Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / NANCY GUTHRIE RANSOM NOTE CHAOS, NANOS BLABS DNA SECRETS, PLANTED EVIDENCE

Transcript

NANCY GUTHRIE RANSOM NOTE CHAOS, NANOS BLABS DNA SECRETS, PLANTED EVIDENCE · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:00
Speaker 1: The Nancy Guthrie investigation descends into madness, with ransom note
0:07
Speaker 1: chaos rocking the investigation. This as Sheriff Nanos blabs DNA
0:15
Speaker 1: secrets and tonight the specter of planted evidence rears its
0:20
Speaker 1: ugly head. Good evening, I Nancy Grace, this is crime Stories.
0:24
Speaker 1: I want to thank you for being with us. The
0:37
Speaker 1: ransom notes are all oaks. Then why at the get
0:43
Speaker 1: go was Savannah told they were legitimate? Betel says Nanos,
0:48
Speaker 1: Nano says Patel, Who can we trust? Is this real?
0:55
Speaker 2: Early on in the investigation, there were certain items that
0:59
Speaker 2: were found that got a lot of news attention. I'm
1:06
Speaker 2: not going to say what it is because they haven't
1:09
Speaker 2: done anything with this, but there was one particular item
1:13
Speaker 2: and I talked to somebody in the FBI who said,
1:18
Speaker 2: we believe that somebody in the media may have planted
1:25
Speaker 2: that item to get attention, and that if they can
1:30
Speaker 2: prove that, and they believed it to be true, they
1:33
Speaker 2: would prosecute the individual. And that never happened.
1:37
Speaker 1: That from our friend Harvey Levin over at TMZ, is
1:39
Speaker 1: this podcast too angry? Men? Okay? That is extremely incendiary.
1:45
Speaker 1: That is a bombshell. I typically agree with Harvey Levin,
1:51
Speaker 1: But my question tonight would be, if that's true, why
1:55
Speaker 1: hasn't anyone been charged? Why hasn't anyone been accused? That
2:00
Speaker 1: is volatile straight out to Susan Hendricks, joining us investigative
2:05
Speaker 1: journalist who has been on this case since Missus Guthrie
2:08
Speaker 1: went missing. She is, of course an investigative journalist, but
2:12
Speaker 1: also author of Down the Hill, My Descent into the
2:14
Speaker 1: Double Murder of Delphi. What is Harvey saying? And I'm
2:18
Speaker 1: not claiming that Harvey doesn't have that information. If he
2:24
Speaker 1: said it, I believe he has gotten that information, But
2:27
Speaker 1: I'm curious about the information itself. If what he said
2:31
Speaker 1: is true, wouldn't that be a very very serious charge
2:37
Speaker 1: of tampering with evidence or false claims to police.
2:41
Speaker 3: Susan Hendricks, Yeah, absolutely, And I feel like we're in
2:45
Speaker 3: this kind of back and forth game of what is
2:47
Speaker 3: true and what is not And you're writ in terms
2:50
Speaker 3: of Partment Levit and what he is saying, according to
2:52
Speaker 3: his sources is true. But the fact of the matter
2:56
Speaker 3: is we're running in circles and in Delphi there was
2:59
Speaker 3: a lot of secrecyed to protect the integrity of the investigation.
3:03
Speaker 3: But here I feel like the investigation is a sham.
3:06
Speaker 1: I think I know what Harvey's talking about, but take
3:08
Speaker 1: a listen.
3:09
Speaker 2: Early on in the investigation, there were certain items that
3:13
Speaker 2: were found that got a lot of news attention. I'm
3:20
Speaker 2: not going to say what it is because they haven't
3:24
Speaker 2: done anything with this, but there was one particular item,
3:28
Speaker 2: and I talked to somebody in the FBI who said,
3:32
Speaker 2: we believe that somebody in the media may have planted
3:39
Speaker 2: that item to get attention, and that if they can
3:45
Speaker 2: prove that, and they believed it to be true, they
3:47
Speaker 2: would prosecute the individual. And that never happened.
3:51
Speaker 1: That's Harvey Everett too angrymain straight out to Dave Matt
3:54
Speaker 1: Crime Stories investigative reporter, that's a bombshell to suggest that
3:59
Speaker 1: someone in the media has planted evidence in the Nancy
4:03
Speaker 1: Guthrie case. Let's think it through, Dave mac What evidence
4:07
Speaker 1: could it be? Media, to my knowledge, did not get
4:10
Speaker 1: inside the home. Okay, the photos of the blood were
4:17
Speaker 1: obtained fairly quickly, and that blood was tested, and it
4:22
Speaker 1: is Nancy Guthries that could not be planted by the media.
4:26
Speaker 1: That leads me, Dave Mack to the gloves. What other
4:32
Speaker 1: evidence could it possibly be? But Dave mc give me
4:37
Speaker 1: a recap. What is Harvey stating.
4:39
Speaker 4: Harvey is claiming that someone in the media has planted
4:44
Speaker 4: evidence too stoke to get the fire burning on this
4:48
Speaker 4: case again. And this is a huge claim Nancy and
4:51
Speaker 4: Harvey Levin, while he might be big and huge in
4:56
Speaker 4: terms of his personality, I don't see him just making
4:59
Speaker 4: so something up like this. This is a huge accusation
5:03
Speaker 4: that somebody in the media would go so far as
5:05
Speaker 4: to plant evidence. And Nancy, I think you've eliminated every
5:09
Speaker 4: other possibility. And it really comes down to the gloves.
5:13
Speaker 4: And remember how much time we spent on gloves in
5:16
Speaker 4: this case and where they were found, the distance from
5:20
Speaker 4: Nancy Guthries's home to where these gloves were found. It
5:24
Speaker 4: just seems to fit right into the idea that somebody
5:30
Speaker 4: in the media planted evidence so that the case would
5:34
Speaker 4: regain some traction it might have lost through some of
5:36
Speaker 4: the chaos, through nanos and what have you. So, yeah,
5:39
Speaker 4: I think you're dead on accurate. It's probably gloves. And
5:43
Speaker 4: I don't think Harvey Levin is just making something up.
5:46
Speaker 4: I think he has information leading him to this.
5:49
Speaker 1: Neither do I is there an echo chamber or did
5:51
Speaker 1: I just already say that? Dave Mac, I'll come back
5:54
Speaker 1: to you when you have an original thought on that.
5:55
Speaker 1: Straight out to Tammy Ballard, not only DNA specialists, but
6:00
Speaker 1: crime seeing consultant, crime scene investigation and reconstruction, former criminalist
6:07
Speaker 1: in the San Diego Police Department crime lab. Never a
6:09
Speaker 1: lack of business there, Tammy, thank you for being with
6:12
Speaker 1: us tonight. Okay, this is a serious allegation. And like
6:16
Speaker 1: Dave Mac, I agree, like Susan Hendrix, Harvey wouldn't throw
6:20
Speaker 1: that out there if he had not gotten that information. So, Tammy,
6:25
Speaker 1: what is he talking about? We know pretty much the
6:30
Speaker 1: evidence as it has been relayed. Maybe there's more. But
6:33
Speaker 1: if there is more, Tammy Ballard, wouldn't it be inside
6:36
Speaker 1: the home or wouldn't it be the forensic testing results?
