Isn't that sort of like poking a finger in the lion's eye without being able to run away? You're absolutely right, but while that's logical, it's also the sort of thing that a detective already fixated on you might think of as gloating. Insert new theory of the crime: you weren't helping your mother out of the goodness of your heart, but so you could scope out potential victims. And maybe you did touch the phone book during the crime for the adrenaline rush, content in the belief that it's the last place the police would think to dust for prints. All theories made less crazy because the detective thinks you were a smug SOB.

You mentioned that you felt lucky; sad to say, I think you're probably right. What a nightmare of an experience.

Indeed. "Ah ha! How could you know the burglar was wearing gloves if you weren't at the scene of the crime?" No winning there.

Never talk to police without a lawyer is good advice, but that advice literally translates to "Never talk to police without paying someone $300 per hour to do it." Meanwhile, police, at no additional cost to themselves, can essentially compel you to talk to them any time they want. So it's pretty easy to push people around with that dynamic, yet most people I talk to seem to bury their head in the sand on the issue.

I'm reminded of:

George Aaronow: When I talk to the police I get nervous.

Ricky Roma: Yes. You know who doesn't?

George Aaronow: Who?

Ricky Roma: Thieves.

It's not that much. That lawyer then would spend those money staying at one of your hotels or such. What goes around comes around.

After I had my home broken into the guy taking fingerprints explained to me that fingerprints don't really work like that. You're lucky to pull one single print out of an entire house, regardless of how careful a burglar was.

So I suspect that finding one good print and extrapolating a suspect from it is probably pretty common. Flawed obviously, but common.