Mr. J, a Former Professor Series – Entry 47: When Affection is Just an Alibi (A Bundy-Inspired Reflection)
Bundy, Johnston, and the Anatomy of Symbolic Control
Some men do not love.
They collect.
They collect attention, power, trophies — all under the comforting cloak of “affection.”
The infamous Ted Bundy did not love Stephanie. He was obsessed with the idea of her: her class, her elegance, her “untouchable” aura. She wasn’t a human to him. She was a mirror, reflecting the image of a man he desperately wanted to believe he was — charming, powerful, worthy.
After she rejected him, his fragile ego fractured. He spiraled into a desperate performance of self-reinvention, only to return, seduce her, and discard her.
This was not romance. This was revenge choreography.
He didn’t want her partnership. He wanted her submission.
He didn’t seek connection. He sought conquest.
In the same way, some men today repeat this psychological ritual on a smaller — yet equally insidious — scale.
They frame gifts, messages, tattoos, or poetic confessions as tokens of “love.” But when dissected, these gestures are not apologies. They are weapons.
They are not olive branches. They are trophies — “proof” that they can still penetrate your emotional boundary, invade your mental space, stay rent-free in your narrative.
Their so-called affection is simply another tactic to rewrite the ending:
“If I can make you forgive, I win.”
“If I can make you reply, I win.”
“If I can make you hold the memory, I win.”
The man who mails birthday presents after allegations is not asking for forgiveness. He is asking for one last victory lap inside your mind.
The man who tattoos your name after crossing your boundaries does not repent. He performs a stunt to prove you remain part of his “collection,” immortalized under his skin — a flesh monument to his fragile ego.
Publication for reference:
- Entry 22: YOU’RE AN ABUSER. STOP CONTACTING ME
- Entry 37: A Sexual Abuser
Ted Bundy headshot (1978). Public domain. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
Like Bundy, they do not love. They consume.
Their final masterpiece is not intimacy. It is control.
They want the final word, the final image, the final imprint — not because they love you, but because they cannot accept that you left the stage on your terms.
When people ask whether Ted Bundy ever truly loved Stephanie Brooks, they often look for a tragic, romantic thread in the story. But forensic psychology tells us something far more chilling: Bundy was not in love. He was obsessed — not with Stephanie as a human being, but with the power she represented.
This obsessive choreography is not confined to serial killers — it echoes quietly in the actions of seemingly ordinary men.
And when I look back at my own story with Johnston, I realize the parallels are too loud to ignore.
The Illusion of Love
Bundy’s so-called love was not for Stephanie herself, but for the idea of her:
She was rich, elegant, “out of reach.”
She embodied a type of social status that Bundy craved, not an emotional connection.
Similarly, Johnston did not “love” me.
He adored the narrative he built around me:
The young, foreign woman he could “save.”
The symbolic “success story” that would make him feel powerful, youthful, and irreplaceable.
In reality, he never saw me. He saw a mirror for his fantasies — and he was deeply addicted to his own reflection.
Ted Bundy in court (circa 1979). Photo by Donn Dughi. Public domain. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
The Narcissistic Supply
Bundy’s mission to win Stephanie back was not about rekindling romance. It was about reclaiming power.
After she rejected him, he orchestrated a “perfect” comeback just to dump her himself — proving to himself that he held the final word.
Johnston did the same, in quieter but equally manipulative ways:
Threatening to break up, then crawling back with desperate poetic messages and emails.
Demanding that I write him love letters to “prove my loyalty,” while holding my personal secrets hostage.
Claiming he “missed licking me to sleep” — the same mouth that threatened to expose me to my family.
His “love” was merely a performance to feed his fragile ego, not a shared intimacy.
Publications for reference:
- Entry 22: YOU’RE AN ABUSER. STOP CONTACTING ME
- Entry 37: A Sexual Abuser
The “Trigger” vs. The Core
Stephanie was not to blame for Bundy’s crimes; she was a symbolic trigger, not the root cause.
Bundy projected his failures and insecurities onto her — turning rejection into justification for violence.
In my case, I was not the reason for Johnston’s unraveling.
I became the symbolic battleground where he fought his decaying self-worth and aging insecurities.
I was not a lover. I was a stage.
The Final Act
Bundy’s final act with Stephanie — ghosting her after winning her back — was not love. It was a declaration of dominance: “I control the narrative now.”
Johnston’s final acts followed the same script:
Trying to reclaim me while plotting my public humiliation.
Fabricating twisted poems and racial slurs, then expecting to be pitied as a “misunderstood artist.”
He did not want love. He wanted worship.
He did not want intimacy. He wanted a hostage.
Publications for reference:
- Entry 13: QUT and The Man Who Raped Me
- Entry 19: The Coward Behind the Clone
- Entry 30: Don’t Just Threaten My Future. Because I’m Going To Archive Your Present
- Entry 31: Open Letter to the Person Who Tried to Break Me with Defamation
- Entry 38: When Poetry Becomes Revenge Porn
So, Did He Ever Truly Love Me?
