MO - Six Mohler family members for child sex crimes, Bates City 2009 #4

  • #241
From the MO statutes:


566.030. 1. A person commits the crime of forcible rape if such person has sexual intercourse with another person by the use of forcible compulsion. Forcible compulsion includes the use of a substance administered without a victim's knowledge or consent which renders the victim physically or mentally impaired so as to be incapable of making an informed consent to sexual intercourse.

2. Forcible rape or an attempt to commit forcible rape is a felony for which the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than five years, unless:

(1) In the course thereof the actor inflicts serious physical injury or displays a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in a threatening manner or subjects the victim to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with more than one person, in which case the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than fifteen years;

(2) The victim is a child less than twelve years of age, in which case the required term of imprisonment is life imprisonment without eligibility for probation or parole until the defendant has served not less than thirty years of such sentence or unless the defendant has reached the age of seventy-five years and has served at least fifteen years of such sentence, unless such forcible rape is described under subdivision (3) of this subsection; or

(3) The victim is a child less than twelve years of age and such forcible rape was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhumane, in that it involved torture or depravity of mind, in which case the required term of imprisonment is life imprisonment without eligibility for probation, parole or conditional release.

3. Subsection 4 of section 558.019 shall not apply to the sentence of a person who has pleaded guilty to or has been found guilty of forcible rape when the victim is under the age of twelve, and "life imprisonment" shall mean imprisonment for the duration of a person's natural life for the purposes of this section.

4. No person found guilty of or pleading guilty to forcible rape or an attempt to commit forcible rape shall be granted a suspended imposition of sentence or suspended execution of sentence.


566.060. 1. A person commits the crime of forcible sodomy if such person has deviate sexual intercourse with another person by the use of forcible compulsion. Forcible compulsion includes the use of a substance administered without a victim's knowledge or consent which renders the victim physically or mentally impaired so as to be incapable of making an informed consent to sexual intercourse.

2. Forcible sodomy or an attempt to commit forcible sodomy is a felony for which the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than five years, unless:

(1) In the course thereof the actor inflicts serious physical injury or displays a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in a threatening manner or subjects the victim to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with more than one person, in which case the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than ten years; or

(2) The victim is a child less than twelve years of age, in which case the required term of imprisonment is life imprisonment without eligibility for probation or parole until the defendant has served not less than thirty years of such sentence or unless the defendant has reached the age of seventy-five years and has served at least fifteen years of such sentence, unless such forcible sodomy is described under subdivision (3) of this subsection; or

(3) The victim is a child less than twelve years of age and such forcible sodomy was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhumane, in that it involved torture or depravity of mind, in which case the required term of imprisonment is life imprisonment without eligibility for probation, parole or conditional release.

3. Subsection 4 of section 558.019 shall not apply to the sentence of a person who has pleaded guilty to or has been found guilty of forcible sodomy when the victim is under the age of twelve, and "life imprisonment" shall mean imprisonment for the duration of a person's natural life for the purposes of this section.

4. No person found guilty of or pleading guilty to forcible sodomy or an attempt to commit forcible sodomy shall be granted a suspended imposition of sentence or suspended execution of sentence.



566.070. 1. A person commits the crime of deviate sexual assault if he has deviate sexual intercourse with another person knowing that he does so without that person's consent.

2. Deviate sexual assault is a class C felony.


From Wiki:
Missouri law defines "deviate sexual intercourse" as "any act involving the genitals of one person and the hand, mouth, tongue, or anus of another person or a sexual act involving the penetration, however slight, of the male or female sex organ or the anus by a finger, instrument or object done for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person."



568.080. 1. A person commits the crime of use of a child in a sexual performance if, knowing the character and content thereof, the person employs, authorizes, or induces a child less than seventeen years of age to engage in a sexual performance or, being a parent, legal guardian, or custodian of such child, consents to the participation by such child in such sexual performance.


566.100. 1. A person commits the crime of sexual abuse if he subjects another person to sexual contact by the use of forcible compulsion. 2. Sexual abuse is a class C felony unless in the course thereof the actor inflicts serious physical injury or displays a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in a threatening manner or subjects the victim to sexual contact with more than one person or the victim is less than fourteen years of age, in which case the crime is a class B felony.
 
