Phew, I have caught up!
Just a few things I wanted to say really.
I was a little concerned the way the posting started to go after the court adjourned for the two weeks as up until that point we had managed to have calm debates on the evidence presented and the evidence alone. There will alway be some speculation but it had always been a matter of making sense of the evidence presented in different scenarios. What concerned me was that information picked up from twitter, press and the general rumour mill both at the time of Reeveas death up until now was being brought to the discussion as if it where in fact evidence presented in court. I am glad to see we seem to have gotten back on track but it is something worth remembering. We have been successful in our attempts to have reasoned, open minded debate as we have put ourselves in the role of jury and abided by the rule that only evidence presented in court can be used to assess the case and draw conclusions.
Speculating on Mrs Steenkamp's behaviour and motives for such was a real low by one poster.
On to the case.
I am not convinced that Reeva's phone was ever in the toilet bowl. (And there was just the one phone with Reeva, she never had OP's phone with her, early info suggested two phones due to the cover of Reeva's phone being mistaken for a second phone to please, let's put that speculation to bed!) the way I have heard and understood was that OP says he saw that Reeva's phone had fallen in the toilet so he picked it up. From that I understand that he saw it had fallen to the floor of the toilet cubicle and he picked it up. Surely if it had in fact fallen in the water if the toilet bowl it would have been wuestioned in depth by Nel. How would he have seen it in the water at that point? Reeva fell partly over the toilet bowl and there was blood and human tissue in the water (sorry, taken me an age to work out how to phrase that), you wouldn't have been able to see a phone that would sink to the bottom. I understand a bullet was missed in the toilet bowl due to this fact. If OP had claimed he pulled it from the water these are all things Nel would have jumped upon.
For me just now I am not taking ear and eye witness testimony fully into account as I have yet to hear the defences witnesses on this. I don't feel there is the full picture just yet on that so difficult to form an opinion on reliability just yet.
Before people discount the argument explanation and make claims about what a woman in an abusive situation may or not do may I surgest you go and read up a little on the subject. The dynamics in abusive situations can be very far from the norm and this has big impacts on behaviour patrons.
I don't know if I think this is the case here, I haven't made my mind up yet but I don't like to see things discounted due to lack of understanding of an issue.
Need to go on school run and this is already long post so will conclude what I want to say a little later.