Climber Charles Barrett Arrested for Yosemite Sexual Assaults

Senor Arroz wrote:

Being judged by the public is a real thing. Actions have consequences. 

Yeah. I wasn't opposing that. I'm a fan of it. Individual members of the public can form and voice whatever opinions they want. 

caesar.salad wrote:

The court of public opinion.

The court of public opinion is so moronic that somehow years later people still side with mcdonalds over a 79 year old lady 

caesar.salad wrote:

The court of public opinion.

I've stated my opinions earlier in this thread, but want to again remind everyone that we do have a long and sad history in this country of what can happen with the the 'court of public opinion'--they're called lynch mobs. Even without reaching that extreme, as an attorney I have had personal experience with significant elements of my local community being outspoken about their opinions regarding certain criminal cases---while being totally wrong about certain key facts central to those opinions. Isn't it about 40% of the population--a good proportion of the 'court of public opinion' , that still believes that the 2020 election was stolen?

I’d like to think that if there was a high profile woman being accused of sexual assault the same folks would be saying Withhold your judgment, but I’m not optimistic.  

Senor Arroz wrote:

Being judged by the public is a real thing. Actions have consequences.

Posting this here because MP seems to be limiting # of posts to 2 or 3 per day on any topic.

In answer to Franck below:

I think you're missing the point, Franck. Let me be clear. I don't know if Charlie Barrett is going to be convicted of this particular crime he has been accused of. I believe, 100%, that the jurors who will sit in judgement of him if this case should go to trial (more on that later) should assume he is innocent until the evidence and witness testimony presented by the prosecution convinces the jurors "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did it. That's what "innocent until proven guilty is about.

On the other hand, the public is NOT a jury or a court. We're talking about something happening in our community. Remember when that sponsored climber, Joe Kinder, chopped down that tree in Lake Tahoe? And then he later went on to body shame Sasha DiGiulian? Remember how he was subject to judgement on MP and other communities of climbers even though neither of those things was a crime or involved him being prosecuted in court? Yet he faced shame and condemnation for his (shitty) actions? He lost sponsors and ultimately even engaged in some self reflection? See, I think that's good. That's a community holding its own members accountable. I happen to know someone who was assaulted by CB and later threatened by him for speaking up to law enforcement about what happened. So I don't actually need to wait to see what a jury decides to know how I feel about him. I think the community has a right to hold someone accountable either way.

Back to the jury trial. I'm going to bet dollars to donuts that CB takes a plea deal when his lawyers get a good look at what he's up against. Just my hunch, nothing more, but I'm willing to make this a marker.

I think that what you say about the friend and the accusation would hold more weight if you were using your real name here. I personally believe you but to a friend of CB you are just some anonymous person on the internet.

Keeping this case in the light may help other victims come forward.

Greg Davis wrote:

I’d like to think that if there was a high profile woman being accused of sexual assault the same folks would be saying Withhold your judgment, but I’m not optimistic.  

That’s an interesting opinion. I’d think the opposite is true. But that’s just my initial reaction. Why do you think that?

Edit: most sexual assaults are by men so maybe that’s why I’d be more skeptical

Todd, absolutely not. As I posted earlier, I represented individuals who were subjected to what were eventually shown to be false allegations of sexual assault. Convictions of such offenses, at least here, often carry severe consequences. So, no lesser burden of proof for any crimes. No higher burden for former Presidents either.

Didn’t you read what was posted a short time ago about the Central Park 5?

Yoda Jedi Knight wrote:

That’s an interesting opinion. I’d think the opposite is true. But that’s just my initial reaction. Why do you think that?

Edit: most sexual assaults are by men so maybe that’s why I’d be more skeptical

We’ll never know, so I’ll speculate based on how it cultures inherent misogynistic approach towards women and their sexuality  

Senor Arroz wrote:

Being judged by the public is a real thing. Actions have consequences.

Posting this here because MP seems to be limiting # of posts to 2 or 3 per day on any topic.

