SM: No difference other than what you would expect of anybody who had something on their mind?
TB: Yeah. No more than that. No more significant than mood changes in anyone who might be preoccupied with a job situation, or schoolwork, or whatever.
SM: When does he begin to analyze the mistakes, or the more dangerous aspects of the episode?
TB: You have that period where he swore to himself that he’d never do it again. That was the end of it. That he felt he had it under control. It was the deceptive fashion, you might say, in which that psychopathology withdrew into this dormant stage that (led) the individual (to the) erroneous belief that he got it out of himself. And this wasn’t going to happen again.
As a consequence of that new attitude, the individual would throw himself into normal activities with more vigor. Just try to get a second wind. I don’t know how to describe it. But he would try to indulge himself in normal activities. Almost as if he was welcoming himself back to a life-style, a state of mind, that was without the fear, the terror, and the harm.
But slowly, the pressures, tensions, dissatisfactions which, in the very early stages, fueled this thing, had an effect. (Yet) it was more self-sustaining and didn’t need as much tension or as much disharmony externally as it had before. It sort of reached a point where this condition would generate its own needs, wouldn’t need that reservoir of tension (or) stress that it seemed to thrive on before. Gradually, as I say, it would reemerge.
This individual would say, “Well, just one trip to the bookstore. Just once around the neighborhood.” It did this kind of thing.
And then, gradually, it would become more active, more demanding, as it were.
SM: There would be a recapitulation of the whole history.
TB: Hmmm-mmm.
The individual would reflect on the quality of the act, to a degree, but not a great deal of reflection as a means of preserving it for the sake of gratification. Because it wasn’t a totally satisfying experience, you know. Once the condition began to reassert its force, it didn’t look back. It looked forward. Didn’t want to dwell on the preceding event, but began to plan, anticipate, contemplate the next.
Of course, things would be learned. Experience teaches in overt and subtle ways. And over a period of time, there would be less panic, there would be less confusion, there would be less fear and apprehension. There would be a faster regeneration period.
SM: More self-confidence?
TB: Well, yeah. I suppose we’d expect more self-confidence, surely.
April 14
Roberta (Kathy) Parks, twenty-two, had been abducted from the campus of Oregon State University on May 6, 1974. Her skull was later discovered on Taylor Mountain.
As he discussed her, it was clear that Bundy had come to the prison interview room stoned.
SM: Why Oregon State? Why did he go to Corvallis?
TB: It would be an attempt to commit a crime without it being linked to other crimes. And there. . . again. . . increasing the intensity of the investigation as well as generating additional publicity.
SM: Is there a way to distinguish the personality? The characteristics of the personality at that time?
TB: Parks disappeared in May and (Brenda) Ball disappeared on June 1 – which is just a little less than a month (later). Georgeann Hawkins disappeared on the night of June 11, which is just a few days after the Ball disappearance. So we can see by the short period of time that elapsed between the disappearance of Parks and the disappearance of Ball (that there would) not be a great deal of change in the state of mind of the individual.
The M.O. is somewhat more sophisticated than the one employed in the Healy case. He may have approached her and asked her if she’d like to go to Taylor Mountain (laughs). How about that (laughs again)! Just a friendly little get-together up there!
SM: Would she be walking across campus? Or she’d be sitting in a bar, maybe?
TB: She could have been sitting in a library studying. She could have been sitting in a cafeteria studying. She was supposed to be depressed or lonely or something.
She might seek out company just to take her mind off her problem or loneliness – depression. Let’s say she was having a snack in the cafeteria and (he) just sat down next to her and began talking, representing himself to be a student there, and suggested they go out somewhere to get a bite to eat or to get a drink. Either he was convincing enough or she was depressed enough to accept his invitation.
Of course, once she got in the car, then he had her in a position where he wanted her – and could then assume control over her.
A jog down to a local tavern in Corvallis would probably be the farthest we would expect her to accept as a plausible kind of trip.
SM: Would he be patient enough to go to the tavern?
TB: It’s unlikely. He wouldn’t want to be exposed to a situation where he would be seen in her presence. Certainly no more than necessary.
SM: He’s still in a stage where alcohol is involved. If he had been drinking, wouldn’t it be evident to her?
TB: It’s odd that some people are more able to detect the effect of alcohol on people than others. Someone who meets a stranger who’s under the influence of alcohol. . . outside of the fact that it might be on his breath. . . subtle changes in his behavior wouldn’t be that evident. We’re not talking about some stumbling drunk.
SM: What would transpire once they’re in the car?
TB: He would not want to confront her in the car and in an area where a struggle could be witnessed by anyone just casually strolling down the street or something. So, once he had gained her confidence, then. . . on the way to this tavern they were going to go to, he said that he had just remembered that he had to pick up the finished copy of his thesis or something from the typist – and then drive out to a remote location.
At that point, he would accost her without any fear of attracting any attention.
SM: I’m interested in the mechanics of accosting somebody in a car.
TB: Oh, oh, you are (laughs)? Maybe you want to do it yourself, you know! I don’t know about you.
