Talk:Ted Bundy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Clarify

I think clarification is needed for the events of his escapes and such. It all seems a bit confusing to me. Maybe someone could clarify and bulk up this article? bah 04:08, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Working on it [[User:Bla

nkfaze|blankfaze]] | ♫ 05:36, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Debbie Harry

I am sure I once read an interview of Debbie Harry of Blondie, saying she once had a run in with a suspicious acting man she later realised was Bundy. Did I imagine this?

I read the same article. Debbie Harry apparently believes that the man that attempted to abduct her was Ted. But Ted was not in the area at the time. There seems to have been a phenomenon where, after he was arrested and appeared on TV, many women began to believe, mistakenly, that they had some type of run-in with him in the past.

Reported on Snopes.com as something Harry genuinely, but incorrectly, believed.86.145.54.44 22:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• When she was being interviewed on the show "Enough Rope With Andrew Denton" in Australia, Harry described in detail how she is sure she got into Bundy's car in New York City and what a terrible smell it had. She says she is very lucky she escaped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.81.141 (talk) 09:10, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Picking nits

The article says he was electrocuted by a current of 2000 volts. Electrical current is measured in Amps. A small issue, but for completeness, it should be changed.

• Are you sure? I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that. blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm sure he's correct, but there may be a "common use" vs "correct" definition of "current" going on here. The basic units in electricity are voltage (V), current (I) and resistance (r). Voltage, a measure of electrical potential, is measured in volts, current, a measure of electrical flow, is measured in amps and resistance is measured in ohms. If it's volts, it's voltage. If it's current, it's in amperes. So one can correctly say someone was electrocuted by "5 amperes of current at 2000 volts" or "a jolt of 2000 volts" but "a current of 2000 volts" is, strictly speaking, not correct. - Nunh-huh 03:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Resistance is constant because it depends on his body. Then either voltage or current will do -- either can be derived from the other. MisterSheik 23:02, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Ah, I understand now. Feel free to reword it, someone! blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:22, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Bundy was not actually recieving electricity for a full ten minutes. No actual electrocution ever goes that long. He got a jolt for a little less than two minutes, and they let his body sit in the chair for the next eight minutes until they actually pronounced him dead, even though he was not moving and clearly dead already. It should be reworded for accuracy.
• Resistance is useless! arf

I agree about the ten minutes statement. Normally, an execution might be scheduled for 7:01 perhaps, but not 7:06. I take that to mean that 7:06 is when the switch was thrown, which is fine. 7:16 is when he was pronounced dead. Fine. The current was probably cut off at 7:08. If I had time to, I would reword that with this in mind. --Coryma 00:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer

I don't find this article to be more graphic and disturbing than some others I have read, but even if it is graphic and disturbing, then this is what readers should expect in an article on a serial killer. We've done away with these disclaimers when we put in the wikipedia:General disclaimer and the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer applies here. Alternatively, we could move the warning down to the section that may be considered objectionable. --Jiang 21:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nah, I think we need a specific disclaimer here. I know a lot of people might want to know that the article has stuff in it like "the nipple was hanging by a thin strand of tissue" before delving into it. No change is necessary. blankfaze | (беседа!) 21:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I still don't agree with having the warning at all, but if we are to keep it, I don;t see why the wording should be at the top. Please expl ain. --Jiang 00:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Fine, in the spirit of wiki, I will agree to compromise, for now. But if someone comes along and exp

ands this article to include more gory details, then I really think we'll need to move it back to the top. blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:00, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Shocking" details

"almost completely off " and "connected to her breast by a thin strand of tissue" convey the same information: there's no censorship, involved, just a choice whether to wallow in emotive language or not. I'd be fine with or without the "thin thread" but I'm not fine with a "gore warning" in an encyclopedia article. - Nunh-huh 01:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Well, it's a necessary evil. Sorry. blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:05, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't feel either is necessary, and your simply insisting is not argumentation. If you feel the tabloid language is desirable, leave it in. But warning someone you're about to use emotive rather than neutral language is intrusive. - Nunh-huh 04:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, "connected to her breast by a thin strand of tissue" isn't emotive language at all. I'm simply a straightforward description. Emotive language would be, "Shockingly, the horrific scene in front of them included flesh that had been all but gruesomely rended..." As long as it's objective, I don't see any reason why one would be used over the other. And I really mean that both ways. Both work fine. Webster100 05:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurancy

Hey, while reading this for my english assignment, and trying to rewrite it in my own words, I came over one uncertain thing in this article. First, you write that Louise and Bundy changed last names from Cowell to Nelson. Then, that Louise got married, and they changed their names to Bundy. But further down the page, you write that Ted Bundy thought his grandparents where his real parents. And since Cowell was most likely Louise's born surname, then her parents would most likely have Cowell as their surnames... But if Ted had another surname than his 'parents', wouldn't that make him suspicious? And why would he get his 'sister's' surname when she got married? There's something wrong there...

Missing

Uhh... where he was born? State and city??? Anon E Mouse 15:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He was born in Burlington, Vermont in 1946.

To even begin to understand the mind of Bundy I would recommend The Only Living Witness by Stephen G.Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth. While it is journalistic throughtout and graphic in places it does not unduly sensationalise Bundy or his crimes.

Weirdly Michaud was also born in Burlington Vermont (1948) and, like Bundy, was moved by his (single) mother from Vermont to Tacoma, Washington.

True?

"Eventually, this new persona swept Stephanie off her feet. She agreed to marry him. Two days later, he dumped her and shortly afterward began a rampage that lasted three years."

Is this true? It doesn't seem to make sense that he would kill so many people that looked like Stephanie if _he_ was the one to dump her in the end.--

Stephanie dumped him initially because he was immature and seemed to have few prospects. He spent a few years apparently changing himself to make himself more attractive to her. When they met again, he did indeed impress her. So much so, that he led her to believe they would marry. Then, according to her, his attitude changed suddenly and drastically. He treated her badly and cut off all contact with her, effectively dumping her. It seems to have been his plan all along to exact some sort of emotional revenge on her. Subsequently, she had to visit a therapist to work through her ordeal.

Tone

This whole article has a distinctly sensationalist tone. It reads like something out of a taboid newspaper, or a "When Serial Killers Turn Bad" American-style TV show. An encyclopedia article ought to be a little more detached in its narrative. I'm thinking particularly of things like:

Eventually, this new persona swept Stephanie off her feet. She agreed to marry him. Two days later, he dumped her and shortly afterward began a rampage that lasted three years.

and

At 7:06 AM on January 24, 1989, Theodore Robert Bundy was put to death by the State of Florida, by method of electrocution. His last words were, "I'd like you to give my love to my family and friends." Then, an electric charge of over 2,000 volts was applied across his body for ten minutes. He was pronounced dead at 7:16 AM.

All very dramatic but I'm not sure the article ought to be phrased in this way. Also, is the quote by the judge about how he was such a nice guy really worthy of inclusion? It's somewhat lacking in context. There's no clear explanation as to why a judge who had heard all this gruesome evidence might feel no animosity towards him. The article needs looking at again by someone who knows more about the case than I do. One change I have made is to take out the slightly odd "graphic details" warning. Wikipedia has a general disclaimer that covers this sort of thing, and to be honest if you look up a serial killer you can expect to read detailed description of their crimes. The warning is just hype and has no place in a serious reference work. Let's try to keep these articles clinical and objective. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This entire article on Ted Bundy needs a complete rewrite. There are obvious errors and omissions. I wish I had the time to clean it up. His story if nothing else is a cautionary tale for mental health professionals and law enforcement officials. T.E. Goodwin 01:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This artilce has some random facts thrown in at odd places, some untrue facts, and overall a very "campfire-esque" feel to it. In my opinion, it's rather poorly done, and the whole thing could stand to be rewritten Webster100 05:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Serious work

This article needs some serious work. The current revision is fraught with grammatical and factual errors. It seems to me that most of the crapness was added by 64.217.218.140. I would highly suggest considering returning this article to the revision of 23:49, 7 Jun 2005 by 67.171.237.88. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can understand a little communism, but this is getting ridiculous

"As he explained to Michaud and Aynesworth, Bundy progressed from an undifferentiated interest in sexual images—Playboy and similar sorts of soft erotica—to darker thoughts in which sex and violence intertwined."

"The night before Bundy was executed, he gave a television interview to Dr. James Dobson, head of the Christian organization Focus on the Family. Bundy explained how his consumption of violent pornography helped "shape and mold" his violence into "behavior too terrible to describe" ... It has been noted that Bundy had never blamed pornography until this interview ..."

Heh. (above unsigned comment by User:193.166.89.77)

"Communism"? Huh? DreamGuy 07:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Color me confused. I'm with DreamGuy - what does "communism" have to do with anything? --AWF

Massive changes on vandalism on June 13-14

Apparently nobody noticed that user 64.217.218.140 vandalized this article on June 13-14, removing almost all details of Bundy's crimes. Granted he/she also revised the wording to flow more coherently in a number of areas, but his last two edits specifically not only remove almost all the gritty and gory stuff (which I think should be in there, regardless how disturbing it may be, and the other serial killer articles generally include these sorts of details too), but also other valid information about his life. Things the user removed include the Stephanie Brooks thing (and how victims all looked like her), how he was "relieved of his virginity," and his relationship to Ann Rule. Another thing gone is the list names of his early victims, instead mentioning only that "he stalked and killed approximately one young woman a month". The user's changes (including a line about "dirty bookstores" which were later corrected to "erotic bookstores") smell of moralizing and censorship, and it annoys me, since this is an article about a serial killer, it should be expected that there will be disturbing things in it.

User 24.231.182.83 also removed the bit about the nipple being almost completely removed at an earlier time, another detail that I think fit in the article just fine.

I don't really have the time right now, and I haven't worked on this article in the past, so I ask editors who have more experience with this article and background in the subject to please reverse the changes mentioned above. The text as it was before user 64.217.218.140's edits was kind of messy and long-winded, and some of the edits were for the better, but I think at least the stuff mentioned above should be reincorporated. I was pretty confused by this article when I first show it since so much has been glossed over or cut out.--Lord Shitzu 18:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Edit: apparently Blankfaze did notice this vandalism, but nobody did anything about it. PLEASE work on this.--Lord Shitzu 18:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the version before 64.217.218.140. There did seem to be a systematic attempt to remove victims names and the worst details. I think at least the first two attacks should be mentioned insofar as they set the pattern and while it shouldn't be overloaded the brutality should be described once. The relationship with the collegegirl and working at the crisis centre also seem notable. The only thing I am confused about is the previous comment that "he discovered that his "parents" were really his grandparents, and that he was illegitimate." The article as it stands contradicts this. Marskell 18:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a rewrite. I learned more from the talk page than I did from the article it's self. That's pretty bad. Webster100 05:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Also...

...if anybody is watching, I usually dislike editorializations in intros but is it not appropriate to add here "considered the worst (or quintessintial?) serial killer" in this intro? I just added a note to Serial killer itself that the term was partly popularized because of Bundy and for the I-only-read-the-first-paragraph people we should state how perversely important he is to the notion of serial killer. Marskell 23:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, given no arguments not to added: "Bundy is often considered the quintessential or prototypical serial killer because of the number of victims and his well-publicized escapes from jail—indeed, the term serial killer was devised in part to qualify his crimes." This could be changed but a sentence of this sort seems proper. Marskell 23:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Name Carved In Orlando Courtroom

No evidence has been claimed that it is valid, however the defendants table in a courtroom in Orlando, FL bares Ted Bundy's name carved into the wood. The court room is actually an exhibit within the Orange County Regional History Museum.

Photos from inside of the courtroom available at - Orlando Ghost Tour Photos

I am unsure of the quote by the judge Cowart. It seemed that after the quote by the judge there was a continue of italized text that was not part of the Judge's quote. Since no author is mentioned for the continuation of the italized text, it seems safe to assume this is the WIKI author/ editor. I do not believe that a virtual condemnation of the Judge, though earned, is comfortable in a encyclo.

Execution Preps

I see that the info about Bundy's last minutes...mainly that he had to be dragged from his cell for the shaving of his head, stuffing his anus with cotton, and putting on an exeuction diaper...has been reverted twice. While some people may consider it "graphic" (unusual considering who we're talking about) in did in fact happen and should be in the article. To remove it is not removing untrue statements but rather removal of info to censor for the readers. Keep it in to show how this man went out. Thats what I think. -Husnock 06:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly object, although I don't think it adds a great deal to the article. We do need to cite a source, though, for something like this. — Matt Crypto 11:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

An excellent compromise. I will see if I can find a source. I recall reading in a few places he fought being taken to the electric chair and the film "Ted Bundy" does a dramtic portrayal of it. -Husnock 19:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC).

The execution preparation details cited previously are extracted from the motion picture "Ted Bundy" (2002). These details are no more authentic than the other errors depicted in the film, e.g., showing the executioner as a female corrections officer rather than a private citizen and the execution itself consisting of one jolt instead of three. Nothing reported indicates that he had to be forced to do anything in the way of cooperation. I do recall that when he entered the execution chamber the press witnesses noted that his countenance appeared "fearful." T.E. Goodwin 12:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Judge's comment

Either this should be removed or the writings previously added by me and another user should remain. As of now the comment without accouting its obvious streak of how the judge was manipulated by Bundy's charisma and so forth (as previously speculated by me, and later refuted as in a possible expression of sympath according to other user) is highly trivial and irrelevant. -User:Shoplifter

The idea that the judge was manipulated is your opinion, and encyclopedias don;t just list the opinon of anyone who wanders by and has one. The judge's comment is fact (he really said it) and interesting. I don't understand what your objection is. DreamGuy 19:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is that the judge's comment, uncommented in an encyclopaedic fashion (stating both sides of the argument) bears no encyclopaedic value in itself - it is as you say 'interesting', but that is because it spurs thoughts of the judge's conception of Bundy's deeds. If uncommented, it is simply an irrelevant expression of emotion in the context. I remove it once again with the hope that we can reach a constructive conclusion. -User:Shoplifter

