Pretoria - After having received the verdict that Oscar Pistorius is not guilty of murdering their daughter, the Steenkamp family may be reliving her death.
Although they have been largely composed throughout the trial, the family broke down on Friday when the final verdict was read, and were seen crying and comforting each other.
The family, who have controversially only given interviews to publications with which they appear to have a financial relationship, didn’t give a statement to the media after hearing the final verdict but left court through a back exit. But June Steenkamp told American broadcaster NBC the family wasn’t satisfied with the verdict.
“I just don’t feel that this is... right. They believe his story and I don’t believe that story. That’s the difference,” said June.
“I really don’t care what happens to Oscar. It’s not going to change anything because my daughter is never coming back. He’s still living and breathing you know, and she is gone forever.”
She said there were so many mistakes made and the athlete’s story “did not add up”.
Professor Robert Peacock, vice-president of the World Society of Victimology, said that if the verdict was not what a victim’s family expected it to be, they could experience secondary victimisation and almost relive the trauma of losing their loved one. Secondary victimisation is a term originally used to describe the trauma rape victims often suffer at the hands of the judicial system, and over the last decade has been expanded to include the trauma suffered by both the family of the victim and the accused. Peacock said the system is often skewed towards the perpetrator, with the state taking over control of how an accused would be prosecuted, the family of the victim may feel like they have little control over what happens.
Even after the verdict, the family said they were still hoping for the “truth” to come out.
“She (Reeva) died a horrible death. A horrible, painful, terrible death and she suffered,” June said.
“He shot through the door and I can’t believe that they believe that it was an accident.”
Peacock said the Steenkamp family had been comparatively fortunate as the secondary victimisation effect was worsened the longer a trial dragged on. In South Africa many murder trials are mired in postponements and an accused may sit as long as two years in jail awaiting trial.
The family of the accused is not exempt from having a trial make a major impact on their lives. “There is a sense that you cannot continue with your life. They feel that everything is sort of in limbo, and that creates anxiety,” said Peacock. Many members of the Pistorius family have not missed a single day of court proceedings.
The courtroom provides an emotive stage on which solidarity and loyalties can play themselves out.
The victim’s family will want justice, while the accused’s family will often refuse to believe their relative is responsible, sometimes even after a guilty verdict has been handed down.
“Under circumstances of need, there is an almost natural affinity to blood ties, and the emotional support may transfer into feelings that the accused is not guilty,” says Professor Elrena van der Spuy of UCT’s department of public law.
On Friday Arnold Pistorius gave a statement on behalf of the family, saying that there were no victors in such a case.
“It won’t bring Reeva back, but our hearts still go out to her family and friends,” said Arnold, adding that the verdict had lifted a “big burden” from the family’s shoulders.
“We never had any doubt in Oscar’s version of the matter,” he said.
On Thursday, Judge Thokozile Masipa indicated that Pistorius would not be found guilty of premeditated murder or murder dolus eventualis. She ruled on Friday morning that the court’s unanimous decision was that Pistorius was negligent for firing on Steenkamp. Thus, he was found guilty of culpable homicide.
Pistorius claimed he thought he was firing on an intruder who he believed was breaking into his home, but that he only realised after firing that he had accidentally fired on Steenkamp.
Regarding the two other incidents where Pistorius misused his firearms, once firing out of a moving car’s sunroof and the other firing inside a crowded restaurant, Judge Masipa found Pistorius innocent of the former and guilty of negligence on the latter.
Pistorius’s supposed possession of illegal ammunition was dismissed entirely by Judge Masipa, who said the State had failed to prove Pistorius had any intention to keep it.
Although legal experts have said they believe Judge Masipa was accurate in her assessment that there had been insufficient evidence to convict Pistorius on the premeditated murder of Steenkamp, they did feel there was a strong case for the dolus eventualis charge.
In South African law intention is necessary for a guilty murder verdict and dolus eventualis is a type of intention. What this means is that a person foresaw the possibility that another person would be killed as a result of their actions, but went ahead regardless.
The State argued that just because Pistorius killed his girlfriend instead of a burglar, he could not use that as a defence. They said that by firing four shots into a small toilet cubicle with a particularly dangerous type of ammunition, he had intended to kill.
“To release him on dolus eventualis was quite stunning,” said legal commentator David Dadic.
He said instead of making her decision based on objective facts such as the size of the small toilet and the bullets he used, which would imply a foreseeability of the result of his actions, Judge Masipa seemed to use Pistorius’s reactions after the shooting, his crying and emotions, as a basis for believing that he had no intention to kill.
Attorney Ulrich Roux agreed.
“Regardless of Reeva or an intruder, Oscar still had the intention to kill the person (behind the door),” he said.
Sunday Independent