Tuesday, February 27, 2018

HIDTA Evaluation 2018

What can you expect in hosting a seminar, or when you enroll  in our Complete Statement Analysis Course done in your home?

In a training, feedback is invaluable. We review the submissions and implement changes.  

Here is feedback from 2018 High Intensity Drug Traffic Area training from Arizona's recent training.  

If you wish to enroll in training, please contact Hyatt Analysis Services by clicking here to review our "Complete Statement Analysis Course" which is done at your home, and is used in the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia. 

Seminars for Law Enforcement
Seminars for Social Services (therapists, child protective workers, etc) 
Sex Crime Units specialized 
Advanced Analysis and Profiling, including Hand Writing Analysis with Steve Johnson
Advanced Analysis for Business, Human Resources, hiring, internal investigations 
Anonymous Author Identification and Threat Assessment 

This was a lively, intelligent and  engaged class.  
One may have missed my use of humor...always a good reminder for me. 

Date:    February 14, 2018                      City:  Chandler, AZ                      Venue: AZ HIDTA Training Center

Total: 30  (of total #, HIDTA: 9)   Federal: 9   State: 4   Local: 12   Tribal: 1   Military: 4

Please evaluate the Instructors:    5=Excellent   4=Good   3=Average   2=Fair   1=Poor

Peter Hyatt

Detecting Deception





Please evaluate overall training:     5=Excellent   4=Good   3=Average   2=Fair   1=Poor

  1. Overall rating of training:                                                        5.0
  2. The effectiveness of the audio/visual materials:                     5.0
  3. Opportunities for participation/questions:                               5.0
  4. Learning environment                                                            5.0
  5. How would you rate your knowledge and skill level of the course subject matter?
a.     Before the course.                                                     2.4
b.     After the course.                                                        4.4

Additional Comments:

  • Awesome class
  • I really enjoyed this class. I would like to take further instruction in this.
  • Very interesting!
  • Really informative.
  • Absolutely loved this training.
  • Truly a remarkable speaker.
  • By far my favorite day of training.
  • Awesome! This is not common content which was really beneficial.
  • Thank you….this information was very interesting and encouraging.
  • Excellent class.  I learned a wealth of information.
  • This class left you wanting to know more.
  • Amazing! Now when I review interviews I will be forever changed in how I look at them.
  • I definitely want to attend further classes on this information.
  • Loved the examples and the handouts were great!
  • Super eye opening and intriguing.
  • Absolutely fantastic.  I will definitely use this in my job.
  • Best class I’ve ever taken
  • I didn’t appreciate the comment Peter made that ….he believes females shouldn’t be in LE


Lucia D said...

Well the person who took you so literally regarding your comment females shouldn't be in LE certainly lacks humor. But also an ability to read people. I enjoy your dry humor. Was just reading some of your analysis of Scott Person. It was during a show including Nancy Grace and others. You interjected "Hindsight has not been kind to some of the guests." I found that comment very amusing :)

Anonymous said...


Two-year old DeOrr Kunz disappeared in the middle of a camping trip. Five months after he vanished, DeOrr's family began to turn on each other during an interview with a private investigator.

Ladela said...


Cause of death for Mariah Woods:

Chloroform toxicity

911 Call


Anonymous said...

Off Topic: I remember reading on here how OJ writing "my guilt" was very indicative that he was guilty bc he took ownership of the guilt by saying "my guilt" and an innocent person would not do that.
What about if a suspect says (in the free-editing process) "my innocence"? Does that mean he is likely innocent?

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
Off Topic: I remember reading on here how OJ writing "my guilt" was very indicative that he was guilty bc he took ownership of the guilt by saying "my guilt" and an innocent person would not do that.
What about if a suspect says (in the free-editing process) "my innocence"? Does that mean he is likely innocent?

I think it would need to be viewed in context. with OJ his guilt was in context to the crime which also did not have a reliable denial.. "my innocence" without a reliable denial could show sensitivity to "innocence". the less one has the more difficult it is to reach a conclusion. IMO. I also think people have a more subjective outlook on the word "innocence". so you would need to ask what the subject means by innocence. "my innocence" with the inclusion of "my" makes it personal or subjective. I would expect an innocent to say "I am innocent" not "my innocence". "my innocence" is not a denial.

"guilt" could to some extent be subjective and require the question to understand the subjects definition of guilt. I think the difference lies in only a guilty person is likely to say "my guilt".

Anonymous said...

General Malaise, Thank you. That was a very informative response. What do you think about if the suspect also passed a polygraph?

General P. Malaise said...

you are asking for answers without enough information. are you talking about patrick brown?

I can see him pass a polygraph if the questions are only related to the two known accusers.

the questions on the polygraph and the polygrapher can determine the outcome.

if it is patrick brown I would ask him about other things than the two female accusers.

Anonymous said...

Cheers to you for the excellent feedback!

OT: Have you ever looked at Ted Kaczynski's Industrial Society and Its Future Manifesto?

I found this on the Wiki page an interesting aside:

"Throughout the document, written on a typewriter without italics, Kaczynski capitalizes entire words to show emphasis. He always refers to himself as either "we" or "FC" (Freedom Club), though there is no evidence that he worked with others."

Anonymous said...

General Malaise, No, Im not talking about Patrick Browne. Im talking about someone who was convicted of multiple homicides based on circumstantial evidence and even police pinning some killings on him where the description of the perp seen by witnesses did not match what he looked like and police sketches that did not even resemble him.
The "confessions" that he began giving to try to delay his execution are fabricated including wrong pronoun usage that indicates he was not even with another person when he is stating that he was with a victim. Giving directions to investigators to help them find remains which do not yield a single remain. The confessions are fabricated.
Psych profiles done from interviews that label the suspect a "psychopath" based on the fact he & some other friends who were honor roll students used colored stamps to make old ski tickets look new bc they loved to ski in high school.
The fact the suspect had received multiple awards from cops commending him for heroic actions--one of them being he saved a 3 yr old boy from drowning.
The fact that his lawyers said that "the suspect truly BELIEVED he was innocent of all the charges till the very end.
Im talking about Ted Bundy. I believe he was not the killer of the victims bc linguistically he does NOT use the language of guilty people & despite how many psychiatrists, etc tried to squeeze him into fitting the category of "psychopath" going back to his adolescence, he does not actually have any traits of psychopathy. One investigator labeled him "psychotic" bc at one point he was dating a woman and started secretly talking to his ex girlfriend.
I have always thought oh yeah he is definitely guilty, he's a monster. But when you suspend that bias for a little while and actually do some research & look at the evidence & use SA and use forensic profiling, it seems very unlikely he was the serial killer they think he was or guilty of the crimes they say he did.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...

"the suspect truly BELIEVED he was innocent of all the charges till the very end. Im talking about Ted Bundy.

post a transcript if you want someone to do an analysis.

Anonymous said...

I will post one when I get home. But let me just ask, since everyone on here has a pretty good understanding of criminal profiling, do you feel that Bundy's saving of a drowning 3 year old boy, chasing down a purse snatcher, and compassionately answering phones at a suicide crisis center & saving lives (according to his coworker) match up with the profile of a "sadistic psychopath"? I cannot think of another serial killer who has done similar conpassionate heroic deeds. Typically, although they may adopt normal seeming roles in society, or as in the case of BTK, he was a pastor, married with a family, he was known to be an asshole like writing people up if their grass grew above 2 inches, etc & I cannot think of another serial killer who has done anything heroic to save lives or have been known to be "compassionate". Is this not troublesome that he displays unheard of "kindness" & self-sacrificing actions displayed by no other serial killers? People call it an "enigma". Well, its only an "enigma" if he did the killings. So which part of the enigma is the thing that doesnt make sense, the thing that doesnt fit, the thing that makes it an "enigma"? The proven kindness or the alleged sadistic cruelty?

Anonymous said...

Why would someone who has been labeled a meticulous planner & an "organized" killer tell women in Oregon (where the killings first started) whom he was tried to "lure" (unsuccessfully) by asking them to help him with his sailboat bc he was wearing a sling that his name was "Ted"?!?! How come, after he escaped jail for the first time, someone rented a car in the local area under the name "Ted Bundy", yet it was not him that did it?! Even investigators said "obviously he's not going to rent a car after escaping from prison under his own name? How come the police sketches look nothing like him? One of them, if you find the color version, the drawing has blond hair?!?!
How him his "confessions" he gave days before he was led to execution to try to buy more time alive are fabricated (if you use SA on them) & never yielded a single clue & many investigators even agree he was lying about many things? Since he was terrified to die in the electric chair, why not lead them to remains, instead of fabricated stories about where the remains were? Doing so would have kept him alive bc he would have been giving useful info & investigators wanted the info badly?!?!

Hey Jude said...


Anon - in the appeal document, it doesn't sound as if Ted Bundy truly believed he was innocent of all charges until the end. His 'proven kindness' did not extend to considering the sorority murders to have been 'especially heinous, atrocious and cruel'. (It was interesting how much he stressed he had a good upbringing and how he did not want to upset his mother - as though anything he said in the circumstances could have made bringing him into the world less awful for her.)

455 So. 2d 330 (1984)
Theodore Robert BUNDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 57772.

Supreme Court of Florida.
June 21, 1984.
Rehearing Denied September 24, 1984.

….Next Bundy claims that the trial court erred in finding that the capital felonies were especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel. There is no merit to this argument. The victims were murdered while sleeping in their own beds. See Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882, 103 S. Ct. 184, 74 L. Ed. 2d 149 (1982). The trial court also recounted the gruesome manner in which the victims were bludgeoned, sexually battered, and strangled. These circumstances are more than sufficient to uphold the trial court's finding that the capital felonies were especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel….

Finally Bundy argues there was insufficient proof of nonconsensual entry to uphold the finding that a burglary had been committed. The state points out, however, that the murders were committed on the second floor of a sorority house where no men were allowed. Moreover it is inconceivable that Bundy could have been or thought he was invited to be in the house at three o'clock in the morning. We agree with the state's position that there was ample circumstantial evidence to support the finding that Bundy's entrance into the building was nonconsensual. In any event, lack of consent to entry is not an essential element of a charge of burglary; rather, consent to entry is an affirmative defense. State v. Hicks, 421 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1982).
Having reviewed the entire sentencing order, we find no errors. The sentencing court's analysis of the nature of the crimes and the character of the offender correctly concludes that sentences of death are appropriate under our law.
The judgments of conviction and sentences of death are affirmed.
It is so ordered.


Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, The fact he didnt want to hurt hos mother's feelings when he could have made public the heinously abusive environment he lived in up until age 4 speaks volumes. Even if he wanted to manipulate the "porn made me do it" angle it would have gotten more sympathy if he had shared that he had witnessed his gramdfather violently attacking his mother & grandmother many times, teaching him violence against women.

