Ted Bundy & The Public Image The Authorities Initially Created Of Him To Create Their Own “Super Cop” Scenarios

The letters and documents I reference in published materials are in original form unless I state that I edited out names of people who are not public figures.  A few have commented that they think I make Bundy sound more articulate than he was and more intelligent than he was.  I think that is based on the misconception of Bundy put forward by authorities for years [if not decades] that he was of lesser intelligence and never finished anything he started.  It is not the truth.  This discussion is focused purely on intelligence and not on the fact that authorities hid evidence and denied incriminating evidence that would have, and should have, charged him in WA State and in Utah.  It is a blog based on the way authorities have depicted Bundy over the early years as being less intelligent than officials – the old super cop theory perpetuated by Keppel and FBI BAU originally at the expense of the case and the forensics but enough of the public seem to believe it in the questions I’ve gotten that I wrote this blog to refute that depiction of Bundy as reactionary, average intelligence, and “traumatized” so therefore driven to kill women out of trauma.  The records prove it is not true and that they had this information in their hands when they put that original scenario forward.

Bundy was not of mediocre intelligence – he had enough intellect and cunning to maneuver people.  Further, the FBI and the DOJ/Justice and Planning of WA State thought enough of him in 1973 to hire him to the tune of  several thousand dollars to complete a study on recidivism, which he DID complete the design as directed to and filed a report on, contrary to what officials would have you believe.  That report was many pages long and outlined not only problems but ways in which certain problems could be addressed and it also discussed a computer program very much in theory like the one eventually developed in HITS and VICAP.  Bundy’s payments and report submission were signed for by “Confidential Secretary I” and “Confidential Secretary II”. Bundy was also Assistant Director of the Crime Commission in 1972 and 1973 and per one internal reference was “prominent” in the Republican Party actually working as a precinct chairman in 1973 for a small precinct.  Is this why for years they claim his killing [of one to two a month] just started in 1974?  Serial killers progress to that level, they don’t start that way overnight.

Additionally, WA State contends they only “went along” with Bundy as a Green River consultant but it was more than that….they actively asked for  Bundy’s help with the Green River killer and even brought materials to him, discussing the case at length with him – where victims were found, in which order they were found, asking for his input on it.  Instead of acknowledging his help, the original storyline was that Bundy was arrogant and they were only there to maneuver him.  I compared Keppel’s public write up about the 1984 meeting with Bundy behind the scenes when Bundy was in prison in 1984 [with no attorneys present] and it was nothing like Keppels’ statements about it in “Riverman”.  They also asked him about types of things that most suspects in a serial murder situation would never have been privilege to knowing let alone being asked about including other cases pending in the courts.

Keppel discussed a case with Bundy that had nothing to do with Bundy in a letter to him and talked about a suspect in the Green River case named Foster in 1984 communications and in person [who was innocent] by name and in great detail – something that today I think most investigators would not do. Additionally, Rule, who behind the scenes was described to Bundy by Keppel as a “cooperating agency” wrote about Foster in her book essentially making fun of his being upset about the treatment of him.  Rule wrote the foreword for Keppel’s book “Riverman” and the two reinforced the public story over the years maintained by Keppel which was essentially false when compared to the actual case files.  Having personally experienced bullying by both Keppel and Rule, [Keppel blocking me and shadowing me places and Rule doing a write up on me in her book “Stranger Beside Me” which defamed me and was entirely fabricated and without my permission nor prior awareness of it [published before she ever told me about it- I can prove those statements] I can tell you that I find it to be outside the parameters of normal investigation and I question whether it should have been illegal as the original tapes which proved the 1984 discussions with Bundy were blocked from public awareness – much like what was done in my case over the years [files hidden].

