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”

  1. In a funny sort of way, this ET thread would make for a really good play. A few posts back someone suggested turning it into a book, but actually I think it would be better suited as a piece of theatre. If you imagine the setting as being some sort of cafe – or simply a darkened room – where Kevin sits at a square table in the centre, underneath a candelabra. Over the course of the play different people come into the room where they sit at the table to discuss Bundy. There are a few reoccurring characters, and a few who only make brief appearances before leaving. There is definitely a narrative to it. There’s also a funny sort of religious allegory in there somewhere. Maybe Sullivan is Jesus, KYGB and Ted Montgomery are the loyal diciples, and Richard is the judas figure. Of course, the headsman would be God and Bundy Satan, unless Sullivan is God and Richard is Satan, thrown out of paradise for defying the all-mighty one.

    Seriously though, it’s sad to see so much nastiness appearing on this thread. Richard, I have some sympathy for you, for although I don’t agree with any of your theories, it’s never nice to see someone bullied and mocked by other people who are also (presumably) adults.

    I hope the play gets made someday. If not, then perhaps Executed Today: Ted Bundy – The Musical.

  2. Well, Richard, you opened a can of worms with that one!

    You have again openly insulted me (more pot shots), and as I said above, you do this constantly. I refuse to do the same to you.

    And not only have you insulted me, but you’ve insulted others here as well. You’ve even smeared the headsman! Very odd.

  3. This forum is not a place where people can come to discuss Bundy and his victims intelligently and to consider the facts and different points of view. It is a cesspool where Sullivan flaunts his grandiose self-image and where anyone who challenges his theories is denigrated and subjected to personal insults by him and his cowardly rat pack. I know of a number of people who won’t post here or who have left because of this infantile behavior. I only endure it because I believe there is more that can be done to resolve the victims’ issues. The Headsman must be proud of what he has created.

  4. Richard, Jutta gives you a little jolt so you cry like a baby, eh?

    Take it like a man, Richard, take it like a man.

    What word was it that Jutta didn’t pronounce properly? And how do you know, is there an audio version of the ET thread somewhere?

    As far as I’m concerned, Jutta’s recent posts have added more value to the thread than anything you’ve posted in the last couple years.

    Ever since you put out that “book”.

  5. Richard: You’re the second person to post that article at this site. Thanks!

  7. “To hide behind the anonymity of the Internet to spew venom is not the act of a clear-thinking person … please don’t stoop to low-brow name-calling here.’ [post 7004 by Ted M.]

    Jutta. How can you be here to read about Bundy if you can’t understand what you read? You’ve engaged in exactly the sort of behavior what Ted M. has asked you not to.

    You’re too much of a coward to reveal your real identity when you denigrate those of us who do. Insulting a person’s family name is the kind of behavior in which little children engage. You have amply demonstrated that you don’t even know how to spell or to pronounce words much less understand what they mean. So you throw them around mindless of how it affects others because you think it’s clever. You should be ashamed.

  9. I’m resentful on behalf of Hal. That should’ve been a triple bill.

    I can’t wait for the inevitable Lifetime movie based on Hagmaier’s inevitable book, in which Bill will be given a drinking problem, a fictitious family he neglects, and will be slapped, Mrs. Kintner-style, by at least one grieving mother of one of Ted’s victims for “befriending” Bundy.

  10. I third that motion. I come here to read about Bundy, not to watch the Doofus & Sullivan show.

    Gentlemen – do us a favor and take your little argument offline.

  11. I’m with NW gal here.

    Richard, you’ve put your wacky theories on the Bundy case on view for all to see in your self published book. They have been rejected by all but a handful of readers. Kevin doesn’t have to defend his book to you. TBM is a factual history of the crimes. Your book is a delusional fantasy.

    If all you can do is throw sand, you need to go play in a different sandbox.

  12. Richard- please stop. I’ve read the posts for 5 years. I have two masters degrees and a PHD. I am not a genious but I understand research and writing a book or articles. Let’s stop nickel and dimimg. Thanks

  13. I didn’t report theories, Richard, I reported FACTS I found in the public record. It really is that simple. I honestly don’t know what I can say beyond this.

