Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defence pleads not guilty, based on the irrefutable evidence that those paw prints were made by a human.
1 the two prints on the left appear to be different shapes meaning the lower one would have been made by a back paw. Cats can’t fully retract their back claws because they are used for traction when running, not offensive purposes. There are no claw marks.
2 there is no disturbance to the obviously soft dough. A cat being lifted would grip the dough causing tearing both front and back and a cat jumping off the dough would result in tearing to the rear print.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defence pleads not guilty, based on the irrefutable evidence that those paw prints were made by a human.
1 the two prints on the left appear to be different shapes meaning the lower one would have been made by a back paw. Cats can’t fully retract their back claws because they are used for traction when running, not offensive purposes. There are no claw marks.
2 there is no disturbance to the obviously soft dough. A cat being lifted would grip the dough causing tearing both front and back and a cat jumping off the dough would result in tearing to the rear print.
The defence rests
If the dough don’t fit, you must acquit!
Could be a few probing taps before declaring the ground unstable and icky and not worth the heat.
Say two front paws, a backtrack, some contemplation then another single paw attempt. This also matches the shallower third print.
If there were more pixels to the images maybe more could be said.