Between the internet and television I have been able to watch every second of this trial. Some might call this ghoulish or murder as entertainment but for me it was a rare opportunity to actually see how the system deals with male violence against women. The headlines constantly tell us that justice works for violent men and fails their female victims and here was a chance to see if this was true and see how it works in action.
I was actually pleasantly surprised, from a feminist viewpoint, about the trial. Judge Masipa was rumoured to be an advocate for women and tough on male violence. She and her assessors looked like everyday human beings, rather than the pillars of the establishment we see on the benches of this country. I was also pleasantly surprised by the effort the State made in fighting for Reeva Steenkamp and tearing down the ridiculous story about an intruder. Despite generous bail conditions, that I suspect would never be granted to a poor or black man, Oscar Pistorius, a wealthy, well-connected sporting hero was not treated with kid gloves by the trial proceedings.
From the initial cynicism that Pistorius was too rich to jail, most watching the trial felt that Reeva Steenkamp, at least, was going to receive some kind of justice. She was locked in a tiny, enclosed space, bullets designed to cause maximum injury shattered her pelvis, 'amputated' her arm and blew her brains out, neighbours heard her screams, neighbours called security, one kind neighbour rushed round to see if he could help save her; surely her dead body was enough to make her be believed? Pistorius, on the other hand, was a poor witness, caught out in endless untruths and contradictions. The ballistics, forensics, ear-witness testimony and Reeva's own words about his controlling behaviour and bad temper stood against his ludicrous story.
However, Judge Masipa has found Pistorius guilty only of culpable homicide and one other charge of firing a gun in a public place. I, and most legal experts commenting on the case, am completely bewildered and disappointed in this decision. Masipa swept away virtually all of the evidence as 'circumstantial' and, therefore, unreliable. Pistorius was called unreliable and untruthful and, yet, her findings were based almost entirely on believing his word. A rich, white, good-looking, sporting hero from a well-connected family was given the benefit of the doubt and his version was allowed to stand. Reeva had a whole body of evidence swept aside as 'open to interpretation', whereas one man's word was enough to reach a verdict in his favour. If this is the test then women will never receive justice.
Is this what domestic violence murders down to? If there is nobody to see a woman being murdered then it never happened? A murder happens behind closed doors, there are no witnesses, the murderer lives to spin a tale and the victim has no voice at all? People criticise women for not reporting rapes and domestic violence but what is the point if even your dead body isn't enough to prove you are truthful and all the man standing over it holding a gun only has to say 'I didn't mean to do it' to be believed? Now that I've seen a domestic violence case in action I can't believe how grim and depressing I find the whole situation.