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

1. Hi Jutta and welcome!

   You’re right about Susan Curtis and I mention that in my book!

   I look forward to reading the article on Georgann, and thanks for posting it.

   Glad you’re on board and I look forward to your future postings; when you’re not working, that is, LOL!

   Kevin

2. Hello everybody! I’m new here and wasn’t intending to post until I’d read the entire discussion thread (I’m about halfway through) AND Kevin’s book, which only arrived last week. Some great stuff in this ongoing discussion, and although I don’t agree with everybody’s theories and speculations, who am I to say!

   Anyhow … today marks 40 years since Georgann Hawkins vanished from the alley behind her sorority house. The local paper in Green Valley, AZ just published the following article about Georgann – lots of info I’ve never read before about this wonderful young lady who was described by her mother as a “Pied Piper.”

   http://www.gvnews.com/news/local/georgann-hawkins-died-at-the-hands-of-ted-bundy-but/article_f8cc5a4c-f103-11e3-8e31-0019bb2963f4.html

   Gotta go now – I’m at work! (hee hee) Oh and BTW I too agree that Bundy went back into the Viewmont auditorium looking for victim #2. In fact I’ve always thought of Viewmont as the “Utah Lake Sammammish.”

   Sadly, Bundy did take a second person from the auditorium, only it wasn’t on that night. Susan Curtis, the last person he confessed to murdering, was in attendance at that very same play…. small world.

3. Very nice contributions Hal! You’ve got me thinking about some things! I especially enjoyed the parallels you discuss between Lake Sam and the Auditorium. I think you’re on the right track with your thought that Bundy was going back for a second victim in the auditorium. He was so humiliated and defeated by his botched abduction of Carol Daronch that his “entity” would have demanded more than usual. His level of “stress” as he discusses would have been higher than usual and would need a bigger “release” to get the “evil genie” back in the bottle.

   I also think that there is more to be learned from some of the people you have mentioned…especially now that it can be reflected upon in retrospect and “seen” in an older and wiser light.

   That is pretty wild to think that Bundy was gang raped in prison. Would this have been possible in his separated Death Row cell??? Or is it gurads who supposedly did it? One thing to point out is that if he had been gang raped…there would have been more than just foam coming out of his mouth… there would be blood on floor from the repeated anal penetration.

   Food for thought.

4. Thanks, Hal.

5. Just another bit of info regarding how unique (or otherwise) Ted’s ‘Florida Frenzy’ was… on pg 293, top, of Defending The Devil, we get a transcript of Ted talking to Dr Tanay less than 24 hours from death. Here he confirms that Florida was bad by his standards but that this kind of frenzy had happened before ‘once or twice’ in previous murders the cops were fully aware of (but perhaps not of how off the chart he was when he did it). Given what he told Keppel the night before, and your own work on the subject, Kent has to be one of these (imho). Carelessnes, and a desire for multiple victims.

6. I haven’t read the Kendall book, I think it’s the only one that has eluded me. I’ve only seen it for sale at around $300+, which is too much for a book, although I spent about four times that once on some of his correspondence. (By 1986 he was more or less admitting his guilt – in roundabout ways – to total strangers he was writing to).

   I’m slowly working my way through these pages, and you mentioned early on that Hagmaier may write one. I hope he does.

7. Hey Hal,

   I used Liz Kendall’s book, The Phantom Prince, as a research source for my book and it’s great.

   I don’t think there’s much to be gleaned from Diane Wiener, or Carol Boone, as Carol believed in his innocence for most of their time together.

   Yeah, I heard about the gang rape, but who knows?

   And yes, even with all the new stuff I was able to uncover oon the case, there is still a sense of mystery attached to the Bundy case. No so much concerning his nature, as we know that very well. But as to all the victims this is absolutely the case.

   See ya!

8. Hi Kevin,

   I dunno it Ted was big news in the UK in his lifetime. He was already gone before I ever heard of him, a newspaper article the day after his execution. He has been a fascinating enigma ever since.

   Although I agree you will likely be the last biographer to interview the usual suspects in depth, I think a fair bit about Ted is still out there to be discovered. Not least if (somewhat unlikely) someone gets one or all of his three main women to talk (Liz Kendall, Carole Boone and Diane Wiener).

