Very interesting article smitten it clarifies a tweet I read from someone about how Nel had scored a major victory with OP saying he didn't intend to kill anyone and that it was an accident/accidental discharge and why Nel kept pushing on that point, apparently he cannot now claim "self-defence".
Other thoughts/observations - fair point louise re if Op moved stuff in the bedroom it would be to back-up his version of events and not the other way round.
The sides of the bed OP and Reeva slept on - I understood that Reeva was on the window side because OP said he got out of the bed and came round the bottom of the bed to the windows to get the fans and close the windows. I also understod that his gun was on the window side of the bed, I thought I saw a photo of the holster under that side of the bed (could be wrong). This is why I cannot believe he did not know that Reeva had got out of bed, and is why Nel keeps on about the position of the fans, etc. Also, on this point if, as I understand it, Reeva was the window side of the bed when OP came to get his gun there is no way he could not have known she wasn't in the bed. OP states he is roughly 5'4" without his prosthetics, but he is a disproportionate 5'4", i.e., more torso than leg so his torso and head would be lower to the bed than a normally proportioned person of 5'4", therefore he would be more not less likely to see or sense/feel if someone was in the bed.
The open window in the bathroom - as I have understood it so far, the bedroom door was locked, the alarm was on, OP was shutting and locking the balcony windows next to the bed. Why would Reeva then go into the bathroom and open a window that had no burglar bars on it? Reeva knew SA and had been a victim of a house break in, is it really conceivable that she would compromise their security by opening a window which would allow an intruder access to them? Did Reeva really open that window, or did OP after the event, or was it always open?
I saw on Sky News the other night Alex Crawford standing in the toilet cubicle they have reconsructed in the court room, it is an exact replica of the one in OP's house. It is tiny, there is nowhere for anyone to hide in it, no way to avoid bullets flying through the door, OP knew this when he fired, whoever was in there had no means of escape. He didn't fire a warning shot either high or low into the door he fired at the middle of the door where it would hit someone in the torso and inflict the maximum damage to them. If he had fired just one shot I could go with unintentional, but he fired four, he pulled the trigger four times, his gun was loaded with bullets designed to cause maximum damage to a human or animal.
I initially thought he was not guilty of pre-meditated murder of Reeva, thought he had intended to kill an intruder and it was a tragic case of mstaken identity. I just don't believe that now, there are way too many inconsistencies coupled with his desparation not to take any responsibility for anything. I think they did have a row, she wanted to leave, he got his gun from under the bed (as he was that side of the bed closing the windows) whether to move it to his side of the bed or to scare her, he blocked her exit through the bedroom door and she ran to the toilet cubicle and locked herself in and he shot her through the door.