Talk:Ted Bundy

Question

In trying to replace the unfortunately lost ref from the Vermont State Police concerning the Curran murder, I came across several news reports from the time. In one interesting report is the following quote: "Detective Lt. Richard Beaulieu said his men were checking for a connection between the girl's slaying and several assaults on UVM coeds and other women in the Burlington area last winter."[1] Now, of course, this would mean the winter of 1970 and not 1969. Unfortunately, there's more evidence that Bundy could have made a trip out to Vermont in 1969 rather than 1970, and Rule states that Bundy saved the child from drowning in Washington in the Summer of 1970 (and he was enrolled at UW for this semester). So I don't know what to make of it, but I thought it was an interesting tidbit. Any opinions are always appreciated! Doc talk 20:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This sort of question came up frequently for awhile -- police departments all over the country were looking to solve cold cases, and the FBI got so many queries that it compiled a time-line of every bit of Bundy's time, from birth to death, that had been documented. For winter 1970, it places him in Seattle in late October/early November, then in school at UW for the entire 1971 year. November 5th through December 31, 1970 is unaccounted for. A pdf file of the entire time-line is here. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent reference! The fact that his whereabouts in 1971 are so uncertain gives even more credence to the fact that he could have murdered Rita Curran, and it's interesting to speculate on whether he had possibly made a trip to Vermont earlier than that when visiting relatives. But it's only speculation for now, alas. Cheers :> Doc talk 22:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A peek into Ted Bundy's mind

Hi, I have added the following quote, but it was reverted:

When caught, he defended his actions in terms of the fact-value distinction. He scoffed at those, like the professors from whom he learned the fact-value distinction, who still lived their lives as if there were truth-value to value claims. He thought they were fools and that he was one of the few who had the courage and integrity to live a consistent life in light of the truth that value judgments, including the command "Thou shall not kill," are merely subjective assertions.<ref>Zuckert, Catherine H.; Zuckert, Michael P. (2006). "Strauss—Modernity—America". The truth about Leo Strauss: political philosophy and American democracy. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-226-99332-4. http://books.google.nl/books?id=P-PpPtGojpoC&pg=PA73&dq=zuckert+%22ted+bundy%22&hl=nl&ei=ns6ITuPtGcKi-gbt4Owk&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false. Retrieved October 2, 2011. </ref>

—Zuckert and Zuckert, The truth about Leo Strauss: political philosophy and American democracy

I think it is relevant for the way Ted Bundy saw himself: a man acting with courage and integrity starting from the assumption that all moral claims are subjective, i.e. that "killing is wrong" is a mere preference, just as "I like chocolate ice-cream but not vanilla ice-cream" is. Contrary to what Doc said on my discussion page, the link works in my browser and it shows the page which was quoted. Perhaps Google Books selectively chooses the pages it won't display, depending on the IP/country of the user which accesses Google Books. Anyway, the book can be found at libraries if one wants to verify the quote.

I don't know exactly where it belongs into the article, but I think it is highly relevant to present a reference about how Ted Bundy saw himself and what it motivated him to do what he did. It is not to be misunderstood as an apology, Strauss and the Zuckerts were perfectly clear about condemning Ted Bundy's moral relativism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The broader quote is:

So, every college freshman in America knows how to appeal to the claim "That's only a value judgment" to cut off discussion about issues of the good and the just. Some of the more extreme consequences rise to the surface from time to time. In the 1980s, for example, there was a famous serial killer named Ted Bundy, who was young, good looking, and well educated. He searched out young women on college campuses, impressing them with his knowledge of philosophy, among other things. When caught, he defended his actions in terms of the fact-value distinction. He scoffed at those, like the professors from whom he learned the fact-value distinction, who still lived their lives as if there were truth-value to value claims. He thought they were fools and that he was one of the few who had the courage and integrity to live a consistent life in light of the truth that value judgments, including the command "Thou shall not kill," are merely subjective assertions.