    If you want to take the time and locate these records yourself – as I had to do – go for it. But as to further explanations, I’m finished.

  14. “The case files, Richard. It’s all in the case files.” [post 7030 by KS]

    That’s nifty, Kevin. Do you mean I can support my theories by just saying “The public record, folks. It’s all in the public record. Go look for it.”?

  15. Hi NW gal…

    He told me that over the years several publishers have asked him to write a book, but thus far he’s said no.

    If Bill ever writes it, it won’t be a full bio of the killer but his in-depth experience with Bundy. And of course, it will make a great story. So we need to keep our fingers crossed that he’ll do it one day.

  16. Interesting! Sure wish Bill would write a book! Glad he talked to you so much, Kevin.

  18. I read an interview with Hagmaier who stated that he took the Bundy interviews as his assignment so he could train himself. This was in the very early days of BSA and there was no one assigned to train the new SA’s so it was done OJT style.

    Hagmaier took it slow, used flattery and played to the infamous “Bundy ego”.. The other FBI interviewers had held adversarial type approach and Bundy basically clammed up. Bob Ressler, in particular, was very negative about Hagmaier’s style with Bundy and was critical of his soft approach with Ted.

    Ressler was livid when he found out that Hagmaier had given a copy of Ressler’s book to Ted. Professional jealousy running rampant, I’d say.

    There are those who want to hear the taped interviews btw Ted and Hagmaier. They essentially don’t exist. Bundy insisted that the interview not be taped and Bill concurred. The few interviews that were taped or transcribed were only a couple of ’em done at the very end.

  19. Hal,

    It’s my understanding that Bill didn’t meet Bundy until Bundy was under close scrutiny by the BSA (Behavioral Science Unit) and he was the guy who took the job. Bill told me that Louise’s trust in him did in fact come from Bundy, as Ted came to the place where he trusted him implicitly.

    Oddly, Hagmaier told me that some of his fellow agents criticized him for being too friendly towards Bundy. I then responded that those agents must not be very smart, as that’s exactly the way you get close to your subject so that he will open up to you.

    Hagmaier said that almost all of their conversations were just between the two of them without the aid of either hidden or open recording. And I believe it was just this type of thing that caused ted to trust him. They just were talking, and was easy going, as it were.

    Bill did the right thing getting close to Ted, and Louise appreciated him.

  20. >>>Why would Louise take such an interest in Hagmaier? Because she’d heard so many good things about him from her son.

    Well, this could be true, but you there are always other possibilities. It’s not a situation lacking in complexity.

    You may know more about this than you’ve mentioned, although the recent posts suggest that no one is sure how Bill & Ted’s excellent adventure got started.

    In the absence of that, isn’t it just as likely that Bill met Ted through Louise, rather than vice versa? Bill may have arrived at Starke on Louise’s recommendation. Given we can assume that the FBI would have contacted the family, Bill may have been that very man, moving on to Ted next either by accident or (crafty) design.

  21. No, Richard, you’re incorrect.

    The case files, Richard. It’s all in the case files. That is THE EVIDENCE.

    You may not believe what’s in the case files, but I do.

    As Theodore once said: “The evidence is there, look for it.”

  22. Kevin, you say “I don’t have to provide any evidence.” [post 7021 by KS] Yet you demand evidence from others: “I don’t believe a word of it as NO evidence backs it up.” [post 6956 by KS]

    Your claims are not immune to scrutiny. None are.

    Questioning evidence and conclusions is not taking pot shots. It is not attacking. It is not spewing venom. It is not low-brow name-calling. It is not hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet.

    It is legitimate discourse and it is the result of clear thinking. It is how we get to the truth.

    The answer would have been simple. You would have briefly stated the facts that support your conclusions. By evading that answer you communicate that you know or are afraid that the evidence is in some way inadequate.

  23. Thanks all! Topelius, that’s Ted talking about himself! LOL

    I’ve always believed Bundy would’ve naturally been hypersensitive to manipulation (after all, it takes one to know one) but there were times he seemed astonishingly dense in this regard, like when he agreed to “speculate” to M&A. Maybe his desire to confess (actually, brag) overrode this concern.

