say post up what you saw then we are worried about negative impact?

You could beat the crap out of the guy and that may feel good, like you have done something, but that still doesn't help his next victim. But getting the word out might.

I am talking about first hand facts, not rumors. Just like the guy saying beat him up.

Beat his ass, then call the cops, and then post up about it here!

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

Beat his ass, then call the cops, and then post up about it here!

Finally, we’re making progress! ;)

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

Beat his ass, then call the cops, and then post up about it here!

Easy to be tough from a keyboard!!!

Regarding the fact that certain pro climbers and businesses didn't speak out publicly against Mr. Barrett, while not justifying their silence, it is worth recognizing that they may well have had legitimate concerns that he might sue them for defamation ( slander/libel) if they posted anything negative. The Outside article, as well as material made public during the Court proceedings, made clear how 'aggressive' he was against anyone he perceived as being against him, so any such concerns were very reasonable. And even though he has now been convicted, according to some posts on this thread, he still has family members, and possibly other supporters, who appear to be willing to continue such an 'aggressive defense".
Similarly, regarding stores etc, still carrying his guidebooks, they may well be under contract obligations to do so.  Just saying this to point out that such things are often not quite as straightforward as they may seem on the surface. Though, personally, I do think that those who openly enabled him over the years should now come forward and, at least, acknowledge that they were mistaken.

I agree with Andrew R.'s suggestions, also discussed by others, a bit earlier in this thread on the best ways to proceed if you become aware of allegations of this nature ( or of other criminal behavior), particularly if you receive this information first hand instead of through the rumor mill.

Easy to be tough from a keyboard!!!

No doubt! This is me, reminding myself to ACT. We brave climbers can tamp down our fears to rassle with gravity. We have no excuse not to intervene, physically, to stop a beating. I'm suggesting to do so with overwhelming force. Others will see it differently, that's expected.

But act and act fast. Its going to require physical intervention.

Ryan Squawwrote:

I am talking about first hand facts, not rumors. Just like the guy saying beat him up.

My bad. I did not completely follow the conversation.

I certainly have sided in the past with: be a bad actor and you risk extra-legal retaliation especially in the moment or if legal means are not available. The person retaliating also takes risks. Same with public posting. Even with facts and either way, it is all the same of walking the line between being a hero and being a fool.

Got the facts and time? Make the police report and stay engaged with it.

Ryan Squawwrote:

I am talking about first hand facts, not rumors. 

This, "first hand facts," was entirely left out of your previous posts, Ryan. I think I said previously that if someone has abused you, or if you've witnessed abuse first hand, go right ahead and name away! I support that.

I also know, for a fact, that CB intimidated people who posted negative things about him and even went so far as to threaten defamation lawsuits. But, yeah, if it had been easier for the public to learn about his prior convictions or his other bad behavior that was witnessed by many, it would have made it harder for this guy to continue operating with impunity. 

Did Barrett... work? Like did he have a job. 

i’m kind of ready for a Climbing mea culpa story to the glossy from 2016. 

pulling down the article sucks, people and magazines make mistakes, better to own up to it and figure out if there are ways to do better. 

Weese Ritherspoonwrote:

Did Barrett... work? Like did he have a job. 

Not a “real” job. Stone cold dirtbag.

The Outside article doesn't really say anything, so I won't try to assume. Just seeing if these dude lived off his victims as well as violently assaulting and raping them. I guess incredulously it's a moot point. 

Tradibanwrote:

How did CB use his distant relationship with H to further his agenda? 

Being in the "cool" circle provided him fresh sets of victims. How do you think a mostly homeless, mostly drunk, likely stinky, loser was meeting women to terrorize? Anyone who contributed anything to his moderate renown in climbing circles was facilitating his violence to some degree. Was it completely their fault? obviously not. But lending him the smallest amount of credibility is worth apologizing for.