Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / Nancy Guthrie Investigation Hangs by a Hair

Transcript

Nancy Guthrie Investigation Hangs by a Hair · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:00
Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. The Search for Nancy Guthrie
0:09
Speaker 1: tonight at a chilling turning point. Good evening, I'm Nancy Grace.
0:15
Speaker 1: This is Crime Stories. I want to thank you for
0:17
Speaker 1: being with us in the last weeks. The FBI has
0:21
Speaker 1: confirmed that they obtain DNA from inside Nancy Guthrie's home.
0:27
Speaker 2: And now do you have these laboratories across the country.
0:30
Speaker 3: That are able to extract.
0:32
Speaker 2: A DNA profile from a hair that is done having
0:35
Speaker 2: that great root materials.
0:38
Speaker 1: According to reports, the DNA at the Guthrie home, we
0:42
Speaker 1: believe from the bedroom is hair. Tonight, the search for
0:47
Speaker 1: Nancy Guthrie at a chilling turning point as a cycle
0:52
Speaker 1: of frustration, new leads falling through and exhaustion is taking
0:58
Speaker 1: its toll. That mixed with a constant drama within the
1:03
Speaker 1: Peva County Sheriff's office. Now word that Nanos could be
1:07
Speaker 1: charged with perjury? Is that true? What a distraction in
1:13
Speaker 1: the search for Nancy Guthrie. Joining us in all Star
1:16
Speaker 1: panel to make sense of what we are learning tonight.
1:19
Speaker 1: But right now, to one of the foremost genetic genealogists
1:25
Speaker 1: in our country, it's Ccmore. She is the chief genetic
1:30
Speaker 1: genealogist at Parabon Nano Labs. She has worked with our government,
1:36
Speaker 1: the FEDS, and private institutions for decades. CC. We have
1:43
Speaker 1: heard so much about what is happening with the DNA
1:48
Speaker 1: we are now into day eighty two. I don't understand it.
1:54
Speaker 1: Even if SNIP DNA tests were being done, single nuclear
2:00
Speaker 1: polymorphism tests that should have been returned by now. The
2:05
Speaker 1: only thing I can think of CEC is that when
2:07
Speaker 1: Nanos's crew went in, and this is no criticism of
2:11
Speaker 1: the crew itself. All criticism is aimed at him. When
2:18
Speaker 1: the crew first went in, they may have missed DNA.
2:23
Speaker 1: This is a small jurisdiction, This is not their expertise. Somehow,
2:29
Speaker 1: some way a hare was obtained CC.
2:34
Speaker 4: What is happening, Well, it's possible that they collected dozens
2:40
Speaker 4: or even hundreds of pieces of evidence there and it
2:44
Speaker 4: took time to go through it.
2:45
Speaker 2: I always wondered if they might have tried to use
2:48
Speaker 2: an mback on some of the surfaces or some of
2:51
Speaker 2: the items that could have possibly have been how they
2:54
Speaker 2: found that rootless hair. You know, when they use the endback,
2:57
Speaker 2: it gets caught on a filter and then they test
3:00
Speaker 2: those filters for DNA, so I think that it must
3:05
Speaker 2: have been a more recent discovery, even though we have
3:09
Speaker 2: heard that they've had it since February. If they had
3:11
Speaker 2: it since February, I certainly would think they would have
3:14
Speaker 2: already sent that off to austraya much earlier, because they're
3:18
Speaker 2: the ones who've had so much success extracting snips from
3:21
Speaker 2: rootless hair.
3:22
Speaker 1: Ccmore, chief genetic genealogist at Parabond Nanolabs. You threw out
3:28
Speaker 1: a lot of phraseology right there that lay people, civilians
3:32
Speaker 1: and lawyers that are not well versed in DNA are
3:37
Speaker 1: not going to understand. Speak to us Ccmore as if
3:41
Speaker 1: you were speaking to a jury. Now you mentioned an
3:46
Speaker 1: M that, Emazon mother that and CC I'd like you
3:50
Speaker 1: to look at your screen. We are showing now the interior.
3:55
Speaker 1: Oh thank you, there's an impact right there. That's for
3:57
Speaker 1: DNA collection, the interior of Nancy Guthrie's bedroom. And according
4:05
Speaker 1: to reports from inside the investigation, this hair was found
4:10
Speaker 1: in the bedroom. Let's see that video from today's YouTube.
4:15
Speaker 1: The video CC shows missus Guthrie in her bedroom and
4:20
Speaker 1: there are so many surfaces. There is a rug, there
4:24
Speaker 1: are curtains, there is a bedspread, pillows, a lot of fabric,
4:31
Speaker 1: hardwood floors. Beside her bed, there is a nightstand with
4:37
Speaker 1: books and other things on it. So in this setting,
4:43
Speaker 1: if the report is accurate that this hair was found
4:47
Speaker 1: in the bedroom once and for all cecmore, how would
4:51
Speaker 1: an imvact be used to get that hair.
4:56
Speaker 2: Well, it could have been on one of the surfaces,
4:59
Speaker 2: or it could have been on one the items that
5:00
Speaker 2: they collected. I'm not saying that's necessarily how they found it,
5:04
Speaker 2: but it could explain why we're just hearing about it
5:07
Speaker 2: now a couple months later, or they've been working with
5:11
Speaker 2: it at DNA Labs International, the lab that Nanos sent
5:15
Speaker 2: the evidence to, and have been potentially unable to extract
5:21
Speaker 2: that snip profile. That's something DNA Labs International told me
5:24
Speaker 2: they were working on way back in twenty nineteen. But
5:27
Speaker 2: I just haven't seen any successful cases coming.
5:30
Speaker 5: Out of that lab.
5:31
Speaker 2: That's not to say that there aren't any, but I
5:33
Speaker 2: have not known of any whereas Astray of Forensics has
5:37
Speaker 2: had one success after another with rootless hair, and they
5:41
Speaker 2: are the ones that originally developed this technique to extract
5:47
Speaker 2: snips from rootless hair. After scientists have been saying for
5:50
Speaker 2: decades that it was not possible.
