Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - SAVANNAH GUTHRIE MOM MISSING: DAY 34

Episode Date: March 6, 2026

Pima County Sheriff’s Department and FBI investigators returned to Nancy Guthrie's neighborhood asking some of those living around her whether they noticed any internet connection disruptions the night Guthrie disappeared.   Authorities have not said why they were asking, but many suspect an attempt to show possible use of a jammer.   One home was of particular interest, the closest to Guthrie's property.  The couple's home has four Ring cameras, and one camera did experience glitches.   Joining Nancy Grace today: Bob Krygier - Former SWAT Commander at Pima County Sheriff’s Office   Brian Fitzgibbons  -  Director of Operations for USPA Nationwide Security, website: www.uspasecurity.com, Instagram: @uspa_nationwide_security, former Marine and Iraq war veteran James Bass -  Digital Forensic Analyst and Expert Witness  of Evidence Solutions Inc. in Tucson, AZ, website: https://evidencesolutions.com/, LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bassjwb   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. Savannah Guthrie's mother, Nancy Guthrie, missing day 34. It defies all logic. This, as we learn, in the last hours, the FBI has been going door-to-door asking certain neighbors, did they have an internet disruption? The night Nancy Guthrie was abducted, was a signal jammer used or some other apparatus.

Also, we learn investigators are now talking to trash companies. Why? And this, as we learn, the DNA, the stranger DNA, not a family member, not someone that worked with Mrs. Guthrie, was definitively found in the home. What difference does it make? Good evening. I'm Nancy Grace. This is crime stories. I want to thank you for being with us. A lot happening in the search for Nancy Guthrie, straight out to crime stories investigative reporter Dave Mac. Dave, what do you mean the FBI going not exactly door to door but to certain neighbors, which I find interesting, not door to door, not every neighbor, certain targeted neighbors.

Why them? What do they know? What can they offer that the next door neighbor cannot offer? Is it a vantage point? Is it their work schedule? In other words, were they coming home in the middle of the night? Were they getting up early? What did they notice?

Were they out and about? Was their cell phone identified moving around in the area in the early morning hours? My point is it could be a myriad of possibilities. Not every neighbor was questioned. certain people were isolated in question. I'll get to that in a moment, but Dave Mack, interference with their internet signal? What?

The FBI yesterday was specifically looking at the home just west of Nancy Guthrie's home, and they were specifically, the FBI, specifically asking about internet connectivity issues the night that Nancy Guthrie disappeared. Very specific about the time and very, very specific. about the time and very specific about what could have happened with their internet connectivity. Now, Nancy, as we've pointed out before, while this is a neighborhood, the homes are not close together. They are separated by a bit. And in this particular case, they, as you mentioned,

FBI did not go to every house. They only went to specific homes. In particular, the home to the west of Nancy Guthrie's house. That's the one they spent the most time with. And again, checking on internet connectivity on February 1st. That's what they're looking at. You're seeing video, drone video from our friends at Fox News. How irritating. Look, look. It's like gnats. Straight out to, I'm going to circle back on what you just said, but to Bob Krieger joining us, former SWAT commander. That's not easy to obtain. former SWAT commander Pima County Sheriff's Office, 30 years in Pima. Did you see the video we just showed?

Do you see the media chasing down the FBI? I mean, they can't, they can't make a move without being watched. People are trying to figure out what they're saying. They're trying to read their lips. did you ever encounter anything like this where your every move was watched while you tried to work, Bob? Not specifically like that, but, you know, it started a handful of years ago where First Amendment auditors decided they wanted to videotape and look at everything that law enforcement does. And it's a skill that you learn and you learn that as long as they're a decent distance away, you just kind of ignore them. Like you said, they're like gnats.

