Does Burrell Mohler's Raping Family Carry a Degenerate Gene?

• Well, it's been two years now. Still waiting for all that evidence everyone said was forthcoming. Tick....tick....tick.....

• Its inbreeding!

• What's up-date on these guys or as they say on Andy these nuts. Was big story,now don't here anything.

• No. It is a learned pattern of abuse and depravity.

• Focusing on just the crimes that are actually going to be tried, the liklihood of being able to find physical evidence so long after the fact unfortunately doesn't increase very much with multiple accusers. On the other hand, I would expect that doctor examinations of vaginal and rectal scarring would end up in the trial. That is the only other evidence that COULD be left besides the other things they searched for. So, it is yet another question no one can answer until it all plays out - the issue of what else is there, what HASN'T been made public that is part of the prosecution's case. When talking about the molestation alone, there are so very few options to look for physical evidence. It's not like you have a rape victim being triaged and the marks, blood, body fluids are still all fresh.

• "I think I could agree that 1 witness might call for a greater demand of additional corroborating evidence. But not this many."--j --- Quite the contrary. The more victims there are and the more crimes they report, the greater the need for at least some corroborating physical evidence. With one victim and one crime, it would be easy to understand how the evidence could have disappeared, but with six victims and a decade of alleged abuse, all of the evidence could not have vanished. And if an army of searchers finds nothing, the lack of evidence can mean only one thing--that the charges are false.

• No one is every going to accuse me of a crime I didn't commit, much less more than 6 people! You're one of those suckers who has people hating him enough to end up in that situation, apparently! No worries here! I think I could agree that 1 witness might call for a greater demand of additional corroborating evidence. But not this many.

• I have no remorse. Pamela's a big girl and can respond to criticism and speak for herself.

• I come to the defense of pamela and understand her being a stickler for facts. J you should run for district attorney of whatever county you live in... I would probably settle out of court with you or take any plea deal possible, facts or not, just so you wouldn't attack my charachter and motives.. I was that way, too.. I didn't do it, won't take a deal..will have my day in court... just see if you feel that way if you're arrested with no proof but what someone concocts, Held for a bail you can't afford for a duration of time you don't deserve and realise you have to face a jury that is going to say, 'Why would this person lie about this?' please stop personnally attacking the only people on this thread that made it worth the 3 hours I've spent reading it, J, I believe you've probably libeled them horribly, and they were all big enough to let you just have the whole damn 'discussion to yourself. By the way there are several cases that have been examined and "eyewitness" testimony is proven to be among the weakest forms of 'evidence' and should always be substantiated with other forms of proof. Even murdering, satanic, pedophile, witches must be proven guilty and not just because J is the diviner of what is right and good and fair.

• 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.

• 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 thought some of you might find these sites interesting in light of this discussion: http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_richardgscott.html http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no80.htm

• SORRY! Correction, Melissa, your hypothesis from sentence 1 seems to be that they are INNOCENT. You (we) don't have to apply innocence until proven guilty, this is just an internet forum, not a court of law. We are not the judge and jury and can draw whatever conclusions we want. Therefore, I don't see any difference in an assumption of guilt as an assumption of innocence. I think it is irresponsible for anyone to imply that they somehow KNOW they are innocent (i.e. suggesting "boy, hope I am never accused of crimes I didn't commit), because due process dictates that concept be applied in court. A more relevant statement, seems to me would be "I hope if I am ever accused of crimes that people don't assume I am guilty before it is proven in court," which will only ever end up being an optimistic thought, as it has no bearing on the actual trial. Know what I mean? But you have already concluded they are being falsely accused, which I think is bad news, to represent a presumption of innocence in that light.

• I a worried about a mistrial as well, Sciwiltell. It even makes me concerned that it is possibly a deliberate botching of the case because these guys have status in the community. Melissa, I take issue with a couple things you are saying. In your first sentence, you are implying these guys are guilty. "People fall into many different categories...Skeptics (who believe the men innocent until proven guilty)..." It is not fair or accurate to suggest people who are not as skeptical as you that these men are child molesters do not believe in innocence until guilt is proven. They are not mutually exclusive. "...who are taken aback that US citizens can be arrested with no more evidence than someone made an allegation" You're misrepresenting the facts. There is more evidence, and a lot of it has been out in the open. Check your accuracy before you make those kind of generalizations. "and emotional responders, who tend to react to their emotional beliefs at the expense of facts. Skeptics tend to be driven by facts and so find much to fault in these claims." It has nothing to do with emotions, it has to do with our right to weigh the evidence released to the public and say, "wow, they seem really sleazy." You aren't driven by facts, you're ignoring a whole bunch of them if you don't see the correlations between 6+ witnesses, abuse reported by a spouse SEVERAL times, and incest porn. "False memories are easy to create." Someone has yet to suggest any convincing theories of what therapists have to gain by influencing "false memories." That concept is ridiculous to me, and borders on pro-child abuse propaganda. You are downplaying child molestation, when it happens every day, right under our noses. "I have not had anyone make false claims about me..." So, with your powers of clairvoyance, which claims have you determined are false? How do you determine this? "Where are the bodies? Where are the glass jars with notes? Why are they focusing on sexual abuse only and not on the claims of dead bodies?" If they don't find bodies, there are no charges sticking for murder. So why in the world wouldn't they focus on the ones there is evidence for, despite your denials that witnesses ARE evidence. This is like arguing with Pamela all over again. "a psychiatric facility where you can come into regular contact with individuals with borderline personality disorder. For every individual with BPD, statistics suggest 5 or more have the traits of this disorder. You will then understand." OK, Melissa, I can properly check that box off, I HAVE worked with BPD cases. So, you're suggesting that a) BPD cases often have false memories of child abuse and b) that these women and man making allegations all have BPD? Where is your evidence for that. Can you cite a source for a and b both, please? The problem with people like you is that you are advocating for the cause of allowing more people to get away with child molestation and incest, whether intentially or indirectly. Please stop and instead encourage full investigation of these types of charges, for the sake of other abused children!

• I am convinced these crimes occurred. But never in my life have I seen such a lack of representation for the accused. This is a HUGE mistake by the state, leaving the door wide open for a MISTRIAL and even a lawsuit. It's completely insane that these men have not been appointed attorneys. Again the authorities have a HUGE amount of evidence they are withholding from the public. But not giving them access to paper and legal council is a direct violation of CRIPA. I have read between the lines on this one from the beginning. But the jail and justice system is making terrible mistakes by not appointing these men counsel!

• I just hope I am never falsely accused by someone of something I didn't do. There is a huge schism between the two camps (innocence vs guilt) here, and no one has really put a finger on it. People fall into many different categories, but this story has awakened two of those categories: Skeptics (who believe the men innocent until proven guilty) who are taken aback that US citizens can be arrested with no more evidence than someone made an allegation; and emotional responders, who tend to react to their emotional beliefs at the expense of facts. Skeptics tend to be driven by facts and so find much to fault in these claims. False memories are easy to create. Give me any one of the mob screaming for these men's heads, make them aware that I am going to try to create a false memory, and I will still produce said false memory. It is relatively easy to do in anyone, but especially in emotional responsive individuals. The American Judicial system frequently convicts on the basis of testimony, eye witnesses, etc., in the absence of any objective evidence. Thus, we in America have a subjective judicial system. Subjectivity breeds inaccuracy. Again, I am grateful that, thus far, I have not had anyone make false claims about me so that I do not have to worry about being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. Where are the bodies? Where are the glass jars with notes? Why are they focusing on sexual abuse only and not on the claims of dead bodies? Our forefathers wanted us to be considered innocent until proven guilty because they were aware of the dangers of mob mentality. Food for thought: If you want a different view of all of this, trying looking up a few things: 1. The number of individuals incarcerated in America as compared to all other countries (the best comparison is the US vs. China--surely a socialist regime that walks all over their people incarerate more individuals than the US does). 2. The rate of individuals brought to trial who are found guilty as compared to the rate found innocent (suggesting that juries may make decisions emotionally rather than intellectually?). 3. Rather than focusing on suppressed and false memories, do some volunteer work with a psychiatric facility where you can come into regular contact with individuals with borderline personality disorder. For every individual with BPD, statistics suggest 5 or more have the traits of this disorder. You will then understand.

• That's right, Pamela, don't go to the trouble to address any specific criticism of a statement you make which is harder to justify, such as clarifying what you meant by suggesting that raping a girl is more forgivable if she is at least pubescent. Stick to only commenting on the ones where you can conveniently point the finger back in a totally subjective way. Just keep repeating your generic witch hunt analogy instead. If you say it enough times, maybe someone will take it as fact, and you won't have to defend anything you say.

