We cannot deduce ‘abuse’ from a few WhatsApp lines

IREFER to Redi Tlhabi’s piece, “When pain and cruelty wear love’s sweet smile” (April 6), in which, echoing similar sentiments expressed on the letters pages of various newspapers, the conclusion is reached that Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp were in a toxic and abusive relationship.

Tlhabi, drawing lines from the conviction of Thato Kutumela for the horrific and brutal murder and rape of Zanele Khumalo to the relationship between Pistorius and Steenkamp, concludes that “this was not love”.

This is a staggering and bold conclusion, given that it is reached on the basis of only four out of almost 1 800 messages between Pistorius and Steenkamp over the span of their three-month relationship.

It is based on messages in which there is neither tone nor context. As in any indirect form of communication (letter, journal entry, e-mail, SMS, WhatsApp and so on), we must imagine context and insert tone into the messages, but who is to say that our imagined context and our inserted tone (which we must colour in our own voices) are correct?

We do not know what transpired between these two when they spoke face to face to address the issues she raised.

In addition, if Steenkamp truly felt in danger, it would be very unusual that she did not confide in someone. Not one of these people were called to testify that she said something of this sort to them. Why? Because she never did.

In contrast, the relationship between Kutumela and Khumalo was characterised by violence and abuse that was apparent to her parents and friends, so much so that her father forbade him access to the house. When this father reads from his daughter’s journal, we do not have to imagine context or insert tone. The toxic and abusive nature of this relationship is obvious. In the case of Pistorius and Steenkamp, this is not so.

We must be cautious about reading our own preconceptions in the lives of others. —(the Rev) Peter Langerman, Durbanville