Amy Wroe Bechtel: Analysis In The Absence Of Evidence

BLUF | The TRACE Technique was developed through human-AI collaboration to examine the disappearance of Amy Wroe Bechtel. It is applicable to any criminal case with minimal physical evidence. TRACE shifts the focus of the analysis away from what, why, or how something happened, to which hypothesis best reconciles with known facts or evidence patterns, and then factors in probability, opportunity, and logistics.

Analyst’s note: The TRACE Technique was developed through human-AI collaboration with the primary partnership between this analyst and AI tool Claude, with additional input by AI tools ChatGPT and Gemini. It was developed in the course of an analysis of the disappearance of Amy Wroe Bechtel, Lander, Wyoming, July 1997.

---

Introduction

There may be occasions when you are assigned an analysis, but as you begin your work you find you don’t have a starting point. It isn’t that there is too little evidence to offer you a direction; it is that there is no evidence.

Such was the dilemma with the Amy Wroe Bechtel disappearance. Amy was on a training run along Loop Road in the mountains outside of Lander, Wyoming, when she simply vanished. Under those circumstances, where do you even begin? It was a question I posed to AI tool Claude, which laid out the initial framework for The TRACE Technique (Threat assessment, Reconciliation with facts, Analysis of competing explanations, Conditional probability Evaluation), a structured way to assess possible hypotheses when you have so little to start with you don’t even know how to take that first step.

Amy Wroe Bechtel

Amy Wroe Bechtel disappeared on the afternoon of Thursday, 24 July 1997, while on a training run in the Wind River mountains outside of her home in Lander, Wyoming. She initially headed to Loop Road (also referred to as Louis Lake Road) around 2:30 PM, the last semi-firm point in her timeline, to map out the route for an upcoming 10K run the fitness center at which she worked was planning. Amy was a committed distance runner with hopes of qualifying for the 2000 Olympic games, although more recently, she had been dealing with shin splints that caused her to cut back slightly on her fitness regimen.

Amy had been married for a little more than a year to her husband, Steve Bechtel, a rock climbing enthusiast. The two had just purchased their first home and planned to move in the following week. Amy had recently paid off her student loans, and a few days before she disappeared, she had received her training certification.

On 24 July 1997, Steve met a fellow climber to scout out climbing routes in the Cartridge Creek, Dubois, Wyoming, area, around 75 miles from Lander. He returned home at 4:30 PM. Amy was not there, which didn’t surprise him, but Steve became anxious as darkness approached without word. At 10:30 PM, he notified authorities. Friends joined in a search, and at 1:00 AM on 25 July 1997, they located Amy’s car parked on an offshoot of Loop Road. Inside the unlocked car were her car keys, sunglasses, and to-do list. Her wallet, which she reportedly did not carry when running, was not in the car.

Initially, investigators focused on the possibily she was attacked by an animal or else incapacitated by injury. Over the next few days, mountain search and rescue (SAR) teams, canines, horses, ATVs, dirt bikes, helicopters (one with an infrared sensor), and 100 volunteers conducted an exhaustive search of the area. They began with a meticulous five-mile scan outward from her vehicle, which, within days, was broadened to 30 miles,¹ but found nothing.

As the days passed, the investigation turned away from an injury or animal attack and toward the possibility of foul play, a consideration that focused on Amy’s husband, Steve. Initially, Steve cooperated with numerous interviews but later refused a polygraph based on advice from counsel. Police executed a search warrant on the home he shared with Amy and ran luminol tests with negative results.

Law enforcement next considered whether Amy was the victim of a stranger abduction. One person of interest was Dale Wayne Eaton, whose brother turned him in as Eaton sometimes camped in the Burnt Gulch area, near where Amy’s car was found. Eaton had been involved in two local crimes: one, the kidnapping of a young woman from a highway rest area in Waltman, Wyoming, in 1988. The victim’s vehicle was found buried on Eaton’s Moneta, Wyoming, property, and her body was dumped from a bridge near Casper, Wyoming. Eaton was also involved in the kidnapping of a family near Rock Springs, Wyoming, in 1998. His method of operation and the proximity of his crimes to Lander made him a viable suspect. However, he refused to cooperate with authorities, and, lacking any evidence or leads, Eaton could not be tied to Amy’s disappearance.

