Talk:Ted Bundy/Archive 5

The Killing of the Idaho Hitchhiker

"A new string of homicides began the following month with two that went undiscovered until Bundy confessed to them shortly before his execution. On September 2 he raped and strangled a still-unidentified hitchhiker in Idaho, then returned the next day to photograph and dismember the corpse."

It is important to note that the story of the killing of the Idaho hitchhiker taken from the Nelson account is radically different from the one Bundy gave to the Idaho investigators during the end of life confessions. For example, on page 257, Nelson states Bundy told her that he'd been "driving around the hills of Idaho, getting to know the area, looking for safe sites to take a victim". However, this is not what he told Russ Reneau at the end. Also, in his confession to Reneau, he makes no mention of returning to the body the next day, but said he placed her in the river. What follows is the portion of my book detailing the new info I uncovered concerning this murder:

"Traveling on 84, Bundy was heading in an easterly direction through Idaho. The distance between Nampa, where he telephoned Liz (collect, no doubt), and Boise was just a hair over twenty-two miles, which would place him in the middle of Boise in just over thirty minutes. Prior to entering the city, however, on "the outskirts of Boise"' as Bundy remembered it, he spotted a young female with a green backpack hitchhiking at the top of the on-ramp of the freeway. Although he wasn't in the city proper, this portion of 84 ran through a neighborhood filled with "ranch style suburban houses ... in view,"' he said. It was early evening when Bundy pulled his beige VW Beetle, packed with his belongings for the move, into the emergency lane and motioned the young woman over to his car. With his good looks and winning smile, Bundy was everything a hitchhiker's driver should be. Without the slightest bit of trepidation, she returned the smile, opened the passenger door, and was soon chatting away with her handsome chauffeur on what would be the last ride of her life. Bundy would stop for gas the third time that day within the Boise city limits. For the next three to four hours they kept on 1-84, which in those days was under construction, some stretches a modern highway and some an older and narrower road. This setup provided the perfect opportunity for what Ted Bundy had in mind, as it gave him easy access to the nearby river from one of the many turn-off roads connecting to the older highway. He had been eyeing the body of water as they talked, and it would be one of these cut-offs that Bundy would, under some pretense, travel down, while his unsuspecting passenger, perhaps for the first time, began to feel that initial twinge of fear. It was at this point he very carefully grabbed the crowbar from underneath the passenger's seat. Slowly raising it off the floor (but not so high as to be seen by her), he looked around, and seeing nothing but the blackness of night around them, he quickly brought the heavy iron instrument crashing into the right rear portion of her skull. This single blow did an incredible amount of damage to her cranium, knocking her unconscious. She was, however, still alive, just as Bundy desired. And while he wouldn't have the same kind of leisurely time with this victim as he had with the Hawkins girl and some of the others, he quickly stopped his vehicle, dragged the quivering body to a spot not far from his car, and stripped her of all her clothes. Highly aroused, he would have sex with her (perhaps anal), and would complete the act of murder through strangulation during the act of sodomy. Not wanting to leave so beautiful a sight, he may have stayed with her for a brief time, as he wanted to savor what he'd created. He could become especially excited viewing women in this fresh state of death,3 and before leaving her he would likely have had at least one, if not two, additional acts of copulation with the corpse. Unlike previous occasions, however, he would not be taking her head for later pleasuring, nor could he return to her for additional acts of necrophilia, as he often preferred. And so, with a definite sense of regret, Bundy slid the body into the water, followed by all of her clothing, taking as much care as possible not to slip on the riverbank as he made his way back through the darkness with only a flashlight."

Kevin M. Sullivan. The Bundy Murders: A Comprehensive History (p. 86). Kindle Edition.

Now, let me be completely clear here: I like Nelson's book, and I know everything that Polly Nelson said Bundy told her is completely accurate as to what Bundy said at the time. And I also understand that she reported this information as she received it, which is good. That said, it has always been my contention that Bundy was never as honest with his attorneys (or even the doctors) as he was with the investigators at the end. Bundy's end of life confessions are in stark contrast to all previous statements he'd made about the murders. He was very forthright with Bob Keppel, Mike Fisher, Russ Reneau, and the Utah detective as well.

Anyway, because these two accounts of the killing of the Idaho hitchhiker are at odds with each other, I'm passing off the info from my book. I have no desire to change anything in the article, and if a change is to occur, I will leave that to others. I just wanted to say that during the researching and writing of my book, I was privy to both accounts, and as far as I'm concerned, the truth of what happened during the killing of this young woman came out at the end of Bundy's life.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me work on some sort of change, with the goal of incorporating both accounts and noting that (as usual) Bundy told different things to different people. This is a chronic Bundy problem, as you said, Kevin. One reporter (I think von Drehl) wrote that a common joke among Bundy investigators was, "How do you know if Ted is lying? When his lips are moving." ASPDs are typically pathological liars, and Bundy was clearly no exception. Give me a bit of time, I'll work on it. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The "lips are moving" comment makes me laugh, and it is so true! And I must say, the only two areas where Bundy's comments can most be relied upon to be true (in my opinion) are first, the third person statements he made to Michaud and Aynesworth, as he felt reasonably comfortable doing so, and of course, during the end of life confessions. And it is here, during the last couple of days of Bundy's life, that more truth as to what he did finally came out. When one listens to his confession to Keppel about the murder of Georgann Hawkins, Bundy is very forthright, and when he encounters something he's uncomfortable talking about, he promises to get back to it at a later date; which is to say he was refusing to discuss the matter. I have a couple of pages near the end of my book concerning how he dealt with Mike Fisher, and how Fisher warned him over the phone that he wasn't going to travel to Florida to hear third person confessions, and Bundy did not disappoint him. The same goes for Russ Reneau and how honest Bundy became during his confession of the Idaho hitchhiker murder and the killing of Lynette Culver. This is why, whenever possible, I have always gone with the info contained within the end of life confessions as the most accurate and reliable. Within these final moments one finds a very exhausted Ted Bundy, and one that is sometimes very uncomfortable with the things he's saying, yet he manages to carry through on his promise to the investigators anyway. He didn't give up everything, of course, but many truths came to light during this time.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, although some question the credibility of the Death Row interviews as well - citing, among other things, that no physical remains were found at any of the sites that he described, no matter how detailed the descriptions. On the only hand, one of the few pieces of new, accurate information that came out during those last few days, if memory serves, was that he did in fact kill two girls in Idaho. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 19:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, they did find a human kneecap in (was it Fairfield?)Utah, where Bundy said he deposited Debbie Kent, and no, they did not locate the head of Hawkins in the area Bundy said it could be found. But according to Keppel, the land had changed a bit (erosion), and they simply never found it. Being bone, you can't metal detect it, so I wasn't surprised it remained undiscovered at the scene. And yes, Bundy was very forthright concerning his two Idaho murders. Indeed, I go into great detail concerning his killing of Lynette Culver, his activities while in Pocatello, how the weather worked against him, and other never before published facts; and of course, the (what I believe are the true) facts concerning the hitchhiker murder of September 2, 1974 during his move to Utah.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Last call from his mother

Shouldn't we add to the article the last phone call between Bundy and his mother where his mother told him that she loved him whatever he was? Keeeith (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Alleged Mail Received from Female Admirers

Hello friends. I wonder if someone knows the facts about the following point. At the end of the movie about Ted Bundy, a message appears on the screen saying "In the months leading to his execution, he received more than 200 letters a day from women who claimed that they loved him." Does anyone know whether this is true? And if so, what the source is? Thanks. 240F:19:30B:1:214:51FF:FE12:C6E0 (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Bundy certainly had female admirers. (Most serial killers do, for reasons known only to those women.) Ann Rule mentions more than once that multiple young women fought for good seats at his trials, and squealed whenever he looked at them, so he certainly had some sort of bizarre charisma -- the same irrational magnetic attraction that compelled so many victims to throw common sense to the wind and get into a battered Volkswagen Beetle in the middle of the night with a complete stranger. I'm sure he received letters too, as do most "celebrated" criminals; but I've never read the 200-per-day figure in any of the reliable sources. There were numerous inaccuracies in that movie -- such as the statement that the term "serial killer" was coined specifically for Bundy -- and prison officials don't release that sort of information to reporters, so where would it come from? Thus, while I have no proof, I would be willing to bet some money that the film's producers made that number up. Other editors may know more about this, however. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. One reason for my interest is that I live in Japan and during the Aum Shinrikyo trials, and one of the cult leaders named Fumihiro Joyu, Aum's spokesman, was also a hit with young girls. He was similar to Bundy in many ways: good looking and highly intelligent (with a degree in AI — very scary). Scores of young girls were obsessed with him, mobbed his trial, some even making albums with clippings and photos of him. In short, there is a connection here between men like Bundy and some apparent aspect of female psychology (although I know I'm risking offending someone here, which is not my intention). Since this female trait certainly contributed to Bundy's ability to attract victims, I wonder if psychiatrists or evolutionary biologists have a name for it and whether it shouldn't be mentioned in this context. -- Just a thought. 240F:19:30B:1:214:51FF:FE12:C6E0 (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

And an interesting thought it is! I will look around. For the record, it's a myth that Bundy was "highly intelligent". He was of average intelligence, at best, in the real world; but in the prison community he was a virtual genius. In the immortal words of Erasmus, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Lynette Culver

There appears to be some controversy regarding how much information to add on the section about Lynette Culver. Right now all it really says is that Lynette was kidnapped outside of her school, drowned in Bundy's hotel room, and dumped in the snake river. I think other information from the Sullivan book, like how the two Idaho homicide investigators asked Bundy to recount information about the girl's life only two days before his execution, is worth putting in there. It's hard to find information about Lynette's case on the internet and Wikipedia is where people go for this sort of thing. I don't think people should have to buy The Bundy Murders to learn facts about Lynette's case that have already been made public, are not copyrightable material, and fit in with the definition of Wikipedia as a concise encyclopedia. I have also taken the liberty of making a minor grammatical change to the sentence about the Snake River. --ValuedContributor (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There is now approximately the same amount of information on that victim as on other victims. Why do you feel that more detail is necessary? Why her, as opposed to other victims? My opinion, for what it's worth, is that Lynette Culver is no more (or less) important than any other Bundy victim, and deserves no more (or less) space in the article than any of the others. This is, after all, an article about Bundy, not Lynette Culver. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Recently-deleted ad hominem noted -- I guess you were right! I did revert your most recent edit, not because I'm whatever you called me, but because we're not in southern Idaho, we're on Wikipedia, where two "rivers" in rapid succession in the same sentence are considered redundant. No offense taken, despite the clumsy irony. If you have constructive improvements to make -- as opposed to POV-pushing your favorite Bundy victim, which will not be tolerated by any of the several editors who do our best to keep the article as objective as possible -- please feel free. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi DoctorJoeE, Just to let you know this "contributor" Has been blocked, appealed and had appeal rejected. I think there is some evidence that this is in the same category of our recent reversions. Best wishes, David J Johnson (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed -- I think there is more than just "some" evidence of sockpuppetry here, and if yet another "new contributor" appears, I'm going to open an SPI. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: There are many more socks, obviously -- I'm not going to waste my time, and it's shame that the admins have to waste theirs, but they're doing a yeoman's job of blocking the new socks as they appear. It must be a pitiful, empty life, if vandalism is all that this guy has to do. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the intrigue, the intrigue, LOL!Kmsullivan12 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, it's your fault, Kevin - he read your book! :-) He was a flea; the admins flicked him off. But seriously, since you're the one who researched most of the Culver info, are you happy with the current content on that victim? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, Must say I agree with DoctorJoeE, It's all your fault - only joking! I think DoctorJoeE asks a good question regarding the Culver entry, my own view is that this entry is about right as it stands. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You guys are too funny! Yes, I believe the Culver info is sufficient as is. After all, she was but one victim among many. I think that the fellow who suggested this had pure motives as I was able to piece that story together rather well for the book, and that was something he obviously appreciated. But in my view, more here would be too much, and if folks want to know more, they can always purchase the book, LOL!Kmsullivan12 (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so sure about his motives -- are teen-aged trolls capable of motivation? -- perhaps you should inaugurate an age limit for book sales? ;-) -- but we added the school's name, which is a relevant addition, and I quite agree it's good as is. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is nice that you guys keep things running smoothly, and are tried and true troll catchers, LOL! My hat is off to you, DoctorJoeE, David, and all the rest for being literary border guards, as it were. BTW: I have posted a picture of the Bundy kit (unpublished) at this site in my account (sounds convoluted, doesn't it?), but I can't figure out how to transfer it to the Bundy gallery of photos. How does one do this? Just think, I have no trouble writing books, but God help me navigating Wikipedia, LOL!Kmsullivan12 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW: It is Alameda Junior High, not "Hawthorne". I'm not sure where the incorrect info came from, but it is not a part of the official record. Alameda was her school.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops! My bad, I should have looked it up, but I trusted the troll -- which in retrospect is pretty silly. I'll make the change now. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, DoctorJoeE. Only too glad to help out.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

