1903: Arthur Alfred Lynch condemned 1795: Unspecified Robespierrists

1989: Ted Bundy, psycho killer

January 24th, 2009 Headsman

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..

Entry Filed under: 20th Century,Capital Punishment,Common Criminals,Crime,Death Penalty,Electrocuted,Execution,Florida,History,Infamous,Murder,Popular Culture,Serial Killers,Sex,USA

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

8,477 thoughts on “1989: Ted Bundy, psycho killer”

  1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

    At long last, my trilogy of Ted Bundy is now complete!


    1. Meaghan says:

      Sweet! *pre-orders it*

    2. Larry G says:

      Ordered! Can’t wait.

  2. Tony says:

    So I’m thinking of taking a road trip around the Northwest during Spring Break this year (always assuming my car doesn’t tap out on me before then!), and I thought it might be interesting to visit some of the key sites from Bundy lore along the way — the alley behind the sorority house where Georgann Hawkins disappeared, apartment houses where Ted and Lynda Healy lived, the resort in Colorado where Caryn Campbell was taken, and so on. I’m also thinking of visiting the OSU and Evergreen campuses.

    At any rate, I wondered if there was a good resource online for detailed info about these sites — addresses and so forth. For instance, I have no idea if some of these places — like the dorms where Kathy Parks or Donna Mason stayed, or the house for Georgann’s sorority — are even in the same physical locations, or whether they’ve been torn down or rebuilt, or what. I’ve also heard that the resort in Colorado has changed names, and that there’s another resort, elsewhere in Colorado, that now bears the original name!

    Any help anyone could offer with this info would be much appreciated. Also, I seem to recall another poster talking about visiting the area at some point in the last year or so and asking if there was anything folks wanted pictures of — can’t remember who or when/where exactly they were going. Did this trip end up happening at all?

    1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

      Hey Tony,

      Most of these sites still exist. Yes, you can check online and bring most of it up. Also, my book, The Trail of Ted Bundy, which came out last year, has a lot of info about these places today.

      When I was there in July 2015, Dante’s Tavern was still open and thriving. But a fire the next month closed the place and apparently, it’s doubtful it will open again.

      Let us know how it all works out for you.


  3. Bob says:

    To Kevin and Everyone Else,

    I am sorry. I made a BIG MISTAKE on the timing of when the movie was released and when Bundy committed his savage attacks on the Florida women.

    I hope all of you will forgive me for such a foolish mistake. Considering all the books I have read on Bundy, I should have had a better grasp on the chronology of when he was incarcerated and when Ted had the opportunity to commit his crimes.


    1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

      That’s no big deal, Bob! There are millions of facts that make up the Bundy case, lol!

      Besides, Black Christmas wasn’t even on my radar prior to my writing The Trail of Ted Bundy. :)

  4. Bob says:


    When and where would Bundy have seen the movie?

    Unless he saw it in jail, he only had a week or so to view it prior to his attacks in the sorority house and the other female student’s apartment.

    Am I missing something here?

    1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

      Hey Bob,

      The movie was released in December 1974. I mention this in The Trail of Ted Bundy. :)

      1. Paul says:

        Another ‘coincidence’ in the Bundy story. He comes up with this name – the same name of the killer in a sorority murder film? Of course that’s where he got the name from. Obviously another one of the subtle hints Bundy would confidently throw out there, chuckling to himself that no one would ever pick up on it. This is another fascinating addition to this story that will never go away.

  5. Hal says:

    Whilst it seems reasonable to assume that if several people hear ‘Hagen’ then Ted may have also, it doesn’t take into account confirmation bias which is being applied by those mishearing it now, and not by Ted. If you’re not expecting to hear Hagen, you won’t. Strike one.

    Ted claimed he made the name up on the spot. Strike two, admittedly near-worthless without corroborating evidence. I would take Maz over Ted if we had ‘Hagen’ in the film and no Hagen at at the Oak. But we didn’t and we do.

    Proof of where Hagen came from was right there at The Oak. And what makes it even more interesting is there is every chance, like every random thought we seem to get out of nowhere, that Ted himself was no longer aware of his source when he blurted it out, nor when he told Michaud / Aynesworth he made it up. Strike three.

    Ted didn’t get the name Hagen from Black Christmas. Which is not to say it’s still not a great little nugget, just not in the way presented here unfortunately.

    1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

      As far as I can tell from your post, Hal, there are no “strikes” here. You’re declaring some things as facts, and you can’t do that as we can’t prove anything here.

      I could say: Bundy saw the movie, made a mental note without realizing it of “Chris Hayden” or “Chris Hagen” and supposedly forgotten it. And then, at the right moment, it pops into his head, and for all he knows, he made it up on the spot. Or, he may have used the name purposely, seeing the irony in it. But again, who can say?

      Again, it is an interesting connection, but remember, I’m not being dogmatic about it, and neither can you about your theory. And if you say that you can be dogmatic, you do not have a shred of evidence proving it.

      As to Bundy pulling that name out of the air, as it were, and perhaps not being certain why he did it, I refer you to the following article:


      But again, who can say for sure?

      1. Laura says:

        Having worked in research for years, I understand about such bias however even with that knowledge (and it does make sense) I am still inclined to go with the idea that the name came from the movie. This is just TOO coincidental. I don’t know if it’s just my particular accent, however when I say Hayden and Hagen there is very little difference at all and it could be easily confused. Now add in the fact that the movie features an attack on a sorority house, was released just a month or so before Bundy escaped to Florida and these coincedences sure start to mount. Of course the only thing we can be certain about is that none of us will ever know the truth for sure just like so many other things we can surmise about Bundy however on this one I do think it’s a significant piece of information. Kevin, will you put this to anybody that you have contact with who perhaps worked on the case or knew Bundy? It would be interesting to hear from such a person with a bit more intimate knowledge – even if just for the reaction especially as it seems to be the first time it’s come to light.

        1. Tony says:

          I’ve never seen Black Christmas and have just now heard about this possible connection, but a quick perusal of Wikipedia reveals that the killer in the film is actually never identified as anything other than “BIlly” — apparently producers suggested an alternate ending where Chris would be revealed to be the killer, but that ending never appeared in the film, and there’s no way Ted could have been aware of it.

          1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

            Not true, Laura. I watched the film three weeks ago (it’s on YouTube). Check it out yourself

  6. Laura says:

    Maz – that’s exactly what I said if you read my post I mentioned

    “since Maz thought they said Hagen as well it could be Bundy didn’t adapt the name he just assumed that’s what it was.”

    So I am agreeing with you! Bundy probably heard the same thing, I was merely pointing out the actual name in case Kevin put Hagen in his book when it is in fact Hayden. For accuracy purposes; as I know writers like to be correct. For me – I have no doubt that’s where it came from and well done for finding that out. A significant find no doubt.

    Kevin if you search for Chris Hayden – Black Christmas you can read about the charachter. I’m unsure why my pointing that out was an issue at all it was just a point of clarification.

    1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

      Hi Laura!

      Btw: If I haven’t said it yet, thanks for the tip! I really do appreciate it! :)

      1. Laura says:

        Hi Kevin

        I knew you would as I know you like to be accurate with your facts.

  7. Maz U.K. says:

    Hello Kevin and all. I think people are missing the point, whether the guy’s name in the film was Hagen or Hayden – what does it sound like to you? To me and Kevin it clearly sounds like Hagen – so isn’t it also likely that’s how it sounded to Bundy? I doubt Ted was watching the movie with subtitles, lol, especially since it was an American film. Maybe it is just a coincidence, but it’s a very strange one for sure.

    I would love to be given credit in your new book, Kevin, lol. By the way, what is it called and when in February will it be released? I’ve read both of your other books on Bundy.

    1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

      Hey Maz U.K.,

      It’s titled, THE BUNDY SECRETS: Hidden Files of America’s Worst Serial Killer. It will be out by February 28th or perhaps a bit sooner.

      Yes, I did give you the credit in the book!

      Btw: If you’d like for me to use your real name, contact the headsman of Executed Today, and ask him to forward your email to me and I’ll get right back with you. :)

  8. Laura says:

    The name of the guy in the movie was actually Chris Hayden. Just for clarity. That’s still too creepy to be a coincedence but I thought I’d point that out just in case hagen was noted rather than Hayden. Since Maz thought they said Hagen as well it could be Bundy didn’t adapt the name he just assumed that’s what it was.

  9. Hal says:

    Maz et al, I hate to be a party pooper on this ‘discovery’. But it isn’t correct. The mystery of ‘Chris Hagen’ has been solved already and will likely see the light of day in 2017.

    Before going ahead with publishing such a revelation, I think two things would need to be done. Firstly, it’s always worth double checking the info – is there a character called Chris Hagen in Black Christmas? No, there isn’t.

    And Bundy claimed to have made this name up on the spot, right there in the rooming house. Given how long he was planning this new life, it seems a stretch that he didn’t plan this detail, not to mention nothing a pathological liar says should be taken at face value.

    But is it possible to prove he made it up there and then? Believe it or not, it is. He took the name Hagen right off the immediate surroundings like he was in The Usual Suspects.

    The evidence is there.

    1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

      Well, it sounds like Hagen to me, as it does to Maz U.K. That doesn’t mean it’s not Hayden, of course, but it still proves nothing. If it’s not Hagen, that would remove it from the previous “absolute” stated earlier, but it doesn’t rule it out completely. The two are so close, that Bundy could have intentionally altered it or altered it accidentally. But none of this really matters, as it’s all in the realm of speculation anyway.

      Now, in my view, Bundy pulling the name out of thin air may be true? Or it may be a lie? We can’t say. He could have gotten it from Black Christmas, or somewhere else? The bottom line is we’ll never know for sure. And to be honest, it’s a minor point anyway.

      I have included it in my upcoming book as it’s an odd possible connection worth mentioning, and it doesn’t matter if the name is Hagen or Hayden. It is likely he saw that film, as it was out during a time when he could see it. And it was a flick that he would have regrettably enjoyed for all the wrong reasons. And if he did see the film, I do believe there’s a connection. And if nothing else, it’s worth mentioning in the book; with the addition of a footnote, of course, about all of this.

      1. Tony says:

        Food for thought — in the Bundy TV-movie “The Stranger Beside Me,” Ted (played by Billy Campbell) pronounces the name “Hah-gin,” rather than “Hay-gin.”

  10. Kevin M Sullivan says:

    Hey MazU.K.

    I spoke to my publisher yesterday, and I told him of you’re discovery and asked him if we had time to add it to my new Bundy book coming out in February, and he said yes! So, I’ve added the story to the book and given you the credit for the discovery!

  11. Larry G says:

    This is absolutely crazy about the movie, MAZ UK, nice work! How could it be that nobody in the 41 years of investigating and re-investigating Theodore ever noticed this before? Absolutely no coincidence of course…this is amazing!

    1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      Yes, isn’t it great, Larry G?!!!

      You never know when something will surface!

  12. Maz U.K. says:

    Thanks for the reply. Kevin, it was released in 1974!! I knew that but accidentally typed in 1975 in my first comment. Bundy escaped to Florida and committed the Chi Omega murders a year or so after that, didn’t he? Is it all just a coincidence, do you think?

    1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

      WOW! I will tell you, Maz, I don’t think that is a coincidence at all. I can’t prove it, but without question, I absolutely believe Bundy saw this film. Indeed, that’s the very kind of smart ass thing Bundy would do. That’s a very good catch, Maz, a very good one!

      Did you know that I mentioned Black Christmas in my book, The Trail of Ted Bundy: Digging Up the Untold Stories? I alluded to the possibility of Bundy seeing this film.

      And here I thought that nothing new would be discovered about the case lol!

      Thanks so much for letting us know, Maz. :)

  13. Maz U.K. says:

    Hello Kevin, I just recently watched the 1975 movie, Black Christmas, and discovered something that could be quite significant regarding Ted Bundy and his killings in Florida.

    As you might know, the film is about a Sorority house which is terrorised by a stranger who goes on to murder the sorority sisters ( Ted Bundy & Chi Omega?)

    Not much of a coincidence you might think, but what about this: the name Chris Hagen is mentioned in the movie. Wasn’t that the exact name used as an alias by Ted Bundy, when living in Florida? It would seem to me that Bundy not only watched this film but actually got the idea of a name he could use from it. What do you think?

    See for yourself! Watch the movie from 19:45 minutes in:


    1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

      Hey Maz U.K.!
      That’s quite interesting, and that may be just the case! However, I ran into a “Black Christmas” DVD at a Half-Price Books here in the States several months ago, and it was a remake of the original. So that’s the key: It will have to have a release date of 1974, or thereabouts. Can you find out?

      Take care,


  14. Bob says:


    I checked out both 4309 and 4039 South Warner Street in Lafayette Hill, PA to view the Cowell house where Ted grew up until he moved to Washington State. Both of these buildings look too new ( in my opinion) to have been Ted’s early home.

    So I went to my files and learned that Bundy was living at 4039 S. Warner in December of 1968 when, I believe he was attending Temple University.

    Does my information support your timeline for Ted living in Philadelphia in 1968, was he living at the above residence?

    1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

      Hey Bob,

      You’re correct, it does look too new. In the Bundy Murders I state that the Cowells lived in a section called Lafayette Hill, and that Bundy did take a room at the address you mention on South Warner Street in the late 1960s. And then a few years after my first Bundy book was published, I was told by another writer that he found an actual address for the Cowells, and it was the address in question on South Warner. Well, I had no reason to doubt it, but then later I saw a pic of the house and thought the same thing.

      Good question, Bob.

  15. Sandy says:

    Please tell us about your new book! I have the other 2 on Bundy; I can’t wait for another!

    1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

      Hi Sandy!

