1989: Ted Bundy, psycho killer

Posted on by

Qu’est-ce que c’est?

It was 20 years today that Ted Bundy, the signature sexual psychopath in a golden age of serial killers,* rode the lightning in Florida’s Starke Prison.

Executed Today is pleased to mark the occasion with a conversation with Louisville crime writer Kevin M. Sullivan, author of a forthcoming2009 book on Ted Bundy … and a man who knows how the world looks from inside Bundy’s ski mask.

Ted Bundy is obviously one of the most iconic, written-about serial killers in history. Why a book about Ted Bundy? What’s the untold story that you set out to uncover?

The desire, or drive, if you will, to write an article about Ted Bundy and then create a 120,000 plus word book about the murders, was born out of my crossing paths with his infamous murder kit. Had Jerry Thompson [a key detective on the Bundy case -ed.] left Bundy’s stuff in Utah that May of 2005, well, it would have been an enjoyable meeting with the former detective, but I’m certain it would have all ended quietly there. Indeed, I doubt if I’d even considered writing an article for Snitch [a now-defunct crime magazine -ed.], much less a book about the killings. But it was having all that stuff in my hands, and in my home, and then being given one of the Glad bags from Ted’s VW that made it very real (or surreal) to me, and from this, a hunger to find out more about the crimes led me forward.


Ted Bundy’s gear, right where you want it — image courtesy of Kevin M. Sullivan. (Check the 1975 police photo for confirmation.)

Believe me, in a thousand years, I never would have expected such a thing to ever come my way. I can’t think of anything more odd or surreal.

ET: You mentioned that you think you’ve been able to answer some longstanding questions about Bundy’s career. Can you give us some hints? What don’t people know about Ted Bundy that they ought to know?

I must admit, when I first decided to write a book about the crimes, I wasn’t sure what I’d find, so the first thing I had to do was read every book ever written about Bundy, which took the better portion of three or four months.

From this I took a trip to Utah to again meet with Thompson and check out the sites pertaining to Bundy and the murders in that state. Next came the acquisition of case files from the various states and the tracking down of those detectives who participated in the hunt for the elusive killer.

Now, no one could have been more surprised than me to begin discovering what I was discovering about some of these murders. But as I kept hunting down the right people and the right documents, I was able to confirm these “finds” at every turn. And while I cannot reveal everything here, It’s all in the book in great detail. Indeed, you could say that my book is not a biography in the truest sense, but rather an in-depth look at Bundy and the murders from a vantage point that is quite unique. I wish I could delve further into these things now , but I must wait until it’s published.

The Bundy story has a magnetic villain and a host of victims … was there a hero? Was there a lesson?

The real heroes in this story are the detectives who worked day and night for years to bring Ted Bundy to justice. And if there’s a lesson to be learned from all of this, it is this: It doesn’t matter how handsome or articulate a person might be, or how nicely they smile at you, for behind it all, there could reside the most diabolical person you’ll ever meet! We need to remember this.

But how can you act on that lesson without living in a continual state of terror? Bundy strikes me as so far outside our normal experience, even the normal experience of criminality, that I’m inclined to wonder how much can be generalized from him.

Actually, (and I might say, thank God here!) people as “successful” as Ted Bundy don’t come our way very often. I mean, the guy was a rising star in the Republican Party in Washington, had influential friends, a law student, and certainly appeared to be going places in life. Some were even quite envious of his ascension in life. However, it was all a well-placed mask that he wore to cover his true feelings and intentions. On the outside he was perfect, but on the inside a monster. He just didn’t fit the mold we’re used to when we think of a terrible killer, does he?

Now, there are those among us — sociopaths — who can kill or do all manner of terrible things in life and maintain the nicest smile upon their faces, but again, just beneath the surface ticks the heart of a monster, or predator, or what ever you might want to call them. Having said that, I’m not a suspicious person by nature, and so I personally judge people by their outward appearance until shown otherwise. Still, it’s difficult (if not impossible) to see the “real” individual behind the person they present to us on a daily basis.