   Even from just reading the books, you can often come to differing conclusions than the authors.

   Another example is Polly Nelson’s book, which is I think the sole source for Ted’s panic attacks beginning in 1986 which apparently left him almost unconscious and foaming at the mouth on his cell floor. I believe she attributes this to the death warrants and possibly his abandonment by Boone around the same time.

   Then if you read Dekle’s book on the Leach case, he says that staff at Starke Prison were saying Ted had been ‘gang raped’, I believe in ’86, although Ted was denying this (how could he not though?). It’s left open.

   With both of these bits of information together, though, suddenly the gang rape looks more than likely, and Polly Nelson’s theory about the panic attacks is probably wrong.

   Ted could handle guilt, could handle abandonment, was dealing with the death warrants as best as he could. But being the victim of a violent rape by other men?

   Ted short-circuited. I’m pretty sure.

   Cheers,

   Hal

9. Hi again, Hal,

   Who can say about these things? Bundy was unpredictable and as such nothing would surprise me. That said, I still think he built an alibi on that night based upon how many people saw him. But the truth of the matter is we can never know his true intentions in the matter. Just another Bundy mystery, I guess, LOL!

   I was first in London in 1972, and my last time there was 1977. A great city!

   Take care,

   Kevin

10. Hi Kevin,

    Many thanks for your response. I see where your coming from and you definitely sold me 100% that Bundy went back into the Auditorium, which was a great ‘discovery’.

    However, I still think the balance of probability strongly suggests he did it for a 2nd victim, and that providing himself an alibi is highly unlikely. I’ll try my best to explain why I think so. I now believe, thanks to your work on the subject, the day of Debbie Kent’s killing was a unique melting pot of his controlled multiple-victim Lake Sammamish spree, and his unhinged Florida killings. It shows hallmarks of both.

    As mentioned already, this was perhaps Bundy’s worst day (pre Florida meltdown). In fact, for several reasons, I believe he may have been close to his Florida self that night. Now, I may be wrong here. But Bundy’s attempts to lure victims over the course of his ‘career’ includes many near misses. However, what most (if not all?) of them (pre Florida) have in common is that they claim to have encountered Bundy, but were simply not picked up. No crazy tales. I don’t think many of them claimed that they thought he was a madman who clearly had something wrong with him. Obviously, by the Chi Omega and Kimberley Leach killings, the near misses had a different story to tell of a dead-eyed weirdo. As did, it seems, the woman Bundy tried to pick up in the Auditorium. I may have forgotten about other similar cases, but right now, she’s the only pre-Florida example of that that comes to mind.

    Bundy told Keppel a few days before Ol’ Sparky that the Kent killing was a particularly bad night. I don’t think he was in any fit state to (badly) try and fit himself up with an alibi. He’s in a crazed state, visibly so, and has managed to get very lucky when Kent gets up early and walks out. He knocks her unconscious and (presumably) covers her in his car. Her screams have been heard however. And she’s fought him off a bit. At this point, he should have (sorry, I’m talking from his perspective, I hope you know how I mean this) got into the car and sped off.

    But he takes a HUGE risk by going back in, and doesn’t even fix himself up. A much bigger risk than having no alibi (and still being unknown and not local) would have provided. I’m sure he was still hopeful of picking up the woman from earlier, or maybe he was hoping he’d get lucky again and a young girl would suddenly get up and head for the exit and that he’d follow. But at the point Kent is in his car, and Bundy unexpectedly turns around and heads back in, I can only reconcile this with further murderous intent and nothing else.

    I listened to that podcast – thanks! You make some good points about how Lake Sammamish was where it all went wrong, even if it didn’t catch up with him for some time. Two victims. From a crowded place he went straight back to, even although he’d already been made, just like he did at that Auditorium. Both crowded. Hell, at Sammamish they even had his name and car. But he didn’t give a rat’s ass, because he just wasn’t wired that way. And he was far more in control of himself (and more sober) at Samm than he was the day of the DaRonch kidnapping.

    If Bundy was truly the operator he would have liked to have been, taking the minimum of chances, he would have packed up for the day the moment his first intended victim at Lake Samm turned him down having seen his car. He would have covered his ass. No one would have remembered. But he didn’t. Probably couldn’t. Too impulsive.