Loop Road

Loop Road, where Amy disappeared, runs 21 miles from Sinks Canyon State Park to WY-28. From the direction of Lander, and past Sinks Canyon, the road begins a serpentine climb up into the mountains gaining thousands of feet in elevation to its apex.

Amy planned to drive the race route on the day she disappeared, so she could make notes. The event was to begin in the general area of the Popo Agie Falls Trailhead pictured on the map, below, and then was to proceed 6.2 miles up the serpentine with the finish line at Frye Lake.

After she mapped the route, it was reported Amy planned to incorporate a training run, although her direction, mileage, and start/end times were all unknown. Based on her notes, it appears Amy finished mapping the route and then parked in anticipation of her run. There were conflicting descriptions as to where her car was found, but it was somewhere between Frye Lake and possibly two to three miles beyond in the direction of the mountains. A witness who was sightseeing in the area with family claimed to have seen Amy running near Frye Lake at 5:05 PM, and then noticed her car still parked in the area during their return trip at 7:00 PM.²

Today, the road is paved to around Frye Lake, but in 1997, it was described as a gravel road with a few rutted offshoots. The posted speed limit is 20 MPH. Google Maps did not offer first-hand views past Frye Lake, but a blogger published an article in 2023 about driving Loop Road and noted it was rough with narrow spots and would be best traveled using a four-wheel drive vehicle.³ The witness who claimed to have seen Amy stated, “There were so many cars up there that day, somebody else must have seen her running.”⁴

There have been no verified sightings of Amy since 24 July 1997.

The TRACE Technique

PHASE 1: Hypothesis Generation

Consider a wide range of possible explanations based on the circumstances of the case. Here, Amy Bechtel was distance running alone along a somewhat sparsely traveled, mountainous, gravel road in the Wind River range outside of Lander, Wyoming. It was summertime, a weekday, and late in the afternoon. She was in excellent shape, although had recently been dealing with shin splints, a condition not uncommon among runners that can cause irritating to debilitating pain down the front of the legs below the knees. It was 1997; cell phones were not common among the general public. She was consistently described among family and associates as “trusting.”⁵

Hypotheses:

H1: Wild animal predation (e.g., mountain lion, bear, wolf)

H2: Accidental injury/physical trauma (e.g., a fall into a crevice or water)

H3: Acute medical event (e.g., aneurysm, cardiac event, or sudden incapacitation)

H4: Voluntary disappearance (The “staged” exit)

H5: Human intervention — unknown (The “predatory” theory, kidnapping/homicide by an unknown party [or parties])

H6: Vehicular accident (The “panic” theory, hit-and-run with body removal by an unknown driver [with or without help from another person])

H7: Human intervention — known (The “targeted” theory, known person, premeditated)

PHASE 2: Reconciliation with facts

A) Base Rate Research: How often does each scenario actually occur in similar circumstances? Consider statistical frequency, comparable cases, regional/environmental factors.

B) Case-Specific Facts: What do we know with certainty about this incident? Consider timeline precision, location characteristics, victim profile and behavior patterns, relationship context, physical evidence (if any).

C) Evidence Expectations: For each hypothesis, what physical evidence should exist if this scenario occurred?

(Analyst’s note: Ideally, when pulling statistics, you would draw from the year the crime occurred, close thereto, or the widest date range possible for extrapolation purposes. The information cited below is for illustrative purposes only.)

H1: Wild animal predation (e.g., mountain lion, bear, wolf)

Amy’s specific running route on the day she disappeared was never determined, although, based on one eyewitness, it appeared she traveled at least part of the distance on Loop Road. There were rugged side roads that she could have veered onto that would have placed her on more remote trails. Generally, it is in the course of trail running that runners encounter wild animals. The number of fatal human-animal encounters is very low.

Wyoming is home to grizzly bears, mountain lions (cougars), and wolves. Amy was running, an activity that can draw the attention of a wild animal. It was late in the afternoon in an isolated wilderness location that sees relatively little human presence.

