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"
Laurie: –
The abduction which is described in Ann Rules book was on a girl who had children at home, There is no mention of her being pregnant, only that she was worried about her children who were home. She apparently came across Bundy because she was having trouble starting her car (Bundy had allegedly disabled it). Therefore, this story does not match yours and it probably isnt you.
I once asked Ann Rule at a signing about Ted and Hagmaier’s relationship. It is her opinion that Ted played Hagmaier for whatever he could. In my opinion, It is likely that they did form some type of friendship but it’s also likely that Ted wasn’t always honest with him. Even so, I think Hagmaier probably came closer to Ted than anyone else in terms of what was going on inside Ted’s head, as Ted only revealed details of some of his most perverse acts to Hagmaier. Ted even talked about his own death with Hagmaier as it approached and confessed some of his own fears. I think we need a book out of Hagmaier to talk about his work on Bundy, what he learned from him, and explain the why’s as much as possible. I dont know why he never wrote one as I’m sure the never before heard details would be of great interest. Ted may have tried to play him to a degree but Hagmaier likely knew this and did his job as best he could I’m sure.
I know you dont cover it in your book Kevin, but do you know about Ted’s religious beliefs during his final days? It is said that he didnt want to commit suicide because he was afraid god might not forgive him for his sins if he did…or something like that. Did he adopt religion in his final days as a last minute dose of hope? Do you think he really believed in God and that God was going to judge him?
Yes, most often Bundy did have a preselected spot. And yes, he often dragged the body to a spot close to the car; and may have used his headlights on occasion. the flash light, I assume, would be used every time he was dragging the body into the woods, and once again as he was leaving, for without it, unless it’s a moonlit night, he couldn’t see his hand in front of his face.
He did the Campbell murder (and everything that went along with it) in the car as it was exceedingly snowy and cold. In that instance, he had no other choice, but usually, I think he preferred to do whatever he was going to do on the ground.
Kevin, I understand that Ted would knock out his victim then put them in his car, but didn’t he often drive the unconscious victims to predetermined secluded spots?
What I was wondering was when he drove these unconscious victims to these spots, he would basically pull them out of his car and do his thing there by his car, didn’t he? He didn’t drive to a secluded spot, park his car and then drag victims deep into the woods right?
This may have been another reason why Ted preferred a VW bug as his vehicle, because it was a small vehicle and easier to drive into narrow paths by the woods right off the road.
Plus I doubt he would always use just a flashlight, especially if he was getting some sort of enjoyment out of mutilating the bodies. Isn’t it likely that he used his headlights to view his work?
To all–
I don’t believe Bundy ‘played’ Hagmaier. Bundy, I’m sure, had his doubts about hagmaier until Bill proved himself to Ted. I do know that Bundy had talked to his mother a good deal (apparently) about what a friend Bill was to him, and this led Louise Bundy to stay in contact with Hagmaier long after Bundy was executed.
keep in mind too, that despite his manipulative ways, Bundy had many “real’ moments with keppel as well, and even with M&A as he spoke in the third-person. This is abundantly clear from the “Conversations” book.
Hagmaier intended to play Bundy. His assignment was to befriend Bundy and see what he can get. Bundy I’m sure figured that out pretty easily. But he found Hagmaier to be someone with whom he could comfortably talk and fed him just enough insights to keep him coming back. His revelations were significant and truthful, but far from complete. Their relationship was interesting because, although they were adversaries, they seemed to share a genuine friendship.
The Keppel interviews were certainly worthwhile. He made significant revelations, but again, they were far from complete.
Laurie + Richard
It is possible that Bundy did manipulate Hagmaier but I dont believe it was to the extent that he manipulated other people if at all. Remember that Bundy had gave Hagmaier information on his murders which he didnt tell anyone else (him having four heads in his apartment, Kim Leach murder etc), even murders which in his own words some serial killers didnt talk about. This shows that Bundy trusted Hagmaier and felt at ease when talking about his treasured secrets, on murder. Therefore there would be little or no reason to manipulate him.