    He was far more out of control on the night of the Kent abduction. Almost certainly drunker. And a man who didn’t cover himself at Samm would almost certainly not have attempted to in Bountiful. Especially not with a still-living victim right there at the scene in his car.

    Added to which, although planning and caution had been hallmarks throughout, I’m not sure there is a single instance of Bundy trying to cover himself with an alibi. In fact, with gas receipts, etc, he was actually very careless in this regard from very early on. So I’m near-certain this was a more frenzied repeat of Lake Samm in the making which quickly looked too risky and he bolted.

    Oh, I’m from and live just outside London, England by the way.

    Cheers,

    Hal

11. Hi Hal!

    Well, a couple of things: First, you’re right, that’s a possibility, as he did that successfully at Lake Sammamish in WA in July of ’74. That said, I don’t think so and here’s why:

    When Bundy re-entered the auditorium he sat down and made no attempt to talk to any one. He was disheveled, his shirt was hanging halfway out, and he no doubt generally looked like a mess. This much is known.

    I received a lot of information from Mike Fisher, the Colorado investigator, who went to Utah and did a thorough investigation himself, interviewing many people who were there that night. So all Bundy did when he came back into the theater was sit there. he didn’t say at word. Unlike before, there was no asking women to go out to his car, or any communication whatsoever. So what’s the point of coming back in, as there had to be one?

    From this I hypothesized that Bundy was wanting to be seen only, and if this is true, why? That is where my theory came from that I explained in the book. And, of course, I present it as a theory in my book.

    Also, there was still, even in that altered state of mind, a big difference between Bundy on that night and Florida where he suffered a massive meltdown as to his MO and overall actions. In Florida he made constant mistakes (and didn’t care!) and spiraled down even as to how he killed which is so evident in the Chi Omega attack. When you get to the Florida section of my book you’ll see what I mean.

    Say, Hal, where are you from?

    Here’s a link to a 90 minute podcast I participated in recently.

    http://raasnio.com/GenerationWhyPodcast/ted-bundy/

    Take care, friend!

    Kevin

12. Hello Kevin,

    I’ve been reading your book, but disagreed with a few points. I appreciated the new deconstruction of the Debbie Kent abduction (that Bundy abducted her, but then re-entered the Auditorium), but not so sure on the reason why.

    It appears to me that on this night, he was as unhinged as he would ever become prior to Florida. He more or less said so much on his last weekend.

    You must have at least considered that he went back inside to find another victim, and not to provide himself an alibi. I think he was way beyond the latter by this point, and surely his ruffled appearance doesn’t help the case for that argument either.

    I think he had to make up for the Carol DaRonch fiasco and intended to do so by taking two victims at once. Otherwise, he would have sped off right away. I think he was probably just another beer away from pulling out a crowbar right there in the auditorium!

    Anyway, I was wondering if there was a particular reason you discounted that.

    Cheers,

    Hal.

13. Hi John,

    Well, it wouldn’t surprise me as Bundy killed more people than he named or admitted to. So it’s possible. I know that when I started my research I learned of a couple of WA victims who were for years considered Ted victims but DNA has ruled others in and Bundy out.

    I can’t remember now, but what are the circumstances of the Jolly disappearance?

14. Kevin do you know anything about Rita Jolly? In my opinion she was a bundy victim. Bundy confessed to killing two women In Oregon without Identifying them and they are suspected to have been rita and Vicki Hollar.

15. Yes indeed, the “eyewitness” info that kept the cops busy. It seems they were seen everywhere, but the truth is they were all already dead. A real time waster.

16. I’m interested, Ted.

17. In rummaging through a couple of boxes in my garage while attempting my annually futile spring cleaning, I found all of the documents I ordered three years ago from the King County archives about the Bundy case/investigation. Many of you will recall that I transcribed some of the witness statements from the time and posted them here so that we could all discuss whether we thought the witness saw Bundy, or somebody else whom s/he thought was Bundy. A couple of the reports seemed like they could definitely have been legitimate Bundy sightings; the others were definitely not.

