THE TRIAL OF TED BUNDY

Article BY steph arena - Art by NICHOLAS RAIMO

---

On June 25th 1979, Theodore Robert Bundy went to trial for the second time. This time in Miami, Florida after a change of venue. The charges related to the attacks and murders of the Florida University Chi Omega sorority students.

The opening prosecution statement – a low key presentation, based on fact and unemotional was made by Larry Simpson.

Bundy was not happy at all with his attorneys. On July 20th, the first day of defense, he addressed Judge Edward Cowart and claimed the attorneys were inadequate.He placed the blame largely on Mike Minerva, for dropping out of the case without warning. He now said that Minerva had “the most experienced courtroom presence in this case”. He neglected to mention that he had asked Minerva to leave in the first place.He stated that he disliked his defense team as a whole, he had had no choice in the selection of Bob Haggard to represent him in Miami and that he had not been asked at any time his opinion about who should be representing him in the public defender’s office.He also stated that he thought it was important to note that there were communication problems between himself and his attorneys, which had reduced his defense. The defense which was not his or sanctioned by him, nor one that he could say he agreed with. He complained that his lawyers had ignored his own input in the case and would not let him make decisions. He also claimed they were stubbornly refusing him the right to cross examine witnesses before the jury.
In addition, although Millard Farmer’s name was not mentioned, the implication was clear that Bundy wanted the record to show he had not had his attorney of choice.

Judge Cowart was astounded and stated that he knew of no case he had seen or experienced where an individual had received the quality and quantity of counsel Bundy had Cowart stated that he had never seen anything like what had happened in the defense of Ted’s case. Not in twenty seven years at the bar.

Bundy remained insistent. Yet again he stated that he wanted to take over his own defense. Cowart consented. However, he warned him that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. From then on, Bundy was in charge and his attorneys were merely “advisors”. Ed Harvey questioned the defense witnesses however. Harvey, again trying to save his client, asked for another competency hearing. He stated:

“A man’s life is at stake. He shouldn’t be forced to take the service of public lawyers whom he has no confidence in. His conduct has revealed the debilitating effects of his mental disorder by reflecting a total lack of insight regarding the disorder and it’s effects on him, by reflecting a wholly inadequate ability to consult with the lawyers about the case.”

Danny McKeever opposed the competency hearing, claiming:

“The man is difficult to work with. He’s almost cunning the way he works against his attorneys sometimes. But he is competent.”

This pleased Ted Bundy. To him, anything was better than being considered incompetent.

Judge Cowart felt he was competent too and a compromise was worked out as the trial reached it’s ending.

It is not known whether Ted Bundy’s deliberate rocking of the defense team’s shaky platform was a move of his to attract more attention of whether it was indeed proof that he was no longer in control. He continued to rebel against his attorneys and remained angry that he was not allowed more control. He stated:

“I’ve tried to be nice. We’re speaking more to a problem attorneys have in giving up power. Maybe we’re dealing with a problem of professional psychology, where attorneys are so jealous of the power they exercise in the courtroom, they’re afraid to share it with the defendant. They are so insecure in their own skill and experience that they are afraid that anybody else might know as much as they do, or can at least participate in the planning process.”

Cowart commented mildly that Ted’s attorneys had passed their bar exams and graduated from law school.

In truth however, Ted Bundy’s defense team were not that experienced. Judge Cowart had helped them frequently in phrasing questions. A lot of their cross-examinations were tedious, dull and went nowhere. Ted Bundy’s trial had already been marked as mediocre, and only the judge was a success story. If Bundy had worked with his attorneys however, instead of against them, he may have had an adequate defense at least. They had after all succeeded in banning the “fantasy tape”, the panty-hose mask, his former record and his escape. They may have been able to actually save him, if he had allowed them to.

There were two pieces of crucial evidence during the trial. Those were :

• Nita Neary identifying Ted Bundy in court as the man she saw leaving the Chi Omega house as she arrived home on the night of the murders.
• The plaster casts of Bundy’s teeth were an exact match as the bite marks on Lisa Levy’s left buttock.

Bundy’s cross-examination of Roy Crew - the FSU officer on the scene at Chi Omega, was inept. He pushed Crew hard to describe the scene in graphic detail, as if determined to impress upon the jury, the awfulness of the crime.