• Also note that leaving it at "Any rational person reading this understands that I was not 'advocating for leniency on pedophiles who rape girls who are at least pubescent'" is a)not clarifying how you do actually feel about it, if I have misinterpreted you and b)not a well-constructed, logical dispute of what I said. Also, child pornography would OBVIOUSLY be a crime, so that is at least seems like some progress for you to acknowledge that. But, if there is a correlation between illegal porn, why isn't there a correlation between legal porn, that has the same themes as the crimes they are accused of? Please explain that to me. Also, let me make sure I understand you correctly: If the confiscated porn is shown to depict anyone under the age of 18, will you support THAT particular Mohler serving time for that? Ironically, I actually don't think I agree it would help prove the other crimes, it would just add to the trouble he's already in. I'll have to give that some more thought, how I would feel in light of that coming out. "Now, in spite of some of the things you've said here, I don't spend all my time writing about witch hunts or child molesters." I have actually NOT said that. Go back and reread the string if you disagree. I did read some of your other blogs on this topic, as well as glancing at others, and said you were busy discussing this issue, much different than what you just posted above. Beyond that, you make yourself as publicly opinionated online as possible, presenting this subject in a controversial manner. You invite scrutiny of your opinions that way. My reminding people how easy it is to google you is not stalking you, in the least. That accusation is meaningless.

• I disagree that any person would not agree you were advocating for leniency on rapists who victimize pubescent girls, which could mean anyone from 10 - 17. The response you gave spoke for itself, and if you will notice, no one came to your defense to dispute that is what you implied.

• J: Well, at least Pamela certainly has gotten quiet. Hopefully she is finally questioning the sincerity of her supposed motives for defending due process and how bad it looks to advocate for leniency on pedophiles who rape girls who are at least pubescent. Any rational person reading this understands that I was not "advocating for leniency on pedophiles who rape girls who are at least pubescent." I'll try to put this as simply as I can for you, J. It's possible that something will turn up that will convince me the Mohlers accused in this case of child molestation are guilty. Hard evidence would help, like authorities finding the body of one of their presumed murder victims. Corroborating evidence would be good, like reported and unsolved disappearances in the area at the time some of these murders supposedly took place. The discovery of kiddie porn -- not just pornography involving people who MIGHT be under 17, and not merely in the possession of ONE of the six accused. The discovery of that footage supposedly filmed of the actual molestations. Medical reports on where the presumed abortion took place and who performed it. Accounts of her disappearance and subsequent mysterious reappearance over a year later from people who knew the woman presumably held prisoner by the Mohlers All of these things would lead me to believe that what is going on here is not, in fact a witchhunt. You posting long messages accusing me of not only some undisclosed bias in favor of child molesters, but connections with Satanists, urging other people to google my name so they can ferret out these presumed biases and connections themselves, popping up on other websites where I've posted on this subject, and in short behaving like an online stalker? You resting your arguments squarely on the assumption that merely by questioning the Mohler's guilt, I am behaving suspiciously and am probably in some sort of secret collusion with someone I've never met who posts onto a thread agreeing with me...? Not so much. Now, in spite of some of the things you've said here, I don't spend all my time writing about witch hunts or child molesters. I write about politics, cooking, movies, lots of other subjects. In addition, I have a job offline that keeps me busy, especially this time of year. and occasional deadlines I have to meet from people who actually pay me to write. It's not the force of your "arguments" (which I believe can be summed up as "shut up") that have caused me to be quiet recently. It's life in general and the fact that there have been few recent developments in this case. When there are, and when I have more time, I will write about it again. And no, I will not shut up.

• Great insight, Sciwiltell. Well, at least Pamela certainly has gotten quiet. Hopefully she is finally questioning the sincerity of her supposed motives for defending due process and how bad it looks to advocate for leniency on pedophiles who rape girls who are at least pubescent. Anyone following this thread might find this interesting: http://www.northstarnational.com/2009/11/30/horror-show-missouri/

• The sheriff said, "The 6th victim is no longer part of their investigation". Remember he also said they are only focusing on the sexual abuse. To the average person it would appear the victim has been discredited. But having experience in working with law enforcement that statement points to a completely different picture. The 6th victim was possibly from another county/state, making that Federal Jurisdiction. Again the local authorities are "only focusing on the sexual abuse". Any murders also fall in the hands of the FBI.

• Great points, TheOtherD. I think once this goes to trial we will all understand why they weren't offered an easily posted bail and what some of their own confessions/contradicting each other looked like. It really bothers me how fiercely people insisted they should be released. That is why we are still trying to hold Roman Polanski accountable all these years later, when he was already awaiting sentencing. If there is this much evidence in any case (more than 5 witnesses), I will always advocate for them to be detained. It would have been a horrible injustice to have them merely questioned, and then free to go about their lives, possibly getting their accuser to drop the charges via family pressure and threats.

• It is actually fairly difficult to find current stories on the Mohler case, and many stories have been removed from their primary sources after only being posted last month. That is not normal for a story of this magnitude, and it may reflect many aspects of what is happening in the background as law enforcement makes (or fails to make) a material case. I think there is truth behind these allegations. Why? Because there but for the grace of God go I, and I do no even like to think about what could have happened to me and my sisters. The grownup Mohler children are said to be responsible, stable members of their communities, and they have nothing to gain from this but justice. I think any substanitive evidence will only be seen at trial to prevent an accusation of jury tainting against the state and the prosecution. So our arguments about artifacts are premature. All this case needs is a few video snippets of these children being abused... and the Mohler men are sunk. There is a great psychological advantage as well, in having them jailed and debating internally if they should take a plea deal for informing on the others. Even the Manson family girls eventually lost their solidarity with Charlie. Let's see if the boys try to mitigate their actions by blaming pops for abusing THEM as children. That's what I would expect if this is true- there is going to be a weak link somewhere, even if the glass jars and little bones are not found.

• You and your Michael Aquino cronies, obviously.

• J: What, about the "company I keep," could possibly evoke such a comparison?

• A better analogy for you to use, though, if that's the kind of company you keep, might be "Nazi youth."

• Oh Pamela, I'm pretty sure I see the irony of it joyfully.

• What began this discussion was my making a very simple observation: The essay starting this thread, "Does Burrell Mohler's Raping Family Carry a Degenerate Gene" not only blithely assumes the guilt of the accused in this case, but uses that presumed guilt to smear the entire family with the kind of "bad seed" Neo-Eugenics crap that was rejected over a generation ago. Since then, I've been accused here of being either married to, or unwholesomely attracted to one of the Mohlers. Safely crouched behind a single initial, you've declared that the mere fact that I invoked "innocence until proof of guilt" is grounds for "suspicion," speculating that it must indicate some sort of undisclosed "bias" on my part. Having fostered an environment here where questioning the guilt of the Mohlers is cited as valid cause for suspicion, you have invited readers to Google my name while speculating about my possible "connection" to a Satanist who was accused of child molestation. And now you claim that you're interrogating me about my views on incest, child molestation, Satanism, the age of consent, etc. because you're "interested in (my) opinions." I suspect you're "interested" in the sense that the HUAC was "interested" in the opinions of people who questioned or defied the Hollywood Blacklist. You plainly have no idea of the extent to which your own behavior in this thread validates applying the term "witch hunt" to the Mohler case.

• Remember, "innocent until proven guilty" will be applied when they are in court (far cry from some archaic witch trial). Here, it's just a matter of opinion, and it makes no difference whether one prematurely judges them, unless they one of us is part of jury selection or one of the jury reads this. That's where I call your defending them "the benefit of the doubt," because due process is not even an issue on an internet forum. Unless of course I was calling for their torture and lynching.

• Last things, AGAIN, 5 WITNESSES IS PART OF A BODY OF EVIDENCE. Denying that and putting all 100% emphasis on physical evidence, or otherwise assuming innocence absent of that, shows a selective understanding of how the judicial system works. Also, you mentioned a family feud, for which I find basically zero references that elaborate in the least on anything you could call a 'family feud.'

• What I meant to say in my first paragraph above is that the adult who goes after a 13 year old who IS pubescent should still be considered a predator. That is predatory behavior, as far as I'm concerned. Your definition of pubescents as a metric for the age of consent is flawed in that sense. However, this argument has been so circular, I don't expect much from you in terms of objectivity regarding the supposed "benefit of the doubt" attitude you champion towards the accused here.

• Well, thanks for answering some of my questions, at least. As far as what my asking them indicates - that I am someone who is interested in your opinions, but perhaps comes from a different perspective as far as being skeptical of outrageous claims and child molestation. For example, if a child has hit puberty but is only 13, I think an adult man going after her should remain classified as child abuse and illegal. To address the example given, I asked if you think child molesters get a "bad rap," a rather open-ended question, no doubt, but your answer was essentially that the law considers them criminals, and they should be dealt with according to the law. I was more curious about your pesonal belief in whether the laws regulating that behavior were just to begin with. Anyway, I don't want to prolong this much more if you aren't going to answer the other questions. i don't think jurisdiction should have much bearing with age of consent. I believe the more universal it is between all 50 states, the better. I think where the minimums are in most states is generally pretty fair. The police were investigating whether the porn that appeared to have underage girls actually did, so I am not absolutely convinced of the accuracy of the statements you make regarding that. Likewise, we have no idea, as far as I can ascertain from police records and news reports, whether they have pursued anything that has not been stated about the 6th and 7th victims or the alleged murders. But more importantly, I was more concerned about the incest porn, which you ignored, as if it is irrelevant. However, when trying to determine whether someone has committed the alleged acts of incest against 5 individuals, I think it is very applicable to that cause when the person collects incest porn. I don't think people who masturbate to incest are healthy and in a majority of cases, would need treatment to control their urges to take te arousal over it a step further with their own family members. I suspect the fetish stems from their own childhood sexual abuse. I also think that is all quite obvious to anyone who is being objective about it and thinks incest is wrong. Finally, I would also greatly like to hear your critique of the "Do What Thou Wilt" dogma of satanism, and whether or not you think such a philosophy might actually encourage murder, child molestation or rape by undermining any moral code that is accountable to the greater good vs. one's own urges and desires.

