Margaret Good and Marlin Vortman
Added 2024-02-24 08:40:12 +0000 UTC"Although Mr. Bundy had attended law school, his legal skills were very poor. He had only limited legal knowledge and insufficient practical experience to be effective as a lawyer. He was unqualified to represent himself in a case as complex as his own. In addition, he lacked the judgment to use even the limited knowledge he did have. His attempts to cross-examine witnesses were particularly destructive. Moreover, his interest in cross-examining witnesses appeared to be limited to crime scene technicians and the state's bitemark expert.
We had difficulty controlling Mr. Bundy's destructive behavior during trial. On one occasion, as Mr. Harvey stood to cross-examine the officer who discovered the victim in her bed, Mr. Bundy, who was sitting at the end of the counsel table, suddenly stood up, walked to the podium, and began questioning the witness. His cross-examination elicited gruesome details about the crime scene. Mr. Bundy seemed to delight in the endeavor. The jury appeared repulsed. The state effectively used this and other similar examinations by Mr. Bundy in its closing argument. To avoid a repeat of such an incident, we thereafter placed Mr. Bundy in a seat at the middle of counsel's table so we could restrain him from unexpectedly standing to examine witnesses."
.
.
1987 affidavits from one of Ted's Chi Omega lawyers, Margaret Good, and his best friend from Seattle, Marlin Vortman. Both share their experiences with Bundy that would lead them to believe he was incompetent at trial.
Comments
"However, at Mr. Bundy's last minute insistance, I made the closing argument at trial." Which is an obvious calculated attempt on his part to show a female supporting him and allow him to exercise further control over a female. Always a one trick pony, that guy.
Nunya consoin
2024-02-25 01:30:47 +0000 UTC
