Transcript for Pistorius Prosecutor Punches Holes in Defense Witness' Testimony
We're going to begin with the Oscar Pistorius. Just before a two-week break. A key defense witness is taking a beating from the prosecutor during cross-examination. And ABC's lama Hasan is on the scene at Pretoria, South Africa. Good morning, lama. Reporter: This morning, the court adjourned early. The Oscar Pistorius trial is on a two-week recess. Earlier, the lead prosecutor was bunching hole after hole in the testimony of the defense's forensic expert. The witness called by the defense, roger Dixon, brutally cross-examinationed by gerrie nel, A.K.A., the bull terrier. That's the problem. You want to give the court a version on an ethic you're not an expert. Reporter: The blade runner with his hands against his ears, barely witnessing. His own witness clearly contradicting him in court today. I'm giving what I observe and interpret. I'm not saying that anybody else is right or wrong. Reporter: Dixon disputing Pistorius' recollection about where specific items in his bathroom were when he shot and killed model reeva steenkamp. Like this photo of the magazine rack, which Pistorius says may have been moved. When the deceased fell, the magazine rack was there. Reporter: The prosecution, working to poke holes in the defense's claim that steenkamp's body was at an angle when Pistorius shot her, not facing the door, arguing with the athlete. And also trying to give Pistorius' account that his room was too dark to see steenkamp. Now questioning Dixon's findings that his room was dark. Why not if that is -- if he has to try to re-create it, why wouldn't he do that? I was Aun aware that the balcony right was on. Reporter: Dixon is no expert and unqualified to make his claims, according to the prosecution. The cross-examination was so brutal, that Dixon took to Facebook to complain that his credibility was coming under attack. Thanks. Let's talk to ABC's chief legal affairs anchor. Lama just talked about the Facebook post. Incredibly dumb thing to do. Why would he do this? He goes on to say it's difficult to get belief in those who will not listen, et cetera. Not only does it make him look defensive. But judges hate this stuff. He hasn't completed his testimony yet, and going on Facebook whining about the way he's getting treated. When you get involved in a high-profile trial and you're the expert for the defense and you're not ready for cross-examination and attacks, you ought to not be there. He should have expected this kind of attack. And it shouldn't come as a surprise to him. They spent a lot of time on the timing of the four shots. And he's trying to argue there's no timing between the shots. They're immediate. Really important difference. The defense's position is that the shots go one, two, three, four. Not to give him time to stop and think. The prosecutors allege that there's two shots and another two shots. That would be important particularly if Pistorius may have moved in an effort to get a more accurate shot at reeva, in the second set of shots. If there's any pause here, that's a problem for Pistorius. It gives him time to stop and think. What's the impact of the two-week break? I don't think it will make much of a difference. This judge has probably already decided what she's going to do. She's heard the evidence from the prosecutor. Yes, more evidence is coming from the defense. But in a practical matter, in her quietest moments, if you were to say to her to be completely honest here, she's probably decided what she's going to do. We have to see. Now, to the baffling death
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.