I know the prosecution case has rested, but here is what I would have done differently:
1. Tested the ambient light produced by Reeva's mobile phone in a pitch black room
OP testified that she got her mobile from the right side of the bed (close to where he was moving the fans), and then used it to light her way to the bathroom.
If OP was annoyed by a small blue light, even if he didn't hear Reeva move, he must have seen the ambient light from the mobile phone in his peripheral vision.
This could have been replicated easily in tests.
Nels raised this in his cross-examination but a test by an expert would have been useful.
2. Been clearer on what may have caused the initial loud banging sounds heard by the Stipps
If the PT's contention was that the earlier bangs were 'doors slamming' or 'cricket bat' sounds, this should have been made clearer by their own expert witnesses.
This is a key issue that IMO needed more clarification by the PT.
3. Tested the timing of OP's testimony with regards to Reeva's injury
The pathologist reports weren't live for us to hear, but it does appear that Reeva suffered such significant and fatal injuries that would have rendered her dead in approximately 10 minutes.
If the Defence contends that the initial gun shots were at 3:00 a.m., how do they explain the arterial blood splatter downstairs and Reeva dying in Oscar's arms at 3:26 a.m. when Dr. Stipp arrived.
4. Examined the issue of the empty bladder in more detail
On OP's testimony, after Reeva opened the bathroom window, she went to the toilet and used it in the brief time it took for him to freeze for a brief moment, fetch his handgun and yell for help (lets say 2 minutes tops).
I would note that he didn't hear her peeing or flush the toilet despite tuning his ears after the initial window opening. However, on his version, she must have just finished to have an empty bladder. Did the PT test the contents of the toilet? If there was no urine, then that proves that there was no reason for Reeva to go to the toilet as she must have gone an hour earlier and disproves the primary reason OP said she went to the toilet.
5. Fear of intruder
Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 27 - Page 38 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
OP's contention was that he was so afraid of the intruder that he didn't act rationally.
However, after the shots, he testified he didn't hear any screams.
How can he be sure the intruder was no longer a threat (he could have missed or only caused a minor injury)? There could also have been another intruder. Why did his fear go away?
He was so scared that he didn't even check or turn on the lights in the bathroom, but instead fumbled his way in the dark and turned backward away from a threat that could still be there?
It makes no sense.
This could have proved very damaging to the defence team case, as the only reasonable analysis from the above is that he knew the person in the bathroom was Reeva who had stopped screaming after the gunshots, so he had no need to check further or worry about additional harm. Alternatively, there must have been intent to fatally shoot the intruder, as there would otherwise be no reason why he wouldn’t have immediately checked whether someone was still alive (i.e. Lends credence to aiming for fatal shots rather than accidental discharge).
Notwithstanding the above, I thought Nels did a pretty good job overall.
What would you have done differently as the PT? or even the DT?