Witness fails to show in kidnapping, assault hearing, charges against Joplin man dismissed

 

Domestic assault and kidnapping charges against a Joplin man were dismissed Thursday after the alleged victim failed to appear for a preliminary hearing in Newton County Circuit Court.

According to the probable cause statement, Clayton Flowers allegedly dragged a woman into a house, kicked her numerous times and threatened to burn the house down. The woman said Flowers held a shotgun to her and threatened to kill her.

Though the Newton County charges against Flowers was dismissed, he faces a federal weapons charge in connection with the incident.

Flowers, who has two previous convictions for domestic assault and one for robbery, is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.

He is being held in the Greene County Jail.

The Turner Report: Federal weapons charge filed against Joplin man (rturner229.blogspot.com)

The Turner Report: Joplin man charged with kidnapping, domestic assault (rturner229.blogspot.com)

Carthage R-9 Board sets tax levy, hires 6 support staff, 3 substitutes

(From the Carthage R-9 Board of Education)

The Carthage R-9 Board of Education met in regular session on Monday, August 19, 2024, 6:00 pm, at the Carthage South Technical Center. Present were Board members Jeff Jones, Niki Cloud, Lora Phelps, Ryan Collier, Patrick Scott, Maria Sanchez, and Mark Westhoff. Jeff Jones led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Following a hearing on the district’s proposed tax rate, the Board established the total tax levy for 2024-2025 including Incidental Fund $2.7676, Debt Service Fund $0.8300, and Capital Projects Fund $0.2860 totaling at $3.8836. 

The Board approved the Consent Agenda for the purpose of approving the meeting agenda, minutes of previous meetings, payment of bills, district financial report, final FY24 budget, district assessment plan for 2024-2025, special education compliance plan, and sale of surplus property. 

Dr. Holley Goodnight, Assistant Superintendent for Business, Mrs. Janeane Myhre, Food Service Director, Mr. Dan Hill, Maintenance Director, Mr. Don Cox, Safety Coordinator and Pleasant Valley Principal, and Mr. Ryan Huntley, Transportation Director, presented the MSIP 6 Standard: Leadership; Operations evaluative report to the board. 

• Janeane Myhre, Food Service Director, reported on using Parent Square to communicate to families about completing the free and reduced meal application, staff training, increase meal participation by offering popular menu items more frequently, and utilizing distributors and local producers to procure foods of high nutritional value. 

• Dan Hill, Maintenance Director, reported access controls are being added to all student areas, upgrades to the Welcome Center are completed, the elevator at Haffner Stadium has been ordered and will be installed after football season is complete, security cameras continue to be added throughout the district, a remodel has begun at North Tech Center to house the IT department, and the new baseball complex is making good progress with completion of Phase 1 mid-September and Phase 2 in November 2024. 

• Don Cox, Safety Coordinator and Pleasant Valley Principal, reported the district’s crisis manual is now digital and can be accessed by all staff, a new emergency management district team will be created as a result to the new ALICE training, monthly emergency drills are scheduled, the district continues to upgrade door security, and upgrades to surveillance cameras in buildings and buses. 

• Ryan Huntley, Transportation Director, reported student ridership information, the annual bus inspection by the Missouri State Highway Patrol was completed and the district received a 90.7% score and the Exemplary School Bus Maintenance Award, annual driving training is conducted, new routing and trip request software have been implemented, fleet vehicles are being utilized to assist with district travel, and two buses have been added to the districts fleet. 

Mrs. Crystal Brown, Director Carthage R-9 School Foundation, provided a Carthage R-9 Foundation update highlighting scholarship checks have been distributed, Trivia Night fundraiser will be held in February 2025, and Major Saver will kick off October 10, 2024. Mrs. Brown reported on a new scholarship endowment in the name of Kirk Selvey and potential new endowments. 

Dr. Boyer and the Board discussed adding Dr. Luke Boyer, Dr. Holley Goodnight, and Dr. Matt Huntley, as authorized signers to the operating account at Southwest Missouri Bank and the investment account at Old Missouri Bank. 

Dr. Boyer updated the Board regarding the following: 

• First day of school was successful in all buildings. 

