This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
"Bundy also enjoyed long walks on the beach." That's an awful random statment. Unsourced, is it vandalism? 198.6.46.11 ( talk) 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The mug shot photo (Bundy wearing longer hair and a daek polo neck) is not from Utah 1975. The 1975 Utah mug shot is different with Bundy wearing a white t-shirt and short hair. You can find the Utah mug shot in Robert D. Keppel´s book "The Riverman (2005)" (page 5 of unnumbered photo pages between book pages 286 and 287). -- Noirceuil ( talk) 12:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Minor point, here, but I'm virtually certain that Bundy never was housed, at least on a permanent basis, in the Pitkin County jail (in Aspen) during his time in Colorado. I don't have my records handy, but as one who edited a local newspaper during that period, I think he was always housed in the Garfield County jail (in Glenwood Springs, about 40 miles northwest of Aspen), primarily because the Aspen facility was older, smaller and thought to be less secure as the jail in Glenwood Springs. (The Aspen jail had served well as a place of confinement for Claudine Longet after she shot Spider Sabich -- she painted her cell pink during her stay -- but Ted Bundy was another matter.) Whenever he had a court appearance, he was transferred from Glenwood Springs to Aspen for court hearings, and returned to Glenwood Springs. Thus, the sentence in this article, "Upon arrest, Bundy was placed in the smaller Glenwood Springs jail, rather than being taken back to Aspen," is not correct. The Glenwood jail was much newer and somewhat bigger than Aspen's, and Bundy hadn't ever been permanently housed in the Aspen jail. Theoldgringo ( talk) 16:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting...I'd forgotten that he was housed in the Pitkin County jail before being transferred to Glenwood Springs in April, but I'd trust Ann Rule's reporting on that. Now I'm wondering WHY they decided to move him; probably because PitCo was substandard -- Bundy was always complaining about something.-- Theoldgringo ( talk) 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I do not active edit these articles, I do have an interest in serial killers and their victims, and I have read up on Bundy. I know that a lot of women (including Debbie Harry) have falsely believed to have escaped from Bundy. Mainly because they were abducted or someone attempted to abduct them in terms similar to Bundy. Giving Harry's story as an example, she was offered a ride by a man in a small white car. She got in, and noticed that the car's (at least passenger door panel) was stripped out when she tried to roll down the window (It was only somewhat cracked). When she noticed this, she reached her arm through the crack and managed to open the door from the exterior door handle and escape. Because of the circumstances and the look of the suspect, she believes that she escaped Ted Bundy. However, she claims that this incident happened in New York - where Bundy was never traced. Still, interesting nonetheless. But I digress.
I found that this article does not have any mention that many women have erroneously believed to have escaped from Bundy. It should be noted that according to the book The Stranger Beside Me, hundreds of women have claimed to have escaped Bundy, with this not necessarily being true. I believe that this should have some kind of mention in the article. I can't put it in, because I don't believe that I have enough ready references to justify inclusion in the article, but that somebody who is more familiar with the Bundy case should write something about it.
BTW, just to show that the story of Debbie Harry mentioning to have escaped Bundy is not total bullshit, Snopes has a page on it. Of course, it states that the rumor is false as of her escaping Bundy, it still holds a chance that she did indeed escape abduction by somebody else. Karrmann ( talk) 00:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to agree. Not notable. Vidor ( talk) 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
To make this a Good Article? Vidor ( talk) 03:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Odd: what qualifications did Bundy have for a position as responsible as Rockefeller's campaign office manager for Seattle? Dynzmoar ( talk) 00:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
In the introductory paragraph, it says that Bundy was active from 1974-1978. However, in the known victims section near the end, he is said to have had his first victim in 1973. Also, Rule's The Stranger Beside Me mentions that Kathy Devine and Brenda Baker were murdered by Bundy in 1973. Should this be fixed? GSMR ( talk) 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
User:II MusLiM HyBRiD II's word for word removal is unexplained, and the edit summary indicates that vandalism was being reverting, while is not! User:Wildhartlivie fixed it, thanks. Bluptr ( talk) 14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
"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. 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," as the article says. In essence: "I sentence you to die, so take care of yourself, and I'm not your enemy." LOL and no further comment. 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 04:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
There are two more pictures I'd like to put in this article. I'd like to have that picture of the murder tools that they took from his car in 1975, and I'd like to have a picture of his Volkswagen. What do we think? Is there a fair use rational we can use to load one of those pictures to Wikipedia, or are we out of luck? Vidor ( talk)
I just looked at the Whitman article and almost all of those images are nominated for deletion. Bummer. Vidor ( talk) 22:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is being removed from WP:GAN because one of the main contributors ( User:Wildhartlivie) to the article disagrees with the nomination. Please discuss what needs to be changed and fixed in the article before renomination. Thanks. Nikki♥ 311 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
None of the books or documentaries or biographies I have read about Bundy mention that he ever used the alias James Thurston. I challenge its appearance in "Aliases" on the infobox. Find a reference, please. GSMR ( talk) 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been wondering about this for a while, and I finally deleted it. Where did the details regarding the Culver murder--took her to a Holiday Inn, drowned her in a bathtub--come from? It seems like a departure from Bundy's M.O., to take one of his victims to a hotel where he would have been seen with her. (Unless he knocked her unconscious beforehand? And if he did that, did he just pull her out of the car and carry her into the room?) I have read all the books listed in the "Further reading" section at the end of this article and the only thing I've ever read about the Culver murder is that Bundy was not a suspect until his 1989 confessions. Nothing about the details of the crime. Anybody know anything about this? Vidor ( talk) 07:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I found out the answer. I got hold of a paperback copy of "The Only Living Witness" from the early 90s, printed by Signet, and it includes in the 1989 afterword the bit about Bundy taking Culver to a Holiday Inn and drowning her. The 1999 Authorlink paperback was edited for length and that bit got cut out. Vidor ( talk) 23:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I see the Bundy mug shot photo was removed. The Wikipedia entry for the Florida Photographic Collection specifically states that the Florida Archives have given permission for use of the images on the project. I am going to load all of the photos from the Florida Memory Project onto Wikimedia Commons in accordance with this, and in addition to the items that are already there. Vidor ( talk) 17:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the basic etiquette suggested on the talk page, I'm not totally sure about how to go about making a criticism, so bear with me please. I'm a little confused about the dates assigned to Bundy's education. It's clear that the "Lenz"/Healy attacks/murders occurred in early 74, but the article states that Bundy dropped out of Utah law school in spring of 1974. In fact, Bundy had enrolled again in the University of Puget Sound law school in fall of '73, where he had been an undergraduate half a decade earlier. Before he dropped out in '74, he had applied for, and gained admission to the University of Utah school of law. By the fall he had left Washington for Utah. This seems like an oversight, as it would have been unlikely for Bundy to carry out the murders while at law school in Utah. I can find a source for this if people need one.