6:40
Speaker 1: So what is it that he's talking about that could
6:43
Speaker 1: have been planted? And I mean, I'm going to bring
6:46
Speaker 1: in doctor John Delatorre in a moment. Psychologists around psychologists,
6:50
Speaker 1: but I think I need a whole team of strengths
6:53
Speaker 1: from Vienna to figure out why a person in the
6:57
Speaker 1: media would plant evidence and a murder case for Pete's sake, Tammy,
7:01
Speaker 1: what could it be?
7:03
Speaker 5: I am pretty much on the same page that I
7:05
Speaker 5: think that would be something to do with the gloves.
7:08
Speaker 5: But if I recall, they were working to rule out
7:13
Speaker 5: everybody for those gloves, so I hope that they compared
7:16
Speaker 5: them to the people that were searching, and you never know,
7:19
Speaker 5: maybe there was somebody from the media that they connected
7:22
Speaker 5: to one of the gloves. So my bet would be
7:26
Speaker 5: the gloves.
7:29
Speaker 1: It's painful, Tammy, think on it while I go to
7:32
Speaker 1: John Nance joining me. Guys, John Nance, amazing former supervisory
7:37
Speaker 1: special Agent FBI assigned to Miami that is crawling with
7:44
Speaker 1: crime and DC Field Office is ooh, I would rather
7:47
Speaker 1: be in Miami with all the crime than DC with
7:50
Speaker 1: all the politicians. John Nance, help me help me think
7:56
Speaker 1: you are supervisory agent special agent with the FB to
8:01
Speaker 1: think how much time was lost if what Harvey said
8:06
Speaker 1: is true? And repeat, I don't think Harvey is making
8:10
Speaker 1: this up. If anything, the account may be false. I
8:14
Speaker 1: doubt that too at this juncture. But think about it.
8:17
Speaker 1: Let's just go with it was one of the gloves
8:20
Speaker 1: or some of the gloves. How much time did we
8:25
Speaker 1: lose chasing down a false lead that was planted in
8:31
Speaker 1: a murdered kidnap case.
8:35
Speaker 6: Well, again, assuming that story is true, I mean, I
8:38
Speaker 6: don't know if you can calculate the actual time loss
8:43
Speaker 6: in terms of manpower resources, all of that type of
8:47
Speaker 6: investigative capability that was squandered following this false lead. So
8:54
Speaker 6: a very serious charge if indeed true. And I would
8:57
Speaker 6: also add that just because no one has been formally
9:00
Speaker 6: charged or arrested doesn't invalidate the story either. It could
9:05
Speaker 6: be that there there isn't enough evidence to support a
9:11
Speaker 6: charge at this point with regard to planting false evidence.
9:14
Speaker 6: So this this case is just a continuing disaster, it
9:19
Speaker 6: seems like, and Sheriff Nanos isn't doing himself any favors either.
9:25
Speaker 6: So you know, the Levinthal's saying that he spoke to
9:30
Speaker 6: somebody an FBI agent, I mean, it's highly unusual for
9:34
Speaker 6: an agent, And I have to say, if it's not
9:38
Speaker 6: but a handful of authorized agents, who are you know,
9:43
Speaker 6: granted authority to speak to the media, that agent is
9:46
Speaker 6: you know, in violation of FBI policy and doing so.
9:49
Speaker 6: So all of this you know, to me, I still
9:52
Speaker 6: have to be very very critical with regard to the
9:57
Speaker 6: veracity of this information. But if true, yes, obviously a
10:02
Speaker 6: bombshell development, and I would hope that anybody involved in
10:07
Speaker 6: planning evidence would be charged and prosecuted to the fullest
10:11
Speaker 6: extent of the law.
10:13
Speaker 1: Well, there's also the issue of how hard would it
10:15
Speaker 1: be to plan evidence when so many unauthorized people were
10:18
Speaker 1: allowed on the scene. Guys, that earlier video is from
10:22
Speaker 1: our friends at the Today Show. Shout out to Morgan
10:24
Speaker 1: Wright and joining US cybersecurity expert former detective trained the
10:28
Speaker 1: FBI cart Car Team on Internet investigations. He is the
10:34
Speaker 1: CEO and founder of the National Center for Open and
10:37
Speaker 1: Unsolved Cases. He is the star of Crime Reconstructed, Substack
10:43
Speaker 1: and podcast. Morgan, thank you for being with us. Okay,
10:46
Speaker 1: just jump in because you've got unauthorized people on the
10:50
Speaker 1: crime Actually, they were not unauthorized because Nana's released the
10:54
Speaker 1: crime scene, so anybody and their little sister could run
10:57
Speaker 1: up to the house take pictures of Nancy's blood. The
11:01
Speaker 1: Lord only knows what else. We don't know where this
11:04
Speaker 1: planted evidence was. I suspect it may have been in glove,
11:08
Speaker 1: just gleaning and interpreting what Harvey just said. But what
11:13
Speaker 1: do you make of it, Morgan?
11:16
Speaker 7: Well, first, of all, let me, I'm in violent agreement
11:18
Speaker 7: with John if somebody's why would anybody be giving Harvey
11:21
Speaker 7: Levin information? Nothing against Harvey, but the last thing you
11:24
Speaker 7: do is collaborate with the press and give them inside
11:26
Speaker 7: information on the investigation.
11:27
Speaker 1: Shop You right there, go ahead, and I bow to
11:30
Speaker 1: your superior knowledge. But I've never seen a case without
11:34
Speaker 1: a leak. So let's don't chase our tails saying nobody
11:39
Speaker 1: would dare talk to Harvey. Everybody talks to Harvey.
11:42
Speaker 7: I get it. But to John's point, somebody is continuously
11:46
Speaker 7: giving him inside information that totally impacts the veracity of
11:51
Speaker 7: the case. The information you can get out there, so
11:53
Speaker 7: he may be getting it. I don't know because I'm
11:55
Speaker 7: not on the inside, but I would find it very
11:57
Speaker 7: tough to believe that it can that a regular source
11:59
Speaker 7: of leaking has not been addressed by the FBI. But
12:01
Speaker 7: let's go to the gloves real quick. One of those
12:03
Speaker 7: gloves was tied to a restaurant worker found discarded along
12:06
Speaker 7: the road. DNA testing tied it to him. Pima County
12:09
Speaker 7: interviewed him, said, yes, that was it. I was actually
12:11
Speaker 7: on the ground during the time, Nancy, when they found
12:13
Speaker 7: the gloves. So I actually reversed. Engineer at the photograph
12:16
Speaker 7: went to the exact location. It's on a major thoroughfare.