• Thank you to all the administrators for the endless amount of time you put into the prep-work for new hire orientations, all trainings across the district, conferences attended, new teacher academy, and convocation. 

The Board met in closed session immediately following the regular meeting to discuss legal, personnel, and student matters in compliance with Section 610.021 (1), (3), and (6) of the Revised Statutes of Missouri. 

In closed session the Board approved the following personnel actions: Approved the employment of support, and substitute staff as presented contingent upon receiving a clear criminal record check from the Missouri Highway Patrol and Federal Bureau of Investigation, and a clear check of the Adult Abuse/Neglect Registry maintained by the Missouri Department of Social Services for all employees new to the district: 

Support Hire 

Rachel Brown, Sped Paraprofessional Columbian Elementary New Hire 

Vilma Rissman, Bus Driver Transportation New Hire 

Noel Davison, Sped Paraprofessional Carthage Junior High School New Hire 

Elizabeth Waite, PAT Parent Educator Early Childhood Center Re-Hire 

Patsy Wilson, Sped Paraprofessional Steadley Elementary New Hire 

Sarah Thrasher, Sped Paraprofessional Columbian Elementary New Hire 

Substitute Hire

Alana Eastin, Substitute Cook District New Hire 

Elizabeth Persons, Substitute District New Hire 

Tina Isenmann, Substitute District New Hire 

Support Transfer 

Maranda Huntley, Tiger Prep Paraprofessional Columbian Elementary Transfer 

Shawn Oberlechner, Sped Paraprofessional Carthage Junior High School Transfer 

Jake Harris, Part-Time IT Technician IT Department Transfer 

Laurie Williams, Full-Time Sub Nurse District Transfer 

Substitute Modification 

Gerald Nixon, Substitute Driver Transportation Modification 

Certified Resignation

Alexandra Ritter, EL Teacher Sixth Grade Center Resignation 

Support Resignation 

Kim Henderson, Bus Driver Transportation Resignation 

Camellia Strickland, Bus Driver Transportation Resignation 

Kayla San Jose, Cook Sixth Grade Center Resignation 

Bethany Roy, Cook Columbian Elementary Resignation 

Substitute Resignation 

Joseph Swearengen, Substitute District Resignation 

Emalie Gordon, Substitute District Resignation

Judge calls Ashcroft’s characterization of abortion amendment ‘unfair’ and ‘misleading’

By Anna Spoerre

Missouri Independent

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft has been ordered to remove his characterization of an abortion rights amendment from his government website after a judge deemed it was unfair and violated state statute.

(Photo- Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft joined the Midwest March for Life on May 1 at the Missouri State Capitol- Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent).

A Cole County judge on Thursday ruled that Ashcroft’s “fair ballot language” summary of the reproductive rights amendment, also known as Amendment 3, was “unfair, inaccurate, insufficient and misleading.”

“Intentionally of not, the secretary’s language sows voter confusion about the effects of the measure,” Circuit Judge Cotton Walker wrote in a Thursday afternoon decision.

The day Ashcroft certified the abortion-rights amendment for the Nov. 5 ballot, a “fair ballot language” summary for Amendment 3 was also published on his office’s government website. That summary will also appear at every polling place around the state next to sample ballots. By state law this summary must be “true and impartial.”

Ashcroft is vocal in his opposition to abortion.

Amendment 3, if passed by a statewide majority vote, would establish the constitutional right to an abortion up to the point of fetal viability. Since the overturning of the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022, nearly all abortions became illegal in Missouri, with limited exceptions for the life and health of the mother.

It would also enshrine other reproductive rights in the constitution, including in-vitro fertilization and birth control, both of which remain legal in Missouri.

Ashcroft’s summary of the amendment read: “A ‘yes’ vote will enshrine the right to abortion at any time of pregnancy in the Missouri Constitution. Additionally, it will prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women undergoing abortions and prohibit any civil or criminal recourse against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women.”

Abortion-rights activists in a lawsuit filed two weeks ago called Ashcroft’s summary of the amendment harmful and confusing to voters.

