Latest / Unshaken & Unafraid with Joe Pags / Nancy Guthrie Case: Why Was the Man Detained in the Raid Released? (w/ Jonathan Gilliam)

Transcript

Nancy Guthrie Case: Why Was the Man Detained in the Raid Released? (w/ Jonathan Gilliam) · Unshaken & Unafraid with Joe Pags

0:00
Speaker 1: The FBI detained him, raided his house, then let him go. Well,
0:03
Speaker 1: this delivery driver, Carlos is now doing a media tour.
0:06
Speaker 1: Why he's on camera all the time answering questions? Jonathan
0:09
Speaker 1: Gillingham is here. He says, innocent people don't usually run
0:12
Speaker 1: to the cameras. They lawyer up. He says, the local
0:15
Speaker 1: sheriff's been incompetent or even arrogant. But what's the latest
0:18
Speaker 1: here on what the FBI did yesterday with this delivery driver?
0:21
Speaker 1: He breaks it down like nobody else. You gotta see this.
0:25
Speaker 2: From the time the FBI got on the ground, they've
0:27
Speaker 2: been playing catch up because this sheriff, from what I'm understanding,
0:32
Speaker 2: and there's some pretty good sources out there that report
0:34
Speaker 2: on stuff, is that he's he's not the man for
0:37
Speaker 2: that job, and that the people that he put in
0:41
Speaker 2: place as the lead detectives have two or less years
0:45
Speaker 2: as detectives.
0:46
Speaker 3: Well, I want to talk about that for a second. No,
0:48
Speaker 3: you're you're right.
0:49
Speaker 1: I've heard I had I had a sheriff lamb on
0:50
Speaker 1: the other day, a mutual friend of ours, he said,
0:53
Speaker 1: or somebody told him. And we have word that the
0:55
Speaker 1: lead investigator has gotten maybe two years, and the two
0:58
Speaker 1: other investigators have one year each. So when you know
1:00
Speaker 1: that you're going in with no experience whatsoever, I mean,
1:03
Speaker 1: with your extensive experience, don't you immediately say listen, I'm
1:06
Speaker 1: Sheriff Nanos. We can't handle this cash. I need some help.
1:09
Speaker 1: Because it seems like they dragged their feet on that
1:11
Speaker 1: a little bit. They left the crime scene unattended, people
1:14
Speaker 1: were using the bathroom in the crime scene. I mean, Jonathan,
1:18
Speaker 1: it's not just incompetence. There's something else going on here,
1:21
Speaker 1: not that I think they're involved, but can it purely
1:24
Speaker 1: be called incompetence? Is this arrogance that didn't call somebody
1:27
Speaker 1: in with more experience sooner?
1:30
Speaker 2: I think arrogance and incompetence go hand in hand a
1:34
Speaker 2: lot of times in law enforcement, and people believe that
1:37
Speaker 2: they know more than they do. And you know, I
1:38
Speaker 2: went through the NYPD Homicide Detective School. I'm one of
1:42
Speaker 2: the few FBI agents that got to go through that,
1:44
Speaker 2: and the very first thing that I learned in that
1:47
Speaker 2: incredible course was how many people come in and destroy
1:51
Speaker 2: a crime scene? And I think that's what occurred here.
1:54
Speaker 2: So what evidence they can get, potentially they'll be able
1:58
Speaker 2: to find her, but even defense attorney could come in
2:01
Speaker 2: and then and question it stuff. But I think the
2:03
Speaker 2: main goal is to find Nancy or recover her right
2:06
Speaker 2: and then and also find the person that did this. So,
2:09
Speaker 2: you know, I think the totality of the behavior of
2:14
Speaker 2: this sheriff falls in line with all these other incompetent
2:18
Speaker 2: sheriffs and chiefs of police that we've seen over the
2:20
Speaker 2: past year, with these horrendous press conferences, and I think
2:24
Speaker 2: in this case, you know, he ruined the force multiplier,
2:28
Speaker 2: which is the citizenry and telling them don't worry about this,
2:32
Speaker 2: or giving them this information one day and totally opposite
2:35
Speaker 2: information the next day, and I think it really put
2:40
Speaker 2: things behind quite a bit. So once the FBI got there, though,
2:45
Speaker 2: now what they're doing when we look at last night,
2:48
Speaker 2: I know that it may seem like a total failure,
2:52
Speaker 2: but in my eyes, we don't know the complete picture.
2:55
Speaker 2: So I know that the hostage Rescue team is their
2:58
Speaker 2: FBI hostage rescue team, and they're not a regular swat team.
3:00
Speaker 2: They're a Tier one asset, so they are the specialist
3:04
Speaker 2: of hunters and they will go into place obscure places
3:07
Speaker 2: and do incredible things so perhaps they're there because they
3:11
Speaker 2: have information that she may be held and she may
3:14
Speaker 2: be held over the border, or maybe they're there in
3:18
Speaker 2: case that occurs. But either way, they had enough information
3:22
Speaker 2: after this video came out to latch on to this
3:26
Speaker 2: guy that they pulled over last night and serve a
3:29
Speaker 2: warrant which had been approved by a judge. And so
3:33
Speaker 2: they go in there, and so it's important for us
3:35
Speaker 2: to realize that I don't think it was a failure
3:38
Speaker 2: because they if they have problem cause to think that
3:41
Speaker 2: she was there, which I've heard that there may have
3:43
Speaker 2: been a phone call saying she was there, or they
3:45
Speaker 2: had problem cause because he was in the neighborhood around
3:50
Speaker 2: the time of Nancy Guthrie's disappearance, then I'm all for that.
3:54
Speaker 2: And just because they went in there and came back
3:56
Speaker 2: out doesn't mean that they didn't also get a title
3:59
Speaker 2: three to go up on his phone, his computer, his
4:01
Speaker 2: social media. They may still be looking at this guy
4:04
Speaker 2: because I don't care how innocent he makes himself sound, right,
4:08
Speaker 2: he could still be a subject and could be connected
4:10
Speaker 2: to something.
