Archive for March, 2013

March 18, 2013

1961 Ann Marie Burr

On August 31, 1961 Ann Marie Burr’s mother woke up to find the front door open from the inside and little 8 year old Ann Marie Burr missing from the home. The living room window which had been open a crack the night before was open even wider the next morning. A garden bench had been removed from the back yard and placed in front of the living room window. The only evidence of an intruder was a piece of red thread stuck in the window jam and a footprint in the mud outside the window which had been distorted from the previous night’s rain. Supposedly it was a shoe size 6 or 7.

There were no witnesses except the family dog who was heard barking during the night. Nobody bothered to check, they figured the dog was barking at the thunderstorm. There was no evidence of a struggle. In fact, it appeared that little Ann Marie Burr went willingly with whoever took her.

Neighbors claim that days prior to her disappearance they saw a figure peeping through the windows of the Burr residence. However, no detailed description of this individual could be given.

Suspects were a plenty. There was the neighborhood nudist. Here was a man who was friendly with the youngest of children, letting them pick the plums from his tree, kissed their hands, “patted their buttocks”, and gave them candy. He also had a fetish for pregnant women. There was Robert Bruzas, a 15 year old friend of Ann Marie, who preferred the company of younger children to those his own age, had a “flirtatious” relationship with Ann, and failed the first polygraph test. Although he passed a second polygraph test, he was never ruled out as a suspect. Ralph Everett Larkee had kidnapped a 10 year old girl and took her on a joyride full of treats and suspected sexual relations. When the FBI showed up at his door to question him about Ann Marie he committed suicide.

More suspects surfaced over time but not one person could be tied to the case which soon became cold. That is, until someone decided to point the finger at Ted Bundy.

Rumors and tall tales of prowling midgets outside of windows, young boys standing over muddy ditches and construction sites, and unsubstantiated confessions allegedly by Ted himself to other children he wasn’t even friends with..Ted Bundy and Ann Marie Burr have more or less become an urban legend thanks to Ann Rule who planted a seed which has never stopped growing.

Ted Bundy was 14 years old at the time of Ann Marie’s disappearance and lived 3 miles away from the Burr residence. It is rumored that they were “acquaintances” because Ted’s uncle lived nearby where Ann Marie took piano lessons. The only thing that ties Ted Bundy directly to Ann Marie Burr is that he was her family’s paperboy.

I can see why everyone thinks Ted did it.

There has been a book written about the alleged connection between Ted Bundy and Ann Marie Burr which I feel is tabloid trash. The author does everything in her power to discredit Bundy and make him look bad. The author is also very much on the side of the Burr family and knows them personally.

Ted Bundy vehemently denied being involved with the disappearance of Ann Marie and I am inclined to believe him.

Ted Bundy had been wrongfully accused of killing on more than one occasion. When he denied being responsible for certain crimes nobody believed him. Years after his death other men had been charged and convicted of the crimes everyone wanted to blame Ted for. Ted Bundy did know how to tell the truth.

“I do not know what happened to your daughter, Ann Marie. I had nothing to do with her disappearance. You said she disappeared August 31, 1961. At the time I was a normal fourteen-year-old boy. I did not wander the streets late at night. I did not steal cars. I had absolutely no desire to harm anyone. I was an average kid. For your sake, you really must understand this.”

This is good enough for me. It should be good enough for you. The best way to honor Ted is to believe him.

DNA Evidence Fails To Link Ted Bundy To Ann Marie Burr
Was 8-year-old Ann Marie Burr the first victim of infamous serial killer Ted Bundy?
The Huffington Post October 5, 2011

Hopes for closure for the relatives of missing Ann Marie Burr were dashed Tuesday, when authorities said there was not enough amplifiable DNA to link her disappearance over 50 years ago to Ted Bundy.

The young Washington State girl, long considered a possible victim of the notorious serial killer, has been missing since she was 8 years old.

Weeks ago, there was a glimmer of hope that this 50-year-old mystery would be solved when police sent the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory several key pieces of evidence from the case.

