I hadn't heard of this unsolved murder before seeing it on this website. Normally, I just follow the murders in Central Wisconsin. Thanks to everyone who makes this site happen. It is a great way to share thoughts and information so that these victims are not forgotten.
I have read most of the links mentioned on this thread and watched a Youtube video here:
Who Killed Terry Dolowy part 2 - YouTube
Although this video was uploaded in 2010, it mentions a timeframe of four years after the murder, which would make it about 1989.
What really amazes me about this case is the focus on the fiancé. The two detectives kept saying they were keeping an open mind, but also kept suggesting that the fiancé was a key suspect. According to one report, he was the focus because of some of the unmentioned facts at the crime scene, the fact that he was the last one to admit seeing her, there was no forced entry and his behavior after the murder. It also mentions that he had gambling debts, but no mention of how much.
It just seems to me that most of the facts they present in these reports don't fit him as the killer; in fact, just the opposite.
1.) She had the DNA of another person on(in) her body, although it was determined to have been consensual sex. Usually this is suggested by a lack of bruising, but could also mean that she submitted in the face of overwhelming force, like a gun held to her head. Wouldn't it be more likely that the presence of foreign DNA would indicate the presence of someone
other than her fiancé when she was killed?
2)She was planning to get married to her fiancé later that year. What did her girlfriends say about her plans to marry? What did they say about her fiancé? It didn't mention any previous violence between them. If he didn't want to be with her why would he resort to killing her and not just leave? They had no children and no marital estate, although there might have been comingling of funds.
3) She was killed just hours before the discovery of the body. That meant that it was likely someone kept her captive for four days before killing her. Her fiancé reported her disappearance the same day she went missing. Doesn't it seem strange that her fiance' would have been able to continue on with his life, under scrutiny of the police after reporting her missing, and still keep her alive and hidden for THREE DAYS? In this small community? Really?
4) I am soooo tired of this no-forced-entry-so-it-must-have-been-someone-she-knew. She had a dog. She had just come home from work. The dog had to go pee before she went to bed. Outside. If she didn't watch the dog while she let it out, it would have been easy for someone to lure the dog and subdue or kill it. That would have forced her to leave her house to look for the dog. Outside. A sitting duck. That scenario seems very possible.
5) Neighbors reported a strange car in the area on the night of the murder. Her fiancé had reported someone prowling around the house days before the murder. What did the car look like? Her body was still in flames when it was discovered, which meant that police had a very good idea of when it was set on fire. Why wouldn't a description of the car have been released to the public as soon as the body was discovered so that anyone who saw that car driving around the area near that lonely road would have reported it?
6) What about evidence at the crime scene? Footprints? Tireprints? The gas can left an impression on the side of the road, so it must have been soft enough to record footprints too.
7) She worked at a bar and came home late at night. Stalkers often target women who do this because they are out and about in the middle of the night when they are most vulnerable. Did anyone get a description of someone out-of-place at the bar in the nights prior to the murder? Regulars notice these sort of things. Did they take her disappearance seriously BEFORE her body was found or did they wait while crucial evidence faded away.
8) The detectives said there was NO other case like this in the WHOLE US. I'm skeptical. The only reason they knew she had been held captive for four days is because the killer set her on fire and a person happened to drive by on a lonely road and see the flames. Who knows what would have happened if he had come by only minutes later. The body may never have been discovered. Maybe rather than trying to find cases where a woman is held for four days and then killed and disfigured they should have focused on women who went missing from their home when they are alone. Bet they could find some of those. Maybe even within a few hours radius. The killer had to keep her somewhere. If they documented cases of women abducted from their home at night, a pattern might develop.
This is a tragedy in so many ways. What if the police had taken the fiancé's report of a prowler several days before the murder more seriously? Could they have thwarted this murder? What if they had organized a manhunt for her immediately after she was reported missing? She might have been found alive! What if they had released a description of the suspicious car or focused on stalkers with this MO rather than on the fiancé? Could the police have prevented future murders? At what cost did they release their suspicions that the fiancé was involved? Imagine what being suspected as a murderer for 30 years can do to harm an innocent life?
Remember, for all of this tragedy, perhaps the greatest one is that the killer probably has killed again, and would not have been able to do so if caught for this murder. Unsolved murders bring so much destruction.
Will someone ever come forward with information that can end this?
