AL, I know you doubt that he did this.
Let's imagine for a moment either way...that he did it, or else that he believes he did it because he's so delusional about the case he believes he was the perp.
The accident thing could be his way of rationalizing what either did happen or he believes happened with him as the perp. Let's stipulate that all of those things you mentioned he did indeed do or thinks he did. Doesn't sound like an accident...or does it?
It might, IF he spins it that when he went there he did not have in his mind to kill her, but that she reacted against him when she realized what was going on and he was just trying to quiet her or subdue her to keep from alerting the family, and that somehow he got out of hand because her reaction against him FORCED him to.
Even the garroting could be explained away if he rationlizes it. That could be explained as his way of "making love to her", sick as it is, but it wasn't meant to kill her. I don't know what spin he'll put on it, but bottom line he could say he admits to everything EXCEPT having the intent to kill.
I have to agree.....and let us not forget the a neighbor heard a scream...that is probably when the death blow occured...
Well, I can certainly see your point as to how HE might rationalize it. But my doubts about him aren't really based on whether I think his confession is sensible - from his point of view. It's the reaction of the DA, and the way the case has been handled, that makes me suspicious. They already seem to be on the defensive which makes me think the evidence they have is a kind of paper tiger that they previously thought was solid but on closer examination proved to be really weak. Otherwise, why be so tight-lipped about what they have? The case is 10 years old and most of the info is already in the public domain. Maybe they truly have something only the killer could know but surely they have other things that can stand on their own...don't they? Is proof he was in Boulder somehow a necessary secret until trial? Would DNA or fiber evidence or any other forensics they have require secrecy before the trial? I don't think so. It's only those things that ONLY the killer could know that have to be kept secret. Surely they've got something else? That's what makes me suspicious. Maybe that's all they have and it's damning. But I'm still suspicious until I learn more.