You worked with case detectives in researching your book. How did the Ted Bundy case affect the way law enforcement has subsequently investigated serial killers? If they had it to do over again, what’s the thing you think they’d have done differently?

They all agree that today, DNA would play a part of the investigation that wasn’t available then. However, in the early portion of the murders, Bundy made few if any mistakes, as he had done his homework so as to avoid detection. As such, even this wouldn’t be a panacea when it came to a very mobile killer like Bundy who understood the very real limitations sometimes surrounding homicide investigations.

I can’t help but ask about these detectives as human beings, too. Clearly they’re in a position to deal with the heart of darkness in the human soul day in and day out and still lead normal lives … is a Ted Bundy the kind of killer that haunts or scars investigators years later, or is this something most can set aside as all in a day’s work?

They are, first of all, very nice people. And you can’t be around them (either in person, or through numerous phone calls or emails) for very long before you understand how dedicated they are (or were) in their careers as police officers. They are honorable people, with a clear sense of duty, and without such people, we, as a society, would be in dire circumstances indeed.

Even before Bundy came along, these men were veteran investigators who had seen many bad things in life, so they carried a toughness which allowed them to deal with the situations they came up against in a professional manner. That said, I remember Jerry Thompson telling me how he looked at Ted one day and thought how much he reminded him of a monster, or a vampire of sorts. And my book contains a number of exchanges between the two men (including a chilling telephone call) which demonstrate why he felt this way

How about for you, as a writer — was there a frightening, creepy, traumatic moment in your research that really shook you? Was there an emotional toll for you?

Absolutely. But the degree of “shock”, if you will, depends (at least for me) on what I know as I first delve into each murder. In the Bundy cases I had a general knowledge of how Bundy killed, so there wasn’t a great deal that caught me by surprise, as it were. Even so, as a writer, you tend to get to know the victims very well through the case files, their family members or friends, and so on. Hence, I’ll continue to carry with me many of the details of their lives and deaths for the remainder of my life. And so, lasting changes are a part of what we do.

However, I did a story a few years back about a 16 year old girl who was horribly murdered here in Kentucky, and this case did cause me to wake up in the night in a cold sweat. Perhaps it was because I have a daughter that was, at the time, only a few years younger than this girl, and that some of what transpired did catch me off guard, so to speak, as I began uncovering just what had happened to this very nice kid.

Watch for Kevin M. Sullivan’s forthcoming The Bundy Murders: A Comprehensive History from McFarland in summer or fall of 2009.

* In fact, the term “serial killer” was coined in the 1970’s by FBI profiler Robert Ressler, as an improvement on the sometimes inaccurate category of “stranger killer”.

Additional Bundy resources from the enormous comment thread:

On this day..

Possibly related executions:

8,544 thoughts on “1989: Ted Bundy, psycho killer”

  3. Hi Jason – the book covers a number of topics not related to Bundy’s sexuality or derived from Bobby Lewis. This includes my take on who his victims were, victims’ issues, society’s role in serial killing, third person confessions, capital punishment, the two escapes, the Dobson interview, the “bones-for-time” scheme, the factors contributing to his rampage, Bundy’s handwriting, Bobby Lewis, Kitty Genovese, Konerak Simthasomphone, the Gainesville student murders, and even Bundy’s ghost.

  4. Jason — I am sure there is too! I hope the book arrives soon. I will post my thoughts and comments after that I read it! I may so do on Richard’s forum instead, though. I will have to see how that goes. 🙂

    Perhaps someone else who has read it or Richard will address your question.

  5. I am surprised that after the release of Richard’s book, the only topic that is discussed is Bundy’s sexuality. I am sure there is more to Richard’s book than that. Is there any other information on Bundy that is not well-known, even if we agree with it or not?

  6. I contacted the fellow and introduced myself. He already knew me through my book, and I filled him in on what we do here. we’ll be talking again.

  7. How were you able to read the script? Can anyone? I would love to. Is there a link of something?

  8. I just read the Theodore script. It is AMAZING! These guys sure did their homework! @Diana, I agree, it needs to be big budget though.

