I think it is right and proper for Nel to question a Defense expert's qualifications and experience. (IMO Nel does not help his case by being antagonistic, sarcastic and chuckling etc. But that seems to be Nel's style). The witness's qualifications are likely a factor the Judge will consider when deciding how much weight to give Dixon's testimony. However, the witness's testimony is unlikely to be just disregarded out of hand. His findings and opinions have been put to the Judge and supporting items have been admitted into evidence. The witness will ultimately be assessed based on how he came across when giving his evidence. The credibility and knowledge of the subject and information presented is something the Judge asses for every witness. The witness did present evidence and his analysis. Nel does still have to refute anything that he feels is at odds with the State's position, and the State's own experts opinions. That is why Nel wanted time to consult with State experts before getting into details. I think Dixon made some good points. IMO most of them, taken individually, have little bearing on the overall case but, as with any case, it is built up of many "blocks". I think it is VERY important that some sort of sound recording of cricket bat on door is put before the Judge and entered into evidence. Dixon's testimony enabled that to be done. For that reason alone his testimony was worthwhile. No doubt arguments over details of his testimony will ensue today, with Nel cross examining on details in his usual slow, repetitive style. The 2 week vacation has been granted, so nobody will be in a screaming hurry to do anything.
