The Pistoriuses seem to have treated the Steenkamps distantly until Oscar was granted bail. Also the defence lawyer seems to have taken a gamble.
The defence is going for a very high stakes gamble. Roux argued that intent to kill a burglar does not transfer into intent to kill Reeva. In essence the defence has already admitted the intend to kill was there. Hence the defence's argument is that Oscar is innocent because the person who died is not the person who he intended to kill.
Suppose a terrorist sets up a bomb intending to kill a president. The bomb goes off at the wrong time and instead kills a bunch of school children. Do you declare him innocent of murder because he missed his original target.
The objective facts so far indicate that Oscar intended to kill whoever was in the bathroom. He certainly doesn't seem to have taken reasonable steps to give the person in the bathroom a chance to live. The only difference between the defence's case and the state's case is that the former claims he did not know it was Reeva while the later says he knew it was Reeva. To me that difference does not remove the intent to unjustly kill so does not make the defendant innocent of murder.
Oscar claims he was shooting to protect Reeva, but the objective facts, and his own statement, suggest that Oscar did not even attempt to verify where Reeva was. If I was the prosecutor I would put it to him that he didn't check that Reeva was safe in bed because he knew it was Reeva in the toilet and he wanted to shoot her.
So far the Pistorius family have put up a remarkable narcicist display. They even interrupted the court to hold apparently celebratory prayers after Oscar was granted bail. The uncle gave a little speech afterwards. Of course he threw in the obligatory statement about Reeva. To me it didn't sound sincere. They way he did it makes it seem decidedly like an afterthought.
The Pistorious family, if I understood this News24 story correctly (http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Reeva-Steemkamps-family-has-doubts-over-overtures-20130223), did not even send condolences until after Oscar got bail. If that's the case, it is as if they are blaming Reeva for Oscar's fate. Why such belated condolences. Could it be that the family are inwardly blaming Reeva for maybe 'provoking' Oscar? Such actions lend credence to the state's theory of what happened.
What I would want to know is did any member of the Pistorious family, even a distant aunt or cousin, attend Reeva's funeral on their behalf. If not, why not. The Steenkamps are not primitive villagers who would take spears and pangas and chase after them. Distant treatment of the Steenkamps strongly suggests that the Pistoriouses are a family blaming Reeva for something. What is it?
This case is far from over. The intrigue and speculation is going to be with us for a very long run. The speculation is inevitable because too many things in the story being told by Oscar do not make sense to a simple common person. Therefore people are definitely going to try and theorise on what could really have happened.
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.