Rose Petal Murder: A Problematic Key Witness

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

In less than two weeks, the trial of accused killer Zachary Hughes will begin in Greenville County, South Carolina. The classically trained concert pianist is accused of perpetrating the disturbingly ritualistic ‘Rose Petal Murder’ of 41-year-old veterinary technician Christina Parcell more than three years ago. As the start of this highly-anticipated trial draws nigh, it is becoming increasingly clear that certain disturbing facts surrounding the case could impact a potential jury.

To recap: On the morning of October 13, 2021, police say Hughes traveled via bicycle to 122 Canebrake Drive – a home owned by Parcell’s sister located in a peaceful suburb of Greer, S.C. There, he is accused of savagely slaying Parcell, who worked at the nearby Foothills Veterinary Hospital in Greenville, S.C.

Hughes, 32, allegedly sprinkled rose petals around Parcell after dragging (and posing) her body in the front living room of a 2,100-square foot suburban home owned by the victim’s sister. Parcell’s cause of death was recorded by the Greenville county coroner’s office as a homicide due to “multiple sharp force injuries.”

Specifically, Parcell “was brutally stabbed to death in her neck and head area,” sustaining “approximately 31 different stab wounds by a sharp object.”

***

Hughes was arrested on November 3, 2021 by GCSO deputies and charged with Parcell’s murder. The arrest shocked the Upstate seeing as he had no known connection to Parcell at the time. Hughes has been held without bond at the Greenville County detention center since his arrest.

At the time of her murder, Parcell was involved in an extremely contentious custody battle with 62-year-old John Mello – her ex-boyfriend and the father of her young daughter. Mello and Hughes were “very close friends,” S.C. thirteenth circuit solicitor Walt Wilkins has claimed, and the two reportedly used the encrypted smartphone application WhatsApp to communicate with each other.

In fact, Mello and Hughes are said to have exchanged at least 1,769 encrypted WhatsApp messages.

In one conversation on WhatsApp on April 17, 2021, Mello indicated he had obtained Christina’s private number and instructed Hughes to use it to “harass the shit out of her.”

Authorities also uncovered numerous conversations between Mello and Zachary Hughes via WhatsApp between October 8 and October 13, 2021 – the day of Christina Parcell’s murder. On October 13, for example, there is a conversation in which Mello asked Hughes, “How did the music research go?”

“Good,” Hughes responded. “I’ll tell you over the phone.”

In September of 2023, Hughes and Mello were charged with first degree harassment and conspiracy for allegedly disseminating nude photos of Parcell to an undisclosed group of recipients. Those charges are pending.

Hughes was originally scheduled to stand trial for Parcell’s murder on October 28, 2024, but those proceedings were delayed by a discovery battle tied to one of the key witnesses for the prosecution – Parcell’s boyfriend, Bradly Post.

***

***

A PROBLEMATIC WITNESS…

It was Post who discovered Parcell’s body shortly after 11:00 a.m. EDT on the morning of her murder. While police were searching her home as part of their inquiries, they discovered evidence of child pornography (or “child sex abuse material”) linked to Post and Christina Parcell. As a result, Post is currently facing five counts of sexual exploitation of a minor in the first degree, one count of sexual exploitation of a minor in the third degree, one count of third degree criminal sexual content with a minor and one count of buggery.

Post’s devices were seized by investigators with the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office (GCSO), but his case is being tried by the office of S.C. attorney general Alan Wilson. According to Hughes’ attorneys, police found “more than 15,000 images and videos of child pornography… on nine electronic storage devices” while searching the home where the murder took place.

Hughes’ attorneys have sought for months to compel prosecutors to produce Post’s phone – which would open the door to a discussion of the child porn allegations – while Wilkins’ office countered with a motion (.pdf) asking the court to exclude any reference to child pornography during the trial.

Post’s discovery of the crime scene makes him a material witness to the murder of Christina Parcell. In fact, he’s likely one of the most important witnesses prosecutors will call as they present their case. At the time of her death, the two were engaged and allegedly living together at the home in which she was murdered. In addition to testifying about the horrific crime scene he found at the home he shared with Parcell, the nature and history of their relationship will need to be established in the course of his testimony – yet according to a pair of pre-trial motions filed by Hughes’ defense team, the state wants the testimony of that relationship to be limited in scope so it doesn’t include the charges of which Post has been accused.

