Hi. Heard about WebSleuths from "The Killing Season," and having watched after that the Zac Efron dramatization of the Ted Bundy history, "Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile," I was left will a little concern. The Bundy dramatization, I know just from background knowledge, glossed over AN AWFUL LOT, I think presuming that viewers would already know the story and that there was no need to address Bundy's guilt. But, based on (a) finding out in recent years how really sloppy police work very often is, and how readily they often jump to the first plausible explanation, and (b) seeing from "The Killing Season" suggestions that the extent of serial killing might be vastly under-reported, what was presented in the Bundy dramatization left me feeling a bit short of the sense of closure that "based on reality" crime video tends always to have (I think they stay away from unsolved cases to avoid missing that closure). In particular, the Colorado trial (I think?) suggested pretty strongly that the key witness had been directed toward Bundy, having been shown his photograph before picking him out of a line-up and not identifying his car accurately. Bundy's claim throughout the dramatization was that they latched onto him for whatever reason, and then were just adding to his file whatever cases they found that they could fit to him ... which I have to expect police might very well be inclined to do; they like closure, too. And the dramatization emphasized the prosecution harping on how awful the crimes were, and not so much on what linked Bundy to them. And, while nominally our criminal courts hold that accused are to be deemed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I expect that most jurors considering someone who maybe possibly is a horrible serial killer will lean strongly toward locking that person away, just in case. Also, the dramatization suggested that a lot of the Florida trial hinged on connecting Bundy's teeth to a bite mark on a victim, and they way they portrayed that rang false with me just based on my understanding of statistics and logical inferences. And I understand also that "bite mark" evidence is now considered not very reliable. Again, the dramatization glossed over AN AWFUL LOT -- it barely mentioned that he had essentially a rape kit in his car -- and very likely they decided they'd get more interest if they left open the possibility that the legal findings might have been wrong (here I am, for example). So ... could someone who knows more about the Bundy history than I do let me know if he was indeed guilty as sin according to the evidence, and whether all of the very many murders linked to him are legitimately linked? I don't need a run-down of details of the evidence, but I tend to think I'd trust the judgment of someone from this forum than I necessarily do for our legal system, which has a vested interest in wrapping criminal matters up with a bow? Thanks in advance, and my apologies for the length of this post.