Climber Charles Barrett Arrested for Yosemite Sexual Assaults

• Andy Shoemaker wrote:

Am I to read this as you view the presumption of honesty (by a complainant) is contradictory to presumption of innocence (of the accused)? Do you mean this exclusively in the legal system, or in the "court of public opinion" too?

Look at the power imbalance involved in sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, etc.  Above are some of the reasons a victim of these power imbalance crimes does not feel free to advocate for themselves.  To me, these crimes are fundamentally different, more insidious, than those on random victims.  These victims are often groomed by their predators, they are threatened with even worse outcomes if they speak out.  

It takes little/no bravery to call the cops to report a burglary.  It takes a lot of bravery to report domestic violence, sexual assault, etc.  Hence the necessity I see for a unique amount of presumption of honesty in these cases.  

I think that's what Kyle and other's have been advocating for. Not that the accused be locked up based on a complainant, rather that just like in all other crimes- we take extremely seriously the testimony of the complainant.  Contrast with, "the complainant might have political (or financial, or status, or personal or...) motivation, so I choose to believe they're a liar, in spite of the evidence/testimony presented".

Please help me understand how the populous' or an individual's presumption of honesty from these complainants undercuts the entire judicial system.

I am talking about the law here--including the Constitution , not the 'court of public opinion'. The presumption of innocence is enshrined in the Constitution and fundamental to our entire justice system. Under the law, there is no such thing as a 'presumption of honesty' though it is expected/hoped that those--all witnesses--who take the oath to tell the truth will, in fact, do so ( though, of course, many don't).  Under the law a 'presumption' is a legal construct---sort of a barrier that needs to be crossed---usually requiring a significant basis to do so ( called the burden of proof), to get to another stage of a legal determination. If there is in an insufficient 'groundwork' in the evidence presented to surmount that barrier, then the presumption is controlling. And, of all the presumptions in our legal system, that of 'innocence' is the strongest--the highest/strongest barrier. It is that way in the hope ( too far from always realized) that innocent people will not be convicted of crimes they did not commit. Even with that barrier, too many people are wrongly convicted, including of rapes and other sexual assaults ( as we see with the numerous exonerations often based on current DNA science not available at the time of the original trials). If we eliminate or weaken the presumption of innocence, even only in sexual assault cases/-though it would not end with just those types of cases, as much as we sympathize with those who suffer from sexual assaults, the end result will be far more wrongful convictions.

Again, I am referring to the legal system. Clearly individuals and, sometimes, the court of public opinion,  will come to different conclusions, as, of course, they are entitled to do. But, giving 'power' to the 'court of public opinion' beyond the legal system, is definitely starting down a treacherous slope towards the lynch mob. You don't have to look deep into our history to see the results of what happens in those circumstances and, consistently, it has been people of color who have most suffered the consequences. Is that what you want to see us return to?

Once again, I am very aware of the difficulties and traumas of those who have been victims pf sexual assault, including some who are personally very close to me, and I am in no way trying to diminish what they have gone through. Despite this, I don't believe that we should tamper with the fundamentals of our legal system.

I want to point out one other factor, that is often either not realized or overlooked. While there are many reasons, as posted by others above, why sexual assault victims may decide not to report or pursue in court what was done to them, it is important to realize that in many, if not all,  jurisdictions ( each State and the Federal Government has individual procedures) there are in fact currently 'tools' available to prosecutors for cases involving sexual assault allegations, that are not able to be used in trials involving other types of crimes. So, despite what seems to be commonly believed by 'the court of public opinion', including some on this thread, these 'tools' do help address concerns that you are suggesting be met by your proposed 'presumption of honesty' and do make it easier for the prosecution to obtain convictions in such cases. I can only speak directly about MA, where I practiced, but I can say that the prosecutors here who handle such cases are extremely dedicated, very concerned for their witnesses, and highly competent. Among the 'tools' that they can and routinely do utilize in sexual assault cases , they are able to call as corroborating witnesses, the initial person to whom the complainant first reported the assault --a type of hearsay evidence not permitted in other types of cases. They are often able to call on specific expert witnesses to testify to provide opinion evidence not usually permitted in other types of cases. Also, except in very specific and rare circumstances, defense counsel are not permitted to question the complainant about their general sexual activity outside of this specific case. Another example of this type of prosecution 'tool' ,one not available here, but permitted in Federal courts and specifically, and I believe, decisively, used in Mr. Barrett's case, the prosecution was able to call as witnesses others who had been assaulted by him to testify about those attacks. Again such evidence would not normally be admissible in other types of cases. Additionally, again in Massachusetts, those convicted of such offenses, in my experience, far from being 'slapped on the wrist', usually receive substantial prison sentences. Additionally, they must register as sex offenders, with that information, including where they live, publicly available---this doesn't happen for other types of offenses. Often they are placed on lengthy and strict probation with numerous restrictions after they complete the incarcerated portion of their sentences. And, for repeat offenders, they face the likelihood of an indefinite civil commitment to a 'treatment facility' ( in reality, a secure prison mental hospital ) after they complete the sentence imposed for the specific crime. I am writing this to point out that the actual process in these cases, doesn't favor the accused as much as public perceptions suggest.