• Pamela, first of all - for at least the third time, the porn is incriminating BECAUSE IT WAS INCEST PORN, and also the possibility that some of it may have depicted underage girls. And as I've already observed, there is no evidence that this porn involved prepubescent girls. J: If someone is sexually aroused by incest porn, it is not a huge leap to assume they might take that a step further when at least 5 people are accusing them of it. If what they're accusing him of is the forcible rape of grammar school girls, then the question is whether or not the porn is aimed at people sexually aroused by pre-pubescents. Apparently it's not. And I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this cache of porn also incriminates the five other Mohler men. J: there has not been any new news disputing any of the charges, only rehash of what we've already heard. What, other than the utter dearth of evidence, would you consider to be news "disputing any of the charge?" J: there is zero evidence that the 6th victim was making up her story or that investigators have discredited THAT ONE witness. It's up to the 6th-victim – the accuser – to provide evidence. You're asking for "evidence" here of the Mohler men's innocence. That's not how our justice system is supposed to work. J: Also, you do realize that a 7th person has come forward and said he believes his son was also abused by at least one of the Mohler family? Yes. Another pointed finger from someone who's been involved in this ongoing feud for years. J: "I can readily imagine someone settling out of court after being publicly smeared as a child molester in order to put some end to the ordeal" would be a good start, though. I believe that was specifically what I was referring to. Just because you can imagine someone settling to admit guilt to a crime they didn't commit, doesn't mean child molestation isn't a horrible problem in our society, or that the majority of the people who settle do so because they know THEY ARE ACTUALLY GUILTY and don't have a leg to stand on in court! Nor did I say that this meant that I don't consider child molestation a horrible problem. You're straining at gnats here. J: You word what you say carefully, it seems to me, to not condemn child molestation. For example, "Child molestation is a crime and should be treated as such." That didn't really answer the question. More straining at gnats. What exactly is unclear about my saying "child molestation is a crime and should be treated as such?" How does it avoid your question. Yes, I think child molestation should be a crime. Yes, I think it should be punished as a crime. Anything unclear about this? 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. Do you have any idea of just how revealing this interrogation of yours is, not about my attitudes, but yours?

• One more thing I will add now is that I won't have any trouble backing down if they never do find any evidence of murder, or the alleged infanticide. I hesitate to say anything sounds too outrageous/far-fetched, though, because of just how low the degrees of depravity people regularly sink to are. We have heard victims here claim they were exposed to equally heinous crimes. I have dated women who have suffered at the hands of both parents, who also left them in the hands of other molesters as if "swapping" them. My maternal grandfather pimped my mother out to his organized crime buddies. The fact is, sick stuff like this happens, and I don't live in denial about it or try to convince others that they were just having false memories or that they were suggested to them by therapists. Those people in my life were traumatized by what they went through, and it's offensive when others come along and try to negate that things like that happen because of their personal sensitivities, from the supposed premise of withholding judgement. I'm merely putting a label I see as being overlooked on it, and speculating that it has some possible relevance. We see things in the news all the time that are equally disgusting as the accusations here. I feel that way, at least. Nothing would shock me, not in this case, or any other, sadly.

• Pamela, first of all - for at least the third time, the porn is incriminating BECAUSE IT WAS INCEST PORN, and also the possibility that some of it may have depicted underage girls. If someone is sexually aroused by incest porn, it is not a huge leap to assume they might take that a step further when at least 5 people are accusing them of it. That stands to reason, and along with witness testimony, any judge or jury would see that as valid, and I think you know that as well as I. I mean, if you are being that objective because you know people who have incest porn, by all means, urge them to get help, because that's gross and suspect by most peoples' standards. Sugar coating it as "just porn" like any guy with a few Playboys is REALLY misleading. As far as I can tell, there has not been any new news disputing any of the charges, only rehash of what we've already heard. So, we have no idea if they concluded further investigation i.e. tearing up the basement, only what radar indicated to police. So, saying they haven't found anything or aren't going to find anything in regards to that is the same type of speculation we are making when we say "looks like guilt." Likewise, there is zero evidence that the 6th victim was making up her story or that investigators have discredited THAT ONE witness. Also, you do realize that a 7th person has come forward and said he believes his son was also abused by at least one of the Mohler family? I will go back later when I have time and quote some examples where I got the impression that you were downplaying child molestation in general, not just ritualistic abuse. "I can readily imagine someone settling out of court after being publicly smeared as a child molester in order to put some end to the ordeal" would be a good start, though. I believe that was specifically what I was referring to. Just because you can imagine someone settling to admit guilt to a crime they didn't commit, doesn't mean child molestation isn't a horrible problem in our society, or that the majority of the people who settle do so because they know THEY ARE ACTUALLY GUILTY and don't have a leg to stand on in court! You word what you say carefully, it seems to me, to not condemn child molestation. For example, "Child molestation is a crime and should be treated as such." That didn't really answer the question. You mention "widespread ritual abuse" directly above. I don't think the question was necessarily about how widespread it was. 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? Do you think the age of consent should be lowered? How low? Now how about incest? On a scale of 1 to 10, how wrong do you think it is for an adult to have sex with children in his family (assume we mean children under the age of 12 who are immediate family and extended to nieces and nephews so we don't get sidetracked with rhetoric about "kissing cousins" or kids after they have grown up and it isn't technically illegal or something ridiculous)? I have lots more to say about what you posted, but not the time to say it all.

• J: Is it child abuse accusations or only ritualistic child abuse that you refuse to take seriously, Pamela? No, I don't dismiss all child abuse accusations. I am, however, skeptical about any outrageous accusations, whether involving ritualized (and satanic) child abuse, murder, kidnapping, terrorism, etc., made without evidence beyond the pointed finger or fingers. I agree with something Carl Sagan once said – outrageous claims require outrageous evidence. The crimes described in this case should have left behind more evidence than a chorus of accusers -- most of whom seem to know each other and who have apparently been involved in a long, vindictive family feud. The accusers claim to have buried jars filled with accounts of the abuse. Have such jars been found? They claim to have assisted in the murder of at least one man. Has the body been found? Is there an unsolved missing person or homicide case from that time? A woman has claimed that she was kidnapped and held prisoner in a basement long enough to get pregnant twice. She additionally claims that one of her babies was murdered and buried in the basement. Has an infant body been found there? Has her disappearance during that period of time been corroborated? So far, no. And frankly, at this point, I don't expect to see much evidence presented. If it existed, we'd have heard about it by now. J: Are we disputing that it is a real problem? That child abuse, including child sexual abuse is a "real problem?" No, I don't dispute that. That ritual child abuse and "repressed" memories of the type described in this case are "real problems?" Yes, I do dispute that. I'm profoundly skeptical about claims about widespread "ritual abuse" or accusations based on supposed suppressed memories. J: do you believe child abuse is usually made up, No. J: that it is only made up when it appears to be ritualized abuse, That depends on how much evidence for the "ritualized abuse" has been offered. Yes, my skepticism does tend to go up when the accusations of child molestation are accompanied by lurid stories about satanic rituals and murders and grotesque rapes, with little corroborating evidence. I'm skeptical because I'm aware of just how old these stories are, especially when directed at religious sects. Similar tales have been told about Jews, about heretical sects like the Albigensians, even about the early Christians. J: or that child molesters in general get a bad rap? No. Child molestation is a crime and should be treated as such. J: I guess I have a hard time understanding why it is necessary to downplay child abuse with such flimsy explanations. Please be specific about how you imagine I have "downplayed" child abuse.

• J: You continue to make the mistake of innacurately categorizing me with people shouting for someone to be burned at the stake or drowned, which I have already pointed out, but you conveniently ignore…. If I was recommending trial-by-fire, lynching, or something akin to stoning of the accused before a trial in a court of law, then you could make your silly defensive comparison/plea for more sensitivity about Paganism or people involved in the occult, or whatever you identify with. I am equating your tendency to imply that, because I question the guilt of the Mohlers, I must have some "involvement" with the sexual abuse of children, with similar tendencies of the accusers during the Salem Witch trials. In THE CRUCIBLE, Arthur Miller made the same parallel between Salem and the anti-communist "witch hunts" going on in his era. The fact that people like Joseph McCarthy were not calling for accused communists be burned, or hanged, or drowned, or crushed, did not make the parallel any less compelling to anyone with a basic grasp of either logic or cultural literacy. J: Why so quick to challenge the wager I made yet when this hasn't gone to trial? Because if they found a baby's skeleton under that basement floor, the authorities wouldn't wait until the trial to tell us about it. J: It's great if you are so convinced that all the accusations are lies, but if you're mistaken, you will feel worse than I would if I was wrong about that particular piece of it, because there are already those 5 other witnesses and a stack of disgusting porn adding weight to the prosecutor's case. Exactly how does the fact that one (or even more) of these guys collected porn add weight to the prosecutor's case that they were kidnapping and raping grammar school girls and committing murder? J: Are you suggesting that the 6th victim to come forward was a fake or that her testimony is going to left out of the proceedings? If by the sixth victim you mean the woman who claimed to have been held prisoner in the basement and impregnated twice, I've yet to see any convincing evidence that her story is true. If true, it would have left behind some measure of physical or corroborating evidence, like a dead infant body, and accounts of her disappearance by people who knew her, along with how she explained her disappearance to everyone and why she didn't go to the authorities. So far I've heard nothing about this.

