GUILTY AZ - Madeline 'Maddie' Jones, 19 & William Jones-Gouchenour, 9 mos, found safe, Mesa, 15 Jun 2017

[perfectingpink]

Both grandmas come off as odd in their previously posted news interviews. Jacob states that Maddie has a history of mental illness, but in the above postings of their divorce decree, we learn that it was Jacob who has a history of being on psychiatric meds, not Maddie. Also it is interesting that he is so calm when we know that not only is his son missing, but his ex-wife had him EXPELLED from BYU and all church-schools because of her accusations of sexual assault. We learn this from the crime-online report from earlier. Judging from when he served his mission and his subsequent marriage to Maddie, he is presumably about halfway done with his schooling. From the crimeonline posting, his expulsion notification was mailed around June 7. Maddie and William went missing on the 15th. He had to be pretty angry, whether the accusations were true or not, as that expulsion will affect him at any future school he attempts to apply to. And we know from the divorce decree that he had only one visit with William prior to the start of supervised visits the week they went missing. Bonding is questionable. Definitely goes to support motive. They are missing as of 2 weeks tomorrow.

:welcome:

 

[perfectingpink]

During the visit Jacob had with William, he chose to use his time with his son by putting him in an outfit he had brought with him. Did anyone else find this strange? To me it is a way to exert control and that bothers me. I honestly do not have a solid opinion on who did what and why but this does bother me.

 

[GigTu]

Both grandmas come off as odd in their previously posted news interviews. Jacob states that Maddie has a history of mental illness, but in the above postings of their divorce decree, we learn that it was Jacob who has a history of being on psychiatric meds, not Maddie. Also it is interesting that he is so calm when we know that not only is his son missing, but his ex-wife had him EXPELLED from BYU and all church-schools because of her accusations of sexual assault. We learn this from the crime-online report from earlier. Judging from when he served his mission and his subsequent marriage to Maddie, he is presumably about halfway done with his schooling. From the crimeonline posting, his expulsion notification was mailed around June 7. Maddie and William went missing on the 15th. He had to be pretty angry, whether the accusations were true or not, as that expulsion will affect him at any future school he attempts to apply to. And we know from the divorce decree that he had only one visit with William prior to the start of supervised visits the week they went missing. Bonding is questionable. Definitely goes to support motive. They are missing as of 2 weeks tomorrow.

Good analysis. From minute 1 there has been some strange behavior. If us amatuers have our hinky meters in the red, I imagine the professionals must smell the stench. I hope the truth comes out.

At first I felt M was doomed and W was safe. Now I'm starting to feel that both M and W may have met with foul play.

 

[missgulfsouth]

During the visit Jacob had with William, he chose to use his time with his son by putting him in an outfit he had brought with him. Did anyone else find this strange? To me it is a way to exert control and that bothers me. I honestly do not have a solid opinion on who did what and why but this does bother me.

She has demonstrated some pretty controlling behaviors herself. William is not only hers but she sure seems to think so. It's no wonder these two have made such a shambles of their family. That poor baby.

 

[inmyhumbleopinion]

During the visit Jacob had with William, he chose to use his time with his son by putting him in an outfit he had brought with him. Did anyone else find this strange? To me it is a way to exert control and that bothers me. I honestly do not have a solid opinion on who did what and why but this does bother me.

I don't, either. I really don't know what to think. I'm just really worried about William at this point. And the longer this goes on, the more I worried I am about Madeline also. They've been missing for two weeks now.

And why no use of SM by either family? I'm not a big user personally, but it certainly helps to keep their faces and story out there. I would expect someone to do this especially on behalf of the baby.

I also find interesting that LE hasn't used words like "abduction" or "kidnapping." It's nearly impossible to tell what LE's thoughts are regarding this case since they've said so little, but if they've found any indication of that, I would expect them to make some sort of announcement in that regard. And as far as I can tell, no criminal warrant has been issued for anyone on either side.

One possibility I thought of is Madeline taking William out of the country. I would like to know if she has a passport, and if so, whether it has been found. She is said to have left everything behind, so if she has one and it's missing, that would stand out and be a big clue as to her and the baby's whereabouts. If they crossed into Mexico, she or the baby might not have even needed one as they left the US, but if they were ever to try to get back in, she would be in big trouble.

