I realize it's an unpopular sentiment, but...um...baez may be a boring <modsnip> however, this DNA evidence on the shovel and on the tape (perhaps belong to someone else or to contamination) is no less relevant than the 'one-out-of-eleven' female Anthony hairs that showed a "death band", found incongruously in the Pontiac trunk. Same tendency to incriminate - or to exculpate - in the absence of any supportive evidence. I'm not a troll, but doesn't proper sleuthing involve comparative, objective consideration of all the evidence in any investigation and less condemnation of the judicial process as a whole and defense counselors as a population? JB doesn't have to prove CA didn't kill Caylee; he has to show that the state of Florida hasn't *proven* that CA killed Caylee. All of this DNA contam goes to that obligation. And unpopular as the view may be, I do not believe that the state proved their case against CA, beyond any standard of reasonable doubt. One concern of mine is that any complicit person or persons will essentially get away with murder if the state's "CA did it all alone because she's a pathological liar and a bad Mom" wins the jury's decision :/