10 Unbelievable Pieces of Evidence Used in Court Cases

Courtrooms are arenas where facts meet interpretation, and justice hinges on the evidence presented. While most cases rely on standard proof like documents or DNA, some trials veer into the extraordinary. From animals seemingly speaking beyond the grave to digital footprints in unexpected places, these unusual pieces of evidence highlight the evolving nature of legal proceedings.

Here are 10 instances where strange evidence not only made headlines but also challenged conventional legal thinking.

Related: 10 Bizarre (and Cruel) Condiment Crimes

10 A Parrot’s Testimony in a Murder Case

In 2015, the small town of Ensley Township, Michigan, was shaken by the murder of Martin Duram, who was found shot multiple times in his home. His wife, Glenna Duram, was discovered next to him with a head wound but survived. Amid the investigation, their African grey parrot, Bud, began mimicking an argument, repeatedly squawking, “Don’t f—ing shoot!” followed by a woman’s voice saying, “Shut up!” Martin’s ex-wife believed Bud was reenacting the couple’s final moments.

The media spotlighted Bud’s mimicry, sparking debates on whether an animal’s vocalizations could be admissible in court. African grey parrots are known for their advanced mimicry and cognitive abilities, raising questions about the reliability of such evidence. Some legal experts argued that Bud’s utterances could provide insight into the events leading up to Martin’s death, while others cautioned against setting a precedent based on an animal’s behavior.

Although prosecutors chose not to use Bud’s “testimony,” it significantly influenced public perception and added a unique dimension to the case. In 2017, Glenna Duram was convicted of first-degree murder, with the case highlighting the complexities of considering animal behavior in legal contexts.^[1]

9 Genealogy Websites Help Catch the Golden State Killer

In 2018, after more than four decades of eluding capture, Joseph James DeAngelo was arrested and identified as the notorious “Golden State Killer.” Law enforcement achieved this breakthrough by employing an unconventional method: genetic genealogy. Investigators uploaded DNA collected from crime scenes to GEDmatch, a public genealogy website where users share their genetic information to find relatives and learn about their ancestry. By analyzing the genetic profiles of distant relatives who had submitted their DNA for personal use, they constructed an extensive family tree that ultimately led to DeAngelo.

This innovative approach merged traditional detective work with cutting-edge DNA analysis, opening new possibilities in cold case investigations. However, it also sparked significant debates about privacy and consent, as individuals who provided their DNA for genealogical purposes unwittingly became part of a criminal investigation.^[2]

8 Google Maps Street View in a Kidnapping Case

In 2017, Italian prosecutors utilized Google Maps Street View to help solve a kidnapping. A young girl was abducted, and witnesses mentioned seeing a suspicious van in the area. Investigators examined Street View images of the neighborhood and spotted a van matching the description, including identifiable dents and marks, parked near the crime scene at a time consistent with the abduction.

This image led them to a suspect with a prior criminal record involving similar offenses. A search of his property resulted in the girl’s rescue and his arrest. The case showcased how publicly available technology can aid law enforcement, serving as a valuable tool in corroborating witness accounts and timelines.^[3]

7 A Dog’s Reaction as Evidence of Guilt

In a 1923 Swiss murder trial, the court faced limited evidence linking Jakob Meili to his neighbor’s poisoning. Prosecutors proposed bringing the victim’s loyal German Shepherd into the courtroom to observe its reaction to Meili. When the dog reportedly growled and barked aggressively at him, the prosecution argued that this behavior indicated recognition of the murderer and, thus, Meili’s guilt.

Despite defense objections regarding the reliability of such evidence, the court allowed it to influence the jury. Meili was convicted, sparking debates about the admissibility of animal behavior in court. Critics argued that the dog’s reaction could have been influenced by numerous factors unrelated to guilt, such as the defendant’s nervous demeanor or unfamiliar scents. The case is often cited in discussions about empirical evidence versus emotionally charged demonstrations and has influenced modern legal standards regarding the admissibility of non-scientific evidence.^[4]

6 An Alexa Recording in a Double Murder Case

In 2017, Arkansas police investigated a double homicide at James Bates’ home, noticing an Amazon Echo device on the premises. Believing it might contain recordings relevant to the case, they requested data from Amazon. The company resisted, citing privacy concerns and the potential implications for user trust, but Bates eventually consented to the release of the recordings.