You know, one or two. Hey, Bob, can I tell you a story? I remember the first time that court TV covered one of my trials live. I was so oblivious focusing on the answer, the jury, the question, the jury, the judge. I mean, it's like a tennis match. You zone out everything else. And later, I found out that the camera caught me trying to put my, hair up, which I wore on top of my head at the time, um, adjusting my dress and all that,

you know, before the jury would come back in. So, you know, you have to be in a zone if you're focusing on what's happening. And can I see that video again from our friends at Fox's drone video of the FBI. And that's how we know they were only going to certain doors, certain neighbors. So can I see the other photo now, please control room of Nancy Goose. Guthrie's home and Dave Mack, if you could look at this because, see, we don't know how this is situated the overhead shot of Nancy Guthrie's home. Okay. When you're saying West, see from what we're saying, I don't know which home that would be. Let me see a far shot. That's from 12 News, by the way. A high aerial. Is it to the right of her home or the left of her home

in front or in back? What is west as it is oriented to this? this photo, Dave Mack, do we know what would be west? I would assume it's to the left of her home. Okay, that's what I assume, but Nancy, I don't have a, there's not a compass here on the picture to know exactly where. That's why I use the identifier. Okay, we're going to find out. Control room, that will give you something fun to do.

Figure out what is east, west, north, and south in this photo. Just FYI, all you need to know control room is what's north. do the rest for you. Back to the topic. The FBI going, not quite door to door, but certain neighbors isolated straight out to James Bass, joining us, digital forensic analyst, expert witness at Evidence Solutions Inc. in Tucson. James, thank you for being with us. Now, you've heard like we did late last night about questioning neighbors did they have, an internet interference the night Nancy went missing. Thoughts? Based on some of the new reporting of possible Wi-Fi jammers being used, I think what you're seeing is them trying to either

establish that one was used or rule out that fact. Wi-Fi jammers work by overwhelming a signal. You can think of it like sitting in a movie theater and someone screaming in your ear. That's pretty much what they do. They're going to flood the zone with signal. So part of this requires a proximity to your device. You can't block out everything from a distance. Okay, James Bass. James Bass. Let me see him. Bass. I got two law degrees. One JD from Mercia University, one LLM and criminal constitutional law from NYU.

And I don't know what you just said. Slow it down, brother. Okay. What? Because I need to understand this is technology I don't know about. And I want to understand it. Okay. What now? A Wi-Fi jammer is, it's a device you can buy off the Internet. They're illegal in the United States. You can't possess them.

But if you do obtain one, they're relatively effective at stopping Wi-Fi signals. They do this by just overwhelming this specific signal bandwidth. How do you do that? First of all, you've already told me something inconsistent. I believe you, but in my mind is inconsistent. You said it's illegal, but you can get it on the Internet. Just like drugs. They're illegal, but you can get them anywhere.

So a Signal Jammer is illegal in the U.S. I wonder where are they legal? But that's a whole other can of worms. Ooh, there's a picture. Signal jammer. And then you said, okay, so I've reconciled that, James. Now you said you flood the Internet. What does that mean?

How do you flood the internet? If you think of your wireless router, it's got really two signals, you have 2.4 gigahertz and your 5 gigahertz signal ban. That's how it talks back and forth. It sends and receives data. Now, these jammers don't erase the signal, but what they do is they emit such a loud signal that it's going to overwhelm your device. just like I said

going to a movie theater and having someone beside you screaming in your ear the whole time, you can't hear the movie, but the movie's still going on. It's just going to interfere with the transmission of the data. Okay, stop right there. I need to. I need to. I've got

to take this in tiny sips. Okay. Number one, it's illegal. Number two, you can get one on the internet. Three, internet, everybody's home internet, through their routers, gives a signal and receives a signal. A signal jammer does not stop either the receipt

or the transmission of your home router. What it does is it sends out its own signal that is so strong and overpowering. Okay, then you finish the rest of the sentence. That's as far as I got. Go ahead. It's so strong and overpowering that nothing can be sent or received. It can't be heard. You know, you're, in this case, maybe the, the nest camera is broadcasting video to the router. The router has been sending it to the service.

Now, when a Wi-Fi jammer is set next to that camera, it's going to scream so loud that the signal from the device, from the camera isn't heard by the router. It's just going to jump between it and block that signal. Hello. Hello? pretend you're talking to kindergartners. The Wi-Fi jammer, when set next to Nancy Guthrie's Nest, what was the rest of that? It emits a signal that's more powerful than the Nest camera. It would overwhelm that bandwidth.