      Well, first and foremost, it’s a reproduction of the official record (many of the best parts), and it’s the kind of thing that most people will never see as they will never dig this stuff out of the archives. Even when writing The Bundy Murders, I could only use a small portion of it, and there’s nothing quite like seeing the reports first-hand.

      Along with this there is a lot of commentary from me to help the reader understand and put it into perspective. PLUS: there’s new testimony from those who knew Bundy and the victims; including one individual who was with Bundy on a night just two hours before he killed one of his victims who was only four blocks away. And best of all, this person is a bonafide Bundy contact and they’ve never (outside of the police) been interviewed before they spoke to me. Indeed,all of the new testimony is very enlightening. I think you’ll enjoy it very much.


  16. Judy Tarver says:

    Hi. I just wanted to say that out of all the Bundy books the two written by you, Mr. Sullivan, are the best and most informative. The title a “comprehensive” history was very accurate. I have read almost all of the Bundy books out there and some of them, while very informative, are flawed by inaccuracies and some authors couldn’t seem to hide their hatred for Bundy enough to tell the true story without opinion. You did your research and told the story with detail and neutrally, as I think an author should. Well done!

    1. Judy Tarver says:

      I also wanted to share an idea I had. There are so many Bundy books out there and so much info that there is no way it would all fit into one standard sized book. Wouldn’t it be neat if everything could be gathered into one huge volume and call it a “Bundypedia”?

      1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

        Hi Judy,

        I’m just now seeing this second email…

        I don’t think the publishers of the various Bundy books (those still in print, that is) would ever agree to put their books together. But you can still have a collection on your book shelf, and that’s what I do. :)

        1. Judy Tarver says:

          You are absolutely correct LOL and I found you on FB and messaged you. Thanks for replying!

    2. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      Thanks, Judy, for the kind words! They are music to my ears lol! Writers very much appreciate it when readers absorb their work, and we work very hard to produce the kind of book they want to absorb. So thanks again!

      If you are on Facebook, send me a friend request and I’ll accept! :)

      Take care,


  17. Steve says:

    The New Republic has an article about John Henry Browne and his book.

    It’s called “Defending the Undefendable”.

    Sounds like Browne had very little to say about Ted that meant anything. Also, believing Ted about his claim that he killed a teen boy as a teen in Tacoma, during a sexual exploration game, makes my eyes role. He is either full of it, or was naïve to the fact that his client lied more than he did anything else.

  18. Arnar þórsson says:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2_AyI0qWVg8 Came across this. Extremely interesting phone interview between Bundy and some other guy. Im on my tablet so i hope the link works.

    1. Paul says:

      Fascinating. What a find. Recorded at a time when still more people believed he was innocent than guilty. He does a convincing job here. Bastard.

      1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

        Just think: he was planning his second Colorado escape at the same time. Ted was full of so much BS. He actually acted like his first escape was an after thought with absolutely no planning! What a con artist!

        1. Paul says:

          And yet, he STILL cared about what people thought of him. He even asks here, “so what did you make of my escape? What did you think was the reasoning behind it?” It would’ve been amazing to hear the guy say, “Well Ted, I think you’re a low-life scumbag who led everyone on a merry dance before making your getaway which you’d been planning for weeks, so you could avoid the punishment you deserved and continue killing. THAT’S what I made of it. Sorry to disappoint you…”

          1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            Lol! No, Teddy wouldn’t like that one little bit lol!

  19. markb says:

    i’ve spent the day looking at old true crime and detective magazine covers from days gone by. for anyone’s interest, here’s some magazines our “person of interest” might have once perused:

    True Police august 1964 -” ravished schoolgirl and the peeping tom”

    Confidential Detective Cases july 1969 -“his passion mutilated the beautiful divorcee”

    Confidential Detective Cases july 1965 – just in time for our boy’s graduation – “the sex slayer who was waiting for Sally-Jo”

    True Detective oct 1961 – “Nylon Strangler” and “oregon’s dismembered blonde”

    True Detective october 1956 – “one body in the canal, one in the utah badlands”

    True Detective sept 1958 – “48 hours with a dead brunette”

    Master Detective june 1965 – an instructional article for budding psycho killers: “hair of the dog – clue to a child killer”

    Detective World may 70 – “she dreamed of delicious sex, he dreamed of vicious murder”

    of course, some one will say, “you don’t know that TB ever read those exact magazines!”

    to which i reply, hardy matters, does it? they are all exactly alike.

    1. Paul says:

      I’d say it’s highly likely he read all of those. In fact, recent evidence suggests he re-enacted a double murder from a 1973 issue with Ott and Naslund – and this is straight from Bundy’s mouth apparently. Read the Timeline for that.

      1. markb says:

        here’s some he probably didn’t get any inspiration from at all, each from True Detective:

        Dec 74: “Clue of the kinky killer’s rubber sex doll!”

        Mar 75: “Murder jackpot for the lethal lesbians!”

        Apr 75: “Why did she cut up her stud into 11 pieces?”

        Apr 73: “I want your vital organs!”

        July 78: “Dixie’s case of the curious half-man killings!”

        you can’t make this stuff up!

  20. BradH says:

    I rewatched the Investigation Discovery show “The Hunt for Ted Bundy” the other day, and I began to wonder about something: whatever happened to Robert Keppel’s partner Roger Dunn?

    We know what happened to Jerry Thompson, Mike Fisher and Kathleen McChesney. But what about Det. Dunn?

    Anyone know?

    1. BradH says:

      Never mind- just googled him, and found out he now runs his own private investigation business in Seattle.

      So, another question – how come he rarely gets his due as a Bundy investigator, at least when compared to Keppel, Thompson, Fisher and (belatedly) McChesney?

    2. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      He’s in private security, I believe.

      1. BradH says:

        Yes, he’s a PI.

  21. Kevin Sullivan says:

    This is interesting!

    In my book, The Bundy Murders, I say that Bundy killed Kim Leach while having sex with her under the hog shed and it was here that he slashed at her throat with the knife and killed her. I based this on the available evidence in the record, which includes known evidence about he condition of the van. And apparently, the van had only a little blood in it, as well as a lot of leaves and naturally, some dirt.

    Well, months ago a couple of folks contacted me about what i say in my book, and what Bob Dekle said in his book (he was the prosecutor of Bundy in the Leach trial) and how the two are opposites. Dekle says Bundy in fact killed Kim in the van, due to the amount of blood found. He is very emphatic about this in the book.

    Well, I thought, I guess what the prosecutor says will trump my statement, I must be wrong. And then I thought, no, I don’t think so. Still, there was no way to prove it. And then, after I began my research for my third and last Bundy book, I found the following. Both are from newspapers from the time quoting the medical examiner and Bob Dekle:

    January 24, 1980
    ORLANDO, Fla. A medical examiner testified Wednesday at the Theodore Bundy trial that 12-year-old Kimberly Leach was probably killed during sexual intercourse at an abandoned North Florida hogshed 35 miles from where she disappeared.

    And then there was this from the Salt Lake Tribune April 9, 1978:

    LIVE OAK, Fla.
    …Dekle said investigators did not know whether the girl died where she was found or if her body was taken there. “We really don’t know . We’ve got some theories about it, but all they are is theories.” he said.

    Anyway, because both books are out there, I thought a little clarification might be needed.

    Btw; If you’ve never read Dekle’s book you need to. It is a superb look at the last murder and what it took to get Ted in the electric chair.

    1. markb says:

      are there any photographs available of the inside of that van?

      1. Kevin Sullivan says:

        Oh sure. But I haven’t seen them.

        1. Paul says:

          Does this mean she was injured inside the van, and then finished off at the site of the hogshed? Seems unlikely. What seems even more unlikely is that he managed to get her to the hogshed alive and as yet unharmed before killing her there. I guess we’ll never know. It doesn’t sound from those articles like they really knew either. I wonder if Bundy used the Richard Burton Fire Dpt routine with her?

          1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            Who can say where she was actually killed. But all evidence I had (including what I’ve posted here), points to her NOT, being killed in the van. To me, it doesn’t matter which way it was; the fact is he killed her.

            He could have knocked her out and gotten her to the shed, we just don’t know.

            In the end, we may never know for sure.

          2. Paul says:

            There was blood in the carpet at the back of the ban though, right?

          3. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            As I recall, there was some blood, but certainly not enough to make me think she was actually killed there. And of course, what Dekle said about having theories as to where she was actually killed was a normal response given what I knew about the evidence. So when that first fellow contacted me about the discrepancy, I was a bit mystified given what I learned during my research for The Bundy Murders. And frankly, if the same medical examiner quoted in the article, if he’s still alive and reads Dekle’s book, might be (I say might be) a bit mystified himself. So again, I don’t know for a certainty. But if I was in Las Vegas, and was forced to make a bet, my money is on he killed her in the shed while he had sex with her from behind.

          4. Paul says:

            IN the shed? Kevin, have you seen the size of it? From the look of it, Bundy wouldn’t have even been able to fit in there. It looks tiny…

          5. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            Yes, it is extremely tiny. I hear you. But it’s not impossible and he would have had plenty of room to do what he did to Kim Leach.

            Again, I don’t care where he killed her, be it in the shed, the van, or outside the van. The fact is he killed her. And I just don’t see the evidence he killed her in the van. If that’s the case, fine. But according to Bob Dekle (in that article) he didn’t know either

  22. anna says:

    Hi Kevin!

    what about the documentary Chasing the Darkness?

    and i cant wait for your new book!

    1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      Hey Anna!

      Well, the guy who was doing Chasing the Darkness, is the same guy who was involved with Ted Bundy: The Row Tapes, which aired on MSNBC in November 2012. So I don’t think Chasing will ever be seen, as I thinking Chasing just transformed into the 2012 documentary.

      Glad you’re looking forward to the book! It will be out in early 2017.

  23. Steve says:

    Kevin. Just curious. Is the book your doing about the Santa Rosa hitchhiker murders?

    Do you think Ted did them? It’s my understanding that it is impossible for him to have done them all. Credit card receipts have him in different locations during some of the murders.

    There is also the Zodiac connection.

    To me, I assume that it was most likely someone that knew the area well. Like a bus driver, mail, or garbage man.

    Correct if I remembered wrong tho on what you’re writing about.

    1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      Hey Steve,

      No, I don’t think Bundy did those murders, per se, but there’s always a chance he could have killed one perhaps. I do cover those murders in my new book and it’s based on the record. As I recall, three were found in virtually the same area, and I think they had the same killer.

      My new book will have new and never before published information I received from folks who knew Ted and the victims; as well as those who were connected to the case one way or another.

      But the book is also about the official record. I will be using the official record extensively, and for this reason: there is SO MUCH in the record that has never been used in its entirety. It’s used in pieces, and we writers take from it to go along what we’re writing about. But in doing so, we leave a lot behind. And I remember when I was writing The Bundy Murders, that it was such a shame that the readers will never see it like we writers see it. So we use all we can in our books, but to use entire portions from the record would not work for a biography, or any conventional work. But a book that contains selected (by me) files and to reproduce them in their entirety, is really great and will be very, very informative to the readers who will never take the time to go to the archives and dig this stuff out. And like I said above, many new and important testimonies coming out for the first time; including the testimony from an individual who was with Bundy at a bar just a couple of hours prior to his snatching a victim after he left and only four blocks away. It’s quite a story. And this person is a bonafide Bundy contact.

      1. Steve says:

        It sounds like your book is going to be interesting. Will there be any info on any other possible murders besides those?

        He could’ve killed one of them. But several no way. A few weren’t white. And I think I recall one was pregnant?

      2. BradH says:

        Right after he left a bar? Could you be referring to Brenda Ball (The Flame Tavern), or is this about someone else?

        1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

          Someone else, but I can’t talk about it lol!

  24. Kevin Sullivan says:

    For those who are interested, here are some really good shots of the home in which Kathy Parks lived with her parents in CA. I’ve been locating addresses again because of my research for the new (and last!) Bundy book.


  25. markb says:

    here is a subject i have pondered lately: does anybody think that TB secretly believed that his grandfather was his biological father?

    the question is not “was he his father?”, but “did he think he was?”

    best i’ve been able to track this legend down, it seems to have come from “Aunt Audie”. if this rumor existed in that family, are we to believe that young TB never heard it? That Cousin John never taunted him about it?

    i do not think that that incest itself would cause TB to grow up to be a SK, but having it in the back of one’s mind would be pretty damaging.

    anyhow, with his DNA on record with the FBI, the question of the incest could be answered. what it would tell us, i don’t know – except it would answer much about his mother’s huge wall of repression.

    1. Steve says:

      How would one go about doing that? Should they dig up Sam Cowell and get a DNA test done? Get a judge to sign a warrant to do that?

      Imagine the scenario.

      Curious people: Your honor, we are looking for information on the possible paternity of one Theodore Bundy. You know, that guy that killed a bunch of chicks.

      Judge: Yes, I do know who he was.

      Curious people: Well, we were wondering if you could legally let us or someone else, dig up the rotting corpse of Ted’s grandfather, so that we could know for sure if he was diddling her like his family suspected.

      Judge: Serious?

      Curious people: Is the sky blue? We really need to find out.

      Judge: *eyerolls*….Have you consulted with the late Mr. Cowell’s remaining family members about this?

      Curious people: Uhhh no.

      Judge: How about Mr. Bundy’s family?

      Curious people: No. I don’t think they want to be bothered anymore.

      Judge: I agree.

      Curious people: So, your honor, can we grab some shovels and get to diggin?

      Judge: NO!. Get out of my courtroom you freaks.

      1. markb says:

        well, Steve, the fact is that they can test TB’s DNA by itself and find out if he is the product of incest. incest produces an indicator which shows up. no need to dig anybody up. bundy’s dna is in the FBI database.

        but the question is really “did ted believe it?”

        i don’t think being the product of incest would necessarily make him turn out like he did. but if he thought he was, it could be a factor.

        at some point, somebody somewhere will get curious enough to do that test on his DNA. and like i said, it’ll tell us a lot about his mother.

