01x05 - Don't Be Afraid to Go Close

[bunniefuu]

How would you describe Sara?

Religious.

She's as you'd expect of someone

who's been attending Bible School

since she was little.

Rather lonely

And I believe she means well.

I'm quite an old man.

I've seen a lot of violence

and cold, callous m*rder.

I was in Cyprus during a w*r.

I dug up mass graves in Bosnia.

I've talked to the Russian mafia.

I'm investigated murders in Poland

and here. I've met evil people.

I think I'm good at reading

both good and evil people.

And Sara is a good person.

How can you say that someone who

has m*rder*d is good? That's strange.

What good has she done? She k*lled

a person and tried to k*ll another.

There's nothing good in that.

Cold blooded,

when she knows she's doing it.

Even if she did it for very strange

reasons that are hard to fathom,

and therefore sentenced

to psychiatric care,

the fact remains

that she k*lled a young woman.

And tried to k*ll a young man.

She deprived them of the future.

It's

It's by no means an innocent deed.

Maybe it's too late to come up with

evidence at this stage. I don't know,

but what's considered the truth

in relation to what happened is wrong.

And I wish they had done more.

You're talking about truth here,

but I'm sure many are thinking,

Helge is the one who knows the truth.

He, if anyone,

ought to know what happened.

Who knows the truth?

I don't know if one person

knows the whole truth.

I would imagine,

Sara knows a good deal of the truth.

I don't know where she stands today.

I'm totally convinced

that she did not tell the truth

during the investigation

and legal process in 2004.

But I don't blame Sara for that,

instead those who led her

to this version of her story.

- Emergency 112, how may I help you?

- I don't know.

I just came in here.

There's blood everywhere.

In Knutby.

Shock and despair spread

throughout the little town of Knutby.

The m*rder of the woman

and the attempted m*rder of her neighbor

is in stark contrast

to this quiet, peaceful community.

This is one of the most bizarre criminal

cases in Sweden in modern time.

A web of religion, sex

and cruel, callous m*rder,

unprecedented in

the judicial history of Sweden.

Who was the driving force behind this?

It's an important piece of evidence

that's been manipulated.

It creates doubt among the public.

Is this what actually happened?

This is a difficult time,

but we believe in God.

We're not giving up.

PRAY OBEY k*ll

EPISODE 5

DON'T BE AFRAID TO GO CLOSE

- Marianne Leukhardt.

- Hi, Marianne.

This is Anton Berg again. We spoke

earlier about a reconstruction film.

I'll just get the file.

The Knutby case, right?

The filmed material

that was accessible to the public is

the film that was shown in the District

Court and the Court of Appeal.

The thing is,

there is more filmed material.

We can't remove some things,

because that would make it

a new document.

The unedited version contains

some emotional responses

from the person at the center

of the crime scene reconstruction.

Things that are deemed confidential.

- You can appeal the decision.

- I will.

We'll send your request

to the Court of Appeal.

We got an email

from the Court of Appeal.

- Judgement!

- A judgment from the Court of Appeal?

It's great to get a judgment.

"With regard to your request to see

the six hour-long reconstruction film,

the Court of Appeal

has rejected your appeal.

The Police Authority states

that your request to access

the films be denied.

The films contain for the most part

the type of information

where one sees or hears

a suspect interact

with members of the Police Authority."

For the most part?

"It is not clear

that this can be disclosed

without causing injury or pain

to the people involved."

- What kind of injury?

- They mean Sara.

Why would the court

make this judgment otherwise?

- This is tedious. What do we do now?

- We can appeal this.

Yes, we'll do that.

Well

The most plausible thing to do

is to try to get hold of Sara

to see if we can get her permission.

Should we ask Sara?

Yes.

- We've done this before.

- We can request power of attorney.

- They can't refuse then.

- No.

In all of the interrogations,

Sara says that Helge knew nothing

until she finds out from the prosecutor

that Åsa Waldau and the congregation

have turned their backs on Helge.

That's when a new story takes shape,

where she puts the blame on me.

And there's no doubt that this is what

the interrogation officers want to hear.

She is described as a person

that gives the answers

that she believes people want to hear.

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Sara Svensson. Anton Berg.

"I, Sara Svensson, in accordance with

the Public Access to Information Act,

give the two journalists

access to any information

in the possession

of the Police Authority concerning me."