12:20
Speaker 7: They found over sixteen set of gloves. And part of
12:22
Speaker 7: this comes from bad crime scene hygiene. Bad You take
12:27
Speaker 7: out everything you bring into a place, you take out
12:29
Speaker 7: with you. You don't leave anything behind, cigarette butts, water bottles,
12:32
Speaker 7: So they found lots of gloves in that area. So
12:35
Speaker 7: it's very hard to determine which glove Harvey's or which
12:38
Speaker 7: potentially when he may be talking about the ones that
12:40
Speaker 7: the New York Post found as opposed to the blue
12:43
Speaker 7: nitral gloves versus the black nitral gloves. So there's a
12:46
Speaker 7: lot of convolution of this information out there right now.
12:49
Speaker 7: So again it's one of those things we're on the
12:51
Speaker 7: outside looking in. I don't know at this point, but
12:54
Speaker 7: I would find there's so much data out there, it's
12:56
Speaker 7: getting convoluted. Just like the DNA. You got four mixes
12:59
Speaker 7: of DNA, it's convoluted. You got gloves all over the place,
13:02
Speaker 7: it's convoluted. If the press planted something, it would be
13:06
Speaker 7: we would have to know what they planted, where they
13:08
Speaker 7: planted it. In relation to the timeline and the crime
13:11
Speaker 7: scene to know exactly what the impact was. But none
13:14
Speaker 7: of those were dead ends in terms of when you
13:16
Speaker 7: get something like that. When you have a suspect video
13:18
Speaker 7: now showing black nitral gloves which appears to be on there,
13:21
Speaker 7: you have to run down all of those leads. You
13:23
Speaker 7: cannot just dismiss those simply because there's a bunch of
13:26
Speaker 7: gloves out there. I've been in crime scenes and I
13:28
Speaker 7: know John is too. But you put a perimeter out there,
13:31
Speaker 7: you collect everything. If it's as the Navy used to say,
13:33
Speaker 7: if it moves saluted. If it doesn't move painted, that
13:36
Speaker 7: goes with the crime scene. If it moves, you collect it.
13:38
Speaker 1: Two Doctor John Delatory, renowned psychologist specializing in forensic psychology
13:45
Speaker 1: at resolution fcs dot com. Doctor Delatory to steal a
13:52
Speaker 1: phrase out of the Bible, we're looking through a window darkly.
13:58
Speaker 1: We're on the outside looking in. We don't know what's
14:02
Speaker 1: happening exactly inside the investigation. So we aren't divining, right.
14:09
Speaker 1: You know when people many many well they still do
14:11
Speaker 1: it actually look for well water. You have to get
14:15
Speaker 1: a diviner. That's a guy typically that has some sort
14:19
Speaker 1: of device like a why and it leads him her
14:23
Speaker 1: to the water, and they dig and they hit water.
14:27
Speaker 1: We're divining what Harvey is saying. Seems to me the
14:34
Speaker 1: most obvious choice of planting evidence by the media someone
14:38
Speaker 1: in the media would be one of the gloves or
14:41
Speaker 1: some other physical object found outside the home. Why why
14:49
Speaker 1: would someone in the media do that. Of course, the
14:51
Speaker 1: first thing you do is you look for evidence that
14:54
Speaker 1: the media found fines. Now, remember there was a backpack,
14:58
Speaker 1: there were clothing, there were other items, but they were
15:03
Speaker 1: not taken that seriously because they had been weathered and
15:07
Speaker 1: appeared to have been out in the elements long before
15:10
Speaker 1: Nancy Missus Guthrie went missing, which leads me back to
15:14
Speaker 1: the glove as the planted evidence. But doctor Della Torri,
15:18
Speaker 1: why in the world, why is it something like those
15:22
Speaker 1: hero complexes, For instance, somebody starts a fire in a
15:25
Speaker 1: public place and then finds the fire and puts it
15:27
Speaker 1: out and they're the hero. What is this phenomena? Yeah?
15:31
Speaker 8: Absolutely, and it's one of those things where in some
15:34
Speaker 8: ways maybe it's a mainstream journalist, but I think, you know,
15:37
Speaker 8: the implication is actually that it would be someone who
15:39
Speaker 8: is just trying to make a name for themselves plant
15:42
Speaker 8: a piece of evidence, call it out, you know, put
15:44
Speaker 8: it on social media, and then you can get all
15:46
Speaker 8: of the followers and clicks and likes that you could
15:49
Speaker 8: possibly want in order to make money. You talk about
15:52
Speaker 8: how we as the outsiders, are looking into this case
15:58
Speaker 8: and through a window darkly, and my concern is that
16:01
Speaker 8: it's not just us, that it is in fact law
16:04
Speaker 8: enforcement that are also looking through this window darkly and
16:07
Speaker 8: you know, grasping at straws about how potentially something has
16:11
Speaker 8: been planted without us actually knowing what the evidence is.
16:16
Speaker 8: When could it happen? Why would it have happened? Because
16:18
Speaker 8: there doesn't seem to be anybody who's really legitimately popped
16:22
Speaker 8: up out of nowhere. It doesn't Why would the New
16:25
Speaker 8: York Post want to plant evidence that would go against
16:27
Speaker 8: all journalism ethics, is that they would hold such as
16:30
Speaker 8: it is? So no, there's so much more complication that's
16:34
Speaker 8: happening that it's convoluting to use a word from another guest,
16:37
Speaker 8: that is convoluting everything that is happening and is making
16:40
Speaker 8: us not trust each other. It's making us believe that
16:45
Speaker 8: other things aren't happening as fast as maybe they should
16:48
Speaker 8: have been happening. Because law enforcement is not being as
16:52
Speaker 8: forthcoming as they should given the length of time that
16:55
Speaker 8: it's taken to do this investigation.
16:57
Speaker 1: Shout out to you, Morgan, Wright winning former FBI Morgan
17:02
Speaker 1: following up on what doctor John Delatory just stated as
17:06
Speaker 1: to the likely culprit that could have planted evidence, what
17:12
Speaker 1: Harvey said was very vague. He referred to a member
17:16
Speaker 1: of the media. But let's iow potential pools of who
17:22
Speaker 1: would do such thing.
17:25
Speaker 7: Well, like I said, I was out there on the ground.
17:27
Speaker 7: They found the single glove, the FBI did, then the
17:30
Speaker 7: New York Post hopped on top of it. Then the
17:32
Speaker 7: minute they did, more gloves were found. And so what
17:34
Speaker 7: you get is this effect of people want their fifteen
17:36
Speaker 7: minutes of fame, right, so they say, well, look I
17:38
Speaker 7: found gloves too. That single blank glove found by the
17:41
Speaker 7: FBI was tested DNA, not in codis, but link to
17:44
Speaker 7: a restaurant worker Pema County interviewed him. That's excluded. He's excluded.