Walker agreed, ruling that Ashcroft’s assertion that the amendment would allow the right to an abortion at any point in pregnancy “gives voters the wrong idea of what the amendment will accomplish.”

The secretary of state’s office said in a statement that it is reviewing the judge’s decision.

“Secretary Ashcroft will always stand for life and for the people of Missouri to know the truth,” JoDonn Chaney, a spokesperson for Ashcroft, said Thursday afternoon.

Walker’s decision came a day after a bench trial in which both sides argued over what the amendment would mean for Missourians if approved by voters.

 

The brief trial was focused on language around provider immunity.

The amendment reads, in part, that no person “assisting a person in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with that person’s consent be penalized, prosecuted, or otherwise subjected to adverse action for doing so.”

Andrew Crane, a lawyer representing Ashcroft on behalf of the attorney general’s office, argued Wednesday that the amendment would lead to “effectively neutering the government’s ability to enforce any effective regulations” on abortion.

Such a claim was “politically-charged” and unfounded, since it fails to take into account other language in the amendment protecting patients, said Tori Schafer, an attorney with the ACLU of Missouri, which is representing the plaintiff.

Walker wrote that Ashcroft’s argument runs “contrary to the language of the amendment and will give voters the mistaken impression that the amendment will allow physicians to perform abortions negligently or criminally.”



The judge said Ashcroft’s argument of provider immunity “ignores, with respect to health care providers, that the protection from prosecution (1) hinges on the patient’s consent and (2) is coextensive with the right to reproductive freedom and its regulation.”

Walker on Thursday provided new “fair ballot language” to be posted on the secretary of state’s website and at polling places. It reads:

“A ‘yes’ vote establishes a constitutional right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid; removes Missouri’s ban on abortion; allows regulation of reproductive health care to improve of maintain the health of the patient; requires the government not to discriminate, in government programs, funding, and other activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and allows abortion to be restricted or banned after fetal viability except to protect the life or health of the woman.”

The Amendment 3 lawsuit was filed by retired physician Dr. Anna Fitz-James, who initially filed the abortion rights initiative petition in spring 2023 on behalf of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the campaign behind the amendment.

“Missourians deserve the chance to vote on Amendment 3 based on facts,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement following the decision. “And today’s decision brings us one step closer to making that a reality.”

Walker’s decision mirrored one made by Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem last year, after Ashcroft was also sued by the abortion-rights campaign over the initial ballot summary he drafted, which would have asked Missourians, in part, if they wanted to “allow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth.”

Beetem in his ruling a year ago said that Ashcroft’s language was “problematic” and inaccurate.

Ashcroft appealed, but the higher court sided with Beetem, writing it is “not a probable effect” that the amendment would allow unrestricted abortion in all nine months of pregnancy or that it would toss aside health and safety regulations, “including requirements that physicians perform abortions and that they maintain medical malpractice insurance.”



A second lawsuit regarding Amendment 3 will be challenged at a bench trial on Friday in Cole County after a number of anti-abortion activists and lawmakers asked a judge to block the amendment from the Nov. 5 ballot. Their lawsuit claims Amendment 3 violates the state constitution by including more than one subject and fails to specify which laws and constitutional provisions would be repealed if it was approved.

Carthage City Council schedules special session to spend more money on impeaching mayor

 

Missouri judge hears arguments challenging ‘fair ballot language’ for abortion amendment

By Anna Spoerre

Missouri Independent

A judge could decide as early as Thursday whether Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s “fair ballot language” summary for an abortion-rights amendment is truly fair.

(Photo- Cole County Circuit Court Judge Cotton Walker listens to arguments during a Sept. 8, 2022, hearing- pool photo courtesy of Emily Manley/Nexstar Media Group)

Missouri voters will be asked on Nov. 5 whether they support Amendment 3, which would establish a constitutional right to an abortion up until fetal viability and protect other reproductive rights, including access to in-vitro fertilization and birth control. Abortion became illegal in Missouri in June 2022, with limited exceptions for the life and health of the mother.

Posted at every polling station around the state, next to sample ballots, is “fair ballot language” that summarizes the questions that voters will be asked to decide on. State law requires that this language, written by the secretary of state, be “true and impartial.”