I agree with DreamGuy. This looks like someone with a personal opinion and/or a beef about what the judge said. Blanking sections of articles that you personally don't agree with is very bad form and aginst what Wikipedia stands for. The quote should stay. it is a fact he said it and actually has been mentioned in several documentaries about Ted Bundy. P.S., please sign your statements. -Husnock 22:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ann Marie's age

I can't believe that with all the comments on all the other stuff, everyone seemed to miss that Ted's alleged "first" victim's age was wrong. She was eight when she disappered not twelve. Don't worry boys I already went to the edit page and fixed it.

Eagle Scout?

I'm pretty sure Bundy was an Eagle Scout. I'm currently looking for a repuitable source supporting this. Worldtravller 19:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Over 100 Murders

Give me a break! If you're going to make an outrageous claim like that, especially in the opening paragraph, provide a source or two!!! He confessed to 30 something murders (it would help if someone got the exact number!) Remember folks: this is an ENCYLOPOEDIA not a fictional narrative. For the same reason, I took out the garbage about the vasoline in anus, cotton, etc. That user should be charged with vandalism User:Stanley011

THANK YOU Stanley for removing the fictional details of his execution. Like I said previously they were in the film called "Ted Bundy," which ws filled with factual erorrs. And, they don't belong here!T.E. Goodwin 22:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

He was going to onfess to further killings for the sake of gaining more time but the prosecution would not hear him out. A mysterious disappearence of a girl who had lived near Ted Bundy also sparks suspect that Ted may have started killing as early as his teens.Editor18 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Which implies that he had at most a few more. There's no evidence that he was connected to 70 murders police never suspected him in.

Warning?

Warning: This article contains violent and graphic details which readers may find disturbing.

I can't put my finger on it, but there is something inherently unwiki about having such a warning. It seems inherently non-NPOV. How can we call the content of an article "disturbing" and still claim to be narrating events in NPOV. It seems to be the result of a compromise between having a regular article and one which is censored for the protection of minors, a compromise which is unecessary because of WP:NOT. I believe it should be removed, but I'll give others a chance to respond here in case there is something I'm missing. Are we going to add a similar warning to articles about the Holocaust and Aztec sacrafices? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:43, 2 Marc 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Let's get rid of it. ~~user:Stanley011

There is much in Wikipedia that is disturbing. Are we to blanket ALL such articles to a disclaimer such as this? I think not.T.E. Goodwin 23:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Without resorting to POV characterizations like "disturbing" would it not be just plain courteous to give the reader some type of neutrally-worded notice? I think it is at least as useful as the ubiquitous "spoiler warning" accompanying every narrative synopsis. I suggest Note: This section contains graphic descriptions of violent acts. --Dystopos 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

References in popular culture

Okay, Vidor. What is your reasoning behind removing the pop culture references? In a way, I can see that it's kinda cheesy advertisement for a sick character like Bundy. It might appear to glorify Bundy and in effect minimize the lives he destroyed; not only those of the victims, but of the victims' families and friends.

What say you? Kelly A. Siebecke 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Other serial killer biographies (like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ed Gein) have popular culture sections. I don't see why this serial killer article shouldn't have one. GSMR (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

While I don't mind stuff being edited for clarification, etc. I'm having a REAL hard time getting why there are sections being deleted completely, totally making the article clear as mud. I've noticed that there's been quite a bit of obvious vandalism (stupid non-sensical statements, etc.) to this article recently - is it time to have it locked for editing for a period of time? How does one request such an action? Kelly A. Siebecke 04:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, I've noticed someone changing all occurrences of "Ted" and "Bundy" to "Adam" and "Holmes". 70.253.129.75 17:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

A lot of the statements made in this article need to be backed up with footnotes, particularly the ones concerning his childhood and modus operandi. Treybien 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence uses the term "serial killer." That should be warning enough. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I know this is about a serial killer but people come here for research, at least some do. Maybe it should not focus on shocking details just because he is a serial killer. VegSXEBassist 03:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

References?

I noticed atleast two points here that really should have a reference/source:

"the term 'serial killer' was coined in order to describe him." I've never come across this particular fact. Though Ressler and Douglas, and Keppel, whoever coined the term, may very well have had him in particular in mind, is there a source for this? The way this is worded makes it sound as if they coined the term specifically because of Bundy and that's a big statement to make, especially in the opening paragraph, where so many people will read it. It needs to be backed up somehow.

