Linda Edwards The Iodine and later Cyanoacrylate fuming method of lifting latent fingerprints from human skin are developments from the early 1980s and beyond, as was the use of DNA in identifying perpetrators of crime. When Robert Domingos and Linda Edwards were murdered on June 4th 1963 these discoveries were two decades in the making. The notion of a killer leaving anything substantial on either victim in this instance, that could lead police directly to their doorstep, is practically zero.
The murderer of Robert Domingos and Linda Edwards on the coastline of Canada Del Molino fired at least twenty rounds that day (possibly more). Despite this area being extremely remote and difficult to navigate it was frequented by many people, including beachgoers and transients such as George Edward Gill who occasionally used the makeshift shack (close to the beach) as a refuge. It was located approximately 30 feet from where Robert and Linda succumbed to their injuries that day.
The murderer would have been totally aware that despite this area being secluded and nearly 600 feet from Highway 101, it wasn't beyond comprehension that somebody could have heard the gunshots or accidentally stumbled across the murder in progress. The obvious choice for a murderer in June 1963 seeking self-presevation would have been to leave the area immediately, yet the shooter of Robert Domingos and Linda Edwards chose to spend the next several minutes dragging both bodies to the shack and placing them inside, one on top of another. The notion of this being performed so as to create a "funeral pyre" of the shack and facilitate the destruction of evidence seems unlikely. The murderer was surrounded by water when he killed the couple, so had every opportunity to wash away any evidence on the bodies using this method, rather than create a fire that would have attracted unwanted attention from afar to the area. But what incriminating evidence would they be destroying, had they just killed the couple at distance?
The murderer of Robert Domingos and Linda Edwards on the coastline of Canada Del Molino fired at least twenty rounds that day (possibly more). Despite this area being extremely remote and difficult to navigate it was frequented by many people, including beachgoers and transients such as George Edward Gill who occasionally used the makeshift shack (close to the beach) as a refuge. It was located approximately 30 feet from where Robert and Linda succumbed to their injuries that day.
The murderer would have been totally aware that despite this area being secluded and nearly 600 feet from Highway 101, it wasn't beyond comprehension that somebody could have heard the gunshots or accidentally stumbled across the murder in progress. The obvious choice for a murderer in June 1963 seeking self-presevation would have been to leave the area immediately, yet the shooter of Robert Domingos and Linda Edwards chose to spend the next several minutes dragging both bodies to the shack and placing them inside, one on top of another. The notion of this being performed so as to create a "funeral pyre" of the shack and facilitate the destruction of evidence seems unlikely. The murderer was surrounded by water when he killed the couple, so had every opportunity to wash away any evidence on the bodies using this method, rather than create a fire that would have attracted unwanted attention from afar to the area. But what incriminating evidence would they be destroying, had they just killed the couple at distance?
THE SECLUDED SHACK SHROUDED BY TREES
Robert Domingos Even considering the possibility of blood typing as an evidentiary tool (which isn't person specific), any bleeding injury to the murderer in an altercation with Robert before the murders, would not be an incentive to interact with both bodies subsequent to shooting them, not only transferring blood from the killer to the victims, but possibly transferring blood from the victims to yourself. There is also insufficient evidence to conclude with certainty that the murderer of Robert and Linda ever attempted to burn down the shack, other than scorch marks on the shack and spent matches on the ground devoid of any time stamp. If the person who committed these murders was so hell-bent on destroying evidence that he dragged both victims a total of 60 feet to the shack and attempted to set fire to it, why was he prepared to leave behind numerous bindings at the crime scene (not yet substantiated), shoeprint or bootprint impressions, and scatter 20+ shell casings on the creek bed, that arguably had more (if not equal) evidentiary value than anything he could have left on (or in) the bodies of Domingos & Edwards. The bullets inside the victims are only of use with a weapon to compare to. If the killer takes the rudimentary steps to negate this possibly, then the killer has little to worry about (assuming the firearm has no history). If he was inexplicably attempting to destroy these bullets in a shack fire, he was still leaving the casings.
Despite the seemingly obvious choice of immediately leaving the scene after the murders, the killer was still incentivised enough to stay at the crime scene beyond what was necessary. If it wasn't for the purpose of destroying incriminating evidence that realistically wasn't an issue, why did they choose to drag the bodies 30 feet to the nearby shack and conceal them?
The murderer could have put as much distance between himself and the bodies the immediacy that they fell, but clearly had something else in mind. He may have considered that the purpose he had in mind was worth spending several minutes removing the bodies from view and placing them inside the shack. When nobody came to investigate the gunshots he may have felt safe to proceed with his intentions in the privacy of the shack. In the event that somebody had come to the shack, there may have been more than two victims that day. Newspapers reported that Linda Edwards was placed face-up on top of Robert with her bathing suit cut, exposing her breasts, but was not sexually attacked. The definition of sexual attack/assault has changed markedly from 1963 to 2024, so the observation she was not sexually attacked in the shack is not only contentious, it is unfounded. If the bathing suit of Linda Edwards was deliberately cut, not only do we know this was an attack on her sexually, we have no idea what else occurred in the shack beyond this act and for how long. The murderer could have spent hours in that shack satisfying his sexual desires. I don't want to belabor this unpleasant possibility, but just because there are no obvious signs of further interference, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The killer was incentivised enough to drag two bodies 60 feet, for what? To destroy evidence that almost certainly posed little risk, or to satisfy a desire that was partly evident to all who entered the shack in the aftermath of the crime. The murders were seemingly not enough to satisfy this killer.
To read more
Despite the seemingly obvious choice of immediately leaving the scene after the murders, the killer was still incentivised enough to stay at the crime scene beyond what was necessary. If it wasn't for the purpose of destroying incriminating evidence that realistically wasn't an issue, why did they choose to drag the bodies 30 feet to the nearby shack and conceal them?
The murderer could have put as much distance between himself and the bodies the immediacy that they fell, but clearly had something else in mind. He may have considered that the purpose he had in mind was worth spending several minutes removing the bodies from view and placing them inside the shack. When nobody came to investigate the gunshots he may have felt safe to proceed with his intentions in the privacy of the shack. In the event that somebody had come to the shack, there may have been more than two victims that day. Newspapers reported that Linda Edwards was placed face-up on top of Robert with her bathing suit cut, exposing her breasts, but was not sexually attacked. The definition of sexual attack/assault has changed markedly from 1963 to 2024, so the observation she was not sexually attacked in the shack is not only contentious, it is unfounded. If the bathing suit of Linda Edwards was deliberately cut, not only do we know this was an attack on her sexually, we have no idea what else occurred in the shack beyond this act and for how long. The murderer could have spent hours in that shack satisfying his sexual desires. I don't want to belabor this unpleasant possibility, but just because there are no obvious signs of further interference, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The killer was incentivised enough to drag two bodies 60 feet, for what? To destroy evidence that almost certainly posed little risk, or to satisfy a desire that was partly evident to all who entered the shack in the aftermath of the crime. The murders were seemingly not enough to satisfy this killer.
To read more