5:54
Speaker 1: Okay, it is possible. SNIP has been around a little while,
5:58
Speaker 1: of course, nothing like other type of DNA analysis. But okay,
6:03
Speaker 1: I've got to break down what you just said, CC,
6:05
Speaker 1: because a lot is writing on it. First of all,
6:09
Speaker 1: the MVAC. Can MVACT be used on hard surfaces and
6:13
Speaker 1: fabric surfaces?
6:15
Speaker 5: I believe.
6:16
Speaker 2: So I'm not the one in there collecting the DNA.
6:18
Speaker 2: I work with it after that has all been done.
6:21
Speaker 2: But my understanding is that it can.
6:23
Speaker 1: Well you're right, ccmore the MVAC forensic DNA collection system
6:28
Speaker 1: is extremely effective on both fabric and hardwood. It's for
6:35
Speaker 1: particularly recovering DNA from porous or even challenging surfaces. And
6:42
Speaker 1: what it is is a WETVAC. We all have a
6:45
Speaker 1: WETVAC for our basements. A WETVAC technique. It sprays liquid
6:51
Speaker 1: very gently and then suctions it back into the MVAC.
6:56
Speaker 1: See that that plastic tube, that's what that is. That
7:01
Speaker 1: is the recirculation of DNA that is taken from either
7:07
Speaker 1: a hard such as a hardwood floor or a tabletop
7:11
Speaker 1: or a countertop, a hard surface or fom fabric. So
7:14
Speaker 1: just what we were showing you in the Nancy Gouthrie bedroom,
7:17
Speaker 1: the bedspread, the cushions, the carpet. So an MVAC squirts
7:23
Speaker 1: out very gentle spray of liquid and then it sucks
7:27
Speaker 1: it back up through that plastic tube. It looks like
7:30
Speaker 1: you're actually using a wet vac. Now this has by
7:36
Speaker 1: far outperformed traditional swabbing on materials like cloth, cloth bedding
7:44
Speaker 1: and wood. Why because it gets the entire surface. When
7:50
Speaker 1: you use an MVAC, you get the whole surface, like
7:54
Speaker 1: you're vacuuming your floor or your carpet, and you can
7:57
Speaker 1: see where you vacuumed, same thing with an In fact,
8:00
Speaker 1: when you swab, which is with very often, it's with
8:06
Speaker 1: a long queue tip and a substance is put on
8:11
Speaker 1: the queue tip and it is then used to collect
8:15
Speaker 1: DNA off the surface. So clearly an EMVACT will cover
8:19
Speaker 1: a greater area. Hence why it is so much more
8:23
Speaker 1: successful than traditional swabbing techniques. So once you get the
8:29
Speaker 1: IMVACT result or the swabbing result, you get one hair
8:35
Speaker 1: cee semore you keep mentioning Austria labs. What is that?
8:40
Speaker 2: It is a lab out in Santa Cruz that was
8:44
Speaker 2: founded by the very brilliant doctor Ed Green. And when
8:48
Speaker 2: I say that we were told it couldn't be done,
8:50
Speaker 2: that's because for decades we were told that you could
8:53
Speaker 2: only get useful DNA from hair that has a root,
8:56
Speaker 2: and so there are many cases out there that only
8:59
Speaker 2: have root hair that hair shaft and doctor Edgreen proved
9:03
Speaker 2: everyone wrong by developing a technique to extract snip DNA,
9:08
Speaker 2: which is what we need for genetic genealogy from those hairs.
9:12
Speaker 5: I personally have helped solve.
9:13
Speaker 2: Six cases using rootless hair alone working with Australia Forensics,
9:18
Speaker 2: and they have done dozens and dozens more cases since
9:22
Speaker 2: they developed this technique.
9:24
Speaker 1: Rootless hair evidence crime stories with Nancy Gray CC, you
9:40
Speaker 1: are referring to rootless hair evidence. This is critical correct.
9:45
Speaker 1: Rootless hair evidence traditionally would require a mitochondrial DNA analysis
9:54
Speaker 1: in your hair, in the root of your hair. It's
9:57
Speaker 1: called nuclear DNA. Like the new clear family a mother
10:01
Speaker 1: a father child nuclear family, Nuclear DNA has DNA from
10:07
Speaker 1: the mother and the father only found in the root
10:11
Speaker 1: of your hair when it comes to hair, So if
10:14
Speaker 1: that root is not attached to the hair, which is
10:17
Speaker 1: very often the case, we shed thousands of hairs a
10:21
Speaker 1: day from our arms, from our body, which reminds me
10:23
Speaker 1: of Cec. I got to talk to you about the
10:25
Speaker 1: difference if this is a head here, or an arm hair,
10:27
Speaker 1: or a leg hair, or an eyelash or an eyebrow,
10:32
Speaker 1: how that differentiates when you're doing this analysis. But without
10:37
Speaker 1: that nucleus in the root, it becomes a whole another
10:41
Speaker 1: can of worms. You see, Seymour have had great success
10:46
Speaker 1: in rootless hair evidence. Now, isn't it true that the
10:51
Speaker 1: lab used in the Long Island serial killer case against
10:57
Speaker 1: Rex Hureman who we know murdered eight people and I
11:01
Speaker 1: think many many more. Oh dear Lord there he is
11:05
Speaker 1: just pled guilty, so we'll never know the full truth
11:07
Speaker 1: in that. Like Brian Coburger, rootless hair evidence was very
11:12
Speaker 1: very important in that case. Isn't it true, c Cymore
11:16
Speaker 1: that the wife of the Long Island serial chillers hair
11:24
Speaker 1: was found on some of the victims' bodies.
11:27
Speaker 2: Yes, so nine hairs were found and analyzed by Australa
11:32
Speaker 2: forensics and they were found on six to seven of
11:35
Speaker 2: the victims, on belts, on tape and in the burlap
11:40
Speaker 2: sacks as well. And those hairs were then traced back
11:43
Speaker 2: to Rex Huerman, his wife, and his daughter.
11:47
Speaker 5: I think that's one of the reasons.
