CITY’S CUP ROMANCE AT AN END
MISFIRING TEAM FAIL TO REACH A FIRST EUROPEAN FINAL AS YET ANOTHER SET PIECE GOAL PROVES TO BE THEIR UNDONG
LEICESTER City failed in their attempt to reach a first European cup final in disappointing fashion in Rome last night.
Despite dominating possession, City failed to register a shot on target for over an hour – having fallen behind to another goal from a set piece.
Roma striker Tammy Abraham headed in from a corner on 11 minutes to leave City with all the work to do.
In the end, a blocked Vardy shot and a saved Maddison effort were the nearest City came to battling back.
Manager Brendan Rodgers told BT Sport: “Of course when you lose a second leg of a semifinal it’s disappointing.
“In the second half we were much better. We imposed ourselves and made changes.
“In the first half it wasn’t aggressive enough. The players kept going until the very end but we couldn’t find that big chance. There wasn’t many in the game for both teams.
“The corner... It’s been our problem all season. We have tried every structure in the box – man-marking and zonal – but clearly we lack physicality in the team to deal with certain situations consistently and that has cost us tonight.
“We really dominated the first leg and had opportunities so we always had it in the back of the mind that we might need to change it and get an extra body through the middle.
“The players responded really well second half.
“It’s been a great journey for us in Europe in the last couple of years.
“We have a lot of young players that are finding their way and this was a great experience for them.
“That will provide motivation for them next season.
“We just missed out so we’re disappointed but we need to finish the season strongly now and look to progress in the summer for next season.”
There were times when I think he… he almost felt as if he were immune from detection...
Ted Bundy discussing the killings in the third person
WELCOME to our fantastic new Book Club. Book buying is at a 10-year high – more than 200 million books were sold in the UK last year.
Here at Reach, as well as bringing you all the latest news, our Mirror Books team has been producing popular non-fiction books for years.
Every month, we will be producing exclusive passages from some of our bestselling titles and giving you the chance to take advantage of some fantastic cut-price offers.
To start things off, we feature fascinating excerpts from writers who have been brave enough to confront evil – by stepping inside the mind of some of the world’s most notorious serial killers, revealing the untold stories of their unimaginable crimes and how they were brought to justice.
To take advantage of any book offers, go to mirrorbooks.co.uk
THEODORE Robert Bundy – known as Ted – was one of the most notorious serial killers in American history, killing at least 30 women between 1974 and 1978 in a US-wide crime spree that terrified the nation.
Bundy’s story continues to fascinate more than 30 years after he was executed in a Florida prison for his heinous crimes.
Before his death, he invited journalists Stephen G. Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth to interview him and gave a confession of sorts during 150 hours of taped conversations that revealed the man behind the monster…
Speaking in the third person, to try to distance himself from his crimes, Bundy describes how he killed 22-year-old Brenda Ball in May 1974:
A CALCULATED M.O.
SM: What about the girl from the Flame Tavern? Brenda Ball?
TB: He was interested in varying his M.O. in such a way as not to continue to fan the flames of community outrage, or the intensity of the police investigation. This is why this Ball girl found herself to be the next victim.
SM: What would be a reasonable reconstruction of that night?
TB: Of course, I don’t know, but we could say that he picked her up hitchhiking and they got to talking and she had nothing to do. He would ask her if she wanted to go to a party at his place and take her home. At this point, he would exert an influence on her which would be especially effective if she was under the influence of alcohol. SM: He’d take her home?
TB: Sure.
SM: It would seem terribly risky. TB: If you live with someone. But he had his own house.
SM: I see. What is going on in his mind on the way to his house?
TB: Conversation. To remove himself from the personal aspects of the encounter, the interchange. Chatting and flattering and entertaining, as if seen through a motion-picture screen. He would be engaging in the pattern just for the purpose of making the whole encounter seem legitimate.
SM: Uh huh.
TB: And to keep her at ease. He didn’t want this girl to get second thoughts about going with him to his place. And also, he was afraid that if he started thinking about what he was going to do, he’d either become more nervous or lose his concentration or in some way betray himself.
SM: So they go to his place?
TB: He’d have to explain why there isn’t all the activity going on. It was probably not the first time she’d run into that kind of situation. Maybe it was. But in any event she was somewhat wary of the situation and yet bored enough, or intoxicated enough – or both – to just not really consider it threatening to her.
They’d drink until she was exceptionally intoxicated.
SM: The longer the conversation would go on, the more likely she would emerge as a person?
TB: Well, drinking has an effect on both parties. On the one hand, the more intoxicated he became, the more he repressed his normal codes of behaviour. And the more she drank, the more she would lend herself to stereotypes.
SM: How would he proceed?
TB: The initial sexual encounter would be more or less a voluntary one. But one which did not wholly gratify the full spectrum of desires that he had intended. And so, after the first sexual encounter, gradually his sexual desire builds back up and joins, as it were, these other unfulfilled desires – this other need to totally possess her, after she’s passed out, as she lay there in a state somewhere between coma and sleep, he strangled her to death. SM: Seems to me there’d be some kind of logistical problem of getting her out of there.
TB: There wouldn’t be an urgency, since she was in a place that was private. Ultimately, he’d have to bundle her up in some fashion and take her out to his car, when it’s late some night, and drive her up to the mountains.
SM: What would he do with her until then?
TB: Just leave her in the bed, put her in the closet, you know. I mean, no one’s coming in.
A KILLER’S CONFIDENCE
Bundy explains how he sometimes felt untouchable and how his lust for murder would never be stopped:
TB: There were times when I think he… he almost felt as if he were immune from detection.
Not in a mystical or a spiritual sense or anything, but that on occasion he felt like he could walk through doors. He didn’t feel like he was, uh, invisible or anything like that. But at times he felt that no matter how much he f **** d up, nothing could go wrong.
The boldness was probably a result of not being rational.
Of just being moved by a situation – not really thinking it out clearly, and not even seeing risks. But just overcome by that boldness and desire to accomplish a particular thing. Only in retrospect would he wonder how he managed to succeed in spite of some of those rash and bold acts.
SM: We’ve discussed the total depersonalization of the victims – that they become objects. TB: Now, clearly, they are people – flesh and blood. They have all the characteristics of human beings. It would be unfair to say totally – totally and absolutely – but they would be depersonalized sufficiently so that he was not able to muster that natural, normal ability to feel compassion for that individual to also place a high value on the sanctity of life.
Oddly enough, this person (in) normal situations would place a high value on life. And on the goal that people should be free from suffering and so on. But he would not allow himself to feel those emotions for the victim.
Extract from Ted Bundy The Only Living Witness by Stephen G. Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth, RRP £8.99