"There is also speculation that Harris based the character of Hannibal Lecter on Bundy's jailhouse interviews with Robert Keppel. " Pfft. Besides the problematic use of the term 'speculation' there is also a timeline issue: Hannibal was created for the novel Red Dragon, published in 1981, 3 years before Keppel met with Bundy for the interviews that appeared in Riverman. The interviewing of Hannibal that appears in the novels and films is based on the FBI's Behavioural Science Unit's interviews with incarcerated killers in the late 70s-early 80s. Is it not? Aglie 05:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have recently finished reading a book by Harold Schecter called "The A to Z encyclopedia of serial killers". In this book it says that the term serial killer actually came from former special agent Robert K. Ressler.Accodring to Resslers 1992 book"whoever fights monsters" while Ressler was lecturing at British police academy a participant referred to "crimes in series". Impressed with the phrase Ressler began using the term serial killer.Megadethfan636 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Also in "The A to Z encylopedia of serial killers" and in another book by Harold Schecter called "Deviant" about Ed Gein he says that Buffalo Bill in silence of the lambs is based on Ed Gein. So maybe whoever wrote that Hannibal Lecter was based on Ted Bundy got there info mixed up.Megadethfan636 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any in-text citations. I added the unreferenced tag, but someone removed it because the references are at the bottom. I don't think that's enough because without citations, anyone can add anything in. What I mean is that there should be citations of each fact that needs it, otherwise anyone can add whatever they want and no one would be able to tell it's not true. Like the thing about Bundy's grandfather tapdancing... Maybe it's true, but it seems like vandalism that was never removed because no one could tell since there is no need for citations apparently... Dan Guan 18:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Convicted Child Sex Offender?

He is listed in this category, but was he ever convicted of a Child Sex Offence? I think not. --Blue Tie 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

He was convicted of the murder of Kimberly Leach, who was 12. Was he convicted of rape too? Vidor 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think so. As I understand it, he did not rape living people. I do not think that legally it counts if the person is dead. And not sure that there is evidence he raped her when dead either. He should probably be put in a different category like convicted serial killers or something like that. --Blue Tie 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

He did rape living people. And he is believed to have raped Leach. The relevant question, however, is was he convicted of doing so, since the category is "convicted child sex offender". Bundy was convicted of kidnapping in Utah and various offenses--murder, attempted murder, burglary--in relation to the Chi Omega murders and the murder of Kimberly Leach. I think maybe you are right, and he was not convicted of rape, but I don't know that for sure. Vidor 14:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Which of his rape victims was alive? I know he liked to have sex with dead people (and their skulls!) I have researched the court documents on line and they all say he was convicted of murder, not of child sex offenses. --Blue Tie 03:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pornography to blame?

The interview with James Dobson is mentioned briefly, and it is noted that Bundy blamed pornography for "molding his...violent behavior". Should it also mention that Bundy started the interview by saying "Before we go any further, it is important to me that people believe what I’m saying. I’m not blaming pornography. I’m not saying it caused me to go out and do certain things. I take full responsibility for all the things that I’ve done."? (see http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/intimacy/understanding/a0000082.cfm)

I am prompted to ask this after watching the documentary "Natural Porn Killer" on Channel 4, where this was discussed. Commentators there talked about how they felt that Bundy told Dobson what he thought he wanted to hear, initally making the statement above, but then emphasising more and more the effect of pornography, as the interview went on, and by doing so, in their opinion, trying to deflect his own personal responsibility.

I offer no opinion as to whether these commentators points are valid, but should the article reflect this controversy in some way? Camillus (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, especially if you have a transcript of the interview or a reliable source to cite for the quotation. If it makes the article more accurate, go for it. However, citing commentary from a TV program is a bit tricky, it's best to stick to printed material in most situations. --W.marsh 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, W - I took the Bundy quote from the link cited in the article, but as regards quotes from the programme, your point is perfectly valid.

However, I am quite sure that this argument has been gone over a number of times, not just in this particular documentary, and that a summary of the contesting viewpoints could be found and entered into the article, as I feel that as it stands at the moment, it is almost stated as an incontrovertible fact that it was pornography that led Bundy down his sorry path. I am sure that there are eminent psychologists/sociologists/behavioural scientists that have questioned this, and the question of such influences versus other life experiences, pathologies, and the question of personal responsibility.

(Many people "consume" pornography, whether "soft" or "hardcore", but not many of them choose to go out and brutally murder 30+ women.)

Problem is, I don't feel particularly qualified to know where to look, as I am not anyone of these "ologists" and and have only a passing interest in Ted Bundy.

But just as a start, I googled "Ted Bundy" pornography to blame?