Bundy was a psychopath – he also had insights to offer and those insights were actually very intuitive – something officials admitted years later after the fact after their own super cop stories had made headlines.  Keppel also by the way discussed the “super cop” scenario with Bundy long before the actual “final confession” by Bundy [which appears to be fabricated when compared to the case files].  Keppel asked Bundy about the “super cop” scenario in 1984 and Bundy stated in the overall conversation that he wasn’t “ready” yet.  There are also references to “we talked” in several behind the scenes conversations.  Since Keppel met with Bundy alone in 1988 without an attorney or other person present when the two [per records] discussed how to develop the questionnaires that appear to be the HITS program or perhaps VICAP, it really makes you wonder what all was being discussed with Bundy during the years 1980 to 1984 when Keppel moved over to the AG office of WA and according to what was told to me behind the scenes got private ownership of the Bundy cases – something I find completely corrupt and appalling.  Keppel asked to get in touch with Bundy in 1980  – Bundy did NOT ask to get in touch with Keppel.  In 1984 Bundy asked to get in touch with Green River task force and objected via a letter when he found out Keppel was stepping in over Reichert.  Bundy did not reach out to Keppel and the FBI facilitated communications between Bundy and Keppel at least initially.

Bundy also mentioned to Keppel in 1984 that the FBI BAU wanted to develop a wing where serial killers were housed and could be studied.  FBI “found” a vial of Bundy’s blood in 2011 and shut down routine re-examination of cases stating only DNA would be used and DNA degrades over time so it was essentially a method of blocking outside investigations and a smokescreen to what the original records showed.  I personally would like a full disclosure of when and why that blood was taken, how it was stored, who found it and why were they looking and also I would like it carbon dated as it was found nearly one month AFTER I first approached the FBI complaining of a cover up.

Cases were discussed with Bundy in that 1984 interview like he was an insider instead of a criminal serial killer. Taping during the interviews was often shut down so things could be discussed with Bundy without being recorded.  I’ve never heard of such a thing in a sanctioned type of interview between cops and killers.  Yet this happened multiple times with Bundy and the FBI regularly met with him in Florida behind the scenes and was present on site in Utah BEFORE Bundy was transferred to Colorado.  That is in the unredacted audiotapes from his prison interviews with Keppel where Keppel talks to Bundy about the FBI involvement behind the scenes in Utah, about a judge who was objecting to Bundy’s transfer to Colorado and sharing with Bundy, Keppel’s concerns he had at the time that Richard Larsen [investigative author] might find out something that the FBI and Keppel did not want him to know.

They didn’t have to discuss other cases with him – it wasn’t professional to discuss potential suspects with him [and they did — going into details about the suspect and his life even though he was innocent]. Since when do cops discuss cases with serial killers or criminals under investigation or prosecution for serious crimes such as murder in any situation?  Since when do you ask a serial killer on trial for his opinion on another serial case suspect?  What if Bundy had said yeah that’s the guy alright [and the person was innocent].  I just don’t understand it – even back then.  It seems out of context to how investigations are done.  I hope this isn’t a normal occurrence.   The WA State officials did do this – and more than just the Green River killing –  at least one other case was discussed with Bundy which had gone through the courts at the time and which had nothing to do with the Green River killer or Bundy’s crimes.   All people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and to discuss crimes currently being looked at with a serial killer on death row naming the person[s] who were being investigated to me seems like an incredible violation of civil rights and justice for those individuals let alone violations of professional conduct.

So why make Bundy out as not articulate and not intelligent to the public?  If you are going to teach a profile of a notorious serial killer at universities to future criminal justice professionals it should be as accurate as possible but in Bundy’s case what has been taught if mirroring what is public information isn’t accurate at all.   The evidence stated publicly as found in WA isn’t accurate to behind the scenes documents, the handling of the case as stated publicly isn’t accurate to the detective notes and witness statements of the time period, and neither is the full disclosure of Bundy’s relationships with government officials and law enforcement officials accurate to the full extent of what it really was.