Authorities were hoping to develop a DNA profile of the suspect that they could compare to a profile that was recently obtained from a vial of Bundy’s blood. It took several weeks for the tests to be conducted. Police are now saying the evidence did not contain enough measurable DNA to yield a complete profile, the Bellingham Herald reported.

“This avenue hit a dead end, but the investigation itself is not over,” Tacoma Police Department spokesman Mark Fulghum told the Herald.

Ann Marie was taken from her family’s Tacoma home on Aug. 31, 1961. Police believe her abductor entered through an unlocked window, grabbed the young girl and left through the front door, which was left ajar. Investigators discovered a faint footprint outside the window, which they believe was from a size 6 or 7 sneaker.

“I was awakened early in the morning with men shining flashlights in my face. They were the police,” Ann Marie’s sister, Julie Burr, told KOMO 4 News. “Seeing my parents running through the kitchen opening drawers and looking under beds looking for my sister — I remember that like it happened yesterday.”

Burr added, “I think we spent most of our weekends [after that] going out looking for her.”

Authorities interviewed several persons of interest, but were unable to determine what happened to Ann Marie.

Bundy lived only a few blocks from Ann Marie’s home. He had a paper route in the area and would often visit a neighboring uncle. Bundy was only 14 years old at the time of Ann Marie’s abduction and was not considered a potential suspect.

It was not until years later, when Bundy was arrested for multiple homicides, that authorities began to take a close look at him.

Bundy is believed to have murdered dozens of women in Utah, Idaho, Washington and Colorado throughout the 1970s. He was captured in Florida in 1978 following the murders of two college students and a 12-year-old girl. Bundy received the death penalty for the Florida crimes.

Before his execution, Bundy confessed to killing more than 50 women. Some suspect Ann Marie was his first victim. During Bundy’s confessions, former King County detective Bob Keppel unsuccessfully tried to get the serial killer to talk about his first kill.

“We’ll have to bring that up, do that some other time. If there is another time,” Bundy replied, according to recorded confessions obtained by KIRO-TV.

There was no other time. Bundy was executed on Jan. 24, 1989.

Ann Marie’s father died in 2003 and her mother in 2008. Both the young girls’ parents went to their graves without knowing what happened to their daughter.

March 10, 2013

Why are women drawn to men behind bars?


Why are women drawn to men behind bars?

Denise Mina
The Guardian, Sunday 12 January 2003

Three years ago a German waitress called Dagmar Polzin fell in love with a murderer while waiting at a Hamburg bus stop. She saw his photo on a Benetton anti-death-penalty poster. Bobby Lee Harris, a North Carolina man with an IQ of 75, was on death row for stabbing his boss to death during a robbery on a shrimp boat. Polzin was overwhelmed by the picture,

“It was something in his eyes,” she later said. “There was this remorse, sadness. I was attracted. I knew he was the one.”

Within the year Polzin and Harris were engaged and she had moved to America to live with his family. This story seems a little surprising, but if you see the picture that Dagmar fell in love with it is, frankly, astonishing. He may have many charming accomplishments to recommend him as a husband, but Harris is not a bonny boy.

Polzin’s romance is not an isolated incident: no matter how extreme or appalling the crime with which they are associated, it seems there is always a woman keen to stand by the man. It was recently reported that Ian Huntley, the Soham man charged with the murders of schoolgirls Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, receives bundles of fan mail from women every week – many containing photographs of themselves.

Prison romances seem in no danger of dying out. But the cliche of the prison bride as wig-wearing trailer-trash is misguided: the women come from all sectors of society. Carlos the Jackal become engaged to his lawyer last year. The famous Glasgow hard man Jimmy Boyle married a psychiatrist he met in prison. The most common form of contact, certainly for many of the 100 or so British women currently engaged or married to American men on death row, is through anti-death-penalty campaign internet sites.

These correspondence schemes provide heart-wrenching photographs of young men alongside explanations for their crimes and pleas for contact. One young Alabama death row inmate ends his request for pen pals with the statement “loneliness is a terrible thing”; another finishes, “a friend is waiting”. All promise to reply to any letters.