But I am not so sure that such a long quote is allowed by Wikipedia quotations standards, which recommend quoting no more than 500 characters. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The book is also available at [2]. Be quick with verifying the quote, since I think it amounts to a copyright violation and will soon be deleted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops. That does not display p. 73, sorry. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the quote is far too opinionated in its amateurish conclusion, and really just the view of someone who wrote a book about Bundy. I don't see any value in keeping the quote in the article: there are many more quotes that are far more worthy of inclusion out there right now. Doc talk 07:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Zuckerts are serious scholars: they both are Professors of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. The book was published by the University of Chicago Press. In respect to what Bundy claimed about himself: do you think the Zuckerts made that up? If not, Bundy did think that he acted with courage and integrity as a moral relativist. Their book is a reliable source by my judgment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be a reliable source, but that doesn't necessarily mean the quote should be included because of that. I don't see anything in the quote that indicates Bundy claimed anything about himself in it, especially in the broader section that you provided: it appears to be a conclusion that the authors drew. And a lengthy one at that. Did they "make it up"? Well... kind of. If there's a consensus among the other editors to include it, my objection would be overruled by that. Doc talk 23:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Doc9871. The quote is not really about Bundy; the authors used it as an example in arguing their larger point. And since they do not source Bundy's assertion (or the source was not included), we don't know for a fact that he actually said anything like that. I've seen lots of references to his contempt for law enforcement (and quotes supporting it), but nothing related to contempt for psychology or psychologists, or facts vs. values, or the UW professors who taught him. Further, if it were to be included, it should be in the Pathology section as an example of the massive rationalization he went through as he attempted to justify his actions in his own mind; but there are more concise examples of that in the article already. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"When caught, he defended his actions in terms of the fact-value distinction." is a statement of fact, not an opinionated interpretation. At least the Zuckerts said that this is what he (really) did. Besides, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Deciding if the Zuckerts told the truth is original research. Let me be clear: I am not against moral relativism, I could describe myself as a moderate moral relativist. In fact, I think it is unwise to deny that laws and morals depend on time and place. However, this does not amount to "nothing is true, everything is permitted", the maxim which Nietzsche says that the crusaders extracted from the Assassins. As about the Zuckerts being very opinionated, this pertains to their craft: their kind of "being opinionated" is characteristic for political philosophy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the "verifiability, not truth" concept is under discussion, as I'm sure you know; a lot of total BS has been published in "reliable, published sources." This is a basic problem for WP that ultimately may not be solvable under the "original research" rule, which I (and many others) oppose on a variety of grounds. Second, the assertion that Bundy used moral relativism to defend his actions is a "statement of fact" would be a lot more believable if there were a direct quote to that effect, and the Zuckers do not provide one; in an otherwise-extensively footnoted book, we are asked to accept this statement on faith -- probably, as I already pointed out, because they use it as a minor example in arguing a larger point. In our context -- an article about Bundy -- more direct verification is necessary. I'm sure the Zuckers didn't make it up, that they read it somewhere, most likely the Michaud/Aynesworth "Conversations" book, which I don't have in my office, but will check tonight. I would not object to a one-sentence assertion that Bundy used moral relativism as a rationalization, if a convincing reference can be found; however, I still have to agree with Doc9871 that the article already contains sufficient information about the way he saw himself. DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a minor point, but Zuckerts got one thing quite wrong in the longer quote. We know for certain that Bundy committed no murders "in the 1980s" because he was incarcerated for the entire decade until his execution. He was also quite infamous in the 1970s, so it's not like he became notable in the 80's. I wasn't saying that the Zuckerts were conducting original research from a WP standard, as that wouldn't be possible in this scenario. But like DoctorJoeE stated, they are merely using Bundy as an example to prove a larger point in a book that isn't even about Bundy or serial murder. We should try to stick to the many sources that are about Bundy, written by experts in his case. Doc talk 22:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Bundy didn't defend his actions after he was caught. He gave an interview to Dobson where he blamed other people. But he never tried to justify his actions or so there was no right and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.221.226 (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And your point is . . . ? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 12:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That he probably didn't say that there was a fact value distinctions the quote might be made up...isn't that obvious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.221.226 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, at least not to me. But the point has already been made above that the authors do not source Bundy's assertion (or the source was not included), so we don't know for a fact that he actually said anything like that. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Subjective notions stated as fact?

