By now, most people know the name Oscar Pistorius. He emerged as an international sensation as a Paralympic athlete competing in the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics. A double amputee, he ran on carbon-fiber blades, earning the nickname “Blade Runner.”

Pistorius attracted widespread support with his feel-good story, but as the saying goes, “the bigger they are, the harder they fall.” And Pistorius fell. Hard. Six months after competing in the Olympics, Pistorius found himself in the middle of a media frenzy, relentlessly assailed by reporters who had been extolling his incredulous determination and unprecedented accomplishments just months before.

In February 2013, Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, allegedly mistaking her for an intruder, and the trial attracted an international following. Even though the trial has ended, the media obsession is far from over. The judge ruled (South Africa has no jury system—a judge makes the final ruling) that Pistorius was “negligent” in the killing but still found him not guilty. He was acquitted of murder but found guilty for culpable homicide, which is South Africa’s equivalent of manslaughter.

The international community was immediately outraged. Already, critics have begun comparing this “botched trial” to ex-NFL player O.J. Simpson’s infamous acquittal about two decades earlier. Unfortunately, like so many murder trials, the accused killer is the only living person who knows what truly transpired. Bearing that in mind, it is remarkable how many people are indignant because they “know” the judge made the wrong ruling.

Guilt or innocence aside, Pistorius has some disconcerting questions to answer about that night. First and foremost, one has to wonder how Pistorius was incapable of deducing what seems to be common sense. He woke up to hear someone in the bathroom and immediately assumed it was an intruder. This is understandable due to South Africa’s high crime rates, albeit a little odd for someone living in a wealthy gated community.

But when Pistorius rolled over and saw that his girlfriend was not beside him, shouldn’t he have realized that she might be the unknown inhabitant of the bathroom? His girlfriend was no longer in bed beside him, and he heard someone in the bathroom behind a closed door. Why Pistorius did not entertain the notion that she could have been using the bathroom and instead immediately concluded that it was an intruder has not been sufficiently explained.

Additionally, more questions were raised by Pistorius’ account of the night. Pistorius said he felt helpless without his prosthetics when he heard the noise in the bathroom, so he grabbed his handgun from underneath the bed and fired at the bathroom door. What are the chances that Pistorius retrieved the gun from beneath his bed and still did not notice his girlfriend was not in the bed next to him? Even so, the most blatant inconsistency remains: why did ballistics determine the shooter was standing 16 feet from the bed, while Pistorius claims he was on his bed, still without his prosthetics?

Even though Pistorius’ account of the night raises many warning signs, the prosecution’s story also contains some striking inconsistencies. Pistorius actually vomited when the prosecution described the gory details of Steenkamp’s death. When considering that Pistorius also broke down into multiple uncontrollable sobbing fits throughout the proceedings, it is difficult to believe that this man intentionally took the life of his girlfriend. Also, neighbors reported hearing a “blood-curdling scream,” which seems to have come from Pistorius after he discovered that he had shot (and perhaps killed) Steenkamp. This information makes the prosecution’s argument that Pistorius’ attack was intentional and premeditated hard to swallow.

Despite the fact that the judge has closed the books on this case, it is far from over. In addition to Pistorius’ inevitable appeal of the judge’s guilty ruling for culpable homicide, there remains too much unknown to declare the case closed. Gaps remain in the evidence on the path to uncovering what truly happened that unfortunate night, and due to a lack of concrete evidence, it seems it will stay that way for quite some time.

Pistorius has broken numerous barriers for disabled athletes and once served as an inspiration. Unfortunately, his fame quickly morphed into infamy when he became the center of a compellingly unusual and disturbing murder trial. Because Pistorius’ fall from grace follows in the footsteps of countless international figures before him, an important question remains. Did fame change Oscar Pistorius, or was the world’s first impression of Oscar Pistorius a misrepresentation of his true self? Perhaps it is a little of both, but one has to wonder if there is a relationship between Pistorius’ fame and the tragedy that occurred.