Food for thought or just my ramblings - LOL.
BIB 1 - Why did P need to retrieve the fan from the balcony at 3am? The temperature in the Jo'berg area that night at 3am was 18C. Would it have been necessary to cool the bedroom below that? I used the following link to find the historical weather conditions for the night of the 13th. There was a waxing moon on the night of the 13th.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/FAOR/2013/2/14/DailyHistory.html
BIB 2 - Were the doors to the balcony closed at all during the evening/night before the crime? I don't recall him saying in his affidavit that he had to open them to retrieve the fan. We have often heard how he closed the doors, pulled the blind and the curtains. WHY pull the blinds and the curtains as well as close the doors? Was this to bolster his alibi that the room was very dark? If they had been left open all evening and into the night he could hardly claim he was concerned with his or Reevas safety.
We have seen reported that at least two witnesses heard them arguing furiously earlier in the evening and that security had visited them due to the noise. We have also heard reported that there was a gap between the shots being fired. At the moment this is all hearsay but perhaps this is nearer the truth that we realise.
Maybe there was a terrible row earlier and Reeva tried to leave the house but was restrained. Apparently she was fully dressed and not in a nightie as had been reported. Maybe P was furious for whatever reason and in temper first shot Reeva (but only wounded her) in the bedroom where a spent cartridge was supposedly found. Maybe at this point he realised that he would have to create a feasible alibi because if this news were to become public (as surely it would) his future would have been in grave doubt. The only way for this non-lethal shooting, in temper, of Reeva would not become public knowledge was to silence her forever.
If he decided then to murder her he would need to create a storyline, ie retrieve the fan, close the doors, blinds and curtains, claim he could not see when he re-entered the bedroom, thought he heard a noise and we know the rest. Just maybe Reeva was already fatally injured at this point, having been chased to the bathroom and injured so badly that she was unlikely to survive. Did he really shout from the balcony before her death or was that also afterwards in an attempt to strengthen his alibi? Why shout from the balcony anyway. Reeva, he says, was in bed. Surely any normal being would have gone to her, gently woken her and then both have taken the stairs and exited the building ASAP. Why on earth would he do anything else? What sort of idiot would ignore the safety of the love of his life and choose to go stalking a non-existent burglar.
Why was the cricket bat so bloodied? I hardly think breaking down the door would have caused the bat to be anywhere near the blood. Had it been used to hit Reeva at some stage?
Why did the dogs, who were in the yard, not bark if there was an intruder climbing a ladder? They look the type of dog that would eat you alive if you were an intruder.
Why was Reeva's phone on the bathmat and not with her in the toilet? Why did the DT not hand over his phone immediately? They must know removing evidence from a crime scene is illegal. IMO they should be prosecuted over this if it proves to be true.
Of course, the story may be completely different from that gleaned from Ps affidavit and a very eager press. This surely is going to be a very interesting trial when eventually it starts.
BIB 3 - The 19th August court hearing will give us a lot more information to digest and a much clearer idea of what the prosecution feels happened.
. Do you have a source (link) for this information, please, because I found nothing about it in OP's affidavit.
