The trial of Oscar Pistorius has drawn monumental attention from across the globe, the sense of entertainment that has surrounded the event has been irresistible to people. Perhaps the lure of an international sports star being in the dock has been that attraction, but the transmission of the case live from the court room has undoubtedly intensified proceedings. It has been easy to forget that it is dealing with the lives of real people, that have been subject to an intense media-frenzy. Though the coverage of the case has naturally been vast and wide ranging, it raises questions about the privacy of the parties involved, and whether they have been protected. The images of Reeva Steenkamp’s mother June, staring Pistorius directly in the eyes as he apologized for shooting dead her daughter, were somewhat chilling in the sense that it felt much like watch a drama programme on the television.
This being said, the case was bound to draw the attention it has, whether it was televised or not. The audience has been fascinated with tiny details that might suggest whether he did it or not. The case seemed to be relatively even until bullish prosecuting barrister Gerrie Nel called Pistorius to the witness stand. Despite his obvious grief at certain points, the discrepancies Nel has appeared to have uncovered in the athlete’s account has put a serious dent in credibility. If South African cases were decided by a jury, I think there would have been a good chance of Pistorius being found not guilty. His remorseful nature might have appealed to a group of his peers who would have no doubt looked up to him as a sports star at some point, but a judge is in a far better position to deliver an unbiased decision. As the trial begins an adjournment until May 5th, there is still no clear consensus for which side the judge will come down on. The frustrating matter of fact is that the truth could well never be known.