No one will take on Obama, and the Washington establishment, like Newt Gingrich
Fantastic: Obama would like to replicate Detroit’s foibles elsewhere
New York Times scandalized as NYPD is trained on Muslim-perpetrated violence
Detroit boldly choosing to crackdown on the innocent
South Carolina stopped Romney. For now
Cartoon: Down and out
In which I praise Mitt (but explain why I won’t vote for him)
Bernero the gambler sells Main Street for a shot at the slots
The Emergency Financial Manager law is undemocratic, but opponents need an alternative to guard against local fiscal calamities
Memo to Snyder: Don’t stop the radical reforms now!Horror Show in Missouri
November 30th, 2009 | 
Author: 
Pamela Troy
The Mohler case grinds on in Missouri. For those unfamiliar with it, six men in the Mohler family, Burrell Mohler Senior, and his five sons, have been accused of ritually abusing Burrell’s grandchildren back in the ‘80s.
You can find it online, conveniently typed-up.
The memories, we’ve been told, were initially “suppressed” by the 26-year-old woman who came forward with them. She claims that from the age of five to eleven, she was regularly and ritually molested by these men. She claims she was impregnated and forced to have an abortion at the age of eleven, and that the abuse stopped after this.
Her siblings insist the accusations are true, and that she and her sisters wrote down accounts of the abuse while they were children and buried them in jars on the property, as per their abusers’ instructions.
Law enforcement has arrested the accused, even dragging back to Missouri an elderly uncle who’s been living in Florida for the past two decades. The property in question has been dug up. No jars with these written memories have apparently been found.
In fact, we’ve been offered no evidence beyond the accusations. Every now and then I’ll see an excited headline about new “evidence,” and each time that “evidence” turns out to be either another lurid accusation, (They forced two children to help murder a 300 pound man! They made a little girl have sexual contact with a dog! And with a horse! They kept coded lists of murder victims in their Louis L’Amour books!) or something embarrassing but not especially incriminating, like a cache of porn, some of which has been reported to involve incest.
It’s interesting to visit links provided by Kansascity.com, examine the list of what search warrants have uncovered on Mohler property, and compare them with the headlines announcing some of these supposedly incriminating finds. For instance, a single green pamphlet entitled “about the sexual abuse of children” is apparently what prompted the announcement, “Child Incest Pamphlets Found In Search of Mohler Property,” which leaves readers with the impression that a sheaf of pro-incest leaflets had been uncovered.
Under the headline “Evidence Against Mohlers mounts” can be found the announcement that “Also seized were more adult movies, including a pornographic DVD about having sex with ‘Grandma & Grandpa.’” This apparently refers to a VHS listed here (Graphic language). An Internet search on its title seems to indicate that it’s less about incest than about geriatric sex.
This collection of porn is not what one would expect to find in the house of someone who raped his grandchildren until they hit junior high school. The titles revealed in the PDFs of the affidavits (“Senior Stimulation” “Black Dirty Debutantes,” “Virtual Sexuality”) don’t indicate interest in sex with undeveloped girls. It appears to be garden variety dirt involving, at worst, actresses who might be under 17, but are definitely past puberty. And it’s not clear how Burrell Sr’s stash of smut qualifies as mounting evidence that not only he, but his sons (the MohlerS in the headline), were busy raping third graders and murdering occasional adults twenty years ago.
But hey, why should that spoil everyone’s fun? The case has provided an opportunity for people to show off their virtue by rolling around in unrestrained hatred. One blog has speculated about whether this “raping family” carries a “degenerate gene.” Another has referred to the accused as “incestuous hillbillies.” Their religion is being triumphantly cited as if it indicates the accusations are true. Sanctimonious pieces are being written (“Precious years were lost in the Mohler investigation”) that offer token nods to the presumption of innocence, but rely on the presumption of guilt.
