[Wellsy]

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/climber-charles-barrett-assault-trial/

The above is a link to the pretty horrific story of continued sexual abuse by Charles Barrett in the US over literally decades

It feels like this is something to discuss? I know it made me feel horrified and deeply uncomfortable and I have to say Kevin Jorgeson and Alex Honnold come off pretty poorly in it...

[Davo]

A grim tale indeed! Not sure that I agree about Honnold and Jorgeson.

[Wellsy]

Can I ask why? I feel like Jorgesen must have heard things by the time he was promoting Barrett's climbing and guidebooks on social media, and Honnold was told he knocked his ex out in a fight and basically said "damn, that's crazy" and just never... thought about it again? Seemingly?

This guy's behaviour was protected by the climbing community, I think it's fair to ask why and how and who knew and what they did about it.

[jwi]

I kind-of agree with Wellsy.

Now, I do not look to climbers for moral leadership, nothing that I've experienced have lead me to think that is a good idea.

However, all of us should look out for other climbers and make climbing as safe as possible. That includes excluding climbers who are a menace to other climbers from the community. That is also what I've seen happen a few times. The climbers in question then start going after/hanging out with beginners and are often very helpful for them and teaching them stuff — and I find that just telling said beginners that the guy you're climbing with is a dangerous narcissist is rarely usefull.

[Davo]

Can I ask why? I feel like Jorgesen must have heard things by the time he was promoting Barrett's climbing and guidebooks on social media, and Honnold was told he knocked his ex out in a fight and basically said "damn, that's crazy" and just never... thought about it again? Seemingly?

This guy's behaviour was protected by the climbing community, I think it's fair to ask why and how and who knew and what they did about it.

Yes of course, happy to give some reasons. I agree with most of your points that some people in the climbing community have clearly protected him and at the very least turned a blind eye to his extremely dark and clearly criminal side.

It’s just that I wouldn’t like to be judged on my acquaintance with a climber that I had hung around with at a crag, done a few routes with and then heard a few questionable things about. I also think that there are some people out there (and I suspect most of us have met someone like this) that are on first acquaintances very charismatic, easily likeable and on the surface someone that we would like to hang around with but when you get to know them better it turns out that they have a dark side. Clearly if you only ever meet this person in a social climbing situation it is hard to see this dark side to that person and you could be forgiven for being happy to say that you like them and think they are a good guy.

Also I don’t think the article really makes clear how well Honnold or Jorgeson actually knew him.

Anyway, he was clearly a very grim and disturbing person.

[Oldmanmatt]

I spent two years sleeping in the bunk above a serial killer, at a point when he’d been killing for at least ten years. We worked together and (to an extent, as much as we were in the same mess) socialised with him. I did not like him. He was surly and unpleasant. I knew he had a violent temper, but I could never have imagined what he really was. If I’d gone to my MEO and told him the guy gave me the creeps etc, I’d have been told to fuck off and grow up. I still trusted him in a professional capacity. Some of us from that crew (HMS Westminster) still discuss this to this day. How could we have not realised?
What do you really know about the people around you? How far would you go, to ostracise someone, simply based on “feelings “ or what someone else says they heard that this person might have done?

[Wellsy]

Can I ask why? I feel like Jorgesen must have heard things by the time he was promoting Barrett's climbing and guidebooks on social media, and Honnold was told he knocked his ex out in a fight and basically said "damn, that's crazy" and just never... thought about it again? Seemingly?

This guy's behaviour was protected by the climbing community, I think it's fair to ask why and how and who knew and what they did about it.

Yes of course, happy to give some reasons. I agree with most of your points that some people in the climbing community have clearly protected him and at the very least turned a blind eye to his extremely dark and clearly criminal side.