17:48
Speaker 7: So then you've got all these other gloves that they found. Right,
17:51
Speaker 7: I walked up and down that area in Nancy. I
17:53
Speaker 7: walked into the brush. It's the right thing to think,
17:57
Speaker 7: is that somebody leaving the crime scene, you look, did
17:59
Speaker 7: they dispose anything out the windows? So you look along
18:01
Speaker 7: the shoulders along the most likely path the egress routes,
18:04
Speaker 7: so you'd be looking things coming out potentially the passenger
18:06
Speaker 7: side of the window. That's a proper thing to look for.
18:09
Speaker 7: But it wasn't that hard to find gloves. So somebody
18:11
Speaker 7: coming in saying, hey, look what I've found diverts attention
18:14
Speaker 7: away from the case. Exactly what you're saying to diverts
18:16
Speaker 7: critical resources during the initial phase of the investigation, and
18:20
Speaker 7: it takes time, personnel, money, All of the stuff gets
18:24
Speaker 7: wasted to track down other things. Now, legitimately, if they
18:28
Speaker 7: found stuff while they were searching, they collect it. But
18:30
Speaker 7: the minute you put the media focus on it, it
18:33
Speaker 7: becomes a much bigger thing. Right, so now you have
18:35
Speaker 7: to divert people. You cannot overlook this because here's what happens.
18:38
Speaker 7: And John knows this too, I think he alluded to it.
18:41
Speaker 7: You're building a case. The last thing you want to
18:43
Speaker 7: do is give the defense and out to say, well,
18:45
Speaker 7: look there were gloves out here. You didn't collect those
18:47
Speaker 7: those could have you know, that's exculpatory. That could have
18:50
Speaker 7: cleared my client. But you didn't do it, you start
18:52
Speaker 7: poking holes in the case, so it all has to
18:55
Speaker 7: be collected. But when you've got these diversions by people
18:57
Speaker 7: wanting their fifteen minutes of fame, unfortunately, unfortunately we don't
19:02
Speaker 7: have a charge for it. The British have a charge.
19:05
Speaker 7: It's called waste of police resources. We ought to looking
19:07
Speaker 7: at getting something like that, at least a civil case
19:09
Speaker 7: to say, if you send us down a red give
19:11
Speaker 7: us a red hearing on a wild goose chase, then
19:14
Speaker 7: we ought to be able to charge you civilly the
19:15
Speaker 7: way they do. People who go out and get lost
19:17
Speaker 7: require lots of resources to come in and rescue them.
19:20
Speaker 7: Now you get the bill. So that's kind of my
19:22
Speaker 7: thought about it. A lot of this is people looking
19:25
Speaker 7: piggybacking on the Nancy Guthrie notoriety to get their fifteen
19:29
Speaker 7: minutes of fame.
19:30
Speaker 1: I believe there were a total of sixteen gloves found
19:34
Speaker 1: in all. Just imagine if one or more of those
19:38
Speaker 1: were planted by this media person, this mysterious media person
19:43
Speaker 1: trying to get clicks or trying to get views. The
19:47
Speaker 1: wild goose chase that would have sent investigators on is
19:52
Speaker 1: a huge waste of time and money. That said, moving on, Sheriff,
19:58
Speaker 1: Nanos at it again in blabbing investigative secrets. You know
20:04
Speaker 1: who's listening, right, Nanos, the kidnapper.
20:07
Speaker 9: We have a lot of DNA that we're still working with,
20:10
Speaker 9: working with the labs, and the labs are you know,
20:13
Speaker 9: they've been incredible. It's not just our lab and FBI lab.
20:17
Speaker 9: These are labs across the country.
20:19
Speaker 3: So the testing that's still going on, it's not unusual
20:23
Speaker 3: that this will go on over month after month. It
20:26
Speaker 3: takes that long.
20:27
Speaker 9: Time, absolutely, especially when you throw in genealogy.
20:30
Speaker 1: There is Nano's blabbing to Kold Dave mac Why won't
20:35
Speaker 1: he stop talking? He just told the kidnapper, slash killer
20:41
Speaker 1: that all the DNA at the scene didn't match anybody
20:45
Speaker 1: in code is, didn't match anybody in the Arizona DNA bank.
20:53
Speaker 1: Why why he just revealed that they had to resort
20:57
Speaker 1: to genetic genealogy.
21:00
Speaker 4: It boggles my mind how Nanos has continued to fumble
21:04
Speaker 4: the ball. But you know, Nancy, we're just talking about
21:07
Speaker 4: the ransom notes and all of that was really pushed
21:10
Speaker 4: onto the FBI taking over that. Well, Nanos has grabbed
21:14
Speaker 4: hold of the DNA since the very beginning, and he's
21:17
Speaker 4: the one that sent it to his experts in Florida
21:20
Speaker 4: instead of allowing the FBI to have control of it.
21:23
Speaker 4: So basically, Nanos is reinserting himself to say I'm the
21:27
Speaker 4: leader of this and this is what we have. That's
21:29
Speaker 4: the only reason anyone would even claim something like this publicly.
21:34
Speaker 1: Two. Doctor Kendall Crown's joining US renowned chief medical Examiner
21:39
Speaker 1: Terrent County. That's fort Worth. He is an esteemed lecturer
21:43
Speaker 1: at the Burnett School of Medicine at TCU, and he's
21:47
Speaker 1: a star of a hit podcast, may him in the Morgue.
21:52
Speaker 1: Doctor Kendall Crown speaking of what was planted. The reason
21:56
Speaker 1: I'm leaning toward the possibility of it being one of
21:59
Speaker 1: the many me need sixteen gloves that were found because
22:05
Speaker 1: it would be so difficult to plant biologic evidence such
22:11
Speaker 1: as Nancy Guthrie's blood that we see on the porch,
22:16
Speaker 1: and who would have access, not the media to inside
22:20
Speaker 1: the home. So that rules out anything down in the home.
22:24
Speaker 1: But how difficult would it have been because we know
22:27
Speaker 1: media was up on her porch, we know that, But
22:31
Speaker 1: that blood was tested right, and it was Nancy Guthries.
22:35
Speaker 1: That's practically impossible, isn't it.
22:38
Speaker 10: So For her blood to be on the porch, it
22:41
Speaker 10: had to have come from her specifically, like she fell
22:44
Speaker 10: or she was injured as they were kidnapping her. There
22:47
Speaker 10: would be no other way for her blood to show
22:50
Speaker 10: up at the scene. No one could have brought it
22:52
Speaker 10: in with them, dropped it around. And because it's been
22:55
Speaker 10: tested and been found to actually be her blood, it
22:58
Speaker 10: had to have occurred at the time she was kidnapped,
23:01
Speaker 10: and probably not before then, because it would have been
23:04
Speaker 10: a notice by family or someone else if there had
23:06
Speaker 10: been blood on her porch prior to the day she
23:09
Speaker 10: was kidnapped. There's no way that blood got there from
23:12
Speaker 10: anybody but her as she's being abducted and taken out
23:17
Speaker 10: of the house.
