Look at the other again:
This one obviously has the thumbprint too; it's just that it's faint. But, take a good look at it, and then look again at the other, because that one still has it too:
And how could these two vastly different versions both be "originals"? It's not as though they had any trouble in the 1960s making authentic and accurate photographic copies. Look at Mary's again, the one in her possession:
So, that tells you how light the background was, the hillside across the street. So, why would it look like this in the UPI photo?
It's all lies. Mary's original photo is gone with the wind. It is never coming back.