4:11
Speaker 1: Well, I want to talk. I want to talk at
4:12
Speaker 1: length about what you just said, because you just I
4:14
Speaker 1: didn't think about a lot of what you just said.
4:15
Speaker 1: That's why I have you on. You're an incredible expert
4:17
Speaker 1: on this. In fact, the podcast is called The Experts.
4:19
Speaker 1: Go and check out Jonathan tgilliam dot com and go
4:22
Speaker 1: check out his podcast anywhere. So this guy is talking
4:25
Speaker 1: to the media. He's like any camera and he's just yapping.
4:27
Speaker 1: His name is Carlos and he's out there just yappin.
4:30
Speaker 1: Let's talk about what you just said about technology. He's
4:32
Speaker 1: a delivery driver. He was asked by a reporter, have
4:35
Speaker 1: you delivered to that house? He goes bad. I don't know,
4:38
Speaker 1: Like he's not even sure if he did or didn't.
4:39
Speaker 1: I mean, I would know if this house is like
4:41
Speaker 1: the international story. So that's an odd answer to me.
4:44
Speaker 1: So you think they pulled him over because possibly there
4:47
Speaker 1: was a tip that Nancy Guffree might be at the
4:49
Speaker 1: house or near the house or involved somehow. I thought
4:52
Speaker 1: he was pulled over in a traffic stop and they went, wow,
4:54
Speaker 1: this is the guy on the video and decided to
4:56
Speaker 1: detain him. Is that not what happened? They was he targeted?
4:59
Speaker 1: Have you heard that they were actually looking for him?
5:04
Speaker 2: I haven't heard any confirmation, but Okay, this is the way.
5:07
Speaker 2: This is the way these things work. You know. They
5:09
Speaker 2: if he pops for whatever reason and they put surveillance
5:13
Speaker 2: on him, or they just say let's go to a
5:15
Speaker 2: traffic stop and not let him get home, Okay, then
5:19
Speaker 2: then that's the way it'll work its way out there.
5:21
Speaker 1: And they had a warrant for his home, and they
5:23
Speaker 1: had a warrant to go and they're calling it a raid,
5:26
Speaker 1: but it really wasn't. They were serving a warrant. And
5:27
Speaker 1: this was in Rio Rico, which is about an hour away.
5:30
Speaker 1: So Jonathan, let me take you back again, because, man,
5:32
Speaker 1: you know a lot. So do you think this guy
5:34
Speaker 1: is a delivery driver may have been delivering in the neighborhood?
5:37
Speaker 1: The FBI it's not this guy Nanos, it's not PMA County.
5:41
Speaker 1: The FBI says, hey, we've got the cell phone towered
5:43
Speaker 1: pings and this delivery guy or this guy Carlos was
5:47
Speaker 1: in the area that day. Is that why they hone
5:49
Speaker 1: in on him? Do you think I know that we're
5:50
Speaker 1: speculating a lot, but that's what it sounded like.
5:52
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I think that could be it. It could
5:54
Speaker 2: be a couple of things. It could be they got
5:56
Speaker 2: to report a phone call from somebody once that video
5:59
Speaker 2: is out, could be that they there's some technology they
6:02
Speaker 2: use to kind of key in, whether it be facial
6:05
Speaker 2: recognition or the toll records, which is are the phone
6:08
Speaker 2: records that do all that that tell all that information.
6:11
Speaker 2: Either way, I don't think he was just pulled over
6:14
Speaker 2: and then they randomly said, oh, this must be the guy.
6:16
Speaker 2: We got to go to his house. I think they
6:17
Speaker 2: had that warrant and pulled him over having that warrant,
6:21
Speaker 2: so they have him in search the house at the
6:23
Speaker 2: same time, and you know, there was conflicting There was
6:26
Speaker 2: conflicting information coming from his mother in law as well.
6:30
Speaker 2: That's saying he was in there playing video game, but
6:32
Speaker 2: yet there was a car stop, so there were different
6:35
Speaker 2: things going on that I'm not clear about. But when
6:38
Speaker 2: somebody comes out there and says, yeah, I don't know
6:42
Speaker 2: anything about this murder, and and then and so he's
6:46
Speaker 2: making himself sound he's totally minimizing his knowledge of this.
6:50
Speaker 2: But when they asked you work and deliver package in Tucson,
6:53
Speaker 2: he's like, oh, yeah, yeah, I do that. So I mean,
6:56
Speaker 2: it could be innocent. But that's also the way people
6:58
Speaker 2: minimize their involvement in things.
7:00
Speaker 1: And the people inside the house and love was his
7:01
Speaker 1: mother or who it was. They were like, I hadn't
7:03
Speaker 1: heard about the Nancy Gouthree case. Come on, I mean,
7:05
Speaker 1: anybody in earshot are on the globe has heard about
7:09
Speaker 1: this case, but especially an hour away in the same
7:11
Speaker 1: state in Arizona. What do you glean from that? A
7:14
Speaker 1: couple of things. He's out there yapping to the media.
7:16
Speaker 1: I find it to be very odd. And the second thing,
7:18
Speaker 1: the person inside the house saying we hadn't heard anything
7:20
Speaker 1: about it. What do you take from that?
7:23
Speaker 2: I mean, typically the people who come out and insist
7:27
Speaker 2: on being heard of their innocence are a lot of
7:29
Speaker 2: the times people who are guilty of such. And so
7:33
Speaker 2: you know, again, he still may have connections to whatever
7:37
Speaker 2: this is, and they may know that, and so perhaps
7:41
Speaker 2: they also got a title three to look at his phones,
7:45
Speaker 2: his computers, his social media, which doesn't mean that they're
7:47
Speaker 2: going to go look at it and go get him.
7:50
Speaker 2: They may listen and see if he's saying anything, and
7:53
Speaker 2: see who he's calling, and would also go towards whatever
7:58
Speaker 2: transactions he's doing on his phone. So if he was
8:00
Speaker 2: connected to that bitcoin, it would come back to his phone.