In film and popular culture

Was curious as to why there are no references to film and television portrayals, or pop culture references. These facts were reportedly included in the article previously, but removed. There is no separate article with this information. Internet Movie Database lists 17 "Ted Bundy" entries for film and TV alone: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0033470/ Also, more than half of the German Wikipedia article on Ted Bundy (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy) is devoted to media and pop culture references (which is a bit strange). It has more than 50 references to films, TV, music, literature, etc. Are relevant facts regarding Ted Bundy being purposely squelched in the English Wikipedia article? This has been asked before, but I can find no record of even one response defending this. I can understand why people would want to avoid glorifying this bastard in any way, but isn't Wikipedia supposed to be objective? Mark Rizo (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Devoting a majority of the German-language article to pop culture references is more than a bit strange, IMHO. There have been none in this article in the couple of years that I've been following it, for no particular reason that I'm aware of. And no one, to my knowledge, has tried to add any, so there has been nothing to "purposely squelch". Such a compilation would obviously be in poor taste, but if it were properly sourced I suppose we would have to keep it. I, for one, have no desire to research or create it. Let's see how some of the other long-time Bundy editors feel about it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with DoctorJoeE's comments above. I cannot see what improvement references to film and television portrayals of Bundy would improve this article. Such film/TV versions inevitably have a measure of fiction in them. Wikipedia deals in researched facts and not dramatic licence (license). Apart from these points, I too consider a inclusion to be in poor taste, please also remember the feelings of the victims loved ones David J Johnson (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe there used to be some mentions of Mark Harmon in the TV film, and mention of the film Ted Bundy. And I see the slippery slope: not every cartoon show's mention of this guy is encyclopedic. Recreating a "portrayals"(/"trivia") section... I don't know. I would say only those two films are worth even mentioning since they are based directly on the case, and I would defer to the side of caution in general with this issue. Doc talk 06:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Bundy's VW, Mike Fisher, and the discovery of additional evidence

The article currently reads; "In September Bundy sold his Volkswagen Beetle to a Midvale teenager.[145] Utah police impounded it, and FBI technicians dismantled and searched it. They found hairs matching samples obtained from Caryn Campbell's body.[146] Later, they also identified hair strands "microscopically indistinguishable" from those of Melissa Smith and Carol DaRonch.[147] FBI lab specialist Robert Neill concluded that the presence of hair strands in one car matching three different victims who had never met one another would be "a coincidence of mind-boggling rarity."[148]"

The story of the discovery of evidence (and additional evidence) in Ted Bundy's Volkswagen is interesting indeed. However, I wanted to add some things here for the editors to consider based on that which I discovered and added to my book, THE BUNDY MURDERS. What is of particular interest is the story of how additional evidence was discovered by the Colorado investigator, Michael Fisher, after the Utah authorities had done their sweep of the vehicle, and Fisher believed more evidence might be available. Mike knew he needed to use a little finesse , and that he would need to make his request without ruffling the feathers of the Utah detectives and the person he now considered his friend, Jerry Thompson, lead investigator with the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office. Thankfully, Jerry didn't mind Mike transporting the car by truck to Denver so that the CBI (Colorado Bureau of Investigation) could conduct an additional search. What follows is a portion of the story from the book:

"I approached the touchy subject gingerly," the detective remembered. "I wanted to take possession of the car, transport it to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI), to search it once more for additional trace evidence. That surprised Jerry but he was willing, as always. I prearranged with the CBI to have lab technicians at the laboratory on Saturday, they'd help take the car apart and gather any evidence found and examine it."5 As soon as possible, Mike Fisher caught a flight to Salt Lake City. After landing, Fisher gave Thompson a call, and within a short time, both men were headed to the sealed compound holding Theodore Bundy's Volkswagen. "It was just as Jerry described," Fisher recounted. "The interior door panels were in place as were the head liners and the sun visors. I told him that my plan was to put the car in the back of a commercial rental truck, drive it to CBI in Denver, strip and search the car for additional evidence, and then load the car back in the truck and return to Salt Lake. Jerry assured me there was no hurry."6 After picking up the rental truck, they drove to the compound and loaded Bundy's car inside. Fisher then flattened the tires and secured the wheels with blocks. "By mid afternoon I was headed up out of Salt Lake on I-80."' Ironically, Fisher was taking the same route Bundy had on two prior trips to Colorado, but this time his beloved VW Beetle was driverless and shrouded in darkness, and would ultimately offer up even more silent testimony to the savage acts committed within its confines. Traveling across Wyoming with a steady stream of big rigs and occasional bursts of snow whirling about him, Fisher was all too aware of how important it was to arrive in Denver accident-free, preserving that all-important chain of evidence. Around midnight he approached the outskirts of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and headed south on 1-25 towards Denver. He was on the last leg of a 380-mile trip, and by his estimate he was ahead of schedule. Stopping at a gas station across the street from the CBI, he filled up the truck and "put air in the tires of Theodore's death wagon,"' and when he pulled into the parking lot of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation it was 6:00 A.M. The technicians wouldn't be there for two more hours, so Fisher caught what sleep he could in the drafty and uncomfortable rental truck. By 8:00 A.M. they were rolling Bundy's Bug into the lab. What was brought to light on that cold Saturday in Denver was astounding. "The lab tech was right on time and we rolled the car out ... and we began doing an interior search ... before we removed anything. A few hairs were found behind the backseat area. The side panels came out. On the passenger side window and below the weather felt that seals glass from the inside of the door we found blood. The blood had run down between the glass and the felt that keeps the inside of the door sealed, and samples were taken and photographed. The head liners came out as the search continued with samples of hair found being photographed in place and then mounted for comparison."9 Kevin M. Sullivan. The Bundy Murders: A Comprehensive History (pp. 176-177). Kindle Edition. Anyway, it's an interesting story within a story that will, I believe, add clarity to the article.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is the "later" part - when they found the hairs matching Smith's and DaRonch's. So what's "new" (not already in the article) is (1) that the car was transported to Denver to make the additional discoveries, and (2) that they found blood in addition to hairs. In that pre-DNA era, the blood would not have been of much use; I wonder if anybody ever bothered to run DNA tests on those samples. Bundy's defense against the VW evidence, BTW, was that before he sold the car, he changed out the whole interior with junkyard parts - so the hairs must have come from the junked car! The jury didn't buy it, obviously. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there were several factors to this story that I found interesting, and these factors were, in my opinion, important to the overall story of cooperation between the two lawman working together in what was now a regional case (and beyond), and how delicately Fisher had to be with Jerry Thompson concerning the gathering of additional evidence he believed quite rightly was there. Of course, the tenacity that was (and is) Mike Fisher, was played out in his pursuit of this issue that could have offended the Utah authorities, and this decision brought to light the hairs that were "matched" to Carol DaRonch and Melissa Smith. This was crucial evidence that was missed by Utah. This is why I say it is a story within a story, and without Fisher literally pushing himself to the limit (and this was always his nature pertaining to this 15 year case), this evidence would have stayed under the radar, as it were. Plus, when you view the actual events as they happened (my story) and what is revealed above, it looks very different. Indeed, having read all of the Bundy books by the time I started the real research for my book, that which was not covered in detail by these other books stood out like the proverbial sore thumb; and indeed, I took great care to bring to light throughout my book many aspects in this case that were avoided by other authors. Many readers have rightly pointed out all the new information I have on at least four of the murders, but there are so many "new" facts included in THE BUNDY MURDERS that others have, for whatever reason, left out of their research and ultimately their books, and the story of the gathering of this evidence is just one of themKmsullivan12 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The homicide thing again

To the editor who keeps removing Bundy's cause of death: let's think about this for a second. Yes, it is listed as his cause of death on his death certificate, which should be good enough. Bundy did not die of natural causes, he did not die in an accident, and he did not commit suicide. So what's left? Clearly an execution can be considered a homicide from the perspective of a medical examiner, and that's how they classified it. Why is this such a big deal for you? Yeesh. Doc talk 03:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Wikipedia deals in fact and the fact is that "Homicide" is the cause of death on the official Death Certificate, anything else is POV. If these "edits" continue, I suggest we ask for article protection. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking into a general COD criteria, but haven't seen anything that could considered comprehensive yet. I'll keep looking, if only for my own curiosity. I would think even dying from something like Ebola would possibly fall under "natural causes" if you looked at four main ways one can die: natural causes, accidental death, suicide and homicide. How deaths from infectious diseases, malnutrition, animal attacks, etc. figure into it: I'm still learning. We know the lines can be blurred in a legal sense when, say, a car accident results in deaths that are found to be homicides because of criminal negligence. Ted Bundy was killed by someone, and that makes it a homicide. Hopefully the editor who disagrees will discuss here before reverting again. Doc talk 10:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As a physician and a journalist (yes, I lead a double life), I have some knowledge of this. Any of these causes of death can go several ways, depending on method and intent. Take infectious disease as an example: If you contract the Ebola virus by accident and die from it, you died of natural causes; if you contract it because someone (say, a terrorist) contaminated your food or clothing or environment with the virus, then it's homicide; if you deliberately infected yourself, that would be suicide (which I do not recommend -- it's a horribly unpleasant death). Same goes for malnutrition, which is usually classified as natural, but can be homicide if a prisoner, say, is deliberately starved to death. Animal attacks are usually accidental, but if the owner was negligent, there is something called negligent homicide. Bundy died when someone, deliberately and with intent to kill him, allowed a lethal dose of electricity to pour into his body. That's homicide, by any definition, and his death certificate officially records it as such. Seems pretty unambiguous to me, especially since we qualify it in the info box with "execution" in parentheses. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I've linked "homicide" in the info box to the "state-sanctioned homicide" section of the Homicide article, which should enlighten the IPs (and there are more than one) who keep making this change. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

To call Bundy's death a homicide is an insult to all those he killed. Bundy got what he deserved. It was not a homicide. It was a justified execution of a cold-blooded killer. DavidSteinle (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for airing your opinions on capital punishment, or its justification in Bundy's case; there are plenty of those available elsewhere. Here, your opinion (and mine) are unimportant; what is important is sourcing. Our source is Bundy's death certificate, which lists his cause of death as "homicide", defined by the State of Florida as successful application of deadly force, deliberately and with intent. All executions are homicides. The Justifiable homicide article explains this in detail. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's really approaching lameness now if it gets reverted again. Not that bad yet, of course. Bundy was killed, by homicide, by people acting on the behalf of the citizens of the state of Florida. Case closed. Doc talk 14:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, surely we don't have to explain yet again. Why don't these folk read the Talk page? DoctorJoeE, thank you for your relevent words. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I must jump in here: The definition for homicide means the killing of one human by another. It does not ascribe evil intent, or that a criminal act has occurred. Some have incorrectly defined it as murder, because many homicides are in fact murder. But if one mistakenly runs over and kills a fellow human being with their car, a homicide has occurred. Was the killing of Theodore Bundy a homicide? Yes. Was it murder? No, not in the same sense murders occur, and I believe that justifiable homicide would apply here. Just as justifiable homicide is recognized when one person kills another person that was attempting to take their life. This shows up in police reports all the time.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, You've "hit the nail on the head" Thanks for your contribution. Regards, David, David J Johnson ([[User

talk:David J Johnson|talk]]) 17:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys. (You're making me blush, LOL!)Kmsullivan12 (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Too many Nelsons

There are at least three people named Nelson in the article. Thus it gets very confusing when one of them is referred to only by surname. 130.183.100.97 (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I only see two, but if I've missed one please point me to it. I don't see why readers would confuse them; any mention of "Nelson" is clearly (at least to me) a reference to the attorney Polly Nelson, except the single mention of Louise's name change (from Cowell to Nelson) when she left Philadelphia. Shortly thereafter she married Johnny Bundy and became Louise Bundy, and is thereafter referred to only as Louise. If I'm missing something, please explain. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A Needed Correction

Hello all: I just noticed that the Lynette Culver portion has been edited and is now in need of a slight correction. In the past, my book was correctly credited with the previously unpublished information concerning Lynette Culver's manner of death (Bundy drowning her in the bathtub, and the necrophilia that followed), but that identifier is now missing. Instead, the same sourcing number (131) is connected to a quote about the Snake River; a river not identified by Bundy in the interview, even if it is the Snake. My book states the following: "He then drove a number of miles out of town and dumped Culver into a river "north of Pocatello."6" But no matter about the river, I would appreciate someone re crediting THE BUNDY MURDERS for the info pertaining to the actual murder. Thanks!74.129.74.204 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, DoctorJoeE. I knew I could depend on you, LOL!Kmsullivan12 (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

One More Correction

Hello all!