    One of the things I noticed when going through these documents just recently is how many people came forward to the police to report something they thought might be significant and useful for the investigation into the then-unknown serial killer. Many reported seeing Susan Rancourt, Kathy Parks, Lynda Healy, Georgann Hawkins, Brenda Ball, Jan Ott or Denise Naslund in California, Wyoming, New Jersey, Texas or Wisconsin. Because the police were obligated to follow up on the majority of these tips (all of which turned out to be dead ends), it’s likely that the sheer volume of work impeded the successful resolution of the case. In other words, Bundy’s killing career was allowed to continue because the police – through no fault of their own – were bogged down in following up on the thousands of tips that came in.

    Today, of course, the use of sophisticated computer systems and new and more nimble ways to communicate and share information with law enforcement agencies across the country would have allowed the police to dispense with the work-intensive follow-up tasks by entering the tips into a computer and making the computer do the work. I think it would have shortened Bundy’s murderous career at least a little.

    More revelations from the tens of thousands of pages from the investigation I have in my dusty garage will be forthcoming, if you’re interested.

18. Irish,

    Are folks allowed to take away relics from the various battle sites? I worked at Death Valley Nat’l Park here in the States for a few months a few years back, and you weren’t even allowed to pick up rocks or firewood there. Metal detectors were strictly prohibited.

19. Jane,

    I suppose most people would consider “torture” to be suffering inflicted, above and beyond what’s necessary in order to kill or incapacitate a victim, either for its own sake (such as for revenge or sexual gratification), or to extract information, a confession, or such like that.

    Now, of course, suffering doesn’t necessarily have to mean physical pain. If he kept the victims alive for prolonged periods in order to torment or emotionally terrorize them, I would consider that a form of at least psychological torture. But I don’t think that was Ted’s M.O.

    Based on some of his statements about not wanting to personalize a victim, not wanting to talk to her for any longer than necessary after getting her into his car, and in particular his sort of awkward comments about the interaction between himself and Georgann Hawkins the night she died, I think a lot of crying, pleading, begging for her life, etc. would have been uncomfortable for Ted, and he would have wanted to “shut the poor girl up,” so to speak, as quickly as possible in most cases.

    Now, I do believe there may have been instances where he “experimented” with more sadistic types of murder (such as drowning in the Colorado case, or letting the girl — Julie Cunningham? — run for a bit before bringing her down later on). But for one reason or another he probably found that these methods just didn’t “do it for him,” if you will, which is why he mostly stuck to luring girls away w/ a ruse, abducting them, conking them on the head, transporting them to a remote location, then strangling them and… ahem… well, you know the rest.

20. Hi jane,

    No, pain inflicted during murder is not the same as torture. Even if Bundy enjoyed it it’s not the same as torture. Torture is meant to inflict pain and not cause death. Webster defines torture as follow: “the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something”

    No, Bundy didn’t confuse his victims. He followed the cases closely and knew all their names. I’m convinced if he ever said otherwise he was lying.

    He may have strangled Healy and caused her to pass out. He may have also caused her to have a nose bleed.

    🙂

21. @jane: The Jack the Ripper envelope DNA was pretty much BS. A famous letter was sent to the news media, not to the police, by someone claiming to be JTR. (In fact, that’s how we got the “Jack the Ripper” name; that was the letter’s signature.)

    It was never verified that this letter was really from the serial killer, and many more such communications were received, including one in a package containing an actual human kidney. Many Ripperologists (that’s the name for scholars of JTR) believe NONE of the Ripper letters were genuine, except for maybe the kidney one, and the jury’s still out on that one.

22. Kevin, I will never understand why you don’t equate being clobbered with a tire iron and death by strangulation as torture. The cracking of skulls and jaws are certainly extremely painful and many victims were hit more than once and were not killed instantly. Strangulation must also be horrific as a person struggles for air. These deaths are not instantaneous.

    In any event, I’ve reread TOLW and skimmed the Riverman.
    In The Riverman, Bundy told Keppel & another investigator who came out to interview him: “Some people…deserved to be sadistically murdered and raped.” (p. 275)

    As to his end of life confessions, his mother and Carole Boone’s son (and I’m sure Carole Boone), BEGGED him not to confess. A priest in Florida who gave him confession in Florida told him not to talk to police, per TOLW. (How disgusting is that?) Since he was bargaining for more time to live, what benefit would he get from telling of additional murders? It could only make him look worse and cause more pain to his loved ones.