Hi everybody–
Listen. I think I need to make something clear before everyone takes an air-tight conviction on the matter:
I don’t know if Laurie had an encounter with Bundy or not. I do think I can say conclusively that the story Laurie tells of Ted picking up a hitchhiker and having sex with her and letting her go (a story Laurie seems convinced is about her, minus the sex) was something that happened in 1974 or 1975. But it did not happen in 1973, which is when she said she had an encounter with Bundy. Also, you don’t have to purchase the Ann Rule book to find if a particular passage is contained within. Just go to Google Books or Amazon and click on ‘look inside the book’, and then run ‘pregnant’ or a connecting word. Personally, I couldn’t find anything connected with such a story ‘inside’. This is not to say Bundy didn’t pick her up, but it would not have been the story she said it was, for that incident occurred during his official killing years, and not in 1973. Everyone needs to rightly divide these things. Believe me, when you do a lot of research on a subject like I do, you encounter these things all the time.
Laurie, I am sorry for upsetting you. It’s just I have seen several people here claim to have been abducted by Ted and have persisted in this belief even when it’s been demonstrated to them that Ted was nowhere near where they claim to have been. I know Ann Rule gets a lot of it, too. It seems to be very important for you to lay this demon to rest. I hope you get the peace you seek and they knowlege you want. Once again, I am sorry.
Richard, did you think Bundy played Hagmaier? or vice versa.
Also, if I could ask a question about the Kepple comment. (I’m trying NOT to get the Riverman, there’s gotta be a limit on how many Bundy books I own)
What was your opinion on Kepple’s interviews with Ted? I didn’t really see what was accomplished there, but maybe I’m being thick on the subject.
That was the point of Bundy’s second set on interviews with Keppel. Too bad Keppel couldn’t do that as his this-is-what-I-was-thinking comments in his Green River book reveal.
About the Bundy calling Hagmaier his best friend, I agree with Laurie. It seems manipulative. Bundy was crafty. He knew why Hagmaier was there. It’s an obvious variation of good-cop-bad-cop. He played the man.
I’m doing this from memory, but I believe it was Bob Kepple that said this. He said when interviewing serial killers, it was important to be non-judgemental. But he found it equally inportant to act bored or somewhat dis-interested. That type of emotion kept things nuetral and encourged the perp to continue discussing the subject at hand.
Hi Barry–
Yes, ted liked to proclaim his innocence, and wouldn’t miss an opportunity to do so. But I’ve seen some of these films, and Bundy’s body language, and lack of eye contact, reveals him to be (in my view) quite the liar. And a bad one, at that.
Hi Kris–
Well, it was Bundy’s habit of striking them while in his car, and dragging them to a spot not to far from the road to finish what he had started. With Caryn Campbell, however, he told Mike Fisher that he “did his thing in the car” or something like that (see my book). And yes, one would think Bundy would have been apprehensive to select so many locations so close to the road, but that’s what he often did. Indeed, Bundy was constantly doing the unexpected, and he didn’t worry very much about the “what if” one could say.
Hi Laurie
Well laurie after reading ur story again i believe now that with all the details then it seems legimate all right and u probably did get picked up by ted.
Well what struck me about ur post was definately the pregnant part. because when i read ur first post. i thought “oh whos this makin up a story about themselves with ted”. but once u mentioned the pregnant part my mind suddenly switched as i recall somewhere about ted letting a girl go when she mentioned she was pregnant. well i read that much stuff bout ted but i think it was definately mentioned somewhere in ann rules book if im not mistaken. i ave got the updated edition which i think most of them were anyways. well ill try and look for it but as book is long its gona be hard, but i certainly think it was mentioned in that book somewhere, im not sure if it went into much detail about it or not but it got stuck in my head somewhere.
Hi Kevin
Regarding ann rules book, a very intersting scene she mentions in her book was that ted was once sitting round a table where on the front page of the newspaper was headlines of the missing murdered girls that he had committed, and ted bundy says i quote if i recall “if i could get my hands on that guy who did it”.
i suppose it just typical ted making others believe that he was as concerned for those girls as everyone else and putting him off there tracks. he was indeed a skilled manipulator
Hello Kevin, I was wondering on something. After Ted would abduct his victims and drove off to some secluded place to do his thing, didn’t he always drive to the murder sites in his car, pull the victim out, and murder her right near where he parked? I don’t suspect that he would put himself in a situation where he had to drag the victim for a while. I’m wondering how come nobody ever looked for tire tracks at the murder sites? And how could Ted be so sure that nobody else would drive into the same area where he was killing? Heck, teenagers looking for a place to make out or whatever could have driven into one of these spots and cuaght him doing his thing.