23:21
Speaker 1: Straight out to special Guests joining us. Tammy Ballard, DNA expert,
23:29
Speaker 1: crime scene investigation and reconstruction expert, former DNA criminalist in
23:34
Speaker 1: the San Diego Police Department Crime Lab. Tammy, thank you
23:37
Speaker 1: for being with us tonight. Tammy. This is a big
23:40
Speaker 1: deal because if the kidnappers are sophisticated enough, well they are,
23:46
Speaker 1: because they've let everyone, including cash, Betail and Feds, on
23:50
Speaker 1: a wild goose chase. They've managed to outsmart everyone on
23:53
Speaker 1: their bitcoin account. If the ransom notes are true. They
23:57
Speaker 1: ransom notes, so they're not idiots. I guarantee you that
24:02
Speaker 1: bumbling Igit, the porch guy, he's not the only one
24:07
Speaker 1: involved in Missus Guthrie's disappearance. But now he and I
24:12
Speaker 1: think it is a man. Maybe there's a woman lurking
24:14
Speaker 1: in the background. Now he knows he's succeeded. There's no
24:20
Speaker 1: DNA direct match in CODIS, and there's no direct match
24:27
Speaker 1: in the Arizona DNA Data Bank, which is much more
24:32
Speaker 1: lax and it's testing. Not that they have poor testing,
24:38
Speaker 1: they just accept a greater variety of DNA than does CODIS.
24:45
Speaker 1: Like in CODIS, you have to be convicted, has to
24:48
Speaker 1: be proven DNA before it can go into CODIS. The
24:53
Speaker 1: Arizona Data Bank has much less stringent requirements to take
24:59
Speaker 1: in a substance a sample. My point is, now the
25:04
Speaker 1: kidnapper slash killer knows, hey, if they haven't caught me yet,
25:08
Speaker 1: they're having to do genetic genealogy. Tammy, explain what it
25:12
Speaker 1: is and what this means.
25:15
Speaker 5: Well, Nancy, I will say that nanos maybe isn't articulating
25:19
Speaker 5: things the best that he possibly could. He probably should
25:22
Speaker 5: have used a little bit more generic terms and stating
25:25
Speaker 5: that you know, we're using all technology available. Basically, can't
25:30
Speaker 5: go into the news right now without seeing some sort
25:33
Speaker 5: of genealogy success story that's beyond our traditional DNA testing.
25:40
Speaker 5: The traditional DNA testing being the STRs, the short tandem
25:43
Speaker 5: repeats that are going into the CODIS database. Again, with
25:48
Speaker 5: a case like this, your biggest battle is most likely
25:52
Speaker 5: going to be that these are what we call complex
25:55
Speaker 5: mixtures three four contributors of DNA, and you've got to
25:59
Speaker 5: parse out those profiles, remove whoever is in contact with
26:03
Speaker 5: them from family members, known contributors, and see if we
26:07
Speaker 5: can identify a perpetrator, whether they leave an item behind,
26:10
Speaker 5: whether they come in contact with an item at that scene.
26:13
Speaker 5: So all of this is sort of a triage approach.
26:17
Speaker 5: Nanos is likely throwing out that terminology to let people
26:22
Speaker 5: know that they are doing over and above anything that
26:28
Speaker 5: people are probably claiming they're not. So my thought would
26:33
Speaker 5: have been right from the beginning, you're wanting to do
26:36
Speaker 5: every single thing possible. You're going to do that traditional testing,
26:39
Speaker 5: You're going to do genealogy testing. If that doesn't get
26:42
Speaker 5: you a code IS hit. So you're only as good
26:45
Speaker 5: as who's in your databases. And if you can do
26:47
Speaker 5: a multi prong approach, that's what you need to be doing.
26:50
Speaker 5: And I do believe that that is occurring.
26:54
Speaker 1: When you say they need to be doing a quote
26:57
Speaker 1: multi prong approach. What do you mean by that, Timm Ballard.
27:01
Speaker 5: So as an example, the Rachel Marin case is one
27:04
Speaker 5: that I always like to refer to. That was the
27:06
Speaker 5: young mother who was killed when she was out for
27:10
Speaker 5: a jog. You do there was a sexual assault component
27:13
Speaker 5: to that, so that was great DNA evidence left behind,
27:16
Speaker 5: not a complex mixture. You do that str that traditional
27:20
Speaker 5: testing put that into codis see if you get a hit,
27:24
Speaker 5: if you don't, Almost immediately within the next two weeks
27:27
Speaker 5: of not getting a codis hit, that genealogy testing was
27:31
Speaker 5: performed and that actually led to an identification. So it
27:35
Speaker 5: is a multi prong approach. It's just the speed of
27:37
Speaker 5: it is definitely dependent on what type of quality of
27:41
Speaker 5: DNA you have left behind at that scene.
27:44
Speaker 1: You know, straight out to John Nance, former Supervisory Special
27:48
Speaker 1: Agent FBI, I agree and disagree with Tammy Ballard. Not
27:53
Speaker 1: certainly not disagreeing with her on DNA. She's the expert.
27:58
Speaker 1: But in what this means to the killer kidnapper to
28:03
Speaker 1: have Nanos blurt out, yeah, we're doing genetic genealogy. That
28:09
Speaker 1: tells anyone sophisticated in the world of crime and crime
28:13
Speaker 1: investigation that they didn't get a match, they're not close
28:17
Speaker 1: to a match. We know there's stranger DNA in the
28:22
Speaker 1: home again because Nanus blurted it out. They should have
28:26
Speaker 1: left it right there, but instead now he goes a
28:29
Speaker 1: step further and blurts out there having to resort to
28:32
Speaker 1: genetic genealogy. I think it tells the kidnapper a lot
28:36
Speaker 1: about the investigation.
28:39
Speaker 5: Yeah, and I.
28:40
Speaker 6: Think it also says a lot about Sheriff Nanos as
28:44
Speaker 6: you know, as a chief law enforcement officer and his
28:46
Speaker 6: particular jurisdiction. And I have to wonder is Nanos really
28:51
Speaker 6: giving us accurate information about the case. I mean, I'm
28:54
Speaker 6: as disorganized as this has been from the very beginning.
28:58
Speaker 6: It just it leads me to wonder, or does he
29:00
Speaker 6: Is he really on top of what the stateation is
29:04
Speaker 6: with regard to the DNA testing or the genealogical research
29:08
Speaker 6: that's going on. So to my mind, there's there's could
29:12
Speaker 6: be legitimate DNA testing ongoing as well as you know,
29:18
Speaker 6: the genealogical component of this investigation. So it's hard for
29:24
Speaker 6: me to put one hundred percent faith in anything that
29:27
Speaker 6: Nanos is saying. And I think that to a large degree,
29:31
Speaker 6: he's really kind of camera hounding because the sheriff in
29:36
Speaker 6: many jurisdictions, and I'm sure in his jurisdiction it's an
29:40
Speaker 6: elected position, So essentially you're talking about a politician, a
29:45
Speaker 6: law enforcement politician. So I think there's this strong, you know,
29:50
Speaker 6: this this strong motivation for Nanos to continue to get
29:55
Speaker 6: out in front of the public. And also I think
30:00
Speaker 6: think in parallel with this entire Guthrie investigation, Nanos was
30:06
Speaker 6: conducting some kind of a reality TV show. So it's
30:13
Speaker 6: just this bizarre, bizarre behavior from someone in his position.
