Climber Charles Barrett Arrested for Yosemite Sexual Assaults

Jason ELwrote:

Those writing are only writing to what they know, their perception of what they know.  I don't know what they knew about the case, any priors, how well, how thoroughly then knew him.  I would, however, bet money that CB did not give them a terribly complete picture of what was going on.

What if anything would be a women's reason to defend a man arrested for chronic physical abuse and sexual assault within their own community and perhaps even professional career -- on the slim chance that this man is somehow the victim of an intense and coordinated conspiracy smear campaign of their personal character (and for what end)?  Sounds insane even to tap that out. 

And who bankrolled this monster? You don't make shit writing guidebooks. 

One piece of this that might need re-visiting or emphasis is the critical role of Safe Outside. 

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the Safe Outside platform helped get this moving. 

A brave, important project.

J LOwrote:

Dude you need to take a break from MP. It's just a dumb forum on the internet. 

John, you are so close to 1000 mtn project points I can't argue with your wisdom!

Now back to trashing folks who aren't rapists just cause they hung out with him...

I really would not want to see any of the letter writers harassed or harmed in any way. I believe anyone should have the right to write whatever they wish, even if I find their position annoying or obnoxious. I think it's worth all of us remembering that one of Charlie's major ways of harassing and stalking was online and through phone calls and texts. Lots of people were harmed by that and it's just wrong. Please don't think that just because you disagree with someone that it's cool to do the same thing to them.

Just my two cents worth...

I just read all the letters in the sentencing memo. I think it's worth noting that it seems all of them, except the one by his mother, were written before the trial even happened. Just saying that to reinforce what I posted above.

Unlocking this topic temporarily to post the news that the 9th Circuit of Appeals denied Charlie Barrett's appeal of his conviction and life sentence. From Outside Online, "Barrett was found guilty by a federal jury after a February 2024 trial of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse and one count of abusive sexual contact. He received the maximum sentence of life in prison in June 2024 from U.S. District Court Judge John A. Mendez. Mendez noted that the harsh penalty was warranted because of Barrett’s “pattern of terrorizing his victims” and “a clear lack of remorse.” Prior convictions, including felony domestic violence and making criminal threats, were also a factor in the judge’s decision."

On a personal note, I hope that this ruling makes his many victims and people he threatened feel safer and more at peace. 

Full article HERE

He deserves every moment he's in jail!!!!  Hooray!

Here's the opinion, for those interested (it's quite short): cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datast…

I hope he doesn’t know anyone with a million dollars to spare for a federal pardon. 

good riddance

Nkane 1wrote:

Here's the opinion, for those interested (it's quite short): cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datast…

Thanks for sharing this. It really speaks to what a lame appeal they filed. I've never heard of someone claiming that being wasted made it so, "he lacked capacity

to form the requisite intent to commit the offense." In other words, "Your honor, I was so drunk I didn't have the ability to consent to raping that person..." What a sick and twisted defense!

Andrew Ricewrote:

Thanks for sharing this. It really speaks to what a lame appeal they filed. I've never heard of someone claiming that being wasted made it so, "he lacked capacity

to form the requisite intent to commit the offense." In other words, "Your honor, I was so drunk I didn't have the ability to consent to raping that person..." What a sick and twisted defense!

Actually, Andrew,it isn't that unusual a type of defense, just, as in this case, one that is rarely successful. 

Alan Rubinwrote:

Actually, Andrew,it isn't that unusual a type of defense, just, as in this case, one that is rarely successful. 

As it should be. I can imagine a criminal defense lawyer trying that with a jury, where they might find a single sympathetic vote. But even with today's looser standards for the Federal courts, I would never anticipate a Federal judge buying that crap.