The following is incorrect: "Shortly after midnight on January 4, 1974—around the time that he terminated his relationship with Brooks—Bundy entered the basement apartment of 18-year-old Karen Sparks[63] (identified with the pseudonym Joni Lenz by many sources[64][65]), a dancer and student at UW. After bludgeoning the sleeping woman with a metal rod from her bed frame he sexually assaulted her with a speculum, causing extensive internal injuries. She remained unconscious for 10 days but survived, with permanent brain damage.[66]"

Now, the information is correct, but where THE BUNDY MURDERS was formerly credited with the information "She remained unconscious for 10 days but survived" (I do not mention permanent brain damage), with permanent brain damage.[66]", this is no longer the case. Also, not only am I no longer credited with the "10 day" mention, but the now credited source states in his book that the victim was in a coma "several months", but this is incorrect.

Instead, I am being credited for "identified with the pseudonym Joni Lenz by many sources[64][65])", but in fact, I use the pseudonym "Terri Caldwell" on p.14 of my book.

Thanks for making the change, guys.

(Just keepin' it real, LOL!)Kmsullivan12 (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Took care of it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Al Carlisle Answering Questions

Greetings everyone!

Dr. Al Carlisle, the Utah psychologist who evaluated Ted Bundy for the court (Bundy grew to like and respect Carlisle), is answering questions at the Ted Bundy site at Executed Today. I have been "chairing" this blog since January 2009 and we have over 6000 posts; a remarkable feat, as I never expected it to exceed ten or twelve questions and then quickly fade away. Anyway, if you've ever wanted to ask questions directly to those who had a prominent role in the Bundy case, here is your chance! In just the short period he's been doing this, I've learned a couple of interesting things that were new to me. Of course, Al has a book out (I'm Not Guilty), and, in my opinion, it's an excellent and unique addition to the Bundy literature.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, Good to hear from you again and thanks for the useful information. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, David. Always glad to help.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, a little late in seeing this -- I'm in Peru at the moment with spotty internet connectivity. Does the Carlisle book include Bundy info? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Why, DoctorJoeE, what on earth are you doing in Peru? You're supposed to be enjoying yourself on the east coast of the good old USA, LOL! Okay, Al's book centers on a "fictional" conversation between he and Bundy on the last night of Ted's life. I say fictional because that conversation never happened. That said, what comes forth in this book are Carlisle's very astute evaluations of what made Bundy tick and what drove him to murder, etc. One aspect I found repeating itself in the book (and I mean this in a good sense), is how often I was drawn back to the known facts of the case as Bundy was "conversing" with Carlisle, and how accurate it was, based upon what I knew about the life of Theodore Robert Bundy. It was a very unusual experience, as I'm not a reader of fiction normally; and certainly not a reader of fiction pertaining to known murder cases. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm Not Guilty is a very interesting look into the mind of Ted Bundy by someone who knew him well and evaluated him accurately. Do I agree with every assumption of Carlisle's presented in the book? No. But this takes nothing away from what I consider to be an excellent work on the mind and personality of Ted Bundy.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm here to cover Shining Path's latest attempt at resurrecting itself, which is scary and fascinating at the same time. I had appointments this morning to interview the Defense Minister and Interior Minister -- but they both resigned abruptly over the weekend, so the plot thickens. Anyhoo, I don't generally put much stock in "fictional interviews", but if you say this one is worth the read, I'll obtain a copy. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Shining Path, you say? Well, better you than me, DoctorJoeE, LOL! Anyway, yes, I do believe you'll think this one is worth the read, as the entire book is Carlisle's evaluation of Ted and what made him tick. Because of what I know about Bundy and the case,I found it fascinating reading from page one. And I remember thinking how I hoped folks wouldn't be turned off by the word "novel" on the cover, as it's not a novel at all, but a fictional conversation where the words reflect the actual nature, motives, and activities of the killer. So get home soon, DoctorJoeE, and happy reading!Kmsullivan12 (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm home, just to let anyone who cares know, who doesn't already know. And I got my interview with Humala (the Peruvian president, my 16th head of state), and Shining Path is dead, according to him. We'll see. Anyway, my copy of Carlisle's book should arrive any day, and I look forward to reading it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad you're home in one piece (LOL!), DoctorJoeE. Glad Shining Path is dead. Glad you've ordered Al's book. And I'm looking forward to hearing what you think of it!Kmsullivan12 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Psychology/Psychiatry

"Ted occasionally exhibited disturbing behavior, even at that early age. Julia recalled awakening one day from a nap to find herself surrounded by knives from the Cowell kitchen; her three-year-old nephew was standing by the bed, smiling"

- Does the source, Ann Rule (2000) The Stranger Beside Me, say how old his aunt Julia was when she recalled this, and do either of them provide any personal or scientific evidence that this is in fact disturbing behaviour for a three year old, implying the smile was conveying a non-verbal message about the function of knives, rather than something a 3 year old might do while playing with objects?

"...the majority of evidence pointed away from bipolar disorder or other psychosesA Layperson's Guide to Criminal Law and toward antisocial personality disorder (ASPD)."

- Firstly bipolar disorder is not necessarily a psychosis, depending on the type and the individual. Secondly, it is not necessarily mutually exclusive with a personality disorder. Thirdly searching the source in Google books does not come up with anything on Bundy, what does it say? I saw the issue of possible original synthesis was raised before in Archive 4 but seems to have gotten derailed. Sighola2 (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, bipolar disorder is, by definition, a psychosis. See DSM. You're correct that it's not necessarily mutually exclusive with a personality disorder, but we have no source for the bipolar diagnosis except Dr. Lewis (in Polly Nelson's book), and she later decided she was mistaken. It may very well be that he was both bipolar and ASPD -- and in my personal/professional opinion he was -- but without a published source, we can't say that. You mentioned original synthesis, and that would be an excellent example of it. Another would be to render our own analysis of the knife incident. Rule calls it disturbing, so we do too. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have to say I believe it is wrong to say that bipolar disorder is by definition a psychosis according to the DSM, which is clear that sometimes there are psychotic features (especially but not even always with BPI mania) and sometimes there are not. Regarding true crime writer Rule, I assume therefore you wouldn't mind the article clarifying that 'disturbing' is her opinion (I guess the aunt thought it worth remarking on too). I take your points about ASPD but hope still to see if anyone can clarify how the Layperson's Guide supports the claim that the majority of evidence points away from bipolar/psychosis (and what evidence points towards it then). Sighola2 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

DSM-4 says that there are two forms of psychosis: schizophrenia and bipolar (formerly manic-depressive) disorder. Everything else is a neurosis. You may disagree with that classification (I have some issues with it too), but it's the source we have to abide by here. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

For the record I don't see this in DSM-IV re bipolar, but I accept as the DSM-5 points out that older concepts of manic-depressive disorder/reaction have classed it as a psychosis by definition in a then broader sense. Sighola2 (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No matter the ultimate diagnosis of such a condition, any child placing butcher or other sharp knives around a sleeping body, has serious mental issues. Anyone who considers that such an act can be seen in any way as normal is, in my opinion, not understanding the nature of the act. The placing of the knives were done so in what we might call an aggressive or provocative manner; that is, the blade tips were pointing at the body of the aunt. The meaning here, psychologically, is very clear in my opinion. And this is why I highlight this event (as well as what happened with young Theodore at the train station at dusk) in my book THE BUNDY MURDERS as proof that the fracturing of his personality began at a very early age.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you detail any sources for these strong assertions please? I've not noticed anything about the blades all pointing at the aunt, do you have the aunt's recollection quoted in full by any chance? There seems to be some different accounts around about what happened, but from a briefish search it may have been the defense psychiatrist Dorothy Otnow Lewis - the same one who originally diagnosed Bundy bipolar - who originally found this out from interviewing the aunt? Seems she was 15 at the time of the incident and awakenened from a nap - and says "I was the only one who thought it was strange". Lewis seems to have testified that it's proof of a traumatized child. Since toddlers taking knives out of drawers seems to be a common occurrence, Occam's razor might suggest a default assumption of a child perhaps not properly supervised? Sighola2 (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Since when is toddlers taking knives out of drawers a "common occurrence"? The thought never crossed my mind as a child, nor did any of my children ever attempt such a thing, nor do I know anyone whose kids did, nor do I know of anyone who would think it was normal if they did. Would you not be seriously concerned if a child of yours, or your acquaintance, did it? But basically, you're picking nits; the level of supervision is irrelevant. Dr. Lewis testified that it was abnormal (as documented in Nelson's book), and Rule called it "disturbing behavior", so we classify it as such in the article. Sources are all that matter here, not our opinions. That said, I'm sure Kevin has adequate evidence of what he wrote, since his book was meticulously researched. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It is indisputable that toddlers age 3, who of course do not generally retain explicit memories of that time into adulthood, commonly try to take and play with whatever objects are around, and for that reason abundant official and unofficial sources advise childproofing kitchen cabinets/drawers, keeping sharps out of reach and supervising. The stats record many injuries every year from knives, including in toddlers and in play. Clarifying alleged antecedents of horrific violence is far from nitpicking. I noted in passing the reaction to Mr Sullivan's comments to some Amazon reviewers of his book and trust Wikipedia Talk will be constructive. Sighola2 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Children playing with sharp objects is one thing; a child arranging them around a sleeping relative is quite another. Look, most Bundy biographers consider the incident significant, and mention it, and I'll be happy to add more references if you think it's important. I'll also remove it entirely if you can gain a consensus for that; but I personally think it is significant enough to deserve the 2 sentences it occupies in the article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a set outcome in mind here, just trying to understand the sources. It seems Dr Lewis first assessed Bundy for trial in the late 1970s (incidentally in the era of DSM-II which classed all manic-depression as psychosis which perhaps resolves that issue) and in 1989 spoke to him for a few hours prior to his execution. Newspaper articles just after the execution refer to her statements about the aunt's recollections as if they had just been made, but elsewhere it appears as quoted testimony presumably from a decade earlier - but there in fact Lewis says the aunt recollected several such knife incidents, so I'm a bit confused. Sighola2 (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The incident of the knives being placed around the aunt's body is well established; so much so, it is beyond doubt. However, I did not find anything that would lead me to believe it happened on more than one occasion. I also assumed it most likely came out with Dr. Lewis first and then the published reports (newspapers, etc) soon followed. As far as the actual record of the case, I believe there is at least one memo in the literally thousands of pages I have in my files. However, the veracity of the event was well established in my mind long before I saw anything in the official record. That Bundy angled the knife tips at portions of the body makes perfect sense: If he pointed the tips directly at the body making a "T", if you will; or whether he angled them to lay beside her with only some of the knife tips pointed at her body, he would still be placing the lethal portions of the knives, i.e. blades and tips, directing them at or next to the object to be cut or penetrated; that is,the flesh of the aunt. In my view, it would be beyond ludicrous to assume Bundy "carefully" placed the knives with the handles pointed at the aunt! No, the psychological implications of what young Theodore did on that day are obvious, and in my view, beyond dispute. This incident was not simply a case of "playing with knives", but had deep homicidal implications that would ultimately culminate in the slaughtering of his victimsKmsullivan12 (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Btw: If you can, check out my article @Psychology Today.com. You'll find it at Dr.Katherine Ramsland's blog, titled "Touching Ted Bundy's Tools"Kmsullivan12 (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to change the subject, but Kevin: do you have any insight into the thread at the bottom regarding the victim count? DoctorJoeE and I are temporarily stumped as to who the two unlisted victims are. As a Bundy author, perhaps you could shed some light on why it is widely reported that he confessed to 30, yet it's clear that only 28 are listed here. Doc talk 01:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question, Doc. To answer your question, no. But the subject as to victim count is very important, and yet, it's shrouded in mystery. I don't believe the number is 28 or even 30. I'm convinced it's well beyond 30, but of course, that can never be established as fact. I believe Ted murdered more young girls than he admitted to, and it's just the type of murder he would avoid talking about at all cost. When he was working with Ron Holmes (Bob Keppel told me that Holmes was Bundy's 'golden boy' he planned to confess to, before they had a falling out), he was emphatic that he killed a girl in Vermont, but categorically denied this murder just before execution. So which statement was the lie? We don't know. That said, I do believe the victim count in the Bundy murders goes well beyond the figures quoted here.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the true total will never be known -- but that's not the question raised here. That question is, why do all sources say the official confessed victim total was 30, when the breakdown by state, as published by Michaud & Aynesworth and reproduced in the article, adds up to only 28? To keep this discussion relatively organized I've added a partial answer below, under the "Victim Count" heading. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Competency evaluations

