Well said, Kamille.
It reminds me of the balance of probabilities that the coroner was talking about in his testimony. Adding up all the evidence provided, as you say, murder by DM does seem to be the most reasonable conclusion. But if the judge thinks that there is even a small chance that it was suicide, then she can't convict... right?
And going back to that balance of probabilities... I was just looking at the tweets from Day 3 of the trial with the coroner and Det. Hutcheon where he says that the coroner told him on the scene that it "seems like 60 to 70 per cent suicide, 30 to 40 per cent suspicious." Hutcheon said he requested that the homicide detective come but that the homicide detective said he would not attend the scene and that he would instead follow up the next morning by looking at the report and the photographs. How is that acceptable?! 60-40 is only slightly more than the two things being equally possible...meaning the coroner really didn't know or even feel strongly that it was suicide...meaning that there was a fair chance it was suspicious. One would think that in such a situation the homicide detective would not have a choice but to attend the scene! I'm just thinking of all of the evidence analysis and testing that might have been done had he gone to the scene as was requested!
Also, the coroner stated that his determination of suicide was helped by history he got from the family members (MB and DM taking about trouble with finances, alcohol, depression). It's amazing how all of the professionals on the scene were influenced by what DM and MB had to say. And I guess why wouldn't they be? In most cases I imagine it's helpful for family members to be providing background information... But anyway...I'll end my rant here.