Mitchel Weiser and Bonnie Bickwit: A Team Approach

The disappearance of Mitchel Weiser and Bonnie Bickwit in 1973 resembles the Amy Wroe Bechtel case in the absence of evidence. Both matters were examined on this site using The TRACE Technique, a formal methodology for cases with low to no evidence. Its application here reinforced that TRACE is a good fit for this type of investigation, but also highlighted a limitation: the methodology is likely to be more robust when applied by competing analysts or teams who can discuss and debate individual attributes before reaching a conclusion.

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 analysis.

---

Introduction

In 1973, teens Mitchel Weiser and Bonnie Bickwit reportedly planned to hitchhike from Camp Wel-Met outside of Narrowsburg, New York, to Summer Jam, a one-day rock concert near the Village of Watkins Glen, New York. The day before the concert, 27 July 1973, they caught a ride from camp into Narrowsburg, but that is their last confirmed location. The two disappeared with only guesses as to what happened next.

The complete lack of clues made the case suitable for analysis using The TRACE Technique. TRACE is a formal analytical methodology for use in low- to no-evidence cases that was originally developed through a human-LLM collaboration for the Amy Wroe Bechtel disappearance. Rather than attempting to determine what, why, or how something happened, TRACE examines which hypothesis best reconciles with known facts and evidence patterns, then considers probability, opportunity, and logistics.

While TRACE worked largely as intended in the Bechtel analysis, its application to the Weiser-Bickwit case exposed the degree to which the technique relies on analyst judgment. The exercise suggested that, in some unresolved cases, TRACE may be more effectively applied by teams, specifically, two sides that work independently and then come together to discuss and debate their findings.

Mitchel Weiser and Bonnie Bickwit

Mitchel Fred Weiser, 16, and Bonita “Bonnie” Mara Bickwit, 15, met at John Dewey High School in Gravesend, Brooklyn, New York, and had been a couple for about a year. Both came from stable, middle class Jewish families and grew up in orthodox communities. Although neither of the families claimed to be particularly religious, both were described as “traditional,” which caused some friction with the more “modern” teens.¹

In the period leading up to the disappearance, the families described some level of underlying conflict, even as friends brushed it off as “normal adolescent concerns.”² Mitchel’s parents didn’t care for his long hair and sought to discourage his vegetarianism.³ On Mitchel’s part, he was said to be disappointed he wouldn’t be able to afford his preferred college in Rochester, and instead had to attend Brooklyn College. He was looking forward to taking his driving test in August 1973 (also described as his learner’s permit). He had a driving lesson scheduled for Monday, 30 July 1973. He left behind a paycheck he was owed from work as a photography assistant at a shop in Coney Island.  

Bonnie’s problems were mainly with her mother, who disapproved of her clothing choices and room decor; her mother found their differing viewpoints led to difficult communications.⁴ In terms of her father, there was less reported about their relationship, but Bonnie was said to worry about his health and got emotional when she discussed him.⁵

In addition to general family dynamics, the teens’ moods seemed off. Mitchel’s sister described him as “out of sorts” and “morose” before leaving for the concert, while Bonnie’s sister said Bonnie appeared “troubled, her behavior “a little strange… She seemed to have a lot on her mind.”⁶

About a week before their disappearance, Bonnie had slipped away from Camp Wel-Met, where she held a summer job, and had gone home to collect the $80 she had been saving for a bike. She was already unhappy with her job as a “mother’s helper,” so when she was refused a day off on 27 July, she quit. She told her employer she would return after the concert to pick up her belongings and final paycheck. Her parents had not been aware of her plans for the weekend. “We had no inkling she was going to go to Watkins Glen. We thought she was at camp. Then on a Tuesday we got this call that Bonnie had left camp three days before and never returned.”⁷

Mitchel’s mother knew he planned to attend the concert, but she disapproved of the idea. She was also against his intention to hitchhike there. She said later Mitchel had $25, much of which would be needed to get to Camp Wel-Met to pick up Bonnie, but he “ran out the door” before she could give me anything extra.

In addition to cash, the two took backpacks and sleeping bags. Mitchel had a Kowa SET R2 SLR camera. Bonnie carried a cardboard sign advertising their quest to reach Watkins Glen. Initially, they caught a short ride with a truck driver from Camp Wel-Met, who dropped them off at New York State Route 97 (NY-97) in Narrowsburg. This is the point at which they were last seen.

Watkins Glen Summer Jam

“Considering that most of those who attended the event hailed from the Northeast, and that the average age of those present was approximately 17 to 24, close to one of every three young people from Boston to New York was at the festival.”

Aquarius Rising: The Rock Festival Years, Robert Santelli

Mitchel and Bonnie’s reported goal was to reach Watkins Glen Summer Jam, a one-day outdoor rock festival planned for 28 July 1997 at the Grand Prix Festival grounds/International raceway, south of the Village of Watkins Glen, New York. The event featured The Allman Brothers Band, the Grateful Dead, and The Band. One-hundred thousand tickets were sold initially, with permission granted to sell 25,000 more at the door. But at least 600,000 arrived with fans showing up a week early.⁸ “Considering that most of those who attended the event hailed from the Northeast, and that the average age of those present was approximately 17 to 24, close to one of every three young people from Boston to New York was at the festival.”⁹

However, one of the enduring mysteries of the case was whether the teens reached the venue at all.