Take a look at the sentence "Bundy was handsome and charismatic, traits he exploited in winning the confidence of his young, attractive female victims." Bundy being handsome and charismatic is down to opinion, no? I think he looks rather average-looking (not "handsome") and probably others do as well. The same goes with his female victims being attractive. One person can be considered attractive by one dude and unattractive to another. I'm not sure why this elementary mistake is allowed to persist in a GA-rated article. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It was there before it passed GA, FWIW. "Handsome" is truly a subjective thing, but it was well-established that a majority of reliable sources included something mentioning his "attractiveness", etc., and at one point it was cited. Since the intro doesn't need cites per convention (long story, really) the references were omitted. As far as the female victims' attractiveness; that's a slightly different story. We know Bundy attacked victims he was attracted to, but regarding the question as to subjectivity... I'm going to let someone else answer this one. Doc talk 08:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were to be cited, the way the claim is stated seems to be treating the cited claim as factual. It's not something I would nitpick in daily conversation, but it seems sort of out of place in an encyclopedia, unless it's standard here to accept subjective notions stated as facts as long as they're cited. If that is the case, is someone allowed to update an article on the color red with the sentence "red is an amazing color" given they cite a notable source claiming such? --81.100.44.233 (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

They could update the article with that, but it would undoubtedly get reverted per WP:NPOV. Which is exactly what you're saying about this article, of course. As I recall, the issue was discussed, and the consensus was that it was essential to understanding how this killer operated (and very easily citable). He used these traits to his advantage, different from random killers like Richard Ramirez or David Berkowitz, and not targeting sex-trade workers like so many others. I do not disagree with you that there is a possible POV problem with the statement, but I can live with it since it is so easy to reference by multiple reliable sources. Doc talk 09:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No doubt. It seems that many Wikipedia articles suffer from this issue. I will proceed to mend the sentence immediately. --Coolbb (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The change looks fine to me - I can't see anyone having a serious problem with it. Doc talk 08:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's awkward, quite frankly; and "considered" is a weasel word -- within a week some drive-by-er is going to say, "Considered by whom?" This came up during the GA review, and the consensus was that as long as we could source the statement that he was handsome and charismatic it was not POV. It is more than adequately sourced in the MO/Victim Profiles section (footnotes 265, 266, and 267) -- not in the lead, per WP convention. So if you're going to add "considered" in the lead, we'll need to add it in MO/Victim Profiles too -- and the sources don't say he was "considered" anything. Furthermore, the GA reviewers saw no reason to qualify or obfuscate the statement; so I vote for returning to the way it was. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 17:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point on the "considered by whom" thing: I actually thought that "considered" was there and that only the "to be" was removed. I didn't check the diffs carefully enough, and there were three quick edits, so I simply missed it. Doc talk 06:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"... as long as we could source the statement that he was handsome and charismatic it was not POV." Is it not a point of view attributed to the sources? If, according to the sources, Ted Bundy was handsome and charismatic, would not Ted Bundy be "considered" handsome and charismatic by the sources? Indeed, there are many such instances in the MO/Victim Profiles section. Alas, is it sufficient to phrase opinions in a factual manner on Wikipedia as long as the opinions are sourced? --Coolbb (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. We, as editors cannot render opinions; only sources can. So when you add sourced content, the obvious implication is that the content came from the source. You don't have to add weasel words to drive home that point. In the body of the article it states that Bundy was handsome and charismatic, and then 3 sources are cited which say he was handsome and charismatic. Our job as editors is to improve articles, not to obfuscate them; adding "considered" to every statement that isn't a directly observable fact does not improve articles. The article on the solar system does not say that the Earth is "considered" to orbit the sun, even though you cannot get on a spaceship and directly observe that it does. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 12:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what DoctorJoeE is getting at but also understand some of the confusion regarding phrasing certain opinions in a factual manner. Why are some opinions allowed to be phrased factually and some apparently not, regardless of how authoritative and notable the sources are? Why is it okay to say "Ted Bundy was handsome and charismatic", regardless of whether the reader actually believes that, but it's not okay to say "The Pantheon is beautiful and influential"? It's as if there is some unwritten underground Wikipedia ruleset that designates some opinions as okay to say without explicitly referencing it as an opinion, and others as not. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends on whether such a description serves a purpose in the article, as opposed to simply rendering a subjective opinion. The point of including a physical description of Bundy is to underscore the point that he used his looks and charm to lure his victims to his car, because they couldn't imagine how anyone as wholesome-looking and personable as Ted Bundy could possibly mean them any harm. The point of describing the Pantheon as "beautiful and influential" is -- what? If there is a good reason for including that description as part of a larger point, and you can source it, then it would not violate WP guidelines; but just stating it as a personal opinion, for no particular purpose other than to express your opinion, would not improve the article. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 18:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no further argument in favor of keeping the weasel word "considered" in the lead, I'm going to remove it unless there is a strong objection. The "handsome and charismatic" descriptor is fully sourced within the body of the article, as mentioned above. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 12:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