As a further point of interest, I'm not sure how he did at Utah law, but it seems likely that he did well enough to continue towards the degree.
This is a really nice article. Very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.173.195 ( talk) 07:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The article says "...Bundy's mother would later tell of being seduced by a war veteran named "Jack Worthington". Bundy's family did not believe this story, however, and expressed suspicion about Louise's violent, abusive father, Samuel Cowell. To avoid social stigma, Bundy's maternal grandparents, Samuel and Eleanor Cowell, claimed him as their son. "
Why is there no mention in the article of Ted Bundy as a psychopath? There is mention of manic depression, but not psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder.
As far as I'm aware, the consensus amongst psychologists today is that Bundy was a psychopath - he exhibited many of the characteristics contained in the PCL-R - even if he wasn't explicitly diagnosed as such during his life. Perhaps it's worth adding a comment from a contemporary expert on the matter? I've only found media interviews with psychologists and criminologists about Bundy and psychopathy, but someone else might have access to more authoritative information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tczuel ( talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Bundy can be fairly said to be a psychopath. Several evaluators concluded that he was a psychopath while he was alive, including an expert for the defense, Dr. Emanuel Tanay, who testified that his psychopathy and antisocial personality were such that it caused him to interfere with his own defense and rendered him incompetent. Dr. Tanay's deposition can be found at http://www.skcentral.com/articles.php?article_id=24 . Dr. Hervey Cleckly, author of the seminal work on psychopathy "The Mask of Sanity," gave similar testimony but concluded that he was competent to stand trial (see http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1873&dat=19790612&id=MFEfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9dEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2564,4921909 ). Also, Dr. Robert Hare, arguably the world's leading current authority on psychopathy, lists him as an example of a prototypical psychopath in "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of The Psychopaths Among Us." (p. 4). Pravnik ( talk) 18:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The last line of the first paragraph of University Years seems to be a joke? "Invented the ice cream cone and raped ice creams" Not funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.233.106 ( talk) 18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This may be petty, but I dislike the repeated use of "co-ed" to refer to Bundy's victims. It's a dated and rather silly word that makes the article sound like a letter to Playboy from the 1960s. We don't have a special word for male college students. Why not just call Bundy's victims "young women" or "female college students"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.10.56 ( talk) 17:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and I have made the change in two instances, replacing the word with "student". 84.203.42.163 ( talk) 01:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
He described the Issaquah crime scene (where Janice Ott, Denise Naslund, and Georgeann Hawkins had been left) and it was almost like he was just there. Like he was seeing everything. He was infatuated with the idea because he spent so much time there. He is just totally consumed with murder all the time.[90] 150.203.110.137 ( talk) 22:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Although The Silence of the Lambs chartacter Buffalo Bill is mainly based off Ed Gein some pieces were also taken from Bundy's killing style such as using fake handicaps to lure in his victims. 70.190.169.178 ( talk) 06:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)KMKRUSE
I totally agree that the real-life name of the pseudonym-victim, Joni Lenz, need not be "outed" here. Anyone have any other thoughts? - SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Should it not be mentioned that the handsome, smart and arrogant Volkswagen driving serial killer in Charles Bronson film "10 to midnight" is based on Ted Bundy? (Wikipedia incorrectly states that the killer is based on ugly stupid mass murderer Richard Speck) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 ( talk) 09:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
"Impact on popular culture
Gein influenced the nature of book and film characters, such as fictional serial killers Norman Bates (Psycho), Leatherface (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), and Buffalo Bill (The Silence of the Lambs).[27] The book American Psycho contains several references to Ed Gein, as does the film based on that book.
