MO - Six Mohler family members for child sex crimes, Bates City 2009 #3

[Blue_Dolphin308]

Personally I do not believe that False memory syndrome exists. I believe that it is the "excuse" alot of pedophiles use to cast doubt on the victims story!

 

[saqqara]

Normally I am very patient, and I don't post much, but I read every day. . . and I have to tell you the silence in this case is making me insane.

My brain is just having difficulty accepting that such horrendous abuse went on and that we are not finding out anything.

 

[Texas Mist]

Normally I am very patient, and I don't post much, but I read every day. . . and I have to tell you the silence in this case is making me insane.

My brain is just having difficulty accepting that such horrendous abuse went on and that we are not finding out anything.

I'm thinking we should hear more on the 12th-- that's when the preliminary hearing will be.

I hope the state has some physical evidence for the sake of the vics in this case. We've heard next to nothing about that.

 

[Missizzy]

I'm fairly certain that someone somewhere suffers from False Memory Syndrome. No doubt they have other mental health diagnoses. However, I agree that the mere mention of it plays right into the hands of pedophiles. "My goodness, how could a Dad/Uncle/Grandpa/teacher/doctor/prinicipal/coach/priest/fill in the blank ever do such a thing to a child? He/she MUST be making it up or "mis-remembering" (I always loved that one). Yeah, people mis-remember trauma.

In our case, they couldn't claim "false memory" as our kids disclosed within at least a couple of months of the abuse starting (we think the grooming started far sooner). No, instead, they claimed "mass hysteria". They actually got up in court and said that my children said these things vying for my attention. Hmmm. Odd. They'd never done that before. Never done it since. Never accused anyone of sexual abuse wanting someone else's attention. Hmmm. Didn't fly in court and still doesn't fly.

The bottom line is that it's a rare bird who wants to be labeled "RAPED". It's just not something that people relish or strive towards. I have so much respect for those who come forward and validate that they've been raped...like KC (a survivor of rape by Phillip Garrido) and my son. They are heros to me.

Don't you think it's a little like going out with your bald head when you're undergoing chemo? It takes guts as nobody knows what to say to you. People are uncomfortable around you. If you want a room to fall silent, announce "I have cancer" or "I was raped". They are both horrid and frightening life events that are not your fault. You might have made a poor choice ie. smoking or walking in a dark alley but not always.

You might have simply gone innocently to the Principal's office, shared a hotel room with your coach, let your new boyfriend sleep on your couch, or slept peacefully in your own childhood bed as some monster lurked at your door.

Watch the Mohler case for tiny details. That's where the truth lies.

 

[Missizzy]

Can we look at this again? I came across it while reading older posts. I've heard no updates but it rang true for me when I first read it over a month ago. Anyone have any new info about this victim?

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/news/l...f-Mohler-Relative/h3sit3d_M0Ci9yMDJNxzCw.cspx

"INDEPENDENCE, Mo. – A former friend of the Mohler family said there is at least one victim police do not know about. He is hesitant to come forward. So, he shared her story with NBC Action News.

and

"For years, the former friend let it go. However, when criminal charges surfaced Tuesday, he called one of Roland’s female relatives and asked tough questions.
“She did not get into detail specifically, but she said that she was sexually abused,” the man said. “I said is it still going on? She says as of a month ago, he was still attempting to.”



This is interesting as I turned up information that Roland had left the Community of Christ Church and now belongs to the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and is a Presiding Elder of a congregation. This is the church which chose not to break off from the RLDS church when it became the Community of Christ. It is my sense that this church seems far more conservative and that many of the women in "modest" dress who show up in the courtroom, come from this congregation. I've just not been able to forget about this particular victim. Did they follow up with her? She was awaiting a subpoena.

 

[Texas Mist]

Can we look at this again? I came across it while reading older posts. I've heard no updates but it rang true for me when I first read it over a month ago. Anyone have any new info about this victim?

