So let’s think about this fingerprint (s).
Sooo, where could they have gotten one fingerprint, much less multiple? I can think of very few possibilities.
1. In blood on their skin. I am unsure if a useable fingerprint could be lifted from fabric. Blood could explain the lack of a definitive print, it does degrade with time and it was approximately 20-21 hours from probable attack to discovery and there was likely frost or dew that would have altered it.
2. Some other solid or semi-solid surface. Possibilities are Libby’s phone or the rubber on their shoes. Did they have any hair ties or clips? Glasses/sunglasses? Maybe a note or paper in a pocket? A trinket intended for a_s? I think the most likely place is her phone or something we don’t know about yet that they took with them. But why would BG touch it?
3. Maybe not the murder weapon but something else they are thinking BG touched. A stick? A different tool/weapon? Maybe he left something? Cigarette butt, food wrapper, drink bottle
Let’s brainstorm fingerprint info!
Sorry, i messed up your citation. The beginning of the post should be in yellow area.
Answer: I think LE have fingerprints of several different people lifted from the CS. I don’t think they all belong to the same person, and here is why.
Imagine it is a CS, girls’ bodies, and one fingerprint is at the place where it shouldn’t be - and it doesn’t match anyone from the girls’ families, friends, anyone they’d know, but it is there. I think it is on the girl. And partial.
And, other fingerprints around.
Case 1: all fingerprints belong to the same person. The person says, “ yeah, it is old Ron’s property, i used to hang around there all the time, I was there on Feb 12. What, on Feb 13? No way, everyone saw me (elsewhere).”
(Go prove. No one was testing the area for fingerprints on Feb 12.)
Then LE says, OK, you were not there on February 13, how come there is your fingerprint on (one of the girls)? They were not at the CS on Feb 12?
Bingo. This is when the person is caught.
Case 2: there is one (partial, as TL said) print where it shouldn’t be - on one of the girls.
And lots of prints around it, belonging to other/different people.
In my mind, it is worse. Because, supposedly they found owners of multiple prints. I bet one of them is in Codis. But now all these people say, oh yes, we were there on February 12.
And the one who is tied up to one of the girls, whose fingerprint is on one of them, darn, had left only a partial! A partial won’t stand in court.
Now, if LE could also lift DNA from that fingerprint without destroying it… but the technique became available in 2018.
Lifting fingermarks from a crime scene often destroys the DNA they can contain.
theconversation.com
Hence, I think the print was not a bloodied one, otherwise, LE could have photographed it. And then processed for DNA. I think it was a vague, sweaty partial. Obtained in 2017, and the method to obtain DNA from fingerprints and leave them undamaged was described only in 2018.