    @Ted Montgomery: Actually the movie makes it pretty obvious that Ted is full of it in the interview. It’s neat, the truth is told in contrast to his lies.

    I’m looking forward to this!

  9. I don’t think there has been a truly great movie made about Bundy. Contrary to popular opinion, I think “The Deliberate Stranger” is a terrible movie by just about any measure. It’s condescending and wildly inaccurate.

    Mark Harmon (no one would ever claim that he’s one of our finest actors) plays Bundy as a happy-go-lucky prankster totally sure of himself in every situation. Oodles of charm, poise and self-assurance. Just about everyone who actually knew Bundy in the 1970s described him as insecure, lacking social graces, easily distracted and unable to mix in comfortably in most situations…the exact opposite of how Harmon portrayed him in that movie.

    A movie based on the Dobson interview seems like a terrible idea. First, Dobson’s entire motivation for that interview was to get a famous killer to substantiate Dobson’s long-held contention that pornography causes people to kill. Second, if you’ve ever seen the entire interview, it’s clear that Bundy is lying through his teeth at almost every turn. Even Bundy himself seems incredulous that Dobson is buying his line.

  10. I still laugh when I think of another one Diana came up with: “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”.

  11. If Bill Hagmaier ever writes his book (and I told him he should!), I’ll purchase it the day it’s released. I know it will be an exceedingly good book. That said, I don’t think it will contain any bombshells, as it were, or new revelations. Rather, it will be an ip close and personal look at his time with Bundy. And that will be an excellent addition to the Bundy list of books.

  12. Unless it’s a big budget epic done right (and covering all the important bases), another low budget crapper of a Bundy movie is unnecessary. THE DELIBERATE STRANGER was really good and THE RIVERMAN was also really good. The others dont even tell the true story.
    It’s time for INDIANA HAGMAIER AND THE TRANSCRIPTS OF DOOM. That’s the movie I want to see. That’s the movie that will spread NEW Bundy knowledge and help save the world.

  14. I’m writing about a guy now who murdered and he had the very issues you are referring to concerning repressed and active homosexuality. So I do understand these things. But as I have said, it wasn’t a part if Bundy’s life. And no, I’m not ignorant of these issues.

  15. Yes, Shelley, sadly I agree. But it’s more than that. When evidence is arbitrarily established or dismissed in order to conform to current theory and logical thinking is called “foolish,” how can anyone find the truth? It’s no wonder that Bundy remains an enigma.

  16. Or better yet, leave me in the get away car. That’s one Road Trip I wouldn’t mind going on. LOL

  17. Diana — LOL Thanks for the laugh! You have a wonderful sense of humor. I had a visual of you leading a bunch of us all dressed in black on a raid of the FBI offices! I would be the one who sneezed or tripped while trying to quiet. Maybe you should leave me home.

  18. Richard — I hear you and totally agree. However, concerning the topic of repressed homosexuality, until people make an effort to understand at least a little bit about the issues you present, they will not get it. I am NOT saying ‘agree’ but ‘get it’ and there is no point in discussing it unless they do. Do you agree?

    The sexuality of a sadistic SEXUAL serial killer ought to be an important topic. From the little I NOW know, Bundy is like a textbook case of repressed homosexuality. It’s amazing to me how some many pieces fell into place and not just with Bundy. Am I 100% sure in my thoughts? Of course not. I will continue on. I am still “trying it on for size” and learning but it’s a very promising avenue of inquiry.

    Your book may arrive in the next day or so. I look forward to reading it at long last. I understand there’s much to hear about besides Bundy’s ‘sexuality’ including perhaps some information on what prison life was like for him during those years on death row.

  19. Unproven because, as I said at the beginning of the post , the conclusion is based upon a faulty premise. It’s simple logic.

    Lewis’ close relationship with Bundy is not debatable. It is established fact.

    Some of us seek the truth in these matters, others are only interested in perpetuating a legend. Do as you wish.