    In reading the posts since I’ve last been here, a couple of followups::

    Re Healy’s blood on her pillow: When asked about it, he said you’d have to understand the physiology of strangulation, insinuating the blood came from her head area. He also said the abduction was “one of the first” done in that manner, not the first.

    To the poster who asked if Bundy might change: In Riverman, he said serial killers never, ever stop or reform.

    Liz Kendall asked him, after he’d been arrested in Florida, if she had anything to do with his being a murderer. He said no, that he’d been like that for a long time and said it broke “in ’71, ’72, ’73.”

    Re the Oliverson controversy above: He told Michaud he was “terrible with names and faces.” Is it possible he confuses his many, many victims?

    A little off topic: I saw a BBC show not long ago on Jack the Ripper. Seems DNA was obtained from one of the envelopes sent to police as the Ripper liked to communicate with police. Saliva, of course, was used to lick the envelope. It was FEMALE DNA! There was always one woman in the group of male suspects – a stern-looking midwife but she was always considered a real longshot.

23. Thanks, Irish. I feel like we’re now friends!

    Kevin 🙂

24. You’d be very welcome. 🙂 We’d love to have you. Every country has it’s stories. Yours are most fascinating to me.

25. Fascinating history, Irish! I do hope to get there one day.

    I think we could easily talk for hours about these things, LOL!

    Have a great day.

    Kevin

26. Hi Kevin

    I have yes, a couple of Mauser shells and a button (British). Those that do this sort of thing as a hobby have found far more.

    AKA the Battle of the Ncome, which was it’s name before the river ran red with Zulu blood.

    Deliverance and or providence for the Boers can be argued from both sides. General Ndela, the protector of Prince Mpande had 10 000 troops that he never sent into battle and they were a top fighting squad. The general was later strangled by Dingaan for this decision. Shaka had also changed the assegaai from a throwing spear to a stabbing spear, infinitely increasing the chances of the warrior being killed.

    Blood River was in retaliation for the despicable slaughter of Piet Retief and his delegation and the follow up murders. Retief and co. had gone to sign a treaty with Dingaan whereby the Boers bought land from the Zulu’s. Dingaan signed it and his generals witnessed it. Then they invited Retief and his men to stay for some dancing (basically invited them to a celebratory drink). Once in the kraal, the Zulu’s did to Retief what they did to the British at Isandlwana. They disembowled them while they were still alive and proceeded to impale them on stakes. Retief was forced to watch them do this to all 98 of his men. He was left for last.

    After the Battle of Blood River Andries Pretorius the Boer leader at Blood River went to Dingaan’s kraal and retrieved the bodies of Piet Retief and the other Boers. According to legend the bones of the corpses were still impaled.

    Have a lovely day.

27. Hey, Irish,

    Yes, the Boer wars are fascinating. I remember when I picked up a copy of Ian Knight’s “Great Zulu Battles 1838 – 1906”, the first chapter I read was detailing the Battle of Blood River.

    Have you found artifacts from any of the battle sites? I’ve found things from the WW1 and WW2 battlefields; and some folks I know have been using metal detectors to uncover cannon balls, bullets and other accouterments from the armies of the American Civil War.

    I plan on picking up a copy of BULALA very soon.

    Kevin

28. Hi Kevin

    I would have thought he put duct tape over their mouths. He was so careful I didn’t think the idea of the victim screaming would escape him.

    From what I have read (very little) the 70’s gave him a lot of freedom to change his MO but he didn’t really. He stuck to what worked mostly. I wondered what was special about the drowning. I don’t think the obvious answer may be the correct one. He had alternatives in that hotel room, drowning her was a considered choice – IMHO. But hey, like I said I could be wrong.

    The British were annihilated by the Zulu’s at Isandlwana, it was not a good day for the British. You’d be very welcome. Between the Zulu wars, the Kaffir wars and the Anglo Boer Wars there are places where you literally cannot walk without stumbling on something from a battle.