Gein's influence is seen in musical groups drawing inspiration from his crimes. A number of band names have been derived from Gein, including one named Ed Gein. Gidget Gein, a former bassist for the band Marilyn Manson, derived his stage name from Ed Gein (and Franzie "Gidget" Hofer)." Perhaps we should change "in film" to "in popular culture" ? What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 ( talk) 17:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
"which relate specifically to them in some meaningful way"
Ok, in that case documentary THE KILLING OF AMERICA (1982) (Which doesnt even have a Wikipedia article) but you can find it on www.imdb.com/search (then enter title) fills all criteria s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 ( talk) 15:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(out) Thank you again for helping us all out with this. I really appreciate the help. Does anyone have a link to the documentary that doesn't go to the youtube site? I did a search this morning for it but I couldn't find any. The IMDb I looked at but I could find the judges words in it which is what we are trying to get right and document. Help finding it would really be appreciated. Thank you, -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I reverted that because it is sourced to a copyrighted production hosted on YouTube. It didn't have anything to do with whether it was right or wrong and in fact, I didn't look at the clip. We shouldn't be linking to copyright violations. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 16:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
That quote that is now added is from one of the movies about Ted Bundy. I'm not sure which one off the top of my head but I am possitive it was a movie comment. I have a few books about Bundy by crime writers. I'll see if I can find what the judge said in them. I don't think a youtube link is a [[WP:RS|reliable source to use for this type of article. Thoughts, anyone else remember the Ted Bundy movies. I know of three of them. -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
And again, the link to the YouTube video is a copyright violation. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Ok, now Moonriddengirl is considered an expert in the copyright areas. I have asked her opinion on this matter so please lets not revert anymore until we hear something. Here is the link where I asked just now. As to using the two different refs I see that the quote is not exactly like I wrote above. Did you mix the two references to make that quote? We can't do that kind of thing which is why I ask. Also, I couldn't find in that other ref the judges comments can you point me in the right direction? I hit links on the site twice I believe but I couldn't come to that passage which if the ref is going to be used it should be on the ref when it is clicked, not having the reader try to hunt it down like this. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
My take on what Moonriddengirl has said is that if we are going to use the documentary for what the judge said then we need the sources from the original documentary or a transcript of what the judge said. Not the parsing of words heard on the youtube video which has been established, in my humble opinion, as violations. So to answer your question, no, transcribing the words from youtube is wrong. We need another source other than youtube. I would prefer to see the dif here with it having the judges quote in the ref. As I said before, the ref there now I couldn't locate the judges closing comments. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no clue why one editor has chosen to revert every edit I have made on this article, but it appears to stem from the copyright violation issue, wherein she stated above that she didn't trust my word on this. I have posted to that talk page, asking the editor to stop reverting every edit I make on this article, which brought the response of removing my request and no answer. Today, she has reverted changes of wording of "Currently no evidence indicates when or where Bundy began killing people." in support of an IP edit of "No one knows exactly where or when Bundy began killing people." I objected because she cannot say that with any authority, so she changed it to "No one in law enforcement knows exactly where or when Bundy began killing." without providing supporting evidence to that effect. I changed it to "No evidence currently suggests when or where Bundy began killing people." If she changes it again, I will take this to WP:3O and further up the dispute mediation chain. I have worked on this article for a long time and do not expect to be dismissed and challenged at every step I take concerning the article. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 03:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The previous statment, "there is no evidence" is not accurate - as Wilhartlivie pointed out, Bundy could have told his lawyer, his wife or someone else who isn't talking about when he actually started killing. If law enforcement knew exactly when he started killing, they would have made it public - as it is, they have an approximate date of when he started killing. Changing the statement to "no one in law enforcement knows" makes more sense and is actually more accurate. It should stay that way, IMO. As far as the syntax of the sentence, a flow is always preferable over choppy stops and starts. Also, Rule and Keppel *are* Bundy experts, the quotes around "Bundy experts" should be removed. I'm not interested in an edit war, I'm interested in the accuracy of the article. Above are my reasons behind the revert and I believe them to be reasonable and in the best interest of the article and Wikipedia. I edit for no other reason. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 03:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The reverted versions not being exactly the same doesn't mean 3RR wasn't violated. It's better to start a discussion following one or two reverts, rather than continuing to revert. Equazcion (talk) 04:22, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)
No one has made personal attacks against you, Skag, although I admit it is tempting. No one has been incivil to you. You began a fight when you challenged my comments on copyright violations, which, by the way, were upheld. I don't want a fight, however, I won't stand by and allow you to try and drag me into your bad faith edit warring and commentary. I'm not fighting here, your comments on the other hand, take that tone. I wasn't requested to stop editing here as you were. Is that a personal attack? Is that incivil? By your standards it is. Please come up with the page number for your synthesis mess on the main page here and stop trying to pick a fight. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow. I see this talk page has been eventful in my absence. Anyway--the remark from Judge Cowart is quite famous and attested to in a number of sources. I have sourced it to the version of Ann Rule's book that I used when originally documenting this article some time ago. I don't see any value in citing TV videos as sources. Vidor ( talk) 01:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I notice, in reviewing this section and the one above, that only one very, very determined user seems to believe that citing a video as a reference is a sound practice, and that every other person who's weighed in here agrees that citing a video is not desirable. Vidor ( talk) 22:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
How about we see what everyone thinks about the Ann Rule book verses the video. Welcome back Vidor. I think the best we can do right now is see if there is a consensus for a preferred version here. I definitely do not like mixing the two references as that is considered synthesis. Vidor, if it gets decided to use the book would you recheck your page number please. I have a different page number so I am curious if we have different publications dates that changed the page number, thanks. I thought this would be a good idea to do since I too am seeing everyone going for the printed version vs. the video. I think it's time to see if there is a consensus for one or the other instead of the reverting that's been happening. Time to get closure one way or the other on this. I already said why I don't think it's a good idea to use both. Thanks everyone, and Happy New Year, -- CrohnieGal Talk 22:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I am clarifying in the interest of fair disclosure that we are not talking about a "video" but an actual documentary that includes archive footage from the Bundy sentencing hearing with Cowart speaking directly to Bundy. There's no doubt as to what was said when you view the video and the actual words Cowart spoke are *not* the same as the Rule version. The Rule version is not an exact quote but a slight paraphrase. IMDB has the documentary listed as a documentary [1] - we are not talking about a homemade YouTube video anymore. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 00:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
If for Ann Rules book, list your name here;
If for appropriate transcript source, list your name here:
The video from the movie documentary here;
I've been watching this discussion for several weeks but haven't had the time to jump in until now with the holidays and such. The Killing of America is legitimately available for viewing in its entirety via this link on Veoh.com. It requires that you download the Veoh web video player, which may be a hinderance if you don't have high-speed internet. I watched 57 minutes of it yesterday (it runs 90 minutes) but haven't reached the Bundy portion because all the death talk got a bit overwhelming; however, I did watch the YouTube clip.
