Ted Bundy: 1972 Report on Rape

In 1972 Ted Bundy wrote for the Seattle Crime Commission an 80+ page report on forcible rape, its statistics in the region and recommendations. This report was indeed completed [contradicting the public story] and is verified in the files as his by a witness from the Crime Commission and also by the manner in which it was filed in the original case files and documents. However, pages 6-83 of his report were physically removed from the file copy.  Like other evidence tampered with, it raises serious questions about what officials have been hiding about the Bundy years in general.

Bundy also wrote a recidivism study on repeat offenses and why repeat offenders were not caught due to weaknesses in the criminal justice system working on it with the regional WA State FBI and state government. Did he do this to have a bargaining chip with officials if he was ever caught?  Is that why he was going to hold a press conference before his execution and was talked out of it by Bill Hagmaier of the FBI [per the interagency notes never publicly released]?  Is that why Robert Keppel sued the state of Florida for Bundy’s notes after his execution and won?  He could have had copies but Keppel wanted all the originals and he won….something to me that seems unprecedented.  There are a lot of unanswered questions about all this information never publicly discussed which was released to me after over a decade in coming forward and which is contained in the case files …..

Ted Bundy was the Assistant Director of the Crime Commission in 1972 and in 1973 and he was studying crime and white collar crime in the Seattle area.  He also was a member of CHECC a political action committee comprised of attorneys, business people of both political parties, he was active at a high level with the Republican Party, not just the governor office but other officials in the Secretary of State and Attorney General Offices – he was embedding himself artfully into the fabric of influential society.

Considering he was, at the time this report was written, at the very least already a serial rapist [documented by the statement of a victim who was raped by him in 1972 and corroborated largely by my memories which emerged on their own and are time and date stamped to precede the records release by over a decade], it is interesting that much of his report here reflects his own behaviors and cultivation of victims and that his consulting for the task force in 1984, which he claimed he had insider knowledge, also reflects aspects of this study.  Did he use his report to further hone his serial skills as a rapist and as a killer and also did he use his prior knowledge of this report, gained by his own research and his own experience, to further add value to his life and role to authorities by citing what he knew from this report as his own insider knowledge?  Were investigators at the time aware that this report significantly reflects his research into the very serial crimes he was committing?   NOTE:  some people refuse to believe that Bundy was articulate, believing instead the notion put forward by some of the officials that he never finished anything and was arrogant and so forth.  This was an attempt on their part I believe to amplify their own roles back then and was not true in terms of his analytical ability.  Even behind the scenes, after his capture, if you review the original unredacted documents they talked to him like he was an insider and colleague more than they talked to him like the killer he was.  One official went so far as to share insider knowledge about other cases moving through the court system and all of them acted in concert to help Bundy rather than defer to his attorneys.  The FBI helped him facilitate his contact with the Green River Task Force helping him to get a letter to a Tacoma judge- Bundy didn’t ask to speak to “just one man” [Keppel] – he was asking to speak to the Green River Task Force and Reichert.  And the only reason Reichert was included in the 1984 interviews with Bundy after Keppel took over is because he made a concerted effort to argue that he should be.  Why has Keppel been denying the existence of all of this evidence for so many years while he has put forward a narrative that he knows does not line up to the records? It’s a question that needs an answer.

To this day, the officials who have become the face of the Bundy case spend as a group more time and media exposure talking about what he said than about their investigations of those times – focusing on him rather than the evidence and the victims and cases still not accounted for.  There’s a reason for it – evidence was tampered with, evidence was destroyed, and Bundy was a colleague of theirs at the time – they may have had difficulty understanding his true capability as a killer and psychopath but that is not an excuse to tamper with an investigation [which happened repeatedly] and which has been consistently an ongoing problem over the years [suppression of evidence and obstruction of justice by the authorities as evidenced by destruction of evidence, lies about extent of evidence, and moving evidence away from public review and into a sealed area for 75 years per an internal memo].