    To me the most interesting aspect has always been the life and death of the Boer Republics and the Anglo Boer Wars. Many military strategies applied by the British in WWI were from trial and error in the Anglo Boer Wars, like the concentration camps, guerrilla warfare and the switch to Khaki uniforms, amongst other things.

    A little known fact – it’s the Zulu’s who are the foreigners in Natal, although the Europeans aren’t indigenous peoples their history goes back to De Gama who first discovered Natal. 🙂 Two centuries before the arrival of the Nguni people.

    A good book to read is BULALA – Author: Cuan Elgin. Bulala means kill in Zulu. It’s our true story, the bad, the mad and the beautiful.

    Enjoy your day. 🙂

29. Hi Irish,

    He used rope to bind hands and feet rather than duct tape. He also tore a bed sheet into strips and would use these to bind hands and feet. The electrical cord was for choking only.

    Bundy used the crowbar to whack many of his victims in the head (Melissa Smith, for example) and would finish them off through strangulation. Some he would capture by ruse (Kathy Parks), bind her and lead her to the place he would kill her. Lynette Culver, 12, he drowned in the bathtub in his hotel room in Pocatello, Idaho. So the MO could change. But the crowbar and electrical cord were the two main tools he used to kill his victims.

    BTW: I have always wanted to visit Rorke’s Drift and Isandlwana. I have read at least 5 or 6 books about the Zulu wars (they’ll always be in my library). Very interesting stuff!

30. Hello Kevin

    I apologise for my tardy reply. 🙂 Thank you so much, I shall proceed immediately to your podcast.

    I think it’s because Bundy was already dead by the time I became aware of serial killers that he’s not compulsive for me to understand. Which is a mistake on my part, because there’s never been anyone quite like him before or since.

    Question: Where is the duct tape in his kit? I do understand the outcome for the victim but since he was a sexual sadist/predator – did the above kit help him to incapacitate the victim to rape first then murder or was his MO the other way around?

    I live in Johannesburg, South Africa. 🙂 Yes, we are here as well… Lol

    Keep well.

31. Hey, Irish…

    Here’s a link to a 90 minute podcast I recently took part in that I think you’ll find quite interesting. Not having read any of the Bundy bios, it should give you a really good overview:

    http://raasnio.com/GenerationWhyPodcast/ted-bundy/

    Take care,

    Kevin

32. Bundy put quite a bit of effort into his “work”. Both carrying and dragging bodies apparently was not a problem for him. Now, he may – and I stress may – have used the ski mask on occasion as he was disposing of the bodies in cold weather for warmth and protection if someone spotted a guy dragging a body. The mask would offer some protection during such a scenario. While this is speculation only, we know the ski mask was a part of his kit.

    I don’t think the gloves were to prevent fingerprint transfer, etc, but were just for the dragging of bodies; very often in cool or cold weather.

    Bundy did play the victim on occasion. As to which hand or arm, it may have been his left. And he would sometimes feign a leg injury.

    It’s certain Bundy killed in six states and there were occasions he confessed to other murders in other states. He told Ron Holmes (I found this out during my 2007 interview of Holmes) he killed a girl when he returned to his birth state of Vermont, but he later recanted it to someone else. So, it could be several or more than several states he left victims. Who knows?

    Say, Irish, where on the planet are you located (if you don’t mind me asking, LOL!)?

33. What I know about Bundy is dangerous!! LOL I have never read a Bundy book, so I bow to your superior knowledge Kevin. He could have been ambidextrous, it would explain assigning certain functions to certain hands.

    Why would he follow the path of most resistance? Why not walk the victim to the point of disposal (killing) and then bludgeon them?

    Didn’t Bundy also play the victim sometimes to elicit help, arm in a sling or something? If so which arm was in the sling?

    Coming back to the gloves [sorry 🙂 ], if they were purely to minimize forensic transfer and fingerprints, it’s very hard to imagine that such an organized serial killer would not wear gloves on both hands. Then again I don’t know much about his methods.

    Another thing is the ski mask, it doesn’t fit. None of his victims survived… am I correct? So why worry about the victim seeing his face? Plus he’s very narcisstic, why would he hide his face?

    Lastly getting back to the Grand Rapids murder, Bundy doesn’t seem the type to confess on someone else’s behalf. He was too selfish to take the rap for someone else, however much he would have loved to claim another, the thrill would not be there… It’s not his “one”. I think GR is his.

