I'm in agreement with regard to Dixon damaging the DT's case - not sure what the issue is there?
I don't believe that additional expert witnesses for the DT would have been that beneficial. The state ballistics expert and bat-man didn't exactly damage the defendants case, and in some areas it strengthened it. The ability to hear sound at a specific level that morning has been covered fully, so the majority of things which may not have been covered are those which have been threaded into 'theories' on here, which are merely speculative. Inferences will not be drawn from speculation, so from the judge and her assessors perspective none of this will matter when reaching a decision.
My take on the idea of reproducing a scream the same as it was in such a situation is that it's impossible, whether male or female. For that reason I would never expect somebody to attempt this. I don't understand why Roux suggested that OP was going to replicate this in court (I'm assuming he meant OP and wasn't referring to the neighbour) but I certainly wouldn't expect or advise anyone to try this. If he did scream that morning and could not achieve a reproduction of that anguish then he would have unwittingly incriminated himself, even if he was telling the truth. You'd be a fool to take such a gamble. If you are genuinely innocent regarding an aspect of the case, you should never ever gamble to prove your innocence.
I believe the judge will take a similar view with regard to the replication of a scream, and as much as some may have liked this to happen for a bit of 'good TV' I don't think this will be essential towards the outcome.
You're missing the point re: the screams. He may not have been able to replicate the "anguish" but he could certainly replicate the sounds......unless he's had a vocal cords transplant in the meantime? Either his voice can go that high, or it can't. Quite obviously, it can't. And that,s to be expected, there are physiological differences between the way men and women produce sound, that's why 99 times out of 100 we can tell the difference.
But I have to say that you do seem to take the view that if OP says it, and it seems vaguely possible, then that's good enough for reasonable doubt.....and good enough for you.
The simple fact of this is that a woman heard an argument just at about the time Reeva can be expected to be awake based on her stomach contents. By coincidence, four separate, independent witnesses heard a woman screaming at roughly the time a woman was shot dead by her boyfriend.
If four people hear a woman screaming it's probable that it was a woman screaming. Sorry, but that's a simple fact. It's not impossible that it could have been a man, but it's really quite improbable. Add to this that it sounded to the witnesses as if a woman's life was in danger, at exactly the same time as a woman's life, in fact, WAS in danger and she ended up being murdered.
It's also probable that Reeva ate much later that 7pm, and it's also probable that the woman heard arguing was Reeva - based on, if nothing else, the simple fact that no other woman (out of the few it could have been) has been identified as doing the arguing.
So, all of these probabilities come together to form the overwhelming probability that the witnesses heard what they thought they did - a woman screaming in terror and then getting shot. This is not a "theory", this is the most likely explanation based on the probabilities.
"Oh, but Oscar can scream like a woman, just not when he's being recorded" is, well, a bit lame, isn't it? I am absolutely certain that Milady won't fall for that.
But you seem to want to believe him innocent, and good luck to you. I'd prefer to see Reeva get justice. She deserves it.