Ted Bundy being confronted by Emanuel Tanay about the circumstantial evidence presented during the Carol DaRonch trial.
Ted Bundy: The evidence was that, ah, that the young woman who had been abducted identified me as the person who had abducted her.
Emanuel Tanay: Uh-hmm.
TB: That was the long and short of it. But the case is a bit more obvious, is a bit more complex, than that, and that, ah, she was abducted in November of ‘74 and did not make an identification of me until October of ‘75. Ah, it was a very sketchy identification, one which we had attempted to prove as the result of influence, both direct and indirect … by law-enforcement officers.
ET: Wasn’t there some other evidence also, or was this the identification was the only—
TB: Well, ah, she was abducted in a car, in a Volkswagen she described as light blue. I owned a beige Volkswagen, and the Volkswagen she was in had a tear in the backseat, and my Volkswagen had a tear in the backseat. Ah, all Volkswagens have tears in the backseat. (Laughs.) … Ah, let’s see what else, a crowbar was found in my car. The person she struggled with had what she believed to be a crowbar, although she couldn’t, she said she’d never seen it. The person who abducted her placed handcuffs on her wrists, and she escaped. A search of my car in August 1975, they detected, they seized a pair of handcuffs, and those are the collateral, circumstantial kind of things they used to corroborate the identification.
ET: So there was strong circumstantial evidence tying you to the case, is that right?
TB: Yeah, ah, in all fairness, you didn’t have to say that. I mean, I will admit that circumstantial evidence, such as it was, did exist, although it was subject to a good deal of clarification, as it were. [Notice that he perceives a gentle confrontation with reality as unfair.]