Ted Bundy

by Stephen G. Michaud

  Just as he came up upon her, they were at a place where there was an orchard, or a number of trees or something. As he came up behind her she heard him. She turned around and he brandished a knife and grabbed her by the arm and told her to do what he wanted her to do. You know, to follow him.

  SM: Yeah.

  TB: He pushed her off the sidewalk into this darkened, wooded area, and uh, told her to submit and do what he wanted her to do.

  She began to argue with him and he kept telling her to be quiet. She said she didn’t believe he would do anything to her, anyway. Then he began to try to remove her clothes and she would, uh, continue to struggle in a feeble manner. And also voice verbally her objections to what was going on.

  And then, uh, the significance, now, is that his intent with this victim was not to harm her. He thought this was going to be a significant departure; perhaps even a way of deconditioning himself, to climb down that ladder or, uh, I can’t think of a good word, de-, de-escalate this level of violence to the point where there would be no violence at all. Even no necessity for that kind of encounter at all.

  SM: I see.

  TB: But he found himself with this girl who was struggling and screaming. Uh, not screaming, but let’s say just basically arguing with him. There were houses in the vicinity and he was concerned that somebody might hear. And so, in an attempt to stop her from talking or arguing, he placed his hand over her mouth.

  She stopped and he attempted to remove her clothes and she began to object again. At this point, he was in a state of not just agitation, but something on the order of panic. He was fearing that she would arouse somebody in the vicinity.

  So, not thinking clearly but still intending not to harm her, let’s say, he placed his hands around her throat.

  SM: Uh huh.

  TB: Just to throttle her into unconsciousness so that she wouldn’t scream anymore. She stopped struggling, and it appeared that she was unconscious. But not, in his opinion, to a point where he had killed her.

  SM: Right.

  TB: Then let’s say he removed her clothes and raped her and put his own clothes back on. At about that point, he began to notice that the girl wasn’t moving. It appeared, although he wasn’t certain, that he’d done what he had promised himself he wouldn’t do. And he had done it, really, almost inadvertently.

  Uh, so he took the girl by one of her arms and pulled her to a darkened corner of this little orchard and then, in a fit of panic, fled the scene. He got back in his car and drove back to his house, still not knowing if the girl was alive or dead.

  But once he returned to the house, upon reflection he began to wonder. He didn’t know if he’d left anything at the crime scene. He hadn’t thought about publicity and physical evidence.

  So he decided to return to the scene and if the body was there to recover it and take it somewhere else where it wouldn’t be found.

  SM: Is this the same night?

  TB: Huh? Oh, yeah. But he faced two problems in returning to the scene. First, prior to the incident he was in a state of intoxication, and he didn’t know the area that well. So he couldn’t remember exactly where it was he had to return, couldn’t find his way back, as it were.

  But let’s say, after a considerable period of time of driving about in the general vicinity, uh, he was able to locate the area. It was getting fairly late about this time.

  Nobody was in the vicinity, so apparently she hadn’t gotten up and gone away and the police hadn’t returned to the scene. Or she was still there.

  He parked his car at the curb in front of this small orchard and walked into it and saw that, in fact, the body was still in the same position he’d left it. So it was clear that the girl was dead.

  So he carried the body to his car and put it in and covered it. Then he returned to the general area with a flashlight and scoured it to pick up everything that he may have left there – her clothing, et cetera. He placed that in the car and then returned to his apartment.

  SM: Did he find everything?

  TB: I don’t know.

  SM: Would he have worn a mask?

  TB: No, I don’t think so. I mean, he didn’t. . . it was dark and he. . .

  SM: Well, the reason I asked is that if the intent was not to kill the victim, you would think that there would have been some kind of measure taken to disguise his identity.

  TB: In a way, it was planned, but in a way it was like a spur of the moment thing for this person. He figured the object was to do it in such a way that it would be done in a very dark scene. Eventually, he found that kind of opportunity.

  SM: Why would he return to his apartment as opposed to just driving out in the middle of nowhere and dumping her there?

  TB: Well, first of all, it was late at night. And as we know, he tries to secrete the body with some care. Rather than just driving off somewhere late at night and dumping it along the roadside, he needed time to think about what he should do – how he should do it.

  SM: So he would take a couple days before he. . .

  TB: Yeah, a day or two.

  SM: How long might this person keep the bodies at his house? My impression is that Brenda Ball could have been kept there after she was killed for three, four, uh, five days – something like that.

  TB: Uh, I don’t recall exactly what I said about that. I mean that we could say that this individual would not keep the bodies any longer than necessary to determine the best way of disposing.

  SM: So the idea really was that the residence was the safest place.

  TB: Well, where else would he go? It would be the most logical place to go for him to take time to think. It was also a place where he had some privacy, too. Rather than go out and park in a drive-in restaurant or something. It’s clear that there are only so many places he could go where he could feel safe and relaxed and think about the, uh, the situation that was facing him.

  SM: Overall, the impression I get of this person and his career is that maybe the front end of the incidents would be planned fairly well, but the back end of the operation was not always so well thought out.