So true, Jason. This is why I have always said that if one of Bundy’s attorneys said Ted said one thing, but Bill Hagmaier said Bundy said something else about a given situation, I’m gonna believe what Bundy told bill!
Hi all: –
During Bundy’s talks with Keppel on the Green River cases, he talked about his preference on how serial killers should be interviewed. He talked about how the interviewer must not come across as judgemental but must show a genuwine interest and understanding in what the serial killer has to say.
Bundy was also very cautious with Keppel during his confessions because he believed that just stating the facts of the case (i.e. who, where, when, how etc) is not satisfactory because he wanted people to understand why he did what he did and if he just stated the facts without the background to it, people will think of him differently.
Bundy had come to trust Hagmaier because he didnt just want to find out the facts of the murders. He wanted to talk to Bundy and understand why he committed murder which is exactly who Bundy would have preferred to speak to as opposed to an investigator.
George–
You know, I got the sense as I talked with him, that Bill really liked Bundy. This is not to say he didn’t understand how deranged, or evil, or diabolical he was, it’s just he was going to be friendly to him and deal with him where he was on a daily basis while on death row. Of course, it was to obtain info, and Bundy understood this. Still, Ted sensed Bill liked him and that it was genuine, and I believe it was.
I remember Bill telling me how Ted asked him to do something for him after he was gone (I believe it was keeping in contact with his mother) and Bill did that for him. So while I can’t speak for Bill, yes, I do believe he liked him.
And you’re correct George, the implied criticism aimed at Bill was exceedingly ignorant. When he told me this, the only thing I could think of was : “How stupid must those people be, that they can’t see what he’s trying to do!”!!! I mean, these folks who said this to him were no doubt educated fellow FBI agents. But If I were their supervisor, I would have sent them into some type of remedial training. Unbelievable.
Kevin-
Hey-
You know there has been a bit of implied criticism about Hagmaier over the years.Was he,on taking the assignment,supposed to treat Bundy in such a way that Bundy would despise him and clam up?Perhaps Bundy got a glimpse of true friendship-at least his mother thought so.And I believe she loved her son.So cultivating a friendship,in a genuine fashion,while at the same time garnering that precious information required,asking him to say afterwords that it was all an act would be asking him to be like Ted.
Laura–
First, Bill got to know Ted so as to obtain information about the murders, and to learn what made Bundy “tick” one could say. He once told me some criticized him for getting close to Bundy, but it’s clear to see why he did so: Bundy really learned to trust Hagmaier, and he (Bundy) even told his mother that Bill was his friend. As for Bill, I think he liked Bundy, and I know he treated him with respect, and as such, ted felt safe telling him things.
Bill also told me that for years Ted’s mom and adoptive father would send a Christmas card, and whenever they were in the area they would visit him. The dad, however, has been dead for several years now, and I believe Louise Bundy is in a nursing home.
This comment — a lengthy news article reporting Oregon victims potentially newly associated with Green River Killer Gary Ridgway — has been deleted at its author’s request. -ed
I forgot to mention, Bill Hagmaier was also on the documentary and spoke for a minute or two. They showed the famous photo of him and Ted before his execution (ted in a white shirt hagmaier over the desk from him) then Hagmaier spoke about Bundys last few hours, his comments were interesting to say the least. From what he said it was obvious he had some connection with him he was never disparaging he said how ted prayed a lot and to quote “showed some remorse” but in Hagmaiers words he was “not god” so could not judge but it seemed like he thought in his final hours he was sincere, but compared to Keppell etc who isnt afraid to say he was a chickenshit killer etc it was interesting to watch Hagmaier. Do you think he genuinley felt for Ted or somehow connected with him? I read Ted called him his “best friend” and Hagmaier to date hasnt spilled the beans entirely which is interesting.