        1. Steve says:

          I have no idea if he believed it or not.

          Llloyd Marshall may have been his father. It’s probably a better guess than Sam.

          I seem to recall seeing a picture of Marshall. It might have been him. It sure looked like someone that resembled Ted. Of course, Ted also looked like his mother. So I have no idea.

          The test will never be done, because it has nothing to do with solving any crimes.

          1. Paul says:

            I’ve seen a better quality pic of him, but it sure looks like Ted. No idea as to the validity of this, someone may have simply decided to label this Lloyd Marshall and throw it out there…

            If you google Lloyd Marshall Ted Bundy’s father the first pic it brings up is an uncanny Ted lookalike.

          2. NW gal says:

            I remember reading that a search for Lloyd Marshall on whatever branch of the military Louise said he was in had come up with nothing. No Lloyd Marshall.

            I’ve always figured that, while its possible the father was Sam, it’s also possible that the man lied about his name. Perhaps he was married or engaged. It happened. Often.

            Louise was reportedly an excellent student, involved in many school activities. She may have met a young man, in her innocence gone too far and ended up pregnant after few or even one experience. Who knows?

  26. Shelley says:

    I am sticking up for Ann Rule here. :) I loved her comment about her dog growling at Bundy. It’s so true that dogs seem to sense things about people that we don’t necessarily pick up on. When my dog growls at someone (a rare event), I take notice.

  27. BradH says:


    I’m new here, so forgive me if this has been already covered (please feel free to point me to where in these (as of now) 8089 comments if so), but I recently read the last update version of the late Ann Rule’s “The Stranger Beside Me”, and there was something about part of the update that has me puzzled.

    I’ve been intrigued by the Ted Bundy story since his execution in 1989 (the year I graduated HS). I’ve read almost all of the Bundy books (including both of Kevin’s), and whit I don’t understand about the update in TSBM involves one of the recent “I may have escaped Ted Bundy” stories that she accepted as plausible.

    It revolves around the Georgeann Hawkins abduction from UW. A woman Rule refers to as “Caitlyn Montgomery” (a pseudonym?) claimed that Bundy may have been after her that night, but she got away by running into her sorority house. Then (from the book):

    “Caitlyn heard a yelp of surprise or fear. She watched as the man on crutches approached a blond girl, said a few words Caitlyn couldn’t make out, and the grabbed on to her arm. Caitlyn wasn’t sure if the girl went willingly or not, but she sensed fear, and believed he had forced Georgeann back up the alley.”

    Here are the problems I have with “Caitlyn’s” story, given what we know about the circumstances of the Hawkins abduction:

    1. Multiple sources (including Bundy himself, if I’m not mistaken) say Bundy was on crutches fumbling with a briefcase. Why, before he did ANYTHING, would Georgeann yelp with fear? The man was wearing a cast on his leg – surely he wouldn’t have been able to grab the arm of a perfectly healthy young woman and force her against her will to his car. If she was unwilling, Georgeann Hawkins SHOULD HAVE been able either to run back to the frathouse where her boyfriend lived, or otherwise fended him off.

    2. Why was Caitlyn the ONLY ONE to hear her yelp? She was still near the fraternity where her boyfriend lived, as well as the friend she had just finished talking to. If I’m not mistaken, windows in these houses along that were open. If Georgeann yelped, surely SOMEONE else must have heard her. But no one else reported hearing anything.

    I don’t know. Fear causes people to do unexpected things. Maybe “Caitlyn’s” story IS true. What does anyone here think?

    Thanks for the help.

    1. BradH says:

      “If I’m not mistaken, windows in these houses along that were open.”

      I meant “along the alley”. Sorry for the typos…

    2. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      Hey BradH and welcome (btw: I’m in the middle of my third and last book about Ted Bundy).

      With all due respect concerning the source of the story about Georgann, it’s absolutely not true. Indeed, there isn’t ANY way he could have forced Georgann to follow him to his car a block away. She would have been screaming her head off and he would have had to let her go. It is stunning to me that anyone would even suggest such a thing. When Ted was in the alley he didn’t have a weapon to use against her- the crowbar was waiting for him hidden on the ground behind or near to the left rear tire. In Bundy’s entire career of murder, he NEVER forced ANYONE through a public area to the place where he would whack them over the head. It was always done by ruse. There is nothing to this story, and it can’t stand up to the scrutiny of the record and Bundy’s KNOWN hunting patterns. I’m surprised they put this into the book. And yes, he was on crutches, fumbling with a briefcase. It was the perfect ruse to use on her and this is why she followed him so willingly to his car.

      1. BradH says:

        Thank you for your quick reply. I am looking forward to your next work.

        I absolutely agree with you. Given what we know about Georgeann Hawkins abduction, “Caitlyn Montgomery’s” story just makes no sense. I was surprised Ann Rule thought it did. But I reread that part, and I think what might’ve made it plausible to the late Ms. Rule was, according to her, “Caitlyn” sent her a picture of herself in 1974. Apparently, she looked – to Rule, anyway – like almost a mirror image of Stephanie Brooks. That might’ve thrown her, so to speak…

        Anyway, thanks again, and I absolutely look forward to part 3 of your Bundy trilogy. Any word on when it’ll be out?

        1. Steve says:

          Or maybe she put it in her book because she thought it made it more interesting? Remember the thing about her dog growling at Ted? LOL

          1. Kevin Sullivan says:

            That’s funny!

        2. Kevin Sullivan says:

          Thanks Brad. The book will be out in 2017; probably late winter or early spring. I’ll keep everyone posted as to exact times.

          Btw: Brooks’ real name is Diane Edwards. I too give her a pseudonym in The Bundy Murders.

          See ya!


      2. Paul says:

        Perhaps you’ve been misreading the description of Caitlyn’s ‘story’… I never took it to mean that she yelped out of being grabbed and dragged a block to his car by the arm… I think what she was saying was Bundy appeared out out of nowhere and surprised Georganne – she hadn’t seen him until the last minute – and then, sensing he was no danger, he did his ‘can you help me with my books’ routine. You know when you’re walking obliviously and then someone’s right in front of you? I’ve yelped at that too! The holding her by the arm thing doesn’t sound like much of a stretch – he tried that at Lake Sam (which scared one girl off) and was also seen holding Kim Leach by the arm in the same way. I think she was saying that Hawkins was so timid and helpful that she kind of felt obliged to help this poor guy and wasn’t assertive enough to say “sorry, I’m busy”. But I agree with you – what doesn’t make sense is that Montgomery waited over a decade to say anything!! Just like Rhonda Stapley. With all the police activity immediately after Hawkins disappearance, Caitlyn opts to say nothing to authorities but to an author instead years later? I don’t buy it. But I think her description of “what she saw” has been misinterpreted by readers.

        1. Jason Nelson says:

          With regards to TSBM, i noticed that one piece of information was inconsistent with evidence obtained on the matter. It was to do with Freda Rodgers testimony of Bundy whilst she knew him. Ann Rule describes how Rodgers thought of Bundy as a ‘lovable rascal’ who put some of Bundys strange behaviour (stealing, lying etc) down to his boyish nature. However with her interview with Dr Al Carlisle, he stated how she thought he had mental problems and had concerns about him, even going so far as to suspect that Bundy was involved in the Ott and Naslund murders after seeing the composite sketch.

        2. BradH says:

          I typed a direct word-for-word quote from the book. “Caitlyn” said in her letter to Rule that she heard Hawkins yelp, then Bundy said something she couldn’t understand, then he grabbed her and forced her to go with him. It was not a misreading.

          1. Paul says:

            Ok. You didn’t ‘misread’ it. My bad. What I’m saying is Caitlyn recalled a years-old memory, that she probably embellished somewhat. She heard a yelp, didn’t make out what was being said by either of them, and ‘forced’ probably meant Georganne clearly was uncomfortable walking off with him but opted to anyway. Because Bundy’s comment about her saying “people call me Georgie” doesn’t sound like someone being dragged off against their will. If what Caitlyn saw was true, this is how I believe it happened. Bundy’s account to Keppel was probably one of his few true confessions. Someone watching through a window who can’t make out everything that’s being said will get details wrong. I just can’t see anyone being grabbed by the arm and walked a block with a stranger. More likely, is that Montgomery got the date wrong – perhaps she saw Bundy on a different night with a different woman. There is a couple different accounts of Bundy from women in that same area in Rule’s book. I get stuck on the “I saw this happen/I think he was after me/but I never reported it or did a thing about it” part of it… It just doesn’t make sense, and that’s what makes me suspect it may not be true. Having said that, I think Rule did her research well, and she even said in her book that she whittled down the encounters to ones she believed were Bundy out of the hundreds she had.

  28. NW gal says:

    Well he didn’t want to talk about anyone during the appeals and only used the third person descriptions.

    He did say that there are certain events seriel killers never talk about.

    When he started to confess, he wouldn’t talk about Leach or Burr. He didn’t specifically NOT talk about them; he didn’t talk about some cases including them.

    I don’t know. He could have lied, he could have not done it….the DNA tested didn’t yield results to help us decide.

  29. Steve says:

    NW Gal. Since, for whatever reason we can’t continue to post on a given thread. I dunno why there are limits now. I’ll say it here.

    He didn’t want to talk about Leach because it could mess up his appeals.

    And to Burr. I’m still waiting for a plausible explanation for how he could’ve gotten rid of her body under those circumstances. I.E him being 14 and only having a bike. He was a horrible person. But he wasn’t a movie villain.

    1. Paul says:

      Have you read Ted and Anne? Burr’s father believed he saw Bundy the next morning standing at the top of a muddy pit while he was being driven around looking for Anne by one of the investigating officers. He thought it was strange at the time, because it was in the morning and the boy was kicking around mud with his feet. It was near the Burr’s home, and it was ongoing construction for the nearby university. Those ‘muddy pits’ were due to be filled in by tractors within hours. But he thought nothing more of it, until 14 years later when he saw Bundy become a media sensation on tv. Bundy’s face came flooding back to him. When you factor in this information with what Holmes said in 1987 about his interviews with Bundy, it all adds up. It’s not proof, but it’s enough to make Bundy the prime suspect. It’s not that it’s impossible to believe a 14 year old with only a bike could dispose of a girls body, but that it’s very possible Bundy’s first kill left no answers due to the body being buried and covered in concrete with a building shortly to be built on top of it. Bundy always alluded to crimes he committed while denying he had anything to do with them and this was no different.

      1. Steve says:

        He did tell the truth sometimes about murders he didn’t commit.

        Kathy Devine was always considered a victim of his, until DNA evidence proved otherwise. And he always denied it.

        People automatically say Ted committed a murder based on what they want to believe. Look at Murderpedia. They have several murders they say he committed. I think even some they claim he confessed to before his execution, that he didn’t confess to.

        Look at the 1966 murder of Lonnie Trumbull. If you google her name, the first thing that comes up is a Chicago tribune article from that time period. The attacker is physically described in height and weight as Ted. But also as having thinning blonde hair? Does that sound like Ted? No.

        Do you also believe Ted committed the double abduction in New Jersey that he third person confessed to?

        The prime suspect in the Burr disappearance was the 17 year old boy that lived 3 doors down from the Burr’s.

        The lead detective on the case, who i’m sure had more info than all of use on it, always believed that boy did it. Not Ted.

        1. markb says:

          Steve: i’m more sympathetic to your POV than i might seem. when i decided to write about TB 5-6 weeks ago, i tried to come to the “ted and Ann” question fairly because i understood that it could be a case of just hanging the crime on the known SK cause it’s convenient. and one big question in my mind was “How in the heck does a otherwise normal 14 yr old know how to hide a body so well?” What i discovered was that TB was NOT a normal 14 yr old. never a “normal kid”. i know others have written otherwise, including Mr. Sullivan, but TB told Dr. Dorothy Lewis that he had murder on his mind from a “very, very early age” and i believe that.

          Bundy wrote more than one letter to the Burr family, denying the Ann disappearance. in one he said, “i did not wander the streets at night” – he told others about his youthful nocturnal window peeping. he told Dr. Lewis that he liked to go into the woods at night, at around 14-15, and take off his clothes and run around. “I did not steal cars” – we know that bundy was arrested as a youth for car theft or suspicion of car theft. “i had absolutely no desire to harm anyone” – as i said before, he told Dr. Lewis that he had murder on his mind very young.

          in other words, TB lied a lot. if his mouth was moving, he was probably lying. what i’ve been doing is going to all the interviews i can find and catching his lies.

          the idea that a 14 couldn’t hide a body effectively is actually a powerful thing against TB’s guilt, until you look at who we’re dealing with. this was a kid who thought about these things. he practiced. he snuck around. he took note of details. he asked himself “What if…?”

          he saw all that construction work, all those ditches. he asked himself, “Can i bury a body in the bottom of one of those ditches, and nobody ever find it?” or maybe he took the trouble to dig a grave in advance.

          as to carrying her off on his bicycle: everything about the crime tells me that he didn’t have to carry her off anywhere. i believe – and YES, it’s just my speculation – that he went to her room woke her up and she went with him willingly. maybe he did murder her in her room and carry her off some short distance. not at all beyond the capability of a 14 yr old, IMHO. but i think they had already planned their little excursion. speculation, yes, but it makes sense to me.

          TB always had a thing about slipping into a woman’s bedroom at night. and people might not believe it, but “peeping tom-ism” is a highly dangerous behavior that often degenerates into rape, burglary and murder. “more mystical..more exciting at 15…”

          i don’t wish to glorify the bastard, but i have to say TB was one of the most accomplished criminals the USA has ever produced. and he knew the criminal’s strategy of “deny, deny, deny”, even to oneself, if necessary. and like anybody who gets good at something, he started practicing young.

          as to the 17 yr old: the detective watched that person for years, right? did that person grow up to be a rapist-murderer?

          i hope nothing in my post reads disrespectfully, i don’t mean it that way, i’m just airing my thoughts and i do know i could be wrong.