• Former Friend of Victim: I want to say I think it's great that people with personal ties to the family are willing to comment and share their impressions, as well as identify their bias if there is one. That being said, you seem to have found a personal conflict in the midst of questioning whether there signs of abuse, perhaps answering the question for yourself. I am not going to invite Pamela's changing subjects until she's satisfied the other issues she wants to debate to do more than suggest this: if you think it is weird that the family was ready to move at the first sign that their religion was being threatened by a normal teenage social life, well, it does seem a little odd. I mean, the father won the battle by refusing to let her go to the dance. He gets to exert that one additional little bit of control in her life. Then suddenly he is paranoid that she is being corrupted? I will just say that I empathize with people who grow up in religious environments that strict. You have to wonder, even if their life is otherwise as morally upright as they project, why they have to take their religion to such extremes as so see themselves as alienated/endangered by the secular world. Anyway, that is a fascinating perspective on this.

• Pamela raised on interesting point to debate - if any of you were falsely accused of child molestation, what would it take for you to settle out-of-court to the tune of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or a million dollars (see the Paul Bonacci case), knowing that was still going to make you look guilty and, assuming you aren't unlimited financially, ruin your life? For me, I'm going to say nothing could make me willing to do that, no matter how bad an "ordeal" I appeared to be looking at. There is absolutely no possibility I would pay someone I was not guilty of assaulting to avoid leaving my fate up to my lawyer to prove my innocence, and the judge and jury to see that I had a solid defense. If a lawyer advised me to settle, I would refuse or I would replace him/her. Is this yet another denial/defense of child molestation? Is it child abuse accusations or only ritualistic child abuse that you refuse to take seriously, Pamela? Are we disputing that it is a real problem and that people are found guilty of it vs. impressionable pawns of "false memories' planted by therapists who are out to create a child abuse scare in our society? The above explanation, I just want to reiterate, was Pamela's response to the question of how many child abuse cases have settled AND been prosecuted? I am adding to that the question of how many child abuse cases that are especially heinous like this are ritualistic in nature, but it just doesn't get any media attention? Perhaps because it is too complicated to look at the bigger picture, or the focus needs to be on trying a handful of individuals in order to have some closure, when there are possibly many more guilty involved? Or for whatever reason, the ritualistic aspects of the crime never emerge or aren't recognized or are DENIED by people who want to refuse to believe it can happen. Just to clarify, since these threads have gone on for so long - What Pamela is attacking me for is that I made the observation (because I am aware of many other cases that have been prosecuted, and I suspect Pamela is too) that many of the details of this case which have reached the public sounded like the sexual abuse was ritualistic. What isn't ritualistic about several family members perpetuating abuse collectively, along with fake wedding ceremonies? That's not some family secret about one sick uncle, that is calculated, organized, long-term abuse to the point where it sounds cultish. So, to be specific, Pamela, do you believe child abuse is usually made up, that it is only made up when it appears to be ritualized abuse, or that child molesters in general get a bad rap? Because otherwise, in defending due process, I guess I have a hard time understanding why it is necessary to downplay child abuse with such flimsy explanations.

• Pamela, if someone was a witch or was acquainted with satanists, they might have a persecution complex in relation to the Salem Witch Trials, but it has nothing to do with an internet forum 300+ years later. You continue to make the mistake of innacurately categorizing me with people shouting for someone to be burned at the stake or drowned, which I have already pointed out, but you conveniently ignore. Presumably you think if you say "Witch Trial" enough times, people will take notice and it will add relevance. If I was recommending trial-by-fire, lynching, or something akin to stoning of the accused before a trial in a court of law, then you could make your silly defensive comparison/plea for more sensitivity about Paganism or people involved in the occult, or whatever you identify with. You need some new material, because you keep repeating yourself without adding anything of substance to the debate. Why so quick to challenge the wager I made yet when this hasn't gone to trial? It's great if you are so convinced that all the accusations are lies, but if you're mistaken, you will feel worse than I would if I was wrong about that particular piece of it, because there are already those 5 other witnesses and a stack of disgusting porn adding weight to the prosecutor's case. Are you suggesting that the 6th victim to come forward was a fake or that her testimony is going to left out of the proceedings? You must be hoping you're not mistaken about that, too.

• ffov: What do you "now know" that you didn't know then?

• I knew the family and I can honestly say that there was no signs to me or my parents that showed any kind of abuse. The only thing that was weird about them to me was what devout Mormons they were. I was seen as kind of a bad influence because I was not and am not Mormon. I remember when they moved away from Indep. in 1995. The "reason" was they had decided that the public school system was a bad influence. The incident that precipitated that idea was that the second oldest daughter E. was asked to the Homecoming dance and her parents wouldn't let her go because she was a freshman and they thought she was too young. She threw a horrible fit and they decided that she was being badly influenced by the secular world. Knowing what I know now I wonder if her father saw her behavior as a threat to the way of life he and his brothers and father had established. Maybe he wanted to move them away to enforce further control over all of them. They did move to Bates City after that.

• J: Yeah, your penchant for pointing and screaming "SATANIST!" does prompt comparisons with the case at Salem. As I've observed, I can readily imagine someone settling out of court after being publicly smeared as a child molester in order to put some end to the ordeal. And by the way --- You said, a couple weeks ago -- "Want to make a wager there's a baby skeleton in there?" Funny. We haven't heard anything about a "baby skeleton" being found. And in fact, the authorities have apparently decided not to further investigate that particular leg of the accusations, probably because they sense it wouldn't do their case much good. We haven't heard anything more about this woman who claimed to have been held prisoner, in spite of the fact that, if true, some level of corroboration should be possible. Aren't you glad I didn't take you up on that wager?

• Pamela, at least you managed to suggest two additional cases than the one you keep repeating. Now, how many similar cases did you find where there were settlements and convictions? There are many, many more.

• sciwiltell: It's obvious there is ALOT of proof. They would not have continued it this far. Sure they would, and they have. Are you too young to remember the McMartin preschool case? Kelly Michaels? Clyde Ray Spencer?

• hELLO ! The police are NOT saying anything because by law it could lead to a mistrial. It's obvious there is ALOT of proof. They would not have continued it this far. They want to make sure all leads are followed, that's why they continue going out to the different properties. Remember the FBI forwarded this case to LOCAL authorities over a year ago. It would appear, that the first victim probably tried to report this but the police did not take her serious. She probably continues all the way to the FBI. The police are now doing everything perfect because they don't want to be held responsible for mistakes. I'm sure they are being internally watched at this point. Most evidence will not come out until trial. This is just the beginning of a local sex abuse case turned FBI murder investigation. Everything they have said of course the police are going back to the houses and taking evidence to support the victims' claims. I AM just waiting for the dig to begin under that basement, and then everybody will be in COMPLETE SHOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Sammy, I appreciate your willingness to add a more balanced, objective, and personal perspective to this. Someone's appearance to their associates/friends is definitely an important part of the process of witnesses speaking up on their behalf, so hopefully they have friends willing to testify at their trial that the impression they give as good men is supported by lack of signs of child abuse. I can agree with what you have said, provided there is not sufficient proof/evidence for the other crimes. However, the problem at least one of them is in is that the pornography is incriminating. I wish your family and friends peace through the process of the justice system intervening to figure out what may or may not have gone on. A family in which children bring these types of accusations is certainly one which needs a lot of healing, no matter what the outcome is.

• As someone who knows a few of the accused, I just have to say that this has gotten completely out of hand. The stories are growing wilder every day, and I have significant doubts about the credibility of the accusers. Yes, Burrel Mohler had pornography. That's horrible and inexcusable. But it's no reason to convict five other men of crimes for which there is still no evidence. I have reason to believe that the Mohler brothers that I know would never act in the way they have been accused. They are good men.

• They found the jar and letters on the property... Pamela's argument grows weaker & weaker. If it smells like sh*t, chances are there's a pony in the barn.

