Amy Wroe Bechtel: Analysis In The Absence Of Evidence

The TRACE Technique was developed through human-AI collaboration to examine the disappearance of Amy Wroe Bechtel. This methodology is applicable to any case with low to no 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.

Revised: 5 September 2026

Methodology and Scope

This case study is an educational demonstration of structured intelligence analysis using publicly available information. It is not an official investigative finding and reflects the evidence available at the time of publication. Conclusions are provisional and may change as new evidence becomes public. See the full methodology note at the end of this post.

---

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 posed to large language models (LLMs) Claude and ChatGPT. The LLMs were instrumental in setting the framework for The TRACE Technique (Threat assessment, Reconciliation with facts, Analysis of competing explanations, Conditional probability Evaluation), a structured methodology 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 recently, she had been dealing with shin splints, a condition that caused her to cut back on her fitness regimen.

Amy had been married for a little more than a year to her husband, 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, Amy’s husband 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 he 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 a to-do list. Her wallet, which she reportedly did not carry when running, was not in the car.

Initially, investigators focused on the possibility 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. 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. Initially, he 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 was to then 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 had finished mapping the route and then had 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 the group’s 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: Hypotheses 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 others])
• H7: Human intervention–known (The “targeted” theory, known person, premeditated [i.e., husband])

PHASE 2: Reconciliation with facts

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

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).

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 indications that she sought to disappear, such as 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 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’s home and ran luminol tests with negative results. Her husband 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–physical, behavioral, documentary, financial, and circumstantial–match what this hypothesis would reasonably be expected to produce? Score: 1-very poor feasibility (add 7); 2-poor feasibility (add 14); 3-plausible (add 21); 4-good feasibility (add 28); 5-very good feasibility (add 35)

H1: Wild animal predation (e.g., mountain lion, bear, wolf)–1 (7)

H2: Accidental injury/physical trauma (e.g., physical injury, fall [crevice or water])–1 (7)

H3: Acute medical event (e.g., aneurysm, cardiac event, or sudden incapacitation)–1 (7)

H4: Voluntary disappearance (The “staged” exit)–1 (7)

H5: Human intervention– unknown (The “predatory” theory, kidnapping/homicide by an unknown party [or parties])–4 (21)

H6: Vehicular accident (The “panic” theory, hit-and-run with body removal by an unknown driver [with or without aid])–1 (21)

H7: Human intervention–known (The “targeted” theory, known person, premeditated)–1 (14)

2) Opportunity/Feasibility (O/F): Is this scenario physically and practically possible given the known time, location, access, and circumstances? [Consider time constraints; geography and terrain; access to the victim; transportation; distance; environmental conditions; victim behavior; perpetrator opportunity; whether the necessary sequence of events could reasonably occur.] Score: 1-very poor feasibility (add 6); 2-poor feasibility (add 12); 3-plausible (add 18); 4-good feasibility (add 24); 5-very good feasibility (add 30)

H1: Wild animal predation (e.g., mountain lion, bear, wolf)–4 (18)

H2: Accidental injury/physical trauma (e.g., physical injury, fall [crevice or water])–5 (24)

H3: Acute medical event (e.g., aneurysm, cardiac event, or sudden incapacitation)–1 (18)

H4: Voluntary disappearance (The “staged” exit)–4 (24)

H5: Human intervention–unknown (The “predatory” theory, kidnapping/homicide by an unknown party [or parties])–5 (24)

H6: Vehicular accident (The “panic” theory, hit-and-run with body removal by an unknown driver [with or without aid])–4 (24)

H7: Human intervention–known (The “targeted” theory, known person, premeditated)–1 (18)

3) Logistical Complexity (LC): How much action, preparation, coordination, transportation, concealment, cleanup, staging would be required for the hypothesis to produce the observed result? Score: 1-very high complexity: planning, preparation, execution, follow-up (add 2); 2-high complexity: planning, necessary equipment/resources (add 4); 3-moderate complexity: some preparation, resources (add 6); 4-low complexity: minimal preparation/equipment required (add 8); 5-very low complexity: can happen in place with no preparation (add 10)

H1: Wild animal predation (e.g., mountain lion, bear, wolf)–5 (10)

H2: Accidental injury/physical trauma (e.g., physical injury, fall [crevice or water])–5 (10)

H3: Acute medical event (e.g., aneurysm, cardiac event, or sudden incapacitation)–5 (10)

H4: Voluntary disappearance (The “staged” exit)–1 (4)

H5: Human intervention–unknown (The “predatory” theory, kidnapping/homicide by an unknown party [or parties])–2 (4)

H6: Vehicular accident (The “panic” theory, hit-and-run with body removal by an unknown driver [with or without aid])–2 (4)

H7: Human intervention–known (The “targeted” theory, known person, premeditated)–1 (2)

4) Elimination Factors (EF): Are there specific facts that rule out or severely undermine this hypothesis? [E/F is scored as a penalty; subtract points.] Score: 1-minimal evidence contradicts hypothesis (subtract 5); 2-some evidence undermines hypothesis (subtract 10); 3-moderate evidence contradicts hypothesis (subtract 15); 4-strong evidence contradicts hypothesis (subtract 20); 5-known facts may effectively eliminate hypothesis (subtract 25) (Analyst’s note: I left room for hedging on this attribute. My ESM scores were more definitive. But for EF, I factored in the possibility of error on the part of investigations/reporting.)