It’s just that I wouldn’t like to be judged on my acquaintance with a climber that I had hung around with at a crag, done a few routes with and then heard a few questionable things about. I also think that there are some people out there (and I suspect most of us have met someone like this) that are on first acquaintances very charismatic, easily likeable and on the surface someone that we would like to hang around with but when you get to know them better it turns out that they have a dark side. Clearly if you only ever meet this person in a social climbing situation it is hard to see this dark side to that person and you could be forgiven for being happy to say that you like them and think they are a good guy.

Also I don’t think the article really makes clear how well Honnold or Jorgeson actually knew him.

Anyway, he was clearly a very grim and disturbing person.

That's fair. I suppose my feeling is that they did know at least something was up, and people like Kauk were making clear there was a problem, but Jorgesen in particular was happy to publicly support him... he's facing a lot of criticism from US climbers at the moment, made his Instagram private, I think in the very least he's not showered himself in glory...

I definitely see your point though. I'd like to know who was knowingly defending this guy though.

[Moo]

Wow that is fucking mental. I have always found it odd how much slack talented climbers are given for very poor behaviour.

I guess the reason is that people want to associate with them due to their ability and are willing forgive bad behaviour as a result.

Couldn’t imagine being enough of a sycophant to turn a blind eye to any of that though it’s bonkers.

Thanks for sharing Wellsy, think it’s important to shine a light on these things and remind ourselves that climbers are just people and people are cunts.

[slab_happy]

I spent two years sleeping in the bunk above a serial killer, at a point when he’d been killing for at least ten years. We worked together and (to an extent, as much as we were in the same mess) socialised with him. I did not like him. He was surly and unpleasant. I knew he had a violent temper, but I could never have imagined what he really was. If I’d gone to my MEO and told him the guy gave me the creeps etc, I’d have been told to fuck off and grow up. I still trusted him in a professional capacity. Some of us from that crew (HMS Westminster) still discuss this to this day. How could we have not realised?
What do you really know about the people around you? How far would you go, to ostracise someone, simply based on “feelings “ or what someone else says they heard that this person might have done?

In this case, though, you have someone who beat his ex unconscious in front of witnesses, and was convicted and jailed for it. You've got multiple restraining orders being taken out against him, and Barrett is telling multiple people (including well-known figures in the climbing community like Bill Ramsey) that he's going to kill Forté, borrowing other climbers' phones to threaten people, and posting about Forté all over his social media in a way which makes it pretty obvious even without knowing context that he has an extremely angry obsession with this one woman, etc. etc..

Clearly most people didn't know about all the rapes, but that's not a scenario where no-one could possibly have known anything was going on, or where people who were concerned couldn't have checked details like his conviction.

Matt Samet evidently knew enough to yank an article about Barrett in 2018 (though one unfortunate thing is that the "whisper network" that operates in these cases can mean that people who have the right social connections  are very well-informed, but those who aren't -- e.g. people who are new to a given community -- get no warning).

Honnold acknowledges that he'd heard rumours about Barrett's violent behaviour but rationalized it away and had a "blind spot" about it.

That's not equivalent to feeling you should be able to spot a serial killer just because they give you the creeps, you know?

[slab_happy]

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/climber-charles-barrett-assault-trial/

The above is a link to the pretty horrific story of continued sexual abuse by Charles Barrett in the US over literally decades

It feels like this is something to discuss? I know it made me feel horrified and deeply uncomfortable and I have to say Kevin Jorgeson and Alex Honnold come off pretty poorly in it...

Agreed that they don't look great, but in some ways I would be wary of judging them too harshly, because that can potentially lead to being over-confident that you would never fuck up in the same way.

From what I've heard (and seen) in various communities: abusers are often very good at showing different behaviour to different people, cultivating positive relationships with socially-powerful people, and ensuring the abuse happens where other people don't see it.

Barrett broke that pattern by being abusive where someone with high status in the community like Lonnie Kauk could see it, but many abusers never do.

The problem is -- imagine someone who you've climbed with a fair amount, who's a friend, who you like and trust (if you want, for the purposes of this thought-experiment, you can imagine a specific real person; it will be upsetting).

