1989: Ted Bundy, psycho killer

Posted on by

Qu’est-ce que c’est?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Bundy resources from the enormous comment thread:

On this day..

Possibly related executions:

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

  2. Agree with Peter; we’ll probably never know. I’m for the ‘grab another victim’ theory myself, but I’m not about to challenge anyone to a duel over it.

    None of us were in the auditorium to get the lay of the land, except Kevin. So he has a unique perspective that we all lack.

    We’re probably all wrong; maybe Bundy went back ‘cuz he had to pee real bad, but there was a line in front of the men’s room and that’s why he hid out in the dark theater. Or maybe he got disoriented because he was momentarily blinded by the glare coming off his patent-leather shoes. Who can say?

    I think we can, however, safely rule out the following reasons why he went back in 🙂

    …To ask Raelynn if she could come out and help him stuff a body into a car;

    …To introduce himself to the Kents as “Ted” and inform them that Debbie was helping him load up a sailboat, just to see if the stupid cops would make the connection;

    …To let Raelynn know he identified the tan Volkswagen with the missing passenger seat without her help, but thanks anyway;

    …To get away from that pushy Navajo chick who kept asking if she could see his crowbar;

    …To ask Susan Curtis if she had any plans for the evening of June 27, 1975;

    …Because the boring play badly needed a Snidley Whiplash-type character, and Ted had the perfect moustache;

    …To pick up Raelynn’s husband after Ted’s gaydar detected that he, too, was a repressed homosexual;

    …To scope out the auditorium as a potential storage site for his photos, so he could retrieve them during and after his two future escapes from a Colorado jail, which he planned on getting himself thrown into by committing a murder and leaving behind just enough evidence for a possible conviction.

    OK I’m done now too. On to the next subject!

  3. Leon (or should I call you ‘Hal’?)

    You too are a very passive-aggressive person. I have spent the last 40 years of my life dealing with folks from many different backgrounds, and I’ve come to be very good at reading between the lines when people begin to speak. And of course, I can do this with you too.

    I just want you to know that I know this.

    In other words, your posts aren’t fooling anybody. And they certainly don’t fool me.

    As I mentioned to Hal I will now say to you:

    It must feel terrible to be you.

  4. Thanks for replying, Kevin, and sorry about the miss-use of the word deacon. I commented on that post because I found your proposed solution to the danger those women faced to be kind of shocking. I’m not from America, don’t live there, and in fact have never even visited the country – although I’d really love to – and so I won’t comment on or pretend to understand the massive issue surroundung it’s gun culture other than to say that, to an outsider like me, who is also something of a pacifist, it can all seem quite strange, violent and grotesque. This is also probably the wrong thread to start a debate the right to bear arms.

    Kevin, I’ve obviously never met you, but I’m sure you’re a really nice man; a good and consciensious citizen, and a loving husband and father. Maybe you’re not, but you probably are. I get the impression that you are a pretty normal and straight talking guy.
    However, when you make comments like this:

    “I have this really interesting knack for discovering info from closed cases (yes, you heard right: closed cases), and when I speak to the investigators and tell them what I know they smile and (after confirming it off the record), ask me how I found these things out. The last time this happened I was in a roomful of detectives, and one detective looked at me and said “you’re a pretty good investigator…”

    … it really seems as if you’re, in a sort of Gogolian manner, satirising an extremely pompous, self-satisfied and somewhat deluded person. But the strange thing is that you’re not doing this. Instead you’re simply telling us what can sometimes happen when you’re sitting in a room full of detectives and investigators. Strange.

  6. Hi Peter…

    Thanks for the input, but I’m ready to pull out my hair on the subject, and that won’t be easy to do as I shave my head daily, lol!

    Personally, I’m forever finished with this topic.

    Thanks again,

    Kevin

  7. Kevin, Hal; last post on the subject I promise

    Well unless new documents are discovered we will never know why Bundy reentered the auditorium.

    In a spirited, sometimes overly aggressive manner, three theories have been advanced. All have strengths and weaknesses.

    Kevin, you feel Bundy was trying to establish a alibi and point out his actions inside the building as proof..

    Possibly that was the reason, although if you are correct we need to rethink how smart he was because that was the most needlessly foolish reason for reentering the auditorium. If you are correct this appears to be a one time event.

    Hal, you feel he took the risks associated with reentered in the hopes of abducting a second victim. You have precedence on your side as Bundy had previously demonstrated similar risky behavior at Lake Sammamish.