  22. Conclusion?

    This is not the site for an intelligent discussion and debate about the possible psychological underpinnings of a Bundy or others like him.

    This is not the site for examining ‘established’ facts. And although speculation is a key to progress and understanding, this is not the site for that.

    If we stick to some basic things and continue to treat Bundy as an “interesting serial killer” and as almost a commercial commodity, we should be okay. It will keep the friction down to a minimum.

    I need to remind myself that I am probably unusual in my quest (as a layperson) in trying to understand and the extent I go to understand and seek answers. If that doesn’t work, I will move on. 🙂

  23. So who do we believe?The Ex-con who had a debatable relationship with Bundy,or all the factual evidence that’s been around for years.

    Ill go on the side of reason,so Kevin I’m with you Bra ,,hoho.

  24. Richard…I will say this as one who (along with many) is weary of the debate as to Bundy’s sexuality: The following comment you made in the post above does not make any sense:

    “That probably explains the desire to dismiss the repressed homosexual theory and proceed with the unproven heterosexual theory”

    “Unproven heterosexual theory”? !!!

    Bundy functioned as a heterosexual. Nothing in his actions speaks otherwise. What you’re saying about him you could, if you so desired, say it about anyone. It would be foolish to do so, but you could. But there is no ” Unproven heterosexual theory” It doesn’t exist. There is a theory, but it’s a theory of repressed homosexuality, and frankly, it’s without evidence.

    Having said this (for God knows how many times?), so that we may stay on course with the KNOWN FACTS, I am now encouraging people to read your book if they want to debate unsubstantiated rumors about the case. There will never be, in my opinion, many students of the case who will buy in to your theories concerning what can only be seen as a rumor from an unreliable source.

    That said, best of luck with your book,

  25. Too bad we can’t edit these.

    in ‘the possibility that Bundy was repressed homosexual” read “a repressed homosexual”

    in “because one feels that he was lying pre-judgement”
    read “lying is pre-judgement”

  26. The conclusion that Bundy was heterosexual is based on an invalid premise, that all men who have sex exclusively with women are heterosexual. It has been amply demonstrated that some men who have sex exclusively with women are repressed homosexuals.

    Examining Bundy’s sexuality is therefore a necessary line of inquiry because one must exclude the possibility that Bundy was repressed homosexual in order to conclude he was, in fact, heterosexual. This is especially true when there are multiple indications that he may have been a repressed homosexual.

    Dismissing Lewis statements simply because one feels that he was lying pre-judgement. Lewis has been called a liar before and, in the book, I have established otherwise. He has been a proven and reliable source.

    As Shelley said, repressed homosexuality and the psychology of guilt and shame are not well understood. That probably explains the desire to dismiss the repressed homosexual theory and proceed with the unproven heterosexual theory, using it as a foundation upon which to build an entire story.

    Yes, Jason, there are other topics disussed in the book. Most are unrelated to the repressed homosexual theory and do not come from Bobby Lewis. I’m happy to discuss any of them.

    MissJuneBug, Bundy obsessively maintained a macho image. Admitting to murder was macho, admitting to being gay (in his eyes) was not.

  27. Hello all…I just received an email from Mike McCann about the documentary. Here it is in his own words:

    “I just returned from the road. Its still a work in process – Michaud found more tapes in his move and we are supposed to meet with another party who has Ted tapes.

    Although its now over a year, I want to make sure its done right!”

    Thanks Mike.

  28. Hey Diana– You know, I would settle for Bill just finally agreeing to write his book, LOL!

  29. You know what would make for EXTREMELY interesting discussion??? Transcripts of Bill Hagmaier’s interviews with Bundy between 1986 and 1989. That’s the holy grail as far as I’m concerned. Now we just need an Indiana Jones to GO GET THEM from the clutches of the FBI !!!!!! Who’s up for an adventure?

