Ted Bundy full sentencing for the Chi Omega trial

[00:00:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:02:37] Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Bundy, is there anything you want to say to the court before we pronounce the Senate? Your Honor, before Mr. Bundy speaks, I'd like to address a very few remarks, and Mr. Bundy does have some remarks he'd like to address to the court. [00:03:02] Speaker 2: I just want to point out that at this point, it is the duty of the court to search the entire record concerning the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. And I would like to advance the report at this time that there is a mitigating circumstance which is evident from Dr. Tamay's report. And it is permissible under the statute to present the judge with evidence or argument which is not presented to the jury. And we would ask that you not ignore the report in refining the fact that you are to any of the facts. [00:03:43] Speaker 1: Why in the world didn't you tell me all this yesterday? I did tell you that yesterday. [00:03:47] Speaker 2: Well, did you? I believe on the first page of that I was saying that we would ask you to consider it at the final sentencing, but that we did not choose to put it in front of the jury. And that's what the first page of the excerpt says, is that we wish for you to consider that, that you should consider it and not ignore it, but that we did not wish to present it to the jury. And I think my statement in that regard is clear on the first page of the excerpt. And I didn't mean to in any way offend your honor, but I was trying to convey to you how we were proceeding to represent our client and didn't wish to, at that time, you know, tip anyone off as to what argument I'd be making to the jury. And that is the only problem that your question presented to me at that time. [00:04:35] Speaker 1: But the question as to whether he was informed of all of the mitigating circumstances or not, is that the one that was going to tip off? Well, no, your honor. [00:04:45] Speaker 2: I think perhaps there was a little brief with the court. I didn't understand what you were getting at at that point. And I just thought you were asking us, I'd already stated that we didn't intend to call Dr. Cheney before the jury. I was aware of that. [00:04:58] Speaker 1: All right. And Mr. Bundy himself answered that. Yes, sir. But the question that the court had was whether or not there was communication on all of the mitigating circumstances. I had a duty in mind. And when I read the matter that's going to be before the court, you'll find that I've considered today's report considerably. I've also considered your offer proffer of the usability of Mr. Bundy, the law library. I've considered all of that. I think you'll find that. As it is a duty to do. In fact, that was this court's case where that came out, where I held a subsequent hearing after the case had closed. Swan, they didn't agree with me on the punishment. They agreed with me on the procedure. But we have had that and we have considered. And, Ms. Good, I have no feeling concerning thee. I was concerned that possibly there was an attempt not to acquaint the court that there had been total communication of all the mitigating circumstances. That's why I issued the rule. I want you not to consider and concern yourself with it. I've seen the transcript and I've read it before now. And I'm satisfied in my mind that sometimes in the heat of battle things are said that you don't tend to say. I have a great deal of respect for your legal ability, your demeanor, and your appearance before the court. And I'll discharge the rule. [00:06:41] Speaker 3: Thank you. [00:06:42] Speaker 1: I'll discharge the rule. Is there anything now you want to say to the court, Mr. Bundy? I sure is. You didn't think you'd get away without me saying something? Oh, no. [00:06:55] Speaker 4: If I thought I could, I wouldn't have asked. Well, my attorneys can sit down. I hate to have them standing around me. [00:07:02] Speaker 1: That's all right. We'll leave them at the bar one. [00:07:04] Speaker 4: I kind of cramped my style. That's all right. Don't whisper in my ear. Well, I first would like to make some requests of the court considering sort of housekeeping matters. First and most important that comes to mind is the treatment that my family's been receiving from the news media. I was informed by my counsel yesterday that my mother was virtually assaulted by members of the press when she left the courtroom yesterday. And the same thing will happen today, I'm sure. The court has the power to control the behavior of persons in this courthouse. And I would ask her to do so. Friends of mine were roughed up, pushed out of the way, microphones were virtually, my mother was virtually stricken with microphones. And, of course, this is nothing new. It typifies the behavior of a bloodthirsty and burglary and pitiless press, as they reported this case from the very beginning. There are exceptions, but there are few. So I don't expect the members of the media being the sharks that they are to deviate one iota from their previous behavior, which is most disturbing to me and physically threatening to my family. And I would like a ruling from the court that something be done to protect. The second, I'd like to ask for a visit with my family on the order of what was permitted last evening. And I have talked to Sergeant Kratz and he's indicated to me there's no problem caused by that visitation. Third, I would like to make clear that I'm going to try to give my legal files that I have possession of right now to my counsel today. I just informed the court of that and I don't anticipate any problem, but one never knows. The fourth, in the matter of the Lake City files, the court will recall back the day I arrived, I made note of the fact that I hadn't been able to bring all my files from Tallahassee to Miami. And among those files were the files of the case in Columbia County. A day or two later, I think the court issued an order to Judge Sheriff Casares in this courtroom directing him to deliver those to me. And those files have not been forthcoming. [00:09:26] Speaker 