The disappearance of Amy Wroe Bechtel

Analysis by Evgenia K. Sarri

 

 

 

24^th July marks the 24 anniversary of Amy’s disappearance. Her case remains unsolved.

 

Twenty-four-year-old Amy Wroe and Steve Bechtel were married in 1996. They were avid fitness enthusiasts; she loved running while he loved climbing. They moved to Lander, Wyoming, because its rugged terrain made it a perfect training ground for them. They had recently bought a home of their own and planned to move in sometime during late July 1997. At 9:30 a.m. on July 24, Steve Bechtel left to go rock climbing with a friend while his wife Amy had to teach a fitness class and run errands that day: call the phone company, get the gas turned on, and buy home insurance.

Amy was spotted at a photo store at 2:30 p.m. that afternoon. This is the last confirmed sighting of Amy. It is alleged that she left the photo store and drove to the Shoshone National Forest to explore the course of a 10 kilometer race held by her gym that she was planning on entering.

When Steve returned home at 4:30 p.m. from rock climbing, Amy was nowhere to be found. When darkness fell, Steve called family members and enlisted neighbors to help with the search for Amy. He called the police at 10.30 p.m.

Amy’s car was found parked off a dirt road in the wilderness of the Shoshone National Forest. Her keys were in the car, but her wallet was missing. No signs of foul play were discovered in or around Amy’s vehicle. And Amy has never been found.

We will analyze Steve Bechtel’s call and attempt to outline his profile using the analysis. Additional statements made by S.Bechtel will also provide insight into his personality.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expected Versus Unexpected

In Statement Analysis we expect in each case we analyze to find certain words, behaviors and feelings expressed in the statement, taking context into account. This is what we call “the expected.” Words will reflect the subject’s truth, whichever it is. In every case individual responses may vary, but as we are all humans and our bodies are governed by the same chemistry, we all respond to events in a similar manner. A traumatic event affects us all in almost the same way. Emotional expression may differ from person to person depending on their character, but language is different; it always reflects feelings.

 

When we do not find in the statement what is expected depending on the situation, but we find words and behaviors that do not fit in, we call it “the unexpected.” It can be very surprising at first, but it is a very valuable indicator of what lies beneath the surface of a person’s reaction and leads us to the truth of the person’s feelings. Exploring what caused the unexpected reaction and what it reveals helps us get closer to the true factors at play in the case we are analyzing.

 

 The significance of 911 calls as first reactions

911 calls are invaluable to analysis, as they constitute the very first statement one makes to the police. By answering the question “what is your emergency?” the caller chooses his/her own words, without any contamination by investigators or lawyers, to describe an event and make a request. There are many cases in which the perpetrator of a crime is the one who calls the police. Besides the guilty caller cases, 911 calls reflect the caller’s priorities and thoughts.

When people call 911, it means they are in a state which needs immediate attention and they are in dire need of assistance. It is the only way they will have a service respond and provide them with the help they require. They may call for the police, the fire department or paramedics. In any case, what we expect to see is a sense of urgency. People in despair who are seeking help urgently will most often state their need and provide essential information in order to receive the help they are asking for. The intent is not to give a fully developed account of their recent experience, but to elicit a response from the agency they have called. We expect to see the presence of emotion and the expression of a demand as time is passing by and anxiety and fear are increasing.

 

 Outlining the caller’s profile

Besides detecting points of deception in someone’s language, we can also gain insight into the subject’s psychological profile. The main personality traits are revealed in the way someone speaks and reacts in everyday life situations as well as in traumatic ones.

Since our character dictates our attitude and language is the main expression of our inner truth and feelings, when we analyze someone’s words the basic profile of their character emerges. We can detect their thought process and behavioral characteristics. We can make hypotheses about their priorities, their background and experiences in life which shaped their personality. And this happens because certain character types react in certain ways. We can, therefore, look for signs of emotion and which emotion is that is expressed; empathy, attitude towards self and others, their view of life and society in general; all these are points which can lead us to the main personality traits the subject possesses. We can then explore our hypothesis using corroborative evidence and additional information.

 Is it possible to profile someone using one statement?