Trying to get the above in some order, I know others will know a lot more about the whole case than me:

It appears that the psychiatrist Dorothy Otnow Lewis (disclosure: edited by me recently) was in fact only recruited to the defense in the mid 1980s. She appears to be a specialist in challenging death penalties by digging up, sometimes by apparently dubious methods, possible evidence or claims of early trauma, brain abnormalities and psychosis. It appears the strategy was to challenge the prior (1979) judicial finding that Bundy was competent to stand trial re Kimberly Diane Leach despite e.g. Dr Tanay arguing he was not competent. And that finding was indeed ruled to have been erroneous.[1] So a new competency hearing was held in 1987. This appears to be where Lewis diagnosed Bundy with bipolar disorder, and reported the knives incident(s). However the court ruled that he had been sufficiently competent despite sometimes showing 'poor judgment on occasion' as is 'human nature'.[2]

Personal biographer Ann Rule writes in the preface to The Stranger Beside Me[3]: "In 1980, I didn't really understand the difference between being psychotic and having a personality disorder. In the first edition of this book I wrote that Ted must have been insane..." yet in later edition she appears to find herself now able to state categorically: "He wasn't insane. He undoubtably had a number of personality disorders..." This preface is also cited in this WP article to say that Lewis changed her diagnosis more than once. But Rule only writes: "One psychologist, who changed her diagnosis of Ted Bundy more than once, started out with bipolar and finally settled on Multiple Personality Disorder".

This book pg 372 seems to quote Lewis as saying on 'several occasions' Bundy put knives in his aunt's bed while she slept, as does The Only Living Witness pg 329 However the latter book does not, on page 331, appear to say that Lewis changed her diagnosis of Bundy, despite being the other citation supporting that claim in this WP article (unfortunately pg 330 is not included in preview). Sighola2 (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Victim Count

Doc says there were 30 victims, but I only count 28 from Bundy's confessed victims list. I don't know where people are getting the 30 victims figure from.Ananagram (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's referenced at 30 and has been for quite some time. This is a GA-class article, you should know. I have never seen the figure placed at 28 in any sources. However, there are plenty of sources that say 30. Here's a typical one from a newspaper via the Associated Press: "Bundy, who admitted to murdering 30 women in six Western states and Florida..."[4] Doc talk 12:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case how come under the "victims" section only 28 people are listed?Ananagram (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I forget why that is, to tell you the truth, and I know I brought it up some time ago. One of the other editors will come along and explain it. But again, many reliable sources say he confessed to 30, and for us to tally up the list here and declare it at 28 without any solid reference to back that number up would be original research. Doc talk 13:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I used to know the reason for this discrepancy, and I intended to add an explanation to the article, but for some reason never did, and now I've forgotten the answer! (Getting old sucks.) I'm in Atlanta at the moment, but as soon as I get home I'll consult my notes and post the answer -- unless someone else comes up with it first. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I have so far -- the Foreman book says the following, on p. 46: "In all, Bundy confessed officially to 11 murders in Washington, 8 in Utah, 3 in Colorado, 3 in Florida, 2 in Oregon, 2 in Idaho, and 1 in California." That adds up to 30. Michaud & Aynesworth said those totals were 8 in Washington, 8 in Utah, 4 in Colorado, 3 in Florida, 2 in Oregon, 2 in Idaho, and 1 in California. That adds up to 28. I'm going to have to go through all the books to try to figure out who is right -- but there is one obvious error in the Michaud/Aynesworth numbers -- the total in Colorado was indeed 3 (Campbell, Cunningham, and Oliverson), not 4. So my gut feeling is that the Foreman numbers are probably correct. But let me do some more digging to see if I can prove that. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

On page 482 of Rule (1989) it says he confessed to seven Washington homicides: Healy, Manson, Rancourt, Ball, Parks, Ott and Naslund. On pp. 486-487 it says he confessed to: Campbell, Cunningham, Oliverson, Cooley, Robertson, Smith, Aime, Baird, Wilcox, Kent, Parks, Bowman, Levy, Leach, and (indirectly) Culver. It notes that he was suspected (but makes no mention of his confessing to) the murders of Sue Curtis, Debbie Smith, Rita Jolly and Vicki Hollar. This adds up to only 22 confessed victims, adding to the confusion at least for me. I don't see where Rule gives any total victim tally figure in this version of her book. Doc talk 04:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Cooley might be the 4th Colorado victim listed by Michaud & Aynesworth -- but we list her only as a suspected victim, based on other sources which report that the case is still officially open. I doubt that Bundy confessed to her murder; if he had, the case would have been closed. But more research is obviously needed. The plot thickens. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, Sir! The research certainly needs to be done, even for our sources: we have this one from a pretty mainstream news source saying he confessed to "more than 30".[5] What a dilly of a pickle! Doc talk 04:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ressler also puts the Washington murder total at 11 (p. 74), not eight. He does not give figures for the other states. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 07:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

On a quick look-through, it would seem that the second Idaho victim (not Culver) and the California victim would make it an even 30. These victims, both unidentified, are listed among the 30 confessions. Doc talk 08:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Michaud & Aynesworth's tally of 28 already includes 2 in Idaho and 1 in California. I'm re-skimming Nelson's book now, as time permits. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

One thing is for certain: we absolutely cannot attribute our own victim count through original research. With all the sources out there that give 30 "or more" as the figure, and really none that directly state less, we are simply bound to stick with the references. Doc talk 07:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I'm still reviewing the books. Nelson was no help; now I'm on Michaud/Aynesworth, trying to figure out whether their numbers are just wrong, or if everybody else just counted wrong. (I suspect the former.) We may end up saying something like "approximately 30", followed by a qualifier in the category of "sources conflict on the precise number of official confessions..." Because remember, he also confessed "unofficially" to the 2 murders in New Jersey, and he "semi-confessed" to the hitchhiker in Tumwater, WA. And so on. Part of the problem, of course, is that Bundy was such a pathological liar. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As I continue to research this question, it occurs to me that classifying all of Bundy's documented homicides -- whatever the correct number -- as "confessions" is not entirely accurate either. He never confessed to killing Levy, Bowman, or Kim Leach. (When Nelson asked him about them, he said that he would never discuss the Florida murders because he "owed it to the people who believed he was innocent". Yes, he actually said that.) So -- assuming we can source a total of 30 documented homicides, I submit that it would be more accurate to say, "Bundy was convicted of three homicides and confessed to (approximately?) 27 others." Or something along that line. Meanwhile, the quest for the correct total continues. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

We've got the FBI report which lists 30 confessions (but inexplicably counts Parks twice, as we've discussed), we've got Foreman (which is based on all the major works at the time when declaring 30 as the number - but the FBI report is not listed), and we've got all the other prior and subsequent news accounts of 30 confessions. I see three missing confessed Washington victims (FBI and Foreman both list 11 WA confessions) and one extra Colorado victim in the list we currently have. The Florida murders are all, unequivocally, listed as confessions by all the major sources. Doc talk 12:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Florida homicides are not specifically listed as confessions -- they are included in the total count of murders to which he confessed, which is different. And it is wrong, because he never admitted guilt in any of the Florida murders OR assaults. All 3 murder convictions were appealed -- and he couldn't very well admit to killing them and at the same time appeal his convictions. So the three Florida murders should not be included in the "confessed" list. I realize that they are, but they shouldn't be, and I am looking for a good source that spells this out, as I continue to look through my pile of books to try to resolve this situation in general. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I watched the full Dobson interview on YouTube yesterday and he quite clearly acknowledged killing Leach. Even if it was at the 11th hour, I believe he must have confessed/admitted to Chi Omega as well. Doc talk 01:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look at that, because Nelson says in her book that she instructed him not to answer any questions about Leach due to the one remaining appeal before the Supreme Court, and he followed her instructions. I'm not saying you misremembered or hallucinated it, but it goes against the published record. I'm quite certain that he never confessed to the Chi Omega murders, as they were still under appeal at the time of his execution. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the portion concerning Leach:

JCD:"One of the final murders you committed was 12-year-old Kimberly Leach. I think the public outcry is greater there because an innocent child was taken from a playground. What did you feel after that? Were they the normal emotions after that?"

Ted: "I can’t really talk about that right now. It’s too painful. I would like to be able to convey to you what that experience is like, but I won’t be able to talk about that. I can’t begin to understand the pain that the parents of these children and young women that I have harmed feel. And I can’t restore much to them, if anything. I won’t pretend to, and I don’t even expect them to forgive me. I’m not asking for it. That kind of forgiveness is of God; if they have it, they have it, and if they don’t, maybe they’ll find it someday."

He certainly does not deny the murder, and this is not him "lying by omission". The reason he didn't talk about it and elaborate is not because he didn't want to admit guilt in her murder. The last appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on January 17, 1989. His time was up, and he fessed up to at least the Leach homicide before his execution. And likely the other Florida murders as well, in lieu of evidence solid to the contrary. Doc talk 06:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I also remembered a thing we discussed awhile ago. I intend to correct the speculum thing, as it's just simply not in line with all the other sources that claim Lenz was assaulted with a rod torn from her bed frame. It just simply does not jive with the majority of sources out there. Doc talk 06:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with the speculum thing -- I changed it many moons ago -- but brace yourself for an argument, if that editor who went to the mat about it last time is still around. As for the Dobson interview, the quote above is by no stretch of the imagination a confession. I'm sure you're aware that "not denying" is not the same as "confessing". He said he couldn't talk about Leach (as instructed by Nelson) and then went on to make a general statement that said nothing about her, specifically. The last Supreme Court decision was handed down on the 17th, but the last appeal of that decision wasn't denied until the evening of the 23rd, after the Dobson interview, according to Nelson. I'm reviewing all of this stuff now, trying to resolve the victim count issue, and so far, I've found absolutely no published evidence that he ever confessed to any of the Florida homicides or assaults. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We've got three rock-solid sources saying he most certainly did confess to the Florida murders. Doc talk 08:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Bundy did not confess to the Florida murders. Indeed, he refused to even discuss the Chi Omega killings in the third-person with M&A (as he had promised Michaud he would). I could not find any references by Bundy to the Chi O murders at all, but there was, of course, the alluding to the killing of Kim Leach in one of the depositions.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, not a deposition (unless there's one I missed) -- but when the defense team found 2 witnesses willing to testify that they saw Kim Leach hitchhiking the day after she was allegedly murdered, Nelson asked Bundy if there was any chance that those witnesses were correct. After a long pause, he shook his head. That, AFAIK, was the closest he ever came to admitting that he did it -- and it was protected by lawyer-client privilege, and thus never came out until Nelson wrote about it 10+ years later. So I continue to maintain that the most accurate statement is that he confessed to 27 (or whatever number turns out to be correct) and was convicted of 3 more -- because as Kevin says, he never confessed to the Florida murders. There's no way he could have, because there were appeals pending Chi Omega crimes at the time of his execution, and an appeal on the Leach case until a few hours before it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is from my book, THE BUNDY MURDERS: "Something else Bundy didn't want to talk about was the killing of 12-year-old Kimberly Leach. In one session the investigator had with his prisoner, Bundy came as close as he ever would to admitting to the murder. Pressing for an answer concerning the missing Kimberly Leach, Chapman believes he caught Bundy in a particularly remorseful mood. Even for Ted-the-sociopath, it is entirely possible. In a bizarre twist, Bundy, acting as his own attorney in the months leading up to the trial, was allowed to take the depositions of numerous individuals, including the living victims and eyewitnesses from Chi Omega, and the police officers. During the questioning between Bundy and Detective Norman Chapman, the following exchange occurred: Q: To the best of your recollection, Officer Chapman, what was it you recall Theodore Bundy saying about the Kimberly Leach case that I referred to earlier? You recall the exact words? You recall your question? Let's go back and see if I understand what you said. You were questioning Mr. Bundy about the location of Kimberly Leach. A: I asked Mr. Bundy, we were talking about certain things, and I asked Mr. Bundy, I told him and I said, "Ted, I will go," to the best of my knowledge, "and locate the girl, find the body and let her parents know where she's at"; and Mr. Bundy replied that "I cannot do that to you because the site is too horrible to look at."' The State of Florida, however, wanted very much to talk about it."