• A friend of theirs said the three “discussed” getting together at the festival and had agreed to meet at the first-aid tent. The friend went to the tent a couple of times, but they never showed.¹⁰ 
• A woman, whose relationship to Mitchel and Bonnie was unclear, said she was attending an honors program at Cornell University near Watkins Glen in the summer of 1973 and got a call that Mitchel and Bonnie “may come stay with [her]” (NFI). She waited all night in her dorm room, but they never arrived.¹¹ 
• Barring any other impediments, traffic alone might have affected their ability to reach the scene. “Highways 50 miles around the site were closed by snarling traffic; the New York Thruway was closed completely for an hour; the impact on highways was felt 100 miles away.”¹² The New York State Police reported: “By early morning, vehicles blocked roads 14 miles away from the festival and tow trucks were utilized to clear a path for traffic.”¹³
• If they did reach the venue, exiting after the show presented a challenge due to the sheer number of hitchhikers seeking rides. A first hand account described the exodus as this: “People were trying to leave before the sun came up and the roads quickly became impassable as everyone was trying to leave simultaneously. Those without rides attempted to hitch. All were unsuccessful. Nothing was moving, so quite a few of those hitchhikers wandered into the Village of Watkins Glen…The all-day exodus was a slog. Every road was packed with cars and hitchhikers holding signs. Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Toronto, Jacksonville, Macon. Just about everywhere on the North American continent, particularly the Northeast.”¹⁴

Given that they were never seen again–gone, quite literally without a hint of evidence left behind–what happened?

The TRACE Technique

PHASE 1: Hypothesis Generation

Consider a range of possible explanations based on the circumstances of the case.

The teens reportedly planned to hitchhike approximately 150 miles from Camp Wel-Met to Watkins Glen. It is not known if they followed through with the plan, or if they made it to their destination, although for the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that was the goal. Based on this assumption, here are possible explanations for what happened.

H1a: Opportunistic stranger encounter–escalation/robbery
An interaction with a stranger (likely the driver who picked them up) that began non-predatory but escalated, possibly motivated by robbery, resulting in death or disappearance. Not premeditated; the encounter itself created the opportunity.

H1b: Predatory/targeted stranger–sexual motivation or premeditated selection
A perpetrator who selected hitchhikers as victims by pattern (predation on hitchhikers generally) or specifically targeted these two, with sexual motivation or intent to abduct/kill predating the encounter.

H2: Accident–inside vehicle
Died in transit due to a vehicle-related accident (single-car incident, i.e., water submersion), bodies/vehicle never recovered.

H3a: Accident–outside vehicle (environment/activity-related)
Died from an environmental/activity-related accident after leaving the vehicle (swimming, exposure, fall, etc.), unconnected to any other party’s action.

H3b: Accident–outside vehicle (vehicle strike)
Died from vehicle strike.

H4: Voluntary disappearance/runaway (planned)
Left their known lives intentionally as a planned departure.

H5: Medical event at festival/substance-related incapacitation
Death or incapacitation from drug use/exposure/allergic or medical event at concert, independent of any third party’s intentional action.

H6: Named-suspect homicide (Robert Garrow)
Targeting by serial offender Robert Garrow. Kept as its own hypothesis due Garrow’s relative proximity to location, MO, geography, and timeline.

PHASE 2: Reconciliation with facts

1. Base rate research: How often does each scenario actually occur in similar circumstances? Consider statistical frequency, comparable cases, regional/environmental factors.
2. 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).
3. Evidence expectations: For each hypothesis, what physical evidence should exist if this scenario occurred?

(Analyst’s note: This case study draws on the best publicly available data, including primary-source law enforcement records, as obtainable. This analyst does not have access to the internal case files, contemporaneous investigative notes, or restricted-access databases as would a working intelligence or crime analyst. Where possible, statistics are matched to the year of the incident or the closest available range; where period- or region-specific data do not exist, the nearest reasonable proxy is used. The result is intended as a demonstration of The TRACE Technique applied to open-source material and is not a substitute for an agency-level investigation. The Intelligence Shop does not claim that the evidentiary record here is complete.)

H1a: Opportunistic stranger encounter–escalation/robbery

The New York State Police (NYSP) addressed hitchhiking in its 1973 Annual Report finding a decline in arrests from the previous year of 21 percent.¹⁵ One of the reasons NYSP began enforcement actions against hitchhikers was crime associated with the practice, both by hitchhikers and against them. But the supporting data appeared largely anecdotal.

In its Annual Report, the NYSP provided a handful of incidents to support the premise “Criminal Acts Are No Rarity In Hitchhiking.” They cited two men who robbed a hitchhiking youth [NFI] when they found he carried traveler’s checks. Two other incidents involved hitchhikers who were robbed and beaten. Suspects in all cases were found and arrested.¹⁶

While the report listed the number of persons arrested for hitchhiking in its vehicle and traffic enforcement section, violent incidents were apparently folded into data for specific crimes [e.g., robbery, rape], so it was not possible to determine percentages of victims, either rider or driver. Notably, the breakout section highlighting crimes associated with hitchhiking in 1973 did not mention any murders.

The only comprehensive study focusing on crimes specifically related to hitchhikers came from California. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) sought crime and accident reports from police and sheriff’s departments from counties across California and published their findings in 1974. They pointed out “cases of crime by or upon hitchhikers are often seen in the newspapers,” which might contribute to the perception there is a “great deal of crime associated with hitchhiking.” However, their data found hitchhikers were not disproportionately involved in, or victims of, crime relative to overall population numbers.¹⁷

One statistic of note in the CHP report was nearly half of hitchhiker crime victims were age 15-19 (Mitchel was 16 and Bonnie was 15). For male victims of crimes involving hitchhiking, age 15-19, robbery was the most prevalent type at 11.45 percent. (Analyst’s note: For women of the same age, the most frequent crime was rape at 14.14 percent.)