- The whole reconstruction!

- This is fantastic.

- I barely believe it, Anton.

- No, but

Do you understand why she wants

Martin and me to see this?

She also wants to know

what happened.

She has very scattered memories,

it was a long time ago.

Was the police reconstruction

properly conducted?

She wanted me to see it in order

to find out what I thought about it.

SIGNATURE: SARA SVENSSON

As people,

we can end up in situations where

we are involved in things

that we could not anticipate.

This applies to Sara, the Nanny,

in Knutby too, of course.

We hold one reconstruction with her.

A colleague and I pick her up

in Huddinge.

We do it at night

in order to avoid the media.

PROTOCOL OF RECONSTRUCTION

ORDERED BY: PROSECUTOR ELIN BLANK

THE PURPOSE:

TO CLARIFY THE COURSE OF EVENTS

ON THE NIGHT OF JANUARY 10, 2004

MAIN PERSON: SARA SVENSSON

How to say this?

It was horrifically traumatic

to go there.

To the hill where I had

been sentenced to hell.

There I had to face

the worst moments of my life.

To explain it

And when I got there

There were so many people

in the house.

Police, camera operators, prosecutors

It was very hard for me.

Did you have anyone

from the hospital with you?

No, I didn't.

So it was just you and your lawyer?

Yes.

Oh, my God.

UNEDITED RECONSTRUCTION

NEVER SHOWN IN COUR

JAN OLSSON

CRIME COMMISSIONER

The premise is

that the person in question

be influenced as little as possible.

The person should go in and demonstrate

what they have done at the scene

and that's all.

Is the camera on?

This reconstruction should be

a means of testing this woman's story.

One should be able to judge

this person's different reactions

and spontaneous ways of doing things

and ways of expressing herself

when in this kind of situation.

She shouldn't be influenced,

neither should she be directed.

Back then I had a personality

trait of pleasing people around me.

My smile is almost automatic.

Because I don't know

how to deal with this.

Sorry, can we start over?

I'm stuck here

You can take out your phone

when you come in. It's not switched on.

And but

So you'll say that when you came in

you take out your phone

and say what you did with it.

And after that, cut. Is that all right?

Where does this information

about the phone come from?

- After the phone we'll stop.

- I think I can do that.

Did she say it first

or did he get it from an interrogation?

- He doesn't know any of this.

- He shouldn't know any of this.

- Ready?

- Sound the clapperboard when we start.

Clapperboard.

A new angle. A third camera.

- This happens before

- Yes, we just saw this.

- There are two cameras.

- Yes, we've saw it from over there.

Do they want her to walk it through?

And she's holding a third camera.

Three cameras.

PÄR-ANDERS GRANHAG

PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY

If you've only seen

the court's version

I think that most people

would be convinced

that this person is trustworthy,

what she says can be relied upon.

Her version of events is convincing.

EDITED RECONSTRUCTION

SHOWN IN COUR

I go into the living room.

I take out my mobile phone

Her emotional state

fits what she's telling us.

She comes in and she shows

what she did and she did this well.

But when you see all the material

you get a different picture.

Can you explain

What you explained just now

There is background material

that seriously undermines the value

of the version the court saw.

It's enough

if you sh**t with the pillow.

- Okay.

- That's perfectly enough.

It will pass soon.

It was in a traumatic state

and I believed

I kept asking was the

weapon was loaded?

I was convinced when I aimed

at Kenneth that I would k*ll him.

KENNETH AGREN

IN THE ROLE OF DANIEL LINDE

Then I knock lightly.

I don't want to wake the others.

- That was wrong.

- What did I do wrong now?

- Several times.

- You opened too soon.

Did I open it too soon?

- The fourth time.

- The fourth knock.

To be quite frank,

this is more like film-making

than crime scene reconstruction.

SVERKER JÖNSSON

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR CRIMINAL LAW

Do that again. I was fixing the light.

They used the term rehearsal

and dress rehearsal,

in the material that I've seen.

The role of director isn't easy.

No and I have to avoid the other camera.

Maybe Christer can hold it.

There are instances when Sara says

that she'd like to try something out.

She says, "Can we play it down a bit?"

- Can we play it down a bit?

- Sure.

They say sure, so they do that.

Oh, that's not what I did.