In answer to Franck below:

I think you're missing the point, Franck. Let me be clear. I don't know if Charlie Barrett is going to be convicted of this particular crime he has been accused of. I believe, 100%, that the jurors who will sit in judgement of him if this case should go to trial (more on that later) should assume he is innocent until the evidence and witness testimony presented by the prosecution convinces the jurors "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did it. That's what "innocent until proven guilty is about.

We 100% agree.

On the other hand, the public is NOT a jury or a court. We're talking about something happening in our community. Remember when that sponsored climber, Joe Kinder, chopped down that tree in Lake Tahoe? And then he later went on to body shame Sasha DiGiulian? Remember how he was subject to judgement on MP and other communities of climbers even though neither of those things was a crime or involved him being prosecuted in court? Yet he faced shame and condemnation for his (shitty) actions? He lost sponsors and ultimately even engaged in some self reflection? See, I think that's good. That's a community holding its own members accountable. 

Yes. See, again we agree. But then there are difference:

Some Tweet, statement, etc:

1. Tweetting happens
2. Ppl read tweet
3. Ppl react to tweet

A legal process:

1. Something happens
2. X claims A happened, while Y claim B happened.
3. An objective observer (e.g. the courts) take at look at the evidence and emits its opinion on what actually happened and we get to know what (it thinks) actually happened.
4. ppl react to all of the above

What you seem to think the legal process is:

1. Something happens
2. X claims A happened, while Y claim B happened.
3. people then react to it based on:
   1. whatever they think actually happened based on partial and possibly false stuff
   2. based on whatever they're personally biased to think.
   3. whatever other people based on 3.1 and 3.2 have decided happened
4. An objective observer (e.g. the courts) take at look at the evidence and emits its opinion on what actually happened and we get to know what (it thinks) actually happened.

Seems to me that withholding judgment until all you have as much information as possible is a good heuristic to follow in life in general.

To those that keep saying he’s innocent until convicted: how would you feel if your daughter told you she was going on a climbing trip with him? Would he be just as innocent?

I’ll probably be blocked for too many posts today, but I’ll try, though am not that thrilled to be prolonging this non-climbing discussion.

I believe that RAINN statistic is basically worthless, particularly in the context of a critique of the criminal justice system. It depends too much on assumptions regarding numbers of unreported sexual assaults. I am not disputing that there are such unreported assaults, many of them, ( and they are unreported for many different reasons), but it is unreasonable to criticize a system for not punishing perpetrators of such unreported assaults. I also know that there are assaults that are reported and, again for various reasons, not prosecuted, but it is hard to make any determinations about such situations without knowing the crucial details.

But, I can report from my own personal experiences of having  been a criminal defense attorney for 50 years ( and I know that, as was said earlier in this thread, personal experiences are ‘only’ anecdotal but that is what I know to be true) that at least in the jurisdictions where I have practiced, most criminal charges, including those of sexual assault, result in guilty pleas or convictions. For those convicted of sexual assaults, particularly any involving violence or child victims, the sentences are most often very severe, including lengthy state prison sentences followed by long probation periods. Other than murders, the longest sentences my clients have received are for sexual assaults. Additionally, here in MA, and in most other states as well, even after prison, those convicted of such assaults have to register as sex offenders, often for the remainder of their lives. The most serious offenders also face the prospect of potential lifetime commitment to special prison hospitals for ‘sex offender treatment’ even after they complete their prison sentences.

Given such very real knowledge, I can’t agree that those who are prosecuted and convicted of sexual assaults always, or even frequently , get off lightly.

When does the court of public opinion cross the line into unsubstantiated gossip?

The very moment this thread was created, of course. 

Dave Kosmal wrote:

When does the court of public opinion cross the line into unsubstantiated gossip?

This is a good point, and the first thing that comes to my mind is that poor Australian woman whose baby was killed by a wild dog. Worth looking into that.

society isn’t a monolith and we will react to things as humans do, with all the bias and emotions expected of untrained monkeys. The onus is on the justice system to remain objective, however how often is that the case?

