This is my first post. I'm a long time lurker, and have watched the trial throughout.
At the beginning, I was certain that OP was guilty of pre-meditated murder. Surely his account of what had happened was implausible.
I have to say though, that having followed the evidence I do not think that he is guilty of pre-med. That is not to say that he hasn't acted unreasonably/unlawfully and is (in my view) guilty of culpable homicide. But I do not think that he believed Reeva was behind that door and intended to kill her.
I also have to say that, as a barrister with some knowledge of how criminal trials work, I am 95% sure that the Judge will not find him guilty.
The key to this case is the state pinning the shots at 3:17 and the first phone call being 2 minutes later. There simply is not enough time for OP to have done everything that (it is not in dispute) that he did do in those 2 minutes.
It was this reason that the Judge asked if the phone records are common cause (IMO). She will use them, and Roux's analysis of the implausibility of the Prosecution's timeline, to find OP not guilty.
There is also the question of the completely unexplained 1st shots. It is correct that the prosecution do not need to explain every detail - but this is an absolutely crucial detail. This is because the defence say that these were the shots. The failure to Nel to explain what they were provides more than ample reasonable doubt. And what about the "help help help" heard by the earwitnesses - why on earth would OP say that before killing Reeva. It is entirely consistent with his account that this happened after the shots and the witnesses heard him screaming for help at this point.
All of this amounts in my view to reasonable doubt. In fact considerably more than reasonable doubt; there isn't enough to convict even of the balance of probabilities. The burden and level of proof is important. The Judge will not forget it, and I'm afraid it will lead to a not guilty verdict.
And, for me, in the background, I struggle to believe that OP could have been so level headed to make up the intruder defence within 5 minutes of shooting Reeva, and then to provide a detailed account at the bail hearing which has not been contradicted in any material sense by the numerous earwitnesses.
I was curious to read that everyone thinks Roux's closing was poor. I thought it was a masterpiece and very convincing. The reality is that it was Nel's closing that was poor. His bakers dozen were not even his strongest points. The Zombie stopper - who on earth will find that OP lied on that, it was so out of left field that of course he was initially confused. As for the difference between talking softly and whispering - there is no material difference.
Nel should have focussed on the screams and how certain Burger et al were that it was a women, and that they heard a woman and a man together. I'm surprised that he didn't. Nel needed to provide a chronology in his closing - he needed to pull everything together, and he didn't.
I suspect (having read other similar posts on this forum) that this post won't be popular. I am not a Roux/OP apologist. I think OP is a nasty piece of work, and should go to prison for his reckless shooting. However, I do not think he is guilty of pre-med murder, and I am sure that he will not be found guilty by the Judge.