SM: It could be. You told me I had it.
TB: Yeah. You have it in you. I mean, I think it’s there. Just needs a little, uh, a little development (laughs).
SM: What I’m saying is, What is the most effective way? Pull a gun?
TB: Wouldn’t need a gun, necessarily. This guy pulls up in a cornfield somewhere, you know, fairly abruptly.
And this girl – let’s say that as he travels further and further away from a populated area, she probably is becoming uncomfortable. But she still wants to believe in the face validity of the situation her would-be abductor had created for her (clears throat). And, of course, by the time he pulled up and stopped, there would be virtually nothing she could do about it.
In that instance, virtually all that would be necessary would be for the person to get out of the car, ask her to get out of the car – and if a struggle had ensued, he would easily overpower her. And, recognizing the disadvantage of the situation, she would submit to whatever instructions he gave her. Out of fear, and out of whatever.
SM: You say, whatever instructions.
TB: At that point, he would have to tell her something. To be quiet, to do what he told her to do, et cetera.
SM: Would he typically want the victim to remove her own garments? Or would he prefer to do it himself?
TB: I don’t know, uh, uh. . . Let’s say that as a result of his voyeuristic activities where he had frequently watched women undress. . . let’s say he had a preference to watch the victims undress.
SM: And then what?
TB: There would be a sexual assault and then. . . Let’s analyze it a bit. With this kind of psychopathological condition, following a sexual assault of the kind that occurred in the case of Parks, there would be an immediate onslaught of self-recrimination, fear and apprehension over being detected – and almost a perplexity as to what to do.
At this point
(he) would begin to almost debate with himself the desirability of killing the victim.
If this person’s only goal at the point following the sexual encounter was to dispose of the person, then he wouldn’t have gone to all the trouble of transporting the body back to Washington. For several reasons. Foremost, it would increase the chances of some kind of fluke detection – a car accident or something.
This burial site, or whatever you want to call it, where all these other girls were found. The discovery of the Parks body there would heighten speculation that the same person or persons had committed all the crimes.
Had he killed Parks in Oregon, he would have left her body in Oregon. He wouldn’t have undergone the extreme measure of transporting a corpse several hundred miles! I mean, we’re not talking about cross-town, or from one small town to another within a small geographic area.
She was taken to Washington while she was still alive. That’s the most reasonable explanation.
SM: I wonder if the reason for her being transported alive to Washington derives from indecision as to what her ultimate fate should be.
TB: We’re not looking at the reasons. The question you asked was, “Was she alive or was she dead when she was taken from Oregon to Washington?” The reasons why this girl would have been transported that amount of distance while she was still alive is another question entirely.
And, you’re right. It certainly could have been a result of that indecision or conflict within the individual. Between that part of him that thought it was necessary to kill his victims, versus the part of him that did not – that found it to be extremely reprehensible, disgusting.
The humane, moral, and legal approach to the alternative of killing would be not to kill her at all. Even in comparison to murder, the act of rape is somewhat less severe.
We’re not talking about rational and normal thought processes. A combination of desire to continue that possession, in addition to the indecision about murdering her, would result in the rather extraordinary act of transporting her that great amount of distance. You know, I mean. . . we’ve, we’ve arrived at these conclusions, uh, observations, based on all kinds of things – fact and parafact.
And it would seem, also, that the act of murder, as a. . . as a means of covering up a crime again, is, uh (pause), an extraordinary act. Extraordinary, uh, fashion of covering up.
SM: Would he ever think of an alternative to snuffing out their lives like that?
TB: What he thought about alternatives? The only alternative to not doing away with a person, it would seem to me, would be to release her. To let her go free. That seems the only alternative. And not a very fancy one for him, you’ll have to agree, uh, under the circumstances.
SM: I asked a question earlier that I’d like to explore further. You said we had to posit that this individual’s thinking processes were not exactly as logical at this time as when not confronted with an encounter, and that there raged this battle, this inner turmoil, about what to do with her. Could it have been, at least in part, that he wanted to keep her with him – sort of continue that possession back home for a while?
TB: That’s, that’s a possibility also. Or a combination. There was this time. . . you know, nobody is so simplistic all the time that they only do things out of, uh, a need to satisfy one particular desire or otherwise reward a particular motivation.
SM: Hmmm.
TB: Or to bring to fruition a particular motivation. Often times with anyone we see a number of different things acting upon that person at once. And perhaps on this occasion, we can figure it to be a combination of desire to continue that possession, in addition to, uh, the indecision about murdering her. That combination would result in the rather extraordinary (pause) act of carrying her so many miles.
SM: Would you take the precaution of rendering her unconscious?
TB: There certainly wouldn’t necessarily be the need for it. We still have to remember that the individual – at least not on a conscious level – has no desire or implements no design with the goal of terrorizing or torturing the person. And he ordinarily would not want to inflict any unnecessary violence or pain to the girl. So it wasn’t necessary to render her unconscious. He would have had only to tie her up.