          1. markb says:

            i also wish to point out that edmund kemper, jeffery dahmer, caroll cole, and, to whatever degree he can be believed, henry lucas, gary ridgeway and others killed during their teen age years, then not again until adulthood. – in ridgeway’s case, he attempted murder, but his victim survived. these people learned that they could murder and still get by. yes, some of them were caught while young, but then they got loose, legally, to do what was in their hearts.

            and the last thing i’ll bang on is the dog. it doesn’t prove bundy, but whoever took Ann knew that nobody paid much attention to that dog barking at night.

          2. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            Actually, I never said Bundy was a normal 14 year old. I said that as a child, he was just an innocent little kid, and one that had problems. But at 14? No, not at all.

          3. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            Sorry Steve. That was for MarkB.

          4. Steve says:

            Well, I don’t think anyone outside of Ted and his family would have considered in retrospect that Ted was a normal 14 year old boy.

            I fully believe he had murder fantasies at a young age. Atleast by the time he hit puberty. But those can fester for a long time before the person gets brave enough to act that crazy.

            Ted lied. He lied all the time. It was a part of his personality issues. He did it to keep himself in control. Or atleast make himself feel like he was.

            Didn’t he tell different stories about him finding out about his paternity? Yea, he was a lying asshat.

            He lived in a fantasy world, trapped inside his own mind. A world where he could be a hero and a villain all at once. A world where he could pretend to be a normal guy, all the while raping and murdering any pretty girl he wanted. A world where he could play pretend as a lawyer, for his own trial. Even tho doing so, was about as bright as sticking your tongue in a light socket. He still felt that he could do it, based on his own mental issues, of needing to be in control.

            Do you believe he committed the double murder on the Shore in New Jersey back in 69? He “speculated” on it.

            I think he third person confessed that one to Art Norman.

            Ron Holmes said Ted may have killed 365 people. Which I’ve mentioned before here.

            Do you believe he could’ve killed that many? I mean, he must have said something to Holmes to make him believe it.

            He used everyone, not just for his own help, but for fun too.

            And no, I do not know of any other murders that boy may have committed. On the other hand, most murders are not serial killers. How many murders kill more than once? Many only want to kill a specific person and never do it again.

            He, unlike Ted, had a legit connect to Ann.

            Beverly Burr didn’t go over to the house that boy lived in and look around for signs of Ann because she was bored. She felt that he was the one who possibly the killer.

            That boy, who was near being a man, knew Ann very well. The person who did it probably was a family friend, who knew the layout of the house. That wasn’t Ted.

            The dog thing would clearly be something someone 3 doors down would know about.

            I’m not offended by anything you say. It would be boring if everyone agreed on everything.

          5. Paul says:

            Steve, we do not know whether Bundy knew the layout of the house. It’s impossible for us to know. He very well might have. We have the comment from one of the neighbours that “she used to follow him round like a puppy dog, she would have gone with him if he’d asked”, we have the statement from Burr’s father, we have the comment from Bundy’s schoolfriend that he would “show her where he’d buried a body”, we have the nearby location of Bundy’s house..: and we also have Bundy feigning memory loss on the Smith and Aime murders during his 11th hour confessions – so whatever came out of Bundy’s mouth could not be taken seriously. The 17 year old who was the main suspect, despite what the top cop thought, was never convicted and never broke under questioning. I think in this case, the cop was wrong… And Bundy, never a suspect to begin with, flew completely under the radar and got away with murder. But hey, keep the theories coming – that’s why we’re all here ????

          6. Steve says:

            I don’t buy everything everyone says. Even people that claim things about Ted’s childhood. Heck, even Kevin doesn’t fully believe the animal mutilation claims, and he’s done more research than us.

            Ted lived 3 miles from the Burr house.

            Wasn’t it raining when this happened? 3 miles on a bike in the rain seems like a lot. Espically when it’s dark. Tho I didn’t grow up riding a bike. So maybe i’m wrong.

            Also…Can we fully take Ann Rule’s word on the dead body thing? I’m being honest here. I say that because it comes from a “classmate” of Ted’s. No name given. Just something she put in her book.

        2. Paul says:

          Oh, I hear you. I don’t consider three miles a long way for an avid teenage bike rider (especially one that was probably already trolling and stealing cars within a couple of years), that distance could be covered in half an hour. Look at the distances he covered in his car – they were phenomenal and took major discipline. 3 miles on a bike at 14 in the early hours is just practise. I think his parents were completely oblivious to what he was getting up to, especially considering their naivety of his guilt when he first came under the radar in 1975. As for Rule’s comment, I don’t think she had any reason to exaggerate or invent things, she was just throwing out what she’s been told. That may or may not be true… But it’s Bundy’s “we can posit she was thrown in a muddy pit” statement to Holmes that’s a dead giveaway to me. Whether he did it or not, Bundy had no one to blame but himself for becoming the prime suspect in this. It’s like a precursor to the Healy murder. If there was any other strong circumstantial evidence pointing to anyone else I’d entertain it… But everything about it is Ted. As for the animal mutilation claims… Are we to assume John Henry Browne isn’t telling the truth in his book that Ted would pull the tails and spines out of mice when he was a teen?

          1. Steve says:

            To be fair about the Browne thing, he believes a lot of things Ted said. Even tho he lied all the time.

            What he traveled in a car has no bearing on how he traveled on a bike.

            Ted’s mother said that she was up at night then due to being pregnant.

            I’m pretty sure Ted had also already been questioned about her disappearance. And most likely remembered a good bit about it, due to his obsession with such things.

            Do we believe every murder that has been pinned on him that wasn’t a part of the final 30?

          2. Paul says:

            How far he traveled on a bike has no bearing on how far he travelled in a car? Well, no… But it absolutely gives clues. You’re saying you can’t see a 14 year old travelling that far on a bike. The cops themselves didn’t link the Northwest crimes together for months because THEY couldn’t see someone travelling that far in their car either! And three miles on a bike is nothing. Bundy loved travelling great distances. Considering how far he drove every week looking for victims, this gives MORE weight to travelling the distance from his childhood home to the Burr’s, not less. It certainly doesn’t prove anything, but it definitely doesn’t put Bundy in the “unlikely to have done it” basket. As for Bundy’s mother, nothing she said holds water – she defended him right up until his confessions. She would’ve said anything to deflect attention off her son. I don’t believe every murder pinned on Bundy, some are very unlikely. And I don’t believe Bundy would ever have confessed to this (for the three reasons he told Keppel ‘there are some murders serial killers will never talk about’). I think he killed more than 30, but nowhere near 100.

          3. Steve says:

            To be fair to his mother, the comments on the Burr case were said about 10 years after he was executed.

          4. Paul says:

            Correct – and without proof he did it, Bundy’s mother would never have said “well, there’s a good chance he’s guilty of that”. She still would’ve said anything to deflect. I’m not saying she shouldn’t have – she was in an impossible situation, in the planet’s eye the way she was. I think she never came to terms with what her son had done, and having to entertain he might’ve been guilty of Burr was an even bigger mountain to get over, because he was at an age where she absolutely should’ve known what he was up to, let alone his age at the time, and most importantly, Anne’s age. We’ll never agree obviously, but its all fascinating to consider.

  30. Bob says:


    I believe you are probably right. Ted was lying through his teeth when he told Browne he killed 8 or more girls in California in 1972-73. According to an F.B.I., 1992 report he spent most of those years around Seattle. However, he spent several weeks in Stanford and San Francisco, CA. in 1967 (on and off throughout June, July, August) and the early part of 1968. I believe you confirm this in your book and Michaud and Aynesworth do too. Unless, Bundy mistakenly got his years wrong he was feeding Browne a “whopper”. Would these few weeks been enough time to kill that many women?

    I also did a little more checking into the “Sammamish” V W. I do not believe it is Ted’s. According to Michaud and Aynesworth (page 88) after Ted, Liz and her daughter returned to her house after the huge hamburger meal he insisted upon taking her ski rack from the roof of his car and putting it back on hers. The V W in the Sammamish photo does not have a rack attached to the top. Therefore, its probably not Bundy’s car. As an aside, he probably tied Ott’s bike to the ski rack before they drove off.

    1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      Yes, it’s probably not his vehicle. However, I found out something about the record that might-and I stress might make s difference. Frankly, I don’t care if it’s his care or not. The only thing I know for sure pertaining to this issue is Ted’s car was parked at this spot at some point due to the credible testimony of that one witness.

  31. Bob says:

    Good afternoon everyone!

    I was going through my “Bundy File” and came across a small file that I had printed concerning the location of Ted’s Pennsylvania home. I had queried Answers.com about the above subject. The answer I received was not what I expected. Apparently, the Cowells did not actually live in Philadelphia proper, their house was located in Lafayette Hill, PA 19444, which is in Montgomery County a suburb of Philly.

    Has anyone come across this information before and/or learned where the Cowells actually did reside?

    On another topic, I have finished reading Browne’s book, The Devil’s Defender, and unfortunately did not find it that interesting. The chapters on Bundy were “thin” and lacked the level of detail I was expecting. However, there were parts that were revealing. On page 83 Ted tells Browne that in 1972 or 1973 he travelled to California where he killed at least eight people (if one was to include the other murders that Ted had committed he would have murdered close to twenty women before he left Seattle). The only problem with this confession relates to the amount of time he spent in California; was he there long enough to take eight-plus females? On page 112 I learned that Bundy liked to exert his control over his surrounding, even going to he extreme of torturing mice by tearing off their tails and their spines with it. (this is significant because it may confirm Rebecca Morris’ report of Ted’s cruel treatment of animals).As to Ted’s claim of killing over one hundred people, the figure seems high to me, but he had many opportunities to pick-up and kill hitchhikers when he drove across country several times. We know he did it in Idaho so I am sure did it many other times when he felt the urge. Therefore, Bundy may have killed as many as seventy-five to eighty women.

    At any rate, those are just a few comments about what I thought were the more interesting areas of Browne’s book. Have a pleasant afternoon everyone.

    1. Kevin Sullivan says:

      Hey Bob,

      The Cowell’s lived at 4309 South Warner St. in Lafayette Hill.
      Yes, the Bundy parts of Browne’s book can seem a bit thin, yet overall, I still find it an interesting read. I also don’t buy everything Bundy told him.

      We can’t know the number of women Bundy killed. We’ll never know that number. In my mind, while we know he killed some 30 plus women, it probably does go higher as there were no doubt more teen girls he killed; and for whatever reason, additional women he refused to talk about . Could it be 40 or 50? Maybe. But it’s all speculation.

    2. markb says:

      the sonoma murders. oh, boy, what a can of worms.

      1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

        I was writing today about the Sonoma murders today for my third and last book on the Bundy murders. I hope to have the trilogy completed shortly.

        1. markb says:

          well, i don’t know what’s in your 3d book but i’m happily looking forward to it – BUT i would like to see some good researcher such as yourself really tie into the “who else did he kill” question. it’s hard to accept that his murder career started jan of 74. seems to me the murder of Ms Healy in feb was awfully damn “accomplished” to be a 1st murder.

          of course, i’m in the school of thought that believes his career started in aug 1961. i have discovered there’s a bunch of SK’s that killed in their youth, then went dormant until adulthood.

          i understand the thoughts of our friend Steve, who says the Burr murder is something that they’ve just hung on him. i once thought that way, more or less. but the more i’ve read about him from those who really got to know him and who recorded his words, it really looks like he did the Burr murder.

          check out his denials of the Leach murder with M&A, compare them to his denials of Burr, and it’s hard to conclude he was telling the truth when he denied the Burr murder.

          who knows? maybe it was the Zodiac in Sonoma, after all.

          1. Steve says:

            He was under a death sentence for the Leach murder. He had every reason in the world to deny it.

          2. NW gal says:

            Yep. He didn’t want to talk about Leach after finding out she was so young.

  32. Steve says:

    In regards to John Henry Browne…

    When he first started talking about a book a few years ago. Didn’t he say that Ted told him that he killed 100 women and a man? And that the man was his first kill. Now it’s a boy.


    Sounds fishy.

    1. markb says:

      FWIW, i am sitting here with a copy of richard larsen’s “the deliberate stranger, published in 1980. on page 283, some lawmen are discussing the “three digits” statement and larsen quotes john henry browne as saying “Ted was just playing with them.”
      That sounds a whole lot more believable to me.

      i’m sure Browne’s book is a fun read, but i doubt it has much research value to me or anybody really looking into bundy.

      1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

        Excellent point, Mark!

      2. Shelley says:

        I agree Markb. It’s only what Bundy told Browne and we all know he told different things to different people. Unless someone can verify Bundy’s statement with proof, it’s just “interesting”.

      3. Steve says:

        To be it sounds like Browne is simply out to get money.

        There isn’t much else to reveal about Ted. So people have to start grasping at straws to act like they have some real info.

        1. Shelley says:

          I don’t believe that is true in this particular case. The book is much more than just what Bundy “confessed” to him.

          1. NW gal says:

            Hi Shelly

            I haven’t read the book. Do you think it’s a worthwhile read? What did you like about it?

          2. Steve says:

            But Ted is the selling point, due to him being the most famous person he’s ever been associated with.

          3. Shelley says:

            I am not sure if this reply will land in the right spot. Hopefully it does.

            NW gal: I enjoyed the book. I enjoyed his candor. If you are like me and want to read anything on Ted, then you will want to get it. Just know the book has a lot of non-Bundy stuff too! I hate saying “buy it” because it isn’t cheap and what if you didn’t like it? I would feel bad.

