Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - SAVANNAH GUTHRIE MOM: SEVEN WEEKS MISSING

Episode Date: March 21, 2026

Nancy Guthrie missing, the investigation now into it's seventh week. The $1 million reward remains active despite no arrests or significant leads. The FBI is actively examining a "mixed" DNA sample and a home near in which residents moved out when Guthrie went missing. In the meantime, due to pressure regarding the handling of this case, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos is facing a recall effort. Join Nancy and her panel of experts for the latest.  If you have information, it can be reported anonymously to the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI (1-800-225-5324) or online at tips.fbi.gov. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed human. Getting ready for a game means being ready for anything. Like packing a spare stick. I like to be prepared. That's why I remember 988, Canada's suicide crisis helpline. It's good to know just in case. Anyone can call or text for free confidential support from a train responder anytime.

988 suicide crisis helpline is funded by the government in Canada. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Savannah Guthrie's mother, Nancy Guthrie, missing this as we learn of reports that the Guthrie family passed polygraphs with flying colors. Not only that, two days emerging January 11 and January 24. They're significant, but why? Also, new images. You predicted.

there would be more images from Nancy's home. Now we're learning there of the pool area. And Nana says, oh, they're irrelevant. Really? Then why did we see aerial footage of the FBI combing the pool area and even taking pictures? Good evening. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories.

I'm going to thank you for being with us. Straight out to Crime Stories investigative reporter Dave Mack. We are now learning of research. reports the Guthrie family, each one, including Savannah, including Annie Guthrie, her sister, including the brother, including the brother-in-law, much maligned, have passed polygraphs. What do you know? Nancy, what we know right now is a former SWAT commander with a source inside Pima County Sheriff's Office says that the Guthrie family, the children and their spouses were all polygraphed.

passed the polygraph test with blind colors. Wow. Dave Mac, thank you for that. I want to go out to a special guest joining us right now. It's George Olivo. He is a certified polygrapher. He is former FBI. And you may have actually seen him over at our friends at A&E

because he is the polygrapher that polygraphed the Casey Anthony family. Now, there's George Anthony. getting polygraph. Remember, his daughter, Totmom, Casey Anthony, accused him of wrongdoing of all sorts of crimes in the Totmom murder case of her daughter, Kelly Anthony. Georgia Levo is the one that performed all the polygraph for A&E's Casey Anthony, the parents' lie detector test.

And then you went on to create another A&E program. What was the name of it, George? That was called a lie detector, truth or deception. That was a series that was based, a patterned after the Casey Anthony show. I can't believe people are dumb enough to hook themselves up to one of your polis, George Olivo. George Olivo is based in L.A. And as I said, former FBI. Now, before everybody starts screaming, they're not allowed in court.

Polygraphs are allowed in court. They are routinely allowed without a problem in civil cases, and they are allowed in criminal cases if they are stipulated or agreed upon before the poly. Both sides have to say, in writing, yes, we'll allow the poly in the criminal case. We agree, and then you perform the poly, before you know the outcome. How does it work? Break it down for people that have never been present or never conducted or subjected to a polygraph. Well, the polygraph doesn't, there's nothing on the screen that shows up and says, you're lying or you're telling the truth.

Really, you really want to look at it more than people calling it a lie detector test. It's really more of a stress detector test. And so we're looking at physiology. And at the end of the day, when we say someone pass, what we're saying is that they had no significant response, no significant response to the relevant questions. And so we're inferring that because of that, that they're telling the truth. Now, when there's a significant response, then we say that there's a reason for that. The responses, reactions don't happen in a vacuum.

So when they react repeatedly over and over to the same question, because there's redundancy built into the protocol. When they keep reacting to the same question, then we infer that there's deception indicated there. So have you ever visibly seen them react, George Livo? Like, do they start sweating? Do they glance around nervously? do they twitch? Do they get a nervous tick? Can you actually see them reacting when your polly is going?

Well, no, not really, because if a person is twitching or moving or even sighing or breathing too heavily, if the physiology is not acceptable, then what most people don't realize, Nancy, is that the Trump card that we always have in polygraph when people say, well, what if they cheat? What if they try to cheat? If the physiology does not look natural and normal, if it looks in any way controlled or manufactured in some way, that they're trying to do something on the test, then the examiner, no matter what the score is numerically,

the examiner has a sole discretion to say, I'm not going to accept this test. And it happened to me just recently, where someone numerically passed the test, but I said, no, I'm not going to accept it. So the final result in that case, we call it a no opinion test. We can redo the test, but we're not going to pass someone if the physiology is suspicious. George Levo, I'm curious.

