Since the person might have been touching the piano when it was blown over
by the wind, a finger print would mean nothing without a lot of other data.
I asked, "How do you tell FROM THE REMANDS AND DENTS IN THE SIDEWALK . . .
."
You seem not to understand the point of my remarks. The point is, that, if
the piano is deliberately pushed, it falls by design. But, if it is tipped
by wind, its fall is accidental. Given the limited data at the result end of
the sequence, how do you determine which? Design or accident? If the person
nearest the piano at the time it went over was accused of murder, where
would the burden of proof be? Would we demand that he prove his innocence?
Or, until strong evidence was found, would we presume it was an accident,
knowing that there were gusts of wind and that the piano happened to be
precariously perched at the time? Or would we simply ASSUME that the gusts
of wind were the result of some hidden designer who had a thing against the
person who "got it"?