  • #242
Missizzy, again you've come through for us with real information. Are the charges you listed under the grandfather current--i.e. after the four charges were dropped? Does this reference to the SOL mean that charges got dropped because of how long Sr's case has drug on or did a judge decide they were charged in error from the start? Or, is there even a way to tell? You're a Godsend for the rest of us plain-speaking mortals!
 
  • #243
Wintergreen--Oh, I'm "mortal" as can be. Only mortals cry. Reading these charges really hurt and I decided that everyone needed to see the immensity of this case. I put the charges in chronological order but for some reason they are not listed that way on CaseNet (I noticed I got one out of order, BTW). I wonder if they might be in the order they are as each group pertains to a certain victim.

I did notice that there were no charges for the alleged murder described by the victims which was said to have occurred in April 1988. That leads me to believe that the children were somehow led to believe that it was a murder when it was instead some sort of a sham. That's literally disgusting. I cannot imagine the terror a child would endure trying to hold in a secret like that. No doubt that and many other crimes were used to silence the children. It reminds me of the time described when one of the older men hushed the children by telling them that a waterbed might break and drown them. Total cruelty.

As far as the SOL affecting any of the charges I listed, I will do some checking and post as soon as I find something more. I did note that Burrell Jr. has a new case number. There is a huge number of charges against him and his father, Burrell Sr. I can see why they are still sitting in jail. I'm actually kind of surprised that a judge would even offer Burrell Jr. a reduced bail, given the severity of the charges.

Being that there are 11 charges which I assume to be related to photographing the abuse, I have a sense that the search warrant turned up some extremely incriminating evidence.
 
  • #244
I'm afraid you might be correct, Wintergreen. It does look like many of Burrell Sr.'s charges were found to be outside the SOL, if I'm reading the docket entries and the charges correctly. The concession by the State on the SOL occurred on June 29, 2011 and the charges for Burrell Sr. were posted on June 14, 2011. I wonder why they weren't updated?

If this is correct that would mean that Charges #1, 2, 6, 7, and 11 were dropped. If I am not mistaken, that would be the following charges in the order they are given on CaseNet:

8/01/87 Rape
5/01/87 Rape
3/19/88 Sodomy
3/19/87 Rape
3/01/87 Sexual Abuse in the First Degree

I wonder if this might be related to the age of one of the victims. Possibly the crimes against the oldest daughter are outside the time frame allowed.
 
  • #245
I've been curious about any possible significance of the dates of the abuses. I just checked and Burrell Jr.'s birthdate is February 28th. I wonder if that could have a connection to the number of crimes committed on March 1st, typically the next day.

There's quite a number on March 19th. I'll have to check and see if I find anything related to that date.
 
  • #246
Does anyone know how to find the dates of birth of the accused? I can only find those of Burrell Sr. and Jr. as they are both still listed on Vinelink. I don't think we posted them on the thread, only the ages of the men.

I went back and looked and Roland Mohler listed himself on Myspace as a Gemini--May 21-June 21. I'd forgotten that he also listed himself as a "swinger".

http://www.myspace.com/106114078
 
  • #247
From Post #614 on our second thread, I found the years of birth for the victims, as posted by jjj:


FC1 (Female Child 1) born 1978
FC2 born 1980
FC3 born 1981
FC4 born 1983
MC1 born 1984
FC5 born 1985-88

This gives us some perspective concerning the age of the victims at the time of the alleged crimes.



OK, in looking back over the Probable Cause documents, I found the men's birthdates:

Burrell Sr. born 10/07/32
Darrel born 5/22/37
Burrell Jr. born 2/28/56
David born 8/12/57
Jared born 1/27/61
Roland born 5/26/62

I'm not sure that the men's birthdays had anything to do with the crimes. But there's got to be something about March 19th. How could the victims remember that specific date from when they were so very young? I wonder if the crimes alleged to have occurred on the first of the month are merely remembered to have occurred sometime that month. So many questions......
 