In a lawsuit filed two weeks ago, organizers behind Amendment 3 claimed that Ashcroft’s summary was “intentionally argumentative” and could create confusion among voters.

The same day Ashcroft certified the measure for the November ballot, his office also published to its website a “fair ballot language” summary statement for the amendment which reads:

“A ‘yes’ vote will enshrine the right to abortion at any time of pregnancy in the Missouri Constitution. Additionally, it will prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women undergoing abortions and prohibit any civil or criminal recourse against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women.”

The abortion rights campaign is asking the court to issue new “fair ballot language” and order that Ashcroft remove his current language from his government website.

A brief bench trial Wednesday afternoon in Cole County Circuit Court focused in particular on the last sentence of Ashcroft’s summary, and how a court could interpret subsection 5 of the amendment, which reads: “No person shall be penalized, prosecuted, or otherwise subjected to adverse action based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. Nor shall any person assisting a person in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with that person’s consent be penalized, prosecuted, or otherwise subjected to adverse action for doing so.”

Andrew Crane, representing Ashcroft on behalf of the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, argued Wednesday that this subsection would result in “effectively neutering the government’s ability to enforce any effective regulations” on abortion.

 

Tori Schafer, an attorney with the ACLU of Missouri, which is representing the plaintiff, called this claim “politically-charged” and unfounded, as it fails to take into account other language in the amendment protecting patients.

“The amendment will provide greater independence from the government,” she told the court. “But it does not create the boundless, limitless, unregulated right the secretary continues to make it to be.”

Schafer said Ashcroft in the latest language “resurrects his false claims” that have already been denounced by the Missouri Court of Appeals.

Ashcroft was sued last year by the abortion-rights campaign over the initial ballot summary he drafted, which would have asked Missourians, in part, if they wanted to “allow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth.”

Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem ruled a year ago that Ashcroft’s language was “problematic” and inaccurate.

An appeals court agreed, ruling that it is “not a probable effect” that the amendment would allow unrestricted abortion in all nine months of pregnancy or that it would toss aside health and safety regulations, “including requirements that physicians perform abortions and that they maintain medical malpractice insurance.”



However, Crane on Wednesday argued that the appeals court ruling didn’t specifically address the immunity provisions of subsection 5.

Ashcroft, who recently lost a bid for the GOP candidate for governor, has been open about his opposition to abortion.

During the Midwest March for Life outside in May, he told The Independent of the abortion initiative petition: “I just want to make sure that people know what this amendment will actually do. That it’s abortion from conception until the very last second that the last toenail leaves the birth canal.”

Cole County Circuit Judge Cotton Walker, who is overseeing the current case, said he intends to rule on Thursday.

Walker recently upheld the “fair ballot language” summary written by Ashcroft for a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban ranked-choice voting after two voters sued over the language. The voters called the language imprecise, in part because it doesn’t state that it’s currently illegal for non-citizens to vote in Missouri.

The Amendment 3 lawsuit was filed by retired physician Dr. Anna Fitz-James, who initially filed the abortion rights initiative petition in spring 2023 on behalf of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the campaign behind the amendment.

 

The campaign has raised millions of dollars this election cycle, and recent polling by St. Louis University/YouGov showed 52% of Missouri voters supported Amendment 3. The poll surveyed 900 voters across nine days in August.

Meanwhile, a second lawsuit regarding Amendment 3 is also pending in Cole County after a number of anti-abortion activists and lawmakers asked a judge to block the amendment from the Nov. 5 ballot. Their lawsuit claims Amendment 3 violates the state constitution by including more than one subject and fails to specify which laws and constitutional provisions would be repealed if it was approved.

A bench trial in that lawsuit is scheduled for Friday.

Missouri schools lack public enforcement policies for transgender athlete restrictions

By Annelise Hanshaw

Missouri Independent

It has been a year since a state law required Missouri schools to have athletes compete according to their sex as assigned at birth, and few student manuals and school-board policies reflect the change.