It seems to me the LDS Chuch has missionaries all over the world. Could it be that Madeline had help from one of them and is staying with them, along with William? LE would have tracked them down by now, IMO, if they were staying anywhere aside from Mexico and perhaps those countries that share borders with them (Guatemala and Belize), though.

 

[inmyhumbleopinion]

In the meantime, there apparently have been further movements in the divorce case:

6/28/2017 AAF - Application For Attorney Fees
NOTE: Respondents Application and (China Doll) Affidavit In Support of Attorneys Fees and Costs

6/27/2017 MOT - Motion
NOTE: Respondents Motion for Leave of Court for Deposition/Discovery of Non-Parties

6/27/2017 NLR – Notice Of Limited Scope Representation
NOTE: LIMITED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR NON-PARTIES ROLAND ALEX JONES AND CASSANDRA PEARL YUSKO-JONES

6/27/2017 MOT - Motion
NOTE: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND OTHER DISCOVERY FOR NON-PARTY PRIVATE RECORDS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

So it appears the motion filed on 6/28 means the husband is requesting attorney's fees:
https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa....epartment/GlossaryOfCommonTerms/glossaryC.asp

Wondering if the "MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ..." on 6/27 has to do with the Title IX bit. Also it looks like there is someone seeking a protection order against the husband ....?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena_duces_tecum

As to the other two, I'm really not sure what they mean ....

 

[kirkassoc]

https://www.lds.org/topics/abuse?lang=eng

I found this article interesting. It is a fact that the LDS have disciplined Jacob and kicked him out. I wonder how far they would actually go to protect a tiny baby (and a young mother)? This article states:

"Victims of abuse should seek help immediately, normally from their bishop or branch president. His first responsibility is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse." No one is more vulnerable to harm than this tiny baby, IMHO.

Just thinking out loud this morning and praying this tiny baby is safe, wherever he is.

 

[Liz-]

During the visit Jacob had with William, he chose to use his time with his son by putting him in an outfit he had brought with him. Did anyone else find this strange? To me it is a way to exert control and that bothers me. I honestly do not have a solid opinion on who did what and why but this does bother me.

I did not get that the Judge was saying that was exactly what Jacob did, but that it was his right to do it if he chose to, being his father.
"During the visit, Father took numerous photos of the child (Exhibit 110). Creating photographic evidence of this very brief visit is also inconsistent with a surreptitious attempt to harm the child, as is the smiling countenance of Father meeting his son for the first time. And, it is not unusual to expect that Father might check the child’s diaper and might confirm that the child had ten fingers and ten toes, or might seek to dress the child in an outfit provided by Father."

But, if he did, I don't necessarily think that it is odd. If he was finally getting to take pictures of and with his son for the very first time after not being allowed to see him, then would you put on a shirt or outfit that grandma bought (who remember was served an order of protection that day, and was kept from seeing her grandson due to the order of protection). So, could it be possible that he was just wanting to take pictures of the baby in a gift that was given to him. I can see that. If I was a grandma or aunt in the situation, I could say, "here is an outfit that we got him, we would love to see pictures in it."

That also touches on the Order of Protection that is referenced for the grandmother. "The ex parte order of protection improperly listed the child as a protected party. This appears to the Court to be an inappropriate attempt to preclude a witness to Father’s parenting time." It sounds as if this was later dropped when it was challenged, so that seems to confirm the judge's feelings on it being an attempt to keep the grandma away so that they could try and "catch" Jacob in something. Which, with all the medical records and the investigation coming back in Jacob's favor and not in Madeline or her father's favor (which the judge used strong language on this) this sounds very much like a set up.

That then leaves me wondering, just how far this family would go to get their way. If you are willing to falsely accuse someone and use that in a court of law this instance, is this a pattern? Or a first time offense? I tend to definitely lean towards a pattern with Madeline and her family after reading all of the ruling. Becuase, it sounds like that there were multiple instances that the judge proved the claims "Bogus" or that they were "fabricated" and many other words he used towards Madeline. And yet, not once really saying Jacob was lying or telling bogus stories. In fact, he mentions Jacob holding Madeline's phone for a short time, which Jacob openly admitted to it sounds like in the documents. When my husband is trying to talk to me and I am on my phone, there has been times he has taken it. So, does this mean an act of domestic abuse against me or holding me against my will? Possibly, but as a husband and wife scenario, it gets less likely that those were his true intentions. Especially because it seems it was for a short time and he openly admits to it.