1: I think he gave it to Mr. Africano, didn't he? [00:09:28] Speaker 4: I think Mr. Africano, I can't recall clearly how that sequence of events went, but Mr. Africano hasn't gotten possession of the minor, minor. And this is a serious matter at this point because I'm going to be going up north shortly. I'd like to bring the matter of the effectiveness of counsel to the court's attention, and I may have overlooked something a few months ago when I, in Tallahassee, submitted the motion to the court's attention. And I may have overlooked something a few months ago when I, in Tallahassee, submitted the motion requesting that my public defense be replaced. And I don't, I don't believe I requested a hearing. It's also my recollection that the court ruled that you made a finding at that time that my counsel was competent. But I didn't request a hearing, and I think it's important for the purposes of this record, that I request a hearing on the matter of effectiveness of counsel, and I, if the court would give me leave to raise that in the motion for a new trial, I'll do so. [00:10:49] Speaker 1: Whatever motion for a new trial is filed and consistent with rules, the court will consider. The court has ruled, and I ruled on it twice, and I told you the other day, we'll join issue with you on it. We're going to decide it early, not five years from now. All right? [00:11:08] Speaker ?: All right, well, I've waited a long time to make a closing. statement. [00:11:26] Speaker 4: In this case, I suppose it was obvious to some throughout the course of this trial that I was anxious to get up and speak before the jury. You get up and speak before the jury, and perhaps that anxiety showed through. But now the lawyers are done. Mr. Simpson's done. My public defenders, my attorneys are done. I'll have the second to the last word. The court, as usual, will get the last word. But the second to the last word here, the preface and the conclusion of what I had to say, is that I'm innocent of the charges of which I've been convicted. And I had detailed in my, rather lengthy outline, an outline of the, which amounts to an analysis of the evidence, and I'm not going to bore the court for that. Because the court has heard a great deal of argument on the evidence. I'll save that for appellate review. But suffice it to say that, based on the evidence, I was not convinced, as a, in any objective sense, as to the strength of the state's case. I was convinced to its lack of strength, as it were. But, you know, I read a book a long time ago by a fairly prominent attorney, and he said, "Well, you know, when you, when you get into a big trial, the concept of guilt and innocence becomes really immaterial. The thing that's material is who marshals the evidence best before the jury or the court. Who can present their case in the most effective way within the confines of the laws of evidence and before the trial are facts. It's not a matter of guilt or innocence. It's a matter of production of the evidence." I want to make that clear. Because the verdict of the jury notwithstanding in their apparent belief that the state's case showed to them beyond a reasonable doubt that I was guilty. That is not a matter of guilt or innocence in my mind. It's a matter of the way to the evidence, and what we were and we're not able to prove. [00:14:12] Speaker 1: You're not, you're not, aren't considering this as a motion for new trial made or attendance, are you? No, I'm not going to get into it. Because I'm not going to give you two shots unless you're clear. [00:14:21] Speaker ?: No, sir. [00:14:22] Speaker 1: But you make your statement, I will not consider it as a motion for new trial. [00:14:27] Speaker ?: No, sir. [00:14:28] Speaker 4: This is simply an attempt from my part to clarify as much for myself as it is for the people in this room. [00:14:36] Speaker 5: No, you mean it's not for you and I, it's primarily for them, so go ahead, sir. [00:14:42] Speaker 1: This is your time. Thank you. [00:14:53] Speaker 4: As it pertains to the jury, you know, I was disappointed. We were rather pleased with the jury we selected, on the one hand. But when they went out to deliberate and came back six hours later, I had the feeling like they hadn't gone over it. They hadn't taken any exhibits. They hadn't looked at it as thoroughly as I had hoped. You know, it almost would have been a silver lining to a conviction if they had labored, if they had taken time, if they had taken a day or more, slept on it, thought about it, brought in all the exhibits. I can't imagine how a jury sitting in a case for three weeks to come back with a verdict in a case like this in six hours. The instructions alone, for myself, would have taken several hours just to review and understand. I saw an immense feeling of disappointment with the manner in which the jury deliberated this case. And I read some of the comments in today's paper. [00:16:00] Speaker 1: I'm not going to go into those. That's not proper motion at this time. You misread the comments and go ahead and then go ahead. [00:16:09] Speaker 4: Can I paraphrase the comments? [00:16:11] Speaker 1: Well, I'm not going to talk about specific individuals. You know, Mr. Bundy, one thing again, and I've said this to you before, maybe it takes as far as the third layer of law school. We don't get case for law out of newspapers or established facts. They try hard, but you've already assailed them a while ago. But you see, you're vacillating on both sides of the streets. You're giving them heck in one instance, and now you're trying to praise them because of their comments. And I guess it depends upon which side or whose ox is going. The court understands that. [00:16:46] Speaker 4: I wasn't actually going to praise them. You would disappoint me if you did. But I wasn't going to condemn them either. They had a tough job. I would not have wanted myself to sit in that jury box and judge this case or any case of this magnitude or any death case. It's not an easy job to sit there for three weeks and listen to the amount of evidence that came out in this trial and listen to the complex scientific evidence. And I felt sorry for them