Climber Charles Barrett Arrested for Yosemite Sexual Assaults

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 Ritherspoon wrote:

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. 

Tradiban wrote:

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. 

FrankPS 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.

Get off this thread

J E wrote:

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. 

Lol, you really believe that? And that Honnold bears responsibility? He didn’t play match maker around the campfire. Charlie would have been Charlie regardless of any affiliation with climbing royalty. 

Ok, so maybe about 3 months until the filing of a sentencing memorandum.

So, until then, we have convictions on : 2 counts of 18 USC 2241 and 1 count on 18 USC 2244 ?

Would anyone care to walk us through the USSG Manual on this?  Page 59 seems to show a base offense level of 38 for the 2241 charge, maybe even with a +4?  Am I reading this correctly?

C H wrote:

Get off this thread

What's wrong, CH?

What is wrong is that you are publicly doubting a victim because you like the politics of the accused, which is exactly the same thing as doubting the victims here because of how hard Charlie climbs.  Equivalent in logic and how despicable it is.

Andrew Rice wrote:

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. 

Are you still beating this horse?  It was Bill Lawry that mentioned first hand facts, and I just repeated his words. I never said anyone should spread rumors and I think you know that.

And "first hand facts," was entirely left out of your previous posts. You specifically encouraged people NOT to use first hand facts. Here's what you wrote when you were lecturing me earlier:

businesses were told about what happened yet continued to sell his books, write articles about him (Climbing Magazine did an entire glowing feature about him in 2016 deliberately leaving OUT the messy details of his criminal convictions and prison time), and climbing gear companies sponsored him. Almost universally, everyone looked at their hands when made aware of his bad behavior and said, "That's not my problem..." They did NOTHING.

Did the bookstores or almost universally, everyone that you keep condemning have first hand facts? You keep insisting just about everyone sucks because they did not act on what you heard, or read, they were told.

I don't think it helps anyone to keep hashing over what could have happened, or what people knew in 2016, or should have done. I have only been trying to make one point here. I will try to say it again and try to be real clear since you seem to be struggling:

If you have first hand knowledge about dangerous criminals I believe it is helpful to communicate that information on the internet. It could help future victims. Or it might get a book removed from a shelf, if that's what's important to you.

Jason EL wrote:

Ok, so maybe about 3 months until the filing of a sentencing memorandum.

So, until then, we have convictions on : 2 counts of 18 USC 2241 and 1 count on 18 USC 2244 ?

Would anyone care to walk us through the USSG Manual on this?  Page 59 seems to show a base offense level of 38 for the 2241 charge, maybe even with a +4?  Am I reading this correctly?

Hopefully Al will jump back in and walk us through it. 

Ryan, are you saying that your quote of Andrew is advocating action based on rumor? If so, I suspect you are not aware of CB’s prior charges in 2005 and conviction (or convictions?).  The charges were public - five felony counts, including witness retaliation and intimidating and interfering with federal officers and likely a DUI  - were dismissed - and he served six months on a single misdemeanor vandalism charge. I know some will say the dismissed charges should not factor in.  Anyway, starting in 2008, the criminal protective / restraining orders from complaints by eventually several women start coming in.

In other words, by 2008 or earlier, we were well past the simple rumor stage about CB.

Edit: The Outside article of just before the recent trial lays all these details. Except it was done in a stream-of-consciousness kind of way which makes it a little hard to follow in one pass through it. 

Kyle Edmondson wrote:

What is wrong is that you are publicly doubting a victim because you like the politics of the accused, which is exactly the same thing as doubting the victims here because of how hard Charlie climbs.  Equivalent in logic and how despicable it is.

How dare I have a different opinion than you!

You prefer to live in an echo chamber where everybody agrees with you.

False accusations are a real thing. Each case should be assessed on its evidence. Nothing to do with politics, as much as you'd like to think so.

Yes, I publicly doubt Christine Ford and Anita Hill. How 'bout dem apples?

Don't know much about Barrett, but a jury found him guilty. Good enough for me.

So despicable.

Bill Lawry wrote:

…..suspect you are not aware of CH’s prior ….

…… the simple rumor stage about CH…..

Uh, you mean CB (not CH) ??

Or are you starting rumors about her now? Lol

Mark Pilate wrote:

you mean CB (not CH) ??

Yes. Fixed.  Much thanks. Rumors - Lol. Probably because my mind was a little on this post …

FrankPS wrote:

What's wrong, CH?

It isn’t just C H that feels that way about Frank’s post. Others have given some explanation. Frank feigning innocence here amounts to an attempt to throw gasoline on the fire for purposes unclear.

Edit: Frank, feigning innocence is defacto lack of clarity. Thanks for naming your purpose below. And, yes, I saw the Brett Kavanaugh, Anita Hill, and Trump (!) posts but chose to not get in on that discussion - deserves a whole other thread.

Bill Lawry wrote:

It isn’t just C H that feels that way about Frank’s post. Others have given some explanation. Frank feigning innocence here amounts to an attempt to throw gasoline on the fire for purposes unclear.

Feigning innocence? I am innocent!

Purposes unclear? Don't be so obtuse, Bill. Some earlier posters brought up Brett Kavanaugh and Anita Hill.

Everyone isn't guilty just because the mob says so.

