According to Newton (2002), there is no “typical” serial killer. However, a study of 2,300 cases reported worldwide helped researchers to gather basic information about these individuals. For example, in the United States, 88 percent of all serial killers are male and 84 percent are Caucasian. Further, 43 percent of these individuals claim to have experienced physical or sexual abuse throughout their child, and 74 percent claim psychological abuse (Newton, 2002).

There are many myths surrounding serial killers; one of these misconceptions, for example, is the idea that all serial murders are sexual in nature. Although sex is the cause for these crimes in 69 percent of cases, greed, religion, insanity, racism and revenge are all motivators or catalysts that can play a role (Newton, 2002). Serial killers may also commit their crimes due to or for “anger, thrill, financial gain, [or] attention seeking” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010, p. 4). Ultimately, a serial killer can have multiple motives, and they may continue to evolve throughout time.

Additionally, when considering serial killers, Americans often envision a strange or unfamiliar creature looming in the shadows. In reality, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not all serial killers are dysfunctional, isolated beings. Rather, they “hide in plain sight within their communities…Serial murderers often have families and homes, are gainfully employed, and appear to be normal members of the community” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010, p. 3). According to Seltzer (2003), there seems to be a standard stereotype of a serial killer, “just this dead average and look-alike character of the killer” (p. 9). Forensic psychologist Helen Morrison describes serial killers as “cookie-cutter people, so much alike psychologically I could close my eyes and be talking to any one of them” (Seltzer, 2003, p. 9). These individuals, so uncomfortably alike and thus easily able to blend in with society, are often described as “abnormally normal” (Seltzer, 2003, p. 9).

Moreover, many tend to believe the myth that serial killers are insane or extremely intelligent, but this is not necessarily the case. The FBI sought to dispel this rumor by informing Americans that serial killers often suffer from personality disorders, but are rarely deemed legally insane. Although the media utilizes films and television shows to depict brilliant antagonists, “serial killers range in intelligence from borderline to above average levels” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010, p. 4).

He worked at the Seattle Crisis Clinic, taking calls from the lonely and suicidal. He once saved a toddler, who had wandered away from her parents, from drowning in a lake (Rule, 2012). In the early 1970’s, he earned his first-ever mention in the newspaper for spotting and capturing a purse-snatcher. To be seen as an ideal and upstanding citizen, serial killer Theodore Robert Bundy wore a “mask of sanity,” deceiving many with his affable attitude. Even during his incredibly publicized and sensational murder trial in June of 1979, the notorious murderer swept the nation and effortlessly attracted attention.

Ted Bundy’s infamy stemmed from the public’s perception that he was a different kind of murderer; he undoubtedly deviated from what was then considered to be the “standard profile” of a serial killer. Charming, talkative, handsome, and intelligent, he portrayed himself as an “All American Boy,” interested in politics, particularly the Republican party, volunteer work, and law. As Bundy’s seeming “law and order” persona was unprecedented in the typical serial killer profile, he easily seduced the media, who were mystified by his seeming normalcy and charisma, and took advantage of the fact that his trial was the first to be televised nationally. During his engrossing and unpredictable trial, Bundy appalled many by choosing to represent himself in court for a period of time, and further shocked the public by proposing to his girlfriend when she took the stand. He thrived off of the attention given to him not only by the media, but also by the many fans he acquired throughout his trial.

Indeed, throughout his proceedings, Ted Bundy garnered a large fan-base, with women mailing him letters, racy photos, and marriage proposals. Bundy’s groupies often came to his trials with the same haircut, style, and color as those of his victims in order to appeal to him. Although Bundy was executed nearly thirty years ago, one question remains: “How has Ted Bundy’s name found a place in today’s world?” Moreover, how has his presence been maintained by film and literature? My research aims to investigate Ted Bundy’s current place in social media; using social networking sites such as Twitter, Instagram, and Tumblr, I intend to investigate the ongoing dialogue regarding how Bundy is memorialized. Additionally, my investigation delves into the phenomenon that is “murderabilia,” an industry that specializes in selling serial killer artifacts, and how this business plays a role in keeping serial killers “alive” long after their deaths.