(Photo- A teenager speaks during a Senate hearing during the 2023 legislative session, donning a vest with a transgender flag (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)

Enforcement, which was murky last year, remains unprescribed with many districts stating that they will follow the law without describing how.

The law, which bars transgender athletes from competing according to their gender identity, penalizes noncompliant schools by revoking their state funding. It calls for state education officials to create any rules necessary for enforcement.

But the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education “is not involved in school athletics and activities,” its spokeswoman Mallory McGowin told The Independent.

The Missouri High School Activities Association (MSHSAA), which is not a state entity, oversees eligibility for extracurricular events.

The association has eligibility standards that schools statewide require their athletes to adhere to in order to compete in MSHSAA-sanctioned events. One such requirement is a semiannual physical, in which doctors clear athletes to compete.

The paperwork provided by MSHSAA for the sports physical asks the student’s sex as assigned at birth and gender identity for the medical history provided to the doctor. The form submitted to schools only includes sex as assigned at birth.

But MSHSAA is not the enforcer of the law, said Andrew Kauffman, the association’s spokesman. Individual schools are.

When asked if MSHSAA has provided guidance to schools, he said it “has advised its (member) schools to follow the law.”

According to the Movement Advancement Project, which maps policies affecting LGBTQ people in the U.S., 25 states ban transgender athletes from participating according to their gender identity.

When a Missouri Senate committee was hearing the bill in 2023, a swath of advocates warned lawmakers that the legislation would harm transgender youth.

“Bills, such as (this one), communicate not just to the LGBTQ community but to all people that our very existence can and should be rejected and devalued,” said Shira Berkowitz, senior director of public policy and advocacy of PROMO, Missouri’s largest LGBTQ advocacy group.

School had brief answers to questions about their policies, with most unwilling to grant requests for an interview.

“We follow the state statute with regard to what gender is listed on a birth certificate and MSHSAA guidelines in terms of student participation in sports based on gender. We have worked effectively with families and student athletes to comply with the state law and we will continue to do so,” Rockwood School District’s spokesperson said.

In a review by The Independent of Missouri’s 10 largest school districts’ student manuals, Rockwood was one of two to cite state law in policies around athletic eligibility.

“The district complies with all relevant state law regarding participation in athletic competitions,” the policy says, citing the section that restricts participation based on sex at birth.

Wentzville School District based its policy on the law, copying phrases out of state statute and noting a loss of funding if the district does not comply.

The other districts lacked mention of the statute, or gender identity, in their athletics eligibility policies.

The policy in North Kansas City High School says: “Participation… can be granted to those who meet the eligibility standards of the school and the state of Missouri.”

MSHSAA is widely pointed to in eligibility policies.

Fort Zumwalt School District, in O’Fallon, determines eligibility “in accordance with the MSHSAA regulations and school district policies and regulations.”

Prior to the state law, there were only five transgender athletes eligible to compete in MSHSAA events.

Judge dismisses murder charge against Seneca man

Judge Jacob Skouby dismissed three felony counts, including second-degree murder against Joshua William Ray Taft, 42, Seneca, following a preliminary hearing today in Newton County Circuit Court.

Also dismissed were charges of armed criminal action and unlawful possession of a firearm.

Taft had been charged with the May 30 shooting death of Eric Whittington, 50, Joplin. Skouby did not dismiss a fourth charge against Taft, endangering the welfare of a child.

The allegations against Taft were detailed in the probable cause statement filed in Newton County Circuit Court:

Witnesses on scene told us that and Joshua Taft lived at the residence listed above together. A verbal argument broke out between the two because Taft had warrants and was trying to lay low. {Whittington} continually had people coming over and Taft was worried that law enforcement would find out his location.

The argument became physical and {Whittington} was on top when Taft's girlfriend hit {Whittington}with a cast iron skillet in the face. then went to his truck and got a machete, before starting back toward the house.

{Whittington} took cover behind the wall just west of the front door and he peeked through the doorway a couple of times. Taft was given a pistol from his girlfriend and he fired two shots in the direction of {Whittington}.

One shot went through a glass panel in the front door and one shot went through the wall of the house and exited through the vinyl siding.
{Redacted}'s seven year old stepson said that he was trying to keep from going back into the house when he heard the bullets whiz over his head.