            Steve: I definitely didn’t get the feeling he was out to make money on Bundy’s name. If that was the case, he would have written a book long ago. The description on Amazon, for example, doesn’t play up Bundy over his other cases at all.

  33. Shelley says:

    I read The Devil’s Defender: My Odyssey Through American Criminal Justice From Ted Bundy to the Kandahar Massacre by John Henry Browne. It was a great read but I am left with questions about Bundy’s second escape. He says that Bundy had an accomplice who left a car nearby for him and money, etc. I wish Browne had asked more questions of Ted about that and also about the first murder Ted said he did as a teenager. Perhaps that could be substantiated and a cold case solved for some poor family out there.

    I definitely recommend the book.

    1. markb says:

      i haven’t had a chance to read it, but what i’ve seen about the book is that it raises more questions about bundy than it answers. i know that he tells that that TB killed a young boy. Does he go into any detail about that?

      1. Shelley says:

        No, he doesn’t and it’s frustrating but he didn’t want to engage Bundy in those types of conversations. They literally made him sick and I can understand that but still ….

        Someone who has spoken to Browne told me that he forwarded all the information he has to the Tacoma Police so that’s good. Wouldn’t it be amazing if something comes out of that?!?

        1. markb says:

          if they found a murder and proved TB did it, i would be delighted and amazed.

          on another subject, if anybody here’s interested, there’s been some movement on the Jon Benet case, her brother is going on tv to talk about it in September. i wanted to write about Jon Benet, but i got to hold off and see what he says.

        2. markb says:

          Hey, Shelly: now that i think of it, screw ted bundy, what does he say in the book about Jimi Hendrix?

      2. Steve says:

        If Ted killed a boy as a teen, wouldn’t there be some report of it by now? I’m not buying it.

        Browne most likely believed a lot of what Ted said, due to him most likely feeling Ted was capable of anything. Despite the fact that he lied all the time.

        1. markb says:

          Steve, you could be right, but people are murdered or go missing all the time and nothing comes of it, sad to say. It is possible that TB killed a young boy and not much was ever done about it. not real likely, but possible.

          but i have some misgivings about Mr Brown’s book. it’s not at all that i think he’s lying, i believe he is reporting accurately what he heard. But unless the police are able to really tie it to a case, what Mr. Brown is reporting will stay in the realm of “legendary hearsay”, like so many things about bundy.

          if anybody out there wants to volunteer some info, i am right now running down some of that “legendary hearsay” i am trying to find every published example i can of the “left at the orphanage for 3 months” story. so far, i’ve got one source – Aunt Audie in polly nelson’s Defending the devil.

          i don’t think i’ll be able to answer the question (heck if K. Sullivan couldn’t do it, no reason to think i can). What i’m looking for is where the story originated. alot of what i’m doing is basically a survey of all that’s been published about TB.

          1. Steve says:

            If you’re going by Legendary hearsay, then why not just contact all of the women that claimed to have been approached by Ted? Maybe even Debbie Harry from Blonde?

            I say that, because you’re not going to get facts. Just people claiming things.

            Ted once had Ron Holmes believing that he could’ve killed 365 people, and that his first kill was at 11.

            Holmes actually had that put in a Seattle paper back in about 87.

            Had there been a dead boy, or a missing one, during that time period, it would’ve been talked about. And even possibly been connected to him. Even in passing, but there isn’t.

    2. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      Hi Shelley,

      I don’t believe that to be true. I’m not saying Bundy didn’t say it to Browne, but it doesn’t hold up with what came out later.

      1. markb says:

        no, it really doesn’t.

        1. Shelley says:

          What specifically came out later that you guys are referring to?

          1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            That which the record details, based on what Bundy told the investigators (and what the investigators pieced together) there is NO mention of an accomplice. We now have this statement from one man only- Browne. Holding the official record in one hand, which includes the tidbits Bundy has given, and then putting the solitary statement from Browne, I believe the record wins out.

            That said, we can’t say definitively it’s not true. I don’t believe Browne is lying, I’m just not convinced Bundy was telling him the truth. Just like I’m leaning towards NO concerning Bundy’s claim thst he killed a boy when he was a boy.

            Methinks that some of what he told Browne was a lie. But I certainly don’t fault Browne for reporting it. I would have reported these statements as well.

  34. markb says:

    Mr Sullivan: i just bought and read Trail of ted bundy, very interesting book, i enjoyed it much.

    i was interested to read what you thought about the Laura Aime case. as you know, richard larsen in TDS, tells us a story about how bundy knew Laura. could you elaborate on why you find that story doubtful?

    one problem i see is that Laura left a party at about midnight, then disappeared – and bundy just happened to be there?

    my study of bundy shows me that he didn’t always stick to his script. i think it’s entirely possible that he was hanging around that town, “cultivating” a victim. yes, i know ted says he never killed anyone he knew. i also know he was a liar. i find the “he knew laura” plausable, but i don’t know as much about it as you.

    1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      Hey MarkB,

      Well, I’m kinda in the same position as you: I don’t know if it’s true or not. That’s why I said it could go either way: maybe Ted knew her, and maybe he didn’t. As you know, I say in “Trail” that it didn’t have a good feeling to it when I read it the first few times during my research for The Bundy Murders. And revisiting it for Trail left me feeling the same way.

      One thing I couldn’t get around in my head was that outside of the testimonies in the one report I obtained, there’s a virtual black hole about it in the rest of the record. There may be other places where it’s mentioned, but I never came across it. As such, because I didn’t want anything going on to The Bundy Murders that I couldn’t prove through multiple sources, I left it out. But as for adding the possibility of it being true for this companion edition? Yes, a resounding yes!

      It may be true, but I just can’t say for sure.

      I hope this helps.

      Btw: I’m well into my third and final book on Ted Bundy even now.

      See ya!


      1. markb says:

        mr. Kevin, i tell ya, i’ll buy and read your next book with great interest. but having been researching TB for the past month or so, i am getting tired of the little self-centered SOB. he’s a damn bruce springsteen song turned inside out and i wish i could resurrect him so i could hit him in the mouth. real hard.

        do you ever feel that way, writing about him?

        i am determined to put together my book on unsolved American crimes and i want my chapter on bundy and Ann Marie to be really good, but the more i read of him, the more i despise him.

        1. Steve says:

          Why put together a chapter on the Burr/Bundy thing? There is no proof he killed her. And I tend to believe he didn’t.

          1. markb says:

            i just want to, Steve. i’m on the side that believes he did it. i believe his murder of her is what fractured his life/mind. and i just want to write about it.

            i’m NOT laboring under the delusion that i can solve the crime, but i think one can use bundy’s own words to prove that he did confess to it. if that makes any sense.

        2. Kevin M Sullivan says:

          Hey MarkB,

          Lol! Yes, I too had bad thoughts about Bundy when I was writing about him; like why couldn’t he of just gotten hit by a bus crossing a Seattle street before he started killing lol!

          Good luck on the book you’re putting together!


        3. NW gal says:

          I love Mark’s description of Bundy! I’ve been doing research on Carole and I feel the same way! Thanks for the laugh!

          1. markb says:

            Carol was married several times, right? she seems like a person who was “looking for love in all the wrong places”. though if i was in trouble, i think i’d definitely want her on my side.

            i have read that her son is a minster in kentucky somewhere. i would love to meet him and talk to him, but it’s likely that he wouldn’t want to talk about that old business.

          2. NW gal says:

            Yep, she married at least 5 times but it might be as many as 7.

            Poor Jamey- of all of her kids, he’s harassed the most after she put him through the trials and appeals. He doesn’t want to talk about it- refuses requests.

          3. Steve says:

            I’ll reply down here, because it won’t let me do it directly.

            There was a 17 year old boy that lived a few houses down that was the only real suspect.

            And the original lead detective believed it was the 17 year old. He always believed it.

            How would a skinny 14 year old boy move the corpse of an 8 year old, while only having a bike to ride?

            He lived in a different neighborhood. I just don’t by it.

            It simply makes for a good story due to it being Ted. That’s it.

          4. Paul says:

            Steve, it’s entirely possible for Ted to have murdered Ann. A skinny 14 year old can easily overpower a small 8 year old girl. There are just too many coincidences that point to Bundy, and every case he’s been convicted of murder on those same types of coincidences. For me, it’s Anne’s father that’s the clincher – he’s positive he saw Bundy the next morning nearby, at muddy construction works that were filled in within hours. As a father myself, on such a morning as that, I don’t believe I’d forget a thing, or a face, no matter how much time went by.

      2. Paul says:

        Perhaps… But the person who made that statement had no reason to lie, and even passed a lie detector test. When you read the statement from the Deliberate Stranger, it doesn’t read like something made up – it sounds entirely plausible. A second person made a statement that Aime told Bundy “get the fuck out of here, I don’t wanna see you no more”. That’s from the case file. Are we to assume both witnesses made this up? It’s also well-known some of the jurisdictions in those Utah cases did not investigate these cases thoroughly. Aime’s parents both thought not enough was being done in their daughters case, as did Melissa Smith’s father. The cop who took this ‘Bundy knew Aime’ statement was just a rookie, and had no power to send it up the chain to be investigated further. His statement sat around for months, and only came to light after Bundy was arrested, 10 months later. Of course, the only way of ever having a definitive view on this is to interview Aime’s friend who originally made the statement. Who knows if that person is even alive today?

        1. Kevin Sullivan says:

          Sure, I know it’s in the record. It doesn’t have a big part in the record, but it’s there. And this is why I mention it in my new book. But again, I have serious questions about the whole thing. Still, it might very well ALL be true.

          1. markb says:

            Paul: the Aime story seems very credible to me, too: this creepy older guy, hanging around the teenagers, they don’t really want him there, but they don’t really have the power to get rid of him.

            But the part that sticks out for me is that TB just happened to be there on that night when Laura leaves the party. nobody said that he was at the party, and there’s no way that bundy could know that she would leave, or that she would leave alone. so we must believe either he was sitting outside waiting for Laura or that he just happened to be there trolling at that time. either of these is totally possible. but they both seem sort of unlikely to me.

            i know what i’m getting ready to say seems nutty, but it’s true: ted bundy had the luck of the devil. he just did. he should have been busted a dozen times before he actually was. taking his freaky luck into account, yes, i guess he might have come cruising that very night and she was there right at that time.

            if i had luck like that, hell, i’d take it to vegas!

          2. Paul says:

            Markb – I think, at that time, he was trying particularly hard to get Laura alone, and she was the only one on his mind at that time. If he was always showing up in the area looking for her, he could’ve found out very easily she was at a party. Laura may have told Bundy herself days before where she was going. He could’ve followed her earlier that night. I think it was less luck and more a total obsession – all his time was spent on trolling, and as the witness said, Bundy always showed up at different times looking for Aime. He probably waited outside the party, knowing there’d be a chance Laura might walk off alone at some point. I understand why Kevin thinks this is all unlikely, because it’s not something a ‘smart’ serial killer would do, put himself in the limelight like this. I just think Bundy thought law enforcement was so crap at what they did, that no one would ever put two and two together to link him to her… And they didn’t. After all, “constantly looking for Laura Aime” was not a crime. Unless caught in the act murdering her, he’d always be in the clear.

          3. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            That’s a lot of speculation there, MarkB lol!

            All joking aside, the one thing we know from the record is that on the night she disappeared, no one reported seeing Bundy (if in fact anyone really knew him down there); not at the party or any where else. The cops think she disappeared along a dark portion of highway 89, which means Bundy was trolling at that late hour far south of Salt Lake as I report in The Bundy murders.

          4. Paul says:

            Hey Kevin

            True – also a possibility… But no one reporting seeing him anywhere doesn’t mean he wasn’t nearby. He probably wouldn’t have been welcome at the party anyway! :) Personally though, what the ‘cops believed’ doesn’t give weight to anything. They also believed she was a runaway for days, other cops thought Healy might have had ‘her period’, etc – they weren’t all Jerry Thompson, that’s for sure. I just find it hard to believe he was out trolling elsewhere and happened to “pass her on the street” later in the night. It’s little incidents like these in the Bundy case that give me confident theories, while there are others – like where the hell was he taking bodies in Utah, because getting them up that fire escape seems impossible – that leave me absolutely dumbfounded.

          5. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            Hey Paul,

            I don’t believe Bundy took them up the fire escape, but I absolutely believe he took them up the steps to his apartment. This would not be far removed from the Healy abduction. I don’t rule the fire escape out entirely, as its possible he could have used it to let the body down with rope (rather unlikely), or scampered down it himself after dropping her out the window; a very odd thing, but with Bundy we can rule anything out. Still, my best quess is he carried them up and down the steps when the coast was clear, as it were. When people were rejecting this theory I had, there was no actual “proof” of him doing this. But last year Dennis Couch released the tapes of Bundy’s end of life confession, and in it Bundy states that he took Debra Kent “up to his apartment”.

            As to Bundy and Aime, you could be correct, but I don’t think so, bad here’s why: the investigators interviews a lot of people about that night, and no where in the record that I’ve found is there even one person who encountered him that night. Because of that I believe he was trolling; in a familiar area to be sure. But in my mind, he was simply still out hunting

          6. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            Sorry for the typos-on my IPhone.

          7. Paul says:

            I understand Kevin. But as we know, Bundy was a master troller… No one saw him stalk Smith, no one saw him stalk Oliverson, no one saw him stalk Campbell (the only witness turned out to be unreliable in the most embarrassing way), no one saw him stalk Curtis, or Parks, or Manson… All we know is that Aime walked off alone “into the darkness”. I’m not arguing with you – but really, neither of us know for sure. Personally it just makes more sense to me that he had some idea where Aime was and waited, unseen. Then again, if you doubt Bundy had any previous involvement with Aime then you’d have absolutely no reason to think he was anywhere near her that night. Out of interest, why do you have doubts about the ‘Bundy knew Aime’ statement? I read your second book, and you said you had doubts, but didn’t say specifically why. I don’t want to put words in your mouth… But do you think the witness wasn’t telling the truth?

