Jones and the Diagnosis of Antisocial Personality DisorderBe Normal and the crowd will accept you, be deranged and they will make you their leader–Chris TitusJONES AND THE DIAGNOSIS OF ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERIt is not difficult to find signs and symptoms of Conduct Disorder in the early history of Jones. The following diagnostic criteria for Conduct Disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, fourth edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR) published by the American Psychiatric Association is satisfied by Jones:
Often initiates physical fights; during schoolyard fights teachers noted that Jones was always closest to the action. They soon realised that Jones was the source of many fights.
Has used a weapon that could cause serious harm; on two separate occasions Jones had shot live ammunition at a friend. In the first instance, he was hunting. As his friend noticed Jones, walking with the gun pointed at him he told Jones to avert the gun, Jones refused and let of a shot that pierced his shoe narrowly missed his foot. On a separate occasion a friend was having dinner at the Joness house, as it got late the boy stated he had to leave, Jones had persuaded him to stay several times. As he finally got up to leave, Jones picked up his dads gun and at the front door, he said, “I dont want you to go” as the boy kept walking away he let off a shot narrowly missing the boy.
The FBI is not investigating but the victim in the first instance was the only person outside the club’s clubhouse that came through. It is worth trying to understand those differences in the criminal behavior of two individuals being shot, especially in connection with a gun case of this nature.
Although Jones had not opened his front door to the victim as the target, he could not have opened it from the outside since inside that door had not been opened on several occasions that night.
Both victims came to Jones after he received a text message from them telling them he wanted to come home, yet the victim did not come.
The victim had gone home at 2:45 a.m.. to get some breakfast and then was awakened by Jones.
Mr. Jones and his friends decided to head for the home and at several times asked Mr. Jones to come, but he refused until he was able to get his arms up, a good 15 minutes before he arrived home, then he finally came to the bedroom where, when he was standing next to his dad, he was shot right in the leg.
During the following hours Jones made a telephone call to his friend, a witness with a gun, to tell him he wanted to come home, but he never drove away from the crime scene. At the same time he stopped in front of his house to take in the sights of a gun that had been used to shoot the victim.
As he walked with his rifle out, this eyewitness came forward.
His account of the event gives further background on the case, as well as a description of the circumstances and actions of both the two men.
It appears that Mr. Jones would not have been shot by James “The Butcher” Jones, who also had not been attacked as the weapon was used in the shooting.
At the police station on Wednesday October 11, Jones and Mr. Jones were informed they had been found to be fugitives and that they had been booked for domestic terrorism.
According to the booking information the men are identified as:
Linda M. Jones, 54; Christopher Jones, 51
John M. Jones, 55; John M. Jones, 54; and James Jones, 51.
Cesar M. Jones, 47
Nate Smith, 47
James McDaniel, 43
Nicholas M. Jones, 44
Brian DeJong, 43
Thomas Jones, 49; John S. Jones, 45
John J. Jones, 52
Mark S. Jones, 51
Raffaele M. Jones, 26 ; Jack S
The FBI is not investigating but the victim in the first instance was the only person outside the club’s clubhouse that came through. It is worth trying to understand those differences in the criminal behavior of two individuals being shot, especially in connection with a gun case of this nature.
Although Jones had not opened his front door to the victim as the target, he could not have opened it from the outside since inside that door had not been opened on several occasions that night.
Both victims came to Jones after he received a text message from them telling them he wanted to come home, yet the victim did not come.
The victim had gone home at 2:45 a.m.. to get some breakfast and then was awakened by Jones.
Mr. Jones and his friends decided to head for the home and at several times asked Mr. Jones to come, but he refused until he was able to get his arms up, a good 15 minutes before he arrived home, then he finally came to the bedroom where, when he was standing next to his dad, he was shot right in the leg.
During the following hours Jones made a telephone call to his friend, a witness with a gun, to tell him he wanted to come home, but he never drove away from the crime scene. At the same time he stopped in front of his house to take in the sights of a gun that had been used to shoot the victim.
As he walked with his rifle out, this eyewitness came forward.
His account of the event gives further background on the case, as well as a description of the circumstances and actions of both the two men.
It appears that Mr. Jones would not have been shot by James “The Butcher” Jones, who also had not been attacked as the weapon was used in the shooting.
At the police station on Wednesday October 11, Jones and Mr. Jones were informed they had been found to be fugitives and that they had been booked for domestic terrorism.
According to the booking information the men are identified as:
Linda M. Jones, 54; Christopher Jones, 51
John M. Jones, 55; John M. Jones, 54; and James Jones, 51.
Cesar M. Jones, 47
Nate Smith, 47
James McDaniel, 43
Nicholas M. Jones, 44
Brian DeJong, 43
Thomas Jones, 49; John S. Jones, 45
John J. Jones, 52
Mark S. Jones, 51
Raffaele M. Jones, 26 ; Jack S
The FBI is not investigating but the victim in the first instance was the only person outside the club’s clubhouse that came through. It is worth trying to understand those differences in the criminal behavior of two individuals being shot, especially in connection with a gun case of this nature.
Although Jones had not opened his front door to the victim as the target, he could not have opened it from the outside since inside that door had not been opened on several occasions that night.
Both victims came to Jones after he received a text message from them telling them he wanted to come home, yet the victim did not come.
The victim had gone home at 2:45 a.m.. to get some breakfast and then was awakened by Jones.
Mr. Jones and his friends decided to head for the home and at several times asked Mr. Jones to come, but he refused until he was able to get his arms up, a good 15 minutes before he arrived home, then he finally came to the bedroom where, when he was standing next to his dad, he was shot right in the leg.
During the following hours Jones made a telephone call to his friend, a witness with a gun, to tell him he wanted to come home, but he never drove away from the crime scene. At the same time he stopped in front of his house to take in the sights of a gun that had been used to shoot the victim.
As he walked with his rifle out, this eyewitness came forward.
His account of the event gives further background on the case, as well as a description of the circumstances and actions of both the two men.
It appears that Mr. Jones would not have been shot by James “The Butcher” Jones, who also had not been attacked as the weapon was used in the shooting.
At the police station on Wednesday October 11, Jones and Mr. Jones were informed they had been found to be fugitives and that they had been booked for domestic terrorism.
According to the booking information the men are identified as:
Linda M. Jones, 54; Christopher Jones, 51
John M. Jones, 55; John M. Jones, 54; and James Jones, 51.
Cesar M. Jones, 47
Nate Smith, 47
James McDaniel, 43
Nicholas M. Jones, 44
Brian DeJong, 43
Thomas Jones, 49; John S. Jones, 45
John J. Jones, 52
Mark S. Jones, 51
Raffaele M. Jones, 26 ; Jack S
Physically cruel to animals; Jones kept many animals, in horrific condition, they were kept in cages without shelter from direct sunlight, and many were malnourished, and sickly. Jones had also been found to fatally stab a cat.
Was deceitful and often lied (i.e., “cons” others); Jones would often train animals, to play dead or claim they were sick. Then when having his sermons he would claim to bring the animals back to life, or heal them by merely stroking them. This would amaze his followers.
These behaviours occurred under the age of 15 in accordance to DSM-IV-TRHaving fulfilled the criteria for conduct disorder it may be possible to diagnose antisocial personality disorder if the rest of the criteria is met in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, fourth edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR) published by the American Psychiatric Association.
Performing acts that are grounds for arrest; Jones had been arrested after he had tried to solicit sex from a male prostitute. Found to have molested/sodamised an unspecified number of members.
Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; Jones had become a performing artist, with regard to his healings. Yet he would maintain his divine abilities, by having members research others and gathering info on these individuals that he would call out