In context, a simple statement can reveal a lot about the person making it. We may not be able to create a full profile, but when the circumstances in which the statement was made are known, we are able to focus our attention on the subject’s emotions and attitude in a situation at the point of the statement. These are revealed by the grammar the subject uses and any modifying words which provide insights into their behavioral characteristics. What emerges is a broad outline which can later be elaborated on if other statements and information are, or become known.

 Steve Bechtel’s 911 call

Unfortunately, the Sheriff’s office has not released the call. They have only released the first part of it.

 

What do we expect Amy’s husband to say? We expect him to be terribly worried about what has happened to his wife and ask the police to find her, or to help him find her. We expect him to be frantic, distraught; after all, he is a young man in love with his wife, to whom he has been married for just one and a half years. The thought of her having had an accident and being out there somewhere injured or helpless must be driving him crazy. What do we expect to hear? My wife Amy is missing.

 

This is the start of Bechtel’s 911 call: 

Hi, this is Steve Bechtel calling. I’m, um, I’m missing a person… and I was wondering if you maybe had an extra…

Analysis

-Hi, this is SB calling

The call begins with a greeting and SB is introducing himself to the police. There is no urgency. By now, it has been about six hours that he supposedly has been waiting for Amy to come back from her jog. It is about 10.30pm. This is not a situation in which something terrible has just happened and the caller needs assistance for a victim suffering in front of him. This is a husband who is worried about his wife not coming home. The introduction could be appropriate. Something bad but not fatal may have happened to her; a minor accident, or an incident with her car. We know though, that he has not called any hospitals before the call to the police; just his neighbors and Amy’s parents.

We note the fact that the call begins with a salutation and we should keep it in mind. Even though we already said it could be appropriate, we should also think of the possibility that the caller is trying to ingratiate himself to the police.

We also note the formal way in which he introduces himself. Introducing himself on its own is not unexpected, as he could be providing essential information; the rest of the call should help us determine more accurately the reason behind it. We should keep in mind his priorities though. Could it be his sense of self-importance which dictates this start? Could it be distance through formality?

 In any case, his introducing himself as a priority and the casual salutation can be an attempt of ingratiation and also an attempt to sound relaxed. Or, he could be relaxed and indifferent.

-I’m, um, I’m missing a person…

The subject stutters on the pronoun. This indicates nervousness. There is also a short pause between the two pronouns which could give him time to think.

Then he goes on to state his problem. Once again, his focus is on himself. This statement is about him.

 He is missing a person, not his wife, not even gender is mentioned. Amy is deprived of her wife status. She is reduced to being just a person. This is unexpected from a husband who has been married to her for just over one year. It is extremely distancing language and negative linguistic disposition towards Amy as there is no social introduction of any kind. The impression given is that he is missing something that could be considered a possession.

 What we would expect to hear from a distraught husband at that point is: “my wife Amy is missing”; the subject of the sentence and the focus should have been his wife, not him. The absence of a salutation would also be what is expected after anxiety must have been building up for hours.

-and I was wondering if you maybe had an extra

This is the definition of the unexpected; a caller that makes a joke on a 911 call.

Why would he do that? Who does that? What produces it in the subject’s mind?

If one decides to call 911, it means they have no other option. Anxiety has turned into fear and desperation and they need help. In this context, it is very unlikely that they will use humor in their communication with the police.

Why is the subject saying that?

Is he happy and he can’t hide it?

Is he nervous and his attempt of an awkward joke is a manifestation of his state?

Is this an attempt to minimize the fact he is reporting?

Is it an attempt to ridicule the fact that she is missing?

Does he have reasons to believe that she is not missing, that she may have left him and he does not want to lose face if this is the case? This is not a public statement; it is between him and the 911 operator. Is this his way of saying: this may be an overreaction, but…

Could it be about control?  Could it be an attempt to show he has not lost control of the situation or his wife?

Humor always has a source and a reason to be present as we mentioned above. In Analysis we always note when it is produced and explore what may have produced it.

Furthermore, we know that he had some errands for her to do before she went missing, while he allegedly had gone rock climbing. No one who is going to leave their spouse makes sure that the gas and the phone for their new house will be connected.

Does he have guilty knowledge of what happened to her and makes the call to the police as part of a plan because this is what a worried husband would do?

Let us pause and look at what he is saying. What is this call about? We may not have it in its entirety, but “order shows priority”. This part is his priority sentence.

