She never had the chance to tell her "side of the story".
No, she didn't, and this is that nature of the victim's role in a homicide trial. This is not the same as saying that the accused -- and indeed the convicted, in this case -- should have no right to respond, even by proxy, or to appeal. I hasten to add that I am not acting as Bob's proxy: my views are my views, and if genuinely I thought he had deliberately or even accidentally killed her, I would not be taking his part.
Nor have I suggested that Bob was saintly. I have already called him a bloody fool, and I have to say I thought he was/is much better at B+W pictures of small towns than with models. What I am saying that on my reading of the evidence presented, plus what I learned from Bob, I'd be modestly surprised if he could not win an appeal because of shortcomings in the legal presentation of the evidence.
When you've known someone for 20 years, you form a certain opinion of what they can and cannot do, and of what they are likely and unlikely to do. I can easily believe that Bob behaved stupidly enough to get into this corner, but the evidence does not fit the man I know, and the evidence appears to have been spectacularly mishandled by the police.
I could of course be completely wrong.