11:49
Speaker 2: He probably decided to decided to confess because when they
11:53
Speaker 2: had a fry hearing to determine whether that DNA evidence
11:57
Speaker 2: could be used in court, the judge ruled in favor
11:59
Speaker 2: of prosecution. So that was a really important precedent that
12:03
Speaker 2: was set using rootless hair in a court of law.
12:07
Speaker 1: So CC, the lab behind the Gilgo Beach killer conviction
12:11
Speaker 1: is now believed to be involved in the Nancy Guthrie
12:15
Speaker 1: kidnap case. Now what do you make of that? You're
12:19
Speaker 1: referring to Astria Forensics. Is that the lab you're talking about?
12:23
Speaker 4: It is?
12:24
Speaker 2: And I've been hypothesizing that the FBI would send that
12:27
Speaker 2: rootless hair onto Austraia because that is who they've had
12:31
Speaker 2: so much success with, including in the Gilgo Beach murder prosecution.
12:36
Speaker 5: But that's not the only one.
12:37
Speaker 2: There have been dozens of other cases where the FBI
12:40
Speaker 2: has sent rootless hair to Austraya and had success.
12:45
Speaker 1: Question to you, if it is one hair, ccymour, If
12:50
Speaker 1: it is one hair, then how can it be used
12:54
Speaker 1: over and over and over? For instance, if it went
12:58
Speaker 1: to DNA Labs International, and they were obviously not successful
13:02
Speaker 1: with the snip technique. Now it's being sent, we believe,
13:06
Speaker 1: to Australia. How much hair, I mean, how much analysis
13:10
Speaker 1: can you get out of one hair?
13:13
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a real issue because the hair is destroyed
13:16
Speaker 2: when it is being analyzed in that manner. And so
13:20
Speaker 2: I don't know if this was a longer hair which
13:22
Speaker 2: gave them more opportunity for testing, or whether DNA Labs
13:27
Speaker 2: International didn't even attempt to analyze that. We don't know, unfortunately,
13:33
Speaker 2: but I know that even at ASTRAYA, sometimes it takes
13:36
Speaker 2: multiple attempts to extract that SNIP profile from the hair.
13:41
Speaker 2: And by the way, SNIP profiles are nuclear DNA. That
13:44
Speaker 2: is why we can use that for genetic genealogy, and
13:48
Speaker 2: so that's what makes it so valuable to make that identification. Now,
13:52
Speaker 2: of course, we don't know who that hair comes from,
13:55
Speaker 2: and won't know until there is successful analysis and then
13:58
Speaker 2: genetic genealogy performed to identify that contributor of that hair.
14:04
Speaker 1: Well, here's the good news, Cecymore. If it belonged to
14:08
Speaker 1: Nancy Guthrie or anybody in her family or a relative
14:12
Speaker 1: of hers or anyone that worked there that has been
14:14
Speaker 1: used for comparison, they wouldn't still be analyzing it. And
14:18
Speaker 1: we know from the beginning because Nana's blurted out that
14:22
Speaker 1: there is a strange There is stranger DNA found in
14:27
Speaker 1: her home. So that is the good news. It's not
14:30
Speaker 1: Nancy Guthrie, it's not her family or the people that
14:33
Speaker 1: work with her.
14:34
Speaker 2: I think the FBI probably was in the process of
14:37
Speaker 2: analyzing it to see if it was consistent with Nancy's
14:40
Speaker 2: hair or any of the known visitors from the home,
14:43
Speaker 2: and if not, that's when it would then be sent
14:45
Speaker 2: on to Austraia. So if we have confirmation that it
14:48
Speaker 2: has gone to Austraia or is on its way there,
14:51
Speaker 2: then that certainly does suggest that it does not appear
14:54
Speaker 2: to be from anyone who was known to be in
14:56
Speaker 2: that home.
14:57
Speaker 1: So we were talking about how far one hair can
15:00
Speaker 1: take us. At what point do you use up the
15:04
Speaker 1: one hair? And when we're talking about and I'm saying
15:08
Speaker 1: just one hair, just one hair, but we have to
15:11
Speaker 1: remember in the Brian Coburger quadruple homicide case, that case
15:17
Speaker 1: rose and fell on a DNA analysis of one is
15:23
Speaker 1: one simple of DNA on the snap of a knife
15:29
Speaker 1: sheath that was invisible to the naked eye. So if
15:34
Speaker 1: that was invisible to the naked eye and we can
15:38
Speaker 1: see the hair air go, there would be more DNA
15:42
Speaker 1: and something we can actually see with the naked eye.
15:45
Speaker 1: So it's hard for us lay people, a civiliancy seemore
15:49
Speaker 1: to understand how one hair can go so far, Like
15:54
Speaker 1: they can test it at DNA Labs International and after
15:57
Speaker 1: testing and testing and testing, they go, oh, no good,
15:59
Speaker 1: We're sending it to Austria. So and what I'm saying Austria,
16:03
Speaker 1: it's a st r e a Austria. When will that
16:09
Speaker 1: hair give out? When when we run out of a specimen?
16:13
Speaker 1: Can it be re sequenced and regenerated?
16:17
Speaker 2: No, And I don't believe there could have already been
16:19
Speaker 2: a lot of testing on that hair unless it's a
16:22
Speaker 2: very long hair. And so that leads me to believe
16:24
Speaker 2: that either DNA Labs International did not attempt it or
16:28
Speaker 2: there was you know, more hair than we know available
16:33
Speaker 2: to tests because it is destroyed and you can't just
16:36
Speaker 2: keep retesting it over and over and over again.
16:39
Speaker 5: So I'm just thankful there is some left that.
16:42
Speaker 2: Is able to be sent to Australia Australia apparently, since
16:45
Speaker 2: they are the ones that are really the experts in
16:47
Speaker 2: that process.
16:49
Speaker 1: What I don't get, CC is why it wasn't sent
16:52
Speaker 1: to them to start with.