    Depending on your point of view the major or minor criticism of your hypnosis seems to revolve around the fact that Ted already knew he had taken too great a risk at the lake. But if he was willing to call additional attention to himself to establish a alibi why not in the hopes of grabbing a second, possibly more desirable, victim.

    My theory also has precedence. Bundy had taken some risk to recover his killing tools and the victims clothing in the abduction of Georgeann Hawkins, then far greater risks in returning to the abduction scene to recover her missing sandal and earring.

    The major weaknesses to my key theory are the facts that Bundy would have to have known he lost it, then decided it was worth the risk to reenter to try to recover a tiny key.

    His behavior inside is not a weakness in my opinion as its how someone trying not to call additional attention to himself would act.

    Its major attribute is that it provides a reason for reentering and is consistent with Bundy’s previous behavior, along with his stated desire not to leave incriminating evidence behind.

    All three theories are possible. Take your pick. All three are un-provable unless additional information is discovered.

    Peter

  8. No prosecution; no criminal trial.

    The court was aware of these threats.

  9. They came to me for advice. They felt they were in danger. I told them how to equalize the situation and how quickly they can dispatch that danger should it come calling.

    They came to me because I’m a clear thinker, and I gave them practical advice on how to make sure that they (the good guys, as it were) would live, and how they can put the bad guys (the men threatening violence against the innocent) down if they came calling.

    This was wise advice, Leon.

    Btw; I’m a minister, not a deacon.

  10. “Over the years I’ve had two women come to me asking to help them obtain protective orders against men they believed would harm them. I told them to purchase a handgun, get some good training and be ready and willing to kill them the moment they arrive to harm you.”

    Wow. Did they come to you because you were a respected deacon of the church? And if they had followed your advice and killed them, would the women face prosecution? Or at least the ordeal of a criminal trial?

    I know it’s somewhat off topic, but it is pretty interesting.

  12. Any new revelations on Bundy since I left?
    Did Mr Hagmaier disclose something new?
    I was off-Bundy for a couple of years.

  14. “I don’t believe a word of it as NO evidence backs it up.” [post 6956 by KS]

    You missed the point. What is the evidence that backs up YOUR view?

  15. Actually, there’s enough material here for a 3 volume set, at least.

    Only God (and the Headsman) know the exact word count.

  16. Hi Jutta,

    “you’re stupid, no you’re stupid, no YOU’RE stupid” posts, and we’ve got quite the Bundy book indeed” That’s funny!

    The Headsman will have to produce it (as a book) as I’m finished writing about Ted, LOL!

  17. Oh hi bart, you’re alive! It’s nice to see your name in print again! 🙂

    I’m just a longtime lurker who has been reading portions of this discussion on and off over the years. Recently, I decided to read the whole thing from start to finish (I’m almost at post #6000 now, phew).

    I was thinking the same thing — somebody (Kevin?) ought to turn this into a book! Take out the “when’s the book going to be available” posts, the typo/grammar correction posts, and the unproductive “you’re stupid, no you’re stupid, no YOU’RE stupid” posts, and we’ve got quite the Bundy book indeed.

    Lots of interesting folks have left their mark here, including you, and I hope we can keep it together for another 5 years (at least!)

  19. Hi Tony,

    I often “take the bait” for reasons of clarity for those who may want to hear more about it. After all, if i cut things off too quickly I’ll be accused of being a dictator who refuses to answer those with opposing views.

    Anyway, I’m finished now and hopefully do is Hal.

    Yes, cops come in all shapes and sizes, lol!

    I hope you mother and sister have handguns and know how to use them. And I hope they’re mentally prepared to use them. I personally carry a .40 cal. Glock every day.

    Over the years I’ve had two women come to me asking me to help them obtain protective orders against men they believed would harm them. I told them to purchase a handgun,get some good training and be ready and willing to kill them the moment they arrive to harm you.

    This will do what a protective order cannot do.

    See ya,

    Kevin

  20. Hal, you don’t know how to play nice. it’s impossible for you. You have serious issues like I told you in my above post.

    I didn’t mind you bringing it up, or responding to my comment. It’s not the discussion but the attitude.

