All Of The Oscar Pistorius Coverage Is Making My Blood Boil. He’s A Murderer – Wrap Your Head Around It

shutterstock_117382663People really hate to believe that their precious celebrities can be vile, dangerous, woman-killers. Unfortunately, they hate it more than domestic violence itself – which claims 1300 lives and causes 2 million injuries per year in America alone. Another chapter in our long narrative of giving violent men the benefit of the doubt unfolded this week with the death of model Reeva Steenkamp at the hands of her Olympian boyfriend Oscar Pistorius. Reeva was brutally murdered and the world weeps – but not for her.

Since news of the murder broke, there has been an outpouring of support over the “distraught” Pistorius. Image after image of Pistorius weeping into his hands and snapshots of the “happy couple” are all over the Internet. This whole thing is making me sick.

Here are some of the details that have emerged. Pistorius lives in a gated community in South Africa. Two hours before her death on Valentine’s Day, cops were called to the scene of Pistorius’ Pretoria mansion over a loud argument. Police had received calls in the past about “domestic disturbances” in the home. A first shot was fired in the bedroom and three more were fired in the bathroom, through the door where Steenkamp was allegedly “cowering.” Now, there are allegations that at bloody cricket bat has been found at the scene, and that Steenkamp’s skull was also crushed.

Clearly, these are all allegations, not substantiated facts. There hasn’t been a trial yet. All we know is authorities feel there is enough evidence to pursue a premeditated murder charge. Now, back to the twisted narrative that is unfolding before our very eyes.

Widespread confusion exists as to whether he “meant” to shoot her four times or not. He “loved” her. He was “happier than he’d been in a long time.” You’d be hard-pressed to find coverage of this story that doesn’t mention the double-amputee’s Olympic feats. Or quotes like this one: “Kenny Oldwage, Pistorius’ lawyer, told reporters the athlete was “emotional” after his arrest, “but he is keeping up.” And this one:

Oscar Pistorius’ agent says the double-amputee Olympian has received “overwhelming support” from his fans as he remains in custody in a South African police station charged with the shooting murder of his model girlfriend… “international fans from literally all over the world” have sent their good wishes to Pistorius.


Reeva’s own father was quoted as saying, ”He must be going through things that we don’t know about. We ask the Lord every day to help us find a reason why this should happen to Reeva.” Maybe that question would be better directed at the man who shot her.

We don’t know beyond the shadow of a doubt what happened here. All we have is the alleged evidence that is being broadcast over every media outlet out there. And it looks bad – really bad. That evidence coupled with the statistic that worldwide 40-70% of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner – and it’s no secret which conclusion we should all be jumping to here. And it’s not “I shot my girlfriend who I love dearly four times by accident because I thought she was an intruder.” That just defies all common sense and logic.

It’s pretty grim that I have to yearn for the day that a woman is killed and we actually weep for her – not feel sympathetic to an abusive partner who chose to end her life.

(photo: Jaguar PS/


Be Sociable, Share!
You can reach this post's author, Maria Guido, on twitter.
Be Sociable, Share!
  • jasdfgh

    No, it doesn’t defy common sense and logic. He lives in a place that has a huge amount of home invasion robberies. I think it is just as likely he thought he was in danger as is likely this was an argument that turn violent.

    • Emmali Lucia

      Unless a home intruder was the reason he lost his two legs and he has a horrible case of PTSD, I think he would have stopped after she told him/screamed that it was her.

      Let’s look at what has been reported so far:
      Gun was shot four times, even when defending your LIFE in the US you only get one shot.
      I’m guessing the three extra was either because he wanted her dead or he didn’t think he got her the first time, either way, after one shot it should have been pretty damn apparent it was her.
      There’s reports that he tried to bash her brains in first.

      Yeah, this guy murdered his girlfriend, and there are people who are dumb enough to make up an excuse.

      I just hope this doesn’t end up like OJ Simpson

    • Paul White

      While I agree this smells like a barrel of day old fish, no, you don’t only get one shot. If it’s shown that you kept firing when they were not a threat you’re in trouble (i.e shooting them when they’re down or retreating). But if someone breaks in, and I shoot him and he keeps coming, I can, legally keep shooting…and I probably would, until the intruder fell down or turned and ran.

      I can’t comment on the facts of this case–I haven’t followed it much. But that statement jumped out at me.

    • Ipsedixit

      Hey, Emmail, did you to law school? If you did, I’d ask for a refund.

      I mean, seriously. This is the state of our educational system today. Just one giant face palm

      You don’t get “one shot” in the US. That’s idiotic. What if my one shot barely wounds my attacker? Do I have to throw up my hands and just say, well, I guess I used my one shot unwisely? No. I can repel the threat against me. Even more so in my own home. Do you think people fire one shot and then wait for the intruder to identify themselves? Do you honestly think thats the law? Crack open a book the next time.

