By now everyone knows about the trial of South African sprint runner Oscar Pistorius, who was charged with the murder of his model girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. He admits he shot her at his home on the early morning of Feb. 14, 2013 after mistaking her for an intruder. His trial began on March 3, 2014 and is ongoing, with parts of the trial being live broadcast via television. High profile attorneys Gerrie Nel and Barry Roux are in charge of the prosecution and defense, respectively. There is no jury system in South Africa and the trial is assigned to Judge Thokozile Masipa.

During the bail hearing, in which the magistrate decided Pistorius did not pose a flight risk, his lawyer read an affidavit on behalf of the track star, who was too distraught to read it himself. The full statement was printed by CNN. The affidavit is almost certainly a carefully crafted response by Pistorius' lawyer that represents the official story which the defense will be sticking to throughout the course of the trial. Pistorius admits to shooting his girlfriend but claims he thought it was an intruder and that she was in bed.

The case of the South African running star athlete shooting his girlfriend to death bears resemblance to another case of a famous athlete that captured the world's attention: The murder case of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman in which the accused was famous American football player OJ Simpson. The two cases have been compared to each other since in both cases the defendant is a star athlete and the murder victims involve romantically related blonde girlfriends.

OJ Simpson was eventually acquitted as everyone knows, and his defense lawyer Robert Shapiro was interviewed in which he was asked for his opinion on the Pistorius case. Shapiro said that he would feel like he had a pretty good case as a prosecutor, pointing out Pistorius' version of the story is somewhat unbelievable considering the speed with which the successive events in his retelling happened. He also points out that an initial impulse of a person who hears a sound in their house would be to wake up their loved one or ask if they too heard the sound. Then the idea that you would go for a gun and fire into the bathroom before taking any other measure seems far-fetched, at least to Shapiro.

Shapiro also pointed out that forensics and ballistics experts would be all but useless in the Oscar Pistorius case unless someone could prove without a doubt that he knew it was Reeva Steenkamp behind the door based on the way the shots were fired and the other evidence found at the scene. This seems like an impossibly tall order. The case is not about what happened, since Pistorius admits to shooting Steenkamp, but rather what was going on in the Olympian's mind. Did he commit premeditated murder? That aspect is harder to pinpoint.

The case is highlighting both the unequal treatment of rich and poor South Africans in the hands of the law but also the racial tension between whites and blacks. According to the New York Times, "Bail is granted to defendants accused of premeditated murder, like Mr. Pistorius, only when 'there are exceptional circumstances which show that it is in the interests of justice' to allow it." In the case of South Africa's most famous sportsman, he was swiftly granted bail by a judge who deemed him not to be a flight risk. "If you have got money, you are going to get a different kind of trial," said the official interviewed by the Times. Ordinary South Africans, on the other hand, battle a "dysfunctional court system where bail is denied for no apparent reason, transcripts go missing, where lengthy delays put presumed innocent suspects behind bars for years, where overworked state-funded lawyers do not bother to question glaring inconsistencies, shoddy evidence and lying police officers." There seems to be some truth to the idea that money can buy you conveniences when it comes to the legal system, something which is true everywhere but more true in a place like South Africa.

Something else that Americans and other South Africans may not realize about the case is the racial tension that remains between whites and blacks, especially when there is a class factor involved. According to the WSJ online, to black South Africans watching the Oscar Pistorius trial, "His version of events painted South Africa as such a dangerous place that even a wealthy athlete-cocooned in a gated suburban community-needed to sleep with a pistol next to his bed. To them, it seemed clear whom Mr. Pistorius considered the real threat: black people." The defense has used these fears as in the prepared affidavit it is clearly stated that Pistorius acted the way he did out of fear and his statements under cross examination have harped on that fact of vulnerability as well.

In South African criminal law, the intentional unlawful killing of another human being is required for a charge of murder. To achieve a complete acquittal the defense would have to win that Pistorius acted in lawful self-defense and that the murder was not premeditated. Pistorius's version of events is that he awoke to discover what he thought was an intruder and shot in order to protect himself and Reeva.

The prosecution, on the other hand, has to provide evidence to contradict the claim of self-defense as well as evidence of premeditation. The prosecution has called witnesses to the stand who claim to have heard the couple fighting and a woman screaming at the time that the shots were being fired. The prosecution has also used text messages that illustrated the two fighting as well as Reeva's fear of her boyfriend's temper.

The defense, on the other hand, called a pathologist to testify that due to the head injuries sustained by the gunshots, Steenkamp would not have been able to make a sound. The defense claimed the shouts heard were Pistorius's cries for help.

The social media following of the trial is largely concentrated in South Africa, where parts of the trial have been aired on live television, but attention has spread to other countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other parts of Africa.

As powerful cross-examinations from both sides in the trial have progressed, public opinion on the internet has swayed back and forth. Some people on Twitter have criticized the way the judge takes care of Pistorius and seems to favor him.

Writers on the internet have suggested that the defense has an advantage in the case due to several reasons, including the existence of a lesser charge (negligent homicide) and the reality of South Africa's violent environment in which crime and self-defense are normalized.

There's also the lack of a jury, who are typically more convinced by facts and have a lower threshold for substantiality than does a judge. In this case, however, Pistorius's fate rests in the hands of one person.

If convicted of intentional unlawful killing he faces life in jail; in the case of negligent homicide, up to 15 years. June Steenkamp, Reeva's mother, said "All I know is that he has to stand up to what he's done and -- if he has to -- pay for it... I don't need revenge, just the truth."