SM: What would you say would go through his mind on the drive to Seattle? He must have been in a state of agitation, knowing what kind of cargo he had in there. A cop could have pulled him over for most any reason, you know.
TB: I don’t know what you mean by “cargo.” He didn’t have any cargo in there. He had a body!
SM: Body, okay.
TB: You’ve been listening to too many (earlier police interrogation) tapes.
SM: Uh oh!
TB: Yeah, yeah, see. That was unconscious.
SM: I sometimes get this hypothetical person mixed up with myself. . . and others I have known. Sorry about that.
TB: Well, I’ve been known to carry cargo in my car. Such as lawn mowers, books, bookshelves, stereos, and the like.
SM: Plants.
TB: Plants, yes.
SM: Ted’s Moving and Storage.
TB: Yeah. Well, back to your convoluted question. Cargo! Indeed! Okay. . . you’ve got this young woman who’s been sexually assaulted tied up in the back of this person’s car. If he’s going to make a five-hour drive back to the Seattle area, he’s going to be nervous. Very nervous. He’s going to be thinking about what he’s going to do.
SM: How long would it take him to resolve that?
TB: In a way, he’d probably view the driving time as a luxury – giving him time to think, as opposed to a constant state of agitation and anxiety. And (he) would not really make the final decision until he was back in the Seattle area. When he was really forced to, you know, I mean, really forced with facing the fact –“Well, what are you going to do? You’re here now. What are you going to do?”
SM: Would there be a second assault on her before she was killed?
TB: Well, given the amount of time they would have had to have been together, it’s likely.
SM: Would he need to start drinking again?
TB: Uh, he may, he could. But the barrier had been bridged, as it were – and the girl was in his possession. And it was something he had to deal with, drunk or sober.
We have to realize that he also had his normal obligations to school, to family and friends, and work and what not. If he had to be at work the next day, he could hardly leave the girl in his house the whole day, without concern that something might happen where she would be discovered. So, depending on what his schedule was, we could expect for him to either take her home or to take her directly to where he planned to dump the body.
SM: Where would she actually be killed?
TB: It would depend on whether he took her home or, uh. . . If he had taken her home that night, she would have been killed there, in the apartment. If he took her, uh, decided to take her right to the mountain. . . whatchacallit? – Taylor Mountain? Then, uh (swallows), she would have been killed there.
SM: Was he organized enough to have more than one residence, more than one safe-house, as it were?
TB: Probably. Uh huh.
SM: And, I assume, he would have known of other residences that might have been vacant for certain periods of time. So when you say “take her home,” it could be actually to his home or another place that he deemed safe.
TB: A dwelling, yeah. He could have taken her home. . . or somewhere else just as secure.
SM: What are the times we’re talking about here?
TB: It doesn’t say here (looking at clippings), uh, what time she was last seen.
SM: Well, what I mean is, was it real late?
TB: I don’t know what real late is. But was she last seen at seven o’clock? Eight? Nine? Later? Even if, let’s say, it was early in the evening – say as early as six p.m., or so – you figure five hours. A five-hour drive back to Seattle would make it late, eleven o’clock or thereafter. Assuming no in-between time. Of course, y
ou have to figure the time, that the original assault took place – the time that required.
So the time the guy took in getting back to Seattle it must have been after midnight.
SM: What more do you think can be said about the time from the arrival in King County to her arrival on Taylor Mountain?
TB: At the Taylor Mountain crime scene?
SM: Uh huh.
TB:. . . whatever it is. With reference to, uh, what’s her name (giggles)?
SM: I think it’s Parks.
TB: Parks. Terrible with names. . . and faces. Can’t remember faces. You asked me something about going to Taylor Mountain?
SM: I asked you what happened from their arrival in King County (Seattle) until when she ended up on Taylor Mountain.
TB: You asked me to speculate.
SM: Didn’t I say “speculate”? All right, I asked you to speculate.
TB: (laughs) I’ve gone through this for hours with other people. Pardon me, but I’ll be very meticulous about the wording here. You asked me to describe what happened. I can’t tell you what happened. All I can do is just assist you with my educated guesses.
SM: I’m so silly.
TB: Well, you know, I’m not trying to put you down. That’s not my intention. I’m just. . . I’m concerned about wording and I’m going to correct the record for that purpose.
SM: All right. About Taylor Mountain. You did speculate there probably would be another sexual assault before or at the same time she was killed.
TB: It’s a distinct possibility, since they were obviously together for an extended period of time. One would expect that the person became sexually aroused for a second time.
SM: I’d also guess that if he went through all that trouble, why not.
TB: Give it another lick (laughs)?
SM: Yes.
TB: You’re really gross, Michaud (laughs).
SM: I keep wondering if they’re going to let me out of here.
TB: This will probably be one of the most memorable periods of your life.
SM: Well, whatever.
TB: But I’m wallowing here (laughs). Poor Miss, uh. . . what’s her name? Parks. I hope no one ever listens to this. They might think I was approaching a serious situation in a frivolous mood. That’s not entirely true.
Ted Bundy Page 9