16:55
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is really hard to understand, and that's why
16:57
Speaker 2: I wonder if it's something that wasn't found until recently,
17:01
Speaker 2: meaning they say it was collected back in February, but
17:03
Speaker 2: maybe it wasn't detected, you know, maybe just one hair,
17:07
Speaker 2: maybe that was stuck on one of those MBAC filters
17:10
Speaker 2: somewhere and it wasn't noticed until they'd been going through
17:15
Speaker 2: these dozens or hundreds of pieces of evidence and then
17:19
Speaker 2: came across it. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense to
17:22
Speaker 2: have this month's long delay.
17:26
Speaker 1: Ccmore, this is quite a burden on the lab that
17:30
Speaker 1: is conducting the test because this whole case could hang
17:35
Speaker 1: in the balance and depend on one hair. But once
17:41
Speaker 1: you get the analysis on the one hair, like once
17:44
Speaker 1: you got Brian Coberger's match, then all the other pieces
17:48
Speaker 1: fall in place. You find the car, you find his location,
17:52
Speaker 1: you go into his search history and his social media
17:56
Speaker 1: based on the first It's like, you know, every building
18:02
Speaker 1: starts with one brick, and this is the brick on
18:06
Speaker 1: which the case will be built if we get a match.
18:11
Speaker 1: Now quickly, Cecie, I know you're running to another lab
18:14
Speaker 1: right now. Let me ask you a question. What is
18:18
Speaker 1: the difference if you have a head hair versus an
18:22
Speaker 1: arm hair, a leg hair, an eyelash, even an eyebrow hair.
18:28
Speaker 1: How is that analyzed any differently? I mean, obviously if
18:31
Speaker 1: you have a head hair, and as you pointed out,
18:34
Speaker 1: it's got to have a nucleus to undergo SNIP testing,
18:39
Speaker 1: so whatever it is has a nucleus. But how do
18:43
Speaker 1: those various hairs, how are they analyzed differently? Or are they.
18:49
Speaker 5: They aren't.
18:49
Speaker 2: But with head hair, it is often thicker than something
18:53
Speaker 2: like arm hair or leg hair, and head hair, of
18:56
Speaker 2: course will keep on growing and growing, so you might
18:58
Speaker 2: have a much longer versus a very tiny hair from
19:02
Speaker 2: an arm or a leg. We've worked with pubic hairs
19:06
Speaker 2: as well. They're all of slightly different thickness or coarseness,
19:12
Speaker 2: and so that might mean that it's easier to get
19:14
Speaker 2: DNA from a thicker hair obviously a longer hair, but
19:19
Speaker 2: otherwise I don't think the process is all that different.
19:22
Speaker 1: So you see, how hard is it to do what
19:24
Speaker 1: do you physically have to do.
19:26
Speaker 2: I know it is a very difficult process, which is
19:28
Speaker 2: why it was believed for so long to not even
19:31
Speaker 2: be possible. I have waited months for that SNIP profile
19:36
Speaker 2: to be created from rootless hair on some of my cases,
19:40
Speaker 2: and so I know they've had to try multiple times
19:42
Speaker 2: on some pieces of hair. Some hair is more SNIP rich,
19:46
Speaker 2: more DNA rich than others, and so you know, you
19:49
Speaker 2: kind of have to get lucky as well that there
19:51
Speaker 2: is a lot of DNA to be extracted on any
19:54
Speaker 2: given hair. Whether it's gone through a chemical process can
19:58
Speaker 2: affect it, you know, whether it's been ey that can
20:01
Speaker 2: have an effect, and so we've got to hope for
20:04
Speaker 2: a little bit of luck here. If they're sending one
20:06
Speaker 2: single hair out to Australia, You're right, it puts a
20:09
Speaker 2: huge burden on them, very stressful. I have no doubt
20:13
Speaker 2: that they would push that analysis to the front of
20:17
Speaker 2: their long line because most of the time we're working.
20:20
Speaker 5: Cold cases with these rootless hairs.
20:22
Speaker 2: The fact that this is a hot case and that
20:24
Speaker 2: Nancy is still out there and needs to be found
20:27
Speaker 2: makes this.
20:28
Speaker 5: Really really top priority.
20:30
Speaker 2: So I hope that they will be able to complete
20:32
Speaker 2: that analysis much more quickly than what I have seen historically.
20:37
Speaker 1: Cecie, you stay that you personally have had six successful
20:41
Speaker 1: cases out of Australia. What kind of cases.
20:45
Speaker 2: Were they, Well, one of them was a kindergartener and
20:50
Speaker 2: fam who was walking to kindergarten on her own very
20:54
Speaker 2: first time. She begged mom that she could walk. There
20:58
Speaker 2: were I think twelve children. They were from Vietnam, moved
21:02
Speaker 2: here for a better life, and their young daughter walking
21:06
Speaker 2: to school was kidnapped. She was murdered and dumped on
21:10
Speaker 2: the military base up there. And I worked with Seaside
21:14
Speaker 2: Police Department and Monterey Police as well on that case.
21:20
Speaker 2: We had a rootless hair and we were able to
21:24
Speaker 2: identify her killer as one of her neighbors. Poor Annie
21:28
Speaker 2: Famm walked right by his house on her way to
21:31
Speaker 2: school and it was only like a short block or two.
21:34
Speaker 2: I mean, just horrible, horrible luck that he happened to
21:37
Speaker 2: live right there and that she was allowed to walk to.
21:40
Speaker 5: School that day.
21:41
Speaker 2: And so that was an important case because we did
21:44
Speaker 2: not have the traditional law enforcement DNA profile, There was
21:49
Speaker 2: no CODUS profile, There wasn't DNA evidence in that case.
21:54
Speaker 2: Prior to being able to use that rootless hair, and
21:57
Speaker 2: so the court had to decide whether or not it
21:59
Speaker 2: was accept that snip profile for identification, and they chose
22:05
Speaker 2: to do so in that case, which was another really
22:08
Speaker 2: important precedence as far precedent set as far as using
22:12
Speaker 2: rootless hair in cases like this.
22:15
Speaker 1: Ccymore, Chief genetic genealogist pirabon Nano Labs, We're all on standby.