8:02
Speaker 2: So I don't know if they got a Title three,
8:04
Speaker 2: but I would think if they had enough evidence of
8:07
Speaker 2: problem cause to get a search warrant, they probably had
8:10
Speaker 2: enough to get a Title three for at least thirty
8:13
Speaker 2: days on his phone, in his computer and things.
8:16
Speaker 3: It is Jonathan T. Gilliam.
8:17
Speaker 1: Go follow him right now at gilliam Underscore Seal on
8:22
Speaker 1: X over an ig. It's real Jonathan Gilliam. Check out
8:24
Speaker 1: this podcast called the Experts. So let's talk about the
8:28
Speaker 1: terminology that's used by people like you, what you've done
8:31
Speaker 1: for a living for a long time. When you say
8:33
Speaker 1: a suspect, we think the guy did it. When you
8:36
Speaker 1: say a person of interest, we're not sure. But we're
8:38
Speaker 1: questioning him because we're wondering. When you say just detained
8:41
Speaker 1: and they're not person of interest or a suspect, what
8:44
Speaker 1: do you take from that. We're trying to see if
8:46
Speaker 1: there's a link. He's not free to go. If you're detained,
8:48
Speaker 1: you can't just leave unless they release you. So talk
8:51
Speaker 1: to me about the different terminology.
8:54
Speaker 2: Well, in in all that terminology, he could be the
8:57
Speaker 2: primary subject. They just don't have the evidence yet, so
9:00
Speaker 2: they detain him because they want to ask him questions,
9:03
Speaker 2: or they serve a warrant because they want to find
9:06
Speaker 2: some things. But a lot of times they won't say
9:10
Speaker 2: that they're the subject because you don't want that subject.
9:13
Speaker 2: Then if you don't have enough evidence at that time
9:17
Speaker 2: to get an arrest warrant, then but you still need
9:21
Speaker 2: to make contact. You may pull the ruse or you
9:24
Speaker 2: may not define him publicly. Is that and this is
9:27
Speaker 2: everything that happens in this case seems to be going public,
9:30
Speaker 2: so that it could be as simple as that he
9:32
Speaker 2: could be a subject, the primary subject, but they're just
9:36
Speaker 2: not saying that, and they're saying we didn't arrest him,
9:39
Speaker 2: they just detain him. Then if you're if you're listening
9:41
Speaker 2: to his phones, what do you think the first thing
9:43
Speaker 2: he's going to do is turn around and start calling everybody?
9:46
Speaker 2: So there's a potential of that. So the other side
9:50
Speaker 2: of that is if they think this individual may have
9:54
Speaker 2: connection to somebody, then they will They're not going to
9:58
Speaker 2: arrest him, but then detain him while they carry out
10:01
Speaker 2: a search warrant. And so a person of interest versus
10:05
Speaker 2: a suspect in law enforcement eyes, I think the only
10:10
Speaker 2: thing that differentiates those two things is the evidence and proveability.
10:14
Speaker 2: If I have a hunch and statistics say this might
10:17
Speaker 2: be the person, then I'm going to detain them and
10:20
Speaker 2: they're going to be a person of interest. If there
10:23
Speaker 2: really is enough evidence to say this person might have
10:27
Speaker 2: done it but we're not quite sure, then he might
10:30
Speaker 2: be deemed a suspect.
10:31
Speaker 1: Now And you're not saying he's a suspect. Neither am
10:33
Speaker 1: I we're not calling a person of interest, but certainly
10:35
Speaker 1: he was detained last night. Is there any investigative tactic
10:39
Speaker 1: that you can think of that would make sense? Let's
10:41
Speaker 1: let him go and see what he does. Do you
10:43
Speaker 1: think that you let somebody go that you still might
10:45
Speaker 1: want to take a look at, just to see, Like
10:47
Speaker 1: you said, who's he calling or is he going? Is
10:49
Speaker 1: he going to talk to the media? Is he not
10:50
Speaker 1: going to talk to the media. Is that a tactic?
10:53
Speaker 1: Let's let him go and see what he does.
10:55
Speaker 3: Oh? Sure.
10:56
Speaker 2: I've been part of a drug case before where a
10:59
Speaker 2: guy got a ship of drugs and we couldn't let
11:02
Speaker 2: the drugs just go and sit in this warehouse, so
11:06
Speaker 2: we went in and surreptitiously took the drugs, and then
11:09
Speaker 2: we were monitoring his phone and social media, and we
11:12
Speaker 2: just let him come and discover that those drugs weren't
11:15
Speaker 2: there the next day. And of course, like all people
11:17
Speaker 2: who know a little bit of information, but they have
11:20
Speaker 2: enough education in that area to kind of come up
11:23
Speaker 2: with a theory, this guy developed ninety percent of a
11:26
Speaker 2: theory off of ten percent of knowledge. The drugs were there,
11:29
Speaker 2: now they're and they were delivered by these people. So
11:32
Speaker 2: we listened to his phone and when he started mentioning
11:34
Speaker 2: that he had to go kill these people, then you know,
11:35
Speaker 2: we went in arrested him. So but in that time span,
11:39
Speaker 2: the people that he contacted was phenomenal, and so that
11:43
Speaker 2: propelled the case forward exponentially. So that could be the
11:48
Speaker 2: case here. You know, I'm not saying it is, but
11:50
Speaker 2: it could be the case. But I will say that
11:53
Speaker 2: the fact that these these movements came quickly after that
11:57
Speaker 2: video tells me that that they are collecting different types
12:03
Speaker 2: of data, yes, and they're starting developed some type of
12:07
Speaker 2: picture where they're starting to go on these people. And
12:12
Speaker 2: it also potentially could have been somebody who made a
12:14
Speaker 2: phone call, but I don't know if they would have
12:16
Speaker 2: been able to get a warrant just off of a
12:18
Speaker 2: phone call.