So many details and yet, not the whole story here! This is crazy. Still hoping and praying for their safe return!

 

[Liz-]

Her father doesn't come off sounding very stable in the article posted above.....divorce decree. WHOLE lot of lies coming from Madeline and her father. It sure looks like they decided to take the custody/visitation battle to an entire new level. It's wrong and cruel. IMO

I tend to agree with you. After reading and re-reading the divorce decree, it seems as if Madeline was just not wanting to share "her" baby and was willing to go to great lengths and make up stories to keep the father away. If the stories were true, and validated with proof, it would be understandable. But from this decree, it seems that the proof that the judge references in all the exhibits actually contradict Madeline's claims and almost exonerate Jacob.

 

[Liz-]

https://www.lds.org/topics/abuse?lang=eng

I found this article interesting. It is a fact that the LDS have disciplined Jacob and kicked him out. I wonder how far they would actually go to protect a tiny baby (and a young mother)? This article states:

"Victims of abuse should seek help immediately, normally from their bishop or branch president. His first responsibility is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse." No one is more vulnerable to harm than this tiny baby, IMHO.

Just thinking out loud this morning and praying this tiny baby is safe, wherever he is.

I think this might be a misunderstanding on the LDS kicking him out and BYU kicking him out. If he is still on the LDS Church records, then he is in good standing with the LDS Church. BYU and their Title IX office are of a separate connection.

Which, in the history of Title IX cases, including ones at BYU, there is strong evidence that shows Title IX offices do not always show due process towards the accused. That has been a big issue across campuses nationwide. Cry rape, abuse, and so on, and the accuser gets all the rights and the accused does not get the same due process. There are many articles, websites and so on that support this, but here is one I found that gives reference to many due process problems for the wrongly accused.

http://www.duffylawct.com/due-process-problems-campus-adjudication-wrongly-accused/

Which, going back to the Judge's words in his decree, "Moreover, it appears the Court has received a much more complete presentation of the evidence than in any other forum. And, merely repeating the same false accusations multiple times does not make them true." Shows that the judge was not thinking that BYU had made the right decision either.

So, I guess what I am getting at, is that it doesn't seem like this is linked to the LDS Church kicking him out, it is linked to BYU kicking him out, and even at that, it seems to be questionable.

I am still leaning towards the fact that Madeline and even her father (possibly mother) were caught in lies already, that it is beginning to make me ask if there isn't a vicious cycle going on here.

 

[FlossyMay]

Am I the only one who thinks maybe the parents were all too involved in this relationship? I sense a lot of pushing and pulling from all directions and that usually makes for a bumpy ride.

 

[msphilosopher]

I'm really hoping Maddie did run off with Will in the sense that they are both alive and well. If Jacob didn't do anything to physically hurt Maddie or Will then this is absolutely terrible torture for Jacob who just wants to be apart of his son's life.

If Jacob did hurt Maddie at any given point, and Maddie tried to deal with it legally but was denied justice / full custody then I don't blame her for taking matters into her own hands.

If Jacob even so much as laid a figure on Maddie at any point then who's to say he wouldn't do the same to Will?

I can't take a side on this case because I just don't know. Usually I don't know but I will feel one way or another but this case I just can't. There's too much hearsay from both parties/families involved. My fear of course is that they both met foul play but I'm not convinced that's the case.

Really perplexed on what to think in this case.

 

[Jethro4WS]

In the meantime, there apparently have been further movements in the divorce case:

6/28/2017 AAF - Application For Attorney Fees
NOTE: Respondents Application and (China Doll) Affidavit In Support of Attorneys Fees and Costs

6/27/2017 MOT - Motion
NOTE: Respondents Motion for Leave of Court for Deposition/Discovery of Non-Parties

6/27/2017 NLR – Notice Of Limited Scope Representation
NOTE: LIMITED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR NON-PARTIES ROLAND ALEX JONES AND CASSANDRA PEARL YUSKO-JONES

6/27/2017 MOT - Motion
NOTE: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND OTHER DISCOVERY FOR NON-PARTY PRIVATE RECORDS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

So it appears the motion filed on 6/28 means the husband is requesting attorney's fees:
https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa....epartment/GlossaryOfCommonTerms/glossaryC.asp

Wondering if the "MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ..." on 6/27 has to do with the Title IX bit. Also it looks like there is someone seeking a protection order against the husband ....?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena_duces_tecum

As to the other two, I'm really not sure what they mean ....

