Beginning at the "Beginning"
Thomas/Dowski murders,
Lets address the location first
Although its a secluded "lovers lane" kind of place, I think its a lot to ask of the theory to expect an offender to attack not 1 but 2 Physically fit , capable, adult women , control not one, but both, 1 an Annapolis grad, tie them both up , then strangle them, put one in the trunk, then untie them, slit their throats, douse the car, try to light it on fire, probably more than once, then push the car into the woods, hoping it would go into the water and sink, then escape unnoticed.
That's an awful lot of time out in the open, now on its face, this would indicate a individual extremely comfortable in that area but theres one thing that his comfort there cant address, ... the possibility another vehicle, or someone might happen upon the same spot. That elevates the risk, much higher for an offender spending that much time in that location doing what was done to those 2 victims.
How did the killer(s) come upon the victim? were they staking out the area?, were they patrolling the area?, was he (they) there when the couple arrived?, did the offender(s) happen upon this location by chance?, or did they follow them there ? All of those are a roll of the dice.
From the outside all you know is that there are 2 females in a vehicle, that's it, who they are, what they do could they be armed ?, the offender knows none of these.
Much of the evidence seems to indicate at least a rudimentary level of planning
Lets look at the suggested "Cop" theory, both victims had evidence of being bound, if thats the case, why not cuff the victims, its much faster, almost certainly surer, you can cuff an individual in seconds even without practice, so why rope? was it to fulfill a fantasy? was it so no evidence transfer was found on the cuffs? , that can easily be wiped away, why did this offender bring bindings?,
Also how was he able to tie one victim up while another supposedly sat there and waited and watched? Threat control? at gunpoint ? If he was armed with a gun, why not just shoot the victims? if this is the same individual involved with the second case, then it didnt hinder him then, was this an evolution in his crimes?
As for the bindings, why remove them if you are only going to burn the car , why remove them at all if the victims are dead?
Is it possible this individual had practiced tying struggling victims so quickly that he could pull it off in seconds? It can be done ive seen guys do it with a pre tied restraints in emergency situations.
But again you re talking about time out in the open.
Whats the chance someone is riding around with a can of diesel fuel? that's a very odd choice anyone who knows anything about diesel knows that it needs compression to make it burn as a fuel, was this just an oversight ? was someone riding around with a murder kit with rope a knife and diesel to burn the evidence? Or was this someone that may have to possibly fuel equipment or perhaps respond to broken down vehicles in the area and have to have it with them?
Why burn the car at all? This individual had enough upper body strength to push the car into the woods, he was able to subdue 2 adult women, why not just drag the bodies to the water a few feet away, and throw them into the water ?
For some reason the car had to go ... but why (more later)
Post mortem cutting of the victims throats, why ? when we see overkill it usually means 1 of 3 things , Anger, perversion, or personal involvement. But overkill is usually extreme, this wasn't really the case in these 2 murders, the victims were strangled, and then the offender cut their throats apparently to ensure they were deceased.
There was no evidence of sexual assault to either victim, there was not other post mortem cutting or mutilation, other than the wounds to the victims neck, no de personization such as disfiguring their faces, nothing was taken from the victims or the scene, no undoing indicative of interpersonal knowledge of the victims, Cathy suffered a much deeper wound to her neck than Rebecca, that can sometimes be attributed simply to the position the victim was in when applied.
The victims for the most part lived a low risk lifestyle, nothing other than possibly being lesbian in a time of less acceptance, would elevate their risk of becoming a victim of violence.
Both were smart, driven, both were athletic, Cathy was known as a no BS tough woman, that could certainly handle herself.
Why did these women become victims at that spot at that time , why did that offender do what he did to those 2 women?
The offender(s)
NOBODY wakes up one morning and decides ... Im going to go commit a double murder tonight, theres always something leading up to it , whether its a police officer or not .