• “From 1967 to present, grizzlies have killed 23 people in Montana and Wyoming, or 0.44 people annually over the past 51 years…Fatal grizzly bear attacks recently have mostly resulted from surprise encounters with hikers or hunters.”⁶
• The mountain lion foundation reports, “29 cases (not all confirmed) of fatal mountain lion attacks on humans in North America since 1868, for an average of about 0.18 attacks per year.”⁷ (Analyst’s note: A solo female hiker was killed on the Crosier Mountain trail in Larimer County, Colorado, on New Year’s day, 2026. It was the first reported death by a mountain lion in Colorado since 1999.)
• Reportedly, there have been two fatal attacks on humans by wolves in the United States in the past 20 years.⁸

Expected evidence at the site of animal predation is human remains and clothing; and evidence of ambush, kill, and cache sites.

H2: Accidental injury/physical trauma (e.g., a fall into a crevice or water)

As previously stated, Amy’s course on the day she disappeared has never been determined. Yet whether she was trail running or gravel running, both surfaces are considered uneven and can cause foot slippage, leading to broken or sprained bones.⁹ A recent article in The Cowboy State Daily called Loop Road rough and pothole-filled with portions that narrowed considerably.¹⁰ It was reported Amy had been having problems with shin splints, which caused her to cut back on her running routine.

Acute traumatic emergencies (e.g., falls, ankle sprains) are possible, although 80 percent of running injuries result from overuse.¹¹ The one-year injury rate for marathon runners is 52 percent.¹² Typically, these develop gradually, rather than acutely.

If Amy had an accident/injury/or suffered from exposure, the evidence at the scene would likely be Amy herself on the road or an adjacent trail.

H3: Acute medical event (e.g., aneurysm, cardiac event, or sudden incapacitation)

Public sources did not reveal any preexisting medical conditions Amy might have had.

Overall, the absolute risk of a serious medical emergency during a run is very low, and likely lower due to her age/gender, and, assumed, lack of preexisting conditions. (Analyst’s note: Recent U.S. data (2010–2023) on marathon participants, indicated there were about .6 cardiac arrest incidents per 100,000 runners, with men at higher risk than women, and older runners at higher risk than younger participants.¹³ )

If Amy suffered from an acute medical event, the evidence at the scene would likely be Amy herself in the spot the emergency occurred.

H4: Voluntary disappearance (The “staged” exit)

In terms of her leaving her life voluntarily, Amy was on the road the day she disappeared because she was planning a 10K race the fitness center where she worked was organizing, so she was actively involved in a near future event. She had just paid off her student loans. She and her husband had closed on their first home and were planning to move in the following week. She had recently become certified as a trainer. She was married the year before.

According to the FBI, of 1,740 persons reported missing each day (both children and adults), approximately 70 percent are found or voluntarily return within 48 to 72 hours.¹⁴

In terms of evidence, there should have been ample indications that she sought to disappear, primarily, the movement of money, evidence of relationship troubles, and/or prior behavior patterns. In the 30 years since her disappearance, there have been no confirmed sightings of Amy or evidence she is alive and living elsewhere.

H5: Human intervention — unknown (The “predatory” theory, kidnapping/homicide by an unknown party [or parties])

Remote recreational areas, such as where Amy disappeared, potentially offer a perpetrator isolation, limited witness availability, the opportunity for transient populations to mix with locals without being noticed, and environmental features that facilitate concealment.

According to the FBI Crime Data Explorer, there were 79 homicides in Wyoming between December 2020 and December 2025; seven involved a stranger.¹⁵ Extrapolating, in 1997 — the year Amy disappeared — there were 17 homicides in Wyoming, so potentially, one to two homicides in 1997 may have involved a victim who was unknown to the perpetrator. (Analyst’s note: Homicide patterns can and do shift over a 25-year period.) According to the Murder Accountability Project, Wyoming had 163 unsolved homicides between 1965 and 2023.¹⁶ More specifically, Fremont County, Wyoming, where Amy disappeared, had 32 unsolved homicides during that same period.

