I think people should be aware of the extraordinary potential in this area. And it is only going to increase, notwithstanding a rather cataclysmic change in the way society functions. I suppose in an all-out war of some kind or even a strategic war would calm society down and tighten it up. Increase traditional forms of control or authority. Decrease anonymity, decrease mobility. Maybe something that would censor a lot of the licentious, sexually stimulating material on TV and the sexual literature shops.
I read this article recently, written by a woman. It’s fictionalized, but millions of gullible women are reading this. It says, “My biggest thrill is to go out to a bar and pick up somebody I don’t know and take them home with me – and get it on with them.” And she goes on about Charlie and Johnny and Alfonso and his Mercedes-Benz – and what a trip it is. No entanglements. All you have to do is pick up somebody attractive and get it on.
That kind of message just isn’t in the romantic novels anymore. Look at the TV shows that promote nontraditional, almost radical departures from the norm.
This Jim Jones thing. Now, we are supposed to recognize that Jim Jones was a fanatic, some sort of a nut. They portrayed him in the beginning as a normal, nice young kid who grew up wanting to be a preacher. And became a preacher. And then became more and more ambitious. Started taking drugs, got paranoid, and went to Guyana. Blah, blah, blah.
But sitting there, watching this horror unfold in the comfort of your living room, makes it much less horrible. It showed what had been my experience for the first rime, seeing a male kiss another male on the screen, followed by a simulated sexual encounter.
We are talking about breaking barriers. . . but it happens constantly. I can think of a half-dozen sitcoms where kids are being brought up by single parents – where the themes are broken homes or how to deal with broken homes. I am tired of ranting and raving, but what I’m saying is (that) as the culture declines, as people are cut loose and don’t know what to do, they are floating around without the protection of the family, without protection of experience, tradition or anything. They become more vulnerable to people who want to exploit them.
April 23
SM: The evolution of this personality – all these cases seem to differ dramatically and substantively, and it seems there is not a linear evolution, as it were. At least, if there is, you haven’t explained it. How has this person changed in time since the first “transaction”?
TB: Well, I think we’d expect that after the passing of a period of time, his psychological condition, as it were, or part of that individual’s self – that which seemed to be the root cause of the behavior – would reach a state of maturity. I mean, it’s growth would become somewhat diminished.
But even in adults, of course, we notice changes. In grown people we see a change in routine, so on and so forth. But, uh, and that would also be this condition – would also be less likely to – less unstable perhaps – less likely to shrink into a state of dormancy upon the commission of the crimes.
It would be relatively stable in the regard that it was inactive – but still, with respect to the amount of time this growth took place, the normal personality, the normal self, had a pretty good understanding of this condition. Learned, uh, how to tolerate it.
And perhaps, as a symptom of this matured state of development of the condition, uh, uh, we’d expect this individual wouldn’t need to drink to overcome his inhibitions. That particular kind of behavior, if for no other reasons than the particular inhibitions that were aroused by the kind of conduct we’re talking about, uh, didn’t exist.
SM: So they had been wiped out.
TB: Yeah.
SM: How would that kind of development affect the, uh. . . the personality’s approach to victims? Would it become more systematic?
TB: It wouldn’t. . . uh, change materially. You couldn’t expect it to.
SM: Well then, what would be the other effects. . . apart from the fact alcohol is no longer necessary as a trigger?
TB: Probably no other effects, except the ones I’ve described – like the decrease in recovery time. There wouldn’t be any recovery time.
SM: Well, did it result in the compression of time between incidents, so that instead of maybe once every three months, it would be once a week, or. . .
TB: No, no.
SM: So it doesn’t affect the spacing?
TB: As I described to you earlier – I think in relation to a slightly different topic – I can’t, uh, remember exactly, but something about (pause). The timing factor would be entirely dependent on – would not be dependent on this individual’s state of mind alone.
In the early stages of development, it was to a certain degree, you know, but as there was less and less time needed to absorb the trauma, the shock of the commission of the crime, uh, there were still other factors to contend with which regulated the time factor.
Such things as publicity, opportunity, and so forth. So, as I said before, you find a state of diminishing returns normally – where this person can only engage in that kind of behavior so frequently.
Not for psychological reasons but for reasons related to detection and the like.
SM: About this physical possession: Do you surmise that the victim would have to be alive, or conscious, or would the feeling of physical possession be met, if you will, or satisfied or whatever, if the victim was unconscious or dead?
TB: Well, it would be – in dealing with the kind of profile we’ve created (coughs) as I’ve stated before, nothing is clearcut and nothing is simple. I guess the parameters of the notion of possession were somewhat ill defined.
I think that initially this individual perceived just the bluff. . . where the victim would be under his control, as it were. And the killing of the victim, we would expect, would have seemed a rather extreme act – but one that the individual considered necessary to eliminate the possibility of his getting caught.