In her book, Women Who Love Men Who Kill, Sheila Isenberg examines the phenomenon of prison lovers and finds genuine and universal bewilderment among the women at their situation. Even if they have had a series of romances with prisoners or, like one British woman, been engaged to several death-row inmates – all of whom were executed – they still claim not to have chosen that course for themselves. Karen Richey’s partner, for instance, is on death row in Ohio. Karen says that she wasn’t looking for a love affair when she made contact with Kenny, a 38-year-old Scot: “My war cry is that I only wanted to be a pen pal. Kenny insists this is going to be on my grave stone.”

It takes considerable effort to meet men in secure containment facilities. Many women will write to a number of prisoners before they finally make a sustainable connection. They may even take on voluntary jobs in prison, or go on blind-date visits with men they know only by reputation.

As on the outside, famous people attract a disproportionate amount of attention because of the glamour that surrounds them and ordinary people’s desire for vicarious celebrity. Serial killer Richard Ramirez, the so-called Night Stalker, who murdered and dismembered 13 people in the 1980s, had no trouble finding a bride. Doreen Lioy started writing to Ramirez after falling for his picture in the paper. They were married in 1996 in the prison waiting room.

Both Ramirez and Ted Bundy, a rapist-murderer who was suspected of murdering 35 young women, attracted gangs of admiring groupies who sat patiently through their court cases. Even John Wayne Gacy – not the most eligible man, with a history of drugging, raping and murdering 30 young men in Chicago – ended up marrying a woman he met while awaiting the death penalty.

So what other reasons could there be for so many women being attracted to convicted criminals? Isenberg suggests that vicarious murder may sometimes be a motivating factor. It is easier for the lovers of these men to overlook violence if they have considered it themselves: “Even while she denies his culpability, it is his ability to murder that attracts her. He acted on his rage, however unsuitably. [The woman] could never act on her rage. So [his] murder is [her] murder,” she says.

It is certainly true that many prison brides have a history of violent relationships. Isenberg draws positive conclusions from this, arguing that an imprisoned partner may be a healthy strategy for women who are attracted to violent men, allowing them to engage without putting themselves in physical danger.

Religious fervour is another, more obvious motivator. Evangelical Christian schemes bring women into contact with prisoners and provide a basis for intense emotional interaction.

Jacquelynne Willcox-Bailey’s book Dream Lovers: Women Who Marry Men Behind Bars is a series of interviews conducted with Australian women. The most melancholy story concerns two middle-aged Christian sisters, Avril and Rose, who left long-term “boring” marriages for men in prison. One man had been convicted of a string of minor property offences, the other man had killed his previous wife. His new wife, Rose, said: “I have faith that if you’re genuine with the Lord you’re a new person. A lot of people have said I should be worried about him because of what he did and his background – which is pretty awful and violent – but I have no fear.”

Despite the women’s faith, both relationships ended tragically: a week after his release the thief bludgeoned Avril to death with a hammer. The other husband ended up back in prison after trying to cut Rose’s ear off and pull out her teeth with pliers.

However, it is rare that the most disturbing type of relationship is formed. Hybristophiliacs are sexually excited by violent outrages performed on others. These women often send pornographic pictures of themselves to prisoners. The self-styled “most violent prisoner in Britain”, Charles Bronson, publishes photos he receives on his website.

But not all hybristophiliacs are passive admirers. A playwright named Veronica Lynn Compton began a torrid affair with one of the Hillside Stranglers, a pair of cousins who abducted, raped and mutilated very young women before ritualistically displaying their corpses on hillsides in Los Angeles in the 1970s. As part of an elaborate defence strategy, one of the stranglers, Kenneth Bianchi, asked Compton to kill a woman using his modus operandi.

DNA evidence was not then available – only the blood type could be determined from a fluid sample – so he asked her to sprinkle the dead body with his sperm, and passed her a sample in a rubber glove. Compton tried but bungled the attempt and her prospective victim got away. By the time Compton was imprisoned for the attempted murder, Bianchi had married a different woman. Compton found another sexual serial killer to romance. One year he sent her a photo of a decapitated female corpse as a Valentine card.

