Vial of serial killer Ted Bundy's blood to be used

[whitehall]

It might be an interesting legal case. Serial killer Ted Bundy confessed to about 30 killings before he was executed in Fla in 1989. For some reason all the biological evidence relating to Bundy was ordered destroyed but a vial of Bundy's blood recently turned up. There is a legal challenge representing Bundy to prevent using the DNA to clear some of the cold cases in Washington State and other areas where Bundy was active namely a 8 year old murdered girl in Bundy's neighborhood when he was 15. It might have been his first murder but he always denied his involvement. Why lawyers would want to prevent the closure of old murders allegedly committed by Bundy more than 20 years after he was executed is anyone's guess.

 

[strollingbones]

i would think they would be objecting to the use of anyone's parts and/or fluids...after their death and without their permission

 

[whitehall]

i would think they would be objecting to the use of anyone's parts and/or fluids...after their death and without their permission

Don't take up a career in forensics bones. How many times do you see alcohol level of a dead drunk driver printed in the paper? Bundy gave his consent to take the blood sample. It certainly wouldn't ruin his standing in the community if forensic evidence proved he killed 31 women instead of only 30.

 

[jillian]

i would think they would be objecting to the use of anyone's parts and/or fluids...after their death and without their permission

i would think any privilege dies with the person.

 

[whitehall]

I think common sense would click in when the issue is closing cold case murders and there is no doubt that the suspect was perhaps the most notorious monster in modern history.

 

[Cecilie1200]

i would think they would be objecting to the use of anyone's parts and/or fluids...after their death and without their permission

If they acquired the vial of his blood by having a medical professional draw it while he was in custody, then they DID get his permission to do so. If they acquired it as evidence at the scene of a crime, then they don't NEED his permission.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why lawyers would want to prevent the closure of old murders allegedly committed by Bundy more than 20 years after he was executed is anyone's guess.

Why not research and cite the documents explaining the objection(s), rather than debating in a vacuum – if it matters to you.

 

[strollingbones]

the article does not mention a legal challenge....

only that his blood has been found and may be used...

 

[whitehall]

Why lawyers would want to prevent the closure of old murders allegedly committed by Bundy more than 20 years after he was executed is anyone's guess.

Why not research and cite the documents explaining the objection(s), rather than debating in a vacuum – if it matters to you.

It's OK Jonsie. You can have an opinion about the subject without asking Huffington's permission. You can reason things out without consulting Soros or Dan Rather. Most reporters and blogmeisters don't have the answers anyway. All they do is give opinions like we do. It's a complicated issue and this is a discussion forum. I know that because it says so at the top of the page. Why would anyone object to using a deseased killer's blood to clear cases? Can you violate the rights of someone who was executed 22 years ago?

 

[GHook93]

i would think they would be objecting to the use of anyone's parts and/or fluids...after their death and without their permission

You don't need permission in if a warranty was given!

 

[whitehall]

i would think they would be objecting to the use of anyone's parts and/or fluids...after their death and without their permission

You don't need permission in if a warranty was given!

I have a warranty on my refrigerator. I'd like to see them try to take my ice cubes.

 

[WillowTree]

It might be an interesting legal case. Serial killer Ted Bundy confessed to about 30 killings before he was executed in Fla in 1989. For some reason all the biological evidence relating to Bundy was ordered destroyed but a vial of Bundy's blood recently turned up. There is a legal challenge representing Bundy to prevent using the DNA to clear some of the cold cases in Washington State and other areas where Bundy was active namely a 8 year old murdered girl in Bundy's neighborhood when he was 15. It might have been his first murder but he always denied his involvement. Why lawyers would want to prevent the closure of old murders allegedly committed by Bundy more than 20 years after he was executed is anyone's guess.

I think that's the challange. It was ordered destroyed. There should not be any available to anyone for anything.

 

[whitehall]

It might be an interesting legal case. Serial killer Ted Bundy confessed to about 30 killings before he was executed in Fla in 1989. For some reason all the biological evidence relating to Bundy was ordered destroyed but a vial of Bundy's blood recently turned up. There is a legal challenge representing Bundy to prevent using the DNA to clear some of the cold cases in Washington State and other areas where Bundy was active namely a 8 year old murdered girl in Bundy's neighborhood when he was 15. It might have been his first murder but he always denied his involvement. Why lawyers would want to prevent the closure of old murders allegedly committed by Bundy more than 20 years after he was executed is anyone's guess.

I think that's the challange. It was ordered destroyed. There should not be any available to anyone for anything.

It's a good point but you have to consider the purpose of the order to destroy biological evidence. Is it a standard legal process for health reasons or is there still a 5th Amendment issue? Can we balance the peace of mind of the families of murder victims getting closure after all these years or do we worry about the rights of a monster who has been dead for 22 years? Another issue is the chain of evidence. It's not clear about how the vial of blood was stored for all these years or if it is even Bundy's blood even though the label says so. If the DNA shows up positive in the 8 year old murder victim's body there will be no prosecution of course and you can finally close the 40 year old case. That's all they want to do.

 

[WillowTree]

It might be an interesting legal case. Serial killer Ted Bundy confessed to about 30 killings before he was executed in Fla in 1989. For some reason all the biological evidence relating to Bundy was ordered destroyed but a vial of Bundy's blood recently turned up. There is a legal challenge representing Bundy to prevent using the DNA to clear some of the cold cases in Washington State and other areas where Bundy was active namely a 8 year old murdered girl in Bundy's neighborhood when he was 15. It might have been his first murder but he always denied his involvement. Why lawyers would want to prevent the closure of old murders allegedly committed by Bundy more than 20 years after he was executed is anyone's guess.

I think that's the challange. It was ordered destroyed. There should not be any available to anyone for anything.

It's a good point but you have to consider the purpose of the order to destroy biological evidence. Is it a standard legal process for health reasons or is there still a 5th Amendment issue? Can we balance the peace of mind of the families of murder victims getting closure after all these years or do we worry about the rights of a monster who has been dead for 22 years? Another issue is the chain of evidence. It's not clear about how the vial of blood was stored for all these years or if it is even Bundy's blood even though the label says so. If the DNA shows up positive in the 8 year old murder victim's body there will be no prosecution of course and you can finally close the 40 year old case. That's all they want to do.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for testing it. I'm just saying the fact that an order to destroy was issued might be the grounds to challange.

 

[whitehall]

I think that's the challange. It was ordered destroyed. There should not be any available to anyone for anything.

It's a good point but you have to consider the purpose of the order to destroy biological evidence. Is it a standard legal process for health reasons or is there still a 5th Amendment issue? Can we balance the peace of mind of the families of murder victims getting closure after all these years or do we worry about the rights of a monster who has been dead for 22 years? Another issue is the chain of evidence. It's not clear about how the vial of blood was stored for all these years or if it is even Bundy's blood even though the label says so. If the DNA shows up positive in the 8 year old murder victim's body there will be no prosecution of course and you can finally close the 40 year old case. That's all they want to do.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for testing it. I'm just saying the fact that an order to destroy was issued might be the grounds to challange.

It's a good point Willow. I don't know if it was a direct order by the court or just a violation of standard procedure. There is no way the evidence would hold up in a death penalty trial but this is a unique situation and it would be a shame to destroy the evidence at this point. You have to remember what Bundy was like. They made a movie starring Mark Harmon portraying Bundy as a quirky criminal. The second movie came closer to the real Bundy but in real life he was truly a monster. He confessed to 30 murders but there is an estimate of over 100. He committed depraved acts on the dead women returning where they were dumped over and over again and took their heads as trophies in some cases.