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:
-
Video of Wildwood Inn, where Bundy abducted Caryn Campbell in 1975. (From Timmy)
Thread commenter Richard A. Duffus wrote a 2012 book about Ted Bundy, Ted Bundy: The Felon’s Hook (Excerpt | Image from the book)
Video interview of Kevin M. Sullivan (From Richard A. Duffus)
On this day..
- 1522: Didrik Slagheck
- 1887: Georgette and Sylvain Thomas, guillotine couples act
- 1981: Not Kim Dae-jung, South Korean president and Nobel laureate
- 1641: Not Manuel de Gerrit de Reus, chosen by lot, saved by hemp
- 1970: Three in Baghdad
- 1538: Anna Jansz, Anabaptist
- 1963: Lazhar Chraiti and nine other Tunisian conspirators
- 1846: Elizabeth Van Valkenburgh, in her rocking chair
- 1936: Allen Foster, who fought Joe Louis
- 1911: Shusui Kotoku and ten other anarchists
- Daily Double: The High Treason Incident
- 1938: Han Fuqu, Koumintang general
- 1992: Ricky Ray Rector, "a date which ought to live in infamy for the Democratic Party"
Welcome, NW gal!
Thanks for the kind words; and yes, the folks in WA never say Lake Sam! We outsiders need to get better about this, lol!
As I recall, Gig Harbor, but that’s all I know about the cabin.
Don’t be a stranger, NW gal…
Kevin
Hello- I have spent the better part of the last 3 days reading this forum! Thank you, Kevin, for hosting it- and thanks also to everyone who participated!
I live very close to where the Bundy family cabin seems to be, if it is currently still standing. I would love to take a peek! Does anyone have the address ?
Also- Mario was correct; nobody says “Lake Sam”!
Hello Leon!
A few points:
“formed a pretty comprehensive argument against the ‘Alibi Theory.’” Not in my mind, but that’s great for those who see it another way. If you knew me you would understand that such opinions are fine with me. After all, it’s just a theory.
“and also there may be some fear of upsetting Kevin (?),” I hope not. I never become upset at a difference of opinion.
““Hal, I agree with you. What you have written makes a lot of sense,”” great.
“a long list of compelling arguments that counter Kevin’s theory – and in my opinion proved him wrong). ” That’s impossible, as you can’t prove a theory right or wrong unless you discover evidence. I discovered evidence in the Kathy Parks case when I met Lorraine Fargo. But here all evidence rests with Bundy so we’ll never know for sure why he back inside.
My theory stands firm with me for the reasons stated above. But truth be told, I don’t care why Bundy went back in that night. It’s not that important, but I must add that I’ve seen no evidence that would lead me to believe Bundy was still hunting. None whatsoever.
I appreciate all the comments pertaining to this theory, no matter what side one takes. It’s good honest discourse. As long as folks remain civil – on both sides – that’s all that matters.
Take care
I’m a huge fan of this forum, and have been visiting the website quite regularly since 2010 in order to read the often immensely interesting (though at times tedious) discussions on Ted Bundy. I’ve only commented a couple of times, mostly due to a lack of having anything interesting to add to the conversation, and also because I’ve genuinely (though not always) been quite enthralled by some of the information being shared by the people posting on here, and also by a fair few good ideas and hypotheses.
Anyway, I just felt that Hal’s recent posts were really, really good. They were well written, and formed a pretty comprehensive argument against the ‘Alibi Theory.’ I realise that some people may be tired of this back and forth and want to move on to another topic, and also there may be some fear of upsetting Kevin (?), and of course I don’t want to resuscitate a dispute that may have already died a natural death, but I just feel like saying “Hal, I agree with you. What you have written makes a lot of sense,” because a lot of regular posters seem to be keeping pretty quiet on the issue (not that it should be a competition where one takes sides, but it seems to me that Hal was sort of insulted, not only for strongly disagreeing with Kevin, but for actually taking the time to make a long list of compelling arguments that counter Kevin’s theory – and in my opinion proved him wrong).
Anyway, I don’t want to inflame the situation, but just wanted to add my support to what I thought were an intelligent series of posts on the strange abduction of Debra Kent.
Best wishes to everyone!
Forgive me all, but I must play editor…
I wrote above in post # 6938 “for it’s accuracy;”
It should read: “for its accuracy;”
Hey, Fiz.
Glad to see you back here – you lurker you, LOL!
Hi Jutta,
You know, despite his love for the arts (whatever love he had), I doubt if Bundy heard even a word of that play, lol!
“[PS: I hope nobody takes this seriously]”
Yes, I know your post was tongue-in-cheek!
Sounds good to me, Hal.
“Did the publisher ask you to change or rewrite anything?”
No. They loved the fact that it is so well documented. They did ask me to obtain written permission form everyone I interviewed so that I could use the quotes they gave me. A legal thing, I guess.
Kevin,
To keep it brief: I haven’t attacked you at all. It’s all been about the evidence. What I was trying to ‘prove’ was the subject under discussion, although I’ve felt it was like hitting my head against a brick wall. Does one single reader who has thought it through buy into your hypothesis? I believe you present speculation as fact far more than you claim to. And you’ve said your speculation should be subject to, and be able to survive, scrutiny. I don’t think it does.