in a way because we were over here taking notes. And I still can't remember everything that came out and I don't know how they can remember what they heard over the course of three weeks without even taking notes. I mean, that's tough. So, my feeling is, my suspicion is, that there were things affecting members of the jury that were not in evidence. [00:17:39] Speaker 1: No, I'm going to object and let them put this in form and motion for a new trial. I won't, I won't consider that. You may make a statement, but I'm not going to consider it as having any evidentiary other than commental value. [00:17:53] Speaker 4: Just commentary, Your Honor. It's not testimony, it's not a motion. It's my feeling. It's just suspicion. There's no proof. [00:17:59] Speaker ?: Yet. I've been waiting a long time for this. [00:17:59] Speaker 4: My outline. [00:18:00] Speaker ?: You could have told all this to the jury if you wanted to. I'm talking now about the part of my outline marked media. Oh, okay. Oh. I don't think anyone who's... Oh, the paper's wrestling back there. [00:18:09] Speaker 4: I don't think that anyone who sat through this trial from beginning to end, or from the past. pre-trial proceedings until today, can deny the... I don't think anyone who sat through this trial from beginning to end, or from the pre-trial proceedings until today, can deny the... the impact that the coverage by the news media has had in this case. From cameras in the courtroom, to motions filed by my attorneys to keep the news media out of certain hearings, the coverage of the news media has been a constant threat. To me, and my attorneys, an attempt to prepare a defense. It has jeopardized, and I think in fact succeeded, in influencing the final outcome of this case. But the interference, or that is the coverage by the news media as it pertains to me, did not start with the filing of the indictment in this case. And their vilification of me, and their attempt to make a celebrity or a notorious, infamous character out of me, did not begin on July the 28th of last year. Although, the court will recall seeing the videotape of the evening that Sheriff Casares read me the indictment. And it's sad, but true, that the media thrives on sensation, and they thrive on evil, and they thrive on things taken out of context. And I've seen it time and time again, and I've sat in this courtroom, and listened to the testimony coming from the stand, and then read the next morning an article written in a newspaper, and wondered if that report was actually in the same courtroom on us. Misquoting people, attributing comments to attorneys who didn't say anything, so, taking all sorts of things out of context. And I'd just like to show the court something, it's kind of amusing. You see this photograph in front of the Herald. It's kind of a grotesque picture. And I was quite furious when I saw it, because... [00:20:32] Speaker 1: I bet your mother told you to put your hand over your mouth when you yawned years ago, Mr. Bundy, didn't you? [00:20:38] Speaker 4: But you know, Gene Miller, who wrote the article, said that, in referring to this photograph, it was then that Bundy arose, mouth agape, saying nothing. He motioned ambiguously with his right hand to his head. It made little sense, nor had his crimes upon sleeping college students in a Tallahassee sorority 19 months ago. Small thing. But you know, that's what I've been fighting from the very beginning. That kind of, out of context, inference. Let me tell you what happened, and maybe liven up the proceedings a little bit. Margaret Good and Lewis Karras were talking about Margaret's impending contempt citation when the court was leaving yesterday. Margaret was asking Lewis why he hadn't stopped her. Now she was in trouble with the judge. And I kept hearing this banter back and forth, and I said, "You know, you two sound like Laurel and Hardy." So I, when we court left, I stood up and I sort of did my Laurel and Hardy imitation, saying, "Look what a mess you got me into." They flashed that, they took that paper, which is right here. And Gene Miller, his infinite wisdom, attributed that to some ambiguous something that made little sense, and then connected it to the crime of the Karras Megahouse. It's the interpretation of my behavior, as innocuous as it might be, as it might be. And the inference that, no matter what I do, there's something strange or evil or demented behind it. That has been plaguing me ever since my prosecution in the state of Utah. It's been, I'm sure they took lots of photographs yesterday, but they loved this one. They could have printed any number of others, but they loved this one, because it made me look like an idiot. When they don't know, they had no idea what was going on at the council table. I guess that teaches me a lesson not to do any, any imitations at the council table again. But it certainly reaffirms a lesson I learned long ago, that the news media is out of the blood. And note, the single most devastating article, most prejudicial and most harmful in my case written, in the Chi Omega case, written in the past year, was written by Gene Miller. When he took it upon himself to broadcast the remarks made by Richard Suvran, the court found that Dr. Suvran had not acted unethically and had no reason to believe that his remarks would be published. And perhaps he didn't. But the conniving and enterprising journalist that Mr. Miller is, he thought he took it upon himself to ignore my rights to a fair trial, to ignore my right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. My right to cross-examination. And he published that article, which I think remains, again, the most devastating pretrial article we've seen in this case. It started a controversy on the matter of the dental evidence that still raises. And as we know, and as I have said before, the dental evidence was the most potent evidence presented by the prosecution. Mr. Miller gave me a book. It's called "Invitation to a Lynching." And when he and the other members of the news media began covering the media. Are you going to talk to me or are you going to talk to me or are you going to talk to me? I'm going to show this