          8. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            I would rather not get into why in skeptical as I don’t think it does any good. Let’s just say that I have my doubts that things went down exactly as that report details. I’m not casting dispersions on any person or witness; not at all. But because of what I know about the overall picture I have my doubts-a question mark, as it were

          9. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            I’m skeptical not ‘in’ skeptical. More typos lol!

          10. Paul says:

            Fair enough. Clearly, you have your reasons. Makes me think you have ‘more of the story’ you don’t want to share for professional reasons, haha. Personally though, I’m not a researcher – more an armchair detective. All I can do is voraciously read everything that’s out there, then put it all together. And I don’t have any reason to doubt that witnesses statement, especially if Mike Fisher believed it. What will your third Bundy book cover? Surely, everything on Bundy has been published by now. Does it contain new information? You could make a book of this entire 155 page thread – trust me, it’d sell. It’s a carnival on here.

          11. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            A carnival indeed, Paul! Lol!

            Yes, there are things I learned during my years of research that I haven’t been able to print. Not many things, but some. And you’re correct about Mike Fisher apparently believing it to be credible; I say apparently because of all we talked about we never talked about that. So I’m not sure if he’s completely convinced that it’s ALL true (hint, hint, lol!) or what have you. If I speak to him in the future, I’ll ask him about it.

            The new Bundy book has new testimony in it from folks who knew Bundy or the victims, as well as a much deeper look into the records of the actual case file. I’m about halfway through and it’s turning out to be an exceedingly interesting read, as it were.

            The new testimony is a real eye opener too.

  35. Bob says:


    I don’t want to beat a dead horse…, but I have a couple of questions.

    Do you know if a passerby or a cop/state official took the photo to document the police activity?

    Also, do you know how the photo got into circulation?

    Thank You for your patience. Bob

    1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      Hi Bob,

      After the girls disappeared from Lake Sam, the police asked the public to send them photographs they took that day (crowd shots) and perhaps they could spot Ott or Naslund walking with this “Ted”, and the folks responded. This is also how it got into circulation.

      And btw: you’re not beating a dead horse; I enjoy the questions. :)

  36. markb says:

    another question about bundy: was he left at the foundling home for 3 months or not? half say yes, half say no.

    1. Kevin Sullivan says:


      During my extensive research for The Bundy Murders, I never found any time frame that could be considered definitive; the answer to end all answers, as it were. It was also not too important to me, so I didn’t waste a lot of time on it. I was gathering literally thousands of facts that I could confirm from the official record and current testimony from the investigators I was working with. As such, “little things” like that I let go.

  37. mark brewer says:

    i sent an email to Rebbeca Morris a few days ago but haven’t heard back. maybe busy, or maybe she doesn’t respond to strangers. can’t blame her for that, really.

    some questions i’d like to ask her: did you see the report card that said ted needed to work on his temper? what grade was it?

    did you find out anything about ted’s youthful arrests for burglary that weren’t in the book?

    did the man who might have molested ted ever get in trouble with the law for molesting?

    Did “doug holt” back up everything that “sandi holt” told you?

    i’d like to know these things.

    {for some reason, this thing put my name up there. i thought i told it i was “markb”. whatever.}

  38. Bob says:


    How deep into your research were you when you learned that this photo may not be of Bundy and his car? Did you discover this interesting “tidbit” after your book had gone to press? I can’t imagine you would allow the photo to be included in your book, if you had serious doubts about its authenticity.

    1. Kevin Sullivan says:

      Hey Bob,

      Well, I had a tiny question mark in my mind at the time, even before I heard there were others who weren’t sure, but that didn’t matter to me because I also realized it MIGHT be him. I was also absolutely convinced that was his car (and I’m not completely sure it’s not as he may have used another VW), but I felt it should go into the book “as is”, if you will, because it’s just as likely it is him sitting in the can as not. Still (and just to cover my butt lol!), I say this in the caption: “Washington investigators believe this may be a picture (and if so, the only one) of Bundy sitting in his Volkswagen…”The key word is “may”.

      I still think it’s an interesting photograph, and as I said before, despite the new “evidence” I’m not convinced that Bundy wasn’t driving it because of the testimony of the woman who followed him to his car that she said was at this location.

      As to the said imaging they’ve used on it today to “prove” he wasn’t in the car, that’s fine. I believe Keppel said in his book that they tried to blow it up to see more clearly but were not successful. So if that’s the case, no big deal.

      I hope this helps…


  39. Bob says:

    Hello everyone!

    I’ve been lurking here for quite some time but I did not want to post anything until after I had finished reading all of the posts to ensure I would not be going over old ground. Well I have finally finished reading them all and would like your take on a thesis of mine.

    I would like to draw your attention to that “famous” photo which, most likely, shows Bundy sitting in his VW trapped in a parking space by police cars that are lined-up right behind him. This photo was taken at Lake Sammamish that fateful Sunday. (Kevin published this image in his first Bundy book).

    Let’s accept some items as facts: the photographer was standing south-southeast, looking north towards Ted’s car when he took the photo and the front hood of his car is facing west toward the Lake. The axis of his car (west to east) is confirmed by the long shadows that can be seen stretching across the parking lot from west to east. This is caused by the sun beginning to set, its rays blocked by the line of police cars which create the shadows. This means the photo was taken in the afternoon.

    What does this suggest? Well, we know that, about 4:20 P.M. Jacqueline Plischke was approached by Bundy as was another young girl just minutes before her. Both of these girls begged off. In my opinion Ted probably arrived at Lake Sammamish around 4:00 P.M. which would give him some “wiggle-room” to park, check out “the scene” and make his approach.

    Therefore, what the photographer unknowingly captured was Bundy immediately after he arrived at the park after “playing” with Ott. I don’t believe Naslund is in the car with him because I don’t see another head just the back of the passenger seat. But, I’ll concede it is possible that she could be there. (one can only imagine Bundy’s intense discomfort as he tries to keep conversation to a minimum as he waits for the cops to leave)

    What probably happened was he pulled into the parking spot, he was about to get out, when the cops pulled up behind him and blocked him. Ted probably waited because he did not want to become involved with the police. (hence, the period of 15 to 20 minutes before he made contact with the next possible victims) I also believe the car seat was in place in this case because he would not have been able to convince someone to go with him if there was no place for them to sit.

    Any comments?

    1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      Hey Bob,

      Good theory, and perhaps you’re correct. However, there’s talk (and I was aware of this during my research) that that’s not Bundy sitting in the car, but it just looks like a person. Who knows? More recently, however, it’s been pointed out that the grill on the rear of the VW is different than the VW that Bundy owned AND THATS TRUE!!! So now we have a quandary, and here it is:

      As you know, a lady who went with Bundy to his car said Bundy’s car WAS parked in that spot and under that tree. So, did Ted use another car and do the Lake Sammamish run with someone else’s VW? It may be unlikely, but it’s possible? The only other alternative I can see is that Bundy was gone at that time and another VW pulled into the space. Also, is it possible he replaced the grilled engine cover? It’s possible, but also unlikely. But because of the witness’s statement as to where Ted’s car was, I’m not prepared to say it was absolutely not Bundy. Ah, another mystery lol!

      1. Tony says:

        I believe Keppel asks Ted about that photo in The Riverman. He says it isn’t him.

        1. Kevin Sullivan says:

          Keppel did ask Bundy, and Bundy disavowed it, but Keppel thought he was lying. And it does seem that Bundy was being evasive at that moment, based on how Bundy sometimes acted with other investigators who believed he was being evasive.

          1. Tony says:

            Meh. Why lie about that? Keppel was also dead certain Bundy killed Kathy Devine, and that was later disproven.

          2. Kevin Sullivan says:

            I’m not saying Bundy lied, but that Keppel thought he was lying. Why would Bundy lie about such a thing? Who can say? There were times when Bundy just didn’t want to admit things.

            As far as Kathy Devine, it doesn’t really matter that Keppel was wrong. The investigators were in a search for truth, and they were already aware that Bundy didn’t want to come clean on everything. Keppel could pull almost any name out of the mix and throw it at Bundy, as it was clear that Ted would admit to killing a certain number of victims in a particular state (as he did in WA), but then refused to give all the names. Keppel, working against the clock (as were all the investigators), was trying to get to the truth.

          3. NW gal says:

            Perhaps he borrowed Liz’ VW that day?

            I also believe there were times that he moved a rack from her car to his when they carried camping and other equipment. Maybe he did so on this day?

          4. Sandy says:

            That’s right – he did borrow Liz’ car (also a Volkswagen Bug) and he did switch the rack between the two cars.

          5. NW gal says:

            On pg 54 of her book, Liz mentions that Ted had the ski rack on his car the evening of the Lake Samm murders. Even though exausted (he blamed a cold he had been fighting), after devouring a huge meal, he decided to take the rack off his VW and return if to Liz’ where it belonged.

            Ted stayed home from work the next day, exausted and
            sick. Sweet Liz brought him chicken soup and orange juice.

            I seem to recall Keppel, at then end of Ted’s life, trying to find out what happened to the Ott bicycle. It was never found. I suspect it had temporarily been housed in Liz’ rack, on Ted’s car, as he drove a terrified young woman to an even more terrifying end of her life.

      2. NW gal says:

        Don’t laugh, but I an currently obtaining photos of find back grills on Bundy’s car, 1968 bugs (looks to me like Bundy’s style), and improvements to the grills in different model years.

        In Bundy’s1968, I believe the grill was only one long piece at the base of the back window. Later years has 2 sets of 4 smaller grill openings- I believe for additional ventilation.

        Favorite improvement so far: “elephant feet” lights in the rear.

        I think Liz had the same year VW but can definitely be wrong on that. Would love to really knock this question out!

        Does anyone have additional information? I’m pretty sure I’m going to drive my husband crazy over the next few days while I create a data -filled spreadsheet!

        1. Kevin Sullivan says:

          Hey NW gal,

          Well, I think we’re in some wild speculation now, lol!

          But all joking aside, there are questions that remain about the pic at lake Sammamish, and Bundy’s actual car. I’m not sure we’ll get to answer them, but it sure would be nice.

          I guess for now there’s going to be a big question mark over it all. :)

        2. Tony says:

          Wow — folks are REALLY invested in having that car in the photos turn out to be Ted’s, LoL.

          1. Kevin Sullivan says:

            LOL! I don’t care if it’s Bundy’s car or not. We know he was parked at that location, but now we must consider that he had left by that time, and another VW pulled in that slot. However, the possibilities of a second VW being used by Ted can’t be completely ruled out. I did find it strange concerning Bundy’s reaction to Keppel when he was shown the photo. He was being a bit evasive and that’s a sure sign of something. Perhaps he knew that wasn’t him, but he understood he’d parked there a short time earlier, and this might have rattled him.

  40. Shelley says:


    You are right. Elliott Leyton does use that quote in his book. It comes from “Bundy: The Deliberate Stranger” by Richard Larsen, Chapter 15.

    Larsen writes about an interview Ted did with Barbara Grossman, of Salt Lake City’s KUTV ….

    “More than ever,” he said, staring hard at Barbara and the camera, “I’m convinced of my innocence.”

    It is a very bizarre thing to say.

    1. Kevin Sullivan says:

      Yes, it was bizarre, but it was also classic Bundy. He just couldn’t help himself- he had to connect himself with the crimes! A normal innocent person would have said “I’m innocent” and been done with it. But not Ted.

    2. markb says:

      thank you so much, Shelley! thanks for the chapter info! i’m sitting here with a funky old copy of Larsen’s book and there it is, on page 202. i’ve read this book sometime over the past 30 yrs and that quote always stuck with me. and it must be Leyton who pointed out what a weird, ridiculous thing it was to say.

      i ordered a copy of Leyton’s book about 2-3 weeks ago and it still hasn’t shown up. i used to work security for the med examiner’s office. when i started working there they had lots of true crime books, but over the years, the best ones all walked off. now i have to try remember what i read and order them. there was a text book about sexual homicides that was so disturbing i couldn’t look at it for more than a minute at a time. i guess there was lots of valuable info there, but damn, it was just too hard to look at.

  41. markb says:

    Howdy folks. I just tonight have discovered this long long thread while doing some research on mr. bundy for a book on unsolved crimes i’m writing. i think i might have made a mistake in beginning my work with Ann Marie Burr. i think the bundy material is going to swamp the project! But that’sok, i think too much material is a good problem to have.
    what i want to ask, here in my 1st post concerns a passage in “the stranger beside me” that i can’t find. i have been thumbing through 2 different copies the past day or 2 and can’t scare it out of the pile.
    it is a quote from one of bundy’s letters to ann rule. bundy writes something like “Now, more than ever, i am convinced of my own innocence”. then rule says, to us “now, more than ever?” it’s a really nutty thing for ted to have said that shows something about how he thinks.

    can anybody here help me find this? like, what chapter is it in, or what page? OR did i just imagine it? not impossible…

    1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      Hey MarkB,

      You can do a Google search of that quote and find the answer. The Stranger Beside Me is an eBook, and if you had the kindle edition of the book, you can search that exact quote and it will, if it’s a correct quote, will come up immediately. Check Google books, bring up Rule’s book, and put the quote in the search box. That should do it.

      Take care,


      1. markb says:

        thank you! i should know how to do such things, but i’m a computer illiterate. so i have now established that quote isn’t from a letter to ann rule. doing a google search showed me the quote does exist, but it was from an interview, sometime after his 1st arrest. i can’t find what book it’s in tho. but i will eventually.
        Mr. Sullivan, i bought TBM the 1st month it was out on my kindle. i think it’s an excellent book and is well-written.

        i live in frankfort, if you ever find yourself up here with spare time, i hope you’ll come by for coffee.