This finds quite a lot of articles from religious groups accepting the conclusion of Dobson's interview, but on the first page I found an article by Todd Gitlin of the Media Awareness Group, which addresses this issue, with this quote striking me:

"...one is reminded of the anti-pornography crusaders who brandish serial killer Ted Bundy's death row proclamation that pornography made him do it; the murderer has suddenly been elevated to the expert witness on causality, with no ironic notice paid to the fact that, in his last days on earth, by pinning the blame on dirty pictures, he was taking himself off the hook." [1]

Further into the search, this from Anastasia Toufexis of "Psychology Today":

"Is pornography to blame as some killers like Ted Bundy have claimed?

It depends how you define pornography. I do think a lot of sexual violence stems from experiences in childhood or at puberty. Some people become sadistic after suffering early abuse at the hands of parents, relatives or friends. But for others, the seed is planted in the formative years by the conflation of images of violence with those of sexual arousal. Magazines, TV shows and, especially, slasher movies are masters at doing this. You condition a vulnerable boy at puberty to become aroused by brutality. It's the violence, not the nudity." [2]

I'm sure there are plenty of others.

I certainly don't think that the article has to go into this in great detail, (not the place), but should at least reflect the controversy behind Bundy blaming pornography.

Camillus (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Kimberly Leach's Age

Under Bundy Goes to Florida and list of victims there is a discrepancy in age of Kimberly Leach of being 11 and being 12.

Cause and motivation

This section seems limited to speculative material taken from Ann Rule's book. Vidor 13:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have plans to add to it. It takes a while. If you have any ideas about cause and motivation please feel free to add them. In reading the original article, there was no attempt to explain why he did what he did, so I think this is beneficial.

Mister Jinxy 14:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Edited article

Wikipedia recommends articles be no longer than 32 KB. This one had gotten to 43 KB. I deleted some material to make it a bit shorter. Mostly, I edited down the details on the Chi Omega attack. Will tighten up the victim list as well to shorten the article some more. Vidor 15:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize that's the recommended size of the article, but there's a lot of information out there about Bundy that is not in this article that would be of interest to people. I understand why you edited the Chi Omega attack information, and I think that's fine. But how do you suggest we tighten it up, while at the same time providing people with the information about him? Subcategories? I'm not sure.

Mister Jinxy 18:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Further editing of the "Causes and motivations", I'd think, to make it more concise. The 32KB rule isn't a "rule", actually, and we don't need to go whacking out big hunks of article to get down to there. I'll look at it again and see if I can tighten it up a bit. Vidor 18:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Check this out. This is a gold mine:

http://www.kirotv.com/seattleinsider/news/4182402/detail.html

Mister Jinxy 00:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I already added that to "external links" just the other day. You might also enjoy the English documentary listed in that section, although it isn't SFW. Vidor 14:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the audio link, because while the page is up, the actual MP3 link is not. Ernasty10050 10:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Still editing--removed some of the excess detail about the Hawkins murder; included Ann Rule's "Stephanie" theory in abbreviated form earlier in the article and cut out some later verbiage. Article still 42 KB long. Vidor 00:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Speculum

All reference materials says it was a metal bed rod, not a speculum used on Joni Lenz. This makes more sense as he would have to have brought the speculum with him to the crime scene. It's much more logical that he used the bed rod, and in a fit of rage used it sexually. All sources and references reflect this.

• No, they don't. See "The Only Living Witness", which is probably the best Bundy book, even though "The Stranger Beside Me" is more famous. Or internet references here, and here, or the now-defunct tedbundy.com site, preserved on the Internet Wayback machine here. I am going with "The Only Living Witness". Also, it would not have been a stretch for Bundy to have a speculum, since he had previously worked for a medical supply company as a delivery boy. Vidor 14:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the sources you cited were very authoritative. They are websites of extremely dubious character and nowhere does there say in them where this information came from. No sources or references. Additionally, the book you cite was from interviews with Ted Bundy, a known pathological liar. The police at the scene said it was a bed rod. Finally, take a look at what a speculum actually looks like. Which do you think could inflict the type of damage we're talking about? This thing? Seems a bit of a stretch. All of the credible sources say it was a metal bed rod, but nonetheless, I'm not going to get in an editing war over this one.

Mister Jinxy 18:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have to dispute your characterization of "The Only Living Witness" as not being an authoritative source. If we're talking about "authoritative" sources, there are three books about the Bundy murders: Rule's, Richard Larson's, and Michaud & Aynesworth's. I haven't read Larson's. Rule says Bundy used a bed rod. Michaud and Aynesworth say a speculum. I think Michaud and Aynesworth wrote the better book. So unless we can find a primary source like a police report, I'd go by their book. We do not know what "the police at the scene" said unless we can find such a source. Also, regarding "the damage we're talking about"--no one is disputing that Lenz was bludgeoned with a heavy object such as a bed rod; the question is just what the attacker shoved inside her. Finally, regarding "TOLW" being based on interviews with a known liar--did Bundy even discuss the Lenz attack with Michaud and Aynesworth? I'm sure the authors did their own research beyond merely talking to Ted, who, after all, provided few details and never actually admitted anything to them. Vidor 18:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The sources I was claiming were dubious were those three internet sites you posted. Not exactly the kind of things I'd have confidence in as far as accuracy. It's all good. We agree to disagree. I tend to lean towards Rule and some other information I've seen out there, you lean towards TOLW. I'm kinda getting tired of thinking about Bundy. Time to move on to other more pleasant subjects.