to Mr. Miller. They, they gave an, they were making an invitation to my lynching, figuratively speaking. The news media long ago sent out the invitation to my lynching. [00:24:39] Speaker ?: And we're going to witness it today. [00:24:40] Speaker 4: We're not going to witness any lynching today. In a figurative sense. [00:24:42] Speaker ?: I'm sorry. [00:24:43] Speaker 4: I don't mean to imply that the court is a hangman. The camera in the courtroom. I've, I've often wondered about it. You know, it's always staring at me when I was sitting at council table. And I wondered whether the publicity or the coverage of this trial brought about by that camera was perhaps a beneficial thing. Keeping the court on its toes because there are probably lots of, lots of people, judges and attorneys around the state are watching this court, watching behavior of attorneys and see if it measures up now that, well, maybe that's going to inspire a higher degree of quality on the part of the court. The quality on the part of the performance of the parties. But that's only a short term effect if it exists at all. The long term effect of cameras in the courtroom can only be detrimental to me and only detrimental to the system. If we sat in here as we often did between nine o'clock in the morning and six o'clock at night and have seven hours of court proceedings. The news media people will take their seven hours of tape and reduce it down to five minutes. And it becomes incomprehensible that out of context piece of tape makes the whole process unintelligible, incomprehensible and sensation. And I think that hurts the system. I think that makes the court, makes me, makes my attorneys look kind of weird sometimes, saying things and acting in ways that don't seem to comport with a lot of people's belief that this is supposed to be a serious and stern proceeding. The news media loves entertainment. They're out there entertaining the people with news, selling news. And this court is a good natured court. And from time to time, there would be a joke from the bench or a joke between counsel. And I'd see that on the, that would be on the nightly news. Now, certainly this is not a comment proceeding, far from it. I know the court realizes that. But how does that make, what does that make people think about what's going on in here? When they see five minutes of laughing and joking and kicking around and everybody's having such a good time in this murder trial. Or if they take something else out of context, two minutes of testimony of Dr. Levine, whatever they do. That camera in the courtroom is destructive, this process. I'd like to talk about choice of counsel, but only briefly. I remember when I brought the issue up a week or so ago about me representing myself. The court said, "Well, if you're a brain surgeon, you wouldn't operate on yourself." And I started thinking of that analogy in its real perspective. And I said, "Well, think about the education a brain surgeon has." There were some brain surgeons I would rather represent me in a criminal trial than some attorneys. Because, let's take the medical profession. Four years of law, of medical school, plus six, seven, eight years of residency before they can go out on their own. Think about it. We have attorneys doing brain surgery after three years. In sort of a symbolic sense. There's nothing that prevents a newly graduated law student from representing a person in a capital trial. And I think this is a shortcoming of legal profession. And I think that sometimes we have to understand that because a person as an attorney does not mean that he or she has the experience to deal with the situation, deal with the trial in a way that amounts to effectiveness of counsel. Not to say they don't work hard, they try hard. If you gave me a violin right now, I'd try to play it. And I'd try real hard, but I couldn't do it. I wouldn't be effective at it. [00:29:04] Speaker 1: Because I didn't have this experience in training. I hope if you had seven years of schooling, though, you at least could play Dixie or something like that. Yeah, well, we heard a lot of Dixie here. [00:29:14] Speaker 4: We didn't hear any Brahms. And that's the problem. We didn't get to the level of effectiveness that was required by this trial. And Your Honor mentioned memorandums written last week and said, "You've never seen so many memorandum. It's such a well-written briefs." I agree with you. We've had a very little avalanche of written documents from the defense in this case. And you know who prepared the bulk of that research? Those two first-year law students sitting out there in the audience. Now, certainly, they're not qualified to represent me. They had a lot of time. They worked themselves silly in a law library. But a stack of memorandum does not make a case, does not make a defense. And I'm not going to go into what happened in this courtroom. That will be gone into later. But there's a great deal more to this case than memorandum and a lot of legal citations. And I feel that through a combination of lack of experience of counsel and lack of preparedness, that I did not have an effective defense. But I'd like to talk about the court for a minute. Never like everything a judge does. I never have. I like some judges less than others. And I think that when a job's well done, it should be praised. And I think this court has made a number of rulings and labored, as the court has said, labored in a way and certain things the court should receive. It hadn't received my appreciation for that. It's a hard job. On the other hand, and there is another hand, I don't think, I think the court erred. And that's my opinion. And that's a different side of the court. But the error is human. And that's why we have appellate courts. And so, on balance, you know, I feel it shouldn't be left unsaid. The court had a tough job. I know I've seen a lot of different faces from the bench. I've seen concern. I've seen humor. I've seen anger. I've seen a short temper. I've seen great tolerance for something. A whole breadth of emotion. And I guess that kind of indicates to me that Your Honor's robe notwithstanding, you are human. And I think