  • #248
From Post #614 on our second thread, I found the years of birth for the victims, as posted by jjj:


FC1 (Female Child 1) born 1978
FC2 born 1980
FC3 born 1981
FC4 born 1983
MC1 born 1984
FC5 born 1985-88

This gives us some perspective concerning the age of the victims at the time of the alleged crimes.



OK, in looking back over the Probable Cause documents, I found the men's birthdates:

Burrell Sr. born 10/07/32
Darrel born 5/22/37
Burrell Jr. born 2/28/56
David born 8/12/57
Jared born 1/27/61
Roland born 5/26/62

I'm not sure that the men's birthdays had anything to do with the crimes. But there's got to be something about March 19th. How could the victims remember that specific date from when they were so very young? I wonder if the crimes alleged to have occurred on the first of the month are merely remembered to have occurred sometime that month. So many questions......

I first knew of this on another site, and will continue to see it through--worst I have ever heard or seen and, yet KNOW to be true.
This are clearly not false accusations. I pray that justice is heartily served up, and then some.
 
  • #249
Hi RavenTrue--I don't think we've met. I've followed this case from the very first day and it has haunted me. You don't need to give details, unless you choose to, but am I to understand that you indeed do know that the allegations are true? Or is it your informed opinion that they are true?

I hope and pray that you haven't also been harmed.
 
  • #250
Thank you for keeping up with this, Missizzy. It's got to be so painful for you. I wish, however, that I hadn't read your post about the birthdates of the victims and compared it to the post with the dates of the crimes. It nearly made my head explode.

I'll keep following it along with you until justice is done for them.
 
  • #251
I know, Reen. Such young and tender children. It is hard for me but I have to bear witness until there's some closure. These victims not only experienced the abuse but they had to bear the very vocal and public support of their abusers. The evidence appears to be overwhelming and I refuse to use the word, "alleged", any longer.
 
  • #252
Hi Missizzy. :seeya: I hope you don't mind......I reorganized the dates with a slightly different view. This is all your information, with a slightly different slant. I didn't quote the original posts to keep the length and confusion down.

If this is not appropriate, please feel free to have a mod delete it.

A person commits the crime of use of a child in a sexual performance if, knowing the character and content thereof, the person employs, authorizes, or induces a child less than seventeen years of age to engage in a sexual performance or, being a parent, legal guardian, or custodian of such child, consents to the participation by such child in such sexual performance.

http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/japan/spring-equinox

Tue Mar 20 1984 Spring Equinox
Wed Mar 20 1985 Spring Equinox
Thu Mar 20 1986 Spring Equinox
Sat Mar 21 1987 Spring Equinox
Sun Mar 20 1988 Spring Equinox
Mon Mar 21 1988 Spring Equinox observed
Mon Mar 20 1989 Spring Equinox
Tue Mar 20 1990 Spring Equinox
Thu Mar 21 1991 Spring Equinox

1984
3/19/84 Rape - Burrell Jr. Vernal Equinox

1985
Nothing

1986
3/19/86 Rape Darrel Vernal Equinox
3/19/86 Rape Darrel

5/01/86 Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance Jared Beltane
5/01/86 Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance Burrell Jr.
5/01/86 Rape Burrell Jr.

1987
1/01/87 Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance. Burrell Sr. (?)
1/01/87 Rape Burrell Sr.

3/01/87 Sex Abuse in the 1st Degree Burrell Sr. Charge dropped Burrell Jr. B.D. 2/28

3/19/87 Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance Burrell Sr. Vernal Equinox
3/19/87 Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance Burrell Sr.
3/19/87 Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance Burrell Sr.
3/19/87 Rape Burrell Jr.
3/19/87 Rape Burrell Sr. Charge dropped

5/01/87 Rape Burrell Sr. Charge dropped Beltane

8/01/87 Rape Burrell Sr. Charge dropped Lammas

1988
3/01/88 Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance Burrell Sr Burrell Jr. B.D. 2/28
3/01/88 Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance Burrell Sr
3/01/88 Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance Burrell Jr
3/01/88 Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance Burrell Jr
3/01/88 Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance Roland
3/01/88 Rape David
3/01/88 Rape David
3/01/88 Rape Burrell Sr
3/01/88 Rape Burrell Sr

3/19/88 Sodomy Roland Vernal Equinox
3/19/88 Rape Roland
3/19/88 Rape Burrell Sr
3/19/88 Sodomy Burrell Sr Charge dropped

9/30/88 Deviant Sexual Assault Burrell Jr. (?Autumnal Equinox 9/22/1988 ?)