Kevin
Yes it was redback films your right, very interesting programme so annoyed I only caught the last twenty minutes. If I can record in some way I will and put on you tube in parts and post here. I have Skyplus which means I can go back and watch certain programmes, it was very interesting just to see the girl Thomas in trial footage and now in her fifties talking about her experiences, she took a trip back to Florida and her old residence which is now a car park, also very real, and sad when Margret Bowmans parents spoke especially her father. It’s all to easy to see the pictures and forget that behind each one lay a broken family, mothers, fathers, siblings.
As for your story as to writing the book, it’s about as surreal as they come. But I am glad it happened and I do think things happen for a reason.
I read the riverman three times and on the third occasion I reacall reading a sentence that never made much sense the first two times and I suddenly thought “that is what he is implying” it was to do with skulls and missing teeth Im not sure if it was because I learned more about the case in between or because after reading several times the message got through but thats how it happened. Incidentally while a good book I felt it was full of a lot of irrelevant stuff and I missed whole chapters in that book. I purchased “signature killers” but found that the language and way it was laid out made it impossible for a novice to really read and understand it. I guess thats the difference between writing a book and a good book, you can write a book which some folk can grasp or write a good book which everybody can and want to know more!
Laura
Laura–
That might be the program from several years ago where the producer contacted me (she had gotten my contact info from Stephen Michaud, who also emailed her a copy of my Snitch article) and I helped her get in touch with my Utah contacts. I believe her name is Susan, and the company is Redback Films, or something of that nature. Anyway, I too would like to see it, but it has not yet been shown in the US.
Thanks so much for the kinds words, Laura! Isn’t it funny, but had Jerry Thompson NOT brought Bundy’s murder kit to Louisville in 2005, I never would have written the book. It all hinged on that one event, for that led to the article in “Snitch”, and then the book. So it’s all rather interesting, even to me.
Several people have told me it takes them a good three days to read the book, and a second reading is usually necessary to really get all the facts. Now, I see what they’re talking about, because now, even when I scan the book, I find a lot in there myself (LOL!!!) that I haven’t thought about in a long time. So it is “crammed” one might say, with plenty of really good information about the case. Lots of new and interesting stuff. And as I have said before at this site, I always tried to keep the reader in mind as I did my research, to uncover that which is new, and to add many other things that would be of great interest that other writers may have overlooked.
Anyway, I’m happy you’re enjoying it.
Take care,
Kevin
I just caught the last half hour of a programme on Sky3 called “surviving Ted Bundy” has anybody seen it before?
It was very interesting, a lot of old footage but recent interviews with Cheryl Thomas – who survived an attack from Bundy after Chi O – and gave evidence in court (televised) – also Margaret Bowmans parents. Annoyed I missed the first half not sure who was on that but if you can look it up or get a chance to find the programme its worth watching.
Hi Kevin,
I spent most of today reading your book, we have had blizzards here in Scotland so save for a walk with my dogs in the thick snow most of the day has been spent inside reading. I am already about half way through and am thoroughly enjoying something fresh about Bundy it’s been a long time coming, it’s extremley well laid out and unlike others very easy to grasp and follow. The book has surpassed my expectations so far and although I am only mid way through it really is a job well done. In particular I like the way the pictures are laid out, I hate it when some books have glossy pages with pics I like how they blend into the book. Of course the content is more important but I thought I would mention this quirky point as it looks really good.
Barry I think the worldiwde media coverage has something to do with why we are all still here discussing Bundy, in great depth, 20 years after his execution. I cant think of another serial killer to date who has interested me so much, some cases do still interest me, some folk say he is the textbook case but I think the opposite. For every answer you come across there are a dozen more questions, I dont think I have come accross a killer so articulate and perceptive. Reading the M & A books when he spoke in 3rd person YES a lot of what he said was untrue and fabricated but in other respects he was very self aware, aware of what drove him but just unwilling or unable to fully expose that. Aware of the monster within but again unwilling or unable to fully expose that. It’s interesting though Ridgway – spent far longer uncaught and killed more women than Bundy but for whatever reason received half the coverage and really has kinda faded away. Dennis Rader also another who springs to mind, minimal coverage worldwide. When other killers were caught they either opened up completley and relished telling the gory details (like Toole and Lucas – whether true or not is another debate) or just closed down (like Dhamer) admitted what they did and cut themselves off from the world. Bundy was none of these, then come all the little quirks around his case, married in court, fathering a child, the possibility of killing as young as fourteen or fifteen….
