This is the cross examination of Ted Bundy by David Yocom, Assistant Salt Lake County prosecutor, in the Carol DaRonch kidnapping trial. Bruce Lubeck and John O’Connell were Bundy’s defense attorneys. The testimony occurred on Thursday February 26, 1976.

Ted Bundy Carol DaRonch trial bowtie Salt Lake City Utah
Ted Bundy at trial, March 2, 1976.

MR. LUBECK: Your Honor, there’s a couple of exhibits that I think we can clear up. Exhibit 51 is an invoice dated November 9, 1974, from Welch’s Fun Cars. I believe Mr. Yocom may stipulate that would be received as a business record.

MR. YOCOM: That’s correct. I have conferred with Mrs. Welch at that location, and she has informed me that this is an official sales receipt from their records showing the purchase of— speaks for itself, I guess. Looks like some gaskets and a tune-up kit, two other small items totaling $17.09.

THE COURT: Exhibit 51 is received.

MR. LUBECK: Defendant proposes Exhibit No. 52. I believe Mr. Yocom will stipulate that it may be admitted, also. It’s a business record, it’s a record of telephone calls from Mr. Bundy’s home on November 8th.

MR. YOCOM: That’s correct. It does show a phone call made on that date at military time 2352, which would be 11:52 p.m., speaking for 16 minutes on that occasion. And do you want me to stipulate who he called?

MR. LUBECK: Seattle, Washington.

MR. YOCOM: He called Seattle, Washington, and the number he called, would that be Elizabeth Kloepfer?

MR. O’CONNELL: Mr. Yocom, why don’t we agree we are not going to throw names around?

MR. YOCOM: I’m not slandering as to who he called. He called a girl, I believe. Doesn’t matter to me. Anyway, I believe that’s an official record of the Mountain Bell.

Ted Bundy phone records
Bundy’s phone records for November, 1974. Exhibit #52. Courtesy Bountiful Police Dept.

THE COURT: Exhibit 52 is received.

MR. LUBECK: Your Honor, Exhibit 53, I believe Mr. Yocom will stipulate is a check dated November 9, 1974, written by the Defendant, Ted Bundy, to Welch’s Fun Cars, in the amount of $17.09.

MR. YOCOM: I would so stipulate, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Exhibit 53 is received.

MR. LUBECK: And Defendant’s Proposed Exhibit 54, Your Honor, is a check written by Mr. Bundy on November 8th, 1974, to Cottonwood Texaco in the amount of $2.50.

MR. YOCOM: I so stipulate.

THE COURT: Exhibit 54 is received.

THE COURT: The record will show the Defendant is present, as are counsel heretofore noted in the record. You may proceed, Mr. Yocom.

MR. YOCOM: Thank you, Your Honor.


Q: Mr. Bundy, on the 16th day of August, you were questioned quite thoroughly by, not only Sgt. Bob Hayward, but also Deputy Ondrak, were you not? 

A: I don’t know. Thoroughly? Pardon me, but I— 

Q: You were questioned by them? 

A: I was questioned, yes. 

Q: And the thrust of their questioning did not go to the question of marijuana or use, did it? 

A: It did not, thank God. 

Q: And it was specifically with regard to what you were doing in the area and also your possession of certain items in that regard? 

A: Yes, sir, it did. 

Q: Do you remember what you told the officers, what you told them about possession, about the crowbar in the automobile? 

A: I can’t remember specifically. I think I may have told them I had been using it that day, shortly before that day. I can’t tell you exactly what was said that evening. 

Q: A crowbar of this nature is not exactly a tool that you would use with regard to repairing your automobile, would it? 

A: Well, it’s a useful tool. What can I say, Dave? 

Q: It’s not a mechanical tool, is it? 

A: No. The shovel in my trunk is not a mechanical tool, either. I use that on occasion, if you will allow me to tell you, to pry off the old shock absorbers I had in my car. In the Volkswagen, they get rusted, and nothing else would do that besides a crowbar. 

Q: You would say– let me rephrase this– well, how long did you own that crowbar? 

A: I have probably had it a couple years, anyway. I can’t tell you exactly when I got it. 

Q: Carry it around in your car all the time? 

A: Yes, I do. 

Q: Didn’t tell the officers that you had been working on the car that day and used the crowbar for that purpose and that’s why it was in the car? 

A: I may have. 

Q: Is that correct? 

A: Pardon me? 

Q: Is that correct? 

A: Will you rephrase the question? 

Q: You didn’t tell them that you had been working on the car and used the crowbar to pry off the seat, did you? 

A: As I said, I’m not sure exactly what I might have said at that time. 

Q: And that lie you told the officer about seeing the movie that night was to protect, as I understand it, yourself from revealing to the officers that you had been smoking marijuana that night? 

A: Well, yes, it was an attempt to get what at the time seemed to be a plausible explanation, but what was really a foolhardy explanation. They seemed quite concerned to the point of putting on me a burden to explain my whereabouts, my presence there, and I felt an explanation was absolutely necessary. 

Q: But you were caught in that lie at that time, were you not? 

A: Sure was. 

Q: And you still didn’t make a reasonable explanation for your whereabouts, why you were there? 

A: Well, at that time I decided that I better– that I wasn’t functioning too well under the pressure which they were placing on me, that I had better collect my thoughts another time, deal with them on whatever basis they wanted to question me. 

Q: It took you until about two weeks ago to collect your thoughts? 

A: No, sir. 

Q: That was the first time that you revealed to your attorney what you were doing out there, isn’t that right? 

A: Yes, sir. 

Q: And you lied to him continually about that, didn’t you? 

A: Yes, I did. It–

Q: Now, you knew, as a law student– you had had a previous year of law school at Puget Sound University, hadn’t you, in law? 

A: Yes, sir. 

Q: Even if you admitted to the officers that you were smoking marijuana, and they did not find any evidence to that, you could not be charged or convicted on your statement alone? 

A: I don’t want to be cynical about one’s constitutional rights, but at that point in time, one is hardly in a position to think in legal terms. I should have done a number of things in regard to my constitutional rights at that time. 

Q: But you knew that you couldn’t be convicted of a misdemeanor, possession of marijuana, strictly on your own admission you had smoked a joint? 

A: I was simply not willing to tell them. 

Q: In spite of the fact that you were facing possibly a charge for evading a police officer and possession of burglary tools? 

A: I didn’t see how my admission of that fact would have mitigated those charges in any way. 

Q: Oh, come on, Ted. You’re here, you say if you don’t give us an explanation why you’re here, if you don’t tell us why you’ve got handcuffs and a crowbar in your car, we are going to arrest you. Right? 

MR. O’CONNELL: Is that a question? I mean, if not, I object to the form of the question. 

THE COURT: Sustained. 