It just screams and yells really loud, and then the router can't hear the camera anymore. It just interferes and severs that communication. Wow. Overrides signal so loudly the nest can no longer hear the transmission it's supposed to be receiving. And sending, yes. Is that right? Exactly.

Wow. Okay, you just explained a lot to me. Now, I want you to look at something. Control Room, could you please? show the item sticking out of the door, the porch guys, there you go. Go, keep going, keep going, keep going, stop.

So what we had thought, oh, you're still moving. Could you ISO that for me? What we had thought was a walkie-talkie. Could that be the signal jammer or a signal jammer?

James Bass? It's possible. It is very possible that is a Wi-Fi signal jamming antenna. You normally would see more than one antenna. There's usually one antenna per band that it's going to try to interfere with as your illustration here. So it could still be a walkie-talkie of some sort, but that antenna is also something

that you would see on a Wi-Fi jammer. So it could be a jammer. Do all jammers have the three antenna? No. Some have two, some have three, depending on the sophistication of the jammer, the technology that's being used. You can see more. Some don't have one. You would have to provide a separate antenna. Some have them integrated into the device for portability. So some have no antenna? Or you bomb. Everything has to have an antenna. But if you bomb, everything has to have an antenna. But if you buy them, you, you buy them. they can be mounted to anything. They're not, the one you would put in your pocket would have an antenna

like a walkie-talkie, but if you were looking to install one on a vehicle, it would not have a built-in integrated antenna. You would have to have an external antenna for the signal to broadcast. Okay. I ask that because you said it could be integrated

into the device. But you're saying it can be attached to the device, correct? Correct, depending on what you purchase. You're saying you buy everything separately and then put it together? You can, yes. Or you can just purchase one for, they usually run about $100, $150, like the one you're displaying here.

That's probably a $100, $200 unit. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Signal Jammer. The reason we're talking about this tonight is we have learned that the FBI, this is not just some kook on the internet. The FBI is asking neighbors, certain neighbors, if they had interference with their internet, the night Nancy goes missing. Now, I've got an answer. Let's see the aerial view of Nancy's home again, please, because I've now learned the front door is facing north. The front door is facing north. So as you're looking at the camera,

You are north. South is behind the house, okay? Which means west would be to the left. There you go. Thank you, control room. Wow. Okay, that is very helpful. Now, there's Nancy's home with the red mark on it.

So to the west, there you can see. Now, you see her home, you see her pool, and it looks, there you go. The first home to the left would be the one to the west. Okay, Dave Mack, you're telling me that is the home that they were asking about interference with the signal. Correct. That is the home they spent the most time with, and that's where they were specifically asking Connecticut, the night Nancy went missing. Dave Mack, not to belabor the point, but was the FBI asking multiple people in the neighborhood or just the home to the west? The FBI actually went to different homes in the neighborhood, Nancy.

Not just the one. They were seen walking to other homes in the neighborhood as well. That I know. But did they ask other neighbors about internet interference or just the one neighbor? We know just about the one neighbor. We don't know what the conversation were. But they could have. Got it.

Got it. But they could have. So back to you, James Bass. Digital Forensic Analyst Expert Witness at Evidence Solutions Inc. there in Tucson, if a signal jammer was used, would it have jammed houses around Nancy's or just Nancy's? That's exactly what they're probably trying to establish. A small unit has a very small area that it can jam. It's got to be close to the device to actually stop the signal. So what they're looking is houses that are going to be close, trying to establish a timeline or possibly a route in or out of the neighborhood based off of a signal interruption.

Okay. That was really smart. Hold on. Hold on. I was trying to discern something. If the neighbors say their internet was not interrupted, that could mean there was not a blanket like cable disruption, that would be more likely, not absolutely, but more likely that a signal jammer was used at Nancy's home.

If nobody else had a problem, Nancy was the only one that had a problem, more likely a signal jammer was used. Bob Krieger has another idea. Former SWAT commander, 30 years in LA law enforcement in Pima, what's your idea? Well, if they were asking about strictly internet service going out, the jammers have a real small radius to work in. If the whole neighborhood went out, it'd be probably more likely that someone cut something at a box or at the house or houses to knock off the service. That's going to cut all the internet activity, not just, the individual Wi-Fi singles.

