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

Episode Date: July 7, 2026

The investigation into Nancy Guthrie's disappearance enters its sixth month as an anonymous FBI official says  at least three ransom-related letters sent to media outlets are not authentic.  The FBI tested the first note by depositing cryptocurrency into the provided wallet address — the funds were never touched. A second note, sent to a local TV station, implied she had died and was “buried with nature.” A third, sent to TMZ in early June, claimed to have video and details of the kidnappers, but the FBI has also determined this was fabricated.  Sheriff Chris Nanos has publicly stated he does not believe the new video claim and warned it is another example of fake ransom note activity. Despite extensive search efforts, Nancy Guthrie’s whereabouts and condition remain unknown.     Joining  Nancy Grace today: Dr. John Delatorre  - Licensed psychologist and mediator, specializing in forensic psychology, psychological consultant to Project Absents: a non-profit organization that searches for missing persons, resolutionfcs.com, Twitter, IG, and TikTok: @drjohndelatorre   John Nantz  - SC -Former Supervisory Special Agent, FBI - Assigned to the Miami and Washington DC Field Offices for over 20 years.  Townhall columnistX, Truth Social, and Instagram: @theJohnnantz, LinkedIn and FB: @johnnantzWebsite: townhall.com/columnists/johnnantz  Morgan Wright  - Cybersecurity expert and Former Detective,   CEO and Founder - National Center for Open and Unsolved Cases (OpenUnsolved.org), Host - Crime: Reconstructed Substack and Podcast Dr. Kendall Crowns - Chief Medical Examiner Tarrant County (Ft Worth), Host:  "Mayhem in the Morgue", Lecturer: Burnett School of Medicine at TCU (Texas Christian University)  Tami Ballard  - DNA and Crime Scene Consultant, Crime Scene Investigation and Reconstruction, Fmr. DNA Criminalist in the San Diego Police Dept. Crime Laboratory Susan Hendricks  - Investigative Journalist, Author: “Down the Hill: My Descent into the Double Murder in Delphi", IG @susan_hendricks X @SusanHendicks   Dave Mack  Investigative Reporter, "Crime Stories" See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. The Nancy Guthrie investigation descends into madness with ransom note chaos, rocking the investigation. This as Sheriff Nanos blabs DNA secrets. And tonight, the specter of planted evidence, rear. it's ugly head. Good evening. I'm Nancy Grace. This is crime stories. I want to thank you for being with us. The ransom notes are all a hoax. Then why at the get-go was Savannah told they were legitimate.

Patel says Nanos. Nano says Patel. Who can we trust? Is this real? Early on in the investigation, there were certain items that were found that got a lot of news attention. I'm not going to say what it is because they haven't done anything with this, but there was one particular item. And I talked to somebody in the FBI who said, we believe that somebody in the media may have planted that item to get attention. and that if they can prove that and they believed it to be true, they would prosecute the individual.

And that never happened. That from our friend Harvey Levin over at TMZ is his podcast to Angry Men. Okay, that is extremely incendiary. That is a bombshell. I typically agree with Harvey Levin, but my question tonight would be, if that's true, why hasn't anyone been charged? hasn't anyone been accused? That is volatile. Straight out to Susan Hendricks joining us. Investigative journalist who has been on this case since Ms. Guthrie went missing. She is, of course, an investigative journalist, but also author of Down the Hill,

My Descent, Into the Double Murder of Delphi. What is Harvey saying? And I'm not claiming that Harvey doesn't have that information. If he said it, I believe he has gotten that information. I'm curious about the information itself. If what he said is true, wouldn't that be a very, very serious charge of tampering with evidence or false claims to police, Susan Hendricks? Yeah, absolutely. And I feel like we're in this kind of back and forth game of what is true and what is not. And you're right in terms of Harvey Levin and what he is saying, according to his sources,

is true. But the fact of the matter is we're running in certain. And in Delphi, there was a lot of secrecy to protect the integrity of the investigation. But here I feel like the investigation is a sham. I think I know what Harvey's talking about, but take a listen. Early on in the investigation, there were certain items that were found that got a lot of news attention. I'm not going to say what it is because they haven't done anything with this. But there was one particular item.

And I talked to somebody in the FBI who said, we believe that somebody in the media may have planted that item to get attention. And that if they can prove that and they believed it to be true, they would prosecute the individual. And that never happened. That's Harvey over at two angry men. Straight out to Dave Matt, crime story. investigative reporter. That's a bombshell to suggest that someone in the media has planted evidence in the Nancy Guthrie case.