Examining stranger-involved homicides outside of Wyoming that occurred on trails, in national parks, other rural or remote settings, and generally while hiking/jogging/running found 14 victims between 1996 and 2024. (Analyst’s note: This is anecdotal evidence due to the specificity of the data sought. No data source was identified that tracked homicide victims involved in outdoor recreational activities whose assailant was unknown to them. Backpacker.com cited 48 homicides in national parks alone between 2007 and 2023, although did not break down the statistics.¹⁷)

This hypothesis would conceivably result in zero evidence left at the scene, assuming Amy was removed and taken to a secondary location.

H6: Vehicular accident (The “panic” theory, hit-and-run with body removal by an unknown driver [with or without aid])

The road on which Amy ran was gravel, and currently has posted speed limits of 20 MPH. A recent article in The Cowboy State Daily called it a “kidney-rattling washboard with whiplash-inducing potholes,” whose conditions turn its approximate 25-mile length into a two-hour drive.¹⁸ On the day Amy disappeared, there was a thunderstorm earlier in the afternoon, but it appeared to clear around 2:00 PM. It was summer, so the sun would have still been relatively high from late afternoon and into early evening when Amy may have been on the road, not impeding a driver’s ability to see. Alcohol or reckless speeds would increase the possibility of this scenario.

According to Grok, there were a total of 186 vehicle fatalities on Wyoming roads in 1997, but these data did not break out pedestrian-involved incidents. Recently, Wyoming has sought to strengthen its hit and run laws for fleeing the scene in accidents involving death or great bodily injury. As of this writing, fleeing the scene of an accident involving death is a misdemeanor. If the incident involved “aggressive” driving or driving under the influence, the driver would face felony charges.

This scenario hypothesizes the driver panicked and removed the injured or deceased victim from the scene. Expected evidence may be skid marks, crushed vegetation, car debris, and possible blood from the victim. The vehicle itself likely sustained damage.

H7: Human intervention — known (The “targeted” theory, known person, premeditated)

Amy’s husband, Steve, was a primary suspect early in the investigation. He cooperated with numerous interviews, but later refused a polygraph upon advice of counsel.

Intimate partner homicide statistics that covered the period 2014-2023 were available for the state of Wyoming. During this time, 33 women died at the hands of an intimate partner with 11 of those between the ages of 18-34 (Amy was 24).¹⁹ During this same period, an average of three women a year (of all ages) were killed in intimate partner homicides in Wyoming.

Law enforcement executed a search warrant on Amy and Steve’s home and ran luminol tests with negative results. Steve was able to account for large parts of his whereabouts on the day of Amy’s disappearance with corroborating witnesses and electronic confirmations.

PHASE 3: Analysis of Competing Explanations

1) Evidence Signature Match (ESM): Does the evidence pattern at the scene match what this hypothesis should produce? Scale: Yes, No

H1: Wild animal predation (e.g., mountain lion, bear, wolf) — No

H2: Accidental injury/physical trauma (e.g., physical injury, fall [crevice or water]) — No

H3: Acute medical event (e.g., aneurysm, cardiac event, or sudden incapacitation) — No

H4: Voluntary disappearance (The “staged” exit) — No

H5: Human intervention — unknown (The “predatory” theory, kidnapping/homicide by an unknown party [or parties]) — Yes

H6: Vehicular accident (The “panic” theory, hit-and-run with body removal by an unknown driver [with or without aid]) — No

H7: Human intervention — known (The “targeted” theory, known person, premeditated) — No

2) Opportunity/Feasibility (O/F): Was this scenario physically possible given time, location, and circumstances? Consider timeline constraints; location; access; victim behavior patterns. Scale: 1-10 (10 = highly feasible)

H1: Wild animal predation (e.g., mountain lion, bear, wolf) — O/F 5

H2: Accidental injury/physical trauma (e.g., physical injury, fall [crevice or water]) — O/F 7

H3: Acute medical event (e.g., aneurysm, cardiac event, or sudden incapacitation) — O/F 5

H4: Voluntary disappearance (The “staged” exit) — O/F 2

H5: Human intervention — unknown (The “predatory” theory, kidnapping/homicide by an unknown party [or parties]) — O/F 8

H6: Vehicular accident (The “panic” theory, hit-and-run with body removal by an unknown driver [with or without aid]) — O/F 5

