Latest / The Path Went Chilly / Amy Wroe Betchel Pt. Two

Transcript

Amy Wroe Betchel Pt. Two · The Path Went Chilly

0:00
Speaker 2: Thank you.
0:29
Speaker 1: Welcome back to part two of our coverage about the
0:31
Speaker 1: disappearance of Amy Rowe Bechtel. Let's jump right back into it.
0:36
Speaker 2: Can Steve be potentially a bit of a creep in
0:39
Speaker 2: the way that he expresses himself or having these violent fantasies,
0:42
Speaker 2: but also not be the killer of his wife? Yes.
0:45
Speaker 1: That is true. Like we have seen other cases where
0:47
Speaker 1: the husband is legitimately a jerk and has done some
0:49
Speaker 1: unsavory things, but as completely innocent of their spouse's murder
0:53
Speaker 1: or disappearance. But these writings wound up raising some alarm
0:57
Speaker 1: bells with Amy's brother, Nels Rowe, as well as Nels' wife, Teresa,
1:02
Speaker 1: because she happened to be the director of a center
1:05
Speaker 1: for domestic abuse victims and had quite a bit of
1:07
Speaker 1: inside knowledge about these types of situations. Nels and Teresa
1:11
Speaker 1: claimed that a few weeks before Amy went missing, they
1:14
Speaker 1: invited her and Steve over for dinner and noticed a
1:17
Speaker 1: suspicious bruise on Amy's arm. And when Nels asked about it,
1:20
Speaker 1: Amy simply responded that Steve could, quote-unquote, get a little
1:23
Speaker 1: rough sometimes, and then Steve proceeded to place his hands
1:27
Speaker 1: on Amy's shoulder to pretty much end the conversation. And
1:30
Speaker 1: while Nels and Teresa acknowledged that Amy did not look
1:33
Speaker 1: overly concerned when she said this, they wondered if Steve
1:35
Speaker 1: might have been abusive, as the Rowe family always felt
1:38
Speaker 1: that Steve appeared to be a jealous, controlling, and possessive
1:42
Speaker 1: towards Amy, and that she seemed to change her demeanor
1:45
Speaker 1: whenever he was around her. For their part, most of
1:48
Speaker 1: Amy and Steve's friends, like the Skinners, claim that they
1:51
Speaker 1: never noticed any signs of abuse or friction within the
1:54
Speaker 1: couple's marriage, and believe that Steve's writings were taken out
1:57
Speaker 1: of context and had no connection to Amy's disappearance. I
2:01
Speaker 1: know that they never have reported any documented cases of abuse,
2:05
Speaker 1: and I know that the friends who all lived on
2:07
Speaker 1: Climbers Row and that group of rental cottages were a
2:10
Speaker 1: very tight-knit group, and they've always defended Steve. They said
2:14
Speaker 1: they never saw any signs that the marriage was in trouble.
2:17
Speaker 1: And they said that Steve was also very active in
2:19
Speaker 1: the search effort for his wife as he established the
2:22
Speaker 1: Amy Rowe Bechtel Recovery Headquarters. which launched a website, a
2:26
Speaker 1: hotline for tips, and helped circulate hundreds of thousands of
2:29
Speaker 1: missing persons flyers. So, it's possible that both things were true,
2:33
Speaker 1: that Steve was completely innocent, he was genuinely concerned about
2:36
Speaker 1: what happened to his wife, but maybe they did have some, like,
2:40
Speaker 1: stuff that happened behind closed doors in the marriage. Like,
2:42
Speaker 1: maybe when Amy said Steve could get a little rough sometimes,
2:45
Speaker 1: maybe they had consensual sex that sometimes crossed the line into, uh,
2:49
Speaker 1: physical violence or something like that. So we just really
2:52
Speaker 1: don't know. And it's just could be benign incidents that
2:55
Speaker 1: suddenly look a lot darker when she went missing.
2:58
Speaker 2: I think you're so right in saying that is that
3:01
Speaker 2: we look through a different lens when somebody goes missing.
3:04
Speaker 2: And was it consensual sex? Was it something that wasn't
3:08
Speaker 2: consensual that he pushed on Amy? We really can't know
3:12
Speaker 2: based on what Amy said. And it does take on
3:16
Speaker 2: This darker connotation when we're looking at all of the
3:20
Speaker 2: evidence with him speaking about this desire for control and
3:24
Speaker 2: fantasies of violence against women that most of it, like
3:27
Speaker 2: he said, was written in high school. But if Amy
3:29
Speaker 2: is included in that, then it is very concerning. we
3:33
Speaker 2: can't rule out the possibility that there was some type
3:36
Speaker 2: of coercive control or abuse based on this limited evidence.
3:41
Speaker 2: And just because their friends in this community are saying
3:45
Speaker 2: that there's no evidence to support that, that doesn't mean
3:48
Speaker 2: anything to me personally. All that means is that if
3:51
Speaker 2: there was indeed abuse, then potentially, allegedly, Steve was good
3:56
Speaker 2: at covering it up and Amy stayed silent because the
4:00
Speaker 2: culture of coming forward is with domestic violence in 1997,
4:05
Speaker 2: even that was different than it is today.
4:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. Like, I've always said, both things could be true.
4:10
Speaker 1: There could legitimately have been abuse, but that doesn't necessarily
4:14
Speaker 1: prove that Steve was responsible for Amy's disappearance. And, of course,
4:19
Speaker 1: Steve's whereabouts seemed to be very well accounted for after
4:22
Speaker 1: he got home at 4.30, so investigators started exploring the
4:25
Speaker 1: possibility that could Steve have made Amy go missing earlier
4:29
Speaker 1: in the day? He maintained that he had a rock-solid
4:31
Speaker 1: alibi placing him 75 miles away in the town of
4:34
Speaker 1: Dubois because, as you might recall, he and a friend
4:37
Speaker 1: of his named Sam Leitner had gone to this area
4:41
Speaker 1: to scout locations for rock climbing, but since the weather
4:44
Speaker 1: turned out to be poor, they went their separate ways
4:47
Speaker 1: and left Dubois earlier than they had planned, so the
4:49
Speaker 1: last time that Sam could verify having seen Steve was
4:52
Speaker 1: between 3 and 3.30 p.m. So investigators were able to
4:56
Speaker 1: uncover a receipt which showed that Sam purchased gas in
4:59
Speaker 1: Dubois that afternoon, but they couldn't find any hard evidence
5:02
Speaker 1: placing Steve in the area. Steve claimed that he purchased
5:06
Speaker 1: a hammer at a hardware store there, but he did
5:08
Speaker 1: not hold onto the receipt for it, and there were
5:10
Speaker 1: no other independent eyewitnesses who could corroborate having seen Steve
5:14
Speaker 1: and Sam together. So, technically, if Steve was lying and
5:19
Speaker 1: he was in Lander and made his wife disappear earlier
5:22
Speaker 1: that afternoon, the only way that scenario works is if
5:25
Speaker 1: Sam is lying and feeding a false alibi. But Sam
5:29
Speaker 1: completely denied that because he said that there was a
5:32
Speaker 1: previous occasion where Steve, Amy, and him had gone on
5:35
Speaker 1: a trip to Australia... But Sam and Steve didn't get
5:38
Speaker 1: along very well, and Sam decided to fly home early.
5:41
Speaker 1: And it sounds like they pretty much only kept in
5:44
Speaker 1: touch for business reasons to scout rock climbing expeditions, but
5:48
Speaker 1: Sam pretty much said that I was a bigger friend
5:50
Speaker 1: with Amy than I was with Steve, and I didn't
5:52
Speaker 1: particularly like him all that much. And he told the press, quote,
5:56
Speaker 1: I'm not going to cover for somebody who might have
5:58
Speaker 1: murdered a friend of mine, end quote.
6:00
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't get the impression, based on everything that
6:03
Speaker 2: he said, that it's a lie. I think that It
6:07
Speaker 2: feels to me that it's truthful and that they truly
6:11
Speaker 2: were together that day. I think it's just one of
6:14
Speaker 2: these cases where there are some things about Steve that
6:18
Speaker 2: are very concerning and can make you side-eye. Like, even
6:21
Speaker 2: just when we think about his history, the writings, the
6:24
Speaker 2: 911 call, these are all bizarre things. But to me,
6:27
Speaker 2: there's just more evidence the other way. I feel like
6:30
Speaker 2: if Steve was truly guilty, that he would have been
6:33
Speaker 2: trying to make an alibi for himself during those hours.