Let's think it through, Dave Mack. What evidence could it be? Media, to my knowledge, did not get inside the home. Okay? The photos of the blood were obtained fairly quickly, and that blood was tested, and it is Nancy Guthrie's. That could not be planted by. the media. That leads me, Dave Mack, to the gloves. What other evidence could it possibly be?

But Dave, Matt, give me a recap. What is Harvey stating? Harvey is claiming that someone in the media has planted evidence to stoke, to get the fire burning on this case again. And this is a huge claim, Nancy. And Harvey Levin, while he might be big and huge in terms of his personality, I don't see him just making something up like this. This is a huge accusation that somebody in the media would go so far as to plant evidence. Now, Nancy, I think you've eliminated every other possibility. And it really comes down to the gloves. And remember how much time we spent on gloves in this case and where they were found, the distance from Nancy Gubb. three's home to where these gloves were found.

It just seems to fit right into the idea that somebody in the media planted evidence so that the case would regain some traction. It might have lost through some of the chaos, through Nanos and what have you. So, yeah, I think you're dead on accurate. It's probably gloves. And I don't think Harvey Levin is just making something up. I think he has information leading him to this. neither do I. Is there an echo chamber or did I just already say that, Dave, Mac?

I'll come back to you when you have an original thought on that. Straight out to Tammy Ballard. Not only DNA specialists, but crime scene consultant, crime scene investigation of reconstruction. Former criminalist in the San Diego Police Department crime lab, never a lack of business there. Tammy, thank you for being with us tonight. Okay, this is a serious allegation. And like Dave Mack, I agree. like Susan Hendricks, Harvey wouldn't throw that out there if he did, if he had not gotten that

information. So Tammy, what is he talking about? We know pretty much the evidence, as it has been relayed, maybe there's more, but if there is more, Tammy Ballard, wouldn't it be inside the home or wouldn't it be the forensic testing results? So what is it that he's talking about that could have been planted? And I mean, I'm going to bring in Dr. John Deloori. in a moment, a psychologist, renowned psychologist,

but I think I need a whole team of strengths from Vienna to figure out why a person in the media would plant evidence in a murdered case for Pete's sake. Tammy, what could it be? I am pretty much on the same page that I think that would be something to do with the gloves, but if I recall, they were working to rule out everybody for those gloves. So I hope that they compared them to the people that were searching. And you never know maybe there was somebody from the media that they connected to one of the gloves. So my bet would be the glove.

Mm, mm, mm. It's painful. Tammy, think on it while I go to John Nance joining me, guys. John Nance, amazing, former supervisory special agent FBI, assigned to Miami that is crawling with crime. And D.C. field offices, ooh, I would rather be in Miami. me with all the crime, then D.C. with all the politicians. John Nance, help me. Help me think. Your supervisory agent, special agent with the FBI. To think how much time was lost, if what Harvey said is true. And repeat, I don't think Harvey is making this up. If anything, the account may be

false. I doubt that, too, at this juncture. But think about it. Let's just go. Let's just go. with it was one of the gloves or some of the gloves. How much time did we lose chasing down a false lead that was planted in a murder-kidnapped case? Well, again, assuming that story is true, I mean, I don't know if you can calculate the actual time loss in terms of manpower, resources, all of that type of investigative

capability that was squandered following this false lead. So it's a very serious charge, if indeed true. And I would also add that just because no one has been formally charged or arrested doesn't invalidate the story either. It could be that there isn't enough evidence to support a charge at this point with regard to planting false evidence. So this case is just a continuing disaster, it seems like, and Sheriff Nanos isn't doing himself any favors either. So, you know, Leventhal's saying that he spoke to somebody, an FBI agent, I mean, it's highly unusual for an agent. And I have to say, if it's not but a handful of authorized agents who are, you know, granted authority to speak to the media, that agent is, you know, in violation of

FBI policy in doing so. So all of this, you know, to me, I still have to be very, very critical with regard to the veracity of this information. But if true, yes, obviously a bombshell development. And I would hope that anybody involved in planning evidence would be charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Well, there's also the issue of how hard would it be to plan evidence when so many unauthorized people were allowed on the same. Guys, that earlier video is from our friends at the Today Show. Straight out to Morgan Wright joining us, a cybersecurity expert, former detective, trained the FBI cart, CAR team on internet investigations. He is the CEO and founder of the National Center for Open and Unsolved Cases.

