No Charges to Issue in Gideon Animal Abuse Case
Published on June 27, 2025
Summary of the Facts of the Case and Investigation
On January 12, 2025, at 1:45 a.m., a 19-year-old female called 911 stating that her mother was intoxicated and antagonizing her and should be removed from the home located on Maddelien Street, in Detroit. When officers arrived, they observed a verbal argument between the two women, and they required that the mother leave the location. She went to her son’s home across the street and stayed there during the night.
Later that morning, the mother called 911 at 10:44 a.m., reporting that when she came home, one of her dogs was crying with severe burns on its body. She said her dog had been burned after she and her daughter had an argument. She said he did not jump into the bathtub. The 911 dispatcher transferred her to Detroit Animal Control Center (DACC).
At 10:55 a.m., the mother called 911 again because DACC could not assist her. She said she called the police because her 19-year-old daughter threw her dog in a tub of hot water. She was not home at the time it happened, but thought her daughter did it because they had an argument earlier.
At 11:11 a.m. two Detroit police officers were dispatched to the Maddelein home for a disturbance. Upon arrival the officers spoke with the mother, her 13-year-old-daughter and her 19-year-old daughter. The officers observed the dog in deep distress with burns on its legs and face. The officers asked if the mother observed her 19-year-old daughter harm the dog. She replied no, but that there wasn’t anyone in the house but the 19-year-old daughter. In fact, her daughter’s boyfriend was upstairs in the house.
The officers spoke with the 13-year-old daughter who said she was downstairs sleeping when she heard the dog crying and saw it run down the stairs with severe burns screaming. When asked about the dog jumping into the bathtub the child said the dog was too small to jump into the bathtub.
When questioned by the police the 19-year-old said that she was on the second floor of the home when she got up from bed and went to the bathroom that morning. She said because there is no door, she routinely runs bathwater to cover the sound of her using the bathroom. When she went back to sleep, she knew there was water in the tub. She was upstairs with her boyfriend when they heard the dog screaming and he went to the bathroom and lifted the dog out of the water.
The officers left the location directing the mother to get medical help for the dog. That same day another daughter who did not live in the home and was not present when the dog was burned, contacted a friend who helped get the dog to the Detroit Animal Welfare Group (DAWG). The dog was treated at an animal hospital for 10 days and was released to a foster home on January 23, 2025. He continued outpatient care through February 7, 2025; the dog was treated for pain, refusal to walk, weight loss, bacterial infections, necrotic skin and third-degree burns. Although biopsies could not distinguish between thermal (heat) and chemical burns, there has been no evidence to support chemical burns.
In February 2025, Prosecutor Kym Worthy received information about a severely burned dog named Gideon in social media reports. On February 23, 2025, after contacting Detroit Police Chief Todd Bettison, Prosecutor Worthy assigned WCPO detectives to assist DPD with the Gideon investigation. The investigation began on February 26, 2025, until June 6, 2025.
During the investigation the mother, the 19-year-old daughter and her boyfriend were all interviewed separately, and all said that the dog jumped in the bathtub and was injured. The mother said that she would make her 13-year-old daughter available for a forensic interview but failed to produce her on two different occasions. There is no way to compel an interview without the mother’s cooperation.
Another daughter who was not present in the house at the time of the incident who called a friend for assistance was re-interviewed. The son of the mother and brother to the three sisters was also interviewed. He was not present when the dog was injured. He indicated that several days earlier he worked on the water heater pilot light in the house, where his mother and two sisters resided and set it at an intermediate temperature setting. The police officers who responded to the home on January 12, 2025, did not note the temperature setting of the water heater at the time.
As part of the investigation WCPO contacted a veterinarian to do a forensic assessment of the injuries to Gideon. The expert has over 30 years of clinical experience in veterinary practice and has worked on animal cruelty investigations since 2001. She has published a book on the topic and has consulted on cases of animal cruelty around the United States.
Gideon is a male Jack Russell Terrier who was approximately four to five months old at the time he was burned. The expert reviewed Gideon’s medical records, laboratory test results of Gideon’s skin samples, photos from the time of the injury through the course of veterinary treatment, as well as blood tests, radiographs, and culture results.
