The criticism and attacks on defectors of Peoples Temple have never really been much of a secret. The response of the Temple to perceived enemies is a focal point of attention as one of the group’s strongest manipulation tactics. The affidavits against defectors from the Temple’s legal office reveal a variety of approaches used to counter and even silence these defectors. One of the most interesting of these approaches are found in the affidavits against two of the Temple’s most prominent apostates, Grace and Timothy O. Stoen, even though their dates of departure were a year apart.
In 1978, the law office of Peoples Temple consisted primarily of Eugene Chaikin, Harriet Tropp, June Crym, and Bea Orsot. Before June 1977, this lineup included the Temple’s most well-known in-house attorney, Tim Stoen. In theory, one less person on a legal team of a half-dozen is hardly a dent, but Tim was unique in his role in the Temple. Not only was he politically powerful, working for the Mendocino County (and, later, San Francisco County) District Attorney, but he was also one Jim Jones’ closest confidantes. His defection in 1977 became a troublesome issue for the Temple, then, because of his knowledge of the group’s political and legal strategies and methods in achieving its goals.
Many members of the Temple had already expressed their resentments of the Stoens due to the privileges they seemed to have. Grace had been permitted to carry her child to term (in large part because Jim Jones claimed the child was his), the Stoens were allowed to keep many “bourgeois” material possessions, and they were not reprimanded when they seemed less dedicated to the cause than others were.
Because of who they were, their defections may have only elevated their status. For others, such as the Eight Revolutionaries, the Temple worked to turn family and friends remaining in the group against the traitors, describing them as criminals, terrorists, or sexual deviants. After Grace and Tim severed ties with the Temple, much of the criticism against them was more practical than it was slanderous: only a handful of affidavits on Tim Stoen were on his character; the bulk of them described his work as a Temple attorney and suggested his new work against the Temple was unethical and a conflict of interest. Similarly, the criticism of Grace was that she was an unfit or abusive mother. Even the ones suggesting that she was promiscuous, of which may technically be an attack on her character, still intended to portray her as a bad mother. Regardless, this starkly contrasts the approach of the Temple to other defectors.
An important context to the Stoens’ unique situation was their social status. Both Grace and Tim were white and middle class. I don’t intend to address the legitimacy of the Temple’s social initiatives here, nor whether some of its actions were intentional or not, but the group did, on occasion, seem to perpetuate many of the white supremacist values they claimed to be against. The racial composition of the Planning Commission, the Temple’s governing board, compared to the balance of the church’s congregation is illustrative of that. So, too, is the example of the Stoens. Being white and privileged added to their stature and credibility in speaking out against Peoples Temple – at least as far as the Temple itself was concerned – and the group responded accordingly.
There are other reasons for the Temple’s response. Under Tim Stoen’s leadership, the law office supported an aggressive counterattack to Temple apostates. While many left peacefully and quietly from the church, without calling attention to the circumstances behind their departures, those who did were countered in kind, whether in the press or the courts. With the Stoens’ departures – and the unique personal and legal threats they represented – the Temple may have decided it would need to approach the situation with a new, more practical approach to discredit them, that the affidavits’ contents had to respond to the unique challenges they presented. In other words, the punishment may have been meant to fit the crime.
In some ways, attacking the Stoens’ personal image was easy: Grace was disliked by some already, and neither she nor Tim had any familial connections to the Temple. So, it could be that the law office thought the best way to go after them would be to discredit them on their motives. In the Temple’s thinking, the affidavits on Tim’s work as a Temple lawyer would demonstrate a conflict of interest for his lawsuits; the affidavits on Grace would show that she was an unfit mother, that she should not regain custody of her son, John Victor Stoen. In other words, the attack strategies on defectors may have actually remained consistent for the Stoens if we’re to assume that – as with other apostates – the affidavits were designed to discredit them for the form of retribution they were pursuing against the Temple.
Another practical possibility is that, with Tim Stoen eventually representing four clients in the first serious lawsuits against the Temple, the law office may have decided it needed a more professional and organized approach in discrediting their critics. Especially with the threat of negative press on the church, perhaps the Temple realized public, cruel defamation would only make them look less like a legitimate organization and more like an abusive cult. In short, their attacks against defectors might have served to reinforce those defectors’ characterizations of the church had they not pivoted their strategy.
Finally, there is the consideration of the Stoens’ individual relationships with Jim Jones. Tim Stoen hadn’t been just Jones’ top lawyer, he had been the Temple leader’s best friend. It could be that Jones found Tim too valuable or even threatening to go against him as he had gone against other defectors. Tim had tried to leave the Temple once and was persuaded back. Perhaps Jones expected the same outcome the second time. As for Grace, no one thought she would return once she left, and for several months, the Temple may have thought she would not seek to regain custody of John Victor. In fact – if the affiants were sincere in their statements – she had declared Jim Jones to be the father and disavowed any interest in the child herself. It is also noteworthy that everyone within the Temple did consider Jones to be the father, the custody battle being nothing more than a power struggle, with the unique wrinkle of having the attorney for one side switching in mid-battle to the other.
The custody dispute became the defining feature of the Temple’s legal, if not existential, posture of its final year of existence. Perhaps because the stakes involved were the future of a small child, or perhaps because the battle was being fought in the courts rather than in the press or the public, the Temple – in the person of Jim Jones – may not have wanted to react so vehemently on matters concerning John Victor.
Whatever the reasons, the treatment of both Grace and Tim were less aggressive relative to that of other defectors.
There is no one correct way to view really any matters regarding Peoples Temple and Jonestown, and the defections of Grace and Tim Stoen are no exceptions. The situation is incredibly nuanced as-is, but time conceals secrets, too. The further we get from the history of Peoples Temple, the more important little details fade, and the bigger picture becomes blurrier and blurrier. Even so, in analyzing these events, there is much that can be uncovered about the legal functionality and tactics of Peoples Temple and, in turn, the motives of the group itself.
[Charlie Puterbaugh is a researcher and writer for this website. Her other articles in this edition of the jonestown report include The Rumor of the Third Gunshot Victim and Jonestown Meets the Internet Culture. Her research includes Testimonials of Jim Jones’ Miracles and Healings. Her complete collection of writings and research for this site may be found here.
[Charlie currently attends high school in Illinois, graduating in May 2026. She plans to go to university for Biomedical Engineering. She can be reached at charlieputerbaugh1@gmail.com.]