Neat reading, if one wants to get out of Occam's razor for the show and indulge a potential plot line or two. Aiding and abetting law in CA, with professional duties (Velcoro, as a cop, likely has a duty to stop crimes he knows are to be committed. Could be why he's indebted to Semyon). And spousal duties with respect to forced spousal testimony compelled by the state. Exes don't count.
http://www.shouselaw.com/aiding-abetting.html#1.1
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/felony-offense/can-spouses-be-forced-testify-against-one-another
So what's the alternative in your world? Despite VV saying he Velcorro killed him and Velcorro telling his wife he did it... what? VV did it and framed him?
There are a few alternatives, but they're just mere speculations and possible plot lines. I wouldn't take me too seriously. If you want to go by the literal admissions within the show, go with them. I'm just having fun with the possibilities.
So here's the counter-argument: VV (Semyon) never said Velcoro killed anybody. He said he "dumped a body," which is disposal. If this literally happened, this would make Velcoro an accomplice to the murder, possibly a conspirator, and would lead to a life sentence regardless, given that Velcoro physically dumped the body. Another alternative is that according to California criminal law, all Velcoro would have to know is that Semyon had intent to either kill or dispose of a body and that might, in it of itself, violate his police duties (in his official capacity) to stop a crime, which might also be considered aiding and abetting, which would then also bring a life charge. Even if Velcoro did nothing, he's still in Semyon's pocket by simply knowing.
Less stringently, we have a public scene outside of a large, public shopping center with a Buffalo Wild Wings where a guy is screaming back-and-forth with his ex-wife about a murder he committed some years back. Seems odd.
In addition, the fractured narrative of the show and its seemingly intended vagueness come into play here. All we have are first-person confessions, doubts, etc. And all of these seem to come from extremely troubled characters with drug, sex, substance, and childhood issues coloring all of their statements. First-person narrative is always suspect as a literary device because of its unreliability. Third-person, objective narratives are when most readers, viewers, and listeners come to find out the truth of the first-person narratives strewn throughout. In television, and especially detective mysteries, this third-person certitude often reveals itself to the viewer by showing actions rather than having the viewer rely on otherwise suspect dialogue. So far, we've had very little third-person, televisual proof about anything in this series, which might be causing people difficulty getting into the show, but that's another issue for another time.
Hell, we don't even know if the rifle shots last week were real or rock salt; why wouldn't we randomly speculate about other things? There is very little that is definitive about the plot developments of the show so far. The admission at Wild Wings is the most definitive proof we have that Velcoro killed a man, and he's desperate, and the recipient of the confession is also compromised in some way.
And that's it. Velcoro probably killed the guy, but there's certainly nothing definitive about it.