Two hitchhikers traveling together who were attacked by one subject accounted for less than five percent of incidents; two hitchhikers attacked by two subjects also accounted for less than five percent of incidents; two hitchhikers attacked by three subjects accounted for less than two percent of incidents; two hitchhikers attacked by four or more subjects also accounted for less than two percent of incidents.¹⁸

Mitchel and Bonnie may have carried upwards of $100 in cash (approximately $750 in 2026 dollars): $80 that Bonnie took from home (she may have had more on hand at camp); and $25 that Mitchel brought, although he may have spent some on transportation to Camp Wel-Met. In addition, Mitchel carried a Kowa SET R2 SLR camera, valued from $100 to $150 ($750 to $1,000 today adjusted for inflation).¹⁹ Whether he displayed it or carried it concealed in his backpack was not known. Cash and a camera were the only two valuables the two were known to carry.

According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report citing figures from 1984, “among violent crimes, robbery was most likely to be committed by a stranger.”²⁰ If the teens were targeted by an opportunistic stranger, there was a good chance the evidence left at the scene would have been the bodies. In cases where a victim was a stranger to an offender, 72 percent of offenders left the body unconcealed, and were often (61 percent) found in time by passers-by.²¹

H1b: Predatory/targeted stranger–sexual motivation or premeditated selection

Between 1960 and 1980, the homicide rate doubled, with murder rates by strangers increasing at a much faster rate.²² This period of “extraordinary violence” gave rise to a previously rare concept: the serial killer, a phenomenon that showed elements of “social contagion.”²³

It was against this backdrop that a number of more infamous cases of predators targeting hitchhikers made news. Edward Kemper in Santa Cruz, California, targeted female hitchhikers between 1972 and 1973. Patrick Kearney worked the corridor between Los Angeles and the Mexican border in the 1970s seeking gay men. Randy Kraft, a California computer programmer, was accused of drugging, sexually mutilating, and strangling 16 men, but was suspected of killing up to 65, often hitchhikers, in Oregon, Michigan, and California between 1972 and 1983. The Santa Rosa hitchhiker murders of at least seven women and teen girls around Santa Rosa and Sonoma County, California, between 1972 and 1973 was never solved. On the east coast, the “Hitchhike Murders” referred to a case involving the disappearances and deaths of six young women (some reports say seven) in the Boston, Massachusetts, area in 1972. Anthony J. Jackson was arrested and later convicted in three of the deaths and acquitted in one.²⁴ There were additional cases, but the central message is these high profile cases drew outsized attention and contributed to the perception that hitchhiking was a high-risk activity.

The NYSP annual report logged 7,935 arrests for illegal hitchhiking alone in calendar year 1973 (hitchhiking was illegal on the interstate and on limited-access highways, as well as the act of standing in or blocking traffic lanes). In its area of responsibility, the NYSP did not log a single (known) incident in which a hitchhiker was murdered by a driver. The CHP report, previously cited, listed two deaths: one, a murder without further detail; and the second, a rape in which a male and female hitchhiker were knifed and shot, with the female victim killed.²⁵ (Analyst’s note: For the other side of the story–the FBI’s warning to drivers about picking up hitchhikers–see here.)

As cited in “H1a–opportunistic stranger encounter–escalation/robbery,” the fact that Mitchel and Bonnie traveled together reduced the possibility they would be targeted by an offender or offenders, however, it did not eliminate it. For reference, Mitchel, 16, was 5’7 and 140 pounds; and Bonnie, 15, was 4’11 and 90 pounds.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics report found robbery the most likely violent crime to be committed against a stranger, with homicide the least likely.²⁶ In 1984, 18 percent of homicides “were known to be committed by a stranger.”²⁷ A quarter of stranger-to-stranger offenders preyed on 12-19 year old victims.²⁸

Should a predatory stranger have sought a victim, he would have found a large number from which to choose during the weekend of 28-29 July 1973 on roads leading to Watkins Glen. Hitchhiking was a common means of accessing the festival.

As was stated in the previous section, if Mitchel and Bonnie were targeted by a stranger, there was a good chance the evidence left at the scene would have been the bodies themselves. In cases where a victim was a stranger to an offender, 72 percent of offenders left the body unconcealed, and 61 percent were eventually found, often by civilians traveling through an area.

H2: Accident–inside vehicle

A persistent issue with the case is there were no confirmed sightings beyond the initial short transport by truck from Camp Wel-Met to NY-97 in Narrowsburg. There were logical routes to and from Watkins Glen, but it has never been ascertained what path they may have taken. Nor has it been confirmed Watkins Glen was their true or final destination. Therefore, the hypothesis of traveling in a vehicle when an accident occurred is reasonable, but it is difficult to pinpoint geographically.

Assuming they did travel along some route between Narrowsburg and Watkins Glen, the general vicinity contains steep inclines, thick vegetation, and water features that could contribute to vehicle accidents and the possibility a car could vanish for decades, although research did not identify any specific areas that carried an unusually high risk.

Again, examples appeared to be largely anecdotal. On 8 December 2022, a vehicle landed in a retention pond on nearby Route 17, exit 124 that caused the drowning death of the driver.²⁹ While other reports of submerged vehicle deaths occurred around the state, none appeared close to the route between Narrowsburg and Watkins Glen.

Of course one of the elements of submerged vehicle/missing persons cases is they can create enduring mysteries; a person seemingly vanishes. Although submerged vehicles should be included in the hypotheses list for missing person cases, this is often an overlooked possibility.³⁰ According to mapthemissing.com, “Water recoveries have become a recurring outcome in long unsolved cases.”³¹

Should a vehicle in which Mitchel and Bonnie caught a ride been involved in an accident involving water or difficult terrain, there would likely be little evidence unless and until the vehicle was recovered. The larger concern was the driver was missing, too, which may have prompted a search. However, if a driver did disappear around this time and in this area, the details were not widely publicized.