So there's, you know, it just shows. Okay, what does that mean, Bob Crager, to have the fiber optic cut? That means you're not, you can't get on the internet anymore. Your Internet is now broken. You can't talk to anything. You can't stream anything. No data's coming in. No data is going out.

What the Jammer does is it just affects the Wi-Fi singles from your router inside your house, all your devices that are pushing information out. So the Internet is still working. being jammed. If the cables are cut or there's a big disruption, that's when the whole neighborhood would go out. That's when you'd get Comcast or Xfinity or whoever your provider is saying, hey, guess what? The internet's down in your neighborhood. You can't do anything. And today's world, people are going to panic and everything stops. No streaming, no cells or no, anything that you do on the internet is done. And that's an absolute. Bob Craigor, if the fiber optic

was the issue, when you say cut, do you mean physically, manually cut, severed, like the scissors or a knife? Yes. Okay, wouldn't there be evidence of that following? I mean, they can't cut it and repair it. So wouldn't that still be cut the following morning? Yeah, absolutely. And you would know that whenever you get an outage in your neighborhood, I get a text alert

from somebody saying, hey, there's an outage in your neighborhood. You know it's coming. So that's far less likely to have happened because the Internet service provider would. Unless Nancy Guthrie's could have been cut solely, like at her home, the fiber object leading to her home. I don't know that that's possible or how it is set up. But that said, it's still an option. I want to go back to something that James Bass said. And Krieger, Fitzgivins, please jump in if you have an idea.

you mentioned James Bass that the routes in and out of the neighborhood could be discerned based on this signal jammer or something to that effect. Again, they did not teach me this in law school. I'm learning right now as we're talking, aren't you glad you're not one of my witnesses that I would put on the stand because we would be at this all day? What did you mean by that? all day long. That maybe you could discern a route in and out.

Well, first back to the fiber optic issue. The reason I don't believe it would be a fiber optic issue is because the camera brought was was transmitting at this point. So if fiber optic was cut prior to the incident, you would not have had these images recovered on the back end from nest. So the way. Secondly, the way this signal jammer would work is, as Bob said, there's a very small radius that it can actually kill signal to overwhelm a signal transmission. So if it is in use and it's

doing its job as it's driving past homes, you may see not necessarily, when I say an internet loss, you're not going to see a router go offline necessarily. But you're not going to see a router go offline, But you may see some of your connected devices. You may notice you may get an internet signal or a notification that your doorbell stopped working. There was a break in service or a driveway monitor or something. As it drove past, it interrupted a signal and there was a record made somewhere. So knowing this, it would help you establish a timeline if there were a sequence of interruptions through the houses going down the road, you know, in and out.

you could kind of discern possibly a route, the timeline, and I want to say the type, but the sophistication of what you're dealing with. Okay, that is brilliant. Okay, James, let me see James Bassam Allen. I'm trying to drink in what you just said. I'm trying to ingest it. You're saying that if the signal jammer had already been turned on as the per was proceeding into the neighborhood, it could very likely jam, even if briefly, devices as it passed

on the way to Nancy's. That would give me an entry. I don't need the time because I already know the time based on a pacemaker. But it would give me the route and it would tell me which way they went and how they entered. And if I know that, then maybe I can follow that and get video surveillance from the quick trip or the whatever. Okay, hold on. Let me just.

What devices could the signal blocker potentially have knocked off? You mentioned a doorbell device. I guess you're talking about a ring or something like that or a nest. A driveway monitor. You're still talking about a ring cam or something to that effect.

Would it affect cell service? Would it affect any other devices? A baby monitor? I don't know what. What else could it affect? Wait, what control room you had an idea? What? Pace maker. Um, you know, actually, I thought of that as I was spouting them off. But would a signal jammer affect a Bluetooth connected pacemaker? Anyway, that's a good idea. Pacemaker.