30:20
Speaker 8: Is that DNA that you have you believe might be
30:22
Speaker 8: the suspects, It just doesn't match anyone in elaborate.
30:26
Speaker 9: What we have is we have some DNA and we
30:28
Speaker 9: don't know whose it is.
30:29
Speaker 1: So we'll keep looking there again blurting out state secrets.
30:34
Speaker 1: You know, another theory here is true that Susan Henry's
30:37
Speaker 1: joining us investigative journalist and author. This could be Nanos's
30:42
Speaker 1: attempt to say, look, look we are doing something. We've
30:45
Speaker 1: sent the DNA out for genealogy testing and blaming the
30:50
Speaker 1: delay in an arrest on the genetic genealogy, I mean
30:55
Speaker 1: more finger pointing, more of that. He's good at that,
30:58
Speaker 1: So that could be his attempt to save his own skin.
31:04
Speaker 3: Yeah, and when I'm listening to him, Nancy, when he
31:07
Speaker 3: talks about the genealogy and saying we're in touch with
31:09
Speaker 3: all these labs, it doesn't really sound like he knows
31:12
Speaker 3: what he's talking about. In terms of genealogy. We have
31:16
Speaker 3: DNA and you're right, you should just stop talking. We
31:19
Speaker 3: need leadership. He hasn't brought up the amount of money
31:24
Speaker 3: that someone could get there. It is right there. Why
31:26
Speaker 3: is it he saying, look, we're still looking at press conference, Yes,
31:30
Speaker 3: blabber about genetic genealogy where it sounds like he doesn't
31:34
Speaker 3: know what he's saying.
31:35
Speaker 1: Is cringe roop to doctor John Delatory joining US licensed psychologist.
31:40
Speaker 1: Doctor Delatory my elected district attorney who's like a grandfather
31:45
Speaker 1: to me. Longest serving DA in the country. I think
31:48
Speaker 1: it was thirty seven years at that time. Always said
31:52
Speaker 1: when dealing with me one, real don't talk. Second rule
31:57
Speaker 1: follow real one don't talk. I had a standard comment
32:02
Speaker 1: always if I was cornered before the verdict, and it was,
32:07
Speaker 1: I believe a Fulton County jury will render a verdict
32:11
Speaker 1: that speaks the truth. That's all I can say. So
32:13
Speaker 1: I said something, but I said nothing. I don't know
32:17
Speaker 1: why he's doing this, but it's sabotaging the cases. And also,
32:22
Speaker 1: so that's one thing for you, delatory. Why the constant histrionics.
32:27
Speaker 1: Why is the constant me me me, me, me, me,
32:29
Speaker 1: me me and blabbing state secrets number one and number two?
32:32
Speaker 1: Does he not think the perp is watching?
32:38
Speaker 8: Well, I think what he's actually thinking is that the
32:41
Speaker 8: world is watching, and it's more important to him that
32:44
Speaker 8: he at least come across as competent. I don't think
32:47
Speaker 8: he actually is, but I do think he's deluded enough
32:49
Speaker 8: to believe that he is. But also, more importantly, there's
32:53
Speaker 8: a reason why law enforcement agencies have public information officers.
32:58
Speaker 8: Just because you are elected doesn't mean that you're actually
33:01
Speaker 8: a good politician that knows how to spin a yarn
33:04
Speaker 8: to make sure that you keep the attention on whatever
33:07
Speaker 8: the issues of the day are for you, whatever your
33:10
Speaker 8: platform is. It often comes across as if Nanos is
33:15
Speaker 8: purposefully attempting to undermine any progress in the case in
33:21
Speaker 8: an effort to ensure that he comes across as better
33:25
Speaker 8: than what he's been looking in terms of the court
33:28
Speaker 8: of public opinion. But just because you are elected doesn't
33:32
Speaker 8: mean that you should just handle all of these things.
33:35
Speaker 8: He has Public Information officers that absolutely should be the
33:39
Speaker 8: point person for these cases. He should just be a figurehead,
33:42
Speaker 8: never speaking, and the pios should be the ones that
33:45
Speaker 8: are actually talking about this case to make sure that
33:48
Speaker 8: the public is informed. But that, as you say, no
33:50
Speaker 8: state secrets are being released.
33:55
Speaker 1: Morgan Wright joining US cybersecurity expert, former detective also CEO
34:01
Speaker 1: founder National Center for Open and Unsolved Cases. Morgan, how
34:06
Speaker 1: many times have we personally investigated and covered cases where
34:11
Speaker 1: the perp keeps meticulous files every time they're mentioned in
34:16
Speaker 1: the press, video clips of them being discussed on television
34:20
Speaker 1: and beyond. It's very common. Does Nana's not think the
34:23
Speaker 1: purpose watching?
34:26
Speaker 7: You know, Nancy, there's a there's a case back from
34:29
Speaker 7: my time actually getting trained by the FBI Criminal profil
34:32
Speaker 7: and they showed us a case where they wanted to
34:34
Speaker 7: demonstrate exactly what you're talking about. You have to assume
34:37
Speaker 7: that somebody is watching. So when there was a lead
34:40
Speaker 7: sent out to say, search this side of the road,
34:42
Speaker 7: they intentionally searched the wrong side of the road, not
34:45
Speaker 7: broadcasting it yet, and they got a message back saying, hey,
34:48
Speaker 7: you're searching the wrong side of the road. They use
34:50
Speaker 7: that to track down the person who was responsible for
34:52
Speaker 7: the kidnapping an ultimately death of the victim. So, I
34:55
Speaker 7: mean there are tons of case studies out there where
34:58
Speaker 7: you have to assume that the person is learning, they're watching,
35:01
Speaker 7: and they are modifying their behavior. In fact, if you
35:03
Speaker 7: give certain things out there, they can actually go back
35:06
Speaker 7: and eliminate certain kinds of evidence that they didn't think
35:09
Speaker 7: about or they didn't know about. Why because that's not
35:11
Speaker 7: their circle of competents. Like Charlie Munger said, So, anytime
35:15
Speaker 7: you disclose anything beyond what is needed to move the
35:17
Speaker 7: case forward for the public, here's how you connect. Here's
35:20
Speaker 7: what you do. Anytime you do stuff like that, you
35:23
Speaker 7: give the edge to the adversary. The other thing you do, too,
35:26
Speaker 7: is if it ever gets down to a point to
35:27
Speaker 7: where I actually have that person in front of me,
35:29
Speaker 7: and I'm doing an interview, which in an interview, if
35:31
Speaker 7: you do it right, get the right kind of feedback
35:34
Speaker 7: from that interview, it leads to an interrogation. So during
35:37
Speaker 7: that interview, I want to find out stuff from this
35:39
Speaker 7: person that I would use in an interrogation. But it
35:41
Speaker 7: has to be stuff that only they know, not anything
35:43
Speaker 7: that came from the public, not anything that came from
35:46
Speaker 7: watching a newsreel, not anything that came from a one
35:49
Speaker 7: of the thousands Nacally. When I was on the ground
35:51
Speaker 7: out there, the thing that boggled my mind is how
35:53
Speaker 7: densely the road was packed, not just with news stations,
35:56
Speaker 7: legitimate newscasters, but everybody else with the phone and a
36:00
Speaker 7: and a live stream going to Facebook or YouTube and
36:02
Speaker 7: stuff like that. So it's unknown how much information got out.