Mister Jinxy 23:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• If I ever get ahold or Richard Larson's book, I'll use it as a tiebreaker. Vidor 00:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Finally read Larson's book. No word on what Bundy violated the girl with. Vidor 23:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • I just finished "TOLW". Very persuasive. I have no problem going by what they said regarding it. Mister Jinxy 11:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarify First Murders Section

"The remains of Janice Ott and Denise Naslund were discovered months later at a site on near the park. Additionally, an extra thigh femur bone and vertebrae were found at the site, but police did not know to whom they belonged. "

Which is it, on or near?

Details on arrest

I added "Rick Garzaniti" to the article in the section under Bundy's arrest in Pensacola as this user knew Mr. Garzaniti in 1979 while going to college in Tallahassee. Noles1984 14:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Washington Murders

I just noticed that this article spent absolutely no time talking about the Washington murders and the reaction they caused among the public in the Pacific Northwest. Someone with more time on their hands than I have really should flesh this aspect of the story out better than it is currently. Thanks. Mister Jinxy 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. There was a good section on the Washington murders before but somehow in one of the edit it was lost. Vidor 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

References in popular culture

Do we need this section? Is it encyclopedic? Does anybody care? Do trivia bits about "South Park" and such belong in an article about a brutal serial killer? Vidor 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Anybody who disagrees, say so here. Vidor 21:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture Caption

Changed it back to bundy yawning. Bundy never went into a "fit of rage" during his court proceedings. He was always extremely calm and reserved. This is why so many people were willing to believe he was innocent and he managed to escape on more than one occasion.

Wrong. Changed back to correct caption. SkagitRiverQueen 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation? As much as I appreciate your vehement hard-on for ensuring Wikipedia's standards of quality, accusing me of posting "nonsense" and threatening to turn me in to the Wiki authorities for making an honest error (Assuming it is an error and you provide evidence that Ted Bundy was screaming in court) is entirely unecessary.

As much as I appreciate your vehement hard-on for ensuring Wikipedia's standards of quality...

The vulgar reference and your past history of vandalism says it all about why you don't deserve an answer to your question. You want references? Look at practically any Bundy bio novel and you'll get your answer. But, actually, since you insist that which is documented fact to be wrong and your insignificant opinion to be correct, then the burden of proof lies with you, dude. Oh, and could you please start signing your talk page comments? Otherwise, readers of the comments will likely be confused about who's saying what.

SkagitRiverQueen 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for responding to my inquiry, SkagitRiverQueen. Please keep in mind that not every wikipedian has the luxury of a personal computer for their own use and that sometimes sharing equipment with other people means that there may have been incidents of spam several years ago. If you examine the dates, you can see that I am no perpetual "vandal" and that the majority of my contributions, barring said past incidents, have been acceptable. As for the "vulgar" refrence, I consider it quite tame in comparison to the rest of my vernacular. --11:18 am, Greenwich Mean Time, December 21, 2012 AD. 07:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In favor of "paedophile" rather than "child rapist."

I removed the term "child rapist" and replaced it with "paedophile" for the following reasons:

• Paedophilia is a recognised psychological condition, and carries along with it the understanding that the person being labeled as a "paedophile" not only has had contact with children sexually, but is often involved in child pornography and fantasy (or in many cases, with the person being involved in child pornography and fantasy, but having little to no action taken against a child),
• Calling someone a "child rapist" does not encompass the aforehand reason, and
• The term "paedophile" seems to be much more professional, and, I suppose, politically correct.