contridiction?

at one point in the pathology section it says something like "he was a psychopath meaning he knew what he was doing was wrong but still did it" and later it says that "he didnt take responsibility for any of his crimes". does that mean he just said that he wasnt responsible? was he just trying to get sympathy maybe? i feel that maybe there should be a small mention of that if that is what it probably means. how do we know that he knew the difference between right and wrong if he wouldnt admit that the murders were his fault? couldnt he have been deluding himself?

"A significant element of delusion permeated his thinking: "Bundy was always surprised when anyone noticed that one of his victims was missing, because he imagined America to be a place where everyone is invisible except to themselves. And he was always astounded when people testified that they had seen him in incriminating places, because Bundy did not believe people noticed each other."[303] But blame shifting and outright denial were his principal defense mechanisms: "I don't know why everyone is out to get me," he complained to Lewis. "He really and truly did not have any sense of the enormity of what he had done," she said.[297] "A long-term serial killer erects powerful barriers to his guilt," Keppel wrote, "walls of denial that can sometimes never be breached.""

isnt this section saying that he was delusional, and not a person who knew the difference between right and wrong? or can you be a psycopath and delusional at the same time (i assume you can)? if so why would he need "barriers to his guilt" if he is a psycopath? wouldnt the only barrier he would need in keeping himself from realizing that others noticed him etc? i guess there is variance in opinions as to whether he was a psychopath? i guess maybe this is part of the bigger argument of nature vs nurture and we're trying to incorporate both arguments? it seems pretty clear he was a psychopath based on the info on this page. maybe there should be some info on the varience of opinion between sources, one side vs the other type of thing. maybe i just dont know what im talking about at all? thats my suspicion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.165.150 (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion (and I am certainly no psychiatrist, so it's just an uninformed opinion) we're dealing with a "gray area". Right and wrong in a legal sense means, "I know what I have done is considered wrong by society." Did Bundy think his sadistic murders were "wrong"? Hell, no: he felt he had the right to do what he wanted, and his victims did not matter except as objects to be used and then discarded by him. But did he know that his crimes were considered "wrong" to 99% of society? Since he went to great lengths to hide proof of his guilt, it's unlikely that he could be considered incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, in a legal sense at least. What specifically do you propose adding? It would have to be well-written and referenced, and if it is the article could be further improved. Doc talk 05:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, delusional people are often able to tell right from wrong. Bundy clearly was able to make the distinction -- as Doc9871 pointed out he would not have eliminated incriminating evidence so painstakingly, nor would he have denied his involvement, if he couldn't -- he just didn't think anybody would notice, which is clearly delusional. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Death Picture?