In their motions, defense attorneys Mark Moyer and Andrew Moorman argued a sealed motion filed by Wilkins to exclude any mention of child pornography was “premature and ill-advised.”

While the battle lines have become clear ahead of the trial, looking at the motions that were not filed under seal does give some insight into why this evidence has become so contentious.

***

RELATED | ROSE PETAL MURDER: DEFENSE BLASTS PROPOSED GAG ORDER

***

WHY LIMIT THE SCOPE?

According to the motion filed by Hughes’ attorneys, prosecutors are insisting that using the child pornography evidence to impeach Post would be improper. Post is still facing the eight charges filed by the attorney general’s office, and in its sealed motion the state stated, “he (Post) has been offered no deal in exchange for his testimony.”

Given the weight Post’s testimony will bear on the prosecution’s case against Hughes, limiting the ability of the defense to impeach – or discredit – him on the stand utilizing his pending criminal charges could hinder their case.

“Does it mean that somehow because the attorney general is prosecuting Post instead of the thirteenth circuit solicitor’s office that Mr. Hughes cannot cross ­examine Post on bias he has or reasons he would have to lie?” they wrote.

Hughes’ defense argued there are multiple scenarios which could unfold during the upcoming trial that would render the child pornography evidence admissible. This would underscore their belief that “contrary to the state’s assertion that the absence of a deal in Post’s case makes him somehow unimpeachable, the absence of a deal in Post’s case actually makes him more impeachable.”

“Impeachment of a witness refers to the process of discrediting or undermining the credibility of a witness during a trial, by presenting evidence or asking questions that contradict their testimony or reveal a bias, inconsistency, or falsehood in their statements.”

Legal Information Institute

The defense cited a 2013 South Carolina appellate court case (State v. Pradubsri) in which the court held that the trial court’s failure to admit evidence of potential legal exposure of a witness was not harmless error because the witness’s testimony was essential to State’s case.

“The fact the witness has yet to reach a plea bargain or been found guilty should not prevent the admission of such evidence,” the ruling noted. “The lack of a negotiated plea, if anything, creates a situation where the witness is more likely to engage in biased testimony in order to obtain a future recommendation for leniency.”

***

***

TAINTING THE JURY POOL?

During the course of the investigation into her murder, questions about Christina Parcell’s involvement in her fiancée’s alleged crimes has persisted. While it’s known she is a victim of murder, at this point, it’s not known if she was also a victim in Post’s alleged crimes.

Parcell had been the target of a long-term campaign of stalking and harassment carried out by Mello – a skilled puppet master who not only followed and tormented Parcell but, according to incident reports, appears to have compelled others to do the same. As our media outlet has previously reported, this is behavior Mello demonstrated long before his obsession with Parcell began. His first wife and her family and friends reportedly lived in fear of the music producer due to the excessive, aggressive and threatening words and actions he used against them.

Defenders of Mello argue his aggressive tactics in the Parcell case were intended to protect his daughter from abuse.

At the same time, Post was a psychosexual predator who covered the expensive attorney fees for Parcell’s ongoing custody battle with Mello – making her ever more indebted to him.

Was Parcell forced to participate in the despicable deviant sexual activities documented on the images and videos recovered by police?  Was she drugged? Coerced?

Or… was she a willing participant?

Could the defense’s motions – filed just weeks before the trial – simply be an attempt to taint a potential jury pool? Jury nullification could become a valid concern in a trial in which there are questions relating to the victim’s involvement in the production or distribution of child sexual materials.

Stay tuned to FITSNews for updates as this highly-anticipated trial approaches. For more on the Rose Petal Murder, be sure to check out the first six episodes of our crime and corruption podcast FITSFiles (Apple, Spotify, Google) and check out this landing page.

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR …

Jenn Wood is FITSNews’ incomparable research director. She’s also the producer of the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts and leading expert on all things Murdaugh/ South Carolina justice. A former private investigator with a criminal justice degree, evildoers beware, Jenn Wood is far from your average journalist! A deep dive researcher with a passion for truth and a heart for victims, this mom of two is pretty much a superhero in FITSNews country. Did we mention she’s married to a rocket scientist? (Lucky guy!) Got a story idea or a tip for Jenn? Email her at jenn@fitsnews.com.

***

WANNA SOUND OFF?

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.