Notwithstanding my earlier comments, I personally think the chaotic crime scene with the body left in plain sight points as much to a killer who knew they were about to be disturbed and needed to get away fast as to someone who is mentally disordered and doesn't know what they're doing.
My gut instinct with this case from the outset - and I realise gut instinct is virtually worthless unless perhaps you're an experienced LE investigator - has been that this began as an everyday male-on-female microaggression. I know some of the men on the thread find that concept offensive, but it's a real thing that nearly every woman puts up with on a regular basis. I feel that Julia was approached by someone who tried to harrass or intrude on her in some way, perhaps a flasher, and I think that she may have reacted to that - perhaps reflexively - in a way that sadly escalated matters. Perhaps she tried to photograph him with her phone. Perhaps she laughed. Perhaps the dog went for him and he kicked it and she lost her temper. Who knows.
We do know that some crimes are gateway crimes that can be part of an escalating pattern, and that flashing/indecent exposure is one of them, and we can infer from that that a perpetrator who escalates from that to sexual assault or murder is at some point going to go further than their history suggested they would - in other words, there will be a particular incident that with retrospect marks the point at which they escalated. I feel that this may turn out to be that event.
The circumstances - lone woman walking small dog, isolated spot with woodland cover - make this a plausible scenario. It's only the way it ended up that makes it remarkable. If she had gone home safe and sound and reported being flashed at, no one would have been very surprised imo.
Whether you regard that kind of perpetrator as mentally ill is an interesting debate. It's my view that most murderers are mentally unwell to some degree - in the sense that homicide isn't a 'normal' reaction to conflict for most of us. But I know lot of people reject that analysis as 'excusing' the actions of 'evil' people, which in turn is a narrative I can't myself get on board with. Escalating from not being a murderer to being a murderer might be a sign that a psychiatric disorder has gone undiagnosed, but might equally be a sign of tragically poor impulse control.
The real mystery, of course, is what happened to the perpetrator afterwards. I can see him seeing or hearing others near at hand (and there clearly were people nearby given how quickly she was found) and we might assume a fit, young, probably male attacker who could move fast and may well have known the area. So if the station CCTV reveals nothing, I think we would be looking at an overland escape. I don't know the area at all, but looking at it aerially I would think that the possibilities are almost endless.
Have appeals have been made for sightings of anyone in bloodstained clothing? I think I would be looking for that over quite a radius, but I also wouldn't underestimate how oblivious people can be.
As for the Chillenden connection, it was so long ago I really can't see it being the same perp. Even if there were to be a SK operating in the area over a long period, you would think that their MO would evolve over time with their profile (their age and agility if nothing else). And if it didn't, and their predilection for bludgeoning women walking dogs at 3pm on Tuesdays remained unchanged over time, where are all the other victims? It doesn't really make sense to me as a hypothesis, although it's quite a coincidence, I agree.
All speculative and JMO, of course.