    “Are you telling us that saying you ‘believe something to be an absolute fact’ and saying ‘it’s an absolute fact’ are different? If so, explain how.” Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying:

    I “knew” based on the evidence (how Bundy enjoyed hunting at libraries, and the post marked letter of the 7th of May) that the two theories presented in the book were true. I believed it to be most likely an actual “fact” of the case, but I couldn’t state it as such because I couldn’t prove it. And then Lorraine confirmed it.

    Not bring up Lorraine? Of course I’ll bring her up, as she confirmed my two theories. Sorry, but it’s true.

    That said, everything I have to say concerning my theory of why Ted came back into the theater is in the book and these posts. I have no desire to participate in these endless question and answer sessions, regarding something nether of us can prove.

    Beyond that, I’m exceedingly bored with it. Aren’t you?

    I’m now officially letting it go. Will you join me?

  21. Kevin,

    In Hal’s defense, he keeps arguing with you about the alibi theory — but then again, YOU also keep taking the bait! If you feel the topic has been exhausted, simply refrain from responding to any further posts he makes about it, and in time the conversation will move on to other things. If Hal decides to be belligerent (“I notice you never responded to my last comment, Kevin; could it be you’ve finally decided to admit that YOU ARE WRONG, if only to yourself???” and such like that), have him banned or his comments deleted or something.

    In response to someone else’s post a little ways upthread — yeah, the “24 hours to report a missing person” thing is a myth (and I’ll wager a very destructive one) that continues to be perpetuated by every cop show and movie ever made. I’ve heard the general wisdom is to report a missing person as soon as possible, so the police can begin questioning people and constructing a timeline.

    Then again, however, it all depends on who you talk to. I’ve talked to some brain-dead ignorant local cops in my neck of the woods (southwestern Ohio), ones I could well imagine telling a concerned parent to “wait a day or two and call back” when an adult child drops out of touch. My mom has been stalked by a delusional woman who threatened the life of my younger brother, and my sister was harassed for years by her ex-husband’s family; the local cops repeatedly told both there was nothing they could do unless the offending parties showed up at their doorstep with a dead cat in one hand and a machete in the other.

    In short, a lot of cops seem to be depressingly fond of shrugging their shoulders and saying, “There’s nothing we can do.” So, again, one issue is definitely whether or not the PARTICULAR OFFICER you’re speaking to happens to know what the heck he’s talking about.

  22. Kevin, you brought it up again. I keep dropping it and try to play nice. Then you come back with a poorly thought out ‘absolute fact’ of your alibi theory, despite YOU CONSTANTLY BANGING ON about your non-use of the word ‘fact’ for speculation. It’s been your mantra that you keep breaking! Hell, this ‘fact’ doesn’t even line up with your own comments, never mind mine! But you hadn’t thought it through, had you?

    The last time you went from a smilie-post to an attack-post and chucked in your passive-aggressive line at me with absolutely no sense of irony at all… I’ll leave it there.

    You can’t just sling insults, or tell us how you are your own personal hero every time you ‘fact’ yourself into a corner. Also, how about giving Lorraine Fargo a rest. It was real old a week ago.

    You never state your theory as fact? You did so above. You do so in the book non-stop. The examples are endless. Are you telling us that saying you ‘believe something to be an absolute fact’ and saying ‘it’s an absolute fact’ are different? If so, explain how.

    Anyway, second chance, tell us where you think Ted was going?

  23. Hal,

    I’m not sure if anyone has addressed this with you before, but you’re what’s known as a passive-aggressive person. Indeed, you appear to me to be very troubled by all of this. I find it exceedingly strange.

    Why can’t you say: “Well, Kevin’s flat wrong about this and I can’t believe he doesn’t see it” and let it go. But you can’t let it go. You’re obsessed with proving me wrong, and that is something that you will never do. It’s reached the point that I’m starting to feel embarrassed for you.

    Now, if I’m not a “detective’ with this theory, then I must be an excellent detective with the Kathy Parks abduction. This must be true because Lorraine confirmed both theories I present in the book. What about that, Mr. Hal?

    Btw: I have this really interesting knack for discovering pertinent info from closed cases (yes, you heard right: closed cases), and when I speak to the investigators and tell them what I know they smile and (after confirming it off the record), ask me how I found these things out. The last time this happened I was in a roomful of detectives and officers, and the one detective looked at me and said “You’re a pretty good investigator” So, Hal, I think I’ll go with that and not your foolish comment.

    Also, I never state my theory as “fact”, so you really need to be accurate with what you say; rule one in investigating, the writing of books, and just about everything in life.