that's the thing that stands out in my mind most in the months that we've been in this trial. You know, yesterday, Larry Simpson was making his closing argument to the jury. I guess on the penalty phase. And one of the most poignant and powerful things he said was, and I'll paraphrase it best I can. He said, "Well, Lisa Levy's mother wasn't there on January the 15th to plead mercy for her life. And Margaret Bowman's mother was not there on January the 15th to plead mercy for her life. Why give this man mercy?" Well, perhaps, and it's rather ludicrous, but still think about it. I wonder what would have happened if what Mr. Simpson proposed had taken place. Perhaps that tragedy in the Conomega House wouldn't have occurred. Well, never knows. But Mr. Simpson was asking for more than that. He was asking the jurors and, by implication, asking this court to behave in the same manner that the assailant of the Conomega House acted without mercy. Vicious, cruel, without feeling. He was asking the jurors to lower themselves to the level of the person who committed those crimes. Seek vengeance. Draw blood. [00:34:01] Speaker ?: And now the burden's on this court. I don't envy it. It's like the court is like a Hydra right now. It's been asked to dispense no mercy as the maniac in the Conomega House dispensed no mercy. [00:34:06] Speaker 4: It's asked to consider this case as a man, as a judge. And you're asked also to render the wisdom of a God. [00:34:18] Speaker ?: Yes. It's like some incredible Greek tragedy. [00:34:19] Speaker 4: It must have been called. It's like some incredible Greek tragedy. It must have been written sometime. [00:34:25] Speaker ?: It must have been written sometime. [00:34:25] Speaker 4: It must be one of those ancient Greek plays that portrays these three faces of man. You see, it's asked to consider this case as a man, as a judge. You see, it's asked to consider this case as a man, as a judge. And you're asked also to render the wisdom of a God. It's like some incredible Greek tragedy. [00:34:38] Speaker ?: It must have been written sometime. [00:34:38] Speaker 4: It must be one of those ancient Greek plays that portrays these three faces of man. And I don't know how the court can reconcile those three roles because I think they're mutually exclusive and the court is just, in spite of its experience and its wisdom, just a man. And I'm not asking for mercy. For I find it somewhat absurd to ask for mercy for something I did not do. And by the way, this is my opening statement. What we've seen here is just the first round, second round, early round of a long battle. And I haven't given up by any means. I believe that being able to develop fully the evidence which supports my innocence, being able to develop fully the evidence which we had, which indeed, I think, created a reasonable doubt. Being able to have quality representation, having these things, I'm confident that I would have been in the event that I get a new trial, I will be acquitted. [00:36:37] Speaker ?: Being able to have, you know, I can't do it. [00:36:38] Speaker 4: It wasn't easy, sitting through this trial, for a number of reasons, but the main reason that it was not easy in the early part of the case was because of the presentation of the state's case on what took place in the state's case. What took place in the kind of megahouse, the blood, the pictures, the bloodstained sheets. And to know that the state was trying to find me responsible for that wasn't easy. And it was not easy, nor did I ignore the families of these young women. I don't know them. I don't know them. And I don't think it's hypocritical of me, God knows, to say that I sympathize with them the best I can. Nothing like that has ever happened to anyone close to me. But I'm telling the court, I'm telling those people who were close to the victims in this case, that I'm not the one responsible for the access to the megahouse or Dunwoody Street. And I'll tell the court that I'm really not able to accept the verdict, because although the verdict found in part that those crimes have been committed, had been committed, they erred in finding who committed them. And as a consequence, I cannot accept the sentence, even though one will be imposed and even though I recognize the legitimate, the lawful way in which the court will impose it. Because it is not a sentence of me, it is a sentence of someone else who's not standing here today. So I will be tortured for and will suffer for and receive the pain for that act, but I will not share the burden for the guilt. That's all I have. [00:39:00] Speaker 1: Attorney, do you want to say anything? [00:39:14] Speaker ?: No. [00:39:15] Speaker 1: Mr. Bundy, the court is going to sentence the person found guilty of the commission of the offenses at the Kaumega House, and Mr. Dunwoody Street. Your name, sir, was in the verdict form, and your name, sir, was in the indictment. That's what the jury found. Based upon that is what the court is going to adjudicate. And I say to you as sincerely as I can, that appellate review is anticipated, provided for by law, and it should be perceived and pursued with the vigor that has been before this court in the trial. It's been a trial for everybody involved. It's been a trying trial for everybody involved in it. The jury was taken from their homes, placed in a literal solitary confinement, and remained there for better than four and a half weeks. [00:40:41] Speaker ?: And they spoke. [00:40:42] Speaker 1: That is a system upon which our jurisprudence evolves. The speaker of the trial for five. The court has labored long in consideration of the jury's verdict, and in consideration of their recommendation. And I've reviewed the case from the first word of the indictment until the last word of the verdict returned yesterday afternoon. I'm going to enter the following judgment and sentence, consistent with after having reviewed all of that material. And as we develop this, I think you'll see where the court's coming from. I don't expect you to cry, uncle. I'd be somewhat disappointed if you did. For I think the challenge that you presented to the court, to the system, is healthy. There's no