City Councilman, pedophile, attempts jail break, denies blood sample based on religious beliefs

[Schadenfroh]

A councilman of a city near where i live has been indicted of being a pedophile:

City Councilman turns himself in after being indicted for having sex with a 13 year old.

Laurel's ward seven city councilman was indicted today by the grand jury on sexual battery charges.

Joseph Jones turned himself in to the Jones County Sheriff's Department around 11:00 this morning.

Jones allegedly had sex with a thirteen-year-old girl in July of 1999, impregnanted her, and sources say the minor miscarried in the 24th week of pregnancy.

Jones is being held in the Jones County Jail awaiting a bond hearing which will happen sometime this week.

Then Jailed

A grand jury has indicted Laurel Ward 7 Councilman Joseph Jones on sexual battery charges.

Jones turned himself in Wednesday to the Jones County Sheriff's Department.

He is accused of having sex with a 13-year-old girl in July 1999, impregnating her. Sources say the girl miscarried 24 weeks into the pregnancy.

Jones is being held in the Jones County Jail awaiting a bond hearing later this week.

If convicted, Jones could be sentenced to 20 years to life in prison, officials say.

Attempts to escape

A Laurel city councilman being held in jail on sexual battery charges made an attempt to escape custody over the weekend.

Ward Seven Councilman Joseph Jones tried to scale a 30-foot security fence at the Jones County Jail, according to Sheriff Larry Dykes.

Dykes says Jones was playing basketball in the exercise yard, when he dropped the ball, ran to the fence and tried to climb it.

Dykes says Jones got within a few feet of the top, before climbing down after two officers shook the fence.

Jones has been in jail for several weeks, awaiting trial on two counts of sexual battery, in connection with sexual encounters with two teenaged girls.

Dykes says Jones could face additional charges after the attempted escape.

Judge requests blood sample from him

Laurel's Ward 7 councilman and Jones County jail inmate Joseph Jones may be forced to give up blood.

The district attorney's office is asking the circuit court to order Jones to comply with the search warrant that was issued in November. That warrant gave police authority to get a sample of his blood for DNA tests. But Jones refused.

He's facing charges of sexual battery on a minor.

Jones will go before Judge Billy Joe Landrum on Jan. 18.

He refuses based on his religious beliefs

Laurel Ward 7 Councilman Joseph Jones, accused of a sex crime, claims giving up a blood sample would violate his constitutional rights.

Judge Billy Joe Landrum has ordered Jones to provide a blood sample for DNA testing. But Jones claims giving blood is against his religious beliefs. He says he's been a Jehovah's Witness since birth.

A private lab in Laurel refused to take his blood, with officials there saying they want to check first with their attorney.

Jones is accused of having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

While it is not on the website yet, earlier they spoke with the only Jehovah Witness church leader in the county and he said that he has never been a member and he has never even seen him at the only jehovah witness church in the area. (or that is at least what the people that saw the last news told me)


Cliff Notes
1. City Councilman has sex with 13 year old girl (and she has a miscarriage)
2. Jury indicted him and he turns himself in
3. He tries to escape from jail.
4. He fails.
5. Judge orders blood test
6. He refuses because he says he is a Jehovah's witness
7. Only JHW church leader in area says he does not know him. (not confirmed, heard by word of mouth, have not seen the news lately)

 

[mercanucaribe]

WTF

 

[KarenMarie]

Holy Cow!!!

 

[BrokenVisage]

I'm at a loss..

 

[Wuffsunie]

What a piece of work he is alright.

Just need one of the other inmates to stab him. That'll provide a nice blood sample for the cops.

 

[UNCjigga]

Why can't THESE be the people we torture secretly and lock up indefinately in Gitmo?

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Why can't THESE be the people we torture secretly and lock up indefinately in Gitmo?

Fvck Gitmo, Abu Ghraib ftw

 

[dderidex]

Well, JWs aren't allowed to run for public office (OR vote, OR participate in the government "of the world" in any way), so....

Makes it seem a little like he's grasping at straws, here, and didn't check his BS before he started spewing it.

(OTOH, that religion does have a problem with pedophiles worse than the Catholic Church, so...ya never know)

 

[Perknose]

N/m the pedophilia, he said "Jehovah", stone him!!

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: dderidex
Well, JWs aren't allowed to run for public office (OR vote, OR participate in the government "of the world" in any way), so....

Hmm, was not aware of this. I know that they do not accept blood transfusions, but do the bulk of them allow blood samples to be taken of them during medical procedures?