1989
3/19/89 - Sunday
Nothing

1990
3/19/1990 - Monday
Nothing

1991
3/01/91 Forcible Rape Burrell Sr Burrell Jr. B.D. 2/28
*****************************************************************
I could be completely WRONG (I have been many times before), but the repeating dates have to have significance. You don't do the same thing over and over on the same dates for no reason IMO. The fact that Burrell Sr is almost always the actor on 3/1 (Burrell Jr's B.D.) doesn't make alot of sense to me though.......should be Burrell Jr IMO. I cannot make any sense of the 1/1 date nor the 9/30 however, so perhaps those ruin the entire theory??
 
  • #253
Interesting approach, but as these charges seem to be listed for "on or about" dates, favoring the first and nineteenth days of the month as filed, for events which did or did not take place, for the most part, over twenty years before the charges were filed, I'm not sure of the validity. Even if the dates included are held to be specific ones, the prosecutors or accusers may be using so-called "pagan" dates in an effort to further condemn the accused.

Can't get around it, prosecuting is going to be difficult - that unfound body, those unfound allegedly buried jars and messages. Why these were even annouced publicly is beyond me. It increased the burden of truth exponentially for the state.

Still - something did happen. But what? The Satanic scares of late last century - the invalidity of almost all of same - urge us to caution as we decide.
 
  • #254
Interesting approach, but as these charges seem to be listed for "on or about" dates, favoring the first and nineteenth days of the month as filed, for events which did or did not take place, for the most part, over twenty years before the charges were filed, I'm not sure of the validity. Even if the dates included are held to be specific ones, the prosecutors or accusers may be using so-called "pagan" dates in an effort to further condemn the accused.

Can't get around it, prosecuting is going to be difficult - that unfound body, those unfound allegedly buried jars and messages. Why these were even annouced publicly is beyond me. It increased the burden of truth exponentially for the state.

Still - something did happen. But what? The Satanic scares of late last century - the invalidity of almost all of same - urge us to caution as we decide.

BBM
Were they really invalid, or simply unprovable in a court of law? That might seem like a fine distinction, but not ignorable. The only thing that really counts in a court of law (or the media for that matter) is that something can be PROVEN to be true, not that it did or didn't actually happen. The blind panic when satanism is mentioned is reason enough not to bring those things up. IIRC, LE processed large amounts of other evidence. If there are videos or pictures which validate those dates, that could be a very valid reason that they are all listed in that fashion........

ETA: I also recall a box buried in the basement, and that something "box like" was found there by LE and then no further mention.....so I don't think we really know what they do have and what they don't have.
 
  • #255
An update:

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/08/31/trial-date-eldest-mohler-pushed-back-again/

Trial date for eldest Mohler pushed back again
August 31, 2011

"The trial for a western Missouri man charged in a case where several young family members were raped more than 20 years ago has been pushed back until spring. Burrell Mohler Sr.'s trial was scheduled for October on 21 felony counts, including rape, sodomy and use of a child in a sexual performance. His new trial date has been set for April 2...."

and

"...The 78-year-old has been behind bars since he was arrested in November 2009..."

and

"...Fifty-four-year-old David Mohler now has the first trial date, scheduled for Nov. 7 in Clay County...."

more at link
 
  • #256
I checked Burrell Sr.'s docket entries and this was added yesterday:

"....Granted with no objection due to discovery delays caused by disputes over medical and counselling records. Trial set April 2, 2012. Pre-Trial March 23, 2012 @9:00 am. All depositions to be completed by March 9, 2012. State requests Protecetive Order requiring in camera review by Senior Judge be expanded to include victims and fact witnesses Journals. So Ordered....."

