MO - Six Mohler family members for child sex crimes, Bates City 2009 #1

[IWannaKnow]

Theoretically the easiest -- but if for example, the husband does not want to relinquish any property, proceeds from retirement or stocks, half the $$ in bank account, then the wife has no choice but to ask the court to rule.

Abusers are a$$holes-- it's all about them & what they want.

Just an example.

Texas Mist - Yup, yup, yup. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Spot on.

 

[CHICANA]

The local that posted said that he'd had multiple marriages and they were all messy divorces. The plural was used, so presumably he's been married AND divorced at least twice. Maybe when they visit the board again they'll let us know the exact numbers.

4 times according to his last marriage license application on June 15th 2009.

http://records.co.jackson.mo.us/results.asp

 

[PAXIMUS]

FWIW.....the reaction of some to defend these men, while accusing the victims of lying and their mothers of either neglect and participation in the crimes, or of using these victims to gain some sort of vengeful satisfaction is EXACTLY the reason that this sort of evil abuse is not reported by either the child victim or the mother. The victims are already traumatized and the mothers foresee the type of responses which some have revealed here and try to protect the child from further trauma by NOT reporting to LE. I see the multiple "messy" divorce records described by posters as evidence that something was wrong here and the women were doing what they could to get away and protect their children.

There is no question that you are correct but in my profession we have to worry less about the ten guilty people and more about that one person who may be wrongly accused and convicted. This is why I suggested that we should all feel just as repulsed by those who falsely accuse people as we are of those who actually committ these monstrous acts.

I know it offends a lot of people but my only concern is that innocent people not have their freedom taken from them, if that means that some guilty people will get away with their crimes because of my focus on the rights of the accused, then so be it, thats the system we have and thats what I have to work with.

If it came down to allowing a guilty person to walk in order to prevent an innocent person from being wrongfully imprisoned I would absolutely let them walk every time. When we stop caring about the rights of the accused we cease to be America and have become Nazi Germany 1933.

 

[CHICANA]

as posted upthread, could be related to statute of limitations...this sister could be the youngest sibling, the others are older & SOL kicks in.

I thought that the probable cause statement listed a second victim as well ??

 

[IWannaKnow]

I find it strange that the old man got the highest since he is the least likely to be in the position to flee, recent reports have indicated he is sick and frail.

These bonds are also very low, only 50,000 for the FATHER of the children making the accusations. They all walk today if they pay 5k to a bondsman and he puts up the full bond value for them.

This is very unusual for bail to be set so low in a child sex crime case, normally the judge will set the bail unreasonably high to ensure they are not released to threaten or harm their accusers.

This of course could be a matter of the judge simply following the US Constitution (although not many do!) as the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution requires that bail not be excessive.

Somewhere upthread it was mentioned they do not have attorneys, and will need court appointed. Didn't even have rep. for todays hearing. That would say, for me, no money. So why the need for high bail if they can't even meet what was set? Guess family could always pull together, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

 

[gxm]

I find it strange that the old man got the highest since he is the least likely to be in the position to flee, recent reports have indicated he is sick and frail.

These bonds are also very low, only 50,000 for the FATHER of the children making the accusations. They all walk today if they pay 5k to a bondsman and he puts up the full bond value for them.

This is very unusual for bail to be set so low in a child sex crime case, normally the judge will set the bail unreasonably high to ensure they are not released to threaten or harm their accusers.

This of course could be a matter of the judge simply following the US Constitution (although not many do!) as the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution requires that bail not be excessive.

IANAL, but someone mentioned earlier that a cash bond has to be paid in full. So they have to come up with the full amount if they want to get out of jail AND they can't use a bondsman.

A cash bond requires the arrestee to pay the full amount of the bond to the Boone County, Missouri Sheriff's department, or to the Boone County, Missouri Circuit Court. A Columbia, Missouri bail bond agent cannot help you post a cash-only bond. The only way to get out of jail is to pay the full bond amount to the Sheriff or the Court.

http://www.abetterbond.com/What_is_a_cash_bond.php

IANAL and I apologize in advance if I've completely misinterpreted this legal aspect.

 

[Mojen]

At the end of the video, the newscaster reports that his second wife says Burrell Jr. was psychologically and verbally abusive with her children as well as overly strict and that's why the marriage ended.

I found Mark Young's divorce and multiple modifications with Burrell's ex. Young knew something was up in at least 2002. He filed a motion for change of custody pendente lite (which means he wanted custody of the kid during the pendency of the matter). Ex was served by leaving a copy of the summons with her husband, Burrell Mohler, Jr.

Young's divorce and subsequent modifications goes on for 58 pages!