He is the star of Crime, Reconstructed, Substact, and Podcast. Morgan, thank you for being with us. Okay, just jump in because you've got unauthorized people on the crime. Actually, they were not unauthorized because Nana's released the crime scene. So anybody in their little sister could run up to the house, take pictures of Nancy's blood. The Lord only knows what else. We don't know where this planted evidence was. I suspect it may have been a glove just gleaning and interpreting what Harvey just said.

But what do you make of it, Morgan? Well, first of all, let me, let me, I'm in violent agreement with John. If somebody's, why would anybody be giving Harvey Levin information? Nothing against Harvey, but the last thing you do is collaborate with the press and give them inside information on the investigation. Can I just stop you right there? Go ahead. And I bow to your superior knowledge, but I've never seen a case without a leak. So let's don't chase our tails being saying, nobody would dare talk to Harvey.

Everybody talks to Harvey. I get it. But to John's point, somebody is continuous. giving him inside information, that totally impacts the veracity of the case, the information you can get out there. So he may be getting it. I don't know because I'm not in the inside, but I would find it very tough to believe that a regular source of leaking has not been addressed by the FBI. But let's go to the gloves real quick. One of those gloves was tied to a restaurant worker found discarded along the road, DNA testing tied it to him. Pima County interviewed him said, yes, that was it.

I was actually on the ground during the time, Nancy, when they found the gloves. So I actually reversed engineered the photograph, went to the exact location. It's on a major thoroughfare. They found over 16 set of gloves, and part of this comes from bad crime scene hygiene, bad, you know, you take out everything you bring into a place you take out with you. You don't leave anything behind. Cigarette butts, water bottles. So they found lots of gloves in that area. So it's very hard to determine which glove Harvey's or which potentially one he may be talking about the ones that the New York Post found as opposed to the blue nitral gloves versus is the black nitral gloves.

So there's a lot of convolution of this information out there right now. So again, it's one of those things. We're on the outside looking in. I don't know at this point, but I would find there's so much data out there. It's getting convoluted, just like the DNA. You've got four mixes of DNA. It's convoluted. You got gloves all over the place.

It's convoluted. If the press planted something, we would have to know what they planted, where they planted it, in relation to the timeline and the crime scene to know exactly what the impact was. But none of those were dead ends in terms of when you get something like that, when you have a suspect video now showing black nitral gloves, which appears to be on there, you have to run down all of those leads. You cannot just dismiss those simply because there's a bunch of gloves out there. I've been in crime scenes, and I know John is too, but you put a perimeter out there. You collect everything. As the Navy used to say, if it moves, saluted, if it doesn't move, paint it.

That goes with the crime scene. If it moves, you collect it. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. To Dr. John Deloey, renowned psychologist, specializing in forensic psychology at Resolutionfcs.com. Dr. Deletori, to steal a phrase out of the Bible, we're looking through a window darkly. We're on the outside looking in. We don't know what's happening exactly inside the investigation. So we are divining, right?

You know, when people, many, many, well, they still do it actually, look for well water, you have to get a diviner. That's a guy, typically, that has some sort of device, like a Y, and it leads him, her, to the water, and they dig, and they hit water. We're divining what Harvey is saying. Seems to me the most obvious choice of planting evidence by the media, someone in the media would be one of the gloves or some other physical object found outside the home. Why? Why would someone in the media do that? Of course, the first thing you do is you look for evidence that the media found.

Now, remember there was a backpack, there was clothing, there were other items, but they were not taken that seriously because they had been weathered and appeared to have been out in the elements. long before Nancy, Mrs. Guthrie went missing, which leads me back to the gloves as the planted evidence. But Dr. Delo-Torri, why in the world? Why? Is it something like those hero complexes, for instance, when somebody starts a fire in a public place and then finds the fire and puts it out and they're the hero? What is this phenomenon? Yeah, absolutely. And it's one of those things where in some ways, maybe it's a mainstream journalist, but I think, you know, the implication is actually that it would be someone who is just trying to make a name for themselves. Plant a piece of evidence, call it out, you know, put it on social media,

and then you can get all of the followers and clicks and likes that you could possibly want in order to make money. You talk about how we as the outsiders are looking into this case and through a window darkly. And my concern is that it's not just us, that it is, in fact, law enforcement that are also looking through this window darkly. and, you know, grasping at straws about how potentially something has been planted without us actually knowing what the evidence is. When could it happen?