  31. Never said it would, in itself, explain the murders. Please, move on. This is getting us no where.

  32. Shelley–One last thing (LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!)

    Even if Bundy was dealing with such a condition, it still wouldn’t explain the murders. How could it? The fact that Bundy not just slaughtered women, but mutilated and abused them sexuality even after death, speaks of something so far beyond any repressed sexual feelings, that I don’t believe it will play a part in it. That said, I still don’t think (even a little bit) that Bundy was gay or had any “repressed” issues.

  33. I am very weary too. Very.

    Until two weeks ago I knew nothing/nada/zip about latent/repressed homosexuality. I took the time and trouble to research it and read up on it. I learned a lot. Some of it absolutely floored me. Some of it opened doors to possibilities in explaining some things. Until you have studied it at least a bit, you are right, there is no point in talking about.

    I haven’t even read Richard book yet but when I heard the idea of Bundy possibly having repressed homosexuality, I had to go ‘see for myself’ what that was about. I am looking for answers to the ‘why’.

    So, yes, I am weary too and, to be frank, bored and irritated by the simplistic discussion on this. Until there is at least a basic understanding of the concept/issue of latent homosexuality, there is no point in discussing it here. Yes, please, do move on.

  34. Richard…I’m still looking for that one report. It wasn’t with the first “batch” of files, so I’ll look for it in another file storage area in my home. Hopefully, I’ll locate it soon and share it with you and everyone else who’s interested.

  35. Hi Jason–I’m sure Richard will see your post, and he can answer your questions better than I can, and I’m sure he’s happy to do so.

    See ya!

  36. Hi ted,

    I knew it would, for awhile, become a topic of conversation, due to the controversial nature of the charge (Bundy being homosexual, or dealing with “repressed” feelings). And, of course, you’ve read the debate thus far. Now, I too hope it calms down now (LOL!), as I am growing weary stating what I believe to be the obvious. And because there are aspects of Richard’s book other than the question of Bundy’s sexuality, people will need to give it a read to even be able to discuss it.

    I emailed Mike last week, but I haven’t heard back from him yet. I’m certain he’s busy, and he’ll get back to me when he can. Also, I know he checks in here, so we’ll see.

    Glad to hear from you, Ted.

    Kevin

  37. Is there any other topics/areas that are discussed in Richard’s book other than to do with homosexuality? The book descriptions lists topics about why Bundy became a murderer? learning the identities of more victims? how he himself felt about his life of murder? I would assume that the answer to most of these questions come from Bobby Lewis himself?

  38. Seems like it might be time to change the forum topic to something related to Bundy, but not his sexual orientation.
    I’m not sure what else can be said about this. I agree with Kevin that absent any incontrovertible proof that Bundy was gay, it’s all speculation and therefore probably not worthy of any further examination. The crimes he committed are so unspeakably awful that further discussion of his orientation seems almost superfluous and trivial.
    Kevin, did you ever hear back from Mike about his project?

  39. MissJuneBug–Thanks for pointing out that quote from my book. I knew I had touched on this but I could not recall exactly what I had said about it, LOL!

    Yes, the homosexual issue, as far as I’m concerned (and as far as the “evidence” reveals) is a non issue. it just isn’t there. Take away the claim of Bobby Lewis, and the dead end speculation for a less than brief period in the Washington State investigation, and all you have is a big fat zero. On the other hand, his sexual relations with women are well documented. This is what we must go with in determining “facts” and what actually transpired in the life of Ted Bundy.

    If we’re going to stick with facts, then we must go with what we absolutely know for sure. We must go with those facts that are revealed by many sources (the women Bundy had a sexual relationship with) and as such, as a life-style, is well documented. And of course, NOT ONE MALE HAS COME FORWARD STATING HE HAD SEX WITH BUNDY!!!!!!!!!!. Not one!!!

    To summarize: Lots of sex with women! Zero proof he had sex with men and was gay!! Nothing to substantiate this claim.

    Also, we must dismiss the “repressed” homosexual issue as well, and for the same reason: THERE IS NO PROOF. It’s as simple as that. You can’t (or shouldn’t) take a fact or a rumor, and build an elaborate story around it. At that point you’re walking in the land of fiction.