22:23
Speaker 1: She has had great success with Austria Labs, great success
22:28
Speaker 1: even in difficult degraded DNA old DNA cases. It's amazing
22:35
Speaker 1: that this entire case could hinge on one hair. Tonight,
22:40
Speaker 1: legal eagles and forensic specialists all over the country are
22:44
Speaker 1: concerned that the hot and cold nature of the search
22:48
Speaker 1: for Nancy Guthrie is taking a toll and creating now
22:54
Speaker 1: a chilling turning point in the search for Nancy Guthrie.
22:59
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of stops and starts straight out
23:02
Speaker 1: to Dave Matt Crime Stories investigative reporter Dave. In the
23:06
Speaker 1: last days we were told that in the late nine
23:10
Speaker 1: hours a subject had been detained for questioning. Nothing ever
23:15
Speaker 1: came of it when questioned about it. Nano's the elected
23:21
Speaker 1: sheriff in p Ma County gave a very terse, one
23:25
Speaker 1: word answer, No, that was it. No further elaboration about
23:31
Speaker 1: what is going on. It seems as if it's up
23:34
Speaker 1: and down, hot and cold. You think you have a lead,
23:37
Speaker 1: you wake up the next morning, it just vanishes like fog.
23:42
Speaker 1: It's exhausting to the investigators, to the detectives, much less
23:47
Speaker 1: to the family. What happened with Nanos. I'm not talking
23:50
Speaker 1: about his new drama with claims of perjury. We'll get
23:54
Speaker 1: to that, but the hot and cold nature of this case.
23:59
Speaker 6: Yeah, Nancy, this case is being followed by millions of
24:03
Speaker 6: people nationwideing around the world, and you know, we all
24:06
Speaker 6: got that tip that there was activity south of Tucson,
24:09
Speaker 6: a neighborhood where we've been before where a person was
24:13
Speaker 6: detained previously, and now there is activity and possibly somebody
24:17
Speaker 6: detained again. That was news that exploded, and we were
24:22
Speaker 6: on it where our whole team was calling one another
24:24
Speaker 6: trying to figure out what was going on. And yet
24:27
Speaker 6: when it comes right down to it, Nanos doesn't even
24:31
Speaker 6: talk about it other than when he's asked a question,
24:34
Speaker 6: was there someone detained last night? He doesn't explain anything.
24:38
Speaker 6: He doesn't explain why there was activity, or if there
24:40
Speaker 6: even was. He only says nope, just like that, and
24:46
Speaker 6: it's I cannot imagine how bad it is for the
24:49
Speaker 6: family to be dismissed like that, because look, he can
24:52
Speaker 6: be dismissed it to the media, but to the family
24:55
Speaker 6: to not engage and say this is what's going on.
24:58
Speaker 6: It didn't pop out of nowhere, Nancy. There had to
25:00
Speaker 6: have been a reason that we were all told a
25:03
Speaker 6: certain thing and went after it. And all we're getting
25:06
Speaker 6: from Nano's nope.
25:08
Speaker 1: To Brian Fitzgibbons joining us. He is the director of
25:11
Speaker 1: Operations USPA Nationwide Security. Fitzgibbons leads a team of investigators
25:17
Speaker 1: around the world looking and extracting missing people, including in Mexico,
25:23
Speaker 1: which is significant in the Nancy Guthrie case. There have
25:27
Speaker 1: been more recent ransom notes where Nancy Guthrie is described
25:33
Speaker 1: as having been in Mexico having been seen that, said, Brian,
25:39
Speaker 1: in every case, there are stops and stars. In this case,
25:45
Speaker 1: it's been extremely peculiar and exhausting. Have you experienced that
25:51
Speaker 1: in your searches.
25:53
Speaker 7: Oh, certainly, Nancy, And on one case in particular that
25:58
Speaker 7: you've actually covered a couple of times that my team
26:00
Speaker 7: and I have been working on for close to four
26:03
Speaker 7: years now, Andy Wagner Missing from Evansville, Indiana. We would
26:09
Speaker 7: go through periods where, you know, we'd have hundreds of
26:12
Speaker 7: calls on the tip line, emails information.
26:16
Speaker 8: Then something would pop right, and that you have to.
26:20
Speaker 7: Fight the natural inclination to become emotionally attached to that
26:26
Speaker 7: lead and to run your process. And you know, with
26:30
Speaker 7: the public specter of Missus Guthrie's case, that's incredibly difficult
26:37
Speaker 7: for these investigators knowing, you know, the mountain of evidence
26:41
Speaker 7: that they have to process, the mountain of tips, and
26:45
Speaker 7: then one of these things seems to move forward and
26:48
Speaker 7: then it falls off. That's very difficult to keep morale high.
26:53
Speaker 1: Well. Another aspect to this, Brian Fitzgibbons, as we saw
26:57
Speaker 1: a series of people detained, questioned and released, but in
27:04
Speaker 1: a regular investigation, that is to be expected. What do
27:08
Speaker 1: you want them to do? Not detaining the person, not
27:10
Speaker 1: question them, So that goes with the territory. So you
27:13
Speaker 1: can't really blame the Sharf's department for that. They're doing
27:16
Speaker 1: what they need to do.
27:19
Speaker 7: I think what's different here is it speaks to limited capabilities.
27:24
Speaker 7: The people detained and released seemingly have no connection to
27:29
Speaker 7: Missus Guthrie, and it exposes that maybe some of this
27:33
Speaker 7: cellular analysis and data analysis that had been done wasn't
27:38
Speaker 7: so great right, that they're capturing a vehicle that was
27:41
Speaker 7: through there that as zero connection to the case, and
27:44
Speaker 7: that they were actually further off than the public believed
27:48
Speaker 7: that they were.
27:49
Speaker 1: Two. Doctor Bethany Marshall joining us, a renownced psychoanalyst out
27:53
Speaker 1: of the LA jurisdiction, author of deal Breaker. You can
27:57
Speaker 1: see her now on Peacock and and find her at
28:01
Speaker 1: Dr Bethany Marshall dot com. Dr Bethany. The hot and
28:05
Speaker 1: cold nature of this investigation has worn down investigators, worn
28:10
Speaker 1: down the family, worn down the public. And the way
28:14
Speaker 1: that Nano's is treating it is highly unusual.