Q: Let me rephrase it. You were questioned about the possession of those items, you said, right?

A: Yes. 

Q: And you couldn’t tell Deputy Ondrak why you had them in the car– or didn’t? 

Ted Bundy murder kit crowbar ski mask Salt Lake City Utah
Direct scan of the original evidence photo of the Bundy “burglary tools.” Courtesy of Bountiful Police Department.

A: I told him essentially it was just the stuff I kept in my car. 

Q: Just junk? 

A: Junk, yes. 

Q: And they asked you if it was your junk, right? 

A: Yes. 

Q: You said, “Just junk that I have collected,” right? 

A: Sounds like a fair statement. 

Q: And you consider that crowbar a piece of junk? 

A: Well– I guess I wasn’t using a generic term to describe it. It was a tool. Mr. Yocom, you might not be aware of the fact that there were many other things in the car which the officers did not see. 

Q: Didn’t find any marijuana though, did they? 

A: I don’t think they did. 

Q: Didn’t you say you threw it out as you drove along? 

A: I did. 

Q: So, faced with two crimes being charged against you at that time, you felt in your own opinion that it would be better to take the rap on those two than it would be to tell them why you ran from them and why you had those things in your car? 

A: No, I didn’t see how that would have any effect on those charges whatsoever. 

Q: In fact, you had an opportunity the next morning, or on the 21st, when you talked to Sgt. Ben Forbes in the jail, to make another explanation, didn’t you? 

A: Regarding what? 

Q: Your possession of those items and what you were doing out there that evening? 

A: Well, I’m not sure if he asked me what I was doing out there that evening. I think he was concerned about the things that were in my car, however. 

Q: Didn’t you tell Ben Forbes at that time in jail that you had found those handcuffs in a garbage dump near your apartment? 

A: Well, I had found them in the dump, but– near my apartment– I guess relatively speaking, the explanation “dump” is near my apartment. It’s not next door, but I don’t know if I said that exact wording. 

Q: About ten miles away, huh? 

A: Yes. 

Q: What else did you tell him about those handcuffs at that time? 

A: I don’t recall. 

Q: Do you remember making this statement, that when you were in Seattle, you had occasion to arraign a subject who was stealing a 10-speed bicycle, and you had a scuffle with the party until the police arrived, and had no way of restraining him; when you found the handcuffs in this dump by your apartment, you thought they would be a good item to carry around in case a similar situation arose? 

A: Well, if I could correct the officer’s recollection there, or his statement: the incident which I described to him, perhaps which he recorded there, was not a bicycle. I had apprehended a man who had smashed a– 

THE COURT: Keep your voice up. 

A: (continuing) I had apprehended someone who had stolen a woman’s purse, and we had scuffled, and I had to hold him for the police to arrive. 

Q: So the only difference between what I just read to you and what you just said, it is a purse rather than a bicycle? 

A: Yes, that is essentially it. I thought I’d just make the record clear. 

Q: Where did that occur in Seattle? 

A: That occurred in Northgate. 

Q: Northgate? 

A: Yes, I was with– 

Q: What police department handled the situation? 

A: Seattle Police Department. I received a citation from Chief Tilsch for the apprehension of the man. 

Ted Bundy purse snatching article
The Seattle Times, Jan. 10, 1973

Q: You didn’t tell us on direct examination when Mr. O’Connell was questioning you that you kept the handcuffs for that purpose, is that right?

A: I didn’t have the occasion to, no. 

Q: Asked you why you kept them, you said you didn’t know? 

A: Well, I couldn’t– nothing. 

Q: They were interesting? 

A: They were, indeed. 

Q: Then you told Forbes you were going to use them at a future date, if necessary, to apprehend criminal suspects? 

A: Well, I don’t go around looking for them. I think that was an impression which I had at the time, but something that I think was not as plausible under the circumstances. 

Q: Did you ever have a key to those handcuffs? 

A: I don’t believe so. 

Q: Wouldn’t be much value to you in apprehending people without a key, would they? 

A: Well, again, if that was my purpose, as I say, the absence of a key was one of the primary factors in saying they were more of a curiosity than saying something one could use that would have any utility. So that’s why– I mean I had forgotten all about them. I didn’t know where they were, what they were doing in my trunk. 

Q: But you told Forbes you were going to use them to restrain people, is that right? 

A: Detective Forbes had informed me that his game was homicide. I must tell you that he wanted– 

Q: Answer my question rather than editorializing. 

A: Sure. Would you re-ask the question? 

Q: You don’t remember it? 

A: No, I don’t. 

Q: You just want to answer the way you want to answer, right?

A: That’s right. 

MR. O’CONNELL: Objection. 

THE COURT: That’s argumentative. The objection is sustained. 

Q: Mr. Bundy, my question was, you told Forbes you were going to use them to restrain people with, is that right? 

A: He– 

Q: Is that right? 

A: Not entirely. 

Q: No. What else did you tell him, then? 

A: He asked me why at the time I found them I had taken them and put them in my trunk. He said, well, what value do you have for those things, for such a thing? 

Q: And you told him you were going to use them at a future date to restrain people with? 

A: I had said I intended one time, the thought crossed my mind, and that was all. Nothing of great significance. As I say, I’m not a vigilante. I don’t go around looking for people to apprehend for the police. They do their own apprehending. 

Q: You had done it in Seattle? 

A: I had. The woman was screaming. I saw the man running. I went after him and caught him. That was the long and short of it. 

Q: Had you had any night classes at the University of Utah at that time? 

A: At what time? At what time, sir? 

Q: Anytime prior to August 21st, 1975? 

MR. O’CONNELL: I object. I don’t see the relevancy of that. Did he have night classes at any time? 

THE COURT: At any time prior to the 21st? 

MR. YOCOM: Yes. 

Q: When you got to Salt Lake in September of ’74, up until the time you were arrested in August of ’75, did you take any night classes at the University of Utah? 

MR. O’CONNELL: I object. I don’t see the relevancy. 

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 

A: No, sir. 

Q: Didn’t you tell Officer Forbes that you had, in fact, taken night classes at the University of Utah when the weather was cold? 

A: Boy, I don’t know why I’d tell him that. No. I’d have to say no. 

Q: You didn’t tell him that? 

A: Night classes– I had taken night classes at the University of Puget Sound one time, but I don’t know– what question was that in response to? Do you know? Why would I answer– what was he asking me that I would give such an answer? The answer is, I have never taken night courses at the college. 

Q: The question meaning keeping warm in the winter? 

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I think that we ought to approach the bench and see where we are going here. May we approach the bench? 

THE COURT: All right. 

(Counsel had a short conference at the bench.) 

Q: When you talked to Deputy Forbes, Mr. Bundy, were you informed at that time that you were under investigation for another matter? 

A: I think that was the gist of the conversation, although I don’t think he formally advised me of anything, including my rights. 