When Coral Gables dentist, Dr. Richard Souviron took the stand, Bundy took a backseat. He knew that this could kill him.

Lisa Levy had sustained bite marks to her left buttock. When photos were compared to blow ups of Ted’s mouth, Souviron was able to show similarities. Prosecutor Simpson asked whether or not Souviron was able to tell them if Ted had made the marks and Souviron stated yes. This was the first time there was any physical evidence to link Ted to a murder victim.

Defender Ed Harvey was quick to try and undermine this setback. Asking Souviron if analyzing bite marks was or was not both part art and part science. Souviron agreed that it was. Harvey then asked whether or not Souviron’s conclusions were a matter of opinion. Again, the dentist agreed, but the damage was already done.

This evidence dealt a large blow to the defense team and they never recovered from it. Bundy, who had been eager to play the advocate, then declined to testify on his own behalf.

He did however call his investigator, Joe Aloi to the stand in the absence of the jury. He was attempting to bring forth any type of physical evidence that would shatter the accuracy of Souviron’s adamancy about the teeth marks being his.Bundy claimed that the chip in one of his front teeth had not even been there at the time of the Chi Omega murders.

Aloi identified the photographs that had been sent to him by Chuck Dowd – the managing editor of “The Tacoma News Tribune”, - Ted’s hometown paper. The pictures that represented a chronological sequence of events, since Bundy’s first arrest in Utah.

Bundy asked what the purpose of enlarging the photographs that Aloi was attempting to obtain in chronological order was. Aloi stated that he had received information from Mr. Gene Miller of The Miami Herald concerning a seminar about whether the characteristic had occurred. Bundy then asked what characteristic that was.

“This is concerning one of the two front teeth – I don’t know all the names, and I was concerned about this chip on the front of the tooth, and whether it was or was not there and whatever specific times we could document some of the photographs in evidence to depict that this particular tooth was in very good condition at certain times. And of course, at other times when Dr. Souviron had taken his samples from you if the tooth was in a different condition.” Aloi responded.

Bundy asked Aloi what the photo blow-ups had revealed. An objection was sustained and Judge Cowart coached the defendant-defense attorney himself. He told him he might ask Aloi if he was able to accomplish discovery of the teeth in different conditions.

“Try it that way and see if I object,” were the Judge’s words. To which, Bundy responded by saying the court was always right. Cowart demurred by saying it wasn’t always.

Bundy then asked as Aloi the same question, in the way suggested by Cowart. Aloi stated that he had not accomplished what he set out to do. When he was asked why he replied by saying:

“The media for legal reasons, and perhaps for other reasons would not be very cooperative.”

He then explained that various newspapers had refused to give their negatives to him. Negatives of pictures of Bundy, smiling. Aloi had not been able to get his hands on any photos of Ted before his arrest in Penascola. Photos that would indicate for certain, that he had no chip in his tooth at that time. Then, Ted changed places and became the witness, questioned by Peggy Good. He stated that he had chipped his tooth in the middle of March, 1978. Two months after the Tallahasee murders.

“I recall I was eating dinner in my cell in the Leon County Jail and I bit down hard. Just like you bite down on a rock or pebble, and I pulled it out, and it was a white piece of tooth. And it just chipped out of my central incisors.”

Danny McKeever then rose and cross-examined Bundy.

“You don’t know what Utah dental records look like do you?” he asked.

“I’ve never seen the dental records themselves,” was Bundy’s reply.

“Would you be surprised to know that those teeth appear to be chipped from the Utah dental records?” (Which they did.) He questioned further.

“Yes, I would” was Bundy’s reply.

After that, Ted called his friend Carole Anne Boone to the stand for the first time. Boone answered Bundy’s questions about her visits to him in the Garfield County Jail in late 1977. He asked whether or not she had visited him and how many times.

“I don’t have my records with me, but I believe I visited with you on six or seven consecutive days. Both in the morning, and in the afternoon. On a few afternoons, we visited in the law library together in the courthouse and then we would walk back together to the jail. About half a block.”

Boone testified that, to her memory Ted had no chip in his teeth at the time of visiting.

Ted continued to argue for a delay, for subpoena that would force the newspapers to hand over the negatives of him.