28:18
Speaker 3: You know, Nancy to work with the sheriff who gives
28:23
Speaker 3: out a lot of information when he's at the beginning
28:26
Speaker 3: of the case. He's in his glory days, so to speak.
28:29
Speaker 3: There's a lot of narcissistic gratification. All the reporters want
28:32
Speaker 3: to talk to him. He's he's a celebrity of sorts,
28:37
Speaker 3: and then as the case begins to grow cold, his
28:40
Speaker 3: only response is Nope, he becomes depriving and withholding with information.
28:46
Speaker 3: That's what I call a toxic relationship. Right, When the
28:49
Speaker 3: other person feels good, they give you a lot of information.
28:51
Speaker 3: When they feel bad, they become withholding and depriving. So
28:55
Speaker 3: I think the public has a toxic relationship with nanos.
28:59
Speaker 3: So just let's just hold that in mind as a
29:02
Speaker 3: frame for my next comments, which are that it's a
29:05
Speaker 3: little bit like compassion fatigue. If you have somebody in
29:09
Speaker 3: your life who says, oh, I'm about to die, I'm
29:12
Speaker 3: going to kill myself, and you and you, you know,
29:14
Speaker 3: put all your resources and efforts towards helping.
29:17
Speaker 5: Them, and they say, nah, I'm okay.
29:19
Speaker 3: And then a week later they're like, I'm in crisis,
29:21
Speaker 3: I'm going to kill myself. You put all your efforts
29:23
Speaker 3: and resources towards helping them.
29:25
Speaker 5: A week later, nah, I'm okay.
29:27
Speaker 3: It creates a feedback loop between you and the other
29:30
Speaker 3: person where you start to disbelieve them and you start
29:34
Speaker 3: to hold back your own internal resources so that you're
29:38
Speaker 3: not exploited. Now that's not you know, Apple to Apple's
29:42
Speaker 3: comparison with the Nancy Guthrie case. But I will say
29:46
Speaker 3: with the investigators and the family.
29:48
Speaker 5: When they are given.
29:49
Speaker 3: Information that is sort of sensationalized, the media picks it up.
29:56
Speaker 3: It's given by nanos in such a way that, ah,
29:59
Speaker 3: we got the culprit, you know, that kind of excitement,
30:03
Speaker 3: and then the lead grows cold. That creates dread, anxiety,
30:10
Speaker 3: feelings that you cannot trust the people who are in
30:14
Speaker 3: charge of the investigation, and you know, investigators, detectives, these
30:21
Speaker 3: people are not immune from human emotions like the rest
30:25
Speaker 3: of us. So if your hew a carriage is held out,
30:29
Speaker 3: then it's taken away, held out, taken away. They're going
30:32
Speaker 3: to feel very anxious, deprived, confused, not sure what to believe,
30:37
Speaker 3: and eventually withdraw from hope in order to protect themselves.
30:43
Speaker 3: And then that leaves Savannah Guthrie's family sort of out
30:47
Speaker 3: in the cold without supports.
30:50
Speaker 1: You know, I'm just thinking of the toll it has
30:52
Speaker 1: taken on the investigation. Also, we are learning more about
30:57
Speaker 1: one of the ransom notes. We're learning that it was
31:02
Speaker 1: very vividly written quote I saw her alive with kidnappers
31:07
Speaker 1: in Mexico. A couple of new notes in the Nancy
31:11
Speaker 1: Guthrie case, both from the same person, offering information on
31:14
Speaker 1: the kidnapper, but they reveal a location claiming they saw
31:20
Speaker 1: her in Mexico, in Sonora. The state of Sonora a
31:25
Speaker 1: large Mexican state. It borders Arizona and also borders parts
31:29
Speaker 1: of New Mexico. So I noticed that the center is
31:34
Speaker 1: not suggesting Nancy Guthrie is still alive, which also takes
31:40
Speaker 1: us to a critical turning point in this investigation. They say,
31:44
Speaker 1: in fact, quote, she is dead. Straight back out to
31:50
Speaker 1: Brian Fitzgibbons, USPA Nationwide Security, what will be the challenges
31:55
Speaker 1: of searching in the Sonora area and how will it
31:59
Speaker 1: be done if, in fact this note is taken seriously.
32:04
Speaker 7: Well, I don't think that this note will be taken
32:07
Speaker 7: seriously for a number of reasons, but let's say it
32:10
Speaker 7: was right. The searching in Sonora is going to bring
32:14
Speaker 7: on a whole new set of challenges. First and foremost,
32:18
Speaker 7: there's going to have to be significant collaboration and cooperation
32:22
Speaker 7: between the US and Mexican governments to organize these searches. Secondly,
32:28
Speaker 7: there's going to be very limited buy in from the
32:31
Speaker 7: local populace to organize volunteer searches or to utilize.
32:36
Speaker 8: Resources from their local law enforcement.
32:39
Speaker 7: So you know, if Missus Guthrie is indeed in Sonora
32:44
Speaker 7: and was taken across the border, this complicates things tremendously well.
32:50
Speaker 1: Also in that area, Brive Hiss Gimmons. Isn't it true
32:53
Speaker 1: that there are huge swaths of desert virtually impossible to
32:58
Speaker 1: search that type of terre. Also, the corruption we see
33:02
Speaker 1: in the US amongst police is nothing compared to what
33:08
Speaker 1: it is in Mexico. It's unlike anything we have experienced
33:11
Speaker 1: in the US. You've got a few bad apples, that's
33:14
Speaker 1: the truth. A few bad apples within the police are
33:18
Speaker 1: corrupt there. There's only a few people that are not
33:22
Speaker 1: corrupt within law enforcement. So you've got these huge swaths
33:26
Speaker 1: of desert, you've got extreme corruption within the law enforcement there,
33:32
Speaker 1: and you have the cartel influence on all of the citizens.
33:39
Speaker 1: They don't want to cooperate in any way with law enforcement.
33:44
Speaker 1: So where does that leave us?
33:46
Speaker 7: Yeah, and adding to that, nancy beyond the corruption is
33:51
Speaker 7: who controls.