    I too believe Ted’s friendship with Hagmaier was for real, although I suspect it started out as two men warily playing games with each other. You know, Bill pretending to be all nice and caring, and Ted being Ted. Over time, it evolved into a genuine friendship, if you can call it that.

    It’d be fascinating to find out what Bill said or did to become Ted’s ‘anointed one’ – did he just patiently listen and nod while maintaining a poker face? Did he flatter Ted and make him feel important (ala Dale Carnegie)? Was it just chemistry?

    Ted’s not the only one who’s wondering “I don’t know what made people want to be friends”!

  25. Hey Jutta,

    Bundy, once caught, loved the celebrity of being an infamous killer. He took great pride in it.

    He also, throughout his experience with the authorities, hinted at his guilt. There seemed to be a need to confess, although he’d always stop short of admitting it. And sometimes he would come close to confessing but only as a taunt.

    Because Bundy didn’t trust anybody, he wouldn’t be an easy mark for those like him. Could somebody manipulate him? Maybe, but he was a master manipulator so it would be difficult to do.

  26. That’s a great question about whether or not Bundy relalized he was being manipulated or not… but a stipulation of the question is: Was he REALLY being manipulated (or did the “good guys” just want you to believe he was)? Keppel would have went to FL to meet up with Bundy even if Bundy offered no insights into the WA crimes. Bundy knew that Keppel KNEW he was the Washington “Ted” killer…which is why he wrote to Keppel to offer him insights in the first place. What would an “innocent” manin prison really have to offer in terms of the thinking paterns of a serial killer (the Green River Killer) that a psychologist couldn’t? Ted knew that Bob knew and Ted was running the show with Bob from the second he arrived at the Prison in FL.

    I, for one, believe that Hagmaier did indeed become somewhat of a friend to Bundy. Hagmaier may have had to state otherwise so that other people in Law Enforcement didn’t see him as being a “fake” or being a guy who “sides with the bad guy””… but when you start to spend a good amount of time with someone and get to know them personally (even if to a small extent), a bond is formed…and unless you’re a sociopath, that bond means something. I dont think Hagmaier was just a “manipulate” friend. He was interested in what Bundy could share with the world about the thinking of serial killers. Hagmaier was intrigued by this. They were both getting something out of this “friendship” that went on from when they first met in 1985 up until Ted’s execution in 1989 (which Hagmaier did NOT want to see. In fact, he was upset that Ted was getting killed, but again, he couldn’t just come right out and say that or he opened up the door to having people in Law Enforcement consider him a back-stabber.

  27. Hal,

    The closeness between Bundy and Hagmaier was very real. And after Ted was put to death, not only did Louise Bundy send Bill a Christmas card every year, but she and Johnny visited him at his FBI office on more than one occasion.

    Why would Louise take such an interest in Hagmaier? Because she’d heard so many good things about him from her son.

  28. In a word, Jutta, no. Bundy certainly had defences around his ‘secrets’, but I suspect he was otherwise easily played.

    Kevin’s book has something early on about how Bundy ‘fully understood the public and media’s fascination with him’. I don’t agree with this at all. Knowing that they were fascinated, and actually ‘understanding’ it are completely different things. If Bundy fully understood it, he’d still be alive.

    You know, I don’t think he ‘fully understood’ ANYTHING. Including himself.

    Hagmaier is a funny one. He’s never given the impression that he was out-and-out playing Bundy. I don’t really know how that relationship worked (or began). And although I’m drawing a lot from very little, the moments in the confession tapes where Bundy addresses him… it doesn’t sound like they were close.

  29. Time for a question! Calling all you armchair psychologists!

    We all know that Bundy was a master manipulator. I wonder if this “skill” also gave him an above-average ability to sense if HE was being manipulated.

    For example, when he agreed to “speculate” about his crimes in the early 80s. He must’ve known this was just a ploy to squeeze incriminating info from him — or was he really that blind?

    Or Bill Hagmaier becoming his “friend” and Keppel agreeing to use Bundy’s “expertise” to help solve the Green River crimes. Surely Ted knew they were manipulating him as much as he was them… or did he?