I suggest that interested editors watch the Veoh version because the audio of the YouTube version is extremely poor. If you don't want to watch the entire thing (although I suggest you do if you have the time and interest; it's pretty compelling), the Bundy clip will be somewhere in the last half hour or so. I'll try to finish watching it today and post the exact location (in minutes) of the clip.
Perhaps several editors can watch the clip and agree upon a transcribed quote. This seems like the next best option in lieu of the official court transcript, which I couldn't find online. I hope this helps. momo ricks 01:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Please explain to me why the Rule version is preferable over the documentary This has been explained to you many, many times, in small words. YouTube is not a reliable source, and the documentary is not readily available elsewhere. Anyway, I've decided to take the quote out. As noted above, it doesn't add a tremendous amount to the article, ambiguity as to the precise verbiage has been raised, and it appears impossible at this time to resolve the ambiguity with a reliable, easily accessible source. So it's gone. Vidor ( talk) 08:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This would all be very convincing if Skagit could produce a reliable, verifiable source. Since she has completely failed to do so, I think we can ignore the protestations above. Vidor ( talk) 02:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone in this conversation know how to track down an actual court transcript? Aren't these things public record? Just contact the courts in the appropriate state, right? - GTBacchus( talk) 06:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a long, tiresome, pointless discussion. The problems with using a non-verifiable, non-authoritative source such as a video that apparently only Skagit has ever seen are obvious. Use the Rule quote, find an official transcript, or leave the quote out of the article. Vidor ( talk) 12:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The documentary is verifiable and, so far, the most authoritative. I'm not the only one who has seen it. The Rule quote is not verbatim, ergo, it is an innaccurate source. If the quote stays, then taking the easy way out is certainly more convenient, but it is not preferable. I, for one, am glad that Doc is taking the extra mile here (as I did when I took the time to compare the Rule version against Cowart's actual words as shown in the documentary side-by-side). Good for Doc - he's doing what Wikipedians should do. - SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 15:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the documentary, as stated by User:Momoricks is that parts of what the judge says is not at all clear due to the narrator talking over Judge Cowell's words. Momorick's makes it clear above that what the judge says can't be heard. As for this documentary not being online but still usable, this is a part of policy that I admit I have a problem understanding. We are supposed to be able verify references but if most here can't and/or haven't seen the video, then how can anyone else confirm what is being said? As I said, I am terribly confused about not being able to see something. I know assume good faith should be followed but there is also verifying so how does someone verify something that cannot be seen? I would also like to say that just because Ann Rule paraphrased what the judge said doesn't make that useless or untrue to the article. The difference from the book and what was written from the video, there were only a few words that were different if I recall correctly. The main things that are said to be of interest was how the judge liked Bundy's abilities and calling him partner were still seen in Rule's words. If someone does manage to get the transcripts, would they be able to put that on the talk page? Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 17:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
An individual is trying to delete the picture of Bundy's murder kit on the grounds that it is possible to substitute a free equivalent. This strikes me as plainly ridiculous. It isn't as if the contents of Bundy's bag are on display in a museum. Any help those active on this talk page can provide in keeping the photo would be appreciated. Vidor ( talk) 12:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
USER: ROCKWING IS STILL TRYING TO DELETE THIS PHOTO. I urge all readers who care about this article, even those I've disagreed with, to pitch in on the photo's talk page and make their voice heard. Sorry for the CAPS but I'm trying to draw attention to this. Vidor ( talk) 00:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
After removing Lentz as from the victim section and being reverted, Doc good revert thanks, I blew it. :) Now we don't have a surviviors section but maybe we should since Doc is correct that four survivers are known. The way the Lentz one reads now, it sounds like she is a death victim so I fear that more good faith errors like mine will occur again. So, I thought if maybe a surviver's section would be warrented since there are more than one who survived. Thoughts please, -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Verdict on murder kit photo was to keep. Thanks to all the users who commented on the photo's talk page in support of keeping it. Vidor ( talk) 00:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The administrator that deleted it has restored it. Vidor he said some sourcing problems were needed to be fixed at the image so I'm going to let you do it because I don't know what is needed and you do. The image is now restored to the article too. -- CrohnieGal Talk 16:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Per the note on the page for the original photo, I resized it to something pretty close to half the original size. Here is the new, smaller photo, at full size. Thoughts? Shall I make the switch? Vidor ( talk) 03:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Image:Ted Bundy murder kit.JPG
I think the sizes are fine. Most of them are licensed from the Florida State Archives. Shouldn't resize an image if you don't have to. Vidor ( talk) 03:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
New, smaller image now in article. Vidor ( talk) 03:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone believe the site would benefit from having the current picture (May 2005) of Bundy's murder kit? It is the same one taken in my home and appears in my book, is displayed at Executed Today, and I know it has been "pirated" by other sites as well. I don't care either way if it is used, but if it is of interest to those who do the bulk of the work here, then I would grant the use of it. Kmsullivan12 ( talk) 17:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
