Re: the witnesses that said they heard arguing around 2am, maybe they heard noisy, aggressive sex? Could that explain male and female voices, crying out? Not for help surely, but could have been mistaken for distress?
Does it really make a difference whether he whispered or spoke in a low tone? Or is Nel simply highlighting more inconsistencies in an attempt to discredit and unsettle OP?
Also, I'm confused about the marks not he bedroom door. Is it being suggested that the cricket bat was used on the bedroom door also? Surely not, because that would be absolutely damning.
Interesting what previous posters Ronald and Glad up thread said about Get out of my fucking house - In my opinion his emotional response to repeating those words was very significant.
Allthree, I don't think the emotion is put on. I do think he is genuinely very distressed. I don't know that the cause of his distress is because he is innocent and accused, or because he is guilty.
In my opinion, an innocent person will maintain their innocence in a consistently highly emotional manner, a guilty person would at times become overcome by intermittent ego-dystonic memories of the event that break through the lies. In this case, as I have mentioned, get the fuck out of my house and I wish she had said something really strike a chord with me. Clearly not enough to convict, but enough to start wondering...
Assuming for a moment that he is guilty, he has had a year to assimilate and mentally integrate his version with his personality and his beliefs, by denial or other defence mechanisms. However, the enormity of what he has done in killing another person, would be very hard to repress successfully. I think that successful repression would be contingent on a previously disordered personality. Assuming that beforehand he was normal (a dick maybe, but normal), and is now lying about his version it must be possible to trigger an outburst or a response that implicates him.
Going back to the use of plastic bags in resus, that sounds infinitely bizarre to me, but often you just grab what is to hand and I don't think it has bearing on the case.
Whether or not he thought about the damage the bullets would do through a door is irrelevant imo, didn't he have training in the use of his gun and was aware of the damage that bullets cause to humans? He cannot claim responsibility for firing the gun but claim to not know that bullets cause metal injuries, even through a door.
I'll admit, I'm quite dubious as to the veracity of OP's version. However, we shall see.
Will an innocent verdict affect behaviour of other men in RSA? Will it set a precedent for killing intruders, and partners?