    Please, Hal, do yourself a favor and deal with that terrible internal drive that prevents you from letting things go. It must feel terrible to be you.

  24. Man, this alibi theory still disregards all known traits and basic logic. Kevin, you really should think this stuff through before describing anything speculative as an ‘absolute fact’. Your thinking is just far too narrow. A detective, you are not.

    Where in the world do you think Bundy was going when he went through that front door? Coz by the sounds of it, you think he was going directly after Kent. I don’t think so. And, based on your previous comments on what you think happens next, neither should you.

    Bundy was going to HIS CAR. To collect the crowbar. He must have ran, which is consistent with later witnesses. The fact that she screams tells us everything we need to know about the directness and totality of his approach. She likely saw him running right at her, crowbar raised. It may have been the first moment he got a close look at her too.

    I’m kinda flabbergasted at this becoming part of an alibi theory, and an ‘absolute fact’ at that. You don’t do yourself any favours here. It just looks like you’ve leapt to an illogical conclusion before considering any other, or more viable, conclusions. Again.

    So Bundy thinks he’s being watched following Kent out of the Auditorium, and he uses another door? Think about this. How many trap doors does this “theory” fall through? It implies Bundy knew he was Suspect #1 to at least one person! He’d just get out of Dodge. And certainly wouldn’t confirm anyone’s original suspicions by coming back in looking like he might as well have worn a sign! And most importantly, Ted would need a crystal ball telling him in every detail how it was going to go down outside, and that against all the odds he’d even have the *opportunity* to come back in. It’s a plan utterly devoid of logic or self preservation, and reliant on clairvoyance he didn’t have.

    Sorry, it just has no credibility.

    ‘It couldn’t be the man with the rapist eyes who also tried to lead me outside, Officer. Because that poor girl went out the side door to the car park, but the weirdo who went out at the same time as her used the front instead, which only goes to Narnia.’

  25. You’re correct, Hal, he didn’t need the key as the cuffs were with Carol. I assume he accidentally lost it when he was retrieving his keys, but perhaps he did simply toss it.

  26. To put a dent – not fatal – in the missing key theory, which I think is possible (unlike an alibi)…

    Firstly, guys and gals, it’s possible that you don’t even own ANYTHING as small as a handcuff key. It’s tiny. You could know you definitely had it on your person but still take five minutes to find it. It’s unlikely Bundy would have known it was missing without being aware of when he’d dropped it. But it’s unlikely it would have entered his sphere of thought at all.

    Kent didn’t need handcuffs if she was bludgeoned so badly he could afford to leave her in his car for an indefinite period of time. But no matter. Coz Ted didn’t have any!

    His handcuffs were left with Carol DaRonch.

    If he had a spare or was crazy enough to buy another pair between abductions, then the first key really isn’t of any consequence. If he was aware of it, he’d have likely chucked it away before Bountiful. You know what, given the state he was in, what the key represented of his recent failure, etc, I don’t even think it’s out with the realms of possibility that he tossed it himself, right there at Viewmont High. A Ted mad enough and careless enough to be seen roughed up back in the Auditorium… could he have done that? Unlikely, but I wouldn’t rule it out.

  27. “how he could through off the authorities.”

    Make that “throw off …”!!!

  28. If you check my book, I have a photo of a bricked half-wall that runs along the last row of seats in the auditorium. Beyond this wall is a walkway which runs between the half wall and the back wall of the auditorium. This back wall of the auditorium is interrupted by three or four exit/entrance doors and I have pics of these as well.

    Now, because Bundy was pacing in this walkway, and basically “hugging” this half-wall at the left far end of the theater (and only several rows from the Kents) he could only have lost the key in this hallway or as he left the auditorium through the front door (and this is where he lost it), while Debra Kent exited the side door.

    Actually (and here comes another alibi, lol!), Bundy saw her leave through the side door, but decided he should leave through the front door, even though it meant extra steps for him. Why would he do this? I believe it was because he didn’t want to be seen going out the side door right behind Kent as others would have seen this. And, if he were seen simply going out to the main hallway people wouldn’t suspect him, especially if he came right back inside as he did. Another alibi? Maybe.

    All we know for sure is that when Ted left through the front door he had to hurry to catch up to her and therefore we need to ask ourselves: so why did he do it? As far as I’m concerned, Bundy was already building his alibi, and it showed quite clearly to me that despite his sexually charged murderous altered state of mind, he was still thinking about how he could through off the authorities.