What else could it affect? And, ergo, how would we get a notice of that when you say you might have got a record would be made? and you may have gotten notice. Okay. First of all, what devices? Really, any devices, anything that connects to the internet wireless? Hold on, James Bass. Wait a minute. We're just hearing we've confirmed three other neighbors were asked the same thing about

internet connection, not just the neighbor to the west. Now that we spent 10 minutes trying to figure out what was the right house. Now we know it was not unique to them. That should, I believe, affect your opinion about what's happening. that more neighbors are being questioned. The FBI thinks more people, not just Nancy, not just one neighbor, may have had internet interruption. And it goes along with your theory.

Yeah, what we would be looking for, or what they should be looking for, is if there's some sort of interference as a vehicle or as a person walking, however this happened, that Wi-Fi jammer has such a small radius that it could knock off things as it goes down the road.

I know what I was asking you, James. I was asking you what other devices would have been interrupted. Just give me a quick laundry list off the top of your head. There's a lot of devices that we see every day that are advertised on social media that we're bringing into our lives. You see the solar-powered remote security cameras, driveway monitors, anything that can be connected to the internet remotely that could be close to this jammer as it went by

would have been knocked offline sequentially. What about a pacemaker? As it traveled down right. What about a pacemaker? Pacemaker is a Bluetooth connection that would require a more sophisticated type of jamming. And it's much closer, not saying it can't be done,

it would require another frequency of jamming. And it would also be much closer. to the device. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Brian Fitzgibbon is joining me, Director of Operations, USPA nationwide security. He leads a team of investigators

that go around the world finding and extracting missing people, including Mexico. He is a former Marine and he is an Iraqi war veteran. He is at USP. nationwide security. Brian, okay. Let me try to, I'm thinking as I'm talking, go with me. We've been talking about you and I before we met Bob and James about the timing, the timeline.

Based on what Bass just said about her Bluetooth, I mean about a pacemaker, which is Bluetooth, he said a different type of device, a more sophisticated advice, more sophisticated device would needed to block her pacemaker. The timeline, we see the perk trying to dismantle the nest door cam. At that time, her pacemaker is still going, right? He gets in. Her pacemaker, let's see the timeline, please, if you could put that up for me, her pacemaker spikes 2 a.m. He is already there if he has a signal jammer at 147, okay? My point is, her pacemaker's still working these minutes later, 13 minutes later,

then suddenly pacemaker disconnects 228, so the Bluetooth was still working. If the signal jammer was used, Fitzgibbons, it did not affect her pacemaker. See what I mean? He's already disconnecting the door cam. He's in the area. he's around her house, he's at her front door, he's entering her door, her pacemaker still working.

So it was not a signal jammer that would have affected Bluetooth. Do you see what I mean, Brian? Yeah, absolutely. And I think, you know, going through that timeline, it's going to lead to this, right? We know this. We know that that nest camera was taken, right? We know that that nest camera was taken away. So we know at least in those moments when the same.

subject comes up to remove the camera that the signal jammer was not working, right? Because law enforcement recovered this from a transmission from that device to the cloud. So we know that the signal jammer wasn't working at that moment, but we can potentially deduce that it was working earlier. I got to write that down so I can study it. That's a really good observation, Fitzgibbons. Okay. So the signal jammer, if it existed, did not stop the nest from recording yet because we got some of that video okay yeah but it could have been turned on after that it could have been on go ahead and it could have been on and working and jamming that signal while they entered the house while they exited the house and that what you could be seeing

here we know that this subject removed that camera at some point and took it away so at at a minimum, they were aware that video could be recovered from the physical device. They weren't planning on it being recovered from the cloud. Okay. You, Fitzgibbons, just hit another important point. Bob Krieger joining us, former SWAT, Pima County Sheriff's, 30 years at Pima. Maybe that is why we don't have any additional CAM. because when he goes in, he turns on the jammer, and no more cam is available.

He jammed it. It's possible. Because if they could have gotten that, if they could have resurrected, like Lazarus, Google resurrected or either cast, FBI cellular analysis survey team, resurrected this video. If the jammer was then turned on, maybe that's why we don't have any more video. maybe he thinks he has somehow dismantled the door cam and then turns it on when he goes inside. I don't know what he did, but I do know the FBI thinks he did something. Okay, play that out to his logical conclusion, Bob Krieger. It's definitely possible.

