The writing in the BBC article suggests "this photo", they refer to "the photo" and show a photograph. IMO that's bad journalism if it's not the original photo

The writing in the BBC article suggests "this photo", they refer to "the photo" and show a photograph. IMO that's bad journalism if it's not the original photo - how about 'the original photo, of which this is a lower quality copy, had enough detail for police to read fingerprint markers from, those markers were matched to the suspect [...]'. If it's not _the_ photo, then who knows, perhaps it's a fake the BBC produced or it's a stock photo. Why not state details about the pertinent evidence on which the whole story supposedly hangs.