And embarrassing questions are going unanswered. Last week a woman surfaced who accused the Mohlers of holding her prisoner in their basement, impregnating her twice, killing one of her infants and burying it in the floor. Where’s the follow up on that? Any infant bones found in that basement? What’s this woman’s story, and can anyone verify that she dropped out of sight long enough to get pregnant twice? What about the jars of notes that were supposedly buried all over the Mohler property? What about the claim about people being murdered by the Mohlers?
The stories we’re hearing should have left behind some level of physical evidence – long-buried jars of notes, dead bodies, scars, etc. But instead of actual human remains, or medical evidence, or even verifiable accounts of disappearances in the area, we’ve gotten convoluted stories. Stolen jewelry from murder victims was kept in wooden boxes, we’ve been told, and coded lists of victims were tucked into copies of popular novels. It’s as if someone, faced with a dearth of evidence, is trying to make objects that they know are owned by the accused seem significant and damning.
So far all we’ve learned for sure is that Burrell Mohler Sr. had a collection of pornography.
This isn’t shaping up into a convincing case of child abuse and murder. It’s shaping up into a long-simmering family feud of estranged relatives and angry exes that’s escalating into a public tragedy.
Posted in Uncategorized
195 Responses to “Horror Show in Missouri”
Leave a Reply
- Listen to compelling 911 tape of 2-year-old trying to help authorities save her great-grandmother's life (AUDIO)
- 'Simpsons' joke about Sharia threat in Dearborn
- Fire Marshal: Too soon to say whether fatal fire at 230 Myrtle in Muskegon is arson; investigation continues
- Electrical problems likely cause of Strong Avenue fire in Muskegon; Investigation ongoing
- WXYZ asks a blogger with no law enforcement experience to weigh in on escort murders
- By the numbers: Detroit has spent $20 million demolishing homes since 2009
- 'Simpsons' joke about Sharia threat in Dearborn
- Age-shy Warren Mayor Jim is officially 69, two years older than he claimed, so let's all move on
J: “…you don’t see a correlation between owning multiple incest porn titles and being accused of incest.”
—
Brilliant thinking, J. And you should go further with this, for the old man not only had porn, but he had books depicting murders. So here’s another correlation for you: he’s accused of committing murders and he has books that portray murders…heck, what else does a jury need?
I’m very curious to know if anyone read Pamela’s article but did not go the extra step of clicking on the link to the warrant search document she provided. A look at those documents (there are more than one, and you are only seeing that single one here) reveals not only that the only title of several Pamela refers to, where she has conveniently omitted the operative word, “(Fucking) Grandma & Grandpa,” but quite a few others with similar incest themes. What I find irresponsible about this type of blogging is that it can choose to glaze over the fact that in pages 2 and 3 of the search warrant documents, there were other titles: “Family Taboo,” “Best of Family Secrets” and “Best of Family Touch.” Pamela would have you believe that there is no correlation between someone being is aroused by that and coincidentally being accused of incest. She would like you to ignore those other titles, as she does for the benefit of her article so she can appear objective here, and focus instead on a “pamphlet” about incest that could be social services related. She has gone so far as to suggest that the Grandpa and Grandma video doesn’t have any relationship to incest per se, whereas if she was truly being objective, she would have just linked the other pages from the warrant documents, clearly.
I’m very curious to know if anyone read Pamela’s article but did not go the extra step of clicking on the link to the warrant search document she provided. A look at those documents (there are more than one, and you are only seeing that single one here) reveals not only that the only title of several Pamela refers to, where she has conveniently omitted the operative word, “(Fucking) Grandma & Grandpa,” but quite a few others with similar incest themes. What I find irresponsible about this type of blogging is that it can choose to glaze over the fact that in pages 2 and 3 of the search warrant documents, there were other titles: “Family Taboo,” “Best of Family Secrets” and “Best of Family Touch.” Pamela would have you believe that there is no correlation between someone being is aroused by that and coincidentally being accused of incest. She would like you to ignore those other titles, as she does for the benefit of her article so she can appear objective here, and focus instead on a “pamphlet” about incest that could be social services related. She has gone so far as to suggest that the Grandpa and Grandma video doesn’t have any relationship to incest per se, whereas if she was truly being objective, she would have linked all the other pages from the warrant documents, clearly, rather than skewing the facts in favor of empathizing with the accused. It is legal, of course, to own this type of porn – providing LE proves that none of the people depicted were underage, but what does it say about the character of the man in possession of it when multiple people are accusing him of child molestation and incest?