33:52
Speaker 8: This land and then the land that would.
33:54
Speaker 7: Be searched, and primarily in the first instance, there would
33:58
Speaker 7: be an extensive grid search done drone Right, So do
34:02
Speaker 7: these people want to allow those drones to fly over
34:05
Speaker 7: their land. You know, are their legal activities happening on
34:08
Speaker 7: that land?
34:08
Speaker 8: It's going to be you.
34:10
Speaker 7: Know, complicated is not the right word. Nearly impossible if
34:16
Speaker 7: missus Guthrie was taken across the border without a source,
34:20
Speaker 7: without a direct witness source, so.
34:23
Speaker 1: To doctor Bethany Marshall joining us psychoanalyst out of LA.
34:28
Speaker 1: Where does this leave Nancy's family? Do you know? People
34:32
Speaker 1: are still online claiming the family is responsible. They're pointing
34:36
Speaker 1: directly to the son in law, Annie Guthrie's husband. I mean,
34:41
Speaker 1: it just never ends seemingly. But now as the case
34:47
Speaker 1: is reaching this turning point, many people are calling it
34:49
Speaker 1: a cold case. Detect this are insisting it is not
34:52
Speaker 1: a cold case. It may hinge on one hair. What
34:58
Speaker 1: is the family supposed to do if they're functioning under
35:01
Speaker 1: the belief she could be in Mexico where we're going
35:03
Speaker 1: to get no cooperation at all, and then you've got
35:07
Speaker 1: Nano's potentially facing perjury charges.
35:12
Speaker 3: Nancy huge disappointment, anxiety, dread. Do you know, Nancy that
35:17
Speaker 3: one conspiracy theorist actually said that Savannah Guthrie disappeared her
35:23
Speaker 3: own mother in order to get increased ratings and to
35:26
Speaker 3: get a new contract on the Today Show.
35:29
Speaker 5: That's how disgusting the.
35:30
Speaker 3: Theories are that are out there. So the family's under
35:33
Speaker 3: assault and siege while they are looking for their own
35:38
Speaker 3: beloved mother. You know, Nancy, when it comes to our mothers,
35:42
Speaker 3: it's never a cold case. We always want to have
35:46
Speaker 3: our mothers safe in with us. Nancy, you know your
35:49
Speaker 3: mother lives in your home with you. You take care
35:51
Speaker 3: of her every day. You and I talk about it,
35:53
Speaker 3: how you bring her breakfast and you check in on her,
35:56
Speaker 3: and how important that relationship is for the entire your family.
36:01
Speaker 3: So where does this lead leave the Guthrie family. I
36:05
Speaker 3: think with huge amounts of dread, anxiety, and despair, not
36:11
Speaker 3: knowing whom to trust, and having put their whole faith
36:17
Speaker 3: in the law enforcement system. To have Nanos with draw
36:22
Speaker 3: all of those talks that he gave at the very
36:24
Speaker 3: beginning would make them believe that support is being withdrawn,
36:28
Speaker 3: and that's going to be very depressing for them.
36:35
Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Gray. Dr Bethany, I want to
36:43
Speaker 1: tell you what I saw may have even been yesterday.
36:46
Speaker 1: I feel like every hour on the phone with somebody
36:50
Speaker 1: in you trying to find out anything new about the
36:53
Speaker 1: search for Missus Guthrie constantly looking online for any tidbit
36:59
Speaker 1: of evidence I could dig up, and I put in
37:03
Speaker 1: keywords and guess what popped up, Doctor Bethany. There is
37:07
Speaker 1: a whole analysis about how the Today Show got a
37:11
Speaker 1: slight bump in ratings when Savannah returned from the search
37:16
Speaker 1: for her mother, and it just I wouldn't even read it.
37:19
Speaker 1: It just just hit me cold that her disappearance is
37:26
Speaker 1: being bandied about like it's a ratings bone. I mean,
37:35
Speaker 1: there's a very very strong possibility that she's dead, and
37:40
Speaker 1: Savannah is wrestling with that and hoping, still hoping. It's
37:45
Speaker 1: a horrible limbo to wake up in the morning and
37:51
Speaker 1: it hits you like a ton of bricks. This horrible
37:54
Speaker 1: thing has happened. And for a few moments when you
37:57
Speaker 1: first wake up, it doesn't hit you, but then and
38:00
Speaker 1: it does hit you, And then you spend the rest
38:02
Speaker 1: of your day trying to act normally. And then to
38:07
Speaker 1: have it treated like a bone to be thrown for
38:11
Speaker 1: a little bump in the writings, it's it's a moral
38:16
Speaker 1: it's wrong.
38:17
Speaker 3: I still have hope in human nature. I'm going to
38:19
Speaker 3: say I blame the journalists for this one. I saw
38:22
Speaker 3: those articles too, Like Savannah Guthrie returns to the Today Show,
38:26
Speaker 3: there's a bump in ratings, and why is that in
38:31
Speaker 3: front and in front of us in the news. It's
38:34
Speaker 3: because the media, I believe, and you know you and
38:37
Speaker 3: I are the media too, so you know we're a
38:39
Speaker 3: part of that community is wanting to put forward something sensational.
38:43
Speaker 3: On the other hand, the bump Nancy might be that
38:48
Speaker 3: the world cares about Nancy Guthrie, so they are tuning
38:53
Speaker 3: in to see what Savannah has to say. Maybe they
38:57
Speaker 3: care about how is she dressed, what's her affect, what's
39:00
Speaker 3: her grooming, how does she appear. I just spent a
39:03
Speaker 3: couple of weeks in France and my friends and colleagues
39:08
Speaker 3: over there. Their first question to me was, and I
39:10
Speaker 3: hadn't seen them in a year, was do you think
39:12
Speaker 3: we're going to find Nancy Guthrie? So the world cares
39:17
Speaker 3: about this Nancy. The wide world cares. And maybe that's
39:22
Speaker 3: really why we have the bump in ratings, is that
39:24
Speaker 3: people are tuning in to see what happens. You know,
39:28
Speaker 3: Nancy Guthrie is a mother.
39:30
Speaker 5: She's a good mother.