 

[JulesMaximus]

What a piece of sh!t. Throw the book at this moron...at a high rate of speed...say, 500mph?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: dderidex
Well, JWs aren't allowed to run for public office (OR vote, OR participate in the government "of the world" in any way), so....

Hmm, was not aware of this. I know that they do not accept blood transfusions, but do the bulk of them allow blood samples to be taken of them during medical procedures?

They have no problem with blood samples, just blood transfusions.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: dderidex
OTOH, that religion does have a problem with pedophiles worse than the Catholic Church, so...ya never know

I would like to see documented proof of this. Otherwise, you are full of ******.

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: dderidex
OTOH, that religion does have a problem with pedophiles worse than the Catholic Church, so...ya never know

I would like to see documented proof of this. Otherwise, you are full of ******.

Browse around this site - buckets and BUCKETS of proof.

The problem stems from two of their policies - both of which are still in place, but they are trying to play down. In the 80s and 90s, these were hard-and-fast rules, though:

Problem 1) You cannot take a member of the congregation to the police or courts without first trying to deal with the problem - ANY problem - within the congregation. This means taking the problem/complaint/charge of abuse to the elders first. They cite the verses at James 5:13-16, and Hebrews 12:6-11.

They also mention the verses at 1 Peter 5:1, 2 and 1 Corinthians 5:12, 13 and Proverbs 24:28 and Deuteronomy 13:12 -14. (The disinterested third party observer, of course, will find that all of these verses are SERIOUSLY reaching to get anything like the above conclusion)

The specific quote from their literate on this can be found in the 1973 Watchtower 11/15, pages 703-704 (in the bound volume):

Questions from Readers
? Do Paul?s words at 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a Christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer??U.S.A.
Jehovah God has permitted secular authority to serve as his instrument in bringing lawbreakers to justice, and in this case the one wronged would be availing himself of legal help after exhausting the intracongregational means to have the wrong corrected.?Rom. 13:3, 4.
...
However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God?s Word on this matter, such one would not be ?free from accusation? as a Christian. He would not be one who has ?a fine testimony from people on the outside? of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

Problem 2) You cannot take a problem/complaint/charge of abuse to the elders without FIRST having TWO WITNESSES to the offense. They base this on the scriptures at John 8:17, Hebrew 10:28, and 1 Timothy 5:19,24,25.

The most damning citation comes from the "Pay Attention..." book, only availabe to elders in that religion. 1991, p110-111:

There must be two or three eyewitnesses, not just persons repeating what they have heard; no action can be taken if there is only one witness. (Deut. 19:15;Jol1ll 8:17)
...
If there are two or three witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing but each one is witness to a separate incident, their testimony can be considered.

Such evidence may be used to establish guilt, but it is preferable to have two witnesses to the same occurrence of wrongdoing.

LOL - ain't that a hoot! Preferable to have two witnesses TO THE SAME OCCURANCE?!?! How many child molesters do you know that arrange two witnesses beforehand?

Further, check this out from the same section:

The testimony of youths may be considered; it is up to the elders to determine if the testimony has the ring of truth.

So....two witnesses, that does not NECESSARILY include the victim, if they are a youth.


A more detailed explaination of the problem is available here

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: dderidex

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: dderidex
OTOH, that religion does have a problem with pedophiles worse than the Catholic Church, so...ya never know

I would like to see documented proof of this. Otherwise, you are full of ******.

Browse around this site - buckets and BUCKETS of proof.

The problem stems from two of their policies - both of which are still in place, but they are trying to play down. In the 80s and 90s, these were hard-and-fast rules, though:

Problem 1) You cannot take a member of the congregation to the police or courts without first trying to deal with the problem - ANY problem - within the congregation. This means taking the problem/complaint/charge of abuse to the elders first. They cite the verses at James 5:13-16, and Hebrews 12:6-11.