• Jayk, do you honestly think I haven't read plenty about satanism to make my observation that this looked like satanic ritual? Maybe those allegations don't relate to your particular variation on satanism, but there's a history of similar abuses related to the satanic church. Of course they could just be sadistic Mormons. It just happens to be common for cults to hide behind a more accepted religion. Anyone who doubts particular sects of satanism condone pedophilia and bestiality, go do some research. Ultimately, my issue with satanism is the "Do What Thou Wilt" dogma, which doesn't show any concern whatsoever with the suffering of any other individuals that may be affected by that approach to life, and is fundamentally flawed in that sense. Any candid interview with Anton La Vey (founder of the satanic church) reveals their disregard for other human beings. There's even an interview with him where he says essentially "If there were human sacrifices performed in my presence, of course I would not admit to it." Gee, I wonder what he meant by that. Please stop with the 300+ year odd Salem analogy already. It's ridiculous. No one is going to be drowned or burned at the stake. They are going to be tried within a legitimate legal system that has evolved since the days you want to point to with your persecution complex. People should participate in whatever pagan religion they want, as long as it complies with the laws of the country we all share. But perhaps anyone who gets defensive about how their religion, or their friends' religion is portrayed should step back and ask themselves if it got that reputation because so many advocates of it are scumbags.

• Yaaaarrghhh... Satanism has nothing to do with bestiality, incest, or pedophilia. It has nothing to do with sharp objects or mock weddings or ritual sex. Look up satanism before you use that label, please. It's so annoying that nobody has pointed this out yet. The guys are Mormon (assumedly). Mormons can do everything they're charged with; they don't have to be satanist. That being said, I too think that this is reminescent of the Salem Witch Trials... I wonder how it will play out.

• Wait a minute; I have to chime in.......... Do you people have any idea of how the justice system really works? I read the affidavit that stated what was found in B.M. Sen. House, it did not say teenage girls, it said YOUNG GIRLS, which is a severe charge. As far as evidence is concerned, they used ground penetrating radar that located the shape of a box, which was described by a victim with a baby buried in it. NOW STAY WITH ME When there is a dead body over time it lets off "specific gases" that would be present in soil. That is why the soil was taken then sent to the FBI lab to determine if the chemicals were in the soil. After that is verified, they will exhume this box. Then DNA evidence will establish -Paternity and of course verify Maternity. Believe me they do have evidence, but it is limited what can be released, this could jeopardize the investigation. I know it's hard to fathom relatives, friends ,neighbors, doing this but the evidence is there and trust me , most of it will not be known until trial.

• Pamela, obviously I was saying remove the idea of satanic ritual from the picture if you personally wish to. I recognize that the mock weddings, penetration with sharp objects and bestiality are all part of eyewitness accounts, and part of the body of evidence as such. Encouraging you to not jump to the same conclusion as I see here has nothing to do with concerns over my credibility. And anonymity also has nothing to do with anything other than my general preference to protect my privacy and knowledge that the people/cults I am criticizing are slimy and sneaky. I don't owe you transparency about my identity to question your motives. You're obviously comfortable posting your name or pseudonym here, and that's great. But then don't get defensive because I encouraged people to go read your blogs under that name, that's silly. Also, you were posting many of your comments after the stash of incest and (possibly) porn depicting minors was well publicized. My disclaimer was to say the only way you could not see that as incriminating evidence in conjunction with 6 witnesses was if someone wanted to hypothetically suggest that is roleplay. Others have said (including the family interviewed, but also the comments above) "possession of porn doesn't mean guilt." Again, duh, please stop acting like you're telling me something I don't have the intellect to intuitively understand. But that wasn't specific to any of your particular comments, no. You're distoring some of what I have said there. Also, the evidence of satanic cults and ritualistic abuse is well documented, albeit in need of more in-depth and continued examination. Unfortunately, it is tainted by all the accusations of false memory being influenced by psychologists, etc. And if you trace where some of the naysayers points of view comes from, many of them are proponents of changing age of consent laws, to the point that some have even been found blogging on sites similar to NAMBLA. Again, you can't keep redundantly bringing up one or two cases and think that makes the reality of ritualistic abuse disappear. There's so much information out there that I think it's pointless for me to even go to the trouble to cite anything specific. People can go seek it out themselves and make their own informed decisions, and hopefully they are looking at the whole picture and not just the "experts" who want to deny everything. They will no doubt encounter much of the same misleading propaganda that I did while sorting it all out, such as the misinformation Aquino and his associations have seeded throughout which you and I both acknowledged. But you implying there isn't any valid evidence, I believe, hurts rather than helps the situation. If you already know it's there, then asking "That evidence being...?" is taking the devil's advocate position to ridiculous excess, and irresponsible on your part. If you deny it exists, then I think you are just in denial about it altogether in the face off all the research out there. Many people have been convicted and sentenced to prison for similar crimes, and I've talked to people whose own family members experienced such abuse. However, I think part of the problem is that law inforcement and judges are only concerning themselves with each immediate crime, and not the total organization of it. Again, I was not speculating what you're reason might be for witholding any bias until you pressed me to theorize, because it could be anything. I think your having mutual friends of Aquino would probably be a place to start, though. I am merely pointing out that it interests me when there seems to be an agenda where people get on their high horse about "innocent until proven guilty" whenever occult overtones appear to be involved. Don't be so sensitive about it. You can still support whatever Pagan lifestyle you want and denounce ritualistic child abuse like that alleged here. I think what it boils down to for me is wondering why anyone truly goes out of their way to defend people like this, when we all know how our justice system works. Your explanation that you see yourself somehow as the defender of due process seems phony. I suppose you just think everyone is so much stupider than you so they need a civics lesson from you, but I can't help suspecting that there is more to it than that. It seems so illogical to think these 6 adults made up these stories, in lieu of the incriminating factors We aren't calling for a lynch mob just because we are speculating guilt. Your desire to see it as a witchhunt, I think that's a cop-out. It's one of those convenient buzzwords to stereotype or generalize a wide range of opinion and degree of objectivity. On the one side of that spectrum is the person who says "Kill them now, torture them." They are obviously ruled by emotion, and possibly just as dangerous as criminals. On the other is someone like you who says "You should all withold any judgement and not post any of these negative opinions until they've had their day in court," even though your own speculations are really no better, just balanced in a different way. And in the middle who is me who encourages people to "say whatever you want about them. P.S. all signs point to guilt, as far as I'm concerned." Your comments just suggested to me that you may empathize with satanic cult activity, which is fine if you know for absolute sure that the "Do What Thou Wilt" philosophy doesn't condone sexual abuse. But I think it clearly does, and would be very interested in hearing you dispute that rather than this redundant dialogue of me having to defend going out on a limb to question you. Incidentally, I have every right to say whatever I want here without any accountability whatsoever, that's what business it is of mine. You are treating this like an academic forum, which it is not.

• J: I'm just giving you a hard time, Pamela, The nasty implications you've been throwing around about me, coupled with your invitations for everyone to blog the name "Pamela Troy," go beyond just giving someone "a hard time." J: Yes, J is my name, as far as you're concerned. Why would I be stupid enough to advertise myself all over the internet? Yeah, if you're going to publicly imply that someone is a child molester, hiding behind the pseudonym "J" while you do it is no doubt advisable. So given your anonymity, what business did you have accusing me of "not disclosing" something? J: Regardless, if you want to defend incest porn as innocent roleplay or fantasy, or whatever... Ah yes, another one of those nasty little implications, so easy when you're posting under a pseudonym. Where have I defended "incest porn as innocent roleplay?" What I've said is that finding this stash does not qualify as solid evidence that the accused were all involved in ritual abuse and murder. J: As for the satanism, of course that's all personal conjecture on my part. Forget satanism, Figured out it wasn't doing much for your credibility, eh? J: but if there are fake wedding ceremonies, penetration with sharp objects, and bestiality involved, what else are you going to call it? You've been treating that "IF" as if it were an unquestioned fact rather than a very big "IF." J: There is plenty of evidence of an organized, worldwide network of human trafficking and child abuse. That evidence being...? J Organized crime and Satanism... You just can't help yourself, can you?

• While I am in agreement with Pamela Troy's caution, I think it should be pointed out that the most recent announcement is that a big stash of chil/incest pornography has been found in Mohler Sr's home. His wife Sandra cooperated with the police doing the search.

• Kathy, look at this realistically! I have crazy people in my family who I don't even want to associate with, yet I would be hard pressed to imagine 5 of them having the audacity to trump up charges supporting/concurring with one another. Do any of those empathizing have 5 family members who would orchestrate something like this to prolong a "feud?"

• I'm just giving you a hard time, Pamela, mainly because I still think your witch trial analogy is a poor choice. Yes, J is my name, as far as you're concerned. Why would I be stupid enough to advertise myself all over the internet? Anyway, r's facts about the porn confiscated from Burrell Mohler Sr. itemized in the police report seem to check out. If their affidavit has some reason to claim the girls in the images were under 17, that is obviously bad news for him, at least. Regardless, if you want to defend incest porn as innocent roleplay or fantasy, or whatever, either way, he's likely to do some time for the porn depicting minors. Sad that his wife kicked him out of the bedroom rather than reporting him and divorcing him. t That's an example of a family member being complicit in a crime. The problem is proving she would have known they were underage when she discovered his stash. I'm guessing if the police have some way of knowing without detailing their source, it must be that it was blatantly underage porn, i.e. something akin to "barely legal" that is definitely not suggested to be legal. Either way, for that not to set off some flags with a family member, is depressing to me. Probably she felt economically trapped with him, or who knows. Here's some other incriminating evidence that we may see come to light: http://www.kctv5.com/news/21621188/detail.html As for the satanism, of course that's all personal conjecture on my part. Forget satanism, if you prefer, and focus on thinking of it as generic ritualistic abuse, but if there are fake wedding ceremonies, penetration with sharp objects, and bestiality involved, what else are you going to call it? The religion could be argued to be peripheral. But downplaying/ignoring/denying the existence of ritualistic abuse is not helping anyone. It's my own personal belief that the particular dogma involved in the type of abuse described here is often glazed over and much more prevalent in crimes we hear about every year than the media every analyzes. However, I do think it is relevant to understanding what goes on in the fringes of our own society. I just think the public hasn't been prepared to fully confront the reality of it all yet, and prefers to think of these as situational crimes. There is plenty of evidence of an organized, worldwide network of human trafficking and child abuse. Organized crime and Satanism appears *TO ME* to have ties to a lot of what we see in the news, it just doesn't get talked about enough. Some of them are isolated cases, sure, and have nothing to do with religion, but how would we ever know, since the focus of the investigations is just getting the individuals to trial, vs. looking at any kind of a bigger picture?