  40. I agree with what you said about Bundy and women, particularly your analysis of his relationship with his mother and Liz 100%, Miss Junebug.

  41. Kevin, yes that’s one of the things that I really like about your book, that you went deep into Bundy’s complicated relationships and views of women. It isn’t just a cursory look at him and his crimes. And I found the quote;

    ” On the one hand, he was a merciless killer of women, and on the other, an individual who craved some semblance of normalcy with a member of the opposite sex, not just for monetary support. Bizarrely, Theodore Bundy wanted both, to destroy the female of the species, and to love and be loved by them as well.”

    Very well put.

    Just one more thing (lol I sound like Det. Columbo with that). About Bundy having repressed homosexuality, my problem with that is this – while I understand that homosexuality wasn’t as accepted in the 1970’s as it is today, and even today it’s not fully accepted, and I understand that Bundy would probably have conditioned himself to keep that part of himself hidden and not admit to it….but he already admitted to things which are monstrous and atrocious and infinitely worse than admitting to being gay in an environment that may not accept it. He admitted to rapes, strangulations, bludgeoning, brutal beatings, decapitations, burning a skull in his unsuspecting girlfriend’s fireplace, slitting the throat of a 12 yr old girl while raping her…and he’s not going to admit to having an attraction to men? He admitted terrible things like wanting to “do bodily harm to females”, and to feeling like a vampire, and had to talk about very personal things to psychologists, like his masturbating habits and sexual matters and things that turned him on, etc., As I understand it, it was mainly dr. Norman. They discussed different types of pornography and Bundy admitted that he was turned on by watching violence committed against women, so in all of these personal conversations, wouldn’t it have come up at least once that he was gay, even if he didn’t actively participate in sex with men, at least it would’ve come up that he had a sexual interest in men?

    From early on he conditioned himself never to talk about his murders and Polly Nelson said it was like pulling teeth to hear his confessions because he would frequently pause and it was like he had to jump over a mental wall that he had built up over the years because he swore to himself that he would never talk about it publicly. But he did and his confessions were so shocking and jaw dropping that I don’t think any of the detectives or psychiatrists would’ve batted an eye if he would’ve said that he was gay during the confessions. And I don’t care how much somebody might hate gay people (which is ridiculous to me) but even in their view I’m sure that it’s not half as bad as bludgeoning an innocent teenager, strangling her while raping her, and cutting her head off. Even the most closed-minded homophobe would be a thousand times more disgusted by the things that Bundy did confess to, so I don’t think it makes any sense that he wouldn’t have confessed to homosexuality. I mean if he did repress his homosexuality, would he really have repressed it more than he repressed his murders and swore not to talk about them? That’s kind of like somebody walking into a convenience store and shooting the place up and killing all the employees and admitting it to the cops after being caught but being embarrassed to say that he stole a pack of gum on his way out.

    I’m sorry I don’t believe the homosexuality angle, but that being said I’m looking forward to reading Richard’s book.

  42. Hi MissJuneBug–

    A good assessment of the problem of Bundy and women. I do not know the quote off hand, but I say something similar in my book; in essence, that Bundy wanted to be loved by women and wanted to destroy women.

    Sexually attracted to women? Yes. At times, wanting a normal relationship with women? Yes. Also wanting to destroy women? Absolutely. All of this we know for a fact about Theodore Bundy.