problem with that. If we can't handle circumstances such as that, then appellate courts will review it, and you've still got the safeguard. And that's the way it ought to be. This court has no feeling other than we have tried to labor as fairly and impartially as I know how. And that's the way in which I'm entering this sentence. But you prognosed what the court was going to do. And we're well aware of that. In viewing all of it, as I will develop it, you'll understand that as the law is now written, there's no other approach. That's not to say that that law is etched in concrete or gold. But it is today's law. And it's upon that that the court is going to pronounce sentence. This cause came on before the court and trial by jurying after deliberation, a verdict was rendered. The court is not to say that. [00:43:15] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:43:15] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:43:25] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:43:26] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:43:33] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:43:34] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:43:38] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:43:39] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:43:43] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:43:44] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:44:03] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:44:05] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:44:14] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:44:15] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:44:27] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:44:28] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:44:32] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:44:33] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:44:44] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:44:45] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:44:56] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:44:57] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:45:00] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:45:01] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:45:06] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:45:08] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:45:27] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:45:29] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:45:55] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:45:56] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:46:09] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:46:10] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:46:25] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:46:27] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:46:44] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:46:45] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:46:57] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:46:58] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:47:06] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:47:07] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:47:25] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:47:26] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:47:35] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:47:36] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:47:39] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:47:40] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:47:58] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:47:59] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:48:08] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:48:09] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:48:30] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:48:31] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:48:46] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:48:55] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:49:11] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:49:12] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:49:30] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:49:31] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. [00:49:42] Speaker ?: The court is not to say that. [00:49:43] Speaker 1: The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. The court is not to say that. There was evidence of vaginal and anal trauma. And she was left in a pool of blood in her own bed. Her body mutilated and near death. She expired a very short time later. The court finds that both of these killings were indeed heinous, atrocious, and cruel. In that they were extremely wicked, shockingly evil, vile, and the product of a design to inflict a high degree of pain and utter indifference to human life. Now, the defendant chose to offer no evidence of any of the enumerated statutory mitigating factors, but chose instead to offer evidence to show that the defendant in the future could be rehabilitated and serve as a useful purpose for the rest of his natural life. This court declined to hear testimony concerning character of the death penalty, as it has been totally and completely considered by the Supreme Court of Florida and by the Supreme Court of the United States. Matters offered in rehabilitation were of a variety of witnesses: Catholic police, ministers of Christian faith, his mother, and a journalist. The court has carefully considered all the evidence offered by the defendant and has further considered the total record in the case. C. Swan v. State at 322 South 2nd, 485 per in 1975. The defendant sought habus corpus ad testificandum for the law librarian at Rafer. The court declined to enter said writ because the court knows not where the defendant might be assigned in the schedule of the Department of Corrections, but offered with the State's agreement, proffer of the testimony that the defendant might function as a law librarian. This, the defendant declined. However, the court will consider this as a consideration in mitigating factors. Prior to the closing of the defendant's evidence and mitigation, the court