I guess that depends on how you want a trial, and more specifically justice, to operate.
Do we want a society whereby people close to you, neighbours, family etc. can never give evidence because their views are considered worthless?
How many of us would want to ever be in a situation whereby we're accused of a crime that could incarcerate us for more years than necessary, yet people who could provide evidence were refused the chance to do so? Let's not forget, the witnesses standing for the DT are probably going to be hounded with hateful comments by many who have never met either Reeva or OP, and hadn't even heard of them until a few years ago. I think there's far more risk of vitriol for the defense witnesses than the prosecution witnesses in this trial. I can't speak for the public mood in SA though.
I get the impression that there weren't many people willing to be involved in this trial, and have to give enormous credit to those witnesses on both sides that have done so.
Of course not, but you do have to weigh the credibility of ALL the witnesses, not just the ones you agree with and being friends with the accused and going on and on unsolicited about how they feel the accused had acted like a lost destroyed man must also be weighed. I'm amazed by how much some witnesses seemed to be affected by OP's cries of grief but had nary a word to say about the dead, bloodied body of the woman laying in the middle of an entry way with her brains blown out.