Absolutely not.
He was obsessed with his own power, his own myth, and the idea of me as a disposable character in his personal tragedy.
And once you understand this, the spell breaks.
Disclaimer:
This comparison to Ted Bundy is purely symbolic and behavioral. It does not allege criminal acts but analyzes narrative patterns of control, collection, and emotional manipulation. No criminal equivalence is implied.
Note on Naming:
The subject of these verses is identified by name due to the severity of the public threats made during that period.
Naming is not intended to humiliate, but to preserve the integrity of the record and reflect the seriousness of the documented behavior.
While the individual has since responded publicly, the response has not addressed the core evidence. In such cases, visibility remains necessary. Selective rebuttal is not accountability.
Full evidence archive submitted to QPS, TEQSA, AHRC, and Ethics Australia: View here.
Read the full series
- Entry 1: The Man Who Taught Me Ethics by Failing All of Them
- Entry 2: The Disappearance of the Public Poet
- Entry 3: The Hanging Tree Case Study
- Entry 4: Hidden Like Accountability
- Entry 5: The Collapse of Assumptions
- Entry 6: The Ethics of a Tinder Bio
- Entry 7: How He Ate Told Me Everything
- Entry 8: What Makes a Scholar Dangerous
- Entry 9: Fragment of Life, Fragment of Accountability
- Entry 10: Anatomy of Disappointment
- Entry 11: Legal Defense Challenges: A Framing Statement
- Entry 12: Six Years After Ronell – What Academia Still Doesn’t Get
- Entry 13: QUT and The Man Who Raped Me
- Entry 14: Why Sarcasm Toward Institutions Can Backfire
- Entry 15: P*ssy or Toxic Masculinity?
- Entry 16: Who is Your Favorite Comedian?
- Entry 17: And What is Your Favorite Song?
- Entry 18: Grant Proposal — Narrative Ethics as Survivor-Led Forensics
- Entry 19: The Coward Behind the Clone
- Entry 20: [URGENT HIRE] CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST
- Entry 21: [URGENT] Legal Counsel Needed for Complex Reputation Rehabilitation
- Entry 22: YOU’RE AN ABUSER. STOP CONTACTING ME
- Entry 23: Seeking Counsel for a Fallen Academic
- Entry 24: Internal Legal-PR Briefing
- Entry 25: For Journalists – Legal & Ethical Clearance Summary
- Entry 26: Symbolic Prostitution, Transactional Intimacy, or Just a “Loan”?
- Entry 28: Why He Simply Cannot Shut Up
- Entry 29: Forensic Commentary on “LARGE Language Muddle”
- Entry 30: Don’t Just Threaten My Future. Because I’m Going To Archive Your Present
- Entry 31: Open Letter to the Person Who Tried to Break Me with Defamation
- Entry 32: Defamation, Harassment, Doxxing Class 101
- Entry 33: Confidential Crisis Recovery Proposal
- Entry 34: Forensic Behavioral-Somatic Report
- Entry 35: Forensic Commentary on the Tattoos
- Entry 36: QUT and the Abuser They Once Had
- Entry 38: When Poetry Becomes Revenge Porn
- Entry 40: A Man Built for Applause, Not Accountability
- Entry 41: Neurobehavioral Addendum
- Entry 43: Why Does It Sound Like a War Metaphor?
- Entry 44: Forensic Commentary on Racialized and Fetishizing Language in “Hidden Like Rice”
- Entry 45: Public Misuse of Former Academic Affiliation
- Entry 46: The Two Things That Didn’t Leave a Bad Impression
- Entry 47: When Affection is Just an Alibi (A Bundy-Inspired Reflection) (you are here)
- Entry 48: Humbert, Lolita, and the Fetish of Fragility
- Entry 49: The Fetish of Smallness as Symbolic Violence
- Entry 50: Motif Risk Analysis
- Entry 52: Can an Abuser Be a Good Father?
- Entry 53: Who Protects the Children?
- Entry 54: From Blackmail to Children
- Reflection: The Miscalculation
(More entries coming soon)
→ [Back to Start: Introducing Mr. J, a Former Professor Series]
© 2025 Linh Ng. All rights reserved.
This publication is intended for educational and reflective purposes only.
Sharing the original link is welcomed and encouraged.
Please do not reproduce, redistribute, or translate this content — in whole or in part — without written permission.
This piece reflects both lived experience and critical analysis. It is not meant to be detached from its author or reframed without context.
Misuse or decontextualization may lead to formal clarification or takedown requests.
This work has been reviewed and quietly followed by scholars, educators, and ethics professionals across multiple sectors.
If your institution is engaging in critical discourse around narrative justice, symbolic coercion, or representational ethics, feel free to connect via Substack DMs or formal channels.
A regulatory case regarding this matter has already been classified under a protected status within national education integrity systems.
Should any reputational countermeasures or distortions arise, I reserve the right to publish the documented timeline, behavioral patterns, and contextual metadata.
All relevant documentation has been submitted through formal legal and regulatory pathways.