Hello all.
Thanks for the link to the testimony I asked about, going to go listen in a few minutes.
Over the duvet I just wanted to clear up a few things, there is so much information that has now been presented it can get confusing and I am seeing some confusion in the thread.
In the crime scene photographers testimony when going through the prints the duvet was seen in two different positions. The first was the one with the jeans, inside out just on top of a tiny part of it. The second picture showed the duvet straightened out but still over the same bit of floor. The photographer explained (and the meta data agreed) that the first picture was how it was when he first arrived on the scene and then the second picture was taken after the scene had been photographed completely once, the duvet had been opened up for the second round of photography that was to look at items in more depth but not exactly as they where found. While it seems a little pointless to me, I would expect that once everything has been photographed from all angles as it was items would be bagged and taken to the lab for a more in depth look and photographs but maybe I have seen too much TV, maybe that's not how the SAP do things, who knows but it isn't all that outrageous to me, the scene had been photographed extensively as it was found before the item was moved.
The same principle goes for the jeans, the meta data would show which pucture came first, inside out or not and it was the inside out just on top of the duvet that came first, so that is how they where when police arrived on sceene, from what I can tell this is something Roux doesn't dispute, when talking about the jeans and duvet both side have accepted that the first run of photos are the ones to be used when looking at how the scene was first found (although OP argues that things where moved he is claiming them where moved before ANY photos where taken, Riux has used the fact that things where moved after the first run of photos to hit the police credibility. The scene in the bathroom has more question marks due to conflicting testimony and meta data. It just shows how successful Roux has been in his efforts to discredit the police photography that the waters are so muddy here).
When blood evidence is used in relation to the duvet position and if it was moved we are talking about if the duvet was moved from the bed where OP claims it was to the position on the floor in the first run of photos.
The blood evidence is that there is an artirial spray (undisputed this comes from when OP carried Reeva through the bedroom) that lines up perfectly from the carpet and onto the duvet. If the duvet had been moved after Reeva was carried through it would have to be dumb luck or great time and effort to have managed to line up the blood evidence. It is not a continues line of blood that goes from carpet to duvet, it is an interrupted line typical for artirial spray but if you where to draw a line the two parts would line up. This has been difficult evidence for OP and he hasn't been able to explain it.
There are a few more points I wanted to comment on from what has been said on thread but my brain has currently left the building so will watch that testimony and come back to it.