Q: Well, did you think at that time you were under investigation for another more serious case? 

A: I think that was the impression he left with me. 

Q: In fact, when you went with Deputy Thompson that same day up to your apartment, didn’t you have the impression that you were under investigation for a more serious matter other than possessing burglary tools and evading an officer? 

A: I would have to say yes, definitely. 

Q: You, in fact, lied to Deputy Thompson that day when you were at the apartment when you gave the statement, didn’t you? 

MR. O’CONNELL: I object to this as outside the scope. 

THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 

A: Well, could you be more specific? 

Q: Your conversation with Deputy Thompson when you were at the apartment, generally talking to him, he asked you about various things, didn’t he? 

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, Your Honor, I will also object for the reason we asked in the discovery proceedings for any statements whatsoever made by the Defendant to law enforcement officers. And if you will look on the Answer to the Bill of Particulars, you will not see any– Ben Forbes is the only officer listed, I mean, taking any kind of statement from the Defendant. 

MR. YOCOM: I don’t think that applies in cross-examination, Your Honor, only in my case in chief. 

MR. O’CONNELL: That’s so we know, so that we can look into it and find out, so the witness can be prepared to respond, among other reasons, besides the validity of the taking of the statement, so on, so we can explore that in discovery proceedings. Besides, the objection goes to impeachment on collateral matters other than the testimony the witness gave on direct. 

MR. YOCOM: You will note the response to the question in the Bill of Particulars: 

“Question: Does the state have evidence of any admission or statements of the Defendant made to a law enforcement officer? If so, state the name and the agency of the officer to whom made and the date of such admission or statement. If the statement was recorded or reduced to writing, attach a copy of the same. 

“Answer: Jerry Thompson, Detective in question in the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office, had a conversation with the Defendant on August 21, 1975. Said statement was not recorded, but is described in the reports of Detective Thompson previously submitted to the Defendant’s counsel.” 

MR. O’CONNELL: Shows you I have a bad memory, too. I withdraw that objection. It is still a collateral matter. 

THE COURT: Well, I don’t know. 

MR. O’CONNELL: Improper for impeachment. 

THE COURT: I don’t know whether he is offering it for impeachment yet, so the objection at this point is overruled. 

Q: When you talked to Detective Thompson at your apartment, you talked about a lot of matters, he asked you if you concede, didn’t he? 

A: He could have. I didn’t make records of the conversation. 

Q: He asked you if you had ever been in the State of Colorado, didn’t he? 

MR. O’CONNELL: I object, Your Honor. This is purely collateral. 

THE COURT: Well, I suppose, Mr. Yocom, I need to find out where you are going. Why don’t you approach the bench? 

(Counsel had a short conference at the bench.) 

THE COURT: Was there an objection? 

MR. O’CONNELL: Yes, Your Honor, the objection it’s outside the scope, goes to collateral matters. 

THE COURT: All right. The objection is sustained on the ground that risks that are involved in a beneficial aspect of the testimony rarely outweigh the beneficial aspect. 

Q: Back on November 8th, or in November of 1974, Mr. Bundy, your car was running fairly well, was it not? 

A: On which day? What part of November, sir? 

Q: Well, you know the points and plugs that you have mentioned that you replaced. That is not a thing that occurs immediately, is it? 

A: No. It comes from neglect, mostly. 

Q: So your testimony would be that on that day and prior thereto, your car was in pretty bad shape, then, huh? 

A: Well, I’d have to say it wasn’t running as efficiently as I would like to have it run. The fact it didn’t start on the day was really a surprise to me, and I guess just– it just snapped. Wasn’t working properly after that point. I just said, that’s it, so I had to fix it. 

Q: How was your car running, say, the two weeks prior to November 8th? 

A: I suppose it was running. A Volkswagen will run. 

Q: In fact, you were running the wheels off it, weren’t you? 

A: I can’t recall. 

Q: Didn’t you purchase gas on the 25th, 26th, and 28th days– 

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, again, he’s going into collateral matters. It’s outside the scope. 

MR. YOCOM: It’s not, Your Honor. He talked about his car not running well, goes directly to that point. 

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 

Q: In fact, you purchased gas on the 25th day of October, 1974, 8.2 gallons; the 26th day of October, 1974, 6.3 gallons; the 28th day, in Bountiful, Utah, 8.2 gallons; total of 22.7 gallons in a four-day period. Would that be correct?

A: I guess if you added it together properly, that’s what it is. 

Q: You do have a Chevron credit card, don’t you? 

A: I had one at that time. 

Q: Pardon me? 

A: Yes, I had one at that time, as I remember. 

Q: How many miles to a gallon do you get on that car? 

A: Well, when it’s not running efficiently, it drops quite low. I can’t say. During that period– when it’s running at peak efficiency, it will run at 28. When it’s not running well, it will run down 22, 23 maybe as low as 20 miles per gallon. 

Q: So can you tell me just generally in your head how many miles you traveled on 23 gallons of gas? 

A: Well, no. 

MR. O’CONNELL: I object. This is a math test? 

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 

Q: Have you computed that yet? 

A: Oh, I’m not really thinking about it, Dave. I thought you made your own conclusion. I’m not here to do mathematical problems. 

MR. O’CONNELL: May the Court take judicial notice of the fact that 20 times– was it 23– is 460? 

MR. YOCOM: I will stipulate to that. 

Q: Show you State’s Proposed Exhibit 65, and ask you to examine the signatures on those specific charge slips, Mr. Bundy? 

Ted Bundy gas credit card receipts
Bundy’s gas charge slip exhibit #66. Courtesy Bountiful Police Dept.

A: Yes. 

Q: Do those all contain your signatures? 

A: This carries signatures of Theodore Bundy. It looks like my signature. 

Q: Well, is it? 

A: Yes– these are copies. I would have to say it looks very much like my signature. 

Q: And did you have a Chevron credit card during that period of time? 

A: Yes, I did. 

Q: Do you have it with you? 

A: No, I don’t. 

Q: Do you remember the number of it? 

A: I can’t recall the number. 

Q: Those charge slips show a Washington license plate number IBH-521? 

A: Um-hmm. 

Q: Was that your license plate number of that VW automobile? 

A: Yes, it was. 

Q: Would you say those were your charge slips for that period of time? 

A: These photostatic copies come as close as we can come to them. 

Q: You say they would be your charge slips, is that right? 

A: Copies of charge slips. 

Q: With your signature and your license number on them? 

A: Yes. Yes. 

Q: In fact, the 8th day of November, the day in question, you purchased gas for that car, didn’t you? 

A: Well, I don’t know. You have it, I suppose you have the credit card slip in question. 

Q: I certainly do. Would you examine the ones marked with the red ink? 

A: Um-hm. 

