I notice that you say Police witnesses are either incompetent, biased and untruthful, but say little about independent witnesses. You have to be careful who you include as police witnesses, as many involved in this case do not work for the police. You can't keep continually going down the line claiming this person could have been bribed etc. You need to have a reason - suspicion is absolutely not good enough in a murder inquiry. If conspiracy is at play, then Roux needs to tell Reeva's family about it. Isn't that the least they deserve?
I don't care if the police have made a thousand errors as long as those errors don't alter the prospect of conviction or acquittal. There has to be a relevance to the case. You can't simply say that because a policeman moved a book before it was photographed, the crime scene is contaminated. Sure, he may have moved the book, but what matters is the relevance that object has in relation to contradicting evidence. If it doesn't become relevant to the case then it's a non-issue. This isn't a trial to see how good the police are - the police only had to face this horrible stomach-churning scene because of what a man did with a gun. They would each tell you that they'd rather not have received the call. Sometimes people look for forensic problems not because they're necessarily problematic to the case, but simply because they can use the legalities to ensure the case is quashed (in which case justice is never served).