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/news/l...f-Mohler-Relative/h3sit3d_M0Ci9yMDJNxzCw.cspx

"INDEPENDENCE, Mo. – A former friend of the Mohler family said there is at least one victim police do not know about. He is hesitant to come forward. So, he shared her story with NBC Action News.

and

"For years, the former friend let it go. However, when criminal charges surfaced Tuesday, he called one of Roland’s female relatives and asked tough questions.
“She did not get into detail specifically, but she said that she was sexually abused,” the man said. “I said is it still going on? She says as of a month ago, he was still attempting to.”



This is interesting as I turned up information that Roland had left the Community of Christ Church and now belongs to the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and is a Presiding Elder of a congregation. This is the church which chose not to break off from the RLDS church when it became the Community of Christ. It is my sense that this church seems far more conservative and that many of the women in "modest" dress who show up in the courtroom, come from this congregation. I've just not been able to forget about this particular victim. Did they follow up with her? She was awaiting a subpoena.

MissIzzy - this one totally slipped my mind...I don't even recall us talking about it, tho admittedly this was the early days of the case breaking & it was overwhelming.

It does tho, I guess, explain why Roland is still in jail & doesn't have an atty or pencil & paper.....I wonder how many others have suspected him of something.

Since there's been no new charges that we've heard of, I guess this 'relative' is still quiet.

Guess we'll see tomorrow what's up.

 

[Wintergreen]

Can we look at this again? I came across it while reading older posts. I've heard no updates but it rang true for me when I first read it over a month ago. Anyone have any new info about this victim?

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/news/l...f-Mohler-Relative/h3sit3d_M0Ci9yMDJNxzCw.cspx

"INDEPENDENCE, Mo. – A former friend of the Mohler family said there is at least one victim police do not know about. He is hesitant to come forward. So, he shared her story with NBC Action News.

and

"For years, the former friend let it go. However, when criminal charges surfaced Tuesday, he called one of Roland’s female relatives and asked tough questions.
“She did not get into detail specifically, but she said that she was sexually abused,” the man said. “I said is it still going on? She says as of a month ago, he was still attempting to.”



This is interesting as I turned up information that Roland had left the Community of Christ Church and now belongs to the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and is a Presiding Elder of a congregation. This is the church which chose not to break off from the RLDS church when it became the Community of Christ. It is my sense that this church seems far more conservative and that many of the women in "modest" dress who show up in the courtroom, come from this congregation. I've just not been able to forget about this particular victim. Did they follow up with her? She was awaiting a subpoena.

Thank you Missizzy for posting that link—something I have never seen before! Since he said he had contacted LE two days prior, and they have an obligation to follow up on every lead, I’m sure they have attempted to contact her by now.

You are so right about the unique dress code so typical of the COC break off organizations. Often, the females are socially isolated with strict dress codes. I find it hypocritical because very rarely do the men and boys look out of place walking down the street. We watched a large van pull up the other day and one child after another came pouring out. The boys would fit in anywhere but the little girls had unusual head-coverings, long dresses, and bulky black athletic shoes. As the mothers started exiting the van, of course, we saw the same look. For whatever reason, the head-covering of choice was a unique bonnet and I swear the women and girls were wearing shoes made for men and boys as they were so heavy and bulky but were modern solid black athletic shoes. It is hard to find solid black athletic shoes, since there’s almost always some kind of logo or embellishment. It was an odd looking combination, but isn’t that really the point?

I did a research project on mind control several years ago and strict social controls are an important part of the mix. The leader(s) knowingly or unknowingly will chose a dress code that emulates some ideal and all the followers are expected to comply. In and of itself the dress code is not a bad thing, I guess, but at least the Amish and Mennonite organizations expect their men and boys to look just as unique as their women and girls. Their ideal is something out of the 1800’s where a lot of these break offs seem to pull together a look that has no historical context. Take the women in Warren Jeff’s church—the females have to wear their hair in a bizarre pompadour and the sleeves of their dresses must be highly gathered at the top. The men and boys would blend in almost anywhere.

I often wonder where in the world they get these ideals, but it doesn’t matter because the point is really just to make them stand out. The inevitable second looks and sidelong glances these women and girls must live with only serve to reinforce their feelings of isolation which drives them back to the group for comfort. It works very well.

 

[Missizzy]

An excellent post, Wintergreen. I've had the very same thoughts myself. How better to hamper and impede a young girl's movement and play than to put her in long dresses and heavy shoes? I think you are right on about the sense of isolation which drives the group to seek comfort and solace only from one another.

Isn't it interesting how rarely we see a grown woman dressed this way while having lunch or even visiting with a woman dressed in more "modern" clothing. No, they move about in clutches whereas the men blend in. The same reason, I'm sure that our nuns and priests and monks have always been expected to dress uniquely--separateness.

 

[Missizzy]

Another tidbit gleaned from reading over old posts:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/13/national/main5639718.shtml


Snipped from a post by "Seriously_Disgusted" Nov. 17, 2009

"I have not been able to find an article that states that one , some of or all of these men worked around children. Everything that I have read states that none of them worked around children. This is false! I know for a fact that one of them did, just this past summer (2009)! My children are involved in a program sponsored by Americorps. A daughter of this man ran or helped run it over the summer. Some how he became involved, whether the program coordinator knew about it or not. My children didn't tell me about this until my neighbors and I were visiting about it last week. The same man that was involved with children in this program was employed at the school I attend. After I said the man's name, one of my kids said that he had been at this program over the summer. What made it worse was that at the end of the summer, the kids are taken on a camping trip out of town in the woods. I am unsure why, but he went along. I asked if he had touched either of them. They said no, but also said that he tried giving all of the girls "piggyback" rides. I was absolutely sick! This man obviously has issues!"


Through this description and my research, this would be David, who worked at Graceland University. He has two daughters, one of which worked for this program.

 

[Wintergreen]

Another tidbit gleaned from reading over old posts:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/13/national/main5639718.shtml


Snipped from a post by "Seriously_Disgusted" Nov. 17, 2009

"I have not been able to find an article that states that one , some of or all of these men worked around children. Everything that I have read states that none of them worked around children. This is false! I know for a fact that one of them did, just this past summer (2009)! My children are involved in a program sponsored by Americorps. A daughter of this man ran or helped run it over the summer. Some how he became involved, whether the program coordinator knew about it or not. My children didn't tell me about this until my neighbors and I were visiting about it last week. The same man that was involved with children in this program was employed at the school I attend. After I said the man's name, one of my kids said that he had been at this program over the summer. What made it worse was that at the end of the summer, the kids are taken on a camping trip out of town in the woods. I am unsure why, but he went along. I asked if he had touched either of them. They said no, but also said that he tried giving all of the girls "piggyback" rides. I was absolutely sick! This man obviously has issues!"


Through this description and my research, this would be David, who worked at Graceland University. He has two daughters, one of which worked for this program.

That is shocking Missizzy--what a find! Does anyone know if his work with Americorps was under the guise of his church affiliation; in other words--was this trip sponsored by the college or by the church? I would love to know more details about how this works.

 

[wfgodot]

Indictments issued, replacing earlier-filed criminal complaints; arraignment set for 01 February:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1677507.html

 

[Missizzy]

Does anyone know why these indictments replace criminal charges filed earlier? Are they different, less, more?

 

[Texas Mist]

Does anyone know why these indictments replace criminal charges filed earlier? Are they different, less, more?

Here's what I think happened --

There were supposed to be preliminary hearings where the state lays out their 'probable cause' for the criminal complaints....when they do this they lay out their evidence for the judge to decide if there's probable cause to have them bound over for trial.

I think the D.A. went to the Grand Jury & got indictments - now, the evidence is 'secret', and it's often said that D.A.'s get indictments to show confidence in their case. (I won't go into "the grand jury will indict a ham sandwich".) Sooo - no need for the criminal complaint because the GJ has handed up indictments instead.

NEhoo, now Sr. & David are bound over for trial so they have an arraignment, according to what's reported @ kansascity.com.

I wondered what was up because I know what I saw about 4 of the Mohlers due in court on the 12th for their prelims @ Missouri casenet....now it looks as tho there'll only be 2 (?)...or maybe 1 because IIRC, Roland was supposed to have another hearing re: getting an attorney....and now that I think about it, the judge said Jr. could have a public defender but he thought that might change on the 12th.

