Zullo has overseen multiple forensics and examinations of the documents involved and he has declared them as forgeries with 100% likelihood, IOW a certainty.
He said in the interview that the document was scanned and copied multiple times and that on one iteration the ‘smudge’ with fingerprint appeared.
That means the smudge with fingerprint was part of the forgery process.
Now I think what Freeper ‘unlearner’ was alluding to was the possibility that the fingerprint was possibly ‘planted’ deliberately to lead investigators on a wild goose chase possibly to an innocent.
But I don’t think so. I don’t think so because I have heard Zullo over the years and I know this guy is wise to the types of games criminals play. He is indeed a sharp detective and as a seasoned law enforcement officer he always thinks of the downside. What do I mean by ‘downside’?
Any good lawyer, any good detective will know you have to always think of that which is negative to your case. By that I mean if you get excited by a piece of evidence you have to quell your excitement and think of the downside; how will the judge rule? Why was the evidence there for you to find? Etc.
So I am confident that Zullo is revealing this small piece of evidence because all the background checks are completed and the timing is right. We are led to think they got someone at the scene of the crime.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3658389/posts?page=47#47
IIRC, 0 had his lawyer go and get it, and handle it, in order to have legal protection.
If 0 had gone and held it up, he would have been directly responsible for it.
It was later shown to be a forgery.
But the fingerprint —is— important, especially if its 0’s.
If it’s Onaka’s or Bauer’s, then one of them would be culpable in a forgery.