6:37
Speaker 2: Like he didn't know that the Con Air movie screening
6:40
Speaker 2: friends and the pizza friends would be stopping by. But
6:43
Speaker 2: I feel like he'd be going to his neighbor's house
6:45
Speaker 2: being like, hey, what's up? You know, just looking for Amy,
6:48
Speaker 2: can't find Amy. But instead he's waiting at home and doing,
6:52
Speaker 2: which to me seems like the actions of an innocent person.
6:57
Speaker 2: even if his history within the relationship or other elements
7:00
Speaker 2: of Steve's character are cause for pause.
7:04
Speaker 1: Yes, I have seen other cases like this where it
7:06
Speaker 1: seemed obvious that the spouse was trying to fabricate an alibi. Like,
7:09
Speaker 1: they go to, like, a donut shop and ask for
7:11
Speaker 1: a receipt, and then the lady later says, oh, by
7:13
Speaker 1: the way, if the police ask you, tell them that
7:15
Speaker 1: I was here between this time, and with Steve, we're
7:18
Speaker 1: not getting any of this, because... He obviously didn't have
7:20
Speaker 1: a receipt to show that he was buying a hammer
7:22
Speaker 1: from the hardware store in Dubois. And no matter how
7:25
Speaker 1: you look at it, the timeline seems pretty tight, because
7:28
Speaker 1: the last verified independent sighting of Amy was when she
7:32
Speaker 1: was at the photo gallery at 2.30 p.m. We know
7:35
Speaker 1: that Steve was at home making the phone call at 4.43,
7:40
Speaker 1: so if he got rid of her beforehand, he would
7:42
Speaker 1: only have about two hours to drive 15 miles from
7:45
Speaker 1: his house, dispose of Amy's vehicle... and then dispose of
7:48
Speaker 1: her body so thoroughly that it has not been found
7:50
Speaker 1: in nearly 30 years. So, and like I said, between 4.30
7:55
Speaker 1: and 10.30, he claimed he was at home the entire time,
7:58
Speaker 1: and while his whereabouts can't be verified the entire time period,
8:02
Speaker 1: he did have a number of witnesses who stopped by
8:04
Speaker 1: and saw him there, like the friend who invited him
8:06
Speaker 1: for pizza at 6.45, and the Skinners inviting him to
8:09
Speaker 1: see Con Air at 8.15, so.
8:12
Speaker 1: And he also phoned Amy's parents at 9 o'clock, and
8:14
Speaker 1: phone records verified this, so it doesn't give him a
8:17
Speaker 1: lot of time to leave the house, cover up the crime,
8:20
Speaker 1: and then drive back home to be seen by witnesses.
8:23
Speaker 1: And you also have to take into account that if
8:25
Speaker 1: Amy's car was abandoned on this road 15 miles from
8:28
Speaker 1: his house, that Steve would need a ride home, so
8:31
Speaker 1: he would actually have to follow Amy out there in
8:33
Speaker 1: a separate vehicle, and then dispose of her body and
8:36
Speaker 1: drive back home. And he just has too many spots
8:38
Speaker 1: where his whereabouts are... verified that it just seems physically
8:41
Speaker 1: impossible that he could have pulled this off so thoroughly.
8:45
Speaker 2: It feels logistically almost impossible for him to have done that,
8:49
Speaker 2: and I think it's easy to have tunnel vision and
8:52
Speaker 2: to focus on him, but I am more inclined to
8:56
Speaker 2: believe that either somebody was stalking Amy, because running into
9:00
Speaker 2: somebody randomly out there, it seems less likely, or she
9:04
Speaker 2: was meeting somebody. What if she was going to meet
9:06
Speaker 2: somebody to go for a run, And she had no
9:09
Speaker 2: idea that this person had some kind of malicious intent.
9:13
Speaker 1: Yeah, like that seems a lot more plausible to me
9:16
Speaker 1: because it just seems so frustrating that law enforcement, I
9:19
Speaker 1: know your concerns about Steve's character and some of his behavior,
9:22
Speaker 1: but if you look at the timeline and it just
9:24
Speaker 1: seems physically impossible for him to do this and would
9:27
Speaker 1: require all these people lying to give him a false
9:30
Speaker 1: alibi even though they have no motive to do so,
9:32
Speaker 1: then you have to start focusing on other things. You
9:34
Speaker 1: have to finally acknowledge that maybe Steve didn't actually do this.
9:39
Speaker 1: So another detail that I find kind of sad is that,
9:42
Speaker 1: as you might recall, Steve took their golden retriever, Johns,
9:44
Speaker 1: with him on his trip to Dubois, but he said
9:47
Speaker 1: that if he had left Johns at home, then Amy
9:49
Speaker 1: likely would have taken the dog with her when she
9:51
Speaker 1: went out running, and Steve has always felt guilty feeling that, well,
9:55
Speaker 1: if Amy had been seen with a dog, then maybe
9:57
Speaker 1: whoever harmed her would have been more reluctant. to go
10:00
Speaker 1: after her if she had Johns protecting her. But on
10:03
Speaker 1: the other hand, maybe Johns would have been wound up
10:05
Speaker 1: being killed too. And we know that some true crime
10:08
Speaker 1: listeners like find it more heartbreaking when animals are killed
10:11
Speaker 1: than humans. But it is just one of those small
10:13
Speaker 1: details where in retrospect that if the dog had been around,
10:16
Speaker 1: then maybe things may have turned out differently with Amy.
10:20
Speaker 2: I think that when we consume true crime, we expect
10:23
Speaker 2: that there's going to be a murder or a death
10:25
Speaker 2: of somebody. You go in there bracing yourself and we're
10:29
Speaker 2: desensitized to it. But then when there's an animal death,
10:32
Speaker 2: we're not ready for that. That's why people have to
10:34
Speaker 2: do a trigger warning if there's going to be some
10:36
Speaker 2: kind of animal abuse or murder of an animal, because
10:40
Speaker 2: we aren't expecting that. And it's like children and animals
10:44
Speaker 2: are so innocent that it really triggers a specific part
10:47
Speaker 2: of our brain. And it's, really difficult to reconcile how
10:52
Speaker 2: somebody could bring harm to innocents like that and whether
10:56
Speaker 2: or not johns was there and whether or not that
10:58
Speaker 2: would have made an impact on what happened to amy
11:00
Speaker 2: we truly can't know but i think what steve is
11:04
Speaker 2: going through and ruminating over the details and trying to
11:07
Speaker 2: go through it in his head and see if he
11:09
Speaker 2: changed his behaviors in any way if the outcome would
11:12
Speaker 2: have been different and potentially yes but also potentially no.
11:16
Speaker 1: Yeah exactly and uh And pretty much every, like, spouse or, like,
11:21
Speaker 1: family member of a missing person or a murder victim, like,
11:24
Speaker 1: goes through these things in their head saying that if
11:26
Speaker 1: I had just done such and such a thing differently,
11:29
Speaker 1: then maybe they wouldn't have been harmed. So it must
11:31
Speaker 1: be torturous to, like, go through your head so many
11:33
Speaker 1: times wondering if, like, this one certain action could have
11:36
Speaker 1: changed the course of your life. So law enforcement repeatedly
11:40
Speaker 1: told the media that no, we don't officially consider Steve
11:43
Speaker 1: to be a suspect or person of interest, but we
11:45
Speaker 1: just want to clear him of involvement in order to
11:47
Speaker 1: pursue other leads, which is why they wanted him to
11:50
Speaker 1: take a polygraph. But of course, Steve still refused to
11:52
Speaker 1: do so. So in February of 1998, the case would
11:56
Speaker 1: be featured on an episode of the Geraldo Rivera Show,
11:59
Speaker 1: which featured appearances from Sheriff's Deputy Dave King, and also
12:04
Speaker 1: Amy's brother Nels, and I know that Amy's brother Nels
12:07
Speaker 1: and their parents had publicly expressed their desire for Steve
12:10
Speaker 1: to take a polygraph, but by contrast, two of Amy's sisters,
12:14
Speaker 1: Casey and Jenny, continued to publicly support him. Yet on
12:18
Speaker 1: this Geraldo episode, Steve, Casey, Jenny, and Dave King pretty
12:23
Speaker 1: much ambushed Steve, saying that, please, will you take a
12:26
Speaker 1: polygraph and pretty much clear yourself of any involvement? And
12:29
Speaker 1: even Geraldo right there on the air was imploring Steve
12:32
Speaker 1: to take a polygraph, but he still maintained that he
12:34
Speaker 1: had shared everything he knew. And following his attorney's advice,
12:37
Speaker 1: he still isn't going to do it. And that just
12:39
Speaker 1: seems incredibly irresponsible for, like, a public figure like Geraldo
12:42
Speaker 1: on national television to accuse someone of potentially being guilty
12:46
Speaker 1: because they're not taking a polygraph when, because, like you said,
12:50
Speaker 1: back in 1998, the general public's, like, knowledge of polygraphs
12:54
Speaker 1: and how unreliable they were wasn't as strong. So they're
12:57
Speaker 1: going to be watching this and automatically assume that Steve
12:59
Speaker 1: has something to hide.
13:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's the assumption. And Geraldo knows exactly
13:04
Speaker 2: what he was doing. It was all about ratings back then,
13:07
Speaker 2: like all of those talk shows, Jerry Springer, Steve Wilco's show,
13:12
Speaker 2: Sally Jesse Raphael. It was a completely different culture where
13:16
Speaker 2: it was very much, let's shock everybody. We want to
13:20
Speaker 2: get ratings and we want to make these people who
13:23
Speaker 2: are coming out on the stage look as horrible as
13:25
Speaker 2: we can. Let's try to guilt them into doing something
13:27
Speaker 2: that goes against their best interest. So I think going
13:30
Speaker 2: on the Geraldo show, yes, you get that exposure. And
13:34
Speaker 2: potentially somebody could come forward with information that could tell
13:38
Speaker 2: you what happened to Amy. But you run the great
13:41
Speaker 2: risk of being painted in a certain type of light, which,
13:44
Speaker 2: like you said, is clearly the way that Geraldo was
13:48
Speaker 2: painting Steve, trying to guilt him into, in front of
13:51
Speaker 2: the audience, no less, to take a polygraph. And so
13:55
Speaker 2: I think that Steve made the right choice because I
13:58
Speaker 2: don't think that there's any way that that could have
14:00
Speaker 2: ended positively. And I don't know who would have been
14:04
Speaker 2: looking at this polygraph, but when you have people who
14:07
Speaker 2: have a vested interest in the entertainment factor, the husband
14:12
Speaker 2: did it is very, quote unquote, entertaining. So when you
14:16
Speaker 2: have a polygraph examiner interpreting those results, Are they going
14:20
Speaker 2: to slightly skew the results so that it makes Steve
14:22
Speaker 2: look bad? I don't know. I don't know what the
14:25
Speaker 2: ethics are there and the type of people that were involved,
14:29
Speaker 2: but you very much run a risk. So if you're
14:31
Speaker 2: going to say no to a polygraph with law enforcement,
14:33
Speaker 2: you certainly shouldn't be saying yes to one with the
14:36
Speaker 2: Geraldo Rivera show.
14:37
Speaker 1: Oh, definitely. And also polygraph, police can lie to you
14:41
Speaker 1: about the results of polygraph. Like they can tell you
14:43
Speaker 1: you failed, even if you pass, just hoping that you'll
14:45
Speaker 1: finally confess and make an incriminating statement. So by that point,
14:49
Speaker 1: I'm sure Steve was very distrustful and figured that even
14:51
Speaker 1: if I agree to do this, they'll probably skew it
14:54
Speaker 1: to try to make it look like I failed, even
14:55
Speaker 1: if I didn't. Well, he brought up the possibility of
14:59
Speaker 1: Amy possibly being harmed by a stalker, and around the
15:03
Speaker 1: same time period, investigators finally started exploring this angle involving
15:07
Speaker 1: a man named Kelly McLeod, who had apparently become infatuated
15:10
Speaker 1: with Amy back when she was working as a waitress
15:13
Speaker 1: at a coffee shop during her time at the University
15:16
Speaker 1: of Wyoming in Laramie. Amy had gotten McLeod interested in running,
15:20
Speaker 1: and he even competed in a few races, but she
15:23
Speaker 1: would later say that his obsession with her had started
15:26
Speaker 1: to make her uncomfortable. And what Amy did not realize
15:29
Speaker 1: at the time was that Kelly McLeod had been a
15:31
Speaker 1: wanted fugitive since 1988, as he had illegally taken custody
15:36
Speaker 1: of his one-year-old daughter from his ex-wife and fled New
15:39
Speaker 1: York State with her, violating a court order. and he
15:42
Speaker 1: was also charged and convicted of raping a teenager in
15:45
Speaker 1: Kentucky in 1990 about jump bail while awaiting sentencing and
15:49
Speaker 1: fled the state with his daughter. So, naturally, investigators, once
15:52
Speaker 1: they learned this, wanted to track McLeod down and question him,
15:55
Speaker 1: and they finally did find him in Medford, Oregon in
15:58
Speaker 1: February of 1998. By this point, McLeod's daughter, who had
16:02
Speaker 1: been on the run with him for many years, she
16:04
Speaker 1: was now 11 and was returned to the custody of
16:06
Speaker 1: her mother, But they were soon able to clear McLeod
16:09
Speaker 1: of any involvement in Amy's case, as he was able
16:12
Speaker 1: to provide evidence that he was on the East Coast
16:15
Speaker 1: on the day that Amy went missing. But curiously, even
16:18
Speaker 1: after the investigators were exploring this other lead, they tried
16:21
Speaker 1: to make it all about Steve, because Dave King made
16:24
Speaker 1: this cryptic comment to the press, quote, McLeod offered valuable
16:28
Speaker 1: information to us of a personal nature about Amy and
16:32
Speaker 1: about Amy and Steve's relationship. We didn't hear anything unexpected.
16:35
Speaker 1: End quote. Uh, we don't really know what he meant
16:38
Speaker 1: by that, but it's like, are you really going to
16:40
Speaker 1: take the word of, like, a wanted fugitive who kidnapped
16:43
Speaker 1: his daughter and raped someone else about, uh, the relationship
16:46
Speaker 1: of a missing woman and her husband?
16:50
Speaker 2: And especially a guy who was obsessed with Amy.
16:53
Speaker 1: So.
16:53
Speaker 2: Yeah! Like, I don't know. It's like taking a jailhouse
16:57
Speaker 2: confession from somebody who might have murdered the person. Do
17:02
Speaker 2: you know what I mean? So it's like, I don't know.
17:05
Speaker 2: I think that their opinion isn't going to be one
17:08
Speaker 2: that is going to be able to be trusted and
17:11
Speaker 2: shouldn't be taken as gospel here. It just tells you
17:15
Speaker 2: how invested law enforcement was in proving that Steve was responsible.
17:20
Speaker 2: If you're going to take this guy's word for anything,
17:23
Speaker 2: I just don't think that you can trust him with
17:26
Speaker 2: regards to anything in this case. I'm perplexed as to
17:29
Speaker 2: how they would even bring this to the public.
17:33
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's just so frustrating because they finally have this
17:35
Speaker 1: other lead involving a very promising suspect, but once they
17:39
Speaker 1: clear him of any involvement, it's like, okay, let's go
17:41
Speaker 1: back to Steve and make this all about him, even
17:43
Speaker 1: though this source, who supposedly has inside information about the
17:47
Speaker 1: Bechtel's marriage, is obviously going to be very biased and unreliable.
17:52
Speaker 1: So the case would receive national attention when it was
17:54
Speaker 1: featured on Unsolved Mysteries in April of 1991, and Steve
17:58
Speaker 1: agreed to appear on camera to defend himself, and he
18:01
Speaker 1: did come across a lot better than the usual people
18:03
Speaker 1: like Jewel Kaler on Unsolved Mysteries, because watching it, you're like, yeah,
18:07
Speaker 1: even if this guy is a bit of a jerk,
18:09
Speaker 1: he does look like he could not have done this,
18:11
Speaker 1: and his explanations for not making a polygraph do make
18:14
Speaker 1: a lot of sense. And by this point, Dave King
18:17
Speaker 1: had been elected Fremont County Sheriff, and he also continued
18:21
Speaker 1: to obsess over Steve, continuing to cast suspicion on him
18:24
Speaker 1: for his unwillingness to take a polygraph, and he kind
18:27
Speaker 1: of rubbed me the wrong way when he discussed Steve's
18:29
Speaker 1: potential involvement during his interview and said, quote, statistically, he
18:33
Speaker 1: did it. And it's like, yes, I know that statistically
18:36
Speaker 1: the spouse is usually responsible, but that doesn't mean that
18:40
Speaker 1: he was responsible in this particular case.
