Just thinking out loud here, but any evidence we have of a physical residence places her within a roughly 100 mile radius around Dallas. I'm assuming that having your name changed requires you to set foot in a court building at least once, so from late June/early July 1988 until her death, she would have been a permanent resident of that region. In fact, with the exception of Longview, she seems to have lived in the immediate Dallas/Ft. Worth metropolitan area exclusively. Given how much change her life appears to have involved in the late 80s and early 90s, that's an awfully sedentary lifestyle for someone who has no particular attachment to that area.
Furthermore, according to various real estate websites the property she listed as a residential address in Boise, ID existed at the time she used it. Which means, Google Streetview would still give a fairly accurate picture of what the property looked like at the time. A quick glance shows it to be a small (duplex?) home, not some appartment block where you'd have any reasonable chance of living anonymously. From what's been posted here, I gather that none of the residents and neighbors from back then had any memory of her. So either there's a huge conspiracy among those homeowners to keep Jane Doe's identity secret, or more likely she never lived there, and the information can be discounted as proof of residency. Also, none of her supposed contacts in California (Mr. Perkins, Ms. Jeung) have any recollection of her either. I'm aware of the Ruffs' claim that she didn't have a Texas accent, but it also stands to reason that a person who grew up in a metropolitan area would have a much greater chance of speaking without an accent than someone born and raised in a somewhat more rural county such as Gregg. And then of course, just because you're from Texas doesn't mean your parents who taught you to speak have to be. And so forth.
All of which leads me to one question. Am I correct in assuming there's no concrete evidence whatsoever that Jane Doe ever spent any significant amount of time outside the greater Dallas area, while there's plenty of evidence to show an attachment to that particular region? I understand the obvious objection to a Dallas origin: "why would someone who doesn't want to be found not change their place of residence". I'm not sure that objection is valid. The metropolitan area had roughly 5 million inhabitants at the time. It's perfectly possible to disappear in an urban area of that size. In some cases, merely avoiding certain districts will already do the trick. In addition, things like the somewhat amateurish resume, letter of reference, her GED scores contradict the hypothesis that we're dealing with a master strategist of above-average intelligence, who would cover all possible angles. At the very least, the information we have doesn't rule out a much simpler, more provincial personality, who'd (random example) ask a friend to walk her through the steps of becoming a blank slate, and then move to the other end of the city. It seems to me any difficulty in determining her identity is mainly due to the scarcity of evidence, not due to any unusual steps she took to conceal it.
Please understand that I'm not trying to jump to any conclusions. What I'm trying to do is determine the most likely candidate area for her geographical origin, based strictly on available evidence, so the search for Jane Doe's original identity can be narrowed down. If there are any flaws in my reasoning or facts I might have gotten confused, please don't hesitate to point them out to me. I'm new to this.
