Refuting a bucket of s*** with legal arguments

I happened upon this little gem recently:
http://saintgasoline.com/2007/12/01/refuting-creationists-with-only-a-bucket-of-feces/#comment-31802 (language warning for those with delicate sensibilities, but nothing worse than the excrement-word).

For those of you who are too lazy to click or are afraid of malware popping up from viewing that, it depicts two people, one of whom is covered in excrement and his standing near a bucket of excrement that is empty but is labelled "s***". Guy sans s*** is all "so you're the one that threw s*** on my house" and the other guy says, "But it was never directly observed!"

You're damn straight it was never directly observed. Of course, this is intended to "illustrate" that something can be proven without being directly observed.

However, legal jurisprudence would take issue with this oversimplification. While clever, it may also not be correct. How, for example, is Person #1 to know that Person #2 did not, in fact, throw s*** on the house, but rather caught the perpetrators, wrestled the bucket away, and in the process got covered in s***? So while it may be "safe" to assume that guy with the bucket did the dirty deed, it is rather simpleminded to exclude all other possibilities--especially perfectly plausible ones. It certainly doesn't lend itself to irrefutable proof.

For instance how would you be able to tell the difference upon first sight, of a guy that threw a bucket of s*** on your house, and a guy who wrestled a bucket of s*** from some punks who were in the process of throwing s*** on your house? Or he found the bucket later after walking under the guy's eaves and a big load of s*** just rolled off the roof and fell on his head? Answer: you wouldn't.