In my opinion it has nothing to do with the victim, what is best for her, or the defense attorney being a good person.
He didn't question her because it would not help his clients case.
He didn't question her because being viewed by the jury as bullying a child won't help his case.
The only thing questioning her could have achieved was prolonging the jury's exposure to a very sympathetic witness/victim. The only other effect would be to bring out more details that make his client look like the rabid animal he is.
I agree with this. One case I have continued to follow is the Joseph Duncan case. Much ado has been made over the fact the surviving victim to his crimes has not been called to testify in his trials. There is nothing that child would say that would help him in any way. They had/have enough horrific evidence to convict him without her. He gains much more by not calling her and posturing himself as being concerned for her welfare. Sadly, in the Oklahoma case, the little girl had the strongest testimony/evidence to put that monster away.
Missizzy, my guess, with so many victims, the defense lawyer was hoping to break one of the kids' testimony to create reasonable doubt. I am so proud of your brave children and you for taking this all the way to the statehouse. Victims shouldn't have to fight so hard to protect themselves from the very system that was intended to find justice and protect them -- not further victimize them. The system is turned upside down.