They're a good friend; you've never ever seen them do anything violent or bad. Then you hear that there's this rumour that they punched their ex. Which seems totally out-of-character! But you know they've been having a really rough time with depression and drinking too much. And then someone else says "oh, I heard the ex's dog attacked them and they were really just trying to defend themselves against the dog" or "I heard they were both fighting, it wasn't one-sided, maybe they did take a swing but it was just the once."

Consider how strong the temptation is to decide that yeah, that sounds more plausible. Your friend's not some evil monster, after all! Maaaaaybe they did something stupid and lashed out once when they were having a really hard time, but they're not an actual abuser, right?

(And what are you going to do about it, anyway? Tell them "I'm not climbing with you again because I heard this rumour"? Try to to get them kicked out of the local climbing community, even? Then they'll be angry at you and it'll be a whole huge mess, over this thing which is just a rumour, and you weren't even there and can't say what really happened, so maybe it's better if you just stay out of it and don't take sides ... or so the thought process can go.)

Maybe they even admit it, they say they just snapped and threw a punch this one time when they were under so much stress and they don't know what came over them and they're so ashamed and guilty and suicidal and of course it'll never, ever happen again (except that it always does).

In some ways, the idea of abusers as terrible monsters can be counter-productive, because it leads people to think "Well, I know this person, they're not a terrible monster, so obviously they can't really be an abuser, right?"

I feel like if we want to make climbing (or any other community) safer, part of it has to be being aware of how these patterns operate and how abusers take advantage of them.

And recognizing that some day, someone may make an allegation against someone you like, and you'll have to be prepared to fight down that kneejerk reaction and try to ensure it gets a fair hearing.

This shit is messy and hard.

As I said in my previous comment, there was a whole lot that was public knowledge (or widely-spread rumours) about Barrett. But the social pressures and the temptation to rationalize and make excuses for people we like are also very strong.

[duncan]

There has been a long running thread on Mountain Project about Barrett. It’s now locked after someone claiming to be a police officer seemed to think the answer to the Barretts of the world was to avoid sex outside marriage.

The thread revived after the publication of the Outside article and one of Barrett’s victims wrote a very articulate post about her experiences. It says many of the same things slab_happy has from a very personal perspective.

"Charlie is exceptionally charismatic, powerful, and endearing. He is funny, talented, and strong. He's a great guy-- until he isn't".

[jwi]

There has been a long running thread on Mountain Project about Barrett. It’s now locked after someone claiming to be a police officer seemed to think the answer to the Barretts of the world was to avoid sex outside marriage.

The thread revived after the publication of the Outside article and one of Barrett’s victims wrote a very articulate post about her experiences. It says many of the same things slab_happy has from a very personal perspective.

"Charlie is exceptionally charismatic, powerful, and endearing. He is funny, talented, and strong. He's a great guy-- until he isn't".

Top-tip: read the post Duncan linked and nothing else in the thread. Your eyes will thank me for not bleeding.

[ferret]