18:43
Speaker 2: Oh my god, you can't say statistically he did it.
18:47
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, statistically it's typically somebody who's close to
18:51
Speaker 2: the victim who's responsible, but that doesn't mean that there
18:55
Speaker 2: aren't serial killers or opportunistic predators out there. It's wild
18:59
Speaker 2: to me. We would think that there's more serial killers
19:02
Speaker 2: and predators than people close to victims because a lot
19:06
Speaker 2: of times those are the cases that get the most coverage,
19:09
Speaker 2: create the most noise and interest from the public, rather
19:12
Speaker 2: than husband who kills his wife. I mean, both create interest,
19:16
Speaker 2: but serial killers are like a national obsession. So to
19:21
Speaker 2: say statistically he did it feels very irresponsible and like
19:26
Speaker 2: he's trying to muddy the waters. I honestly feel for
19:30
Speaker 2: Steve here because even though it feels to me as
19:33
Speaker 2: though there's no way logistically he could be responsible, Law
19:37
Speaker 2: enforcement doesn't have a other viable suspect, and so they
19:42
Speaker 2: seem to be doubling and tripling down on Steve, regardless
19:46
Speaker 2: of any information that comes out. And they're trusting information because...
19:50
Speaker 2: from the most unreliable biased source.
19:53
Speaker 1: Exactly.
19:53
Speaker 2: Yeah.
19:53
Speaker 1: And Kate's actions start to make a whole lot more
19:56
Speaker 1: sense about a year and a half later, because here's
19:58
Speaker 1: a big twist. In November of 2000, King found himself
20:02
Speaker 1: embroiled in a scandal when he abruptly resigned as sheriff,
20:05
Speaker 1: as it turned out he had been stealing cocaine from
20:08
Speaker 1: his department's evidence locker, so he eventually pled guilty to
20:11
Speaker 1: the charges of unlawfully obtaining cocaine and using cocaine, and
20:15
Speaker 1: received a three-year suspended sentence and probation. And that obviously
20:20
Speaker 1: sets off some red flags, because he spent all these
20:22
Speaker 1: years accusing someone who physically, probably, logistically could not have
20:26
Speaker 1: committed the crime, and then you're finding out, oh, he's
20:28
Speaker 1: been using cocaine the whole time. I think that might
20:31
Speaker 1: have impaired his judgment.
20:33
Speaker 2: Well, I think that's a pretty safe assumption. If you're
20:36
Speaker 2: stealing what we can imagine is probably large amounts of cocaine,
20:41
Speaker 2: and you're partaking in that, then that would cloud the
20:44
Speaker 2: judgment indeed.
20:46
Speaker 1: So the investigation pretty much remained at a standstill, but
20:49
Speaker 1: in June of 2003, a man was hiking near the
20:52
Speaker 1: Middle Fork Popo Agee River and came across a Timex
20:56
Speaker 1: Ironman digital wristwatch, which was no longer functional and missing
20:59
Speaker 1: its band. And Amy had been wearing a wristwatch just
21:02
Speaker 1: like that one on the day she went missing, and
21:05
Speaker 1: it was a very short distance from where her car
21:08
Speaker 1: had been abandoned, but they were never able to conclusively
21:10
Speaker 1: establish if this was the same watch which belonged to Amy.
21:14
Speaker 1: But during all the search efforts of the forest, this
21:17
Speaker 1: is the only evidence they have ever found which could
21:19
Speaker 1: have conceivably belonged to Amy. And I know that law
21:22
Speaker 1: enforcement has continually maintained that we searched this area so thoroughly,
21:27
Speaker 1: and if Amy had simply wandered off, and died of
21:29
Speaker 1: exposure or been attacked by an animal, we would have
21:32
Speaker 1: found something. So they have all but ruled out that idea.
21:35
Speaker 1: I know that we have seen many other cases like
21:37
Speaker 1: this where they perform a search effort, find nothing, and
21:40
Speaker 1: then find the victim's remains in the same area like
21:43
Speaker 1: years after the fact. But here, all they have ever
21:46
Speaker 1: found is this one watch, which may or may not
21:48
Speaker 1: have belonged to Amy. So it seems like they are
21:51
Speaker 1: still continuing to hold to the belief that she was
21:53
Speaker 1: the victim of foul play and did not wander into
21:55
Speaker 1: the woods on her own and die of exposure.
21:58
Speaker 2: I mean, that seems to be the most plausible explanation here,
22:02
Speaker 2: is that somebody did Amy harm. Because she wasn't hiking
22:07
Speaker 2: in like an unknown area, and if she got injured,
22:10
Speaker 2: she wouldn't have succumbed to the elements in a way
22:12
Speaker 2: that she would if it were winter. It wasn't as
22:15
Speaker 2: though she wasn't familiar with the area. So I think
22:18
Speaker 2: it's more of a possibility that her remains are out
22:21
Speaker 2: in the woods somewhere, that somebody did her harm, her
22:23
Speaker 2: remains are there, and she wasn't found. Then she wandered off.
22:27
Speaker 2: into the woods and succumb to whatever potential injuries she
22:31
Speaker 2: could have had. Like, she was running, so what? Like,
22:33
Speaker 2: you twist an ankle and then you wander into the woods?
22:36
Speaker 2: I don't see that happening here.
22:38
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree. Like, I know that she was running
22:40
Speaker 1: a specific route on this road, but there's no reason
22:43
Speaker 1: for her to go in the woods. And if she
22:44
Speaker 1: twisted an ankle, then just stay by the side of
22:47
Speaker 1: the road until someone comes along. It's not like Maura Murray,
22:50
Speaker 1: where she's trying to hide from the cops because she
22:52
Speaker 1: crashed a car or something. So yeah, This is one
22:55
Speaker 1: particular case where I do not believe that she simply
22:57
Speaker 1: got lost and died of exposure.
23:00
Speaker 2: It would be different if we saw like the vehicle
23:02
Speaker 2: was damaged and there was a potential for a head
23:04
Speaker 2: injury because once that comes into play, then people start
23:08
Speaker 2: acting in ways that could be interpreted as very strange
23:12
Speaker 2: or outside of their normal or typical behavior. But we're
23:15
Speaker 2: not seeing that here. So that doesn't seem like it
23:19
Speaker 2: would be a plausible explanation in my opinion.
23:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, I totally agree. There's no evidence that she got
23:24
Speaker 1: into any accident or was under any duress when she
23:26
Speaker 1: went out to that area. So in June of 2004,
23:30
Speaker 1: Steve finally had Amy declared legally dead because she had
23:33
Speaker 1: been missing for seven years at this point, but I
23:35
Speaker 1: know that the Rowe family did not agree with him.
23:38
Speaker 1: And shortly thereafter, Steve got remarried to another woman named
23:42
Speaker 1: Ellen Sisman. They briefly relocated to Salt Lake City, Utah,
23:46
Speaker 1: but then ultimately decided to return to Lander. and as
23:49
Speaker 1: far as I can tell, he still resides there to
23:51
Speaker 1: this day. He and Ellen have gone on to have
23:53
Speaker 1: two children, and they have still been together after more
23:56
Speaker 1: than 20 years of marriage, and no one has reported
23:59
Speaker 1: any abuse or any trouble between them, and also during
24:03
Speaker 1: the time period between Amy went missing and he got remarried,
24:06
Speaker 1: Steve was involved in a relationship with another woman named
24:09
Speaker 1: Merritt Fisher, and while the relationship ultimately didn't work out,
24:13
Speaker 1: Merritt has said some supportive things about Steve to the press,
24:17
Speaker 1: saying that There was never any abuse or threatening behavior
24:20
Speaker 1: during their time together, so she never saw any warning
24:23
Speaker 1: signs that Steve may have been responsible for Amy's disappearance
24:27
Speaker 1: or may have harmed her in any way. So if
24:29
Speaker 1: by chance he was abusive towards Amy, there's been no
24:32
Speaker 1: reports of him doing anything troubling at all these past
24:35
Speaker 1: 30 years.
24:37
Speaker 2: I feel like we would see some cracks start to
24:41
Speaker 2: show over the years if Steve was the type of
24:44
Speaker 2: partner that... he would be so abusive that it would
24:48
Speaker 2: escalate into murder, that just saying I'm going to be
24:52
Speaker 2: on my best behavior is something that might last for
24:54
Speaker 2: a short period of time, but not for decades like this.
24:58
Speaker 2: And that isn't to say that with his relationship with Amy,
25:01
Speaker 2: there wasn't potentially some kind of coercive control or DV.