H1: Wild animal predation (e.g., mountain lion, bear, wolf)–A kill by a wild animal virtually always leaves signs. (-20)

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. (-20)

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; no reports of serious underlying medical conditions. (-20)

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). (-20)

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. (-5)

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. (-15)

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. (-20)

PHASE 4: Tally Results (Matrix)

	Evidence signature (1-5) (scored 7-35)	Opportunity, feasibility (1-5) (scored 6-30)	Logistical complexity (1-5) (scored 2-10)	Elimination factors (1-5) (scored -5 to -25)	STRENGTH SCORE
H1-Wild animal predation (bear, mountain lion, wolf)	7	18	10	(predation signs missing) -20	15
H2-Accidental injury/physical trauma (e.g., physical injury, fall [crevice or water])	7	24	10	(body missing) -20	21
H3-Acute medical event (e.g., aneurysm, cardiac event, or sudden incapacitation)	7	18	10	(body missing; no evidence of underlying medical condition) -20	15
H4-Voluntary disappearance (The “staged” exit)	7	24	4	(strong evidence of future planning) -20	15
H5-Human intervention (The “predatory” theory, kidnapping/homicide by an unknown party [or parties])	21	24	4	(extraordinary timing) -5	44
H6-Vehicular accident (The “panic” theory, hit-and-run by with body removal by an unknown driver [with or without aid])	21	24	4	(lack of evidence of accident (skid marks, disturbed vegetation, car parts) -15	34
H7-Human intervention (The “targeted theory, known person, premeditated)	14	18	2	(strong alibi; challenging logistics) -20	14

PHASE 5: Outcome

H5 | Human intervention, the “predatory theory,” was the hypothesis that best withstood the TRACE process. It fit the absence of evidence as it assumed a perpetrator (perpetrators) 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 a degree of logistical complexity in the perpetrator needed to have a plan in place in order to coerce/control his victim. The key limiting factor was timing: this hypothesis assumed a predator and a victim crossed paths in what appeared to be a rare chance encounter.

H6 | Vehicular accident. 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 (drivers) imagines a driver hitting Amy, panicking, and then seeking to remove her from the scene. It was theoretically possible: the road appeared to be tricky, especially if someone were traveling above safe speeds, and the relative isolation would allow the perpetrator time and space to act. While it seemed like there should have been signs–skid marks, disturbed gravel, crushed vegetation, and/or plastic shards–these may vary depending on the circumstances of the accident, as well as whether an accident involved an impaired driver.

H2 | Accidental injury/physical trauma. 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 road running, not rock climbing or hiking, which presupposed 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.)

The next three hypotheses, H1, H3, and H4, were tied for fourth place. H1 | Animal predation was very unlikely based in part on rarity. But a larger contradiction was there was no sign of Amy. The possibility a predator took Amy without leaving evidence at the ambush, kill, or cache sites was infinitesimally small. H3 | Likewise, an acute medical event was unlikely based in part on rarity. 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 minimal evidence at the scene, but the possibility that a young, healthy runner became disabled by an acute medical event would be statistically rare. H4 | Voluntary disappearance. There were many clear indications Amy was firmly ensconced in the present. She was recently married, and she and her husband 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.

H7 | Known perpetrator (husband), was separated by the previous three low-ranking hypotheses by just one point. Law enforcement scrutinized Amy’s husband. 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.

PHASE 6: Sanity Check

The last step, a sanity check, asks if the order makes sense. In this case, the analyst can identify no obvious contradictions, however, the technique is most effective when run as a team effort. A strong conclusion is one that has been stress-tested in a rigorous discussion/debate among peers.

---

Postscript

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 some input later from LLM ChatGPT.)

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.

---

About These Case Analyses

The case studies published on The Intelligence Shop are educational exercises intended to demonstrate structured analytical techniques, including Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH), evidence evaluation, and confidence assessment.

These analyses are based on publicly available information, including official records, court documents, publicly released investigative materials, reputable media reporting, and other open-source information available at the time of publication. They do not rely on privileged investigative files, nonpublic evidence, witness interviews, or other information available only to law enforcement or the courts.

An intelligence analyst and a criminal investigator perform different functions. Investigators gather evidence. Analysts evaluate available evidence to assess the relative strength of competing explanations. Accordingly, the conclusions presented here are analytical assessments—not official findings—and are limited by the scope and quality of the publicly available record.

Analytical assessments are inherently provisional. As new evidence becomes publicly available or previously unavailable information comes to light, an assessment may change. Revisions are made when warranted by credible evidence.

The purpose of these articles is not to declare definitive truth, but to demonstrate transparent, evidence-based reasoning. Readers who identify factual inaccuracies or wish to provide additional publicly verifiable information are welcome to contact the author through the Web site.

---

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. ↩︎