He argued his case in a very self-destructive manner, refusing to cooperate with his co-counsel on many occassions including refusing to plead guilty in order to spare himself the death penalty. He confronted his lawyers in court bc he was so upset to find his lawyers were wanting him to plead guilty, it hurt his feelings bc he thought that meant that they did not believe him to be innocent.
The technicalities of the law that he questioned (obviously he was trying to reduce the charges) were done with him STILL MAINTAINING HIS INNOCENCE. The only evidence against him in the sorority house murders is that a sorority member returning to the sorority after he allegedly committed the crimes says she saw a man with a blue hat pulled over his eyes running out of the building & that she did nit get a good look at him. The only other evidence was the "bitemark" evidence which was USED FOR THR FIRST TIME in the case against Bundy & has since been considered completely unreliable evidence in court as a bite mark essentially just looks like a bruise. Certain semen stains they found in othet alleged Bundy killings where he raped were found to be incompatible with Ted Bumdy's semen bc Bundy belongs to a small portion of the population that does not secrete DNA in their bodily fluids.

Ted Bundy is innocent.

Anonymous said...

One investigator close to the case said that Bundy did not use porn, including soft porn.

Anonymous said...

Watch this short clip the night before his execution where he is hoping the governor will call in a stay: he is asked if he feels remorseful. Listen to his words. He did not do those crimes.

Anonymous said...

Today in Indianapolis, the Judge for Amanda Blackburn's murder case amended an earlier decision and approved Larry Taylor's motion to compel production of exculpatory evidence.

...and the Blackburn thread has gone silent.

Anonymous said...

Why does Peter not think women should be in LE?


Remember, Peter has 5 sisters and once got fired from his job by asking his female boss if she'd like him to contact her family so they could turn on her, too.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, what?

Hey Jude said...

I will listen now.

Wasn't it that he preferred Majorette magazines - the type produced for girls in marching bands?

Hey Jude said...

Anon - I think re the Blackburn thread, the most prolific posters are quite likely hanging out at a chatroom which one of the newer posters has set up. I haven't been there, so I don't know for sure, but that's my best guess.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, yes that is correct, and he did not look at porn.

If you are interested, I found this transcript of the full interview (not shown in any youtube videos) of Bundy's final interview the night before his execution when he was hoping desperately from a stay from the governor to be called into the prison.


It is so hard to suspend the "mythology" of Bundy which says that he is the personification of evil, but if one does, you hear an innocent man speaking, fabricating confessions.
I am looking right now for the transcripts of him speaking in 3rd person about what a serial killer would do, using the pronoun "he" that an investigator feels he slyly tricked Bundy into doing to reveal his own psyche. Bundy began studying serial killers once he was locked up (he had majored in psychology) and helped the FBI catch the Green River Killer. I want to see if those transcripts really reveal his own dark psyche or if he is just spouting knowledge from researching killers.

Anonymous said...

This paper contains excerpts of Ted Bundy speaking in 3rd person about what he feels is going on psychologically in the mind of the killer (which maintaining he is not the killer).

This seems so interesting for SA. When he is speaking in 3rd person is he actually reflecting on his own psychological makeup (revealing his dark psyche) or is he doing what he says he is doing....describing what he feels was going on in the mind of the killer? In other words, is he referring to himself when he is talking in 3rd person or is he talking about a different person (the actual killer)?

Since pronouns are so "instinctive", would this be difficult for him to speak in 3rd person about himself so articulately?


Lucia D said...

To Anon at 10:31 I think you missed the point. Peter said someone didn't get his sense of humor when he said women shouldn't be in LE. He was joking. That person in the seminar took the comment literally, didn't get him!

Buckley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Buckley said...

The more I read about Bundy, the more convinced I am of his guilt. Such a depraved man! Who cares that he didn't look at porn.

Hey Jude said...

Too true, Buckley. I think the electric chair was too good for Ted Bundy even if I don't agree with capital punishment.


Anon - Ted Bundy passed up quite a few opportunities to make a reliable denial - here are two short clips where he could have done that but chose to say something else. The second clip is a shortened version of one which I can’t find now, but before he says ‘My chance to talk to the press’ he complains that he had been kept away from the press for six months - he craved attention.

‘I’m satisfied with my blanket statement that I’m innocent,”

‘My chance to talk to the press. I’ll plead not guilty right now.’

Listen to his confessions of what he did to the girls, he's very straightforward. He knew details about the murders that only the killer could have known.

I don't know why anyone found him charming and charismatic - he's so creepy, controlling, and superficial.

Anonymous said...

I think someone framed him and police scapegoated him.

Obviously you're not that great at SA or you would see he does not show guilty knowledge of the crimes he is accused of.

Terrified to die, he begins "confessing" throwing out total bullshit. That makes no SENSE. If he knew where any of the remains were, he would have told the real location...they had so many missing persons and unsolved cases, he could have kept himself alive for years if he had given them factual info.

People say "he's such a great actor" "the greatest manipulator ever" etc etc, but the reason why people say that over and over is because he is not "acting". He is a good person, and he is innocent.

Even Ann Rule, the bimbo who wrote the book about him called "The Stranger Beside Me" says that "of course noone who is trying to abduct and kill women would give the women he is trying to abduct his real name" and then she makes up a bullshit reason why "Ted" did, because "Ted" wanted to seem so clever to cops?!? Bullshit. It sounds to me like he was framed. Someone else going around saying "Hi, my name is Ted, can you help me? my arm is in a sling.

Also I am very curious why Ted went all the way to Florida (a death penalty state) after escaping prison in Utah (after losing 35 lbs so he could cut a hole in his cell ceiling and squeeze through). I am wondering why he went all the way to Florida? You would think it to be counterintuitive wouldn't you? Like the further he is driving and the more cars he is stealing and the more buses he is taking the more likely he is to get caught on his way to Florida??? All I can find on that matter is that "he figured he could start anew in Florida and try to live honestly without stealing"??? Again this makes no sense, since he was stealing cars to get down there and started stealing once he got there.

Many many things do not make sense. Yes of course we are all supposed to think Ted was a monster, but linguistically there is no evidence that he did the crimes. HIs personality and forensic profile do not match up whatsoever with a sadistic sex killer.

Anonymous said...

@ Hey Jude,

I have no problem with either of those statements made by Bundy. I have watched a more complete version of his saying he is not guilty (beard interview). Taken within context that he has been accused of crime after crime, I'm sure he denied it over and over, he knows noone believes him and the whole country thinks he is Satan...I could see myself responding the same way...like if I was accused of something I didn't do over and over and over and noone believes me when I deny it...I can see that eventually when someone says to me (totally thinking that I am guilty) "So...you're innocent?" I might respond "Well, I guess none of us are truly innocent...we've all transgressed...I've been rude I've been thoughtless...I stole a comic book in 2nd grade"
He does not use the language of guilt. Find another GUILTY criminal who uses that type of language

"Well....I stole a comic book in 2nd grade" when asked if they are innocent.

Yes, he is creepy and awkward (kinda handsome at times), not a suave, charming, handsome all-American guy. That is just how the media packaged him.

I've read about other serial killers. They don't do good deeds like saving a drowning 3 year old's life & running after purse snatchers and NOONE close to them suspects they have a dark side and absolutely cannot believe that they are capable of the crimes they are accused of. People close to serial killers do suspect them of dark deeds, they notice they have a dark side or notice clues that are actually corrobated by police evidence.

Hey Jude said...

Anon - Have you listened to the pre-trial confessions in which he stated what he did to the girls? - later he was playing for time.

As he was intending to kill them, there was no reason for him to give a false name. He wasn't intending for any of them to get away, so what difference would it make if they knew his name, or not? And yes, it is so that no-one would expect a killer to give a real name, so he might well have thought that, too - if they escaped, no-one would suspect a man named Ted.

I will read your links, Anon, but they won't change my mind because - so far as I know - he didn't ever make a reliable denial. Despite he was 'kept away from the press for six months', when he did have opportunity to speak, and knowing it would go around the world, it was not on his mind to say that he didn't kill the girls - so, if he couldn't say it, we can't say it for him.

Hey Jude said...

Anon@3.13 - What he said there shows his utter contempt and disregard for his victims. IMO.

Anonymous said...

He was tested & found to have no mental problems & no sexual deviancies, so how could he have done those crimes? Whoever did the crimes was very sexually deviant. How come the police sketches dont look like him?!
Im just saying if one pictures what kind of person did those crimes it is not a nice person who does heroic acts. People close to the perp would see very dark sides to that person.

Anonymous said...

Those confessions were given to buy time--they were given months before he was scheduled to fry. Most investigators believe he was giving them fabricated info. They actually arent straightforward...he uses a lot of passive language and lack of "I" pronouns or he says "I" when he should say "we"....

No, at 3:13 does not show contempt for his victims cause he didnt do it.
No he would not give his real name if he was trying to abduct women. He gave his real name to FOUR women who turned him down and wouldnt help "Ted"...the fifth woman DID help....so think about that, he knows hes going to abduct & kill someone at that beach...he just needs someone to take the bait....so he just keeps giving his real name out over & over again?! There is NO way to explain that. Unless someone else was framing him.

Hey Jude said...

He didn't give a reliable denial. That's a bit of an omission for someone found to have had no mental problems. Is it normal for men to read little girls' Majorette magazines? He said How normal his upbringing was and how normal a person he was - so the likelihood is that it and he were not normal, and that he had been told, or had heard himself described as something other than normal.

Would you like to spend an hour with Ted Bundy? I wouldn't. He's a special kind of weird.

Hey Jude said...

Anon - I said that his pre-trial confessions are straightforward and that the confessions he gave later were playing for time. There is a significant difference between them.

He's extremely arrogant, it was a double-mask to give his real name.

Anonymous said...

Think about this: the "lone survivor" of "Ted" managed to escape his car after he accidentally put both handcuffs on her left wrist...she manages to open jis car door & flee. She tells police she saw something on his car floor "like a crowbar" which she grabbed so he wouldnt hit her with it. Police pull him over for driving through a quiet neighborhood & find the handcuffs in Bundy's car that the victim "left behind" when she fled. How do you "leave behind" handcuffs after someone puts them on your wrist?!
The girl that was kidnapped oitside a school play they pinned on him and then they claim to find a pamphlet from the school play in his apt as well as a small key that unlocks handcuffs in the parking lot?

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, the shetch of the beach predator Ted made from the girls' descriptions of "Ted" show a face that does not look like his with "slicked back hair" and a mustache which he did not have at that time.

Hey Jude said...

So, you propose that someone with a grudge against good, kind, heroic, life-saving, virtue-signalling, innocent Ted Bundy became a serial killer for the purpose of framing him? That would have to have been one hell of a grudge. And he would have had also to stalk Bundy for years in order for it all to have been so circumstantially related to him - quite the shadow.

Hey Jude said...

Perhaps he changed his hairstyle and put on a fake moustache.

She probably had tiny wrists, as most girls do.

I'm stopping now because

*No reliable denial.*.

Anonymous said...

No not a person with a grudge against him...just someone who wanted to rape & kill and framed him for it cause he knew he's be an easy target cause Ted was awkward and lonely. He wouldnt have had to shadow him that closely, just during the times when he wanted to rape & kill & could find time to rape & kill.
I get a Boo Radley type vibe off of Ted Bundy. He comes off as weird & creepy but he saved people just like Boo Radley. The truth is always stranger than fiction.