12:18
Speaker 3: Okay, I think they.
12:19
Speaker 2: Would have had to have a little bit of pressing
12:21
Speaker 2: evidence to go along with that.
12:24
Speaker 1: It is Jonathan T. Gillian Go follow him everywhere. He's
12:26
Speaker 1: the host of the Experts podcast Incredible Information. As we're
12:29
Speaker 1: watching this unfold and as we're seeing this guy do
12:31
Speaker 1: what he does, the question that jumped in my brain
12:34
Speaker 1: last night, Jonathan was is there really a ransom? Are
12:38
Speaker 1: these things connected? In your investigative you know mind, do
12:41
Speaker 1: you feel confident that the ransom request and the crypto
12:45
Speaker 1: request is actually attached to this case or might it
12:48
Speaker 1: be somebody who's not attached whatsoever, trying to make a
12:51
Speaker 1: quick buck. Because we saw some activity yesterday in that wallet,
12:54
Speaker 1: and the activity was about three hundred bucks. It looks
12:56
Speaker 1: like it was probably seed money from the FBI or
12:58
Speaker 1: the sheriff or somebody just to see what would happen
13:00
Speaker 1: with it. It wasn't six million dollars. Are you convinced
13:03
Speaker 1: that these are one of the same people or could
13:05
Speaker 1: they be very separate entities.
13:08
Speaker 2: So, based on the knowledge that I have of what's happening,
13:12
Speaker 2: which is, you know, limited to what everybody else has,
13:15
Speaker 2: but having the experience that I've had before. I'm not
13:19
Speaker 2: saying it's not connected, but I will say that the
13:23
Speaker 2: way that this ransom was done does not reflect the
13:27
Speaker 2: typical way that you know just you know, eighty miles
13:30
Speaker 2: over the border in Mexico, the way that those bitcoin
13:33
Speaker 2: because there are bitcoin ransoms, it's nowhere shape or form
13:37
Speaker 2: the way they do it. I mean they have two
13:38
Speaker 2: way communication. They overtly say this is the person and
13:42
Speaker 2: they're in great distress and they're gonna get killed, or
13:45
Speaker 2: they try to pressure the people into making those deposits
13:47
Speaker 2: very quickly, right, and sometimes they drag out, but there's
13:51
Speaker 2: always communication. In this case, there was no community way
13:55
Speaker 2: to communicate back with them, and it started to reflect
14:00
Speaker 2: a type of scam that you would see from India
14:03
Speaker 2: or Nigeria, where people jump on things and try to
14:06
Speaker 2: scam money out of people. And that's kind of we
14:09
Speaker 2: saw one. We know for a fact one of those
14:12
Speaker 2: came out of California and he got arrested. So this
14:16
Speaker 2: could have been a scam. And people are well, they
14:18
Speaker 2: had pictures of her, and I mean, ai, I go
14:20
Speaker 2: on every week, I have somebody sending me a reel saying,
14:23
Speaker 2: did you see what this coyote did when he ran
14:25
Speaker 2: from a you know, snowfall, and I'm like, that's not
14:27
Speaker 2: a real coyote. That is a you know, or a wolf,
14:30
Speaker 2: that's a AI. So you know, it could be AI
14:34
Speaker 2: in this day and age, and they could do which
14:36
Speaker 2: is very alarming, but it's absolutely true. So I don't
14:39
Speaker 2: I don't know if they're connected. I would still investigate
14:41
Speaker 2: them both as if they were, so you kind of
14:44
Speaker 2: have two cases going at the same time. But I
14:47
Speaker 2: think there's enough evidence starting to pile in on what
14:51
Speaker 2: happened at the scene that I think that's going to
14:54
Speaker 2: outweigh potentially the ransom and the bitcoin although I think
15:00
Speaker 2: think the FBI has plenty of talent that can still
15:03
Speaker 2: be moving forward to eventually crack who who was trying
15:07
Speaker 2: to push the bitcoin ransom.
15:09
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, if you're if you're trying to get
15:11
Speaker 1: a ransom, you have the commodity. The commodity is is
15:14
Speaker 1: Nancy Guthrie, no sign of life whatsoever, no information whatsoever
15:17
Speaker 1: other than they might have known what clothing that she
15:20
Speaker 1: had in her closet or something.
15:21
Speaker 3: I don't know, but I mean they wouldn't. You wouldn't.
15:23
Speaker 1: The first thing to do is say, hey, here she is.
15:25
Speaker 1: She's not going to be alive if you don't give
15:26
Speaker 1: you the six million dollars. They haven't done that at all.
15:28
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a sign, isn't it.
15:31
Speaker 2: I mean, I think it. I think it is. And
15:33
Speaker 2: then Monday came and went and there was no you
15:36
Speaker 2: blew it, you know, if you we're gonna give you
15:39
Speaker 2: one more chance, or there was none of that and
15:42
Speaker 2: and cut and run. I mean, I think a lot
15:44
Speaker 2: of these kidnappers that actually do this in other areas
15:48
Speaker 2: are similar to to uh uh uh book agents that
15:53
Speaker 2: you have when you write a book there, or book publishers.
15:56
Speaker 2: You know, they publish a book and then if you're
15:57
Speaker 2: not making any money, they're on They're on the next one, right,
15:59
Speaker 2: So I think a lot of these people are like this.
16:02
Speaker 2: And I just heard yesterday. I can't tell you who
16:04
Speaker 2: it was, but I did hear it on one of
16:05
Speaker 2: the news networks that there was a kidnapping that happened
16:10
Speaker 2: in Tucson in the past recent past were an individual
16:16
Speaker 2: at male who was wealthy was kidnapped and taken across
16:19
Speaker 2: the border and held for ransom. Now we're being told
16:22
Speaker 2: that that never happens, but apparently it did happen. So
16:27
Speaker 2: why aren't you know that? Why isn't that information being shared?
