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

Transcript

Amy Wroe Betchel Pt. One · The Path Went Chilly

0:00
Speaker 2: Thank you.
0:27
Speaker 1: Welcome to our latest series from The Path Went Chilly.
0:30
Speaker 1: I'm Robin, and per usual, I'm going to be sharing
0:32
Speaker 1: the details about a case with Jules, and she will
0:35
Speaker 1: be giving off her live reaction. One thing we need
0:38
Speaker 1: to mention, you probably heard from recent episodes that Ashley
0:41
Speaker 1: has been going through a lot and has had to
0:43
Speaker 1: take some time off, and unfortunately, she recently decided that
0:46
Speaker 1: she can no longer do the podcast full-time. She's got
0:50
Speaker 1: way too much going on in her personal life. She's
0:52
Speaker 1: doing pretty well right now, but she just has a
0:54
Speaker 1: very loaded schedule with a new career and spending a
0:57
Speaker 1: lot of time with her family. So unfortunately, she just
1:00
Speaker 1: cannot make the commitment to record with us every single week.
1:03
Speaker 1: So from this moment on, it's just going to be
1:05
Speaker 1: Jules and I following our usual formula where I share
1:08
Speaker 1: the details of a case and then we discuss it.
1:11
Speaker 1: But we haven't ruled out the possibility that Ashley can
1:13
Speaker 1: come back sometime in the future for guest appearances when
1:17
Speaker 1: she has more time. And she isn't so overwhelmed. So
1:20
Speaker 1: hopefully she can come back every now and then to
1:22
Speaker 1: talk about a case with us. But from this moment on,
1:25
Speaker 1: it's just going to be us and Jules. And we
1:27
Speaker 1: will greatly miss her. But it's definitely for the best
1:30
Speaker 1: for her own life.
1:31
Speaker 2: We obviously we love Ashley and we wish her the
1:34
Speaker 2: best with her new career and everything that she has
1:37
Speaker 2: going on. And the door is always open for her,
1:40
Speaker 2: like Robin said, to come back for guest appearances. Or
1:43
Speaker 2: if she ever decided she wanted to come back full time,
1:45
Speaker 2: then of course, that is an option. And we appreciate
1:49
Speaker 2: all of your loyalty and all of your patience with
1:51
Speaker 2: us while we go through this period of transition. But
1:55
Speaker 2: the reality is, Robin and I have been doing it
1:57
Speaker 2: in this format for quite some time now. So I
1:59
Speaker 2: think that most of you who are listening are pretty
2:01
Speaker 2: used to it.
2:02
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's been working. Like a lot of people have
2:04
Speaker 1: left positive feedback that they like our new formula with
2:06
Speaker 1: just the two of us. So we know that we
2:08
Speaker 1: can continue on with Ashley. But like we said, the
2:10
Speaker 1: door is always open. And we hope to have her
2:12
Speaker 1: back on the show at some point, even if it's
2:15
Speaker 1: only for the occasional guest appearance. Jules, are you familiar
2:19
Speaker 1: with the disappearance of Amy Roe Bechtel?
2:22
Speaker 2: I'm vaguely familiar with it. Like, the name is familiar,
2:26
Speaker 2: and when you bring up the details of the case,
2:28
Speaker 2: I think that some of it is going to ring
2:30
Speaker 2: a bell, but I can't, like, Robin Warder in Encyclopedia
2:34
Speaker 2: Britannica recall all of the details of the case.
2:37
Speaker 1: Well, this is a missing persons case that's got quite
2:39
Speaker 1: a bit of coverage the past three decades. It involves
2:41
Speaker 1: a woman who went missing in Wyoming in Shoshone National Forest.
2:45
Speaker 1: Her abandoned car was found, and she was likely going
2:48
Speaker 1: for a run before she just suddenly vanished without a trace.
2:51
Speaker 1: And this is another case where suspicion has been directed
2:54
Speaker 1: towards her husband, Steve Bechtel, but it's mostly because of
2:58
Speaker 1: his personality that he did some things that Some people
3:01
Speaker 1: found questionable, but when you look at the timeline and
3:03
Speaker 1: the evidence, it almost seems it would have been physically
3:06
Speaker 1: impossible for him to pull this off, yet law enforcement
3:09
Speaker 1: and Amy's family have always directed suspicion towards him over
3:13
Speaker 1: the years.
3:14
Speaker 2: Okay, question. Was this case ever featured on Disappeared?
3:17
Speaker 1: It was, yeah.
3:19
Speaker 2: Okay, that's definitely where I know it from, and I
3:22
Speaker 2: do recall some of the details of the case, and
3:24
Speaker 2: it was incredibly perplexing. I always feel like I gravitate towards...
3:29
Speaker 2: Cases where there's that element of nature when somebody disappears,
3:33
Speaker 2: whether it's in a national forest or they're just out
3:36
Speaker 2: in nature in some capacity, and it feels like some
3:39
Speaker 2: vortex just opens up and they're never seen again.
3:42
Speaker 1: Yeah, even though she went missing in a remote wooded area, surprisingly,
3:45
Speaker 1: this is not a case where people have leaned towards
3:48
Speaker 1: the theory that she maybe just got lost or injured
3:51
Speaker 1: and died of exposure. even though there is no direct
3:54
Speaker 1: evidence of foul play. It seems like people either believe
3:57
Speaker 1: that the husband did it, or she crossed paths with
3:59
Speaker 1: the wrong person who harmed her, but it's been 30
4:02
Speaker 1: years now, and we still aren't any closer to solving
4:05
Speaker 1: this than we were back in 1997. So, it takes
4:09
Speaker 1: place in Fremont County, Wyoming. Amy Robecto was 27 years
4:13
Speaker 1: old at the time. She was born in Santa Barbara, California,
4:17
Speaker 1: and was the youngest of four children, but shortly after
4:20
Speaker 1: her birth, the family, uh, relocated to Wyoming, and she
4:24
Speaker 1: wound up attending the University of Wyoming in Laramie, where
4:27
Speaker 1: she met Steve Bechtel, who was born in Casper, Wyoming,
4:31
Speaker 1: and they both majored in exercise physiology because they really
4:35
Speaker 1: liked the outdoors, they liked doing stuff like running and
4:37
Speaker 1: rock climbing, and they finally got married in June of 1996. Amy,
4:43
Speaker 1: while attending university, was a competitive long-distance runner who won
4:46
Speaker 1: a number of races, and she even competed in the
4:49
Speaker 1: Boston Marathon in 1996, and was hoping to try out
4:53
Speaker 1: for the women's marathon at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia.