    Nevertheless, if Bundy realized he’d lost the key at that time, he would have been searching the walkway between this half-wall and the back wall, or out int the main hallway outside of the theater; or outside of the building itself. But none of this occurred. Bundy returned to the theater and sat down. That’s it.

    Therefore, in my view, he was not looking for the key.

    When I visited the site in 2006, I was allowed into the theater where I took pictures, got a “feel” for the place and I walked the distance between where Kent left through the side door and where Bundy exited through the front door. Doing this convinced me that it didn’t make any sense to put that distance between himself and the victim unless he was trying to avoid a connection, per the crowd. Again, he was doing something to cast off suspicion, as it were. I believe this to be an absolute fact.

    Btw: Do you all remember what Bundy said about the Kathy Parks abduction, and why he drove all that way to get a victim (some 250 miles each way!)? He admitted its purpose was to throw off the authorities.

    Yes, Bundy would do things to throw folks off his tracks.

  29. Oh, now I remember – I also had this “return for someone more attractive” theory – re Viewmont High events. He might have been so determined – that one girl in his VW might be not satisfactory to him. It is like Lake Sam sequel, but “enhanced” – without the need for remote place, just madness to fulfill his ‘appetite’ for someone really attractive.

  30. The main reason I think the alibi theory is implausible is that it would have to be the worst alibi in history.

    Police officer: “What were you doing on the evening of November the 8th 1975?”

    Bundy: “I was at Viewmont High School, asking women who were complete strangers to me to come to the parking lot so they could identify a car. Why do you ask?”

    To me, returning for a second victim or to quickly search for a missing key are a lot more plausible.

  31. It is so amazing this thread is doing so fine and so long. Looks like Bundy thread will survive even Internet destruction lol! 🙂
    Anyone planning to realease a book compiling all the posts here? 🙂

  32. Maybe he didn’t get down on his hands and knees in order to peer under tables, maybe he didn’t ask any passersby if they’d seen a small handcuff key, but it’s certainly possible that he discreetly scanned the floor with eyes while walking back in and sitting down. I don’t think we can say with any certainty he definitely didn’t do that.

  33. The only problem with your theory, Peter, is that he wasn’t busy looking for a key. He was sitting down, perhaps for the first time that evening. He was seen by others and he wasn’t scanning the floor.

  35. The importance of finding the key, or how different Debra’s case would have been investigated if it was not.

    From a news article written by the little sister of Carlene Tengelsen, a 16-year-old girl who vanished from Macon, Georgia on June 21, 1972

    “Dear Mrs. Tengelsen,

    “We noticed that on your daughter we have not received any information from you stating she has returned home. We would appreciate any new developments on your daughter. If she has returned home, we would like to cancel out the [file] on your daughter. ”

    This letter was sent to the Tengelsen’s two years after Carlene vanished and it’s a example of the mindset of police investigators in the late 60’s through early 80’s.

    Just like Debra, Carlene’s family was told they could not report her missing for 24 hours. When they did they were told their daughter was not missing, she was just a runaway.

    Carlene had just gotten her drivers license. The day she vanished was the first time she was allowed to drive alone. That was 42 years ago – her car was found the next day – Carlene is still missing.

    Little was done to find Carlene at the time because in the early ‘70’s most authorities felt runaway teens (every missing teen with no evidence of foul play) was a family problem – not a police problem worthy of extensive investigating.

    I will soon be 66. I always find it bemusing that most of the people commenting on long ago cases assume that today’s police investigative protocols mirror decades old paradigms.

    They don’t. They are light years different.

    Angela Meeker vanished from Tacoma, Washington, two day before her 14th birthday on July 7, 1979. Well she was known to skip school so three years would pass before police would even take a formal missing person’s report.

    In my opinion, no key recovered, no evidence of foul play, would have translated into little being done to find Debra at the time.

    No arrest or confession by Ted, and only the passing of decades coupled with changing protocols would have reclassified her as endangered missing rather then a runaway juvenile.

    It was the key, which matched the handcuffs of a living victim who could identify him, that changed everything. It’s why I feel Ted would risk reentering the crowded auditorium in a attempt to recover it.

    Of course like the competing theory’s, returned for a second victim or returned to establish a alibi, it just a theory.