H7: Human intervention — known (The “targeted” theory, known person, premeditated) — O/F 1

3) Logistical Complexity (LC): Could the event have happened naturally in place, and in the absence of evidence (low complexity = more likely), or did the event require cleaning or staging, which increases the likelihood of evidence left behind (high complexity = less likely)

H1: Wild animal predation (e.g., mountain lion, bear, wolf) — Low

H2: Accidental injury/physical trauma (e.g., physical injury, fall [crevice or water]) — Low

H3: Acute medical event (e.g., aneurysm, cardiac event, or sudden incapacitation) — Low

H4: Voluntary disappearance (The “staged” exit) — High

H5: Human intervention — unknown (The “predatory” theory, kidnapping/homicide by an unknown party [or parties]) — Low

H6: Vehicular accident (The “panic” theory, hit-and-run with body removal by an unknown driver [with or without aid]) — High

H7: Human intervention — known (The “targeted” theory, known person, premeditated) — High

4) Elimination Factors (EF): Are there specific facts that rule out or severely undermine this hypothesis?

H1: Wild animal predation (e.g., mountain lion, bear, wolf) — A kill by a wild animal virtually always leaves signs.

H2: Accidental injury/physical trauma (e.g., physical injury, fall [crevice or water]) — Amy should have been located at or near the site of an injury, but was not.

H3: Acute medical event (e.g., aneurysm, cardiac event, or sudden incapacitation) — Amy should have been located on the spot the medical event occurred, but was not.

H4: Voluntary disappearance (The “staged” exit) — Amy was involved in a considerable amount of forward planning, along with a numerous recently completed life goals (student loans paid off, trainer certification, new house).

H5: Human intervention — unknown (The “predatory” theory, kidnapping/homicide by an unknown party [or parties]) — The timing of a predator being in the area, encountering Amy, being prepared to act, and feeling compelled to act, all within a relatively short window seems improbable.

H6: Vehicular accident (The “panic” theory, hit-and-run with body removal by an unknown driver [with or without aid]) — The driving conditions on Loop Road appeared to prevent even four-wheel drive vehicles from reaching speeds that would have led to an accident.

H7: Human intervention — known (The “targeted” theory, known person, premeditated) — Amy’s husband (as the likely “known” person) could account for his whereabouts on the day/evening of her disappearance; no reported problems in their relatively new marriage; new house he couldn’t afford without Amy’s income.

PHASE 4: Conditional Probability Evaluation

	Evidence signature match (Yes = 1; No = -1	Opportunity, feasibility (1-10)	Logistical complexity (Low = 1; High = -1	Elimination factors (strongly undermine = -2; undermine = -1)	STRENGTH SCORE
H1-Wild animal predation (bear, mountain lion, wolf)	No (-1)	5 (5)	Low (1)	predation signs missing (strongly undermine) (-2)	3
H2-Accidental injury/physical trauma (e.g., physical injury, fall [crevice or water])	No (-1)	7 (7)	Low (1)	body missing (strongly undermine) (-2)	5
H3-Acute medical event (e.g., aneurysm, cardiac event, or sudden incapacitation)	No (-1)	5 (5)	Low (1)	body missing (strongly undermine) (-2)	3
H4-Voluntary disappearance (The “staged” exit)	No (-1)	2 (2)	High (-1)	forward plans (strongly undermine) (-2)	-2
H5-Human intervention (The “predatory” theory, kidnapping/homicide by an unknown party [or parties])	Yes (1)	8 (8)	Low (1)	extraordinary timing (undermine) (-1)	9
H6-Vehicular accident (The “panic” theory, hit-and-run by with body removal by an unknown driver [with or without aid])	No (-1)	5 (5)	High (-1)	skid marks, disturbed vegetation (undermine) (-1)	2
H7-Human intervention (The “targeted theory, known person, premeditated)	No (-1)	1 (1)	High (-1)	alibi (undermine) (-1)	-2

PHASE 5: Outcome

H5 | Human intervention (The “predatory” theory, kidnapping/homicide by an unknown party [or parties]) was the hypothesis that best withstood four rounds of testing: (1) evidence expected versus evidence seen, (2) opportunity and feasibility, (3) logistical complexity, and (4) elimination factors. It best fit the absence of evidence as it assumed a perpetrator snatched Amy from the location and transported her to a secondary crime scene. The environment offered a perpetrator opportunities for isolation and concealment, limited witnesses, and the ability for outsiders and transient populations to blend into the local community without undue attention. There was minimal logistical complexity, since it was assumed the victim was taken in an impulsive assault. The key limiting factor was timing: this hypothesis assumed a predator and a victim crossed paths in what would appear to be an extraordinarily rare coincidence.