4:58
Speaker 1: So Amy and Steve were residing in the town of Lander,
5:01
Speaker 1: which had a population of around 7,000 at that time,
5:04
Speaker 1: and the reason that Steve wanted to live there was
5:07
Speaker 1: because it was near the Black Hills mountain range, and
5:10
Speaker 1: he loved to use it to go rock climbing. And
5:12
Speaker 1: the Bechtels actually lived in one of 12 rental cottages
5:16
Speaker 1: located on Lucky Lane in a section that was nicknamed
5:19
Speaker 1: Climber's Row, where a whole bunch of competitive rock climbers
5:22
Speaker 1: and athletes resided there, and it sounded like a very close,
5:25
Speaker 1: tight-knit community. Steve made his living as an assistant manager
5:29
Speaker 1: of an equipment store, which was owned by his neighbor
5:31
Speaker 1: Todd Skinner, who was another rock climber who owned the
5:35
Speaker 1: rental cottages where the Bechtels live and was a very
5:37
Speaker 1: close friend of theirs. And Amy worked part-time at the
5:40
Speaker 1: store and also had a bunch of other part-time jobs,
5:43
Speaker 1: such as working as a waitress, teaching a youth weightlifting class,
5:47
Speaker 1: and also being an amateur photographer. But of course, she
5:50
Speaker 1: didn't want to do anything full-time because she wanted to
5:52
Speaker 1: focus so much on her running. And at this particular point,
5:56
Speaker 1: on July the 21st, 1997, the Bechtels finally closed on
6:00
Speaker 1: the purchase of a new house and were planning to
6:02
Speaker 1: move out of the rental cottage, but Amy would go
6:05
Speaker 1: missing three days later. And this is a big point
6:08
Speaker 1: which is often brought up in defense of Steve, because
6:11
Speaker 1: if he really wanted to make his wife go missing...
6:14
Speaker 1: would he really do so only three days after they
6:17
Speaker 1: closed on the purchase of a new house? Because they
6:20
Speaker 1: both needed their income in order to afford this, so
6:22
Speaker 1: obviously if he made his wife disappear, it was going
6:25
Speaker 1: to cause him a lot of financial perils. So right
6:27
Speaker 1: from the outset, it just seemed really strange that he
6:30
Speaker 1: would be considered to be a potential suspect.
6:33
Speaker 2: It depends the perspective that you're looking at it from.
6:37
Speaker 2: If we're going to presuppose that Steve planned this and
6:41
Speaker 2: wanted to make Amy disappear... then yes, absolutely, that would
6:45
Speaker 2: be a bizarre time to be choosing to do so
6:49
Speaker 2: because Steve wouldn't have been able to carry the mortgage
6:52
Speaker 2: payments on his own. So why bother to go through
6:54
Speaker 2: the trouble of purchasing a place when you aren't going
6:57
Speaker 2: to be able to hold up your end financially if
7:00
Speaker 2: you make your wife disappear? But on the other hand,
7:03
Speaker 2: if this was something that was maybe a fight that
7:08
Speaker 2: it just happened and he reacted impulsively, Or even if
7:12
Speaker 2: he planned it, he planned it within a very short
7:14
Speaker 2: window of time without thinking of the consequences or ramifications
7:19
Speaker 2: of his actions. So I think there is a world
7:21
Speaker 2: where it's possible that Steve didn't really give that much
7:25
Speaker 2: thought to the home and he was just reacting emotionally
7:29
Speaker 2: in the moment. So yeah, I think that for him
7:33
Speaker 2: to have planned it ahead of time, that doesn't make
7:35
Speaker 2: any sense to me, but I can't rule it out
7:38
Speaker 2: at this point.
7:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, I totally agree with that, that I don't think
7:42
Speaker 1: it would have been a premeditated murder, but if Steve
7:44
Speaker 1: did do something, it was likely a heat-of-the-moment thing, like
7:47
Speaker 1: a crime of passion where he wound up accidentally killing
7:50
Speaker 1: her and wasn't thinking of the long-term consequences. And as
7:53
Speaker 1: we're going to go into a bit later, there is
7:55
Speaker 1: contradictory information on this case from different sources about whether
7:59
Speaker 1: or not Steve might have been abusive towards Amy even
8:02
Speaker 1: before she went missing. So three days later, after the
8:06
Speaker 1: purchase of the house on July the 24th, Steve had
8:09
Speaker 1: the day off from work, so he was planning to
8:11
Speaker 1: travel 75 miles to the town of Dubois to meet
8:14
Speaker 1: up with a travel writer friend of his named Sam
8:17
Speaker 1: Leitner because they were going to scout some rock climbing locations.
8:21
Speaker 1: And Steve and Amy owned a yellow Labrador retriever named Johns,
8:25
Speaker 1: and Steve was planning to take the dog with him
8:27
Speaker 1: on the trip while Amy remained home alone. She said
8:30
Speaker 1: that she was going to teach her youth weightlifting class
8:32
Speaker 1: at the fitness center during the morning and then would
8:34
Speaker 1: spend the rest of the day running errands and preparing
8:37
Speaker 1: for the upcoming move to their new house. So Steve
8:40
Speaker 1: left the residence at 9.30 and always maintained that this
8:43
Speaker 1: was the last time he ever saw Amy. Her whereabouts
8:46
Speaker 1: are accounted for for a chunk of the day. She
8:48
Speaker 1: did teach her weightlifting class and she stopped at a
8:52
Speaker 1: pair of photo stores named The Camera Connection and Gallery 331.
8:56
Speaker 1: And according to the owner of the gallery, Amy checked
8:59
Speaker 1: her watch a few times during the conversation and left
9:01
Speaker 1: at around 2.30pm. They described her as wearing a yellow
9:06
Speaker 1: tank top, black shorts and sneakers, which is going to
9:09
Speaker 1: be important because there's going to be another eyewitness sighting
9:12
Speaker 1: later on, which isn't verified, but as anyone can tell,
9:15
Speaker 1: the 2.30pm sighting of her at the photo gallery was
9:18
Speaker 1: the last time that she was officially confirmed to be alive.
9:22
Speaker 1: And Steve claimed that he returned home at around 4.30,
9:25
Speaker 1: two hours later from his trip to Dubois with his dog,
9:28
Speaker 1: but Amy was not there.
9:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is a tough one. So did Amy return
9:36
Speaker 2: home and we're just not hearing about it because Steve
9:39
Speaker 2: is the one who ended her life or made her disappear?
9:42
Speaker 2: Or is it the fact that everything that Steve is
9:46
Speaker 2: saying is true and that Amy disappeared somewhere along her run?
9:51
Speaker 2: And do we know any of these people who were
9:53
Speaker 2: in her youth weightlifting class?
9:55
Speaker 1: We don't really. Like, we have a lot of people
9:57
Speaker 1: here who lived in Climbers Row. who are going to provide, like,
10:01
Speaker 1: accounts of Steve's whereabouts at least later that evening. But
10:04
Speaker 1: we haven't heard, like, any eyewitness accounts from anyone that
10:07
Speaker 1: she taught the class to that morning.
10:10
Speaker 2: Because it sounds like Amy was really connected within the
10:13
Speaker 2: community and that she would have been exposed to a
10:15
Speaker 2: lot of people. which I guess is both a positive
10:19
Speaker 2: and a negative, because it could have exposed her to
10:22
Speaker 2: somebody who may have become obsessed with her, may have
10:25
Speaker 2: been stalking her, and she just wasn't aware of this.
10:28
Speaker 2: Or it could be a positive because we have so
10:31
Speaker 2: many people who are giving eyewitness identifications of both Steve
10:36
Speaker 2: and Amy and accounting for their whereabouts, so... I'm not
10:40
Speaker 2: really sure what to make of this yet. Why is
10:43
Speaker 2: she checking her watch? Is she checking her watch because
10:45
Speaker 2: she has a meeting with somebody? Or is she very
10:50
Speaker 2: specific with the amount of time she wants to spend
10:52
Speaker 2: running and the allotted time that she has available to
10:55
Speaker 2: do so?