"Bundy also enjoyed long walks on the beach." That's an awful random statment. Unsourced, is it vandalism? 198.6.46.11 ( talk) 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The mug shot photo (Bundy wearing longer hair and a daek polo neck) is not from Utah 1975. The 1975 Utah mug shot is different with Bundy wearing a white t-shirt and short hair. You can find the Utah mug shot in Robert D. Keppel´s book "The Riverman (2005)" (page 5 of unnumbered photo pages between book pages 286 and 287). -- Noirceuil ( talk) 12:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Minor point, here, but I'm virtually certain that Bundy never was housed, at least on a permanent basis, in the Pitkin County jail (in Aspen) during his time in Colorado. I don't have my records handy, but as one who edited a local newspaper during that period, I think he was always housed in the Garfield County jail (in Glenwood Springs, about 40 miles northwest of Aspen), primarily because the Aspen facility was older, smaller and thought to be less secure as the jail in Glenwood Springs. (The Aspen jail had served well as a place of confinement for Claudine Longet after she shot Spider Sabich -- she painted her cell pink during her stay -- but Ted Bundy was another matter.) Whenever he had a court appearance, he was transferred from Glenwood Springs to Aspen for court hearings, and returned to Glenwood Springs. Thus, the sentence in this article, "Upon arrest, Bundy was placed in the smaller Glenwood Springs jail, rather than being taken back to Aspen," is not correct. The Glenwood jail was much newer and somewhat bigger than Aspen's, and Bundy hadn't ever been permanently housed in the Aspen jail. Theoldgringo ( talk) 16:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting...I'd forgotten that he was housed in the Pitkin County jail before being transferred to Glenwood Springs in April, but I'd trust Ann Rule's reporting on that. Now I'm wondering WHY they decided to move him; probably because PitCo was substandard -- Bundy was always complaining about something.-- Theoldgringo ( talk) 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I do not active edit these articles, I do have an interest in serial killers and their victims, and I have read up on Bundy. I know that a lot of women (including Debbie Harry) have falsely believed to have escaped from Bundy. Mainly because they were abducted or someone attempted to abduct them in terms similar to Bundy. Giving Harry's story as an example, she was offered a ride by a man in a small white car. She got in, and noticed that the car's (at least passenger door panel) was stripped out when she tried to roll down the window (It was only somewhat cracked). When she noticed this, she reached her arm through the crack and managed to open the door from the exterior door handle and escape. Because of the circumstances and the look of the suspect, she believes that she escaped Ted Bundy. However, she claims that this incident happened in New York - where Bundy was never traced. Still, interesting nonetheless. But I digress.
I found that this article does not have any mention that many women have erroneously believed to have escaped from Bundy. It should be noted that according to the book The Stranger Beside Me, hundreds of women have claimed to have escaped Bundy, with this not necessarily being true. I believe that this should have some kind of mention in the article. I can't put it in, because I don't believe that I have enough ready references to justify inclusion in the article, but that somebody who is more familiar with the Bundy case should write something about it.
BTW, just to show that the story of Debbie Harry mentioning to have escaped Bundy is not total bullshit, Snopes has a page on it. Of course, it states that the rumor is false as of her escaping Bundy, it still holds a chance that she did indeed escape abduction by somebody else. Karrmann ( talk) 00:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to agree. Not notable. Vidor ( talk) 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
To make this a Good Article? Vidor ( talk) 03:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Odd: what qualifications did Bundy have for a position as responsible as Rockefeller's campaign office manager for Seattle? Dynzmoar ( talk) 00:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
In the introductory paragraph, it says that Bundy was active from 1974-1978. However, in the known victims section near the end, he is said to have had his first victim in 1973. Also, Rule's The Stranger Beside Me mentions that Kathy Devine and Brenda Baker were murdered by Bundy in 1973. Should this be fixed? GSMR ( talk) 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
User:II MusLiM HyBRiD II's word for word removal is unexplained, and the edit summary indicates that vandalism was being reverting, while is not! User:Wildhartlivie fixed it, thanks. Bluptr ( talk) 14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
"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. 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," as the article says. In essence: "I sentence you to die, so take care of yourself, and I'm not your enemy." LOL and no further comment. 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 04:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
There are two more pictures I'd like to put in this article. I'd like to have that picture of the murder tools that they took from his car in 1975, and I'd like to have a picture of his Volkswagen. What do we think? Is there a fair use rational we can use to load one of those pictures to Wikipedia, or are we out of luck? Vidor ( talk)
I just looked at the Whitman article and almost all of those images are nominated for deletion. Bummer. Vidor ( talk) 22:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is being removed from WP:GAN because one of the main contributors ( User:Wildhartlivie) to the article disagrees with the nomination. Please discuss what needs to be changed and fixed in the article before renomination. Thanks. Nikki♥ 311 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
None of the books or documentaries or biographies I have read about Bundy mention that he ever used the alias James Thurston. I challenge its appearance in "Aliases" on the infobox. Find a reference, please. GSMR ( talk) 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been wondering about this for a while, and I finally deleted it. Where did the details regarding the Culver murder--took her to a Holiday Inn, drowned her in a bathtub--come from? It seems like a departure from Bundy's M.O., to take one of his victims to a hotel where he would have been seen with her. (Unless he knocked her unconscious beforehand? And if he did that, did he just pull her out of the car and carry her into the room?) I have read all the books listed in the "Further reading" section at the end of this article and the only thing I've ever read about the Culver murder is that Bundy was not a suspect until his 1989 confessions. Nothing about the details of the crime. Anybody know anything about this? Vidor ( talk) 07:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I found out the answer. I got hold of a paperback copy of "The Only Living Witness" from the early 90s, printed by Signet, and it includes in the 1989 afterword the bit about Bundy taking Culver to a Holiday Inn and drowning her. The 1999 Authorlink paperback was edited for length and that bit got cut out. Vidor ( talk) 23:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I see the Bundy mug shot photo was removed. The Wikipedia entry for the Florida Photographic Collection specifically states that the Florida Archives have given permission for use of the images on the project. I am going to load all of the photos from the Florida Memory Project onto Wikimedia Commons in accordance with this, and in addition to the items that are already there. Vidor ( talk) 17:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the basic etiquette suggested on the talk page, I'm not totally sure about how to go about making a criticism, so bear with me please. I'm a little confused about the dates assigned to Bundy's education. It's clear that the "Lenz"/Healy attacks/murders occurred in early 74, but the article states that Bundy dropped out of Utah law school in spring of 1974. In fact, Bundy had enrolled again in the University of Puget Sound law school in fall of '73, where he had been an undergraduate half a decade earlier. Before he dropped out in '74, he had applied for, and gained admission to the University of Utah school of law. By the fall he had left Washington for Utah. This seems like an oversight, as it would have been unlikely for Bundy to carry out the murders while at law school in Utah. I can find a source for this if people need one.