Kevin M. Sullivan. The Bundy Murders: A Comprehensive History (p. 227). Kindle Edition.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that Rule was completely mistaken when she outright stated that he confessed to the Florida murders. On pp. 486-487 it plainly says he confessed to killing the Florida victims. Not merely hinted at. "Ted Bundy confessed to killing: IN FLORIDA, Margaret Bowman, 21, Lisa Levy, 20, Kimberly Leach, 12". It's either a typo or it's just plain wrong? And it's possible that the FBI report and Foreman are both utterly wrong when they list three confessed Florida homicides. The FBI report states on Page 3: "Bundy admitted to the murder of at least thirty women between 1973 and 1978 in the following states: California (1), Colorado (3), Florida (3), Idaho (2), Oregon (2), Utah (8), and Washington (11)." Foreman, again, specifically states he "confessed officially" to "3 in Florida".(p.46) Perhaps there were another three Florida homicides he officially confessed to? But there is just no published source that lists 27 confessions. There are many that list 30. If there is a source out there that specifically refutes that he confessed to the Florida homicides, it definitely needs to be put forth. Doc talk 06:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the sources say that, and that's probably the way it's going to have to stay in the article. Sometimes what we want to write conflicts with what we can source. But those statements fly in the face of the facts. You will recall that defense attorneys cooked up a plea bargain before the Chi Omega trial which would have required Bundy to plead guilty (confess) to all 3 Florida homicides, but he reneged on the deal at the last minute. When he was convicted of killing Bowman and Levy, he stood up and shouted, "Tell the jury they were wrong!" Those two convictions were appealed, and the appeals were still pending at the time of his execution. You can't appeal a conviction and then confess to the crime! We've already established that Bundy *implied* several times that he did in fact kill Leach, but those "hints" do not constitute an official confession -- and once again, he had an appeal pending until January 22, 1989, when the Supreme Court rejected his final petition (after the Dobson interview). I know, I know -- if the sources don't spell that out, then it's WP:OR. One of Wikipedia's enduring frustrations. Still reviewing sources to resolve the 30 vs. 27 issue. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Had Bundy taken the deal that would have saved his life, all 3 Florida murders would have been covered in that confession. That didn't happen, and all we have are convictions for those murders. And yes, alluding to the Kim Leach murder is not the same as confessing to the murder. That said, the Florida murders absolutely belong to Bundy, and while they can't be counted as "confessions", they are without dispute the work of his hands. Indeed, the Florida killings do not need a special confession to be included in his list of victims. The same certainty, of course, cannot be applied to all of the suspected Bundy victims scattered across 6 states.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, Thanks for all your help on this subject. I'm afraid that here in the UK, I do not have the research opportunities that you and the "Docs" have, plus I have the additional burden of moving home in the next couple of weeks! I much appreciate what you and the two Docs have contributed to the victim count research. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

David: Thanks for the kind words, as they are appreciated. However, I never put myself in the same category with you editors, as you guys do all the real work for the site and all I do is bring clarification when necessary. The hard part for me was doing the research and writing of the book, which ended about 5 years ago. But now, I simply locate the appropriate passage, copy it from my Kindle, and post it here. It doesn't get any easier than that, LOL! Say, after you complete the move will you be back on duty here? And best regards to you as well, KevinKmsullivan12 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue with the Florida confessions is something I'm tempted to shoot a few e-mails out to sources like Rule, Keppel and Hagmeier for some clarity. I've that done sort of thing before: I once got a great response on a copyright issue from a photographer that took many pictures of Jim Morrison at the infamous Miami concert in 1969. I do know that Bundy refused the plea bargain, and I know he had appeals pending all the way to the bitter end. It would just be grossly irresponsible for sources, including the FBI, to clearly state that he confessed to three murders in Florida when he in fact did not. My gut tells me he did it at the 11th hour, but I can't demonstrate that yet. Doc talk 07:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that it's a simple matter of lumping confessions and convictions together, since after the fact there is little tangible difference. If you can find documentation that he confessed to the Florida crimes I'm all ears. I'm looking too -- but if I were a betting man I'd wager that we're not going to find any, because I don't think he did. Minutes before the execution, Hagmaier handed him a tape recorder and told him that if there was anything else he wanted to say, this was his chance. He turned on the recorder and copped to Susan Curtis, the Brigham Young student. That was it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The documentation that he did is Rule, Foreman and the FBI report. The documentation that he did not is what's actually missing. Doc talk 04:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no documentation (that I have found, as yet) that he did. Those sources say he did, but don't document it. (Where? When? Under what circumstances?) And how, exactly, does one document something that did not happen? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, I simply can't understand why those sources would claim that he confessed when he did not. They have their own sources to work with, and to make their quite specific statements they must have used them. We cannot say he did not confess to the three in Florida without something that says so. It wasn't hard to find Ann Rule's e-mail, and I have sent her one in hopes of shedding light on this. I will post her response if and when she gets back to me. Doc talk 22:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, my hunch is that it boils down to carelessness, more than anything else; they just lumped Florida in with the other states. And again, I get that we can't say he didn't confess unless a source says that he didn't -- which is why I've been going through the sources again, as rapidly as time permits. Remember, when Bundy launched his "bones for time scheme", his lawyers were aghast that he was willing to confess to ANY murders -- but at that point it was the only bargaining chip he had left. During the Death Row interviews he talked about Washington, Oregon, California, Utah, Idaho, and Colorado -- but never Florida; Florida was never on the table. It will be interesting to hear what Rule says; I hope she answers you. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Me too. No response yet, and I may never get one. Fingers crossed! I found Keppel's contact info (again, after not much effort) and will send him an e-mail next. Of course, I've not seen Keppel saying he confessed to the Florida crimes, but he'd be a good authority to ask about this. Doc talk 04:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a great misconception that Bundy confessed everything to Bob Keppel only. This is not the case. Bundy confessed SOME of the Washington State murders, but kept silent on most of the murders there as evidenced by the available Keppel info. The murders in the other states fell to Mike Fisher for Colorado (and the other detective from CO); Russ Reneau for Idaho, and one of the Utah detectives interviewed Ted. Now, as I've said, I found nothing in the Florida record that speaks of a confession pertaining to those murders. That said, I have contacted Don Patchen to see if he can shed any light as to why some published sources say Bundy confessed when it appears he did not. As soon as he gets back with me I'll post his answer here.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Don Patchen emailed me that Bundy never made a formal confession; and that if Bundy confessed to anyone at the very end he wasn't informed of it. Now, had Bundy owned up to the Florida murders, Patchen would have been told, as would the rest of the investigators. Indeed, that news would have become well known to all the Florida authorities. This info from Don Patchen, of course, goes with what we have in the official record, and that is, no formal confession was ever made by Bundy. What we have today are some published reports of a confession that no doubt never happened. I'm certain these three murders were thrown into the mix because Bundy was convicted of the killings. On the morning of Bundy's execution, Patchen had been invited by the governor of Florida to visit him in his office. But Patchen, at the last minute, got a call inviting him to witness Bundy's execution, and witness it he did. He was at the prison that morning, and had Bundy made a last minute confession of any kind about the Florida murders, Patchen would have been informed.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

We're going to have to reconcile what is perhaps the most important source that states that Bundy confessed to the Florida homicides: the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While certainly not infallible, that agency says he confessed. I'm not going to e-mail them on this issue, but others are encouraged to. Doc talk 03:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll email Bill Hagmaier. He's always responded to me, and I'll let you know what he says.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Doc talk 04:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't yet heard back from Bill Hagmaier, but I did locate an article from the Richmond Times Dispatch from February 24, 1989. In the article, Hagmaier says Bundy admitted 3 from Florida. So when I communicate with him I know we'll have the answer. You know, this seems like such a non issue, really, as Bundy was convicted of these murders, and we all know he committed them. But it will be good to clear this up one way or another, as the question seems to be hanging now in mid-air, LOL!. Anyway, here's the link to the article: [6] Kmsullivan12 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting: this is the same confession number breakdown by state in both the FBI report and Foreman. I certainly hope he gets back to you, and thanks again for looking into this! I haven't e-mailed Keppel, but I was surprised to learn that he teaches at a university less than an hour away from me.[7] Anyhoo, Hagmaier is directly attributed as he was in that article (another source backing the Florida confessions), and his answer seems to be the most important. Cheers, Kevin :) Doc talk 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You know the interesting thing about all of this (dare we call it intrigue, LOL!), is that I know there were times when information was held back by some of these folks and it didn't always set well with the uninformed parties. I remember one of the investigators telling me that Hagmaier failed to tell him something quite significant Bundy admitted to, and even years later, I could see how displeased he was about it. And perhaps, if Bundy did make the Florida murders "official" by telling Hagmaier, Bill might not have felt it was important enough to tell Patchen and company. Likewise, Russ Reneau didn't inform Hagmaier as to how Bundy admitted to killing Lynette Culver, yet in casual conversation, Reneau told Mike Fisher before they all leave Florida. 18 years later, Fisher tells me, and soon after this I call Hagmaier but he has absolutely no knowledge of it! So it may very well be that not one document exists in the Florida record, but a few memos and reports in the files of the FBI serve as the only official record concerning his admission of the Florida murders. Anyway, we should learn the truth very soon. Cheers to you too, Doc!Kmsullivan12 (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope Hagmaier does answer you -- Bundy was a pathological liar, as we have documented -- but when he did tell the truth (or came closest), he seems to have done it most often with Hagmaier. We know that Bundy's lawyers instructed him to never talk about the Florida crimes, since they were all under appeal -- but they also told him not to confess to anything, and he obviously disobeyed those instructions. So it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that he told Hagmaier some stuff about the Florida crimes that he didn't tell anyone else. It will be interesting to hear what Hagmaier has to say. I, for one, would accept his answer as the most definitive one -- although personal communications don't count as WP:RS, as we all know. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: Yes, it will be interesting to hear from Hagmaier. If he doesn't respond to my original email, I'll either email him again or phone him. Also, Bundy's end-of-life confessions are actually quite honest. If you could read the full transcript of the Idaho confessions you'd see what I mean. The same holds true for his dealings with Mike Fisher, Bob Keppel and the Utah investigator (although Bundy had issues with Utah). Of course, there were times (with Keppel, for example)where he refused to talk about certain murders. But that which he wanted to talk about came forth, in my view, very honestly. Anyway, I'll get back with everyone soon.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've emailed Bill Hagmaier twice, and left a voice mail at his office, but as of this moment I've heard nothing. And it may be, that while I still have an open door policy with the investigators from the various states, my door to Bill Hagmaier is now closed. If this is indeed the case, that's okay with me, but I am sorry I was unable to provide you guys with a definitive answer to your question. Indeed, no other investigator (not even Keppel) can confirm whether Bundy formally confessed to the Florida murders. Only Hagmaier (or perhaps a record in the federal file), can confirm this. If I do hear from him, of course, I'll post it immediately.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help: I will be candid as to certain things I discovered while conducting research for my book. I will not mention books, writers or publications by name, as that is something I will never do. But I can tell you emphatically that I have a book on my shelf pertaining to Bundy, and the writer states something that is completely false about a particular individual involved with the case in a particular state. I know what the writer is saying is false as I have every report pertaining to the person in question, and the information from these reports does not match with what's written in the book. Indeed, what the author published was and is in complete contradiction to the known facts. So how did this happen? It couldn't have been by mistake, for I know absolutely that the writer had contact with this individual. Therefore, there had to be a personal reason driving this, but what it is I do not know. I have my suspicions, mind you, but that's all. Now, this isn't the only odd and contradictory issue I encountered during my research. Remember, no matter what anyone says about the Bundy case, the official record and the direct communications I received from the retired investigators is like the Holy Grail. There is nothing else one can depend upon to write an accurate and factual account of Ted Bundy's crimes. To go beyond this is not just foolish, but it will lead to error every time. So for those who are proclaiming that Bundy has left an official confession to the Florida murders, I will say this: If it's not in the official record, it didn't happen.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the "official record", exactly? Doc talk 09:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The official record would be that which is in the original investigative files: All of the police reports as well as all documents related to the case. In my above statement, the writer said one thing about a particular investigator, and yet, I have ALL THE DOCUMENTS pertaining to him and the issue in question. Therefore, that which was published in the book is without foundation and therefore incorrect. It is egregious in the highest extreme and it could not have happened unintentionally. And again, there are other oddities that end up being published (and therefore accepted as fact), but those who have the files and have interviewed the detectives have a clearer picture of the facts.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