Sexual assault victim's negligence case against Pierce City First Baptist Church sent to Supreme Court

Noting the First Amendment implications of a lawsuit filed by a sexual assault victim against First Baptist Church of Pierce City, the Missouri Southern District Court of Appeals sent the case directly to the Missouri Supreme Court.

In the case of Jane Doe vs First Baptist Church of Pierce City, the girl, a minor, claims she was sexually assaulted in the church van by another participant in the church's youth ministries program and claims the church was negligent and did not follow standards that could have prevented the abuse.

A Lawrence County Circuit Court judge initially ruled in favor of the church noting that a ruling would require the court to involve itself in "religious doctrine and administration," and would violate the First Amendment.

The case was detailed in the southern district's opinion:

On two occasions in March of 2022, another participant in FBC’s youth ministries program inappropriately touched Plaintiff in the church van during its operation by the youth pastor. 

Plaintiff, thereafter, filed a negligence claim against FBC, premising her claim on the failure by FBC to prevent the incidents by following standards for the prevention of child sexual abuse. FBC denied liability and moved for summary judgment. 

In its motion, FBC cited Gibson for the proposition that “the First Amendment bars a negligence claim against a church if the negligence claim would require the court to decide how a reasonably prudent church should have acted.” 

FBC argued that Plaintiff’s negligence claim “would require [the circuit court] to decide how [FBC], as an institution, and through its Youth Pastor, should have conducted its student ministries.” FBC further argued that “[g]iven these facts, Plaintiff cannot prove, without [the circuit court] violating the First Amendment, the element of breach as that would require [the circuit court] to find how [FBC] should have conducted its youth ministries.” 

The circuit court agreed with FBC and granted summary judgment in its favor. 

In pertinent part, the circuit court, relying on Gibson, stated, “[w]hether negligence exists in a particular situation depends on whether or not a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated danger and provided against it.” The circuit court further stated, “[i]n order to determine how a ‘reasonably prudent Diocese’[2 ] would act, a court would have to excessively entangle itself in religious doctrine policy and administration.”

 

Federal weapons charge filed against Joplin man

A Joplin man was charged today with being a felon in illegal possession of a firearm.

The charges, which were filed in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, stem from a July 15 incident in which Clayton Flowers (DOB 1993) allegedly dragged a woman into a house, kicked her numerous times and threatened to burn the house down.

The Newton County Prosecuting Attorney's office filed kidnapping and domestic assault charges against Flowers.

The allegations against Flowers were detailed in the probable cause affidavit:

On July 15,2024, Newton County Sheriff's Office (NCSO) Deputy S. Mitchell responded to a residence in Joplin, Newton County, Missouri, a location within the Western District of Missouri, after Newton County Dispatch was advised that a male had barricaded himselfinside the residence with a .22 caliber firearm and was threatening to burn down the residence. 

Upon arrival, Deputy Mitchell identified the subject male as Clayton James FLOWERS (hereinafter "FLOWERS"). A witness on scene advised FLOWERS resided at this residence with his girlfriend, who is identified as Jane Doe, an adult female. 

Jane Doe reported to Deputy Mitchell that FLOWERS drug her out of a vehicle and into the residence. Once inside the residence, while Jane Doe was still on the ground, FLOWERS kicked her several times. 

On July 16,2024, NCSO Detectives D.l. Mace and T.J. Lombard responded back to FLOWERS's residence to further their investigation. The detectives contacted Jane Doe, and Jane Doe reiterated that FLOWERS had drug her out of a car and into the residence where he then assaulted her. 

Detective Mace asked Jane Doe for permission to enter the residence and Jane Doe allowed the detectives into the home. Inside the residence, Detective Mace observed a large hole in a living room wall he believed to be caused by a shotgun. 

Detective Mace also observed damage to a curtain and the window behind it was broken out. The curtain appeared to be damaged by shotgun pellets. 

Another apparent shotgun blast was located in the celling. Detective Mace observed a spent 12-gauge shotgun shell, an unused 12-gauge shell, and a .22 caliber round on a nightstand in a bedroom. 

