On the morning of 14 February 2013, Reeva Steenkamp, a 29-year-old South African model and law graduate, was shot dead at the Pretoria home of Oscar Pistorius, a prominent South African Paralympic sprinter. Pistorius, 26 at the time, called emergency services and reported that he had shot someone in his house. Police arriving on the scene found Steenkamp dead and subsequently arrested Pistorius on suspicion of murder. Pistorius initially told police and the media that he had mistaken Steenkamp for an intruder and fired four shots through a locked bathroom door. He maintained that he acted in fear for his life. Prosecutors disputed this account, arguing that the shooting was intentional and that Pistorius had killed Steenkamp after an argument. The case quickly became a major news story both within South Africa and internationally because of Pistorius’s fame, the high-profile nature of his relationship with Steenkamp, and broader concerns about gender-based violence in South Africa. The criminal proceedings were complex and highly publicized. Pistorius faced trial on charges that evolved over time, including murder and culpable homicide. The trial included detailed forensic evidence, testimony about the relationship between Pistorius and Steenkamp, and extensive legal argumentation over intent and reasonable self-defence. The presiding judge, the evidence, and courtroom conduct received intense scrutiny. In 2014, Pistorius was convicted of culpable homicide (a form of negligent killing) by a South African High Court judge, who found that the State had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Pistorius had intended to kill Steenkamp. He was sentenced to five years in prison. The prosecution appealed the verdict, and in 2015 the Supreme Court of Appeal overturned the culpable homicide conviction, finding that the killing was intentional, and substituted a murder conviction. In 2016, Pistorius was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for murder; prosecutors appealed as too lenient. In 2017, after further appeal, his sentence was increased to 13 years and five months. The case had wide-ranging repercussions. It prompted public debate about intimate-partner violence and firearm access in South Africa, as well as discussions about celebrity, media coverage, and the criminal justice system. Supporters and critics of Pistorius debated the adequacy of forensic reconstruction and the weight given to his claims of mistaking Steenkamp for an intruder. Steenkamp’s family became vocal advocates for victims’ rights and publicly criticized aspects of the legal process and sentencing. Because of the extensive media attention, many details of the investigation and trial are widely documented in South African court records and reputable news coverage. Some aspects—such as the precise nature of the couple’s interactions immediately before the shooting—remain disputed in public accounts, reflected in differing testimony and interpretations during the trial. The convictions and subsequent appeals are matters of public record in South African courts.