We need to think out of the box. If Bundy does something new – and an indoor abduction attempt in front of (ok, maybe behind) 1500 seated people is blatantly in that category – we have to be mindful of that. And if he alters his behaviour after he’d just committed a capital crime (to some visible exertion), then we need to take that into account also. Ultimately though, hopefully for the last time, I’d just say this: let’s forget all the evidence presented against the alibi and for other propositions, and just leave this:
Bundy walked back in to the Auditorium looking like he’d just been in a fight. All we need.
As for quoting credentials, this is the equivalent of taking the stand. It invites cross examination. In the interest of the discussion, I won’t go there.
Well done on selling it though. Bundy sells. The 2002 film had made a very healthy profit before anyone had seen a single frame. And that’s close to unheard of these days. Did the publisher ask you to change or rewrite anything?
As for your personal comments, amateur psychology and comments about my lack of reaction to your ‘attempts at humour’, I’ll do the board a favour and ignore them.
The Ted Bundy play that’s been performed in London this last week turned out to be less about Bundy than just using a few things about him for an avant grade theatre piece. One shocking moment though: an audience member was pulled on stage, dressed as Bundy, including a pantyhose mask over his face, suspended from the ceiling, while the actor dressed himself, fairly convincingly, as Georgann Hawkins. He then tried to ‘recreate’ the moment she ‘came to’ as Bundy pulled her out of the car. They just looked at each other. For five minutes. Like hell, only creepier.
The Redhead was probably better.
Seriously, Jutta, how creepy is that that the play was about a murderer?
I’m sorry, but you’re ALL wrong. Ted went back so he could watch the exciting, dramatic conclusion of “The Redhead.”
Sound crazy? Hear me out. In addition to murder, and skiing, Ted was into theater. Remember his acting classes at Temple?
Coincidentally (or not?), The Redhead involves a murder mystery:
“[The Simpson Sisters’ Wax Museum is] preparing to unveil a new sketch in horror, the yet-unsolved strangulation of beautiful actress Ruth LaRue. The murder has captured the interest of the press and all of London.”
(info courtesy of the Guide to Musical Theater at http://www.guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_r/redhead.htm)
Hmmmmm……. AND — get this! — The Redhead takes place in London during the time of *Jack The Ripper*. Another coincidence? I don’t think so!
I’m glad to have solved this mystery once and for all so we can move to other mysteries, like: why was Ted considered a snazzy dresser when in every picture where he’s not wearing a business suit or jail uniform he dresses like a dork???
[PS: I hope nobody takes this seriously]
Thanks, Randy.
It’s been much to do about nothing, really.
I would second that,Kevin.Hope to resume discussion once the dust settles.Fingers crossed.
It’s coming to an end, Tony. 🙂
We’ve got people quoting Godfather III now. This sh*t is getting real.
Hal, you suggest that Bundy may have returned to the theater because he feared he lost something. That’s a reasonable theory given the fact that he did lose something, the key to his handcuffs which was recovered in the parking lot outside Viewmont High
As it was Debra Kent was at first felt to be a teenage runaway, police would not even take a formal missing persons report until 24 hours had elapsed.
Your theory is a much more plausible reason for returning, then foolishly returning to establish a alibi. The only think that accomplished was producing multiple eyewitness reports confirming that a stranger (Ted) was in the audience the night Debra vanished.
If he returned and sat down it more likely he was trying to be, if not invisible, at least not call attention to himself while he tried figure out if a search for the key was worth the risk.
It’s not like he had not taken risks to recover lost items in the past. He returned to the location he abducted Georgeann Hawkins from many hours later to retrieve her missing clog sandal. Even though he suspected (correctly) that enough time had passed that police had been contacted.
Hal…
You appear to be very bothered by all of this. Why? It’s like you’ve got something to “prove”, and to do so, attacking me – rather than discussing the theory – seems appropriate to you. Why? I find that very odd. Even my attempt at humor at the beginning of my post above was met with your attack mode of conversation. This must be your passive-aggressive stance to people you disagree with.
You are incorrect on so many points in your post that I don’t have time to correct them all. I just don’t. I’m now on my fifth book since the Bundy book was published.
The only thing I can say is I do not participate in speculation where said speculation is presented as fact. Never. I speculated on two things concerning the Kathy parks abduction, and when Lorraine Fargo came along she confirmed them. But in my book I tell readers that these things may be; that’s all. It just so happened that I was correct. I believe I’m correct here as well, but no matter if I’m not. In my book I give my opinion about this and present it as my opinion only.
Now, if you feel this strongly about Bundy, I suggest you write a book about him. Spend several years of your life tracking people and case files down, and learn every aspect of this case and the man inside and out. Then, write the book!!! Then, write yourself a really good book proposal – add query letter- and sell it to a publisher; hopefully within three weeks, as was my experience. And then, have an array of well-known true crime writers praise the book for it’s accuracy; something that is always gratifying coming from your peers. Now, after you’ve done that, come back and see me and we’ll talk.
>>> Hal… What am I going to do with you?! LOL!
Hey, I had dropped the issue, which seemed like the best thing to do a page ago. But just when I thought I was out, you pulled me back in with the post about excellent non fiction writing, and how some people were reporting speculation as ‘fact’ apparently. I think you were just as guilty of this. You also mentioned that speculation has to stand up to scrutiny or the writer should be prepared to face the fallout. This is the scrutiny. I don’t think it stands up at all. But to put it forward as a fact, and ignoring all other possibilities, or gigantic holes in the theory, has lead to all this… It’s not a vote, and means little, but I haven’t seen any support for the alibi as being even a viable theory so far.
