OK, I am going to post what you transcribed, all of it. Please note the areas that are bolded, underlined, and/or italic:
Roux: When we look at this door, it is consistent, and I think it's conclusive in fact - if you disagree we can go through it - that when the shots were fired, the door was intact. It was not broken.
Vermuelen: That is true, Mi'Lady
Roux: What is your view? When was the door hit with the bat - before or after the shots?
Vermuelen: M'Lady, I would say the door was hit after the shots. ...if you look at the crack down here, it enters this bullet hole on the one side and then exits on the other side... so what this tells me is there had to be a hole in the door before this piece broke off, otherwise the crack would have gone straight through.
Nel: ...which happened first, the bullet shots or the bat. You said the hole was there before the panel was broken.
Vermeulen: That's correct M'lady.
Nel: Can you say scientifically - the first mark, if that was caused before the shots were fired?
Vermeulen: M'Lady, scientifically I would not think it would be possible to say whether small mark on the side - I would not be able to say that it was there before the shots were fired, no.
Nel: Do you know if the kicking happened before the shots, if it's a kick - that mark?
Vermuelen: That would also be very difficult to say, and I doubt one would be able to say that the kicking happened before or after the shots M'Lady.
Nel: Mr Roux put to you that the only reason why the accused would have kicked the door was to open it- remember that - get it open because it was locked.
Vermeulen: Yes ..
Nel: Could there be other reasons?
Vermeulen: I guess if we say other reasons, it might ...
Nel: Let us speculate, you're asked to speculate - could it have been to scare someone? Is it possible?
Vermeulen: If we speculate, it's possible.. (chuckle). We also cannot prove that that mark was caused during the unfortunate incident.
He states that the bullets came before the bat, but he is definitely not privy to most of the facts of the case and his opinion is wrong when other facts are considered. His conclusion that there was a bullet hole in the door before that piece of the panel was "broken off" is based on the fact that a piece of the panel was torn off and it ripped through a bullet hole. In earlier testimony he discussed how OP inserted the tip of the bat in to a small defect in the door and pried out a section of the panel; that is where his testimony goes off track, he is conflating OP using the bat to pry at the door and striking at the door as one event, when in fact they were two events - with one (striking the door) happening before the shots and the second event (prying the panel out) happening after the shots. Honestly I cannot understand why this is being challenged. He did not say he drew his conclusion because the bat struck / hit on top of one of the bullet holes!!! Which is the only way, scientifically, it could be stated as a fact!
And if you believe that Nel is not asking specific questions to get the answers to those specific questions on the record, and inadvertently giving insight into where the state's case is going, then never mind that he specifically asked the expert if the damage to the door was consistent with OP trying to scare Reeva - that is where the State's case is going, bat before gunshots.
I need a cigarette, ugh... :smile: