Ted Bundy

by Stephen G. Michaud

  It was established quite early in that case that her body had been ravaged by wildlife. . . you know, coyotes, foxes, field mice, birds. A whole variety of wild animals, both big and small, feed on carcasses.

  This might give us one clue as to why this person returned to that site on at least several occasions. Perhaps it was discovered that when a body was left there, and later when the individual would return to check out the situation, (he) would find that it was no longer there! And concluded that the animals in the area were doing, you know, his work for him, as it were.

  And (he) would continue to go back there simply because he had his own garbage disposal. A whole bunch of little beasties who would, in effect, destroy every last shred of the victim.

  SM: Hmmm.

  TB: We can also see a considerable amount of the destruction of the bodies in the case of the Lake Sammamish victims. And that has been attributed, as I understand, to animal destruction. There’s no reason we can’t use the same explanation for the condition of the remains at the other site.

  With that in mind, we can say that Parks was taken directly to the vicinity where the other bodies were found – and at that point he killed Parks. Either in the car. . . or marched her off the road and killed her in a more secluded location.

  Damn, I need something to get fired up. I’m going to bring some dope down here some time. . . and we’ll just smoke it.

  SM: I figured you’d like the white powder better.

  TB: What? Coke?

  SM: Yeah. What does it do to you, TRB? Make you silly?

  TB: Cocaine? I’ve never used it.

  SM: Then why are you shaking your head?

  TB: I was just thinking. . . uh, when you mentioned white powder, I thought you were talking about those tranquilizers I used to get in Orlando – alleged tranquilizers I used to get in Orlando. And it. . . it was white powder.

  SM: Oh.

  TB: I’ve never tried cocaine. I think I might have tried it once and got nothing out of it. Just snorted a little bit. And I just don’t mess with it. It’s too expensive. And I suppose if I was on the streets and had enough of it, I might get into it. But I’m strictly a marijuana man. All I do is. . . I love to smoke reefer. And I haven’t, uh, never have tried anything but reefer. And valiums. And, of course, alcohol.

  SM: Would the murders be essentially the same – knives, heavy instruments, strangulation?

  TB: The means of dispatching someone? It would never require any instrumentality. A gun, for example, would not only make a lot of noise but would leave ballistic evidence.

  SM: You said that this person would try to avoid, or minimize, the actual pain to the victim.

  TB: Hmmm.

  SM: You have no comment?

  TB: I think we’ve just about covered it for today. Gimme a cigarette.

  April 15

  Bundy would not confront the extreme violence he practiced against his victims. He had obviously sanitized his descriptions of the murders of Lynda Healy and Kathy Parks, as he would for twenty-two-year-old Brenda Ball, who was last seen leaving a Seattle-area beer joint in the early hours of June 1, 1974. Ball may have been strangled, as Ted indicated, but her skull was also brutally fractured.

  SM: What about the girl from the Flame Tavern? Brenda Ball?

  TB: He was interested in varying his M.O. in such a way as not to continue to fan the flames of community outrage, or the intensity of the police investigation. This is why this Ball girl found herself to be the next victim.

  SM: What would be a reasonable reconstruction of that night?

  TB: Of course, I don’t know, but we could say that he picked her up hitchhiking and they got to talking and she had nothing to do. He would ask her if she wanted to go to a party at his place and take her home. At this point, he would exert an influence on her which would be especially effective if she was under the influence of alcohol.

  SM: He’d take her home?

  TB: Sure.

  SM: It would seem terribly risky.

  TB: If you live with someone. But he had his own house.

  SM: I see. What is going on in his mind on the way to his house?

  TB: Conversation. To remove himself from the personal aspects of the encounter, the interchange. Chatting and flattering and entertaining, as if seen through a motion-picture screen. He would be engaging in the pattern just for the purpose of making the whole encounter seem legitimate.

  SM: Uh huh.

  TB: And to keep her at ease.

  He didn’t want this girl to get second thoughts about going with him to his place. And also, he was afraid that if he started thinking about what he was going to do, he’d either become more nervous or lose his concentration or in some way betray himself.

  SM: So there’s a very delicate balance between being cool and the excitement?

  TB: Well, it’s a critical balance, not a delicate balance. It became almost like acting a role. It wasn’t difficult. The more an actor acts in a role, the better he becomes at it, the more he is apt to feel comfortable in it, to be able to do things spontaneously. And get better, as it were, in his role.

  SM: So they go to his place?

  TB: He’d have to explain why there isn’t all the activity going on. It was probably not the first time she’d run into that kind of situation. Maybe it was. But in any event she was somewhat wary of the situation and yet bored enough, or intoxicated enough – or both – to just not really consider it threatening to her. They’d drink until she was exceptionally intoxicated. A dramatic departure from the Healy situation. In part, it is because of design. But in part it is just because of circumstances.

  SM: The longer the conversation would go on, the more likely she would emerge as a person?

  TB: Well, drinking has an effect on both parties. On the one hand, the more intoxicated he became, the more he repressed his normal codes of behavior. And the more she drank, the more she would lend herself to stereotypes.