H3a: Accident–outside vehicle (environment/activity-related)

One potential lead arose 27 years after the teens’ disappearance when a Rhode Island man responded to a televised story about the case. He claimed he, the teens, and two unidentified males in their 20s caught a ride before the concert ended with the driver of an orange Volkswagen bus. He remembered Bonnie talking to Mitchel about a summer camp, and he described her clothing and said she wore a head scarf (not corroborated whether this detail was correct and/or unique).

The identified male witness said en route from the concert the driver pulled over at a spot near the Susquehanna River in a place “where locals gathered to cool off during the summer.”³² There were about 25 people in the area.³³ Bonnie “accidentally fell into the river” and screamed in distress.³⁴ Mitchel jumped in to aid her, but the two were swept into the currents and disappeared around a bend. The man said everyone on the bank witnessed the accident.³⁵

In the aftermath, the remaining group left in the bus. The witness said he was under the influence of marijuana, thus did not want to reach out to authorities and had been led to believe the driver would do so.³⁶ No reports were filed by the driver or any of the alleged witnesses. When he returned home, he told “several friends” about the accident, and later provided investigators the names of those persons.³⁷

Authorities have been split on the credibility they afforded the report. Some claimed the witness’s inability to identify the spot meant the story was fabricated. One officer, who found the story credible, pointed out that coroners in three counties along the river’s route had no unidentified drowning victims. One body not turning up was possible, but not two.³⁸

Between March 1984 and August 1996, there were reports of nine drownings at various points along the Susquehanna River with at least one body never recovered.³⁹ Data were not found for a period covering 1973, however, one prominent incident around that time was the September 1975 death of three firefighters in relation to a water rescue. The location, near the Rockbottom Dam in Binghamton, New York, would have been a short detour from one possible route from Watkins Glen to Narrowsburg.⁴⁰

Along the nearby Delaware River, which also follows roads to/from Narrowsburg and Watkins Glen, there have been 79 drownings from 1980 when record keeping began until July 2024.⁴¹ The Delaware River is open for swimming but the water is described as swift and cold with slippery rocks, and it can run high after rain.

Should Mitchel and Bonnie have succumbed in a drowning accident, either in the incident described or something else entirely, the primary evidence left at the scene may be some of their belongings. Yet unless their identifications were left among their gear, or some other identifiable item, there is a chance anything left behind was considered a randomly discarded good and disposed of.

There is a chance at least one body should have been recovered. The three counties in which the coroners were consulted were not identified, so the geographic range was unknown. However, a 1946 report from a Pennsylvania medical examiner who studied drownings on the Susquehanna, along with Pennsylvania’s Harvey’s Lake, found: “…in the river the current starts taking [the body] down stream. If a body rises at night in the river and is not seen it will be carried down stream many miles. In my opinion all bodies in the river come to the surface within two hundred feet of the accident. Unless caught by some obstacle, they are carried downstream as much as a hundred miles.”⁴²

H3b: Accident–outside vehicle (vehicle strike)

Another possibility in terms of an accident outside of a vehicle is the two were hit and killed by a vehicle while hitchhiking. The only statistical report on accidents in which hitchhikers were involved was the previously cited California Highway Patrol analysis. It found hitchhikers were involved in an estimated 0.26 percent of all traffic-related accidents.⁴³ As pertains to this analysis, in one of 61 reports, two hitchhikers were killed in a single incident.⁴⁴ In 8 of 61 cases, two hitchhikers were injured in a single incident.⁴⁵ Thus while rare, this type of accident did have a history of occurrence.

Should the two have been struck by a car, the car would likely sustain significant damage including a possible caved-in hood, shattered windshield, and/or crushed front bumper. However, if a commercial truck were involved, the primary evidence would likely consist only of forensic evidence left on the vehicle.

In the low odds both were killed in an automobile incident, there would be an even lesser chance a driver would stop, load both bodies into a vehicle, and seek out a place to permanently hide them. This would take a great deal of time and privacy, along with physical effort, and it is behavior that is rare in hit-and-run cases.

H4: Voluntary disappearance/runaway (planned)

Early 1970s figures reported by the Congressional Research Office found “one million youth in the nation left home without parental or guardian permission.”⁴⁶ The New York Times reported a number closer to 600,000 nationally, but in 1973, authorities in New York received reports of 14,171 runaways under the age of 18; 94 percent of the incidents were resolved.⁴⁷ Based on these figures, roughly 850 cases remained outstanding. (Analyst’s note: The 14,171 figure only accounts for number of reports taken, not unique runaways. Some youth who were considered “chronic runaways” may have accounted for multiple reports. Likewise, the “850” figure did not signify individuals, per se. It was merely a rough estimate to add perspective.)

Possible evidence that a teen has left home voluntarily would be the taking of personal belongings, documents, and likely as much cash as he or she could manage to collect to finance immediate needs, none of which was reported here. Mitchel had an upcoming date for a driver’s lesson, and later date for either a driver’s license test or learner’s permit. Neither Mitchel nor Bonnie made contact with friends or family after their disappearance. Neither of their social security account numbers were used, which would have flagged employment.

