The Horse Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Anybody here about the abuse case conserning Sharon Jeffco on judge judy?**PICTURES**

22K views 107 replies 36 participants last post by  luvofanimals 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
So I watched the episode today. This woman who owns the horse lives no less then about and hour, hour and a half from me.

She sent her horse Misty to a women name Sharon Jeffco she is supposedly a world renown trainer(I haven't heard of her must not be to big). Tied this womens horses head up and beat it with a dressage whip. The owner witnessed the whole thing. But only yelled stop and what are you doing, to get the woman to stop. Apperently the trainer payed a settlement of 900 something dollars to the owner of the horse to "make it go away" she even said that on Judge Judy. So that right there makes her sound totally guilty of what she did to this horse. The trainer said "There was no blood before I put the bit in the horses mouth, but there was blood after.". Well shoot you must have been doing something harsh!

The horse was seen by a vet who said the wounds we're fresh. While this Jeffco lady showed 5 other vets pictures of the horses tongue and they all said no they weren't fresh. But I mean REALLY!? Did those vets SEE the horse in PERSON? No they seen pictures. You can't base if off pictures. So there in lies that the vet who seen the horses tongue opinion stands.

Its just stupid how someone thinks there gonna get away with something like this. The judge didn't do crap. Though the owner DOES hold half responsibility to what happened to her horse because she didn't forcefully try to stop it, but the trainer owns the other half of abusing the horses.

What are your guys thoughts on this? I will give some pictures below of what happened to the horse.
 

Attachments

See less See more
2
#2 ·
Yeah, I saw it. I'm with Judge Judy on this one. How could she stand there and watch the "trainer" tie her horse's head down and not step in? A bad trainer is one thing. An idiot owner who lets it happen to their horse right in front of them is another.

That tongue does seem to tell a different story than what was presented. No way did all that damage happen in one training session. The previous damage alone screams hackamore. Why was this woman even entertaining the idea of using a bit and why didn't the "trainer" see the tongue and say, "gee this horse isn't really a good bit candidate".

They are both morons and should not own horses. Makes me sick.
 
#6 ·
I did see that and here it too. But how would the trainer know she road 10 days after AND had pictures of it? I think they we're both lying. There both to blame and they both maybe shouldn't be dealing with horses lol.
 
#8 ·
That horse had those cuts in her mouth BEFORE she went to the trainer. The owner had to of done that to her own mare and didn't notify the trainer. The trainer didn't check her mouth before putting the bit in her mouth and jumping on. Did you hear where she said the horse must not like this bit and was tossing her head from side to side? She was in pain! And that was BEFORE the lady tied her head down! When she tied the head down, chances are the bit then reopened the previous cuts in the horses mouth causing it to bleed. Which explains why there was no blood in the horses mouth before the "training session" but there was after the "training session"

That owner is whacked and she is nasty trash that shouldn't own animals. Her horse's welfare meant NOTHING to her otherwise she wouldn't have ridden the mare 10 DAYS after this incident. She saw a way to make some money and blame the trainer.

The trainer was wrong in many ways. The owner was wrong in many ways. They are both guilty in my book and the victim is the horse.

The trainer will lose many clients because of this case and people will think twice about taking their horse to her in the future.

The trainer tried to go into detail about the horse and Judge Judy basically told her to shut up or she'll kick them out of her courtroom. So why would she continue to talk and try to plead her care? The owner was already digging herself into a hole. All the trainer had to do was sit back and watch her kill herself with the words that kept coming out of her mouth. LoL.
 
#13 ·
As far as the bit used, it never said but I seen a girl holding a bridle that was on Jeffcos side. I couldn't really tell but it looked like a nice bridle bit with a half breed port. If that was the bit she claimed she used I seriously doubt it would of caused that damage. I think it was some sort of snaffle from the looks of the cuts.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#16 ·
JEEZ!! thats terrible

I was not aware of ANY bit that caused that type of damage.

I can't believe a bit that causes damage like what appears in those pics is even LEGAL!

Some of my neighbors use those twisted wire snaffles and what looks like a bicycle chain on their horses and they are far from tender with their mouths, even so I have NEVER seen a horse damaged to that extent by those very harsh IMO bits. :cry:
 
#18 ·
From what I understood, no one got anything. Jeffco was counter sueing for slander, but she had paid restitution which cancelled her claims. The restitution she paid included the vet fees to the owner through an attorney. Judge didn't want to hear anymore. Horse owner wanted Jeffco to also pay attorney fees and punitive damages...not so much...
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#106 ·
Absolutely horrifying! Ugh. I hate people.
Posted via Mobile Device
You really should not hate anything or anybody.I am in know way taking up for this, there is no excuse for this but a lot of people do not realize how much force, pressure, that they are actually putting on there horses mouth.Some bits can have 3 to 4 times the pressure that you are pulling. that is why I have always tried to get my horse as lite as possible almost bit-less.
 