  SM: How would he proceed?

  TB: The initial sexual encounter would be more or less a voluntary one. But one which did not wholly gratify the full spectrum of desires that he had intended. And so, after the first sexual encounter, gradually his sexual desire builds back up and joins, as it were, these other unfulfilled desires – this other need to totally possess her, after she’s passed out, as she lay there in a state somewhere between coma and sleep, he strangled her to death.

  SM: Seems to me there’d be some kind of logistical problem of getting her out of there.

  TB: There wouldn’t be an urgency, since she was in a place that was private. Ultimately, he’d have to bundle her up in some fashion and take her out to his car, when it’s late some night, and drive her up to the mountains.

  SM: What would he do with her until then?

  TB: Just leave her in the bed, put her in the closet, you know. I mean, no one’s coming in.

  April 22

  SM: Tell me how I should describe the feelings of “this person” during the approach. . . the interview, when a soon-to-be victim is located. Is he cool and detached, analytical. . . or is he frantic?

  TB: You could expect a great deal of anticipation, mixed with a lot of tension. . . before. . . in the period preceding the abduction or whatever you called it.

  SM: Is it hours before? Or. . .

  TB: Well, whenever the individual commands himself to one degree or another. To actually attempting to carry out something. Hmmm.

  SM: Then that length of time preceding the event would vary? In your guess, it could vary?

  TB: Uh huh.

  SM: About how much?

  TB: Oh, I don’t know. Once he’d made his contact – and it appeared he was going to be able to carry it through – he became very calm and analytical about the situation he was in. And then when. . . he’s got a period of relaxation, which would likely continue until the time came for him to kill the victim – at which point he would become torn apart as to the correctness of his conduct.

  But h
e’d still have the overriding need to dispose of the victim, and, of course, once it was done, he would usually go into a state of panic.

  Suddenly it would seem as if his dominant, or formerly dominant. . . uh, predominant, normal self came back into control in a horrifying way. Or one that is presented with. . . conceived with panic and confusion. The enormity of what lay before him! Fear of being captured or discovered. And feelings of regret, remorse.

  The hours fall and the individual is more likely promising himself he’ll never do it again – and so on and so forth.

  SM: You said earlier that the dominant or the more rational, the more normal part of this person, would actually be in a fit and would organize the killing – because at that point it was necessary for survival. That the other part would engineer the abduction, or whatever happened, but that when it was over, the rational self and the instinct of survival would take over. Do I understand that correctly?

  TB: It was more or less a collaboration between the two, the malignant condition having more or less been satisfied for the moment. . . and receded in this activity to the point where he’s almost, uh, in dullness. . . left the situation. Then the individual’s normal, rational, moral, and law-abiding. . . uh. . . Well, a normal self would undertake these actions initially and the surface justification is, “Well, it’s never going to happen again.” And that way you can do it – but only if it never happens again.

  But of course, gradually time would pass and the. . . whatever factors nurtured this psychopathological condition would start to build up again. To its capacity or need to act.

  SM: Then it was almost cyclical.

  TB: Yeah, in that fashion. You could say it was cyclical.

  SM: So what happens next?

  TB: I would envision a continuation of this kind of collaboration. . . between that one part of this person’s self, which demands certain gratification, and the more dominant, law-abiding, more ethical, rational, normal self – which was sort of forced to become a party to that kind of conduct. Basically, you might say there was a shared division of responsibility.

  This came as much from evolution as from conscious choice, because the ultimate goal. . . no, not the ultimate goal, but certainly an important consideration. . . for this malignant side of the person did not want to be captured, did not want to be detected. And. . .

  SM: Would the other side?

  TB: No, the other side wouldn’t.

  SM: Would this personality ever consciously, or even unconsciously, whatever, actually put itself in a circumstance where the idea is to be caught?

  TB (adamantly): Well, not for the one we’re talking about here!

  SM: What’s a. . .

  TB: It’s a popular theory, but. . . Over the years I’ve read a lot about how certain types of killers like to leave clues and have themselves caught. They enjoy the limelight. We do have an incidence of individuals like that, like “Son of Sam” because of the kind of news-media attention they generate. I think you’d be astonished at how many virtually anonymous people have been linked with more murders than “Son of Sam” or even John Gacy, which is not. . . He (Gacy) never got in a position where he could become publicized. They caught him, convicted him, and put him away with a minimum of flurry, as I recall. It wasn’t like chasing a killer across several states, or, uh. . .

  SM: You’ve talked at some length about how the abnormal “entity” took over – with increasing regularity, forming a sort of partnership with the more normal part of him, the part that had to deal with the day-to-day activities. And I guess the enthusiasm to be very active during this period was a way of protecting the other.

  TB: “Concealing” is a better word. I don’t want to overwork the simple analogies, but because a man becomes an excellent tennis player doesn’t mean he cannot go out and do his business. Or become absorbed in tennis, parachuting, or whatever; it may be a terribly important part of himself. Using a slightly different analogy, homosexuals – at least in the past – concealed a certain part of their lives. They didn’t bring that activity and those desires into the business place so that they could function.