  TB: That’s not an unfair analysis. But on the other hand, let’s (take) the facts of the Washington cases and try to draw some inferences from that M.O.

  We assume that the bodies were disposed of in Washington the way they were to minimize publicity – to diminish the possibility that they would be located within a short period of time. Thereby diminishing the amount of investigative activity, as well as publicity. It’s clear some thought was given to it and, in fact, this individual’s approach to disposing of the bodies was fairly effective.

  I mean, a person finds himself (with) a corpse, and what is he going to do with it? Ideally, he’d have an incinerator in the basement – and there wouldn’t be any problem at all in that respect.

  SM: Maybe the best way to put it is to ask the question this way: Would this individual have on his mind the disposal problem at the time he was in search of the victim?

  TB: I doubt that there’d be a necessity to, because he had already thought about it – at least in general – prior to that time. The specifics of it would, of course, be dictated to a certain degree by the situation. Let’s say, then, the case we just talked about: He hadn’t said, “I’m going to take her just to Point A.” In fact, he went back to his apartment and looked at a map and said, “That looks good.” And (he) then drove to that area. The specifics of where he would dispose of the body would depend on access roads or whatever.

  SM: There’s perhaps a lack of sophistication on my part. Having to go in and out of residences with any large bundle would seem to be risking everything, no matter what time of day.

  TB (laughs): You say that you’re not sophisticated enough. But I think, Steve, with enough study and interest, that you, too, could become a fairly effective mass murderer.

  Anyone has the capacity, and it (doesn’t) take a great deal of skill or thought to do it. The very nature of the crime – since it’s based on opportunity �
�� it’s a relatively easy kind of crime to get away with.

  SM: Hmmm.

  TB: This person taking bundles in, in and out of his house or his apartment. We say in retrospect, that was really chancy. But there were times when I think he. . . he almost felt as if he were immune from detection.

  Not in a mystical or a spiritual sense or anything, but that on occasion he felt like he could walk through doors. He didn’t feel like he was, uh, invisible or anything like that. But at times he felt that no matter how much he fucked up, nothing could go wrong.

  The boldness was probably a result of not being rational. Of just being moved by a situation – not really thinking it out clearly, and not even seeing risks. But just overcome by that boldness and desire to accomplish a particular thing. Only in retrospect would he wonder how he managed to succeed in spite of some of those rash and bold acts.

  SM: We’ve discussed the total depersonalization of the victims – that they become objects.

  TB: That’s one way of describing it. Now, clearly, they are people-flesh and blood. They have all the characteristics of human beings. It would be unfair to say totally – totally and absolutely – but they would be depersonalized sufficiently so that he was not able to muster that natural, normal ability to feel compassion for that individual to also place a high value on the sanctity of life.

  Oddly enough, this person (in) normal situations would place a high value on life. And on the goal that people should be free from suffering and so on. But he would not allow himself to feel those emotions for the victim.

  SM: As you explained, there would be the erasure of those key inhibitions.

  TB: It would be very specific.

  SM: What I was getting at was, could it be that there was a heightened sense of possession by taking a victim home?

  TB: Not necessarily. It’s possible. I mean, like that old cat bringing the mouse to the doorstep, you know. Such a person would do this not necessarily to heighten the sense that he possessed the person, although I’m sure that to some extent this might be true. But more often than not, I think we understand that taking a victim home was just one way of insuring privacy for whatever period of time the privacy was necessary. Not as a part of a ritual of, you know, like the cat bringing the bird into the kitchen in front of the master.

  SM: Would he have anything further to do with the victim after the victim is brought home? Or just store her?

  TB: The perpetrator wouldn’t have a need or desire to do anything more at that point, other than dispose of the body.

  SM: You surmised that this personality would be capable, under the right circumstances, of the kind of incident that occurred in the Chi Omega house.

  TB: I don’t know that I said that.

  SM: That’s what I thought I heard. Am I wrong?

  TB: I don’t know. I can’t remember that we discussed Chi Omega specifically. You at one point were talking about injuries inflicted upon victims that indicated extreme, extraordinary rage and so on. If he committed the crimes in Washington state and also was responsible for the Chi Omega murders, we would have to say that it was something of an aberration in the way it was committed. That something, obviously, went wrong.

  Part Three

  June 21

  Hugh takes over. This was the second part of a good-guy/bad-guy interview technique. Bundy recognized that. What he wasn’t prepared for was hostile questioning which would cut back and forth between his “speculations” and the facts of his story.

  HA: The cafeteria is closed for cleaning, so you’ll have to do with some potato chips and ice cream bars. Maybe today is “lean and mean” day.

  TB: Every day is that in here. But then I suppose the Starke Hilton isn’t so wonderful either. Did you get with Carole last night?

  HA: No, we met this morning, just outside the prison. She sent some mail and some vitamin pills. You know, she thinks you’re getting ready to make a mad dash for the outside. She notices that you’re on edge and maybe even it’s something you’ve said to her. I don’t know. I cannot quite get on the same wavelength with Carole. She is so protective of you that anybody else. . . almost. . . is a bastard going in.

