Many thanks for your replies.
You both make very valid points.
The main thing I think to highlight in this case is the bloody fingerprint should have been visible and recorded (Would this be fair to say ?)
Because of what we know about Swann confirming Y7 & QI2 wrongly I think it important all his work is now peer reviewed.
He confirmed for CCRC that this belonged to the suspect and was in blood overstepping he expertise as he is not an erxpert in blood or substance analisis.
Graham hit the answer spot on, by saying if there was a bloody print it would have been visible therefore no need to spray any substances at-all.
Should it also have been photographed and recorded which seems to be absent from this case ?http://www.susanmay.co.uk/
Please take it from me that experts cannot any longer say if it is blood let alone the blood of the victim, however their reports are available on the link above.