This has been overlong but I tried to respond as fully as I can. Fortunately I am now at my post limit for the day!!!

Alan Rubinwrote:

Frank, not everything is susceptible to determination by math and data.

Haha, gonna take advantage of Alan’s post limitedness and pile on.   (Just kidding) but I think you meant Mark, not Frank on the math and data topic

Yes, the legal definition of reasonable doubt is "deliberately vague" and "refuses to be pinned down to a defined confidence percentage " ---don't agree about 'wishy-washy', though. In fact, here in Mass the standard jury instruction on reasonable doubt specifically says that it shouldn't be based on a mathematical 'probability, even a strong probability'.

The only value for keeping it vague is to give lawyers more job security, no offense.
without direct video evidence of the crime being filmed in real time, all an objective outsider can do is assign relative probabilities.   This is by definition “fuzzy math” and based on an “I know it when I see it” type of probability.  

I have no idea how to distinguish between being 95% being convinced of something from 90% convinced, even 89%!!!!

You don’t need to.  But at a high level, you can guesstimate something on a scale of 1-10 or even 1-100.   That target is good Enough.

And I certainly don't want juries to be making the kinds of mathematical calculations you posted above.

Why?   Why not tighten up and make crystal clear what level of confidence people should be targeting— like “you need to be (in your mind and estimation) more than 95% confident” in order to convict (or whatever % would be be voted to be) 

Leaving it so vague you can drive a truck through it (even among judges you get a range of “Reasonable doubt” being estimated to be anything from 70% to 98%.    Throw in unsophisticated juries (rural Alabama vs Boston suburbs) and you have a wishy washy system with a monstrous standard deviation and the % varying widely from state to state and trial to trial.  

Each case, each situation, is unique, each involves specific, unique individuals interacting in specific circumstances. In court, cases should ( though they too often aren't) be decided solely on the evidence presented and the juror's own ( individual and then collective) assessment of the witnesses within the context of the other evidence as viewed through the perspective of their collective life experiences. 

We are in total agreement.  But they need a clear and consistent framework to guide decisions.  Too much fluff comes into play with neither lawyer seeking truth, but rather to paint a story with as much BS as needed to win their side regardless. And individual jurors confused on how to convict/acquit.

Outside of court, of course, other factors will undoubtedly be known and considered in how each individual will analyze and interpret a given situation---but, again it should be based upon the specifics of the situation and not abstract mathematics.

Not abstract.   This is essentially what people do anyway.  All of life and day to day decisions is really about computing or estimating probabilities.  Most just do it subconsciously in their head.   Only the obtuse and ignorant are 100% sure of something 

Bill and Mark--why is it wrong ( pedantically wrong, in Bill's view) for society to have, and accept the results of, a process ( hopefully one as fair and just as possible) to make such determinations with a degree of finality? That doesn't mean that individuals can't themselves feel differently, and then work within the system to correct what they believe are wrongs--while still being able to recognize the final results. I strongly believe that without this type of structure organized society will not exist---and the alternative will be much, much worse.

Again, 100% agreement.  I’m just advocating for a clearer and tighter structure and process to eliminate the vagaries of courtroom dynamics and lawyer personalities, etc   As much as possible.  Leaving it so “Wild West” and open ended, tends to result in imbalanced outcomes 

And, Kyle, to give the benefit of the doubt to 'complainants' (in your view they are 'victims' just because they make a complaint of sexual assault---I agree that most are indeed victims, but still not all), at least in court, would undercut, actually reverse, a fundamental aspect of our entire justice system. And, just for a particular category of case, or do you want to eliminate the presumption of innocence for all cases? Think very carefully about the full implications of what you propose. As I wrote above, it is one thing to have your own personal opinions, but you are advocating for a much more drastic---and very dangerous, change in what our Constitution requires.

I think the courts need to stay the courts (with potentially improvements) .  I do not think anyone is for tossing out the constitution.  

 The debate here is the push back— in cases such as these - that the court of public opinion should subvert and silence itself and defer to the legal process first.   I think myself and others think this is faulty thinking because it can be demonstrated that “the legal process” (while necessary to remain as is) is actually in most respects inferior in accuracy and overall truth seeking.  