THE COURT: Are you referring to Exhibit No.– 

MR. YOCOM: Exhibit 66. 

Q: Is that your signature on the 8th day of November? 

A: Where is the date on this, Mr. Yocom? 

Q: Here (indicating). 

A: Okay. Yes, it is. 

Q: Does that not show you purchased gas in Salt Lake City on that date for that same car? 

MR. O’CONNELL: I will object. The exhibit speaks for itself. I think that this whole thing is a little unfair. We realize the State has all those records. Why don’t they bring people and put them on? How does he expect a person to remember whether or not he bought 6.1 gallons of gas on November 8th, 1974? 

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 

A: Yes, that appears to be a purchase of gasoline on November 8th. And also, I made a number of others on or before that period. You will notice, Mr. Yocom, that the next — 

Q: Just answer my question, Mr. Bundy. 

A: Yes. We’ll get it on cross. 

Q: Is that your signature on that credit card purchased? 

A: Sure is. 

Q: The fact you bought 6.4 gallons of gas, what would that indicate to you? 

A: That I bought 6.4 gallons of gas. 

Q: Maybe that you would mean you topped off your tank? Filled it up? 

A: Gee, I don’t know. 

Q: Hmm? 

A: I say I really don’t recall that time whether I filled up my car. 

Q: Well, what type of driver are you? Go in and order five bucks worth, or two dollars worth?Or do you say, “Fill it up,” and give them a credit card? 

A: I would probably say, “Fill it up.” 

Q: If you came out with an odd amount like that, the $3.45, and an odd gallonage, that’s what you probably did that day, right? 

A: Could have been. 

Q: Well, you wouldn’t go in and say give me $3.45 worth or regular, would you? 

A: No, I wouldn’t. 

Q: Car that is running as badly as you say your car was running on that date, why would you fill up the tank? 

A: Well, I believe, Mr. Yocom, from my recollection of that day, that it was probably filled up before my car broke down. 

Q: Just suddenly broke down? 

A: Yes, it did. 

Q: Points and plugs? 

A: Well, that got to the point where it just needed to be repaired, retuned. 

Q: You bought a tune-up kit the next day, didn’t you? 

A: Sure did. 

Q: And you tuned up your car? 

A: Well, yeah, I got it running. 

Q: And you drove that car down to Welch’s Fun Cars to buy that tune-up kit? 

A: No, sir. I used my truck. 

Q: You are apparently pretty mechanically adept in order to handle your own mechanical problems, aren’t you? 

A: Not particularly. I follow a cook book called “The Idiot Book for Volkswagen Drivers,” and Volkswagens are not complicated. You just follow directions and do what you do. I have tuned my car up a number of times. 

Q: But you bought a minor tune-up kit, didn’t you? 

A: I didn’t know what was wrong with it, and the Welch’s car people didn’t have that much available, I didn’t have that much money, so I bought the minimum amount of parts required. 

Q: Seventeen dollars worth of this tune-up kit? 

A: A number of things comprise the $17 figure, but it was essentially– a number of things to get the car running. 

Q: It wasn’t a major deal, was it? 

A: Well, no, it wasn’t a major deal at that time. It was just to get the car running. 

Q: You wanted to tune up your car? 

A: I wanted to get my car running, yes. 

The Pub Trolley Square Salt Lake City Utah Ted Bundy

Q: The night of November 8th, do you recall going to The Pub in Trolley Square, is that correct? 

A: The best I can do. Yes. 

Q: Did you consume any alcoholic beverages while there? 

A: I suppose I had a beer. 

Q: Be safe to say on that evening that your breath would smell of alcohol? 

A: It would be safe to say that after 10:00, 10:30 on November 8th, that my breath smelled of alcohol. 

Q: You say you saw a show that evening, is that right? 

A: Yes, that’s what I said. 

Q: What show did you see? 

A: Well, we had to do some digging in order to determine exactly what the shows were during that period, and what I had told a friend. My best recollection was it was “The Taking of Pellam, 1 2 3.” 

Q: What? 

A: “The Taking of Pellam, 1 2 3.” It’s a movie about the hijacking of a subway car. 

Q: And I suppose you had gone back to old newspapers and advertisements to see that that show was playing at Trolley Square on that date? 

A: Well, I wouldn’t want to tell you something that wasn’t true. I have checked on it. 

Q: You didn’t mind lying to a cop about seeing “The Towering Inferno,” though, did you? 

MR. O’CONNELL: Objection. Argumentative. 

THE COURT: Sustained. 

Q: You are now telling me the truth about what show you saw on November 8th, right? 

A: Yes, sir. I’m under oath. 

Q: And you lied to the officer on August 16th about what show you saw that night? 

Valley Vu drive-in trio of Westerns Hayward Ted Bundy
The trio of Westerns that were actually showing at the Valley Vu Drive-In on August 16, 1975.

A: Yes. 

Q: Is that right? 

A: (Nodding yes.) 

Q: You had been associated in the past with law enforcement agencies prior to coming to Salt Lake, hadn’t you, Mr. Bundy? 

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, this is outside the scope. 

MR. YOCOM: You asked him whether he did security work and so on. I think it’s within the scope. 

THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 

A: Well, I’d appreciate it if you could clarify, make more definite your question, Mr. Yocom. 

Q: Well, you have been around law enforcement people quite a bit in the past, have you not? 

A: I wouldn’t say so. Would you like me to tell you what my association was? 

Q: Well, you were associated with– doing a study in Seattle with regard to the release of people from jail? 

A: That’s right. 

Q: And you were associated in the course of that study with a lot of law enforcement people, weren’t you? 

A: Principally, I was associated with people who were in the administrative capacity. Now, this was under the Law and Justice Planning Office. They are not law enforcement officers per se. I have had dealings with lawyers and bailiffs, judges, court records, some contact with court personnel, but not a lot with detectives or anyone else. And that study took maybe two, three months. 

Q: And in the course of that, you came in contact with a lot of law enforcement people? 

A: Sure. Yeah. 

Q: Did you have any occasion during that period of time to purchase handcuffs? 

A: No, sir. 

MR. O’CONNELL: Well— never mind, go ahead and answer. 

A: I had no occasion to. 

Q: Did you? 

A: No. 

Q: Have you ever purchased a pair of handcuffs, Mr. Bundy? 

A: Not that I can recall. 

Q: It is your testimony the only handcuffs you have ever owned is that pair that was found in the Salt Lake City dump? 

A: Yes. 

Q: Now, do you recall your VW having some dents in the right front fender prior to your repairing it? 

A: I didn’t repair the right front fender. I think all I did was remove deterioration of the paint from the area. At one time, when I purchased it, it had the same— someone attempted to putty the right front fender, but I have never done any work on it besides attempt to keep it from rusting. 

