Ted Bundy

by Stephen G. Michaud

  It was actually draining off – it couldn’t keep the distinct – the one was demanding so much that it was going to interfere with his, uh, surface validity, his normal appearance.

  So clearly, he would have to make a choice. Now, assuming that he was capable of making the choice, he would have to weigh the future consequences of continuing along this course of action, and, of course, the conduct of murdering in such senseless and incomprehensible fashion, or return to a normal life.

  It would be clear that there was no longer a choice. It would either be one or the other. Now, if he was captured, it’d be clear that this conduct was seriously interfering with his ability to not only survive but to live free and so on. And so he would have to. There’s clearly motivation there.

  And he’d know – we all know – not only is the act of murder, of the kind we’re talking about, senseless, inhumane, and cruel, it’s also illegal! And people lose their freedom when they engage in that kind of behavior.

  So, understanding – if he was capable of understanding – the dimensions of the problem that seemed to grip him and the consequences in concealing that kind of behavior, and if he was capable of making an intelligent decision, he would probably find a way to extinguish the motives as well as the behavior. Looking behind the behavior of killing as well as the art of killing itself – and all points in between.

  It would be a real choice. If he failed to do that, I mean, there’s no in-between. There’s no middle ground. If only he could realize this. If he couldn’t, then, of course, he wouldn’t. . . uh, wouldn’t do anything about it. But if he’s capable of making a choice, he’d probably try to understand the problem – what his independent variables were and how to eliminate them, how to deal with them in some fashion. Eliminate – not just reduce or suppress – but eliminate the need, the underpinnings of his, uh, criminal behavior.

  HA: Well, you’ve been convicted in the Chi Omega case. You pled innocent but were convicted. Could we examine the evidence in that case in relation to the man you’ve just described? Could we look at this case and see what’s valid and what isn’t? I think we have to get into that.

  TB: Well. . . that case doesn’t fit (laughs). There you are! We’ve done a lot in one sentence. See how easy it is to take care of that in the book!

  HA: Yeah, but. . .

  TB: We’ve created a model that doesn’t fit the real-life situation.

  HA: Well, let’s examine the differences then.

  TB: Sure.

  HA: From the M.O.s on through.

  TB: Yeah, but in that case. . .

  HA: There’s not a complete difference in M.O.s. Some of the cases in the northwest had girls assaulted in their rooms or apartments.

  TB: Well, it would seem the difference between the individual responsible for those in the northwest and the Chi Omega sorority house were considerably, significantly different. You can find similarities. Yes, you can sit here and talk about similarities – where the victims were young women, true – but the M.O. is strikingly different.

  No attempt at possession. No attempt to kidnap the victims. No attempt, it appears, to have sexual intercourse with the victims. The victims were not just knocked unconscious; they were brutally beaten. And you might make the conclusion – based solely on the autopsy photographs and the medical examiner’s reports. . .

  There were bite marks. There was a kind of, uh, residence involved and in none of the northwest cases except the Healy case was a whole houseful of young women the target of this kind of attack. And in no case were there simultaneous or multiple kinds of attacks that occurred almost. . . in a very short period of time.

  And we’d assume that, somehow, Lake Samamish – because we’ve been trying to compare the Lake Samamish situation – we’re talking about the difference in time, and. . . so the differences involved here. . .

  HA: But you said yourself that this person would probably alter his type of attack to meet a certain opportunity or situation.

  TB: Well, first I meant. . . occasions would alter or he’d otherwise attempt to conceal himself in such a way that there wouldn’t be a connection made, or to alter – you know – to alter by throwing police off the pattern. It’s conceivable, you know. People do this.

  HA: But would Chi Omega be a buildup of a tremendous pressure that just exploded all at once? It wasn’t something carefully thought out. Maybe it was a spur of the moment thing. This person had so much pressure built up, that he was like a time bomb, waiting to go off.

  TB: Well, that’s. . . that’s a possibility, but then again, the, uh, facts in the case would indicate that there’s absolutely nothing known about how the individual entered the house – not withstanding the discussion about whether the lock on the back door was. . . there’s considerable controversy.

  There’s no sign of forced entry. If the door was locked then, most of these girls that went in and out of that house that evening. . . that door was locked. Now, one might have found it open. There was some discussion about it sticking open, but. . .

  HA: Did they allow the delivery of food in there?

  TB: I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know. I imagine they had to deliver food.

  HA: I mean, if they called the Pizza Hut, would somebody come over with a pizza?

  TB: Oh, yeah. They had those things running around all over.

  HA: There are all sorts of ways for a man to get in.

  TB: Yeah, but there’s nothing to support that. So either it was an absolute shot in the dark (long pause), a totally chance occurrence, or it was a highly planned thing. And it does not sound like it was a highly planned, uh, attack. But the fact still remains, there’s some question about how the person got in there.

  It would take some thought. Somebody knew the door was sticking. Somebody knew the combinations, was in the house and stayed, didn’t leave.

  HA: Don’t you think that was the more obvious of the alternatives?

  TB: What?

  HA: That somebody was in the house earlier and stayed?

  TB: All the girls swore they didn’t give the combination away, so it’s. . . there’s nothing to support it, that somebody was in the house. We assume, well, we’re led to believe that they had interrogated everyone who lived in the house at the time. But they didn’t come up with a strong suspect.

  That doesn’t mean anything, because if somebody was Mr. Clean Jeans, uh, a good sociopath or whatever, you wouldn’t suspect him. Or her. Outside of that, I don’t. . . I recall the houseboy’s saying something about that was his favorite theory. In fact, a couple of the houseboys and one or two of the girls said they thought there were any number of places a person could’ve hidden in the sorority house.

  But it’s the gaining the entrance at any time. . . whether it be earlier in the day or whatever. What would be the pretense and what would be the point of entry?

  HA: You tell me. He’d have had to know the name of somebody in that house. Or would he have just met somebody from the house who gave him important information – about the door or habits of some of the girls?

  TB: (We’ve observed) the planning of the attacks was not all that much planned.

  HA: A lot of people hung out in that bar nearby. It would have been fairly easy to find out the names of some of the Chi Omega women.

  TB: Sure.

  HA: It’s like knocking on the door when you’re a burglar. If nobody comes, you go on in – if you think nobody’s home. If somebody comes to the door, you ask for somebody else.

  TB: Hmmm.

  HA: Would it be something like that?

  TB: Yeah, except when somebody comes to the door. . . you knock and somebody comes, they’d have remembered that individual.

  HA: Yeah.

  TB: Yeah. . . and yet these attacks occurred early in the morning, so anyone who. . . He was not seen knocking at the door at two or three in the morning. That doesn’t work, because it’s clear the girls were attacked in their beds.

  HA: Would this man be ad
ept in finding out information by telephone? You can find out most anything by that telephone.

  TB: Oh, you’re right there.

  HA: Would he have that ability?

  TB: Not that I know of.

  HA: You could call a sorority house and find out who’s out with whom, who’s gone and where, who’s home, who’s in, and anything else. I’m just trying to figure it out.

  TB (laughs): I know you are!

  HA: Maybe he just met a girl at the bar next door and was rebuffed by her. . . and when she left, she went home – to the Chi Omega house. And maybe he followed her. Maybe he was, as you indicated he often was, under the influence of alcohol. Was somewhat out of control. How does this scenario strike you?

  TB (laughs): You’re working. . . but. . .

  HA: Well, okay, the M.O.s are different. What does that say to you? Why would it be different? Give me a couple good reasons why you think it would be different.

  TB: Different person (laughs). Well, I mean there, probably there are hundreds of cases every year, coast to coast, that fit the M.O. of a young woman found nude, beaten, and, uh, sexually violated, along a deserted highway. Uh, that doesn’t mean that they’re all committed by the same person.

  So what you’re trying to do – what you’re wondering – is how can we apply this hypothetical personality type to the facts of the Chi Omega case, and in what way would we have to alter that, uh, personality type to similarly explain it. . . to account for the manner in which the crimes were committed?

  HA: Well, we’re talking about no possession – but, actually, it was a kind of possession. Certainly during the act of killing there’s possession, brief though it may be. This man couldn’t always take ’em home. I would assume that’s the ultimate possession, to kill someone.

  TB: Well, we saw that, initially, the killing was not possession. It was the cover-up, the, uh, although it may have had some other significance. It seemed, though, that the primary purpose, one at least we picked or would suggest, was that of eliminating a key, if not the key, witness. Now, both of these girls were, in all likelihood, killed in their sleep, so it was not the witness factor.

  HA: Do you think this was definitely an aberrant situation?

  TB: We would have to – with this personality type we would have to conclude that it was very clearly an ex-. . . extreme aberration, a change of character, a change of [long pause]. . .

  HA: Is there something in Chi Omega we’re not seeing? That I’m not seeing? Because there are resemblances to the other killings. They were young girls, alone in their place, asleep. They were certainly possessed, if only briefly.

  TB: Well, the two girls who were beaten but not killed weren’t alone. They were with each other. Matter of fact, every girl in the house was alone. Despite the fact she was alone in her own bed. Most of the rooms had two occupants. The two girls who were killed were alone at the time, but the other two were both in their beds. They were both in their rooms at the same time but were in their beds.

  It could be. . . an aberration, caused by a great deal of pent-up frustration. . . of rage or whatever. It’s, it’s. . . it varied at points.

  HA: Frustration. Rage. The pressures of the moment. Sometimes sorority girls can be quite snobbish. When people aren’t too gregarious or sure of themselves, sometimes people get hurt. . . or extremely angry. Could this man have been insulted, put down, or ridiculed by one or more of the girls in that sorority house?

  TB: Could be. Uh [long pause]. . .

  HA: This crime almost seems like somebody was getting even for something – the extreme rage. Do you understand what I mean? More of a revenge-type murder than the others. Do you see the possibility that there was some contact between the murderer and these girls before the crimes?

  TB: You mean, other than the victims?

  HA: Yeah.

  TB: Well, I think that’s possible but unlikely, for no other reason than, if we assume the victims weren’t the ones who did it, but somehow the perpetrator focused on that house, then we’d expect his approach to be more well thought out and planned. Uh, because obviously it would seem to me that not just anybody can walk up and get into a sorority house with forty occupancy. . . and do what was done there.

  HA: So, you think he planned it [for] quite some time.

  TB: Well, I do, and I don’t. The method of the murders suggests that, uh, they weren’t planned out. The method, the entry, suggests that something was known about the sorority house. If, for example, had one of the girls, among those killed or beaten, in fact, insulted him or something. . . then he might’ve had a lot of knowledge of the layout of the house – and the exact location of the room of the intended victim. That would have been possible, but only if he had a great deal of knowledge about the house. You only have to sit back and envision how difficult a complete stranger or a workman or something like that would have had it that night.

  HA: How do you think he got in?

  TB: Well (long pause). . . all the evidence points to the back door. But how he got in the back door? The, uh, pieces of bark on the carpet, which could’ve been easily tracked in. However, there’s a possibility the door may have been, uh, stuck open, although most of the evidence that night found it to be locked (pause). I’m having difficulty getting into the Chi Omega case myself. It’s the, uh. . . it’s ‘cause it is. . . it’s not unique, it’s just. . . it’s on appeal and I’m here and principally because of that case. And, uh, that’s kinda poor.

  I don’t know how to approach the case and speculate about it extensively without in some way jeopardizing the appeal or a retrial or whatever. I mean, a lot is known about it, okay? And a lot can be inferred – if that’s your desire – from what’s known about that case. All the facts of the case and what’s known about my, uh, living situation, uh, my activities during that period.

  HA: Okay, let’s veer off. Let’s talk about something you’re familiar with elsewhere, the Caryn Campbell case. Most people think the evidence there was very, very slim. There was no real eyewitness. Let’s talk about how. . . What do you think happened in the Campbell case? How would a man like this. . . Would he approach her as she was going up to her room and talk to her. . . represent that you were a police officer and ask her where she was going? What? What? How would you do that?

  TB: She had left her. . . the people she was with. . . had just returned from dinner with. . . and gone up in the elevator and was seen by another group of people who were attending the same, uh, uh, convention. It was. . . the elevator was not. . . was not far from where her room was – and something happened in a very short space of time. A very short, uh, physical space.

  It is considered highly unlikely that she – I’ve seen the layout of the lodge and diagrams and what not – and it would seem unlikely that (she) would have been attacked or physically dragged away under those circumstances. Or was carried away or harmed. So it would seem that she met her attacker and went somewhere with him.

  HA: Do you think she was told he was a police officer and needed her for something? His car was broken down, or. . .

  TB: The problem there would be, first of all, according to her fiancé, the room was untampered with and they didn’t have a car, so you wouldn’t expect that the ruse that was used in the DaRonch case or one like it was used in the Campbell case. She didn’t have a car, so he couldn’t say, “Your car is stolen.” If he had told her her car had been broken into, and she was a couple doors away from it, you know, she would have probably expected or wanted to look at it.

  And in the course of getting her magazine, she never got the magazine. Her fiancé and his children were. . . she’d just left them, so she wouldn’t believe the story that they’d been injured or in trouble with the police, so, uh, it sounds like the situation as we see it doesn’t lend itself to that kind of approach.

  HA: So you think it’s more likely it was just a plain old man-woman approach.

  TB: Uh, that doesn’t sound likely, either. You know, there’s a su
ggestion that she and her fiancé weren’t getting along well. I say “not getting along well.” I mean “not getting along right at that time.”

  HA: It was somewhat strained, I’ve heard.

  TB: Somewhat strained. Those things happen. It does. It would not appear that she would up and. . . was the kind of person who would run off with someone, especially. That doesn’t make sense either.

  HA: Where does that leave us? With the old arm in a sling routine? Or a broken leg?

  TB: It leaves us probably with as many imaginative approaches as you can think of to get somebody’s attention, in, uh, gaining their assistance. The guy, whoever, could have feigned a heart attack or something. . . feigning illness. Asked for her assistance to get him to a hospital, or anything.

  HA: But she didn’t have a car. Could he have used his car?

  TB: Or to get back to his. . . get back to his, uh, uh, whatchacallit, his room. To help him to his room or help him to his car. To some place where he would have her alone.

  HA: Would he have a room?

  TB: It’s not unlikely. I suppose they tried to check out everybody, but my recollection was that there were a few, uh, “anonymous types” whose names they couldn’t follow up on. But I’m not absolutely sure of that. And my understanding, also, is that the police checked all registrations of hotels in the area – motels where a single individual was, uh, was staying. But what’s interesting there is that it would seem that if a man was going to abduct a woman and take her to his room without being spotted, he would register for two people.

  HA: That sounds logical.

  TB: Perhaps that’s a defect in their law-enforcement techniques.

  HA: I see what you mean. It would also seem that if they had a suspect, they would check the handwriting on the room applications.

  TB: That’s true, assuming the person could write with only one hand. You can get locked into a lot of things sometimes. That’s. . . that’s what. . . is often the difference between success and failure. Sometimes people. . . we assume too much. We assume, again, patterns and routines. We don’t assume, you know, the extraordinary case – the unusual case.