• I agree with you Pamela. The media ran with this story and has these men guilty of these crimes before ANY physical evidence is presented! I would like to see any child molester hung up, just as much as the next guy, but we shouldn't assume these men are guilty of such horrible crimes based on someone's repressed memories. These tails are getting wilder and wilder. I'm not so sure these accusations aren't founded by some sort of ultimate attack on these family members for past resentments stemming from an ongoing family feud!

• J: Same Pamela Troy, I presume. Yep. By the way. Is you name actually "J?"

• J, the only connection I have with Aquino is living in San Francisco at the time of the Presidio case, and knowing people who knew him. For the record, I was aware of his online posts, and did not care for either his politics or his personal philosophy.

• "Individuals," sometimes, 5 of them in conjunction with one another if the first was just a black sheep or loose cannon? Unlikely.

• Same Pamela Troy, I presume. If so, this is obviously a passion of yours. Found under google results for "Pamela Troy Satanic Church": http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/02/24_ordinary.html

• J: your defensiveness and quickness to cling to a silly comparison suggest your bias, which I suspect you are not fully disclosing. And I'm not saying you know the Mohler's personally, I took your denial of that for granted at face value. You just might find you are empathizing with child molesters, though, because 6 people have accused these men of such. Surrrre... You're not saying I'm a child molester. You're saying I EMPATHIZE with child molesters due to uh... something I'm "not fully disclosing." J: Likewise, my suggesting we should be objective about other family members' statements is not comparable to subjecting women to draconian witch trials based on heresay - get real. You've suggested the men are secret satanists and said that friends and family who don't join in with this hatefest or who express doubts about it "might not be accomplice(s) by looking the other way or who knows what else." Not content with smearing these guys as secret satanist practitioners of child molestation, murder and bestiality, you want to fleck a little of the filth in the direction of anyone who doubts their guilt. J: Again, why would these 5 individuals tear their family apart like that? Individuals tear apart families all the time. Personal vindictiveness could play a a part, or commitment to some crackpot therapy involving "suppressed memories."

• Well Pamela Troy certainly has been busy blogging about similar issues... http://thoughtcrimes.org/s9/ Anyone interested can google "Pamela Troy satanism." Thought I recognized that name...now I'm wondering if there is any Aquino connection...

• oops, that was supposed to be "relevant"

• Yes, the inevitable suggestion that a person cautions against joining in with a lynch mob based on an allegation, before is known, secretly or even consciously identifies with child molesters... It happens in almost every relavant thread.

• J: You are interpreting my statements subjectively. If you go back and reread what I said, what I was actually meaning to imply, gently, so as not to speculate too much, is perhaps some people are more sensitive about this because of their own experiences as victims of incest or...perhaps their own ties to satanism? Saying that you suspect someone who cites the basic principle of "innocence until proof of guilt" in such cases of being either related to the accused or has an "experience with sexual abuse" that biases them in favor of the accused is certainly freighted with some nasty and irresponsible assumptions. J:Chlamydia passed on from a mother at birth, I'm sorry, is a totally illogical explanation for why toddlers might still have it undetected and untreated. As I observed, the test for chlamydia used in that case has a fairly high false-positive rate and as far as I know, no follow up tests were performed. J: I also have never read about a child seeing Michael Aquino in a post office and then accusing him. It's an interesting theory. It's not a "theory." It's a fact that was covered at the time. I remember both Aquino and the father of the child in question talking about it. J: Can you cite your reference for that? I believe the station that covered it was KRON. This piece mentions it. (In fact it appears to have been the Post Exchange -- not the post office.) http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg67855.html J: I would also be interested in the reference suggesting the tunnels/passages under Presidio were sewers. I clearly said that was in the McMartin case. Not the Presidio. J: And again, how about the financial settlement with an alleged victim? As I said earlier, I know nothing about such a settlement so could hardly comment on it. I can easily imagine someone whose life has already been wrecked by being labeled a child molester settling out of court to put some end to the ordeal.

• Pamela, I believe your defensiveness and willingness to cling to a silly comparison suggest your bias, which I suspect you are not fully disclosing. And I'm not saying you know the Mohlers personally, I took your denial of that for granted at face value. You just might find you are empathizing with child molesters, though, because 6 people have accused these men of such. No one is saying YOU are a molester, though. Likewise, my suggesting we should be objective about other family members' statements is not comparable to subjecting women to draconian witch trials based on heresay - get real. Our system of justice has obviously evolved. I don't advocated lynch mobs or theories about beards in psychological profiling. Don't lump me in with that type of thinking, please. Two or three family members saying "I had no knowledge of these crimes, and don't believe them," doesn't hold nearly as much water as 6 people saying "They raped me." And why should it? Imagine the juxtaposition of those family members' collective testimonials in court. I hope there is better evidence to ease that stress on the judge and jury. In the meantime, though, the allegations ARE evidence. Again, why would these 5 individuals tear their family apart like that? And now the sixth, unrelated person, for me, that clinched it as a solid case and justification for holding them and disrupting their lives, definitely. My heart goes out to the non-raping cousins or extended family for having to deal with what is alleged to have gone on in their family, but oh well. Sadly, incest happens in way too many families. It's good for all of society when these cases are followed through with to prosecution. Perhaps the first cousin above and other men interviewed by the media truly didn't have any idea - I'm willing to entertain that possibility equally(the definition of "objective"), sure. The Mohler men in custody absolutely should be held until given a fair trial, though, and you're right, "We shall see." I for one look forward to the dispatch of this particular justice, and have no qualms about predicting the outcome as 100% in concordance with the allegations against them.

• Pamela, your defensiveness and quickness to cling to a silly comparison suggest your bias, which I suspect you are not fully disclosing. And I'm not saying you know the Mohler's personally, I took your denial of that for granted at face value. You just might find you are empathizing with child molesters, though, because 6 people have accused these men of such. No one is saying you ARE one, though. Likewise, my suggesting we should be objective about other family members' statements is not comparable to subjecting women to draconian witch trials based on heresay - get real. Two family members saying "I had no knowledge of these crimes, and don't believe them," doesn't hold nearly as much water as 6 people saying "They raped me." And why should it? Imagine the juxtaposition of those family members' collective testimonials in court. Again, why would these 5 individuals tear their family apart like that? And now the sixth, unrelated person, for me, that clinched it into a solid case and justification for holding them and disrupting their lives, definitely. Perhaps the first cousin above and other men interviewed by the media truly didn't have any idea - I'm willing to entertain that possibility equally(the definition of "objective"), sure. The Mohler men absolutely should be held until given a fair trial, and you're right, "We shall see." I for one look forward to the dispatch of this particular justice, and have no qualms about predicting the outcome as 100% in concordance with the allegations against them.

• Pamela, You are interpreting my statements subjectively. If you go back and reread what I said, what I was actually meaning to imply, gently, so as not to speculate too much, is perhaps some people are more sensitive about this because of their own experiences as victims of incest or...perhaps their own ties to satanism? There are probably even many practicing members of the Satanic Church who don't know the full degree of abuses my some of the more extreme practitioners, I'm sure. Aquino and his associates are well-known to go around posting comments distorting the truth about the accusations made about them, though. Chlamydia passed on from a mother at birth, I'm sorry, is a totally illogical explanation for why toddlers might still have it undetected and untreated. You're grasping at straws there, and I think there might be some agenda behind you so fiercely defending both these cases. I have to completely disregard that as highly improbable. The suspect later dying of AIDs, likewise, proves nothing. Even if you can prove he had it during the timeline of the allegations, it still doesn't hold up as any defense. I also have never read about a child seeing Michael Aquino in a post office and then accusing him. It's an interesting theory. Can you cite your reference for that? I would also be interested in the reference suggesting the tunnels/passages under Presidio were sewers. Incidentally, I believe more than one child identified Aquino as a key person involved in their abuse, though. As for my own evidence, there is so much out there, I honestly don't have the energy or inclination to go back and document everything I have read about it. It was convincing to a rational, objective person, and that's all I needed to know to doubt the innocence of him and the other implicated parties. However, it is simple for someone to retrace the same steps by searching out every credible news source that reported on the details in dispute. And again, how about the financial settlement with an alleged victim?

