Sharon McDonough Held On $100,000 Bail For Suspected Pet Torture

CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. — A judge ordered a New York woman held on $100,000 bail Friday after prosecutors cited evidence that some of the 42 dead animals buried in her yard had been tortured, with duct tape around their mouths or signs that they had drowned.

Sharon McDonough, 43, had been free without bail after her November arrest on misdemeanor charges, but she was taken away in handcuffs after her appearance Friday in Suffolk County Court in Central Islip.

McDonough faces "the likelihood of a felony indictment," said John Cortes, assistant district attorney. Authorities initially found 20 dogs buried behind her Selden home in early November; a subsequent search Dec. 8 uncovered another 22 dead animals.

Necropsies found evidence the animals had been abused, Cortes said.

"There are indications this defendant did kill these animals," District Judge Paul Hensley said in setting bail. "I believe the impulse to flee will become irresistible."

Defense attorney James D'Angelo said his client is not guilty and was shocked by the judge's ruling, and indicated she is unlikely to be able to post bail.

"I don't feel there was a significant change in circumstances," D'Angelo said. "She's made each and every court appearance. She's presumed to be innocent. I am very disappointed with the judge's decision today."

McDonough has been charged with abusing five dogs and a cat found alive in her home. A shepherd mix, a beagle mix, an Italian greyhound, a cocker spaniel mix, a pug and a tabby cat were living in wretched cages, authorities said.

After McDonough's arrest, some neighbors feared the worst for pets that disappeared in recent months. But Roy Gross of the Suffolk County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals later concluded that McDonough probably bought the animals or adopted them through shelters and other traditional outlets.

Cortes confirmed those findings at Friday's court session.

A Family Court judge has removed custody of McDonough's six daughters, ranging in age from 18 months to 13 years.

That judge held a status hearing earlier Friday. After learning that McDonough had not seen her daughters since her arrest, Judge Andrew Tarantino Jr. ordered Child Protective Services to organize an immediate visit.

However, after McDonough was taken into custody, D'Angelo conceded that any visit would probably be postponed.

Douglas McDonough, 21, turned in his mother on Nov. 5. He described the home as "a concentration camp for the animals" and claimed he and some of his siblings were present when animals were abused and killed.

He was in the courtroom when Hensley made the bail order but declined to comment afterward.

(This version CORRECTS spelling of Family Court judge to Tarantino.)

Comments

[BzBee]

03:35 AM on 12/22/2009

I applaud the judge for his decision nd hope many more would follow his example. Justice has to be served even for those that cnt fight for themselves or describe accounts of wut they've suffered.
Animals may not have the complexities of the human way of life but in the wild, they build communities nd have families. They feel pain when it's inflicted. How's that different frm wut we feel? The only difference is that we can speak up nd they cant; they suffer quietly to the amusement of some sick minded a-holes out there.
Yr children r also yr property by the same logic, try treating them badly nd use the same defense to justify it.
Animal life is not cheap!!!

[sfirx]

02:42 PM on 12/21/2009

I don't remember jail being a place where people get help for their sickness. I always thought it was for punishment.

[Tulka2]

02:37 AM on 12/21/2009

Take the kids away, get them some help. Tie her tubes and tattoo her name on her forehead.

The more i think of it, tattooing some one's own name on their forehead seems a really just punishment. Better than throwing them in prison. As long as there's the google machine we would be safe from sexual predators too.

[Fred54]

11:57 PM on 12/19/2009

Sick, sick,sick. I really don't understand why someone would keep animals if they didn't love them, and how they could do such things to them. Even if their motives were strictly monetary, they would still need to keep the animals healthy. I've been called as a photographer on such cases, and the houses were not fit for humans or critters.

[sfirx]

11:15 AM on 12/19/2009

No human ever deserves to be incarcerated for harming their own property. Regardless of how immoral, unethical, or heinous it's a waste of time enforcing moral laws.

[BeansAndGreens]

11:23 AM on 12/19/2009

What is wrong with you?

[JohnDewey]

12:35 PM on 12/19/2009

Just as notions of what is or is not, "moral," change over time & from one culture to another, so too do ideas of what constitutes, "property."

There are people all over the world who don't regard LAND as capable of being owned. A hundred years ago, few in this country would have blinked at the notion of pets, livestock, slaves, wives & children as property, but today the same is not true.

Your idea that pets are owned by people is relatively widespread, but it's not universal and it's becoming a minority view in the Western world. If anything, I believe we're seeing that cultural attitude shift as I write this.

[sfirx]

01:26 PM on 12/19/2009

If you steal someone's pet, in every state of the union, they consider it grand theft. If you steal a child, it's kidnapping, So, if you think pets aren't property I expect you to argue that they should be given full rights, since you want to compare them to humans. If you really think that one day we will consider pets like us, then the term pet will be obsolete, because if you own a pet, you're basically saying it's property, because clearly you will never say, I own my child, or I own my wife.

[sfirx]

03:27 AM on 12/20/2009

If pets are not owned by people then why do people ask, "who's the owner of this pet." Why even say you own a pet. In fact why refer to it as a pet, if you don't own it, or attitudes across the Western world are changing.

