I think the reason for the added info to the motion to dismiss charges I & II is that the SA responded to the original motion that it was legally flawed and should not even be considered for that reason.
In this clip
http://www.clickorlando.com/video/21210525/index.html, it says the motion to dismiss can only be considered in very limited circumstances and it fails to include sworn statements by the defendant which is required. "Must swear to any or all material facts" that would prove her innocence and the state would have to agree to those facts. As to circumstantial evidence, the state says they have to wait until it is presented to a jury to decide to dismiss, as reported by clickorlando.
I think the added sworn statements by kc to the motion is an attempt to satisfy the requirements to dismiss as outlined in the clip.