10:57
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's interesting. I've always wondered if she was planning
11:00
Speaker 1: to meet someone that afternoon because the spot where her
11:03
Speaker 1: car was found abandoned was a very remote area and
11:05
Speaker 1: you start thinking to yourself, what are the odds that
11:08
Speaker 1: she would cross paths with like a random serial killer
11:10
Speaker 1: out there who would harm her? But if she was
11:12
Speaker 1: being stalked, if someone was following her, or if she
11:15
Speaker 1: planned to meet someone there and no one else knows
11:17
Speaker 1: about it, that could provide an explanation why she went
11:20
Speaker 1: missing from that particular location. So here's the account of
11:25
Speaker 1: Steve's whereabouts. Like I said, he returned home at 4.30.
11:28
Speaker 1: A friend of the Bechtels was dropped by the residence
11:30
Speaker 1: at around 6.45 and invited Steve to join a group
11:33
Speaker 1: of friends for pizza. But since Amy had still not
11:36
Speaker 1: returned yet, Steve declined. At 8.15, he went to visit
11:40
Speaker 1: his neighbor, Todd Skinner, and Todd's wife, whose name was
11:43
Speaker 1: Amy Whistler Skinner, but to avoid confusion, I'm going to
11:46
Speaker 1: refer to her as Amy S. through the rest of
11:49
Speaker 1: this episode and call Amy Bechtel Amy B. if I'm
11:52
Speaker 1: speaking about them in the same sentence. And Todd and
11:55
Speaker 1: Amy S. asked Steve to come out to a screening
11:58
Speaker 1: of the movie Con Air, but once again, because Amy
12:01
Speaker 1: was not home, He declined, and when he asked Todd
12:04
Speaker 1: and Amy S. if they had seen her, they said no.
12:07
Speaker 1: And as an aside, I just wanted to bring this up.
12:09
Speaker 1: Have you ever seen the movie Con Air?
12:12
Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember that movie from way back. It was
12:14
Speaker 2: pretty good.
12:15
Speaker 1: It was, yeah. It's one of my guilty pleasures. It
12:17
Speaker 1: was pretty much the start of the era of Nicolas
12:19
Speaker 1: Cage's action star and doing the really like over-the-top cartoony
12:23
Speaker 1: accents because he did like the silly Alabama accent in
12:26
Speaker 1: this one. But I'm thinking to myself, I remember seeing
12:28
Speaker 1: that in the cinema and I realized, oh my God,
12:30
Speaker 1: it hasn't been 29 years already, has it? Since it
12:33
Speaker 1: came out.
12:34
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh. I associate that movie with Face Off
12:38
Speaker 2: and that generation of movies, and a lot of them
12:41
Speaker 2: are guilty pleasures. I think a lot of Nicolas Cage
12:44
Speaker 2: movies for me are guilty pleasures.
12:46
Speaker 1: And I just want to quote the biggest line from
12:47
Speaker 1: Con Air, Put the bunny back in the box, which
12:51
Speaker 1: is an all-time classic. But once again, sadly, Steve had
12:56
Speaker 1: to miss a screening of Con Air, which would have
12:58
Speaker 1: been a big blast because he wanted to stay home
13:00
Speaker 1: until Amy returned. Amy had originally told Steve that she
13:03
Speaker 1: was going to travel to the town of Powell to
13:06
Speaker 1: visit her parents and pick up some furniture from them
13:08
Speaker 1: for the new house, but she decided against it since
13:11
Speaker 1: she had too many other things to do that day.
13:14
Speaker 1: But when Amy failed to resurface by 9 o'clock, Steve
13:17
Speaker 1: phoned her parents just to double-check that Amy decided to
13:20
Speaker 1: go visit them after all, but they had also not
13:22
Speaker 1: seen her or heard from her. So, finally, by 10.30 p.m.,
13:26
Speaker 1: Amy had still not returned home, so... Steve decided to
13:29
Speaker 1: call the Fremont County Sheriff's Office in order to report
13:32
Speaker 1: her missing. So, a section of the audio from Steve's
13:36
Speaker 1: phone call has been released publicly. I know that they
13:39
Speaker 1: featured it on the Disappeared episode. And this is the
13:42
Speaker 1: main detail that people became suspicious of Steve, because he
13:45
Speaker 1: jokingly said to the 911 operator, quote, Hi, this is
13:48
Speaker 1: Steve Bechta calling. I'm missing a person, and I was
13:52
Speaker 1: wondering if you maybe had an extra, end quote.
13:56
Speaker 2: So yeah, it's really cringe and super inappropriate. But some people,
14:01
Speaker 2: when they're faced with a real crisis, will make jokes
14:05
Speaker 2: or have a sense of inappropriate humor. And so that
14:09
Speaker 2: in isolation, in and of itself, to me, doesn't condemn Steve.
14:14
Speaker 2: There's obviously going to be more information and more to interpret.
14:18
Speaker 2: But the idea that he seemed to be home from 4.30
14:21
Speaker 2: and that multiple people had verified that, I guess that
14:24
Speaker 2: could also be interpreted in a multitude of different ways.
14:27
Speaker 2: If he had made Amy disappear in a very short
14:30
Speaker 2: window of time, or he'd taken her, something had happened,
14:35
Speaker 2: and he'd hidden the body so that he could be
14:36
Speaker 2: back and provide an alibi for himself, then that would
14:41
Speaker 2: make sense. But could he have known that the friend
14:44
Speaker 2: would come by? The first friend came by, what was it,
14:46
Speaker 2: around 6.30, you said?
14:47
Speaker 1: Yeah, pretty much, like only about two hours after he
14:50
Speaker 1: got home.
14:52
Speaker 2: Yeah, so he wouldn't have known about that friend coming
14:54
Speaker 2: over because it was like a random pizza invite, correct?
14:57
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was. Like, he didn't know that this friend
14:59
Speaker 1: was going to be visiting him.
15:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, but he knew about the Con Air screening.
15:04
Speaker 1: I don't think he did either. Like, I think that
15:06
Speaker 1: they just shot by at the last minute to say,
15:08
Speaker 1: do you want to come out with us to Con Air?
15:10
Speaker 1: So he does have all these alibi witnesses, but he
15:12
Speaker 1: couldn't have known ahead of time that they would stop
15:14
Speaker 1: by his house and verify that he was there.
15:17
Speaker 2: Because to me, it would speak to somebody who is
15:20
Speaker 2: guilty if he was trying to create an alibi. It's
15:23
Speaker 2: almost like he got an alibi by accident while he
15:26
Speaker 2: was at home waiting for Amy.
15:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, like, and we're going to talk about later is
15:30
Speaker 1: that shortly after he returned home at 4.30, he made
15:33
Speaker 1: a phone call and phone records verified that happened. So
15:36
Speaker 1: even though his whereabouts aren't accounted for during the entire
15:39
Speaker 1: time period between like 4.30 and 10.30, it seems like
15:43
Speaker 1: he has very short gaps here, like not a lot
15:46
Speaker 1: of time to go out somewhere and dispose of a
15:48
Speaker 1: body and do it so thoroughly that she has not
15:51
Speaker 1: been found in nearly 30 years.
15:53
Speaker 2: And question, so this was 1997, correct? Yes. And neither
15:58
Speaker 2: of them had cell phones?
16:00
Speaker 1: Uh, let me just double check here. Yeah, it sounds
16:03
Speaker 1: like that, oh no, it doesn't sound like either of
16:05
Speaker 1: them had a cell phone. Like, one of Steve's friends,
16:07
Speaker 1: Todd Skinner, is going to use a cell phone later on,
16:09
Speaker 1: but I don't know of Steve or Amy, like, carrying
16:11
Speaker 1: them around at this particular point, because obviously they weren't
16:14
Speaker 1: as commonplace back in 1997. Okay.