Q: Yeah, you had some rust spots on the right front of the automobile, and you mended them over and primered them, right? 

Ted Bundy VW Bug Beetle rust spots
Bundy’s VW after police seizure with front right rust spots painted over. October 3, 1975. Courtesy Bountiful Police Dept.

A: Sure. 

Q: Likewise, with the right front door, there was some rust spots and dents there that you attempted to fix up when you were repairing your car, is that right? 

A: I believe that’s a fair statement. 

Q: Likewise, on the right rear fender, you had some spots that you fixed up and primered over? 

A: Yes, sir. 

Q: And those were rough spots? 

A: You bet they were. 

Q: Show you what’s been marked for identification purposes, Mr. Bundy, three photographs numbered 67, 68 and 69, and ask you to look at those and tell us whether they fairly depict the location of the rust spots on that VW prior to your repairing it. 

Q: They fairly depict what I painted over. Now, you must understand that not all the areas painted over contained rust spots. I wasn’t a very good painter, so I covered a lot more area than I had to. So. 

Q: Can you answer my question? 

A: As best as I can. 

Q: Do they fairly depict the areas that were rusted or dented? 

A: Yeah, they depicted it. And I’m assuming this is my car. It’s hard to tell Volkswagens.
Q: Is that the same car that Mr. O’Connell showed you a photograph of?

A: Yeah. I’m assuming—

Q: You say 67, 68—

A: 68.

Q: These numbers, I mean, 67, 68, and 69 are the same photographs as has been admitted in evidence as 63?

A: Yes. I mean, it looks like a Volkswagen, tan Volkswagen. And I owned a tan Volkswagen.

Q: Have you ever had an occasion to wear a false mustache, Mr. Bundy?

Ted Bundy composite sketch Debi Kent kidnapping Carol DaRonch suspect
Direct scan of the original composite sketch of the suspect seen November 8, 1974. Courtesy Bountiful Police Dept.

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I will object to “ever.” Does that include costume parties? “Ever” questions, your Honor, are too broad. I object.

THE COURT: “Ever” is a little broad.

MR. O’CONNELL: Can we narrow it to five years or three years?

Q: How about your adult life?

MR. O’CONNELL: I still think that’s a little broad.

THE COURT: I suppose it can be answered yes or no, then explained when we are talking about “ever.” The objection is overruled.

A: Now, what is your question again?

Q: Have you ever had an occasion to use a false mustache, at least in your adult life?

A: In my adult life. I recall, oh, about seven, eight years back when I was back in Temple University, you know, mustaches were in fad then, so I remember buying one. But it was rather ridiculous and pretty cheap, and I think after the first time I just even tried putting it on, it wrinkled up, curled up, and I haven’t seen it for at least five or six years.

Q: Any other time?

A: No sir.

Q: When you were working for Governor Evans’ re-election campaign, in your work there did you not use one?

A: Gee. Well, I can’t ever recall having the opportunity or the necessity of wearing one. No.

Q: Well, you were trying to disguise yourself, and you were spying on the other candidate, Mr. Rosselini?

MR. O’CONNELL: I object to that.

A: My goodness.

MR. O’CONNELL: We are starting to get into the political rumors of Washington State.

MR. YOCOM: I’m asking about a mustache, and that’s all I’m asking about.

MR. O’CONNELL: In this trial? Why don’t we try this trial?

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

Q: Do you recall wearing a mustache during that period of time, Mr. Bundy? A false mustache?

A: I wasn’t spying on anyone, Mr. Yocom. And going on, myself, I never wore a fake mustache during that period. The implication is absurd.

Q: But you did have one when you were at Temple?

A: Yes. That was 1969, early ’69.

Q: You didn’t have one on November 8th, 1974?

A: Well, I certainly didn’t. When I moved to Utah, I packed up all my belongings, and certainly there wasn’t any fake mustache in my belongings when I moved down here.

Q: When you cleaned up that car, you washed it, didn’t you?

A: Sure did.

Q: And with the wax on the automobile, it appeared a little darker than it did before, isn’t that true?

A: Well, hard to make a judgment on that. It looked shinier. I can’ t say that it looked darker.

Q: You take a light-colored automobile and you wax it and shine it up, it goes a little darker, doesn’t it?

A: I haven’t done it that often to really make a firm statement. I’m not trying to evade you, David, but I suppose it makes it look shinier, I will say it makes it look shinier. Maybe some Volkswagens may look a little darker. That’s about all I’m prepared to say.

Q: You don’t have to refer to me by my first name, Mr. Bundy.

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I would suggest, then, Mr. Yocom stop saying,”Oh come on, Ted,” and Ted this and Ted that, if he doesn’t want to be called Dave.

THE COURT: That’s appropriate. As a matter of fact, I prefer that everyone refer to everyone, particularly for the purpose of the record and also for the matter of court decorum, by their last name with the proper designation, “Mr.,” and I will ask that all counsel take heed of that as well.

MR. YOCOM: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q: Do you ever recall having a discussion with Margerith Maughan in her apartment regarding specifically your statement to her, “I like virgins and I can have them anytime”?

A: Oh, gee.

MR. O’CONNELL: I object. That’s pretty— 

MR. BUNDY: —that particular statement.

MR. O’CONNELL: I object. Mr. Bundy, just wait. I’d ask the Court to caution the Prosecutor. I think that’s way out.

THE COURT: Let me just talk to you over here for a moment.

MR. BUNDY: That’s a jury question.

(There was a short conference at the bench.)

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. The question can be whether he made such a statement, and the answer yes or no.

A: It sounds–no. No. I wouldn’t make such a statement.

Q: Do you remember having another conversation with Miss Maughan regarding specifically a statement you made that you felt there was no difference between right and wrong?

Margith Maughan, 1965

A: These statements, this particular statement, I would say there was certainly a difference, and I wouldn’t ever have made that statement unless it has been taken out of context. You must understand— 

Q: So your answer is no?

A: My answer is that particular statement does not represent my opinion on the subject.

Q: Mr. Bundy, you had ample opportunity after August 21st, when you knew what you were suspected of or under investigation of, to explain these things to various law enforcement officers, didn’t you?

MR. O’CONNELL: Now, wait a minute. Your Honor, I object to that.

MR. YOCOM: What ground?

MR. O’CONNELL: What ground? Are you trying to draw some kind of implication because he did not submit to questioning? If so, I will draw all sorts of implications about your refusal to allow witnesses to submit to interrogation. Your Honor, that’s grossly improper, too, against constitutional rights.

THE COURT: Objection is sustained.

Q: Let me ask you a hypothetical, Mr. Bundy—

MR. O’CONNELL: I will object to him asking the hypothetical. He’s not an expert witness.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

MR. O’CONNELL: He’s not expert, Your Honor.