        1. NW gal says:

          Hey Marc- I have a PDF of this book and just tried a bunch of combinations in search for you. I couldn’t find any quote even close to these.

          Please don’t rely only on my word! If you would like the PDF, just let me know and I can send you a copy. I also have Liz’ book The Phantom Prince as a PDF.

          1. markb says:

            NW Gal: thank you so much! i have found that the quote is from a colorado TV interview from about ’77. bundy says “more than ever, i am convinced of my own innocence.” i read it years ago and thought it was in ann rule, but now i am more sure that it was in Elliot Leyton’s “hunting humans”. me trying to remember all the stuff i’ve read over the past 3 decades is like bundy trying to remember the details of his crimes: they tend to congeal into one big mass.

            i very much would like to get a copy of Phantom Prince from you, but right at this moment i am overwhelmed with material. can i get with you on that in a few days?

          2. markb says:

            Mr. Sullivan: i am wondering what you think of Rebeca Morris’ book “ted and ann”? many wild and extreme things are asserted in the parts of the book about bundy’s childhood: animal torture and assaults on other children and etc

            i’m wondering how much i can rely on it.

          3. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            Hi MarkB,

            I know and have worked with Rebecca, and I like her. I also really like her book. But you’re wise to question those early years parts (as do I) concerning what Bundy supposedly did with animals and other children. That said, I don’t fault Rebecca for passing along this info, as this is what she was told by others who knew Ted as a child. Like you, I’m skeptical about that small part of the book. But the rest of the work is great.

            I hope this helps. :)


    2. Paul says:

      That quote IS in the book, and it WAS from a letter he wrote to Anne Rule. I’ve read it three times, and remember that quite well. She quoted it from the letter he sent. Strange that it’s apparently from an interview… I have two copies of the book – one has the entire final 100 pages reprinting the first chapter mistakenly, and cutting off the last sentence. I had to buy a new one but request photographs of certain pages from the seller because I thought this misprint may have run across thousands of prints.

      1. markb says:

        Paul: i think you might be like me in that i’ve read so much that it turns into a stew in my mind. i also coulda swore that quote was from “Stranger beside…” but after buying the book on my kindle and searching it, i’m pretty sure it isn’t there. it IS in the deliberate stranger by r. larsen.

        as far as i’m concerned, i look at that statement as a tacit confession to every evil deed he was suspected of and that’s why it was important to hunt it down.

        the way i look at it is that TB confessed and confessed and confessed…to ALL of it, over and over.

  42. NW gal says:

    Kevin- I have read the Phantam Price. After years of bidding hundreds of dollars, a Reddit poster uploaded it as a pdf, not page by page or photos. I grabbed it before he got arrested!

    1. Steve says:

      He got arrested? Liz sure doesn’t play any games.

      1. Tony says:

        I thought perhaps she was being cheeky with the “arrested” remark.

  43. Steve says:

    I want to add about the whole Rob guy. I have read everything on the Visual timeline page. Quite a bit of it is pointless. He posts random pictures of unknown people from Bundy case files. He also has no idea why they are in there, but still seems compelled to post them.

    I wonder if his book is a lot like that too?

    Also, showing school pics of Jerry Thompson is kinda pointless.

    That and doing the same thing with the guy that bought Ted’s car.

    He said that the guy who bought the car did a recent interview. I googled it. It sure isn’t there anywhere.

    I’d rather read the book from the Duffus guy that thinks Ted’s gay.

    1. NW gal says:

      Yep. He is wrong about Carole Boone and the family. I don’t care. I hope everyone is wrong. A bunch of people think Rosa is an ANRP in Seattle. It’s hilarious. That person was in college when Bundy’s daughter was born.

      I say- let them. These are human beings. They deserve their life!

      1. Steve says:

        The guy is big on making assumptions. Even in the family photo with Ted, he is clearly trying to insinuate things.Saying he’s looking down on her.

        He was a horrible person. But there is no need to add to it.

        I’ve looked at that Rosa Johnson and that is clearly to old to be her. LOL She might not even have a social media page.

        I think Rob pretty much thinks anyone in Ted’s family, or was once in his family is a horrible person. Or atleast someone keeping secrets.

        1. NW gal says:


          I feel horrible for Ted’s immediate family. Poor Johnny Bundy, sweet man who marries Louise and adopts her son. Works as a cook to support his family, straight arrow….and his last name is associated forever with seriel killer. I believe Louise did her best with what she knew at the time. Ted was adamant in interviews that he came from a good solid home. Not perfect but nothing to churn out an adult like him. The Bundy’s lived about 20 minutes from my house. Everyone knew where they were. They attended the same church, kept the same phone number and raised 4 additional healthy children. Imagine having this simple, consistent life interrupted with the horrific stories from law enforcement and knowing they must be lies. Cashing in your measure savings for funds – both bail and attorneys. Begging on the stand for the court to spare your son’s life and then failing. Sure, you can fault a young, unmarried pregnant girl who had no where to turn and snuck off to give birth and rush bringing that baby back to your family home and lying. It was a common occurrence. The other young women in the same situation did not become sadistic killers. I can’t blame her.

          His siblings were pretty healthy kids who grew up in the same house, reportedly loving their brother. They didn’t become seriel killers.

          Liz was young, naive and drank too much. By all accounts she was a great mom, friend and person. She believed someone who is terrific at telling lies. In the end, even she had to turn him in.

          Carole was another innocent naive woman who made proving his innocence her life’s work. She left most of hee children, except one, with family for years while she worked to free her husband. It was foolish and she tended to marry often and readily. Yet, after divorcing one husband with whom she has children, her ex-husband’s family continued to see her as member of the family. They loved her that much. She had many friends and was beloved by many.

          I just can’t see evidence of those around Bundy as being crazy, criminal or responsible. I see them as naive, trusting, supportive and loyal then finally shattered go learn the truth. I can’t imagine confronting the reality they faced in those last days when he began confessing.

          This is why I let them be, why I don’t share their names, whereabouts or details. It’s their story to tell. Or not.

        2. Kevin M Sullivan says:

          Yes, some want to point the finger at the Bundy family, as if they had anything to do with it, and that’s absolutely absurd. They were a normal family. And outside of Ted, everyone else turned out well; that is, no other anti-social behavior out of any of them.

          People need to keep their fingers pointed at Bundy alone.

    2. Tony says:

      “Quite a bit of it is pointless. He posts random pictures of unknown people from Bundy case files. He also has no idea why they are in there, but still seems compelled to post them.”

      Meh — seems like a fairly reasonable attempt to get the information out there and see if anyone responds or is able to elaborate on itt. Not likely to succeed, perhaps, but if the photos are in the case file and the investigators don’t seem to know who they are or why they’re there… well, I know I’d certainly be curious to learn the answers to those questions. (It’s not unlike the photos that were found in Rodney Alcala’s possession a while back — maybe some of them are victims and maybe none of them are, but it certainly begs the question).

      Not defending the visual timeline guy, by the way, as he seems to have engaged in some surly shenanigans with regards to Kevin and others. But that doesn’t mean that every little thing he does is automatically suspect.

  44. Hal says:

    Kevin, you have been exposed as a poor writer and that you are currently part of a vanity publishing house. I see you’re avoiding the evidence for both.

    Although at least telling you proof that you’re a conspiracy theorist is easy to get, has allowed you to jump ship on that one. And are no longer claiming you aren’t with a vanity publisher. Partial progress.

    Anyway, you’ve asked for a couple of answers: you described your book as ‘excellent’ right in the preface (it’s short, easy to find, and I’ve already said exactly where it was so unsure why you would ask!). It isn’t excellent. It’s a mess, and something that no reputable publisher would have touched. Examples of truly atrocious writing have been given and aside from pretending they were typos, and then pretending the difference hasn’t been made explicit, you’ve taken, what, seven opportunities now not to address any of them? Anyway, I not only gave you clear cut examples of something you’d surely only find in a self published or vanity published book, I’ve also shown that this was, in fact, the case. No surprises.

    There are a few bestselling authors out there who are reportedly as bad. But the difference is, their publishing house deals with it before release. This is a required step, Kevin, from a reputable publisher. You do know that, right?

    You actually had a demented attack on, I think, my second post for not understanding your position with this publisher. You also used he word ‘ignorant’ despite claiming to be clueless on the odd publishing practices from your original publisher (a brief look at their website would have cleared that up). And despite being part of a ‘consortium’ with your current lot (a word you seem to be claiming you misused), you then also claimed ignorance (funny that) that they were advertising as a vanity publisher and claiming that your partnership was behind the whole thing. But none you know, apparently? Isn’t it odd that someone can spend two minutes on the website of your publisher and know more than you, especially when you are actively involved in one of them!

    You also tried to pretend that a publisher paying a ghost writer (proper publisher), and a publisher asking a member of the public to pay for a ghost writer, is the same thing. When they are polar opposites. Respectable vs Vanity. And that was when you were also pretending the second part of WildBlue’s advert wasn’t there – that you are an outandout vanity publisher.

    Anyway, it’s also unbecoming to ask me a question about something that I know nothing about (your Q2). How could I possibly answer that? By all means, let’s see if I can help you out. Post a pic of the entire page or pages the quote appears in, along with the detail of the source, identify who quoted you, and anything else I may need for context and we’ll see if we can figure it out. I’m sure we can.

    Anyway, forget the above points for now. Just show me the details you refer to about your quote as I obviously can’t comment without it,mand you can answer these two.

    You say those that matter like your books. But what do YOU think about the errors listed? Does it read like publishable prose to you? Yes or No? Are the quoted passages representative of your skills? In your opinion?

    And should a publisher have asked you to fix these before publication as a minimum professional expectation?

    (Also, it’s neither here nor there in the grand scheme, but let me do you a favour and say that writers don’t say ‘lol’ all the time – or ever – for pretty obvious reasons, especially just as a default post closer. You can have that one on the house.)

    1. Fiz says:

      Hal, you are both bad mannered and boring. Go away and spam some other site!

    2. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      I am not a part of a vanity publisher and never will be. That’s all in you tiny mental world. So be it. Also, I have no need or desire to provide you with anything that would encourage your mental illness. The “lol” is meant to mock you, and I’m sorry you can’t see this.

      I guess in a greater sense you need to be pitied, but I’m not in the mood to offer you such niceties. You’re still embarrassing yourself and it’s sad to see. You must have a very bad life. It must be bad to be you.

      And please, share with us your publishing exploits, lol! (Yes, another lol!!!)

      Here’s a link to McGraw-Hill’s Abnormal Psychology. Check it out for yourself. Last time I checked, they weren’t a vanity publisher.

      Bye loser!


  45. Kevin M Sullivan says:

    I’m currently reading The Devil’s Defender, by John Henry Brown, and I really like it. It’s not all about his interactions with Ted, but there’s plenty there, and overall, it’s an excellent read.

    There are the occasional mistakes, like, he referres to an officer “Rosebud”, when in fact it was officer “Roseland” that Bundy was using. But these are minor issues, and I’ll probably email him, introduce myself, and send him a note about them.

    Again, it’s a great read.

    1. Paul says:

      Agreed – how a lawyer who was so connected to that case could confuse Roseland with Rosebud is beyond me. Didn’t the editor read it??

      1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

        Hey Paul,

        Well, I think the publusher must have assumed that these other details were correct as well. Obviously, Browne didn’t realize it, but if he or they would have done even a brief fact checking, they would have caught them very quickly.

        On Amazon, I have given his book four stars, but without these rather egregious errors I would have made it five.

        1. Kevin Sullivan says:

          Perhaps we should make that “publisher” lol!

          1. Paul says:

            Yeah, I get it – I always feel the need to correct my typo’s too, courtesy of my damn iPhone. It just makes me wonder what else these people get wrong in these books… It makes me think they aren’t as familiar with the cases as they’re supposed to be, making errors like that. I know it’s just a name, but ‘Roseland’ has become a huge part of True Crime history, and the story that goes with it. Rosebud is laughable!

          2. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            Lol! Browne knows his own story very well. But all the other facts of the Bundy case, not so much. There are only 6 reviews up in Amazon at this time, and I’m the only one who has mentioned this. I hope the publisher takes note of it and makes the needed corrections. Had they not been in there (and so glaring to the easily known facts of the Bundy case) I would have given it 5 stars.

  46. Michele says:

    Okay, my email has been filled with this back and forth. A very quick search made this argument easily decided. Kevin has written multiple books with Gregg Olsen, a well respected author in his own right. It is very common in this new frontier of authordom to use different avenues of publishing. It is also not uncommon to find errors in the most esteemed of texts. I have no idea what the motivation for this vitriol is, that lies in the mind of the constant writer of useless criticism. Move on to some other topic, won’t you? Replying to you further is giving you attention for which you are clearly unworthy. Shall we get back to constructive discussions of Ted Bundy?

    1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      Good to hear from you, Michele. :)

  47. NW gal says:

    Hey again friends,

    If you do have picture requests, could you send them to me by July 28th?


    1. Kevin M. Sullivan says:

      Good to hear from you again, NW gal!

      1. NW gal says:

        Hi Kevin!

        Great job on the new book- nice, verifiable tidbits! I appreciated that you told us it was a companion version to the larger original book. It was just right!

        I would love your opinion about Bundy evidence in King County. As you know, I am in Gig Harbor. It’s pretty easy to get myself to Seattle. I’ve read most Bundy books. Other favorites are those written by you, Keppel, Aynesworth, Carlisle, and Michaud. As I’ve read the interviews, listened to the tapes, and studied the books I’ve seen that there is information regarding his confessions kept from the public out of respect for the victims. I admire that decision.

        If I were to go to King County and ask to see the files and evidence, will I find information I will later regret seeing? I realize this is a subjective question! As you know, I’ve not been interested in the details of his horrific crimes- not to minimize them by any means. My area of study has been the women in his life -Louise, Liz, Carole.