Hey Jude said...

You mean just when he could find time to rape, kill, smash in their skulls, and behead them.

I think Ted would have come clean and just straightforwardly said he didn't do it, if he hadn't.

Hey Jude said...

I think I might have put that in the wrong order - but he did all those things.

Hey Jude said...

Plus, by his own account, he was something of a delinquent by age seven or eight, which might be a clue.

'I stole a comic book in 2nd grade'.

Years early for that, IMO. Most kids are still proudly counting out their coins to the shopkeeper at that age.

Hey Jude said...

Thanks for the links, Anon - I think you can't have read those and really believe he was innocent.

Anonymous said...

How about when he says "I did not do these things".

Is that not an acceptable denial?
What should he have said "I did not rape, kill, and behead these women".

Does it not make sense linguistically that he would summarize by saying "I did not do these things"?

How about right after he is sentenced to death, he says to the judge "I find it absurd to ask for mercy for things I didnt do."

He gives many other denials.
He was diagnosed with no mental problems, no sexual perversions, & his lawyers as well as investigators say he truly believed he did not commit those murders till the day he died. One psychoatrist explained he had to "leap over giant walls in his mind" to make the (fabricated) confessions.
The whole thing is them explaining away what is not compatible with him being the perpetrator by saying he was "pure evil".

Something does NOT add up.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
How about when he says "I did not do these things".

you need context, "I did not do these things". is not enough to go on. we don't know if he is answering a specific or a general question or if it is free edited. one needs a statement not a excerpt from a statement.

Anonymous, you have brought your own bias into the question, you want him to be innocent.

if you want to know if there is guilty knowledge then provide a transcript to do SA with.

there is always the caveat in cases like Ted Bundy where he has been in the news a lot there is also the possibility of contamination and editing of the video for innocent reasons (who made the video needed to cut the time down or wanted it to be more provocative etc) which can make it difficult.

Anonymous said...

OT: An encouraging 'anonymous' note put on Perry Noble's windshield:


Anonymous said...

If Bundy didn't do those things, he wouldn't call them "these" things.

Anonymous said...

Anon I disagree, He said "I didnt do these things" in a prison interview where the "things" (crimes) had become verry up close & personal--he was imprisoned for the crimes, working on his own defense as his own lawyer & potentially facing the death penalty--I will post the link to the most complete version of the interview where he says that that I could find (for General Malaise also).
I wish I could find the forensic profile done of the suspect in some if the alleged Bundy murders...I had found it online but didnt read it & now I cant find it. I want to see it bc the perp had extreme sexual perversions which, in my opinion, dominated his sexuality...he seems to be a sadist turned on by physical brutality, explosively angry, sexually dysfunctional (unless dominating & abusing--raping--his sex partner). It does not fit that Bundy had lingterm sexually normal relatiinships with 2 women and did not harm them. The perp would have been, at least intermittently raping and/or humiliating his partner. No I do not believe a brutal sadistic killer who expresses explosive anger during his attacks (clubbing over the head, raping the victim using large objects--hairspray bottle, bedpost, decapitating etc) could be engaging in 2 long term relationships using respectful, normal sexual interactions. The perp I believe would have shown explosive rages to those close to him & would have raped his partners at times.

Anonymous said...

Here is the longer interview with "I didnt do these things".


General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
Here is the longer interview with "I didnt do these things".


again I say you need a better statement to work with. in this video I see more things that indicate guilty knowledge than not guilty knowledge.

"I didn't do these things" like anonymous above pointed out "these" indicates a closeness to "things" not conclusive on it's own but not helpful for defence of bundy.

he addresses things in generalities, he laughs when talking about guilt. the stealing the comic book at age twelve is a tangent to avoid the answering the question.

he avoids a reliable denial.

anon, you mentioned his good deeds, they are not related to guilt of other things. all people are capable of good and evil. the same person is at any time capable of good or evil.

at the end of this video he escaped prison. that to me is a very strong indicator of guilt.

if you want to do SA you need a solid statement not a compilation which by virtue is a dogs breakfast of editing.

Anonymous said...

Fine, I will try to find a better less edited statement.
I dont agree that his statement can be viewed through a lense which fails to take into account the context (he has been jailed for the crimes, he has said he is innocent repeatedly & noone believes him, his laugh seems one of "oh my f&ckin God, for the millionth time no I didnt do it".
Escaping prison is not indicative of guilt. He knows he's going to get fried & he figures out how to escape & does & then goes all the way to FL (a death penalty state) which is VERY PECULIAR.

Yes everyone has good & evil in them but Bundy has been labeled PURE EVIL over & over & said to have NO EMPATHY which he obviously did have empathy for the drowning boy etc.
I was fairly in depth about what the perp of the murders would be like, and how incompatible it is with how Bundy was in relatiinships with women yet apparently his PURE EVIL somehow let him hold in explosive anger & brutal sadism, hidden from even those he was in romantic relationships with. Noone had a clue. NOT POSSIBLE. Those who were close to the perp who did the killings would see explosive anger, violence & rape. Additionally I wish I could find the forensic profile done of the killer before they blamed Bundy.

Anonymous said...

Here is the 1st page of Ted Bundy's letter to Ann Marie Burr's mother denying that he kidnapped her daughter (who was never found) who many think may have been his first kill bc he delivered the newspaper in the area as a kid and supposedly he walked around and peeked in people's windows at that age:


Anonymous said...

Yeah, but your analysis of the Amanda Blackburn murder was wrong on all counts. You really missed that one.

Amyl Nitrite said...

Interview with Jeffrey McDonald. Convicted if murdering wife and kids in late 60’s or early 70’s. I wish investigators had used SA. Maybe they did and thats why he is in jail. He maintained his innocence, but this interview is great and chock full of SA principles being shown.

Amyl Nitrite said...

Forgot to add link.

General P. Malaise said...

this is a poor example to work with and in the conclusions below I will explain why I think so.


1) a polite but inappropriate start to a letter addressed to a murder victims mother. Using the first name only is insulting unless there has been previous contact and the two are familiar. otherwise it is a demeaning gesture.
2) he thanks her for the letter. this may also be an ingratiating ploy or an insult. he may enjoy inflicting pain. he is thankful.


1) This is a good start, using the pronoun "I" to begin his statement. it indicates a linguistic commitment to the statement and an indicator that we will find truth in his statement.
2) the beginning of a statement s generally shows priority and often the reason for the statement. here one could say his priority is himself, not the victims mother. he is able "can" understand. not only "can" he understand but he adds a qualifier "certainly". inside this sentence we get a clue to his thinking, "I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU ...". is he showing his control over another? (his linguistic reality)?


1) "unfortunately" he does not use this opportunity to provide a reliable denial. he does not tells us what the rumours are or how the victims mother has been mislead. this leaves the possibility that inside the rumours and the misleading there is actual facts that he does not address.
2) "only" a comparative word. it only works within the context of a comparison to "only be called rumors" so in his linguistic language there is something other than "only" rumors.


1) here he tells her "the best thing .." it indicates there are other things he can do but he is telling us he will tell us "the best thing", not necessarily the truth or what you want to know but his "best thing". he is now the arbitrator of "best".
2) the best thing "I can do .." he doesn't tell us he will do but that he "can do". it is not the same thing.
3) "to correct these rumors, these falsehoods." twice he uses the close "these" not "those". linguistically he is associating the rumor and falsehoods with himself.


1) he uses a proper social introduction in the denial strengthening the denial.
2) "First" indicates a logical progression and we should therefore expect a "second" and "third" etc.
3) has he dispelled a rumor or falsehood with this sentence? we don't know, he told us he can, but we don't know if this is one of the rumors or falsehoods. or if it is connected to the previous sentence.
4) "First and foremost..." here he uses "foremost" an unnecessary word, a need to persuade.
5) "I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR DAUGHTER ANN MARIE." this is a solid reliable denial. it is slightly diminished y the word "first" and then again by the word "foremost". I believe him, it would be rare to be an outright lie and in 90% of cases this would look to be a reliable denial on it's own. the problem arises is that it is not on its own. it would be stronger if it was at the start of the statement.


1) this is a again a strong reliable denial. "I" past tense and accusation.
2) I believe him at this point. he could still be in the 10% that lies easily and even when unnecessary.

General P. Malaise said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
General P. Malaise said...


1) "you said" this is a bit strange. why the need to include "you said"? he may not remember that time period or it could be deflection and distancing from himself.


1) here he lets us know he does remember that time period.
2) the element of time is added by him to separate "that" time from "this" time?
3) "... I was a normal 14 year old boy." the inclusion of the word "normal" leaves us to think he was not "normal" or there would be no reason to mention it. he thought of himself as not "normal" or he though others thought it of him or possibly he was told by others he was not "normal". he introduced the word into the statement so it is sensitive to him.
4) to add the age "14" after the word "normal" is unexpected. the expected would be I was 14 years old at the time. or following his lead, "At the time I was 14 years old."
5) also unnecessary is the inclusion of the word "boy". there is a NTP that he was a boy at 14 and not something else. there is sensitivity to this time period.


1) in the negative he tells us what he did not do, "wander the streets late at night". this shows heightened sensitivity.
2) "wander" is a word he chose to use. why? he could have said I was not "out"late at night." "wandering" raises many other questions. it does not mean he was not out late at night doing questionable things.it in fact highlights that he may well have been out late at night.
3) one would need to ask him what he means as to his understanding of the word "late".
4) "the" streets. here we have the possibility that "the" streets are specific in his mind.


1) "I did not". we do not know what he is referring to and is a deception technique used by people. separating a denial within a statement with the hope that the reader will apply it to what came before. here we don't have anything to tie this sentence to anything else.

Conclusion: I need to add a few caveats as I don't know if he is answering specific questions put to him in the letter from the mother. we do not know if this is his first or only correspondence with this person. more information could change the conclusion. as you said it is only the first page indicating more pages. to analyse only part of a statement raises the likelihood of error.

1) it is likely the denial is reliable (even with the tangents and diversions). he likely did not disappear this girl.
2) he is manipulating the mother. his use of only her first name. his going on about rumors and falsehoods without naming them. he is toying with her. he may think it is ingratiating I do not. it as though he wants to play with her like a cat plays with a mouse. leave enough doubt that she writes again/or simple to mess with her mind. if he was open he would start with a reliable denial and address any particulars of the case to show innocence and relive the burden on the mother. he does not appear to want to do this linguistically.
3) he is withholding information about his youth particularly to the time period of the disappearance.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Here is the 1st page of Ted Bundy's letter

how about posting a letter to the family of a victim he was convicted of killing.

you would serve yourself better to give both the possibility he is guilty as well as not guilty. if you put all your focus on innocence as then you look only for proof of innocence.

Hey Jude said...

General - Beverley Burr's letter to Ted Bundy - 'wander' is from the mother's language - she said he had been 'wandering' the streets aged fifteen.