As a further point of interest, I'm not sure how he did at Utah law, but it seems likely that he did well enough to continue towards the degree.
This is a really nice article. Very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.173.195 ( talk) 07:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The article says "...Bundy's mother would later tell of being seduced by a war veteran named "Jack Worthington". Bundy's family did not believe this story, however, and expressed suspicion about Louise's violent, abusive father, Samuel Cowell. To avoid social stigma, Bundy's maternal grandparents, Samuel and Eleanor Cowell, claimed him as their son. "
Why is there no mention in the article of Ted Bundy as a psychopath? There is mention of manic depression, but not psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder.
As far as I'm aware, the consensus amongst psychologists today is that Bundy was a psychopath - he exhibited many of the characteristics contained in the PCL-R - even if he wasn't explicitly diagnosed as such during his life. Perhaps it's worth adding a comment from a contemporary expert on the matter? I've only found media interviews with psychologists and criminologists about Bundy and psychopathy, but someone else might have access to more authoritative information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tczuel ( talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Bundy can be fairly said to be a psychopath. Several evaluators concluded that he was a psychopath while he was alive, including an expert for the defense, Dr. Emanuel Tanay, who testified that his psychopathy and antisocial personality were such that it caused him to interfere with his own defense and rendered him incompetent. Dr. Tanay's deposition can be found at http://www.skcentral.com/articles.php?article_id=24 . Dr. Hervey Cleckly, author of the seminal work on psychopathy "The Mask of Sanity," gave similar testimony but concluded that he was competent to stand trial (see http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1873&dat=19790612&id=MFEfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9dEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2564,4921909 ). Also, Dr. Robert Hare, arguably the world's leading current authority on psychopathy, lists him as an example of a prototypical psychopath in "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of The Psychopaths Among Us." (p. 4). Pravnik ( talk) 18:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The last line of the first paragraph of University Years seems to be a joke? "Invented the ice cream cone and raped ice creams" Not funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.233.106 ( talk) 18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This may be petty, but I dislike the repeated use of "co-ed" to refer to Bundy's victims. It's a dated and rather silly word that makes the article sound like a letter to Playboy from the 1960s. We don't have a special word for male college students. Why not just call Bundy's victims "young women" or "female college students"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.10.56 ( talk) 17:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and I have made the change in two instances, replacing the word with "student". 84.203.42.163 ( talk) 01:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
He described the Issaquah crime scene (where Janice Ott, Denise Naslund, and Georgeann Hawkins had been left) and it was almost like he was just there. Like he was seeing everything. He was infatuated with the idea because he spent so much time there. He is just totally consumed with murder all the time.[90] 150.203.110.137 ( talk) 22:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Although The Silence of the Lambs chartacter Buffalo Bill is mainly based off Ed Gein some pieces were also taken from Bundy's killing style such as using fake handicaps to lure in his victims. 70.190.169.178 ( talk) 06:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)KMKRUSE
I totally agree that the real-life name of the pseudonym-victim, Joni Lenz, need not be "outed" here. Anyone have any other thoughts? - SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Should it not be mentioned that the handsome, smart and arrogant Volkswagen driving serial killer in Charles Bronson film "10 to midnight" is based on Ted Bundy? (Wikipedia incorrectly states that the killer is based on ugly stupid mass murderer Richard Speck) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 ( talk) 09:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
"Impact on popular culture
Gein influenced the nature of book and film characters, such as fictional serial killers Norman Bates (Psycho), Leatherface (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), and Buffalo Bill (The Silence of the Lambs).[27] The book American Psycho contains several references to Ed Gein, as does the film based on that book.