I know this has been brought up before, but I'm going to bring it up again. I've seen a different picture of Ted's corpse recently, here. Now, I know part of the reason images like this were deemed unacceptable earlier was because of basic "squeamishness" - but since WP is not censored, and this is a somewhat historical image, I'm wondering if we shouldn't have it here. Since it can only be assumed that the image was taken by an employee of the Florida Medical Examiner's office, the image would have to be considered PD on the Commons per {{PD-FLGov}}. Is it too graphic for the article? Doc talk 05:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would vote against, for several reasons. First, how do we know for certain that it's Bundy? It does sort of look like him, and there is a mole on his neck -- but without more info about the photo's provenance, I don't think we can trust the word of an anonymous internet poster that it is authentic. Second (assuming for the moment that it is in fact Bundy), we can't assume the photo was taken by someone in the ME's office -- it could have been taken by the undertaker from Gainesville. Polly Nelson wrote that Bundy authorized Diana Weiner to handle all his postmortem issues, and she (Nelson) advised Weiner to use a discrete undertaker from Tallahassee whom she trusted. Instead, Weiner used a Gainesville undertaker who turned out to be an outspoken death penalty proponent, and Nelson was therefore "not surprised" when "unauthorized" postmortem photos surfaced in the tabloids. So it probably would not be prudent (nor encyclopedic) to get caught up in a potential dispute about the photo's origins and/or authenticity. Third, IMHO it is in fact too graphic for the article. My two cents. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any other copies of this image through Google except for the Veteran's Today site, and it was uploaded very recently. The uploader appears to be the managing editor of the site - I'll very likely ask him how he obtained it and see what he says. I'm glad you saw the mole on his neck - if the image is not somehow cleverly faked, I would most surprised if this were not him. As far as it being too graphic, the ol' argument could be raised, of course. Have you seen articles like this and this? For gruesome images, things like this and this come to mind. Assuming it's real, just look at what the effects of the electric chair were on his skull! I've never seen anything like this, and it could be educational as far as what that now archaic method of execution produced. Thanks for responding :> Doc talk 05:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense; I agree that it's probably him, but we would need some corroborating evidence beyond the word of one guy. If you/we can find such evidence -- perhaps a coroner's record that could identify the "ME20-89" tag on his neck? -- and then some evidence that the photo is indeed PD, I could see using it if there is no strenuous objection from others. One other reservation I have, that you might ask about: There is an arcuate scar on his scalp, which could be a burn from the metal "cap" from the electric chair -- but it could also be an autopsy scar, since that's where pathologists commonly make their incision to remove the brain. Since Bundy was not autopsied, AFAIK, it would be important to determine what that scar actually is. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 16:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There's some other pictures of Bundy's corpse that I've seen for years where it certainly looks like they've cut open his head and sewed it back up - see [3] especially. Since they know exactly why he died, I'm not sure why they would perform an autopsy. There are also different marks on the front of his forehead that are not in the other picture - strange. I've e-mailed the uploader and have not heard back yet. If the image is not legit this will all be for nothing, but I'm certainly curious as to the origin of the image. Cheers :> Doc talk 22:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted! Those do indeed look like autopsy-style "baseball" stitches to me. I seem to remember reading that Florida routinely autopsied its executed prisoners for a time, after the John Spenkelink fiasco, to prevent any further rumors about "prison brutality". That had ended, I thought, by 1989, but I could be wrong. When several dozen witnesses watch a prisoner die, it seems pretty silly to go through the motions of determining a cause of death, as you pointed out. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 23:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any use in putting such an image in the article. I don't see what purpose it serves. Load the image to Wikimedia Commons, maybe, if it's possible, but how is the article improved by a picture of his corpse? Vidor (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ho-ly crap! Hello, Vidor! Nice to see you again! Since the guy never got back to me concerning the provenance of the image, there's no possibility of it even being included - so no worries! Cheers :> Doc talk 12:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. My enthusiasm for Wikimedia projects in general was greatly dimmed after some dickheads at Wikimedia Commons deleted some photos I took of buildings in Mongolia due to some ridiculous torturing of "freedom of panorama" regulations. Anyway, I see the prose of the article has been rewritten quite a bit since last I visited. There's a chance I might be going to Salt Lake City this summer, in which case I'll try, if time allows, to get a photo of the rooming house Ted lived in. Vidor (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm going to be in Burlington, VT on some as-yet-undetermined future date, and will try to photograph the Elizabeth Lund Home for Unwed Mothers (now known as the Lund Family Center), if I can confirm that the current building on Glen Road is essentially the same structure (albeit expanded & renovated) as the one that was present in 1946. Anyone know? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 05:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)