GUILTY SC - Christine Parcell 41, fatally stabbed by concert pianist, Greenville, 13 Oct 2021 *Arrest*

[Cedars]

when Brad's Phone was discovered to have CSAM on it, officer's were dispatched to remove the child from the home, citing "immediate danger."

IMO, the words 'immediate danger' are being used in 2 very different legal statutes/contexts.

The first is the criminal code defining what constitutes murder by an ordinary person.

The second is likely some statute or regulation regarding how police must act when they receive specific evidence, and when a child must, by law, be removed from a home.

The police were not just intuitively responding to what they found. The law defines what is required by the police in response to what they found.

The law doesn't similarly issue guidelines to lay people: if you find this evidence, it is your responsibily to kill someone.

Obviously, it's your responsibility to report it to police, and they will decide what actions to take.

 

[Cedars]

IMO, the words 'immediate danger' are being used in 2 very different legal statutes/contexts.

Adding to this, there are probably already detailed definitions about what constituted 'immediate danger' in both statutes - either written in the footnotes to the statute, or in case law.

No one may have compared the phrases side by side, but they undoubtedly have been each individually challenged, requiring very precise definitions. Eg, parents appealing the removing of their children, or killers appealing their convictions.

 

[upset_airport]

IMO, the words 'immediate danger' are being used in 2 very different legal statutes/contexts.

The first is the criminal code defining what constitutes murder by an ordinary person.

The second is likely some statute or regulation regarding how police must act when they receive specific evidence, and when a child must, by law, be removed from a home.

The police were not just intuitively responding to what they found. The law defines what is required by the police in response to what they found.

The law doesn't similarly issue guidelines to lay people: if you find this evidence, it is your responsibily to kill someone.

Obviously, it's your responsibility to report it to police, and they will decide what actions to take.

I'm sure the legal theories/definitions would be challenged, argued and explored very thoroughly if all the evidence in this case had been included in the trial.

I'm not convinced that the defense would (or could) win these arguments on a self-defense/of others basis.

But I also believe that if all the evidence in this trial had been admitted, it would have been nearly impossible for the jury to reach a conclusion of "malice" as required by the murder statute Hughes was indicted with. (Which is the argument his lawyers made in closing -- but the prosecution, correctly but very slimy imo, pointed out in their rebuttal that "In this record, there is zero evidence of any kind of abuse.")

IMO - voluntary manslaughter would have been the appropriate conviction, considering all the evidence the jury didn't get to hear.

 

[sunspun]

IMO, the words 'immediate danger' are being used in 2 very different legal statutes/contexts.

The first is the criminal code defining what constitutes murder by an ordinary person.

The second is likely some statute or regulation regarding how police must act when they receive specific evidence, and when a child must, by law, be removed from a home.

The police were not just intuitively responding to what they found. The law defines what is required by the police in response to what they found.

The law doesn't similarly issue guidelines to lay people: if you find this evidence, it is your responsibily to kill someone.

Obviously, it's your responsibility to report it to police, and they will decide what actions to take.

So they removed her from the home when CSAM was found on his phone, is that correct? I guess that would mean the daughter was seen in the material they found? And then they returned her to the home only after they had put the man in jail? Would that mean that CP was not involved in any of the abuse they found evidence of on his phone? I know they supposedly have proof of CP's direct involvement in the abuse of her daughter though, so that maybe was found later? Or do I have some of this wrong?

 

[Cedars]

So they removed her from the home when CSAM was found on his phone, is that correct? I guess that would mean the daughter was seen in the material they found?

I don't know the legislation/regulations regarding removing children from a home, and someone possessing CSAM.

But I really doubt LE are expected to begin by laboriously scrolling through images, trying to identify each particular child (who might be many years older now, and be in Thailand or something)...and only after that, taking action.

I think it more likely they just immediately ensure any children, anywhere, have no connection to a person found to possess CSAM. It is prevention of any future interaction, of any kind. ie no chit chats, no Uncle Brad bringing ice cream, etc...

In the case of this child, her mother was dead. So it was certainly not motivated by trying to keep her away from her mother.

 

[upset_airport]

So they removed her from the home when CSAM was found on his phone, is that correct? I guess that would mean the daughter was seen in the material they found? And then they returned her to the home only after they had put the man in jail? Would that mean that CP was not involved in any of the abuse they found evidence of on his phone? I know they supposedly have proof of CP's direct involvement in the abuse of her daughter though, so that maybe was found later? Or do I have some of this wrong?

According to the court documents (mostly motions regarding the inclusion/exclusion of evidence for trial) - available at FITSnews.com

When they looked at Brad's phone they *specifically* found CSAM involving both the mother & daughter in the same images/videos. (This is according to the arrest warrants immediately filed against Brad Post - I copied and pasted the text from one of them into an earlier reply, but the moderator removed it because it was too graphic...and they are probably right).

Although Brad's case has not yet gone to trial - it is the position of the State of South Carolina Attorney General (who is prosecuting the case) that Brad was in possession of, produced, and distributed CSAM that included the daughter along with the mother's participation.

