My understanding of that quote is that the shoeprint but not the fingerprints were bloody, and it's of course impossible for a shoeprint to positively exclude s

My understanding of that quote is that the shoeprint but not the fingerprints were bloody, and it's of course impossible for a shoeprint to positively exclude someone unless you know every shoe they've ever worn. The hair I haven't heard anything specific about. And while it's not forensic evidence, I would note the glaring absence of any followup to that second sentence of the quote. What the article never gets around to mentioning is that some of the victim's missing items were found in his car, and the laptop was recovered from a guy he sold it to. (He claims that he got the victim's laptop from his girlfriend, and as far as I know didn't offer any explanation of where the items in his car came from.)