  36. Hi Kevin, hi folks

    I am just really touched that someone is missing me here lol 🙂
    I am more or less alive – still obsessive – but my interests have radically changed – just focused on other stuff.

    Anyway – my memories of my intense participation in this giant thread are good.

    And who is Jutta ? 🙂
    A person who looks thru the thread to get my 4-year old posts and insight 🙂 which I almost totally forgot now 🙂
    I am impressed.
    Jutta, thanks for appreciation 🙂 How nice of you.
    You can always contact me through Admin or Kevin 🙂 if you wish.

    Take care much-maligned
    Bart

  38. Hey Kevin,

    Yes, I can see why you may have found it to be an odd comment, but I meant no harm. I simply saw the opportunity to make a joke and I took a chance. I’m sure your friends and family love the book! I guess it’s also because of the fact that you seem feel the need to remind us really quite often that most people love the book, that it was bought without the help of an agent, after only three weeks, that it’s a steady seller, that it’s sure to be a steady seller for years to come, and I guess you brag about it in a way that’s not very flattering, and I find it a little bit irritating. So I made a joke to tease you, but I wasn’t being malicious.

    It’s a big achievement to write a book, to be writer, to sit a a desk and think and write, and I’m of the opinion that it’s a really wonderful thing to do with one’s life. You have my sincere congratulations for all you have achieved, and I wish you all the best with your current and future work.

  39. “when I saw more than one positive review for your book on Amazon.”

    Why, Leon, what an odd comment. Most of the folks who read my book really like it. Just like the acquisition editor and publisher that grabbed it up. What’s not to like? Very strange comment, but no matter.

    Btw: I actually have some friends AND family members who’ve read the book, have told me they love it, but have never left a review. Also strange.

  40. Hey Kevin,

    I wonder why the thought crossed your mind that my post was either made by Hal in disguise, or else by someone who knows him? Although I kind of know what you mean, for the same thought actually crossed my mind when I saw more than one positive review for your book on Amazon. I thought, is Kevin just ghost writing all of these reviews? Or maybe he’s managed to persuade his friends to write them?

    Just kidding!

    No problem Hal, I genuinely thought you presented a strong and believable argument. I can imagine Bundy returning to the auditorium after bludgeoning Kent, being an an extreme state of excitement – and let’s not forget, probably quite drunk – feeling a weird mix of adrenaline, sexual energy and nerves, looking around in a quest for another (easy) victim (I have no idea how it feels to hit someone really hard over the head with a crowbar, especially when one considers how much build-up and fantasy was released through the act, and perhaps – just speculating – he was full of drink-induced daring, was feeling greedy, and dealing with absolute blind rage and lust), and then having a moment when he perhaps realised how just unhinged he was, how much risk he was taking, and so sat down, took a breath…. But who knows, I’m only speculating.

    Going back to search for the handcuff key is actually quite plausible too, as Peter also agreed.

    We’ll never know! Which is sort of what keeps us talking about it.

  41. So sorry, I forgot the quote marks above! Everything after #1733 was copied/pasted from Bart’s post.

  42. Wow, I actually found Bart’s post – quite by lucky accident! #1733

    I only have certain impression – when reading about what happened on that memorable evening November 8 1974 both in Murray and Bountiful – I feel that Bundy was somewhat disappointed (how terribly it sounds for normal a person) with his final victim that night.

    He lost opportunity to abduct very attractive Carol DaRonch – then he abandoned equally attractive drama teacher at Viewmont Highschool in Bountiful – so he ultimately took “what was currently available” that is poor Debbie Kent (I hope her soul excuses my language).

    I think he was not happy with ‘standard’ she represented.

    I have a photo of Debbie Kent – and found her not as strikingly attractive as other Bundy victims – she was rather average girl from neighborhood.

  43. Hal – The much-maligned “bart” posted the same idea you did, years ago upthread… that Bundy went back hoping to get what he really wanted (Raelynn Shepard) instead of just “settling” for Debbie Kent.

    An interesting thought nonetheless. I’ll see if I can dig up his post.

    BTW, “bart” is a previous poster who was quite active at one time. Say, does anyone know what happened to him? He asked some strange questions and posted some oddball theories, but nothing as weird as some of the stuff that came later. I kind of miss him!