My *assumption* regarding the immediate removal of the daughter from the home after finding the CSAM -- is that police, at that time, have no idea who all is involved in the abuse. And it's better safe than sorry to remove her from her current environment altogether, until they can sort it out.

 

[upset_airport]

I don't know the legislation/regulations regarding removing children from a home, and someone possessing CSAM.

But I really doubt LE are expected to begin by laboriously scrolling through images, trying to identify each particular child (who might be many years older now, and be in Thailand or something)...and only after that, taking action.

I think it more likely they just immediately ensure any children, anywhere, have no connection to a person found to possess CSAM. It is prevention of any future interaction, of any kind. ie no chit chats, no Uncle Brad bringing ice cream, etc...

In the case of this child, her mother was dead. So it was certainly not motivated by trying to keep her away from her mother.

In this case - the victims of the CSAM were quickly identified (the daughter and a friend of hers both identified in the photos on the same day the photos were found). One of the perpetrators was identified in the images as well - as being Christina Parcell. ie: she's in the videos and photos WITH her daughter.

"Six days after Parcell died and the day after post was arrested, the harm to (the child) was so sever, as evidenced by the images and videos LE seized from Post's devices, that the Family Court found that her "life, health, or physical safety" was still "in substantial and imminent danger." (pg. 19 - Defense response to State's Motion)

Pages 19 & 20 detail the warrants that Detective Bevel wrote after finding the images.

The offenses listed in this document occurred on October 1, 2020 - (just before Mello took the child to Italy) - and they all include images with both CP and the daughter.

However, the charges against Brad Post are dated from January 2018 - until October 19, 2021.

This wasn't a case where there was mystery surrounding the identities of these specific victims.

 

[Cedars]

In this case - the victims of the CSAM were quickly identified (the daughter and a friend of hers both identified in the photos on the same day the photos were found). One of the perpetrators was identified in the images as well - as being Christina Parcell. ie: she's in the videos and photos WITH her daughter.

"Six days after Parcell died and the day after post was arrested, the harm to (the child) was so sever, as evidenced by the images and videos LE seized from Post's devices, that the Family Court found that her "life, health, or physical safety" was still "in substantial and imminent danger." (pg. 19 - Defense response to State's Motion)

Pages 19 & 20 detail the warrants that Detective Bevel wrote after finding the images.

The offenses listed in this document occurred on October 1, 2020 - (just before Mello took the child to Italy) - and they all include images with both CP and the daughter.

However, the charges against Brad Post are dated from January 2018 - until October 19, 2021.

This wasn't a case where there was mystery surrounding the identities of these specific victims.

I do not accept highly edited, ambigous statements found in defense document narratives, as verified truth of anything.

 

[upset_airport]

I do not accept highly edited, ambigous statements found in defense document narratives, as verified truth of anything.

What do you find "ambiguous" about the statements? (Did you actually read the document, or just decide that you wouldn't read it, because you believe it wouldn't matter/be convincing?)

 

[Luna20]

@cathyrusson


Before and after - Zachary Hughes new mugshot following his conviction.

View attachment 566751

View attachment 566752

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Oh dear…

I wondered if he let his hair grow for the trial to appear less harsh. Soft and wavy like we see on many classical musicians in a symphony. He looks hoodlum in his first mug too.

 

[momsof3]

What do you find "ambiguous" about the statements? (Did you actually read the document, or just decide that you wouldn't read it, because you believe it wouldn't matter/be convincing?)

There have been strong feelings on this thread regarding CP being in the same CSAM images as her daughter. That is what websleuths is for- civil discourse and disagreement. But I’m with you - I’m an attorney and read through many of the civil filings. These civil filings were not defense filings and included information from sworn declarations - meaning the facts were sworn to under penalty of perjury. Some by the parents of the daughter’s friend, who are outsiders to the menage of horrible adults in CP’s daughter’s life and would
have zero claim on CP’s estate if CP were not at fault. FWIW - I also practice on the enforcement side (not defense). On the balance of the filings, it seems incontrovertible that CP was involved -which I find beyond tragic and frankly do not understand the defense of CP. We see mothers who do horrible things to their children on WS every day. On the less emotional side, from a purely legal side, ZH’s defense of other’s claim is novel and to me, fascinating. We will get to see that part play out on appeal - if I was ZH’s attorney I would slow walk the appeal until the Post trial was fully adjudicated. I should add, fascinating if it didn’t include the abuse of not just one, but two different little girls.

 

[azure]

I do not accept highly edited, ambigous statements found in defense document narratives, as verified truth of anything.

You need to read the defense documents posted by @upset_airport in post #634. They directly quote warrants from the CSAM case.

 

[upset_airport]

You need to read the defense documents posted by @upset_airport in post #634. They directly quote warrants from the CSAM case.

Yes - Pages 19 & 20 - on page 20 is also a direct quote from Detective Bevill's police report that is **by far** the most damning piece of evidence in the documents in my opinion.