Some folk say he should have been given more time in 89 to give more details. I personally think even if he was given more time he wouldnt have been able to give up the secrets he had kept buried for so many years. Like Bob Keppell said in his book there are some things some serial killers just wont ever discuss, I think he was right when he said they passed a golden opportunity early on to extract the truth early on I forget which arrest it was but Keppel believed if they had dealt with him in the correct manner he may have given some kind of confession.
Anyway thanks Kevin for replying once I have finished I will tell you what I think but for what its worth I will not be disappointed so far I am desperate to keep reading but the eyes need a break! It can be hard to take in a lot of info at once you tend to forget the words and what they mean and just read so I have to stop now and again. The riverman and the M & A books I read four or five times, each time I read them I came accross something I had never picked up the time previous I have no doubt your book will be the same.
Make that “lived’, not “liver” LOL!
Laurie–
Thanks for the nice words. And know this: It’s not that I don’t believe you. You may have been with Bundy, it’s just that there is no way for me to answer that one way or another. There are, in fact, lots of women out there who encountered Bundy, and lived to tell about it; women at Lake Sam that he didn’t get into his car, women who refused to go with him at other times and at other places, and women who knew him socially (two teenage girls who liver across the street from the Roger’s rooming house, friends of Liz, etc). So lots of folks have known or had dealings with Ted.
And good luck in finding out more info about your case.
Actually, Laurie, I am always interested in Bundy information. I too will check Rule’s book, and I will tell you this: If you were with Bundy, then the pregnancy thing would no doubt be enough to stop him. But being in 1973, he had not yet given himself over to a life of unabated murder, so that would work in your favor as well.
Anyway, we’ll talk more later.
Hi Richard–
Of course, I believe he probably killed in 1973, probably killed in 1969, and may have murdered Ann Marie Burr. But 1974 was his official “launch” into murder, and the story Laurie is referring to is absolutely during his official years of murder, and not in 1973.
Also, Ted was quite busy in 1973, and it would be tough for Laurie to say with any degree of accuracy that it was Bundy if she doesn’t have exact dates.
Even so (and I hope you’re reading this, Laurie) it could all be true that she in fact encountered Bundy. Who knows?
In post 1394 Kevin you say that Bundy’s killing years were 74-75, but he did tell Keppel that his first murder occurred in May of ’73 and he is suspected of two murders that summer. If all of that is true, then Laurie’s encounter is within the time of his murders.
Good to hear from you, George! Thanks for the kinds words, and yes, more of your thoughts are certainly welcome.
hi everyone-
First off,thank you Kevin for remembering me.I have been off line, so to speak ,for a while.So far as the book goes,Iloved it for exactly the reasons I thought I would and for other reasons as well.As Ithought your distance from Bundy allowed you a perspective other authors couldnt have-no matter their dilligence.
Uninfected by his madness-ha ha-you paint a picture of his descent and his disintegration that is quite unique.Ihave read just about everything about this character,but I can tell you that the Julie Cunningham confession puts the lie to many prior protestations on Ted s part.Reminds me of F.B.I agent Robert R essler.He spoke to Bundy in the early to mid 80s.Before Ted discovered the virtues of Christianity.This was boastful ,arrogant Ted.Anyway, this agent had interviewed every serial killer and still considers Ted the most evil, the most irredeemable.I guess just read Mr Sullivan about the Cunningham murder.
Well, just want to touch base.More thoughts tomorrow,if nobody minds.
Hi Barry–
It’s like the world “woke up” overnight and saw Bundy for who he was: Suspected of horrible murders in Washington State, two escapes from Colorado, and then the brutal killings in Florida. And who did these things? An articulate and handsome former law student who was also a once rising star in WA politics. It was exceedingly weird, to say the least.
take care,
Kevin