H5: Medical event at festival/substance-related incapacitation

Of 600,000 attendees at the Watkins Glen festival, reports were “approximately 150 people were treated for minor injuries and problems from ingesting too many drugs or bad psychedelics.”⁴⁸ Calculated, this comes out to about 2.5 persons treated per 10,000 attendees. NYSP investigated 17 “accidents,” with 10 involving “personal injuries” (NFI).⁴⁹ One person died adjacent to the scene, a skydiver who was involved in a fatal in-flight pyrotechnic accident. The NYSP reports four persons were killed in motor vehicle accidents en route to the festival. Fourteen persons were stopped for driving while intoxicated.⁵⁰ And “scores” of persons were intercepted with drugs at checkpoint operations positioned across the state.⁵¹

From reports, any medical events or substance-related incapacitation that occurred once the teens reached Watkins Glen would have been identified, handled, and logged, so the physical evidence of this type of an incident would have been the actual persons of Mitchel and Bonnie or documentation thereof.

H6: Named-suspect homicide (Robert Garrow)

Robert Garrow is an often-named suspect in association with the teens’ disappearance. He grew up in the nearby Adirondacks and was a sophisticated outdoorsman with a history of escaping authorities and eluding police. He had a long criminal history that culminated in a murder spree in upstate and central New York during the summer of 1973.

Robert Francis Garrow, Sr. was initially convicted of a rape he committed on 3 November 1961 in which he also assaulted the victim’s boyfriend.⁵² He served time, was paroled in 1968, and soon after committed several additional rapes. He was arrested and charged with two, but jumped bail and became a fugitive. There is no information about Garrow’s life between the period in which he jumped bail and 1973 when he began his summer murder spree.

The Garrow Timeline: Murder Spree and Manhunt in the Summer of 1973:

• 11 July 1973 (one victim, murdered): Alicia Hauck, 16, kidnapped in Syracuse, New York, on her way home from high school; her bones were found on 8 December 1973 by a university student walking in Oakwood Cemetery, Syracuse.⁵³
• 14 July 1973 (two victims, murdered): Daniel Porter, 23, and Susan Petz, 20, disappeared after setting up a campground in the vicinity of Wevertown/North Creek, New York.⁵⁴ Petz was reportedly kidnapped and held for a period of time before Garrow murdered her and dumped her body in an abandoned mineshaft. Her remains were found in early December 1973 by two boys playing in the shaft located in Mineville, New York. (Analyst’s note: A controversy arose later when it was learned Garrow gave his lawyers the locations of the remains of Susan Petz and Alicia Hauck. The lawyers followed his instructions, found the bodies, but did not share the information with either the police or the victims’ families. They later cited the confidentiality of a lawyer-client relationship.)
• Daniel Porter’s body was found around 20 July 1973 along Waddell Road (appears to be Johnsburg, New York).⁵⁵
• 28-30 July 1973: This is the timeframe Mitchel and Bonnie were allegedly traveling to Watkins Glen, attending the festival, and then returning home.
• 29 July 1973 (four victims, one murdered): Garrow approached four campers in the town of Wells, south of Speculator, New York, aiming a high-powered rifle into their tent. Philip Domblewski, an 18-year-old student, was stabbed and killed, the other three escaped. Garrow reportedly told the campers “he’d killed before and he’d kill again.⁵⁶
• 30 July 1973: Police found Garrow’s abandoned orange Volkswagen as he fled into the woods on foot, and publicly identified him as the suspect.⁵⁷
• 1 August 1973: Police concentrated their search for Garrow in the area around Speculator, a rugged portion of wilderness into which Garrow had fled.
• 6 August 1973: Garrow stole a car from the Deer Foot Lodge near Speculator.⁵⁸
• 7 August 1973: After authorities found the stolen car abandoned three miles from Garrow’s sister’s home in Witherbee, New York ( approximately 80 miles northeast of the Speculator area), the manhunt shifted its geographic focus.
• 9 August 1973: After a 12-day manhunt involving at least 200 state troopers, rangers, and others, Garrow was surrounded, shot/wounded, and captured.

One of the reasons Garrow’s name became entwined in the Weiser/Bickwit case, especially after 2000, was he drove an orange Volkswagen bus, a seemingly distinct vehicle that the witness who hitchhiked with Mitchel and Bonnie described riding in before their alleged drowning in the Susquehanna River. The vehicle was–and remains–a popular symbol of the times, especially among the counterculture community. Brilliant Orange was a standard exterior color. So, while an orange Volkswagen bus would have been a noticeable automobile, it would not have been particularly unique.

Another element of the case that gets attention is that a search of Garrow’s abandoned Volkswagen turned up a map with 26 red dots that some believed corresponded to as-yet unidentified crimes in which Garrow was involved.⁵⁹ Authorities have never publicly confirmed this reporting. The map has never been released, so whether any of the dots matched areas near where Mitchel and Bonnie were last seen was not known.

In terms of evidence expectations, while the remains of Garrow’s four known victims were not found immediately, he made little effort to conceal the bodies against discovery. If Garrow were responsible for the disappearances of Mitchel and Bonnie their remains would likely have been recovered over time. One significant known unknown is what the dots on Garrow’s map represented. If the dots were confirmed to be victims, it may change the strength of this hypothesis.

PHASE 3: Analysis of Competing Explanations

Analyze each of your hypotheses against the following four attributes, scoring each accordingly. It is helpful to include short explanations for how you chose scores.