16:16
Speaker 2: Okay.
16:19
Speaker 1: So following Steve's phone call, a pair of deputies came
16:22
Speaker 1: to visit him and said they were going to organize
16:24
Speaker 1: a search and rescue team to look for Amy if
16:26
Speaker 1: she did not return by morning. But Steve said that
16:28
Speaker 1: he didn't want to wait that long, so when Todd
16:31
Speaker 1: and Amy S. returned home from the movies at 11,
16:34
Speaker 1: and Steve told them he had reported Amy missing, they
16:37
Speaker 1: volunteered to go out and search some roads where Amy
16:40
Speaker 1: was known to go jogging. And Steve said that, okay,
16:42
Speaker 1: you do that, and I will remain at the residence
16:45
Speaker 1: in case Amy shows up or attempts to call me.
16:48
Speaker 1: So for the next two hours, the Skinners drove around
16:51
Speaker 1: searching and eventually headed down Loop Road, which ran through
16:54
Speaker 1: Shoshone National Forest near the Wind River Range of the
16:58
Speaker 1: Rocky Mountains, and they found this particular location to be
17:01
Speaker 1: interesting because Amy was planning to participate in a 10K
17:05
Speaker 1: run there organized by the fitness center in September, so
17:09
Speaker 1: they figured if she wanted to go jogging there to practice,
17:12
Speaker 1: this might be a place that she would go. And
17:15
Speaker 1: sure enough, at around 1 a.m., they arrived at a
17:17
Speaker 1: location called Burnt Gulch, which is a turnoff located about
17:21
Speaker 1: a half mile away from Fry Lake. and they came
17:24
Speaker 1: across Amy's abandoned white Toyota Tercel at a location that
17:28
Speaker 1: was about 15 miles from her home. The Tercel was unlocked,
17:32
Speaker 1: and the keys were resting on the driver's seat, and
17:34
Speaker 1: a number of other personal items were inside, including her
17:37
Speaker 1: $ 120 sunglasses, and she also had a to-do list for
17:42
Speaker 1: the errands she had been running that day, where most
17:44
Speaker 1: of them were checked off, but not all of them,
17:47
Speaker 1: and the only item which appeared to be missing was
17:49
Speaker 1: Amy's wallet.
17:50
Speaker 2: That's interesting. So the things that she left behind could
17:54
Speaker 2: have very well been things that she would have left
17:57
Speaker 2: behind if she went for a run. I don't know
17:59
Speaker 2: how sunny it was or if these were the type
18:01
Speaker 2: of sunglasses that she would have been running in. I
18:03
Speaker 2: do find it interesting that her wallet is missing. I
18:06
Speaker 2: don't know how big of a wallet this is or
18:08
Speaker 2: if that would be something that she would be taking
18:10
Speaker 2: with her on a run if it was somewhere really remote.
18:14
Speaker 2: What are the chances that your car is going to
18:15
Speaker 2: get broken into? And a wallet can be kind of cumbersome.
18:20
Speaker 1: Yeah. That has been one of the biggest debates in
18:22
Speaker 1: the case, is if she wanted to take the wallet jogging,
18:25
Speaker 1: would she leave her keys behind inside the vehicle? Because
18:29
Speaker 1: it does make sense that she would go out there,
18:30
Speaker 1: because like I mentioned, she was planning to do a
18:33
Speaker 1: 10K run in a couple months at this location, so
18:35
Speaker 1: maybe she wanted to practice. But would she really leave
18:38
Speaker 1: her keys in the car out in the front seat?
18:40
Speaker 1: But at the same time, this was such a remote area,
18:43
Speaker 1: maybe she's thinking to herself, it's very cumbersome to be
18:45
Speaker 1: carrying these keys. They could fall out of my pocket
18:48
Speaker 1: while I'm jogging. So I'll just leave them in the
18:50
Speaker 1: vehicle because what are the odds that someone is going
18:52
Speaker 1: to come to this remote spot and steal my car?
18:55
Speaker 2: It just seems so odd to leave your keys so
18:58
Speaker 2: visible like that. If you're going to go for a
19:00
Speaker 2: run and you need a key, I personally, when I
19:04
Speaker 2: would go for a long run and needed somewhere to
19:06
Speaker 2: put it, it would be like, okay, just slide, take
19:09
Speaker 2: the key off the key ring, slide the key that
19:11
Speaker 2: I need. either into my sock at the bottom or
19:14
Speaker 2: into my sports bra or if it's like I've got
19:17
Speaker 2: a Lululemon zip up or something where there's a tiny
19:19
Speaker 2: little pocket or if I'm wearing pants that have like
19:22
Speaker 2: the pocket of the waistband, put the key there. But
19:25
Speaker 2: I don't really know how much athletic wear had those
19:28
Speaker 2: little pockets in 1997. I don't really think that was
19:32
Speaker 2: a thing so much. So her options would have likely
19:35
Speaker 2: have been like put the key, hold the key or
19:37
Speaker 2: put it into your sock or something. But To take
19:42
Speaker 2: the wallet and not the key, I don't know. I
19:45
Speaker 2: feel like it's an interesting choice. And even though it's remote,
19:48
Speaker 2: it just feels odd to leave. it in such a
19:51
Speaker 2: visible place.
19:52
Speaker 1: Yeah, you would think that if you didn't want to
19:54
Speaker 1: take the key with you, like put it in the
19:55
Speaker 1: glove compartment or something, or put it under the seat
19:58
Speaker 1: so that it's not as visible if someone's passing by.
20:00
Speaker 1: So that has always been one of the biggest debates
20:02
Speaker 1: in this case, whether she went out there on her
20:04
Speaker 1: own accord to go running, or if the scene just
20:06
Speaker 1: might have been staged.
20:08
Speaker 2: Or, you know, lock the car if you don't want
20:11
Speaker 2: to take the keys and put the keys behind one
20:14
Speaker 2: of the wheels.
20:15
Speaker 1: Yeah, that makes sense as well.
20:16
Speaker 2: There's always options, and it seems like this is a
20:19
Speaker 2: strange option. And Amy seems like a very thorough person. Like,
20:23
Speaker 2: this is a person who has a to-do list with her,
20:26
Speaker 2: and she's checking items off as she goes. So for
20:29
Speaker 2: somebody that's organized and very methodical, it's an odd choice.
20:34
Speaker 1: So they looked at her to-do list, and she did
20:36
Speaker 1: have run written on there, and even though it wasn't
20:38
Speaker 1: checked off, she had scribbled down some landmarks from the
20:41
Speaker 1: area and readings on her odometer, which seemed to indicate that, yes,
20:45
Speaker 1: she maybe traveled to this area to scout the route
20:48
Speaker 1: on Loop Road for the upcoming 10K run. So Todd Skinner,
20:52
Speaker 1: he did have a cell phone, so he used it
20:54
Speaker 1: to call Steve and inform him about the discovery of
20:56
Speaker 1: Amy's car, so Steve quickly drove to the area... and
21:00
Speaker 1: they also called some of their other friends, and they
21:02
Speaker 1: performed their own independent search of the woods for Amy,
21:05
Speaker 1: just in case she had got lost or been injured.
21:08
Speaker 1: And of course, at the time, they didn't really suspect
21:10
Speaker 1: foul play, so they unfortunately wound up unknowingly compromising a
21:14
Speaker 1: potential crime scene by searching all throughout her vehicle, and
21:18
Speaker 1: they actually drove it home before it could be processed
21:21
Speaker 1: by law enforcement for evidence, so if the killer left
21:23
Speaker 1: any fingerprints or DNA there, unfortunately, it may have been
21:27
Speaker 1: messed up.
