You are making it all up without taking into account what I've said already. The three dogs in question were said to be acting in an unusual way toward Bundy, that they were not the sort of dogs that snarled -- not just barked, snarled and growled -- at strangers, and the event in each case was noted as unusual AT THE TIME, not just in retrospect. In two cases it was the dog's owner that considered its behavior to be unusual. In the case of the visit to the kennel by Bundy and his girlfriend, the dog did NOT snarl at his girlfriend but had a conniption fit of snarling and barking and growling at Bundy. The girlfriend noted this AT THE TIME. It's fine to have a contrary opinion but it would help if it took what I've already said into account.
Do you mean she wrote about it at the time or somehow documented it, at the time?
It's fine to have a contrary opinion but it would help if it took what I've already said into account.
You talked about demons. Do you expect us to take that more seriously than an adult claiming that Santa Claus is real?
There is not one single shred of scientific evidence that dogs can sense imaginary beings. Unless you can show that dogs always reacted to Bundy in an aggressive way or that Bundy never had any other interactions with dogs, you and Hollywood are just making it up.
You want to believe something so badly that you are trying to draw a correlation that does not exist. If you do not have evidence of ALL Bundy's encounters with dogs you cannot draw any valid conclusions about these three encounters. Surly that must be obvious?
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
The three dogs in question were said to be acting in an unusual way toward Bundy, that they were not the sort of dogs that snarled -- not just barked, snarled and growled -- at strangers, and the event in each case was noted as unusual AT THE TIME, not just in retrospect.
The drama of that event may have colored how the witnesses viewed that event. Happens all of the time. I have had dogs that love women but hate men, and sometimes they barked at different people for no apparent reason. Dogs barking at people is hardly extraordinary, and it certainly isn't much of a platform to leap to the conclusion of demons.
I'm not referring to the demon theory here so it's inadmissible in this discussion. I can think up all the generalizations myself about dog behavior that people have been using here, so something more specific about the three examples I referred to is necessary. You are right that nobody noted down their impressions at the time, so I'll give you that much, they merely remembered later that the dogs had behaved in an unusual way, which HAD struck them AT THE TIME. But this kneejerk tendency to dismiss what people say is offensive and shouldn't be accepted so readily. They remembered that at the time the dogs had behaved in an unusual way. They knew their dogs well enough to take note of that in their minds, or in the case of the kennel visit she remembered that the dog hadn't snarled at her, only at Bundy. None of these people had any reason to make an issue of the dogs anyway, it's just what they remembered after the fact. Snarling, growling, crouching at strangers is not the same as just barking at them. You don't have to postulate a demon in Bundy but you should wonder what the dogs were picking up in him. In my opinion. But of course who cares.
Again you generalize without taking into account anything I've said,
I took it all into account. Anecdotal accounts are not very reliable in these types of situations.
If you are interested, John Wayne Gasey had dogs that he was very close to. There is also the sad story of the dog named Bleep:
quote: "Bleep" was the faithful, loyal and loving Border Collie cross of London's most notorious serial killer Dennis Nilsen. She was bought as a puppy in a local pet shop on Kilburn High Road by David "Twinkle" Gallachan, who was Nilsen's lover, who he'd met barely a few weeks earlier at The Champion in Bayswater and named "Bleep" as her muted barks as a puppy sounded more like a high-pitched squeak. So was "Bleep" the last victim of serial killer Dennis Nilsen? Yes. Did Nilsen kill "Bleep"? No. Of course he didn't. Nilsen absolutely adored "Bleep" (see them playing in the animation above); he fed her, brushed her, bathed her and the two would take lovely long walks together on Hampstead Heath. Bleep was his best-friend, his closest companion, and - in Nilsen's eyes - the only one who ever truly loved him. But in 1978, after a few volatile months together, "Twinkle" walked out, causing Nilsen to spiral out of control, and with his rage uncontrollable and fuelled by anger, he killed fifteen young men in just five years. "I wanted to stop sooner", Nilsen said after his arrest, but after he'd murdered his second victim - Kenneth Ockenden - he knew he'd be locked up for life and his main concern was "if I'm put away, what would happen to Bleep?". Unfortunately, Nilsen's concerns were proved right as just three days after he was imprisoned, "Bleep" was put to death by lethal injection. Her only crime? Being a faithful, loyal and loving dog... of a serial killer. https://www.murdermiletours.com/...loved-their-pets-dogscats
I'm not generalizing here. If Bundy had gotten a dog as a puppy he'd probably have had the same kind of experience. But three grown dogs defending their owners or just meeting him for the first time didn't take kindly to him. Their hostility was striking to those who witnessed the encounter, two of whom knew their dogs well, one of whom was not treated with hostility by the same dog that snarled at Bundy.