It is to report he is missing someone and is looking for a spare. He is asking for a replacement.  It is as if he has spilled his coffee and is asking the waiter to bring him another one, or as if something has broken down and he is asking for a spare part to go on doing what he was doing. This is not a call for help. This is the subject stating that she is just a person to him and he does not need her. She is not irreplaceable to him.

 

Conclusion

Taking into account the importance he places upon himself by introducing himself the way he did and putting himself first, combined with the extremely distancing language regarding Amy and the fact of his inappropriate humorous attempt, we can conclude that there is no sign of any feeling whatsoever towards her. She is not his wife, she does not have a name, and she is “a person”. His linguistic disposition towards her is extremely negative. We would expect, even in a problematic relationship, to see human empathy for someone who may be alone and hurt in a mountainous area at 10.30pm. Even a stranger would have more feeling in their language than he has. This is why it is difficult to imagine joking about something like this, even if one called the police to report the disappearance of someone they did not know.

We note his focus is completely upon himself, his attitude towards the victim is cold bordering to hostile, and we also note a complete lack of any emotion relevant to a traumatic situation. He does not seem to be overwhelmed as we would expect a caller in these circumstances to be.

At the point of the call the subject does not present any of the characteristics an innocent caller would present. Further exploration of his attitude is necessary to determine if he has guilty knowledge of the events which caused his wife’s disappearance, or not.

 Outlining Steve Bechtel’s profile

What we note in this small part of the call is someone who lacks any feeling towards his wife at a time like this. He is distancing himself from her and anything that may have happened. This subject has not only a cold attitude and no sign of empathy for his wife, but also no empathy for human beings in general.

His asking for a replacement in a joking manner can allow us to think that he values people depending on the usefulness they may have for him. People, even the ones who are closest to him, can be replaced. There is no emotional attachment.

This view of the world as an instrument is common to people who have narcissistic traits in their personality. The lack of the appropriate emotion in each situation can also be found in those with psychopathic traits. The subject in this case cannot even imitate natural reactions to emergency circumstances and does not seem to hold human life in general in high regard. This does not appear to disturb him, which is indicative of lack of emotional intelligence. There is also an indication of a possible need to control or appear to be in control of his environment, which is also a narcissistic trait. He needs to appear confident.

Let us see if we can dive deeper into his character.

Additional statements by Steve Bechtel

The statements following were made by the subject after the fact, in interviews he gave to some journalists. We keep in mind that time has passed and that the statements may be edited to some extent.

Segment 1

“It was funny,” Steve says. “I got home from climbing, it’s just a normal day, (-)get unpacked, (-)feed the dog or whatever, then I start wondering, Where is she? (-)Make some calls, (-)drive around a little bit. It gets to be like 8 p.m., 9 p.m., 10 p.m., that incredible anxiety builds up. You’re just worried. I hope she didn’t break her ankle, I hope she didn’t run out of gas, those normal things where you’re like, this sucks. But you’re not going, ‘I hope my wife wasn’t grabbed by some psychopathic serial killer.’”

Let us keep in mind the context. A young man in his twenties married to his wife for just over a year moved to Lander, Wyoming and they are going to move into their new home four or five days later. They must be happy and excited at the start of their new life together.

1. It was funny

When one is young and in love, would they characterize the fact that they can’t find their spouse “funny”? What exactly was funny about it? Why would he use this word and not say strange? It may be part of his personal, internal dictionary; we note it and we move on.

I got home from climbing, it’s just a normal day, (-)get unpacked, (-)feed the dog or whatever, then I start wondering, Where is she?

2. The first sentence begins with the pronoun “I” and is in the past tense. It is reliable in form.

It’s just a normal day

3. We note three things in this part.

 The first one is the change in tenses; the subject changes from past tense to present.

 We also note the use of “just” which means there is at least one other thought at play, combined with “normal”.

This part is important to him as it interrupts the flow of events he is describing. It is important for him to mention it at this point, before going on to say what happened next. It indicates that the day was anything but normal to him. He moves from reliably reporting a fact to the rest of the account which is different, and this part is a kind of a bridge between the two parts.

4. The subject continues in present tense. After the first reliable sentence of him coming back, the rest of the account is in present tense. What changed? Can this be an indication of storytelling?