25:06
Speaker 2: We can't truly know that because we don't know what
25:09
Speaker 2: Steve sometimes likes to get rough really means. And I
25:14
Speaker 2: think that his relationships have remained unproblematic throughout the years,
25:20
Speaker 2: is just a testament to the fact that, in my opinion,
25:23
Speaker 2: Steve isn't responsible for what happened to Amy.
25:26
Speaker 1: Yes, because you would expect that if he did that,
25:28
Speaker 1: he would have a hard time adjusting to living a
25:30
Speaker 1: normal life again, because we've seen other suspects in missing
25:34
Speaker 1: persons cases involving their spouses, where they get remarried, and
25:37
Speaker 1: then this other spouse says, oh, they made these cryptic remarks,
25:40
Speaker 1: or They were abusive, or they did this terrible stuff
25:43
Speaker 1: like cheating on me, but it seems like Steve has
25:45
Speaker 1: had a stable family life for the past two decades.
25:49
Speaker 1: What's also interesting is that there's a Wikipedia page about
25:52
Speaker 1: Amy's disappearance, but there's also an individual Wikipedia page for
25:56
Speaker 1: Steve Bechtel, and it mostly goes into detail about his
25:59
Speaker 1: rock climbing exploits, because he's a very prominent figure in
26:02
Speaker 1: the field of rock climbing, but of course it does
26:04
Speaker 1: contain a section about his potential involvement in the disappearance
26:08
Speaker 1: of his former wife. And what's also interesting is that
26:11
Speaker 1: Steve's friend, Todd Skinner, the one who found Amy's vehicle,
26:16
Speaker 1: he also has his own Wikipedia page because he was
26:19
Speaker 1: such a prominent figure in the field of rock climbing,
26:21
Speaker 1: but he sadly experienced a major tragedy because in October
26:25
Speaker 1: of 2006, He wound up being killed at the age
26:28
Speaker 1: of 43 during a rock climbing accident at the Leaning
26:31
Speaker 1: Tower at Yosemite National Park in California. And if you
26:35
Speaker 1: search online, you can even find a lengthy tribute that
26:38
Speaker 1: Steve wrote because Todd was one of his closest friends.
26:41
Speaker 1: So if Steve is completely innocent, you've got to feel
26:44
Speaker 1: for the guy. He's gone through a lot of tragedy,
26:46
Speaker 1: not only losing his wife and becoming a suspect, but
26:49
Speaker 1: also losing one of his best friends as well.
26:52
Speaker 2: That is a really horrific way to die. But I
26:54
Speaker 2: guess if you are a professional climber or that is
26:57
Speaker 2: something that you love, then to die doing something you
27:00
Speaker 2: love might not be looked at the same way as
27:02
Speaker 2: what you or I are looking at this rock climbing accident.
27:06
Speaker 2: But it sounds really, really sad for Steve having to
27:10
Speaker 2: lose Amy and then lose his best friend in such
27:13
Speaker 2: a type of a way. How old was Steve when
27:17
Speaker 2: Amy went missing? Just refresh my memory.
27:20
Speaker 1: Let me just double check. I think he was in
27:22
Speaker 1: his 20s. Yeah, he would have been 27 years old
27:26
Speaker 1: at the time, and he would currently be 56.
27:28
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that a lot of the behaviors that
27:32
Speaker 2: one can have in a relationship when they're 27 years
27:35
Speaker 2: old can be really immature. A whole decade of your 20s,
27:39
Speaker 2: you're trying to figure out who you are, and if
27:41
Speaker 2: you're in a relationship, a lot of that plays out
27:44
Speaker 2: in a way that can be interpreted as toxic. And so...
27:48
Speaker 2: The way that Steve behaved then could be explained that
27:52
Speaker 2: he was just really immature and trying to find his
27:55
Speaker 2: footing and sense of self, whereas his behavior and relationships
28:00
Speaker 2: later on that we hear he was incredibly stable and
28:04
Speaker 2: he was a good partner, it could be attributed to maturity.
28:08
Speaker 2: And I think one of those things that will cause
28:10
Speaker 2: you to grow up is... Something like your partner going missing, right?
28:15
Speaker 2: Like Amy going missing and having to deal with law
28:18
Speaker 2: enforcement and all of the fallout, all of the side eyes.
28:21
Speaker 2: And if Steve isn't responsible, can you imagine what it
28:24
Speaker 2: would be like having a community look at you? And
28:27
Speaker 2: although some are supportive, there's going to be plenty along
28:30
Speaker 2: with Amy's family that are questioning him and thinking that
28:33
Speaker 2: he's guilty. And... Having your lawyer tell you, do not
28:36
Speaker 2: take a polygraph. And I'm sure if you're innocent, wanting
28:40
Speaker 2: to prove that you're innocent, but knowing that legally this
28:42
Speaker 2: is a bad idea. So if Steve is innocent, which
28:46
Speaker 2: I believe him to be, I truly feel for the guy.
28:50
Speaker 1: Definitely, and he could have gotten away from all this,
28:52
Speaker 1: because like I said, when he got remarried, he originally
28:55
Speaker 1: moved to Utah, but he decided to return to Lander,
28:58
Speaker 1: even though I'm sure he knew there were probably still
29:00
Speaker 1: some people in the community who felt that he was guilty.
29:03
Speaker 1: But I think this is a place he loved living,
29:05
Speaker 1: because it had all this rock climbing, this is where
29:08
Speaker 1: he wanted to raise a family, and of course, the
29:10
Speaker 1: fact that he now has two children may have done
29:13
Speaker 1: a lot for his immaturity and caused him to grow
29:15
Speaker 1: up a bit, because having children can totally change your personality.
29:20
Speaker 1: So even after Dave King was forced to resign after
29:23
Speaker 1: the cocaine scandal, over the next several years, there would
29:26
Speaker 1: still be more investigators who believe Steve was responsible. I
29:30
Speaker 1: know that the next Fremont County Sheriff, Larry Matthews, in
29:33
Speaker 1: 2005 once gave an interview where he stated, quote, In
29:37
Speaker 1: my opinion, Steve was the only suspect when she disappeared.
29:40
Speaker 1: Detective Sergeant Roger Risser, spoke about the case, instead that
29:42
Speaker 1: Amy's death was a homicide, and also stated, quote, Only
30:00
Speaker 1: one person who has refused to talk to law enforcement,
30:02
Speaker 1: and that's her husband, end quote. So this keeps going
30:05
Speaker 1: on and on, and it's not until 2010 when a
30:08
Speaker 1: new investigator named John Zerga finally works on the case
30:11
Speaker 1: and says that, you know what, I'm going to start
30:13
Speaker 1: looking at additional leads now and not focus entirely on Steve.
30:17
Speaker 1: And it was a couple years after that when the
30:19
Speaker 1: case was finally featured on an episode of Disappeared, where
30:23
Speaker 1: John Zerga was interviewed, and he was the first law
30:25
Speaker 1: enforcement officer to not point the finger directly at Steve,
30:28
Speaker 1: saying that, I haven't completely ruled him out, but he
30:32
Speaker 1: has been very cooperative. He's finally speaking with law enforcement again,
30:36
Speaker 1: so I'm not necessarily accusing him of being responsible. Steve
30:39
Speaker 1: declined to be interviewed on the Disappeared episode, and I
30:42
Speaker 1: guess I can't really blame him because he used to
30:44
Speaker 1: do a lot of media appearances, but now he'd been remarried,
30:47
Speaker 1: he had kids, and he probably figures, I was ambushed
30:50
Speaker 1: on the Geraldo show, so I'm pretty much done with
30:52
Speaker 1: doing interviews on television and people pointing the finger at me.
30:57
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can't really blame the guy. How awful would
31:00
Speaker 2: that be? Like, can you imagine having everybody... You're doing
31:03
Speaker 2: everything that you can within your power, you believe, to
31:08
Speaker 2: find Amy. And every time you do, people are pointing
31:12
Speaker 2: at you and giving you the side eye and saying
31:13
Speaker 2: that you're guilty. And all of these investigators and the
31:16
Speaker 2: sheriff saying that he's the only suspect. Well, yeah, maybe
31:20
Speaker 2: that is true, but it doesn't mean that he's the
31:22
Speaker 2: person that did it. It just means that there's some
31:25
Speaker 2: hidden variables here that you likely are not aware of.