acquired as to whether the defendant had been informed and counsel on each and every mitigating factor in the statute, but was tersely and disrespectfully informed that the conversation between counsel and defendant were privileged and that no meaningful response was given to the court's question. The court further considered the psychiatric report filed in this cause by Dr. Emilton A. of Detroit Mission, a diplomat of the American Board of Psychology and Neurology. The course of the mitigation testimony shown by the defendant was calculated and deliberately designed to evade any reference in this court's mind of the statutory mitigating factors to be presented to the jury. However, this court is going to consider each and every one separately and independently in the discharge of its duties and consider the same in light of the total record that is before us. The court has considered no evidence or factors in imposing the penalty herein and has no information not disclosed to the defendant or his counsel, which the defendant has not had an opportunity to explain or deny. say Gardner v. State of Florida and the respective sites. Mitigating circumstances. This defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity. Finally, this circumstance has not been established as the record shows that a defendant was convicted of the crime of aggravated kidnapping, extradited to Colorado, and escaped while awaiting trial in the state of Colorado. The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. There is no evidence of any extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the commission of the acts. That the victim was a participant in the defendant's conduct or consented to the act. There is no evidence that either victim, in this case, consented or was participating in the act. That the defendant was an accomplice in the offense for which he was to be sentenced. As it was an accomplice in the offense for which he is to be sentenced, but the offense was committed by another person and the defendant's participation was relatively minor. There is no evidence that anyone other than the defendant participated in the offense. All the evidence is to the contrary. The defendant acted under extreme duress or under substantial domination by another person. This mitigating factor is the element of substantial domination of another person is not applicable. However, the extreme duress element will be discussed by the court simultaneously with mitigating factor F, the defendant's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his act, of his conduct. To conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired. The psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Tenet previously filed in this cause and considered by the court in a competency proceeding indicated that the defendant makes decisions based upon distorted perceptions of reality. And due to the behavior of the defendant, it appears accurate to say that he attempts to conceal and reveal his involvement simultaneously. That is, dealing with the criminal justice systems are dominated by psychopathology. This court has carefully considered this report in an attempt to determine if the defendant possessed an impairment of his ability to appreciate the criminal justice of his conduct or whether the perception of an extreme duress is within himself. This court is of the opinion that while the pathological needs for the defendant are consistent with defiance of authority and manipulation of all people that he contacts, as the report states, there is no overall asymptomology of a personality disorder or substantial impairment of ability for the defendant not to appreciate the criminality or to establish the presence of extreme duress. This court has observed the demeanor and the actions of the defendant throughout this entire trial. And while a number of incidents appear antisocial, they do not in this court minds indicate or demonstrate a reduction of appreciation by the defendant of the criminality of his act. I find there are no mitigating circumstances in either circumstance E or F. The age of the defendant at the time of the crime finding. The defendant is now 32 years of age. There is no mitigating factor. The crime occurred January 15, 1978. Upon the preceding specific findings of fact, the court bases its sentence. It is of the opinion of this court that there are sufficient aggravating circumstances existing to justify the sentence of death. The aggravating circumstances are so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ. The court is mindful that the sentence must be a matter of reasoned judgment rather than an exercise in discretion. C. Rolison v. State at 358 South 2nd, 826 Florida 1978. It is this court's reasoned judgment that no mitigating circumstances either statutory or by the testimony presented in the advisory sentence proceedings have been proven, which have been proven to this court, or exist to impair the thrust of the aggravated circumstances which have been proven to this court beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. This court, therefore, agrees and concurs with the advisory sentence in the recommendation entered by the trial jury. It is, therefore, the sentence of this court as to count two of the indictment. You, Theodore Robert Bundy, be adjudicated guilty of murder in the first degree, and that you be sentenced to death for the murder of Margaret Bowman. As to count three of the indictment, you, Theodore Robert Bundy, be adjudicated guilty of murder in the first degree, and that you be sentenced to death for the murder of Lisa Levy. It is further ordered that you, Theodore Robert Bundy, be taken by proper authority to the Florida State Prison, and there be kept and closely confined until the date of your execution is set. It is further ordered that on such scheduled date that you be put to death by a current of electricity sufficient to cause your immediate death, and such current of electricity shall continue to pass through your body until you are dead. The death sentence is imposed in both counts two and three for the deaths of Margaret Bowman and Lisa Levy independently and separately. You're