Dear Ted,

On August 31, 1961, just before school was to start for you and our children, there came a black rainy night with lots of heavy winds. You were 15 and had been wandering the streets late at night and peeping in windows and taking cars. I feel your FIRST MURDER WAS OUR ANN MARIE BURR. The bench from the back yard was used to climb in the living room; the orchard next door was a dark setting for a murder. What did you do with the tiny body? God can forgive you.

With all appeals likely to be refused and soon, there is nothing left for you in this world; there can STILL be everything good for you in the next.

Your life started going wrong somewhere when you were very young. There had to be a lot of bad things happen to make you have your strong feelings of hatred.

I came close to ruining my life because of my cruel actions and feeling no sorrow about them. A lot of strange circumstances brought help to me or I would not have found myself, even though I knew I needed help and my actions were getting out of control. You should have received that same help when you needed it.

God can still give the help to you – if you can gather together any strength you have left and try to feel a real sorrow inside for the horrors you have brought so many. You will face these horrors alone if there is no chance to be with God after you die.

You have NOTHING MORE TO LOSE IN THIS WORLD. By explaining your sickness, you will feel sorrow and gain everything in the next life, as God promised you and all of us. Please try. There isn’t much time. I am deeply sorry you did not get help when you needed it. I have not written until now because the end of life for you did not seem near until now.

Will you write back to me regarding Ann Marie?



General P. Malaise said...

Hey Jude said...
General - Beverley Burr's letter to Ted Bundy


I should have added in my caveat that ted bundy is possibly one of the 10% who can lie easily. I have not researched him so I don't know if he lies out of habit.

Hey Jude said...

I think only the first page of Bundy's reply is online, and probably that is not the complete letter from Anne Marie's mother - they maybe were saved from Supernaught, or a similar site which sells prison letters.


Found this on Reddit:

'He denied it in a letter to Burr's mother, but a year later he said this (from Ted Bundy: Conversations with a Killer):

"And when he's 15," he said of the moment of killing, "it'd be a much more mystical, exciting, intense, overwhelming experience... than when he's 50."

I think he did did it but he continued to deny it, and here's why (from an interview with Robert Keppel):

Ted confided to Keppel there were crimes a serial killer would never admit to: murder committed at a young age - against a child victim - and close to his own home. The Burr case fit all three stipulations.'


Hey Jude said...

Yes, I think he lies easily - he said he was in second grade when he stole the comic book - that's age seven to eight - somewhere else he said he was only five.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your in depth analysis General Malaise. One thing: that is how Bundy began all of his letter even to friends was with "Dear (first name), Thank you for you letter." I agree there are some oddities in the letter, for example, I do think he is withholding info about his not being a "normal" 14 year old boy. However, I agree with you that he makes a very strong denial. I do not believe he killed Ann Marie.

Hey Jude, thank you for posting the letter from Ann Marie's mother. I find it strange that she writes of herself "I came close to ruining my life because of my cruel actions and feeling no sorrow about them". Is that not odd? She also writes that "the orchard next door was the dark setting of a murder", When no evidence was ever found indicating WHERE the girl was murdered--there was no evidence that she was murdered in an orchard,
In a televised interview, the mother also said that "I wanted to blame someone, so I picked on him (Ted Bundy).'

Was Ted Bundy the neighborhood Boo Radley?

Anonymous said...

The confessions Ted gave days before his death to try to buy time show that he is not talking from experiential memory. Here he is trying to confess to a murder involving one of 4 women they say he killed in Utah. It is a fabricated confession.

Anonymous said...

Ted gave hours and hours of info about what he thought "he" (the real killer) would do. He was requested to do that by one of the investigators and he agreed to do it, saying he would draw upon his knowledge as a psychology major.

I have read quite a bit of it. This morning I tried to picture speaking of myself in 3rd person about actual events that I actually have done, and it is way harder than you would think to stay in 3rd person when you should be speaking in 1st person. Peter has hammered that point home countless times on this blog. Pronouns are so instinctive that the mind would have incredible difficulty speaking for hours in 3rd person about events that actually happened or about the person's own psychology. He does not slip up and say "I" in anything I've read, or even hesitate when saying "he" by saying "uh" or anything like that. Try it yourself. I tried it, and my mind kept making me say "uh" after the first 2 times I use "she" when talking about myself instead of "I".

How can the pronoun principle, that SOLVES crimes, because of how INSTINCTIVE it is to use the CORRECT pronoun, be disresgarded in this case. People have even postulated "oh maybe Ted Bundy had multiple personality disorder and that is how he was able to talk about what "he" did and "his" psychology. Yet he did not have multiple personality disorder. Just explain how that principle can be disregarded in this case of Ted Bundy.

My opinion: it can't be disregarded. He does not hesitate or stumble when using the "he" for hours and hours on end. When I try to speak that way myself there are a lot of "uh"s throughtout the sentences bc my mind keeps wanting to say "I".

ima.grandma said...


Hey Jude said...

Thanks, Ima.

Bundy says,
"Pornography can reach in and snatch a kid out of any house today. "
- was he thinking of Anne Marie, who was taken/snatched from her home in the night? Why did he say ' house' rather than 'home' there? When speaking generally, 'home' sounds more expected than 'house'.


I think he could claim that he didn't know what happened to Anne Marie, and that he had nothing to do with her disappearance, if say, he had disposed of her body in moving water. and didn't know what happened to her after that - the water took her and made her disappear. If, as some say, he was stealing cars by age fourteen, he could have taken her far away from her home.

Hey Jude said...

Anon - Could something like dissociative identity disorder cause him to speak in the third person with ease?

IDK, just wondering.

Hey Jude said...

He was drawing on his knowledge as a serial killer rather than as a psychology major - that side of his personality was different to the one he showed people who weren't his victims. He must have had some type of split personality, or at least highly compartmentalised, surely? IDK.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, I find that peculiar also that he said "can snatch a kid right out of any house"---I agree too that the specificity of the word "house" is unexpected (I feel he is picturing a specific house in his mind. He also said "children who are unattended". My opinion: He is thinking of something specific, a specific incident...where something happened to an unattended child in a housse? maybe a case he read about? I don't believe he killed Ann Marie. I find his deniable reliable. I get what you are saying about water, however the "Ted" killer never disposed of any of his victims in water and I do not see the linguistic identifiers of water which suggest that the body could have moved within the linguistics as in recent Mariah case where the mother had said "she could be anywhere" which, to my ear, suggested "movement". The water could have taken the body "anywhere". I don't believe Ted killed Ann Marie. I also what the mother was referring to regarding her own "cruel" actions.

I tried again speaking of myself in 3rd person and I get tripped up by the 3rd sentence. You have to literally switch between picturing a different person and referring back to what you, yourself actually did, and attribute that to "she" instead of "I" and it is so difficult. I ended up saying "uh" throughout the sentences. No, Bundy did not have multiple personality disorder, and even if someone had that, the personalities do not remember what the other personality(s) do or did.
Remember in a recent post, the perp got caught by a smart cop who noticed the kid said "we all" because he couldn't keep the pronoun straight to use "we" therefore betraying he was with 2 other people NOT JUST ONE. I feel it is impossible Ted would be able to speak for hours smoothly in 3rd person as he did, unless he actually was picturing another person NOT himself.

Anonymous said...

Check this out:

Ted Bundy Utah Confessions


Fabricated confession BUT LISTEN at 10:30 where Ted has been struggling to remember anything about roads/miles/locations and the investigator asks him "Did you ever carve anything on trees? Theyre saying that somewhere (in those woods or whatever) there are trees with the name "Ted Bundy" carved in them with the date"?!?!?

So...he gives out his real name and also carves his real name on trees somewhere near the body in Utah?! That I don't think they ever found??? He was framed by the real killer!!!

Hey Jude said...

Thanks, Anon - very interesting post. I'll try that experiment, see how many sentences I can manage.

Is it in the link I posted that the little girl's baby sister had a broken arm which was in a cast - Anne Marie took her into their parents room during the night because she was uncomfortable with the cast and the parents sent them back to their own room. That would have haunted her, no doubt, the 'what if' she had got up and taken them back to bed herself, stayed with them, an intruder would not have taken her daughter. It could be that she is referring to? I agree it's a strange thing to write, especially to Ted Bundy.

I don't know what to think - Ted Bundy killed children and young girls; he knew Anne Marie from his paper round. If he had stolen a car and promised her an adventure, she might have trusted him and not raised the alarm.

Also, he says 'I did not wander the streets late at night' - but Locals said that he did, at age fourteen he stole cars, and was a peeping tom. Perhaps, in his own mind he did not 'wander', because he was purposeful in his actions rather than just wandering, so he is able to say that. Or he just is one of those people who lies without compunction. IDK.

He said he began looking at hardcore pornography he found thrown out in the neighbourhood when he was thirteen (?) - and that after a couple of years he wanted more which was when he committed his first murder (?) - that would put his age at young to mid teens.

Hey Jude said...

I tried that experiment. I kept it going for some minutes, but when I began to engage more, and to move from the merely factual into the emotional aspect of the memories, the 'fail' points appeared. The first, recollection of a school friend, age five, "I liked him" - and on recollection of dialogue - "she" disappeared and I said, "I said". I don't think there was a "she said' before the "I said". Negative and neutral recollections were "she" - the first positive was "I".

I suppose it would be easier to keep it going for much longer without reverting to "I" if one were void of emotion, or somehow able to detach oneself from the subject matter.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude,

the "porn" interview was done the night before they fried him...he was hoping that by "helping" Dr Dawsons campaign against porn that the governor would grant him a last minute stay on the execution--he had managed to get other last minute stays before. Investigators say that he actually did not look at porn--softcore or hardcore. He is BSing Dr Dawson.
Re: Ann Marie's mother's letter & what happened the night of Ann Marie's disappearance, I couldnt help but think isnt that how is happens so often in these disappearance....the kid wakes up bc they are sick, goes in parent's room or parent goes in sick kids room and parent says "go back to bed", and then the kid "vanishes". Just saying. The mother speaking of her own cruel actions for which she had no remorse is weird.
Speaking in 3rd person about oneself, it is hard!!! The crux of the difficulty is that to use 3rd person you have to picture another person while speaking of yourself, & when I try to it does NOT flow naturally, I get very tripped up even if I talk about something like a night out with friends where Im trying to tell a detailed story. I keep saying "uh" and the details dont flow.
Re: The Utah confession tapes, people in the yourube comment section wrote things like he's stalling, he's using so many words to say nothing, he's such a manipulator....but he WANTS to give them info to delay his execution which was days away. So they will keep coming back for months or years to ask him to direct them to other remains. To my ear, the confession comes off as someone who literally does not know what happened to the girls and he is trying so hard to fabricate "directions" to their remains & it is very obvious he does not know where the killer drove, where the killer took the victims, how they were killed or where they were buried. It is interesting too--when asked a question that requires a number in his answer, he uses "3" frequently.

Hey Jude said...

