Reeva Steenkamp died alone and terrified. She was 29, and should have been able to look forward to many years of life. Instead, she died behind a locked toilet door that could not protect her from a man armed with a powerful weapon.
It has now been revealed that her killer, the Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius, is likely to be released from prison in August this year, after serving only 10 months of a five-year sentence for culpable homicide.
This turn of events, while hardly unexpected, speaks volumes about attitudes towards male violence in South Africa. That Pistorius could be released so soon also says a great deal about the capacity of celebrity to obliterate other narratives, even in a country where three women are killed each day by their husbands or boyfriends.
Once he is moved to house arrest, Pistorius could even be allowed to start training again. It has always been clear that the relevant authorities do not regard his conviction for culpable homicide as a disqualification for an international sporting career, with the International Paralympic Committee announcing immediately after the verdict that hewould be allowed to compete again, although not until 2019. There is a potential obstacle in his way, however, with the prosecution's appeal against his acquittal on the murder chargedue to be heard in November.Steenkamp's parents have condemned the decision by the parole board to release their daughter's killer to house arrest. The fact that the athlete shot his girlfriend has never been in doubt, although Pistorius has always claimed he mistook her for a burglar in the early hours of the morning. He was cleared of murder last autumn.
The case remains controversial for very good reasons. From the moment news of the killing broke in February 2013, Pistorius was given a sympathetic hearing by much of the world's press. Long before the case came to court, reporters uncritically repeated his defence, framing the story as a piece of tragic news involving a world-famous athlete and divorcing it from any wider context.
That context is very well-known to doctors and campaigners against domestic violence. So many women are killed by their husbands and boyfriends in South Africa that the crime is regarded by some commentators as amounting to femicide – the intentional murder of women simply because they are women. Many observers have commented on the danger posed to women by a culture where guns and masculinity are perilously entwined. According to an article published in the South African Medical Journal in 2010, the country has "the highest reported rate globally of females murdered by shooting in a country not engaged in war". Most of the victims are poor and either black or mixed race.
If campaigners hoped that Steenkamp's death would at least shine a much-needed light on this grim situation, they were to be for the most part frustrated. She was an atypical victim – white, middle-class and well known as a model – but even she stood no chance against the fame of her killer. In the aftermath of her death she was referred to in many reports as the athlete's unnamed girlfriend, prompting a Twitter hashtag that pointedly reminded the world that she had her own identity.
As Pistorius looks forward to leaving prison in just over two months' time, it's worth recalling that he made no attempt to check who was behind the door of the toilet in his Pretoria mansion before he fired. He had loaded his 9mm pistol with hollow-point ammunition, which is designed to mushroom inside body tissue, causing maximum damage. According to evidence given in court, one shot to Steenkamp's arm would have acted "like an instant amputation".
Pistorius sobbed and vomited his way through his trial as though he, rather than the woman he killed, deserved public sympathy. Now it seems as though those tearful histrionics have served their purpose.
In a country where gender inequality is entrenched, this is how easy it is for a well-known man to usurp the role of victim.