Yes, they said they were still waiting upon the information from a forensic pathologist.
That maybe somebody that they actually out sourced which would be great at trial because they could say possibly that there is no way that fingerprints could be on the neck because fingerprints are lipids, and oil and lipids would be dissolved. Or something such as that. I'm glad they have brought in a forensic pathologist to assist the medical examiner before she gives her opinion. It will nail it down. And it may also nail down the red herring that the defense put forth as to that there would be finger prints on the children's neck from her, when everybody knew in that field that there could not be fingerprints if it was an oil?
I think it was a great strategy by the prosecution to do such, well I mean, the medical examiner. Is I'm not sure that every city has a forensic pathologist on its staff. So it might be an outsourced expert.
ETA- I had to giggle at the post above when I was proofreading, because I have no idea if the medical examiner is a woman, but I referred her as a woman. Perhaps I was thinking of the medical examiner we have here in the threads but I haven't seen in a long time, and I can't remember her name.
ETA- I just remembered her name, Joypath iirc, I wonder if we should invite her to this thread?