What is documented about Oona’s response comes from several sources, none of which are transcripts of her actual words. The most specific accounts come from the family’s lawyer, Jean-Félix Paschoud, and from Swiss press reporting during the investigation and trial period. The Notre Dame University student newspaper, working from wire-service reports in the week after the discovery, noted that statements attributed to Oona in early coverage had been called “a complete fabrication” by Paschoud. This matters: the defiant, memorable lines sometimes attributed to Oona — variations on the theme that she would not pay a ransom for a corpse — cannot be verified as her actual words from a reliable contemporaneous source.
What can be established is more procedural. Oona contacted the Swiss authorities. She cooperated with a police investigation that included tapping the family’s phone. She did not pay the ransom. The family’s lawyer, Paschoud, conducted what the SwissInfo account describes as “sham negotiations” — a deliberate stalling tactic intended to keep the callers engaged while police traced the calls.
The SwissInfo account, reporting on the Wardas’s stated position, says he claimed Oona had called the demand “ridiculous” and had said that a corpse was a corpse and her husband remained in her heart. Whether this accurately reflects what Oona said, when she said it, or through what intermediary it was communicated is not established in the sources accessible here. It may represent something Wardas testified he heard, or a paraphrase of what Paschoud relayed to the callers during negotiations. The swissinfo article attributes the remark to Oona but does not specify the source. Given that the Notre Dame campus paper, citing contemporary wire reports, noted early on that quotes attributed to her were disputed by her own lawyer, any specific quote attributed to Oona in this incident should be treated as reported characterization rather than a verified verbatim statement.