A quote of Bundy talking about himself as a serial killer and that serial killing being “an aspect” of his overall personality “much like alcohol or smoking” is at the end of this blog section. That quote also never made it into public awareness until the release of my book about the Green River Consulting [that consulting was also put forward publicly in a manner that was not true to what actually happened].  My book “Reflections on Green River” is a work of publishing documents with little interpretaton of it:  the purpose was to try and get the truth of those years [the facts] before the public.

Forcible rape in Seattle 1972 – Paper by Ted Bundy, Assistant Director of the Seattle Crime Commission

“The number of reported rapes has continued to climb substantially in recent years, both in the city of Seattle and across the nation.  There are some who believe that there are no more rapes occurring, but that women are more willing to report the offenses today than they were a few years ago. Others believe that the number of rapes which occur is increasing.  Whether the rape problem is growing, or whether it is simply becoming more evident to us, it is important that something be done to decrease the level of rape and the level of fear which the potential of that crime generates.

A task force of persons involved in work with rape victims and those involved in apprehension and prosecution of offenders has concluded that the most important step to control and reduce this crime is to increase the number of successful prosecutions.  This approach is agreed upon for two reasons.  First, it is believed that many rapists are multiple rapists.  Thus, they will continue to rape until they are caught and prosecuted.  A number of the rape offenders do not appear to be “sick people” but individuals who believe that they can exert their will over others without impunity.  In both instances, it is important to make offenders aware that they have a high probability of being caught for this crime and if found guilty, that offense will be treated as a serious one.

In examining the possible methods to increase successful prosecutions, the task force recommended that the focus should be on methods to increase victim cooperation and improve the quality of evidence.  Because this crime involves a personal assault there is a greater chance than usual that the victim will have sufficient knowledge to help identify the assailant.  Furthermore, in many rape cases, the victim has had some prior contact with the offender.  The evidence which indicates that a rape has occurred usually comes from an examination of the victim.  The sooner after the incident the more likely that there will be conclusive evidence of the rape having occurred.  The victim must also be prepared to identify the offender and to testify in the case.  Therefore the single most essential ingredient in a rape case is having a cooperative victim.

Sara’s note:  was Bundy’s imbibing of his victims, starting as early as 1972 with a woman who reported him and also in my early recollections predating the release of this document by over a decade, related to his MO where he held girls captive to rape before killing them [in their autopsies he used imbibing and this is also corroborated by my memories] a back up measure so that if they escaped somehow or were found, that imbibing could alter their credibility and perception as victims? Is that why officials refused to allow me to have a case number and behind the scenes and even to the public have disparaged me as being “consensual” or disputing me as a victim stating publicly that “there were no survivors” when they have known all along, it is there in the FBI records of that time period, that Bundy had told them there was a survivor of multiple kidnappings that Bundy had used for “dry runs” – a dry run is against a target – he parked behind my apartment in the U District which faced the alley and was behind the Theta house when he abducted Georgeann Hawkins and he had been stalking me, and he named that exact location to Keppel and asked him to go back and revisit it and Keppel never did.  Bundy knew how to destroy the credibility of any victim that would escape or that he released.  He also knew the police at that time would not be predisposed to believe the rape victim and he also knew that his friendships within the law enforcement community would give him an edge if he ever was reported.

The task force also concluded that there were a number of reasons  why victims of rape were reluctant to cooperate in the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.  They include the following:  1] a desire to keep anyone from knowing that the rape occurred; 2] fear of retaliation from the offender; 3] mixed feelings about involving the offender in the criminal process; 4] feeling that the criminal justice system doesn’t really care; 5] emotional strain of the prosecution and unwillingness to become the “person on trial”.

The recommendations for overcoming victim reluctance to cooperate are inter-related and thus should be taken together.  However, they will be described individually so that all of the elements of the recommendations can be fully discussed.

Recommendation 1:  That model procedures for the handling of rape be developed from the time of the initial report of the case through the courtroom trial.

