The Importance of the Bail Affidavit (my emphasis and numbering)
"I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised (1) that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside (2) the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.
It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet (3). I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window. As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect (4) Reeva and myself. I believed (3) that when (3) the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be (3) in grave danger. I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.
I fired shots (4) at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police. She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding."
Interpretation
Remember, OP is a stickler for precision and detail. He and Roux say the above is truthful. Roux confirmed in reference to the balcony and the noise that he preserves exact sequence and timeline in his draftings. Roux has gone over state witness statements in microscopic detail and held them to earlier versions saying later discrepancies must be the untruths.
There is only one reasonable interpretation of the bail application: OP did not believe he was in immediate danger, under attack or imminent attack. The thought of an intruder merely being inside the toilet caused him to fire intentionally in a pre-emptive strike. He can’t possibly have thought a deadly attack was inevitable, even more so after the perceived intruder had fled to the toilet. We know he knows the law.
In my opinion, his bail application amounts to murder. (And even with a perceived intruder, all forms of murder including pre-meditated, directus, eventualis are on the table - we must decide if he wanted to kill the intruder, if so at what point in time, and what we think constitutes pre-meditation?)
Later fabrications and tailoring (see numbers from bail application):
1) He thought they might be on a ladder outside the window instead and had to cover two points of attack (adding to his fear, vulnerability, switching attention and most crucially, making a noise from the toilet something potentially startling, rather than just confirmation of what he already knew.)
2) He thought he heard the toilet door opening. (I noticed during his testimony he even started to tailor away from a sound inside the toilet, to a sound in the bathroom)
3) He thought they were opening the door coming out to attack him and this caused him fear
4) He fired unintentionally without thinking. (There is clear intention, purpose and thinking - in fact, a whole paragraph of well-defined thinking and emotions).
Implications
The bail application destroys his 1st line defence (involuntary reflex). And it destroys the crucial aspects of the version of his 2nd line defence presented in court (putative self defence.) Most importantly, it shows he will serve up anything to the court in order to get off the charges and this destroys his credibility totally.
Even if you are at the stage of considering putative self defence, I think the bail application seals the fate and leaves no room to escape a guilty verdict of murder (I will be very surprised if the judge finds him not guilty of murder).
There are also enough questions that a judge can confidently convict on premeditated murder of Reeva, should she wish to do so (Im not sure she will though). Why did he think the simple sound of a window opening must have been an intruder in the first place? Why was he certain it couldn’t have been Reeva at this point? He thought in detail at lots of points about Reeva: why did it never once cross his mind that it might simply be Reeva using their bathroom? Why did Reeva lock herself in the toilet? Why did he think the person in the toilet was attacking or about to attack him? Why did he think he had to fire 4 shots? The whole picture, the whole mosaic, cannot be explained without recourse to unreasonable speculation in my opinion - even pistorius own best attempt at it fails.
On analysis, the closed door started out as OP’s blessing - he could present the intruder story. It rapidly turns into his curse however. Why was it closed? Because Reeva did it when I screamed and shouted as I came down the passageway. Why did you do that? Because I wasn’t investigating, I was confronting, I was 100% convinced it was an intruder. Why didn’t you think it may be Reeva? Because it never once crossed my mind. (This is so unreasonable that it cannot reasonably possibly be true. In one word, it’s unbelievable.) Why did you think it was an intruder not Reeva initially? Because I was bringing the fan(s) in, I had just spoken to her on the bed in the middle of a normal night with the duvet on her which I saw, I didn’t think she could have gone to the bathroom unnoticed. (The duvet, jeans and aligned blood splatter on the floor make this unbelievable).
We also have the paradox of the Pistorius defence. He wants to try and convince the court that it would have easily been possible for Reeva to have gone to the bathroom unnoticed when you consider his first-hand witness account of having his back turned, noisy fans, pitch darkness etc. Simultaneously, he wants the court to believe that despite him being the witness in question at the time it never once crossed his mind that it could have been possible, to the point he never hesitated to proceed with the deadly action he took.
Let’s hope that they are both extra-sharp and don’t miss one thing. Among the three of them, I don’t see how they could fail to deliver at least a murder verdict - and I’m betting Nel’s case is strong enough and Roux’s case weak enough, it will be premeditated murder. 