Well Julia, I haven’t speculated on any of the murder charges, because I agree with you that so far the evidence that was publicized isn’t strong enough there yet. But way to go on trying to change the subject. That’s a weak diversion from addressing the actual points I’m making. Do you have anything valid to add to this, or are you happy just trying to confuse the issue in support of Pamela and these obvious child molesters?
J: “(Fucking) Grandma & Grandpa,” but quite a few others with similar incest themes.
—
If you look it up, you’ll discover that that the content of FG&G is even worse than incest. It’s about geriatric sex. (Gross!) But the actual content doesn’t matter to you, I suppose.
J: “Pamela would have you believe that there is no correlation between someone being is aroused by that and coincidentally being accused of incest.”
—
I suspect there is a correlation. His wife probably found some of this material and became suspicious. And it’s those suspicions that finally showed up in a therapist’s office as “memories.” So the videos don’t confirm the suspicions, they explain them. They’re the source.
Julie, you have no support whatsoever of this statement:
“His wife probably found some of this material and became suspicious. And it’s those suspicions that finally showed up in a therapist’s office as “memories.” So the videos don’t confirm the suspicions, they explain them. They’re the source.
I could just as easily make wild speculation that she heard or saw the abuse, or was complicit to it but started to feel guilty.
So, I will give you a pass on that one title, because you’re right, it sounds so gross, I don’t even want to look at the cover of the video, let alone read about the contents. Now, how about the other titles I mentioned that you conveniently ignored. Do those prove not to be about incest in your in-depth analysis of them?
Julie, incidentally, your focusing yet again on the one title is indirectly supporting the criticism I am making of Pamela for basing her argument on that one title.
Here’s my actual debate with Pamela from truecrimereport.com, for anyone who cares:
“J: So, while we’re at it, now I am really curious, specifically: on a scale of 1 to 10, how “wrong” do you think sex between adults and underage children is?
That depends on the “adult” and the “child.” I think an adult who has sex with a prebubescent child (I.e., one who has not hit puberty) is a predator and needs to be incarcerated.
I think a 21 year old man who has sex with a sixteen-year-old is sleazy, but not in the same league as the kind of child-raping the Mohlers have been accused of.
And I think a 17 year old who has sex with a 15 year old is another matter entirely.
J: Do you think the age of consent should be lowered?
In which jurisdiction?
J: Now how about incest? On a scale of 1 to 10…
Oh, for God’s sake.”
All I asked of Pamela was that she she answer a couple questions so I would get a better understanding of where she was coming from, and then in follow up, that she explain some of her distinctions between raping pre-pubescent vs. pubescent kids. I suspect she never did because over which jurisdiction she supports lowering the age of consent (i.e. semantics over “which jurisdiction”), but isn’t willing to stand behind her biased comments. If you support those types of reforms, for god’s sake, just have a spine and say it so we can understand the mentality of the person selectively ignoring facts we are dealing with.
What you can see she has done above is leave it completely open ended as far as the adult age at which it is more forgivable to rape a pubescent child. She only mentions her supposed age parameters AFTER saying “I think an adult who has sex with a prebubescent child (I.e., one who has not hit puberty) is a predator and needs to be incarcerated,” implying that if the child is at least pubescent, the perpetrator should no longer be considered a “predator.” Thus, statutory rape of kids from the ages from 10 to 17, despite age of consent laws, in Pamela’s mind, do not qualify as rape. Despite that the legal distinctions currently in place often would dictate that it still would be legally considered rape, Pamela avoids that issue, which seems to imply she would be in support of reforming the age of consent laws. All she needed to do was explain where I misinterpreted this, or at the very least, retract some of it. She never did.