From my book:

"When Fisher met with Bundy for the last time, he made good on his promise of giving details concerning the Colorado murders, including information on the Caryn Campbell and Julie Cunningham homicides. However, he refused to speak of Denise Oliverson, the pretty young woman he nabbed in Grand Junction, as she bicycled to her parents' home on a pleasant Sunday afternoon. "He told me again," Fisher related, "of his tiredness and his wanting to get back to his cell for rest. I explained simply that he had promised to resolve all the questioned murder cases and now at the last minute he wasn't keeping his side of the deal." Although clearly frustrated at Bundy's refusal to talk about Grand Junction, Bundy did have this parting shot as the investigator was preparing to leave: "I'll get back to you about that, I promise." And Bundy would not disappoint him. As he was being escorted to the execution chamber, and now only minutes from being strapped into the electric chair, Bundy would ask for a tape recorder. Sitting in a waiting room, his head already shaved, he admitted to two additional murders, including the killing of Denise Oliverson: "At the state of Florida's request, I stayed on in Florida until after Theodore was executed. I flew home just after I heard the news of his execution on the television in my hotel room. When I got back to the office the following morning, I returned a call to the warden of the penitentiary. He asked if I was the Colorado investigator for Aspen, and I told him I was, and he said he had something for me." The warden then told of Bundy's final confession, how it came about, and that he specifically said that it was for "that Colorado investigator.""

Kevin M. Sullivan. The Bundy Murders: A Comprehensive History (p. 244). Kindle Edition.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The second victim in the above incident was Susan Curtis.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ted's biological father

The article stated "....but Louise later claimed that she was seduced by "a sailor" whose name may have been Jack Worthington". (emphasis mine) Michaud & Aynesworth (1999) however, state that Louise did indeed call him that name. Von Drehle (1995) links Jack Worthington to a Navy background, hence why he is used as a source as well. 174.125.88.208 (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Von Drehle and Rule both express doubt that that was his name, if he existed at all (as explained in subsequent parenthetical sentence. Hence "may have". DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Michaud & Aynesworth (1999) does not support the statement "although there was no evidence to support such speculation" with regards to Sam being Ted's father. 155.138.234.98 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ability to change appearance

I recall reading in a past edition of this article that Bundy had an innate ability to change the appearance of his face. Could this be added and/or is there a reliable source to prove its notability?Hoops gza (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I see now that it is indeed in the article.Hoops gza (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Victim count issue resolved (partially)

I finally located my copy of The Only Living Witness, the source cited for the victim count breakdown (p. 339) -- and the reason that the breakdown in the article doesn't add up to 30 is … wait for it … we copied it incorrectly. The correct Washington victim count is 11, not 8. With that fixed, the total miraculously adds up to 30, as it should. I will make that correction now. As to whether Bundy ever actually confessed to the three Florida murders -- I am certain that he did not, since appeals were pending on the first two at the time of his execution, and on the Lynch case until a few days before it. I just need a source that specifically says that. The search continues. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Execution vs. homicide

An IP editor recently changed the cause of death from "Homicide (execution by electrocution)" to "Execution". I initially made an edit to the revision that formatted the cause of death similarly to articles of others executed through capital punishment, but then reverted it to Homicide (execution by electrocution)" based upon an archived talk discussion here.

In the archived discussion, an editor argues for using homicide because it is "listed as his cause of death on his death certificate" (however, Bundy's death certificate is not currently referenced within the article). There are further arguments of the semantics and literal definition of "homicide", and some unrelated WP:OPINION and discussion of death by natural causes.

The vast majority of articles for individuals executed through capital punishment (regardless of the method of execution) list "Executed (method)" as the cause of death. Individuals in Category:People executed by Florida by electric chair and Category:20th-century executions by Florida (and other states in Category:20th-century executions by the United States) whose articles list a specific cause of death follow this trend, or simply list the method (e.g., "Electricution") while omitting "Execution"; none of them list "Homicide". Before making a WP:BOLD edit and simply changing this to "Execution (electrocution)", I wanted to get other editors' opinions regarding the cause of death listed in this article. AldezD (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

How other articles list COD is irrelevant to this article. It is a fact (as documented in previous discussions) that Bundy's death certificate lists his COD as homicide, and consensus supports listing it that way. If you would like to reference his death certificate within the article, feel free to do so. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Based upon internet searches it appears no legible death certificate is available. The only document from the archived discussion is a .jpg scan uploaded to MySpace with resolution so low it is illegible.([8]) No reference is currently included in the article that links to the death certificate and/or verifies "homicide" is listed. Do you have a source for this content which specifically lists "homicide"? AldezD (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Nelson's book has a very legible copy. That book is at home -- I can get you an exact page number once I get access to it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Folks who don't pay a great deal of attention to the word homicide, think of it only as wrongful death, but this is untrue. In the case of execution, justifiable homicide is the appropriate term.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Questioning the use of the word "homicide" isn't related to perception of guilt. The argument being made in earlier reversions/talk comments is that the term appears on his death certificate, for which there is no reference. User of the term is not the norm within articles of other individuals executed through capital punishment. AldezD (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I see this an an issue of the "manner of death"; and if you look at documents like these,[9], [10], you see that there are six options: Natural, Accident, Suicide, Homicide, Pending Investigation, and Could not be determined. The only option for the manner of death on Bundy's death certificate (at least if it were filed today) is Homicide. Homicide by the people of the state of Florida. Doc talk 00:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those links provide a WP:V source listing "Homicide" as the manner of death on Bundy's death certificate, which is the main argument of the issue. Additionally, the guidelines on the linked CDC forms were issued in 2004, 25 years after the subject's death. AldezD (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The death certificate is going to list Homicide as the manner of death. Things have not changed so drastically that his manner of death is going to not be listed as homicide. "Electrocution" is not going to be listed as the manner of death, either. Doc talk 01:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Provide a WP:V source that lists homicide as the manner of death. AldezD (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In plain terms, he was executed. Therefore cause of death should be given as execution. When there is a perfectly good English word to precisely characterize something, we should use that word rather than cause needless confusion. Everyking (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There's plain terms, and then legal/medical terms. An execution is a homicide, plain and simple. Doc talk 01:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not some sort of official document. Everyking (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If official documents do not list a manner of death other than Homicide, we will abide by that. The reality is that this article should be the impetus to correct the other articles. No death certificate is going to list "Execution" as the manner of death, no matter how much that is desired here. Doc talk 01:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is not the impetus to correct other articles. This article is an abnormality that uses an unverified reference—the subject's death certificate—as basis for listing "homicide". Further, Template:Infobox person (and related infoboxes) does not list guidelines on how to approach listing cause of death in this specific argument. If "Homicide" cannot be verified through a WP:V source, the cause of death should be removed and left blank or replaced with a designation provided through a verified source. AldezD (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you not see above where DoctorJoeE says he will find the page number in the source with the death certificate? There is no deadline here, especially when this GA has had this here by consensus for some time. Relax. Doc talk 02:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The cause of death is that as quoted on the Death Certificate and is referenced correctly. The cause of death was the subject of debate on the Bundy Talk page some time ago and consensus was reached by editors. I really cannot see why this has been raised again. Leave the death entry as it is. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no WP:V reference in the article for the cause of death. The case is not closed. AldezD (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There is now. I have added it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Case closed, David. AldezD (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Georgann Hawkins

While leafing through Keppel's "Green River" book in search of something else, I noticed that he consistently spells victim Georgann Hawkins's name as I have spelled it here -- without the second "e". On further review, I see that Michaud & Aynesworth do too, as does at least one newspaper article of the period (reproduced within the Michaud/Aynesworth reference that I just linked), as does Hawkins's death certificate ( here, behind a pay wall). Most sources written since then -- WP included -- have misspelled it ever since. I am going to correct this now; the least we can do is get the poor woman's name right. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sensational claims / No citations: 1st 3 Intro paragraphs

As of 03/29/2014, the first 3 paragraphs make some sensational claims (ex, necrophilia) with no citations:

Quote

"Theodore Robert "Ted" Bundy (born Theodore Robert Cowell; November 24, 1946 – January 24, 1989) was an American serial killer, rapist, kidnapper, and necrophile who assaulted and murdered numerous young women and girls during the 1970s and possibly earlier. After more than a decade of denials, he confessed shortly before his execution to 30 homicides committed in seven states between 1974 and 1978; the true total remains unknown, and could be much higher.

Bundy was regarded as handsome and charismatic by his young female victims, traits he exploited in winning their trust. He typically approached them in public places, feigning injury or disability, or impersonating an authority figure, before overpowering and assaulting them at more secluded locations. He sometimes revisited his secondary crime scenes for hours at a time, grooming and performing sexual acts with the decomposing corpses until putrefaction and destruction by wild animals made further interaction impossible. He decapitated at least 12 of his victims, and kept some of the severed heads in his apartment for a period of time as mementos. On a few occasions he simply broke into dwellings at night and bludgeoned his victims as they slept.

Initially incarcerated in Utah in 1975 for aggravated kidnapping and attempted criminal assault, Bundy became a suspect in a progressively longer list of unsolved homicides in multiple states. Facing murder charges in Colorado, he engineered two dramatic escapes and committed further assaults, including three murders, before his ultimate recapture in Florida in 1978. He received three death sentences in two separate trials for the Florida homicides."

End quote

That's because the article lead summarizes cited content in the body of the article. See WP:LEDE. It isn't supposed to have cites, provided the summary is covered by cites in the body below. Have you looked for citations in the body of the article? Acroterion (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... Yes citations are there in the body of article. I thought they are necessary when statements are first made throughout the page. I'm used to seeing them in Intro too. Thanks for setting me straight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimzzz (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for checking. Acroterion (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The sleepy teenage aunt

"Ted occasionally exhibited disturbing behavior, even at that early age. Julia recalled awakening one day from a nap to find herself surrounded by knives from the Cowell kitchen; her three-year-old nephew was standing by the bed, smiling" (from book by the writer Ann Rule).

To return to this, I recall that this has also been reported as 'a twinkle in his eye' or something like that, rather than smiling. I wonder if the original could be verified.

"He {Samuel Cowell} once threw Louise's younger sister Julia down a flight of stairs for oversleeping" - I wonder if there's any more details of this incident reported by the aunt. As I recall, although sourced to Rule's book like the above, it would have originated in interviews by Dr Lewis while preparing a case against the death penalty.

NB: The second archive box at the top of this page appears to be contain no link to the last archive. Sighola. Sighola6 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Guilt and Remorse

So in the pathology section, which as I recall others have already pointed out (now in the archives) sometimes makes its own 'original research' argument rather than relaying the balance of viewpoints per reliable sources, it says: "They {sociopaths} are devoid of feelings of guilt or remorse, a point readily admitted by Bundy himself. "Guilt doesn't solve anything, really," he said in 1981. "It hurts you ... I guess I am in the enviable position of not having to deal with guilt."

In the same book[11], on pg 259, Bundy seems (not 100% sure 'cos next page is missing) to be objecting that Ann Rule (apparently) misrepresents him: "I mean, I feel no guilt or remorse, but they don't understand. She just wants to adopt this theory that I'm just ashes inside - no conscience, just a shell."

