If the state has a theory of what the earlier gunshots were, if not gunshots, they are obliged to disclose that theory and make it part of their case. Nel has not disclosed any theory or made any kind of suggestion that the two sets of "gunshots" were anything other than the gunshots and the cricket bat hitting the door.
It is just not logical or reasonable to hold out for the state to put forth an alternate theory that is suddenly going to explain everything and make it clear that Oscar's statements are false. It's not going to happen - one has to be willing to accept the possibility that the state has little proof of their claims and that they won't be able to clearly show you that Oscar intentional killed Reeva.
All of these doubts that people are experiencing, wondering where is the smoking gun we're waiting for - that doubt exists because the state's evidence is not compelling enough and you want more. That, my friends, is reasonable doubt.
BBM
At the commencement of trial, one of Nel's first statements to My Lady was that the State's case and evidence was "largely circumstantial".
When I heard him say that, I knew right away there would be no 'smoking gun' so to speak, so I didn't anticipate one nor did I feel disappointed when there wasn't a grand finale, as it were. I suspect My Lady wasn't expecting a 'smoking gun', either, based on what the prosecutor said as he opened the State's CIC.
If the State's case is so allegedly weak, why, then, is OP planning to testify and risk incriminating himself? He isn't required to testify, yet he has chosen to do so. I find that very interesting. If the State's case is so weak, why didn't Roux then move for a summary judgment of dismissal after the State concluded their CIC? That's the one thing that surprised me, rather than the lack of a 'smoking gun'. We've read about other SA criminal cases in these threads when the Defense has done so. Curiously, Roux did not.
In every US trial I've watched, the Defense has always moved for a dismissal of charges after the State rests. I wonder if this is only done in SA when the Defense believes the State hasn't presented a solid case to the Judge? If so, it says a lot (to me) that not only did Roux not move for a dismissal, but that the accused is going to take the great risk of testifying.
Every criminal Defense attorney knows it's a dangerous gamble for the defendant/accused to testify, which is why it rarely happens. If the Defense possesses compelling evidence which they believe will refute the State's case, why is OP going to take the stand?
IMO, I think it's because the Defense believes the State has presented a solid case. I also think the Defense believes that the accused is their strongest witness. If so, it says a lot (to me) about the other testimony/evidence the Defense will present if they need OP's testimony to bolster their case.
Like everyone else here, I look forward to OP taking the stand. I'm certain that Mr. Nel is eagerly awaiting his opportunity to cross-examine him.