[Terry Mross]

I’ve always had one question. Mark Furhman said they found a bloody fingerprint on the gate and he told his partner they may have the fingerprint of the killer. (This was before the other cops got there.) The fingerprint was never introduced into evidence. This proves it wasn’t O.J.’s fingerprint. So, whose was it?

[Ramius]

I’ve always had one question. Mark Furhman said they found a bloody fingerprint on the gate and he told his partner they may have the fingerprint of the killer. (This was before the other cops got there.) The fingerprint was never introduced into evidence. This proves it wasn’t O.J.’s fingerprint. So, whose was it?

Not necessarily. Just because there was a bloody impression, that doesn't mean that a useful and identifiable print can be lifted from it. It's actually more uncommon than common for most prints to be useful. They're typically smudged. It takes fairly ideal conditions for a print to be readable and identifiable.