5. (-)get unpacked, (-)feed the dog or whatever,

The subject removes himself from the events which followed by omitting the pronoun “I”. He does not commit to what he did next and is vague about his exact actions (whatever). This part is not reliable and causes us to wonder why he needs to avoid responsibility for these actions.

then I start wondering, Where is she?

6. “Then” marks the element of time. He does not mention how much time has passed. This is an indication that he has jumped through time.

We note that he starts “wondering”, not worrying about her. Could it be part of his character expressed here and his pattern of behavior? Does he usually need to know where she is?

(-)Make some calls, (-)drive around a little bit. It gets to be like 8 p.m., 9 p.m., 10 p.m., that incredible anxiety builds up.

7. The subject continues to use the same pattern of using the present tense and removing himself when describing the rest of his actions. He still has not said who did all these things. He is also vague about his actions. Who did he call and why? Where did he drive? This whole part is unreliable.

8. “a little bit” is to qualify driving around. These two qualifiers are both vague. He does not say he looked for her, he just drives around, but not frantically, not in fear, he drives around wondering where she is. Besides being unreliable and probably deceptive, this part can be indicative of his personality.

9. “that incredible anxiety”: the subject distances himself from the anxiety he is referring to. Is this to indicate emotional distance and not related to time passing by as he is speaking in present tense?  Wouldn’t the present progressive be more fitting to his pattern? His anxiety could have been real. This raises the question: what was the real cause of that anxiety if it existed? It was not present in the 911 call he made later.

You’re just worried. I hope she didn’t break her ankle, I hope she didn’t run out of gas, those normal things where you’re like, this sucks.

10. The subject distances himself from the situation by using the pronoun “you”.

11. “just worried” is a step down from “incredible anxiety”; it is de-escalation. We would expect anxiety and tension to rise, not lessen as time goes by.

Could it be his character that dictates these words? Is he too arrogant to say how anxious or scared he was? Does he need this minimization of emotion to preserve his image, or is it a clumsy attempt to imitate natural reactions to an event like this?

 

12. “normal” appears for a second time, making the indication we noted earlier stronger.

We also note that he uses the distancing word “those” when he refers to normal things. The normal things are kept at a distance and he brings what “sucks” close to him. Is this indicative of his mindset at the time of the event which took place? Could it be related to what caused her disappearance?

But you’re not going, ‘I hope my wife wasn’t grabbed by some psychopathic serial killer.’

13.  “But” is to minimize what preceded it.

At this point the subject is telling us what he did not think. We expect a truthful subject to tell us what he did and what he thought, and not the opposite.

14. We note that in mentioning the serial killer he changes tense and speaks in the past simple. This interview is taken in 2016, many years later. It could be a reason why the subject chooses the present tense. It could be a story for him since he has processed it and he has moved on in his life. He has not talked about the case much and he refuses to talk to the police. But we note the fact that when he talks about someone else he uses the past tense.

His reference to the serial killer is due to the fact that the only other suspect in Amy’s case was Dale Eaton, a convicted killer, who may be involved as he used to camp about 30 kilometers away from the place where her car was found and from where she allegedly went missing.

-

Segment 2

[…]

“The pavement ends and we hit a mixture of frozen mud and snow. We soon come to a branch in the road. “Right here,” he says. “Her car was parked right in there.” Steve narrates the night she disappeared.

“It’s one or so in the morning, (-)find the car,(-)get here. I brought sleeping bags and a cook stove and food—first-aid kit—we gotta find her. Todd and Amy had been driving and found the car. They called. We raced up here. You get here—this was a big error—we’re looking for a missing runner. Everybody was crawling through that car. Knowing what we know now we should have cordoned the thing off—fingerprints. It’s like the classic cluster of stupid crap.”

“It’s one or so in the morning, (-)find the car,(-)get here

14. It is surprising that the subject omits the pronouns in this sentence since the people who found the car were Todd and Amy, his friends and neighbors who were looking for her after Steve told them where his wife would probably have gone running.

Could the fact that he led them to search in that direction be the reason why he omits the pronouns? Does he wish to distance himself from that fact also?

 

I brought sleeping bags and a cook stove and food—first-aid kit—we gotta find her. Todd and Amy had been driving and found the car. They called. We raced up here.

15. The subject now changes to past tenses and he uses the pronoun “I”. This part is reliable. We note this commitment has to do not with his movements after he got home, but with irrelevant facts.