• J: Comparing a trial like this to Salem witch trials several hundred years old is apples and oranges. Given that in this thread you pointed a finger at me and implied that I was a child molester because I think these guys could be innocent, the comparison is getting more valid all the time. J: You have to be objective about it to wonder if some of the friends, neighbors and other family might not be accomplice by looking the other way or who knows what else. Riiiight. If they aren't one of the accusers or if they say they don't believe the accusations, THEY MIGHT BE IN ON IT! Nope. Nothing like Salem at all... J: Please, if anyone posting here knows this family personally, you should offer full disclosure. And if you don't, we'll point a finger at you and say you were probably in on it, cause this is NOTHING LIKE SALEM AT ALL! J: These men were supposedly all were very religious! But what if their true religion was satanism? Honest. NOTHING like Salem...

• J: Why the hell shouldn't they be incarcerated when multiple people accused them, and why the hell shouldn't the public speculate about whether they appear guilty? Because if it turns out there is no evidence to back up these outrageous claims, the lives of these men will have been badly, badly damaged, possibly ruined--even though they were innocent. And while you're speculating about whether they appear guilty (so far I've heard their beards and their religion cited as why they "appear guilty") why should someone not point out why your speculations are unfair and in some cases (like your ugly implication that disagreement about these guys guilt indicates sympathy for child molestation) grossly irresponsible? J: Want to make a wager there's a baby skeleton in there? I'm not afraid to stick my neck out and say what it looks like. I will bet it holds up in court! We shall see.

• Kris, it happens all the time, though. Maybe 4 or more accomplices is less common, but abuse is often a multi- generational cycle. The more people like you and Pamela are in denial about the fact that these things happen in many families, the worse the problem will get.

• J: I want to add that I always find it suspicious though, whenever anyone reminds us that suspects are innocent until proven guilty in cases like this. It always makes me question the relationship to the suspect/experience with sexual abuse the person speaking up on their behalf might have that is biasing them. I've already been accused of somehow having a relationship with one of the Mohlers. Now you've nastily implied that I'm a child molester. Yet another characteristic of the classic witch hunt has fallen neatly into place.

• Agree with r. That's fully incriminating in addition to 6 potential testimonies. My god, Pamela, listen to your response to what he just said. If any of the evidence he cited was actually found there, HELLO?! Incest porn? That's not the same as "Barely Legal." Sadly, nothing so far is hard for me to believe here, after seeing how many heinous killers and rapists sentenced in my lifetime. Maybe a few were mistaken identities, which would obviously be tragic, but I doubt any of them were made up stories of rape.

• J: I should go back and check my facts before suggesting this, but weren't some of the children diagnosed with STDs and also wasn't there one conviction/court settlement over it? I don't know about a court settlement, but the claim in the Presidio case was that the children had been infected with chlamidia -- an STD that has a fairly high false-positive rate in the kind of test they used. No followup tests were conducted. I should also observe that the existence of some STD in a group of children would be very likely given that some STDs can be transmitted from mother to child in the course of giving birth -- or by casual contact. It's interesting also to note that one of the teachers accused in this case of infecting children with clamidia later died -- of AIDS. I have yet to hear of a significant number of the children involved in this case testing positive for HIV. J: I think there is strong evidence that multiple people got away with child abuse in that case, and that there were definitely satanic undertones. The "satanic undertones" had to do with Michael Aquino, a local satanist who was accused in the case because a child had seen him in the post office and been frightened by his appearance. Not surprising, since Aquino fostered a bizarre appearance via clipping his hair into a widows peak and using eye makeup. What "strong evidence" do you know of that supports the accusation of ritual abuse in this case? J: I think DeCamp went back and had some excavation done that you should look into. There were claims that excavations under the McMartin daycare revealed the "tunnels" the children had mentioned. In fact, all it revealed were the usual sewer lines and depressions you will find under most houses. There was no evidence that any of these things were accessible to people in the house as tunnels or hideaways.

• Pamela, One final thing - these men are in custody WHILE they collect evidence. If there is no other evidence, then the trial would take on a totally different dynamic/tone. Meanwhile, why the hell shouldn't they be incarcerated when multiple people accused them, and why the hell shouldn't the public speculate about whether they appear guilty? So far, I don't think it looks good for them, with or without my opinions! I'm going to go out on a limb and predict they will find some evidence supporting the claims. They now have a sixth victim who says her rape baby is buried in the basement, along with radar showing a box buried beneath concrete. The affidavit says the other 5 people knew about her and had no idea who she was. While you're criticizing people for jumping to obvious conclusions, try to imagine the horror of knowing your father, uncles and grandfather had a sex slave captive in your basement. Want to make a wager there's a baby skeleton in there? I'm not afraid to stick my neck out and say what it looks like. I will bet it holds up in court!

• And J- great points. And everyone is focusing on the "suppressed memory" thing , but what has been said (in the media) is that one individual had "suppressed some of the memories" of what had taken place. It did NOT say A) that she had zero memory of it and some therapist magically pulled it out of her or B) that her siblings… FIVE siblings… had also suppressed any memories. They simply didn't come forward until she did. So that shouldn't even be the focus. As for the uproar over the "degenerative gene" stuff, sure that's pretty nutty. The reason one's sons would be that screwed up if they were indeed that screwed up is obvious. But with the general public's willingness to just shrug the whole thing off, well, I'm thinking maybe we all have a "degenerative gene" if we are that desensitized. But the point about a fair trial… that's enough right there for me to not say another word about this to anybody, here or anywhere. I want them to get a fair trial. And whether they are guilty or innocent of any or all of the alleged crimes, may justice prevail.

• Pamela, Comparing a trial like this to Salem witch trials several hundred years old is apples and oranges. This isn't about witch hunting people. You have to be objective about it to wonder if some of the friends, neighbors and other family might not be accomplice by looking the other way or who knows what else. Look at the videos related to this story on CNN today. One of the family members makes a very vague comment that really is barely a defense of the accused. It's more like he is saying, if this was going on, I had no reason to know of it. That's not the same as saying there is no way it happened. He seems to doubt them himself. That was my interpretation. Another relative says he can't believe this could have happened when the wife was alive, because "she was very religious, very straight." These men were supposedly all were very religious! But what if their true religion was satanism? If the bestiality is true, that's what these crimes would suggest. I just believe Satanic Ritual Abuse DOES exist and wanting to wave it away with one or two cases of supposedly influenced rather than truly suppressed memories doesn't make it disappear from American culture. It feels to me like there is a strong agenda or movement to totally sweep it under the rug or deny its existence. Please, if anyone posting here knows this family personally, you should offer full disclosure. Saying there is no evidence is really misleading. The accusations of several family members, and now, apparently someone outside the family IS evidence. I'm reminded of a comment posted the other day in regards to the man they have in custody for the kidnapping/murder of that little girl in NC. He said he had known the defendant after being locked up with him for 12 years (or something to that affect), and he would never do such a thing to that child because he had a daughter around the same age. Total denial and ignorance! That has nothing to do with heinous crimes, as we can see with every serial killer who has his own children.

• You know, something is just fishy here. It's not that I think we should not take the allegations seriously, it's just that I think there's more to this story than what we're being told, and I am personally doubtful that all the allegations are true. I just can't fathom that five men could get away with this for 2 decades, hurting that many people, that many children, and not have a lot of people suspicious and at least some history with law enforcement. From what it appears, people who have known this family for decades never suspected anything? Really? Of course police should fully investigate and charge when there is evidence, but if no bodies turn up and no glass jars with 20-year-old notes? What then?

• Pamela- It's not. It's part of what is collected anytime such an allegation is pursued. And the charges that exist, and were originally being discussed, were those of child rape / incest. And let's not be so naive as to think that a huge stash of porn depicting incest does not lend some credibility to the accounts of Victim 1, Victim 2, Victim 3, Victim 4, Victim 5 and Victim 6 (that is what they are called in court documents). I don't know... if my own daughter told me something outrageous about a family member abusing her, that was hard to believe, AND they were found to have a stash of incest laden kiddie porn... well, I would be the abusive one to just ignore it and presume that she was a crazy liar.

• I want to add that I always find it suspicious though, whenever anyone reminds us that suspects are innocent until proven guilty in cases like this. It always makes me question the relationship to the suspect/experience with sexual abuse the person speaking up on their behalf might have that is biasing them. Let the court work their guilt/innocence out and see how it all comes out in the wash before you start rushing to anyone's defense. I don't think our comments are going to negatively influence their ability to get a fair trial. Say there is no material evidence, either way, it's still going to come down to the testimony of those individuals and the judge and jury weighing the probability based on that. When you have multiple people coming forward and making accusations, I believe cases where charges were fraudulently made are the rare exception. Look at what a huge chunk of their family this trial is going to encompass. I believe victims typically come forward because of a need for closure, and relief from the injustice of having to live with family lies all those years. Otherwise, why would they tear their family apart like that? The would have to really hate them for some reason, that's for sure. What would be the other motive to do such a thing?

• My apologies for causing any confusion above. I was conflating details of the Presidio Day Care case, in which there was also a lot of testimonial offered up about "false memories," with the McMartin one.