Model procedures are to be developed in such a way as to make the process as easy as possible for the victim, while still protecting the Constitutional rights of the defendant, and to increase the quality of the evidence available to the police investigators and to the prosecution.  The procedures would be developed by identifying how rape cases are now handled at every stage of the process.  Those procedures would be carefully examined to see whether changes could be made which would ease the strain for the victim, improve the evidence available for investigation and prosecution, and increase the number of successful investigations and successful prosecutions.  Specialized consultant assistance would be sought for each stage of the proceedings to help identify alternative procedures which might better accomplish our objectives.    The procedures would be reviewed by a task force representing all parts of the system, and those procedures affecting any single agency would be referred to them for review and recommendation.  The final recommended model procedures would be in the form of recommendations to the appropriate legislative bodies and agencies.

Sara’s note:  The recidivism study design, which studied repeat offenses and flaws in the system that allowed such serial offenses to go undetected and not caught was also done by Ted Bundy with the awareness, if not involvement of, FBI regionally.  In the recidivism study design [which will be posted on this site soon] Bundy states that he submitted a preliminary research proposal to authorities on the recidivism study on January 26, 1973 – this date follows the release of his rape paper in which he identifies both victimology of rape as well as system flaws in the prosecution of rape crimes.  He was already a serial rapist and evidence suggests  strongly that he was active as a serial killer as witness statements never publicly released have him in the immediate area of the Issaquah and Taylor Mountain crime sites as early as 1972 [by more than one witness] even going so far as to place him at the exact entrance of the Taylor Mountain crime scene in 1972 which when found in 1975 contained the skeletal remains of at least five victims [four identified and one never identified].  It’s ironic that he’s making recommendations to law enforcement on the very crimes he is committing while he is studying the crimes.

Recommendation 2:  That an expanded capability at Harborview Medical Center for receiving, assisting, and obtaining evidence from rape victims.

Harborview would become identified as the principal place to go for assistance if you have been the victim of rape.  The service there would be developed to be especially sensitive to emotional requirements of the victim and the legal requirements of the criminal justice process.  The emergency room physicians would be trained in specific medical techniques for handling rape cases and would be sensitized to the needs of the victim under conditions of emotional stress.  There would also be social workers who are available to the emergency room to immediately relate to the rape victim and assist them through medical and follow up services.  The hospital would also have a capability to provide counseling for individuals or for groups to assist them in dealing with the problems often created by rape incidents.  Harborview would also work with other medical facilities to gain their cooperation in a common set of medical practices for rape cases.

We would also encourage those medical facilities to refer people to Harborview if they needed follow-up assistance.

Recommendation 3:  The expansion of the Rape Relief advocacy service for rape victims [University YWCA].

Many women who are victims of rape need someone to help guide them in their decision about what course to take, and if they decide to report the crime and prosecute, someone to help them through the process.  The advocacy service is intended to provide this kind of support for a victim of rape.  The advocate would accompany the victim through every stage of the medical and criminal justice procedure to make it as easy as possible for the rape victim and to assure that appropriate procedures are followed.  It is hoped that this kind of assistance would encourage more women to be willing to report the crime and to prosecute the offender.  The advocates, who are knowledgeable of the process, could also give assistance to the agency personnel as they try to deal with the rape case.

Recommendation 4:  That there be established a third-party reporting service.

Some women who have been raped are willing to report the offense, but are not willing to prosecute for any one of several reasons.  However, the information which they have about the assailant may be of assistance if that assailant has committed other rapes. If there is a rape victim who is willing to prosecute, who was apparently raped by the same assailant, the additional information provided by the victim who is not willing to prosecute may be helpful in identifying the assailant and gathering evidence for the prosecution.  This would be a small effort designed to see how many women are in that position and how useful the kind of information that they would provide is in apprehending offenders.

