MO - Six Mohler family members for child sex crimes, Bates City 2009 #2

[Missizzy]

For tgrlaw--Here's part of the obit for A. Mohler, Burrell Sr.'s first wife--mother of four FINE boys:

Kansas City Star, The (MO) - December 31, 1991

Mrs. Mohler taught at preschools in Gladstone and Bates City. She then owned a machine quilting business in Bates City. She received an associate's degree in 1952 from Graceland College, Lamoni, Iowa. She was a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints near Bates City. Survivors include her husband, Burrell E. Mohler Sr. of the home; four sons, Burrell E. Mohler Jr., Independence, David A. Mohler , Lamoni, Jared L. Mohler , Washington, Mo., and Rol and N. Mohler (presumably "Roland"), Greenwood in Jackson County.

 

[lajr56]

New charges:

http://www.fox4kc.com/wdaf-mohler-men-charges-111909,0,6667250.story?track=rss

A horse?! This just gets more disgusting...ugh :furious:

 

[Missizzy]

Probable Cause Statement/Jared Mohler:

http://www.fox4kc.com/media/acrobat/2009-11/50599299.pdf

Probable Cause Statement/Burrell Mohler Jr.

http://www.fox4kc.com/media/acrobat/2009-11/50599265.pdf

Probable Cause Statement/Burrell Mohler Sr.

http://www.fox4kc.com/media/acrobat/2009-11/50599213.pdf

 

[JoeFromLB]

New charges:

http://www.fox4kc.com/wdaf-mohler-men-charges-111909,0,6667250.story?track=rss

sex with a horse...

The mind reels. At this point, I'm wondering how many more stories like this I'll be able to stomach.

 

[tgrlaw]

tgrlaw--I don't want you to panic but did you happen to notice what A. Mohler (Burrell Sr.'s first wife) did before she passed in Dec. 1991? She worked at a preschool. Please tell us your kids wouldn't have been the right age. Please.

I'll see if I can pull up the obit again.

Nope, we were in Columbia, where Jared Mohler lives, just a few years ago. Never been to Bates City. Not sure I want to go there anytime soon.

 

[PAXIMUS]

I thinking if the church elders documented any of the mothers allegations or there is any proof of her telling them...the elders should be charged

Cant do that seperation of church and state protects clergy from ratting out those who confess and purge themselves in front of them. Clergy is there to save souls and if people were under the impression that what they told their pastor/priest could be used against them in a criminal proceeding then nobody would bear their souls and confess their sins.

I understand where you are coming from and I too find it all very disturbing but you need to consider the big picture consequences of what you are suggesting.

FOUR things we must never allow to be taken away from us by big brother:

Doctor/patient privacy
Attorney/Client privacy
Clergy/confessor privacy
Husband/Wife privacy

 

[PAXIMUS]

I'm also curious as to why the police are saying the focus is on the sexual abuse (much harder to prove) and not the more sensational and troubling accusations of infanticide and murder. Perhaps because they feel there isn't going to be any evidence . . . because it didn't happen?


"Despite the growing list of alleged crimes, Stosberg said, "We are focusing on the sex crimes investigation."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/18/crimesider/entry5697513.shtml

 

[Missizzy]

I find this particular statement from the one of the alleged victims chilling:

"Afterward, he covered her mouth with his hand to quiet her."

Well, I guess she's not being quiet any longer.

Once again, pay attention to the incongruities and smallest details. Those are most telling. The disclosures are not wrapped up all neat and clean. There are definite differences and discrepancies between victims' disclosures and places where allegations could have been far more serious, but they are not:

"...made the girls re-enact the event (clothed) as the men laughed."

 

[PAXIMUS]

I find this particular statement from the one of the alleged victims chilling:

"Afterward, he covered her mouth with his hand to quiet her."

Well, I guess she not being quiet any longer.

Once again, pay attention to the incongruities and smallest details. Those are most telling. The disclosures are not wrapped up all neat and clean. There are definite differences and discrepancies between victims' disclosures and places where allegations could have been far more serious, but they are not:

"...made the girls re-enact the event (clothed) as the men laughed."

If this is all true then they are indeed some sick individuals who need professional help. Time will tell.

 

[tgrlaw]

Cant do that seperation of church and state protects clergy from ratting out those who confess and purge themselves in front of them. Clergy is there to save souls and if people were under the impression that what they told their pastor/priest could be used against them in a criminal proceeding then nobody would bear their souls and confess their sins.

I understand where you are coming from and I too find it all very disturbing but you need to consider the big picture consequences of what you are suggesting.

FOUR things we must never allow to be taken away from us by big brother:

Doctor/patient privacy
Attorney/Client privacy
Clergy/confessor privacy
Husband/Wife privacy

These "privileges" are not absolute. They are very important, but most have exceptions.

Missouri Rules of Profession Conduct - RULE 4-1.6: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by Rule 4-1.6(b).
(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

(1) to prevent death or substantial bodily harm that is reasonably certain to occur;


There are also provisions within Mental Health Professional ethics that allow disclosure of privileged information for similar reasons. I'm not sure about clergy, and the marriage privilege is all over the place as i recall depending on circumstances and jurisdiciton.

In this scenario I don't know what the clergy privilege has to do with the Mother of the abused telling the church leader what she knows or believes is going on. The privilege would only cover things the accused told to the clergy. Not what the clergy may find out by investigating her claims, or their own personal knowledge.

