For the defence to claim a cover-up or conspiracy there has to be an associated reason or story put forward. This works exactly the same for the prosecution. To obtain conviction they will be expected to re-create what happened before and after the shooting of RS. They will be expected to provide beyond reasonable doubt that this was not an accident. It's just not good enough for anybody to suggest conspiracy without reason, that's no different to simply saying 'I think he did it'.
I've seen very little evidence presented by Roux that suggests anything more than procedural errors. Procedural errors are made in many murder cases, however what really matters is whether those procedural errors have such an impact that they would not offer the accused a fair trial.
If we look at some of the errors we've seen already can we honestly say that these were made to conspire towards the conviction of OP? Most of these relate to evidence moved out of necessity to be photographed, or removed for forensic purposes, which is quite normal procedure. I would go as far as to suggest that a couple of errors actually work in favour of OP.
Position of flip-flops - despite being moved they do not appear to have been moved from one side of the bed to the other. The only evidence advantage for conspiracy theorists would be for somebody to move them to another side, attempting to make it look like the accused had lied about which side he slept on. The photographs regarding this have remained consistent.
Forensics handled gun without gloves - quite a major error this one. Who does that benefit? Certainly not anyone hoping to conspire. OP has admitted he handled the gun and fired - he's already done a big part of the forensic work himself. If you are being as selective about your photo album as Roux suggests, you'd remove that photograph straight away.
Watch/es missing - Again, if you were conspiring to charge OP with murder, how does this help your case? A conspiracy that is so professional and runs so deep, yet it fails to notice a couple of watches stolen at the crime scene?
Roux appears to be conforming the old adage, 'when the facts aren't on your side, you argue the law', hence his desire to attack the credibility of every single witness. Lawyers often revert to this when they don't feel they have a credible story from the accused.
I think the blood towards the far wall of the bedroom will be the key to unlock this whole incident. If the analysis comes back as Reeva's there will be a huge hole in OPs story and I cant see that Roux will have any room for manoeuvre.
OPs affidavit in its most basic form is: went to bathroom with gun, shot four times, went back to bedroom, went back to bathroom, went back to bedroom, went back to bathroom. Only after all this to-ing and fro-ing does he break down the bathroom door, and approaches Reeva. This is the first opportunity he has to be covered in Reeva's blood, and he carries her downstairs. There should be absolutely none of Reevas blood on the far wall of the bedroom.
:justice:
illowfight2: 
fftobed:
