Pistorius fails to gain our sympathy with shower of tears
The constant courtroom crying of famed South African Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius, on trial for intentionally killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, has been: a. a wrenching reminder of how complex this case is b. a shameless act c. a sign of deep remorse whether he’s guilty or innocent d. an affront to masculinity e. completely annoying!
Having trouble choosing? Don’t worry, I have arrived, at different times, at each of these thoughts as the soggy audios of Pistorius, 27, once revered as the “blade runner,” a double amputee who became a gilded icon of athleticism and triumph over disability, assault my ears on a daily basis.
Weeping, so much weeping m’lady, over the undeniably shocking and tragic events of Valentine’s Day 2013, when Pistorius shot and killed Steenkamp, 29, his model/law graduate girlfriend of four months, through a locked bathroom cubicle door, claiming he thought (and had reason to think, given the paranoia about crime in his country) she was an intruder.
So far, few of the facts presented in court convincingly add up in Pistorius’s favour.
The athlete was savaged in cross examination for five days by famed “pit bull” prosecutor Gerrie Nel, who called him a “narcissist” and asked him coldly, “Why are you crying?
“You are not using your emotional state as an escape, are you?” Mr. Nel asked at one point, incisively making it clear that the accused’s story of repeatedly firing his gun to “protect” Steenkamp, not realizing she was actually the one inside the cubicle, is “so improbable that it cannot possibly be true.”
But let’s, as we must, leave his innocence or guilt to the judge (the aforementioned “m’lady” addressed in practically every one of Pistorius’s overwrought sentences) to decide. Judge Thokozile Masipa has impassively asked Pistorius several times if he needed a break to control either his weeping or his vomiting, the latter of which, many have pointed out, would be difficult to fake.
As for those tears, I am not proud of the more uncharitable thoughts I’ve had about them, but I am not alone.
“The manly man’s a baby” says a woman friend, while one of the more sensitive and thoughtful men I know resorted to joking, “The man needs to be Ferberized,” referring to a program that helps babies sleep by letting them cry and “self soothe” for a while before an adult offers them comfort.
Pistorius’s tears are being analyzed as much as the evidence. Time Magazine recently argued that “Pistorius’s courtroom theatrics are consistent with the compelling and calculated remorse (an expert) sees from other abusers who are being held accountable.”
Even famed novelist Stephen King tweeted: “I sort of wish Oscar Pistorius would stop crying. Jeez. Enough.” Someone added in the retweet : “Well it IS a horror story.”
It is indeed, and not one to remotely trivialize. A young woman’s life has been lost, either in an incomprehensibly stupid accident, or in an act of savage domestic violence. Steenkamp’s mother June’s devastated face presides sternly over the proceedings, a haunting visual statement that she is clearly not buying the story or the accused’s buckets of tears.
Would it be different if the situation were reversed and a woman was weeping in the stand over having shot and killed her male companion?
I think it would be. We still allow far more emotional latitude to women under duress than we do to men. Besides, we could be labelled sexists for dwelling on her “emotional” behaviour. For male athletes at Pistorius’s level of achievement, we don’t mind seeing them cry in victory or defeat, but we have only a shaky emotional framework for those who cry in self pity or remorse.
Oscar Pistorius’s continued overwrought behaviour has surprised and discomfited many observers. I never click on the audio anymore to hear his lamentations, it seems voyeuristic and pointless to do so. And there’s no sense blaming the media for overkill. I am amazed, in my social interactions, how conversant people are with the details of the case, and the evidence that has been presented so far. Like the O.J. Simpson trial before it, the Pistorius trial has captured the imagination of a global audience. Troubled athletes and their beautiful victims will always draw a crowd. Pistorius is facing the ruin of his storied career, and 25 years in prison if found guilty of premeditated murder. If this were truly a tragic accident, it’s difficult to imagine how, in the face of universal skepticism, he could convincingly convey both deep remorse and complete innocence. When Pistorius first took the stand he said he couldn’t sleep, was taking medication to help him blot out his memory of the smell of his victim’s blood. And “stifling sobs” according to one news report, he confessed “I’m just very tired at the moment. . . . The weight of this is extremely overbearing.” Oh dear oh dear oh dear. It’s hard to imagine any defence lawyer encouraging his client to be so blatantly self-pitying. You could say he lost me at hello. Unless I’m wrong, the tears of Oscar Pistorius have been a disaster. Judith Timson writes weekly about cultural, social and political issues. You can reach her at judith.timson@sympatico.ca and follow her on Twitter @judithtimson