MR. YOCOM: I’m not asking him as an expert. I don’t think he has to be an expert to answer a question.

Q: Don’t you think, Mr. Bundy, that a person that is under investigation for a very serious offense would have, or should explain away a lot of things prior to being charged?

MR. O’CONNELL: I will object to that, Your Honor. That’s the same question that he just got through asking, or going to the same area.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q: Well, isn’t it true, Mr. Bundy, that you have told no one, other than your counsel—

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, he was under instruction not to, from me, and that’s the best legal advice any lawyer would give. And I object to him going any further. This is the third question a row.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. O’CONNELL: And I’d ask the Court to tell the prosecutor to stop asking questions he knows are improper.

THE COURT: Well, I suppose we have to have questions and objections on a question-by-question basis.

MR. O’CONNELL: I know, but he asked the same question three times in a row.

Q: Your attorney, Mr. O’Connell, in his opening statement— which you heard in court on Monday, did you not?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: —said that you were a young man worried about something else, and you brought it on yourself. Can you interpret that statement?

A: I think he’s referring to my reluctance to talk about the fact that on the evening of November 16th, on the morning of November 16th, 1975, that I had been smoking marijuana. That’s his interpretation, by the way.

Q: So, you feel that because you refused to state you smoked marijuana that you got wrongfully charged with this kidnapping offense?

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, that was a statement made by myself, not by the client.

MR. YOCOM: I asked him how he felt about it.

THE COURT: Well, how he felt about it—

MR. O’CONNELL: Argumentative.

THE COURT: —at that point in time, it’s really irrelevant, I think. Objection is sustained.

Q: You have denied your guilt of this offense, Mr. Bundy, is that correct?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And you have been charged with a serious offense and you stand trial for it today?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And the reason–one of the reasons you got charged, because you were afraid to admit that you smoked marijuana on August 21st, is that right?

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I don’t think that Mr. Bundy should speculate on what was going through— I don’t even think Mr. Yocom knows—what was going through Mr. Kinghorn’s head or Mr. Hyde’s head. I don’t think that’s a proper question to ask a Defendant.

MR. YOCOM: That’s his explanation.

MR. O’CONNELL: Certainly speculative for him to— 

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

Q: Defendant’s Proposed Exhibit 54, Mr. Bundy, do you recognize that?

A: It’s a photocopy of a check of mine. Yes, I recognize it, sir.

Q: And is that a copy of the check you paid the Texaco station on the 8th day of November, 1974?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Is it your testimony, I believe, that you had a battery charge on that date?

A: At least, yes.

Q: You also had over one hour’s mechanical work done that day?

A: Well, no. I said that I had to wait about an hour before a space opened up inside.

Q: I think your testimony is they had quite a bit of trouble starting it, trying to get it to run; they took a big machine and hooked it up, and it started?

A: I thought the man was really reasonable. I though it was going to be more.

Q: Would you respond to my question, the question only?

A: Would you repeat the question?

Q: With regard to the $2.50, there was no mechanical charge of that—or labor charge, I presume?

A: Well, no I guess not. I can’t say for sure.

Q: And, in fact, they didn’t even add tax on it such it was such an even amount?

A: Yeah. I can’t tell from the check exactly how the charges are broken down, sir.

Q: If I told you that the charge at that station for a battery charge is $2.50 plus tax, would that be pretty accurate in your memory?

A: I wish I could say one way or the other. I’m not familiar with their charges.

Q: And you were not charged for labor on that occasion?

A: He apparently did not feel it was necessary to charge me for the work. I thought it was very nice of him.

Q: How old was the man that worked on your car?

A: Well, he was a big man, rather large gentleman who—

Q: How old?

A: How old—that’s a hard one. It’s 16 months ago. I couldn’t tell you exactly. He was under 50 and over 20. I can’t tell you.

Q: He was not a teenager working in the station, then?

A: Oh no, sir. No sir.

Q: Did he appear to have any official capacity at the station? Manager, for instance, or owner?

A: He was a mechanic. He seemed to know what he was doing.

Q: Could it be, Mr. Bundy, that that was a gas purchase?

A: No sir, it wasn’t a gas purchase.

Q: Going back now to the 16th of August, your testimony on direct is that you pulled into that residential area there to smoke some marijuana, is that right?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And that you had a baggie of marijuana with you at that time?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And I presume that you had the traditional cigarette papers with which to roll the tobacco?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And that you did, in fact, roll that cigarette and smoked it in the closed car at that time?

A: It may have been one already rolled, as I recall.

Q: Oh, you just stopped to light it, then?

A: Yes.

Q: Possible to light that while you were driving down the street?

A: I tell you, it’s not, I don’t believe it’s— being as paranoid as I was about it, it’s not a very smart practice.

Q: You are very paranoid about where you smoke marijuana?

A: I think so.

Q: Do you ·think it would be safer to smoke marijuana at 2:30 in the morning in a residential area? Would that be wiser than just driving down the street where nobody would notice you?

A: Well, it was my conclusion at that time that it was.

Q: At the time you were stopped and lighting your cigarette, where was Officer Hayward’s car?

A: I don’t know, sir.

Q: So you lit up and started driving, and that is when you saw Officer Hayward’s car; is that correct?

A: That was when I first saw a car which later turned out to be Officer Hayward’s car.

Q: Were you driving with your headlights on or off at that time?

A: Well, I couldn’t really tell you. I probably forgot to turn them on. It’s highly possible in such a situation, mental state that I was in.

Q: Well, there was no real hassle at that point?

A: Oh no, sir.

Q: Bob Hayward’s car was an unmarked car, wasn’t it?

Bob Hayward Plymouth Fury Ted Bundy Utah arrest
A 1974 Plymouth Fury, the unmarked car Officer Hayward was driving the night he arrested Bundy. Image via Dielenberg’s Ted Bundy: A Visual Timeline

A: It turned out that it was unmarked, yes.

Q: You had no idea that when you passed his car with your headlights off, or on, you had no idea he was an officer of the law, did you?

A: I don’t believe I passed his car.

Q: You didn’t?

A: I don’t recall passing a State Patrol car, no.

Q: When did you first realize that somebody was chasing you, then?

A: Well, following me, after I had made the second left-hand turn going back to the thoroughfare from which I had turned, I noticed a car was following me at the time.

Q: How close?

A: Well, my. judgment of distance would be difficult at that hour and those conditions. I could say 200 yards. I’m not sure, sir.

Q: See all this in your rear view mirror?

A: I could see it, yes.

Q: How fast were you going?

A: I couldn’t tell you. Fast enough to try to air out my car.

Q: When did you roll down the windows?

A: When I determined that someone was following me, which was after–which was some distance down the road after I had made the second left-hand turn.

Q: So you were in a residential area, making numerous turns, saw a car 200 yards behind you, then rolled down both windows?