I don’t expect you to budge from your position, or any already-published position, at this stage.
>>> That said, we will never know for sure why he sat down. He could have driven off with Kent and rested as he drove, if that was the problem. So I don’t believe he sat down because he was tired.
Neither do I. I believe he sat down because he was intending to get another victim. I wouldn’t stake my life on it, although oddly enough other theories can quickly morph into the 3rd victim theory. Let’s say he walks back because he thinks he dropped something. By the time he is back in there and sitting down, there is every likelihood he is now thinking about another victim. Even if it wasn’t the original purpose.
The rest, like tiredness, is just supportive, possibly explanatory circumstantial detail. Do I believe that’s why he sat down? Probably not on its own, if at all.
>>>He certainly wasn’t displaying any of his usual bodily movements connected to his hunting, and that is a fact.
Again, with the ‘fact’? Not only is it not a fact, but it’s so far the other way it isn’t even funny. Nor, I would say, remotely relevant.
Think about this for just a second. OK, what percentage of Bundy’s ‘hunting’ involved him just sitting down and observing? Maybe 98%? At least 95%, I’d say. With me? (He was in his car for most of it if anyone is feeling a bit lost).
And as for just waiting and observing… when he did get back behind the wheel for the next time (Caryn Campbell, Colorado), what did he do? That’s right, the best guess is that he just stood in a corner watching and waiting, possibly for a very, very long time. Certainly for longer than he was sitting down in the Auditorium. Very dedicated to just stand there doing nothing. And all before they’d invented the Walkman!
>>>So really, all we are left with is the alibi theory
C’mon now. Not only is it ridiculous, another theory has been put forward. To say an alibi is the only theory left at this stage, or even viable I’d say, is pure denial.
>>>And just because Bundy had never used an alibi does not mean he would never use one.
But it sure makes it considerably less likely. Especially when examining the alibi concept on this night exposes it as comical. It doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny at all.
>>>And no, he wasn’t melting down, thinking to himself it might be his last hurrah.
Based on what? Bundy had a meltdown and went into a crowded place looking like he’d just abducted someone. Pretty crazy stuff. Very un-Bundy so far. He absolutely DID NOT CARE ANY MORE and was living completely on the edge of capture.
>>>To believe that is to miss the various stages of Bundy’s life and where the real and verifiable degeneration occurred.
It had occurred before that, but he recovered. The evidence is there in droves, and we have Bundy’s own confirmation (which we don’t need, but it counts for something). Even if he had the tools after Bountiful for (a slow) recovery that he did not have in Florida: freedom, family, lover, money, daily purpose, etc.
>>>He was in an altered sexual and homicidal state, to be sure, but he was in that state for EVERY MURDER. So nothing new there.
Nothing new?!? Again, c’mon!
NEW! Bundy had lost an abductee for the first and only time
NEW! His ‘ruse’ degenerated into drunken incoherence for the one and only time.
NEW! Witnesses claimed he was blatantly sexually suggestive right from the off. The only known instance before Florida, and indeed worse than Florida.
NEW! He didn’t care how guilty he was looking when he went back in. This fact alone should really say it all. It’s like Bundy going back to Lake Sam with blood on his white tennis outfit.
NEW! He dispenses with a ruse altogether by the end! Kent is likely attacked without a word, which could make her the sole victim he’d attacked in this impatient, desperate fashion since he started killing for sure. That we would know of, and if true, but we both appear to agree.
>>>In Utah, like in WA, Bundy was in good control of himself UNTIL he was arrested in Aug. 1975.
This just doesn’t stand up to the facts as we know them. Bundy was now down to more than one victim a fortnight. DaRonch / Kent stopped him in his tracks and he waits more than 2 months for the next one. Bundy lost control that night in loads of ways. And appears to have gone back into ‘remorseful’ mode the next day in a way he hadn’t since very early on. Remorse only about nearly getting caught, of course. The gap between Kent and the next victim is EIGHT TIMES LONGER than the gap between DaRonch / Kent and the previous one. And he goes out of state to do it.
You know, we can really get into some WILD SPECULATION here. We don’t know that he DIDN’T get a third victim that day. There are certainly enough spare Utah victims in his confession to cover it, and Kent has never been found (where we would expect to find any same-day victim with her most likely).
There are problems with this theory (and I’m not saying I believe it). Kent would have to be in the ‘trunk’, although the evidence suggests his passenger seat was probably still in. I know nothing about VWs, to say whether a grown woman would fit, so someone can help me out here. And although Ted killed many that don’t appear to have been missed – sad as that is – I find it hard to believe such a person would attend a school play.
The evidence FOR (other than what we’ve been discussing), which I can’t source, and may be misremembering, is that I’m sure I read the witness seeing Ted drive away from the scene noted a companion in the VW. And that can’t have been Kent! But no, I don’t think this is likely.
On a related note, talking of plays, one of you fine American fellows is in London tonight doing a one-man theatre piece on Bundy which I will be attending. Reviews have been ecstatic so far. I will report back.
http://www.ovalhouse.com/whatson/detail/the-ted-bundy-project1
LOL! Hey, Tony.
“…it’s as ludicrous as suggesting he stopped at Chi Omega because he suddenly realised he was up past his bedtime.”
