There are two distinct versions of the way the events of that evening unfolded. In one version, the official version embraced by the Columbia County District Attorney's Office, endorsed by the statements of the clergy and bolstered to a point by Mardell Eames' sometimes contradictory statements, Father Leo was an innocent victim of an old man's alcohol-fueled rage, gunned down at point-blank range as the priest extended a hand in friendship and forgiveness.
In the other, the old man, pushed to the edge of terror by the sneering abuse of a menacing hulk in a Roman collar, succumbed to terror and fired a single round from the gun he kept on his nightstand in what was ultimately an act of self-defense.
Even now, years later, the truth of what happened that night remains murky. Perhaps, in his heart, the priest did have a desire to break through to the old man, to connect with him in a way that might have calmed him. It might also have been true that the old man felt nothing but fear, that he actually believed that the priest meant him harm. In other words, it is entirely possible that the truth behind Father Leo Heineman's death is not as black-and-white as the coal-country courts demanded.
Whatever the truth, the stories both begin the same way.
According to Mardell Eames' account, she had driven to the priest's Ashland rectory after the last mass on Sunday afternoon, and she and Father Leo had spent part of the afternoon sipping bourbon and counting the day's take from the collection plate. They had each had two drinks, she testified. Though St. Mauritius was hardly an affluent parish, Dennehy would later note that his station there seemed to provide the priest with a decent living. At the time of his death, Dennehy has noted, the priest had about $1,000 in small bills crumpled in his pocket.
 |
| Front of Stewart home |
By midafternoon, Eames told the court, she had decided to return to the house she ostensibly shared with her husband, stopping on the way back at a local mall to do a bit of quick shopping.
While she was delayed, Eames told the court; Father Leo had called the house, speaking briefly to Stewart. The way Eames told the story, during that brief conversation, Stewart became belligerent, and at one point accused the priest of being "a liar." That prompted Heineman, she said, to make the fateful decision to drive to the house, apparently with the intention of setting matters right. Stewart, naturally, recalls the conversation differently. He told the court and his attorney that Heineman had called asking about Eames' whereabouts, and then simply announced to the old man that he was coming over to see her, and that he had no intention of showing up before she did because he didn't "want to visit with you."
Eames reached the house first at about 5:30 p.m., she testified. Her husband, she said, seemed agitated. "He said, 'That son of a bitch is coming down'," Eames was quoted as saying by a local newspaper covering the trial. About 20 minutes later, Heineman strolled into the house. As was his practice, he didn't knock.
According to Eames testimony, the three of them -- the priest, the husband and Eames -- all sat down at the kitchen table. She claimed that she poured a scotch and soda for herself and vodka for her husband, and that she also fixed a drink for Heineman. According to her testimony, Heineman never touched his drink, though the priest's autopsy seemed to shed some doubt on that claim; the alcohol content in the priest's stomach indicated that he had been drinking a short time before his death.
 |
| The crime scene photos of booze in the kitchen |
There was, according to her testimony, no small talk at the table.
email
print
default
increase
decrease