    Thanks for answering the novice Kevin, appreciate it.

34. Hi Irish,

    It’s my opinion that Bundy preferred dragging bodies over terrain with his right hand. Even if he was left-handed (I seem to recall someone telling me that during my research, but I won’t swear to it, LOL!), he, for whatever reason, used his right hand. Could it be an injury with his left arm or shoulder that aggravated him? Who knows?

    Thanks for your post and I hope you to hear from you again.

    Kevin

35. I don’t know if the question has been asked on this thread (my apologies if it has) – why are there two different right hand gloves in the photo?

    About bludgeoning – it’s control. Bundy wanted to maintain control of the situation at all times, it makes sense to incapacitate the victim as quickly as possible especially if the perpetrator isn’t in control of the surrounding enviroment IE he decides about disposal on the fly.

    Long Island killer – will change his MO since it’s in the media, often things in the beginning of an investigation are overlooked. If I was standing on Long Island as the master of all I survey – where would I be standing? He is a narcissist, he has been bragging, probably where he finds his victims – on the internet.

    I don’t think for one second Bundy did an honest or truthful thing ever. Everything he did or said was with an internal agenda in mind. Note how he dehumanises his victims in the link about the last tape recording, he calls them “one’s”, those are the one’s I was involved in. He refers to a body as an it, the young woman’s remains…. “It” wasn’t buried, he never saw them as anything more than a means to an end, hardly surprising that a name would escape him, I don’t think he knew most names.

    The other option is that I’m wrong, my 1 cent.. Haha

36. I do not believe in the murder of the convicted by inmates, but I do believe in the right of the states or the federal gov to put to death the evil doers.

    Regrettably, states like CA and KY are notoriously slow to do so, and it can be an expensive process. But it is a morally right process, in my view, and it should continue.

37. And then there’s Ariel Castro of Cleveland captives fame, who took a plea deal and got LWOPed rather than the death penalty. But his conditions were so miserable — solitary confinement 24/7 just to keep him from getting murdered by other prisoners — that like six weeks later he took his own life anyway.

38. Kevin – if you want these people dead right away why do you support capital punishment which preserves their lives for years and years when simply putting them in general population will cause them to be dispatched quickly and efficiently? Even Tom Leach supported life for Bundy because he was assured by inmates that Bundy would be taken care of if he went into general population.

39. Make that “multiple murderers…”

    Hi Meaghan.

40. I’m against the death penalty. I agree that some people’s crimes are still horrendous that they deserve to die, but I’m against the DP as an institution.

    The government is not very good determining who deserves the DP, and there have been too many cases where the person was probably innocent — even in the 21st century, like Cameron Willingham. I’m also concerned about issues like diminished capacity — mental illness, brain damage and mental retardation.

41. In my view, all multiple murders need killing. They need to be dead yesterday. That is the only true justice. They need to die as they made others die. It’s just that simple. To allow them to eat and watch TV and breath after they’ve done these terrible homicidal acts is absurd. Completely absurd.

42. I believe Richard is suggesting that, if knowing a particular state has the death penalty might actually attract killers to commit their crimes there (rather than acting as a deterrent, as it’s presumably supposed to), then the end — capturing killers and being allowed to execute them — may not justify the means.

    Personally, I’ve never bought that Ted went there because he was seeking out the death penalty. If anything, he may have been interested in the area for other reasons — salt air, climate, nearby college campus, far side of the country, etc. — and simply not been deterred by the greater likelihood of being executed.

    (I also believe — and I know this might be a controversial statement — that Ted at times fooled himself that he might be able to “lay low,” give up the killing, and lead a normal life. I think that, after two or three years in prison, if he could have controlled his impulses and walked the ((more or less)) straight and narrow in exchange for freedom, he would have done so. But stress, failure to get a job, etc. got him down and he wound up giving in to his compulsions).

    As far as whether executing killers is the right or just thing to do — I think people disagree about that, and given the fact that people disagree on so many questions of “morality,” I believe the law should, on balance, concern itself with protecting society, rather than delivering justice (enlightened, old testament-style, or otherwise). What’s necessary to protect society from killers is to prevent them from killing. If incarceration accomplishes that more efficiently than execution, then I believe incarceration is the better solution, from a pragmatic standpoint.