      If someone was in my home, I can fire off a number of rounds before they have a chance to speak. If im a rich disabled athlete living in a country that has a high rate of violence, I wouldn’t even give an intruder the opportunity.

      This article – like most on Mommyish – is incredibly poorly written and based on little fact. You’re right, Maria. We totally have all the facts so as to call this guy a murderer. Bravo. Why, we don’t even need to go to trial. The brainiac mommy bloggers have solved the case! Not by their own investigation, mind you. But by reading articles others have written on the subject.

      But kudos for not completely copying and pasting off Gawker or the Daily Fail.

    • Emmali Lucia

      “If it’s shown that you kept firing when they were not a threat you’re in trouble (i.e shooting them when they’re down or retreating).”

      “A first shot was fired in the bedroom and three more were fired in the bathroom, through the door where Steenkamp was allegedly “cowering.””

      But you’re right, fuck police reports. We all are inferior to your amazing amount of knowledge about this subject. He clearly didn’t kill his girlfriend, twenty years from now on the cover of The National Enquirer they will explain exactly how he was framed for this.

    • Ipsedixit

      Where in Gods name did you get that first quote? Yahoo Answers?

      You’re right. We don’t need to do any investigation. Prosecutors walk in at trial, lay down the police report, and walk away because that is the definitive piece of evidence against someone. No witnesses, no experts, nothing else. The police report is infallible and tells the whole story. I mean, why even bother with a trial? We should convict people on police reports.

      You don’t need an “amazing” amount of knowledge, just a basic grasp of what youre talking about. You can get that from a Wikipedia page.

      I don’t doubt he shot his girlfriend or that he killed her. However, it’s been less than a week and the whole story hasn’t been fleshed out yet. It’s naive to think al information is out there right now. Murderer is a nasty label to give someone when they haven’t yet been convicted. Maria’s “logic” is hilarious. But, she’s a mommy blogger. I guess we shouldn’t expect too much from someone who isn’t an actual journalist. It’s easy to have other writers do the grunt work for you, piggyback off their writing, and do little to no background checking on their own.

      Despite what Maria said, there are people mourning Reeva. It’s incredibly sad when someone dies, especially in a violent way. Just because people aren’t jumping on the “murderer” bandwagon doesn’t mean it’s because he’s famous. It’s because people like to have a little more information so they aren’t prematurely destroying someone’s character.

    • Guerrilla Mom

      This is an opinion piece regarding the news coverage -nothing more. Maybe you missed the personal pronouns all over the article.

    • Ipsedixit

      Whose opinion? Yours or everyones? The one “me” and one “I?” Yea, totally saw those. Those definitely make it your opinion. I saw a lot more “we” and “our” than anything else. Sorry, but you’re not the collective conscious of a group. Some of us chose to rise above the lowest common denominator mob mentality. Perhaps to should look to better writers to find an actual “opinion” piece. You regurgitated previous articles, which I guess is the Mommyish MO (that, and linking to other Mommyish articles for more page views). You loosely linked domestic violence statistics that are irrelevant given that at this point in time, the story isn’t clear (except to you, apparently). And you’ve solved the case, judge, jury and executioner style. Alert the authorities, “we” know whodunit. Oscar Pistorius, in the bathroom, with the gun. My favorite part is the “I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin” tone. These are just allegations, we don’t have all the facts, and he hasn’t been convicted, but I’m just sayin he’s an abusive murderer…

      You make sweeping generalizations about celebrity status, when in reality, people usually like due process – or at least more facts – to happen before condemning someone as a “murderer.” Apparently, that’s the only conclusion “we” should be jumping to. There is absolutely no other possible conclusions, because 40-70% of female homicides are by a partner, so, you know….he’s totally guilty of premeditated murder. And not just murder, but abuse! Just look at those other domestic incidents that have been reported that I obviously didn’t do any background research into!

    • Once upon a time

      And maybe you missed the day in J school when they gave you the definition of ‘opinion piece’. Hint: starting with ‘He’s a murderer’ is doing it wrong.

    • gangles

      Yep, sorry Ma’am, but the moment you state in great big letters ‘He’s a Murderer’ like it is a proven fact, it stops being an opinion peice and starts being an excersise in mud-slinging. The media and public at large did the same thing to Lindy Chamberlain…. you know, stated their opinion that she was a cold blooded baby killer who murdered her daughter in a cult ritual (among other crazy stories). They didn’t do much to promote justice. Neither has your ‘opinion peice’. I don’t know if this guy murdered his girlfriend or not. We don’t know all the facts yet. Nor does the media. The court hasn’t even heard all the facts yet. In fact, they haven’t even finished the formal investigation yet.

      See my comment above.

    • Mommytoo

      Stop picking on “mommy bloggers”, please! I am college educated and had a satisfying, rewarding career and chose to stay home with my children. Does that choice negate my ability to think or express my thoughts? Obviously you make some other valid points, but how would you feel if we considered those points moot simply because of your life choices? Being a “mommy blogger” shouldn’t be the reason to pick her arguments apart.