16:31
Speaker 2: I can't tell you except for sheriff is trying to
16:33
Speaker 2: make it look like it's safer where he lives than
16:36
Speaker 2: other places, which I just think that's just ridiculous.
16:39
Speaker 3: That's the case.
16:40
Speaker 1: It's Jonvin Gilliam. Go check out the Experts podcast. Where
16:42
Speaker 1: are we in the investigation right now? We have a
16:44
Speaker 1: lot of new information, a big information dump yesterday with
16:47
Speaker 1: these pictures and these videos and so on, and then
16:49
Speaker 1: we hear about the rico or the Rio Rico raid,
16:52
Speaker 1: or the warrant served, this guy being pulled over. Where
16:55
Speaker 1: are we in the investigation right now? Do you think?
16:57
Speaker 1: Do you feel like we're getting closer? Because as close
16:59
Speaker 1: as we all fel felt like we were getting last night,
17:01
Speaker 1: and I think a lot of that was perpetrated by
17:03
Speaker 1: the media getting it wrong. But as close as we
17:05
Speaker 1: felt last night, I feel even farther away today than
17:07
Speaker 1: we were yesterday. Where are we in the investigation do
17:10
Speaker 1: you think?
17:11
Speaker 2: I think we're moving forward, and I think that is
17:14
Speaker 2: compared to where we were three days ago. I think
17:17
Speaker 2: we're leaps and bounds ahead. That video tells a lot.
17:21
Speaker 2: Even though it doesn't tell us exactly who the guy
17:23
Speaker 2: is or exactly what they look like, it tells us
17:27
Speaker 2: a lot, shoe size, heighth gate, the way the individual
17:32
Speaker 2: was walking before they slumped down. Because they're nefarious, it
17:35
Speaker 2: tells us that they were in no hurry to get
17:39
Speaker 2: into that home. And then once they got in there,
17:41
Speaker 2: because the other information that we have, we know that
17:44
Speaker 2: they stayed in there for at least forty one minutes.
17:47
Speaker 2: So that opens up a whole other avenue of was
17:50
Speaker 2: this a robbery? Was this person just going and casing
17:53
Speaker 2: a neighborhood and came into there, because it didn't seem
17:56
Speaker 2: like he was familiar with that camera kind of did
18:00
Speaker 2: seem like he was somewhat familiar with that home. So
18:04
Speaker 2: did he work on the home? There was a new
18:06
Speaker 2: roof on that house, you could see it in the pictures, right,
18:09
Speaker 2: Was he there for that? That's how Elizabeth Smart got caught,
18:12
Speaker 2: you know, or got kidnapped. They were working on her
18:15
Speaker 2: roof and then the guy never came back for a paycheck,
18:17
Speaker 2: but he came back and kidnapped her. So these are
18:20
Speaker 2: all avenues that I would go down. But it's evidence,
18:23
Speaker 2: and it's building a picture of who this person is.
18:27
Speaker 2: It's intelligence enough to carry this crime out, and bold enough,
18:30
Speaker 2: which tells me it's not the first time they've committed
18:33
Speaker 2: a crime or snuck around a house at night, but
18:37
Speaker 2: stupid enough to see a camera and instead of continuing
18:41
Speaker 2: to keep their face head, walked right up to it
18:43
Speaker 2: and put their hand in front of it and then
18:45
Speaker 2: went got some shrubbery to cover it up. I mean,
18:47
Speaker 2: that does not show tactical thinking.
18:50
Speaker 1: What do you make of all this stuff in his backpack?
18:52
Speaker 1: This was not an empty backpack, like you said. If
18:54
Speaker 1: this were a robbery, you would go in with an
18:56
Speaker 1: empty sack or an empty backpack and steal stuff and
18:59
Speaker 1: then leave. But I know how to do that. But
19:01
Speaker 1: I would not expect that the backpack would be so full.
19:03
Speaker 1: What do you think was going on there?
19:06
Speaker 2: I mean, he could have been looking for specific things
19:08
Speaker 2: like jewelry, and that backpack could have had drills and
19:10
Speaker 2: things in it for sakes, you know, I don't know,
19:13
Speaker 2: but I know that he meant business because he showed
19:16
Speaker 2: up with a weapon on the front of him and
19:18
Speaker 2: stupidly carried I may add because and that's another reasons,
19:22
Speaker 2: very strange.
19:22
Speaker 3: He was carrying it. Yeah.
19:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, behavior that they're bold behavior. They're intelligent enough to
19:28
Speaker 2: think out this and walk right up there, but so
19:31
Speaker 2: weird to carry their gun like that and then to
19:33
Speaker 2: do the stuff with the brush and have the backpack full.
19:36
Speaker 2: But the backpack, I don't look at that is foolish.
19:38
Speaker 2: They may have had stuff in there that they needed
19:41
Speaker 2: to either abduct Nancy or to to get into things
19:47
Speaker 2: that they needed to get into. I mean, jewelry doesn't
19:49
Speaker 2: take a lot of space to steal or or to
19:52
Speaker 2: pack away, so he could have had another bag inside
19:55
Speaker 2: of there.
19:56
Speaker 3: Gotcha. It's Jonathan T. Gilliam.
19:58
Speaker 1: Go and check out this podcast called The Expert. It's
20:00
Speaker 1: former Navy seal, former FBI special agent. How quickly after
20:04
Speaker 1: we saw the incompetence or the arrogance of the the
20:06
Speaker 1: Pima County Sheriff, do you think that cash and the
20:09
Speaker 1: entirety of the FBI said, dude, we got to take
20:11
Speaker 1: this over. These people are screwing this up big time.
20:13
Speaker 1: You think that was a very quick thing, because as
20:15
Speaker 1: you and I talked about, and as Sheriff Leam and
20:17
Speaker 1: I talked about, that crime scene is screwed, isn't it.