Wow this is an incredibly well researched, well written and truly disturbing article. Hit pretty close to home for me as not only have I climbed, shared a beer or met in passing (prior to these events) several of the people mentioned in this article (including Charlie and one of the women) I also had abusive family members that exhibited similar (if less extreme) behavior patterns.
A few random thoughts;
Abusers like this with narcissistic personalities and the ability to pathologically lie have an ability to convince people they are telling the truth in a way that is truly uncommon. They create a narrative that twists facts and blurs events so well that they appear to even convince themselves of these false truths. They go on the offensive as if they are the injured party and proactively spread the false narrative faster than the victim (who is usually less likely to want to share their version of events). Often people are convinced by detailed story accompanied by what appears to be genuine emotion and have made their mind up before hearing the victims side. It’s sadly only years later, when a large enough pattern of behavior is visible that they will change their minds and even then some never will, remaining under the spell (Donald Trump anyone?)
For those of you that haven’t spent much time in the US West Coast scene, the combination of the weather, space, free camping and ability to follow the seasons creates a transient community unlike what we have in Europe. People can follow migratory paths for months (if not years) on little money, leading to a very tight nit community that are essentially living together for long periods of time. This lifestyle is often a refuge for those with some problems in life and in some cases obvious mental health issues, so this community is somewhat desensitized to strange personalities and social drama.
It’s easy for those that create drama or whose personal issues bleed into the social space to still exist in this larger community by simply skipping on to another destination.
This all makes it very easy for somebody to spread a false narrative by just skipping ahead on the general path of those that might have witnessed the events and also take advantage of the welcoming nature of the climbing community and the speed at which you can form close bonds in these situations.
It’s truly sad that somebody has taken advantage of what in general is a unique and wonderful experience to create division in order to cover up their crimes.
I do think its also worth noting that the US scene in general has a sycophantic element to it not present to the same extent in Europe. I imagine this contributed to somebody with the talent and notoriety of Charlie to convince some members of the community.

[wasbeen]

I find it uncomfortable that women in the article weren't being believed because the narrative had already been controlled. I guess a large party of that was word of mouth and social media. Social media  can have a tendency to present a perfect world with little room for discussion. I also wonder about the role of more traditional forums. It is a worrying how male dominated the climbing forums are. It feels like it might be useful to understand why that is the case and whether it could be addressed.

[andy popp]

That is a very sobering read. I don't know the social media is that much to blame. Climbing culture (and specific climbing communities) have long celebrated and indulged the bad behaviour of some, particularly of so called "hard men" - fast, reckless driving, drink/drugs, various forms criminality, and even violence in some contexts - giving little thought to those that might suffer the consequences.

[jwi]

I'm thinking again about how the climbing community (and any community really) can protect itself from dangerous individuals.

I'm aware of at least one well known climber in Europe where the standard advice is/was "don't climb with him, he is unstable and has anger issues and have had fist-fights with several of his climber partners". I am aware of at least two climbers/former climbers about whom I've been told they will try to scam or outright steal from any climbing partner (one was reasonably well known, the other is very well known).

I also know about one (former) coach for two national teams (first got kicked out from one, then got hired by the second) who had a repuation of being a creep around young female atheletes. Both times support staff flagged the behaviour and refused to work with him, but it quickly became "words against words" thing. Again, well connected climbers refused to have their kids in the national teams, or they took time of work and traveled with their kids.

As a long-standing member of the community I get a great measure of protection from being told these things, but this form of informal policing is maybe not the greatest as it doesn't exactly protect newcomers.

[mrjonathanr]

I also wonder about the role of more traditional forums. It is a worrying how male dominated the climbing forums are. It feels like it might be useful to understand why that is the case and whether it could be addressed.

That is a very good point.

[petejh]

Good article about a very nasty piece of work. Person with (seemingly) malignant personality disorder becomes a climber, goes on to abuses/terrorise/traumatise/hoodwink/leave trail of destruction around most of those he encounters in his world. Not a new tale. Perhaps slightly more unusual than average in climbing due to a more closed-knit scene?

Difficult to defend against people like that for similar reasons that clever liars are difficult to defend against. They don't walk around with a label on their forehead and can be talented charismatic people who know how to create deception/confusion/intimidation. The stupid ones or the ones on a totally extreme end of violence get locked up first, but the ones who mask it better have plenty of time to do their damage.

Easy in hindsight to see all the obvious failings and oversights by those in his scene but it's pretty rational for most people who encounter this type of character to not want to confront - they're predatory and few people are inclined to actively encourage a predator into their life. Confronting them often leads to bad outcomes on any number of levels. I think you could moralise all day about how upright you are and think you'd have spotted it or acted differently, but unless you end up in an encounter with a character like that you'll never know. The chances are fair that you'd feel somewhat inclined not to chase things up too forcefully and instead allow your conscience to give the benefit of doubt. Hence all the inadvertent enabling. Although in hindsight some of those examples of overt aggression seem so over the top obvious that it's surprising it took so long for him to be recognised as the threat he is.