I also see no additional charges--still the 16 I posted on the last page. I wonder if that needs to be updated as the article states that there are now 21 charges. Am I missing something? Is it possible that certain charges are not made public?
 
  • #257
Just checking in with some updates from MO Casenet. Looks like the big surprises are that even though Burrell Jr. was offered a bail reduction, he still is in custody, although counts 1, 2, and 3 were dismissed. And, David must have been divorced by his wife:

For Burrell Sr:

8/30/11
"State requests Protective Order requiring in camera review by Senior Judge be expanded to include victims and fact witnesses Journals. So Ordered. L. Harman, Judge"

8/30/11
"Jury Trial Scheduled For: 04/02/2012; 9:00 AM"

In custody, Clay County Jail.



For Burrell Jr:

8/15/11
"Comes now the court sustains the Defense motion for dismissal on counts 1,2,3,6, and 7"

8/17/11
"Comes now the Court and amends its order of 8/15/11. This order supersedes that order. The court now sustains the Defense motion for dismissal on counts 1,2, and 3"

9/19/11
"Jury Trial Scheduled For: 05/15/2012; 8:00 AM

9/19/11
"Defendant's motion for bond reduction is taken up and granted. Court amends bond conditions to $165,000 surety or 10% cash" [Back in April, bond was $75,000 cash only]

In custody, Pettis County.


For Jared:

No updates


For David:

8/18/11
"Motion to Preclude Testimony, Motion to Compel Production and Motion to Allow Access to Mohler Divorce File 8-31-2011"

"Defendant's Brief on Issue of Overcoming Statutory Confidentiality fo Divorce File"

9/1/11
"Defendant's Motion for Access to Divorce file argued."

"....no publication in any format or media; shall be made, including inclusion of materials or excerpts from materials in pleadings filed in any cause of action..."

9/9/11
"Order from Supreme Court of Missouri appointing Senior Judge Michael J Maloney for the purpose of Discovery"


For Roland:

9/9/11
"Order from Supreme Court of Missouri appointing Senior Judge Michael J Maloney for the purpose of Discovery"


For Darrel:

9/9/11
"Order from Supreme Court of Missouri appointing Senior Judge Michael J Maloney for the purpose of Discovery"
 
  • #258
There were 3 counts dismissed for Burrell Jr. but it's impossible for me to see which ones were dismissed as I can't find the original charges and they aren't listed by numbers. I'm guessing that the reason that some charges were dismissed is that one of the victims might be outside the SOL.
 
  • #259
The investigators and attorneys have sure been busy on this massive case. They've moved out the trial dates once again. The docket entries are full to overflowing with discovery, depositions, etc. My heart goes out to the victims and their families. This has been a rough road but they're on the way to healing.

http://www.kait8.com/story/15861695/2-trial-dates-moved-again-in-mo-molestation-case

2 trial dates moved again in MO molestation case
October 24, 2011

"The trial dates for two of six men accused of molesting young relatives at a western Missouri farmhouse two decades ago have been pushed back until late spring. A pretrial conference for 54-year-old David Mohler of Lamoni, Iowa, had been scheduled for Friday, but the trial was continued until June 4. Also Friday, the trial for 74-year-old Darrel Mohler of Silver Springs, Fla., was continued until May 29...."

and

"....Burrell Mohler Jr. and Burrell Mohler Sr., remain in jail nearly two years after they were arrested. The others all have posted bond."

more at link


I just do not understand why Burrell Jr. has not accepted the court's reduction in bail. Surely, all those supporters who were so staunchly standing behind him could gather those funds.
 
  • #260
One defendant in Mohler case dies (kansascity.com)
---
Darrel W. Mohler, 74, died last week in Ocala, Fla. He faced two counts of rape in the case that broke November 2009 when younger relatives accused adult men in the extended family of sexually abusing them years earlier at a family farm in Lafayette County.
---
picture at link above
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
2,511
Total visitors
2,582

Forum statistics

Threads
632,804
Messages
18,631,911
Members
243,297
Latest member
InternalExile
Back
Top