Sara’s note:  In Utah, when DaRonch escaped Bundy, WA State back dated a record which changed the finding of skeletal remains on Taylor Mountain to a theory of decapitation two weeks before Bundy was picked up.  This passage of Bundy’s rape report raises some questions about official conduct:  there was at least one credible witness in the abduction of Laura Aime in Utah, who saw and could identify Bundy as a stalker who was pursuing Laura in the weeks leading up to her disappearance.  This witness could have described him very well and supported DaRonch’s identification further raising questions about his serial killing – yet this witness was never called in to testify though she is documented.  Further there was a young girl who got away from Bundy in Utah and a composite sketch was done that had the suspect [Bundy] with a mustache which nearly matched the sketch from Sammamish.  WA state cops knew Bundy had carried a fake mustache since before he met Liz in 1969. There were also multiple witnesses present at Lake Sammamish who could have identified Bundy in the summer of 1974 shortly after the two girls abducted from Sammamish were taken and their statements are in the files.  One of these was an undercover agent in a branch of government and his description and accounts could easily have picked Bundy out of a line up.  Which raises the question about Issaquah and the several eyewitness accounts which described Bundy, his VW, and even his voice diction at the time – why wasn’t a DMV check run and why wouldn’t he have come up and be put into a lineup?  WA State had his description, his VW description, and in the fall of 1974 a statement from another witness that confirmed he was in Utah in the very places where girls were again disappearing and most importantly by November of 1974 WA State and Utah officials had a NAME: Ted Bundy. The witness statements were all there.  Instead, Bundy was not picked up until the summer of 1975, several months after the crime site of Taylor Mountain and Tiger Mountain were found with over 150 pieces of evidence and then he was transferred to Colorado where there was less evidence against him than held in WA or Utah and he was transferred over the apparent objections of the judge at the time who bowed to pressure [per the un-redacted records].  I had escaped him in WA State and lived but I wasn’t identified due to trauma I had suffered at the time; DaRonch lived and escaped and then he was picked up.  But he wasn’t charged fully and he was never charged in WA.

Recommendation 5:  That there be undertaken an extensive education program to make known to victims of rape those services which have been described.

In addition, this program would provide information to help prevent rapes, and to encourage women who have been raped to report the incident.  An education program would have several purposes. First, it is important to convince the victims of rape that the reporting of the crime and the prosecution of the offender is very important for the safety of other persons.  Second, to make known to victims of rape that there is a sensitive and helpful system to respond to their problem.  Third, to communicate to women how to reduce the risk of rape and what to do if confronted with the possibility of such an assault.  Fourth, to communicate to the general public the importance of increased intolerance for sexual assaults.  There is a lack of public discussion about this issue and a lack of clarity about the kind of behavior that society will and will not tolerate in these instances.  This kind of educational campaign might discourage some potential offenders from committing assaults and might increase the willingness of judges and jurors to take a more serious view of these types of cases.

Within the last 10 years, the rate of forcible rape has increased more alarmingly than any other crime index in Seattle [there is a chart he created that is not present on this website].  Reported rapes increased from 66 in 1963 to 278 in 1972, which represented an enormous jump of more than 420%.  This increase in reported rape prompted considerable concern and served to stimulate an analysis of 1972 rape offenses, victims and offenders.

A sample of 190 (73%) of the “founded” rape offenses for 1972 were examined.  The analysis which is based upon that examination and reports supplied by the Seattle Police Department. Time:  According to the national Uniform Crime Reports, forcible rape is most prevalent from May-October, reaching its peak in October.  Although this pattern is generally true in Seattle, it is very weak.  When the frequency is broken down by months, July and October emerge as the months with the greatest number of reported rapes.  Similarly, the May-October “critical period” identified in the Uniform Crime Reports accounted for only 53.5% of the reported rapes and represents almost no pattern at all.

The sample analysis indicated time of day and day of week were much more important indicators of risk.  Saturday was the peak day for this offense, particularly between the hours of 8pm and 2am.  This six hour interval accounted for 50% of the reported rapes.