Under these circumstances,

the reconstruction's useless.

I can see your reflection in the window

and mine too.

- Unbelievable.

- Really? Oh, yes.

- That doesn't matter, surely.

- What a pity.

- There's no blind.

- Stand a little

- What did I say Helge said there?

- That you shouldn't hesitate.

- That you

- That I shouldn't hesitate.

You said you went in

without hesitating.

They miss the opportunity to check

the reliability of her statements.

They're convinced

that she's telling the truth.

Her statements are consistent.

The question of guilt

has already been investigated.

So I go in without hesitating.

No one is looking for discrepancies

between what she said

and what she re-enacted,

or between what they know

about the investigation in general

and what she re-enacts in

the reconstruction. This is overlooked.

That opportunity is lost.

They have an assessment

regarding her truthfulness.

The crime scene reconstruction

plays a big part in it.

But then I'll be on camera.

It is concluded that she is not

a person that makes things up,

or tells lies.

And they're satisfied with that.

There.

Do you want me to do it

without sound or should I talk?

Stand there first and say,

"Now I'm going to show you

what I did when I was here."

Say, "Without hesitating"

And then we'll film the whole sequence.

- All three?

- All three.

- Okay.

- Let's try it without the camera first.

- I'll stand here and receive you.

- Okay.

I can't believe that I had the courage.

It's so easy to reach the

- That's okay.

- I'm thinking out loud now.

- Okay.

- Start with that.

Oh, that's not what I did.

- It's still the wrong firing distance.

- Yes, it is.

- Like that?

- This is how I think I did it.

The purpose of the reconstruction is

for her to demonstrate

what she confessed to.

- Exactly.

- But she doesn't.

No, she doesn't.

The coroners agree about

what close contact shots looks like.

This means that the weapon

is held against the head, in this case,

or max 10 cm away.

They say that the shots

were close contact.

"Two shots were fired directly at

the bedspread on Alexandra's head.

- Namely, close contact shots."

- Close contact.

- Did you hold it like this?

- Mm.

Does the distance

and all of that feel about right?

- Does it feel all right?

- Yes, it does.

- Is that roughly what I said?

- Yes.

How accurate do I have to be

in millimeters, or centimeters?

- As accurate as you can be.

- It's so difficult.

- Just think.

- Just think?

In what way is it really important?

- She really wants to know.

- Oh!

- I understand. I just want to know.

- Sara!

This has to do with your credibility.

- The injuries speak for themselves.

- Mm.

What you're demonstrating now

should be as accurate as possible.

- You have to do it as you remember it.

- Okay.

- But don't be afraid to go close.

- No.

- Did you hear that? Did he say that?

- Don't be afraid to go close.

I understand. Yes.

This is absurd,

"Don't be afraid to go close."

They want to place her closer

to the victim

because it doesn't match.

They want to place her closer.

They don't say straight out,

"Move closer."

What they do is give her clear signals

that something's wrong with her position

in relation to the victim

and the second and third shots.

It's clear they're unhappy

with her position.

- Well

- Shall we try it again, a trial run?

That's an instruction.

Take it nice and easy now.

Walk slowly and take the position

that you remember best.

- And then walk slowly past here.

- Past here?

And we'll do it

as accurately as possible.

Okay.

It's pretty simple.

If you do it twice, then you're saying

it was wrong the first time.

You're telling this person

that it wasn't right the first time.

I take a few more steps, or so,

and stop here.

I pull the trigger, firing at the head.

It's extra problematic

as Sara is so sensitive to feedback.

She wants to know

if she's doing the right thing.

This is something she takes to heart.

She looks for guidance and confirmation.

I don't know

if I can be more accurate and

She senses they want

to place her closer.

Standing with a revolver here

She's now protesting wildly

when they try to place her closer.

And she never does that, in this film.

But if it was dark in the room,

would it feel different then?

Would it Because you've Well

Does it feel scary when you go close?

- Do you think Did you go closer?

- It's better No.

It's like this, I wouldn't be able

to go too close emotionally.

- Now or then?

- Then, that is.

And that's why I stood about here.

It was quite close anyway, but I

could never I can't even do it now.

I can't put the revolver against

the head and fire.

This was one of the absolute

first reconstructions of my career

and that doesn't happen very often.

I remember that it was arranged

at very short notice.