    And in a similar vein, do you think Ted would’ve fallen victim to a cunning serial killer, someone like Randy Kraft who successfully convinced straight male MARINES to fall into his trap? Or do you think would he have instantly figured out what Randy was up to?

    (Tony: Thanks for posting that creepy story a few pages back… Kraft makes Bundy look like a rank amateur in the persuasive skills department)

  30. “you tell us where you got your information. But you’re not providing evidence to back up what you wrote.”

    I don’t have to provide any evidence. What, are you asking me to provide the actual Police and FBI reports? Really, is that what you’re saying? How absurd!!! You will need to obtain the files the same way I did years ago.

    Btw: You’re projecting upon me, Richard, what you do: It is you that has grown accustomed to attacking me. You lurk and occasionally take those pot shots that Ted M. was referring to in an above post. That would be your problem, not mine.

  31. If you don’t want to answer a question, cause a distraction by attacking the person asking the question. If that doesn’t work, answer a different question so it looks like you answered. Instead of telling what facts you have, you tell us where you got your information. But you’re not providing evidence to back up what you wrote.

    I’m not going to push any further, It’s obvious you’ll continue to employ whatever tactic you can to evade the question. You can’t come up with any evidence because there isn’t any.

    And, sure, you don’t have to answer every question. But it doesn’t look good when you’re being asked to provide evidence to support your theories, especially when others do present their evidence.

  32. I’m not calling you a fraud, Richard, I’m saying you used wild speculations to come to some far-reaching theories with no basis in fact. And in fact I told you this before I ever had a conversation here with you about it. So I was very upfront with you, and was literally dragged into these debates once you started posting your theories at this site and folks responded.

    Also, I’m not worming out of anything. If I choose not to answer that’s my business. But I will answer your question concerning those particular pages:

    Almost exclusively from the official record. Police reports, FBI reports, etc.

    Why? Where else could I have gotten this information?

  33. re post 7010:

    You’re ducking the question, Kevin. I’ll ask it again.

    If you’re not speculating, how do you know what Bundy did, saw, and thought, as you described in pages 187-189 of your book?

    And how on earth does asking you to back up your claims with facts constitute taking pot shots?

    If anyone is taking pot shots, it’s you. To avoid answering my question you instead accuse me of interpreting the evidence to suit some predetermined outcome. That’s a nasty accusation. You’re calling me a fraud. And, as usual, you offer nothing specific to back it up.

    So quit trying to worm your way out of it. Answer the question.

  34. I too would like to find out if Ted was the son of Sam! It would enlighten a piece of the mystery. I really hope they find a way to do the test.

    Now that Louise is gone, she cant feel any shame from the answer or be bothered by reporters about it.

  35. Ted Montgomery,

    Your blindly sycophantic post is so full of misreadings and falsehoods, I’ll gladly point them out to you one by one if you wish. Let me know.

    Peter,

    Ted’s DNA profile really should be given the full once-over, if it hasn’t already. I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure it would reveal if he was the son of the mysterious, untraceable ‘Jack Worthington’ or Sam Cowell, Ted’s grandfather. If they could separate his parental markers, it should be easy to tell if these markers were from a father and daughter.

    If it was in any way inconclusive, a test against any of his half siblings would be definitive. 50% of their parental markers should match 50% of Ted’s. But if – it would make a great headline, this – it turns out that TED BUNDY IS THE SON OF SAM, then 50% of the half sibling’s parental markers would match ALL of Ted’s.

    I’m not for a second suggesting that children born of incestuous relationships aren’t living full, happy and productive lives same as the rest of us, but it would be the answer to a very interesting piece of the puzzle nonetheless. And the answer is out there, if anyone with access is bothered to find out.

  36. Hi KYGB and Kevin

    Thanks for getting back to me. The dates you provided seem to eliminate the possibility that Diane
    Gilchrist is a unknown Bundy victim. Unless she was hitchhiking north to Seattle and had the misfortune of running into him. But if so her remains should have been recovered on Taylor Mountain, as that appears to be the dump site he was using at the time.
    .
    I got distracted yesterday by a potently new serial killer case out of Orlando, Florida.