Michael Newton, author of Criminal Investigations: Serial Killers, notes that although serial killers have always been present in our world, no formal name was given to their crimes until the 1950’s (Newton, 2002). From “chain killers,” to “sequence killers,” it was not until 1974 that FBI agent Robert Ressler officially coined the familiar term “serial killer.” (Bonn, 2014). In his definition, Ressler sought to include two components: repetitiveness and a desire for more. He foundhimself inspired by the “serial adventures we used to see on Saturday at the movies… Each week you’d be lured back to see another episode, because at the end of each one was a cliffhanger” (Seltzer, 2013, p. 64). Indeed, these lurid serials, such as Flash Gordon and Batman, effortlessly hooked audiences with their cliffhangers and popular clichés (for instance, the hero coming to the rescue in the very last moment). According to Ressler, the dissatisfying feeling evoked by a cliffhanger is similar to how serial killers feel after a kill. A serial killer, in other words, is obsessed and drawn in by fantasy, but never seems to be fully satisfied and thus strives to kill more perfectly the next time; Ressler refers to this phenomenon as an “improvement continuum” (Seltzer, 2014, p. 64). Ultimately, the term “serial killer” is meant to signify this “internal competition between repetition and representation” (Seltzer, 2013, p. 64).

Authorities have struggled to legally define the term “serial killer.” After many definitions that differed in the number of murders committed and the types of motivation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ultimately defined the term as, “The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s) in separate events” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010, p. 9). A critical aspect of the term lies in the “cooling-off period” that serial killers take; this time period between kills marks the difference between a murder spree and a serial murder.

According to Newton (2002), there is no “typical” serial killer. However, a study of 2,300 cases reported worldwide helped researchers to gather basic information about these individuals. For example, in the United States, 88 percent of all serial killers are male and 84 percent are Caucasian. Further, 43 percent of these individuals claim to have experienced physical or sexual abuse throughout their child, and 74 percent claim psychological abuse (Newton, 2002).

There are many myths surrounding serial killers; one of these misconceptions, for example, is the idea that all serial murders are sexual in nature. Although sex is the cause for these crimes in 69 percent of cases, greed, religion, insanity, racism and revenge are all motivators or catalysts that can play a role (Newton, 2002). Serial killers may also commit their crimes due to or for “anger, thrill, financial gain, [or] attention seeking” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010, p. 4). Ultimately, a serial killer can have multiple motives, and they may continue to evolve throughout time.

Additionally, when considering serial killers, Americans often envision a strange or unfamiliar creature looming in the shadows. In reality, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not all serial killers are dysfunctional, isolated beings. Rather, they “hide in plain sight within their communities…Serial murderers often have families and homes, are gainfully employed, and appear to be normal members of the community” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010, p. 3). According to Seltzer (2003), there seems to be a standard stereotype of a serial killer, “just this dead average and look-alike character of the killer” (p. 9). Forensic psychologist Helen Morrison describes serial killers as “cookie-cutter people, so much alike psychologically I could close my eyes and be talking to any one of them” (Seltzer, 2003, p. 9). These individuals, so uncomfortably alike and thus easily able to blend in with society, are often described as “abnormally normal” (Seltzer, 2003, p. 9).

Moreover, many tend to believe the myth that serial killers are insane or extremely intelligent, but this is not necessarily the case. The FBI sought to dispel this rumor by informing Americans that serial killers often suffer from personality disorders, but are rarely deemed legally insane. Although the media utilizes films and television shows to depict brilliant antagonists, “serial killers range in intelligence from borderline to above average levels” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010, p. 4).