The other two entries is the respondent (father) trying to depose Maddie's parents - that is obtain information and testimony. This is the second time this has been attempted. If you look back in the docket you will see this where a third party deposition was motioned followed by trying to get the judge to compel (since the third-party was not co-operating). The near immediate filing of a protection-order (the one used to "set up" the father in the words of the Judge) pre-empted the previous depositions and some other activity. So, once again, it is back to that.

This kind of non-compliance has not worked well as a strategy. And in the case of the mother, it has resulted in an order for sole custody being awarded to the father and a warrant issued for the child. The longer this goes on the worse it is going to get for the mother and her parents.

 

[cvaldez1975]

there is a warrant to take the baby from her if they are found.

I don't, either. I really don't know what to think. I'm just really worried about William at this point. And the longer this goes on, the more I worried I am about Madeline also. They've been missing for two weeks now.

And why no use of SM by either family? I'm not a big user personally, but it certainly helps to keep their faces and story out there. I would expect someone to do this especially on behalf of the baby.

I also find interesting that LE hasn't used words like "abduction" or "kidnapping." It's nearly impossible to tell what LE's thoughts are regarding this case since they've said so little, but if they've found any indication of that, I would expect them to make some sort of announcement in that regard. And as far as I can tell, no criminal warrant has been issued for anyone on either side.

One possibility I thought of is Madeline taking William out of the country. I would like to know if she has a passport, and if so, whether it has been found. She is said to have left everything behind, so if she has one and it's missing, that would stand out and be a big clue as to her and the baby's whereabouts. If they crossed into Mexico, she or the baby might not have even needed one as they left the US, but if they were ever to try to get back in, she would be in big trouble.

It seems to me the LDS Chuch has missionaries all over the world. Could it be that Madeline had help from one of them and is staying with them, along with William? LE would have tracked them down by now, IMO, if they were staying anywhere aside from Mexico and perhaps those countries that share borders with them (Guatemala and Belize), though.

 

[Henry2326]

there is a warrant to take the baby from her if they are found.

And therein lies the reason she can't be found. I'm still for Maddie. The boy/man has no idea about taking care of a baby. Shane on him and especially shame on his mother.

Sent from my VK815 using Tapatalk

 

[cvaldez1975]

how could he, she wont let him see the kid. its his kid too.

And therein lies the reason she can't be found. I'm still for Maddie. The boy/man has no idea about taking care of a baby. Shane on him and especially shame on his mother.

Sent from my VK815 using Tapatalk

 

[Henry2326]

<modsnip>
I support her leaving with the baby....now I'm worried that something bad has happened. Anytime a man goes to court to take a baby from a woman without proof she is unfit, he has control issues. I hope she is ok.

Sent from my VK815 using Tapatalk

 

[cvaldez1975]

i disagree. sometimes fathers take mothers to court because mothers are controlling themselves and interfere or prohibit a man from seeing his kids. I surely hope she and the baby are safe rather than the alternative but her behavior is abhorrent and selfish if she took off w that kid after making all those accusations. I am thinking he wanted rights to his kid. she now has lost custody because she may have left w the child and continual accusations.

I support her leaving with the baby....now I'm worried that something bad has happened. Anytime a man goes to court to take a baby from a woman without proof she is unfit, he has control issues. I hope she is ok.

Sent from my VK815 using Tapatalk

 

[creepcrusher]

If she voluntarily left with the child she should be arrested for going against the court's decision. <modsnip> I could see this case going either way. I'm having a hard time blaming anyone right now because they've both been accused of things in the past. Who's to say which is really true or false? We don't know.

 

[Henry2326]

We do pose our opinions based on experiences in the past.

Sent from my VK815 using Tapatalk