They also mention the verses at 1 Peter 5:1, 2 and 1 Corinthians 5:12, 13 and Proverbs 24:28 and Deuteronomy 13:12 -14. (The disinterested third party observer, of course, will find that all of these verses are SERIOUSLY reaching to get anything like the above conclusion)

The specific quote from their literate on this can be found in the 1973 Watchtower 11/15, pages 703-704 (in the bound volume):

Questions from Readers
? Do Paul?s words at 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a Christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer??U.S.A.
Jehovah God has permitted secular authority to serve as his instrument in bringing lawbreakers to justice, and in this case the one wronged would be availing himself of legal help after exhausting the intracongregational means to have the wrong corrected.?Rom. 13:3, 4.
...
However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God?s Word on this matter, such one would not be ?free from accusation? as a Christian. He would not be one who has ?a fine testimony from people on the outside? of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

Problem 2) You cannot take a problem/complaint/charge of abuse to the elders without FIRST having TWO WITNESSES to the offense. They base this on the scriptures at John 8:17, Hebrew 10:28, and 1 Timothy 5:19,24,25.

The most damning citation comes from the "Pay Attention..." book, only availabe to elders in that religion. 1991, p110-111:

There must be two or three eyewitnesses, not just persons repeating what they have heard; no action can be taken if there is only one witness. (Deut. 19:15;Jol1ll 8:17)
...
If there are two or three witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing but each one is witness to a separate incident, their testimony can be considered.

Such evidence may be used to establish guilt, but it is preferable to have two witnesses to the same occurrence of wrongdoing.

LOL - ain't that a hoot! Preferable to have two witnesses TO THE SAME OCCURANCE?!?! How many child molesters do you know that arrange two witnesses beforehand?

Further, check this out from the same section:

The testimony of youths may be considered; it is up to the elders to determine if the testimony has the ring of truth.

So....two witnesses, that does not NECESSARILY include the victim, if they are a youth.


A more detailed explaination of the problem is available here

pwnt him.

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
pwnt him.

I would note that they are *trying* to get better at this. Once all the lawsuits started hitting the Catholic Church, they had a number of their own (indeed, I think 'Dateline' even covered one of them in part?) and that got them to try and play down some of the rules.

Noticeable changes to both the above problems includes:

1) - Although it's still STRONGLY DISCOURAGED, there will be no official judicial action taken within the congregation if a parent goes to authorities first.

- The victim (usually a child) no longer has to present the accusation in person to the accused in a judicial committe that is investigating the offense. (IE., previously the procedure for investigating an accusation involved the judicial committee forming, and bringing in the molester and the victim, along with whatever witnesses were involved, and the victim had to make the accusation to the molester's face....which, c'mon, if they were a "respected member of the congregation" - another elder, perhaps - and the victim was a CHILD...how likely is that? Anyway, this policy is now abolished.)

2) The 'two witnesses' rule has been relaxed somewhat to include other types of evidence, including accusation from a victim and their parent, who only heard of the offense through their child telling them. It's now "good enough" to start an investigation.

UNFORTUNATELY, they still persist in carrying on their *own* investigations INTERNALLY. And they never announce the reason for their actions if they DO take them.

IE., someone convicted in the US court system of child molestation *may* still be a 'member in good standing' in the congregation if the internal investigation (using the above rules of evidence) was not conclusive. If they then transfer to another congregation full of little kids....guess what? Nobody is informed. He's still just another 'member in good standing', ready to be sent out in field service with cargroups full of kids for the whole process to repeat itself.

AND...even if the member IS disfellowshipped (kicked out of the congregation)...they do not provide a reason for it. It's just announced they are DF'd, and they may well work their way back into good favor, be re-instated, and nobody is the wiser (and there are lots of reasons for DF'ing. Voting. Joining the military. Accepting a blood transfusion. Having sex before marriage. Etc.)

SO....they've made SOME improvements, but still have MILES to go.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: dderidex
Browse around this site - buckets and BUCKETS of proof.

I fail to see buckets and BUCKETS of proof, but I do see enough accusations to retract my statement that you "are full of ******".

What Mr Bowen claims is both shocking and deplorable, but I find the claims to be pretty far fetched. I have known many hundreds of Witnesses since I was a child, and could never imagine any of them to be capable of abusing a child, much less for other upstanding members of the congregation to sit back and allow such deplorable acts to continue unpunished.

While there may be some holes in some of their polocies, I don't feel the organization would intentionally protect child abusers/sex offenders. This, after all, is an organization that excommunicates members for having pre-marital sex or any form of what they consider to be indecent sexual acts with a consenting marital partner.

I do not discount the actual cases that have been reported, despite many of the cited cases where the perpetrator was found "not guilty" by a state or federal court, but I think Mr Bowen intentionally blows the few reported cases way out of proportion.

Thanks for the info, though.

 

[axelfox]

dang, just do an oral swab for DNA test.

