Oscar Pistorius Anniversary: Revisiting Reeva’s Perspective

85d18aa602314738931c7dc09d36758d

Who was Reeva when she lost her life? One of the more obvious ways of answering this question is by looking at the profile pictures she used on Facebook and twitter to present herself.

You might laugh and say a selfie really doesn’t say that much, but that depends on the depth or shallowness of the self in question. Reeva wasn’t shallow, and what’s more, as a brand ambassador, her social media was – and had to be – a tangible extension of Reeva herself. It was both Reeva, how she saw herself, and how she wanted to be seen.

How did she wanted to be seen? Well, like this:

Reeva-Steenkamp-Feet-1046823

This was the image Reeva used as her twitter profile, as well as her background picture on Facebook. As Reeva put it, “a classic model.” That’s how she wanted to be seen, and at 29 years of age, it made sense to have a more mature vibe about her.

On Facebook, Reeva was in the process of spinning off a public, less personal profile. Before she did, she used this image [in fact it was a composite] to communicate another, a more assertive, sexier femme fatale.

reeva-steenkamp-bikini-photo-murdered

The message of this Reeva was black and white: I know who I am, it’s my time now, I mean business so don’t mess with me [wink].

The recent film told from Reeva’s perspective touches a little on Reeva’s softness and her assertiveness. But what did they base their premise on?

Have you noticed, Lifetime, the channel that made Blade Runner Killer have recently removed the words “told from Reeva and her mother’s perspective” from their description of their film?  The only record we have that they even used these words is from the media themselves, who cited this premise from their press release and website.

Odd isn’t it, to have the movie premised on Reeva’s perspective, and then to edit out your premise?

Irrespective of whether your film’s premise is edited in or out, it still remains the same, doesn’t it? Blade Runner Killer is the first film about this case told from Reeva’s perspective.

In any event, in July 2014, shortly after publishing Revelations, the first narrative to explicate in detail a referenced timeline making the case for premeditated murder [not even the state did that], a description of the murder from Reeva’s perspective provided at the very end of the book, I gave the following interview.

The timing was ominous – Oscar’s PR was going into high gear, hoping to sabotage the court narrative with the “poison apple” of the re-enactment video.  If the prosecution had referred in any matter whatsoever to the broadcast on channel 7 [which Oscar’s defense claimed wasn’t authorized by them], Oscar’s advocate could have asked the judge to declare a mistrial. If a mistrial had been declared, Oscar would have been set free, and could then set about pursuing his accusers…like me.

It was in this “knife-edge” scenario that I gave the following interview…

“Be brave…make your voice heard, your physical you seen and the presence of your mental you felt.” – Reeva Steenkamp [WARNING GRAPHIC CRIME SCENE PHOTOS]

Whatever essence there is left of Reeva Steenkamp, it was acknowledged in courtroom GD on Wednesday 15 June 2016.  The issue of her wounds was addressed, and if the court and the world should be allowed to see them.  This was at the request of Barry Steenkamp, Reeva’s father and the rest of her family.

This formed a stark contrast to the court seeing Oscar parading around on his stumps for effectively the third time during this trial [once to demo himself hitting a cricket bat at Barry Roux’s invitation, once in a re-enactment video made by the Pistorius’ and the third time in court yesterday].

When Oscar removed his prosthesis, many people in the gallery beside me instantly burst into tears, including a man sitting on my left.  This was odd because it was the defence’s ploy to show Oscar on his stumps, something Oscar also consented to. So what was so heartbreaking about it?  The intention was to solicit sympathy from the sentencing judge.  But obviously it had an additional effect; the effect of portraying Oscar – poor, broken Oscar who needs to go to the hospital – as the real victim of his own crime.

Except he isn’t the victim, Reeva Steenkamp is.  Remember her?

Look up to the moon… Look into the shimmering stars of the sea… Remember Reeva, Rage And Burn… and remember to live your dreams, because in the end, we are little more than unvoiced shadows and dust in the moonlight.

Those were the final words written in our book #RS.  But now Reeva’s unvoiced shadow has been nudged back into existence.  Oh yes, Reeva Steenkamp.  Oh yes. Along with those final words in #RS we provided this haunting image of Reeva’s bloodied body lying at the bottom of the stairs.

reeva at stairs

The only place this image had previously been seen was in a split second clip from a documentary on YouTube.   Despite being controversial, Nick and I have always believed in full transparency when it comes to discussing true crime.  That includes showing images of the victims.  Why?  Because every murderer has a counterfeit narrative which must be countered with the truth.  These images are the truth.

On June 15, 2016, Judge Masipa granted the release of 6 previously sealed photos of Reeva.  They’re images that Barry and June personally selected after the gut-wrenching task of reviewing dozens of death scene photos.  Below, you’ll see some of these images for the first time.

Nel:  “Isn’t it time for the world to see what Oscar Pistorius did with Black Talon rounds to Reeva Steenkamp’s head?”

During testimony on June 14, 2016, Barry Steenkamp explained to Judge Masipa why he and June wanted the images released [1:21:10].

Barry:  [while sobbing & trembling]  

“…. the world can see this [the pain inflicted on Reeva] and that most probably will distract people who are thinking of that type of deed to stop them in the future.”

In response, Carl Pistorius had this to say on Twitter:  “This application is distasteful to all parties. Except perhaps some parties who stand to profit from such.”

Oscar on stumps

Speaking of profiting… the following day, Oscar removed his legs in front of the court and hobbled across the room while crying and nearly stumbling.  Roux, and psychologist, Dr. Scholtz, argued that Oscar is a broken man who’s disability should prevent him from having to spend any more time in prison.

Look at Oscar’s image, then look again at Reeva’s. Is there any question who is the real victim in this case?