We did it at night.

As far I was concerned,

Sara would confirm what she had said.

I wasn't aware,

before or after the reconstruction,

that there was anything controversial

that needed to be explored.

I didn't have any information

other than Sara's own version of events.

This was in the middle

of the investigation.

What we learnt afterwards

from the forensic report,

things that might be

confirmed or retracted,

I had no idea about that at the time.

I don't have

the same version of reality in here.

I don't know

where the areas of doubt lie.

It was difficult to question

the part about the firing distance,

which was the only detail

that didn't correspond

with Sara's version of events.

I honestly think that

the most plausible explanation is still

that Sara doesn't remember correctly.

That she was in fact closer

when she fired.

And the reason why

she couldn't demonstrate this

may be that she has suppressed

the most dramatic part of the events.

I'm not a psychologist, but for me

it's the only plausible explanation,

as opposed to another perpetrator

or that it happened differently.

- The first shot was about here.

- Are you sure about the last shot?

- Yes, I am.

- Pull in the cable there.

I don't know.

No one else did this sh**ting.

Unfortunately, I'm sorry.

He's trying to

He's trying to get me

to tell a different story.

And then I take two steps

I think anyone can imagine that putting

a revolver close to someone

is more difficult

than standing at a distance,

even though both are difficult.

But what we can say is, Sara remembers

as well as she can remember.

She goes into detail

about a lot of things.

To say that an important detail,

like the firing distance,

is the piece of information

that she has suppressed, is unlikely.

We remember our actions, especially

actions of that nature, very well.

These are not things that one forgets.

I counted and I think Sara Svensson gets

to practice this m*rder three times.

Yes, they produce a product

that they can show in court.

There are no questions,

or anything included.

It looks like Sara is telling it

exactly as it happened.

But this film material

tells us a different story.

She never explains in one go

how this happened.

This unique opportunity doesn't tell us

if Sara's version tallies

with the evidence

that the police actually have.

- Don't be afraid to go close.

- No.

Don't be afraid to go close?

Yes, that's probably the way it was.

It's obvious from your comment

and by looking at the reconstruction

team that it's important

she talks about the distance.

She asks why it's important.

It was the bit that was shown

I challenged her on this,

in relation to the information

that we had from the crime scene.

Why was it so important?

We wanted her to show us.

Since we knew the outcome

But saying,

"Don't be afraid to go close."

That sounds like an instruction,

because we know she's good

at reading people.

- We gave her a chance, at least.

- Should you have said that?

No, well It's

I think that it's exerting

too much influence.

I don't know. Here or here?

You're standing a little further away

than when we did the dress rehearsal.

- Yes, we didn't repeat it.

- How do you mean?

We don't do that

with crime scene reconstructions.

They demonstrate the whole sequence

from start to finish.

You can stand there.

What was crucial for us was that

the film material we presented in court

would show,

from the scene of the crime,

what she had described

under interrogation.

ELIN BLANK: RESPONSIBLE

FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION

I guess it is the same

as what you do working in TV.

An enormous amount of material

is edited.

The main difference between filming

for TV and showing a film at trial is

one of these forms the basis

for a m*rder conviction.

The basis for the District Court's

decision was her whole story

given during the course

of a number of police interrogations.

This crime scene reconstruction film

doesn't contradict what

she had already told the police.

It was just a way of adding

another dimension to her interrogation.

It's a little difficult to see

her story taking shape

since only three

of her many interrogations

have been saved in dialogue form.

And even in these interrogations, we can

see that there are times when Sara asks,

"If I knew how it was

maybe I would remember correctly."

And then she's told about

telephone calls and text messages

and she fills in the rest.

In Helge Fossmo's bedroom,

where Alexandra was found shot,

the firing distance

is a very important factor.

And she never gets it right, does she?

No, she never goes as close

as the forensic report shows

that the shot was fired from.

You can see in the films

that Bertil Olsson says,

"Tell it like it was,

but don't be afraid to go close."

Okay.

Is this the way to do it?

I have no opinion on that.

Forensics knew that the shots

were fired at close range.

It's possible that they had that

in the back of their minds.

I don't see any problems

with the reconstruction video

that was shown in court,

or how it reflects upon

the content of previous police

interrogations with Sara Svensson.

Both courts were of that opinion.