Sara’s Note:  This is interesting to me as Bundy’s talks with WA State about the Green River Killer while Bundy was in prison in 1984 parrots this type of information.  Bundy was asking Keppel and Reichert about days of the week and weekends and some of this 1972 report including what follows here is very close to what his “analysis” was of the Green River Killer.  Was he utilizing his prior work on this paper to effectively “work” his value to officials as a person who could review serial crimes?  In the records, Bundy tells a psychiatrist in prison that he wanted to study Chinese [Stanford] in 1970 because he wanted to work for the government.  He began working on the recidivism project in Jan of 1973….he finished the report….or at least most of it per the records…and his crimes in WA State were minimized by the “loss” and denial of evidence at major crimes in WA.  Who was Ted Bundy?

Place.  In 1972, the location of forcible rapes tended to concentrate in four major areas of the city.  Almost 20% of all reported rapes occurred in a cluster of  five census tracts spanning Capitol Hill.  High frequencies of rape were also noted in the University District, the north tip of West Seattle, and the Mount Baker area.  Most rapes occurred in private residences (64%) usually the home of the victim.  Only 17% occurred in parks or on streets, 13% in automobiles and 4% in commercial establishments such as roller rinks, taverns, etc.

Method:  More than 85% of all rapes were accompanied by verbal threats, physical force or use of a weapon.  The use or threat of  weapon was present in 27% of all cases.  Injuries in the form of gunshot wounds, stabbings, lacerations and burns were noted in 21% of all reports.  Injuries were noted in 30% of the 51 rapes which involved acquaintances/friends/relatives, while only 17% of the stranger-to-stranger offenses resulted in injury.

Sara’s note:  In the 20 years I was coming forward talking of his stalking of me and repeated rape with injury and being held and imbibed against my will in locations and with details that lined up to hidden case files, the authorities responded to me with statements that I only “imagined it” that it was “consensual” and some refused even to review the information stating I only wanted publicity.  This report of his has been denied and sealed away for decades. It matches his MO with victims and it matches my account.   It is critically important to evaluating Bundy and his evolution as a killer – he was reported to the police for rape in 1972 and her account was similar to mine and I never knew of her when coming forward, that detail and his placement at the kill sites by witnesses in 1972 also line up to my statements.  Bundy also had weapons and was known to have weapons.  The police have denied this for decades.

Although most rapes were solo occurrences, more than one suspect was noted in 10% of the offenses.  In most cases which involved multiple suspects, one primary offender committed the rape while one or more secondary offenders merely observed or subdued the victim.  Conversely, one suspect raped more than one victim in 5% of all reports [especially in cases which involved two or more women who accepted rides from a stranger].

Sara’s note:  Ted Bundy raped and killed by his own admission at least two girls that he picked up hitch hiking – was he choosing victims at least in part due to his research with the Crime commission and also his research on weaknesses in the justice system by his work on recidivism for the Justice and Planning arm of the Department of Justice.

Only 5% of rapes coincided with other felonies such as burglary or robbery.  In 27% of the rapes the victim and the offender were acquainted (14%); friends (10%) or relatives (3%).  Similar to the pattern with other crimes against persons, acquaintances and friends committed brutal rapes more frequently than strangers.  Stranger-to-stranger street rapes (17%) and hitch-hike rapes (10%) were seldom accompanied by brutality.

Offender.  According to Goldner (1972), national statistics show that 18 year-olds commit the greatest number of rapes; 19 year-olds follow closely as principal offenders.  The offender ages gradually decrease over 5-year intervals and is extremely rare over age 40.

The “youthfulness” observed by Goldner was not observed in the offense sample.   Although 20% of the offenders were described as less than 20 years old, most victims reported that the suspect was in his mid-twenties, sample mean being 24.5 years, or early 30s.  Less than 5% of the suspects were described as more than 40 years old.

Victim.  Victim characterization information is very scanty.  According to the sample offenses analyzed, rape victims tended to be very young, white, and frequently known to the offender.  The concept of victim precipitation or provocation was too subjective to analyze.  To avoid or minimize controversy, various “high risk” situations were separated and are discussed by category.

Hitch/accept ride of offer.  The offense reports indicated that 20 victims (10%) had willingly accompanied the suspect or requested a ride.  In most cases, the rape occurred in the vehicle.