  TB: What do you mean she thinks I’m going? She doesn’t. . .

  HA: She thinks, or at least by what she says, it appears she figures you’re going to make a try at it.

  TB: Sheesh. (he peers out the window in the door where a guard saunters close every few minutes.) Not so loud. That’s not very popular to discuss. Not even if you’re not planning to travel. (extra loud) And, I’m not!

  HA: Okay, okay. I want to talk about these stories that the victims all were physically similar. You know, long dark hair, parted in the middle, hoop earrings, et cetera. People have said that the killings were not random and the supposed similarities prove that.

  TB: They had a tendency to just fit the general criteria of being young and fairly attractive (long pause) and alone. Too many people have bought this crap that all the girls were similar – hair about the same color, parted in the middle, close to same height, blah, blah, blah – but if you look at it, almost everything was dissimilar: time, place of disappearance, physical description. . . all of it. Physically, they were almost all different, but. . .

  HA: But how would you know? Some of them look similar in the file photos. Other than height and weight, which did vary as much as anything, how could you be so sure of their differences. . . unless you were there?

  TB (abruptly): You’re trying to weasel in where there is nothing to gain. I know about these victims because I’ve been accused of killing them. . . uh, most of them. . . and so I read everything I can get my hands on about the various cases. How in hell do you know all about the victims? How do I know you weren’t there, old buddy!

  HA: Touché! Okay, let’s dig in a bit more, mixing some fact, logic, and a bit of amateur psychology. Were most of these girls watched for long periods of time before the killer got the nerve up to hit?

  TB: Well, one wonders how long someone watched that girl in Corvallis, Oregon. Or the girl over in Eilensburg (in eastern Washington). And I was never gone for long periods of time. Uh, if we’d consult our model, our personality profile, we’d recall that this person would avoid long periods of observation because it would increase the chances of an eyewitness confrontation. And that, we would expect, uh, that the abduction would occur, more, uh, primarily as a result of opportunity.

  HA: Except, perhaps, at the beginning – when he followed the girl home, saw where she lived and later returned to her house, and. . .

  TB: Oh, yeah, yeah.

  HA: But that was way back in the beginning.

  TB: Well, we’re talking about opportunity also. There may not have been that many opportunities right away. You know, there are so many misconceptions of me. Let’s put it this way: Law enforcement judges me and predicts my behavior based on what they think I know and what. . . how they think I act. Now, clearly, if they don’t know how my mind functions – they think it functions some way other than how it does – they are going to predict behavior that I won’t engage in. They’re going to expect me to react in a way that I don’t react.

  I’ve never wanted publicity. . . and yet there are those, most people probably, who believe that I needed it. I’ve never liked it, needed it, or wanted it.

  I have used it to my benefit. When I wanted better digs in jail or some consideration that most human beings have, I used whatever publicity I could to get it. When I wanted to put pressure on somebody or something, why not? Every little game like that has been used to dehumanize me these last five years.

  I’ll probably use the press again – not for money. God knows, I’ve been offered a lot of money to do things, make appearances on TV and the like. What’s that going to get me? Maybe some better reefer, maybe some unneeded enemies in here. No help on the legal front. But there will come a time. . . and I’ll be calling Time or Newsweek or CBS news. And they’ll come, gladly, mark my words.

&nbs
p; I may have to defend myself publicly. You have more of a chance to describe me and explain this whole sideshow because you don’t have to start with clips from the newspaper and cops’ often-ridiculous imaginations. Like this guy said recently, “He’s an emotional robot, nothing inside.” Boy, how far off can he be! If they think I have no emotional life, they’re wrong. Absolutely wrong. It’s a very real one and a very full one. Another misconception.

  They see me as part of a human being, so they don’t know what the other part is capable of – and that’s terrific. They won’t be able to anticipate.

  HA: You always get angry or upset when we talk about Liz and what she meant to you at one time. Some call the relationship a “love-hate” situation. Others claim you humiliated her until you almost forced her to turn you in.

  TB: Well, that’s not true. As I’ve discussed earlier, while I’m not trying to fix blame and I have understood totally what has occurred between Liz and I over the years, it was Liz on at least two occasions that went out with other people while we were dating. I don’t call that humiliation, necessarily, but it has a profound effect on. . . Now, I may have caused her to feel badly on several occasions. It wasn’t a conscious, intentional attempt to make her feel humiliated. Going out with other women wasn’t an attempt to humiliate her because I always hid the fact when I went out with other women.

  HA: Until you got to feelin’ guilty about it and told her.

  TB: Well, she would find out about it on occasion. She never found out about ’em all. She never found out about Marjorie (Ted’s first girlfriend) and any of these other girls until the police investigation. So I didn’t humiliate her time and time again.

  HA: And you don’t. . . still don’t. . . blame her for calling the police?

  TB: I think she had some real suspic. . . fears in her mind and these weighed heavily on her. And she didn’t report me because she wanted to hurt me. And I did forgive her, because I loved her. There’s nothing wrong with that. It was an understandable weakness, and I understand her desire to do her public duty. So what!