Gein's influence is seen in musical groups drawing inspiration from his crimes. A number of band names have been derived from Gein, including one named Ed Gein. Gidget Gein, a former bassist for the band Marilyn Manson, derived his stage name from Ed Gein (and Franzie "Gidget" Hofer)." Perhaps we should change "in film" to "in popular culture" ? What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 ( talk) 17:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
"which relate specifically to them in some meaningful way"
Ok, in that case documentary THE KILLING OF AMERICA (1982) (Which doesnt even have a Wikipedia article) but you can find it on www.imdb.com/search (then enter title) fills all criteria s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 ( talk) 15:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(out) Thank you again for helping us all out with this. I really appreciate the help. Does anyone have a link to the documentary that doesn't go to the youtube site? I did a search this morning for it but I couldn't find any. The IMDb I looked at but I could find the judges words in it which is what we are trying to get right and document. Help finding it would really be appreciated. Thank you, -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I reverted that because it is sourced to a copyrighted production hosted on YouTube. It didn't have anything to do with whether it was right or wrong and in fact, I didn't look at the clip. We shouldn't be linking to copyright violations. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 16:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
That quote that is now added is from one of the movies about Ted Bundy. I'm not sure which one off the top of my head but I am possitive it was a movie comment. I have a few books about Bundy by crime writers. I'll see if I can find what the judge said in them. I don't think a youtube link is a [[WP:RS|reliable source to use for this type of article. Thoughts, anyone else remember the Ted Bundy movies. I know of three of them. -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
And again, the link to the YouTube video is a copyright violation. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Ok, now Moonriddengirl is considered an expert in the copyright areas. I have asked her opinion on this matter so please lets not revert anymore until we hear something. Here is the link where I asked just now. As to using the two different refs I see that the quote is not exactly like I wrote above. Did you mix the two references to make that quote? We can't do that kind of thing which is why I ask. Also, I couldn't find in that other ref the judges comments can you point me in the right direction? I hit links on the site twice I believe but I couldn't come to that passage which if the ref is going to be used it should be on the ref when it is clicked, not having the reader try to hunt it down like this. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
My take on what Moonriddengirl has said is that if we are going to use the documentary for what the judge said then we need the sources from the original documentary or a transcript of what the judge said. Not the parsing of words heard on the youtube video which has been established, in my humble opinion, as violations. So to answer your question, no, transcribing the words from youtube is wrong. We need another source other than youtube. I would prefer to see the dif here with it having the judges quote in the ref. As I said before, the ref there now I couldn't locate the judges closing comments. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no clue why one editor has chosen to revert every edit I have made on this article, but it appears to stem from the copyright violation issue, wherein she stated above that she didn't trust my word on this. I have posted to that talk page, asking the editor to stop reverting every edit I make on this article, which brought the response of removing my request and no answer. Today, she has reverted changes of wording of "Currently no evidence indicates when or where Bundy began killing people." in support of an IP edit of "No one knows exactly where or when Bundy began killing people." I objected because she cannot say that with any authority, so she changed it to "No one in law enforcement knows exactly where or when Bundy began killing." without providing supporting evidence to that effect. I changed it to "No evidence currently suggests when or where Bundy began killing people." If she changes it again, I will take this to WP:3O and further up the dispute mediation chain. I have worked on this article for a long time and do not expect to be dismissed and challenged at every step I take concerning the article. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 03:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The previous statment, "there is no evidence" is not accurate - as Wilhartlivie pointed out, Bundy could have told his lawyer, his wife or someone else who isn't talking about when he actually started killing. If law enforcement knew exactly when he started killing, they would have made it public - as it is, they have an approximate date of when he started killing. Changing the statement to "no one in law enforcement knows" makes more sense and is actually more accurate. It should stay that way, IMO. As far as the syntax of the sentence, a flow is always preferable over choppy stops and starts. Also, Rule and Keppel *are* Bundy experts, the quotes around "Bundy experts" should be removed. I'm not interested in an edit war, I'm interested in the accuracy of the article. Above are my reasons behind the revert and I believe them to be reasonable and in the best interest of the article and Wikipedia. I edit for no other reason. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 03:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The reverted versions not being exactly the same doesn't mean 3RR wasn't violated. It's better to start a discussion following one or two reverts, rather than continuing to revert. Equazcion (talk) 04:22, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)
No one has made personal attacks against you, Skag, although I admit it is tempting. No one has been incivil to you. You began a fight when you challenged my comments on copyright violations, which, by the way, were upheld. I don't want a fight, however, I won't stand by and allow you to try and drag me into your bad faith edit warring and commentary. I'm not fighting here, your comments on the other hand, take that tone. I wasn't requested to stop editing here as you were. Is that a personal attack? Is that incivil? By your standards it is. Please come up with the page number for your synthesis mess on the main page here and stop trying to pick a fight. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow. I see this talk page has been eventful in my absence. Anyway--the remark from Judge Cowart is quite famous and attested to in a number of sources. I have sourced it to the version of Ann Rule's book that I used when originally documenting this article some time ago. I don't see any value in citing TV videos as sources. Vidor ( talk) 01:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I notice, in reviewing this section and the one above, that only one very, very determined user seems to believe that citing a video as a reference is a sound practice, and that every other person who's weighed in here agrees that citing a video is not desirable. Vidor ( talk) 22:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
How about we see what everyone thinks about the Ann Rule book verses the video. Welcome back Vidor. I think the best we can do right now is see if there is a consensus for a preferred version here. I definitely do not like mixing the two references as that is considered synthesis. Vidor, if it gets decided to use the book would you recheck your page number please. I have a different page number so I am curious if we have different publications dates that changed the page number, thanks. I thought this would be a good idea to do since I too am seeing everyone going for the printed version vs. the video. I think it's time to see if there is a consensus for one or the other instead of the reverting that's been happening. Time to get closure one way or the other on this. I already said why I don't think it's a good idea to use both. Thanks everyone, and Happy New Year, -- CrohnieGal Talk 22:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I am clarifying in the interest of fair disclosure that we are not talking about a "video" but an actual documentary that includes archive footage from the Bundy sentencing hearing with Cowart speaking directly to Bundy. There's no doubt as to what was said when you view the video and the actual words Cowart spoke are *not* the same as the Rule version. The Rule version is not an exact quote but a slight paraphrase. IMDB has the documentary listed as a documentary [1] - we are not talking about a homemade YouTube video anymore. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 00:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
If for Ann Rules book, list your name here;
If for appropriate transcript source, list your name here:
The video from the movie documentary here;
I've been watching this discussion for several weeks but haven't had the time to jump in until now with the holidays and such. The Killing of America is legitimately available for viewing in its entirety via this link on Veoh.com. It requires that you download the Veoh web video player, which may be a hinderance if you don't have high-speed internet. I watched 57 minutes of it yesterday (it runs 90 minutes) but haven't reached the Bundy portion because all the death talk got a bit overwhelming; however, I did watch the YouTube clip.