Why would it have happened? Because there doesn't seem to be anybody who's really legitimately popped up out of nowhere. It doesn't—why would the New York Post want to plant evidence? That would go against all journalism ethics that they would hold, such as it is. So, no, there's so much more complication that's happening that is convoluting to use a word from another guest that is convoluting everything that is happening and is making us not trust each other. It's making us believe that other things aren't happening as fast as maybe they should have been happening because law enforcement is not being as forthcoming as they should, given the

length of time that it's taken to do this investigation. Straight out to you, Morgan Wright, joining us, former FBI Morgan, following up on what Dr. John Deloheri just stated. as to the likely culprit that could have planted evidence. What Harvey said was very vague. He referred to a member of the media. But let's ISO potential pools of who would do such thing. Well, like I said, I was out there on the ground. They found the single glove the FBI did.

Then the New York Post hopped on top of it. Then the minute they did, more gloves were found. And so what you get is this effect of people want their 15 minutes of fame, right? So they say, well, look, I found gloves too. That single black glove found by the FBI was tested DNA, not in CODIS, but linked to a restaurant worker. Pima County interviewed him. That's excluded.

He's excluded. So then you've got all these other gloves that they found, right? I walked up and down that area, Nancy. I walked into the brush. It's the right thing to think is that somebody leaving a crime scene, you look, did they dispose anything out the window? So you look along the shoulders along the most likely path, the egress routes. So you'd be looking things coming out potentially the passenger side of the window.

that's the proper thing to look for, but it wasn't that hard to find gloves. So somebody coming in saying, hey, look what I've found, diverts attention away from the case, exactly what you're saying, it diverts critical resources during the initial phase of the investigation. And it takes time, personnel, money, all of this stuff gets wasted to track down other things. Now, legitimately, if they found stuff while they were searching, they collect it. But the minute you put the media focus on it, it becomes a much bigger thing, right? So now you have to divert people. you cannot overlook this because here's what happens and John knows this too he I think he alluded to it

you're building a case the last thing you want to do is is give the defense and out to say well look there were gloves out here you didn't collect those those could have uh you know that's exculpatory that could have cleared my client but you didn't do it you start poking holes in the case so it all has to be collected but when you've got these diversions by people wanting their 15 minutes of fame not unfortunately unfortunately we don't have a charge for it the british have a charge it's called waste of police resources. We ought to looking at getting something like that, at least a civil case, to say, if you send us down a red, give us a red herring on a wild goose chase, then we ought to be able to charge you civilly the way they do. People who go out and get lost,

require lots of resources to come in and rescue them. Now you get the bill. So that's kind of my thought about it. A lot of this is people looking, piggybacking on the Nancy Guthrie notoriety to get their 15 minutes of fame. I believe there were a total of 16 gloves found in all. Just imagine if one or more of those were planted by this media person, this mysterious media person, trying to get clicks or trying to get views. The wild goose chase that would have sent investigators on is, oh, a huge waste of time and money. That said, moving on, Sheriff Nanos, add it again, blabbing investigative secrets. You know who's listening, right, Nanos? the kidnapper.

We have a lot of DNA that we're still working with, working with the labs. And the labs are, you know, they've been incredible. It's not just our lab and FBI lab. These are labs across the country. So the testing that's still going on, it's not unusual that this would go on over month after month. It takes that long time. Absolutely.

Especially when you throw in genealogy. There is Nana's blabbing to K-O-L-D. Dave Mack. why won't he stop talking? He just told the kidnapper slash killer that all the DNA at the scene didn't match anybody in CODIS, didn't match anybody in the Arizona DNA bank.