Oh - well, there's a bit of a logic failure, I will try again, speaking about my adult self in third person - maybe I would not go so long as I could thinking back to me aged five, because that is something like thinking about a diffferent person.

Hey Jude said...

I stopped at five minutes forty seconds because I was bored with my recollections and by my voice - I could have gone on - a couple of hesitations, which is normal to my speech, but no 'I's. So, it seems it is not difficult to speak of oneself in the third person, or that not everyone will find it difficult. I found it tedious, and tiring to the mind. I spoke faster than usual as no-one was listening.

Hey Jude said...

Yes, the interview with Dr Dobson was all self-serving, he was hoping he would be saved from the electric chair to become the poster boy against violent pornography - that perhaps Dr Donson's many Christian followers would clamour for him to be spared. Pathetic man, though he can hardly be called a man.

Anonymous said...

I didnt revert to saying "I's" but I had "uh" in every sentence.

Ted Bundy escaped prison in Utah on Dec 30 and traveled to FL, where he arrived on Jan 8th, and he grew a beard. The Chi Omega killings happened on Jan 15. How is it possible that the one witness who saw him leaving the sorrority house, described him as clean-shaven. Look at the police sketch which was instrumental in convicting him. It was also retrieved from the witness' brain using hypnosis.

Anonymous said...

Ch Onega police sketch: She supposedly remembered his pointed nose but didnt notice a full beard?

Hey Jude said...

Eyewitness memory, and memory in general, is not as reliable as some imagine - it doesn't have to mean that because she didn't 'see' the beard in her memory, that she also didn't correctly identify him. Did she know, when she made her statement, that the person she saw was suspected to be the serial killer of which beardless sketches had appeared in newspapers? Maybe something like that caused her to 'unsee' a beard - or maybe he had his head down and beard obscured by a jacket collar, or something.

I found these articles, which might be of interest.



Anonymous said...

Good points Hey Jude, and I will check out the links...I would love to know if the witness was aware Bundy was suspected when that police sketch was done.
I read part of Ann Rule's book "The Stranger Beside Me"---Ann Rule was convinced Ted was innocent up until the bite mark evidence. She did not think he was capable of doing the crimes bc she had never even heard him say anything off color to or about a woman.
My own thoughts: I dont think he fits the profile of the killer. Even basic things in profiling dont match up like the fact the killer many times the sexual assault on the victim were vicious assaults done with an object--that normally indicates a male who is impotent or has some ither similar issue which Bundy did not have that problem (according to his longterm girlfriends). The brutal bludgeoning attacks on the victims' heads (sometimes while they slept like in Chi omega killings) are from extreme RAGE--how could he have hidden that rage from everyone?!
Also, WHY would Bundy have starved himself to lose 30 lbs. so he could shimmy out of hole he cut in ceiling of his cell, escape, go all the way to FL with money his girlfriend had smuggled into him on visits, get a one bedroom apt, AND THEN FLUSH HIS FREEDOM DOWN THE TOILET after only 7 days by attacking 5 womem & killing 2 in the Chi Omega killings & in the house a few blocks over?!

Hey Jude said...

Well, I don't know why he went to Florida, but the first reply here makes sense:


Anonymous said...

Hey Jude,

Thanks for the link. The first answer doesn't actually make that much sense because it implies that Ted Bundy used a LOT of self-control to refuse meals for like a month, essentially starving himself, to lose 30 lbs to he could fit through a small hole he cut in between the reinforcing bars on his cell ceiling, crawled around in the ceiling for days exploring, finally found a way out into a closet in the jailer's apartment, dropped down into it, hid in it until the jailer & his wife went to a movie, changed into the jailer's clothes, and then traveled for about 8 days down to Florida, arrived on January 8th, rented a room in a rooming house, spent time on campus listening to lectures and playing racquetball, was in bed by 10 pm most nights according to Ann Rule, acquired a bike, was loving his freedom (according to Ann Rule & according to Ted Bundy), just so he could do a mass killing/attack SEVEN DAYS LATER (7 days of being free in Florida) in the Chi Omega house and then right after that ran several blocks over and brutally attacked another sleeping woman in her house?!?! It just DOESNT add up!!!

Right, cause he just HATED women SOOOO much! Even though he loved his mother, and the girlfriend who dumped him actually came to want him back and got engaged to him but then he dumped her and was in another relationship with someone else for like 8 yrs!!! All the psychiatrist mumbo-jumbo does not explain anything about Ted being the alleged killer. It's all absolute crap! Especially since he was found to have no mental problems and no sexual perversions on tests done on him.

Evidence against him in the Chi Omega killings was practically non-existant...the police sketch was done after the witness had several sessions with police hyponotists.

I also don't think that he fits the profile of the killer. Part of me is unsure if the killer actually hated women or just had seething rage (about something) that he wanted to vent and chose young women because they were much easier targets than men. I get the feeling he may have had hatred for certain types of women--on the Chi Omega night he attacked sorority girls and a ballet dancer in her home. Has anyone ever considered that instead of just saying that the killer targeted women with long dark hair parted down the middle when every woman had hair like that in the 70's and the killer also attacked blonds that maybe he hated certain TYPES of women for some reason (not based on their appearance)? Could he have hated something he perceived in himself and that reminded him of those women? Why did he attack so many in a sorority house? With such manic furiousness? Why a sorority house? He always attacks the head of the victim brutally (in some of the cases while the victim is sleeping). Some have said--well, he was attacking their identity by doing that. I guess I can believe that. But why? Why was he attacking their identity with such furious RAGE??? Why when they were completely vulnerable (sleeping)? I just think Bundy doesn't fit the profile of the killer. I don't even think anyone's ever profiled the Chi Omega killer--if they have I can't find it online.

Anonymous said...

Look what I stumbled upon (accidentally): The tapes of Ted Bundy telling investigators about how to catch the Green River killer, being a fugitive, and so many other topics...SO interesting...I only listened to 2 of the parts. Very interesting stuff--under each Part it lists the topics being discussed between Ted and the investigator contained in the tape.


Anonymous said...

The link above is actually the link to the 2nd tape

Here is the link to the main page where you can choose to listen to either tape (there are 2)


Someone got these tapes through the Freedom of Info Act

Habundia Awareness said...

Interviewer: "For the record, you are guilty of killing … many women … and girls.

Ted Bundy: Yes, yes, that’s true."

If he didn't do these killings, why would he not say (on his last day alive, his last change to tell the truth) he didn't kill those woman and girls? Why does he answer with “Yes, yes, that’s true”…….sounds like an admission?!
Trying to buy time while admitting the killing, doesn't seem like a 'smart' move to me, if he indeed wanted time.

Interviewer: "Well … Let’s go back then to those roots … First of all, you, as I understand it, were raised in what you consider to be a healthy home...

Ted Bundy …Absolutely…"

“what you consider to be a healthy home”…….

He asked what ‘you’ consider to be a healthy home…….that doesn’t mean it was (considered) a healthy home. It was what he knew to be a healthy home. He refers multiple times to the ‘fact’ his family were ‘Christian’ people, religion was of big deal……..a Christian home doesn’t automatically give a ‘healthy’ home. His parents also were ‘diligent’ to his own words……what would that mean to him?

I read about him being born with a single mother (birth father is unknown, in those days that would be a shame, to be a ‘bastard child’, the rumor is that his grandfather was his biological father, of which he got his last name, from his grandparents, he had adored his grandfather as a child and when he died, when Ted was 6 years old, his mother took him to his death grandfather without telling Ted his grandfather had died, it was some kind of tradition to see a death loved one for the last time in their casket even for little children i guess?), then after some time his mother gets involved with another man, who she married and the man officially adopted Ted which changed his last name into Bundy, though the stepfather and Ted never got along it is said.....So what’s the definition of ‘a healthy home’ for T. Bundy? Children of broken families have a higher risk to become 'broken adults' (not saying all children from broken homes become violent killers, but most of them do end up with multiple problems in life and those raised without knowing one or both of their birthparents often experience identity problems, I know from personal experience, I was raised not knowing who my biological father was until I was an adult )
I've heard many children telling they don't blame their parent for the situation they were raised in even not if they were badly abused in many ways.......they still say 'their parents are not to blame for anything' or ‘they did the best they could and they’d forgive them’, things like that. (not saying that parents are to blame, though they could have been ‘part of the tragedy”.)

Habundia Awareness said...

…You were not physically abused, you were not sexually abused, you were not emotionally abused….

No, in no way. I … and that’s part of the tragedy of this whole situation. Because … I grew up in a wonderful home with two … dedicated and loving parents, as one of five brothers and sisters. A home … where we, as children, were the focus of my parent’s lives. We regularly attended church… Two Christian parents … they did not drink, they did not smoke, there was no gambling, there was no physical abuse or fighting in the home. I’m not saying this was …“Leave it to Beaver” [American television situation comedy, from 1957 to 1963] …

He doesn’t say he wasn’t sexually or emotionally abused. No physical abuse or fighting in the home doesn’t mean there is no abuse happening. Often abuse isn’t being seen as abuse for the victim, often it is seen as ‘the normal’, that’s ‘just how things go’.
Someone here said 'professionals' didn't conclude he was into porn........while he himself says to be 'into' (violent) porn from the age of 12/13 (from the grocery store or from that what was thrown away), so how come it is said he wasn't into porn? I keep reading him saying he was heavenly into porn and it was part of the reason he became the way he was. Though he doesn't blame porn for turning out the way he did

They also concluded he didn't had mental problems because he 'past' tests.
I've had psychological test in the past........i could have past them with ease if I had wanted to and could have come out 'perfectly normal'.......you just have to give the 'right' answer, instead of the true answer if you want to 'pass' such tests.......it really isn’t hard to do so.
Ted Bundy was a smart man so he could have easily give the 'right answers' so he wouldn't be diagnosed with any mental issue, it doesn't mean he didn't have mental issues.

Habundia Awareness said...

Interviewer: "You are not guilty!"
Ted: "I I am not guilty" [LAUGING out loud!]
To me that seems like laughing about how stupid this question is because he is guilty and someone still says to him 'you are not guilty'.....he seems to laugh at the interviewer for being that stupid to say these words to him. Not because he wants to deny any guilt.

'If that includes the comic book I stole when I was 5 years old? I am not guilty of the terms of which they speak?" (not sure if that is what he says) but he keeps referring to the 'stolen comic book' of which he now says (in this interview) he's not guilty of......though other times he surely claims to be guilty of that. I wonder what that comic book was about.

'" Escaping prison is not indicative of guilt." anonymous said.
Saving a boy from drowning and doing other 'heroes' actions when being a kid.......is not indicative for not becoming a serial killer.

There are more serial killers who had good childhoods........but when they became teens, their behaviors changed............brains develop until the age of 23.......so whatever has happened as a kid.........doesn't clear one to become a serial killer when becoming an adult.........drugs, alcohol, thinking processes, brain development, even accidents where the head gets injured, all contribute to becoming or being an adult and influence the brain and it’s processes......saving a child’s life as a kid.........does not give a free pass to become an adult who does only good in his/her life.......just as escaping from prison doesn’t indicate someone being guilty or not.

