3: The nature of the murder, being shot in the face, dragged just off road and shot again, while being stood over, doesn't typically align with many serial killer MO's. There were no evidence of a struggle, no indication of sexual assault. It seems rather hasty and poorly thought out. The murder has a personal feel to it. Why make her empty her pockets? She doesn't seem like a typical mark for a robbery. All signs point to the fact that she wasn't wealthy, didn't own anything of real value. I can't help but feel whoever killed this girl made her empty her pockets to not rid her of an identity or steal, but rather ensure she didn't possess something that would tie him/her to the scene. Why do that, unless the murderer and Cali Doe spent time together/were in public together.
4: The evidence of Australian pine found on her seems more and more like a red herring. I read somewhere in this thread that the pollen was found in both her jacket and her trouser pockets. Is this true? If that's the case, then she must have been traveling with the jacket (and not lent it at some point in NY before her murder) for some time. I am also unsure of the ease of cross contamination between articles of clothing.
5: I know her jacket, ill-fitting and awkward on her, was a promo giveaway at racing events. What year were these jackets manufactured (it was a one time thing)? Knowing the year would determine how likely it was that Cali Doe got the jacket from a thrift shop/borrowed it or actually received the jacket at a racing event prior to her death. Also, if LE had the manufacturer of these jackets, how is it possible that there was no trace of where they were shipped/what company they were shipped to/how they were disseminated. That's just not how businesses are run. Has to be a paper trail somewhere.
Alright, that's all I got at the moment. Thanks for fielding my questions everyone.