I suggest that interested editors watch the Veoh version because the audio of the YouTube version is extremely poor. If you don't want to watch the entire thing (although I suggest you do if you have the time and interest; it's pretty compelling), the Bundy clip will be somewhere in the last half hour or so. I'll try to finish watching it today and post the exact location (in minutes) of the clip.
Perhaps several editors can watch the clip and agree upon a transcribed quote. This seems like the next best option in lieu of the official court transcript, which I couldn't find online. I hope this helps. momo ricks 01:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Please explain to me why the Rule version is preferable over the documentary This has been explained to you many, many times, in small words. YouTube is not a reliable source, and the documentary is not readily available elsewhere. Anyway, I've decided to take the quote out. As noted above, it doesn't add a tremendous amount to the article, ambiguity as to the precise verbiage has been raised, and it appears impossible at this time to resolve the ambiguity with a reliable, easily accessible source. So it's gone. Vidor ( talk) 08:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This would all be very convincing if Skagit could produce a reliable, verifiable source. Since she has completely failed to do so, I think we can ignore the protestations above. Vidor ( talk) 02:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone in this conversation know how to track down an actual court transcript? Aren't these things public record? Just contact the courts in the appropriate state, right? - GTBacchus( talk) 06:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a long, tiresome, pointless discussion. The problems with using a non-verifiable, non-authoritative source such as a video that apparently only Skagit has ever seen are obvious. Use the Rule quote, find an official transcript, or leave the quote out of the article. Vidor ( talk) 12:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The documentary is verifiable and, so far, the most authoritative. I'm not the only one who has seen it. The Rule quote is not verbatim, ergo, it is an innaccurate source. If the quote stays, then taking the easy way out is certainly more convenient, but it is not preferable. I, for one, am glad that Doc is taking the extra mile here (as I did when I took the time to compare the Rule version against Cowart's actual words as shown in the documentary side-by-side). Good for Doc - he's doing what Wikipedians should do. - SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 15:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the documentary, as stated by User:Momoricks is that parts of what the judge says is not at all clear due to the narrator talking over Judge Cowell's words. Momorick's makes it clear above that what the judge says can't be heard. As for this documentary not being online but still usable, this is a part of policy that I admit I have a problem understanding. We are supposed to be able verify references but if most here can't and/or haven't seen the video, then how can anyone else confirm what is being said? As I said, I am terribly confused about not being able to see something. I know assume good faith should be followed but there is also verifying so how does someone verify something that cannot be seen? I would also like to say that just because Ann Rule paraphrased what the judge said doesn't make that useless or untrue to the article. The difference from the book and what was written from the video, there were only a few words that were different if I recall correctly. The main things that are said to be of interest was how the judge liked Bundy's abilities and calling him partner were still seen in Rule's words. If someone does manage to get the transcripts, would they be able to put that on the talk page? Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 17:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
An individual is trying to delete the picture of Bundy's murder kit on the grounds that it is possible to substitute a free equivalent. This strikes me as plainly ridiculous. It isn't as if the contents of Bundy's bag are on display in a museum. Any help those active on this talk page can provide in keeping the photo would be appreciated. Vidor ( talk) 12:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
USER: ROCKWING IS STILL TRYING TO DELETE THIS PHOTO. I urge all readers who care about this article, even those I've disagreed with, to pitch in on the photo's talk page and make their voice heard. Sorry for the CAPS but I'm trying to draw attention to this. Vidor ( talk) 00:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
After removing Lentz as from the victim section and being reverted, Doc good revert thanks, I blew it. :) Now we don't have a surviviors section but maybe we should since Doc is correct that four survivers are known. The way the Lentz one reads now, it sounds like she is a death victim so I fear that more good faith errors like mine will occur again. So, I thought if maybe a surviver's section would be warrented since there are more than one who survived. Thoughts please, -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Verdict on murder kit photo was to keep. Thanks to all the users who commented on the photo's talk page in support of keeping it. Vidor ( talk) 00:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The administrator that deleted it has restored it. Vidor he said some sourcing problems were needed to be fixed at the image so I'm going to let you do it because I don't know what is needed and you do. The image is now restored to the article too. -- CrohnieGal Talk 16:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Per the note on the page for the original photo, I resized it to something pretty close to half the original size. Here is the new, smaller photo, at full size. Thoughts? Shall I make the switch? Vidor ( talk) 03:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Image:Ted Bundy murder kit.JPG
I think the sizes are fine. Most of them are licensed from the Florida State Archives. Shouldn't resize an image if you don't have to. Vidor ( talk) 03:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
New, smaller image now in article. Vidor ( talk) 03:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone believe the site would benefit from having the current picture (May 2005) of Bundy's murder kit? It is the same one taken in my home and appears in my book, is displayed at Executed Today, and I know it has been "pirated" by other sites as well. I don't care either way if it is used, but if it is of interest to those who do the bulk of the work here, then I would grant the use of it. Kmsullivan12 ( talk) 17:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)