• Please explain how finding this stash of porn is convincing evidence that he and his sons were raping grammar school girls, forcing them to participate in kidnapping and murder, holding someone prisoner in their basement for months at a time, etc.

• In response to Robin, I also have read quite a bit about the McMartin case, and I recall it being very difficult to nail down conclusive evidence that the psychologists involved had planted false memories. I should go back and check my facts before suggesting this, but weren't some of the children diagnosed with STDs and also wasn't there one conviction/court settlement over it? I think there is strong evidence that multiple people got away with child abuse in that case, and that there were definitely satanic undertones. I think DeCamp went back and had some excavation done that you should look into. Pardon me if I am mixing that up with another case, but either way, I think there was definite legitimacy to those claims.

• Well, child porn is illegal, btw. And incest porn? Porn specifically and solely dedicated to incest? Wow, not for the faint of heart. But I am impressed by your threshhold for looking the other way and assuming the alleged victims are liars.

• OMIGOD! He had PORNOGRAPHY? Depicting young teenaged girls? STOP THE PRESSES! That means he (and every one of the thousands and thousands of man with these things) is guilty of forcing prepubescent girls to have sex with dogs, participate in kidnapping murder, live under a crawlspace in the basement, and have abortions!

• We shall see. Either way, I'm glad he isn't my grandpa: "According to court documents, police found pornography depicting incest at the Independence home of Burrell E. Mohler Sr."..."Some of the porn confiscated included magazines such as Family Taboo, Best of Family Secrets and Best of Family Touch, according to court documents. There were also numerous sex toys and videos showing girls under age 17 confiscated, investigators said." Yeah. That sounds harmless.

• If this weird story is true I will print out this page and eat my words. Leave these poor farmers alone until some bodies are found.

• I don't believe a word of it. Not a word!

• Is it possible that the psychologist who implanted these "recessed memories" the alleged victims'minds was unaware that the Community of Christ never believed in polygamy?

• Thank you Pamela Troy. As a member of the family, the family is horrified with these accusations. I went to high school with two of the Mohlers, and am a first cousin. I spent time in their home, stayed for a weekend on more than one occasion. My sister and I thought they were odd, but in a "build a rocket in the backyard" kind of way, not in a "Chest the Molester" kind of way. There is no way my aunt would have let these things go on. The more that comes out about the case, the more bizarre the stories are becoming. The story of the baby in a box under the floor of the basement can not be. The basement floor of the house was poured, the top framed in, but the family lived in the basement until the house was finished enough to move up. I visited the house under construction. There is no crawl space, for the supposed victim to be confined in as stated in the latest stories. Please remember that these men are innocent until proven guilty, and the more salactious the story, the more papers it sells and the more adds you can sell on your evening news.

• Enquirer: Ah yes, yet another characteristic of the classic witch hunt -- the defenders of the accused MUST be themselves "guilty" in some manner, if not of the crimes themselves, then of being unwholesomely attracted to the accused. I live in California -- not in Missouri. I've never met any of these men. I'm not "in love" with any of them or even remotely attracted to them. And yes, I am defending them in that so far I've seen no convincing evidence that they are guilty of the crimes of which they've been accused -- crimes that, given the claims about dead bodies and glass jars and pregnancies and abortions endured at the age of eleven or twelve and now the claim about a 300 pound kidnapping and murder victim -- should have left significant amount of physical evidence.

• So Pamela Troy, I am going to reiterate Bashem's question, which Mohler are you with/married to/in love with/defending?!

• Robin: I am not recommending that we necessarily presume people guilty when no evidence has been provided at this point (we are not the jury); however, I am also saying that it is equally unfair to presume that the accusers are liars, or crazy, and it has never been stated that ALL of them had suppressed their memories. That presumption of guilt is exactly what's been going on here. This entire thread is based on a post that not only presumes this guilt, but uses that presumed guilt to badmouth the accuseds' gene pool for godsake, resurrecting eugenicist "bad seed" crap that was discredited over a generation ago. Robin: It is simply the individual who first came forward who had partially suppressed memories, according to the media, and having 5 people corroborate them would seem to be sufficient as "probable cause". On the point regarding Darrell Mohler- I agree, and perhaps it will turn out that he was not involved. But it won't "perhaps" turn out that the other guys are innocent of rape? Why, if the fingers pointed at Darrell Mohler turn out to be false, would those same fingers pointed at his brothers NOT turn out to be false? Apparently, all that's needed is a chorus of "he's guilty" and some people simply assume he's guilty. robin: However it is worth noting that one of his first reported statements to police after his arrest was "I knew about what was going on in Missouri". Interesting. Why do you find that "interesting?" What was "going on" in Missouri was the arrest of his brothers. And I see nothing odd about his comment that he 'would remember if he had "been there long enough to rape two people."' It sounds like a stunned, slightly sarcastic comment by an innocent man on the absurdity of the accusations. You're really reaching here. Robin: Mostly, I was pointing out that people continue to compare this to the McMartin preschool case... The primary difference is that when the McMartin preschool case unfolded those of us who had doubts about the grotesque accusations were assured they MUST be true because the accusers were young children. Now we're being told they MUST be true because the accusers are NOT young children. Other than that, I'm seeing the same old crap: Lurid, obscene accusations involving things like rituals and bestiality. The presumption of guilt based, not on solid evidence, but the number of the accusers. The public reviling of the accused, along with much chest-beating and invocations of lynchings, torture, and castration. (Gee. It's a good idea those things weren't put into practice during McMartin, dontchathink?) Another person being arrested in the wake of public statements expressing some level of doubt about the accusations. And every time I see a news article about some development in the case, I look, hoping there's some actual convincing EVIDENCE that's been unearthed after over a week of coverage. Every time so far, all that's been offered is yet another pointed finger from another relative. I'm horrified at how far this case has gone with so little evidence being cited. We've reached the point where law enforcement is going to have a very hard time back tracking and admitting a mistake. The moral ante is now just too high. The lives of these men are being bet on the assumption that these accusations were made in good faith, that they are not based on a discredited form of psychotherapy involving the uncovering of "suppressed memories," that no long-standing personal feud could possibly be playing a part in it. Stop for a moment. Think. Have you ever babysat for a relative or a friend in the past three decades. Suppose one of those kids suddenly surfaced and announced that, through the uncovering of "suppressed memories," they recalled you ritually abusing them and forcing them to have sex with the dog thirty years ago. Their brothers and sisters say, "Oh yeah, we remember that too!" These charges are blasted all over the papers. You're photographed shackled and in prison fatigues with the word "accused child molester" under your picture. How would you defend yourself?

• Pete Kotz:Where have you seen that these were "repressed memories," Pamela? I'd agree those kinds of things are questionable in a lot of cases, but I haven't seen that reported anywhere, or anything else about the presumed victims here. "The alleged crimes came to light in August when a 26-year-old woman approached police with the SUPPRESSED MEMORIES of years of abuse at the hand of her father, uncles and grandfather." (AFP 11/13/09) [emphasis added] http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iSID9YXCAjaCYtoN6cUSfctFmV3Q

• Rachel, In response to your comment that "Psychologically, facial hair indicates that someone is hiding something" - this is absurd. Statistics indicate that there is a stightly higher than average PERCEPTION that men with facial hair are hiding something. There are NO studies showing that men with facial hair are more likely to be "hiding something" than those without facial hair. No matter how much you would like to kidd yourself that you can, you can't judge a book by it's cover and perceptions are not the same as facts. Leave the psychology to the professionals.

• In response to Pamela's response to me: I am not recommending that we necessarily presume people guilty when no evidence has been provided at this point (we are not the jury); however, I am also saying that it is equally unfair to presume that the accusers are liars, or crazy, and it has never been stated that ALL of them had suppressed their memories. It is simply the individual who first came forward who had partially suppressed memories, according to the media, and having 5 people corroborate them would seem to be sufficient as "probable cause". On the point regarding Darrell Mohler- I agree, and perhaps it will turn out that he was not involved. However it is worth noting that one of his first reported statements to police after his arrest was "I knew about what was going on in Missouri". Interesting. And his comment that he would remember if he had "been there long enough to rape two people" was odd, also- instead of simply that he would remember ACTUALLY raping two people (little girls). Mostly, I was pointing out that people continue to compare this to the McMartin preschool case and there simply is no comparison. In that case ONE woman (who was later confirmed to be paranoid schizophrenic) made completely bizarre claims based on absolutely nothing, and hundreds of children were subsequently subjected to questioning that should have been considered abuse in and of itself. And as a parent of young children, I assure you that they will accede to just about anything with enough prompting or leading, which is what happened when the authorities informed all the parents from the daycare that their children "may" have been subjected to abuse. An entirely different scenario. And one that should not indicate that ALL accusations of horrific things are false. Horrific things happen. And it seems quite logical that our brains sometimes protect us from them for a time. I would be very willing to bet that evidence will or has been found.

• Where have you seen that these were "repressed memories," Pamela? I'd agree those kinds of things are questionable in a lot of cases, but I haven't seen that reported anywhere, or anything else about the presumed victims here.

TotalComments: 100