On pg280 he states "And as I understand it, guilt is a mechanism. To a degree, I have certainly experienced it, but much less so now that ever when I was on the streets" (he then seems to oscillate between saying he has no guilt at all in the present or that he has less).

On pg83 he says "the survival took precedence over the remorse...with increasing effectiveness. ...recognizing the emotional trauma...the guilt and remorse he had...began to condition mentally, to condition out guilt."

On pg93 while talking hypothetically in what as I recall was an attempt to avoid incriminating himself, he says "(There'd be) a considerable degree of remorse over the killing...and also a high degree of concern over detection..."

Pg95: "As far as remorse over the fact, that would last for a period of time..."

Pg144: "As we discussed before, frequently after this individual committed a murder, he would lapse into a period of sorrow, remorse, et cetera"

Sighola6 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past. Interpreting Bundy's third-person hypotheticals is WP:OR no matter how you look at it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes in archive 4. How can you make this comment now ignoring what is written in black & white immediately above, showing the section is selectively quoting Bundy to support an innacurate claim about sociopathy? You've also reverted the OR tag on the basis that the section is sourced, an obviously invalid reason since, as my edit comment indicated, it is the use of the sources that is OR. Sighola6 (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with DoctorJoeE. 1: This has been discussed before. 2: Bundy's third-person hypotheticals is WP:OR. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you read? "On pg280 he states "And as I understand it, guilt is a mechanism. To a degree, I have certainly experienced it"" Sighola6 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to be offensive. Yes, I can read and as DoctorJoeE has stated; the comment is WP:OR. With respect what don't you understand about this? David J Johnson (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Sighola6 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR means, in part, combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources -- which is what you are doing. The overarching point is that the worst possible source for assessing a patient's pathology is the patient himself. The consensus of expert opinion on Bundy, which is documented and sourced in the article, is that he was a psychopath. Minority assessments (e.g. Narcissistic Personality Disorder) are also documented and sourced. The direct quote from Bundy was meant to reinforce the consensus. In the end, even Dr. Lewis, the expert whose initial impression was closest to yours, agreed with the majority: "I always tell my graduate students that if they can find me a real, true psychopath, I'll buy them dinner. I never thought they existed ... but I think Ted may have been one, a true psychopath, without any remorse or empathy at all." (Nelson, p. 316). All of that said, I will dig out my copy of Conversations With a Killer (which is at home) and review the sections that you have excerpted -- perhaps we have not reflected the consensus opinions as thoroughly as we could or should have. Give me a bit of time. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine re checking Conversations, though I'm disregarding your claim to know what my psychiatric impression is and that I'm engaged in OR when all I've done is point out OR in the section. And the problem is half the statements are like that, hence why I tagged it which you reverted. Back in Archive 4 Xagg pointed out "For instance, there doesn't appear to be anything about Bundy on p136 if at all in A Layperson's Guide to Criminal Law" and you said you'd get back on it but I can't see that you did. Another example is the list of things Bundy supposedly always blamed everything on, yet it's trivial to find extracts of him saying the opposite or making far more nuanced analyses. Sighola6 (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Bundy could make all the "nuanced" rationalizations he wished, but it is WP:OR to combine quotes from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources themselves. IT is not WP:OR to document a list of rationalizations that were collected by Michaud & Aynesworth, and sourced as such. Everything in that section was passed by GA reviewers, who are pathologically sensitive to WP:OR. I thought Xagg's concerns were addressed, at least to his satisfaction. This isn't a full-time job for any of us, and if we overlooked something, or if you have found more appropriate content that is supported by reliable sources, feel free to add it. It always works better, in terms of getting along with other editors, to make well-sourced changes to the content, rather than putting up tags and otherwise forcing others to do all the work. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It is the Pathology section that is selectively quoting and combining. GA reviews don't innoculate against future critique or demotion, and tags exist to promote improvement. It is you who told me to wait for you to check your hardcopy of the book. And I can only repeat "there doesn't appear to be anything about Bundy on p136 if at all in A Layperson's Guide to Criminal Law". Did anyone here add it, I couldn't find the text available online? Sighola6 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for you to tag an entire section of this article with that OR tag simply because you have an issue with a listed source. If the section was full of OR or WP:SYNTH it never would have passed GA to begin with. It hasn't changed much at all, so your tag isn't needed in this case. You are correct that the current GA status is no guarantee that future improvements must not occur, and that tagging in general helps improve articles; but this section is not as full of OR as your tag would suggest, and is not needed. Doc talk 23:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I oppose most section tagging; I disagree that it "in general helps improve articles"; in general, I think what most section tags are really saying is the following:

Which is why I removed the tag, for the record -- because it would have languished indefinitely with no specific indication of what might be wrong. I will look into the Layperson's Guide thing, and substitute out the cite if it's inappropriate, although I doubt that someone just added it arbitrarily. And I'm curious how you know that "there doesn't appear to be anything about Bundy" in it, if you couldn't find the text? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL on the "tag". Doc talk 23:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant tag - only just stopped laughing!! David J Johnson (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad you're having fun but your assumption that I wouldn't have followed the tag with work is baseless, and it is simply a declaration that the section can't be full of OR because it passed GA (calling bullsh*t on that, since I know even FA status can be achieved with a lead quote misattributed to a psychiatrist instead of a journalist that stayed there for four years).

DoctorJoeE - the issue here actually is the opposite - you are making others tread through mud to try to work on the article. You say you're curious how I know there's nothing about Bundy in the Layperson's Guide if I haven't access to the text - well can you pay ever so slightly more attention or slightly remember things a little longer because in the preceding comment that you replied to I just wrote "Xagg pointed out "For instance, there doesn't appear to be anything about Bundy on p136 if at all in A Layperson's Guide to Criminal Law". Furthermore, you talk as if you are the only people who can make edits to the article one you have checked sources but then don't apparently check them as in Xagg's case; the source could be removed now based on what he said. Sighola6 (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Debbie Harry

It may be worth including that Debbie Harry has stated that Bundy lured her into his car. [12] Owen (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I vote against. First of all, while it's true that large chunks of Bundy's time are unaccounted for, the early '70s are pretty well covered -- he was in Seattle, pursuing his psychology degree and behaving relatively normally. The fact that Ms. Harry had a run-in with a scumbag in NYC during that period and later decided it was Bundy hardly constitutes credible evidence that it was indeed he. Unencyclopedic speculation. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Me too. It's something I've seen before out there and find more than a bit sketchy. She says it was in the "early '70's". This is way too vague. This guy was in a "little car". What sort of little car? And she says she knew it was Bundy from seeing him on the news. When was this, and how much time had passed? It's not worth including here, IMHO. Doc talk 02:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Vote against. Far too vague. There are plenty of guys cruising in "little cars", David J Johnson (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hawkins

I've read through Bundy's account of killing Georgeann Hawkins in Keppel's book and I can't find any mention of rape. I changed it. 174.124.159.222 (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that other sources do mention rape, but I'll have to dig them out and confirm it. Several web sites mention that she was raped (either pre- or postmortem), but for all I know they copied it from this article. Once I finish with the sociopath research, I'll have a look, unless someone else finds it first. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I attempted to search, but meh..... Dave Dial (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I know Bundy indicted necrophilia with Hawkins, but that's a different animal. 174.124.159.222 (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:1974 murders in the United States

Why is this the only year included, Dahmer's page includes all years. Is it because this is the start date. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC) @WikiOriginal-9: Thanks for bringing this up. Dahmer's page was wrong and has now been fixed. Serial crime uses the start date. However, it is worth noting that Dahmer's page will still retain 1994 since Dahmer was himself murdered. - Hoops gza (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I don't think it's necessary to include any of the fourth paragraph of the intro besides his death. It looks like its only purpose is to play up what an evil SOB a couple of people think he was - hardly encyclopedic or neutral. Tezero (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree The paragraph is accurate and properly referenced. Quite how Wikipedia can be "neutral" regarding murder, I really don't know. David J Johnson (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, I don't understand the criticism at all. The article accurately reflects the general view of Bundy. If you can find a quote from someone who does NOT think he was an "evil SOB", we will certainly consider including it; but it would likely be from his mother, or one of those silly teenage girls who materialized in the gallery at the Miami trial and squealed whenever he glanced at them. Most objective observers have a negative view of anyone who killed 30 young women in cold blood. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Cause of Death

I'd like to put up for debate the listed cause of death. It is currently (5/25/15) listed as a homicide, which I disagree with. I agree with the opinion that capital punishment is a barbaric act and akin to state-sponsored homicide, but legally speaking Bundy's cause of death should be listed as "execution by electric chair", not "homicide". I haven't changed the article because I wanted to put it up for discussion before taking a unilateral action. DR. Davidromano67 (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before (see archives). The COD is listed as homicide because that is the COD on his death certificate. It is duly sourced, and there is consensus for it. Legally speaking, all executions are homicides; this is not any sort of political statement, just a statement of fact, and an accurate reflection of the source material. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I see I fell into the trap too [13]. This is an excellent example of why WP doesn't use primary sources such as death certificates. Yes, sophisticates understand that an execution is technically a homicide, but no secondary source would describe it that way without further comment, because normal people don't understand that use of the word. To include it in the infobox merely puzzles and misleads -- not informs -- the reader. EEng (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It is sourced that way in at least one secondary source, the one cited in the article. In your recent edit summary you said that "homicide is a manner of death, not a cause of death". Meaning, I suppose, that the "actual" cause of death is a gunshot wound, or electrocution, or whatever method was used. This is a common misconception because actually, it's the other way around; there would be no gunshot or electrocution without the deliberate use of that method; so the cause is homicide, the manner is gunshot wound or electrocution. If you have a heart attack and your heart stops, the cause of death is heart attack, not cardiac arrest -- because something had to cause the arrest. We added the execution method in parentheses after "homicide", and we linked it to "justifiable homicide" so that no one would be "puzzled" or "misled". "Normal people" should understand that use of the word, because it is the correct one: the deliberate taking of a human life. It is a statement of fact, not a political statement, and we have consensus for it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, no, you're mixing up cause of death (e.g. blood loss resulting from lacerated aorta resulting from knife wound) with manner of death (which in most US jurisdictions is one of natural death, accidental death, suicide, or homicide -- see [14]). But this is neither here nor there, because the important point is that most readers associate the word homicide with some kind of crime, and it wouldn't occur to them that an execution is a homicide, even though that's technically true; thus the typical reader will be puzzled, and shouldn't have to follow a link to unpuzzle himself. Labeling Bundy's death a homicide can only confuse the layman, and tells the sophisticate nothing he wouldn't already know if the infobox said, "Execution by electric chair", or some other phrase normal people are equipped to interpret. But I really don't care. Carry on. EEng (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, no, I'm not mixing up anything, as I do that sort of thing for a living. You seem to be underestimating the intelligence of "normal people". But as long as you don't care, we'll leave it unless consensus changes, since as mentioned, we have included all the necessary links to avoid confusion. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times and consensus was to leave as the present article. As a humble ex-banknote printer (legally), I see no confusion whatsoever. DoctorJoeE is a medical expert on this subject and his views should be listened to and accepted, as should the consensus. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a great example of why even the opinion of putative experts needs to be backed up by sources -- I noticed the discrepancy between the fact that JoeE's a physician and the fact that what he's saying (e.g. "the cause is homicide, the manner is gunshot wound or electrocution") completely contradicts what any number of obviously reliable sources [15][16][17] say, but I didn't think that would be a very nice thing to do. I'm making no estimate of people's intelligence, rather of the typical level of knowledge about technical terms in forensic medicine. But really, it's OK -- I won't lose any sleep over this. EEng (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As usual, legal definitions differ from medical ones; doctors don't classify things the same way lawyers do. But since this is neither a legal text nor medical treatise, it's OK, as you say. I don't expect anyone to accept my views, but consensus should be respected. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Nancy Wilcox

The article stated: "On October 2 he seized 16-year-old Nancy Wilcox in Holladay, a suburb of Salt Lake City,[108] and dragged her into a wooded area, intending to "de-escalate" his pathological urges, he said, by raping and releasing her. However, he strangled her—by accident, he claimed—in the process of trying to silence her.[109] Wilcox was buried, he said, near Capitol Reef National Park, some 200 miles (320 km) south of Holladay, but her remains were never found."

