The first exchange between George Dekle and Clarence Anderson (pre-hypnosis), quoted by Victor Africano

Victor Africano quoted an exchange between Dekle and Anderson, in his 1982 brief on Bundy’s behalf, and said it was Anderson’s original recollection of when his sighting of Kimberly Leach’s abduction happened. From that exchange, it emerged that there was a two-month hiatus between Anderson’s alleged sighting and Leach’s actual disappearance. 

Below, excerpts from Africano’s December 15, 1982 brief:

“The entire scenario, as described by Anderson, leaves little doubt that he had the opportunity to see the abduction of the Leach girl. The state did not introduce one shred of evidence to corroborate Anderson's identifications.

Anderson's recollection of the time he claimed he saw the ‘abduction’ was fraught with vacillation and indecision. From the time he first reported his revelation, to Dekle, until he testified at the suppression hearing, he gave varying estimations of what time of day he saw the ‘abduction’. His first answer before the court on the subject was:

‘...Well, that's as close as I can get to it, around 8:30, but it could have been easily 9 o'clock, but I think, it was around 8:2O, 8:45, somewhere around that, but i t could have been later, easily.’ (R. 14017)

His original recollection of when it happened:

‘MR. DEKLE: When was it that you saw this man put this girl into the white van?

MR. ANDERSON: I can't remember the exact date.

MR. DEKLE : Just approximately?

MR. ANDERSON: Four months ago around April, ah—‘

(Defense Trial Exhibit 24, page 2)

The records of the Lake City Fire Department reflect that Anderson worked on February 9, 1978, starting at 8:OO a.m.

Subsequent to his initial report to Dekle, Anderson was told that the day the Leach girl disappeared was on February 9 ( R . 13980), and then reports it as a ‘date remembered’ during the Burnette hypnotic episode (Defense Trial Exhibit 25, page 11).

The fact that it took Anderson almost six months to ‘realize’ what he thought he saw casts grave doubt that he actually saw any ‘abduction’. During this time he was exposed to tremendous media attention about the Leach girl, her disappearance, Bundy and their ‘suspected connection’ (R. 13990-13993). His niece looks just like the Leach girl (R. 139861, and he had seen pictures of the Leach girl in the papers and on T.V. (R. 13990)

The fact that his description of the girl and the man he saw varies dramatically from his initial accounting to Dekle and his report to Burnette, as well as the glaring omissions of what he did not see, i.e., the Leach girl's coat, which she was wearing when last seen, and Bundy's facial hair, casts doubt that he was actually recalling anything under hypnosis.

The fact that Anderson went from a man who had a lot of doubt and did not want to send police on a wild goose chase, to an eyewitness who could positively identify the Leach girl as the girl being led from the Lake City Junior High School into a white van by a ‘man who looks a hell of a lot like Bundy’, also casts grave doubt upon the reliability of his identification. Compound these facts with two totally inappropriate hypnotic episodes, and not only was the identification procedure overly suggestive, but in addition, there was an absolute contamination of the witness, C. L. Anderson.

Under the ‘totality of the circumstances’ doctrine announced in Neil v. Biggers, supra, Anderson's in-court identifications of the Leach girl, Bundy, and the events should have been suppressed as totally unreliable and a violation of due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9, Florida Constitution. 

The defense contends that the state's evidence against Bundy, without the testimony of Anderson, would have been a series of meaningless incidents.

The fibers, the Parmenter and Farhat encounters, Bundy’s being at the Lake City holiday Inn on February 8, 1978, would have had little impact without the critical eyewitness who 'actually saw' the Leach girl, Bundy and a white van together. It was Anderson's testimony that brought these incidents together and shrouded them with an inference of guilt.

Some six months after the abduction, and a week after Bundy’s Indictment, Anderson sees Bundy's profile (where have we heard that before?) on television. This triggers a ‘recollection’ that he ‘may have seen this guy before’. He reports that he had some nagging doubts that ‘he may have seen something’. Had he been left alone to ponder on his independent recollection, the defense would have only had to contend with, and could only have attacked, the credibility of his testimony.

However, the state, in their zeal to enhance the recollection of this vague, doubtful and unsure, but necessarily vital potential eyewitness, sought, without benefit of any scientific expertise or advice, to have him hypnotized.”

Also according to Africano’s 1982 brief:

“Anderson testified that he was working overtime at the Fire Station on February 8, 1978, and slept there that night (R. 4057). At some time between 9:00 or 9:15 the next morning, he left the Fire Station to go home, shower, shave and change clothes (R. 4058) Leland Douberly, the custodian of records of the Lake City Fire Department, testified that the department's records reflected that Anderson did, in fact, work overtime on February 8, 1978. The records indicated that he worked until ll:03 p.m. (R. 4190) Douberly also testified that if Anderson had been at the Fire Station from midnight until 8:OO a.m. on February 9, 1978, he would have been paid for that time, and that the records did not indicate that he had been paid for that time (R. 4196). The records also indicate that Anderson commenced work on Feburary 9, 1978, at 8:OO a.m.”

So Anderson may have worked a night shift...

The State answered Africano’s brief, on February 3, 1983. Conspicuous by its absence in the State's brief was any discussion of the two-month hiatus between Anderson’s alleged sighting and Leach’s actual disappearance, which emerged from Anderson’s FIRST, PRE-HYPNOSIS statement.

 

 

Africano’s December 15, 1982 brief:

https://murderpedia.org/male.B/images/b/bundy/docs/59128ini.pdf

The State’s February 3, 1983 answer: 

https://murderpedia.org/male.B/images/b/bundy/docs/59128ans.pdf

Africano’s March 21, 1983 reply:

https://murderpedia.org/male.B/images/b/bundy/docs/59128rep.pdf