39:32
Speaker 3: She has three beautiful children, she has grandchildren, we all
39:36
Speaker 3: have mothers who we love. You love your mother, she
39:38
Speaker 3: lives with you. On many shows, you have discussed what
39:42
Speaker 3: you feed her for breakfast, and you know how you
39:44
Speaker 3: engage with her throughout the day. And so mothers are
39:48
Speaker 3: important to all of us. And I'm going to hope
39:51
Speaker 3: that the bump in ratings is because we love our
39:54
Speaker 3: mothers and the public wants to know how Savannah is doing,
39:59
Speaker 3: and there's supporting her with prayers and interest in this case.
40:04
Speaker 1: And you know Dr bethany Mother's days coming up, and
40:07
Speaker 1: that's just going to be pure hail for Savannah. But
40:11
Speaker 1: that said, you're right, I can't go anywhere without people
40:15
Speaker 1: asking me, where are we going to Financey Guthrie, what
40:18
Speaker 1: do you know that you're not saying, and so forth
40:20
Speaker 1: and so on. It's been devastating for them, and this
40:25
Speaker 1: is just throwing gas on the fire. Dave mac Nano's
40:29
Speaker 1: perjury what.
40:31
Speaker 8: Nancy.
40:32
Speaker 6: This goes back to a deposition that Nanos gave in
40:37
Speaker 6: December where he was asked a very specific question if
40:41
Speaker 6: he had ever been suspended as an officer under his position. Okay,
40:48
Speaker 6: they're getting character assessment here in this hearing or in
40:51
Speaker 6: this deposition, and Nano's stated he had never been suspended
40:58
Speaker 6: as a result of disciplinary action while working as a
41:01
Speaker 6: law enforcement officer. Declared it very specifically, and Nancy quickly
41:09
Speaker 6: everyone proved it was a lie, not just a little one,
41:12
Speaker 6: not just a mistake, a big lie. Nanos was suspended.
41:17
Speaker 6: Nanos actually was suspended so many times in his time
41:21
Speaker 6: in El Paso, Texas between nineteen six, seventy six and
41:24
Speaker 6: eighty two. There are twenty six internal allegations about Nanos
41:28
Speaker 6: and eight separate suspensions, for a total of thirty seven
41:33
Speaker 6: days of unpaid leave. But Nanos said no, never been suspended. Now,
41:41
Speaker 6: after being accused of perjury, nanos lawyer says, oh, he
41:46
Speaker 6: didn't understand the question. He misunderstood.
41:50
Speaker 8: He thought you were talking about.
41:51
Speaker 1: Let me ask you something only quickly Dave Matt Did
41:53
Speaker 1: he say it under oath?
41:56
Speaker 6: That deposition was not under oath, Nancy, I don't think
41:58
Speaker 6: it was anyway.
41:59
Speaker 8: When I was looking over this, actually, I.
42:01
Speaker 1: Thought all depositions are under oath. If it's a deposition,
42:05
Speaker 1: it's under oath.
42:06
Speaker 6: I misspoke that deposition that he should.
42:09
Speaker 1: Charge you with perjury. So we got to make sure
42:11
Speaker 1: he was under oath. First, if he's under oath, he's
42:14
Speaker 1: on the wrong end of a long barrel. Fitzgibbons, you're
42:19
Speaker 1: joining me from Massachusetts, Is that correct?
42:23
Speaker 8: Yes?
42:24
Speaker 1: Do you guys have gnats up there? G n A
42:27
Speaker 1: T S nats?
42:29
Speaker 8: We do. They haven't.
42:31
Speaker 7: They haven't really started biting just yet, but coming in
42:36
Speaker 7: May that they'll they'll start to be very active here.
42:39
Speaker 1: Well, in the South, there are biters and then there
42:43
Speaker 1: are just gnats that are simply very irritating, and you
42:46
Speaker 1: can hear you just see them. And that is how
42:50
Speaker 1: Southerners can tell if you're from up north, because if
42:54
Speaker 1: you're from up north, you go like that. If you're
42:57
Speaker 1: from the South, you go that said, I don't care
43:03
Speaker 1: about Nanos's allegipurtury charge. That's like a gnat flying around
43:09
Speaker 1: my head. All I care about is how all of
43:12
Speaker 1: his distractions are going to harm the search for Nancy.
43:18
Speaker 1: How can he focus? And if your leader isn't focused,
43:24
Speaker 1: then the troops are not as focused as they should be.
43:27
Speaker 1: If the leader is completely distracted, how is that hurting
43:33
Speaker 1: the investigation? Thank Heaven, the FEDS are involved.
43:38
Speaker 8: Yeah, and hey, here's the deal.
43:40
Speaker 7: We know that all of this public controversy has at
43:44
Speaker 7: a minimum, done real damage to the Pima County Sheriff's
43:48
Speaker 7: Office at large. Right the union has taken a vote
43:52
Speaker 7: no confidence. That doesn't bode well for their effectiveness in
43:57
Speaker 7: the field. And then you know, when you have the
44:00
Speaker 7: leader of the public facing leader of this investigation spending
44:03
Speaker 7: the majority of his time defending his reputation, answering questions
44:08
Speaker 7: about his past, battling political pressure, it inevitably demoralizes the
44:13
Speaker 7: detectives on the ground who are doing the actual day
44:16
Speaker 7: to day work.
44:17
Speaker 1: If you know or think you know anything regarding the
44:21
Speaker 1: disappearance of Ms Guthrie, please dial toll free eight hundred
44:25
Speaker 1: call FBI toll free one eight hundred two two five,
44:30
Speaker 1: five three twenty four. There is a one point two
44:33
Speaker 1: plus million dollar reward for information leading to her whereabouts.
44:40
Speaker 1: A conviction or even arrest is not required. And now
44:46
Speaker 1: we remember an American hero, Officer Dallas Hinton Thomas Fulle, PD, Alabama,
44:52
Speaker 1: just twenty five, survived by his grieving fiance, Officer Dallas Hinton,
45:00
Speaker 1: American hero Nancy Grace signing off and goodbye
45:04
Speaker 3: Ford m HM