The fantasy that accompanies and generates. . . the anticipation that precedes the crime is always more stimulating than the immediate aftermath of the crime itself.
April 2
TB: I’ll bet you’ll never forget these conversations.
SM: No, I won’t. I was thinking about this model, this creation. But there are things I do not understand, right? Your opinion is that violence is a subtheme, or sub-subtheme, of what you call “depersonalization.” And I don’t understand possession.
TB: Uh huh.
SM: We also said that in this instance the victims would be images and symbols. But images of what?
TB: Of women! I mean, of the idealized woman. What else can I say?
SM: A stereotype?
TB: No, they wouldn’t be stereotypes, necessarily. But they would be the reasonable facsimile to women – as a class. A class not of women per se but a class that has almost been created through the mythology of women and how they are used as objects. Of course, that’s just one explanation.
SM: Would there be a standard of beauty or attractiveness?
TB: Well, I suppose, standards. Everyone has his standards.
SM: From the outline we’re working with, there seems to be. . . there are semispontaneous effects and a number of events that were planned or organized and went under the. . . I’m trying to get some idea about the stimulus and response, or if there’s a feeling that puts this person out in the community, uh, when an object-symbol is there, and there. . . then the process begins.
Would it be possible that a distinctly unattractive or homely woman would be walking the street and this person would come upon her? Would it matter to him that she was not physically attractive?
TB: Oh, I’d say it gives the model, it’s an absolutely indispensable criteria (sic).
SM: Okay, can you elaborate on that?
TB: Well, I think that if you – for the purposes of our analysis, and for no really understandable reason except for practicality, this person’s interests – looking for victims – were initially focused on his peers. The person’s criteria would be based upon those standards of attractiveness accepted by his peer group. Of course, the styles have changed and because, overall, styles and therefore standards of beauty change, but. . . not dramatically, so.
SM: What role, in this instance being attractive, would the victims play? I’m talking about before they were accosted. Did you notice them seeming vulnerable? Was there anything about the way they moved, acted – or anything like that – that made them more likely to be victims?
TB: I don’t know. I think that anyone who has studied the problem or the phenomena (sic) of people who appear to have a propensity for becoming victims would have trouble coming up with the exact “why.” Outside of the fact they’ve made themselves available in some, perhaps, unconscious way. What we’re talking about here is just opportunity, as opposed to more discreet factors that would be exhibited by the person.
SM: What, also, is your opinion that violence is not a “goal,” that in itself is not a “game,” and that, if I understood you correctly, is actually more of a tool to achieve a separate goal? That of physical possession. Why is it that in certain circumstances. . . why wouldn’t there be a simple knock on the head? Why do certain circumstances require more elaborate violence than others?
TB: Well, it’s not an easy question, but I think that this kind of person would be in this state of mind at this particular time, but he would not remain in that same stage in five or six years. So you’re asking. . . you’re assuming that the personality is stagnant and doesn’t change. The way we’ve been approaching it, we’ve been discussing it in chronological fashion – the state of mind or the state of development of this condition.
And it does not remain stagnant. So you ask me, if this person is capable of this or that at a given time, why the mode of operation changes several years later. Because, well, people change. Let’s look at it another way. Any person’s circumstances change, and changes result in study or changes come from experience – or just because time has elapsed. For no particular reason.
I think that we’ve established that this kind of individual – as a consequence of just indulging himself in the literature of the day – would have accumulated a great deal of information about crime and its detection. Take, as examples, notorious defendants like Albert DeSalvo or the Hillside Strangler individual. And you can see, based on what you can read about the investigations of those crimes, you can see that hysteria and public tension was drawn to this series of crimes because they were so unique and sensational.
And they occurred in a relatively short period of time. And, of course, in every instance, shortly after the alleged commission of the murders, another thing happened that insured such public hysteria and consequent police activity: the discovery of bodies.
Without a body, a crime is sometimes cleared through speculation, but the public’s horror is not fixed on it. And so it’d be easy for this person to study that kind of reaction, public or bureaucratic, police reaction. And to make certain alterations in his modus operandi. This would tend to decentralize attention and to avoid the cooperation of several investigative agencies.
To provide varying M.O.s and spread them around, as it were, so as not to arouse the same type of unified reaction.
But another terribly critical factor is this: We look through this person’s eyes and study the situation, and it may be that he felt that one of the things that seemed to arouse – one of the principal things in arousing the public and the police – was the discovering of the body. And if you had no body, then essentially you didn’t. . . you’re eliminating a moving force behind the police investigation.
And you’re reducing publicity, you’re slowing suspicion, limiting the possibility of witnesses coming forward – and keeping somewhat in control of the situation, as it were.
