STNG Photo
A cross that was placed outside the Plainfield home of Lisa Stebic
on Friday morning was removed and held by a neighbor.
BY DAVE PARRO
The debate over the crosses in front of the Vaughn house in Oswego last month was one thing. It involved some neighbors who understandably wanted to grieve over the violent deaths of three children and their mother and others who simply wanted to move on. The house was a gathering place for a community searching for answers and healing. The crosses represented something meaningful.
But Sugar Grove carpenter Greg Zanis went too far in getting involved in the Lisa Stebic case. He had no right to place a white cross on the Stebics' lawn without permission while the missing Plainfield woman's husband and children still live there. Apparently his sense of entitlement knows no bounds.
Zanis has stuck his nose where it doesn't belong before. He says "crosses for losses" is his ministry, which he started after his father-in-law was murdered in 1996. But the Stebic case involves a dad suspected of foul play and two children who still live with him. If this really is Zanis' higher calling, he should be considering the emotional and spiritual effect his crosses have on the families of victims.
The Stebic children have been through enough already. What exactly did Zanis think this cross would accomplish outside of further upsetting these kids and Lisa Stebic's relatives? Was he trying to draw attention to the already high-profile case? Remember a woman he likely didn't know whose body hasn't even been found? Convert the Jewish family?
More than anything, the Stebic cross inflamed an already emotional and volatile situation. Given the timing of this incident -- the day after Lisa Stebic's husband was named a "person of interest" in the case but more than two months after she disappeared -- it seems like Zanis could have been trying to send a message to Craig Stebic. That would make the small wooden cross a symbol of judgment, which would be a shameful twist of what it is actually supposed to represent.
I know that families of victims usually appreciate Mr. Zanis' crosses. It is a memorial for them. Whenever I see the white crosses it reminds me to say a prayer for the families. I think the families should always be contacted first for approval. In this instance however, I believe the actions were thoughtless and insensitive.
Does it ever occur to Mr. Zanis that not everyone is of the Christian faith? Putting a cross on a Jewish family's lawn is like putting a Star of David on a Christian's lawn--inappropriate and insensitive.
In my neighborhood, we have a Muslim family, a Hindu family, two Jewish families, and at least one agnostic/non-religious couple. We're an increasingly diverse population here in the Aurora area--and we should respect each other's religious beliefs instead of just assuming that everyone is Christian.
Is there proof that Mr. Zanis did indeed construct this cross and place it in the Stebic's yard, other than what appears to be his signature? This post reads as if that is a known? Is it? Did he lay claim? If so, I have mixed emotions about this. If he did do this, it may be his (and many others) frustration at the husband/father's refusal to cooperate with police. Under advisement from his counselor, Mr. Stebic has refused to allow authorities to question the children. The children are key to this investigation. They were at home when Lisa went missing. If Mr. Stebic truly wanted resolution, he would do anything possible to ensure that, which would include questioning of the children. He would avail himself and the children as much as possible.
I presume, and could be incorrect, that if Mr. Zanis erected the cross, that it was something, if just a small thing, to force or advance action in this case. He may believe Lisa is dead, which she probably is -if statistics hold true. He may be tired of the charade. Believe it or not, this action stirs so much emotion-as it should, because society is not equipped to facilitate aberrant behavior. Abstract forces are at work to bring this to a head.
Most decent people do not want injustice and evil to prevail. Most decent people want children to be protected from harm, and society's psyche as a whole is eroded when justice does not reign. And statistics also bear true that if Mr. Stebic harmed his wife, the same fate would probably not befall the children. But the harm is in what he may have done to their mother. That is a far greater harm, emotionally, than any harm he could render physically.
Of course, the children are upset by the crosses because they are traumatized by their mother's disappearance. If Mr. Stebic did indeed commit a horrific crime, he needs to allow the body to be found. This is the only way for closure. His children will never recover fully from the trauma of not finding their mother, of wondering where she is???
In this case, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. I don't know the actual statistics, but from my accumulated knowledge, I will say that in the majority of cases with these underpinnings, the spouse is found to be complicit in the disappearance and the usual and customary finale of murder.
If Mr. Zanis placed the cross on the Stebic lawn, I believe his heart was in the right place. It stirred emotion and dialogue. Now let's hope Mr. Zanis' presumed intolerance (purely speculation on my part) of Mr. Stebic's behavior will be followed by more incremental responses of intolerance from others for a non compliant, possibly evil man. Perhaps the pressure will force a resolve as it surely did in Ohio in the Davis/Butts case.
I agree that Mr. Zanis often goes too far with placing crosses. He should consult families as many are not of the Christian faith and having a cross placed can be disruptive and upsetting to the grieving family. I have to say as I look at the picture, however, is this one of his crosses? The craftsmanship on this cross does not look like same quality as his others.
In response to Jill's July 14th comment, the question is not the husband's/father's failure to cooperate. The question is not even really whether the cross was placed on a Jewish family's lawn. The real question is the insensitivity shown by Mr. Zanis toward the children who probably still hope that their mother will be found safe. (From news reports Mr. Zanis admitted placing the cross and said he meant no harm.) The children have been through a lot. They deserve everyone's support. This is not a case where the memorialized person is known dead as in the Vaughn, Lemak, or Columbine cases. Everyone is holding out hope for the Mrs. Stebic's safe return, especially her children.
To Jill:
You start off asking if there is proof that Mr. Zanis did this and then go into a long and drawn out explanation about how your experience says that Mr. Stebic is probably guilty. How can the two situations be different?
If someone put that cross on his lawn because they think that he is not being forthcoming enough that really is going too far. If the police had any evidence that Mr. Stebic killed his wife then they would have no problems talking to the kids, legal or otherwise. As it stands right now the woman is clearly missing. And the police think the kids might be able to tell them what happened to her. It is just as likely the children don't know anything and Mr. Stebic is keeping the children from what is sure to be a traumatic experience.
There is a good reason for the 4th amendment to exist. In any incident not involving facts I trust the government less than I trust individuals. He might be guilty, but then since the police are releasing all the evidence it may be he isn't guilty but the cops don't have any better idea as to who might be. And some lunatics acting like vigilantes because based on reports they read in the paper they "know" what happened doesn't seem all that useful. Let the cops do their job when they need our help they will ask for it.
Eric and Jerome,
Your thoughtful responses were read and studied by me. I appreciate respectful dialogue and both of you were respectful and made good points. I'm glad the Beacon has this blog because it is so interesting to hear the different perspectives of individuals on varied topics.