What about,

"Don't be afraid to go closer"?

- Well, you're not letting that go.

- It's very important.

I don't see that as an instruction

as to what she should do.

She doesn't act on what's being said.

The additional dimension in this

is that despite all the help she gets,

the gestures

and that comment for instance

and the fact that they practice

three or four times,

she never goes as close

as a close contact shot requires.

What's your conclusion

since Sara Svensson can't say

how she shot and k*lled

the first person she ever shot?

- She fails to describe it in detail.

- Yes, okay.

Either she doesn't remember correctly,

or she doesn't want to show

exactly how close she went.

Or maybe there's a third option,

that she didn't do it, don't you think?

Yes, sure.

The court never got to see

what the circumstances

for Sara Svensson were

when this was shown.

No, that's right. Absolutely.

Why didn't they pick up on the fact

that she got the distance wrong?

Why didn't they pick up on that?

What would have happened

if they stopped there instead?

Maybe not the reconstruction, but

in the investigation. If they had said,

"What the hell is happening now?

She's too far away here.

What should we do now?"

They didn't do that.

This is one of many pieces of evidence,

but it's important evidence.

I still think that all the film material

should have been shown.

They should have shown all the filmed

material, all the questions. Everything.

I think that if 100 people

watched what was shown in court,

I'm convinced that the majority of them

would say that what she has demonstrated

is something that she did.

If another 100 people

saw all of the material I think

the opinion would have been different.

There's a great risk

that she's being helped to lie.

That doesn't mean that I have an opinion

on what she's guilty or not guilty of.

I don't know that, however,

I'm sure that, by conducting

the reconstruction in this manner,

they're sabotaging

their own investigation.

If she is the kind of person

they say she is,

that she wants to please everyone,

you would expect her to go closer,

"Is this what you mean?"

I would expect that,

since they guided her so much.

I thought, "She'll show them correctly."

But she didn't.

But is the forensic report wrong?

It could be, I mean

- That it wasn't a close contact shot?

- Yes.

She seems very sure.

Maybe Sara Svensson is right

and forensics are wrong.

We should do a test sh**ting,

in that case.

sh**ting TES

The information we have is that

the bedspread was pulled up,

so the two shots were fired

through the bedspread into the head.

The gunpowder residue in the technical

report tell you it was close range?

Yes. The more concentrated and

the smaller the mark is in diameter,

the closer the barrel is

to the inflicted injury.

Sara demonstrated

that she fired from a distance

- she eventually agreed to 50 cm.

- Yes.

From the mouth of the revolver

to the body.

We'll begin by using

comparative material,

which we'll put a bedspread over,

covering the head.

And then we'll fire

from a distance of 50 cm.

We can see in this case

that the b*llet has hit the skin.

There's no soot residue.

Neither are there any burns around

the g*nsh*t wound at this distance.

This is what one would expect when

sh**ting from a distance of 50 cm.

- Pass it to me please.

- We'll do a close contact test now.

Yes.

- What can we see here then?

- We can see that we have soot residue.

The difference between

the first series of shots at 50 cm is

there isn't a trace of soot

around these injuries.

The difference is soot

on all close-contact shots.

There is a discrepancy, shall we say,

between what she maintains

was the firing distance

and what the coroner

and the forensic laboratory says.

And they haven't looked

for an explanation to this.

Why does Sara say this?

I don't know.

I can't be the judge of that.

But all I can say is, in my opinion,

the firing distances

that she gives in interrogations

and in the reconstruction are incorrect.

Hello. Anton Berg and company.

We're here to interview Helge Fossmo.

Let's begin.

Should I say anything else?

Yes, that's right.

And then I continue to the living room.

Was that good?

”Was that good?"

And now I'm very determined

to see this through.

And I do it.

- Is that edited out?

- The laugh? Yes, it's edited out.

I understand. I just want to know.

She notices that they're not satisfied.

You have to do it as you remember it.

But don't be afraid to go close.

It's very clear that

they're not satisfied with her answers.

She's very sensitive to that.

It's very obvious.

She's asking them what

they're not satisfied with.

She doesn't use those words,

but there's an unease there

and a will to follow

their direction, their instructions.

Helge, what do you think

when you see this?

It's a performance, with a director.

She looks really desperate one minute

and she's laughing the next.