To be clear here, the Scope of discussion is the case at hand (CB) or similar cases where allegations of sexual misconduct are brought by, or corroborated by, more than one individual 

I met Charlie Barrett through mutual Bishop friends, and spoke to him on a handful of occasions about alpine routes. I didn't personally didn't find him charismatic, but other friends did.  Over the years I was horrified to learn of his abusive behavior, and the victims and witnesses, who for fear of retaliation were afraid to come forward.  Annette McGivney's excellent investigative piece in Outside details the stalking, abuse, and climbing community ostracization that his abuse reporters faced.  Thankfully, not all stayed silent.  We owe these women and men our gratitude.

Barrett is a serial predator and murder-suicide waiting to happen.  May justice prevail in his sentencing.

I'm not good at math but here's a question for all you guys doing statistics. If we are going to treat this like gambling and you are saying the odds are 1 in 10 or whatever, then you also have to consider the cost and the payout. 

Say we change the rules and now we are able to convict ten more crooks than before, but the cost is five more innocent people go to jail. Is that a good trade?

FrankPSwrote:

What's wrong, CH?

You're engaging in the same victim blaming that enabled Charlie to terrorize women for at least 15 years. 

Fuck off 

Ryan Squawwrote:

I'm not good at math but here's a question for all you guys doing statistics. If we are going to treat this like gambling and you are saying the odds are 1 in 10 or whatever, then you also have to consider the cost and the payout. 

Say we change the rules and now we are able to convict ten more crooks than before, but the cost is five more innocent people go to jail. Is that a good trade?

Ryan, you’re misunderstanding my point.  Every day you get out of bed, you’re gambling.  Every decision you make is a cost/ benefit calculation based on expected probabilities.  

My position has been that in terms of the “court of public opinion” for sexual assaults, you are on safe ground giving the benefit of the doubt to the accuser.  Especially compared to criminal courts.  So I am against hand wringing and viewing the criminal courts as some sort of “cut above” in terms of truth or justice—— in the cases under debate in this thread  (emphasis to avoid sidetracks).   They will establish legal guilt (or lack thereof) but it’s fallacious to equate this with the actual truth of what happened.  

The general legal bar for truth probability is below that of current expected truth probability based on data around the nature of sexual assaults.

If somehow courts came close to 99.9% of alignment with the truth, I’d also say wait for the legal process to work before spouting off.   As it is, the legal system in these cases is too much like measuring distance in gallons. 

As for criminal courts today the sad truth is that it is much more likely that  over 2/10 innocent people are convicted with the deliberately vague and capricious methods in play today.  I’m against that.  But let’s not sidetrack further into fixing the legal system.   The takeaway is to listen, speak up, and take action with confidence.  And don’t  dismiss Cherokee’s advice.  If you witness something first hand, Sitting on your thumbs and equivocating is not an option. 

C Hwrote:

You're engaging in the same victim blaming that enabled Charlie to terrorize women for at least 15 years. 

Fuck off 

You might consider anger management classes.

Mark Pilatewrote:

My position has been that in terms of the “court of public opinion” for sexual assaults, you are on safe ground giving the benefit of the doubt to the accuser. 

I can't argue with that. 

It's also a safer way to get more likes on internet forums.

just want to be transparent. I put Ryan Squaw on my ignore list which, if I'm not mistaken, will also prevent him from posting any more in this thread. My reason is that his ongoing insistence that someone should have posted something online  about CB a decade or more ago to prevent further crimes is ill informed and, more importantly, it's a not-so-subtle form of victim blaming. Cyber stalking was part of CB's modus. He actively terrorized his victims online with threats of violence and disparagement of their reputations. To say they should have said something online that would have prevented further crimes ignores the fact that some of them did and that whenever they even alluded to CB or his bad actions online or in the "climbing community" they faced a torrent of threats and stalking. So, yeah, easy to say what others should have done. But I don't think Mr. Squaw has ever been in the shoes of someone facing threats of violence and retribution like that. Easy to have an opinion about what they should have done. But not easy to be that person. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

just want to be transparent. I put Ryan Squaw on my ignore list which, if I'm not mistaken, will also prevent him from posting any more in this thread. My reason is that his ongoing insistence that someone should have posted something online  about CB a decade or more ago to prevent further crimes is ill informed and, more importantly, it's a not-so-subtle form of victim blaming. Cyber stalking was part of CB's modus. He actively terrorized his victims online with threats of violence and disparagement of their reputations. To say they should have said something online that would have prevented further crimes ignores the fact that some of them did and that whenever they even alluded to CB or his bad actions online or in the "climbing community" they faced a torrent of threats and stalking. So, yeah, easy to say what others should have done. But I don't think Mr. Squaw has ever been in the shoes of someone facing threats of violence and retribution like that. Easy to have an opinion about what they should have done. But not easy to be that person. 

I think you should just lock it and pop it open for a day or two when he's sentenced. It's ran it's course and is now troll bait, bringing out the best of the best that will always be around for page 30+. Let them start a DV thread or something elsewhere. I don't care about Honnold's opinion or Brett Cavawhateverthefuck.