20:19
Speaker 1: I mean if you're a lawyer worth your weight in dirt,
20:21
Speaker 1: you can say another the crime scene was Sully. We
20:23
Speaker 1: have no idea who went in there, who went out
20:25
Speaker 1: of there. So how quickly do you think the FBI
20:27
Speaker 1: came in and said, stop touching things. You've already messed
20:31
Speaker 1: up enough. Let us do this because we were still
20:33
Speaker 1: seeing Nanos is still the face of this. But everything
20:35
Speaker 1: that he says out there in public, I don't even take.
20:37
Speaker 1: You know, it's not worth the greenest salt to me.
20:39
Speaker 1: But when we hear from the FBI, I trust them
20:41
Speaker 1: much more. How soon thereafter do you think the FBI
20:43
Speaker 1: said just get out of our way.
20:47
Speaker 2: I don't know if they ever said that, But I
20:49
Speaker 2: think that Samantha Guthrie, because of who she is and this, listen,
20:53
Speaker 2: this is the way world works. She's connected. She's connected
20:56
Speaker 2: enough to call a senator before she called police, which
21:00
Speaker 2: I found a little strange. But and also for President
21:04
Speaker 2: Trump to recognize this as going on and commit resources
21:07
Speaker 2: to it. So I think very quickly the FBI was
21:13
Speaker 2: put in a position where they will act. And I
21:16
Speaker 2: think that this sheriff did what the sheriff should do,
21:21
Speaker 2: which was developed this into a task force type of mentality,
21:25
Speaker 2: and I'm sure that he knows the special agent in
21:28
Speaker 2: charge there in Tucson, and they may or may not
21:30
Speaker 2: have a good working report. They make it look like that,
21:32
Speaker 2: but I think very quickly the FBI's eyes were upon this.
21:38
Speaker 2: But those first three days were critical, and I think
21:43
Speaker 2: when after the first press conference, I'm sure that the
21:46
Speaker 2: FBI was starting to get antsy to get.
21:48
Speaker 1: Is the crime scene done? Jonathan, do you think I mean,
21:51
Speaker 1: is it just screwed? Like I said, any lawyer can say, well,
21:53
Speaker 1: you can't prove any of that, we have no idea
21:55
Speaker 1: who went in there.
21:56
Speaker 2: It could be screwed for prosecution, but it might not
21:59
Speaker 2: be screwed for finding and solving this crime and finding Nancy.
22:05
Speaker 2: That could be different. And if they did find the Nancy,
22:10
Speaker 2: or they find an individual that they can prove knows
22:13
Speaker 2: where she is or find her that way, I think
22:15
Speaker 2: that I think a good prosecutor will still have enough information,
22:20
Speaker 2: enough evidence to get them. But I mean, because DNA,
22:25
Speaker 2: Let's say that they went in there and contaminated the scene,
22:27
Speaker 2: but this individual's DNA still pops on the scene. I mean,
22:32
Speaker 2: it's gonna be hard pressed for a defense attorney to
22:33
Speaker 2: say people planted that guy's DNA in there, especially the
22:37
Speaker 2: time and when it was collected. So, but I'll also
22:40
Speaker 2: say this, depending on the avenue in which this goes,
22:44
Speaker 2: I think if it was a robbery gone bad or
22:48
Speaker 2: something of that nature, I think, or a target of opportunity,
22:52
Speaker 2: I think that there's a good chance that Nancy is
22:55
Speaker 2: deceased and they'll find her within thirty miles of that home.
22:58
Speaker 2: If it was a kidnapp, I think that it's a
23:01
Speaker 2: fifty to fifty whether she's over the border or she
23:04
Speaker 2: stashed somewhere in close proximity, and maybe not in Tucson,
23:10
Speaker 2: but somewhere in the proximity of Tucson.
23:12
Speaker 1: It's Jonathan T. Gilliam Go check out the Experts podcast.
23:14
Speaker 1: You brought up Savannah Guthrie, the daughter of the very
23:16
Speaker 1: famous daughter. Obviously, she does a bunch of videos where
23:19
Speaker 1: she's speaking. Sometimes she's with her siblings, sometimes she's not.
23:22
Speaker 1: It seemed very clear to me that she was told
23:25
Speaker 1: use specific words, say these specific things. In one video
23:28
Speaker 1: you see her look down and they continue. Obviously the
23:30
Speaker 1: script was on the floor or something. What do you
23:32
Speaker 1: make of the last one that she did, though, and
23:34
Speaker 1: the last one she comes out and says, look, we're
23:36
Speaker 1: in a time of desperation. Now we need your help.
23:38
Speaker 1: If you know who this guy is, help us out.
23:40
Speaker 1: She didn't appear to be as sort of coached as
23:43
Speaker 1: maybe the other one's word. Did you see that too
23:45
Speaker 1: or not?
23:47
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that it was. First of all, I
23:50
Speaker 2: think when her brother did his own, I think he
23:52
Speaker 2: was frustrated. I could he's a fighter, pod I could
23:54
Speaker 2: see the frustration in his face. Yes, when she did hers,
23:57
Speaker 2: I think it was it was past the deadline. I think, yes,
24:01
Speaker 2: they're they're desperate, but I think that the credibility of
24:05
Speaker 2: that ransom started to go down, and or they at
24:10
Speaker 2: least said that this might not be real, and even
24:12
Speaker 2: if it is, we still don't know where she is.
24:14
Speaker 2: And so I think she did what the sheriff should
24:17
Speaker 2: have done in the very beginning, which was make a
24:21
Speaker 2: plea to the to the public that if you know
24:24
Speaker 2: of any any rumors or anything that's going on, or
24:26
Speaker 2: any sign of a woman that should not be with
24:28
Speaker 2: these people, you know, let us know. But I never
24:31
Speaker 2: heard that from the sheriff. I actually have never heard
24:34
Speaker 2: that from the FBI as well.
24:35
Speaker 1: Now, I'm with you on that. I mean, why not
24:37
Speaker 1: get everybody, never, anybody who with a set of eyeballs
24:40
Speaker 1: or maybe a video camera in their car to help
24:41
Speaker 1: out if they can.