I think we see a point reached – slowly, perhaps – where the control, the possession aspect, came to include, uh, uh, within its demands, the necessity. . . for purposes of gratification – the killing of the victim.
Uh, then using – examining that kind of attitude – that perhaps it came to be seen that the ultimate possession was, in fact, the taking of the life. And then the purely, the physical possession of the remains.
SM: Uh huh, I see. How does the sexual component fit in with that? What I’m asking is, would the sexual assault – the sexual aspect of it – necessarily have to precede the killing? Or was there a development that way as well?
TB: I would say that, uh (coughs), that it wouldn’t be significant. And that furthermore, the sexual act – in the larger scheme of things – was sort of obligatory conduct. Not in itself, you know, the sexual act was not the, the. . . the principal source of gratification. Being satisfied. There’s no denying there’s a sexual aspect to it, uh, but it was less – the sexual aspect was less than actual sexual conduct and more directed toward the sex of the individual and other attributes possessed by that individual’s appearance. . . that we talked about.
SM: What I’m trying to understand is, if we have a victim who is an object, or a symbol or image, how is sex related to. . . Is sex confined to an act? Sex is usually between two people. Maybe “sex” is actually the wrong phrase for the sexual component here.
TB: I’ll tell you. We were talking about sexual activity versus the larger universe of behaviors that are sexual in nature but are not intimate or directly related to sexual activity. Whether it’s the way someone dresses or the way they carry themselves, or the body language or what have you – that convey sexual messages, uh, often in more subtle fashion. . . but nevertheless, you know, that’s all I can say.
SM: It has to do with mastery and ownership, uh, possession.
TB: Well, you know, talking about ritual in its most general form, part of the ritual between men and women when it comes to close relationships or whatever is sex. Uh, sexual intercourse.
SM: You were talking about the sexual component and we’ve determined to call it “possession.” Now, you said sex was almost obligatory.
TB: Well, it’s ritualistic, almost. For a lot of people the fantasies about sex do not live up to their original expectations, okay? And most heterosexual persons – homosexuals, whatever – would probably agree that the most satisfying sex is that which is had with responsive, willing partners. That is also clear. So I think it would be fair to say that engaging in an act of sex with a person who is injured or frightened or whatever – or conscious or whatever – would not be satisfying sexual contact, okay?
SM: Right.
TB: So if we apply that to this individual, we can see that the act of sexual intercourse, as it were, or any kind of sex act committed upon the victim was again something almost. . . would be considered obligatory and not designed to elicit a great deal of mutual satisfaction.
Uh, with respect to the idea of possession, I think that with this kind of person, control and mastery is what we see here. A profile of an individual who has decided possession is somewhat truncated, not very sophisticated, not very elaborate.
In other words, I think we could read a book about the Marquis de Sade and other people, who take their victims in one form or another out of a desire to possess and would torture, humiliate, and terrorize them elaborately – something that would give them a more powerful impression they were in control.
But with this person, we don’t see that kind of act. Again, it’s a sort of a simplistic kind of desire.
SM: What about the evidence of mutilation, the suggestion of mutilation, in some of the cases? Use of foreign objects and that sort of thing?
TB: Well, I think that, assuming this personality was capable of, you know, committing a whole spectrum of crimes, you’d expect that he would – in the course of this behavior – experience aberrations. They’re going to perform some sort of aberration, which may not be significant of anything – except just something spontaneous.
SM: Well, the key to that question is that if penetration, if you will, or sex as we’ve discussed it is obligatory, then anything, basically, that you can do. . .
TB: I suppose that if we searched the files of a large homicide bureau, we’d find a number of cases where that’s the way guys got their kicks – by using foreign objects and things – but I think we have to say that more often than not in this kind of circumstance, that that kind of act would not be the desired one.
SM: Yeah. I don’t think I can grasp well enough or try to describe or convey the mood of this person in the midst of, and immediately after, an incident. I mean, I can infer some things, uh, from physical evidence. I can infer from the model we’ve created, you know. . . but I can’t really understand it well enough to tell.
TB: Well (sighs), I’ll try to review it with you.
SM: I’ll give you an example. There is the suggestion from physical evidence of extreme – certainly connected in the mind with extreme rage – absolute, towering rage. And yet you say that rage is not a component of this personality – that rage is not a word to be linked to describe this process.
So how can we. . .
TB: I don’t know what you’re referring to – what cases you’re referring to.
SM: Well, the Chi Omega case suggests a towering anger of some sort. And some of the skulls found in Washington had big dents in them. From the medical reports, the forensic descriptions, all one can imagine is blind fury and all the words that come to you to suggest vengeance, anger, you know. . . that kind of vignette. You claim this person does not feel those things.
TB: Hmmm.
SM: Give me some descriptive insights here.
TB: I can only review what I was talking about yesterday and perhaps see if there’s something we left out. We talked about the excitement, mixed with anticipation – the looking for the victim. We talked about the next stage, where a state of almost. . . like an actor in a role. . . approaching the victim. . . playing a role, absorbed in a role.
