We've heard a great deal about the things we have to believe in order to accept OP's version of events. However, I've yet to see anybody outline the particular things we need to believe in order to accept that OP is guilty of intent to kill Reeva. As we're supposed to look at the case for both sides with equally balanced points of reasoning, it would be interesting to hear anyone's views on what would need to be believed to accept their version of events. Obviously, many people will have a different version of events depending on how they believe OP committed the crime, but I presume that everybody's version isn't cut and dried, and relies on us having to take a leap of faith on a few things.
One of the things that make me a strong non-believer in many forum posters versions is the idea that OP mocked Reeva's screams in the way that has been suggested. I absolutely accept that people have been mocked sarcastically during domestic violence, but here we are talking about something entirely different. This couldn't possibly be quantified as a similar action. If you try and imagine someone doing this, they would direct mocking sarcasm at the victim, and the tone and demeanour would be one that shows disrespect and apathy towards the victim. Now try and place that same picture on the morning in question. We are expected to believe that OP mocked Reeva, but rather than mocking her apathetically or sarcastically he decided to mock her by making a scream at such volume that it was heard over a distance almost 2 football pitches away.
This idea is the exact opposite of how domestic violence perpetrators operate. The modus operandi of such a person is to direct everything towards the victim, whilst attempting to maintain an outward image of normality to people outside the relationship. I fail to see the connection between someone screaming in a distressed manner at such extreme volume with someone supposedly using a disrespectful mocking tone towards a victim. The two really are miles apart.
It's worth remembering that this suggestion wasn't proffered by the prosecution. It would never have been suggested because it contradicts typical domestic violence indicators.
This was simply a passing comment made by Michelle Burger when she was pushed for a response as to why OP would have screamed, bearing in mind he was the one supposed to be committing the violence. The comment was made off the top of her head, which is clear to see by re-watching the court testimony. The reason we know that it was is because she didn't suspect or suggest that it may have been a mocking tone at any time whatsoever prior to Roux's question during testimony. Both herself and Charl Johnson were convinced that the noises were related to a burglary at the time, and this was never disputed. This was nothing more than a throwaway comment made by Michelle Burger when she got a bit riled in court. As with a few things, it was blown out of proportion by people thinking this may have happened. She didn't even suggest that she thought this is what happened - she said 'perhaps' he may have been mocking. A simple speculative comment made by a witness became a necessity, so much so that many versions fell apart if they did not include this as a definitive action. We have seen another example of witness speculation hindering the trial, rather than helping.
