Are the fingerprints in Appendix Man just a massive coincidence then?

SPOILERS for Appendix Man and Dead Male One



Have I got this right?


A man called Ian stole the Hockney painting. (About 8 years before Appendix Man is set).

Ian gave the painting to Leslie/Lester at some stage. (Or else Leslie/Lester acquired it after Ian's death; possibly stealing Ian's other stuff too since no-one knew he was dead.)

Ian died, due to being pushed into river by Leslie/Lester. (About 1 year before Appendix Man is set).

The pathologist's assistant put her own finger prints on file to pretend that they were Ian's. She was unconnected with the Hockney painting or to Leslie/Lester, but did not want the police to identify Ian.

Leslie/Lester died (or was murdered) and the Hockney painting stolen. The pathologist's assistant still had no connection to Leslie/Lester or the painting.

The pathologist's assistant accidentally left her fingerprints at the scene when quite properly being at the scene during the investigation.


Ultimately, this mistake by the assistant had nothing to do with the solution to Leslie/Lester's death or the recovery of the painting. That was solved because the girl who found the body mentioned the Hockney painting to the police.

However, by a massive coincidence, her mistake DID lead to the discovery that the original theft of the painting had been by Ian. Apart from her mistake, there would have been nothing to cause the police to exhume Ian, check his real fingerprints, and match them to the theft from 8 years ago.



Is that right? Or have I misunderstood?