The world is pretty unfair, you could be raped without consequence and can rape without consequence given the right mix of circumstance. I’m not letting Casey Anthony be my babysitter and I’m side eyeing the fuck out of Charlie Barrett. Sorry. 

Andrew Rice wrote:

Bravo! And to Eastern Sierra Old Guy, I'm sure you realize that being likeable or great at something doesn't mean you can't also be a criminal. Harvey Weinstein made some great movies. Bill Cosby was funny as shit, even when he was doing his "Spanish Fly" date rape drug bit. I hear R. Kelly wrote some really sexy songs, but he was also keeping women captive and abusing them in horrible ways.

I also believe in letting the justice system work its course. But given that bail is a thing and this person is likely to be released at some point pending trial, I think it's important that other potential victims have a heads up about the very serious allegations the US DOJ has made against their potential new camping or climbing buddy. 

But he did a lot for THE CLIMBING COMMUNITY!

Which means nothing, in the literal sense and in the context of this issue. And there is no climbing community.

Marc H wrote:

To those that keep saying he’s innocent until convicted: how would you feel if your daughter told you she was going on a climbing trip with him? Would he be just as innocent?

If he’s found innocent, would you let your daughter climb with him?

Jim T wrote:

If he’s found innocent, would you let your daughter climb with him?

hell no.

Jim T wrote:

If he’s found innocent, would you let your daughter climb with him?

Oh man, several places to go with this.

• No. Once someone is accused by two different women of sexual assault, arrested & charged, and subsequently denied bond, I don’t think I’d ever give one of my children permission to go anywhere with him.
• I don’t know if it was your intent, but in my mind, you just reinforced the notion that there is a big difference between the legal and practical application of innocent until proven guilty.
• Would you let your kids go to an axe-throwing competition with OJ Simpson? I mean, he was acquitted.

Marc H wrote:

To those that keep saying he’s innocent until convicted: how would you feel if your daughter told you she was going on a climbing trip with him? Would he be just as innocent?

I wouldn't feel it for sure.

Perhaps, however, there's a bit of a spectrum between your daughter going on a climbing trip with an accused sexual offender, and just refraining from dogpiling on a accused's case that hasn't gone to court?

So what about some midway position on the spectrum: no daugthers on the climbing trip, but also not dog piling?

Jim T wrote:

If he’s found innocent, would you let your daughter climb with him?

Nobody is found innocent.  It’s “not guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt.  big but subtle difference.  

One thing missing in all the “justice”, “courts” , opinion, gossip, conviction vs acquittal, etc talk is that it is still all statistical guesstimating based on available evidence (some evidence is better than others).  

Beyond reasonable doubt being generally equated to >85-90% probability of guilt (on avg based on judge polling).   Basically meaning that even after the courts tender a verdict, we still don’t “know” what really happened  

So, even if not “convicted”, it’s hardly enough certainty for me to say “that’s good enough for my daughter to climb with him”.  Fuck no.

OJ was “not guilty”.  Would you let your daughter date him?   Was he really “not guilty” ?

As stated with the other statistics, there are a lot of women who know  with 100% percent certainty, and yet the guy is walking free.  Maybe playing football and regarded as a star somewhere.

The only certainty is that it’s a shitty situation all around no matter how you cut it

Some really sad facts: 

Fact : 6 individuals were witness to CB sneaking up on his ex girlfriend and punching her in the head repeatedly in Bishop, California back in 2007ish. She fell with the first hit and he kept hitting her in the head while she lay helpless on the ground. 

Fact:  They testified in court on her behalf. He was convicted of a felony and served jail time.

Fact: CB has a criminal history. He has been convicted of multiple violent crimes. Served multiple sentences.

Opinion: CB is a world class climber and a really nice guy... until he's not.

Its pubic record, look it up