Discussion Forum

Often parrots are eye witnesses to domestic crimes. Can they be trusted in the court of law to give reliable testimony?

---

Quote: Dr. Billingsgate

Often parrots are eye witnesses to domestic crimes. Can they be trusted in the court of law to give reliable testimony?

---

Yes but not in cases of pollygamy.

Often parrots are eye witnesses to domestic crimes. Can they be trusted in the court of law to give reliable testimony?

Yes of course, twice in fact, followed by a squawk,

As has been reported, Bill Clinton's parrot has been trained to squawk, "Don't shoot, bitch!" when Hillary catches him and Energizer Bunny in the clutches of passion. Do you think this would stand up in a court of law?

There was the famous case of Mrs Elvira Juddering v Coronation Hall, Cleethorpes, in which the decisive evidence was provided by the principal witness for the prosecution, "Dobbin" the Arithmetical Pantomime Horse.

Another example was Grinding Brothers Circus v "Captain Nemo, King of the Penguins", in which the case turned on the testimony of a pair of Sea Lions.

Finally, for now, we have the infamous case of Grubbett's Suet Puddings Ltd v Rear Admiral Ffyffe-Johnstone, where key evidence for the defence was provided by a trio of singing owls.

None of these cases involved parrots, however, the question of whose testimonial efficacy must remain very much ad disputare.

Since Mr. Ed would only talk to Wilbur, I wonder if his testimony could be forced. Just imagine a court where the presiding magistrate was a parrot trained to decipher the hidden meanings of horse talk, but could only squawk two phrases: "Order in the court" and "Hang the bastard."

Might this pose a dilemma? In cases such as this, I always refer to my bracelet which has the initials, WWTD (What Would Trump Do) carved on the face. Has anyone ever heard of a horse being waterboarded?

Just asking.

There was the case where a pony was giving testimony for the defence, but was barely audible, uttering its evidence in a throaty whisper.

When the judge asked why it didn't speak up, the Counsel for the defence asked him to excuse it, as it was a little hoarse.

Oh my aching sides.

Talking about horses...Who can forget the old shit kicker movies of the golden era? Tom Mix n' Cement and Bob Steele n' Cattle. Sorry to hear that the greatest horse of all, The Black Stallion, had his name changed to the African-American Stallion.

The Thomson's Gazelle is one of the most reliable of witnesses. I have never known one give false testimony.

They are famous for their speed and zigzagging movement. That's probably why so few of them are successfully subpoenaed. You just can't get hold of them. Justice would be all the better for it if you could.

I also happen to think that a few strategically-cast Thomson's Gazelle would have made all the difference to those old shit-kicker movies.

Let us not shun the capybara out of hand either. Indeed, the only thing preventing the capybara from being one of the most subpoenaed of species is its tendency to chew its food by grinding back and forth rather than side to side, which frightens the jury. Well, that and the fact that it regurgitates its food to eat again.

Oh, and it eats its own faeces, which probably puts the lid on it as far as the capybara goes. It goes about 25 acres, actually, in its natural habitat - which, unless it refines its habits, is not likely to include a court of law in the near future.

A sturgeon was brought into court in Gdansk once, in a divorce case in 1876.

Nobody could hear its testimony through the water in the tank, however, notwithstanding the claims of the counsel for the prosecution that he could hear it "singing the evidence", and it was never called upon again. It was last heard of - well, not exactly heard of - living a retired life in a suburb of Slupsk.

It may have been singing during its retired life in Slupsk, but, alas, we will never know for sure, because it was under water the whole time.