She chats easily and laughs,

and then takes on her role.

It looks very arranged.

Not particularly authentic.

And now it's clear that the court

has been shown edited material.

They never knew how very directed Sara

was when they filmed the reconstruction.

It's extremely serious.

Truly serious. The judgment is based on

Sara Svensson's version of events.

If she has made all of her statements

or just some of the statements

after being influenced, then the court

must take this into account.

And of course I'm thinking along

the lines of grounds for a re-trial.

We'll have to make

an overall assessment.

This isn't the only thing that's strange

in this investigation. There's more.

A re-trial requires more than

pointing out that something is wrong.

You have to prove that something

is very wrong and this is astounding.

What Sara demonstrates is incorrect.

How do you feel about this, Helge,

that she gets things wrong?

Well, it makes me wonder obviously,

if she really fired the shots.

It must also be said

that's she's not reliable,

since her version of events does not

correspond with the forensic evidence.

JANUARY, 2021

Why I haven't talked before

It's simply because I haven't

been strong enough.

Everything in Knutby for me

has been such an enormous trauma.

The years in psychiatric care

and the years after that

Dealing with

Can I exist? Can I be the person I am?

How do others see me?

So I didn't have the strength

to tell my story before.

Please excuse us

if we are a little blunt here,

but we'd like to ask you about

the three shots that k*lled Alexandra.

- Your story doesn't add up.

- No

Shots two and three are close contact,

but you

Can you describe how it is?

I was prepared for Alexandra to wake up.

That's why I kept at a distance.

And I can't say why

So, by the second shot,

where are you standing?

I'm standing somewhere

at the foot of the bed.

Not fully at the end,

but I don't go close.

I don't.

- And by the third shot?

- I go closer.

But not close contact.

But if the second shot is close contact,

you can't go any closer?

No, but I can't understand

how that could be.

The police's technical report

states that both the second

and third were close contact.

So, then we thought, if Sara's so sure

about it, maybe the report is wrong.

So we have tested to sh**t as well

and the difference is obvious

between close contact shots

and shots from a distance.

So, when it is close contact,

it leaves no room for discussion.

Well, I don't have an answer for that

I was so very scared that Alexandra

would wake up

So I didn't dare to go that close.

And I would definitely not have

managed to stand so close either.

I really can't explain

why it doesn't add up.

I don't know. I can't

I must say what I remember

and that memory is the same now as then.

During our investigation, we have looked

at the technical report

and spoken to many.

And this is another strange

thing that sticks out.

It's the map showing how

the perpetrator walked to the scene.

They say the footprints start here,

go to the crime scene and back here.

You have said that you started here.

And then you walk here and back.

This is the difference.

There is a forest

and a big road between.

What happened here?

I drove there and I walked

just like I drew it for the police.

I don't know

why there are no footprints

from the car.

But that's where I parked.

And I walked from the car,

to the houses and back.

When you read the police's

report about the footprints,

they say the dog only found footprints

from one person walking one direction.

They don't find footprints

the other direction.

I know I walked

in someone else's footprints.

Someone else had walked there before me.

So I walked in those.

These guys in Stockholm who taught me

how to do all this.

They taught me to use shoe covers.

In order to well, they told me

that you should wear them

when committing crime.

So I used shoe covers.

Shoe covers can maybe explain

why the dogs lost track.

But you would still

make footprints in the snow?

- There is none?

- I don't know why really.

Because when I look at this,

it looks like someone drove you.

Dropped you off here

and then parked here.

Yeah, but that's not the case.

I drove the car alone.

No one else was with me.

During the trial,

Åsa comes one day to testify.

Afterwards, she does something

that people found shocking.

Can you tell us about the hand gesture?

It was everything I had wanted,

longed for, for many years.

But I had been so rejected,

broken down and excluded.

I didn't sleep.

I didn't have the right to my own life.

I was called a sl*ve.

People turned their backs

on me when I came.

My

Åsa said my evil

was contagious to others.

So no one talked to me.

And when you feel like this

is when you are offered Åsa's hand?

It gave me hope about life.

To get life back.

But today I believe

that hand could have also meant,

"I'm giving my hand to you

so now you know you should

keep quiet, about my role."

My role as?

The Queen of Heaven.

The supreme love of the universe.

The center of the universe.

She was almost God.

She was God's Bride.