A person on the DB thread pointed out the remains found in Indiana in Dec 1982. Protruding teeth, brown hair, maternity clothing, close in age an size and the trademark found in a dense forest. If you choose the route to drive through Indy this takes you right by the remains. That would mean he killed her right away and drove around with an infant which is the part that doesn't reasonable.
If you look at the timeline and he was in Texas for that part of the 80's then he could have drove through there as well if he went the Indy route.
Either would mean he killed her right away and drove around with an infant which is the part that doesn't sound reasonable.
Thoughts?
Google Map