It has emerged that Oscar Pistorius, the man accused of shooting and killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, was speaking on his cellphone to one of his ex-girlfriends on the evening before he shot and killed Reeva. Oscar is said to have been speaking to Jenna Edkins a few minutes before he arrived at his estate where Reeva was waiting for him.
Oscar’s phone was examined and it revealed that he had made a nine minute call to a particular number. On investigating the number, it was noted that while it had been saved on his phone as “babyshoes”, it actually belonged to Oscar’s former girlfriend, Jenna Edkins. It has also come out during the investigations conducted by reporters of Eye Witness News that Jenna and Oscar grew up together and their mothers were friends. They were also in a relationship for some time and broke up even though the reason for their breaking up was not made apparent.
A further piece of information that was revealed is that Oscar had, at some point, admitted that he still had feelings for Jenna and had been the cause of the breakup of his relationship to one or more of his other girlfriends. Oscar had sent an email to one of his former girlfriends, Samantha Taylor, admitting that he still had feelings for Miss Edkins. Miss Taylor also revealed that Jenna had been a constant problem in her relationship with Oscar.
When questioned about this development, Jenna Edkins said that it was common knowledge that she and Oscar had remained friends after the breakup of their relationship. She added that she was not willing to be involved in “this terrible situation”. However, the reporters, in their book, revealed that Jenna was very protective in her responses to accusations thrown in Oscar’s direction on Twitter and telling anyone who was willing to listen that the athlete had never lifted a finger at her during their relationship.
However, it is still unclear how the investigators were unable to get this information and why the information was not investigated. Questions fielded to both the prosecution and the defence in the trial have not been responded to. Furthermore, it is not clear what effect the information would have had on the case had it been obtained by the investigators.