Why? Why? He just revealed that they had to resort to genetic genealogy. It boggles my mind how Nass has continued to fumble the ball. But you know, Nancy, we were just talking about the ransom notes, and all of that was really pushed onto the FBI taking over that. Well, Nanos has grabbed hold of the DNA since the very beginning, and he's the one that sent it to his experts in Florida instead of allowing the FBI to have control of it. So basically, Nanos is reinserting himself to say, I'm the leader of this, and this is

what we have. That's the only reason anyone would even claim something like this publicly. to Dr. Kendall Crowns joining us, renowned chief medical examiner, Tarrant County, that's Fort Worth. He is an esteemed lecturer at the Burnett School of Medicine at TCU, and he's a star of a hit podcast, Mayhem in the Morg. Dr. Kendall Crowns, speaking of what was planted, the reason I'm leaning toward the possibility of it being one of the many, many 16 gloves that were found, because it would be so difficult to plant biologic evidence, such as Nancy Guthrie's blood that we see on the porch, and who would have access, not the media, to inside the home, so that rules out anything found in the home,

but how difficult would it have been? Because we know media was up on her porch. We know that. But that blood was tested, right? And it was Nancy Guthrie's. That's practically impossible, isn't it? So for her blood to be on the porch, it had to have come from her specifically, like she fell or she was injured as they were kidnapping her. There would be no other way for her blood to show up at the scene. No one could have brought it in with them, dropped it around. And because it's been tested and been found to actually be her blood, it had to have occurred at the time she was kidnapped and probably not before then.

because it would have been a notice by family or someone else if there had been blood on her porch prior to the day she was kidnapped. There's no way that blood got there from anybody but her as she's being abducted and taken out of the house. Straight out to special guests joining us, Tammy Ballard, DNA expert, crime scene investigation and reconstruction expert, former DNA criminalist in the San Diego Police Department, Crime Lab. Tammy, thank you for being with us tonight. Tammy, this is a big deal because if the kidnappers are sophisticated enough, well, they are because they've let everyone, including Cash Patel and the feds on a wild goose chase. They've managed to outsmart everyone on their Bitcoin account.

If the ransom notes are true, the ransom notes. So they're not idiots. I guarantee you that bumbling idget, the porch guy, he's not the only one involved in Ms. Guthrie's disappearance. But now he, and I think it is a man, maybe there's a woman lurking in the background, now he knows. He's succeeded. There's no DNA direct match in CODIS and there's no direct match in the Arizona DNA data bank,

which is much more lax in its testing. Not that they have poor testing, they just accept a greater variety of DNA than does CODIS. Like in CODIS, you have to be convicted, has to be proven DNA before it can go into CODIS. The Arizona data bank has much less stringent requirements to take in a DNA substance, a sample. My point is, now the kidnapper slash killer knows, hey, they haven't caught me yet.

They're having to do genetic genealogy. Tammy, explain what it is and what this means. Well, Nancy, I will say that Nanos maybe isn't articulating things the best that he possibly could. He probably should have used a little bit more generic terms and stating that, you know, we're using all technology. available. You basically can't go onto the news right now without seeing some sort of genealogy success story. That's beyond our traditional DNA testing. The traditional DNA testing being the STRs, the short tandem repeats that are going into the CODIS database. Again, with a case like this, your biggest battle is most likely going to be that these are what we call complex mixtures,

three, four contributors of DNA, and you've got to parse out those profiles, remove whoever is in contact with them from family members, known contributors, and see if we can identify a perpetrator, whether they leave an item behind, whether they come in contact with an item at that scene. So all of this is sort of a triage approach. Nanos is likely throwing out that terminology to let people know that they are doing over and above anything that people are probably claiming they're not. So my thought would have been right from the beginning.

You're wanting to do every single thing possible. You're going to do that traditional testing. You're going to do genealogy testing if that doesn't get to a CODIS hit. So you're only as good as who's in your databases. And if you can do a multi-prong approach, that's what you need to be doing. And I do believe that that is occurring. When you say they need to be doing a quote multi-prong approach, what do you mean by that, Tammy Ballard? So as an example, the Rachel Marin case is one that I always like to refer to.

That was the young mother who was killed when she was out for a jog. There was a sexual assault component to that. So that was great DNA evidence left behind, not a complex mixture. You do that STR, that traditional testing, put that into CODIS, see if you get it. hit if you don't almost immediately within the next two weeks of not getting a CODIS hit that genealogy testing was performed and that actually led to an identification so it is a multi-prong approach it's just the speed of it is definitely dependent on what type of quality of DNA you have left behind at that scene listen and you're there for heart-wrenching knockouts

and breathtaking triumph. The 90s. 2026 FIFA World Cup. The knockout stage. Every match. Every moment. Listen on TSN Radio. Join the globe. On the road to the July 19th final.