There’s a typo in my above comment regarding the jurisdiction portion, but you get the gist.
J: “I could just as easily make wild speculation that she heard or saw the abuse, or was complicit to it but started to feel guilty.”
—
I didn’t say it was true, J, I said I suspected you were right, there was a correlation between the charges and the porno, but it wasn’t in the sense that porno validated the suspicions, but that the porno was the source of the suspicions. We know that the wife found some of this stuff and locked it up before LE ever searched the house. We know that she voiced suspicions to the minister, and the minister said everyone denied it. So, as far as I can tell, she never had any more evidence than LE now has, ie, none. All we know they have is porno, which isn’t evidence of a crime.
Not true, evidently she locked the porn up much more recently, whereas the allegations she made to the bishop were while the accusers were still children. Check your facts before you start making wild speculation.
“All we know they have is porno.”
More specifically, what we know is they had INCEST pornography. Big difference between that and Playboy, when the allegations include incest. I have to keep repeating this because you keep denying it.
J, you seem to have a tremendous emotional charge when incest is mentioned that makes it impossible for you to think clearly. That’s why I brought up the descriptions of murders in a book, to show you by analogy that such material does not validate charges of murder, just as porno does not validate charges of sexual activity.
On the other hand, homemade porno featuring one of the children would validate the charges, and a list of missing men in a book would be evidence for the murder charges. But none of these have been found.
You are jumping to stupid, speculative, subjective conclusions about my ability to be objective, which are, incidentally 100% incorrect.
J: Perhaps you are able to be objective in general, but it is clear to me that, when the subject involves incest, you are not able to put emotions aside.
Julie, you seem to be implying that I am a victim of incest, which is not true. I could just as easily say you were a victim of incest and uphold the idea that it is pleasurable for some, or that you commit incest and so you would naturally want to condone and normalize the behavior if you weren’t concealing it. So, I am objective in general, except where it involves incest, according to your logic. If you felt that I was emotionally affected by being victimized in a similar manner, how would that make my observations and opinions invalid? Furthermore, what about my insisting you not downplay the fact that the pornography in question was incest themed, and holding Pamela accountable for including all the facts, not just the ones that are convenient for supporting her opinions is showing I am overwhelmed by emotion?
J: Julie, you seem to be implying that I am a victim of incest, which is not true…So, I am objective in general, except where it involves incest, according to your logic.
—
No, I’m not implying that you are a victim of incest, nor am I saying that you are objective in general.
The only other thing I am going to say to you, Julie, because you’ve shown yourself to either not have the willingness or the intellectual skills to fully support your points, nor your critique of mine, is that I think anyone can see I have presented at least the majority of my arguments in a well-constructed, logical, level-headed fashion that was not ruled by emotion. The same can’t always be said for yours.
People here would get so much further in convincing others of their points of view if they would simply answer questions directed at them thoroughly. If you go out on a limb to make silly and innacurate claims, the least you could do is defend them without merely repeating yourself constantly or claiming your opponent’s judgment is clouded by something ambiguous like “a tremendous emotional charge.”
Well, the moderator of this site apparently doesn’t approve of me posting links detailing cover-up of ritualistic abuse in the Mormon and LDS churches, so I’ll try another post. One thing I had not done before I took the opportunity to do today is watch some of the Kansas City local news coverage of the warrant search on youtube. I think it’s significant to note that I could clearly see at least one incest title that was never mentioned in any of the online/printrf reporting or the warrant documents themselves. The magazine I saw was bound as thick as like a special edition Sports Illustrated or Time Life book might be, not the montly periodicals, and it was called “Homestyle…” something, and the word “family” was also visible.
Considering that, and the mountain of other evidence that was hauled away including hours of home recorded VHS tapes, it is safe to say there are many more pieces of evidence that make them look bad we don’t know about yet, not just insignificant stuff. I’m actually curious to pose the question to those of you who don’t see any correlation between incest porn and committing incest – say the incest porn was an obsession, and only 1% of the actual quantity in his possession was detailed in what was released, would that influence your perspective any more on there being a cause for recognizing a correlation. Admitedly, it is total speculation, but it’s a question I had to ask, how much more incriminating does it become if it is a more excessive amount of material?