 

[PAXIMUS]

Somewhere upthread it was mentioned they do not have attorneys, and will need court appointed. Didn't even have rep. for todays hearing. That would say, for me, no money. So why the need for high bail if they can't even meet what was set? Guess family could always pull together, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

One home as collateral and they all walk this afternoon, I am sure one of them owns a home.

As for defense attorneys they are not cheap and most people, probably even most of us here, would have to use court appointed lawyers in a case like this, it could end up costing half a milliion for each person to defend themself with a private attorney.

 

[CHICANA]

There is no question that you are correct but in my profession we have to worry less about the ten guilty people and more about that one person who may be wrongly accused and convicted. This is why I suggested that we should all feel just as repulsed by those who falsely accuse people as we are of those who actually committ these monstrous acts.

I know it offends a lot of people but my only concern is that innocent people not have their freedom taken from them, if that means that some guilty people will get away with their crimes because of my focus on the rights of the accused, then so be it, thats the system we have and thats what I have to work with.

If it came down to allowing a guilty person to walk in order to prevent an innocent person from being wrongfully imprisoned I would absolutely let them walk every time. When we stop caring about the rights of the accused we cease to be America and have become Nazi Germany 1933.

For the most part I agree.
But in cases of sexual abuse against children, I care more about the loss of the child's innocence and the loss of their freedom to choose the first person they give their virginity to.

They're entitled to a defense, but I see no reason why this girl would make these accusations or why her siblings would corroborate her story.

IMO, it's waayyy to late to blame this on a bitter ex-wife.

 

[CHICANA]

One home as collateral and they all walk this afternoon, I am sure one of them owns a home.

As for defense attorneys they are not cheap and most people, probably even most of us here, would have to use court appointed lawyers in a case like this, it could end up costing half a milliion for each person to defend themself with a private attorney.

It's a cash bond, I don't think collateral is gonna do it.

Or have the bond conditions changed since they were arrested ?

 

[raeann]

There is no question that you are correct but in my profession we have to worry less about the ten guilty people and more about that one person who may be wrongly accused and convicted. This is why I suggested that we should all feel just as repulsed by those who falsely accuse people as we are of those who actually committ these monstrous acts.

I know it offends a lot of people but my only concern is that innocent people not have their freedom taken from them, if that means that some guilty people will get away with their crimes because of my focus on the rights of the accused, then so be it, thats the system we have and thats what I have to work with.

If it came down to allowing a guilty person to walk in order to prevent an innocent person from being wrongfully imprisoned I would absolutely let them walk every time. When we stop caring about the rights of the accused we cease to be America and have become Nazi Germany 1933.

I agree, BUT this is why we allow those accused to have a complete and fair trial in front of a jury of their peers. I do not for a minute believe these men should be sent straight to jail....However, I also do not believe that in such a horrendous case as this, that LE would ever, for any reason, just randomly decide to arrest 5 men without the proper evidence to back up the charges. It seems that LE has now done the footwork, that this issue may have been alluded to years ago and the men given the benefit of unquestioned belief at that time. If a jury finds them to be innocent, they will have then been vindicated.

In MY profession, I see often the horrors that such abuse can leave in the lives of those abused. I also see the victims being treated with disdain and judgment that further compounds their pain. NO ONE here has in any way advocated the removal of rights to the accused. MOST here are advocates for the victims, that is their interest in being on a site such as this one.

jmo

 

[Mysterylover]

I find it strange that the old man got the highest since he is the least likely to be in the position to flee, recent reports have indicated he is sick and frail.

These bonds are also very low, only 50,000 for the FATHER of the children making the accusations. They all walk today if they pay 5k to a bondsman and he puts up the full bond value for them.

This is very unusual for bail to be set so low in a child sex crime case, normally the judge will set the bail unreasonably high to ensure they are not released to threaten or harm their accusers.

This of course could be a matter of the judge simply following the US Constitution (although not many do!) as the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution requires that bail not be excessive........

MAXIMS, I was very shocked to see the low bonds set for these men. When these men walk out of jail these innocent victims will not sleep at nights, until these men are back behind bars.

With these men back on the street, one can only guess how much the families of the victims will be threatened in 'indirect' ways.

Monsters like these have pulled the wool over everyone's eyes for years, they know all the tricks and right words to say to cover their *advertiser censored*ses..

I was also shocked and disgusted at how many times we read of pedophiles hiding behind titles such as 'MINISTERS', etc, etc......

Quote:
"The church takes seriously the allegations that have been made and

suspended the priesthood licenses of three lay ministers:

Burrell Mohler Sr., David Mohler and Jared Mohler," the church said in a statement.

Booth said one of the men, whom she refused to identify, had been

registered to work with children but that license has been terminated.