31:28
Speaker 2: Just because you don't have another viable suspect doesn't mean
31:31
Speaker 2: that Steve is your guy. But it feels like that
31:34
Speaker 2: is the default that everybody was going to because it's
31:38
Speaker 2: easier to be able to point a finger at somebody
31:40
Speaker 2: when the public is wondering who did this for them
31:43
Speaker 2: to be like, oh, yeah, it was obviously the husband.
31:45
Speaker 2: It was Steve. So it's the easy answer.
31:48
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I find it drives me nuts that that
31:51
Speaker 1: former sheriff says that no one else had the opportunity
31:53
Speaker 1: because it does not look like Steve had the opportunity,
31:56
Speaker 1: but a number of other people could because she was
31:58
Speaker 1: last seen out jogging in the middle of a remote area.
32:00
Speaker 1: So how can you be certain that she wasn't killed
32:03
Speaker 1: by someone else? But I remember you saying that when
32:06
Speaker 1: you watched the Disappeared episode originally, you still had some
32:09
Speaker 1: suspicion about Steve, because even though it had a more
32:11
Speaker 1: open-minded investigator, there were still people on the show who
32:15
Speaker 1: were interviewed directing suspicion towards him, including Amy's brother Nels
32:19
Speaker 1: and her mother Joanne, who both expressed their frustration that
32:22
Speaker 1: he was not agreeing to take a polygraph test, But
32:25
Speaker 1: what's particularly frustrating is that they also interviewed Dave King
32:28
Speaker 1: on the episode in order to direct his suspicion against
32:31
Speaker 1: Steve after all these years, but as far as I
32:33
Speaker 1: can recall, they conveniently did not mention that he was
32:36
Speaker 1: fired from his, or resigned from his job because of
32:38
Speaker 1: a scandal where he was, uh, stealing cocaine, so he's
32:42
Speaker 1: really not a reliable eyewitness, so I do think it
32:45
Speaker 1: is a bit irresponsible to still give this guy time to, uh, express, uh,
32:49
Speaker 1: his belief that Steve was, uh, responsible for this when
32:52
Speaker 1: he has his own skeletons in his closet.
32:55
Speaker 2: Okay, so this was after the cocaine scandal. He's still
32:58
Speaker 2: on TV expressing his opinion?
33:00
Speaker 1: Yes, like he's not even working for law enforcement. This
33:02
Speaker 1: is 2013 and the cocaine scandal happened in 2000. And
33:06
Speaker 1: it's like, I know he worked the investigation, but don't
33:09
Speaker 1: put him on TV to express his opinion when he's like,
33:12
Speaker 1: obviously has major credibility issues.
33:15
Speaker 2: It just tells me that you don't have enough people
33:17
Speaker 2: to be pointing the finger at Steve if you're trotting
33:19
Speaker 2: out this cocaine guy. Like, he is an unreliable narrator.
33:23
Speaker 1: Exactly. So, like you said, you saw the disappeared episode
33:26
Speaker 1: years ago, and I'm assuming at that time you did
33:28
Speaker 1: not know that this law enforcement officer interviewed on here
33:31
Speaker 1: had once been charged with stealing cocaine.
33:34
Speaker 2: No, obviously not. That would have completely changed my view
33:38
Speaker 2: on how biased he could have been or how reliable
33:40
Speaker 2: he was as a witness. And I can't believe that
33:43
Speaker 2: they would have trotted him out there like he's this
33:46
Speaker 2: crime show pony and that his opinion really matters. I
33:49
Speaker 2: feel like you just want to hide that away. And
33:52
Speaker 2: if you don't have anybody else to bring out to
33:55
Speaker 2: direct suspicion, then maybe that should tell you something.
33:59
Speaker 1: Yes, maybe you shouldn't focus so squarely on that angle.
34:02
Speaker 1: So the disappeared episode did explore an alternate theory for
34:05
Speaker 1: the first time that apparently there was a local rumor
34:08
Speaker 1: that a group of Native Americans who lived on the
34:10
Speaker 1: Wind River Reservation, which ran through the local counties, there
34:14
Speaker 1: was a story that some of these individuals had been
34:17
Speaker 1: drinking on the day of Amy's disappearance and accidentally struck
34:20
Speaker 1: her with their vehicle before burying her body in a
34:23
Speaker 1: shallow grave. This rumor apparently always mentioned a specific vehicle,
34:27
Speaker 1: so the Fremont County Sheriff's Office secured permission from the
34:30
Speaker 1: tribal police to repossess this vehicle for evidence, but they
34:34
Speaker 1: found nothing, and the allegations about Amy being the victim
34:37
Speaker 1: of a hit-and-run have never been substantiated, and I don't
34:40
Speaker 1: have any further information about this theory, other than what
34:43
Speaker 1: was presented on the Disappeared episode, but I am always
34:47
Speaker 1: skeptical about this, because I often fear this theory when
34:49
Speaker 1: someone goes missing, that they could have been the victim
34:52
Speaker 1: of a hit-and-run, and the driver disposed of her body,
34:55
Speaker 1: But to me, it seems more logical that if you
34:57
Speaker 1: hit someone with your car and wanted to cover it up,
34:59
Speaker 1: that it would be more useful to just drive away
35:01
Speaker 1: as quickly as you can and not cause potential evidence
35:04
Speaker 1: for yourself by putting their body in the trunk and
35:07
Speaker 1: disposing of it.
35:09
Speaker 2: I guess there's a specific type of personality that may
35:12
Speaker 2: take the body because maybe they feel as though they
35:15
Speaker 2: left behind evidence at the scene. or that they have
35:20
Speaker 2: somewhere that they could dispose of a body. But I
35:23
Speaker 2: think that 99% of people who are presented with that scenario,
35:29
Speaker 2: and it's either drive away, or if they're not considering
35:33
Speaker 2: calling law enforcement, I'm not thinking of those people, but
35:36
Speaker 2: the people who are thinking of doing a hit and run,
35:38
Speaker 2: They're going to leave the scene and roll the dice.
35:42
Speaker 2: They're not going to pick up the body, put it
35:44
Speaker 2: in the trunk, and then carry on, and then have
35:47
Speaker 2: to worry about disposing of a body, leaving evidence on
35:50
Speaker 2: the body, and further opening yourself up to more charges.
35:55
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. It seems that if you do it in
35:57
Speaker 1: a remote area and there are no witnesses around, it's
35:59
Speaker 1: much more easier to just drive off. I don't think
36:02
Speaker 1: there are many documented cases that I know of of
36:04
Speaker 1: someone who killed a victim in a hit-and-run situation, and
36:07
Speaker 1: actually took their body from the scene and disposed of it.
36:09
Speaker 1: It seems like those theories people present about how someone
36:12
Speaker 1: stumbled upon a drug deal gone wrong in the woods
36:14
Speaker 1: and were killed for it. You hear it all the time,
36:16
Speaker 1: but how many documented cases are there of this actually happening?
36:20
Speaker 2: I guess you'd never know, because maybe they successfully took
36:23
Speaker 2: the body, and then that person is still just looked
36:26
Speaker 2: at as missing.
36:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, there you go. So if they've done it, they've
36:29
Speaker 1: done a very good job at covering their tracks.
36:31
Speaker 2: Mm-hmm.
36:32
Speaker 1: So after John Zerga took over the investigation, he finally
36:35
Speaker 1: started looking at a potential alternate suspect named Dale Wayne Eaton,
36:39
Speaker 1: who was responsible for the murder of another victim, which
36:42
Speaker 1: was featured on Unsolved Mysteries. And the victim in this
36:45
Speaker 1: crime was 18-year-old Lisa Marie Kimmel, and the crime became
36:49
Speaker 1: known as the Lil Miss murder because she had the
36:52
Speaker 1: personalized vanity license plate which read Lil Miss on the
36:56
Speaker 1: back of her car at the time that she went missing.