  43. I just want to say something about the issue of Bundy ”liking” women. As I remember it, Ann Rule asked him if he liked women, and he paused for a few moments and said “Yes I think I do” or something to that effect, but I really don’t think he meant “like” in a sexual sense. I believe that he was sexually attracted to women but had complicated feelings and deep resentment and anger towards them in general, and I think the word “like” goes deeper than sexual attraction. When Bundy started confessing he tried not to say anything that would make his family look bad, especially his mother, but at the end of his life he asked Dorothy Lewis to turn the tape recorder off and he finally confessed that he had deep feelings of anger and resentment towards his mother. She was definitely the more powerful and dominant one in the family, his step-father was more quiet and meek and seemed to go along with whatever Louise wanted, even Richard Larsen noticed this when he visited them and wrote about it in his book. I remember reading that Bundy flew into a tirade when he was talking to Diane Edwards regarding his mother and how she lied to him about his real father and put him in a position to be ridiculed and humiliated. And Diane herself was the more dominant and powerful one in their relationship and then she broke up with him…and we know how that went. He ended up hurt and devastated by these women in his life who were more dominant than him. He had built up and carried around this resentment and anger towards them for lying to him and hurting him, which I believe eventually turned to rage. When he reemerged as the “confident” Bundy I think he not only wanted to give a big FU to Diane but also to never allow himself to be hurt or dominated by a more powerful woman again. He was still sexually attracted to women but I think he held this resentment and anger towards them and always needed to be the dominant one in any relationship he had with them. I think it was one of the girls from Harborview that he dated that said that in their relationship he was always trying to compete with her and it was always a power struggle between them. And in his assessment of Bundy, Dr. Carlisle said:

    “The constant theme running throughout the testing was a view of women being more competent than men. There were also indications of a fairly strong dependency on women and yet he also has a strong need to be independent. I feel this creates a fairly strong conflict in that he would like a close relationship with females but is fearful of being hurt by them. There were indications of general anger, and more particularly, well masked anger towards women.”

    And during the murders in Washington before Bundy was ever arrested and identified, a Seattle psychiatrist Richard Jarvis made a psychological profile of the “Ted” killer and again the theme was that he “feared women and their power over him.”

    I guess you could say it’s kind of like those song lyrics “I hate myself for loving you”. Maybe that’s why he felt the need to attack and take down and destroy these beautiful women that he was sexually attracted to and yet lay next to the bodies all night and stroke their hair and talk to them and have sex with them.

    And he probably felt comfortable with Liz because she was the submissive one in the relationship and she said herself that she preferred it that way. She had the old fashioned views that a man should lead the relationship and she said that “Ted liked to lead” and she was happy to let him do it.

    So I babbled all this to say that I think that although he was sexually attracted to women, he didn’t really “like’ them in that he thought them manipulative and deceitful and hurtful and he didn’t trust them and he had deep anger and resentment issues towards them, and that’s probably what he meant when he said that to Ann Rule.

  44. Richard….the bottom line to this is the theory that Bundy was gay. In my opinion, you are taking this theory and using it as a foundation as fact. From this foundation you have built an entire story. Now, as to the foundation, in my opinion, it is without foundation, as there is no evidence. No evidence means its only a theory and nothing more. Theories are not facts. No facts available here, only rumor. This is how the nonfiction writers must view Theodore. Sorry

  45. Two extraordinary traits about Bundy are his mastery of disguise and his ability to compartmentalize. His skill is refined, meaning he’d been at it frequently for a long time. There had to be something compelling him to maintain such an effort. Driven by the fear of being discovered, a repressed homosexual does compartmentalize that part of himself away as he learns from his surroundings how to live as a heterosexual. So, from that probably young point in his life when he realized he was on the wrong path toward success, Bundy was developing those skills – every day.

  46. LOL I know you know that!! 🙂

    Okay, we will have to agree to disagree but I will state one more time that the outward expression of Bundy’s sexuality does not NECESSARILY mean he did have not repressed homosexuality!

  47. Shelley–I know Bundy operated in abnormal sexuality; I wrote a bio of the guy. LOL!

    All joking aside, I meant that Bundy did in fact have a normal sexual life with women. Not once in awhile, but all the time. And even when he started to turn ‘kinky” with Liz, it didn’t point to any kind of homosexual leaning, but rather a changing within his sexual desires, but those desires were still projected at women.

    This is why, with the overwhelming “evidence” the investigators found, and what they had to deem “normal” sexual activity with females, they left the misguided rabbit trail of homosexuality.

  48. I am assuming your book will reference more literature I can follow up on, right? I am finding it all quite eye opening. Some things are clicking into place for me. Little light bulbs are going off. 🙂

Comments are closed.