I see where the Mohler patriarch was let out for 4 thousand. His medical conditions aside, I think this is a clear indication that the sheriff doesn’t have any evidence he’s not sharing with the public.
Either that or they consider him too decrepit to run. Hope he commits suicide. That would brighten my day and save me some tax dollars.
You don’t care about guilt or innocence, do you j? You’re just a hateful, mean-spirited person.
Haha. No, I totally uphold and support the due process of our legal system, you’re mistaken, but I understand you would prefer to imply that rather than dispute many other good points I’ve made. I was obviously making a sardonic joke. If he is innocent, he would be much less likely to commit suicide. If he’s guilty, I wouldn’t lament his disappearance from the planet. A mean spirited person would be someone who rapes their relatives, not someone who wishes death upon those who do.
More importantly, though, where are you getting your news that Burrell Mohler Sr. was bonded out?
j: “If he is innocent, he would be much less likely to commit suicide. If he is innocent, he would be much less likely to commit suicide.”
—
Your thinking is in line with the Salem witch trials, in which the accused were dunked in a pond. If they drowned they were guilty; if they survived, they were innocent. But no one survived. So in this modern version, the sheriff takes an old man, locks him up far from home, denies him his cane and oxygen, then parades him in front of a frothing media. And if he commits suicide, you and your ilk can dance around his body, proclaiming his guilt.
Doesn’t look like you’re going to get your jollies, though. The old man quite properly gave the media the finger the other day. And while the sheriff’s office might still manage to kill him with their mistreatment, looks like he’s not going to kill himself.
Oh my god, you’re kidding. The Salem thing again? Did you honestly just try to paraphrase the history of the Salem Witch Trials to me? There’s no comparison between me encouraging a child molester to take his own life and a handful of individuals lynching someone in lieu of a trial. None whatsoever. You desperately cling to that analogy because of some personal agenda other than your supposed due process crusade (which I don’t for a minute buy as your only motive for repeating this ad nauseum), but it is completely invalid. Pamela really has you chirping like her mocking bird. Anyway, it was Darrell Mohler who was bonded out because of his medical conditions. And it speaks not one iota of his guilt or innocence, contrary to what you just said. It likewise says nothing about the others’ guilt.
Ah yes, the defiant flipping off of the media. It’s like a gesture that says “That’s right, I can molest kids and still go back home. Haha. In your face, victims and concerned citizens!” But he still has to go through a trial, and his life is still in shambles. Oh well.
But seriously…are you Julie Mohler by any chance?
Not sure why this didn’t get past the moderator when I said it the first time, but did you read the details of the news you are quoting? it was Darell Mohler who is going to soon be released on surety bond of $4000. His medical needs have not been neglected. He was tested to confirm whether he needs oxygen and it was determined he did not. Why would you think they would risk giving anyone a cane that could potentially be swung at someone? It’s just a matter of policy, don’t act like they are trying to mistreat him. He’s just whining. Someone else in the jail could overtake him, grab it and use it as a weapon. As for his physical limitations, he obviously has enough coordination to walk while he gives us the finger, that seems pretty mobile to me. He just hobbles a little, big deal.
He doesn’t have too much walking to do from the Sheriff’s van into the courtroom. He’ll live.
Wow, here’s some great perspective, on the comments on this site, we have half the people familiar with the family claiming they totally believe it, and half saying it’s the ex wife’s personal vendetta. So, just how does a spurned ex convince so many adults to come forward with these allegations, if you believe the naysayers?
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/bates-city-mo/T9PFUFKS9DU4OT0S7
I think it’s interesting that someone concludes that bond means they don’t have evidence to hold him. It’s bond. He’s still going to trial so evidence can be presented. j: interesting comments.
Huntress, “it’s bond” you say? Do you really think that someone guilty of all these crimes wouldn’t skip out on 4 thousand dollars? If you and your ilk could get past your bumper sticker thinking, you’d see that there is something very wrong with this investigation.
thats all i have to say about that…Forrest Gump.