 We note the order: sleeping bags, cook stove, food, and a first aid kit, which is last in his priorities. It is as if he is going camping and knows that the first aid kit is just one of the supplies he has to have.

Would a worried husband be so meticulous with his supplies when his friends tell him they found his wife’s car abandoned with the keys on the engine up on the mountain? We would expect him to say he brought flashlights, flares, rope, climbing or hiking equipment, whistles, etc which would be more useful to the search, and not picnic equipment.

 

16. And then we see a change:

We gotta find her :a change in pronoun and in verb tense. He does not want to be alone in this statement. Why not say: I had to find her. Every other sentence in this part is reliable in form, including pronouns and the past tense, except this one.

We note again the fact that every sentence regarding other people’s actions has got a subject and a past tense verb. We can safely say that this is a pattern in his account.

 

You get here—this was a big error—we’re looking for a missing runner. Everybody was crawling through that car. Knowing what we know now we should have cordoned the thing off—fingerprints. It’s like the classic cluster of stupid crap.”

17. The subject is not standing anywhere alone at this part of the statement. He does not exist individually as the distraught husband. He goes from “you” to “we”. The tenses he uses are mixed up.

18. this was a big error—we’re looking for a missing runner

 

The subject brings the error close to him, even though it happened years ago and he uses the past simple. What produces this unexpected closeness? He does not come across as someone who would admit a mistake and this is expressed in passive language. Who made the error?

 

He goes on to state in the present progressive the reason why.

What makes this part very sensitive is not the reason why itself, but the fact that it is part of a sentence that tenses, distance (you) and closeness are all mixed together. It is between two parts of the account in which actions are reported reliably.

19. crawling through is a strange choice of words. What produced it? It is also in the past progressive tense, indicating the passing of time, of which he was very aware. What imprinted it in his mind? Was he worried about what would be found? Was crawling through a place something he is thinking of at this point?

Knowing what we know now we should have cordoned the thing off—fingerprints.

20. Does the subject identify with the police, or is he subtly blaming them for incompetence?

He uses police terminology. It could be contamination as time has passed. But the use of the pronoun “we” is significant. Does he want to give the impression he is united with them even if he did not cooperate at the time? Who is “we”? Could it be him and his friends?

 

Classic cluster of stupid crap:

21. This could be an accusation for the police. It is also minimization of the severity of the situation. It is vulgar, especially in an interview. It surely is his manner of speaking but could it be used to imitate frustration?

Conclusion

 

The subject omits pronouns in critical parts of his account, emphasizes the normal factor, but most of all, he mixes up the tenses in these statements. We can observe that reliable sentences in the past tense alternate with unreliable ones in the present tense. The only times he uses the past tense to speak about his actions or thoughts are to say:

“It was funny,”. “I got home from climbing.

I brought sleeping bags and a cook stove and food—first-aid kit

These are the only parts in which he uses reliable language to speak about his actions. And they contain the shocking statement that what he will say next was “funny” to him. We could mean strange, or odd, but he uses this word, which allows us to think that he may have found what followed amusing.

This raises the question: if he has guilty knowledge, would it be amusing to him to see all those people searching for Amy and believing his story? We should keep in mind his attempt to make a joke in his 911 call.

When he talks about other people’s actions  he uses the past tenses more, but he does not speak about him individually, except when he says he brought sleeping bags, food and a first aid kit, which is unnecessary information and irrelevant to the case.  The use of the present cannot be an indication that he is reliving the event due to trauma because of the other elements of unreliability. The confusion in the use of tenses is an indication of probable story telling mixed with irrelevant true facts, or processing of loss, which is also unexpected as events like this when someone is young and in love should produce the past tense and some emotion even after all these years.

The subject is withholding information and does not reliably report what happened. He also avoids responsibility for his actions. These are indications of deception which require further exploration through analytical interviewing.

Closing remarks

Amy’s body has never been found. The search for her was huge. Even NASA was asked to contribute by providing satellite photos. According to the FBI, Steve Bechtel was the main suspect.

This happened at a time and place with no mobile phones and surveillance cameras. One cannot help but wonder how that investigation could have been different if analysis of Bechtel’s words and analytical interviewing were applied by trained investigators.