It is interesting to note that Oscar Pistorius trial defence’s expert sound witness, Ivan Lin, did all the testings required, but with the bathroom window open. Gerrie Nel wasted no time jumping on that fact..

This, from iol:

The State has spent Tuesday morning arguing about whether murder-accused Oscar Pistorius’s neighbours heard the screams of a man or a woman the night Reeva Steenkamp was shot and killed.

On Monday, defence witness Ivan Lin, an electrical engineer who specialises in acoustic consultation, took the stand at the North Gauteng High Court.

Lin was asked to determine the difference between male and female screams from different distances.

The engineer said he had examined how the closed barriers, such as the bathroom window, the balcony and cubicle doors, and even meteorological or weather conditions could have affected sound.

Lin told the court he had only conducted his experiments in the past two weeks, and had visited Pistorius’s former home – the scene of the shooting – to conduct them.

Nel said that since Steenkamp’s death last year, the housing estate had changed significantly, with numerous building developments.

“Trees have grown, new houses were built, did somebody tell you about that?” asked Nel.

Lin said that he was aware of these changes and was accompanied by a member of the defence team when he checked the acoustic environment of the estate.

When performing these tests, Lin did admit he wasn’t aware the window of the bathroom where Steenkamp was shot was wide open at the time the night of the shooting.

Nel said that this meant that the analysis Lin had conducted where he tested the sound levels when the window was closed had to be discounted.

[more here]

Again – it is quite surprising how the defence team manages to allow these glaring errors, when selecting and putting expert witnesses on the stand.

Surely the correct environment would have to be recreated to fully satisfy the court and, in particular, the pitbull, Gerrie Nel?