36:59
Speaker 1: So this crime took place in March of 1988. Lisa
37:02
Speaker 1: left her home in Denver, Colorado, in order to make
37:04
Speaker 1: a lengthy drive to Cody, Wyoming, where she would pick
37:07
Speaker 1: up her boyfriend and then go visit her family in Montana,
37:11
Speaker 1: but she never arrived at her boyfriend's residence and was
37:14
Speaker 1: reported missing, and eight days later, her body was found
37:17
Speaker 1: at the North Platte River near Casper. It turned out
37:20
Speaker 1: she had been bound, beaten, and raped before she was
37:23
Speaker 1: hit in the head with a blunt object and stabbed
37:25
Speaker 1: six times. and the autopsy indicated that she was held
37:28
Speaker 1: in captivity for days before she was killed. But the
37:32
Speaker 1: most curious detail about this case is that her Honda CRX,
37:35
Speaker 1: which contained her Lil Miss Vanity license plate, could still
37:39
Speaker 1: not be found anywhere. So this is one of the
37:41
Speaker 1: only cases I can think of where a victim's body
37:44
Speaker 1: is found, but their actual vehicle is gone for years. And,
37:48
Speaker 1: of course, they found DNA testing on the body, which
37:51
Speaker 1: belonged to a suspect, but it would not be until 2002,
37:54
Speaker 1: when it was linked to a career criminal named Dale
37:57
Speaker 1: Wayne Eaton, who was at that point incarcerated at a
38:00
Speaker 1: federal prison. in Littleton, Colorado. And it's kind of an
38:04
Speaker 1: interesting thing because they search Eaton's property and they found
38:07
Speaker 1: out that he had buried Lisa's vehicle using a backhoe
38:11
Speaker 1: on the property. So it's like he dumps the body
38:14
Speaker 1: out in the open, buries the car, but he's not
38:16
Speaker 1: thinking that, hmm, the body will contain DNA evidence which
38:20
Speaker 1: can link the crime to me. So I never figured
38:22
Speaker 1: out the logic of his decision here.
38:26
Speaker 2: Yeah, like you said, this is a lot of pre-CSI stuff.
38:29
Speaker 2: So I don't really think that the intelligence of the
38:34
Speaker 2: offender is very apparent here. But also forensic countermeasures, it
38:39
Speaker 2: seems like he's in the upside down. Usually people will
38:43
Speaker 2: leave the vehicle out in the open and not the
38:45
Speaker 2: body because there was that idea of like no body,
38:48
Speaker 2: no crime, especially back then. And.
38:52
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's bizarre, but to take the vehicle, I mean,
38:55
Speaker 2: I guess there must have been some kind of evidence
38:57
Speaker 2: within that vehicle, but you would also think, like, you
39:00
Speaker 2: could be leaving evidence on the body, too, but maybe
39:03
Speaker 2: he just wasn't that smart.
39:05
Speaker 1: Yeah, he definitely does not seem like a smart person,
39:07
Speaker 1: because he was actually living in a converted school bus
39:10
Speaker 1: on his property, like, in remote Wyoming, so... Very weird,
39:14
Speaker 1: eccentric individual, but I think that if he had buried
39:16
Speaker 1: Lisa inside the vehicle, then this case never would have
39:19
Speaker 1: been solved. Nobody would have ever been able to trace
39:22
Speaker 1: it back to him, so I'm sure he regrets that decision.
39:26
Speaker 1: So he would be convicted of Lisa's murder. He went
39:29
Speaker 1: on trial. and received the death penalty, but he eventually
39:32
Speaker 1: received a stay of execution and had his death sentence overturned,
39:35
Speaker 1: so he is still incarcerated today at the age of 81,
39:39
Speaker 1: but there has been speculation that he might be responsible
39:42
Speaker 1: for other murders, including that of Amy Robechtel. And on
39:46
Speaker 1: a side note, I personally know someone who lives in
39:48
Speaker 1: Wyoming that was actually called upon to be selected as
39:52
Speaker 1: a potential juror at Eaton's trial. And he didn't make
39:55
Speaker 1: the jury, but he always joked about they literally found, like,
39:59
Speaker 1: the victim's car buried on his property. How the hell
40:01
Speaker 1: could he have hoped to maintain a defense to the jury?
40:05
Speaker 1: Is he going to say, well, they buried the car
40:06
Speaker 1: on the property. The police planted it there. So he
40:09
Speaker 1: was always curious to see how the defense would have
40:11
Speaker 1: tried to spin that at the trial.
40:14
Speaker 2: I almost feel like you've got to plead the fifth there. Like,
40:16
Speaker 2: how do you answer anything with regards to this case? Like,
40:20
Speaker 2: I think if you're just pleading the fifth across the board,
40:22
Speaker 2: that would probably be the best strategy. Because you can't
40:25
Speaker 2: explain away a buried vehicle on your property.
40:29
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. So it just seemed like that was an
40:31
Speaker 1: uphill battle. We should have just pled guilty and avoided
40:33
Speaker 1: the cost of a trial. So following Eaton's arrest, his
40:38
Speaker 1: brother Richard sent in a tip to the Fremont County
40:41
Speaker 1: Sheriff's Office about his brother's potential involvement in Amy's case,
40:46
Speaker 1: because she had only been missing for about a year
40:48
Speaker 1: at that point. Richard told the lead investigator at the
40:51
Speaker 1: time that his brother often liked to travel to Fremont County, Wyoming,
40:54
Speaker 1: in order to go camping near Burnt Gulch, which is
40:57
Speaker 1: the location where Amy's vehicle was found, as it was
41:00
Speaker 1: apparently a good spot for trout fishing and elk hunting.
41:03
Speaker 1: Richard believed that Dale may have traveled there in July
41:06
Speaker 1: of 1997 and was there on the date that Amy
41:09
Speaker 1: went missing, but the original investigator apparently dismissed this tip
41:12
Speaker 1: because Dale's niece had told him that he was visiting
41:15
Speaker 1: her in Greeley, Colorado on that particular date. But by
41:19
Speaker 1: the time John Zerga took over the investigation in 2010,
41:22
Speaker 1: Eaton had already been charged and convicted of Lisa Marie
41:26
Speaker 1: Kimmel's murder, so he decided to take a fresh look at...
41:30
Speaker 1: Richard Eaton's tip, and since Richard was able to provide
41:33
Speaker 1: a number of specific geographic details about the Burnt Gulch area,
41:37
Speaker 1: Zerka became convinced that Dale had been there at some point,
41:41
Speaker 1: but when he attempted to formally interview Dale about the
41:43
Speaker 1: case in prison, Dale refused to speak with them. So,
41:46
Speaker 1: thus far, no evidence has ever been found to link
41:49
Speaker 1: Eaton with Amy's case. They've never been able to conclusively
41:52
Speaker 1: prove that he was in the area on the day
41:54
Speaker 1: she went missing, but this has played a major role
41:57
Speaker 1: in causing John Zerga to change his mind, feeling that, yeah,
42:00
Speaker 1: this guy who has gone to prison for murdering another
42:02
Speaker 1: woman seems like a much more compelling suspect than Steve Bechtel.
42:07
Speaker 2: I would have to agree. I think that, do we
42:09
Speaker 2: have enough to say that he did it? No, we
42:12
Speaker 2: obviously don't, but it is enough to be like, this
42:15
Speaker 2: is another viable suspect who's familiar with the area and
42:18
Speaker 2: has a history of murdering women.
42:20
Speaker 1: So they only have one possible piece of evidence which
42:23
Speaker 1: could place him in the area, because back in 1997,
42:25
Speaker 1: Eaton was driving a green 1985 Dodge van. And there
42:31
Speaker 1: was a witness in Amy's case, a mechanic named Earl Osborne,
42:34
Speaker 1: who reported driving past a blonde woman matching Amy's description
42:39
Speaker 1: running on Loop Road on the day she went missing,
42:42
Speaker 1: and he claimed that she waved at him. When Osborne
42:45
Speaker 1: drove back down the road in the opposite direction a
42:47
Speaker 1: short time later, he claimed he did not see the woman,
42:49
Speaker 1: but noticed what he described as an old blue-green vehicle,
42:53
Speaker 1: which he thought may have been a van, and it
42:55
Speaker 1: was stopped in the road. And on the surface, the
42:58
Speaker 1: possible sighting of this band could be a piece of
43:00
Speaker 1: evidence placing Eaton in the area that day, but the
43:02
Speaker 1: problem is that Osborne said that he drove past the
43:05
Speaker 1: woman at 10.30 a.m. that day, and as you recall...
43:08
Speaker 1: The Gibsons reported seeing Amy running on Loop Road between 4.30
43:12
Speaker 1: and 5 p.m., and we know that she was doing
43:15
Speaker 1: other errands that day during the morning and was seen
43:17
Speaker 1: in the camera store at 2.30. So I guess it's
43:20
Speaker 1: possible that Amy could have taken an earlier trip to
43:23
Speaker 1: Loop Road to go running, but the fact that this
43:26
Speaker 1: guy saw the green van there at 10.30 a.m. just
43:29
Speaker 1: kind of shows that he might be mistaken, because we
43:32
Speaker 1: know that Amy's whereabouts are accounted for, And if this
43:35
Speaker 1: sighting of the green van is not valid, then there
43:38
Speaker 1: goes the one piece of evidence which could place Dale
43:40
Speaker 1: Wayne Eaton in the area that day.
