Talking with Serial Killers

by Christopher Berry-Dee

  One thing that could seal the case against Doug Clark would be a survivor who could identify him. While he and Bundy were under lock and key, a regular jailbird named Charlene Anderman, a mentally-unhinged woman who had been frequently arrested on drug and prostitution charges, was also behind bars. Around the same time as the ‘Sunset Slayings’ occurred, a series of savage knife attacks and robberies were committed against hookers. In April, Charlene had fallen victim to one such assault. She had joined a punter in his car when the man pulled out a knife and stabbed her several times in the back before kicking her out of his vehicle on to the street.

  Police arrested Jerome Van Houten, whom Charlene Anderman identified in a line-up, but her recollection of the attack was hazy because she was high on cocaine at the time. She told the police that the attack had taken place in a motel room, then she changed her story to say that she had been stabbed in a car, the colour and make of which constantly changed. Understandably, the police deemed her identification to be unreliable, but they had enough on Van Houten to secure his conviction based on positive identification provided from other victims.

  Now locked up in jail, Anderman started bragging about Clark being her assailant, so the police decided to interview her again. They showed her a photograph of Doug and, suddenly, she decided that he was the knifeman, adding that she was willing to testify to this in court providing that the police would free her from custody after the case was over with. Fortunately for Doug Clark, the court thought that she was totally unreliable and her evidence was thrown out. The police had to honour their part of the deal, and Arlene, whom her sister said was ‘a liar who would say or do anything to get out of trouble’, was released almost immediately.

  Doug Clark has always maintained that Bundy and Murray killed most of the victims while driving around in Murray’s Chevy van. During the forensic investigation of this vehicle, a vital piece of evidence was found, hanging from the roof vent hatch. It was a sliver of human scalp with strands of blonde hair attached to it. This gruesome artifact was approximately two inches in length, dehydrated, and probably detached from a head as the result of a gunshot blast. As most of the victims had been blonde, and Murray was dark-haired, it would seem evident that at least one of the prostitutes had been killed in the van, which would support Clark’s claim. The State, however, desperately needed to convict Clark. After all, Murray was dead, and if he had been The Sunset Slayer, then the crimes had been allowed to run their bloody course. None of this would have gone down well with the police departments involved, especially as they had now gone out of their way to implicate Clark. The skin tissue, with hair attached, was taken away and no investigation was carried out to determine its origin. Clark was also refused the right to have it submitted as evidence at his trial.

  With all the cards stacked against him, what luck Clark had remaining totally evaporated when an attorney was appointed to defend him who was inexperienced and ill-equipped to handle such a serious case of serial homicide. Clark’s counsel had recently been declared bankrupt, and had appeared in court to answer matters against him of legal malpractice and theft of a client’s funds. As a result of this, the lawyer had turned to drink and, when he appeared for Clark, he was an out-of-control drunk. He addressed the court claiming that he was an alcoholic and, throughout the trial, he was so distracted by his own bankruptcy that he paid scant attention to Clark’s case. Family, friends, witnesses for the District Attorney and court officials all saw him drinking, usually doubles, before the court convened. The Bailiff even complained to the judge about the lawyer’s alcoholic smell, which pervaded the air during his appearance at morning sessions.

  On the first day of the trial, the attorney simply opened the proceedings by saying that Clark was guilty as charged, but that he was insane and should, therefore, be given a lenient sentence. Quite rightly, the judge was shocked by such an admission and, as the attorney staggered back to his seat, the judge was forced to remind him what the proceedings were all about. This was just the first phase of the trial in which an attempt was made to discover who had committed the crimes, and any suggestion of sentence would be dealt with at the later penalty phase.

  Muttering under his breath, the lawyer sat down, only to rise, momentarily, an hour later, to say that he was ill prepared because he had not seen Clark for weeks. This was not so, for jail records of visitors, and the attorney’s own financial records, proved he had been taking instructions from his client almost every day, right up to the first day of the case.