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)

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)

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)

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)

H1a: Opportunistic stranger–escalation/robbery	Score	+/-	Explanation
ESM	2	14	hitchhiking/robbery found in research to be feasible, somewhat less due to pair together
O/F	5	30	seeking ride with stranger; potentially quiet roads; carrying valuables
L/C	2	4	to get rid of two bodies, need plan, time, place, effort
EF	3	-15	bodies likely would turn up over time

H1b: Predatory/targeted stranger	Score	+/-	Explanation
ESM	3	21	gone without a trace, “professional” job
O/F	5	30	hitchhiking risky, young
L/C	1	2	2 victims together
EF	4	-20	bodies never turned up, fewer known hitchhiker predators in area compared to west coast

H2: Accident–inside vehicle	Score	+/-	Explanation
ESM	3	21	plausible, although not strong evidence of this happening in area
O/F	4	24	geography (inclines, bodies of water) raises score
L/C	2	4	complete disappearance of teens, but complication of driver involved, too
EF	3	-15	three disappearances on same weekend in same area would likely have raised some red flags, but no reports

H3a: Accident–outside vehicle (environment/activity-related)	Score	+/-	Explanation
ESM	2	14	witness’s story cohesive, but no bodies ever recovered
O/F	4	24	summertime, reasonable side trip on long drive
L/C	4	8	accident, minimal complexity
EF	3	-15	no bodies found, no witnesses ever came forward

H3b: Accident–outside vehicle (vehicle strike)	Score	+/-	Explanation
ESM	3	21	research indicates this is plausible, although low chances
O/F	4	24	hitchhikers traveling on strange roads, potential for mishap/miscalculation
L/C	2	4	needed time, energy to get bodies into car, find place to hide, cover story for damage to automobile
EF	3	-15	not typical behavior for accident with low chance of being identified + no bodies to ever turned up

H4: Voluntary disappearance/runaway (planned)	Score	+/-	Explanation
ESM	1	7	left paychecks behind, had forward plans, no significant problems at home
O/F	3	18	would be easy to carry out–festival as cover story, just keep going
L/C	5	10	no evidence of planning, logistics (appeared to pack/prepare for weekend, not long-term)
EF	5	-25	never used SSANs, minimal $, minimal clothing/ personal items, never contacted family/friends

H5: Medical event at festival/substance-related incapacitation	Score	+/-	Explanation
ESM	2	14	authorities appeared to account for all medical emergencies related to festival; no unidentified teens
O/F	3	18	opportunity for medical emergency at festival between drugs, injury, heat-related illness
L/C	5	10	incapacitating medical event straightforward
EF	4	-20	known circumstances provide substantial resistance

H6: Named-suspect homicide (Robert Garrow)	Score	+/-	Explanation
ESM	1	7	Garrow’s victims only “lightly” concealed; would have had plenty of opportunity to target hitchhikers in area where he targeted other victims during this same period
O/F	2	12	his wider area of operation (New York State), but not strong match for preferred location based on history (closer to Adirondacks)
L/C	1	2	irreconcilable logistics–driving to area, finding victims, killing, disposing–based on his known location during same timeframe
EF	4	-20	tended to work closer to Adirondacks; would have had plenty of opportunity during that time period to target hitchhikers–if that was his desire–closer to area of operation

PHASE 4: Conditional Probability Evaluation

Fill in the matrix with your results.

Hypothesis	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
H1a (stranger-robbery)	14	30	4	-15	33
H1b (stranger-predator)	21	30	2	-20	33
H2 (accident-in vehicle)	21	24	4	-15	34
H3a (accident-environment)	14	24	8	-15	31
H3b (vehicle strike)	21	24	4	-15	34
H4 (runaway)	7	18	10	-25	10
H5 (medical event-festival)	14	18	10	-20	22
H6 (Garrow)	7	12	2	-20	1

PHASE 5: Findings

The analysis identified four leading hypotheses with near-matching scores. Distinguishing among them was difficult because each provided a plausible mechanism by which two people could disappear without leaving an evidentiary trail. Lower-ranking hypotheses generally suffered from the expectation that evidence should have surfaced over time.

The two highest-scoring explanations tied, with the next two candidates only one point behind. Both of the leading hypotheses involved automotive accidents. One supposed the teens were passengers when an incident occurred. Water submersion, for example, would result in the sudden and complete disappearance of the vehicle and its occupants. Such an event would leave little or no recoverable evidence and would require minimal logistical complexity. There are documented cases of submerged vehicles and occupants remaining undiscovered for decades. A mitigating factor, however, was the incident involved a third person–the driver. Would the driver’s disappearance have raised red flags? In theory, two incidents in which persons vanished while traveling a similar route during the same period should have attracted the attention of authorities, although jurisdictional issues may have intervened.

A second possibility was that the teens were struck on the road while seeking a ride. While rare, the California data identified one pair of hitchhikers killed in a single-vehicle strike, with eight other instances in which a pair of hitchhikers was injured, out of 61 reports. A complicating factor was that the two were never found. It is possible they were thrown from the road into thick brush and their bodies were simply never encountered. Reports at the time indicated that authorities believed the two had left voluntarily, potentially resulting in less intensive attention to the case. Another possibility is that they were struck and transported from the scene, but this added considerable complexity. It would require the perpetrator or perpetrators to have the physical ability to retrieve two bodies, the time and space to do so discreetly, and access to a disposal site sufficiently secluded that the bodies were never found.

The next two explanations, separated from the first two by only one point, suggested the teens encountered a human predator, either in a robbery-gone-wrong or involving an individual specifically seeking hitchhikers as victims. In both cases, a festival attracting tens of thousands of attendees, many of whom were hitchhiking, would have offered an attractive opportunity to a criminal. Both hypotheses were weakened, although not dismissed, by research indicating that when strangers prey upon strangers, they rarely take the additional steps necessary to ensure that bodies remain hidden indefinitely.