36:05
Speaker 7: But if I'm interviewing somebody and then interrogating them, I
36:08
Speaker 7: want to make sure that I am armed with the
36:10
Speaker 7: case facts, and then I'm finding out from them things
36:12
Speaker 7: only the offender would know, not something they learned from
36:15
Speaker 7: the news. So all of the stuff makes it very
36:18
Speaker 7: makes it extremely difficult when you get somebody in that
36:20
Speaker 7: room and you want to talk with them about the case.
36:23
Speaker 7: How do you separate fact from fiction at that point?
36:25
Speaker 1: Yeah, all they have to do is replay Nanos over
36:28
Speaker 1: and over and over again and they'll know plenty about
36:31
Speaker 1: the case. Also tonight, the Nancy Guthrie family reacts to
36:36
Speaker 1: the ransom note chaos between Nanos and the Feds straight
36:43
Speaker 1: back out to Susan Hendrix, investigative journalist joining us on
36:47
Speaker 1: this story since the very beginning. Susan Savannah responded to
36:54
Speaker 1: all the ransom that chaos, what did she say?
36:57
Speaker 3: Yeah, it is heart wrenching Nancy and here's her state,
37:00
Speaker 3: and she said, it has been five months of agony
37:03
Speaker 3: and unending trauma for our family. There is not a
37:07
Speaker 3: moment that goes by that we aren't actively trying to
37:11
Speaker 3: find our mom, bring her home. And throughout this program,
37:16
Speaker 3: we've been seeing images of Nancy throughout her life, five grandchildren,
37:19
Speaker 3: three of her own children. I think some people are
37:22
Speaker 3: losing sight of this. It's just unbelievable and I wonder
37:28
Speaker 3: how Savannah gets through it.
37:31
Speaker 1: Savannah and her family being accused of being the kidnappers
37:37
Speaker 1: just crazy conspiracy theories. But now she is responding to
37:43
Speaker 1: the most recent chaos, Mini attribute that chaos to Nannis.
37:49
Speaker 9: I think there's been a lot of talk about ransom notes.
37:52
Speaker 9: We're looking into that, and those are notes that we've
37:55
Speaker 9: been pretty consistent.
37:56
Speaker 1: You know.
37:56
Speaker 9: You divvy up the work, right, We took the DNA,
37:59
Speaker 9: we gave the handsome notes to the FBHID.
38:01
Speaker 1: That's where our friends at ko LD. There you see
38:05
Speaker 1: Nanos stirring the pot regarding the ransom notes. He says
38:12
Speaker 1: they pe Ma County handed it all over to the FES.
38:15
Speaker 1: But here's what Patel says.
38:17
Speaker 5: Reuters is reporting that the ransom notes that were sent
38:20
Speaker 5: regarding Nancy Guthrie's disappearance are fake.
38:24
Speaker 3: Are you able to confirm that those have been determined.
38:27
Speaker 8: To be fake.
38:28
Speaker 10: I'm not going to comment on that.
38:30
Speaker 8: We are continuing to assist that investigation.
38:32
Speaker 6: We've always been in an assist role.
38:34
Speaker 8: It's a state matter being led by the state authorities.
38:36
Speaker 9: Thank you.
38:37
Speaker 1: Okay. That's where our friends at c SPAN is straight
38:40
Speaker 1: out to Morgan Wright. There you see Nano's claimbing the
38:45
Speaker 1: fans have the notes, and you hear Patel saying, oh no,
38:48
Speaker 1: that's a state issue for p mc county.
38:51
Speaker 7: Why yeah, Under eighteen US Code twelve oh one, the
38:54
Speaker 7: FBI could take control of a kidnapp for ransom investigation
38:57
Speaker 7: if it meets a couple thresholds like go cross state lines,
39:01
Speaker 7: internet or interstate communications use, which obviously it can. They've
39:04
Speaker 7: chosen not to do that. It's still PMA County. The
39:08
Speaker 7: issue of the ransom notes. I'm still bothered by it
39:10
Speaker 7: because we have two groups of notes. Group one is
39:12
Speaker 7: the first one for four million, then six million. That
39:15
Speaker 7: was one set of communications. Then we've got everything after that,
39:18
Speaker 7: which I call parasitic communications. The one thing none of
39:21
Speaker 7: these notes have displayed is proof of either. You can
39:25
Speaker 7: assert a claim, but that's not proof. Proof is do
39:28
Speaker 7: you have a picture of the clothing? Do you have
39:29
Speaker 7: a picture of Nancy? Do you have picture of something
39:31
Speaker 7: that belonged to her outside of the home. Simply repeating
39:34
Speaker 7: a claim about something in the home or a broken
39:37
Speaker 7: light that doesn't rise to the level. Right, So, at
39:40
Speaker 7: some point I think the FBI is playing nice, which
39:43
Speaker 7: having worked with the FBI years ago too as well,
39:46
Speaker 7: it's a welcome change they do really want to support.
39:48
Speaker 7: They could potentially assert federal supremacy over this and takeover
39:52
Speaker 7: the investigation. I think they've chosen not to. I don't
39:55
Speaker 7: know why. That's the discussions that go on in boardrooms
39:58
Speaker 7: beyond my pay grade. But the the fact that they
40:00
Speaker 7: have deferred back to NANOS and PMAC County on the
40:03
Speaker 7: ransom notes, I don't think that there's I think the
40:06
Speaker 7: first set of communications caused concern because it came so
40:09
Speaker 7: close after it and it was a It took advantage
40:13
Speaker 7: of the family's vulnerability at that time in the media, pressure,
40:15
Speaker 7: everything else. What I call the Group two communications the parasitic.