  As the trial progressed, Clark became increasingly aware that his lawyer was a major liability. In a desperate effort to do something to save his own skin, he requested that he be allowed to represent himself. Several times, while he was being cross-examined by the prosecutor, he noted that his attorney was asleep, and had to wake him up. On other occasions, he had to interject the legal objections to lines of questions the court had ruled inadmissible. The prosecutor saw the defense attorney nodding off and, taking advantage of the situation, tried to slide contentious problems past him, an underhand tactic that worked on several occasions. The court ruled that Clark could not object on his own behalf; only his lawyer could do this, whether he was in dreamland or not.

  From the outset, it became patently obvious that the State was determined to get a conviction at any cost. Faced with a defense in the hands of a totally incompetent attorney, who was either asleep or drunk, the prosecution was likely to have its wish granted.

  Occasionally, Clark burst out with angry rants and accusations. One afternoon, he was manacled and tied to a chair in which he was gagged with a leather strap and a sanitary towel. At other times, he was escorted from the courtroom and locked up in a small holding-room, equipped with speakers, so that he could listen to his right to live being eroded away.

  Eventually, with the trial having reached its midpoint, Judge Tories acceded to Clark’s insistence that he should be allowed to represent himself. Despite this being exactly what Doug had wanted from day one, nothing improved. Indeed, if it were possible, things became far worse. He was denied do-counsel, advisory counsel and the services of a law clerk, and the judge, illegally, told him to ‘go it alone’. At one point, Clark gave the court a list of items he required as evidence, including the items found in Murray’s van. Some of these were sex toys and home-made pornographic videos. (Bundy had bought Murray a video camera, and it has always been suspected that they may have been recording their murders as snuff movies.) Needless to say, the judge blocked Clark’s request. The accused man was astounded, screaming, ‘If I had a colour movie, with the sound of Carol and Jack committing these murders, you would not let me bring it in?’

  The judge smirked and said, ‘You are right, Mr Clark. I would not.’

  At another stage of the trial, it became evident that Clark did indeed have an alibi for the night that Exxie Wilson’s head was deposited in the ornate chest. Several people recalled that he had been partying with a go-go dancer who was about to return home to New Zealand. Clark had also written her a cheque that night, and he was able to provide banking documents to support the fact that it had been cashed the following day. Not even the most adept serial killer can be in two places at the same time, and Bundy had told police that it had been Clark who had dumped Exxie’s severed head, so this provided a problem for the prosecutor. The dancer even offered to return to the USA to give her evidence if her airfare was paid.

  In vain, Clark asked for this dispensation, rightly arguing that the District Attorney had flown in scores of witnesses, one of whom had been an FBI agent from Virginia, to confirm that the boot print found in Clark’s garage was indeed Clark’s, something that he had admitted from the outset. Indeed, the prosecution spent over $10,000 on travel for their witnesses, and Clark was allowed just $20 – which amounted to his entire defence funding – in dimes, for a single telephone call.

  In a last-ditch effort to get the dancer to testify, he begged that she be allowed to give her evidence o
ver the telephone. This is a legally accepted procedure, if the witness is positively identified and sworn in at a local court. But, once again, his request was denied.

  Meanwhile, another problem surfaced, when the court began hearing about the discovery of Exxie’s head, and the clothing it was wrapped up in. The police had made efforts to identify the jeans and T-shirt, and detectives Stallcup and Jaques of the LAPD, who were working the Marnette Comer murder, telephoned the Sacramento PD. Stallcup required contact with known associates of Comer, such as co-hookers and pimps, and also wanted to interview Marnette’s sister, Sabra, who was also a prostitute.

  Sabra categorically told the two investigators that the T-shirt and jeans had belonged to a hooker called Toni Wilson, a Caucasian, aged 19, with natural blonde hair and, blue eyes; she was slim, 5ft 7in tall, and had freckles. This was a positive identification and one which was supported by numerous other characters, including a pimp named Mark. These witnesses even told Stallcup that the last time they saw Toni Wilson, she had been wearing the very same clothing described.