 

[Kadarin]

I'd like to contribute to this thread the opinion that calling this guy a "pedophile" isn't quite correct. The 13 year old girl he is accused of having had sex with most likely had developed secondary sexual characteristics (i.e. she had tits, and so forth). Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children who have not yet developed such.

That said, I agree with the general view of this thread that this guy is a piece of work.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: dderidex
Well, JWs aren't allowed to run for public office (OR vote, OR participate in the government "of the world" in any way), so....

Hmm, was not aware of this. I know that they do not accept blood transfusions, but do the bulk of them allow blood samples to be taken of them during medical procedures?

They have no problem with blood samples, just blood transfusions.

That is what i thought.

 

[sandorski]

He belongs to a small offshoot of the Jehaovahs Witnesses: The Jehovahs Pedophiliac Escapee Blood Retention Witnesses

Don't deny his Religious Freedom!!!!

k?

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
What Mr Bowen claims is both shocking and deplorable, but I find the claims to be pretty far fetched.

I understand he was an elder (I think) in the religion, and was witness to more than one cover-up of the nature he describes, and it kinda set him off on a crusade about it.

He definitely....errr....goes overboard from time to time. I suppose his cause (protecting children) justifies this somewhat, though.

As to the 'claims far fetched'...I'm presuming you don't have firsthand experience with JW judicial committees? I have - trust me when I say, their *FIRST* priority is ALWAYS protecting the image of the religion as a whole.

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
While there may be some holes in some of their polocies, I don't feel the organization would intentionally protect child abusers/sex offenders. This, after all, is an organization that excommunicates members for having pre-marital sex or any form of what they consider to be indecent sexual acts with a consenting marital partner.

Welllll....you gotta remember that the organization ALSO values its "image" extremely greatly. The entire purpose behind the 'resolve the matter internally before (if ever) taking it to the courts' was designed for that purpose. They (at their HQ) are specifically TERRIFIED of bad press. And if it means covering up a few crimes in order to keep JW names out of the papers....well....

There are definitely some interesting tales that come out of their HQ operations in New York!

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
I do not discount the actual cases that have been reported, despite many of the cited cases where the perpetrator was found "not guilty" by a state or federal court, but I think Mr Bowen intentionally blows the few reported cases way out of proportion.

I suppose I'm on the side that feels ANY such case of this *CANNOT* be blown out of proportion. Remember, this religion claims they are the SOLE representative of God's will on the Earth. Everybody else - EVERYONE - will be destroyed at Armegeddon, and God 'inspires' their governing body ALONE among all of mankind.

To have this kind of thing happen at *all* in an organization that god personally takes a hand in is....suspect. And to have it happen MORE than once...MUCH more than once...and have had at any time policies in place that allowed it....just.....I dunno.

I did seperate one comment of yours:

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
I have known many hundreds of Witnesses since I was a child, and could never imagine any of them to be capable of abusing a child, much less for other upstanding members of the congregation to sit back and allow such deplorable acts to continue unpunished.

And I've known thousands - literally. I was a member of two congregations that split when they hit 600 members, and that's not counting work at their various assemblies and conventions.

I'd say *most* of them are...generally good-hearted, if tragically misled. Friendship is conditional in that faith to following the rules - there are no true friendships formed, even within families....which is, in retrospect, really kind of sad. But, as long as you follow the rules, they really are mostly good people. I've seen few groups so tolerant of minorities - there really is no racism or even jokes about it at ALL in the religion, it's just not something members think in terms of anymore (although back in the 20s, they...heh...well, let's just say a lot of policy changes have been put in place!)

The elder body varies greatly, though - as does any position of men in power. There are those who reluctantly took the role to fill a need and are genuinely interested in the good of their 'flock'. These guys are genuinely friendly, would go out of their way to accomodate the needs of their congregation - sacrificing personal time to simply help an older member with their housework, go out of their way to make sure people's needs were met, etc.

I REALLY liked those guys - indeed, one of them married my wife and I.

AND then there are those who strived to a position from a young age, see it as an earned position of recognition and power rather than a position of service, and tend to be...well..."rules Nazis" would be a good way to describe them. Letter-of-the-law (JW law, of course) types. These are generally the ones with the most 'black and white' view of the world. If you aren't a JW, you are under the direct control of Satan, and thus the courts and legal system of the world cannot be trusted at all and everything must be done to stop something from being presented to them.

In my experience, I'd say the elder body is split 60/40, unfortunately in favor of the latter group, in most congregations.