I just got to the part where we discovered the second victim was killed and then moved.

The prosecution's argument is "Her finger prints are on the weapon" but that makes no sense at all.

The "second" victim was actually killed first. They also propose the knife was used to kill the high priest.

So what are they proposing she did? Kill the disciple, bury him in the snow, move him to the prayer group, then kill the high priest w/ the same dagger, then walk back down the stairs and stick that same knife back in the disciple w/ her finger prints and all on them?

That makes absolutely no sense in any way shape or form. "Her finger prints were on this dagger" doesn't cut it here.

I just proved the statue was the murder weapon, so we're moving on from there. That said, it wasn't explained why they still thought Maya was the murderer w/ that dagger at the specific point and time from my first post

aaaand just heard Yuty speak on the very subject. Still think it's a meh argument. If you're going to go through that much trouble, why would she not wear gloves or wipe the fingerprints off the blade while leaving it there.

That seems like a huge scheme/plot he's proposing she had to overlook something obvious/blatant as finger prints. I'll buy it for now I guess as I continue on lol

Her fingerprints are on the dagger, which implicates her. You don't have concrete evidence yet that the prints were planted or that someone else was responsible, so the case stands, even if it's incredibly implausible that Maya would commit such an intricate coverup only to leave her prints on the weapon.