BBM .. I disagree that it would've been disrespectful .. ➊ the only thing which bothered me about them taking the stand is that there are enough reasons for Roux to have ripped them to shreds on, and it's only for that reason that I personally am glad they did not take the stand, much as I would've loved them ➋ to have testified about Pistorius's true personality.
Respectfully BIBed, numbered, and coloured for focus.
➊ How I understand your reply it appears to me we are more or less at the same point except I get there by a different route. Or do you really think that had Roux been barred from cross examining ST it would have in that case been a good idea to follow the intensely moving and meaningful victim's impact statement from Kim Martin, (who so poignantly shared with us not only her own family's immense grief but also Barry and June's heartrending suffering,
their pain, their distress and
their desolation, since Reeva's death at OP's hands), with a statement by Samantha Taylor who, despite 18 months since she broke with OP and OP shooting Reeva in between, still dissolves in tears when talking about him; crying about
her pain at OP's infidelities (Kim told us how she prayed OP was cheating on Reeva before she knew the girlfriend's identity), crying aboout
her distress at his abuse, and still crying about
her desolation at their break up.
So no, I cannot see that testimony or statement from ST could ever have been a fitting complement to Kim's measured but powerful statement, and as I noted above,
not even had Roux been refused permission to cross examine ST so that there would be no risk that he could rip her and her statement to shreds.
OTOH, for sure, compared with the Steenkamp's poignant voice imparted through Kim, Samantha's testimony would have been juicy stuff to hear... and without even having to buy the book! Opportunity for us to hear about a "naughty step" OP made ST sit on while he shouted at her; To hear how he locked her in his house when he went out sometimes all night
(Oscar sadly didn't go out that night but stayed in and shot Reeva behind a locked toilet door so...) leaving her without food
(... Reeva can never eat again since...); To hear how this poor innocent girl has been scarred for life
(... she has indeed been "scarred" for life...) by OP's bites and pinches
(... by Oscar's 4 bullets...); To hear how ST was so scared she had to hide OP's gun
(... from Oscar's gun...) convinced he would shoot her
(... when Oscar DID shoot HER).
So yes, I do think had Nel called Samantha to testify it would have been disrespectful to both Reeva's family and the court. The Steenkamps dignified silence only broken under the auspices of their blessing by Kim to tell of their grief, their intimate feelings, is sufficient for me to disbelieve they would consider such testimony either respectful or appropriate no matter how many hugs they may or may not have given Samanatha Taylor and her mother since that does not mean they are friends (if they did hug in court it who know if it was simply the Taylors going over to proffer their condolences and the Steenkamps responding graciously out of courtesy).
➋ And in respect of ST testifying "
about OP's true personality", since none of what ST alleges only now was actioned or tested in court, i.e. it is not proven, even had the court given leave for Nel to call her to the stand, (and I have my doubts since sentence hearings are meant for experts and real victims not teenagers whose only connection is as an ex), it would have been of no value to show priors and influence sentence while it could have left two very unwanted impressions for end of trial; 1) Nel as a thoughtless prosecutor who respects nothing; 2) Reeva's voice projected through Kim drowned by the sobs and accusations of a love-sick teenager full of spite from unrequited love. jmho