  In his handwritten report, timed and dated 1600 hrs, 9 August 1980, Stallcup made a careful note of this information. Then, later in the evening, he inexplicably reproduced an ‘official’ version in typewritten form, the substance of which somewhat changed the testimony of Sabra Comer, to read that she had identified the T-shirt and jeans as belonging to her deceased sister, which was not the case. During the trial, the prosecution called Sabra Comer as a witness, to identify the clothing, and she did identify the items as belonging to her sister, Marnette. Somewhere, there was a major discrepancy and Clark picked it up. He called Detective Stallcup to give evidence.

  He asked the detective about the handwritten notes he made from replies given by Sabra, and enquired whether it was his usual practice, when typing them up, to turn the details around 180 degrees. Stallcup answered, ‘No. I would put myself in a very bad spot of jeopardy there. The crime for doing such … something like that, if it ended up to be a capital case, I would be under the same problem that you have got sitting there.’

  Stallcup knew that for a police officer to falsify evidence and to commit perjury in a capital case left that officer open to a capital charge himself. After being pressed on this issue by Clark, the detective agreed that he made the handwritten notes. Stallcup ‘thought’ the typed version was his, too, but only after his signature was pointed out to him on the page. This incident was allowed to pass, without a stain on Stallcup’s character.

  A similar situation to the one Clark found himself in occurred in the more recent case of Roger Coleman, who continually protested his innocence of murder. When Coleman’s defence submitted solid proof of innocence for a retrial, it was deemed too late, but he was given the benefit of doubt and offered a polygraph test, which took place just a few hours before his execution. This test, which simply detects any slight heartbeat increase, or sweat secretion, when the vital questions are asked, was unsurprisingly failed by Coleman, who was about to die an agonising death, and he was escorted to the electric chair on 21 May 1992.

  Like Clark, Coleman had solid alibis, witnesses and forensic evidence, suggesting he had not committed murder. Furthermore, a woman claimed that another man, who was a known killer, had confessed to her that he had carried out the murder attributed to Coleman. This witness was found dead on the day following her statement. Also, in the Coleman case, the State offered a fellow inmate freedom if he would say that Coleman had told him that he had committed the crime. He talked and walked, while Coleman died. On his subsequent release, the jailhouse snitch retracted his admission.

  Douglas Daniel Clark was found guilty on six counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. For her part, Carol Bundy was found guilty on two counts of first-degree murder, those of Jack Murray and Cathy (Jane Doe 28), and she was sentenced to two life terms of imprisonment. But is Clark really a serial murderer?

  He had alibis and witnesses for all the murders except one. The police obtained statements from many of these witnesses and allowed them to be altered in order to circumvent the alibis and thereby incriminate Clark.

  The weapons and vehicles, associated with all the murders, belonged either to Carol Bundy or Jack Murray.

  Bundy lied at every twist and turn. Money went missing and she says she gave it to police officers who, in turn, granted her extraordinary indulgences.

  Most of the prosecution witnesses had criminal records representing leverage, by means of which, the police could coerce the ‘required’ testimony from them. Indeed, Sabra Comer has recently said that she was forced to change her evidence because the police officers had threatened to put her ‘out of business’ if she didn’t co-operate with them.

  The judge refused to allow the jury to hear tape recorded evidence of Bundy confessing her involvement and pleasure in the murders.

  Murray’s van was returned to his wife before the trial began, thus denying Clark any opportunity to have the interior independently examined.

  Vital trace and ballistic evidence was either mislaid or ‘lost’ by the police.

  The State’s Attorney General admitted that Bundy had been given a deal to testify against Clark in return for her life. She is already eligible for parole.

  * * *

  Today, Clark awaits his appointment with San Quentin’s executioner. As his time is just about to run out, it is perhaps unfair to criticise him for being a very angry man who is full of contempt for the police and the US system of justice.