What?
Man, Hal really despises this alibi theory. I haven’t seen a discussion about a serial killer get this heated since 5 fangirls showed up to Ted’s trial, and the bailiff announced that only 4 would be allowed in.
“Let’s get ready to ruuuuuummmmmmbbbbbbllllleeeee….”
I hit the submit button before I was supposed to…
“That way he couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with the missing Debra Kent, as she left the school before he did. In his mind, the police would not view him as a suspect.”
Kevin M. Sullivan. The Bundy Murders: A Comprehensive History (p. 111). Kindle Edition.
Now, this is the way I see it, Hal. It fits for me. Also, I think we’ve done this now from every angle and so feel free to respond. But this will be my last post in defense of this theory I have as to what Bundy acted that night.
But I’ll jump right in on any new discussion!
See ya,
Kevin
Hal…
What am I going to do with you?! LOL! 🙂
No, the alibi theory isn’t being put to bed in my mind. It makes the most sense to me. That said, we will never know for sure why he sat down. He could have driven off with Kent and rested as he drove, if that was the problem. So I don’t believe he sat down because he was tired. He certainly wasn’t displaying any of his usual bodily movements connected to his hunting, and that is a fact. So really, all we are left with is the alibi theory (and that’s what it is). And just because Bundy had never used an alibi does not mean he would never use one. If Bundy was anything he was extremely unpredictable.
And no, he wasn’t melting down, thinking to himself it might be his last hurrah. To believe that is to miss the various stages of Bundy’s life and where the real and verifiable degeneration occurred. He was in an altered sexual and homicidal state, to be sure, but he was in that state for EVERY MURDER. So nothing new there.
In Utah, like in WA, Bundy was in good control of himself UNTIL he was arrested in Aug. 1975, and that’s when things started to change for him. And that change only got worse as time went on and the cops stated really closing in on him.
So we will have to agree to disagree on this small point. I may be right or I may be wrong, and you may be right or wrong. Who can say for sure.
From my book:
“The first was that he knew he’d been seen by many people that night. If he was seen leaving exactly when Debbie Kent left, this could bring immediate suspicion upon him, especially if anyone there had actually recognized him. Having no doubt whacked her in the same way he attacked his previous victims, he knew she’d be out for some time, and from previous experience, he understood she might never regain consciousness. Placing her in his VW) especially if he’d removed the passenger seat as he often did, allowed him to quickly lay her down and cover her before returning inside. Once he was back inside the theater he would be seen by numerous people in that same section, and the longer he stayed, the better it would look for him.
Kevin M. Sullivan. The Bundy Murders: A Comprehensive History (p. 111). Kindle Edition.
Jutta,
Actually, Ted still had all of his marbles even after that night. He really didn’t start to descend as a killer until Florida. That’s when a major change occurred within his personality.
Yes, he lost control of DaRonch, but it would have been impossible for him to return home that night without a “kill” as he was in that altered state and ready to commit murder.
As far as the skull mandible question concerning Ott, well, it’s been years now since I did the research and writing of the book, so I can’t swear to who said what about any of it. However, I can tell you that whatever I put within my book came directly from the police files. That’s all I know.
OK, let’s try and put this ‘alibi’ theory to bed once and for all, if we can. I’m amazed it made it to publication, but surely we can finish it off here. The evidence for it is no more than ‘Ted sat down’, which is not only better served in the ‘2nd victim theory’, imho (although that should be the ‘3rd victim theory’), it doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense, and most importantly goes against everything we know about Bundy. To me, it’s as ludicrous as suggesting he stopped at Chi Omega because he suddenly realised he was up past his bedtime.
Why Bundy wouldn’t have gone for an alibi THAT NIGHT:
• He was in a bad place, having just lost control of an abductee for the first time ever. It’s entirely possible he thought the game was almost up. He may even have viewed this as his ‘last hurrah’.
• Clearly, his demons were over-riding any attempt to cut his losses for the day.
• His thinking / methods degenerate drastically as the night wears on. Not the time for a rethink on his methods.
• He had a victim in his car already. Unconscious. The Hunchback doesn’t walk away from that without a good reason. Which this aint…
Why this alibi theory belongs in a LESLIE NIELSEN FILM:
• If you’ve made a creep of yourself, best to cut your losses and not go back
• You need to be seen by the maximum amount of people. Not a good idea to sit down with the other 1,500. Pace up and down. Stomp if you can.
• You need to SPEAK TO SOMEONE. Make it memorable. Time stamp it by referencing something, or doing something. This is a staple of all alibi-fakers in the moving pictures.
• Don’t try and convince folk you’re an innocent man by looking like you’ve just abducted someone against her will. Tuck yourself in. Takes but two seconds.
• Remember than an alibi works mainly if you’ve been accused. It’s no good being anonymous and having an alibi.
• And if you’re accused the game is up. You may kill again or you wont. But the authorities will know you for what you are.
• A random description of you in a fake ‘tache is not the end of the world. They already have that on you. From TODAY!
• The attempt suggests YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE ALREADY A SUSPECT in at least one person’s eyes. Unlike the other 1,500. Still want to go back? Really???
Why the alibi theory misses the boat on Bundy completely:
• Bundy never attempted an alibi
• If he was going to make an exception, the most uncontrolled night of his pre-Florida spree would not have been it.