The Missouri court system is confusing....wasn't it Darrel that "re-arraigned"??...I never heard of that before.

Certainly no expert on the court system but thought I'd weigh in on this. :crazy:

ETA: come to think of it, it was Darrel who was "re-arraigned" because they changed his bond from cash to surety "due to medical reasons".

 

[Missizzy]

Texas Mist--Do you happen to know if any more documents will be "unsealed" to the public at these upcoming hearings or are these mainly just housekeeping?

 

[Texas Mist]

Texas Mist--Do you happen to know if any more documents will be "unsealed" to the public at these upcoming hearings or are these mainly just housekeeping?

My understanding of prelims are that they are like very informal trials -- the state presents the reasons for the complaint & can call witnesses, talk about evidence & hearsay is allowed....the defense at this point can argue there's not enough evidence, ask for the charges to be dropped, etc....I don't know if there's more docs to see until the pre-trial hearings when the motions are filed.

But if reporters are at the prelim, then we should hear about whatever 'case' the state has....I wish we could watch it! Watching KC Anthony at all her hearings has been very telling.

ETA: I don't know about Missouri, but grand jury transcripts are generally sealed until after trial.

 

[Missizzy]

This must be a record!! Two months of no representation:

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/news/l...es-Lawyer/QUHnZtS4g0uAg9FvfLPhZQ.cspx?rss=764

Roland Moehler Hires Lawyer

 

[IWannaKnow]

It is being suggested in other places that this case is what is causing them to go on this "witch hunt" with no evidence:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/partners/richard_dean_davis/1_index.html
Allegedly Sheriff Alumbaugh flubbed this case and so he is pursuing this one because of that....

 

[Missizzy]

IWannaKnow--Your link didn't work for me. I searched on the site and didn't find a story about the Mohlers. I'd also like to point out that that particular site isn't one I'd put a lot of trust into.

I seriously doubt this is going to turn out to be a "witch hunt". I don't think they'd come this far without some pretty irrefutable evidence. The DA's know this case wouldn't hold up, decades later, on merely a "he said, she said". I think they have hard evidence we just don't know about.

 

[IWannaKnow]

Missizzy - sorry the link didn't work for you. I've tried it twice and it worked both times for me. The link is not about the Mohlers directly, it is about another case around Bates City involving Ricky Davis and Dena Riley. Some commenters on one of the articles claimed that Sheriff Alumbaugh screwed up their case and because of that he is turning the Mohlers into a "witch hunt" to make up for that screw up....I don't personally buy that story, but I wanted to throw it out there for the buffet. Bon Appetite.

 

[Texas Mist]

interesting tidbit here - and I'm trying to track down all the indictments via casenet

Prosecutors say expect more grand jury indicts against the other Mohler's in the coming days.


http://www.nbcactionnews.com/conten...ly-Sex-Abuse-Case/tyNL5Cv6TkOh0oqL9x94Eg.cspx

along the way I found this regarding Darrel the Infirm:

01/06/2010
Docket Entry: Standard Discovery Filed
Filing Party: HENSLEY , KENNETH C
Docket Entry: Motion Filed
Text: Motion for Bill of Particulars
Filing Party: HENSLEY , KENNETH C
Docket Entry: Notice of Hearing Filed
Text: February 1, 2010 at 11:00 a.m.
Docket Entry: Notice
Text: Notice of Alibi Defense :waitasec:
Filing Party: HENSLEY , KENNETH C


Looks like Darrel's defense is gonna be "Wasn't me - I wasn't there". Interesting.

Anybody else got thoughts on 'alibi defense'?

Here's the scoop on what a Motion for Bill of Particulars is about:

When an indictment or information alleges the essential facts constituting the offense charged but fails to inform the defendant of the particulars of the offense sufficiently to prepare a defense, the court may direct or permit the filing of a bill of particulars. A motion for a bill of particulars may be made before arraignment or within ten days after arraignment or at such later time as the court may permit. A bill of particulars may be amended at any time subject to such conditions as justice requires.

Darrel's court date

Docket Entry: Jury Trial Scheduled
Associated Events: 03/24/2010 , 08:30:00 - Jury Trial