43:44
Speaker 2: Again, it's difficult when we've got these different eyewitness sightings
43:47
Speaker 2: to do with vehicles and placing people in the area.
43:50
Speaker 2: It is so hard. Unless we have multiple people telling us.
43:55
Speaker 2: This is a fact. When we've got one eyewitness, we
43:59
Speaker 2: know how fallible eyewitness testimony is. We believe that we're
44:02
Speaker 2: doing the right thing oftentimes as human beings when people
44:05
Speaker 2: come forward. It's not that they've got malicious intent. Sometimes
44:10
Speaker 2: people try to insert themselves, but the vast majority of people,
44:13
Speaker 2: they're just trying to help. But again, even though they
44:17
Speaker 2: believe that it's true, it doesn't mean that it is.
44:20
Speaker 1: Exactly, yeah, because I'm pretty sure Osborne was convinced that
44:23
Speaker 1: this was a viable thing, and they pretty much dismissed
44:26
Speaker 1: the green van sighting back in 1997, but when they
44:29
Speaker 1: found out years later that Eaton was driving one at
44:31
Speaker 1: the time, they started looking at it in a different light.
44:34
Speaker 1: And if it could be conclusively established that Eaton was
44:37
Speaker 1: in the area that day and was camping near Burnt Gulch,
44:40
Speaker 1: then I would 100% believe he was the guy, because
44:44
Speaker 1: That was his M.O. with Lisa Marie Kimmel's abduction and murder.
44:47
Speaker 1: She was doing a lengthy drive, she dropped, stopped off
44:50
Speaker 1: at a rest stop, which was abandoned, and Eaton just
44:53
Speaker 1: happened to be there, and when he saw her, he
44:55
Speaker 1: completely abducted her in her own vehicle. And I know
44:58
Speaker 1: that it's kind of a different M.O. because he disposed
45:01
Speaker 1: of Lisa's body in a river... But if he killed Amy,
45:05
Speaker 1: he completely got rid of her body, but maybe he
45:07
Speaker 1: was more aware now about forensics, that DNA testing was
45:10
Speaker 1: not a thing in 1988, but it was becoming more
45:13
Speaker 1: prominent in criminal investigations by 1997, so he's thinking, oh,
45:17
Speaker 1: maybe I should dispose of this particular victim's body, and
45:20
Speaker 1: he did such a thorough job that she has never
45:22
Speaker 1: been found. and even though he's going to spend the
45:24
Speaker 1: rest of his life in prison, he doesn't want to
45:26
Speaker 1: admit to it, maybe fearing that he might get the
45:28
Speaker 1: death penalty after all, so that's why he's keeping his
45:31
Speaker 1: mouth shut. But he does seem like a promising suspect,
45:34
Speaker 1: but without being able to prove he was in the
45:36
Speaker 1: area on that particular day, I can't say with 100% certainty. So, yeah,
45:42
Speaker 1: I definitely think that, obviously, I'm sure you agree with
45:46
Speaker 1: me that Steve Bechtel was not the perpetrator. And I
45:49
Speaker 1: do think that Amy became the victim of foul play
45:52
Speaker 1: while she was running on Loop Road that day. And
45:54
Speaker 1: I am on the fence about whether it was just
45:56
Speaker 1: a random perpetrator who happened to be in the area
45:59
Speaker 1: or if Amy was being stalked or followed by someone.
46:02
Speaker 1: If they could establish that Dale Wayne Eaton was camping
46:05
Speaker 1: that day, then yes, I would believe it was him.
46:08
Speaker 1: But otherwise, I think you agree that the odds of
46:10
Speaker 1: Amy coming across a killer in that area do seem
46:13
Speaker 1: pretty remote. So it does make a lot more sense
46:16
Speaker 1: that she was being followed by someone who maybe finally
46:19
Speaker 1: saw her running alone on this remote road and then
46:21
Speaker 1: took advantage of the opportunity to abduct her.
46:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree with you 100%. I think The odds
46:28
Speaker 2: of somebody just randomly being there are low, but if
46:31
Speaker 2: Eaton was there camping, then there still is a chance.
46:35
Speaker 2: But the odds to me seem greater that it was
46:39
Speaker 2: somebody who was following her or aware of her movements
46:42
Speaker 2: that day. Whether it was somebody known to her or
46:44
Speaker 2: not is up for debate. I think so much of
46:48
Speaker 2: this case is up for debate. Nothing is solid. It's
46:51
Speaker 2: all kind of intangible at this point. But I will
46:55
Speaker 2: agree with you. I don't think that Steve is the perpetrator.
46:58
Speaker 2: I do think that somebody did some harm to Amy.
47:01
Speaker 2: Whether it was Dale Wayne Eaton, I can't know. But
47:05
Speaker 2: it seems as though there are other possibilities of other people.
47:08
Speaker 2: And I think that there's likely the person that did this,
47:12
Speaker 2: we may not even know about.
47:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. It could be a suspect
47:16
Speaker 1: who has never popped up on the radar. For all
47:18
Speaker 1: we know, they could still be living in the Lander
47:20
Speaker 1: area to this day, just keeping themselves out of sight,
47:23
Speaker 1: because whoever did this did a very effective job at
47:26
Speaker 1: covering their tracks, because this investigation has been in a
47:30
Speaker 1: complete standstill for a long time, and I think until
47:32
Speaker 1: they can find Amy's body, I don't think that there's
47:36
Speaker 1: going to be any further developments. And unfortunately, because certain
47:40
Speaker 1: law enforcement officers got tunnel vision, and were so focused
47:43
Speaker 1: on Steve for so many years, I do think that
47:45
Speaker 1: other leads may have been overlooked. So, any further thoughts
47:49
Speaker 1: on the disappearance of Amy Roe Bechtel?
47:53
Speaker 2: My heart goes out to Amy's family, because I truly
47:56
Speaker 2: think that they were in a position where they felt
47:59
Speaker 2: like Steve didn't do enough. and we're looking at him
48:03
Speaker 2: because you need to have somebody to point the finger
48:05
Speaker 2: at and I think having a suspect who is unknown
48:09
Speaker 2: makes it a lot harder and so for them to
48:12
Speaker 2: have no answers and to not have any idea what
48:15
Speaker 2: happened to Amy my heart truly breaks for them but
48:18
Speaker 2: I also feel for Steve. There are certain elements of
48:21
Speaker 2: Steve's behavior along the way that I didn't love, but
48:24
Speaker 2: I also don't think that he's responsible for what happened
48:27
Speaker 2: to Amy, and so it is a lot for one
48:29
Speaker 2: person to have to endure from law enforcement, from the public,
48:32
Speaker 2: to have people look at you in that type of
48:34
Speaker 2: a way if you are somebody who was not responsible
48:38
Speaker 2: for the disappearance of your partner.
48:39
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's true, and I am glad that he seems
48:42
Speaker 1: to be living a good life right now. He's been
48:43
Speaker 1: married for over 20 years, he has children, and I
48:47
Speaker 1: don't know if he is much of the brunt of
48:48
Speaker 1: public suspicion. Like, the last time I saw Amy's family
48:51
Speaker 1: get interviewed was on the Disappeared episode, which was back
48:55
Speaker 1: in 2013. But for all I know, maybe they've changed
48:57
Speaker 1: their tune as well. Maybe they no longer believe Steve
48:59
Speaker 1: is responsible, and I can't blame them for thinking that
49:02
Speaker 1: because law enforcement spent many years poking the finger at them.
49:06
Speaker 1: But yeah, if it was Dale Wayne Eaton, I hope
49:08
Speaker 1: they can prove it before he dies of natural causes
49:11
Speaker 1: because he is in his 80s. But it is a
49:14
Speaker 1: pretty perplexing case because it's another one where we have
49:16
Speaker 1: so many different eyewitness sightings. We have all these kinks
49:19
Speaker 1: in the timeline. that it's hard to get a handle
49:21
Speaker 1: on what happened here, but I do believe that Amy
49:23
Speaker 1: cross-passed with the wrong person and became the victim of
49:26
Speaker 1: foul play. So that about brings an end to our
49:29
Speaker 1: series about the disappearance of Amy Robechtel. Thank you so
49:32
Speaker 1: much for your continued support, and we'll be back next
49:35
Speaker 1: week and talk about another case.