#22 ·
i'm with you mudpie!

Thats the problem with judges that don't know a flip about animals judging on thisgs they know nothing about in my opinion.

I think the horse should have been removed from both parties.

the owner for not seeing and or stopping the abuse
and the trainer for not either
a. seeing the damage that may or may not have been done before
b. if it happened on their watch for the damage

The poor horse is the loser any way it goes and I'm sorry but taking a horse with horrific injuries like that to a show 10 days later is cruelty if you ask me.
 
#60 ·
Thats the problem with judges that don't know a flip about animals judging on thisgs they know nothing about in my opinion.
Judy's not a real judge. When you go on the show, you sign a contract agreeing to follow her decision, that's all. She couldn't have done anything for the horse (except call the SPCA like anyone else).

The picture of that tongue is horrifying.
 
#30 ·
From what I understood, it went through a criminal court already and once again, the trainer could not be proven guilty. Which is why the owner tried civil court.

I'm not surprised by how it all went down, abuse is so subjective and it was so she said-she said. And the trainer was far more prepared and professional than the owner, even if they both were nattering back and forth like children. They had 20-some minutes to prove their points, the owner started crying and couldn't get her facts straight. Right off the bat I dismissed her as some over dramatic lady. Don't abuse my horse! Only I can when I ride her while injured!
 
#26 ·
I agree WildAcre. It's a sad situation all around.

Pre-existing damage aside, she had to have been snubbed down pretty darn tight and fought like heck to open her tongue like that. In a horse that was already trained and going for a tune-up, that's not the type of behavior one would expect. I'd say she was in pain prior (hence the head tossing and aggravation at the bit to start with) and desperately wanted to get away from that pain and her fight or flight kicked in.

I think the owner most likely wasn't honest about prior injury and had that been disclosed the whole situation could have been avoided. Big shame on her for hauling that poor mare to a show 10 days later, that mare is surely a saint for tolerating it.

I rehabbed a mare several years ago that had scars across her tongue from a similar deal where her tongue was all but severed. The owners brought her to me about a year or so afterwards as they couldn't do anything with her mouth (had to be tranq'd to deworm even), let alone put a bit in her mouth. It took quite awhile but I did eventually get her accepting of my hands in her mouth, still to deworm and riding in a rubber mouth snaffle. She was still ultra sensitive and any excess pressure (in her mind - mild for any other horse) would send her straight up. She'll never be able to be ridden with a bit in any but the quietest of hands. They now ride her in a rope halter and she packs their kids around, more than happy to work off seat & legs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amp23 and FlyGap
#27 ·
The owner might have been stupid, the trainer was criminal. Owner brought her horse to a professional, yes you and I would have stopped the incident before it escalated to the point of abuse, but we are not stupid, and probably know when abuse is disguised as training. The trainer never denied abuse, if she didn't abuse the horse why did she pay for the vet. If it was an old injury a professional horse trainer would have noticed when the bridle was put on. That tongue was about cut in half. I hope that trainer looses as much as the horse did.
 
#28 ·
Ugh. Stupid people trusting stupid people.

If Judge Judy is as to the letter as she is, hopefully she reported this incident to the proper authorities herself. She's a small claims judge, not an individual trained to rule in an animal welfare case (unfortunately for this particular horse). She can't necessarily direct punitive measures right then and there in the interstate of this animal's case.

I would love to tie these two morons down and beat them with a dressage whip... maybe they'll learn something about horses.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#31 ·
I think they wanted the publicity, honestly.. which is why they went with Judge Judy and not just sue in court like regular people who sue, do.

Big named trainer.. allegedly abusing a horse badly.. that will ruin her reputation and her business and her name in general.

But then it came back to bite the owner in the butt when she was suddenly exposed as being a complete irresponsible idiot (need the alliteration!) for letting it get that far.. and letting it happen in the first place.

I don't know what she meant by "she saw it happen" because it was fairly vague but I hope she learned her lesson.
 
#32 ·
It is really weird. I mean it makes sense if Deborah would have done it her self THEN took her to the trainer. As the trainer said "There wasn't blood before I put the bit in, but there was after!". That makes sense. If Deborah would have done this herself and then blamed it on the trainer. But then the trainer wouldn't have paid her off if she didn't feel she was guilty. The whole thing is weird. There's loose ends every where. We'll never know the whole TRUE story. The more I think about it the more I doubt both sides of having any truth. Kinda sad. The only one that knows is Misty and she can't very well tell us. :/.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top