    Nancy Grace Daniel, 14, disappeared from Orlando on September 6, 1976. Her family always felt that the 5’3” 100 pound girl ran away to start a new life. But Nancy never ran away. Six months later, in early 1977, her remains were found in woods by the shores of Lake Mann

    They sat in a evidence locker for decades until last month two ex-detectives who volunteer their time to work cold cases with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reopened her case. Using DNA Nancy was identified in June of 2014, 37 plus years after she was reported missing..

    Her older brother Willie Daniel said of his only sister,. “As long as she’s been gone, I never imagined that my sister was dead. I really wanted to know where she was and how she was doing. I feel a little closure on it now.”

    The teenagers remains was not the only body found.

    On January 21, 1977 the remains of another young African American girl were found close by. She is estimated to have been 17 to 20 years old, and have been around 5’6” tall and 120 pounds in life. She is still a Jane Doe (NamUs case number: UP 1328)

    Investigators are now going through old missing people and unsolved homicide cases as they have reason to believe its possible a number of cases are connected.

    Not to beat a dead horse, but this is a example of why a number of very old, lost, closed, or technically solved cases, including several of Bundy’s confessed but unfound victims, are now being added to NamUs and a DNA profile established.

  37. He abducted Brenda Ball on the evening of May 31, 1974. From my book:

    On the night Brenda Ball disappeared, Bundy had spent the early portion of the evening with Liz Kendall, Tina, and her parents who were in town visiting. They had gone out for pizza that evening and returned to her place around 10 P.M. It was at this time, Liz said, that he seemed “anxious to leave,”27 and he missed Tina’s baptism the following morning; an odd occurrence in itself, but especially so, as Liz’s father was doing the baptizing. Years later, during a telephone conversation with Kendall after his arrest in Florida, Ted confessed to her his involvement in Ball’s disappearance as well as the Lake Sammamish murders. In regards to Ball he mumbled something she didn’t understand, and when Liz asked him to repeat it, Bundy responded, “It’s pretty scary, isn’t it?”28

    Kevin M. Sullivan. The Bundy Murders: A Comprehensive History (p. 31). Kindle Edition.

    Personally, I doubt Bundy was involved with that one, but that’s as close as I can get to that date.

    Also, the FBI report has numerous errors that don’t jive with the official local police reports, so there is that.

  39. Give me a little time, Peter, and I’ll get back with you. I’ll be consulting my book as I have lots of dates, locations, etc.

  40. I first came here to ask a question about a 1970’s Utah Jane Doe who remains unidentified to this day.

    Kevin did not know of the case, which did not surprise me, few people do.

    Kevin will probably not be able to give me any edification on Bundy’s unknown but confessed victims as well. I was reviewing several little known missing person’s cases from the ’70s and thought I would ask.

    Kevin or anyone else, if you know, where was Bundy on Wednesday May 29, 1974? This would be just under two weeks before Georgeann Hawkins abduction and murder

    The reason I ask is that’s the date 14 year old Diane Sue Gilchrist vanished from Vancouver, Clark County, Washington.

    It’s a long shot at best and I am really looking to rule the possibility out, but outside the fact that Diane was a strawberry blonde she fit’s the physical profile of a typical Bundy victim.

    Little is known about Diane’s disappearance. She was classified as a runaway by the Vancouver PD. Her case file was either closed, lost, or destroyed sometime after she was reported missing. Later her case was picked up by the Clark County Sheriffs Department where it eventually went cold and became inactive.

    Speculation is that she was the victim of suspected serial killer, Warren Leslie Forrest, a former Ft. Vancouver High School big man on campus and varsity sports president.

    My research has confirmed that Forrest was free and actively hunting at the time Diane vanished. I am looking to confirm she could not have been one of Bundy’s unidentified hitchhiking victims.

    If interested a photo of Diane and my take on her case.
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201347435027165&l=9e49ae377a

  41. I will do this with you one more time, Richard, and I’ll use your quotes from above…

    You’re correct that I used these words: “building one conjecture after another, and one theory after another, and building a story around them.”, and this is what you did when writing your book. That is, you would speculate on a particular thing, and use that speculation to build a bridge to another speculation, and it could go on and on until you had the picture you desired. A perfect example of this is your theory of what was behind Bundy’s escape and recapture from Colorado, and what Theodore did while free. Utterly amazing.