21:29
Speaker 2: Well, that's too bad. And it sounds like it's one
21:32
Speaker 2: of those things that's just a product of the time.
21:34
Speaker 2: Like we hear about potential crime scenes being compromised all
21:38
Speaker 2: of the time in cases that we cover from the
21:41
Speaker 2: 80s and the 90s. It just is so unfortunate because
21:45
Speaker 2: we know that oftentimes when law enforcement comes across a
21:48
Speaker 2: car and they're towing it, they're not thinking that a
21:51
Speaker 2: crime has taken place. And so all of that potential
21:55
Speaker 2: evidence is either compromised, corrupted, or just disregarded entirely.
22:02
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is 1997. It's still pre-CSI, so it's not
22:05
Speaker 1: common knowledge about processing crime scenes and not touching anything.
22:09
Speaker 1: And of course, everyone involved is just thinking, well, she
22:12
Speaker 1: might have gone into the woods and got lost. This
22:14
Speaker 1: isn't a high crime area, so I'm not thinking that
22:16
Speaker 1: someone killed her there. So they're obviously not going to
22:19
Speaker 1: be thinking about that stuff when they decide to move
22:22
Speaker 1: her vehicle. So finally the following morning, they performed an
22:26
Speaker 1: extensive search effort involving over 500 people, including law enforcement
22:30
Speaker 1: and volunteers and Amy's friends and family. They searched a
22:34
Speaker 1: radius of over 20 miles, looked various lakes and mines
22:37
Speaker 1: in the area, and it lasted for eight days, but
22:40
Speaker 1: they were unable to turn up any evidence, so the
22:43
Speaker 1: search effort was called off. The most promising lead was
22:46
Speaker 1: provided by a couple named Jim and Wendy Gibson, who
22:49
Speaker 1: heard about Amy's disappearance in the media and came forward,
22:53
Speaker 1: claiming that at around 5 p.m. on July the 24th,
22:56
Speaker 1: they had been driving through this area and saw a
22:59
Speaker 1: blonde woman in dark shorts matching Amy's description running along
23:03
Speaker 1: Loop Road. And their sighting seemed pretty credible because their
23:07
Speaker 1: description of the clothing matched what she had been wearing
23:09
Speaker 1: in the photography gallery just a couple of hours earlier.
23:13
Speaker 1: And at the time, they didn't think it was unusual,
23:16
Speaker 1: but in retrospect, the Gibsons thought that she was moving
23:18
Speaker 1: so quickly that maybe she was running from something and
23:21
Speaker 1: was in distress. But Amy was already a speedy runner
23:25
Speaker 1: to begin with, and I have to think that if
23:27
Speaker 1: she was running for someone or was in trouble, she
23:29
Speaker 1: might have waved to the Gibsons or done something to
23:31
Speaker 1: try to call for help, which she didn't do. So
23:35
Speaker 1: it's just one of those things where... They just think
23:37
Speaker 1: it's a woman running on the road, and then when
23:38
Speaker 1: they find out she went missing, the Gibsons are just
23:41
Speaker 1: obviously thinking the worst. So I do think this sighting
23:44
Speaker 1: is credible in that she was out there running, but
23:46
Speaker 1: if she ran into trouble, it probably occurred after the
23:49
Speaker 1: Gibsons already left.
23:51
Speaker 2: This case has such shades of Maura Murray because we
23:55
Speaker 2: have the vast wilderness and the question of whether or
23:58
Speaker 2: not Amy is somehow lost in the wilderness and that
24:03
Speaker 2: they just never discovered her body. Or did an opportunistic
24:07
Speaker 2: predator come upon her and somehow made her disappear? Both
24:12
Speaker 2: outcomes could be plausible here, but there seems to be
24:15
Speaker 2: a reason that people are leaning more towards somebody did
24:18
Speaker 2: this to her than Amy just got lost. Because it
24:22
Speaker 2: wasn't as though, like with Maura's case, when people were
24:25
Speaker 2: making the case that she could be in the woods,
24:28
Speaker 2: it was more, she is running away from law enforcement
24:31
Speaker 2: potentially because of the car wreck and because of the
24:35
Speaker 2: recent car wreck that she had with her father's car,
24:37
Speaker 2: and then the drinking and the alcohol that was in
24:40
Speaker 2: the vehicle. So that I understand more, whereas with Amy,
24:44
Speaker 2: there would be really no reason for her to be lost.
24:49
Speaker 1: Exactly. Like, you can definitely understand it with Maura Murray's case,
24:53
Speaker 1: because she was in a really troubled state of mind.
24:55
Speaker 1: She is driving out to a location that she had
24:57
Speaker 1: never been to before, was not familiar with. So you
25:00
Speaker 1: could totally see her running into the woods in a
25:02
Speaker 1: panic and dying of exposure in the cold weather. Whereas
25:06
Speaker 1: this took place in the middle of July, and Amy
25:09
Speaker 1: seemed to have a logical reason to be there and
25:11
Speaker 1: no reason to run off into the woods. So that's
25:14
Speaker 1: why I have never seen the possibility of Amy getting
25:17
Speaker 1: lost and dying of exposure brought forward as a serious
25:20
Speaker 1: theory on this case, and why the majority of people
25:23
Speaker 1: seem to believe that she crossed paths with someone out
25:25
Speaker 1: there who did her harm. So the Gibsons said that
25:29
Speaker 1: they drove down the road in the opposite direction that
25:31
Speaker 1: Amy was running from. They didn't see anyone chasing after her,
25:35
Speaker 1: but they saw what they described as a dirty white
25:37
Speaker 1: vehicle at Burnt Gulch, which was likely Amy's Toyota Tercel.
25:41
Speaker 1: And this is an odd detail. The Gibsons said that
25:43
Speaker 1: they saw something which they described as, quote-unquote, something red
25:47
Speaker 1: through the vehicle's rear window. I don't know if they saw, like,
25:50
Speaker 1: a piece of equipment, or maybe someone was hiding in
25:52
Speaker 1: the vehicle, but it's just so vague that it's kind
25:55
Speaker 1: of frustrating that we don't have more information. They also
25:58
Speaker 1: said that when they drove further down the road, they
26:00
Speaker 1: noticed a shirtless man with a plastic container standing outside
26:04
Speaker 1: a grey truck, which had a half a load of logs,
26:06
Speaker 1: but I'm not sure if this man was ever identified
26:09
Speaker 1: or if the sighting has any relevance to this case.
26:12
Speaker 1: And later that same evening, eyewitnesses reported hearing gunfire at
26:16
Speaker 1: Lewis Lake, which was about eight miles from the location
26:20
Speaker 1: where Amy originally went missing, and they apparently heard someone yelling, quote,
26:24
Speaker 1: come on you sissy, do it, do it. But I
26:27
Speaker 1: don't think they ever found out the source of those words,
26:30
Speaker 1: and it's unclear if this has any relation to Amy's case.
26:33
Speaker 1: It could just be Bunch of random people in the
26:35
Speaker 1: woods firing off a gun and calling each other sissies,
26:38
Speaker 1: but because it was eight miles away from where she
26:40
Speaker 1: went missing, we don't know if it has any relevance
26:43
Speaker 1: to her disappearance.