But three grown dogs defending their owners or just meeting him for the first time didn't take kindly to him. Their hostility was striking to those who witnessed the encounter, two of whom knew their dogs well, one of whom was not treated with hostility by the same dog that snarled at Bundy.
That happens all of the time with all dogs and all people.
Funny, then, that the people who witnessed these incidents and probably knew dogs as well as you know dogs, especially their own, didn't dismiss them as what happens all the time with all dogs and all people, but regarded them as distinctly unusual. So they're crazy and you are the one who knows although you weren't there?
Funny, then, that the people who witnessed these incidents and probably knew dogs as well as you know dogs, especially their own, didn't dismiss them as what happens all the time with all dogs and all people, but regarded them as distinctly unusual.
They did so after the fact. Again, memories are colored by the present. You can say that they "noticed it at the time" but those claims are well after the event. The Mandela effect is pretty weird.
I'm alsmost at the end of Ann Rule's book on Bundy, The Stranger Beside Me , in her chapter where she is summing up her feelings and her understanding of him. She's remarkably sympathetic in a way I find convincing, while at the same time not losing track of what he did. I'm also interested to note that her analysis includes a lot of what I'd been thinking myself even before I started reading her book. There really are cogent psychological explanations even for such violence as he exhibited. I had mostly anticipated that his rage revolved around the humiliating rejection by his first girlfriend, the woman who was his ideal of beauty and also had the wealth that raised her in his estimation. The effort he put into changing himself in order to win her back just to humiliate her the same way in return is impressive. But it didn't quash his own feelings of humiliation which is what led him to take it out on woman after woman who reminded him of her. Rule spells this out very effectively.
Just in the last few days I'd been thinking of the effect of his being illegitimate and not knowing his real father, and it turns out that Rule gives that a lot of weight in her analysis of him. It had started to strike me as very important. He was close to his grandfather but then moved away from him when he was very young. Also his mother had lied to him about his birth which caused a lot of of confusion for him. And she married a man he couldn't possibly respect, who never became a real father to him. He needed a solid trustworthy admirable and loving father, it was a huge gap in his life.
And women had the power to insult and humiliate him to an enormous degree. Rule says he had no conscience and that has to be right. It raises questions about what it takes to develop a conscience.
Of course others have similar life situations and don't become serial killers, so please don't think I'm suggesting it explains anything more than it explains about Bundy himself.
Anyway I'm impressed with her thoughts about it all in the end. I never got answers to the question about what it was that came over him that darkened his eyes, or anything else that caused me to think he had a demon, and it probably won't come up in the last pages of the book, but I'm satisfied with her thoughts about him.
It would seem that the dogs don't take you for a serial killer. So far so good. Yes all we can do is guess about why dogs were belligerent to Ted Bundy even on first meeting him, but their behavior was so belligerent it seems worth a thoughtful guess.
Have you never knocked on someone's door to be met by a ferocious dog snapping, snarling, growling and otherwise acting belligerent? I assume its not because the dog knows you're a serial killer but because it views you as an intruder coming in to its territory and there exists some innate sense to protect it.
I have no doubt that there's something to a dog's ability to understand things on a deeper level than humans do, up to and including a dog sensing some kind of threat from a person like Bundy...
I'm just cautioning anyone to make assumptions based on that alone. Sometimes there are many reasons why a dog freaks out. I've had dogs lick me to death and have dogs bark at me. Its nuanced and complicated.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Maybe you'll read further and discover I covered it pretty well. If not maybe I'll get back to it later.
Maybe you use some simple logic. "I noted it at the time" said months or years after the events is not "noting it at the time". Unless you have diary entries, police statements, or news reports from that very day it is a memory.