I only found one small part of BC's interview surprising or shocking in any way: that he would admit something so obvious and rational as the fact that he can conceive of no scenario that omits the defendant from the umbrella of suspicion. At this point, it would appear moronic to deny this, and to continue to try to draw in and blame her friends and associates and leave her out, when she was the person last seen by her family to have custody of Caylee. I'm sure he didn't make these statements without client consent, though, or without intent to benefit the defense. It's also part of his attempt IMO to rehab the images of the A's, so that they can have their careers as advocates for missing children. To continue appearing so anti-fact, LE-hating, obstructionist, etc. is not really conducive to successfully having a foundation, helping others, etc. Most child advocates are for the child and against the criminals who hurt them, and for the members of LE who investigate them and bring the perpetrators to justice. Anyway, you can't have it all ways. If allegations and accusations can be made by them against associates of Casey on the thinnest of suggestions of fact, they can't continue railing against suspicion of the defendant based on a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Well, they can, but look what their conduct in the uncivil civil depositions did for their images.
As for trying to keep the autopsy report from being released, I take no great leap that their action somehow proves any fact, brings child molesters into the equation, etc. It may be calculated to do something like that, but for me it's totally unpersuasive.