Jane Doe told the law enforcement that during the assault on the July 15,2024, FLOWERS had retrieved a shotgun, pointed it at her, and threatened to kill Jane Doe. Jane Doe reported that FLOWERS then handed her the shotgun and demanded she shoot him. 

When she refused, FLOWERS held a knife on her and demanded she shoot him again. Jane Doe refused again and was able to run outside with the shotgun. 

Detective Lombard noticed a security camera inside of the residence, but Jane Doe reported FLOWERS had destroyed the video. However, on a later date, law enforcement obtained screenshots of the video surveillance footage. 

The images captured depicted FLOWERS with a shotgun and a door in the background without a hole in the door. The next image depicted FLOWERS still in possession of the shotgun and the door now had a hole in it. Another screenshot depicted Jane Doe standing in a closet with her hands up while FLOWERS pointed the shotgun at her. FLOWERS was also observed aiming down the barrel and with his finger on the trigger of the shotgun. 

Detective Mace seized the 12-gauge, which was identified as a Revolution 300F with no observable serial number. On July 17, 2024, Detective Mace conducted a post-Miranda interview with FLOWERS. After being shown a picture of him pointing the shotgun at Jane Doe, FLOWERS admitted to removing the shotgun from the closet and pointing it at Jane Doe.

After Flowers was charged in Newton County, Prosecuting Attorney William Lynch noted Flowers history included three convictions for domestic assault and one for robbery.

Fairview woman who stalked, harrassed, murdered Granby man dies in prison

Connie Sanders Ford, 74, the former Fairview resident who was serving life in prison for the March 30, 2015 murder of John Jordan, 58, Granby, died of natural causes today, according to officials at the Chillicothe Correctional Center.

A McDonald County jury convicted Connie Sanders-Ford, 70, of first-degree murder after she rejected a plea bargain offer from the Newton County Prosecuting Attorney's office, which would have sentenced her to 25 years in exchange for a plea to second degree murder, and rolled the dice at trial.

That decision did not work out well for the Fairview woman, who was convicted and then sentenced July 5, 2016 to life without the possibility of parole.

Sanders made two appeals in her efforts to have her conviction tossed out, claiming that her crime was a crime of passion and was not premeditated.

In the first attempt, the Missouri Southern District Court of Appeals explained why that was not the case.

Victim’s wife was fixing supper at home when Defendant walked in, introduced herself, said she and Victim had “been having an affair for over a year” and “I’m here to tell you so that he can leave you,” called Victim’s wife “pathetic,” then spent the next month trying to break up the marriage:

• Defendant repeatedly returned to Victim’s home to make trouble. Once the police had to be called to get her to leave.

• Defendant stalked Victim’s wife at her job, her home, and on the streets. Victim’s wife drove to the sheriff’s office on one occasion and Defendant followed her inside.

• Defendant offered Victim’s adult son a financial incentive to convince Victim to abandon the marriage. When the son refused and told Defendant to leave them alone, Defendant threatened to shoot Victim and herself.

• Defendant went to the son’s house, argued with Victim, and pulled a gun, which Victim took away from her.

• Defendant threatened to “destroy” Victim’s family by telling the whole town about the affair, then went to the local newspaper and angrily demanded that a story be written about Victim.

• While Victim’s wife was at the courthouse seeking an order of protection, Defendant approached and handed her a purported “love contract” between Defendant and Victim.

• Defendant called Victim and threatened to shoot herself because he would not leave his wife. Victim then heard a gunshot, hung up, and called 911. Police found Defendant at the cemetery, lying near grave plots owned by Victim and his wife. Meanwhile, Victim sought to sever financial ties with Defendant, then he, his wife, and his son all obtained ex parte orders of protection against her. Later that day, Defendant confronted Victim at his son’s house and threatened to shoot Victim and his son unless the orders of protection were dropped.

Two days before the hearing date on full orders of protection against Defendant, she shot Victim in the chest at the front door to his home. As he succumbed, Defendant fled to a friend’s house, confessed what she had done, and sought to call an attorney.