Because, I know, and I’m trying to tell you as honestly as I know how, what happened.

He tries to tell us as honestly as he knows how….what happened. He doesn’t do it though. Because he is a pathological liar and can only ‘try to tell us what happened.’ I don’t think he’s being honest about what happened. He blames pornography (addiction), which he would find in the grocery store and local drug stores, or it had been thrown away……he wants us to believe what he’s saying, and tell us that he’s not blaming pornography, yet ‘this kind of literature’ did cause ‘the issue’……how it helped mold and shape ‘the kinds of violent behavior’……he doesn’t take responsibility and he’s avoiding the question and doesn’t answer it.
As I think as I’ve explained you last night, that this … anecdote …that as young boys we explore the backdoors and … the sideways and byways of their neighborhoods, and oftentimes the people would dump … the garbage and whatever they’re cleaning out their house and from time to time, we come across pornographic books of a harder nature than … a more graphic, you might say, a more explicit nature of what we would encounter, let’s say, in your local grocery store. And this also included such things as, let’s say … detective magazines…

Did the interviewer spoke with Ted Bundy before the recorded interview took place? If so has it influenced this interview?
‘more graphic’ pornography books…….’detective magazines’
It are pornographic books….with things as ‘detective magazines’.
Would peeping be one of those ‘detective’ things, ‘spy’ on people?

Habundia Awareness said...


I believe he killed many woman.......I am not convinced he killed all the people they have claimed he has killed (to which he admitted) and I am not convinced they have linked all the killings he did do to his ‘account’.....but then again I haven't been digging deep into this case. There are many people out there who have claimed to have murdered people, while they didn't (like in the JonBenet case)
So admitting to killing 30 people doesn't make it true either......it doesn't make it not true also......SA would be needed to dig into his spoken words, it would be interesting.

While reading this article about Ann Marie Burr.......i just can’t help to think 'this story sounds like so many other stories that happened after this case.......non of those children were killed by a serial killer......not even abducted by a stranger! All of them were killed by someone they were close too (parents, stepparents, grandparents)' Doors open, window open......there are many cases out there that have exactly those elements,

So they want us to believe a 14 year old boy went into the home, through the window, after Ann Marie had gone into the room of her parents to tell her parents her 3 year old sister was bothered by the cast she was wearing (why was this child wearing a cast as a 3 years old? How did she injured her arm?), but was sent to bed again, while non of the parents seem to have gotten up to help out with the 3 year old and left the 3 year old 'bothered with her cast'. And left the home with Ann through the front door which was closed from the inside (so not closed with a key but with locks which were on the door? is that what it means? 'Closed from the inside?")
So they went back to bed and after that time and before 5.30 am Ted would have got into the home, got into the children’s room, without her 3 year old sister noticing anything? She would have been sleeping so deep that she didn't heard a thing, while she was 'bothered' by her cast? Or what explanation was there for her 3 year old sister to have heard/seen nothing?
Don't get me wrong.....it's not that i don't believe this could have happened, but as some of the reactors on that threat have said.........how would a 14 year old boy be able to get rid of a 8 year old who has never been found again from a home?
I know there are more child murderers on this planet and that there have been more in the past. But non of these kids (at least non that i am aware of) was able to get rid of a body who has never been seen again 60 years after.

Habundia Awareness said...

"Bundy displayed disturbing behavior early on in his childhood; stories emerged about animal mutilation, violence, and incidents of sexual deviancy. One family story was that Bundy’s aunt had awoken from a nap to find that three-year-old Bundy had removed knives from the kitchen and placed them around her while she was sleeping."

I thought it was said he didn't had displayed any disturbing behaviors.......on this blog it is even said he had done some 'heroic' things, like saving a 3 year old from drowning ('so he couldn't have become a serial killer, because they don't save lives, they only kill...seemed like the theory behind it, but i could have read it wrong)

Although i haven't been reading very much about Ted Bundy, when reading here Anonymous was telling 'he's innocent', i became curious......could it be he was blamed for crimes he never committed? It wouldn't be the first who would have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit.......there are hundreds of innocent people in jail who are not the guilty one of the crime, but got somehow convicted because someone has to get blamed for it.....otherwise police will be embarrassed they weren't able to find the killer (or guilty person)

I’ve been looking at some of the footish that was posted through links here and as Jude said.........i didn't hear any reliable denial.......he was even making fun when the interviewer said to him 'you are not guilty'.......what innocent person would make fun and would laugh when finally someone would say to them 'you are not guilty'
Instead of saying something like....."FINALLY finally someone who gets it.....I am not guilty. I did not kill these women! And I did not commit any of these crimes to these women!'( or something like that)
He says:
'I can't get into any details. I am satisfied with my blanket statement that i am not guilty'

Habundia Awareness said...

I was reading some of the things written under the link to 'tape 2'
I wonder who's more scary.........those who handle him like he's some fragil man who 'now is a different man' then he was back then..........or Ted Bundy himself!

I really have a difficult time when (serial)murderers or others who've done horific crimes are being handled like they are some fragil person who became 'different' people after they sat in jail for 20+ years or longer and 'have found Jezus or God'............it really give me the creeps! Especially when those interviewers ask questions where they are 'carefully' with the killers 'feelings' and tell them they understand why it is difficult for them to talk about things that happened long time ago.

I don't care how difficult it would be for a murderer to talk about his crimes, it should be. I really don't see why a murderer would have to be 'protected' with 'understanding' the difficulty of talking about the murders, who cares if they find it difficult. Those should have had the hardest time every single second of their breathing life and they should not be handled with 'silk gloves'.
It makes me furious when i hear murderers are being handled like that.

Anonymous said...

As soon as I get freed up, I am going to read through these analyses...He says "Yes, yes thats true." That is NOT a reliable statement. The interview was done the night before he was executed & he was saying "porn made him do it" to try to get a stay on his execution. There are points where he glances over at the phone hoping the governor will call in a stay. He also did NOT mutilate animals--his grandfather used to beat the family dog & swing neighbors" cats around by their tails...I have read things online that incorrectly said that Ted had done the actions his grandather was actually responsible for!!!!! The other thing said is that he "hid in bushes" when he was a kid--oh ny God that is so crazy! That explains it--hiding in bushes as a kid indicates future serial killer!!!

Anonymous said...

Bundy did not save the drowning boy when Bundy was a kid--Bundy saved the drowning boy as an adult (1972 I think--it is in Ann Rule's book)--during the same month in which investigators say he did a killing.

His trial for the Chi Omega killings is said to have been one of the most unfair trials ever (an anti death penalty lawyer wrote a book called "Dead Wrong" that goes into great detail about it if you are interested--you can access it online.

I will read/write more later when I get freed up.

Anonymous said...

Re: Ann Marie case, I agree with your points. I dont believe he killed Ann Marie.

The letter from the mother describes the basic story we've heard so many times on here--kid gets up & is sick--parent says go back to bed--kid disappears without a trace--noone hears anything even though everyone has been awakened. Right, good point, why was the 3 yr old wearing a cast?

Bundys denial of that crime was reliable also.

Hey Jude said...

Habundia - 'Ted Bundy - in his own words'


The video includes some of the thinking of the investigators who engaged with Bundy in hopes of eliciting more information from him.
I think they are remarkable to be able to do that - I can't imagine how they kept their self-control whilst being told by Bundy that they needed to be empathetic, not just friendly toward him, to be able to engage with him. He would know they likely had daughters near to the ages of his victims, and really viewed him with disgust. Such a sociopath, IMO - pushing their buttons, trying to degrade them by suggesting they have 'empathy' with him, for his amusement.


Does anyone know where and in what context he makes a remark to the effect that, *actually*, some of those girls had good parents - or good families? It wa a strange thing to say - it stood out. I wondered if he was somehow punishing those he considered poor parents by murdering their daughters. Thinking of how he had screamed over and over at the girl who escaped, - why did you get into the car? You're not getting out...
I wondered if he justified those murders because the girls got into his car...as if their parents should have better impressed upon them not to. It was strange he commented on what type of parents they had. Such an arrogant narcissist, it's surprising no-one throttled him years before he reached the electric chair.


Well, yes, there are the elements common to children who go missing in the night - but what differs is that Ann Marie knew Bundy because he was the local paper boy, and she also apparently liked him and followed him around. He knew where she lived - a window was left open, and a garden bench had been moved under it.

It's strange the mother left it so late to write to him - why wait? Did that dark-side site say there are legal reasons why prisoners on death row cannot give up information about crimes they have committed until all appeals are exhausted? Would that maybe be why she did not write to him sooner?

Anonymous said...

I found a a denial from Ted Bundy. It is a quote from a letter that Ted Bundy had smuggled out of jail to the press (the press was not being allowed any access to him) the last time he was arrested (In Florida) and was the suspect in the Chi Omega killings, the Kimberly Leach killing, as well as many other killings. I wish I could find the full letter, but here is the quote:

"Outside of a few minor thefts, I have done no wrong. I have killed no one. What the media reports now is completely one-sided, nothing but accusations and insinuations....spoon-fed by the authorities." He went on to say "Several locks have been welded to my cell door. They regard me with Houdini-like awe. They are scared to death I will escape from them. Imagine such an unjustified fear."

Here is another letter he wrote before he was imprisoned to his girlfriend (before he was a known suspect in any cases) when they were having problems just for comparison purposes:

It’s Friday evening. You’re gone and I’ve never been so alone in my life. The memory of your face haunts me. The memory of our times together is so fine that the fact I’ve lost you seems unreal. I’m perfectly stunned. Cigarette upon cigarette does nothing. You’ve left and I can think of nothing but that I love you. I love you now. I loved you in the past. I’ll love you as long as I draw breath… With tears in my eyes, I punish myself. Shaking my head, I can’t believe I have driven you to find someone else. Your smile, your hand in mine, your loving daughter, the three of us together, these memories are the fondest memories I can ever hold. My insensitivity has destroyed everything… I am looking inward as you told me to. I love you. I want you. Forever.
Love, Ted”

Anonymous said...

Im just now seeing your post Hey Jude, allow me a few min to read and respond.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, The "Ted Bundy in his own words" link contains "confessions" that he gave starting 2 or 3 days before he was set to be executed and was executed and he was trying to stall his execution, even begs for time, several additional months to give more info. He got no additional time, they executed him 3 days later, and none of the info he gave yielded any remains or clues.

I think he said the "Ive heard the parents of the girls are decent people" in his interview with Dr Dobson. I find it odd also, I'm not sure I'd read into it that he thought the girls' parents were bad parents, maybe just nervous fumbling due to the fact he new he was going to be killed in like 12 hrs. I do think it is odd, though, and I'm not sure what to make of it.