  Of course, straight people felt that homosexual schoolteachers were standing in the classroom all day thinking about abusing the little boys in the room. It was, however, only a part of their lives. As we know, sex and even interpersonal relationships are just part of our lives.

  Well, this particular activity is just a small, small portion of what was predominantly a normal existence, which continued to be a normal existence, not only at the will or whim of this antisocial pathological mental condition. It was just a different part – just as the homosexual would have a different part. Or the sailor would have a different part of his life he would not share. We don’t share every part of our lives with everyone we run into.

  SM: We are, then, talking about modes of existence, rather than two different minds?

  TB: Yes. We are not talking about two different minds.

  SM: We are talking about two different behavioral patterns?

  TB: Yes.

  SM: One of which is the predominantly public self?

  TB: Yes, the public self – normal self, which is not necessarily latent but which would certainly have its latent phases.

  SM: Would there be contempt because the public person bore a grudge or hatred for the other?

  TB: You would expect that. But I doubt it. Seriously doubt it, in this case. . .

  SM: Is that a measure of how integrated the mind would become?

  TB: It is indicative of the state of coexistence. This person could still be very much in favor of law and order and the police. . . and be very much genuinely shocked by crime in the newspaper. And very much moved by people who suffered the death of loved ones. Complete, genuine responding in a normal fashion. Willing and able to help police. He would have a real feeling in those regards. Not out of desire to protect or hide. These were just normal responses.

  It was almost as if he said it was wrong for all these things to happen. “It is wrong for me to jaywalk. It is wrong to rob a bank. It is wrong to break into other people’s houses. It is wrong for me to drive without a driver’s license. It is wrong not to pay your parking tickets. It is wrong not to vote in elections. It is wrong to intentionally embarrass people.”

  The uniqueness of the whole situation is how this condition pertained to such a narrow spectrum of activity. The inhibitions that would normally prevent a person from acting that way were specifically excised, removed, diminished, repressed. . . in such a way (as to) not affect all the other inhibitions – or to result in the deterioration of the entire personality. But only in that tiny, tiny slice!

  SM: In other regards, then, he was socialized.

  TB: Possibly. Oh hell, yes. . . let’s face it.

  SM: Did this person contemplate the future? Was there any sense that the string must run out at some point?

  TB: (He) contemplated his future. I suppose it caused him to be more concerned with normal, everyday things. When this individual contemplated the future, it was in terms of acceptable, normal goals. He was not preoccupied or worried about his ultimate capture, if his number would come up – or that time would run out.

  On the other hand, he would have a combination of fear of capture or of remorse for having exposed himself to that kind of situation. Yet that was not the kind of worry or concern that was pervasive. There was no thought given to the long-range consequences of this kind of behavior.

  SM: Have you found any credence in the notion that there could have been two people that worked at virtually the same time in Seattle?

  TB: Two different individuals? Oh, sure.

  SM: What are your thoughts on that?

  TB: I think there are probably a good dozen people in King County right now who are capable of the same thing. And are probably at one point or another engaged in conduct that will lead to that. It’s a frightening notion. But it’s as true and real as this trashcan.

  There ar
e any number of people capable of that. Somebody that was truly shrewd – with a little money – could probably escape detection indefinitely. It has always been my theory that for every person arrested and charged with multiple homicide, there are probably a good five more out there somewhere, following along a path – maybe not the same path, but a path that would eventually lead them to the same place.

  We’re seeing greater and greater opportunity for this kind of behavior to manifest itself – continuing right on down through the family, continuing right down to morals, increased cultural liberating. . . “do your own thing” kind of atmosphere. Greater mobility is a factor, too. Certainly, greater chaos on the social level. And economically. You see lots more kids on the run, on the move.

  Women’s liberation is another extraordinarily interesting thing, because women have a great deal more freedom to move here and there. They are no longer stuck in their homes. They are not watched over. It seems that it is happening in a geometric fashion. The more they expose themselves as victims to this potential behavior.

  The more you erode traditional means of conditioning people to behave in certain ways, the more kinds of individuals are going to be exposed – who have this kind of weakness. They are going to be more successful more rapidly at it because they are going to have many more prospective victims.

  The police are becoming less and less capable of detecting this kind of behavior, because you have this great body of young people on the move. You can listen to any television program talking about how we’ve got so many missing teenagers we don’t know what to do. And that’s going to increase all the time.

  SM: Society won’t tolerate that kind of mayhem.

  TB: You’ll tolerate it because you won’t really know what’s happening. You know, this fifteen-year-old girl disappeared. We assume she ran away. She had run away before. But what they don’t know is that she’s in a ditch somewhere. And they may never know it.

  I read an article in the newspaper not long ago. A story about a well-dressed woman found dead in an orange grove – and there was no way to identify her. The (body) obviously wasn’t all there. Just one of hundreds of missing people’s bodies they cannot identify. This is just one, one particular factor that would interest a particular kind of individual. Not all of these individuals are going to be interested in hitchhikers and transients.