Here's a link to the document -- scroll down to page 20.

 

[sunspun]

I still don't understand why ZH felt that in order to "save" the daughter, that his only option was to kill CP.

I would think the more common solution would be to let LE and CPS handle it by reporting the crimes, after which the child would be removed from the dangerous environment (her mother's home).

Had he claimed that reports were made but nothing was done about them? Or did no one ever actually inform LE of the crimes being committed against the child? Maybe they had no proof, so felt like they couldn't accuse? But if they were right about crimes being committed, then the proof would be found by LE in the investigating.

Was he asked in the trial why he felt like it was up to him to save the child, rather than letting the authorities handle it since that is their job?

 

[upset_airport]

I still don't understand why ZH felt that in order to "save" the daughter, that his only option was to kill CP.

I would think the more common solution would be to let LE and CPS handle it by reporting the crimes, after which the child would be removed from the dangerous environment (her mother's home).

Had he claimed that reports were made but nothing was done about them? Or did no one ever actually inform LE of the crimes being committed against the child? Maybe they had no proof, so felt like they couldn't accuse? But if they were right about crimes being committed, then the proof would be found by LE in the investigating.

Was he asked in the trial why he felt like it was up to him to save the child, rather than letting the authorities handle it since that is their job?

These are all great questions. And questions that weren't allowed to really be asked (at least fully) because of the ruling that any discussion of sexual abuse (at all) or the charges against Brad Post (which include, in the police reports references to the mother being involved - including being in sexual pictures with her daughter) was excluded from trial.

We don't know what "proof" Zachary had. Because they couldn't ask him about it. And he wasn't allowed to testify about it.

(I'm not convinced that he *had* proof -- but this is at least partially due to what was and wasn't admitted at trial)

We do know that John Mello filed a police report claiming that CP was abusing the daughter in early 2018. The detective (Dan Bevill) investigated the claims and turned what he found over to a judge, but the judge determined there wasn't enough probable cause to pursue anything (This comes from an email that Dan Bevill wrote to John Mello in March 2018).

There have been allegations (supposedly) that Dan Bevill and Christina Post had developed a "personal relationship" while he was supposed to be investigating her. Whether this means they had beers together, or more, is not clear and it's probably not fair to speculate.

This is the same detective who would later discover the CSAM on Brad's Phone after Christina's murder.

We also know that Zachary Hughes called Social Services pretending to be Christina's neighbor on October 1st, 2021. He claimed that he'd seen Christina verbally and physically abusing the daughter. (He admitted on the stand that the story was a lie, but claims his intentions were to get the daughter in a one-on-one setting with a social worker so she could talk without her mother around).

But Social Services didn't follow up on the call according to him -- and apparently this was the "last straw" and he felt that nobody else was going to do anything.

Personally - I don't think what he did was legal. But I think it would probably fit better under "voluntary manslaughter" than murder (which in SC requires "malice" as part of the charge).

Outside of the horror of this case. The legal argument of whether or not Zachary had any justifiable claim to "in defense of others" would be *interesting* from a legal perspective.

 

[Skigirl]

I don't see how ZH's very personal, very planned, and very physical murder of CP could be considered without "malice," (i.e., ill will). ZH testified to having ill will toward CP. Whether or not he was justified is another matter, but he did not have an absence of malice.

For one thing, he compared her to his sister of whom he said, "I don't say this lightly, but my oldest sister Grace was the most evil person I met in my life," and in her photos she had "a vacant, arrogant, almost derisive look in her eyes that reminded me of my sister..."

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Luna20]

I don't see how ZH's very personal, very planned, and very physical murder of CP could be considered without "malice," (i.e., ill will). ZH testified to having ill will toward CP. Whether or not he was justified is another matter, but he did not have an absence of malice.

For one thing, he compared her to his sister of whom he said, "I don't say this lightly, but my oldest sister Grace was the most evil person I met in my life," and in her photos she had "a vacant, arrogant, almost derisive look in her eyes that reminded me of my sister..."

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Absolutely! Planning involves malice. As well as not seeing a therapist to discuss how you can manage your emotions about someone that you want to kill.

He had other choices but he went with the selfish one that made him feel best. He testified that he felt wonderful about it immediately after he killed her.

 

[Tricia]

Did you know supporting DNASolves.com with a subscription or donation helps solve crime and keeps Websleuths free for everyone? If you enjoy Websleuths, along with the fact no more insufferable ads, we ask that you become a monthly subscriber to DNASolves.com. If you can't make a monthly donation, please pick a case that needs funding and donate once. We know not everyone can donate. So if you could please get the word out about DNASolves.com through your social media or by simply emailing your friends, we would really appreciate it.
If you have any questions please CLICK HERE!
Thank you,
Tricia

 

[StarryStarryNight]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I'm a huge fan of the Panel but maybe showing the perp repeatedly naming the child is a bit unnecessary? I guess they used the already distributed and published video.