Get your pitchforks!

Edit: I've hit my post limit for this thread.

Climb On wrote:

Hopefully Al will jump back in and walk us through it. 

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I worked in the State legal system, not the Federal one, so only know the generalities of how sentencing works in that system. My acquaintances who do work on Federal courts frequently complain that a much too large proportion of their time in those cases is spent trying to figure out and work with the guidelines instead of doing actual legal work!!! Since, to a significant extent, Federal prosecutors have more ability to be selective in which cases they choose to prosecute than their local counterparts, they tend to primarily proceed on cases that they are highly likely to win. As a result, from a defense perspective, much of the work in those cases involves sentencing determinations. From those acquaintances I have learned that figuring out how to interpret and use those guidelines is a very complicated task---one of the reasons for the extended time required to compile the pre-sentence report, so I'm not going to try to do so in this situation, particularly where I would be basing my opinions only on media reports and online comments ( not saying that they are wrong, but they don't necessarily include crucial details).

In general terms though, as can be seen in the guideline chart, a 'baseline' number of 38 on just one of the charges, immediately brings the case into the 20 year range. There are several additional aggravating factors, as mentioned above ( though hard for me to say exactly how many), that will almost definitely increase the sentence range by several more years. The judge then will decide where within the range ( which is usually a difference of several years between the bottom and top numbers of the range) the sentence will be. In making this determination the judge will also consider various other potential aggravating or mitigating factors that might allow either an upward or downward 'departure' ( that's what they are called in the guidelines) from the guideline range. Given what I've read about the case and Mr. Barrett, I believe that there are more aggravating factors than mitigating ones, so if the judge is going to go outside of the guidelines ( which he must justify in writing) it will more likely be an upward than downward 'departure'.
This is regarding just one, though the most serious, of the three charges. On the other two charges the judge can run them concurrently with the first ( serving sentences at the same time) or he could sentence him to one or two consecutive sentences, which could be either additional time or a probationary period after he completes the sentence on the first charge. So, it looks like he is facing a long stay behind bars.

One final point, whatever sentence is imposed does not mean that he will necessarily do the full amount of time locked up. Depending how he does while incarcerated, at some point he will likely be eligible for parole ( supervised release) or the sentence could be reduced to some extent by 'good behavior'. However, neither of these possibilities will be available to him until he has served a significant portion of whatever sentence is imposed.

I think Frank needs the ACLU to step in here and defend him.  Lol

Here is the math that I am using in my own mind to justify my positions and conclusions.  If you have contrary data, math, or just opinions, I’m interested in hearing it to better understand.

The Math:

Most studies over decades conclude a false accusation/report rate of roughly 5% +/- ~3%.    So out of the gate, knowing nothing, you’re already 92-98% confident.  I’m sure after study of a particular case (like CB even years ago) one could get to >99% confidence in a review of the players and evidence. 

Most legal studies that attempt to quantify the % confidence needed to convict range from 80s to 90s (and that’s just theoretical in trying to define “beyond a reasonable doubt” ).  in practice some people (especially if black) get convicted more or less on a “preponderance of the evidence” (~55%) vs anything remotely as clearly stated that you should be >95% confident in guilt to convict.  The legal system is deliberately vague and wishy washy and refuses to be pinned down to a defined confidence percentage.  

So there is generally less confidence from a legal standpoint than from an accusation standpoint.  Now parse the False accusation risk further, and multiple ones from different women have like 99.9% confidence.  Case closed lock him up.  The “legal system” is just going to dumb it down from there.   We still need it for sure, but it’s not the magic arbiter of truth. 

Even Frank would be smartest to bet money on the accuser right off the bat.  It’s like the “house” in Vegas.  It’s a sure bet, and only people that want to be wrong or lose money would go the other way.  

Change my mind (with logic and data)

Edit:  to clarify, I’m not advocating for bypassing the legal system, etc.   I’m just stating where your initial opinions (or bets) should likely fall by default based on statistics.

Mark Pilate wrote:

… would be smartest to bet money on the accuser right off the bat. It’s like the “house” in Vegas. It’s a sure bet, and only people that want to be wrong or lose money would go the other way.

No effort here to change your mind. And I’m certain your right-off-the-bat conclusion is also supported by estimates that the majority of sexual assaults go unreported. Obviously, a subset of the ones who cross into reporting will ultimately choose to not follow through. Maybe money has a role - not that you brought up money in that context.  But also reliving the trauma, risking personal reputation, “wasting” time and energy,etc. that go along with the gamble of seeing it through the court system.

It is why it is important to support someone who states they are a victim. And why otherwise, to exclusion of all else, pedantically banking on the court system as the determinant - as Frank does - is infuriating or at least sickening to many.

… my post-limited last for the day. 

Reasons for not reporting:

1. Invasive sexual assault exam (It is not uncommon for a victim to wash off the evidence, for obvious reasons, and then feel that it is impossible to get an exam)

2. Statement to (sometimes skeptical) police

3. Retaliation from defendant

4. Defendant is often protected by victim’s family/friends

5. Series of hostile pretrial interviews by the defense

6. Uncertainty of indictment and conviction

7. Have to testify before twelve strangers, the gallery and the defendant, and have to face cross

8. Repercussions of conviction or lack thereof