Perhaps downplaying Bundy’s intelligence and ability to work with concepts such as in the recidivism study or his work on the crime commission or his work on researching rape [which he DID write a paper despite Keppel’s contention to the contrary], or perhaps downplaying his relationships with high ranking officials seems purposeful to those at the time; but it served to mask the reality of who he was at the time and that the officials had actually trusted Bundy as a colleague before he was caught as a serial killer and they trusted him enough that they gave him responsibility for sensitive projects and information….After all, Bundy was close to elected officials.  He was also Assistant Director of the Crime Commission and studied white collar crime and also rape – writing and completing a study on rape in King County [and yes, despite claims it was never done it was completed and not only do I have the original report but also the witness statement that was in the files from a superior who also corroborated that Bundy had written it].  That rape paper detailed how women were not believed, how acquaintance rape was often very difficult to prove and prosecute and just how few cases of rape in the King County area were ever prosecuted at all.

Bundy was doing his homework while he was active as a serial killer and I suspect also while he was evolving as a serial rapist- embedding into the very professions that would one day prosecute and pursue him and ingratiating himself into their friendships.  It was a betrayal of those people in those professions who had trusted him and considered him a friend.  But it is an equal betrayal of those people in the justice system who were betrayed by him to cover up evidence and to deny the victims left behind who were silenced by death their own justice from what happened.  The evidence that was thrown away from Issaquah and Taylor/Tiger Mountain could have been evidence of unknown victims – the skeletal remains “lost” or “destroyed” from Issaquah and Taylor/Tiger Mountain that were never identified, at least three girls, are voices that are silenced forever – and for what?  Not to mention the other evidence that could have been tested for DNA if it had been protected and preserved and chain of custody protocols followed – but it wasn’t protected and chain of custody wasn’t adhered to. My case as a survivor of those times also was jeopardized.  They knew a survivor existed.  It has only been in the past year that they have finally admitted that yes, evidence was indeed found at Taylor Mountain – but they have completely downplayed the media hype that was done for decades, the damage to the cases of Ted Bundy in WA State overall and elsewhere by their corruption [putting it out to media for personal profit] and the impact all of it has had on people who were victims [me] and the families who are still waiting to find their daughters and have little chance now of ever knowing due to the behind the scenes destruction of evidence.

So, if Bundy was really that inarticulate and that unintelligent then why did the authorities in WA State trust him with the recidivism study and the rape paper?  Why did he serve on the Crime Commission at all if he wasn’t articulate?  Why did he work at a high level with the Republican Party [and he did] and why was he on a political action group called CHECC?

There are certain things you can fake and certain things you cannot and Bundy’s ability to rub elbows with high ranking officials and to execute on projects such as the rape paper and the recidivism study was because he had innate intelligence.  Does that make his crimes less?  No.  Does that make his serial killing less impactful?  Does that make him less of a criminal if he’s intelligent and articulate?   No, it makes him infinitely more dangerous.   Trying to lessen his innate intelligence while glorifying the law enforcement position during that time period really does nothing at all towards understanding this case and Bundy’s serial killing efforts that spanned a much longer time than just beginning in 1974 per witness statements, evidence, and Bundy’s own statements behind the scenes.  He was difficult to catch because he was working behind the scenes with law enforcement, elected officials and the justice system.  He didn’t learn how to avoid being caught by reading detective magazines.  He learned by working among them.  He was much more dangerous, deceptive and inherently evil than the public story about him.  By dumbing him down as a criminal they only negated the tremendous harm and destruction he did to those who had trusted him at all levels of society.

In a series of real time crimes, rapidly evolving as Bundy’s were, it is human nature to make mistakes and fail to see a larger picture.  That is true of the public as well as the police.  It doesn’t reflect on them if he fooled them – he fooled a lot of people – he was a psychopath.  He fooled his victims.   He manipulated me constantly and I lived – but I was damaged forever as a result.

It is part of the process of how these types of deviant personas work.  However, covering it up for whatever the reason the authorities had at the time is intentional action and deliberate.  Those actions are not acceptable under color of law.  These actions actually create more victims because of the deception and betrayal by law enforcement. These actions are not in keeping with the responsibilities of law enforcement as a whole and they do not reflect the values of serving the public.  They leave the public with the opinion that Bundy was stupid and he wasn’t; that the cops were always on top of things back then and they weren’t; and that the public did not catch Bundy when per the records it was the public who identified him early on and the public who spoke out about him and the public who did what the law enforcement community had asked of them and what the law enforcement community of WA and perhaps Utah failed to do….the public caught Bundy if law enforcement had listened.