I can think of a couple more things to say…
The problem with opponents of the admissibility of suppressed memories is that they are echoing the beliefs of others urging more leniency for pedophilia.
The man quoted below was a founding member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. Here were his comments being interviewed June 1991 for Paidika, the Journal of Paedophilia:
“RALPH UNDERWAGER: Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love.
PAIDIKA: Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individuals?
RALPH UNDERWAGER: Certainly it is responsible. What I have been struck by as I have come to know more about and understand people who choose paedophilia is that they let themselves be too much defined by other people…Paedophiles spend a lot of time and energy defending their choice. I don’t think that a paedophile needs to do that. Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love…
I believe it is God’s will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: “This closeness is possible for me within the choices that I’ve made. Paedophiles are too defensive… What I think is that paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness, they can say, “I believe this is in fact part of God’s will.” They have the right to make these statements for themselves as personal choices. Now whether or not they can persuade other people they are right is another matter (laughs).”
His wife, Hollida Wakefield, also a FMSF board member, added this:
HOLLIDA WAKEFIELD: ” The problem, as I would state it, is that in the United States, paedophilia is viewed so negatively that I think the possibility of harming the young man would be very real. I don’t know if a positive model is possible in the United States. The climate is such in the United States that it would be very, very difficult for a paedophile, even with the most idealistic of motives and aspirations, to make his relationship actually work in practice…
Even if the boy at some point viewed it as positive, after coming into contact with the way the society as a whole viewed it, the very real danger would be created of making the experience harmful. Relationships and societal attitudes are, of course, two completely different areas. In such a negative climate, I don’t know if it would be possible for the relationship to be good for the parties involved when the entire society is so negative.”
And this:
“There are very negative aspects of paedophilia that we see from our experience in the United States. We saw a priest, for example, who started having sex with a child when the boy was nine. He told the child that he loved only him. But, in fact, at the same time, he was also involved with half a dozen other nine-and-ten-year-olds. He had had anal sex with the kid. And then he cast him aside at age fifteen. The boy was totally and hopelessly screwed up, his whole sexuality in confusion…
You have to remember, if somebody in the United States talked to us and said, “You know, I’m a paedophile and I have a sexual relationship with this boy and it’s good,” we would have to call the police and turn him in. We would turn him in too, because we would be in jail if we didn’t…if we didn’t do that, we would lose our licenses as psychologists, face a fine of $5,000, and six months in jail.”
Wake up, suppressed memory naysayers. The people urging advocacy for your argument did not care about the safety or mental health of children so much as normalizing pedophila. They would not have reported anyone if they weren’t obligated to because they AGREED with pedophilia.
Hi Monte. So fare i can see, Emert has answered your question. I don’t see any sense.
Informative and interesting post!!!keep it up..
I like what you guys are up also. Such clever work and reporting! Carry on the excellent works guys Iˇ¦ve incorporated you guys to my blogroll. I think it’ll improve the value of my web site
Really valuable article, I am going to surely come back again.
Great article with very interesting information. You might want to follow up to this topic!?!
My spouse and i have been thankful that Michael could finish off his investigations while using the ideas he discovered through your blog. It’s not at all simplistic to just be giving for free steps which often most people might have been selling. We really understand we have got the blog owner to appreciate for this. These explanations you’ve made, the easy website navigation, the friendships you make it easier to create – it’s mostly astonishing, and it’s leading our son in addition to our family imagine that this concept is brilliant, which is tremendously vital. Thanks for all the pieces!
Business people in which companion together with Any Merchant Account Defense Strategy immediately find entry that will a employee involving tax experts together with any practically unlimited pool associated with tax property.
Hello, Neat post. There’s a problem along with your website in web explorer, might check this? IE nonetheless is the marketplace chief and a huge component of other people will miss your fantastic writing because of this problem.
She gets what she deserves. Very disgusting to say the least.
Google’s Blogger!.