H2 | Accidental injury/physical trauma (e.g., physical injury, fall [crevice or water]) was a somewhat distant follow-up. The terrain on which Amy was running was unstable, whether the gravel of Loop Road or a rutted offshoot, so the conditions were in place for a running injury. There was less of a chance that Amy’s injury coincided with concealment (e.g., falling from a higher elevation into a crevice) as she was running, not rock climbing or hiking, which presupposes she was following some sort of established path that minimized obstacles. A strong eliminating factor was the lack of a body after an intensive search with SAR teams, a heat-seeking helicopter, ATVs, and dozens of volunteers. A possibility that would support the lack of evidence in this scenario is that Amy was injured on the road and accepted an offer for help, at which point she was transported from the scene. (Analyst note: At this point, H2 would intersect with H5.)

H1 (animal predation) and H3 (acute medical event) were very unlikely based in part on rarity, as laid out previously. But a larger contradiction was there was no sign of Amy. With H3, as with H2, there was an opportunity for Amy, in a disabled state, to have encountered a passerby who transported her from the scene, but not into the care of medical professionals. Again, this would have left no evidence at the scene, but the possibility that a young, healthy runner became disabled by an acute medical event was extremely rare. Equally rare was the possibility a predator took Amy without leaving evidence at the ambush, kill, or cache sites.

H6 | The roadway was lightly traveled and the conditions compelled drivers to take slower speeds, so a runner should have been easy to see in advance. Nevertheless, H6-Vehicular accident (The “panic” theory, hit-and-run by with body removal by an unknown driver [with or without aid]) imagines a driver hitting Amy, possibly panicking, and then seeking to remove her from the scene. This was very unlikely based on the probability some sort of evidence would be left behind. There may be skid marks, disturbed gravel, crushed vegetation, and/or plastic shards. The perpetrator could have been an impaired driver. However, an impaired driver would also be even more likely to inadvertently leave evidence at the scene.

H4 (voluntary disappearance) and H7 (known perpetrator) both involved family dynamics. Either Amy sought to leave her current life and start anew, or else a person known to her, most likely her husband, was involved in her disappearance. Law enforcement scrutinized Amy’s husband, Steve. He was the primary suspect early in the investigation, yet no evidence was ever found to lead to his arrest. He had an alibi until late in the afternoon, which made his involvement logistically challenging when factoring in the time it would take to reach the Frye Lake area, find Amy herself, dispose of her body, and return to town. And there was still the matter that law enforcement combed a 30-mile radius and did not locate any sign of Amy. In terms of Amy herself, there were many clear indications she was firmly ensconced in the present. She had only recently gotten married, and she and Steve were on the verge of moving into their first house. She had paid off her student loans and she received her certification to become a trainer, which meant more money and professional mobility. Amy was on Loop Road planning for an upcoming race her employer was sponsoring. There was no reported evidence of changed behavior — past or present — or money movement.

Conclusion

The TRACE Technique is a novel analytical methodology that is appropriate for use in cases where evidence is minimal or absent. It is not meant for cases where there is a strong data set to examine.

The primary weakness of The TRACE Technique is its subjectivity in assigning values in the Phase 3 (Analysis of Competing Explanations) section of the exercise. Two ways to mitigate skewing these results toward a preferred hypothesis is either to decide these elements in a group setting, or else to work through them individually, but then to ask for input from additional analysts, and then to tally the results. (Analyst’s note: This section was worked initially by the analyst with later input from AI tool Claude.)

The strength of The TRACE Technique is that it shifts the focus away from what, why, or how in cases with low or no evidence, to which hypothesis best reconciles with known facts or evidence patterns, and then considers probability, opportunity, and logistics.