A: I believe I rolled down the passenger’s side window;  I may have flipped open the window on the other side. I couldn’t reach over too well.

Q: And at that time were you going at a high rate of speed?

A: I was probably— I was probably exceeding the speed limit, yes, sir.

Q: Because a car was following you?

A: Well, yes. That was my—

Q: You had no idea that he was a police officer?

A: I had no firm indication. I just didn’t like the situation.

Q: Well, you were in a residential area at a late and unusual hour, weren’t you?

A: Yes, I was.

Q: You had no idea or no reason to suspect that the car behind you some 200 yards was a police officer, did you?

A: Well, when paranoia strikes, that’s the way I reacted. I can’t explain it in any more detail than I have, sir.

Q: Your paranoia was being afraid to be caught with a baggie of marijuana?

A: As a law student, I thought the consequences would be more than I would have liked to have experienced.

Q: Do you think the consequences of running from a police officer would be greater than that of possession of marijuana?

A: A: Well, that’s a good question. I wasn’t aware— 

Q: That’s why I asked it. 

A: I wasn’t aware of the consequences, but I believed they would have been. 

Q: Aware of the penalty for possession of marijuana on a first offender offense in the State of Utah? 

A: Not really. 

Q: Are you aware of the penalty for failure to stop at the command of a police officer? 

A: I wasn’t at the time. 

Q: But you made a determination to run from the police officer rather than being caught with this baggie of marijuana in your possession? 

A: That’s a decision I made, and it was an incorrect one all the way around. What can I say? 

Q: How would a police officer seeing your car driving down the street have any idea that you are smoking marijuana? 

A: I don’t know. 

Q: You assumed he would follow you and haze you? 

A: I assumed that perhaps, you don’t know, I didn’t know. I didn’t want to take a chance. 

Q: Have a lighter in your car? Cigarette lighter? 

A: I believe so. I didn’t have occasion to use it a lot, but I believe I did. 

Q: How far off the main thoroughfare were you at that time? 

A: Well, I pulled up far enough so that the lights of the large street which I had been traveling on were not illuminating the side street; a block or two. 

Q: Did you move after you stopped the vehicle? I mean go to another part of the residential area? 

A: Did I move how? 

Q: Your car; I mean stop, light your cigarette, then drive to a— marijuana cigarette, then drive to another location and park again? 

A: I don’t believe so. 

Q: How long were you in the residential area lighting this marijuana cigarette? 

A: I may have been there, oh, my recollection of time, it’s difficult. May have been there ten, maybe as much as fifteen minutes. I can’t say. 

Q: Take that long to light up a smoke? 

A: Not to light it up. To smoke it. To light it up and smoke it. 

Q: A closed car for ten or fifteen minutes?

A: Just taking my time. Sure, I wasn’t in a hurry. 

Q: When you threw out the baggie of marijuana, and I take it the cigarette you are smoking, I assume you also threw out the cigarette papers? 

A: I got rid of the “paraphernalia,” so to speak. 

Q: Driving the car, rolling down the windows and making turns at high rates of speed, you were able to do all of this? 

A: Well, yes, I was. Like I say— 

Q: Where did you keep your baggie?

A: I was rather panicked at the time trying to find it. It was in the glove compartment, then at some point in time it may have fallen on the floor. I was hunting around for it while I was traveling out of the area in which I was parked. 

Q: So you were driving a car at high rates of speed, making turns, trying to find your baggie of marijuana, cigarette papers, all at the same time rolling down the windows? 

A: Well, it really is not as impossible as it sounds. It can be done rather easily, I would imagine. 

Q: After you were stopped you mentioned a police officer got in the back seat and ripped up your back seat, or ripped it open; is that right? 

A: He was searching my car, and I don’t believe he did it so intentionally, but he was— they were thoroughly searching my car, and he did look deep into the back seat for whatever he was looking for. 

Q: And which officer was it? 

A: I wasn’t taking names at the time. I think it was one of the uniformed officers. I couldn’t tell you any more than that. It wasn’t Sergeant Hayward. 

Q: And it is your testimony that he ripped that back seat further? 

A: Well, yes, that’s my testimony. 

Q: And that it was only less than a foot in length and he ripped it the full length as shown in the photographs? 

A: Of course, it’s hard to say. Perhaps if you could show me the photograph, I could point out something in it. 

Q: That would be the defendant’s Exhibit 28. 

Ted Bundy VW Bug Beetle torn backseat
Bundy’s torn backseat, August 1975. Courtesy Bountiful Police Dept.

A: Yes, okay. As I say, I didn’t keep an exact record of the rip, but you can see from this point, I’d say from about this point on. Here, and it’s hard to see on this side. But it goes over onto the other side of the car. I’d say that it was ripped an additional 12, 16 inches as a result. And initially— let’s see the foam rubber here, Mr. Yocom. That was— up to August the 15th, August the 16th, 1975, that was the length of the rip that was in the back seat at the time. 

Q: Okay. So it was torn in the middle here, and he ripped both ends? 

A: Well, when he pulled it apart, the condition of the upholstery was weak enough to allow it to separate further. 

Q: So I take it the exposed part from the sunlight would be probably yellowish as upholstery goes, or interior goes, the stuffing in there? 

A: Yellowish— well, it’s hard to recall colors. I hope you can appreciate that. I think that you see the part that is curled over there is lighter than the outside of the upholstery. It’s just the nature, I guess, of the way the upholstery is manufactured. 

Q: So he grabbed hold of that and pulled it out and ripped the ends, and these would be fresh rips on the ends; is that what you are saying?

A: I’d have to say— see how it is separated, especially in here; that has been forced. Again, I am not saying he did it to rip the car, but if you look at the back seat of my Volkswagen, Mr. Yocom, you can see it can be pulled apart to look down inside. 

Q: How far do you think your car traveled from the time you were able to get the window down until the time that Sergeant Hayward stopped you? 

A: Pardon me, I am trying to think how many blocks, city blocks, it may have been. 

Q: Just tell me how many minutes or seconds it took. 

A: Boy. I’d say maybe it was three, four city blocks. 

Q: And you had been smoking your marijuana for ten, fifteen minutes in that car?

A: Yes. The window, the driver’s side of the—  

Q: You have answered the question. Thank you. 

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, Your Honor— 

MR. BUNDY: Yes, I think—  

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I think he can elaborate on an answer. 

THE COURT: That can be done on cross-examination, or on redirect examination. 

THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes, Mr. Yocom. 

Q: Your wallet you displayed for the Court and Mr. O’Connell, you say you have had it for seven years?

A: 1969? Yes. 

Q: You mean you carry it every day in your back pocket?

A: No, I don’t usually carry it in my pocket. I don’t like to carry a wallet in the first place. This wallet is something I normally carry when I wear a suit or a jacket. 

