So cordless phone was used to call 911 not cellular phone, but phone records show cell phone was used, and no prints were found on cell phone but Dixons were found on cordless. Maybe cordless is cell phone on records. In any case still no blood trace found in the study where phones were, strange.
So Dixon's prints on the glass in sink where blood traces were found. And Dixon's prints on one of the table lamps.
Dixon has some explaining to do.
So is it coincidence that Dixon goes to the sink where his prints are found on the glass and blood traces are found, but he leaves no trace of blood when he enters the study to phone 911.
Is it coincidence that the table lamps, one with Dixon's prints, are found in the living room and so are blood traces?
l can only assume that blood traces were left after the murder and not the next morning, and all these places have evidence which points to where Dixon has been.
No prints have been taken from the front door??? but nearly every other door has. No samples of vomit either. Well it would be easy enough to look at it and tell if it is fresh within the hour, or 10 -12 hours old.

lol print analysis of cell phone and cordless phone has changed from yesterday.
Cell phone fingerprint analysis has disappeared and cordless phone has no prints of Dixon.
Cordless phone base in kitchen has Dixon's prints, but, both phones were found in the study when taken into evidence.
Devlin's cell phone records show cell phone was used to make 911 call. l am confused but happy.