I think Ann Marie's mother wrote to Bundy after authorities mapped every location he'd ever been in his whole life and started wondering, once they saw his proximity to Ann Marie's house, whether he could have been responsible for her disappearance. I feel the letter from the mother contains MUCH sensitivity..."the cruel things I did", the "the orchard was the dark setting for a murder" (when no evidence was found in the orchard of anything), and I find the story of the disappearance itself too similar to the others we see here again and again...something is off...I don't think Ted did it. I was actually stunned from an SA standpoint when I read the section regarding the "cruel things I've done for which I had no remorse" section. Just saying. Stunned, like I can't believe I'm reading this within a letter from a parent of a missing child.

Hey Jude said...

I wonder if she wrote that because it might have been what she thought he must have felt like rather than her own genuine thought - like trying to appeal to his sympathies, or conscience, not that he seems to have had one.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, Yeah I guess it could have been appealing to his conscience.

Its just...why do SO many of these missing children cases contain that element of kid gets up in the night sick and parent says go back to bed, OR kid was sick so parent checked on them in middle of the night OR kid was sick the night before and THEN presto,,,they vanish! I am thinking of at least 5 different cases where that has happened...or "modified" versions of it like in the Ayla case where she had a broken arm at the time, but didn't wake up at night, but still disappears. Or how about the case (father named Sergio) where he "sleeps on the couch" and child disappears? It's like there is ALWAYS some aberration that occurs in the night, so often to do with the child getting up sick or parents checking on a sick child or child having a cast on at age 2 or 3 and then within some very short time period, (usually between 3 am and 5 or 6 am, I believe, statistically) the child "disappears".
I don't think Bundy did it.

Hey Jude said...

According to Bundy he did drown at least one child victim. Bundy claimed he abducted Lynette Culvert, aged twelve, and drowned her in a Holiday Inn hotel. He said he disposed of her body in a river “hundreds of yards wide” which the police believe is Snake River, Idaho. Bundy knew details about Lynette that only the killer could have known.

Bundy might have abducted or enticed Anne Marie from her house and driven her away, disposed of the body where it would not be found -.If it is so that he stole cars, that seems quite possible.

Ann Marie’s body has never been found. Ann Marie’s mother apparently did not believe Bundy killed her daughter - she suspected a teenager who lived on the same street as she and her family - she even entered the boy’s home when he and his family were out, looking for signs of Ann Marie. The detective Robert Keppler believed Bundy killed Ann Marie.

Ann Marie’s parents each requested and passed polygraphs.




Anonymous said...

Hey Jude,

Where did you find an admission by Ted Bundy that he killed Lynette Culvert?
Was that in the fabricated confessions he gave starting 3 days before his execution?
What are the details he knew that only the killer could know?

Thanks for the info on the info on the Ann Marie case--perplexing case.

Detective Kempler is not a smart person.

What do you make of Bundys denial he had smuggled out in a letter to the press that I included a few posts up?

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, I read the first link you posted.

Did you notice it contained a reliable denial from Ted Bundy taken from the letter he wrote the mother?

"I did not abduct your daughter. I had nothing to do with her disappearance."

Bundy did not abduct/kill Ann Marie!!!!

Anonymous said...

I think Bundy was framed by another killer in the other killings. There is nothing that anyone can say to convince me that "Ted" would have freely given out his real name on a crowded public beach to 5 women he was trying to abduct & then kill 2 other women later that day. All the while wearing an arm sling so he would be memorable while telling everyone "Hey my name is Ted!!!"

Anonymous said...

The stupidest person in the world would not do that! While also gesturing to his VW bug!

He was framed. It makes no sense he would give out his real name!!!

Hey Jude said...

Anon - re Lynette Culvert:

"She made a comment that sounded like she had other friends or relatives in Seattle…Made a comment indicating that she either lived with her grandmother or that her grandmother lived with her family. Another comment indicating that perhaps they were thinking of moving to another house. Indications that she had had some trouble with truancies at school…and…finally that I encountered her at a time when she was leaving the school grounds to meet someone at lunch time."



Ann Marie may have willingly gone with the fourteen year old Bundy, as she knew and apparently liked him - in which case he could say he did not 'abduct her'; if he had put her body into water he could also say he had nothing to do with her disappearance - the water took her and made her disappear.

Hey Jude said...

Thinking of Snake River, Idaho - that was the "S-s-s-Snake River' which Deorr Kutz's father stumbled over. Thanks to whoever posted the link above to the new Deorr 'Little Man Lost' series of videos from KTVB news. So, the deputy became the sheriff, and he still looks haunted, poor man, Grandpa Walton is still afraid to say anything, though he does, Vernal is as aggressive as ever, and Jessica as defiant. Poor DeOrr, willl anyone ever tell what happened to him?

Hey Jude said...

I think you mean this, Anon:

"Outside of a few minor thefts, I have done no wrong. I have killed no one. "

He committed burglaries, which are not only 'minor thefts', as burglary is traumatising to the victims.

Who can say besides this or that, I have done no wrong, but someone with quite low self awareness, or lack of empathy? Everyone does quite a bit of wrong, in various ways, by the time they are the age he was when he wrote that. As for "I have killed no one" - 'no-one' can't be killled.

Anonymous said...

@ Hey Jude,

Those "details" dont even make sense?!

The abduction/killing happened in Idaho, and the girl said "I have other friends/relatives in Seattle" (?!) "Indications she had problems with truancy (not stated reliably).
She was supposedly killed & raped in the Holiday Inn, yet no records found of him ever checking into one, no body or clues found...plus he never dumped bodies in water. Its from his 3 days before execution "please give me more time to live" fabricated confessions.

Re: Ann Marie case

"I had nothing to do with her disappearance" IS reliable. It is first person denial of him having any involvement. It does NOT linguistically relate to disposal in water.

Hey Jude said...

The Holiday Inn records for the time Bundy said he drowned Lynette there in a bath tub, were destroyed by new proprietors of the hotel - I think it was established that the Holiday Inn was the only hotel in the area at the time Bundy said he had stayed there. Lynette had said things to him which checked out.

I find somewhat strange the idea that if someone wanted to frame him, he would have gone round saying he was Ted - because still, according to your theory, no-one would believe that the person actually was named Ted, or therefore suspect Ted Bundy.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, People absolutely DID believe the killer was named "Ted". In fact, that is the method of investigation LE and FBI used from the very beginning was finding all records of people named "Ted" in the area who owned a VW, the vehicle that "Ted" had gestured to/stood near when asking the 5 women who declined to help him with his "sailboat". Someone COULD have even written down or memorized the plate number since apparently 5 of the women felt his behavior to be weird/suspicioud enough that they declined to help him, one of them noting that he didnt even have a sailboat on his car. Even that ruse itself is anything but sophisticated, asking women to help him carry a
nonexistant sailboat from his VW to the water!!! LE immediately started printing out the names of ALL the men named Ted in the area who owned VWs. Hundreds of people named Ted came up on their list, and Bundy was one of them.
If someone wanted to frame another person for the killings they themselves were going to do, would that not have been the perfectway to do it? Use a luring tactic noone will go for by saying " Hi I am Ted. Can you help me with my nonexistant sailboat that you can clearly see is not even there on my VW that you are staring at so you can remember the color/model/maybe even plate number." Later in the day, the killer successfully lures and kills 2 women. When police investigate, FIVE women say that "Ted" must have done it cause he was acting suspicious. Yep his name was "Ted" and he said he had a nonexistant sailboat on his car. Yep he showed me his car too. He said "Can you help me with that sailboat that you can clearly see is not on my car."

He was framed. It is the simplest thing in the world that he could have given those women a fake name or multiple fake names. Why in the world would he have repearedly given out his REAL name & indicated his make/model of car? There is NO reasonable answer to this except that he was framed.

Anonymous said...

If you check out youtube videos of other serial killers confessing, it sounds NOTHING like Bundy's fabricated confessions 3 days before his execution. Check out Green River killer confesing to a psychiatrist in prison. Also when Ted started to "confess" and begins rambling, he interjects the statement "you dont make this stuff up". Also at some points he is speaking of his serial killer mindset diring the confessions and is using the pronoun "you" and then says "that is, I". Also, other serial killers who confess do NOT say of the specific acts of killing "I dont want to talk about that part", "that part is too hard to talk about". Once they are "confessing" they have no problem talking about their killings.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude,

To back up my belief that Bundy was framed, check this out.

In this video, I found an old newspaper clipping where they have a description of the suspect in the "Ted" beach killings who told at least 6 women his name was "Ted". You can read the clipping at 26:44.


Ted Bundy was 6 feet tall and he was LEFT-Handed. The description of the beach predator "Ted" says he is five foot six inches tall and has the fake sling on his LEFT arm. That is a height difference of half of foot shorter than Bundy given by at least 6 individuals to police. Also, does it make any sense for someone who is trying to keep a woman trapped in a car (if she agrees to get in), drive somewhere with her, knock her unconsicous, etc.) to be wearing a fake sling on his dominant hand??? Does it make any sense whatsoever when he could have at least given himself an edge by putting the sling on his non-dominant right hand?

Anonymous said...

Oh I'm sorry, it actually says he has a (fake) CAST on his DOMINANT arm (left arm). He is left handed. So, that makes sense right? He shrunk a half a foot and put a CAST on his dominant arm when it would have made so much more sense to help him with is serial killing to put it on his non-dominant RIGHT arm?!?!

Hey Jude said...

He was 5ft 10in - not so great a discrepancy. A cast is like a lump of concrete - he could have used it to knock out a victim - if that was his intention he would have put it on his dominant hand.

Anonymous said...

No, he was 5 ft 11 or 6 ft tall, not 5' 10. It is actually is a huge descrepancy for at least 6 people to describe him as 5 ft 6 even if he had been 5 ft 10, which he wasnt. It is a descrepancy of approximately half a foot, and no, a cast is not anything like a hunk of concrete--it is fairly light. Do you think people walking around with a cast on their arm are bearing the weight equivalent to concrete? They are not. For him to immobilize his dominant arm while tryimg to drive abduct and kill is nonsensical--he coukd have just put the cast on his nondominant arm. I dont get the feeling you are actually open to considering the facts in this case & what they could imply, that he was framed. Also, does the "revised sketch" in that article look like a "handsome stranger"?

Also, how do at least SIX people shave 5-6 inches off his height? Noone thinks a 5'10-6 ft tall man is 5 ft 6.

Hey Jude said...

Anon - if Bundy was innocent he would have insisted until his dying moment that he had not killed them, he would not ever have accepted the accusations. In his final interview, in which he could have chosen to proclaim that he was not a murderer, and that he did not kill them - he rather attempted to excuse himself, blaming pornography, If he was an innocent, his demeanour would have been very different from that which he displays on the available video clips at the courthouse, trial and later interviews. so no, I am not interested in looking at discrepancies in eye-witness recall - Bundy's post-arrest conduct is the best witness to his guilt.

Hey Jude said...

An old fashioned plaster cast to fit an adult male IS as hard as concrete and could weigh up to 3lb - I'm pretty sure an intentional blow to the head from one of those could stun or knock out a young girl.

Anonymous said...