While the Echo’s data didn’t provide conclusive evidence about the murders, additional information from Bates’ smart water meter indicated excessive water use during the time in question, suggesting a possible cleanup operation. Although charges were eventually dropped due to insufficient evidence, the case set a precedent for using smart home data in investigations.^[5]

5 A Pacemaker’s Data Uncovers an Arson

In 2016, Ross Compton reported a dramatic escape from his burning home in Middletown, Ohio. He claimed that upon discovering the fire, he hastily packed belongings, broke a window with a cane, and threw heavy items out before climbing to safety. Suspicious of his account due to the rapid progression of the fire and inconsistencies in his story, investigators sought an unusual source of corroboration: data from Compton’s pacemaker. They obtained a warrant to retrieve records of his heart rate and rhythms during the time surrounding the incident.

The pacemaker data did not align with the strenuous activity Compton described. Medical experts testified that his heart readings suggested a level of exertion inconsistent with someone scrambling to save possessions from a burning house. This discrepancy led to his indictment on charges of arson and insurance fraud.^[6]

4 A Cat’s Hair Ties a Suspect to a Murder

In 1994, Canadian investigators used animal DNA for the first time to solve a murder on Prince Edward Island. White cat hairs found on a blood-soaked jacket near victim Shirley Duguay’s body led them to her estranged partner, Douglas Beamish, who owned a white cat named Snowball. Scientists at the University of California, Davis, conducted mitochondrial DNA testing on the cat hairs, matching them to Snowball with a high degree of certainty.

Despite challenges to the evidence’s validity due to the novelty of animal DNA use in court, the judge admitted the findings. Beamish was convicted, and the case became a landmark in forensic science.^[7]

3 A Fitness Tracker Contradicts a Story

In 2017, Richard Dabate reported his wife Connie’s murder by an intruder in their Connecticut home. However, Connie’s Fitbit data showed she was active an hour after Richard claimed she was killed, logging over 1,200 steps. Additional digital evidence, including Richard’s own activity on his phone and computer, contradicted his account of being subdued by the attacker.

Faced with this digital evidence, which painted a different timeline, Richard was arrested and later convicted of murder. The case highlighted the role of wearable technology in modern investigations, demonstrating how personal devices can provide crucial information in legal cases.^[8]

2 An Emoji Text Leads to a Defamation Lawsuit

In Israel, in 2019, a landlord sued prospective tenants after they backed out of renting his apartment. The tenants had sent messages filled with emojis like champagne bottles, dancing figures, and smiley faces, which the landlord interpreted as strong intent to rent. He took down his listing, believing the deal was sealed, only for the tenants to withdraw later.

The court analyzed the emojis’ context and ruled they conveyed misleading assurance, holding the tenants liable for damages. The case stressed the need for clarity in online exchanges and highlighted the evolving challenges courts face in interpreting modern modes of communication.^[9]

1 A Facebook Selfie Unveils a Murder

In 2015, a tragic case in Saskatchewan, Canada, highlighted the unexpected role social media can play in criminal investigations. Brittney Gargol, an 18-year-old woman, was found dead by the side of a road, strangled with a belt. The case puzzled investigators due to a lack of eyewitnesses and clear leads. As part of their inquiry, police examined Gargol’s social media accounts to trace her last known movements. They discovered a Facebook selfie posted hours before her death, showing Gargol with her friend, Cheyenne Antoine. In the photo, Antoine was wearing a distinctive belt that closely resembled the murder weapon found at the scene.

Further scrutiny of their online interactions and Antoine’s inconsistent statements about that night’s events raised suspicions. Confronted with the mounting digital evidence—including the matching belt in the selfie—Antoine confessed to manslaughter. She admitted that an argument between the two friends had escalated, leading to Gargol’s death. In 2018, Antoine was sentenced to seven years in prison. ^[10]