    Having the death penalty essentially requires having a whole other arm of the justice system, a whole other set of rules, procedures, etc., concerned with just those cases. It seems more sensible to me to treat all convicted multiple murderers the same — barring cases where severe mental illness might be a mitigating factor, perhaps.

43. Although the death penalty may act as a deterrent is some cases, it can also act as an incentive, drawing risk takers like Bundy, glory seekers like Rolling, and suicides. Dr. Katherine van Wormer, who studied suicide-murder (suicide by capital punishment), says “Within prison and without, there are certain disturbed individuals—mostly men and mostly whites—for whom the prospect of execution was highly appealing.” She cites “22 cases of murderers in the U.S. who killed in hopes of getting themselves executed.”

    http://www.uni.edu/vanworme/murder-suicide.html

    One of the classic cases is that of James French (OK, 1966)

    http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=567

    States that implement capital punishment put their citizens at risk.

44. Hi Richard,

    Perhaps I’m missing something, but what do you mean by this:

    “Is it the right thing to do to attract killers, sacrificing our children, so we can bag them and make an example out of them?”

45. When Ted Bundy asked attorney John Henry Browne in what state people would most likely be executed, Browne’s answer was that, “It’d probably be Florida now.”

    Rather than fleeing to a state without capital punishment, Bundy escaped to a state that he knew would most likely execute him.

    Journalist Richard Larsen questioned whether Ted Bundy went to Florida “to play his thrilling drama on the most ominous of stages.”

    Bundy’s interviews with Dr. Ronald M. Holmes, Professor Emeritus of Justice Administration at the University of Louisville, verified Larsen’s suspicion when Bundy “said that the reason he went to Florida was that he knew Florida had the death penalty, and if he was caught for his crimes he would be executed. He added ‘the greater the risk, the greater the thrill.’”

    Michael Mello, internationally recognized authority on the death penalty and capital punishment issues, believed that, beyond the risk attraction, “if caught, he [Bundy] wanted the celebrity of a high-profile trial and execution.”

    This is not an isolated case.

    Is it the right thing to do to attract killers, sacrificing our children, so we can bag them and make an example out of them?

46. Hi Tony,

    The death penalty is worth it because it’s the right thing to do. It’s the proper, right, and just thing to do. These folks just need to be dead. Any other sentence is a miscarriage of justice, in my opinion

47. It’s almost enough to make one wonder if the death penalty process is even worth it… why not just lock the guy up forever and dispense with all the stays, appeals, death warrants, etc.?

    I guess I just don’t understand that determination to spend thousands (millions?) of dollars and years (decades?) trying to put a man to death, and for what purpose? To prove a point? to satisfy some notion of justice, or satiate the family members’ desire for revenge? What practical purpose does it serve? The guy’s in jail… society’s protected from him.

    I know, Ted escaped, blah blah blah… but let’s face it, Ted was locked away successfully for over ten years by the time he was put down. I doubt he had another escape in him, and I doubt many other cons do either. America’s commitment to the death penalty is more about us proving what big balls we’ve got, and how we’re not gonna tolerate crime, than it is about getting justice for the victims.

48. Not trying to play thread cop,Tony. Your post about another serial Killer is valid. I was commenting abut the content of that link. The information in it totally creeped me out.

    With regard to Kraft, the main post I’d like to read is that Randy Kraft has been Executed Today. Kraft sits in San Quentin at age 69, not much closer to a valid execution date now than he did 30 years ago.

    He has a wide field of issues that he can still appeal. Most observers of California’s broken death penalty “system” feel Kraft stands a far better chance of dying of old age on the row than he ever does of being put to death for his many murders.

49. It’s an interesting story about a serial killer, from a perspective we don’t often get to appreciate (i.e., not that of a true crime author, armchair profiler, or law enforcement professional). I mean, how many times can we possibly discuss how many heads Ted did or didn’t have in his freezer at any one time, or whether he “tortured” the people they belonged to or not? I was just trying to shake things up a little bit, inject some new fodder into the proceedings.

50. Because Randy Kraft doesn’t have his own entry yet?

Comments are closed.