    Indeed, at one point in our conversation, I called your speculation WILD SPECULATION.

    I have not done this…

    Any “speculation” I had did not have to do with building a large theory, and pulling it together by mini speculations. Any speculations I had – and there are only a handful in the book – have to do with singular incidents. The Kathy Parks speculations I had were based on some evidence as I saw it, and both were confirmed by Lorraine Fargo as being correct.

    Why Bundy came back into the school is also a singular event, and I focus on this singular event and attempt to explain his actions based on evidence as I see it. That’s all.

    Again, the speculations found in your book has to do with the larger picture where numerous and wild speculations were added to one another until you had the answers for your “bigger picture”. They were not singular event speculations.

    I hope this helps.

    Also, Richard: KYGB is correct that you only come out of the darkness to “fire pot shots” at me, and I find that very unbecoming.

  42. For the benefit of those who read what they want to read rather than what is actually written: my comments concern Kevin’s book and his statements in this forum, not mine.

    Kevin has previously taken it upon himself to criticize me for engaging in what he calls speculation:

    “When writing Richard I spoke of the problems of building one conjecture after another, and one theory after another, and building a story around them. You just can’t do it; not if you are writing nonfiction.” [post 5426 by KS]

    He has claimed that he has never engaged in speculation and presented it as fact:

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

    I have challenged him to stand behind those words. Given his previous statements, this is a fair challenge. Kevin has thus far ignored that challenge so I will re-iterate:

    Kevin, if you’re not speculating, how do you know what Bundy did, saw, and thought, as you described in pages 187-189 of your book?

  43. To one and all,

    Hal and I are clearly not the same person, although I just went back and reread the last few pages worth of posts, with some amusement, imagining that we were. I don’t understand why it seems so incongruous that two different people could disagree with Kevin about the same thing, and engage with him about it.

    Kevin is definitely not a blameless victim here who has been bullied, although I admit to being perhaps unnecessarily and unproductively provocative towards him. To say that Hal – and now myself – have “serious issues”, and that “it must feel terrible to be you” is not exactly encouraging an intelligent and civil debate.

    I’m actually from New Zealand, although I live in London and have done for almost 10 years. I like living here, have a nice home, a group of friends whose company I enjoy, and a girlfriend whom I love. I get to play cricket in the weekends and otherwise enjoy the many beautiful parks (reading, bbqing, sitting in the grass), and I ride my bicycle to work quite early each morning, where sometimes, at such an early hour, there are foxes on the roads and bike paths. It doesn’t feel terrible to be me, at least not any more than I imagine it feels to be anyone of you.

    By the way, the was a video on the Guardian website today in which defence lawyers from a few infamous cases were interviewed. John Henry Browne was one of them, and he talked a little about Ted Bundy. He’s only in it for a short time, but it was kind of interesting.

    http://www.theguardian.com/law/video/2014/jun/27/defending-murderers-what-is-it-like-manson-bundy-bulger-killers-video

  44. Why thank you, Hal.

    But it was another poster’s observation of and question about why there were two right-hand gloves that even made me think about it. We armchair detectives need to put our heads together!

  46. Peter,

    >>>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.

    Great typo! I’ve yet to get on the Nita Neary Express!

    I hoped I had dealt with the above in an ‘absolute’ fashion as it’s black and white, but to recap… Would Ted have ignored his previous promises to himself (that we all seem to agree on), and abduct a second victim? No matter what kind of spotlight this could put on him?

    Yes. We know this for sure. Her name was Debbie Kent.

    >>>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.

    I’d add to that the fact Bundy no longer had any need of it. It’s hard to imagine it would have concerned him at all. That’s the real kicker (for me).

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

    Indeed. I’m not a fan of this theory, but you can argue that he calls even less attention to himself looking, if he breaks the process up by sitting down.

    KYGB,

    No comment for Kevin?