Quote from Bundy in the 1984 interview:  “…it was just unavoidable to become familiar with police procedures [pause] over the years that I was on the streets [pause] and it wasn’t out of any desire to be a police officer, I mean I did work for the Seattle Crime Bureau but that wasn’t [pause] I didn’t select the job because I wanted to get close to law enforcement, that was sort of genuinely a coincidence[pause] I did not really look for that job to get inside police [pause] and in the job with King County law enforcement, with the King County deputies office, I remember filing for all the records in file cabinets on the first floor of the courthouse in the Sheriff’s office [pause] I went through all that stuff [pause] but that wasn’t because [pause] I didn’t get that job because I wanted to get inside the Feds, the police officers, but it just happened that the job opened up and [pause] there’s plenty of ways to learn how to [pause] to learn police procedures without getting close to you.  Detective magazines contain a surprising amount of information, about investigative techniques, laws, methods of operation…”

Putting the above statement in context:  it had to do with investigators asking him why he had wanted to reach out about the Green River killing.   He stated killers could learn from detective magazines, not that he personally had done so.  This point that he learned from being an insider has been suppressed over the years and Keppel and others have continually reinforced to the public that Bundy learned from detective magazines.  No, he didn’t.  He learned from the officials.

I personally don’t believe his entrenchment into law enforcement during his years of killing in WA State was accidental.  With Bundy’s background in psychology and having honed his killing skills by 1974 to the point where he was killing at least one a month nearly every month, to me this embedding into law enforcement was a twofold objective:  gain their confidence and trust and develop relationships that might provide him options if caught and secondly learn their vulnerabilities to give himself an edge.  He was too much of a planner and his killing outside of the breakdown at the end, wasn’t reactionary.  He was conducting surveillance on his victims such as myself beforehand, he could strike without anyone knowing or understanding that they’d seen or witnessed a crime even in broad daylight, and he had two very well developed sites in WA State in Issaquah and Taylor Mountain/Tiger Mountain which makes me wonder if there weren’t more.

In the 1984 tapes it is mentioned that WA State had 58 known victims who were young girls missing and never found or dead and not solved as cases since 1971 in King, Pierce and another county.  Bundy started in with me, by stalking and initial contact over the phone, when I was barely 16 in 1970.  It serves to underscore the question of why WA State and the FBI ever allowed these cases to close when Bundy was a known killer with an escalation period documented in 1974 when records strongly suggest if not prove he’d been killing that frequently since 1973 or sooner. The records they never talk about and deny suggest his earlier activity strongly.  My experiences with him dating back to 1970 and verified by memory bits that matched the sealed records also proves his activity preceded 1974.  The woman he raped in 1972 also verifies his behavior started much earlier than Jan of 1974.

Officials did close these cases, no matter what they may say now, it is there in the records and in email statements to me behind the scenes when I first started coming forward that WA State had closed his cases – several people associated to the case went out to the media with an inaccurate fictionalized accounting of the time period in WA State and they’ve been working the media ever since totally negating the protection of these cases and all that evidence that had been found at Issaquah and Taylor/Tiger Mountain.  That critical evidence, over 300 pieces of it, was never protected by chain of custody, never worked, denied and much of it is forever lost.  Yet their documentaries which hide this truth, and their films and their media remain…false interpretations of the case put out for personal profit….what about the victims who remain unidentified, the articles found at Bundy’s kill sites which could represent victims from other jurisdictions and other states?  And what about the survivor who was severely traumatized and essentially had life altered forever by trauma [myself] and the families who are still waiting for closure?  There’s nothing about the Bundy cases that deserves so many documentaries focusing on the officials who are the faces of the case:  they let the public down and they failed in their jobs as public servants.