As with other formal analytical methodologies, The TRACE Technique does not provide certainty, but instead eliminates hypotheses that don’t align well with the current circumstances or data set. And, as always, when new evidence is identified, analytical methods, judgments, and conclusions must be reconsidered.

---

Footnotes

1. Jon Billman, runnersworld.com, “Long Gone Girl,” https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a20817705/long-gone-girl/, 18 August 2016. ↩︎
2. John Brant, runnerworld.com, “Missing,” https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a21749005/missing/, 21 June 2018. ↩︎
3. Web site, nomadicniko.com, “The Loop Road,” https://nomadicniko.com/2015/09/12/the-loop-road/, 20 December 2023. ↩︎
4. John Brant, runnersworld.com, “Missing,” https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a21749005/missing/, 21 June 2018. ↩︎
5. Bryan Di Salvatore, outsideonline.com, “When Amy Bechtel Didn’t Come Home,” https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/exploration-survival/long-gone, 1 March 1998. ↩︎
6. Steve Primm, mountain journal.org, “Reflections On The Fatal Grizzly Bear Mauling In Wyoming,”https://mountainjournal.org/reflections-on-fatal-bear-attack-in-wyoming/ , 19 September 2018. ↩︎
7. Web site, mountainlion.org, “Risk and Recreation: What we know about mountain lion attacks in North America,” Mountain Lion Foundation, https://mountainlion.org/2024/04/06/risk-and-recreation/, 6 April 2024. ↩︎
8. Danielle Kaeding, Wisconsin Public Radio, “Federal wildlife agency investigating wolf killing in northern Wisconsin, https://www.wpr.org/animals/endangered-species/federal-wildlife-agency-investigating-wolf-killing-in-northern-wisconsin, 12 January 2024. ↩︎
9. Marilyn Chychota, triathlete.com, “Dear Coach: How important is the surface I run on?” https://www.triathlete.com/training/dear-coach-how-important-is-the-surface-i-run-on/, 13 October 2025. ↩︎
10. Mark Heinz, The Cowboy State Daily, “One Of Wyoming’s Most Beautiful Drives Is Also A Kidney-Rattling Washboard Ride,” https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/07/19/one-of-wyomings-most-beautiful-drives-is-also-a-kidney-rattling-washboard-ride/ , 19 July 2025. ↩︎
11. Michael J. Arnold, MD, and Aaron L. Moody, MD, American Family Physician, “Common Running Injuries: Evaluation and Management,” https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2018/0415/p510.html, 15 April 2018. ↩︎
12. Michael J. Arnold, MD, and Aaron L. Moody, MD, American Family Physician, “Common Running Injuries: Evaluation and Management,” https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2018/0415/p510.html, 15 April 2018. ↩︎
13. Jonathan H. Kim, et al, JAMA, “Cardiac Arrest During Long-Distance Running Races,” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40159341/, 20 May 2025. ↩︎
14. Michael L. Yoder, M.A., M.A., “No-Body Homicide Cases: A Practical Approach,” https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/no-body-homicide-cases-a-practical-approach, 9 November 2016. ↩︎
15. Homicide Crime Statistics, Wyoming, https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend, accessed 7 January 2026. ↩︎
16. “Uniform Crime Report for Homicides: 1965-2023,” The Murder Accountability Project, ↩︎
17. Adam Roy, backpacker.com, “Here’s What Really Kills People in the National Parks,” https://www.backpacker.com/survival/deaths-in-national-parks/, 8 July 2025. ↩︎
18. Mark Heinz, The Cowboy State Daily, “One Of Wyoming’s Most Beautiful Drives Is Also A Kidney-Rattling Washboard Ride,” https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/07/19/one-of-wyomings-most-beautiful-drives-is-also-a-kidney-rattling-washboard-ride/ , 19 July 2025. ↩︎
19. Lena Dechert, et al, Wyoming Survey and Analysis Center, ” Addressing Intimate Partner Homicide in Wyoming, A Comprehensive Analysis of Fatalities, 2014-2023,” https://wysac.uwyo.edu/wysac/reports/View/7739 accessed 8 January 2026. ↩︎