Q: I take it, then, you don’t carry any identification with you on your person unless you are carrying that wallet?

A: Or if I am just carrying— sometimes I would just— I’d carry this in my black satchel rather than put it in my hip pocket because it is longer than the normal wallet. 

Q: That would explain why it is in such good condition, wouldn’t it?

A: I suppose so, if it is in good condition. 

Q: Do you have any other sort of wallet that you carry your money in, your identification, pictures, whatever?

A: No, sir. 

Q: You never owned one?

A: I may have owned another one, but I don’t recall what happened to it. I believe I had one when I purchased this, but as I say, I don’t know what happened to it, because I prefer this wallet. 

Q: Have you had a chance to explore, as you did on the night of the 16th, the other areas of our valley, to wit, Murray, Utah?

A: I’d probably— I have probably explored the valley, yes. 

Q: Specifically Murray?

A: Well, I wasn’t concerned with any part of the city. If it was— it could have been Murray, it could have been Cottonwood, it could have been any area of the city. 

Q: Well, for instance, your 460 miles you traveled in the time between the 25th and 28th— or 24th and 28th of October— were all traveled within our community?

A: No, sir. 

Q: Did you leave town on those occasions?

A: Which occasions? The latter part of October I did go on at least one occasion to some friends in Ogden. I remember returning by the way of Coalville and back down Parley’s Canyon. I can remember going to Heber. 

Q: Went to Heber in the truck, though?

A: Yes, I went to Heber in my truck. 

Q: Not your car?

A: I have gone to Heber in my car. I can’t pin down exactly which occasion I have— 

Q: Do you remember purchasing gas in Murray, Utah, during this period of time?

A: Not specifically, no. I wouldn’t rule it out, but I haven’t reviewed my records. I don’t have my gas records. 

Q: If I told you that the records would show that you purchased gas in Murray on September 24th, September 26th, October 14th, do you think that would be pretty correct?

A: I’m relying on your statement. I can only rely on what you say. I can’t rule it out, no. 

MR. O’CONNELL: I think this is improper cross-examination, Your Honor. Getting remote. Is it for impeachment purposes, or what? I don’t quite understand. 

THE COURT: I understand it. The objection is overruled. 

Q: Now, did you in the month of October or November ever go to Fashion Place Mall?

A: I’d been there on occasion, but I couldn’t tell you exactly when. 

Q: Well, was it in the fall months of 1974?

A: It could have been. 

Q: Did you ever go there alone?

A: I think the occasion I did go there, I was alone, yes. 

Q: You lost a license plate, apparently, at one time, didn’t you?

A: Yes, sir. 

Q: Applied for a new one?

A: Um-hm. 

Q: I think those exhibits are in here. Did you continue to use the old plate after you got a new one?

A: You have to turn the old plate in, is my understanding. 

Q: Well, if you have lost the plate, obviously you can’t turn it in?

A: The plate that is lost, you can’t do anything, but the plate that remains in the car, you’re required to turn in before a new set is issued. 

Q: So you wouldn’t be able to use, say, for instance, your plate number LJB-088— I believe that was your first plate number?

A: Sounds familiar. Could well have been. 

Q: And you wouldn’t be able to use that plate because you had lost one and had to turn the other one in?

A: That’s correct. 

Q: How did you lose that plate?

A: I couldn’t tell you. It fell off my car at one point. 

Q: Front plate?

A: I believe it was the rear plate, because I was concerned that the tax sticker or whatever the sticker that you put on there was on the plate was missing, which was the reason I went immediately to get another set. 

Q: Is that your signature on that document, referring to Exhibit No. 487?

A: Well, I didn’t sign it, but that’s my printing. Oh, there it is. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

Q: And that would show that on the 11th day of April, 1975, you got license number LJE-379, is that right? 

Ted Bundy VW Beetle Bug
Bundy’s VW showing license plate LJE-379 in August 1975. Courtesy Garfield County.

A: Yes, Mr. Yocom. 

Q: And your prior number would also be listed on there, LJB-088, which was issued to your car on February 18th? 

A: Um-hm. 

Q: So it was between February 18th and April 11th, 1975, you lost that plate?

A: Um-hm. 

Q: Did you ever have that plate you said was lost on your car after that time?

A: No, sir. 

MR. O’CONNELL: I don’t see what this has to do with whether or not he kidnapped Carol DaRonch, Your Honor, or what it has to do with his testimony on direct. He didn’t testify at all about his license plate. 

THE COURT: Objection is overruled. I take it that’s an objection?

MR. O’CONNELL: Yes, Your Honor. 

MR. YOCOM: Did the Court rule? I didn’t hear. 

THE COURT: Yes. The objection is overruled. 

MR. YOCOM: Thank you. 

Q: Show you now what has been marked State’s Proposed Exhibit 70, Mr. Bundy. Ask you to look at this charge slip here dated the 3rd day of May, 1975. 

THE COURT: What is the exhibit number on that?

MR. YOCOM: 70, I believe. 

A: This is in Salt Lake City?

Q: That’s correct. Is that your signature on that? 

A: Yes, sir, it is. 

Q: What license number does it show on the 3rd day of May? 

MR. O’CONNELL: The exhibit speaks for itself. I object. 

MR. YOCOM: Fine. I will read it in the record. 

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, it isn’t in evidence yet. 

MR. YOCOM: I’d offer it. 

THE COURT: Has 70 been received? 


A: Mr. Yocom, may I explain the problem?

Q: Fine. I’m very interested. 

A: As is often the case when you charge gasoline, you go in and they fill out your receipt and say, what is your license plate number. And on that particular occasion, I can’t recall it specifically, but my only explanation would be that I remembered the license plate that I had had previously instead of the later one which I had received. Now, I don’t know what malicious purpose one can come out of that with, but it’s all yours. 

Q: How often did that happen?

A: I don’t know. You found one instance of it. I’m not particularly disturbed by it. 

Q: On the 14th day of April, you bought gas under license number LJB-088, and April 17th, you bought under LJE-379, pretty close in time. Did you continue to forget your license plate number?

A: Usually, I had to run out and look at my license plate. I’m terrible at remembering license plate numbers, and I suppose on occasion I just stood there and tried to remember my license plate number, and recalled the wrong license plate number. 

Q: You weren’t using two different sets of plates, then?

A: No, sir. 

Q: In your travels?

A: No, sir. 

MR. YOCOM: I have no further cross-examination. 

MR. O’CONNELL: I don’t think I have any redirect, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: All right. You can step down, Mr. Bundy. 

MR. BUNDY: Thank you. 

Ted Bundy John O'Connell Carol DaRonch trial Salt Lake City Utah
Ted Bundy and John O’Connell, March 2, 1976

Special thanks to Erin Banks for her transcription assistance.

Leave a Reply