26:45
Speaker 2: Yeah, each of these things in isolation, it's like, does
26:48
Speaker 2: this have something to do with Amy's disappearance, or is
26:52
Speaker 2: it a red herring? The red, literal red thing in
26:55
Speaker 2: the back of her vehicle. Would somebody need to hide
26:57
Speaker 2: in the back of her vehicle in such a remote location?
27:01
Speaker 2: I don't know. And the shirtless guy with the logs?
27:05
Speaker 2: Does it mean anything? Is it related? I don't know.
27:09
Speaker 2: And then eight miles away, do it, you sissy. I mean,
27:13
Speaker 2: it could be that they were hunting or maybe somebody
27:15
Speaker 2: shot a deer or something like that. It could be
27:18
Speaker 2: some animal and somebody's saying, finish it off. Maybe they
27:21
Speaker 2: shouldn't have been hunting at that time. But there's different
27:24
Speaker 2: explanations that aren't necessarily somebody kidnapped Amy, took her to
27:30
Speaker 2: this location eight miles away. There's multiple people there who
27:33
Speaker 2: then somebody shoots her. Yeah, I don't really know what
27:37
Speaker 2: to make of that. It's too vague and we just
27:40
Speaker 2: have too little information for me to say unequivocally like,
27:43
Speaker 2: oh yes, that has to be tied to the case.
27:45
Speaker 1: Exactly, because at the time people saw and heard these things,
27:48
Speaker 1: like Amy had not been reported missing, and it's only
27:50
Speaker 1: a couple days later when they learn that Amy vanished
27:53
Speaker 1: from that same area that they start thinking, hmm, maybe
27:55
Speaker 1: that thing I saw or that thing I heard might
27:58
Speaker 1: be connected to her case, but because I don't believe
28:00
Speaker 1: that they found out who said those words, who did
28:03
Speaker 1: the gunfire, or the person in the logging truck, I
28:05
Speaker 1: don't think they ever found him or tracked him down,
28:08
Speaker 1: we can't be certain if it's just like a completely
28:10
Speaker 1: unrelated event. So the Fremont County Sheriff's Office brought in
28:14
Speaker 1: the FBI to assist them with the investigation, and on
28:17
Speaker 1: August the 5th, 12 days after Amy went missing, Steve
28:21
Speaker 1: was brought in to be interviewed, and it was here
28:23
Speaker 1: that one of the FBI agents said to him, quote,
28:26
Speaker 1: I have evidence that proves you killed Amy, and we
28:28
Speaker 1: would like you to take a polygraph test right now
28:31
Speaker 1: to prove that you didn't, end quote. Well, this caused
28:34
Speaker 1: some major alarm bells to go off over Steve's head,
28:36
Speaker 1: and he decided to terminate the interview and walk out,
28:39
Speaker 1: and he soon retained the service as a defense attorney
28:42
Speaker 1: named Kent Spence. Steve then informed law enforcement that all
28:46
Speaker 1: further communication with him would be done through his attorney,
28:49
Speaker 1: and that on the advice of counsel, he was not
28:51
Speaker 1: going to take a polygraph. And at one point, Kent
28:54
Speaker 1: Spence told the media, quote, the FBI, in their usual
28:57
Speaker 1: sensitive manner, attacked Steve Bechtel when they became frustrated with
29:01
Speaker 1: their failure to come up with any clues. they pointed
29:03
Speaker 1: their cannons at him and accused him of being involved
29:06
Speaker 1: when they had no evidence whatsoever, end quote. So as
29:09
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about, a lot of people are
29:11
Speaker 1: going to take this as a sign that Steve is guilty,
29:13
Speaker 1: but just look at the context here. He was in
29:15
Speaker 1: an interview, and the FBI just said, we have evidence
29:18
Speaker 1: you did this, take a polygraph to prove that you're innocent,
29:21
Speaker 1: even though obviously they did not have any evidence, they
29:24
Speaker 1: were just pretty much calling his bluff, so... I think
29:27
Speaker 1: even an innocent person, when they hear that, is going
29:29
Speaker 1: to think that, yeah, it looks like they're trying to
29:30
Speaker 1: railroad me, I am not going to take a polygraph,
29:33
Speaker 1: and I am instantly going to get my attorney, because
29:35
Speaker 1: I've seen so many other cases like this where the
29:38
Speaker 1: interviewee did not walk out. of the room and then
29:40
Speaker 1: they wound up being interrogated for so long that they
29:43
Speaker 1: made a false course confession.
29:46
Speaker 2: And I feel like the way that we're looking at
29:48
Speaker 2: this in 2026, and we say this all the time,
29:50
Speaker 2: is completely different because our idea of what a polygraph is,
29:55
Speaker 2: the objective, how successful it is, and if you should
29:59
Speaker 2: take it, if you're innocent or guilty. And I think
30:03
Speaker 2: in 1997, the idea was, if you're innocent, you should
30:07
Speaker 2: take it, right? That why wouldn't you do everything to
30:10
Speaker 2: help police? Because I don't think that people had this
30:12
Speaker 2: idea that there was things like false confessions and that
30:16
Speaker 2: police could push or railroad somebody into saying that they
30:20
Speaker 2: were guilty or insinuating that they were based on a polygraph.
30:26
Speaker 2: And also, polygraphs are a little bit subjective. And how
30:31
Speaker 2: successful the person who is interpreting that polygraph is will
30:36
Speaker 2: tell you a lot. It will say whether or not
30:37
Speaker 2: that person is deceptive or they're not deceptive or if
30:42
Speaker 2: it's inconclusive. So I think there's a range of interpretations
30:46
Speaker 2: and it really matters. It's like a dog handler. It
30:49
Speaker 2: matters how that dog handler interprets the signals of the dog,
30:53
Speaker 2: the relationship that they have, the training. There are so
30:55
Speaker 2: many different variables that go into it. And I just
30:58
Speaker 2: don't think that the public was very sophisticated in 1997.
31:03
Speaker 2: And so the way that his actions would have been
31:06
Speaker 2: interpreted in saying, I don't want to take a polygraph
31:10
Speaker 2: is very different than they would be interpreted today.
31:12
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think if this case happened today, people would
31:14
Speaker 1: be looking at Steve's decision in a much different light.
31:17
Speaker 1: But this would be held against him for many years.
31:20
Speaker 1: Like Amy's family are pretty much going to turn against
31:22
Speaker 1: him because of this decision, and hold the mentality, well,
31:25
Speaker 1: if you're innocent, if you have nothing to hide, why
31:27
Speaker 1: not just take the polygraph? And this attorney, he had
31:30
Speaker 1: Kent Spence. He was the son of a man named
31:33
Speaker 1: Jerry Spence, who was a very prominent and high-profile lawyer
31:36
Speaker 1: in the area, who was in law for something like
31:38
Speaker 1: 50 years and never lost a criminal case, never lost
31:41
Speaker 1: a civil case, and is so prominent that he has
31:44
Speaker 1: his own Wikipedia page. So if the son of an
31:47
Speaker 1: attorney like that is giving you an advice not to
31:49
Speaker 1: take a polygraph, I'd probably listen to him, and it's
31:52
Speaker 1: been reported that Spence even told Steve that if you
31:55
Speaker 1: go against my advice and take this polygraph, I'm going
31:58
Speaker 1: to drop you as a client. So this situation just
32:01
Speaker 1: makes me hope that no one ever asks me to
32:03
Speaker 1: take a polygraph, because Steve is technically making the right decision,
32:06
Speaker 1: listening to a very wise attorney, Not to do it,
32:09
Speaker 1: but of course the general public is saying, well, why
32:11
Speaker 1: don't you take it if you're innocent? You must be guilty.