April 4
Bundy was extremely hesitant to discuss specific cases. Finally, I nudged him into a description of Lynda Healy’s abduction on January 31, 1974. The twenty-one-year-old coed and ski announcer for a Seattle radio station had vanished from her basement bedroom in the middle of the night. Over a year later, her battered skull was found with those of three other victims at Taylor Mountain east of Seattle, one of Bundy’s northwest dump sites.
TB: He had seen the house before and for one reason or another had been attracted to its occupants. Then one evening, just being in the mood, so to speak, he checked out the house (and) found out the front door was open. He thought about it. What kind of opportunity that offered. And returned to the house later and entered the house and explored it.
SM: While everybody was asleep?
TB: Yeah.
SM: Was this some days later?
TB: No, that same evening.
SM: I see.
TB: Then he went around the house and found a particular bedroom door that he opened – really hit and miss. Not knowing who or what, not looking for any particular individual. And that would be the opportunity. This was late at night. And presumably everyone would be asleep.
SM: Would he have some sort of knife or club so there would be no noise?
TB: I don’t really know. If he struck the woman she would have probably left a large amount of blood. Or if she was shot there would have been a quantity of blood; if she was stabbed there would also be blood. So it pretty well eliminates the alternatives.
SM: There was, I believe, a small quantity of blood found on the sheets.
TB: I suppose you would have to go into the physiology of strangulation to determine what kind of hemorrhaging was going on.
SM: How would this person have proceeded from there?
TB: Well, you can put yourself in that position. You have the young lady in the middle of the night. And we know that at some later time the remains were found somewhere in the Cascades. So obviously she was transported up there.
SM: I guess you would have to dress her yourself?
&
nbsp; TB: In that kind of situation a person who was alert enough to be able to dress would not be afraid in terms of struggling or crying out. So it would be unlikely that any attempt was made to clothe the girl.
SM: Then she was unconscious?
TB: Well, walking out under her own power at that hour of the morning would not necessarily be the soundest kind of approach.
SM: Would she have regained consciousness by the time they reached their destination?
TB: Well, that certainly is a possibility.
SM: A mighty curious feature in the bedroom was the fact that the bed had been made, but apparently not by Lynda herself, because of the type of fold that was put in the sheet.
TB: It was an attempt to cover up her disappearance.
SM: Would she be bound with rope or some kind of restraint?
TB: (That) would be the way it would be done.
SM: Would there be words exchanged?
TB: I doubt it. He would have gagged the person.
SM: Where would you guess they’d drive to? Where would be their destination?
TB: Some place that was quiet and private. His home or some secluded area.
SM: My assumption is that once the abduction had occurred, the person knew what else they were going to do.
TB: It would depend upon the condition of the girl. It would depend on the traffic. It would depend on a number of things. It would depend on a person’s state of mind. How calm or how excited or excitable he was under the circumstances.
SM: How calm do you think he would be?
TB: This was one of the first instances that he’d abducted a woman in this fashion. He was extremely nervous, almost frantic and in a panic, trying to attempt anything. There you are – what do you do with the situation?
SM: Having crossed that barrier with contemplation and action. . .
TB: Uh uh. That barrier had been crossed before. But now it had gone a step or two further.
If he was intoxicated just prior to when the crime began, then he would likely regain his senses when he knew that (he had) exposed himself to a great deal of danger.
SM: Would she be bound and gagged? Unconscious? Would he just throw her in the back seat of his car, or would she be seated next to him?
TB: He’d probably put her in the back seat of the car and cover her with something.
SM: Then what?
TB: Let’s say that he decided to drive to a remote location that he just picked out. Once he had arrived at this point where he didn’t have a fear of alarming anyone in the neighborhood with shouts or screams or whatever, (he’d) untie the woman.
SM: And what then?
TB: He would have the girl undress and then, with that part of himself gratified, he found himself in a position where he realized that he couldn’t let the girl go. And at that point he would kill her and leave her body where he’d taken her.
SM: Would he just stab her or whack her on the head or something swift or. . .
TB: We’ve established the infliction of violence was not something that this individual craved. It would be quick.
SM: Would there be any conversation between the two of them?
TB: There’d be some.
Since this girl in front of him represented not a person, but again the image, or something desirable, the last thing we would expect him to want to do would be to personalize this person.
SM: Would (he) have her undress? Would there be a sexual assault that would precede the actual (killing)?
TB: The sexual gratification probably preceded the point where the final decision was made to kill the individual.
SM: I see. In this instance, there was no confrontation within the assailant, or confrontation of the fact the victim had to be dispatched, until fairly late?
TB: A certain amount of the need of that malignant condition had been satisfied through the sexual release. That driving force would recede somewhat, allowing the normal individual’s mental mechanisms to again begin to take hold. To control the situation, or more so than previously. You’d expect a certain amount of debate, or regret, as it were, that it was faced with a situation. . .
SM: Would there be a period of internal debate? Or would this happen fairly instantaneously?
