Final answer:
In historical context, the absence of footprints or feet could be due to post-mortem events or societal practices, rather than indicating an act of murder, as found in the analysis of historical bodies that showed no signs of violent dismemberment.
Step-by-step explanation:
Milton does not explicitly prove that the absence of footprints is not an indication of murder; however, we can infer from various contexts that the absence of footprints or feet does not necessarily point to violent acts such as murder. Considering the detailed analysis of bodies with missing feet from a historical site, it is mentioned that there was no evidence of violent removal of the feet, as the limbs did not show any signs of such violence. Instead, the feet were likely removed accidentally or for practical reasons during the burial process or due to advanced decomposition. Hence, in a historical context, the absence of footprints or feet can be attributed to post-mortem events rather than the act of murder itself.
This explanation can be anchored in interdisciplinary analysis, considering archaeological, anatomical, and social factors, rather than an explicit proof by Milton. The historical evidence suggests the removal of feet occurred posthumously, possibly during the preparation for burial or due to societal practices of the time, rather than as a result of murderous acts. Similar considerations about the presence or absence of evidence, including footprints, can be made in literary analysis or crime investigations, where a lack of evidence does not necessarily assert a conclusion without considering alternative explanations.