[spidermonkey09]

Great article. I thought Honnold came across quite well. Spoke to the author, was open and honest. Jorgeson less so.

[petejh]

Yep, I thought Honnold sounded rational and honest, as usual!

[Moo]

“Honnold said that he’d heard stories about a female professional climber he knew who’d been in a relationship with Barrett and got “punched in the face.”
“I thought: That’s crazy,” Honnold said. “But then I immediately thought: Maybe he was really drunk and they were fighting and that’s how he ended up punching her in the face. And she is a very strong person who holds her own.” (The climber, who Honnold named, did not respond to interview requests.)”

Honest yes, but rational, maybe not so much. If you allow men being drunk as an excuse for committing violence against women then you are a fucking idiot.

What what we’re seeing here is honnold being given slack for turning a blind eye to violence commited against a female. He didn’t ask her about it and get her side of the story directly?

That’s the way this sycophantic behaviour works. You have to analyse what a person did in a given situation and hold them accountable for it.

[spidermonkey09]

Honnold discussed that period with me at length in the summer of 2023. He mentioned that his friendship with Barrett was sporadic—“I would see Charlie once every few years for like a day or two,” he said—and acknowledged that he had a “blind spot” about him like many people did. Honnold’s knowledge of Barrett’s violent behavior primarily consisted of “rumors heard around the campfire,” he told me, and those rumors were often dismissed: “People cut him more slack because he is incredibly talented, and he wrote those guidebooks and established really hard climbs.”

Honnold said that he tries to see the best in people and always hoped that Barrett would turn his life around. “[The violence] was a step beyond what I could imagine,” he says. “Which I guess is why I had a blind spot around it. And the depressed-alcoholic thing is an easy way to mask some of the actual violence.”

I honestly don't think this comes across as irrational behaviour. For all the reasons slab_happy and pjh have outlined,abusers  arent easy to spot. They don't have a big label on them. I think its totally plausible that I would have reacted as Honnold did. I found slabs thought experiment interesting in that regard, especially this bit:


'(And what are you going to do about it, anyway? Tell them "I'm not climbing with you again because I heard this rumour"? Try to to get them kicked out of the local climbing community, even? Then they'll be angry at you and it'll be a whole huge mess, over this thing which is just a rumour, and you weren't even there and can't say what really happened, so maybe it's better if you just stay out of it and don't take sides ... or so the thought process can go.)'

 Obviously if I hear of something similar in my life I hope I would learn and act differently but thats the social change we're attempting to enact.

[Wellsy]

Personally, I'd say his thinking at the time was pretty stupid. He admits he had a blind spot, as many did. I don't think that makes him culpable. But we are talking about a situation where it persisted for years because of thinking exactly like Honnold's there.

[spidermonkey09]

Yeah absolutely, I was just interested in what 'holding someone accountable' means in that context. The story is fucking grim and I'd imagine is causing some serious introspection.

[Wellsy]

I would say that I don't consider any one individual responsible for not "holding him to account" but rather that the community failed to do so, and the community is made up of people, and those people should consider why the community failed to do so and what the consequence of that was.

I'm not saying Honnold or Jorgesen could have saved the day individually, against the unwillingness of the community to deal with the problem. Lonnie Kauk appears to have tried and not met with success. But if Honnold, Jorgesen and so on had been willing to actually do something more than just turn a blind eye, then the community isn't against them, because the community is them. It is disturbing to read on an individual level, but imo it is disturbing to read on a social level; in that scene you can be a serial rapist and abuser, and be known to be that, be arrested several times, be jailed at times, and yet not face actual serious social consequences until you're facing life behind bars? That is... alarming.