If there is a disagreement with this, I understand. Iffer 02:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Two things. First, this is an article about an American, so one should use the American spelling, "pedophile". Second, I am not sure there's sufficient justification to call Bundy a pedophile. AFAIK there is no documentation of Bundy indulging in child pornography. Supposedly he was caught with 'teen beat' style magazines in his car in Florida, but there's no evidence to show he used actual child pornography. Further, of thirty victims only two that we know of were young children. Most were in their late teens or early twenties. We can't say definitely that he was a pedophile, and the preponderance of older victims would indicate that he was not, but we CAN say that he violated Kimberly Leach, so "child rapist" would be more accurate. Vidor 03:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Although now that I read it that sentence seems kind of awkward anyway, so I took it out. Vidor 03:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Question About Links

I apologize ahead of time if this is not the appropriate place for this question. I am the webmaster for PainAndPaintings (a website that offers serial killer bios, trivia, interviews, artwork, etc). This website does not sell anything or have ads on it. Therefore, I was wondering why this link: [SPAM LINK REMOVED] was removed from this article. Any clarification on why this happened and how I can go about resolving the problem would be a great help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Killercalendar (talk • contribs)

WP:SPAM, WP:COI and WP:EL all make that link completely inappropriate. DreamGuy 06:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Whites

Why is it that embedded in every article dealing with white serial killers, there is somewhat of a romanticism of their crimes. You bold or quote the words of the judge during the trial. You indirectly heighten anything this animal says. It's quite disturbing. How about you remain neutral on every topic in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.21.176 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 30 July 2007

As far as I can see, quoting the judge is a feature of any article regarding a trial. Don't know why, but it doesn't seem especially NPOV to me. Anyways, your concerns are a bit vague. I'm not sure what you mean by "indirectly heighten" with regards to Bundy's statements or how that's not neutral. It is an article about him, after all. Editmaniac 06:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Birth name

The infobox lists a birth name of Theodore Robert Bundy, but from the text I get the impression that his surname at birth was Cowell, then changed to Nelson, then Bundy. What gives? Muad 21:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what gives. He was born Cowell, his mother changed his name to Nelson for reasons that are unclear, and changed his name again to Bundy after she married Johnny Bundy. Vidor 14:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Survivors/daughter

Does anyone know of or heard of the survivors talking? Besides DeRonch, there were I believe, 2 women who were badly beaten and survived. Never heard an interview.

And what about his daughter. Anyone find out who she is, age, renamed?

DaRonch has given interviews. I have never heard of any of the three survivors from the night of Chi Omega--Chandler, Kleiner, Thomas--having given interviews. Carol Ann Boone and her daughter Tina basically disappeared completely from public view after Bundy beat the death warrants in 1986. AFAIK nobody knows where they went, what names they're using now, or anything about Tina Bundy, who would be about 25 years old. Vidor 14:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

About the Ann Rule citation

I've checked, and some of the information regarding the 20th century edition in the reference section seems to be incorrect. I keep looking that edition up based on its ISBN, and it only has 384 pages and was published by Norton. Let me say one thing: I'M PISSED OFF AT THIS!!! I need to cite this book for a paper (I'm using information I've found on this article while citing the book the information is cited from), and this incorrect information has me confused and impatient. Now I'm not sure what edition is being used for this article. Several of the other sources also seem to be incorrectly referenced. The paper's due on Monday and I've just found this out... Thanks a bunch!

In all seriousness, though, I need to know which editions of the book sources are really being used for this article. Please, someone help me out. Nobody 11:54 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you should actually read the sources that you cite. — Matt Crypto 19:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be me that did the referencing for this article. All the sourcing is from copies of the books that I actually have on my bookshelf. I don't have the book right now because I'm at work, but a quick check of Amazon shows that Norton published the hardback version of the 20th anniversary edition while Signet produced the paperback version, which is what I used. The article specifies the paperback version. (Of course, as the user above points out, it's really your fault for not taking the trouble to actually go find the books in question.) Vidor (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I'm a little bit puzzled now. My Signet paperback of "The Stranger Beside Me", which I used when footnoting the article, does not have an ISBN number printed anywhere inside it. It's sitting right in front of me right now, and I just checked. The ISBN in the article is for the Norton hardback. I have replaced it with the number listed on the Amazon.com page for the 2001 Signet paperback, which is what I used. Vidor (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

rage picture

there is a picture in the article captioned "Bundy in a fit of rage at the Leach trial" How do you know it's a fit of rage? He could be simply yawning. If fact I've seen that photo many times and always thought it was a yawn. Seems sensationalist to claim he's screaming when really we have no idea...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.57.125 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ann Rule in her book recounts the exact moment when that picture was taken; Bundy freaked out in court. Vidor (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ted Bundy n035654.jpg

Image:Ted Bundy n035654.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Chi Omega references

An IP editor has taken out the Chi Omega references[3] and considering that there are hundreds of newspaper article[4] mentioning this connection I don't see the need to expunge the article like that, though I am open for discussion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ted Bundy n035654.jpg

Image:Ted Bundy n035654.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ted Bundy n035654.jpg

Image:Ted Bundy n035654.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been fixed. The image was improperly tagged as non-free, even though it had a public domain tag on it as well. --Editmaniac (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Animal Cruelty

Was Bundy himself cruel to animals?

Carlpanzram666 17:04 27 February 2008 (UTC)