[richsmith]

09:38 AM on 12/19/2009

Everything I have read about this woman indicates that she had serious psychological problems. There were six daughters living with her, and a son is mentioned in having turned her in for the animal abuse. How many children did she have? Was she in an economic condition to care for them? Was there also child abuse here? Just having exposed those who lived with her to the abuse of animals must have had a severe negative effect on them. There is no spouse mentioned. Many of the comments here appear to come from animal lovers, and I can understand their distress, but there is a lot more in this matter than has been reported.

The comments on the story are far too presumptive and superficial, and the reporting presented here is really anemic. Is it just an example of the promotion and consumption of sensationalist press?

[BeansAndGreens]

11:16 AM on 12/19/2009

richsmith, in this case, we need to stop wringing our hands over whether or not this woman is mentally ill, and instead call her what she is: evil. Regardless of why she did what she did, it is far more important to focus on what she did. She tortured and killed dozens of animals. That is all that matters, and that is the crime for which she must be punished. This monstrous person must never leave prison.

One other thing. "Animal lovers" is a silly term. You do not need to "love" animals to be opposed to their cruel treatment. I would like to think that any decent person is outraged by this horrific crime.

[jl4141]

02:36 PM on 12/19/2009

You are spot-on. Animal hoarders/killers/abusers like this almost always think they are doing good for the poor creatures. It is a deep psychological malady. That said, I don't think I agree with the bail -- bail is meant to ensure that the defendant comes to court, not to punish in advance of a conviction. It can also be meant to protect others -- and in this case that probably would include animals -- but that would assume she would go right back to abusing animals, even if avoiding all contact with animals in her home would be a condition of bail. That's a lot to assume.

[madisonhack]

11:11 PM on 12/19/2009

The judge cited her as a "flight risk". He's covered.

[lbfromlv]

04:36 AM on 12/19/2009

blindjester, your screenname is appropriate. The point is not whether or not Mr. Vick was guilty. The point is that some, including me, wonder whether or not this alleged criminal - who committed the same crime at a greater level - will be similarly sentenced if convicted.

[blindjester]

11:16 AM on 12/19/2009

If she isn't just b*tsh*t crazy, she needs to go to jail for a long time. Let's see how it turns out before we cry about injustice.

Meanwhile, people like James Bains deserve a lot more of our sympathy than a s@dist like Vick. Bains was innocent.

[peacekitten]

02:11 AM on 12/19/2009

(part 2 of 2)

a life is a life. because it comes wrapped in fur and on four legs makes that life no less deserving of love, care, and justice when it is wronged.

the strong have a moral imperative to PROTECT those more vulnerable than themselves. she violated this in the worst possible way.

until the justice system is able to comprehend the idea that simply because a life may not be a human one, it makes it no less valuable to its owner, we are going to keep seeing people like this get off with wholly inappropriate sentences. even in the story about the actor who stomped his girlfriend's cat to d3ath, he was charged with an "attempted" crime. there was nothing "attempted" about the fact that the poor animal d1ed from his injuries.

i wish eternal peace to these unlucky animals in whatever plane of existence they are now on, and eternal misery upon their tormentors. there is a special place in h3ll waiting for you.

[peacekitten]

02:11 AM on 12/19/2009

"The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor.* It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? "

---Jeremy Bentham, "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation," (1789)

[pictor]

12:47 AM on 12/19/2009

Sharon you belong in the same type of dungeon that A. Dumas would have conjured up. In there, maybe you'd get fed once every two maybe three weeks. Maybe you'd get brackish water to drink? Maybe make do with your own urine?

[swampthing]

12:03 AM on 12/19/2009

This lady should be locked away for the rest of her life. You think it's "not as violent" or she didn't "inflict as much suffering" because the victims weren't HUMAN animals? How do you justify such a mindless assertion? This person is a dangerous threat to living beings.

[max08]

11:35 PM on 12/18/2009

Lets hope she gets twice Michael Vicks' sentence. Maybe not. He was black.

[ojisout]

12:10 AM on 12/19/2009

Good one.

[blindjester]

12:43 AM on 12/19/2009

Don't make Vick your example of r*cism in the courts. He deserved his sentence.

He was a criminal.

There are plenty of examples of miscarriages of justice, but Vick is not one of them.

[alarmbell]

12:19 PM on 12/19/2009

Didn't Vick get offered a reality show after all his horrible crime?

[t squared]

11:32 PM on 12/18/2009

After having just lost my pet friend after many years of faithful love and companionship, i cannot fathom the depths a soul must reach to need to hurt such helpless creatures. It makes me wonder what torture her children also endured. That is, aside from being a witness or participant to such sadness, despair, and pain.

[ashabot]

11:07 PM on 12/18/2009

Abuse and animal, go to a jail.

[eden4barack08]

04:46 AM on 12/19/2009

Ki.l.l. 42 of them, go STRAIGHT to the electric chair, do not pass go...

[Quaoar]

10:21 PM on 12/18/2009

Someone capable of killing 42 pets is capable of killing people as well. I hope that no human remains are found buried in her yard.