• Bundy was in no doubt about his chameleon-like appearance, and clearly thought of this when planning anything where he might be seen. To have suddenly decided he wanted to be definitely recognised as the same creep from earlier that night and stand out, is not only silly in itself, but would require Bundy to UNSPOOL the mental defense mechanisms he’d set up over a number of years to fight the fear of being caught. Just. Wouldn’t. Happen.
• Bundy scorned alibis, even as an abstract concept, per Carol Boone (his then-mouthpiece) during the Florida trials. See Michaud. Alibis were beneath the lawyer-killer. It was the State’s burden to prove he did it, not Bundy’s to prove he was somewhere else. Let’s not take Ted / Carol’s word for it – everything in his history bears this out.
The whole alibi thing is a Catch-22 in every direction. If anyone concedes he was mentally out-of-it enough to try such an insane thing, you have to concede he wasn’t thinking clearly by any standards, and the 3rd victim theory just looks all the more promising. And his alibi only works if he gets caught. If he gets caught, the alibi is of no actual use. I think this is what Excel annoyingly calls a ‘circular argument’.
And does the sole piece of evidence (per one source) – Ted sits down – fit a 3rd victim theory? Yes.
• Ted failed to talk a woman into his car
• The play was over-running. Ted would have known this. It caused Kent to leave
• A fish had more or less jumped in his boat. His only success of the evening.
• He may have hoped this would happen again, and he’d just follow someone up and out of the theatre (we don’t actually know he didn’t!)
• He’d just abducted someone. Her screams were heard. He’s now less conspicuous. Even if possibly not by much.
• …and let’s not forget at the moment Ted did this he had just exerted himself a fair bit. A sit down whilst he scopes the auditorium? Hardly seems ridiculous, does it?
Does anyone think he went back in there to cover his tracks?
One thing we can all agree on — that night, Ted was well on his way to losing what few marbles he had left.
After the failed DaRonch abduction, he should’ve headed straight home and given the same alibi to as many friends, neighbors, and acquaintances as possible (e.g., I spent ALL DAY in that damn law library and STILL couldn’t find what I was looking for!)
Different subject now – what’s the real story behind Janice Ott’s skull?
One book (Only Living Witness) has a forensic anthropologist holding it in his hand, commenting on the premature closure of the cranial sutures, and another book (Riverman) says it was never found because Ted took it. (If that’s true, then how they were able to positively identify her remains?)
Still other books mention that two mandibles were found, presumably hers and Denise’s, or that only one mandible was found but it didn’t match Denise’s skull.
So what’s the true story?
Hi Leon and welcome aboard!
Yes, I hear you about it being a stretch. That said, he did come back in, we know that. So he must have wanted to come back in for some reason even if that reason has nothing to do with hunting or building an alibi. Unfortunately, we will never know the exact reason.
So, If I had to pick a reason he came back in the auditorium, it would be for building an alibi as he didn’t appear to be hunting to me. It’s all conjecture, of course, but it’s the one that makes the most sense to me. If others come up with a different feeling about it, that’s cool. Who knows?
Yes, long may the discussion continue!
Kevin
Hi Kevin and everyone,
I’m really enjoying the discussion over the Debra Kent abduction. Just have to say that I’m finding the idea of Bundy trying to provide an alibi for himself, namely making a point of being seen at the scene of if the crime, whilst looking desheveled and also having no reason at all to be there, pretty difficult to believe. Of course we don’t really know why he went back in, especially as he made no known attempts to pick up a second victim, but it’s a pretty big stretch to imagine him wanting to give witnesses even more time to identify him.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting reading, and long may the discussion continue!
Interesting thought Randy!
I seem to recall the detectives took her out to lunch to see if she could ID someone who was a possible suspect.
She erroneously pointed out the waiter as the guy she saw in the auditorium. So, given the darkness of the auditorium, it’s possible the guy she saw again wasn’t Ted after all?
Love this thread and all the hypotheses!
Hi Randy,
From my book:
“Beal couldn’t wait to show it to Raelynne Shepard, the Viewmont High School drama teacher who’d spoken to Bundy and observed him up close. Detective Beal must have been delighted beyond words when Shepard nodded in agreement and said that if you put a mustache on him he would look a lot like the man she talked with that night.”
Again, from my book:
“Authorities would later interview a man who saw a Volkswagen Beetle speeding away from the school at the same time Bundy would have spirited away Debbie Kent, so it’s safe to assume he unknowingly witnessed her kidnapping. Police would also learn from a person living in an apartment directly across from the school that sometime after 10:00 P.M., one or perhaps two piercing screams from an unseen female could be heard coming from the school’s parking lot.”
Kevin M. Sullivan. The Bundy Murders: A Comprehensive History (p. 111). Kindle Edition.
Good to hear from you, Randy!
Howdy Kevin,
With regard to the recent debate about Bundy’s supposed intentions of re-entering the auditorium,how sure was Raelynn Sheppard that Bundy was the person she saw again?
Witnesses heard two piercing screams at around 10.30 pm from the parking lot;another person who had arrived at approximately the same time saw a tan Volkswagen bolting away?
How about:
“and while she wouldn’t go with Bundy – it didn’t work out for him to get her- he was on his feet and he was trying.”
Better.