 

[PAXIMUS]

These "privileges" are not absolute. They are very important, but most have exceptions.

Missouri Rules of Profession Conduct - RULE 4-1.6: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by Rule 4-1.6(b).
(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

(1) to prevent death or substantial bodily harm that is reasonably certain to occur;


There are also provisions within Mental Health Professional ethics that allow disclosure of privileged information for similar reasons. I'm not sure about clergy, and the marriage privilege is all over the place as i recall depending on circumstances and jurisdiciton.

In this scenario I don't know what the clergy privilege has to do with the Mother of the abused telling the church leader what she knows or believes is going on. The privilege would only cover things the accused told to the clergy. Not what the clergy may find out by investigating her claims, or their own personal knowledge.

Yes they can be forced to in some cases, that isnt what I was referring to. What I am saying is that most of them will not voluntarily do so and for good reason. And just because they wont doesnt mean they should be charged.

In this situation the mother likely went to the clergy for advice and guidance, that being the case the clergy was right to keep the matter private, to do otherwise would deter others from coming forward for advice and guidance in the future. It is also likely that the clergy advised the mother to contact LE, the fact that the mother didnt makes her complicit not the clergy. But this is all speculation since we really do not know the facts of the case.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Cant do that separation of church and state protects clergy from ratting out those who confess and purge themselves in front of them. Clergy is there to save souls and if people were under the impression that what they told their pastor/priest could be used against them in a criminal proceeding then nobody would bear their souls and confess their sins.

I understand where you are coming from and I too find it all very disturbing but you need to consider the big picture consequences of what you are suggesting.

FOUR things we must never allow to be taken away from us by big brother:

Doctor/patient privacy
Attorney/Client privacy
Clergy/confessor privacy
Husband/Wife privacy

I disagree. In this case it wasn't the perp that went and confessed.

I would love to know WHEN she went to church elders.

Oh........ and attorney/client and doctor / patient confidentiality is waived if the "confessor" is planning to harm another or there is reason to believe another crime will be committed by things the "confessor" states.

A patient can not tell his doctor, oh yeah I sexually abused my son and expect it to remain confidential.

 

[Missizzy]

Professional help!!!!! Paximus, if this is true, they'll be sent away for a long long time. Yes, they will get their day in court. I, for one, want to hear their side of the story. I'm awfully afraid, though, that the evidence might be stacking up, IMO, against them. I'm getting a strong sense that we have some viable witnesses ready to take the stand.

We've discussed this before. It doesn't make me happy either that very little true treatment is available in prison. Can't we agree, though, that these men (if they are guilty) are certainly beyond benefitting from "professional help"?

 

[pennydawn]

Missizzy, you could've fried an egg on my head when I read about the covering of her mouth to quiet her.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Probable Cause Statement/Jared Mohler:

http://www.fox4kc.com/media/acrobat/2009-11/50599299.pdf

Probable Cause Statement/Burrell Mohler Jr.

http://www.fox4kc.com/media/acrobat/2009-11/50599265.pdf

Probable Cause Statement/Burrell Mohler Sr.

http://www.fox4kc.com/media/acrobat/2009-11/50599213.pdf

Oh Dear God..........

 

[PAXIMUS]

I disagree. In this case it wasn't the perp that went and confessed.

I would love to know WHEN she went to church elders.

Oh........ and attorney/client and doctor / patient confidentiality is waived if the "confessor" is planning to harm another or there is reason to believe another crime will be committed by things the "confessor" states.

A patient can not tell his doctor, oh yeah I sexually abused my son and expect it to remain confidential.

I understand, I was merely responding to your comment that the elders should be charged and I dont think we can draw that conclusion without knowing the facts and what was said and under what pretext the comments were made.

 

[pennydawn]

In regards to the "gypsies in town" rapes in the van: Apparently, the alleged rapes were interrupted. I wonder if there are witnesses we don't know about.

 

[Linda7NJ]

according to somthing I just read...forget where, one of the pdf's I think.................I read so much:blushing:


The mother went to the elders when her children disclosed the abuse to her :banghead:AS IT WAS HAPPENING:furious:

 

[Linda7NJ]

I understand, I was merely responding to your comment that the elders should be charged and I dont think we can draw that conclusion without knowing the facts and what was said and under what pretext the comments were made.

Fair enough..............I still think MOM should be charged. She did nothing to protect her children. Nothing. She may as well served them up on a platter.

Is this the same woman that got all upset of the incest porn and refused to continue to share a bed with him?

 

[PAXIMUS]

Professional help!!!!! Paximus, if this is true, they'll be sent away for a long long time. Yes, they will get their day in court. I, for one, want to hear their side of the story. I'm awfully afraid, though, that the evidence might be stacking up, IMO, against them. I'm getting a strong sense that we have some viable witnesses ready to take the stand.

We've discussed this before. It doesn't make me happy either that very little true treatment is available in prison. Can't we agree, though, that these men (if they are guilty) are certainly beyond benefitting from "professional help"?

I dont know for sure that they are beyond benefitting from professional help, it seems very unlikely to me that they were all born paedophiles assuming you are one to believe that people can be born this way. My best guess is that all these actions were somehow taught to the boys by the father who justified it through some sort of twisted and irrational reading of his religious literature. That being the case, they could indeed possibly benefit from some professional help but that doesnt mean they should ever spend a day outside of prison again, if what is being alleged is true, and more importantly, if the state can prove it is true, and I am not convinced they can at this point, I would suggest they probably deserve life in prison without parole.