32:13
Speaker 1: You must have something to hide.
32:16
Speaker 2: The only time that I've heard a lot of experts
32:19
Speaker 2: or legal experts say that it is a good idea
32:22
Speaker 2: to take a polygraph is if you have a missing
32:24
Speaker 2: child and police are focusing on you as a suspect
32:28
Speaker 2: as a way to eliminate you and to change the
32:31
Speaker 2: focus elsewhere so that you can actually find your child.
32:35
Speaker 2: It's like a calculated risk. You take that risk that
32:38
Speaker 2: you may, in your emotional state, come off as deceptive
32:42
Speaker 2: or could be interpreted as such, but you care more
32:45
Speaker 2: about finding your missing child than you do about whatever
32:49
Speaker 2: consequences could come from that.
32:51
Speaker 1: Yes, I have seen other cases like this where the
32:54
Speaker 1: missing children's parents have taken a polygraph instantly and were
32:57
Speaker 1: ruled out. But in this particular case here, Amy had
33:00
Speaker 1: been missing 12 days, there was no evidence, no leads,
33:03
Speaker 1: so it sounded like the FBI was fishing, saying, I'm
33:06
Speaker 1: going to directly accuse him of being responsible, I'm going
33:08
Speaker 1: to say we have evidence, even if we do not,
33:10
Speaker 1: and just see his reaction. And we have seen in
33:13
Speaker 1: other cases where sometimes the husbands, like Chris Watts, will
33:16
Speaker 1: just break down when they're confronted, and they take a
33:19
Speaker 1: polygraph immediately, and fail, and that does work, but in
33:22
Speaker 1: Steve's case, he's maintaining I had nothing to do with this,
33:25
Speaker 1: and now they're developing tunnel vision because they just have
33:28
Speaker 1: no other leads to work with. So the lead investigator
33:31
Speaker 1: for the Fremont County Sheriff's Office was a sheriff's deputy
33:35
Speaker 1: named Dave King, who was actually away on vacation at
33:38
Speaker 1: the time Amy went missing, but once he came back,
33:41
Speaker 1: he took over the investigation. And I do know that
33:45
Speaker 1: King became very suspicious of Steve when another eyewitness came forward.
33:49
Speaker 1: They said that they were camping sometime near Loop Road
33:52
Speaker 1: around the time period Amy went missing, between 4.30 and
33:56
Speaker 1: 5 p.m. on July the 24th. And he said that
33:59
Speaker 1: an unidentified man was at the wheel of a blue
34:02
Speaker 1: pickup truck and there was a blonde woman in the
34:04
Speaker 1: passenger seat. And since Steve drove a blue pickup truck,
34:07
Speaker 1: which just happened to match this truck's description, people started
34:11
Speaker 1: wondering if it might have been him. I know that
34:13
Speaker 1: the witness did not get a good enough look at
34:15
Speaker 1: the driver to conclusively verify if it was Steve, but
34:19
Speaker 1: the big issue is that Steve returned home at 4.30
34:23
Speaker 1: and phone records showed that Steve had called a friend
34:25
Speaker 1: of his from his residence at 4.43 p.m. and left
34:29
Speaker 1: a message on the answering machine. And this was phone records,
34:32
Speaker 1: like this was conclusively verified. So obviously, if Steve is
34:36
Speaker 1: at home making this call, that he couldn't be driving
34:39
Speaker 1: Amy in this pickup truck on Loop Road between 4.30
34:42
Speaker 1: and 5 o'clock.
34:44
Speaker 2: Yeah, he can't be in two places at once, right?
34:47
Speaker 2: Like these aren't two separate timelines. I feel like there
34:50
Speaker 2: is a lot to side-eye Steve about if you don't
34:54
Speaker 2: really look any deeper. If you just look at things
34:57
Speaker 2: on the surface, then I feel like Steve is a
34:59
Speaker 2: really great suspect. But the more information that you're telling me,
35:04
Speaker 2: and a lot of this information, I feel like it's
35:07
Speaker 2: been a long time since I watched the Disappeared episode.
35:10
Speaker 2: But when I watched that, I was more skeptical of Steve.
35:15
Speaker 2: But the information that you're sharing with me may be
35:17
Speaker 2: because I have a different perspective. When I initially saw that,
35:21
Speaker 2: I didn't have a true crime podcast. It was many
35:23
Speaker 2: years before that. And so the way that I consumed
35:25
Speaker 2: true crime and the perspective by which I consumed it
35:29
Speaker 2: was very different than it is today. So the details
35:32
Speaker 2: that you're sharing with me feel like they're fresh in
35:35
Speaker 2: that they weren't all included. And I'm thinking of Steve
35:39
Speaker 2: in a different light than I was at my first watch.
35:42
Speaker 1: I do know that, like, true crime shows kind of
35:44
Speaker 1: like to cast the husband in a suspicious light. Even
35:47
Speaker 1: if they didn't really do it, they want to add
35:49
Speaker 1: some mystery to the episode. So, of course, they're bringing
35:51
Speaker 1: up all these points that look suspicious towards Steve, such
35:55
Speaker 1: as his 911 call and the fact that he didn't
35:57
Speaker 1: take a polygraph. But then you look at, like, the timeline,
36:00
Speaker 1: and you look at phone records and alibi witnesses, and
36:03
Speaker 1: you're thinking, yeah, I don't know if we can pull
36:04
Speaker 1: this off. It just seems the timeline... is way too tight.
36:08
Speaker 1: And I honestly don't know what to make of the
36:10
Speaker 1: sighting of Amy in the blue pickup truck, because I'm thinking, okay,
36:13
Speaker 1: maybe she was in a truck, but it was a
36:15
Speaker 1: completely different person, but it contradicts the sighting from Jim
36:19
Speaker 1: and Wendy Gibson, who said that they saw a blonde
36:21
Speaker 1: woman matching Amy's description running along Loop Road at that
36:25
Speaker 1: same time, between 4.30 and 5 p.m., and these two
36:29
Speaker 1: different locations were miles away. And I think the Gibson
36:32
Speaker 1: sighting is more credible because they accurately described what Amy
36:36
Speaker 1: was wearing, so maybe this other witness saw a completely
36:40
Speaker 1: different man and woman in her blue pickup truck, or
36:43
Speaker 1: maybe they legitimately did see Amy and Steve driving through
36:46
Speaker 1: the area, but it was on a prior occasion before
36:48
Speaker 1: she went missing.
36:50
Speaker 2: I think both options are equally plausible. I don't believe
36:53
Speaker 2: that it was Amy and Steve that day. Could have
36:56
Speaker 2: been at an earlier date, like you said. It could
36:58
Speaker 2: have been a completely different couple. I definitely am more
37:02
Speaker 2: inclined to believe that the other sighting is accurate given
37:05
Speaker 2: how they described what Amy was wearing and we know
37:07
Speaker 2: that she was wearing that outfit. We know how problematic
37:11
Speaker 2: eyewitness sightings are and so for relying on them for
37:14
Speaker 2: very specific details in the aftermath, we have to be
37:18
Speaker 2: very cautious about the way that we choose to interpret them.
37:21
Speaker 2: But this one feels like the blue pickup truck, it
37:24
Speaker 2: feels like a bit of a red herring to me.