But most prison romances are not so extreme. Generally the women are decent, well-meaning and it is easy to see why they find their relationships fulfilling. Their boyfriends spend their days exercising and their evenings writing letters and poems or trying to phone home. They are more compliant and attentive than they would be on the outside because the women send money, pay for their legal representation and afford them the tremendous parole advantage of a permanent address.

Prison relationships retain the intoxicating elements present in every romance. The first endorphin-flush of love always involves a degree of transference; we all see our partners as we hope them to be, imagining that the love object embodies the qualities we crave. Polzin projected remorse into Harris’s puffy eyes. It is only as the initial infatuation ebbs that we begin to realise which of those assumptions were actually true.

Woman with imprisoned partners have limited contact and need never move beyond this courting stage. The intense desire for each other need never translate to the ordinariness of sex and marriage.

But, as clinical psychologist Dr Stuart Fischoff says, the love object is “almost irrelevant at this point. He’s a dream lover, a phantom limb”. Such fantasy projection can be used to wish away any aspect of reality. The excuses the women give for their partner’s alleged crimes operate as in all other relationships. They do what we all sometimes do when faced with negative information about loved ones: they refuse to believe it.

On one website devoted to Richard Ramirez his wife says, “I appeal to all intelligent persons not to believe everything that is being presented about Richard in the media. The facts of his case ultimately will confirm that Richard is a wrongly-convicted man, and I believe fervently that his innocence will be proven to the world.”

One lawyer, who uses her official visits to have sex in the interview room with a man convicted of a violent assault, sums up what many feel about prison romance: “There are lots of sad relationships in prison. A lot of opportunistic, shallow, revolting relationships and a lot of sad, hopeless people clinging to each other.”

This is the most pronounced parallel with more conventional relationships: we can always see the truth about other people’s relationships more clearly than our own.

March 8, 2013

1969 Susan Davis [suspected victim]

NAME Susan Davis
AGE 19
BODY AND DEATH She was completely naked. Like her friend , she also had stab wounds on her neck and her abdomen. She died from a wound in her neck, which severed her larynx. The body was partially decomposed. It was impossible to determine whether or not Susan Davis had been raped.

Bundy and the Parkway Murders

The SandPaper (of Ocean City, N.J.)
February, 1989

Psychologist Says He Is the One
Ted Bundy’s Last Words
On the Jersey Shore

“I’m convinced that he did it. And I believe that it was the first two murders he got into. He had no reason to lie.” –


Shortly before serial-killer Ted Bundy was executed last month he was asked if he had murdered anyone in the state of New Jersey. He said no.

After Bundy died however, Dr. Arthur Norman, a forensic psychologist who had interviewed him on numerous occasions, was freed of the bond of confidentiality with his former patient. And Norman now says otherwise.

On October 31, 1986 on Death Row of the Florida State Penitentiary, Bundy talked with Norman about his trip to the East Coast in 1989 when he lived with his aunt in Philadelphia and attended Temple University.

Bundy, “…trying to get this thing from the East Coast to the West Coast. Sort of a symbolic transition. So he spent that whole winter going to New York and doing that thing on 42nd Street. You know, talk about getting pushed to the edge with the most sophisticated, explicit pornography available in this country. And everything else is going on.”

“So he decided to take a little bit of a jaunt to what they call the shore – the Jersey Shore. This is early summer (1969). So after being more or less detached from people for a long period, the preceding period of which he didn’t have any friends, didn’t go anyplace, just had school and entertained himself with this pornographic hobby, he drove to the shore and walked on the beach.”

“…He sees young women lying on the beach. It was like a kind of over-whelming kind of vision, which you know – Evidently he found himself tearing around the place for a couple of days. Eventually, without really planning anything, he picked up a couple of young girls, and it ended up it was the first time he had ever done it. So when he left for the coast, it was not just getting away, it was more like an escape.”

Ted Bundy said those things to Norman during one of a dozen interviews that stretched over some 50 hours. Norman was trying to get a psychological portrait of Bundy to determine whether he was competent to stand trial for the murder of two young women in Florida.

