1) He could already have had his legs on(up arguing with her), gone after her with bat, bashed door to get at her, then got gun (do we know for sure he kept it in bedroom?Or closer to bathroom?)and shot, then broke open door.
Could he have been shooting downwards at some point, to hit her as she crouched on toilet or once she had fallen? He needn't have been kneeling or crouched, simply aimed gun lower--which would imply he heard or saw that she was on toilet or slumped down in stall. I'm not clear on how it is known that she was pressed full height against the stall door at first.
2) If she was in stall to escape him and he had to put legs on, that would have given her time to phone for help. Unless he had shot her, disabled her.
3) Could he have originally been on stumps because they were preparing for bed when an argument broke out, she runs, he hastily puts legs on in pursuit--
4) Is it established that at the time of the incident (when he supposedly hears intruder and the whole thing is kicked off) they were in the bedroom? Could have been in the hallway or the bathroom together when all heck breaks out.
5) If he did not have legs on during the entire time he shot at her, he could have put them on post-shooting, as he says he did, but not for the reason he says. Not to be less vulnerable to more intruders or ready for police or security when he called, but to do whatever he was going to do in full knowledge that he had killed Reeva--as cover up of that knowledge.
I have never been able to believe he would abandon his combat readiness and his gun to get his legs on without knowing if the intruder was dead behind the door, or whether more were coming.
I still want to know why no follow-up on his explanation for screaming as being that he wanted to ask her "why are you calling the police?" Will we hear more about this? Did I miss something and he has said it was a slip of the tongue? Did Murphy'sLaw and others not hear correctly?