I was more than a little disappointed to see CAMP's social media post regarding CB's sponsorship with them, posted last week: https://www.instagram.com/p/C3VeayDsaFO/

I've followed this thread since it's beginning, but didn't even think to go look at how CB's sponsors had responded (or not).  Honestly, I didn't know who the sponsors were.  Comparing CAMP's response to how quickly Joe Kinder was dropped by his sponsors in response to his "secret," social media posts attacking others' looks leaves me wondering what the hell CAMP was thinking.  I'd think that they should have publicly pulled CB's sponsorship when he was arrested, and that it would have cast a brighter light on CB and potentially aided in other victims coming forward.  I'd wager that CAMP was trying to avoid their own attention, though, which is more than a little misguided.  

It's been mentioned more than once that CB's guidebooks should be not purchased going forward, and existing copies destroyed; and that other professional climbers should be doing more to help root out these problem characters when they are so obvious.  What about the businesses profiting off the athlete's successes, what is their duty in the instances where a pro-athlete is implicated?  I'm not necessarily for "cancel culture," but I do think that we vote with our dollars more frequently than on a ballot.  

And, how do we get Lonnie Kauk to start writing the new Bishop guidebook?  A lot of us are going to need something new on paper.. 

Good LA Times wrap up of the entire episode. Link Here. 

In it Charlie says he was wrongly convicted and will fight to clear his name... the rest of the article paints a very different picture. 

Ahead of Charles Barrett's May 21 sentencing, family, friends, victims and any interested parties can submit emails/letters to Judge John Mendez. These impact letters are important in Barrett receiving the maximum sentence for each charge. 

It’s not a writing contest; simply write in your voice. Here are some tips to make it easier:

1.  Address him as either Dear Judge Mendez or Your Honor.
2. Start by saying you are writing about U.S. v. Charles Barrett regarding Mr. Barrett's May 21 sentencing.
3. Explain your relationship/connection to the case. For example, "I am one of Barrett's victims." Or, "I am a frequent climber in the areas where Mr. Barrett committed his crimes, I want to protect my own safety in the future."
4. Share from your point of view how this experience has negatively affected you, someone you know, etc. Give examples if you can. For example, if you are a victim how did that impact you? If you knew a victim how did you see it impact them ("My friend had to quit her job and move to a new city!")? If you are a concerned citizen, what are the changes in YOU ("I no longer feel safe camping alone") based on learning about crimes Barrett was convicted of?
5. Ask the judge to give Mr. Barrett the strictest possible sentence. You can say, "I am aware that federal sentencing guidelines provide recommendations and ask that Mr. Barrett be given the maximum sentence for each charge and that each sentence should be served consecutively rather than concurrently."
6. Do not use profanity or extreme language of any type. Judges are not impressed by that. Just stick to the facts and your thoughts about the case. 

7. End with your full name, address, contact number and email. Your information will not be made public.

 Please submit your statement before April 30.

 EMAIL to DOJ victim advocate who will compile all letters and emails for the judge: Autumn.Magee@usdoj.gov

 EMAIL SUBJECT LINE: Impact Letter for U.S. v. Barrett Sentencing

Andrew Ricewrote:

Ahead of Charles Barrett's May 21 sentencing, family, friends, victims and any interested parties can submit emails/letters to Judge John Mendez. These impact letters are important in Barrett receiving the maximum sentence for each charge. 

I'm now told that there was some confusion between various parties and that the Judge does not wish to receive letters. So please ignore the previous post. 

Apologies if anyone took the time to send a letter that apparently isn't now being considered. 

As far as I know Barrett's sentencing is still May 21. Will be very interested to see what the judge hands down. 

Sentencing delayed to June 4th after CB stated to the court that defense counsel had not properly reviewed the sentencing memo(s) with him. Defense counsel stated to the court that they had reviewed with their client.

Andrew Ricewrote:

Sentencing delayed to June 4th after CB stated to the court that defense counsel had not properly reviewed the sentencing memo(s) with him. Defense counsel stated to the court that they had reviewed with their client.

More details have emerged about the delay. Following images are from the revised Prosecution sentencing memo that was posted to PACER. Click on them to enlarge so they're readable. Footnote from page 1 is continued in footnote of page 2 in following post. 

2nd page of memo below. 3rd page is just prosecutor signatures so not going to post it here.

I can't imagine a Federal judge is likely to take kindly to this sort of antics from a convicted rapist. 

Barrett was sentenced to life in prison today. DOJ press release here.

Adding in media coverage here as it comes in.

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/climber-charles-barrett-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-rape/

https://ktla.com/news/california/professional-rock-climber-sentenced-for-sexual-assaults-in-yosemite-national-park/

https://www.sacbee.com./news/local/crime/article289004929.html