The source cited is Michaud's book where Bundy states this incident in the third person and not naming the girl. Michaud states in the book that Dennis Couch told him that this story matches how he told how confessed to killing Nancy Wilcow. Couch recently released this audio of his Bundy interview and Bundy does mention that he did take Wilcox by force and dragged her to an orchard, but he stated that he then restrained her in handcuffs, took her to his apartment alive and killed her "the next day". This part contradicts the bolded part above. Hence I removed it. I think we should only mention the consistent parts. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

So, you have removed sourced material, based on something Bundy did not say, 36 hours before his execution, in an exhausted state. Bundy famously told different stories to different people throughout his incarceration. How do we know which version is correct? As editors, we are not supposed to make those decisions. I have no inclination to edit war over a detail like this, so I'm not going to revert again; but you really should gain consensus for this change. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"How do we know which version is correct?" Exactly my point. Hence why I said "think we should only mention the consistent parts." Also Bundy did not merely "not say" the bolded text, he flat out contradicted it. LittleJerry (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

None the less - you have removed sourced material, without any consensus, which is wrong. I totally support DoctorJoeE comments above and oppose any change. David J Johnson (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Cause of Death

I'd like to put up for debate the listed cause of death. It is currently (5/25/15) listed as a homicide, which I disagree with. I agree with the opinion that capital punishment is a barbaric act and akin to state-sponsored homicide, but legally speaking Bundy's cause of death should be listed as "execution by electric chair", not "homicide". I haven't changed the article because I wanted to put it up for discussion before taking a unilateral action. DR. Davidromano67 (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before (see archives). The COD is listed as homicide because that is the COD on his death certificate. It is duly sourced, and there is consensus for it. Legally speaking, all executions are homicides; this is not any sort of political statement, just a statement of fact, and an accurate reflection of the source material. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I see I fell into the trap too [18]. This is an excellent example of why WP doesn't use primary sources such as death certificates. Yes, sophisticates understand that an execution is technically a homicide, but no secondary source would describe it that way without further comment, because normal people don't understand that use of the word. To include it in the infobox merely puzzles and misleads -- not informs -- the reader. EEng (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It is sourced that way in at least one secondary source, the one cited in the article. In your recent edit summary you said that "homicide is a manner of death, not a cause of death". Meaning, I suppose, that the "actual" cause of death is a gunshot wound, or electrocution, or whatever method was used. This is a common misconception because actually, it's the other way around; there would be no gunshot or electrocution without the deliberate use of that method; so the cause is homicide, the manner is gunshot wound or electrocution. If you have a heart attack and your heart stops, the cause of death is heart attack, not cardiac arrest -- because something had to cause the arrest. We added the execution method in parentheses after "homicide", and we linked it to "justifiable homicide" so that no one would be "puzzled" or "misled". "Normal people" should understand that use of the word, because it is the correct one: the deliberate taking of a human life. It is a statement of fact, not a political statement, and we have consensus for it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, no, you're mixing up cause of death (e.g. blood loss resulting from lacerated aorta resulting from knife wound) with manner of death (which in most US jurisdictions is one of natural death, accidental death, suicide, or homicide -- see [19]). But this is neither here nor there, because the important point is that most readers associate the word homicide with some kind of crime, and it wouldn't occur to them that an execution is a homicide, even though that's technically true; thus the typical reader will be puzzled, and shouldn't have to follow a link to unpuzzle himself. Labeling Bundy's death a homicide can only confuse the layman, and tells the sophisticate nothing he wouldn't already know if the infobox said, "Execution by electric chair", or some other phrase normal people are equipped to interpret. But I really don't care. Carry on. EEng (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, no, I'm not mixing up anything, as I do that sort of thing for a living. You seem to be underestimating the intelligence of "normal people". But as long as you don't care, we'll leave it unless consensus changes, since as mentioned, we have included all the necessary links to avoid confusion. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times and consensus was to leave as the present article. As a humble ex-banknote printer (legally), I see no confusion whatsoever. DoctorJoeE is a medical expert on this subject and his views should be listened to and accepted, as should the consensus. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a great example of why even the opinion of putative experts needs to be backed up by sources -- I noticed the discrepancy between the fact that JoeE's a physician and the fact that what he's saying (e.g. "the cause is homicide, the manner is gunshot wound or electrocution") completely contradicts what any number of obviously reliable sources [20][21][22] say, but I didn't think that would be a very nice thing to do. I'm making no estimate of people's intelligence, rather of the typical level of knowledge about technical terms in forensic medicine. But really, it's OK -- I won't lose any sleep over this. EEng (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As usual, legal definitions differ from medical ones; doctors don't classify things the same way lawyers do. But since this is neither a legal text nor medical treatise, it's OK, as you say. I don't expect anyone to accept my views, but consensus should be respected. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• The claims of consensus are made up to win the argument. Also no one cares what one claims to be unless they can prove it therefore deferring to someone who claims to be a "doctor" is absurd. Why not just claim to be god and dare anyone to question your "authority." It is highly unlikely any doctor would troll wikipedia all the time because they have nothing better to do. Of course I know all kinds of doctors, really I do.208.54.38.175 (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This IP would do well to read WP:NPA before posting the nonsense above. This discussion has gone on far too long. The consensus was to leave the cause of death as stated on the official Death Certificate. What alternative is there? No-one is trolling Wikipedia: editors are just making sure the truth is stated within the article. Whether that person is a doctor, or like myself a retired banknote printer, is totally irrelevant. Please let's stick to the facts and stop personal attacks. David J Johnson (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You are well aware there is no personal attack but do what you have to do to misrepresent the facts to sway the argument in your mind. It is an open observation, if you felt offended it could be due to guilt, remorse, or something else. And no one cares what you claim to be or had been. And consensus is against you 3:2. The preponderance of evidence states he was executed. There are dozens of sources that state he was executed. Hanging on to some little argument shows unwillingness to gain a consensus. 208.54.38.175 (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If "claims to be a 'doctor'", "Why not just claim to be god" and "trolling", plus "guilt" "remorse" "authority" is not a WP:NPA, then I don't know what is. Your claim of consensus is also inaccurate, as you have only included the latest round of this discussion. It is not a "little argument" regarding the cause of death, it is clearly stated on the Death Certificate. Could I respectfully suggest that you read the full Talk page discussion on the subject. No-one owns the article and the discussion is to improve the matters contained within it: not to attack any editors opinions. Also is it not time you stopped hiding behind a anon IP address?David J Johnson (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the part you do not seem to understand: All executions are homicides. Homicide is the act of one human being causing the death of another human being. There are both legal and illegal homicides. Acts which fall under the definition of homicide include murder, abortion, manslaughter, euthanasia, and ... execution. Repeating over and over that "the preponderance of evidence states he was executed" does not change the fact that his execution was, in fact, a homicide, as are all executions. Bundy's official cause of death was homicide, as clearly stated on his death certificate. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• I agree when you state: "Then I don't know what it is." If I said you are a fluffernutter sandwich than you could say that is a personal attack. But if I say this is fluffernutter it is not a personal attack but a description. Educated and reasonable people understand the major difference. Semantics scheming semantics. State Execution-The taking of live by the state. Now that more fully defines the situation. Your description of homicide is a very limited description, confusing, and appears agenda pushing. It is unreasonable to stick to such a simple semantics argument. Professor 208.54.38.175 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's all try to be civil, okay? The info box lists his official cause of death (homicide - with a link to the "justifiable homicide" section of the relevant article), followed by the specific method used (execution by electrocution), and cites the source. What is confusing about that? I have attached a photo of the bottom half of Bundy's death certificate, showing the official cause of death. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

208.xxx blocked as sock of Davidromano67, the original poster. Unless you gentlemen would like to continue, this thread may be archived. Just ping me if a disruptive sock pops back in.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Berean, Many thanks for all your help. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we appreciate it. I'm archiving this acrimonious exchange now. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Nancy Wilcox

The article stated: "On October 2 he seized 16-year-old Nancy Wilcox in Holladay, a suburb of Salt Lake City,[108] and dragged her into a wooded area, intending to "de-escalate" his pathological urges, he said, by raping and releasing her. However, he strangled her—by accident, he claimed—in the process of trying to silence her.[109] Wilcox was buried, he said, near Capitol Reef National Park, some 200 miles (320 km) south of Holladay, but her remains were never found."

The source cited is Michaud's book where Bundy states this incident in the third person and not naming the girl. Michaud states in the book that Dennis Couch told him that this story matches how he told how confessed to killing Nancy Wilcow. Couch recently released this audio of his Bundy interview and Bundy does mention that he did take Wilcox by force and dragged her to an orchard, but he stated that he then restrained her in handcuffs, took her to his apartment alive and killed her "the next day". This part contradicts the bolded part above. Hence I removed it. I think we should only mention the consistent parts. LittleJerry (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

So, you have removed sourced material, based on something Bundy did not say, 36 hours before his execution, in an exhausted state. Bundy famously told different stories to different people throughout his incarceration. How do we know which version is correct? As editors, we are not supposed to make those decisions. I have no inclination to edit war over a detail like this, so I'm not going to revert again; but you really should gain consensus for this change. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"How do we know which version is correct?" Exactly my point. Hence why I said "think we should only mention the consistent parts." Also Bundy did not merely "not say" the bolded text, he flat out contradicted it. LittleJerry (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

None the less - you have removed sourced material, without any consensus, which is wrong. I totally support DoctorJoeE comments above and oppose any change. David J Johnson (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Kathy Devine should not be listed as a possible victim

Considering DNA evidence convicted someone else she should not be listed under that heading, it's unnecessarily confusing.--Prestopotatoe (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that Bundy was originally considered a suspect in the murder of Kathy Devine, but later cleared because of DNA evidence. The article makes this quite clear and should remain as at present. David J Johnson (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Most Bundy literature mentions that he was widely believed to be responsible for her murder for many years, so we do too — and we also include the ultimate determination, via DNA analysis, that he was not. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Ted Bundy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110807125418/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/witness/21.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/witness/21.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110507084628/http://www.crimemuseum.org:80/Ted_Bundy_Car to http://www.crimemuseum.org/Ted_Bundy_Car
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110807114059/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/bundy/5.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/bundy/5.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110807124409/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/bundy/15.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/bundy/15.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131018035309/http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1828&dat=19890521&id=ED8eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fcAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2797,2126506 to http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1828&dat=19890521&id=ED8eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fcAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2797,2126506
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130911063127/http://www.mentalhealth.com/icd/p22-pe04.html to http://www.mentalhealth.com/icd/p22-pe04.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110727191632/http://www.pureintimacy.org/piArticles/A000000433.cfm to http://www.pureintimacy.org/piArticles/A000000433.cfm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120202152539/http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/UTAHmissingpersons.html to http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/UTAHmissingpersons.html#baird
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111003162633/http://www.flhsmv.gov/fhp/html/story3b.html to http://www.flhsmv.gov/fhp/html/story3b.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

New Ted Bundy Book

Hi all!

I just wanted to let everyone know that I've written a companion volume to The Bundy Murders: A Comprehensive History, titled, The Trail of Ted Bundy: Digging Up the Untold Stories. It contains a lot of new information from Bundy's friends, new testimony from the friends of the victims, and new info from those who hunted the killer or otherwise were closely connected to the case. It's being published by WildBlue Press, and here's a link to the page at their website: https://wildbluepress.com/trail-of-ted-bundy-kevin-m-sullivan-true-crime/

You will also find blogs I've written about the new book, as well as new videos I took while visiting the sites in the summer of 2015.

Here's a link to one of the blogs: https://wildbluepress.com/association-postmortem-ted-bundy/

I hope all has been well with everyoneKmsullivan12 (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Kevin, Many thanks for the information. Trust you are well. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi David. Yes, I'm doing well, despite the removal of a gall bladder and an appendix, lol! Good to hear from you.Kmsullivan12 (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources

• "BUNDY BROKE HIS PATTERN IN LEACH KILLING." The Deseret News. Tuesday January 24, 1989.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

new book claims to be a victim that survived, but hasn't been reviewed yet

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3821686-155/ted-bundy-tried-to-kill-me -- needs some sort of confirmation by secondary sources first. 68.19.9.224 (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Correctamundo. There have been a lot of these over the years, although this one seems more credible than most, and may be worthy of inclusion if we get some WP:RS support. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)