2026 FIFA World Cup. Stream it all live on TSN Radio. Available on IHeard Radio. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. You know, straight out to John Nance, former supervisory special agent FBI, I agree and disagree with Tammy Ballard, certainly not disagreeing with her on DNA.

She's the expert. But in what this means to the killer kidnapper, to have nanos blurt out, yeah, we're doing genetic genealogy. That tells anyone sophisticated in the world of crime and crime investigation that they didn't get a match. They're not close to a match. We know there's stranger DNA in the home, again, because Nannis blurted it out.

They should have left it right there. But instead, now he goes a step further and blurts out they're having to resort to genetic genealogy. I think it tells the kidnapper a lot about the investigation. Yeah, and I think it also says a lot about Sheriff Nanos as the, you know, as the chief law enforcement officer in his particular jurisdiction. And I have to wonder, is Nanos really giving us accurate information about the case? I mean, as disorganized as this has been from the very beginning, it just leads me to wonder, is he really on top of what the state of what the state of the question is with regard to the DNA testing or the genealogical research that's going on?

So to my mind, there could be legitimate DNA testing ongoing as well as, you know, the genealogical component of this investigation. So it's hard for me to put 100% faith in anything that Nanos is saying. And I think that to a large degree, he's really kind of camera hounding because the sheriff in many jurisdictions, and I'm sure in his jurisdiction, it's an elected position. So essentially you're talking about a politician, a law enforcement politician. So I think there's this strong, you know, this strong motivation for Nanos to continue to get out in front of the public. And also, I think in parallel with this entire Guthrie investigation, Nanos was conducting some kind of a reality TV show. So it's just this bizarre, bizarre behavior from someone in his position.

Is that DNA that you have, you believe might be the suspects? It just doesn't match anyone in a lab. What we have is we have some DNA and we don't know whose it is. So we'll keep looking. There again, blurting out state secrets. You know, another theory here. Straight out to Susan Hendricks joining us, investigative journalist and author. this could be

Nanos's attempt to say, look, look, we are doing something. We've sent the DNA out for genetic genealogy testing and blaming the delay in an arrest on the genetic genealogy. I mean, more finger pointing, more of that.

He's good at that. So that could be his attempt to save his own skin. Yeah. And when I'm listening to him, Nancy, when he talks about the genealogy and saying, We're in touch with all these labs.

It doesn't really sound like he knows what he's talking about in terms of genealogy. We have DNA. And you're right. He should just stop talking. We need leadership. He hasn't brought up the amount of money that someone could get. There it is right there. Why isn't he saying, look, we're still looking at press conference?

Yes. Blabber about genetic genealogy where it sounds like he doesn't know what he's saying is cringe. To Dr. John Deletori, joining us. licensed psychologist. Dr. Deloey, my elected district attorney, who was like a grandfather to me, longest serving DA in the country, I think it was 37 years at that time, always said, when dealing with the media, one rule, don't talk. Second rule, follow rule one. Don't talk. I had a standard comment always, if I was cornered, before the verdict. And it was, I believe, a full County jury will render a verdict that speaks the truth. That's all I can say. So I said something,

but I said nothing. I don't know why he's doing this, but it's sabotaging the cases. And also, so that's one thing for you, Delotory, why the constant histrionics, why is the constant me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, and blabbing state secrets, number one. And number two, does he not think the perp is watching? Well, I think he, I think what he's actually thinking is that the world is watching and it's more important to him that he at least come across as competent. I don't think he actually is, but I do think he's deluded enough to believe that he is. But also more importantly, there's a reason why law enforcement agencies have public information officers. Just because you are elected doesn't mean that you're actually a good politician that

knows how to spin a yarn to make sure that you keep the attention on the whatever the issues of the day are for you, whatever your platform is. It often comes across as if Nanos is purposefully attempting to undermine any progress in the case in an effort to ensure that he comes across as better than what he's been looking in terms of the court of public opinion. But just because you are elected, it doesn't mean that you should just handle all of these things. He has public information officers that absolutely should be the point person for these cases. He should just be a figurehead never speaking and the PIOs should be the ones that are actually talking about this case to make sure that the public is informed, but that, as you say,

no state secrets are being released. Morgan Wright, joining us, cybersecurity expert, former detective, also CEO founder, National Center for Open and Unsolved Cases. Morgan, how many times have we personally investigated? and covered cases where the perp keeps meticulous files every time they're mentioned in the press, video clips of them being discussed on television and beyond. It's very common. Does Nana's not think the perp is watching?