Temporary/permanent co-habitation.  Eighteen victims (9%) willingly shared a residence with the suspect on a permanent or temporary basis, i.e. shared house, apartment, hotel, or motel room.  In approximately one half of the cases, the victim and suspect experienced voluntary intercourse on previous occasions.

Drug or alcohol involvement. Twenty-two victims had been drinking (11%) or using drugs with the suspect prior to the rape. In most instances, the victim and suspect met in a tavern or bar and retired to a private residence in which the rape occurred.

Sara’s note:  this latter paragraph is very similar to Bundy’s MO with the girls he abducted: taking them to a location where he could hold them captive and he would imbibe them with alcohol or drugs perhaps knowing by this report that it was “common” and that it lessened the victim’s ability to be credible as a witness.  He did this to me while I was in captivity, he did this to Laura Aime per her autopsy; he did this to Roberta Parks, per his statement and case files, he did this to Melissa Smith and more than likely a host of others as a thermos was found near a skull at Taylor Mountain, a lean-to was found there and so was a bong [Bundy was known to smoke dope] and even more evidence of this was found at both Taylor Mountain and at Issaquah in the form of chemical bottles, and abandoned homes nearby which could have been places to hold live victims.  That evidence found on Taylor and Tiger Mountain and in Issaquah was critically important:  it could have been evidence of victims from other states and counties that authorities were not aware of and yet they failed to protect the evidence and pursued media and profit.

The rest of the paper is several pages of recommendations and analysis of the weaknesses in the judicial system of the Seattle area which went against victims and lacked ability to be tough on offenders.  This will be posted at a later date.  The recidivism study will also be posted in part on this website shortly.

Sara’s note: There were many eyewitnesses who either were approached by Bundy and did not go with him, or saw him on crutches, or with arm in a sling, or who knew him and came forward behind the scenes and could have picked him out of a line up.  Why did WA State and Utah allow him to be transferred to Colorado where there was less evidence?  Why with the name and car description early on [at Sammamish and at Central WA – Rancourt] was he not questioned by authorities or identified per DMV reports?  Why was the girl who was approached at college in Bellingham WA never correlated or discussed publicly?  Why were the girls in Oregon and California disappearing never correlated when WA State KNEW without question in 1975 with the discovery of Taylor Mountain and the skeletal remains of Rancourt and Parks that Bundy was traveling the I-5 corridor to kill?  It was all there.  The evidence was strong, multiple pieces and persons, and yet authorities purposefully turned the other way, and denied its existence, even in the face of it.  They were investigating men who didn’t look anything like the descriptions and didn’t even drive a VW.

Quote from Ted Bundy while he was incarcerated in prison in Florida about his serial killing as an aspect of his behavior:

“Serial murder is another form of behavior.  I mean, it’s another form of behavior.  And yet it utilizes …. That behavior is, was spawned and developed and used as the same neurological circuit as any other behavior.  I believe.  I’m not trying to trivialize it, but I do think people need to see it in the context of what it really is.  And there are all sorts of abhorrent behaviors out there.  Well, all sorts of normal behaviors.  And they all, and cruel and terrible as serial murder is, it is another form, it is acquired just like any other behavior is acquired.  Now, I’m not trying to reduce this just to behavioral as terms, but that’s one way of explaining it.  It certainly is maintained by a mental component, as it were.  It has its origin.  But nevertheless, I …so, if I were to define the whole nature of serial murder, I’d try to bring in those kind of aspects to say that do you want to understand what goes on in the mind of somebody who commits this kind, the kind of behavior we call serial murder.  Then, first of all, look at yourself.  Look at anything you’ve done repeatedly over the years that has not been good for you or somebody else.  Drinking, smoking, shoplifting, stealing flowers, taking too many newspapers from the newspaper stand.  Again, not trying to trivialize, but trying to personalize it.  Because it’s unique.  But every behavior is unique. ”  – Ted Bundy Florida prison before his death

Quote from Ted Bundy to investigators in Florida upon arrest:  “….I have powerful friends…”  apparently, yes, he did.