With that, though, there's a lot of stuff going on from a bad guy's perspective. And for me, the last thing I'm going to worry about is turning on and off a single jammer if I'm actually using one. You see, it's clearly not on here like Brian pointed out. I'm not going to turn out once I get inside because I'm dealing with way too much things going on inside. You've got people, you've got everything else that's happening. So to put my hand in my pocket, hit a button, small motor skills, it's probably not likely. it is definitely possible that it was turned on and turned off but at the same time if it's on here your crime has started you you've kicked this thing off to start doing things outside of your

normal which you're therefore probably not going to happen and hopefully there is more video evidence we just because it hasn't been released to the public doesn't mean that there's not video evidence from inside that the FBI that sheriff's department had that they're using for their investigation. They felt it's just not time to release it yet. I don't know why that would be. Well, we know she went out. We know she went out the front door.

But there's no video of her going out the front door or else it hasn't been released. So if they could resurrect the video of him coming in, then why can't we resurrect the video of her going out? We also know there are cameras on the inside. So maybe that's what they were trying to block. That said, that's a disadvantage. development now. I wondered all night, why is the FBI back at the scene? What are they doing? What

are they asking the neighbors? Now we know some of the questions that they were asking. But I've got to tell you, I was talking about it last night on air. I don't think I ever tried, well, I know I didn't try a single case that I did not go back to the scene multiple times, multiple times, especially if I was looking for forensic evidence that I thought maybe had been overlooked. I remember going to one playground in a housing project at all hours of the day and night trying to find ballistics that I thought maybe had been overlooked because there was so much. Spent cartridges, bullets, glassing bags, syringes, rubbers, you name it, on the children's playground where a triple homicide went down about 11 p.m. on a Sunday night. I thought, well, it was at night. Did they miss something?

What can I? I went back and back and back. So them going back to the same is not unusual, but I'm very curious about the questions they are asking because it gives me insight about the direction in which they are going. Guys, I've got so much to get to. Okay, back to you, Dave Matt, Crime Stories Investigator Reporter. What can you tell me about investigators speaking to trash companies? You know, Nancy, this is something that investigators have been doing since the very beginning.

They were picking up trash in the area around the... home of Nancy Guthrie. We saw them toting trash and putting it up as evidence. They have reached out. Investigators have talked to trash companies of where their trash is picked up and where it is taken. We know they are investigating with those trash companies to determine where the trash from that neighborhood is taken. We don't know the result of what they found out, but reaching out a trash is coming from an occurrence. Well, you know what I think about that? Brian Fitzgibbens, I believe that is. This is for our friends at Fox News, by the way.

Brian Fitzgibbon's USPA nationwide security. Brian, instead of hearing my thoughts, I want to hear your thoughts about what they would be looking for, not just getting the trash that they accumulated that day, but now going to the trash companies. What is it they're looking for? Yeah, they're going to be trying to find out, you know, what the dates and times of pickups were, and then they're going to find out what transfer centers that that trash was taken to, and ultimately its final location, because these things are gritted out like we've seen in so many other cases like Suzanne Clark in Texas. These trash, you know, dumps are on a

schedule on a grid, you can identify precisely where trash from a certain date range was deposited. But again, could you tell me your best guess, an educated guess, about what they would be looking for? I would have to think they're thinking that the perps may have dumped clothing items or equipment items, you know, bags, gloves, clothing. in that trash. I would think that that would be what they're looking for. Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm. Okay. What about it, Bob Krieger? What would they be looking for? Why are they contacting trash companies? I agree with anything that Brian said, you know, at this point, anything. If you're running out, you throw your gloves in there, it's probably something smaller, probably something to try and get some DNA off over things like that.

but you know landfills are a science and it's they will be able to get in an area where things might be they'll be able to identify it and look for anything that you might see on this video right here because the first thing

you know folks do when they flee scenes like this is they start changing their appearance that jacket's going to be off those gloves are going to be off the mask is going to be off and you know you might drive somewhere and throw it in a trash can a block or two or a mile or two away. You know, it all depends on the tips that they got that have been coming in and that's what they're following up on now.

