Yes, I agree. The prosecutors opted to go to trial with the ambiguous dna evidence on the clothing--the rationale being better to catch one chicken than wait for the possibility of catching two or more in the bush--risking the case going cold. My thought in the beginning was that Steven C's intent was to cause a miscarriage of his baby, not kill Charlie. That would explain his horror response in court when viewing what was found of her remains--the split jaw and fingernail pieces, etc. Who else might have been involved, as well as the circumstances of Charlie's death, at this point, is so convoluted with mismatched evidence, I think it is nearly impossible to prove factually in this trial what actually happened to Charlie. If the Judge gives instructions to the jury allowing for a lesser charge, a voluntary manslaughter conviction might be the end result.