Hello, Hal 🙂
Well, really, it’s no big deal that we don’t hold to the same theory here. We may both be wrong and there may be a third reason altogether. But given we’ll never know the truth in the matter as only Bundy’s knows it (Lorraine Fargo can’t help me here, LOL!), one must do the best one can to navigate through it, and if one is to comment on it at all, then one must choose in his or her best view, the most likely scenario. That said, when I was writing the book, I considered the following:
If you look at Bundy’s activities that night, he first attempted to abduct a woman in the parking lot. He did this by exchanging words with her and Mike Fisher interviewed her and told me the story. Apparently, he wasn’t putting off the “vibes” he was around women in Florida, and while she wouldn’t go with Bundy it didn’t work out for him to get her. But he was on his feet and he was trying.
Next, he was on his feet in full hunting mode while in the foyer of the auditorium, and yes, acting strangely as he was in an altered and homicidal state. And eventually, things didn’t work out in the foyer and he headed inside the theater BUT NOT UNTIL THE INTERMISSION WAS OVER. This means that Bundy kept standing in the foyer all the first half of the play hoping he’d get lucky. But when he did finally enter the auditorium did he sit down? Perhaps not at all, as he was spotted pacing back and forth along the back wall. So when he came back in the auditorium he did something with his body that he hadn’t done during the entire night: He sat down. That was it. Again, why?
Was he hunting? If he was he certainly wasn’t displaying his usual hunting stance of being on his feet, ready to pounce as it were. He came back in and just sat down. No pacing back and forth. No talking to women. Nothing. And yet he came back inside. Why?
The most likely reason I put within the book. There will never be a way any of us can know for sure, but for me, the issue is settled.
And there is this from your post:
“>>>And there is this: By this time Bundy may have regretted his Lake Sam experience as he understood the “negatives” that were produced by it (see my book).
…I’m sure if you think about it, we can discount this comment entirely.” No, you can’t discount it. Bundy knows he gave the authorities traction at lake Sam. He fully understood that what happened there grew legs and that’s where the police got their best description of him, of the car he was driving, and he even gave them his name.
He never confessed to Tannay.
Bundy had not descended yet as a killer in Utah. His real and valid spiral downward would not happen until Florida. He didn’t make a lot of mistakes in Utah but he made nothing but mistakes in Florida.
Again, Hal, it no big deal we have different thoughts on this issue. I’m sure we agree on most other issues about Bundy, including that he no doubt attacked Kent without saying a word.
>>>Well, there’s a reason I don’t travel down those roads. I never have as a writer (without evidence) and I never will. Everything I’m hearing about his desire to abduct two people is being spoken of almost as fact. Fact! “He would have done this because…he would have done that because…”, without any evidence whatsoever.
…the book tells us what Bundy was thinking at that moment he went back into the Auditorium, does it not? And the reason I brought it up in the first place was I didn’t think it was plausible, for a variety of reasons, and still don’t. And strange that something far more obvious wasn’t even mentioned.
It’s certainly disingenuous to label this as a battle between speculation (2nd victim) and non-speculation (alibi). It’s all speculation.
>>> Bundy knocked out Kent, placed her in his car and entered into the auditorium AND SAT DOWN. He was no longer asking any other women for help or trying to convince them to leave with him.
…talking to women hadn’t worked out for him. Just playing the waiting game HAD, however. And it’s entirely possible that even in his drunken frenzied state, Bundy was just about self-aware enough to know he was sabotaging his chances by just opening his mouth. You don’t have to be a psycho to have had that experience. (Am I right, fellas?)
>>>he wasn’t walking back and forth scoping women out. he was just sitting there. Why?
See above. I think you are reading far too much into the fact he sat down.
>>> Remember, he wasn’t stupid.
…he wasn’t showing any intellectual prowess on the night, you have to concede. It might have been a stretch to believe someone would fall for ‘I’m a cop and I need you to confirm your car has been fiddled with’ story, but at least it’s a plotline. ‘Can you identify a car?’ has no context whatsoever, and seems like desperate drunken mush. He had literally lost the plot since earlier the same day.
Talking directly to the woman’s breasts wasn’t a smart move either.
It’s possible, and probable, that Kent wasn’t even given a routine of any kind. Don’t Pass Go, straight to the assault to the head.
>>>He knew he’d been seen by many people, and despite his arrogance against the police and belief he’d never be caught, I don’t believe he wanted to be connected time-wise to the disappearance of Debra Kent.
…he’d never attempted to provide himself with an alibi before. Seems a strange night to start when he’d thrown caution to the wind like never before. It’s just not very believable, especially given the amount of risk involved, for the worst attempt at an alibi in history.
Again, the reason for Ted going back exists in one place only. In his head, at the moment he shuts the car door on an unconscious Debbie Kent and turns arounf. What does it take for a man like that on a night like that to put his desires on hold for a little bit longer?
>>>But I certainly have no evidence that would convince me that Bundy was going to attempt a double abduction. It just isn’t there.
…but evidence of him trying to provide an alibi is there? It doesn’t make sense…
• given the state he was in
• And he didn’t even tuck himself in
• And he knew she’d screamed
• And he’d freaked out at least one person at the play
• AND HE HAD AN UNCONSCIOUS WOMAN IN HIS CAR…
…he risks EVERYTHING by going back in.
>>>And there is this: By this time Bundy may have regretted his Lake Sam experience as he understood the “negatives” that were produced by it (see my book).