You know, Fitzgibbon's very often, I mean, I'm thrilled about the high-tech nature of this investigation because high-tech really cracked the Koeberger case. That said, think about it. People make all sorts of mistakes in the heat of the moment. For instance, here's a good one. Jennifer Doulos, Connecticut Mother of Five. She's dead.

Her husband, Photos Dullos, a piece of crap, murdered her. Her body has never been found. How do I know he murdered her? Because he's caught on camera with his mistress throwing out in multiple trash cans around town, idiot. Bloody bra, bloody t-shirt. dirty rags. I know she's dead, even though we have never found the body, because of a copious amount of blood, her blood, found in their garage. So much blood, a human could not survive

if they lost that much blood. But yet, there he goes, throwing away the evidence, which, of course, the police went and found. He's caught on video. So what Krieger just said is right. You're leaving with Nancy Guthrie in your vehicle, and you want to give you to get him. rid of that face, that ski mask, you want to get rid of that jacket or anything else associating you with this crime, they may very well in that moment put it in a trash can. Would I do it? No. Would somebody else do it?

Yes. Yeah, Bob's spot on here. And we also know that Mrs. Guthrie was bleeding as she was exiting that house. So there could have been an item. That jacket could have had blood. on it and they want to get discard that right away as quickly as possible. You know, not only to change the appearance, but to get rid of that evidence as quickly as they can. Let me see if it's Givens again.

You know, I just had another thought. And I owe it all to Fodos Dulus. You said, as we all know, that Nancy was bleeding. I wonder if they didn't take that vehicle for a full-on, cleaning, I mean a deep cleaning, because that's what Doulos did. He even took the back seat out of the car, which later yielded DNA from his dead wife, Jennifer Doulos. But that said, that's another lead. It's a weak lead, very weak, but it's something having the vehicle deep cleaned. Saw Koeberger do it. Vodas Doulos did it. Many, many perps immediately think

They can outsmart CSI and get rid of all the evidence. Don't you know they had that vehicle cleaned? Spot on. And with this reward money, well over a million dollars, these are items that add to the list to describe this perpetrator who, you know, in the last, you know, 30 plus days has probably been following this case quite extensively, has probably been acting, you know, staying at home more. often than not, acting nervous and anxious, doing things like getting a car deep cleaned.

You know, this is something that could help drive a tip to the FBI. I mean, Fitzgivens, Bass, Krieger, every time a guy murders his wife, he always turns into a neatnik. First thing Peterson wanted to do after he murdered Lacey was due to laundry. First time ever, right. That said, getting the car deep cleaned, or I've perps actually burn the car after a murder or ditch the car, wait for it to get stolen, leave it somewhere with the keys in it, get rid of it. So that car actually may have been destroyed by now. What do you think about that, Krieger? Very likely, especially if there was blood involved, you know, the deserts of Pima County are vast. It's a huge geographical area. That car could go, you know,

out to the west in three points in that area down towards the border. It doesn't have to make it into Mexico, but they could just park it and leave it there, and it might not be seen for years. That's just the nature of the area that we live in. So for something like that to happen, it's honestly a dime a dozen of vehicle fire, stolen, car, burned, destroyed. All of those things are possibilities and honestly likelihoods if they were thinking about how they're going to try and cover up, excuse me, what they have done. Bob Krieger joining us, former SWAT commander, Pima County sheriffs in Pima, 30 years. We'll get to NANOS on another day.

That just slows me down in this investigation. Brian Fitzgibbon's USPA nationwide security. James Bass joining us. Digital forensics analysts and expert as evidenced tonight at Evidence Solutions Inc. right there in Tucson, and of course, Crime Stories investigative reporter, our Dave Mac. Thank you, gentlemen. Again, there is a $1.2 plus million

dollar reward for Pete's sake. If you know or think you know anything about the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, please dial toll-free, 800-2-25-5-3-24. Repeat. 800-2-25-3-4-800. or if you wish to remain anonymous, 520882-7463, 520882-7463. Thank you to our amazing guests, but especially to you for being with us tonight and joining us in our search for the truth as to the whereabouts of grandmother, Nancy Guthrie.

Nancy Gray signing off for tonight, but I'll see you tomorrow night. Until then, good night, friend.