    Jutta,

    Hilarious post. Cheers for that. I had a right old snicker.

    Leon,

    I’ve got nothing to say to you. I’m back on the pills now and my personalities are all back under one umbrella.

    I hope the next time I have one of these episodes I can at least change my writing style more, and not hint I may be English as Hal has said he is. Bloody amateur, that.

    Leon may never have been to America, but ‘Hal’ sure has. He’s even been right at the epicentre of the hunt for perhaps America’s SECOND most interesting badboy. In sunny Kansas. Talk for another site (since he won’t be executed).

    Jane,

    That’s what it’s all about! You CAN present something new and have it just feel absolutely right without a signed form from Ted.

    Why did Bundy only have right hand gloves? Mystery goddang solved. Close the book on that one right now! Well done Jane! Superb.

    Hal (till my next dose).

  47. Aargh! Enough with the “auditorium” talk. It doesn’t matter what Bundy’s motivations were (can we at least all agree that they were driven by psychotic impulses?), and no one will ever know why he went back in (if he even did). Trying to solve this is an exercise in futility. It doesn’t really matter, anyway.

    What I’m more distressed about are the attacks on Kevin as a historian, researcher and author. Kevin is the only one of the hundreds who have posted on this thread whom we know to be who he says he is. That is, we all know a lot more about Kevin than he knows about us. To hide behind the anonymity of the Internet to spew venom is not the act of a clear-thinking person.

    It’s great to have vigorous debate here; Kevin and I have had a few disagreements in the past about some Bundy-related matters, but we never resorted to vicious character assassinations. We are just two people interested in the same subject who will occasionally disagree. I like that, actually. It makes for more robust discussion.

    But don’t ever lose sight of the fact that we’re all here having
    these discussions because of Kevin’s original work, his generosity of spirit, and his unfailing devotion to staying connected with all of us. He could have walked away a long time ago, but he didn’t.

    Go ahead and disagree with him: I have. But please don’t stoop to low-brow name-calling here. It cheapens the whole endeavor, and besides, we’re all a little better than that, aren’t we?

    Coming soon: A Bundy sighting? You be the judge.

  48. Just finished reading about an hour of the posts as I haven’t been back in a while. A few comments

    I love the back and forth discussion about the auditorium. The posts are intelligent and thought-provoking. Let’s not be thin-skinned and shut down good debate.

    My question is: Do handcuff keys fit multiple generic handcuffs? Will one generic key fit, say, 3 out of 10 handcuffs? I don’t mean law-enforcement quality, just run-oft-the mill cuffs? Why would we think TB had only one pair of handcuffs/keys knowing he’s had multiple vics at once?

    Who says he went looking for a key when he went back (if he even went back which I’m not sure I buy). The witnesses could have been wrong about the time. I think he clocked her and took off, as the apartment witness said she heard the car roar out of the lot. IF he did go back, I’d say it was to retrieve something as he explained to other investigators. He went back to the parking lot the day after Hawkins and got her pierced earrings and a white clog. He didn’t want anything found, he said.

    The reason for two right-handed gloves is because left-handed Bundy was always getting them bloody as that was the hand that rocked the crowbar. He was probably always buying gloves and throwing away the left one because it was too bloody evidentiary to keep around. So half the time, he had two righties, including the night he was busted. Remember Liz pulled a surgical glove out of his pocket one night when he told her he’d break her neck if she said anything. Imagine if she kept finding bloody ones — no he had to keep discarding gloves.

    Upthread (I think it was Jutta) asked about Jan Otts skull: Yes, I remember the pic of the doctor with her skull. She had an elongation of a part of her skull. I specifically remember him quoted as saying: “She wouldn’t have even known she had it.”, whatever condition it was she had the caused the bone elongation.

  50. Jutta, that was pretty funny.

    Hal/Leon The horse has been officially declared DOA. Kindly stop hitting it with your bat.

    Richard, you could lay off beating your nag, too. It’s getting super annoying to have you pop in here and fire pot shots at Kevin. It isn’t Kevin’s fault your book was such a disaster.

    Bart, welcome back. You and I had our moments, but it’s good to see you back on the thread.

Comments are closed.