He was quoted as saying this a day or two ago. He said the dna might not match, but dna tests can't be trusted. In other words he wants the credit for being there even if they can't match the dna. It's quite comical actually how much he complains about not being given credit, how mad he gets at the news media: "they said I didn't know the layout of the house!" "they said I am a murderer!" "they said I am unbalanced!" "they said there should be footprints in the snow. I was there, I know why there aren't!" Quote after quote showing he is determined to prove he was there but I am quite certain he will rationalize the death as an accident and society's fault because they didn't allow him to freely love little girls etc. etc.
It's like anything else, this rationalization and ego. Imagine for a second, a very narcissistic man who seduces a woman by getting her sympathy that he needs her, but when she gives in, he loses interest; as all he wanted was the conquest; then turns around and says it was her fault because she was too appealing and he couldn't resist. He doesn't murder her, just dumps her because the grown woman is not going to cry rape.
This happens all the time. All the time, because some people are good seducers and some women believe it's love.
In a similar way of rationalizing, Karr's quotes have indicated he can't resist little girls so his split psyche is at war about whether "he" harmed them when he really just wanted to love him, and intended to show his love in a gentle way, but he couldn't control his impulses. Goes to the Jekyll and Hyde thing. Another probable defense they will try to use if he pleads not guilty. It would be that "he" today didn't do it; his "bad side" that comes out and overtakes him, did it, and "he" is very sorry about that.