We talked about that period after the individual had gained control over the victim, which was, we could say, would probably be more often than not in a state of semiconfusion. And, uh, kind of eagerness to, even get it over with, uh (pause).
We talked about a perfunctory sexual act – and then, a state of panic, uh, or fear, over the necessity of carrying out the next phase – of killing the person.
We talked about the overwhelming panic, confusion, and regret that followed and the process of covering up – the shredding of that condition to a state of dormancy. And the period of – a kind of period when the person sort of recovered from what he’d done.
Not rage, as you described it. . . because I don’t see it entering here. The act, for this person the act of – more often than not the killing of the victim – was done out of, sort of. . . On the one hand, that act would be, uh, accomplished because of his perceived need to reduce the probability of detection. Another factor was that this was a means to an end – that is, of accomplishing ultimate possession of the victim, so to speak.
More often than not the act was basically done because this person had already performed the sexual act with them and was inclined to feel remorse. He wished he was not in this position, was scared and was debating within himself the possibility that maybe this person could be released and that. . . and so on and so forth. It was kind of turmoil, as it were, until it was – again it was, you know, the decision was invariably made to kill the victim.
April 29
Bundy’s boldest act before the Chi Omega killings was the July 14, 1974, double murder of Janice Ott and Denise Naslund, whom he lured away from Lake Sammamish, near Seattle.
TB: Well, again, assuming that we know what we’re talking about here – that it’s the same person we described in the Healy and Ball cases. Then he shows up at Lake Sammamish. So we would have to reflect back on what presently we know about this entity and compare it to what seemed to happen at the lake.
In that, uh, light, the Lake Sammamish cases don’t fit, you know. Obviously don’t fit the Healy or Ball M.O., for example. And it apparently happened in mid-afternoon, in broad daylight, with a large number of people in close proximity. Beyond that, however, there is not a lot known.
And, of course, the girls were killed. I guess that’s known. Outside of that, very little.
It’s clear that the Lake Sammamish incident was either the result of the venting of a great amount of tension or frustration that had accumulated over a long period of time.
Or it was an attempt to indulge in a different M.O.
SM: Could both be at play here?
TB: Look at it this way. The individual had contemplated that kind of scheme before, realizing its obvious drawbacks. (He) would not have ordinarily attempted it, but his reluctance to engage in that kind of scheme was erased or otherwise overpowered by the need to seek out another victim.
SM: Or victims.
TB: Well, or victims, yeah. And it was daring because it, uh, I mean for courage or something of that nature, but I say “daring” in the sense that he took a great number of risks to carry out this scheme.
SM: It was very nervy.
TB: Well, that might be one way of describing it. Or desperate or whatever. Uh, huh.
SM: How many days prior to the event would this person have anticipated doing it on that day?
TB: Well, it’d be hard to do. I don’t think we can really say. It could’ve been planned or he might have just turned on the radio and heard that a big crowd was to be at the lake that day. Things just came together, you know, like the soft spot in the dike. All of a sudden there’s that opportunity and that pressure. And the dike breaks.
SM: That’s what you would guess?
TB: That’s one explanation. That’s all I have to say right there.
SM: A radio broadcast. Things just fell together. A speculative reconstruction here. . .
TB: I can only offer based on what I’ve read. Uh, I haven’
t seen any of those police reports, and, uh, what I know is what I read in these recent publications that have, uh, recapitulated, in a sense, that publicity and perhaps some of the behind-the-scenes statements from investigators. Furthermore, the first publicity I was exposed to, uh, was more than six years ago.
SM: Yeah.
TB: Six years. . . whatever. We assume, based on reports in the newspapers, one of the girls was approached by someone, and there was some kind of a report that he had a cast or a hurt arm, or something of that nature. And from some witnesses, I don’t know, uh. . . it’s somewhat confusing. . . there seem to be several persons who saw somebody with a sling. So it’s all fairly nebulous.
Assuming those reports are fairly accurate, they all tend to support the theory that it was one individual, using a ruse of some kind; appearing to have a handicap. That’s just what we would expect, uh, if his intentions were to abduct a girl in such settings. It would be clear that in a crowded area, he just couldn’t walk up and do it. The alternative was some kind of ruse.
It would be clear that he had as his goal to get the girl away from the large crowd to a secluded area. It’s hard to say exactly what pretense was utilized to gain their confidence. (He) would not be able to drive a great distance without arousing the suspicions of the girls in the car. And so he would choose a secluded place, a secluded area, within a fairly short driving distance of the Lake Sammamish area.
SM: Then he’d pull off the side of the road, a dirt road or something like that?
TB: Or get to a secluded area, whatever that required. Driving up a road. Somewhere where there were no cars, no traffic or whatever.
SM: What would be the nature of the conversation between the two of them during the drive?
Ted Bundy Page 11