A fifth hypothesis, clustered somewhat below the previous four, examined the possibility of an environmental accident, such as the one described by a witness 27 years after the fact. It offered a relatively straightforward scenario with minimal logistical complexity. However, the specific report was weakened by the claim that as many as 25 people witnessed the accident yet no one contacted authorities. The possibility that not one but two victims were lost and never recovered further reduced the hypothesis’s overall strength.

Hypotheses toward the bottom of the list included a medical event at the festival and the possibility that the teens ran away. The medical hypothesis was strongly undermined by records maintained by medical personnel and authorities documenting incidents at the festival. The runaway hypothesis suffered from the lack of documented preparation, the absence of subsequent communication with family and friends, and the fact that no evidence has emerged that they resumed their lives elsewhere.

The Garrow theory was the lowest-scoring hypothesis, weakened by logistics, timing, evidence signature, history, and the availability of opportunities closer to his established area of operation.

PHASE 6: Sanity Check

The analysis did not result in a ranked list, but instead, two tiers. The top tier included scenarios where remains could theoretically have gone undiscovered, while the bottom tier consisted of those in which traces of the teens should have been left behind or turned up over time. It was a logical result, but it offered little in terms of determining what happened to the teens. The process found that while TRACE can help organize uncertainty and eliminate weaker hypotheses, identifying clear explanations in the complete absence of evidence remains a difficult obstacle to overcome.

---

Postscript

This analysis suggests that while TRACE is well suited to low- and no-evidence cases, its application would benefit from input from multiple analysts. Several of its scoring elements rely on informed judgment rather than mechanical calculation. Having two or more analysts work collaboratively–or else small teams that work independently and then compare, discuss, and debate their findings–could help identify differences in interpretation and produce a more robust and defensible assessment.

TRACE remains a new technique and has not yet undergone independent peer review or rigorous empirical testing. Crime analysts and other investigators who encounter low- or no-evidence cases are encouraged to apply the technique to their own work and provide feedback. Like any developing analytical method, TRACE can be strengthened through continued application, critical examination, and contributions from both professional and citizen analysts.