  44. “Really appreciated the comments Leon! Thanks a lot, I liked reading it. I only hope no one thinks we’re the same person!”
    It did cross my mind. That, or someone who knows you. 🙂

    “I *do* think the Auditorium re-entry is quite a big deal, and was the major new revelation in Kevin’s book”

    A good revelation, but certainly not a major one in my view; but thanks!

    Some info I received about the case I did not put in the book. One example of this concerned the Kent abduction. Mike Fisher told me of a young woman he interviewed who told him (she was a student and a friend of Kent) that she tried to get Bundy to pick her up while he was in the auditorium prior to the abduction, when Bundy was pacing back and forth along the back wall. She made it clear though her eye contact with Ted that she wanted him to pick her up for a casual encounter, but he wanted nothing to do with her. She was also apparently still “available” when he returned back inside, but he still ignored her. I know who this woman is, but of course, I cannot say. I also know why Bundy decided to leave her alone, but again, I cannot say.

    Also, I think you’re right as to Kent not really being Bundy’s “type” but at that point he just didn’t care. She was a woman and he wanted to kill her. And yet, he wanted nothing to do with this other woman.

  45. No they don’t, Richard, and we’re not going there again.
    I know you hold a totally different view of his escape than I or the rest of the Bundy biographers do, and I don’t believe a word of it as NO evidence backs it up.

  46. “… I do not participate in speculation where said speculation is presented as fact. Never.” [post 6934 by KS]

    Your account of Bundy’s first escape (pp 187-189 of your book) is speculation. The facts dispute your account. Yet you present this speculation as if it were fact.

  47. It’s a pity you can’t edit posts on here. I said Tannay twice, when I should have said Lewis both times. And mentioned Keppel re: the Kent murder, when it would obviously have been one of the other detectives. Anyway…

    It’s obvious myself and Kevin have completely opposite views on this and neither of us has been convinced by the other. I view him as Governor Martinez to my Ted. No matter what incentives I come up with, he’s still gonna fry me in the morning.

    I *do* think the Auditorium re-entry is quite a big deal, and was the major new revelation in Kevin’s book (even if, obviously, I didn’t follow his line of thinking beyond that). Any future works will almost certainly have to take it on board. Infact, I’ve read it at least once since, so I suspect that process has already begun. (I think Keppel’s 2nd book is the only overview published since Kevin’s, so it’s probably there). Bizarrely, the details are also right there in Michaud’s book 30 years ago! (including the detail that Ted *was* breathing heavy when he sat down). But he doesn’t join the dots so I’m not sure if he didn’t want to explicitly say it or just hadn’t worked it out. I’ve always thought this was the most audacious manoeuvre of his ‘career’, but it appears I didn’t know the half of it.

    Another factor I naively thought I could convince everyone without mentioning is this: Kent has never struck me as Ted’s type. Less so than anyone else, really. Sure, she fits right in on the board – young, pretty, long dark hair – but I think she was more of a ‘homely girl’ than his usual victims. Almost all of whom would have turned most male heads when they walked into a bar. I don’t think Ted spent long evaluating her, but what he really wanted was Carol DaRonch. And, I believe, after heaving Kent into the car, he went back in to get her.

    It would be interesting to know what the detectives thought of all this, if they ever saw this board. Again, I have my suspicions about which side they would all come down on. You wouldn’t have to bother asking Keppel. Even if the ‘alibi theory’ was airtight, a choice for Keppel that included more butchering intent from Ted is a no brainer.

    Really appreciated the comments Leon! Thanks a lot, I liked reading it. I only hope no one thinks we’re the same person!

  48. Liz has a business in Seattle, and a fellow I know sent me a pic of her in the ad. Well, she looks exactly as she did in a pre-1974 photo with Bundy, only older. She married after she left Ted and that her husband has since passed away. I can’t remember what her last name is today.

    Good luck on finding the cabin, LOL!

    Kevin

  49. Hello again- thank you for the welcome !

    I spent today doing research and found Liz Klopfer, and her daughter, and Carol Boone and her/Ted’s daughter. All of their names are changed.

    What I cannot find is the A-frame cabin near Cresent Lake- and I live in Gig Harbor! I tried internet searches, and searches at the Pierce co. Assessor office.

    Would love advice!!

  50. I seem to recall a few years ago, some dude went and took some pics of the crime scene Ted described in Keppel’s book (where he allegedly took Georgann Hawkins). So I’m sure the info is out there, it’s just a matter of finding it.

    Maybe look up old records under his mom or stepdad’s name?

Comments are closed.