TB: It would vary depending on the strength of the normal self in its responses. For instance, just how the sexual needs have been gratified. It could last a matter of hours. It could last just a few minutes.
SM: What would you (say) in this matter?
TB: It’s impossible to say. Assuming, however, that he drove directly up into the wilds, and assuming a fairly continuous progression of events, it probably would have been a little more than a few hours.
SM: There must have been a lot of care taken to make sure that no items of clothing or anything else were.
TB: Well, you can expect a combination of things. Whatever her name is, Healy?
(There’d be) a considerable degree of remorse over the killing, and also a high degree of concern over detection, capture, whatever. But furthermore, we’d expect a great almost panic because of the novel nature of the situation. The panic, initially at least, would interfere with the ability to be meticulous about it – i.e., the cleaning up, and so on.
SM: I was interested that the body wasn’t buried.
TB: Well, of course, if you understand the individual in a state of panic in the middle of the night. More likely than not, attempts to dispose of the body itself would have not been terribly innovative.
SM: What happened inside his mind as he left?
TB: A nominally normal individual who has become somewhat subordinate to bizarre desires and abducts a woman and kills her finds himself in a great deal of panic. And all he wants to do is put distance between himself and the result of his activities. Having done that (there would be) a fair degree of relief, so to speak. At least relative to the high state of anxiety that he was in when he was actually in possession of the body.
SM: There is, as you say, relief.
TB: No, I mean relatively speaking. In the days and weeks following (a) killing of this kind, there would be that undercurrent of anxiety that comes with wondering just what was seen, what was found, what was or was not missed.
SM: What about reflecting upon the incident itself?
TB: Initially, the person probably (was) totally preoccupied with whether or not any link would be established. Or what if any significant evidence the police had. So it would not be an occasion to reflect on consequences apart from practical consequences.
It’s not a time to reflect, but a time to look. It would be a time for observing, and then there’d be that period of time when the normal self would be exerting its control and convincing itself that it now could be in total control and this wouldn’t happen again. That would be the period of remission. At that point, I suppose, there would be some reflection about the satisfactory nature of the crime.
SM: You speculate that he could find the actual event unsatisfying?
TB: We’d expect that. Yeah. And this would be especially true – even more so – in the hours or days subsequent to the commission of the crime.
SM: So there would be an unsatisfied urge together with a dominant personality that is screaming for care and caution. There must have been tremendous tension.
TB: The organism always seeks to do things that relieve tension in one form or another. Defense mechanisms. They say any number of psychological disorders are the result of the attempts to diminish anxiety or tension or stress. Escape.
SM: Would he be able to deal with the tension?
TB: Well, the tension was concentrated principally upon the progress of the police investigation. (If) nothing of any significance was disclosed in the newspapers, then that would be one way a great amount of the tension would be reduced.
As far as remorse over the act, that would last for a period of time. But it could all be justified. The person would attempt to justify it by saying, “Well, listen you, you fucked up this time,
but you’re never going to do it again. So let’s just stay together, and it won’t ever happen again.” Why sacrifice this person’s whole life?
And so, the focus then became on surviving and modifying behavior. A sort of optimist. Sort of finding the silver lining, you might call it. Or in some way justifying what had taken place.
But this did not last for very long. A matter of weeks. We go first into a state of semidormancy, and then it would sort of regenerate itself, in one form or another.
SM: How would it reintrude into the mind?
TB: It’s a regrowth, a reassertiveness (that) would be gradual in nature. Almost as if it was a reservoir for all tension or dissatisfaction. It would seem to grow and in that fashion sort of nurture itself on certain negative-type things.
But no one thing. It was no one thing you could say that would trigger him off, or anything like that.
I don’t think we’ve covered the question about contemplation or introspection. I think we’d expect a person not to feel much remorse or regret for the actual crime – or guilt in the conventional sense for the harm done to another individual. Because the propriety or impropriety of that kind of act could not be questioned. If it was, then, of course, there would be all sorts of internal turmoil.
This one side of the personality, I believe, either intentionally or unintentionally, would condition out that kind of guilt or remorse. The guilt and remorse were most prevalent, if they were prevalent at any time, during that period when the individual was uncertain about the results of the police investigation. Once (it) became clear that there was going to be no link made or that he would not become under suspicion, the only thing which appeared to be relevant was not exposing himself to that kind of risk of harm again.
Not thinking about the nature of the act, of the death of the individual herself. The approach is, say, “Don’t ever do it again.” But as time passes, the emphasis is on “Don’t get caught.”
SM: Are there any effects on the work-a-day, everyday existence?
TB: Not ones which are detectable. Perhaps a great degree of irritability, or perhaps people would describe the person as being preoccupied with something, or not fully concentrating on the here and now.
Ted Bundy Page 8