American society has long been intrigued by the “serial killer profile,” and the overall conception of the serial killer. In his book, “Of Men and Monsters: Jeffrey Dahmer and the Construction of the Serial Killer,” Richard Tithecott (1997) notes, “The contemporary construction of the serial killer…is one with which we seem to be particularly fascinated, one which seems to require continual rewriting” (p. 3). Indeed, the public’s interest in serial killers never quite seems to dwindle; people have been captivated by villains such as Jeffrey Dahmer, Jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy, and more for decades. Tithecott attributes this ongoing attraction to the air of power these individuals possess, along with the media’s representation of such individuals: “The serial killer character is a very powerful figure, almost like a mythical figure – half real, half fictional, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent” (Tithecott, 1997). In her book, The Stranger Beside Me, Ann Rule reflects on her friendship with Ted Bundy and consequently corroborates this narrative, recalling that “Ted was never as handsome, brilliant, or charismatic as crime folklore has deemed him… He somehow became all of those things as the media embraced him” (Rule, 2012, p. 25).

Ted Bundy, according to Newton (2002), was the “perfect” serial killer. Bundy was attractive, charming, intelligent, and seen largely as an “average white male citizen.” Indeed, Bundy’s role in politics and law emphasized his normalcy. Additionally, Bundy utilized subtle tactics to become more relatable to the public. More specifically, for example, Ted Bundy once appeared in court in a Seattle Mariners T-shirt. Bundy’s attempt at normalcy was nothing short of successful. In fact, when Bundy was put on trial, “The newspapers were full of statements from Ted’s friends, outraged that this all-American boy was accused of these heinous crimes” (Rule, 2012, p. 114).

Bundy also portrayed himself as an exceptionally sociable and even gracious human being. For instance, he volunteered for a rape-crisis hotline and received an honorable mention for catching a purse-snatcher (Schmid, 2006, p. 212). The young law student was respected and adored by those around him. Ann Rule recalled her positive experience working with Bundy at the Seattle Crisis Clinic, “I can hear… the infinite patience and caring in his voice… He was never brusque, never hurried” (Rule, 2012, p. 25). According to Katherine Ramsland (2013), “A campaign co-worker thought of him as ‘Kennedy-like,’ while a Mormon missionary who baptized Bundy in 1975 said, ‘I wouldn’t hesitate to line [Ted] up with my sister’” (p. 20). Indeed, Bundy’s normalcy was heavily emphasized and vouched for, making his guilt all the more terrifying.

In her 1981 book The Phantom Prince, Liz Kendall (her pseudonym) recounts her long romantic relationship with Bundy; during a time in which she found herself becoming suspicious of Bundy, Kendall recounted how she “watched his every move, but what I saw was Ted playing games with [my daughter], carrying my niece on his shoulders, helping my mom in the kitchen…Hardly the actions of a madman” (Kendall, 1981, p. 85). Indeed, Bundy was incredibly chameleon-like, able to easily blend and mesh with those around him, but many wonder: Who was the real Ted Bundy? Eerily, according to Seltzer (2003), “It was observed again and again that ‘he never looked the same from photograph to photograph’” (p. 11).

In order to fully understand Ted Bundy and the public’s fascination regarding the killer he became, it is critical to start at the very beginning. According to Kevin Sullivan, author of The Bundy Murders: A Comprehensive History, Theodore Robert Cowell, primarily known as Ted Bundy, was born on November 24^th, 1946 to Louise Cowell and a man rumored to be a sailor named Jack Worthington (Sullivan, 2009, p. 47). Worthington, however, had no desire to be a father and left Cowell to have and raise the child on her own. Consequently, Cowell gave birth to a healthy baby boy at the Elizabeth Lund Home for Unwed Mothers (Sullivan, 2009, p. 27). Shortly after, Cowell returned to Philadelphia to her family, who welcomed the child with open arms.