You know, Nancy, there's a case back from my time actually getting trained by the FBI and criminal profiling. They showed us a case where they wanted to demonstrate exactly what you're talking about. you have to assume that somebody is watching. So when there was a lead sent out to say, search this side of the road, they intentionally searched the wrong side of the road, not broadcasting it yet. And they got a message back saying, hey, you're searching the wrong side of the road. They use that to track down the person who was responsible for the kidnapping and ultimately

death of the victim. So, I mean, there are tons of case studies out there where you have to assume that the person is learning, they're watching, and they are modifying their behavior. In fact, if you give certain things out there, they can actually go back. and eliminate certain kinds of evidence that they didn't think about or they didn't know about. Why? Because that's not their circle of competence like Charlie Munger said. So anytime you disclose anything beyond what is needed to move the case forward for the public, here's how you connect, here's what you do.

Anytime you do stuff like that, you give the edge to the adversary. The other thing you do, too, is if it ever gets down to a point to where I actually have that person in front of me and I'm doing an interview, which an interview, if you do it right, get the right kind of feedback from that interview, it leads to an interrogation. So during that interview, I want to find out stuff from this person that I would use in an interrogation, but it has to be stuff that only they know, not anything that came from the public, not anything that came from a newsreel, not anything that came from a, you know, one of the thousands. Nancy, when I was on the ground out there, the thing that boggled my mind is how densely the road

was packed, not just with news stations, legitimate newscasters, but everybody else with the phone and a live stream going to Facebook or YouTube and stuff like that. So it's unknown how much information got out. but if I'm interviewing somebody and then interrogating them, I want to make sure that I am armed with the case facts and then I'm finding out from them things only the offender would know, not something they learned from the news. So all of the stuff makes it extremely difficult

when you get somebody in that room and you want to talk with them about the case. How do you separate fact from fiction at that point? Yeah, all they have to do is replay Nanos over and over and over again, and they'll know plenty about the case. Also tonight, the Nancy Guthrie family reacts to the ransom note chaos between Nanos and the feds. Straight back out to Susan Hendricks, investigative journalist, joining us on this story since the very beginning. Susan Savannah responded to all the ransom note chaos.

What did she say? Yeah, it is heart wrenching Nancy. And here is her statement. She said, it has been five months of agony and unending trauma for our family. family. There is not a moment that goes by that we aren't actively trying to find our mom, bring her home. And throughout this program, we've been seeing images of Nancy throughout her life, five grandchildren, three of her own children. I think some people are losing sight of this. It's just unbelievable. And I wonder how Savannah gets through it.

Savannah and her family being accused of being the kidnappers, just crazy conspiracy theories, but now she is responding to the most recent chaos, many attribute that chaos to Nanos. I think there's been a lot of talk about ransom notes. We're looking into that, and those are notes that we've been pretty consistent. You know, you divvy up the work, right? We took the DNA, we gave the ransom notes to the FBI. That's my friends at KOLD. There you see Nano stirring the pot regarding the ransom notes.

He says they, Pima County, handed it all over to the FES. But here's what Patel says. Reuters is reporting that the ransom notes that were sent regarding Nancy Guthrie's disappearance are fake. Are you able to confirm that those have been determined to be? fake? I'm not going to comment on that. We are continuing to assist that investigation. We've always been in an assist role. It's a state matter being led by the state authorities. Thank you. Okay. That's my friends at C-SPAN, straight out to Morgan Wright. There you see, Nano's claiming the feds have the notes, and you hear Patel saying, oh, no, that's a state issue for Pima County.

Why? Yeah. Under 18 U.S. Code 1201, the FBI could take control of a kidnap for ransom investigation if meets a couple thresholds like go across state lines or internet or interstate communications use which obviously it can they've chosen not to do that it's still pima county um the issue of the ransom notes i'm still bothered by it because we have two groups of notes group one is the first one for four million then six million that was one set of communications then we've got everything after that which i call parasitic communications the one thing none of these notes have displayed is proof of either you you can assert a claim but that's not proof right proof is Do you have a picture of the clothing? Do you have a picture of Nancy? Do you have a picture of something that belonged to her outside of the home? Simply repeating a claim about something in the home or a broken light. That doesn't rise to the level, right? So at some point, I think the FBI is playing nice, which having worked with the FBI years ago, too, as well, it's a welcome change. They do really want to support. They could potentially assert federal supremacy over this and take over the investigation. I think they've chosen not to. I don't know why. That's the discussions that go on in boardrooms.