---

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 posts 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. “2 Who Set Out for Watkins Glen Are Still Gone,” The New York Times, 9 April 1974, accessed through mitchelandbonnie.com. ↩︎
2. Eric J. Greenberg, “Without A Trace,” The Jewish Week, Vol. 211, 24 July 1998. ↩︎
3. “2 Who Set Out for Watkins Glen Are Still Gone,” The New York Times, 9 April 1974, accessed through mitchelandbonnie.com. ↩︎
4. “2 Who Set Out for Watkins Glen Are Still Gone,” The New York Times, 9 April 1974, accessed through mitchelandbonnie.com. ↩︎
5. “Bonita Mara Bickwit,” charleyproject.org, 30 August 2023. ↩︎
6. Eric J. Greenberg, “Without A Trace,” The Jewish Week, Vol. 211, 24 July 1998. ↩︎
7. “2 Who Set Out for Watkins Glen Are Still Gone,” The New York Times, 9 April 1974, accessed through mitchelandbonnie.com. ↩︎
8. Roger Catlin, “Hilly N.Y. field was transformed into city of rock ‘n’ roll-A rock first for the ages-This year marks 20th anniversary of Watkins Glen, where 600,000 heard the Band, Allman Brothers and Grateful Dead,” The Hartford Courant, 25 July 1993. ↩︎
9. Robert Santelli, “Aquarius Rising: The Rock Festival Years,” as quoted by Roger Catlin, “Hilly N.Y. field was transformed into city of rock ‘n’ roll-A rock first for the ages-This year marks 20th anniversary of Watkins Glen, where 600,000 heard the Band, Allman Brothers and Grateful Dead,” The Hartford Courant, 25 July 1993. ↩︎
10. Eric J. Greenberg, “‘Infuriating’: Loved Ones Blast NY Gov for Inaction in 1973 Missing Teens Case,” 27 July 2024, article accessed through LinkedIn. ↩︎
11. Eric J. Greenberg, “Missing Teens’ Classmates Issue Plea,” The Jewish Week, 23 June 2000, accessed through mitchelandbonnie.com. ↩︎
12. Roger Catlin, “Hilly N.Y. field was transformed into city of rock ‘n’ roll-A rock first for the ages-This year marks 20th anniversary of Watkins Glen, where 600,000 heard the Band, Allman Brothers and Grateful Dead,” The Hartford Courant, 25 July 1993. ↩︎
13. New York State Police, “Summer Jam at Watkins Glen,” n.d. ↩︎
14. Ken Sander, “Summer Jam at Watkins Glen, Part Two,” Copper, A PS Audio Publication, Issue 147, 8 October 2021. ↩︎
15. New York State Police, “Annual Report, New York State Police, 1973,” n.d., accessed from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. ↩︎
16. New York State Police, “Annual Report, New York State Police, 1973,” n.d., accessed from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. ↩︎
17. “California Crimes and Accidents Associated with Hitchhiking,” California Highway Patrol, February 1974, accessed from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. ↩︎
18. “California Crimes and Accidents Associated with Hitchhiking,” California Highway Patrol, February 1974, accessed from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. ↩︎
19. Large language model (LLM) Claude supplied the lower price; LLM Gemini supplied the higher estimate. ↩︎
20. Anita D. Timrots and Michael R. Rand, “Violent Crime by Strangers and Nonstrangers,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1987. ↩︎
21. Valeria Flores, et al, “Body Disposal in Homicide,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 8 April 2021. ↩︎
22. Alex Tabarrok and Tyler Cowen, “The 1970s Crime Wave,” The Marginal Revolution Podcast, Mercatus Center, George Mason University, 12 November 2024. ↩︎
23. Alex Tabarrok and Tyler Cowen, “The 1970s Crime Wave,” The Marginal Revolution Podcast, Mercatus Center, George Mason University, 12 November 2024. ↩︎
24. Timothy Reynolds, “Riding With A Killer: Anthony Jackson and the Boston ‘Hitchhike Murders,'” Tales from the Underworld, 6 July 2025. ↩︎
25. “California Crimes and Accidents Associated with Hitchhiking,” California Highway Patrol, February 1974, accessed from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. ↩︎
26. Anita D. Timrots and Michael R. Rand, “Violent Crime by Strangers and Nonstrangers,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1987. ↩︎
27. Anita D. Timrots and Michael R. Rand, “Violent Crime by Strangers and Nonstrangers,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1987. ↩︎
28. Anita D. Timrots and Michael R. Rand, “Violent Crime by Strangers and Nonstrangers,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1987. ↩︎
29. NBC New York Staff, “Dead Woman Found in Vehicle Submerged in Retention Pond Near NY Highway: Police,” 9 December 2022. ↩︎
30. Lin Chen, “The Underwater Clue That Solves Most Missing Car Mysteries (No One Looks There First),” twigether.com, 18 March 2026. ↩︎
31. Brianna, “About,” mapthemissing.org. ↩︎
32. Eric J. Greenberg, “New Leads In Oldest Missing Teens Case In America,” 20 December 2024, accessed through LinkedIn. ↩︎
33. Eric J. Greenberg, “New Leads In Oldest Missing Teens Case In America,” 20 December 2024, accessed through LinkedIn. ↩︎
34. Eric J. Greenberg, “1973 NYC Cold Case Involving Missing Teens Resurfaces,” 27 March 2024, accessed through LinkedIn. ↩︎
35. Eric J. Greenberg, “New Leads In Oldest Missing Teens Case In America,” 20 December 2024, accessed through LinkedIn. ↩︎
36. “Bonita Mara Bickwit,” charleyproject.org, 30 August 2023. ↩︎
37. Eric J. Greenberg, “New Leads In Oldest Missing Teens Case In America,” 20 December 2024, accessed through LinkedIn. ↩︎
38. The Vanished Podcast, “Episode 41: Mitchel Weiser and Bonnie Bickwit,” 17 August 2016. ↩︎
39. Times Leader Archivist, “Drownings In The Susquehanna River March 16, 1984: The Body Of Paul Goodstein Is Recovered From The River. Goodstein, 15, Of Mountaintop Fell From The Wilkes-barre Railroad Connecting Bridge The Day Before. Despite A Dramatic Rescue Attempt By The Wnep-tv Channel 16 Helicopter, The Teenager Drowned, Prompting The Improvement Of River Rescue Teams,” Times Leader, 16 July 1997. ↩︎
40. “Susquehanna River Tragedy,” The Historical Marker Database, HMdb.org, n.d. ↩︎
41. National Parks Service (NPS) Incident Reports were extracted from the NPS Morning Reports/Coalition Reports, “Upper Delaware,” 1986-2025. ↩︎
42. Benjamin S. Davis, M.D. (1893-1948), “Report of Study and Findings of Thirty-Six Drownings
    in Harvey’s Lake and Susquehanna River,” harveyslake.org, 30 March 1946. ↩︎
43. “California Crimes and Accidents Associated with Hitchhiking,” California Highway Patrol, February 1974, accessed from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. ↩︎
44. “California Crimes and Accidents Associated with Hitchhiking,” California Highway Patrol, February 1974, accessed from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. ↩︎
45. “California Crimes and Accidents Associated with Hitchhiking,” California Highway Patrol, February 1974, accessed from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. ↩︎
46. Congressional Research Office, “The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program: Administration, Funding, and Legislative Actions,” Library of Congress, March 2006. ↩︎
47. “2 Who Set Out for Watkins Glen Are Still Gone,” The New York Times, 9 April 1974, accessed through mitchelandbonnie.com. ↩︎
48. Ken Sander, “Summer Jam at Watkins Glen, Part Two,” Copper, A PS Audio Publication, Issue 147, 8 October 2021. ↩︎ ↩︎
49. New York State Police, “Annual Report, New York State Police, 1973,” n.d., accessed from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. ↩︎
50. New York State Police, “Annual Report, New York State Police, 1973,” n.d., accessed from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. ↩︎
51. New York State Police, “Annual Report, New York State Police, 1973,” n.d., accessed from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. ↩︎
52. Mark Frost, “When Robert Garrow’s murders, manhunt terrified the Adks.,” The Chronicle, Glens Falls, 9 July 2021. ↩︎
53. Mark Frost, “When Robert Garrow’s murders, manhunt terrified the Adks.,” The Chronicle, Glens Falls, 9 July 2021. ↩︎
54. Mark Frost, “When Robert Garrow’s murders, manhunt terrified the Adks.,” The Chronicle, Glens Falls, 9 July 2021. ↩︎
55. Edward Kanze, “Summer of Garrow,” Adirondack Life, August 2009. ↩︎
56. Tim Blydenburgh and David M. Johnson, “The search for a killer in the summer of 1973,” Times-Union, 9 August 2023. ↩︎
57. Tim Blydenburgh and David M. Johnson, “The search for a killer in the summer of 1973,” Times-Union, 9 August 2023. ↩︎
58. Tim Blydenburgh and David M. Johnson, “The search for a killer in the summer of 1973,” Times-Union, 9 August 2023. ↩︎
59. Edward Kanze, “Summer of Garrow,” Adirondack Life, August 2009. ↩︎