They can conclude without him, if he fails to testify completely, i.e. give his testimony and permit cross examination on it, then his 'self defence' test becomes what a reasonable person would have believed and how they would have acted in his circumstances and not what OP actually believed and how he did act. Much easier case for Nel then.
I noticed a few anomolies amongst the blubbering...
he said he pushed the toilet door - it opens outwards
he said he picked up Reeva's jeans to cover the LED light in bedroom - how comes these ended up on the lawn outside then?
he started to say he put his gun BY the bed and changed it to under the bed
he said he heard what he believed was the door opening - that hasn't been put forward before and not in his statements, neither has the toilet door slamming
he can remember minutiae of detail but cant remember what they were watching on tv that night or, more importantly, whether he turned the bathroom light on during the events or how long he was with Reeva after he found her, whilst crying and stuff (well he does have over 15 minutes to explain away)
he said he was yelling and screaming on the way to the bathroom with the gun yet he stopped screaming when he got there as he didn't want to give his location away - we're talking a few feet here!!
his general blame game - blames his mates for the gun incident, effectively blamed Reeva for not shutting the balcony doors etc. blames others and things for his bad behaviour in the whats app messages (speaks narcissistic to me)
My feed went down when the IPad was discussed re porngate, did OP admit to the pornsite?
The lack of questions and prompting by Roux shows that OP has rehearsed the story to the nth degree. Nothing wrong with that I guess, but when it looks this rehearsed, it lacks credibility as a true account in my experience. OP is including all the relevant points without Roux's help, e.g. saying when he has or hasn't got his prosthetics on, how many times he bashed the door etc. etc.