        Is it your opinion that access to the files would help me learn more about his relationship with them, and his own (whatever you want to call it)- mental health, personality disorder, “the entity”, and/or compartmentalization of his personality?

        Or am I just going to see horrific crime scenes and descriptions of behaviors I can never then forget?

        1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

          Hi NW gal!

          Thanks for the kind words, btw…

          Well, at the end of Bundy’s life, and all the investigators were talking to Bundy, Keppel was encouraging Ted to give details about the Hawkins abduction, promising him that the details would never go public. Now, I don’t know if he was lying to him, or perhaps he meant it at the time. Regardless, all of that info did come out, and I believe all the information came out soon after his execution. Some tidbits came out later, of course, but out it is. In fact, I don’t believe anything has been redacted from the record concerning his actual confessions, and that’s good, as I don’t like redacted lol!

          One thing you’ll need if you don’t have it, is a copy of The Phantom Prince. If you can borrow a copy somewhere, or find a library that has it, that’s a good place to see another side of Bundy from Liz’s perspective.

          If I were you I would go to the King County Archives and peruse it. It is a fabulous archive, and one all Bundy authors should either visit or go on line and view the categorized boxes of evidence containing the case files and photographs pertaining to the case.

          I also want to encourage you to forge ahead and write your book! I think what you want to do WILL be a great addition to the Bundy canon as it were. I will also purchase it on the day it’s released! Lol!

          It would be great if Liz Kendall would grant you an interview. Perhaps it’s a long shot, as she’s been fending off requests for years, and referring them to her attorney! But no matter, it’s worth s try.

          Please keep us informed on the progress of your research, and if you ever need to communicate with me privately, message Jason (he’s the headsman at this site) and he’ll forward your email along to me. Also, if you’re on Facebook, look me up and send me s friend request and I’ll accept.

          Take care,


          1. Tony says:


            Exactly what sort of credentials are traditionally asked for when it comes to gaining access to this sort of info? I have a BA in Communication, am about to start working on my master’s in English, and have done some (very little) freelance journalism work over the past few years, though nothing heavy like crime, public affairs, or anything of that sort. I’ve been thinking about trying to tackle a Bundy (or some sort of true crime) book for ages, but I’m afraid investigators, archivists, and so on won’t be interested in talking to me!

            Any pointers would be much appreciated.

          2. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            Hi Tony,

            You don’t need credentials to write a book or perform research, neither do you need any special qualifications to conduct interviews of former or current investigators. The most you’ll be asked (maybe), may pertain to the project itself, and in some cases, are you an established author. Of course, this is due to noseyness on the part of the person and has nothing to do with granting your request.

            Of course, when dealing with the detectives, always be open and honest (and for God’s sake, never promise anything to them if you can’t or won’t do it!), and gain commen ground with them, as they don’t have to talk to you about the case.

            However, the archives must treat all individuals exactly the same, and grant requests for information if the standard requirements are met by the researcher. So you’ll have no worries here.

            So, good luck on your journey, Tony, and let us know how things turn out.

  48. Hal says:

    NWGal, if you’ll notice anything I’ve been saying, it is that it is unbecoming to big yourself up with credentials. Leave compliments for others to give you, and don’t shower them on yourself. Most people wouldn’t dream of doing it.

    Does this mean you would have written a book and described yourself as excellent also on page one, as no proper publishing house would ever allow? Or would you have been able to write it properly?

    If you’re as clever as you are flouting, wouldn’t it be a start to truly think for yourself, and not believe everything one single poster says, without any reason? Instead, here you are discussing my qualifications, presumably having investigated the qualifications of the other author. Who is just the latest in a line of people Kevin has accused me of being when he refuses to deal with criticism. And it’s always marked by insults, claims of different identities and mental illness. The question is why would *you* believe such a thing? Especially as I’ve already explained it’s how he always reacts when he throws his toys out of the pram. And if you were at one point planning on being a published author, surely you winced at the bad writing (leading to false declarations about the subject of your book, no less) Kevin was happy to release via a publisher who will publish anything you pay them to, a la a vanity press, per their website.

  49. NW gal says:

    So, friends, getting back to our regularly scheduled program-

    It’s a beautiful summer in Seattle. I have some vacation time near the end of July. Would anyone like photos of places or sites?

    Just a caveat- I don’t bother Bundy’s brother and sister who live nearby. I also don’t bother Liz and her (now grown with a child of her own) daughter.

    1. Tony says:

      The alley Georgann Hawkins disappeared from. The site where he took her, if you can find it based on Bundy’s description in Riverman. (I know there was a guy on the old Bundy message boards who claimed to have tracked it down and had some pics). And if you ever make it out that way, I’d like to see some pics of the relevant areas at Evergreen State College.

      1. NW gal says:

        Hi Tony

        I will work on these for you. I may not get down to Evergreen by the end of July but will be there in August for an event. I’m assuming you would like the library, sidewalks, light for sidewalks, potential parking spots? I can’t remember if there was a theory that Ted met her in a little cafe/pub/food area rather than the library? Maybe someone can chime in. If either is possible (aside from a meeting on the walkway), I can attempt to get photos of all of the spots

        1. Kevin M Sullivan says:

          Hi NW gal,

          It is unknown where Bundy encountered her, but it would be one of only two places: the outer area of the library, or the trail leading from her apartment to the library. And because no one saw them, we may never know the actual encounter location.

          I had a guy contact me through WildBlue Press that has both my books on audio and has never seen the pics from the books. Now, when I added the photos at the Trail of Ted Bundy page, I only added those pics that were not in the book. Now I’m thinking I should put some of them in the site for all to see, and that I shouldn’t assume everyone has seen the pics from the book. That said, I’ll be adding more.

          1. NW gal says:

            Wild Blue Press?!??

            Oh no, I can’t talk them unless I am self-publishing a book !! And I am banned by them as I don’t own part of it.

            I was an English major and will work hard to ruin my grammar.

          2. Kevin M Sullivan says:

            That’s the bunch lol!

        2. Kevin M Sullivan says:

          Some good areas to photograph would be the first year student housing, which today is still in the same location as when Donna was there. And then the trails lead westerly from there to the library. I assume she took the shortest route, given it was rainy and she wanted to get to the library perhaps as quickly as possible.

          Anyway, you should have a very interesting time while there!

        3. Tony says:

          NW Gal,

          Just anything relevant to Manson or her disappearance… I admit it’s been awhile since I’ve read up on the details of the early disappearances. (I’ve read/listened to Ted’s confessions and “speculations,” a few times over the years — my copy of Conversations was well-worn, back when I still had it — but I haven’t given The Stranger Beside Me or Larsen’s book, for instance, another read-through in many, many moons.

        4. Meaghan says:

          I applied to Evergreen when I was looking at colleges. I was accepted, but elected to go elsewhere.

          The first place I’d ever heard about Evergreen from was Ann Rule’s book about Ted Bundy.

  50. Hal says:

    KYGB, seriously, you’re just going to ape your master with the ‘Hal/Rob’ crap? That’s the entire content of your post. How old are you for god’s sake? Why waste your breath telling me to promote something I have nothing to do with, haven’t bought and haven’t read? And why have you also failed to deal with anything said, except this lapdog act?

    I see Kevin has convinced his apologists that a critic of his book has to be the competition. That’s disturbing. Gal and Kygb: are you blindly going to believe every conspiracy theory? Why would you two believe such a thing? Kevin makes these statements all the time.

    In any case, if he really believes this is a conspiracy, he should contact the site owner who will be able to tell him I have posted from the UK. From his Facebook page, I assume Rob is based/from either Australia or America. Either way, he will clearly not be me. I’m sure Kevin would rather remain ignorant however, rather than have these childish conspiracy bubbles burst.

    Kevin did this before. When I pointed out a glaring error in his book, not only was I met with compliments he received from detectives (on a day they probably found themselves short of lollipops), in a way that shows he has no shame, the poster who agreed with me was automatically accused of being someone else. This is called a modus operandi.

    Also, I see neither of you (nor Kevin) have defended the parts of the book shown to be error strewn and written to the standard of a 13 year old. Nor have you been concerned about Kevin pretending he is only guilty of typos when that clearly isn’t the case, nor was suggested. (Yes, the books are strewn with typos in a number you would never find in a book from a reputable publisher – in print or on Kindle – but that is irrevelant compared to the other transgressions, nor worth mentioning in the circumstances).

    So aside from nutty conspiracy theories, claiming unpublishable writing is a few typos, and his usual insults, he’s now added vanity publishing to his list.

    And it is kinda funny that Kevin claims I must be someone else and he has proof he is keeping hidden apparently (it all sounds very Donald ‘I’ve heard some things’ Trump to me). And yet so far, you two have failed to say anything that he hasn’t? Both times you have come back repeating the one point he’s just made. Am I to assume that at least one of you must be Kevin, since that’s apparently how he thinks the world operates? Am I to assume Gal, when you claimed the other book was inaccurate but refused to prove it, you were attacking the book without grounds? Trolling it, in your words?

    Kevin’s latest bit of deflection: ghostwriting is not vanity publishing. No. But vanity publishing is vanity publishing, right? This is why I broke the quote in two showing you were doing both and making your predictable excuse apparent before the fact. I set ‘em up, you knock ‘em in.

    Kevin can say ‘it’s not my thing’ all he wants, but the fact remains that his current ‘press’ will publish anything for cash as their website clearly states, on any subject whatsoever. They will even lie about the actual authorship. And then put it out in the same fashion and imprint as their current catalogue of books. Shameless.

    Surely it goes without saying that a reputable author wouldn’t deal with such a publisher who will allow the public to pay to join the roster, with any subject they like.

    This is vanity publishing. Which Kevin denied over and over they were doing. Well, they are. (Will his next defence be that they are a ‘failed’ vanity publisher?)

    Kevin, having already deflected that it’s just ghost writing, and not acknowledging the vanity publishing side, despite my attempts to make such a deflection too obvious in advance, then makes a few incorrect or misleading assertions.

    Firstly, none of the authors he knows do it. Well, he claims he’s in a partnership with these authors, and the website claims it is infact these authors who are doing it. So if we believe Kevin, at best he is just in the dark about lowly practices at his printing press. And has somehow managed to miss it spelled out on the website.

    Also, to claim proper publishers also use ghost writers is not the issue. Another deflection. They use ghost writers on books they are desperate to publish and pay the credited author a sizeable advance on. Only they are likely in the public eye and have no writing experience (or just not the time). Hence the ghost writing.

    This is not ghost writing on a random book from a paying member of the public. I.E. it is not the vanity publishing you are involved with, but something entirely different. (Not to mention in most cases these days, the ghost writer will be properly credited as co-author or at least acknowledged inside)

    If anything, Kevin has, by his example, shown how WildBluePress are not ghost writing in the traditional sense, but purely as an arm of vanity publishing. Cheers.

    And Kevin, please, I’ve asked you to be less shameless in bigging yourself up and deal with the inadequacy of the book, as shown in detail. You can’t keep saying you’re fantastic, or calling your own book ‘excellent’ on page bloody one, then showing you can’t even write ‘Ted was born to Louise Bundy’ a page later without making a car crash of it. Writing in awful English, and making two claims, one of which you can’t state as a fact, and the second of which you just know to be somewhere between outright crap and incredibly innacurate. And you repeat words in this short sentence that a professional copy-editor would change in a heartbeat.

    You know, if you had one.

    1. NW gal says:

      The other book is inaccurate regarding Carole Ann Boone. Significantly. I refused to provide an obit because I am protecting privacy to include her husband’s, 5 children, grandchildren and friends.

      I did my own research for a book I planned to write after my doctoral work was finished. The book focused on the women who loved him: his mother, Liz and Carole.

      As I researched, I came to the conclusion that they deserved their privacy.

      I don’t care if you believe me. I don’t care what you think. As for advanced degrees, I have 2 masters and a doctorate. Big deal. You are living proof advanced degrees don’t make one a perfect researcher, writer, or person with manners.

      Nobody cares to debate you. We aren’t going to answer you. We are going to ignore you.

      We’re just not that into you.

    2. Kevin M Sullivan says:

      It doesn’t matter if you’re a HalRob or not. It doesn’t matter if you know him. It makes no difference if you don’t know him. You guys are just the same two peas in a very small pod. It is good that you have pratteled away like this as it give readers much information from the both of us, and you’ve clearly revealed yourself here.

      However, I would like you to enlighten us in a couple of things: where exactly do I say in ANY of my books that I am excellent or my books are excellent? Please show us? Of course, plenty of great things are said about my work, but never does it come from me.

      As to my books: those who really make a difference -the publishers and the readers-do not share your very odd and caustic views. They are normal individuals, with no axe to grind about anything, and I’m sure it bothers you that they do not believe your very odd rants.

      You never did answer me (you probably won’t) why the esteemed McGraw-Hill would quote verbatim from The Bundy Murders, when it’s so strewn with errors. Surely they should have re-written it? Again, you have no idea what you look like to other people.

      Go away, little man. Your inaccurate poison is not welcome here. But do answer me the questions I’ve put to you here; that is, if you can? Lol!

      Your embarrassment continues.,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>




Execution Playing Cards

Exclusively available on this site: our one-of-a-kind custom playing card deck.

Every card features a historical execution from England, France, Germany, or Russia!

Recent Comments

  • auswelllife: I must thank you for the efforts you have put in penning this blog. I really hope to view the same...
  • Arlene Bruinink: Thank you for the information. Konrad Breuning is my ancestor. I have learned this on “my...
  • Becky: Ignorant, racist and stuck on capslock is no way to live life. Have a great day!
  • World Traveler: Felipe Angeles was a brilliant man but wanted people to work 3 hours a day and live as if they had...
  • Sergio: I suppose you mean Grafanil military base.