beyond my pay grade. But the fact that they have deferred back to Nanos and Pima County on the ransom notes, I don't think that there's, I think the first set of communications caused concern because it came so close after it and it was a, it took advantage of the family's vulnerability at that time in the media pressure. Everything else, what I call the group two communications, the parasitic. Now, they've made arrests on some of these communications, those were easy to find. the fact that they haven't announced an arrest based on any of these yet so far from having taught that the student is now the master, but there are ways to have communications which makes it virtually untraceable because you go through third parties, you go through countries and

companies and services that track no data. They keep no logs. They don't provide any metadata that you can use to trace this back. That's why these are all one-way communications. None of them are responding. That's why they're going to TMZ and KOLD and other agencies like that. So the group one communications, I think, are the ones that are still in the bucket of saying that we still have not been able to rule those out. I think the group two communications, all the ones like, hey, give me a Bitcoin or give me this. I really have the pictures, I promise it. All of those things, I think they have discounted and taken out of the frame. The first two communications, Nancy, I think, are still in the frame because they have not been able

to exclude them with evidence or specificity. You don't have to know the sender of a note to discount it or to take it out of the frame because you can look at certain factors in there. I think there's enough in the first two notes because they came so close after the abduction that the FBI, I don't think, has ruled those out completely yet. I think group two, those notes are from an opportunist. I call them parasitic communications. John Nance joining us, former supervisory special agent FBI. John, I was asking about the finger-pointing between the feds and Pima County. Why?

They're both blaming each other, which led Savannah to speak out after the ransom note chaos caused by the two entities. Well, I actually appreciate Patel's brevity and succinctness in that particular press conference. I think Sheriff Nannis could take a few cues from that. So then to stir the pot even further, here's Nanos again. I guess there's something out now that says, oh, the FBI or the sheriff have dismissed notes. That is not the truth. What we know is we have a number of notes that we are actively looking at and will continue to actively investigate, even though this piece is given to the FBI.

I'd like to say thanks to Nanos, but he's contradicting himself so much from KOLD guys to Dr. Kendall Crowns, joining us, Chief Medical Examiner, Tarrant County. Dr. Kendall Crown's bottom line, if we are led to Ms. Guthrie's body, if. I mean, we'll have to be led to it

because we're not finding it on our own. Will we be able to identify it, a COD? What's the likelihood? Address all scenarios. So there's a possibility. So she's been missing for months now in Arizona. If the body's buried, the body will be mummified at this point. And if it's found, we could still do an autopsy,

there's still find findings of bone fractures, head trauma, things like that. The organs themselves will be severely decomposed and mummified themselves as well. So there is a potential you could find coronary artery disease or something of that nature. If her body was left out in the open, like in a foresty area or something like that out in the desert, you have the potential for there to be extensive animal scavenging by coyotes or whatever is available in that area. In that scenario, all you might find is bones. And again, the bones can't be looked at, looking for fractures or things of that nature, to find trauma. But if nothing is found on the bones, then there's going to be no organs to look at.

So there'll be no idea of how and why she died and the case will probably be made undetermined. Dr. Crowns, how much of the remains would we have to find in order to make a DNA match or to identify? it as Mrs. Guthrie. So to identify an individual using DNA, all you need is something that has bone marrow or a tooth that has pulp. So if you have a long bone, a rib, or a tooth, and it still has marrow or pulp in it that can be recovered, that's all you need. So it's as simple as a tooth being found, you could still identify Ms. Guthrie from that. A muscle or even if there's spleen left can be used for DNA identification as well. As well as she has things on her body like the pacemaker that can be used for a serial number

or a match from the medical records to identify her that way. If you know or think you know anything about Mrs. Guthrie's disappearance, please dial toll-free. If you wish to remain anonymous, 520882-7463, there is a $1.2 plus million-dollar reward on the table. It does not require a prosecution, and you may remain anonymous. We remember an American hero, Officer David Nelson, Bakersfield, PD, California. Just 26, killed in the line of duty after two years on the force, leaving behind grieving parents Larry and Mary, American hero, officer David Nelson. Thank you to all of our guests for being with us, but especially to you for being with us. Nancy Gray, signing off for tonight.

But I'll see you tomorrow night, and until then, good night.