“I think you’d understand what I’m getting at. If that chip did not occur until early March 1978, a month or two after the Chi Omega crimes and if the state’s odontologists say that space between the two linear abrasions could only have been made by a tooth with a chip or a gap between the two central incisors, then there’s obviously something wrong with the observations made by the state’s odontologists. Our contention all along, Your Honor, is that they have taken my teeth and twisted them every which way but loose to fit,” was the speech he made to Judge Cowart.

This plea was all in vain. Judge Cowart ruled that there would be no rushing out for new evidence on Ted Bundy’s teeth and no subpoenas. Bundy tried to open once again but Cowart intoned by saying ;

“Mr. Bundy you may jump up and down, hang from the chandelier, do anything you want to, but the court has ruled and the case is closed.”

At this, Bundy muttered some things under his breath and Cowart was not amused.

“You impress me not, sir…” he said.

“Well, I suppose the feeling is mutual, Your Honor,” was Ted’s retort.

Larry Simpson rose to give the closing arguments for the prosecution. He spoke in his usual subdued manner for forty minutes. He stated that first degree murder could be committed in the state of Florid in two different ways. One of those ways was by a person who premeditated and thought exactly about what he was going to do and did so. Which, he said had proved to be particular in that case. A premeditated and brutal murder, of two young women sleeping in their beds. The second way he stated, was during the commission of a burglary. Furthermore, the state had also proven a burglary in that case. He said he had asked Nita Neary on the witness stand, whether she recalled the man she saw at the door of the Chi Omega sorority house on the morning of January 15th, 1978. Her exact words were, “Yes, sir. I do.” He asked her if that man was in the courtroom on that day or not and she said that yes, he was and pointed him out. Simpson claimed that in itself was proof of Bundy’s guilt and was sufficient enough to support a conviction in the case.

In addition to that, he continued to add to circumstantial evidence. He mentioned Rusty Gag and Harry Palumbo’s testimonies.The fact that they stated that the defendant in that case had said he thought what he had done was a professional job. Simpson said ; “Ladies and gentlemen, this man recognizes from the morning of these murders that this was a professional job, that no clues had been left. He thought he had gotten away scot free.”

He mentioned the links with the license tag stolen from Randy Ragan’s van, the stolen Volkswagen, Ted’s escape to Penascola and the room wiped clean of prints. He mentioned Ted Bundy’s arrest by Officer David Lee. Ted Bundy had said to David Lee; “ I wish you had killed me. If I run now, will you shoot me?” He questioned why Bundy had said such things to the officer and was adamant that they were the words of a man guilty of the most horrible crimes possible.
He mentioned Patricia Lasko’s testimony which linked the two curly, brown hairs in the pantyhose mask next to Cheryl Thomas’ bed to their source : Ted Bundy’s head itself. Simpson stated that the pantyhose mask came from the man who had committed those crimes. In fact, the hairs from the pantyhose mask came from that man too.

Dr.Souviron’s testimony had been possibly the most damning thing of all. Souiviron’s conclusion was that he was reasonably certain that the bite marks on Lisa Levy’s buttock had been made by Theodore Robert Bundy. When he was asked if it was possible anyone else in the world could have made the marks, he said it would be like finding a needle in a haystack.
Dr. Lowell Levine – a chief consultant in forensic dentistry to the NY medical examiner had confirmed it, by telling the court that dental identification had been admitted into testimony as far back as the late nineteenth century. When he was asked about the possibility of someone else leaving the bite mark on Lisa Levy, or someone else having teeth that could leave that mark he said it was a practical impossibility.

Simpson ended the speech by claiming more or less that the defense was desperate. He spoke of how Dr. DeVore, the defense expert had told the court how Ted Bundy could have left that same bite mark. Simpson said that the defense had been in a very problematic situation by saying ; “Anytime they’ve got to put a witness on who will say that their man could have committed this crime, they’ve got real problems. And it was a desperate mover – a damned desperate move – that might have succeeded – but did not.”

Peggy Good, then rose to speak for the defense. She had very little to work with or bend to their favour. There were no alibis, no one to claim that they did indeed have an alibi for Bundy. The only thing she had to work with was talk of “reasonable doubt”.

