BTW... not arguing for Saretzky... arguing for the sake of finding the truth and since the police/RCMP are responsible for the investigation we have to be confident that they do a thorough job so that the facts are the facts and nothing is left out regardless of what verdict it supports.
With what we've heard so far I think one could argue, however remote the chance it happened is, that he didn't kill Hanne. If that was the case and someone else killed her, they would be free if he was found guilty of causing her death whether it's first degree or not.
Up to this point, assuming it would have been tweeted about, the evidence presented would lead the jury to believe that DS had not been questioned about HM's murder until March 2016 when he 'confessed'.
The thing about his confessions too is that he's said so many different things that there's more than enough room to argue that things he said weren't true. IIRC DNA evidence has not put DS at any crime scene or even in the van. Can anyone verify that?