24:44
Speaker 2: I'll tell you what. I'll tell you. Let me answer
24:45
Speaker 2: that question. It's institutional inbreeding, which I talk about my
24:49
Speaker 2: book Sheep no More. I'm not trying to plug my book.
24:51
Speaker 2: But this book is about attack awareness and tax survival.
24:55
Speaker 2: And I think when you look at how law enforcement
24:58
Speaker 2: does things, technology, terrorist bad guys, they've all evolved and
25:04
Speaker 2: law enforcement has not evolved in a lot of ways.
25:08
Speaker 2: And so when you when you see these things, it
25:11
Speaker 2: is institutional inbreeding. They don't know how to use the
25:14
Speaker 2: general public. They still are very leary of putting information
25:18
Speaker 2: out because they think, I don't know that the public
25:21
Speaker 2: is a bunch of idiots, or they'll just go into
25:23
Speaker 2: hysteria running around like a people in a video game.
25:25
Speaker 2: And that's not the case. I mean, these law enforcement
25:29
Speaker 2: has to learn how to use the general public as
25:33
Speaker 2: a force multiplier, and I just don't think they've done that.
25:36
Speaker 1: It's very odd to me. Why why Again, Maybe this
25:38
Speaker 1: is the incompetence of the arrogance, but yeah, I was
25:41
Speaker 1: in television news for a long time, we've tried to
25:42
Speaker 1: put out information as soon as we got it on
25:44
Speaker 1: somebody who was missing, especially a high profile case like this.
25:47
Speaker 1: I mean, it never recovered a case like this. This
25:48
Speaker 1: is a really big one. But you would think that
25:50
Speaker 1: the police would would would do all they could to say,
25:53
Speaker 1: this is what you look like, this is where it happened,
25:55
Speaker 1: this is this is when it happened. If you've got
25:57
Speaker 1: any any activity in that area. Well, again, do you
26:00
Speaker 1: think this is just you call it institutional inbreeding. I
26:03
Speaker 1: think if this is just them telling each other, don't
26:05
Speaker 1: put it out. We got it. We don't want the
26:08
Speaker 1: public to help. It'll make us look incompetent. What reasoning
26:10
Speaker 1: could there be other than they're just not very smart.
26:15
Speaker 2: I just have to say, I don't know what the
26:17
Speaker 2: percentage is, but a lot of it has to do
26:19
Speaker 2: with the fact that that's just not the way we
26:20
Speaker 2: do it, and so they don't entertain new ways of
26:23
Speaker 2: doing things. And you know, people in every career field
26:28
Speaker 2: suffer from this. Where this is especially in the security
26:32
Speaker 2: law enforcement arena, is that they don't evolve in tactics.
26:35
Speaker 2: You know, haven't been a seal we're always evolving our tactics.
26:38
Speaker 2: If there's a better way to do it, we not
26:41
Speaker 2: only learn that tactic, but we learn it better than
26:43
Speaker 2: anyone else Whereas in law enforcement, they don't look for
26:46
Speaker 2: new tactics, and if somebody comes up with a new idea,
26:50
Speaker 2: they don't entertain it because that's not how they were trained.
26:54
Speaker 2: So it's that plus ego and believe it or not, incompetence.
26:59
Speaker 2: I mean, over the years, police officers have been trained
27:02
Speaker 2: to a degraded level because of the politics and the
27:07
Speaker 2: people that have been pulled up to the top for
27:10
Speaker 2: the EI reasons in right and just because they're politicians.
27:14
Speaker 2: So I think it's part of it's kind of a
27:18
Speaker 2: totality of all those things.
27:20
Speaker 1: If I were an investigator with the FBI or with
27:22
Speaker 1: the Pima County Sheriff's office, my ego would be stroked
27:25
Speaker 1: if I found her, if I solved it, I mean
27:27
Speaker 1: that would my ego would do that. I'm not really
27:30
Speaker 1: sure what it is about people putting blinders on and
27:32
Speaker 1: saying we got it. Don't worry about you. You don't
27:34
Speaker 1: know as much as we do. And now here we
27:36
Speaker 1: are a week and a half later. Let me finish
27:38
Speaker 1: up with this because we've seen the video now and
27:41
Speaker 1: I don't know that well. I certainly don't have the
27:43
Speaker 1: investigative history that you do. But I thought the guy
27:45
Speaker 1: didn't know the camera was there. He sort of walked
27:47
Speaker 1: to the left a little bit and try to cover
27:48
Speaker 1: it with his hand. He's an idiot, he's not a
27:50
Speaker 1: very smart guy, in my opinion, but he didn't look
27:52
Speaker 1: unfamiliar with that entire entire entrance to the home. In
27:55
Speaker 1: my opinion, I don't know as much as you that said.
27:58
Speaker 1: Is there any doubt she was the target? This isn't
28:01
Speaker 1: just happenstance, right. Nobody said hey, I'll just stop in
28:05
Speaker 1: this house and see what I can do. She was targeted.
28:07
Speaker 2: No, I say that she could be, and I'm kind
28:12
Speaker 2: of in agreement. I'm not saying he didn't know the house. Yeah,
28:14
Speaker 2: but if he did and he knew that camera was there,
28:17
Speaker 2: he didn't have a plan from when he was He
28:19
Speaker 2: had a plan to put his head down, but he
28:21
Speaker 2: didn't have a plan to cover up that camera. So
28:23
Speaker 2: that's just stupidity. I think with you either way, it's bad.
28:26
Speaker 2: But it could be that she was a target, absolutely,
28:30
Speaker 2: But it could also be that he was just he
28:32
Speaker 2: knew that house and he was going to go in
28:34
Speaker 2: there and get some stuff, and he thought he was
28:35
Speaker 2: smart enough to sneak around without getting caught. If he
28:38
Speaker 2: was going there as to a kidnapp her, then I'll
28:40
Speaker 2: put more weight on the fact that there's probably other
28:42
Speaker 2: people involved. But I've seen people, you know, who have
28:45
Speaker 2: years and years in law enforcement, go on all these
28:48
Speaker 2: network shows and argue the fact that absolutely it's a crew.