  Without any doubt, Doug Clark was a fool. He most certainly was an accessory after the fact, in the case of Jack Murray, for he has admitted he was with Bundy when she threw her former lover’s head out of the car. And Clark was certainly present when Bundy shot a hooker through the head as she gave him oral sex in a car. He did not report this murder either, which would have bought at least a life sentence when he was arrested.

  Clark’s early years still remain something of a mystery, and he is loath to discuss this part of his life when he has far more pressing matters on his mind. Unlike Bundy, it is known that Doug came from good stock, enjoyed a healthy childhood, and a first-class education.

  Doug Clark used to be a handsome man, well read, and he spoke, as most would agree, beautifully. He was a philanderer who wooed different women on an almost weekly basis and he was a Don Juan of almost epic proportions, too. But all of his lady friends say he treated them well and he has never been accused of using violence against them, even though his sexual interests were hardly conservative. Clark also used women to provide him with lodgings, often in return for sexual favours, a practice, which ultimately proved to be his undoing when he fell in with Bundy. Therefore, in every respect, and even by the FBI’s own reckoning, he does not fit the psychological profile of a serial killer.

  Like so many serial killers, Carol Bundy had had a troubled upbringing. She is an ugly, duck-shaped woman who could hardly see 2ft in front of her. She paid men to have sex with her and Murray was a willing partner who satisfied all of her perverse sexual needs. By her own admission, she was a necrophile, and a hedonist killer.

  Hedonist killers may be divided into sub-types. Lust murderers kill for sexual enjoyment. Thrill killers kill for the excitement of a novel experience. Both of these sub-types may show evidence of sadistic methods, mutilation, dismemberment and pre- and post-mortem sexual activity. Bundy fits both categories extremely well.

  There is little evidence to contest the view that it was Bundy and Murray who killed at least five of the Sunset prostitutes, following which, Bundy, spurned and inducted by her lover and accomplice in serial sexual homicide, killed and decapitated him in a fit of jealous rage. Indeed, the Betsy/Claudia telephone call to the police, when she pointed an accusatory finger in Murray’s direction, proved beyond any doubt that the seeds of anger and resentment had already been planted well before she shot him.

  Doug Clark distanced himself from Bundy at this time and, in an act of spite, she turned him in
. Casting herself in the role of the State’s only – and totally untruthful – witness, she engineered a life sentence for herself and a death sentence for Clark. Good luck, Doug Clark.

  This chapter is based on exclusive videotaped Death Row interviews between Christopher Berry-Dee and Douglas Daniel Clark within the San Quentin State Prison, California, 1995, and extensive correspondence.

  HENRY

  LEE

  LUCAS

  USA

  ‘Just as the living tree retains its early core, within the core of each of us is the Child that we once were. This Child constitutes the foundation of what we have become, who we are, and what we will be.’

  DR R JOSEPH, PSYCHOTHERAPIST, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIST AND NEUROSCIENTIST

  ‘Texas is a state of mind,’ wrote John Steinbeck. ‘Everything seems oversized and unreal, be it oil production, the cattle, or the size of the hats which everyone seems to wear whether they are a garage owner, a shoe salesman, or a Texas Ranger.’

  Texas has the second-largest prison inmate population in the USA, and some time during their lives, 560 out of every 100,000 Texans will spend time in jail. At any one time, there are about 100,000 inmates within the Texas penal system, 46 per cent of whom have killed somebody. At the time of writing, there are 453 inmates on Death Row at Ellis Unit. Henry Lee Lucas used to be one of them until his sentence was commuted, a year ago, to life without parole. On Monday, 12 March 2001, he died of a heart-attack aged 64.

  * * *

  FBI statistics say that the majority of serial killers have come from broken homes, or they have suffered from some form of extreme abuse as children. Henry Lucas was no exception. His father, Anderson ‘No Legs’ Lucas, had been a habitual drunken hobo who had fallen from a freight train and lost both of his legs as the result. ‘My pa,’ Henry once said, ‘well, he hopped around on his ass all his life. Done sold pencils, an’ skinned mink for a living.’