The Community of Christ, headquartered in Independence, split from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1860 and was known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints until 2001.

___

 

[IWannaKnow]

There is no question that you are correct but in my profession we have to worry less about the ten guilty people and more about that one person who may be wrongly accused and convicted. This is why I suggested that we should all feel just as repulsed by those who falsely accuse people as we are of those who actually committ these monstrous acts.

I know it offends a lot of people but my only concern is that innocent people not have their freedom taken from them, if that means that some guilty people will get away with their crimes because of my focus on the rights of the accused, then so be it, thats the system we have and thats what I have to work with.

If it came down to allowing a guilty person to walk in order to prevent an innocent person from being wrongfully imprisoned I would absolutely let them walk every time. When we stop caring about the rights of the accused we cease to be America and have become Nazi Germany 1933.

Paximus - What about the innocent victims these guilty people will next offend? Do they have less right to protection than these admittedly guilty and now free individuals? Victims of sexual abuse live with that the rest of their lives, LWOP if you will, the VICTIM, while the perp walks away. How can that be considered justice? This seems to place the rights of the accused above the rights of the victim and society as a whole. Do we no longer have an obligation to protect society, and only these sub-human's *rights* matter? What about my right to live un-molested?

 

[mysticrose]

I will put my 2 cents in on the bond issue...They may be low like this because of no prior convictions of crime on their records, and the Judge may have his hands tied as to how high he can actually make their bonds due to certain laws regarding the crimes they are charged with. JMO...

 

[PAXIMUS]

For the most part I agree.
But in cases of sexual abuse against children, I care more about the loss of the child's innocence and the loss of their freedom to choose the first person they give their virginity to.

They're entitled to a defense, but I see no reason why this girl would make these accusations or why her siblings would corroborate her story.

IMO, it's waayyy to late to blame this on a bitter ex-wife.

It's a cash bond, I don't think collateral is gonna do it.

Or have the bond conditions changed since they were arrested ?

They are cash bonds yes but a bondsman would likely put the money up for them, they would have to pay the bondsman 10-15% and he KEEPS that as his fee and puts up the rest of the cash himself, requiring them to further give him the house deed in case they dont show up he sells the house to recoup his money. Alot of bondsman wont do cash bonds though because they dont have that kind of money laying around, on a non cash bond, known as a surety bond, you can just give the court a check that they wont cash unless you dont show up, but this one specifically requires CASH or MONEY ORDER no checks.

I agree, BUT this is why we allow those accused to have a complete and fair trial in front of a jury of their peers. I do not for a minute believe these men should be sent straight to jail....However, I also do not believe that in such a horrendous case as this, that LE would ever, for any reason, just randomly decide to arrest 5 men without the proper evidence to back up the charges. It seems that LE has now done the footwork, that this issue may have been alluded to years ago and the men given the benefit of unquestioned belief at that time. If a jury finds them to be innocent, they will have then been vindicated.

In MY profession, I see often the horrors that such abuse can leave in the lives of those abused. I also see the victims being treated with disdain and judgment that further compounds their pain. NO ONE here has in any way advocated the removal of rights to the accused. MOST here are advocates for the victims, that is their interest in being on a site such as this one.

jmo

Paximus - What about the innocent victims these guilty people will next offend? Do they have less right to protection than these admittedly guilty and now free individuals? Victims of sexual abuse live with that the rest of their lives, LWOP if you will, the VICTIM, while the perp walks away. How can that be considered justice? This seems to place the rights of the accused above the rights of the victim and society as a whole. Do we no longer have an obligation to protect society, and only these sub-human's *rights* matter? What about my right to live un-molested?

I understand what you are all saying and I know how offensive this must sound, but let me tell you the truth of the matter:

It doesnt matter if a person is guilty or not, ALL that matters is if the state can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, defined legally as "99.99999999 certain of guilt." If the state cant prove it then the person SHOULD WALK whether they did it or not is irrelevant and unimportant in our legal system.


If I practiced in MO I would take this case for free for two reasons:

First, everyone is entitled to a zealous defense and like I said above it doesnt matter if they did it or not, what matter is whether the state can prove it and if they cannot then rightfully the accused should walk. THE STATE has UNLIMITED RESOURCES at their disposal in which to build a case against the accused, YOU AND I or the accused DO NOT HAVE UNLIMITED resources to defend ourselves our resources no matter how wealthy we may be are at the end of the day LIMITED and FINITE, the state's resources are UNLIMITED so they have a HUGE advantage in any court case, therefore if they cant prove it then you walk, period.

Secondly, it is a high profile case and defense attorneys do not shy away from such national exposure, its good for business.


