Like all rational human beings, she immediately contacted a UFOlogist, Barry Taylor.  We could say that this is "getting some answers" as much as throwing gasoline on a fire is putting it out.  But we won't.

Here is an image of a set of fingerprints, followed by Mr. Taylor's description:

There are FOUR [4] ‘Digits’ in this print. They are long, slim and delicate in nature when you compare their length in relation to their width. But overall, the prints are still small compared to a Human hand print. There is a broader ‘joint pad’ at the bottom, and a narrower upper ‘joint pad’, tapering to a point. One strange thing associated with all five [5] sets of prints, is that there is no print of the ‘hand’ or ‘main pad’ that the ‘digits’ are attached to, just the extended ‘digit’ print.
Notice the broad spacing between the base of the ‘digits’, indicating a much broader ‘hand’ or ‘pad’ than would be expected, in relation to the long narrow ‘digits’.

Mr. Taylor's first question is this:

WHAT MADE THESE PRINTS?

Good question.  I think I can answer it: a human being.

Next, Mr. Taylor makes an erroneous conclusion:

Two D.N.A. swabs were taken, showing NO Human D.N.A. present. So they are not Human prints.

That's really not a good deductive argument.  Not all human fingerprints have DNA on, in or near them.  If there were no DNA on these prints, it is not evidence that they are not human.  None of the research I've done on fingerprints (which, admittedly, isn't much) mentioned anything about DNA being derived from them.  For DNA to be found requires a measure of human remains, like a fingernail, hair, blood, semen, etc. 

All the other evidence points to the fingerprints' nature as human.

Application to the mirror was said to be by a wet or damp ‘thing’, non Human, non reptile, non mammal, but there was CANINE D.N.A., but the prints were not made by a dog.

Hmmmmm... you can tell they weren't made by a dog by looking at the image; that isn't much of a revelation.  But Mr. Taylor seems to deny that the prints are human solely on the basis of the lack of human DNA found on the prints.  That is not good science.

The Family do own a dog, but the pads of the dog are nothing like the mirror prints...Another thing, the prints were made from an ‘oily’ secretion from what ever made them, that is why they are on the mirror.

These two facts taken together make it pretty obvious to me what happened: a human being at the house somehow handled the dog (I believe the act of petting the dog would qualify) and then smudged the mirror with his/her fingers.  It is entirely possible that an alien did invade the woman's home, leave a scratch on her arm, and then take time to pet the dog. 

The mysterious scratch is obviously some attempt at linking the finger prints with abduction phenomenon (on the part of the woman in question, or one of the researchers involved).  Unfortunately, mysterious cuts are also not evidence of abduction.  In fact, I'm not all that certain that abductions have evidence.

It would appear that this story is an example of a good mind working harder than it needs to.  The woman had a scratch she didn't remember receiving, noticed fingerprints on her mirror, and her complex, intelligent brain made out a connection when there was no need for one.  I have found that a good number of paranormal "sightings" and "encounters" are a result of this very logical phenomenon.  Most of the time, simply finding simple explanations for apparently unrelated evidence is the best way to think these things through.

SKEPTIC RETORT - Go to Barry Taylor's Response!   

All images and italicized text are © 2000 Barry Taylor