He denied guilt until 3 days before his execution. It makes perfect sense to me that knowing what he knew--that everyone thought he was guilty--that, in desperation, he fabricated confessions, saying he will need months to confess everything to try to delay his execution. He had insisted he was innocent the entire time--for well over a decade.

If you don't want to think about descrepancies in the suspect description at the lake. Think about this: One of the 2 girls who disappeared that day had a bicycle with her and asked "Ted" if she could bring her bike with them to get the sailboat (after "Ted" changed the story he was giving girls on the beach to be that he needed someone to drive down the road to his parents' house down the road to get the sailboat). Ted said "yes" she could bring her bike, and the bike was never found. Even detectives say that the bike could not have fit into the truck of inside of the metallic brown volkswagon. Also, it is said that "Ted" was driving around picking up girls with the passenger seat removed. Why would girls have agreed to get into his car with the passenger seat removed. (Ted skies, etc and it would have made sense for the passenger seat to be removed so he could transport skies, etc.) He kept getting VWs wherever he went. Nothing could be stupider than to choose a VW as a mode of transport to pick up hitchhikers etc and many others so that there dead bodies could be tranported to dispose of them on the floor of the car where the passenger seat could be. If "Ted" ever got pulled over for ANY reason, the cop would have immediately seen a dead body on the floor. It makes NO sense. Also, he would bludgeon these women with a crowbar (sometimes before or after getting in the car) yet NO BLOOD was ever found in the car.
A couple of the "Ted" victims were found with freshly washed hair and nail polish and make-up applied (that their families had never seen before), and detectives feel he went back and did that to the corpses at the disposal site?!?! Really?!? No, of course not, they had to have been alive for some time after they were kidnapped to have freshly washed hair, different clothes and strange make up applied. Seriously?! He killed them, threw them in the woods, and then while they are all covered with dirt leaves and whatever else, he went back and washed their hair, put new clothes on them and did their nails and applied makeup?!
If you ever research how incredibly stupid the lead Green River detective was (the one who put Bundy away and who then went to interview him in jail after Bundy had written to him offering to help him solve the Green River case) you would realize that that detective was so unbelievably stupid it would blow your mind. He tries to say Ted Bundy wanted to talk to him with some secret agenda and that he was "looking at the devil", but actually there is no secret agenda, Bundy was just trying to help him bc he was so stupid and the Green River killer was killing multiple women a week, while the Green River lead detective refused to stop focusing on a cab driver as his lead suspect, who, just as Bundy did, had also offered to help him catch the killer because the cab driver worked in the area where the prostitutes were disappearing and the cab driver actually knew the first few prostititues who disappeared and the guy claimed he knew the streets well from being a cab drive. It 20 yrs for the Green River killer to be caught all due to the stupidity of the lead detective. The lead detective is so stupid he could not catch a loose dog. Oh and actually Bundy was right about everything about the Green River killer and actually told them exactly how to catch him but they were too stupid to pull off what Bundy told them to do.

Anonymous said...

ps many witnesses say that the beach "Ted" was wearing a sling over his bandaged left arm and had a watch on his right arm, so apparently it wasn't a cast but rather a sling over probably ace bandages.

Anonymous said...

Check this out:

At Bundy's trial for the Chi Omega murders, at 6:26, Nita Neary describes the man she saw leaving the house as "clean-shaven". This testimony was vital in convicting him both of the crimes and in him receiving the death penalty.

He had a full beard both before and right after the murders. Yet he was clean-shaven during the murders???


Anonymous said...

Sorry, you can see where she says he was clean-shaven at 8:00.


Hey Jude said...

'Salt Lake City police placed Bundy on 24-hour surveillance, and Thompson flew to Seattle with two other detectives to interview Kloepfer. She told them that in the year prior to Bundy's move to Utah, she had discovered objects that she "couldn't understand" in her house and in Bundy's apartment. The items included crutches, a bag of plaster of Paris that he admitted stealing from a medical supply house, and a meat cleaver that was never used for cooking. Additional objects included surgical gloves, an Oriental knife in a wooden case that he kept in his glove compartment, and a sack full of women's clothing.[154] Bundy was perpetually in debt, and Kloepfer suspected that he had stolen almost everything of significant value that he possessed. When she confronted him over a new TV and stereo, he warned her, "If you tell anyone, I'll break your fucking neck."[155] She said Bundy became "very upset" whenever she considered cutting her hair, which was long and parted in the middle. She would sometimes awaken in the middle of the night to find him under the bed covers with a flashlight, examining her body. He kept a lug wrench, taped halfway up the handle, in the trunk of her car—another Volkswagen Beetle, which he often borrowed—"for protection". The detectives confirmed that Bundy had not been with Kloepfer on any of the nights during which the Pacific Northwest victims had vanished, nor on the day Ott and Naslund were abducted.[156] '
Shortly thereafter, Kloepfer was interviewed by Seattle homicide detective Kathy McChesney, and learned of the existence of Stephanie Brooks and her brief engagement to Bundy around Christmas 1973.[157]


Hey Jude said...

You are mistaken, Anon.

Here is Bundy’s mugshot, 15.2.78. - a month after the Chi Omega murders and attempted murders - no beard.


He was seen to have a moustache on Feb 7th by a woman who served him gas, and he was described as having a moustache and a couple of days beard growth on Feb 8th by the fourteen year old girl he accosted, and by her brother, who scared him off.

You can read that here, a couple of pages on from where the link lands.


Anonymous said...

Hey Jude,

Yes, I know he did not have a beard when he was arrested in mid February in Fl & was seen around that time with a mustache.

Please follow what I am saying to you: The Chi Omega killings happened on January 15th. Bundy had a full beard (bushy) both before & also during the days immediately following the Chi Omega murders.

I understand that at some point in the late part of January/early Feb he shaved & stuck on a fake mustache when he was on the run again.

What I am telling you is that he had grown a full beard once he escaped from jail and he had it before the Chi Omega killings & in the days immediately following the Chi Omega killings.

Anonymous said...

He even had the full beard after he stole the white van shortly after the Chi Okega killings.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, It doesnt matter if he wasnt with her during the days of the Washington killings. I believe he prob was at the lake, it seems likely his car was. THAT IS PRECISELY HOW THE KILLER FRAMED HIM.

The stuff the girlfriend found in the house: Bundy's friends and Ann Rule said Bundy loved to cook, and that he was a good cook & cooked big delicious meals for them. He worked for a short time in a medical supply shop--he said the crutches were for his landlord. I myself have bought a cane (and would have gladly bought crutches if they didnt have canes) for a relative who had been hit by a car and was in too much pain to walk--the hospital had merely sent him home & told him to rest. A bag of women's clothes? Bundy did not take trophies from his victims. Bundy had an ex-girlfriend (who he was still dating) & got laid by others)...a guy can easily end up with a sweater, tank top, jackets etc etc left behind. Ive had friends who have had one nights stand with a guy & he leaves behind a sweatshirt. Happens all the time.
I dont believe he told her "Im gonna rip your head off if you tell anyone about this stuff" bc noone would have even cared about the "stuff" & she did not even suspect him of killing at that time.

Anonymous said...

Surgical gloves? I know men who use surgical gloves when doing yardwork.

None of those items indicate he was a serial killer.

He was framed.

Hey Jude said...

Well, you say it but I don't know it - where's the witness testimony regarding the beard on those days?

The idea that he was framed, and that in three states for multiple murders, is ridiculous.

Are you going also to claim that he did not murder twelve year old Kimberley Leach, or dump her body under a pig sty?

Anonymous said...

The day of the lake killings, Ted stopped over the girlfriend's house in the morning with a visibly bad cold. He then went home to rest but called her up around dinnertime & took her & her daughter out for hamburgers. When he showed up his cold had gotten worse & he ate 2 hamburgers. The last abduction that day happened at 4 pm. What time did he show up to take the girlfriend for hamburgers? Wow, no sign of 2 murders & rapes he had allegedly done that day on him or in his car come dinnertime?!? Really?!

Anonymous said...

He had a beard during the Chi Omega killings.

And no, I do not believe he killed Kimberly Leach. Even experts say that it totally deviated from his pattern in every way.

He was not a pedophile. Whoever killed her did not bludgeon her. Bundy did not ever dispose of bodies in things like pig sheds. He just left them on the ground in wooded ares. Whoever knew about the pig shed was a local & familiar with the area. Bundy was not at all familiar with the area. Bundy never admitted to that killing. I believe a local pedophile killed Kimberly Leach.

He was in full running from the cops mode bc he knew they were suspecting him for the Chi Omega killimg & was in the process of tryimg to flee Florida when she was killed.

I dont believe Bundy killed her.

Anonymous said...

All the pop psychology on Bundy is so stupid. Many of the women were blond. The girlfriend who supposedly devastated him later fell madly back in love with him and he proposed to her & she agreed to marry him and then he called it off. It is ridiculous to use that relationship to say it would have fueled him to become a brutal serial killer.

Whoever was the "Ted" killer was projecting extreme rage onto those women. The bludgeoning & knocking out teeth...that is incredibly deep-seated rage that probably comes from extreme hatred of someone who abused the killer (it could be a male who abused the killer). Ted Bundy was not abused past the age of 4 once they moved away from the grandfathers violence against women. I truly do not believe that his fairly limited time living with the grandfather would produce that kind of longterm rage. The "Ted" killer was also a pervert, a sexual deviant. Ted Bundy had healthy relationships with women. The killer would not have. There is no way. The killer would have degraded & prob raped his partners.

Hey Jude said...

Elizabeth Koepfel aborted his baby - that could cause extreme rage.


Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link Hey Jude. You know as well as I that it sounds like he was very tender and loving towards her after she had the abortion, in fact far more so than any guys Ive heard of who have been in that situation. Its an interesting point you make, but I dont feel it would have
turned him into a serial killer.

What do you make of the statement he makes in the beard interview where he says he has grown & learned new things about himself & his only misgivings are that he fears he will not be able to use this new knowledge "outon the streets" where he would like to use it. My first impression was that it sounds like he is thinking of catching bad guys, like he thinks he is some kind of superhero. His escape through the roof in his cell reminds me of the type of feat a superhero might do. Those are points I have noticed, but after I had realized them, I reas that a psychiatrist had said that Bundy had had since his adolescence, "hero fantasies" "that had "turned sexual" (which makes no sense that hero fantasies turned sexual thereby manifesting murderous rage & rape (which clearly are not heroic). The psychiatrist did not elaborate on what he had said, and it actually makes no sense. It does make sense, however, that he had hero fantasies and was clearly picturing himself as having some type of super hero quest "out on the streets" weeks before his escape. Has anyone considered that may have given him the drive to pull off that impressive escape (including losing 35 lbs to fit through the hole in the ceiling?

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, Here is the beard interview


Listen carefully to what he is saying & think about what I wrote in the post above.

Nadine Lumley said...

I will defo. Cosign that Peter has a very amusing and hilarious super dry sense of humour. If a class attendee is not getting it, it's because they're not listening.

That sense of humour is what makes this blog binge able. Quite witty word play rat a tat tat.