    • K.

      A) You are speaking about the laws applicable in the US. This happened in S. Africa, where the laws are probably different.

      B) Even in the US, you get as much force as it takes to subdue a threat, especially if it’s a home invasion, usually with the application of “self-defense” and/or “castle law.” That could be one gunshot or 20, depending on the situation. You are right, in the sense that you don’t get to use MORE force than what’s necessary (which is “excessive”); however, it’s difficult to make a blanket statement based on news reports when force is “excessive” or not–that’s usually a nuance that has to be determined by law enforcement and is sometimes the subject of debate in trial.

      Believe me, I’m definitely against domestic violence and extremely critical of the ways in which it’s dealt with in the media. If it’s true that they found she’d been shot AND bludgeoned and it’s her blood on the cricket bat AND there is already a history of abuse, AND as has been reported elsewhere, she was in a nightgown (which suggests she was already IN the house, versus trying to GET in, in turn, making mistaking her for an intruder less believable), then I agree, it doesn’t look good.

    • Sarah Peart

      She was not bludgeoned – no wounds were found that were no consistent with the head shot, there was no history of domestic violence and she was dressed in a white sleeveless top and black shorts which were either a summer pyjama or she was sleeping in her workout clothes. The blood on the cricket bat was mentioned as being either from being left in her blood when the door was broken down and it was dropped to the floor or not – so I cannot comment but given the previous fact that she had no wounds implying being hit with a blunt object I imagine it was so. It is also possible that she was sleeping in her clothes given that when she entered the compound that evening around 18h, she was wearing a white top of a similar description.

  • jessica

    I couldn’t agree with you more, Maria. At least based on what I’ve read. Of course I wasn’t actually there but it does seem unlikely that he truly believed she was an intruder. I can’t be sympathetic towards this man.

    I was also really bothered by an article I read that talked about how Ms. Steenkamp had previously been in an abusive relationship and was even scheduled to speak about her experiences to a group of high school students on the day she was killed. Truly sad.

  • Mary

    On CNN there was a report her overnight bag and ipad were found, she was planning on spending the night, he was expecting her.

    • Sarah Peart

      No she was not intending to stay the night. She apparently left her home not intending to return that night and had to send the required text to her landlord that she would not be coming home that night because it was getting late. Handbags are being worn large this season and so what might to a woman be a handbag, might be to a man an overnight bag. My current bag when placed in front of me extends further than my hips – so a good 30cm wide (or 12-13 inches).

  • Ganlges

    Personally, I smell a rat.. but I get very nervous whenever someone just decides another person is guilty over some partial evidence they read in a newspaper, however well-respected that paper may be.

    The press, not to mention the entire public, both locally and internationally did the same thing to Lindy Chamberlain in 1982, and she went to jail for six years before the evidence was properly examined and she was released. That poor woman not only had to grieve the tragic death of her baby, she also had to face false accusations, jail and public hatred. I would hate to see that happen to anyone else.
    I don’t know if this guy is innocent or guilty. I hope that whatever the case may be, the truth is unveiled and justice is done. Pointing fingers and slinging mud does nothing to honour the beautiful young woman who has lost her life.

    • Justme

      Lindy Chamberlain….is that of the woman who spawned “the dingo ate my baby?”

    • Once upon a time

      Nope, she’s the woman whose newborn daughter was tragically mauled and killed by a dingo. Please, let’s stop with the dingo ate my baby! shit.

    • Justme

      Oh Lord have mercy. I was just referencing the fact that she was in fact the woman who made those claims, wasn’t believed, was ridiculed and then was exonerated. Get a grip. I was just checking the case with the name the OP mentioned.

    • Gangles

      You got it in one. I was a sick sad moment in time for justice (or lack there of it), the media and wich hunting. Which is why I find this post disturbing.

  • NathalieAnneP

    There is no evidence of domestic violence in this case and it is an insult to victims of actual domestic violence to just throw that tag around as much as it is to victims of murder to throw that word around before someone has even been tried, let alone convicted, and given the flimsy evidence presented in court so far. At the bail hearing, it was confirmed that Reeva Steenkamp had no other wounds but gunshots – no wounds indicating having been hit by a bat, nothing to suggest that she had had to or tried to defend herself (skin or hair under the nails, broken nails, marks on the arms, etc) and no bruises or other marks to indicate wounds pre-dating February 14th. In fact, the state confirmed at the bail hearing that they had found no evidence to contradict Pistorius’ version of events. Quite what they based the charge of pre-meditated murder on seems the biggest mystery in all of this and seeing as they seem to still be at as much of a loss three months down the line to find evidence to back up the charge, even as much as a motive, it wouldn’t surprise me if they eventually reduce the charge to culpable homicide, which is what they were going to charge him with in the first place but they charged with pre-meditated murder within minutes without interviewing in depth or carrying out a full investigation of the scene. Anyone who knows how SAPS operates will know the reasons why they may have done that.