…I’m sure if you think about it, we can discount this comment entirely. Yes, two victims brought unwanted publicity, but Ted wasn’t above it if he wasn’t thinking straight. This we know. He’d go on to notch up five in one go. And, let’s not forget, Kent was his 2nd of the day. He knew the cops were already all over Abduction #1. The damage was already done. He just didn’t care.
And again, Ted’s late confessions – if we take his comments to Tannay and Keppel together – confirm how unhinged and Florida-like he was on this night. His behaviour on the day backs this up, needless to say.
>>>I have said it before and I’ll say it again: One must be extremely careful using speculation as a source to build a story.
…indeed.
Hey Tony, 🙂
“This is how good (excellent, really) nonfiction writing works.”
I was speaking of a ‘rule of thumb’ kind of thing that should pertain to all nonfiction writers. It’s a proper guide, as it were, and it was this as well as other factors that caused McFarland to offer me a contract within three weeks of contacting them with a query letter and book proposal. Had I filled the book with theory and speculation there would not have been a contract forthcoming. Where I did speculate, I did so with some evidence, and as I stated above with Lorraine Fargo, it was found to be correct.
In the case of Zodiac or, say, Jack the Ripper, speculation is the very thing one should use, based on whatever available evidence is out there, to try to determine who these folks were. In these cases it;s great that speculation rules as they were never solved, and so theory can become the basis of the book.
“And, conversely, how much more new info is out there to report that doesn’t amount to little more than a handful of interesting anecdotes?”
My book has lots of new and significant information, including lots of new testimony from the investigators. And the new info I’ve provided in not anecdotal.
Again, in my view, if one wants to speculate in the world of nonfiction, it’s a slippery slope, and that one needs to be prepared for the fallout if said speculation won’t hols up to academic and professional scrutiny.
In the realm of speculation, some folks will say things like “I just know Bundy was wanting to do this or that, because he was upset about this or that, and he was just like that; it’s just what he would do!” And to the academic researcher; to the purest, if you will, all such proclamations are a no no in the world of nonfiction.
“This is how good (excellent, really) nonfiction writing works.”
The thing I like most about Kevin is his humility. 😉
“I have said it before and I’ll say it again: One must be extremely careful using speculation as a source to build a story. If one starts doing it they will travel down the wrong road and ultimately unravel as a nonfiction writer. This is the first rule of a nonfiction writer.”
What’s your opinion, Kevin, of the more speculative true crime fiction… i.e., books that posit a theory as to who the Zodiac was, or Jack the Ripper, etc.? Is this “bad” writing, in your view, or simply a different type of writing altogether?
I guess my own opinion is that, if your stated intention is merely to “report the facts,” then yes, you should stick to those facts steadfastly and not speculate. The problem with Bundy, however, is that the case has been written about ad nauseum! How many times can we keep regurgitating the same basic information? And, conversely, how much more new info is out there to report that doesn’t amount to little more than a handful of interesting anecdotes?
If, on the other hand, one’s stated intention is to come up with a theory as to how a crime was committed, or by whom, then I think it’s perfectly valid to engage in that sort of speculation. The key is to keep close track of the hard information from which you are drawing your conclusions, and to always acknowledge when you are theorizing or taking a speculative leap.
I think the ultimate value of this sort of “creative nonfiction,” if you will, is that, just as it is in the sciences, a good theory can help you see connections between the facts that you otherwise may have missed. It can help you come up with the right questions to ask, when they might otherwise have eluded you. And, of course, finding the right facts is always largely a result of asking the right questions!
Carlisle thread on Reddit
Hi MS. Dem,
Well, there’s a reason I don’t travel down those roads. I never have as a writer (without evidence) and I never will. Everything I’m hearing about his desire to abduct two people is being spoken of almost as fact. Fact! “He would have done this because…he would have done that because…”, without any evidence whatsoever.
This much we know:
Bundy knocked out Kent, placed her in his car and entered into the auditorium AND SAT DOWN. He was no longer asking any other women for help or trying to convince them to leave with him. he wasn’t walking back and forth scoping women out. he was just sitting there. Why? Could he have been think of taking another woman? Sure, but the only thing we know for sure is that he sat there and gave no one any sign that he wanted anything.
This being the case, the conclusion I came to is that he was most likely wanting to be noticed and not be connected to whatever happened to Kent. Remember, he wasn’t stupid. He knew he’d been seen by many people, and despite his arrogance against the police and belief he’d never be caught, I don’t believe he wanted to be connected time-wise to the disappearance of Debra Kent. Could I be wrong? Sure. But I certainly have no evidence that would convince me that Bundy was going to attempt a double abduction. It just isn’t there.
And there is this: By this time Bundy may have regretted his Lake Sam experience as he understood the “negatives” that were produced by it (see my book).
I have said it before and I’ll say it again: One must be extremely careful using speculation as a source to build a story. If one starts doing it they will travel down the wrong road and ultimately unravel as a non fiction writer. This is the first rule of a nonfiction writer.
When I was writing the book, I did speculate twice about the Kathy Parks abduction, and I did so based on other evidence that would make my speculations likely, and when Lorraine Fargo came into my life I asked her about these “speculations” and she confirmed them.
This is how good (excellent, really) nonfiction writing works.
I’d appreciate a link to that Reddit Q and A too if someone would be good enough to post it.
With regard to the recent discussion on Bundy returning to the auditorium after intermission to look for a second victim, I would have to agree that I think it’s definitely a possibility. I wish Kevin had given some discussion and consideration to this idea in his book. Luckily we have this thread and have had him do so here.