40:19
Speaker 7: Now they've made arrests on some of these communications, those
40:21
Speaker 7: were easy to find. The fact that they haven't announced
40:24
Speaker 7: an arrest based on any of these yet so far
40:29
Speaker 7: from having taught that look that the student is now
40:31
Speaker 7: the master. But there are ways to have communications, which
40:34
Speaker 7: makes it virtually untraceable because you go through third parties,
40:37
Speaker 7: You go through countries and companies and services that track
40:41
Speaker 7: no data, They keep no logs, they don't provide any
40:43
Speaker 7: metadata that you can use to trace this back. That's
40:47
Speaker 7: why these are all one way communications. None of them
40:50
Speaker 7: are responding. That's why they're going to TMZ and KOLD
40:53
Speaker 7: and other agencies like that. So the Group one communications,
40:56
Speaker 7: I think are the ones that are still in the bucket.
40:59
Speaker 7: Of saying that we still have not been able to
41:01
Speaker 7: rule those out. I think the Group two communications, all
41:04
Speaker 7: the ones like hey give me a bitcoin, or give
41:06
Speaker 7: me this, I really have the pictures, I promise it,
41:09
Speaker 7: all of those things, I think they have discounted and
41:11
Speaker 7: taken out of the frame. The first two communications, Nancy,
41:14
Speaker 7: I think are still in the frame because they have
41:16
Speaker 7: not been able to exclude them with evidence or specificity.
41:23
Speaker 7: You don't have to know the sender of a note
41:25
Speaker 7: to discount it or to take it out of the frame,
41:27
Speaker 7: because you can look at certain factors in there. I
41:29
Speaker 7: think there's enough in the first two notes because they
41:32
Speaker 7: came so close after the abduction that the FBI I
41:36
Speaker 7: don't think has ruled those out completely yet. I think
41:38
Speaker 7: Group two those notes are from an opportunist. I call
41:41
Speaker 7: them parasitic communications.
41:44
Speaker 1: John Nance joining US former Supervisory Special Agent FBI. John
41:48
Speaker 1: I was asking about the finger pointing between the FEDS
41:53
Speaker 1: and pay mccounty. Why they're both blaming each other, which
41:57
Speaker 1: led Savannah to speak out of the ransom note chaos
42:01
Speaker 1: caused by the two entities.
42:04
Speaker 6: Well, I actually appreciate Pttel's brevity and susignus in that
42:09
Speaker 6: particular press conference. I think Sheriff Nanos could take a
42:13
Speaker 6: few cues from that.
42:16
Speaker 1: So then to serve the pot even further, here's Nanos again.
42:23
Speaker 9: I guess there's something out now that says, oh, the
42:26
Speaker 9: FBI or the sheriff have dismissed notes. That is not
42:29
Speaker 9: the truth. What we know is we have a number
42:33
Speaker 9: of notes that we are actively looking at and will
42:36
Speaker 9: continue to actively investigate even though this piece is given
42:40
Speaker 9: to the FBI.
42:43
Speaker 1: I'd like to say thanks to Nanos, but you know
42:45
Speaker 1: he's contradicting himself so much. From kold guys to doctor
42:49
Speaker 1: Kendall Crown's joining US Chief Medical Examiner Terran County. Doctor
42:54
Speaker 1: Kendall Crown's bottom line, if we are led to miss
43:00
Speaker 1: Guthrie's body, if I mean we'll have to be led
43:07
Speaker 1: to it because we're not finding it on our own,
43:11
Speaker 1: will we be able to identify it a cood? What's
43:17
Speaker 1: the likelihood? Address all scenarios.
43:22
Speaker 10: So there's a possibility. So she's been missing for months
43:26
Speaker 10: now in Arizona. If the body's buried, the body will
43:31
Speaker 10: be mummified at this point, and if it's found, we
43:34
Speaker 10: could still do an autopsy, still find findings of bone fractures,
43:39
Speaker 10: head trauma, things like that. The organs themselves will be
43:42
Speaker 10: severely decomposed and mummified themselves as well, so there is
43:47
Speaker 10: a potential you could find cornia artery disease or something
43:50
Speaker 10: of that nature. If her body was left out in
43:52
Speaker 10: the open, like in a forest they area, or something
43:55
Speaker 10: like that out in the desert, you have the potential
43:57
Speaker 10: for there to be extensive animals scavenger by coyotes or
44:01
Speaker 10: whatever is available in that area. In that scenario, all
44:04
Speaker 10: you might find is bones, and again the bones can't
44:07
Speaker 10: be looked at looking for fractures or things of that
44:10
Speaker 10: nature to find trauma. But if nothing is found on
44:13
Speaker 10: the bones, then there's going to be no organs to
44:16
Speaker 10: look at. So there'll be no idea of how and
44:19
Speaker 10: why she died and the case will probably may be
44:22
Speaker 10: made undetermined.
44:23
Speaker 1: Doctor Crowns, how much of the remains would we have
44:31
Speaker 1: to find in order to make a DNA match or
44:35
Speaker 1: to identify it as missus Guthrie.
44:41
Speaker 10: So to identify an individual using DNA, all you need
44:45
Speaker 10: is something that has bone marrow or a tooth that
44:49
Speaker 10: has pulp. So if you have a long bone, a
44:52
Speaker 10: rib or a tooth and it still has marrow or
44:56
Speaker 10: pulp in it that can be recovered. That's all you need,
45:00
Speaker 10: so it's as simple as a tooth being found. You
45:02
Speaker 10: could still identify Missus Guthrie from that. A muscle or
45:07
Speaker 10: even if there's spleen left, can be used for DNA
45:10
Speaker 10: identification as well, as well as she has things on
45:14
Speaker 10: her body like the pacemaker that can be used for
45:17
Speaker 10: a serial number or a match from the medical records
45:20
Speaker 10: to identify her that way.
45:24
Speaker 1: If you know or think you know anything about Missus
45:27
Speaker 1: Guthrie's disappearance, please dial toll free eight hundred two two
45:32
Speaker 1: five five three two four. If you wish to remain
45:36
Speaker 1: anonymous five to two zero eight eight two seven four
45:40
Speaker 1: sixty three, there is a one point two plus million
45:44
Speaker 1: dollar reward on the table. It does not require a
45:51
Speaker 1: prosecution and you may remain anonymous. We remember an American
45:58
Speaker 1: hero Officer, David Nelson, Bakersfield PD, California, just twenty six,
46:04
Speaker 1: killed in the line of duty after two years on
46:07
Speaker 1: the force, leaving behind grieving parents Larry and Mary. American
46:13
Speaker 1: Hero Officer David Nelson. Thank you to all of our
46:18
Speaker 1: guests for being with us, but especially to you for
46:19
Speaker 1: being with us. Nancy Gray signing off for tonight, but
46:22
Speaker 1: I'll see you tomorrow night, and until then, good night friend.
46:31
Speaker 1: Hi guys, please join us on our mission to find
46:35
Speaker 1: missing people, especially children, to solve unsolved homicides, and if
46:40
Speaker 1: you're on the go, please join us on your favorite
46:43
Speaker 1: podcast app, where you can get all our content, where we,
46:48
Speaker 1: in our way, seek justice,