Not sure it's strange, but to my mind it highlights the inadequacy of the forensic recontruction. I know that the ballistics expert is different from the blood expert, who is different again from the pathologist and so on, but their findings need to be correlated to give us an accurate reconstruction of what happened inside that W.C.
The angle of the holes in the door, the position of the injuries, the behaviour of the bullets and fragments inside the body, the ricochets, the blood spatter in quantity, location, angle and force of projection...all of these are facts that need to be correlated. Instead of which we get the information piecemeal and we haven't even been told how much blood she had lost or how much blood was recovered in towels etc or whether the lav had been flushed. And we have experts vaguely alluding to error margins which are inadequately quantified.
Surely if each expert does his job and reports the exact facts with the proper error margin a computerized reconstruction of when, where and how Reeva was hit and fell could be produced.
I find it unacceptable that the only reconstruction that makes perfect sense to me is the one provided on WS by Barnacle and not the ones offered in court.