“This has to be put into proper context,” Norman said in a recent telephone interview from his Portland, Oregon office. “I don’t believe he was lying because he never lied to me again. This was a totally different kind of interview, not like one he had ever done before. He was talking about himself in the third person, then in the first person, and he was on a roll, so I just let him talk.”

When Norman fist heard Bundy discuss these things, he did not know that on Memorial Day weekend in 1969 Susan Davis and Elizabeth Perry, both 19-year old college students, were found dead in the woods along the Garden State Parkway, not far from the Ocean City beach and boardwalk.

“I’m convinced he did it,” Norman said. “And I believe that it was the first two murders that he got into. He had no reason to lie to me, and if he was lying, he had been saving this information for 20 years just to con somebody. Or is this just an amazing coincidence, that he just happened to be there on Memorial Day before he went back to the West Coast, and two girls disappeared in that area at the time? That is an amazing coincidence then, and I don’t think he had a little book of crimes that he knew about that he could use to throw his psychologist off. Everything else he told me has been borne out, so why should he lie just about that? I believe him.”

Law enforcement officials are less certain. The prosecutor in Atlantic County called Norman’s repot inconclusive. And it was not viewed as substantial enough to include the New Jersey case at an FBI conference this week in Virginia, where the law officers from around the country are re-examining a number of unsolved crimes in light of Bundy’s last-minute confessions.

Lt. Barry Robenson, a spokesman for the New Jersey State Police said, “The FBI is aware of our Perry-Davis double homicide, however, we were not invited or notified about the Bundy conference, and do not have anyone there.” He said that the meeting was limited to law enforcement officials who had strong evidence linking Bundy to certain crimes.

This case has long been lacking strong evidence. Police were frustrated from the start. Although the state police had Susan Davis’ 1965 blue Chevrolet convertible towed off the parkway hours after the murders, they didn’t locate the bodies until three days later, enough time to stifle any quick solution to the killings.

At the time of the original investigation, Raymond Perry, the father of one of the victims, defended the police work in a open letter saying, “I comprehend their quality quite more clearly than do other residents who presume to criticize them. This is not to suggest that every last man on the force is a Sherlock Holmes, but it was apparent to me, and I’m sure I can speak for Mr. Davis, that they are dedicated and competent people trying to do a job against great odds.”

More recently, Mr. Perry was interviewed by Dick Larson, a reporter for the Seatle Times. Larson, who wrote a book about Bundy called The Deliberate Stranger, which was made into a TV movie, said that now, after 20 years, the father can talk about his daughter’s death. “Mr. Perry, who is now retired and living near Seattle, insists that there was excellent law enforcement work and the officers involved did their very best,” said Larson.

“As far as Bundy is concerned, they were interested, but cautious, not knowing quite what to make of it,” he said. “You realized the oddity we have here. These folks, the Perrys, whose daughter has just been murdered in New Jersey, come out here to live in the Seattle area and settle down. Then they hear in the news here that we start having girls disappear, the victims all being young girls who all look quite a bit alike. There was absolutely no reason for them to think Bundy was in any way at all linked to the death of their daughter.”

They also told Larson that they did not believe Bundy’s life should have been spared if he cooperated with authorities by confessing to other, unsolved crimes.

Atlantic County Prosecutor Jeffrey Blitz, who is currently responsible for the investigation of the case, said, “I spoke to Dr. Norman. He relayed information that he had interviewed Bundy years ago and that he had come to the conclusion that Bundy was responsible for the co-ed murders.”

“I asked him if Bundy said he did it, and Norman said no. But based on what Bundy said, Norman said he could draw the conclusion that Bundy was responsible. That’s not satisfying,” Blitz said. “There are no details. And in Bundy’s confession a couple of days before he was killed he said nothing about New Jersey.”

“It’s a piece of evidence, a piece of that will be looked at as any other new piece of evidence will be. But you have to talk it for what it’s worth.”

On the status of the investigation of the co-ed murders today, nearly 20 years after the fact, Blitz said, “It’s an unsolved case.”