Theres always a path, the path begins in childhood, goes through adolescence, into adulthood, there are red flags, run ins with the law , odd behaviors, often pre cursory cases, usually before something like this happens. In many cases, theres a triggering event , like a spark that ignites an explosion in the offender, we call those "Stressors" .
Theres also usually someone who either knows, or strongly suspects someone, either by coincidence , or that offender may have even confided in said individual.
Precipitating Stressors often involve a signifigant others, job, rejection, financial , or legal issues.
When you have a tight wound individual angry at something or someone , with little regard for others it doesnt take much for that individual to go "off the rails" and do something horrible , in some cases, it sparks repeated events , in some just one, but that doesnt make the latter individual any less dangerous, it just means whenever anything pi$$es him off, people are in mortal danger.
This individual would most certainly have run ins with the law, if he was (is) indeed a cop, he would almost certainly have been brought up on disciplinary issues. There would be issues with whatever his sexual preference was (men or women).
Back to the crime scene:
Again, i think its a lot for all of what happened to occur at that crime scene, too many unknowns , too much risk, too many things that could happen, the offender may have chose strangulation because knowing he was going to burn the bodies nothing would be indicative on skeletal remains (knowledge of forensics?) same with cutting but not stabbing, or beating the victims(Again investigatory knowledge?) why remove the restraints? (again, was he worried it could be traced back to him?) Possible
The placement of the bodies brings up another question, in a 2 door coupe hatchback, why was one victim in the "boot" area or trunk area, and the other still seated but reclined ? why not put both of them in the trunk its obvious that even if the car was burned the driver was going to be discovered in the rear, i mean you planned all this out but didnt think a body in the trunk with no one at the wheel wouldn't look a little suspicious? Why was Dowsky placed in a reclined position?
This seems to indicate to me 2 things thing ..staging then Panic
One scenario could be that after he killed Cathy in the rear of the vehicle so Rebecca wouldn't see her, then killed Dowski went back untied them both and administered the cut to make sure ... then doused the car in fuel , tried a few times to light it , and when that didn't happen he panicked and tried to push the car into the water, however that is still a lot of time in a location where you have no idea if another car is going to pull in or police may swing by or someone may walk up .
Another is what ill describe below
Now this is all my opinion, (so im not going to argue it) This is based solely on what is known via media , so I could be wrong
Based on my experience the behavior at the scene seems more indicative more of a dump site, and attempt at staging. it looks to me like someone quickly trying to get rid of evidence.
The real overkill in this case, seems to pertain to the attempting to get rid of evidence
The positions of the victims, Cathy in the trunk, Becky slumped back seems to indicate to me that someone may have killed the girls elsewhere, both bodies my not have fit in the rear , and its difficult to stuff someone into the back seat of a small coupe , then drove the car there to get rid of it.
This would explain why he wanted to burn the car or sink the car, because there could be evidence in there linking him (or them) to the crime.
They didnt know that they couldn't light diesel, and in a panic, tried to push the car into the water , the victims were strangled and bound with ligatures not found. Id expect an offender that concerned about evidence to wear gloves or wipe down the car
Why was the wallet out ? im not sure, perhaps the individual was looking for money or looking for a memento , but the police angle (sadly) cant be ruled out either.
This would be much faster for the individual, less time out in the open, if they came upon another vehicle all they had to do was keep driving to another spot , because the car was a coupe it was much easier to put one body in the trunk , since she was strangled to death the individual only had to recline Dowski in the passenger seat to make it look like she was sleeping, when he got to the spot he made sure they were dead by using the knife tried to ignite the car then panicked and pushed it into where it was found then he took off either on foot or someone was there to pick him up .
That's my thought on the first murders , could I be wrong?
Absolutely, were going on media releases, we don't have access to true case files. Those with no investigate experience usually only have media reports and true crime writing , some may have education in criminal justice etc.. but without the actual case, materials EVERYTHING is basically speculation
If anyone would like to discuss this particular case, (not argue) feel free to PM me