I think Bundy would have been especially enraged by DaRonch’s escape and that could well have fueled him into one of his more disorganised episodes where he went for mutliple victims. We know he’d done it before and after so I think it’s definitely a theory that holds enough weight for consideration.
Breccia,
Do you have a link to that Reddit thread? I’m not familiar with that site and not sure how to navigate it.
Thanks, Breccia.
Savor it, Jutta, LOL!
Dr. Al Carlisle is, right now, on reddit’s AMA [Ask Me Anything] discussing/answering questions wrt Bundy. 13June14.
Hmm, I see you still have Volkswagens on your mind, wonder why? haha
I just finished Chapter 1 of your book, which is excellent. It’s slow going because I haven’t had much free time lately, and my husband gets jealous whenever I pay more attention to a book than to him (unless it’s a cookbook), so I’m reading a page or two here and there whenever I get a chance. But that way I can “savor” it, if that’s an appropriate word for a true crime book.
Happy Friday the 13th, and there’s a full moon tonight, watch out! There won’t be another full-moon Friday the 13th for a long time, so enjoy!!!
Jutta (sorry lol!)
LOL Jetta!
Kevin, I’m stuck in stinkin’ hot Tucson Arizona! When I left work earlier today, the thermometer in my car read the outside air temperature at 110!
Bundy would’ve hated it here — no trees, no skiing, and you need a pickaxe or air hammer to dig a proper grave.
Although if he was a serial graffiti artist, he would’ve felt right at home here!
Btw, Jutta, where are you from?
Yes, it was a joy corresponding with Lorraine. Through many back and forth emails, I feel like I got to know her, and I’m happy she decided to share her remembrances with us at ET.
She even managed to travel to OSU and photograph the campus, providing us with some really good pics of the sites pertinent to Kathy and her abduction. I especially liked seeing where they stood on the sidewalk directly across from the cafeteria, as it put a “face” on the location.
I’ll also never forget that Lorraine gave me the answers I needed to confirm two speculations I had about that night (and I mentioned these in the book) and that was very satisfying. I sent her a copy of my book as a way of saying thanks for all her efforts to join our conversation; and I knew as well that it might act as a catharsis for her; something she soon confirmed.
I knew she was having some health issues, but I had no idea she was going to die. So after a time of not hearing from her, and my emails going unanswered, I stated to investigate why and quickly learned of her death.
I’m very grateful to have known her and I wish she were still answering questions here today.
BTW — I couldn’t help but notice that Lorraine posted regularly (and in a very lively fashion!) from April 1 to April 28th of 2010, where she mentioned she was taking a break due to ongoing health issues. Her final post, I think, was in June of that year, where she wrote she’d been very ill during the intervening 2 months. We lost her less than a year later.
I somehow get the feeling that she sensed (or knew) her time on this earth was winding down, and that she desired closure on this painful chapter in her life. Hence her willingness to share her experiences and memories of Kathy… perhaps she realized she needed to get this weight off her chest once and for all.
During that April, she even found the time (and courage) to revisit the abduction site, their dorm, and Kathy’s room, producing a detailed photo album to share with us. That was very kind and generous of her.
Anyhoo … the timing might just be a coincidence. At any rate, I’m glad Lorraine stopped by when she did.
Oh dear. Sorry to learn that Lorraine Fargo (Kathy Parks’ college friend) passed some time ago, as I belatedly work my way through this thread.
I had to go back and re-read Lorraine’s posts, which for me are the highlight of this 5-year old thread. What struck me (again) is how it took her 36 years to fully come to terms with Kathy’s murder. She gave us a first-hand look at how deeply these tragedies affect not only the families, but the friends, roommates, and acquaintances of the victims.
Loved Lorraine’s description of the REAL Kathy – a fun-loving, sharp-witted, yet considerate young lady who wore hippy garb, huaraches, and smoked pot – a lively personality belied by Kathy’s somber missing-persons photo.
I got chills reading Lorraine’s hypothesis of how and why the normally non-impulsive Kathy would have left the cafeteria with Ted, taking the seldom-used back door into eternity. *shudder*
Lorraine had a unique perspective in that she not only lost a close friend to Bundy, she herself had been a target earlier that evening. Her library encounter with an “oddly persistent,” nondescript older student/professor who first annoyed her, then creeped her out, and finally was forgotten about sounds like your classic Bundy near miss.
Lorraine’s OSU ID photo looks a LOT like Susan Rancourt, with whom Bundy recently had “success”, perhaps explaining why he zeroed in on her. Here’s the photo: http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/ForKathy/library/Me
I wonder how much guilt she endured … not only survivor’s guilt, but the feeling that she was responsible for “introducing” Ted to Kathy or perhaps regret that she didn’t try harder to convince Kathy to come back to the dorm with her.
It’s comforting to know that in exchange for Lorraine’s insightful posts, you (Kevin) and the folks on this thread returned the favor by helping facilitate Lorraine’s healing process. After airing it out here, her formerly unpleasant thoughts and dreams about Kathy came full circle to pleasant and happy ones once again. I’ll bet she and Kathy are up there now, talking and laughing about the good ol’ OSU days!
RIP Lorraine, and thank you once again for sharing your unique and special perspective. Say Hi to Kathy 🙂