She found that that considering Gideon’s injuries and the pattern and location of the burns, the water contacted him from the underside not from the upside ( back, top of head). She observed that puppies are generally not comfortable in the water and are frightened of a tub. Behaviorally, it would be extremely unlikely for a puppy to jump into the tub for a bath or a drink of water. In addition, if the puppy did jump into the tub the injury pattern would include facial, head. and neck damage, as well as to his hind quarters.
In this case she noted that if the puppy were lifted by holding him around the chest to place him in a tub of water for any purpose the hind quarters would reach the water first followed by the front legs. She concludes that in this case the puppy was likely placed into the tub hind limbs first, followed by his forelimbs, and remained there for seconds or minutes when he was removed from the tub. As a result, Gideon’s injuries caused severe long-lasting pain, were life threatening, and required extensive and expensive medical care.
As a part of the investigation social media sites were reviewed. Reports on social media of confessions or admissions made by the 19-year-old are unsubstantiated.
Review of the Warrant Request
After the investigation was completed, the case was turned over to an experienced assistant prosecutor in the WCPO Animal Protection Unit. The case was subsequently reviewed by senior assistant prosecutors. Although the mother and her 13-year-old daughter did not see the 19-year-old place the dog in the water, they were both adamant that the dog did not jump into a tub of hot water. The 13-year-old said the dog was too young to get into the tub on his own. The mother said that the dog had never jumped in the bathtub before, and that she believed the 19-year-old did it because of the domestic dispute the night before the incident.
By the time WCPO detectives were assigned to the case and the mother was re-interviewed, approximately a month and a half had passed. She changed her statement to indicate she was present when the dog jumped in the tub on his own and was unable to get out. Her revised version of the event was consistent with her 19-year-old daughter’s and that daughter’s boyfriend. Because the 13-year-old was not presented by the mother for a formal forensic interview on two separate occasions there was no chance to corroborate her January 12, 2025, statement, that the 19-year-old had injured the dog.
The span of time between the initial interview by the on-scene officers and the interviews by WCPO detectives and DPD certainly may have allowed time for the suspect and the mother, to agree upon an alternate version of the facts portraying this as an accident caused by the dog. It should be noted that the mother and her two daughters all continue to live under the same roof.
The assigned prosecutor and her supervisors concluded that the facts and evidence does not support that a case against the 19-year-old can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the required legal standard in a criminal case. The recommendation was made to Prosecutor Worthy to deny the warrant request. Prosecutor Worthy reviewed the case and determined that the facts and evidence did not support charging. The warrant request is accordingly denied for insufficient evidence to prosecute.
Statement of Prosecutor Kym Worthy
“I understand the passion of animal lovers. We have had an Animal Protection Unit with dedicated prosecutors reviewing animal cruelty cases since 2010. From 2010 until the present, we have charged 517 cases. My office is the only one in our state to have a dedicated unit for these cases.
“People are correct about this: Gideon, a four-month-old Jack Russell Terrier suffered horrific abuse. But in every crime, we must be able to prove WHO did it. We are not able to do that in this case. Some think that we should have just rounded up everyone in the house and charged everyone quickly and without a thorough investigation. We are certainly not going to arrest and charge everyone that we think are responsible – that must be backed up by evidence. Evidence and facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In some cases, we strongly suspect who has committed a crime and we may think that they are guilty, but as long as I am the Wayne County Prosecutor, we will not charge if it is not supported by our laws. I will never grandstand like that. None of us are going to violate our oaths to do justice by circumventing the law and what is right.
“I absolutely support people’s right to protest and express their opinions. I prefer that people be respectful in voicing said opinions. Many people have been unbelievably mean, threatening, disrespectful, and spiteful - but even that is tolerated. Just know that no number of protesters, strongly worded posts, and bombardment of emails and texts are going to make me do what is not right, what is not just, and what is not allowable under the law.
“We understand that there will be many that will be very displeased with our decision to deny charges today. These will be some of the same people that disparaged us for taking our time to do a complete investigation. But what is right is right. What is just is just. Sometimes our charging decisions will upset others. But ultimately, we must charge what we can prove. We must be able to prove who did this horrible injustice, and we cannot do that in this case,” said Prosecutor Kym Worthy.
*The Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office does not reveal the names of people who are not charged with a crime.
#####