37:26
Speaker 1: That's what I'm thinking as well. Like the Gibsons came
37:29
Speaker 1: forward almost immediately, whereas the witness who saw the pickup
37:32
Speaker 1: truck came forward like several days after the fact. So
37:34
Speaker 1: their memory may have been skewed. But unfortunately, I think
37:38
Speaker 1: this pretty much the sighting of the blue pickup truck
37:40
Speaker 1: gave some tunnel vision to the lead investigator, Sheriff's Deputy
37:44
Speaker 1: Dave King, because right after that, he started pushing all
37:47
Speaker 1: of his focus on Steve. He actually got a warrant
37:50
Speaker 1: to perform a search of Steve's residence and the pickup truck,
37:53
Speaker 1: and after impounding the truck, King told the press, quote,
37:56
Speaker 1: There was some questionable substance found in the truck, biological things,
38:00
Speaker 1: but we don't know the conclusion on that. I don't
38:03
Speaker 1: think the jury is back yet, end quote. And after that,
38:05
Speaker 1: we never heard anything else about the so-called biological things
38:09
Speaker 1: that were found in the truck, so obviously this turned
38:11
Speaker 1: out to be a red herring, but of course in
38:14
Speaker 1: the public's eyes, it only made Steve look more suspicious,
38:17
Speaker 1: but obviously, like, if they find Amy's DNA or her
38:20
Speaker 1: hair or fingerprints in the truck, it's not going to
38:22
Speaker 1: mean anything, because it's her husband's truck, and she's been
38:25
Speaker 1: in there on a previous occasion, so unless they found blood,
38:28
Speaker 1: which they probably didn't, then King's statements are pretty meaningless.
38:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, it sounds like unless you're going to explicitly say
38:37
Speaker 2: that there was blood, that wasn't menstrual blood or something, right?
38:41
Speaker 2: Because it's possible that, you know, somebody could have been
38:44
Speaker 2: disposing of, you know, sanitary products or something and a
38:47
Speaker 2: little bit of menstrual blood could get on in the vehicle.
38:51
Speaker 2: That is a possibility.
38:52
Speaker 1: But.
38:53
Speaker 2: Did Amy blow her nose? Was there a Kleenex? Was
38:56
Speaker 2: there hair? Like if there wasn't any of Amy's hair
38:59
Speaker 2: in that vehicle, it would be very strange. If you
39:01
Speaker 2: found no biological evidence in there, then that would be
39:05
Speaker 2: pretty bizarre because she obviously spent a lot of time
39:08
Speaker 2: in there and that would indicate that there was potentially
39:11
Speaker 2: a cleanup if you found no biologicals. So I feel
39:15
Speaker 2: like he's trying to be mildly manipulative with his verbiage there.
39:21
Speaker 2: in saying that we found biologicals and hoping that he's
39:24
Speaker 2: insinuating that it's blood. But if it was indeed blood,
39:28
Speaker 2: I feel like we would have heard about it.
39:30
Speaker 1: Yeah, I haven't heard anything since then, so I'm feeling
39:33
Speaker 1: about whatever evidence they found in there turned out to
39:35
Speaker 1: be pretty useless. So investigators, when they performed a search
39:39
Speaker 1: of the Bechtel residence, uncovered a series of journals that
39:42
Speaker 1: Steve had written. And while very few details about them
39:45
Speaker 1: have been released to the public, They supposedly contain numerous
39:49
Speaker 1: poems and writings with descriptions of violence towards Amy and
39:52
Speaker 1: other women, as well as Steve expressing a desire for
39:55
Speaker 1: power and control. And for his part, Steve claimed that
39:58
Speaker 1: many of these passages were written back when he was
40:01
Speaker 1: in high school, and some of them were nothing more
40:03
Speaker 1: than song lyrics he had written for his band back then,
40:06
Speaker 1: and I think this can happen to anyone where you're
40:09
Speaker 1: a teenager and you're writing a whole bunch of dark,
40:11
Speaker 1: edgy stuff when you're younger and immature, and that if
40:14
Speaker 1: someone uncovered them years after the fact, you're just going
40:17
Speaker 1: to cringe and just say, well, I was a much
40:19
Speaker 1: different person back then. I obviously wouldn't write anything like
40:22
Speaker 1: this today. And we don't have any details about what
40:25
Speaker 1: exactly Steve wrote, but it could be one of those
40:27
Speaker 1: things where, in retrospect, they're benign, but because his wife
40:30
Speaker 1: went missing, people are now looking at it in a
40:33
Speaker 1: much darker light.
40:35
Speaker 2: You see this all the time with social media today.
40:37
Speaker 2: When somebody's famous, somebody will do a deep dive, and
40:41
Speaker 2: they will go through, say, their Twitter history. from like
40:44
Speaker 2: 2010 or 2011. And they may have spoken in a
40:49
Speaker 2: way that they wouldn't today because potentially they were very young.
40:53
Speaker 2: And then it's like this witch hunt sometimes where it's like, oh,
40:57
Speaker 2: this person is a horrible person. And I love when
41:00
Speaker 2: somebody will take accountability and they'll say, yeah, you know what?
41:03
Speaker 2: I said those things. I've been educated since then. And
41:06
Speaker 2: I realized that that was not the appropriate thing to do.
41:10
Speaker 2: And I feel like Steve's is like the 1997 equivalent
41:14
Speaker 2: of that, right? You're getting caught with, like you said,
41:16
Speaker 2: these edgy things that you wrote. When you were like
41:20
Speaker 2: a teenager, your frontal lobe wasn't even fully formed at
41:23
Speaker 2: that point in time. So is it disturbing that he
41:27
Speaker 2: has these potentially violent fantasies about women? Yes. But was
41:32
Speaker 2: he listening to like really dark music at the time?
41:35
Speaker 2: Was he choosing to express himself in a way that
41:38
Speaker 2: was odd? Maybe. And I would like to know what
41:42
Speaker 2: he specifically said about Amy. That is more pertinent to
41:45
Speaker 2: me than these other ones that date back to high school.
41:49
Speaker 2: Because how long were Amy and Steve together for?
41:52
Speaker 1: They wouldn't have known each other in high school. They
41:53
Speaker 1: did not actually meet until they were in university together.
41:56
Speaker 1: So if he is writing a lot of dark, disturbing
41:58
Speaker 1: stuff about her while he's in his 20s, while they're
42:00
Speaker 1: grown adults, then yes, that is more troubling. But unfortunately,
42:03
Speaker 1: we don't know what specifically he wrote.
42:06
Speaker 2: Yeah, that... The distinction matters to me, whether he was
42:10
Speaker 2: a teenager, whether he was in his 20s, how long
42:13
Speaker 2: ago it was written. It's easy to lump all of
42:15
Speaker 2: it together and say it was high school, but like
42:17
Speaker 2: you said, he didn't know Amy at that point in time.
42:21
Speaker 2: And can Steve be potentially a bit of a creep
42:24
Speaker 2: in the way that he expresses himself or having these
42:26
Speaker 2: violent fantasies, but also not be the killer of his wife?
42:30
Speaker 1: Yes. That is true, like we have seen other cases
42:33
Speaker 1: where the husband is legitimately a jerk and has done
42:35
Speaker 1: some unsavory things, but as completely innocent of their spouse's
42:39
Speaker 1: murder or disappearance. So that about brings an end to
42:43
Speaker 1: part one of our coverage about the disappearance of Amy
42:45
Speaker 1: Rowe Bechtel. Join us again next week as we continue
42:47
Speaker 1: to talk about the case.