notified, sir, that a judgment of conviction and sentence of death under the law of Florida is automatically and will be fully reviewed by the Supreme Court of Florida. In other counts of the information, count one, burglary of a dwelling and assaulting a person therein is the sentence of this court, sir. You've previously been adjudicated guilty that you'll serve 99 years in the state penitentiary. As to counts two and three, the court has previously announced. As to count four attempted murder in the first degree, this court is the opinion that the underlying felon in this count is indispensable to count one, and the court will impose no sentence. See Florida v. Punder, 1979, released July 5, 1979, Supreme Court case number 55369. Count five, attempted murder in the first degree. The underlying felony in this count is indispensable to count one, and the court will impose no sentence based on the same authority. Count six, burglary of a dwelling and assaulting a person therein. The court sentences you to 99 years in the state penitentiary. That is consecutive to the sentences that are imposed by this court in counts one, two, and three. Count seven of the information, attempted murder in the first degree. This underlying felony, the underlying felony in this count is indispensable. As to count six, then the court will impose no sentence on the previous authority. All sentences imposed on counts one, two, three, and six are consecutive. This court also invokes chapter 78 through 18, now 947.16, of the Florida Statutes. That is to say that the court retains jurisdiction over the offender for review of any future release order of the Florida Paral and Probation Commission for the Florida Paral and Probation Commission. The court finds that ample justification exists for the entry of an order by this court retaining jurisdiction over Theodore Robert Bundy for review of any further release order of the Florida Paral and Probation Commission and this regard specifically finds that these crimes involved a burglary of a sorority house with 30 or more girls, wherein four were brutally beaten and with two being killed. That the girls in the sorority house no way participated. One case involved the entry into a private home and one count wherein the sleeping victim, also a young girl, was left with five skull fractures. The defendant has a history of prior criminal activity. These crimes committed involved extreme savagery, indifference of human lives, and the infliction of agony and pain upon the helpless young women. The defendant has maintained a complete indifference to the commission of these acts and the court hereby directs that the Florida Paral and Probation Commission to send to this court or its successor and to the state attorney notice as provided in Florida Statutes 947.16, paren 2.C. of any future release order of the commission for appropriate review by this court in accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes 947.16. Here advise, sir, that as to the judgments and sentences imposed in count 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7, you have the right to appeal within 30 days from the date of these proceedings. Here further advise that you have a right to the assistant of counsel in the filing and preparation of your appeal. Upon your request, ensuring that you're entitled to an attorney at the expense of the state, an attorney will be appointed to represent you. This order is done and ordered in open court in Miami-Dade County, Florida, this 31st day of July, 1979, A.D. Fingerprint to the defendant. [01:05:55] Speaker 4: I want an open court. I want an open court. Come on, I have to read it. [01:06:04] Speaker ?: I want an open court. I want an open court. Come on, I have to read it. So, let's go. [01:06:38] Speaker 3: Okay, Mr. Chair. [01:06:45] Speaker 1: I issue the commitment order. This court will enter one other order in this cause, and so counsel understand that I'll enter it, but I'll publicize it at the same time. The cause came on to be heard on the court's own motion, the court having heretofore entered a change of venue from Tallahassee to Miami, Florida, and the periods that the trial has been had and sentence imposed, therefore the court find no reason to retain the file in matters appertaining thereto in Dade County, Florida. It is further ordered that this entire file, the exhibits introduced to trial, transcripts of testimony typed and filed, and any exhibits offered and proffered for identification be returned and filed with the clerk of the court in the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, and that any further proceedings in this cause shall be conducted and heard in Tallahassee, the county seat of Sudd County. You may file and distribute copies now, please. Here's another motion that's filed, the court will consider to do for us. This court will be in recess, and adjournment in this bill. Your Honor. [01:07:56] Speaker 5: Everybody remain seated. Hold on just a minute, Mr. Bundy. The earlier request that I made concerning... We'll grant you. Is there some way my family can get out of here before the news media get on? Can we escort them out the back way? [01:08:09] Speaker 1: We'll take care of it, and I'll get them seated in a second. [01:08:12] Speaker 5: Thanks. Take care of yourself, young man. [01:08:14] Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, I say that to you sincerely. Take care of yourself. It's a tragedy for this court to see that such a total waste, I think, of humanity that I've experienced in this court. You're a bright young man. If you made a good lawyer, I'd love to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. Take care of yourself. I don't have any animosity to you. [01:08:38] Speaker 5: I want you to know that. Take care of yourself. Thank you. Court of the intermission, remain seated, please, to the justice out of the courtroom. Court is now in recess. Please clear the courtroom. [01:09:11] Speaker 3: Right at the beginning. Right at the beginning. Thank you. Thank you. I got a button and I want one button. I got a button and I want one button. The division, again, so we've got to come back.