I want to make myself clear that if these people molested children they should pay for it and be sent to gen pop at the maximum security prison for the rest of their lives and not protected in solitary confinement. HOWEVER, what matters MOST TO ME and everyone else involved in the legal business is that the STATE PROVE their guilt and if they cannot, then they should walk. Thats how it is and if you dont like it I really dont know what tell you, its the best system in the world, not perfect but there is no better.

I do not AGREE that people like this should get off on silly legal technicalities and I know many do indeed walk because of that, but a defense attorney HAS to poke as many holes as possible in the states case, to create reasonable doubt and to prevent the innocent from being wrongfully imprisoned. There is a difference between questioning the states case and their evidence and looking for frivolous legal loopholes to get a defendent off.

 

[shadowraiths]

FWIW.....the reaction of some to defend these men, while accusing the victims of lying and their mothers of either neglect and participation in the crimes, or of using these victims to gain some sort of vengeful satisfaction is EXACTLY the reason that this sort of evil abuse is not reported by either the child victim or the mother. The victims are already traumatized and the mothers foresee the type of responses which some have revealed here and try to protect the child from further trauma by NOT reporting to LE. I see the multiple "messy" divorce records described by posters as evidence that something was wrong here and the women were doing what they could to get away and protect their children.

Well, imho, you can blame the women who have filed false allegations during messy divorces, and therapists who have not only helped their clients dig for wholly false memories but urged them to break with their families, sue and/or file criminal charges, for the skepticism some may have. Sadly, false allegations and false memories are the bane of truly protecting children.

That said, watching this case unfold is truly frightening. Regardless of whether or not the allegations are founded. For, if true, then you're looking at the likelihood of an extremely high victim count, that, if reports are to be believed, include not only horrific sexual abuse but murder as well. And if false, you're looking at ruined lives of not only 5 innocent men but their families as well.

 

[Salem]

as posted upthread, could be related to statute of limitations...this sister could be the youngest sibling, the others are older & SOL kicks in.

I agree Texas - but when reading the SOL reg that was posted earlier, it seemed to state that there was NO SOL for forced rape of a child, so I am a little confused. I'll go back and read it again.

It could be that this young woman has the strongest case and the other charges have just not been added yet because LE is looking for physical evidence. Maybe when something is found, then we will see the other charges?

Also, very interesting to note are the allegations by Mr. Young which will go a long way, I think, in showing that it is more than the children of one disgruntled ex-wife.

Prayers for his son and for these 5 children.

Salem

O/T - I'm having a very strong sense of De Ja Vue here - have we seen a case like this before?

 

[PAXIMUS]

Well, imho, you can blame the women who have filed false allegations during messy divorces, and therapists who have not only helped their clients dig for wholly false memories but urged them to break with their families, sue and/or file criminal charges, for the skepticism some may have. Sadly, false allegations and false memories are the bane of truly protecting children.


That said, watching this case unfold is truly frightening. Regardless of whether or not the allegations are founded. For, if true, then you're looking at the likelihood of an extremely high victim count, that, if reports are to believed, include not only horrific sexual abuse but murder as well. And if false, you're looking at ruined lives of not only 5 innocent men but their families as well.

An excellent post.

 

[joga]

I agree Texas - but when reading the SOL reg that was posted earlier, it seemed to state that there was NO SOL for forced rape of a child, so I am a little confused. I'll go back and read it again.

It could be that this young woman has the strongest case and the other charges have just not been added yet because LE is looking for physical evidence. Maybe when something is found, then we will see the other charges?

Also, very interesting to note are the allegations by Mr. Young which will go a long way, I think, in showing that it is more than the children of one disgruntled ex-wife.

Prayers for his son and for these 5 children.

Salem

O/T - I'm having a very strong sense of De Ja Vue here - have we seen a case like this before?

reminds me of little sweetie Christopher Barrios...:furious:

 

[gxm]

They are cash bonds yes but a bondsman would likely put the money up for them, they would have to pay the bondsman 10-15% and he KEEPS that as his fee and puts up the rest of the cash himself, requiring them to further give him the house deed in case they dont show up he sells the house to recoup his money. Alot of bondsman wont do cash bonds though because they dont have that kind of money laying around, on a non cash bond, known as a surety bond, you can just give the court a check that they wont cash unless you dont show up, but this one specifically requires CASH or MONEY ORDER no checks.

(respectfully snipped)

It is my understanding that in Missouri a cash bond requires 100% payment and it can not go through a bondsman. Once they have lawyers, their lawyers may be able to negotiate for a surety bond and then they can pay the 10% to the bondsman. But at this point, they must come up with the entire amount all by themselves.

http://www.missouribailbondsman.com/bail-bond-information/cash-only-bail