28:53
Speaker 2: And I don't see any evidence of a crew, so
28:56
Speaker 2: I can't make that claim. But it could be. So
28:58
Speaker 2: I would say, Joe, it could have been that she
29:01
Speaker 2: was targeted. It could have been that her home and
29:03
Speaker 2: her valuables were targeted. And either way, a good law
29:07
Speaker 2: enforcement officer is going to look at the statistics of
29:11
Speaker 2: either of those cases, and they're going to work with
29:14
Speaker 2: the evidence, the statistics, and these avenues of a possible approach,
29:18
Speaker 2: and they're going to look at all of them. They're
29:20
Speaker 2: not going to say, oh, we know it was a crew,
29:23
Speaker 2: we know she was targeted. They're going to look at
29:25
Speaker 2: all these things and eventually one of those if their
29:29
Speaker 2: evidence is right, they will they will find out, you know,
29:32
Speaker 2: where she is or who took her. But I want
29:34
Speaker 2: to point one thing out, Joe, You've got to do
29:37
Speaker 2: a show on this later. There is and this is
29:39
Speaker 2: a sidebar to this case. This camera they did not
29:44
Speaker 2: subscribe to the Nest camera, which Nests is owned by Google.
29:48
Speaker 2: But I'm sure it's the same thing with Ring cameras.
29:51
Speaker 2: These cameras are still recording even if you don't subscribe
29:55
Speaker 2: to it, and that information is being stored. That to me,
29:59
Speaker 2: next to this discip appearance in this crime is one
30:03
Speaker 2: of the biggest stories I've ever heard in my life,
30:05
Speaker 2: because these cameras are everywhere, Yes, and to know if
30:10
Speaker 2: people have them in their home, they have them outside
30:12
Speaker 2: of their home. And to know now that if you
30:14
Speaker 2: ever walked the naked in front of one of your
30:16
Speaker 2: cameras and it alerted that image and that recording, even
30:19
Speaker 2: if it's for fifteen seconds or more, is being stored
30:23
Speaker 2: by Google.
30:23
Speaker 1: Yeah, he has stored by Ring. Yeah, that's a problem.
30:26
Speaker 1: That it's a major and we had no idea until
30:28
Speaker 1: this case.
30:30
Speaker 2: That's correct, And so I think I praise I thank
30:34
Speaker 2: Google for helping out, but I think they just opened
30:37
Speaker 2: up a Pandora's box. And if people want to go
30:39
Speaker 2: after this. This is going to be a huge thing.
30:41
Speaker 2: They go after show.
30:43
Speaker 3: Let's do that show.
30:44
Speaker 1: I definitely want to have you back at Jonathan T Gillian,
30:46
Speaker 1: go go go check it this podcast the Experts. Let
30:48
Speaker 1: me ask you one last dumb question, maybe thirty seconds
30:50
Speaker 1: on this and I'll let you go. You give me
30:52
Speaker 1: so much time, Jonathan, thank you. One last question. I
30:54
Speaker 1: saw a pizza delivery guys show up yesterday at Nancy
30:56
Speaker 1: Guthrie's house. I saw walk through the line of media,
30:59
Speaker 1: I saw walk through any cops that were there, and
31:01
Speaker 1: he basically got to the front door to try to
31:02
Speaker 1: deliver a pizza. I mean, is that is that crime scene? Secure?
31:06
Speaker 3: Now?
31:07
Speaker 1: I don't know if you saw that, but the guy
31:09
Speaker 1: shows up to deliver some food.
31:11
Speaker 2: Joe, I don't know why. I don't know why they're
31:13
Speaker 2: allowing this to happen. I mean, I tell this story
31:15
Speaker 2: over and over again. I don't know those physically. I
31:17
Speaker 2: just remember learning the story in the FBI academy. I
31:20
Speaker 2: think it was where a guy had murdered a child
31:26
Speaker 2: and when they did the search of the place, they
31:28
Speaker 2: couldn't find enough evidence to prove his guilt, so he
31:30
Speaker 2: was found not guilty, they took the triale he found
31:32
Speaker 2: not guilty. Somebody else bought the house I believe was
31:35
Speaker 2: the story, and they heard something in one of the events,
31:37
Speaker 2: and when they opened it up there was a videotape
31:40
Speaker 2: of him killing this child.
31:41
Speaker 3: Oh my god.
31:42
Speaker 2: So that's see. You cannot release things until you've truly
31:47
Speaker 2: searched that area. And if you're not an expert enough
31:50
Speaker 2: to do that, you need to stop, pause, lock it
31:53
Speaker 2: down and bring people in. And if they're still searching
31:55
Speaker 2: for her and finding clues, there may still be clues
31:59
Speaker 2: there that they haven't found.
32:00
Speaker 3: Such a good point.
32:01
Speaker 2: I wouldn't have let anybody in there.
32:03
Speaker 1: Jonathan Gilliam, go and check him out. It's a Jay
32:05
Speaker 1: Gilliam underscore a seal over on x Real, Jonathan Gilliam
32:08
Speaker 1: over on ig check out the Experts podcast and sheep
32:11
Speaker 1: No More as the name of the book, right cheap
32:12
Speaker 1: no More. That's correct, Jonathan, Thanks Famelia. We got to
32:16
Speaker 1: do this again very soon. I really appreciate all the knowledge.
32:19
Speaker 2: Joe. You're a voice and nobody can miss and it's
32:22
Speaker 2: great to actually have finally been on the show with you, so.
32:25
Speaker 3: I appreciate it.
32:25
Speaker 1: Well, we'll do it again very soon, A man, I
32:27
Speaker 1: appreciate you. That's it for Unshaking and un Afraid with
32:28
Speaker 1: Joe Pegs. Make sure you subscribe. We'll have another one
32:31
Speaker 1: drop very soon.