According to Sullivan (2009), experts would later wonder how Bundy became such a notorious man and they turned to his childhood for answers. Many have a preconceived notion that serial killers likely experienced abuse or trauma during their childhood. Indeed, according to researchers Heather Mitchell and Michael G. Aamodt (2005), “Childhood abuse has been given varying levels of blame in the development of serial killers” (p. 40). The two conducted a study on the incidence of child abuse in serial killers. In a sample of 50 serial killers, they found that 68% experienced some type of maltreatment; more specifically, 50% reported psychological abuse, 36% physical abuse, 26% sexual abuse, and 18% neglect. Although Bundy’s childhood was not one filled with any sort of trauma, there were aspects of his youth that were certainly bizarre and thus often debated. For instance, for a period of time, according to Sullivan (2009), Bundy believed that his grandparents were his parents and that his mother was his sister. This widely-believed claim that is often seen in clickbait articles, however, has been disputed by authors Stephen G. Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth; in their 1999 book The Only Living Witness, the two argued that although “A story attributed to an adult Ted Bundy had it that [Cowell] posed as his older sister, not his mother…This is not so; he always knew her as his mother” (p. 59). In addition, it was rumored that his grandfather was incredibly violent; there was speculation that Bundy’s grandfather was abusive to animals, had a large selection of pornography, and talked to himself (Sullivan, 2009). Michaud and Aynesworth (1999), however, note that Bundy’s grandfather “doted upon him,” and that Bundy was incredibly upset when he and his mother left his grandfather to travel to Tacoma, Washington. Despite the rumors surrounding his grandfather, Bundy regarded him as a “highly educated and loving grandfather” (Sullivan, 2009, p. 47).

Perhaps these unusual factors played a role in Bundy’s odd behavior as a child. One of his aunts, for example, recalled a time that she woke up in bed only to find the three-year-old placing knives under her covers and around her body (Sullivan, 2009). According to Polly Nelson, author of Defending the Devil: My Story as Ted Bundy’s Last Lawyer, “Ted had episodes where he would seem to turn into another, unrecognizable person. A great-aunt who had witnessed one such episode suddenly, inexplicably, found herself afraid of her favorite nephew…” (Sullivan, 2009, p. 48). These anecdotes, while once perhaps strange or peculiar, are now incredibly eerie knowing who Bundy would later become.

In 1951, Cowell met John Bundy; the two fell in love and quickly married. John Bundy, known widely as Johnnie, adopted Cowell’s son and had his name legally changed. Bundy’s relationship with his stepfather seemed to be strained. According to Terry Storwick, a childhood friend of Ted Bundy’s, the two would argue often. Storwick recalled Johnnie resorting to violence; Storwick recounted, “this reaction was Johnnie’s only recourse to Bundy’s intellectual attacks” (Sullivan, 2009, p. 49). According to Sullivan (2009), matters became worse when Bundy learned of his illegitimacy.

It is unknown exactly how Bundy discovered his illegitimacy and it is difficult to pinpoint the true account. For example, many claim that Bundy was still being told his grandparents were his parents and his mother was his older sister; therefore, the possibility of being illegitimate was never an option.. As noted earlier, however, this claim has been disputed. Consequently, Sullivan (2009) notes that there are two scenarios surrounding Bundy’s discover of his illegitimacy that have circulated. In one scenario, Bundy found out through his cousin, John, who used the tidbit to tease him. When Bundy questioned it, John led him to his birth certificate. In the other, Bundy found the birth certificate himself while delving through papers. Regardless of how the discovery took place, Bundy’s illegitimacy reportedly had a major affect on him, leaving him “bitter” and “humiliated” (Sullivan, 2009).

Ted Bundy’s odd story – from his unusual upbringing to heinous crimes – has long fascinated the public. Even years after his death, many have continued to wonder: How could this charming, intelligent man do what he did? Why exactly did he turn out that way? What happened? These questions, along with the public’s fascination with serial killers in general, may be why Ted Bundy’s media presence continues to remain strong today, particularly in film and television. Moreover, this ethical dilemma that arises from the public’s fascination with serial killers prompts the question: Who is really serial? The murderer, the producer, the spectator, or are we all to blame?