PURCELL — Jennifer Fox had just fed the pigs behind her house early in the morning Thursday, Jan. 8, and began getting ready for work before she and her two sons heard something hit her bedroom window.

“I said, ‘Is it hailing?” she said. “My oldest looked out the window and he saw our awning across the back. He said, ‘Mom, the awning’s gone.”

More: When was Oklahoma’s earliest tornado? How today’s storms stack up to records

Fox looked out the window and saw debris everywhere. She said she didn’t hear tornado sirens, but she and her sons immediately took shelter in a closet. By that time, the suspected tornado had already passed through her neighborhood off of Johnson Avenue in Purcell.

At first, Fox didn’t think there was a tornado and attributed the damage and debris to strong winds.

But just one street over, the roof of one house had been destroyed. When she looked at the house behind hers, Fox said she knew a tornado had hit her neighborhood.

by ERIN PARROTT

***

The South Carolina sixteenth circuit solicitor’s office announced it was dismissing felony charges against two women accused of setting a dog on fire – a surprising development in a high-profile animal-cruelty case that sparked statewide outrage.

However, this dismissal – which the solicitor’s office used to publicly exonerate the women – is being openly disputed by the law enforcement

To recap: On October 12, 2025, deputies with the Union County Sheriff’s Office (UCSO) arrested and charged Jada Rogers and Cassidi Hyatt with felony ill treatment of animals – a crime punishable by up to five years in prison – after investigators alleged a dog had been intentionally set on fire.

This week, however, elected solicitor Kevin Brackett released a statement indicating he is formally dismissing the charges, concluding Rogers mistakenly believed the dog had already died and that Hyatt was neither present for nor involved in the burning.

***

RELATED | 100 ANIMALS INVOLVED IN MIDLANDS ABUSE CASE

***

According to the investigation, the dog – named Red – became seriously ill in early October 2025 and was diagnosed by a Union County veterinarian with canine parvovirus – a disease which is fatal in dogs. Brackett said the women were told the dog would die without treatment – but that they were unable to afford inpatient care.

Despite borrowing money and attempting to treat the dog at home, Red’s condition worsened and, according to Brackett, the dog appeared to die on October 10, 2025. Because the ground was too hard to dig a grave, Rogers attempted to cremate the animal – a method the solicitor noted is commonly recommended for dogs that die from parvo, as the virus can persist in soil for months.

Brackett acknowledged veterinary findings which showed some soot in the dog’s lungs – evidence the animal had some life in him at the time of the fire – but said the treating veterinarian also confirmed that a dog in the final stages of parvo could easily appear dead to an untrained observer.

In his statement, Brackett noted that video of Rogers’ arrest and recorded jail calls allegedly showed she was visibly distraught at the suggestion she had intentionally burned her dog alive. Additionally, Brackett wrote that Rogers repeatedly maintained Red was already dead when she attempted to burn his body – and that she appeared to sincerely believe that to be true.

***

***

Brackett further noted neither Rogers nor Hyatt was interviewed by USCO investigators before charges were filed. Instead, he wrote, a deputy with no prior knowledge of the case was dispatched to arrest the women and could only tell them he would relay their concerns to the lead investigator.

“I do not believe that Jada would have burned Red if she had the slightest notion that he was still alive,” Brackett wrote. “Fortunately, it is unlikely that a dog in a comatose state, in the end stages of parvo, would have felt pain due to the breakdown of its central nervous system.”

Brackett noted that both women extensive time in jail – 23 days for Rogers and 18 days for Hyatt – and were “convicted of torturing Red in the court of public opinion,” before he dismissed the charges following his investigation.

“I was not involved in the decision to charge them but as the elected prosecutor I feel compelled to apologize to them for what they have endured,” Brackett added.

***

SHERIFF PUSHES BACK…

***

Within hours of Brackett’s announcement, UCSO released its own detailed statement – making clear the agency strongly disagreed with the solicitor’s conclusion.

According to the law enforcement agency, its deputies responded to a residence on Linersville Road at around 10:00 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2025 after animal control requested assistance. Neighbors told deputies a dog had been set on fire and said the occupants had left before law enforcement arrived.

At the scene, an animal control officer reported observing a burn pile containing the dog’s remains. Deputies photographed the remains and collected statements from neighbors and witnesses.

Investigators later arranged a necropsy performed by Dr. Douglas Seif at Triangle Veterinary Clinic, which concluded the mixed-breed puppy was alive at the time of the fire.

“Body was severely burned with charring over entire body and the ends of the legs burned off,” the report stated. “Inspection of the chest cavity showed soot heavily infiltrated inside of bilateral cranial lung lobes and the thoracic trachea.”

***

The clinic’s final determination was blunt: “Dog was burned alive. This is cruelty.”

Based on the necropsy findings and witness statements, UCSO said a deputy met with an on-call magistrate on October 12, 2025 – who found probable cause to issue arrest warrants for both Rogers and Hyatt for the crime of ill treatment of animals.

UCSO also directly challenged Brackett’s legal reasoning, disputing his assertion that criminal charges require knowledge an act is unlawful – countering that “a lack of knowledge of the law does not exempt one from being held accountable.”

***

***

UCSO Sheriff Jeff Bailey said he felt obligated to publicly explain why his deputies made the arrests.

“As the elected Sheriff of this county I feel compelled to tell you what facts we based our arrest on,” Bailey said. “I stand by my deputies and investigators and the job they did and the facts that were gathered to effect the arrest of both individuals.”

What we are now dealing with is a rare and public standoff between investigators and prosecutors, with law enforcement maintaining the evidence supported felony charges and the solicitor asserting it did not rise to criminal intent – a divide that leaves one unavoidable question: who is right?

The dismissal of charges against Rogers and Hyatt brings an end to a case that fueled widespread outrage, while leaving behind lingering concerns about accountability, prosecutorial discretion and the handling of emotionally charged cases.

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR…

Erin Parrott is a Greenville, S.C. native who graduated from the University of South Carolina in 2025 with a bachelor degree in broadcast journalism. Got feedback or a tip for Erin? Email her here.

***

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.