“There is no denying there was a great and horrible tragedy that occurred in Tallahassee on January 15th. True, these four unfortunate women , beaten while sleeping in their beds, were injured, killed. But I ask you not to compound that tragedy by convicting the wrong man when the state’s evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bundy and no one else, is the person that committed these crimes. How tragic it would be if a man’s life could be taken from him because twelve people thought he was probably guilty, but they were not sure. You must assure yourself that you will not wake up and doubt your decision and wonder if you convicted the wrong man here two weeks after he is dead and gone.
There are basically two ways for the police to investigate a crime. They can go to the crime scene, they can look for clues and they can follow those clues to their logical conclusions and find a suspect. Or they can find the suspect, decide on the suspect and decide to make the evidence fit him and only him.”

She dismissed the introduction of the masses of bloodied sheets and bloody photographs. She pointed out the lack of fingerprint matching and mishandling of evidence. She found Nita Neary’s identification to be faulty claiming;

“She wants to help if she can. And she can’t let herself believe that the man who committed these crimes is still on the street.”

She tried to make Ted’s retreat from Tallahassee look plausible by saying that there were lots of reasons a person may run from the police. She listed one as being afraid you’d be railroaded and being charged with something you didn’t actually do. She stated it was clear Ted Bundy left town because he had no money and was running low on rent.
Good suggested that investigators dealing with Souviron and Levine’s testimonies had found Ted Bundy and matched his teeth to the actual bite, rather than searching for the person who had made the mark itself, stating ;

“If you want to convict the best shell in a confidence game, maybe you’ll accept what Souviron and Levine have to say. It will be a sad day for our system of justice if a man can be convicted in our courts on the quality of the state’s evidence, and you can put a man’s life on the line because they say he has crooked teeth, without any proof that such are unique, without any scientific facts or data base to their conclusions.”

Simpson then spoke again :

“Ladies and gentlemen, the man who committed this crime was smart. This man premeditated this murder. He knew what he was going to do before he did it, and planned it, and prepared himself for it. If there is any question in your mind about that, just look at the pantyhose mask. That is a weapon that was prepared by the perpetrator of this crime. Now, ladies and gentlemen, somebody took the time to make this weapon right here, this instrument that could be used for both – a mask that could hide identity… or also for strangulation.
“Anybody who took the time to do that is not going to leave fingerprints at a crime scene. And there was not a single fingerprint in room 12 at the Oak; the room had been wiped clean!
“Ladies and gentlemen, this man is a professional, just as he told rusty Gage at the Oak back in January, 1978. He’s the kind of man smart enough to stand n the courtroom and move to the end of the bannister and cross-examine witnesses in this case because he thinks he is smart enough to get away with any crime, just like he told Rusty Gage.”

Ted Bundy himself had said nothing at all. Instead, he sat quietly at the defense table, sometimes staring at his hands.

On July 23rd at 2:57 P.M jurors retired to determine whether or not he was guilty. The door was guarded by Dave Watson, the old bailiff. Ted Bundy was returned to his cell in the Dade County Jail an hour later to await the verdict.

At 6.31 P.M Judge Cowart returned to the courtroom as the jury had just one question they wanted to ask. It was whether or not the hairs were found in the pantyhose mask. They were told that said hairs were shaken from the mask.

At 9.20 P.M, astonishingly, the jury had already reached a verdict. As everyone filed back into the courtroom only Foreman Rudolph Treml glanced at Ted Bundy. He then handed the seven slips of paper to Judge Cowart who passed them to the court clerk, Shirley Lewis, who read them aloud.

In less than seven hours the jury, handpicked by Ted Bundy himself, which was made up of kindly, middle-aged women, church-goers and people who didn’t read the newspapers - all found Theodore Robert Bundy guilty as charged, on all accounts. He showed no emotion whatsoever, except for raising his eyebrows and rubbing his chin. When it was over he sighed. His mother, Louise was the one who began to cry again.

Judge Cowart confirmed the sentence and then gave him the verdict :

“It is ordered that you be put to death by a current of electricity, that current be passed through your body until you are dead.”

Even then, Ted Bundy’s natural magnetism didn’t desert him. After passing the sentence Judge Cowart felt moved to add :

“Take care of yourself, young man. I say that to you sincerely; take care of yourself, please. It is an utter tragedy for this court to see such a total waste of humanity as I've experienced in this courtroom. You're a bright young man. You'd have made a good lawyer, and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. Take care of yourself. I don't feel any animosity toward you. I want you to know that. Once again, take care of yourself.”