Why? And there's Cameron, the brother Cameron right there. Why did you refuse to pass on that poly? What happened during it? Well, the physiology was outside of what we call normal range. So it was atypical physiology. you know, it's kind of like Nancy, you go, if you have a counterfeit $100 bill and you go into the bank, to the manager of the bank, and you ask them to give you change for that $100 bill,

they're going to look at it, it's going to scrutinize it, hold it up to the light. And they may not know the exact counterfeit technique that was used, but they know what the real bill is supposed to look like. And so I've been looking at physiology for 15 years. I know what's in normal limits within normal range. And if it doesn't look normal, and I won't get into exactly the diagnostic features I'm looking at because then that's kind of telling people how to try to cheat on a test. But when it doesn't look normal, we can stop the test. We can give them a warning, which, you know, that's fair.

Give someone a warning because then there's a possibility they might not be doing it on purpose. It could be something due to a medical condition, but you can tell someone, look, you know, your physiology, you just got to sit still and breathe normally and don't do anything. it changed the outcome of this test or to manipulate the test. And if it continues, then whether it's being done on purpose or not, it doesn't matter. We don't have to accept the final Ameri score. Guys, the video we showed you of Savannah and sister Annie and Annie Guthrie's husband laying flowers at a makeshift honorarium. That's my friends at Fox News. Back to George Olivo, L.A. polygrapher and the star of Casey Anthony's parents, the lie detector test, and more. Former FBI.

George, here's a big question. Everybody wants to know the answer to this. Can you cheat a poly? That's a good question. If you can thread a needle in the dark, then I guess I would say yes. It's very difficult to do. You know, the law enforcement has been using polygraph for decades. And you know this, Nancy.

They're not going to rely on investigative tools that fail randomly. So we're not really worried about someone coming in and randomly cheating on a polygraph test. Most of the things people try to do that they find on the Internet, try this or try that. Because I look at that all the time. I'm all the time looking at the Internet asking. I type in all the time. How can I cheat on a polygraph test? I do it all the time to see what is being put out there.

And basically everything I see, I'm thinking to myself, well, good. Yeah, do that because it's easy for me to spot that. Guys, joining us, George Olivo, a renowned polygrapher, joining us out of the L.A. jurisdiction. So wouldn't you agree that it's SOP standard operating procedure, George, for family members to be pollied? I would agree with that, yes. Because statistically, that's who you look at when somebody goes missing or is found dead.

You look at family members, statistics. someone close to the victim is responsible, but not true in every case. Now, let me ask you, you've been studying the Nancy Guthrie disappearance. If you pollied her family, what would you ask them? Let's just start with the brother-in-law. He seems to be the scapegoat, although a lot of people online, they look at the intruder, the porch guy who took Nancy Guthrie, and they're convinced it's Annie Guthrie, the woman, the sister,

That's not Annie Guthrie, everybody. That's a man. That's a man. That said, what would you ask the son-in-law? Where would you start with that, George Olivo? Well, that's a great question. Because that's really going to, if you say someone passed a polygraph exam, the real question is, well, you know, what did you ask the person? The relevant questions are so important. That's right.

What are the questions? Exactly. What are the relevant questions? And, of course, secondarily and equally important, who did the polygraph exam? So if the FBI did the exams, I'm very confident that they were done well and they were done correctly. Obviously, I'm going to think that. That's where I got my training. And I think the FBI is best in the world at that polygraph.

I don't have any doubt about that. But the questions have to be carefully constructed because they can't be accusatory questions. They can't be inflammatory questions. And it has to be questions that don't have a loophole. because the first thing we're thinking about when we're constructing a question for a polygraph is what could the person possibly say if they fail this test to get out of it. Oh, well, I failed because it was Tuesday instead of Wednesday or I failed because I didn't understand this. So you want to make sure that the question is nice and tight. One question I would not ask in this case is do you know who took Nancy?

Because that is a kind of a rookie mistake. because if I asked someone a question on a polygraph exam, in this particular case, missing person, I say, do you know who took her? Which includes the person themselves, right? So I feel like I'm including that. If they did it themselves or they know who did it, then they would fail. And they fail the test. All they have to say is, well, everything on the news says XYZ, or I had a dream the other night and I feel I know who did it. So you're back to square one. So that's a loophole, and it's a bad question. So in a case like this, I would ask, it's actually pretty similar to actually to the case at George Anthony because there was a missing person in there, right? The little Kaylee. And I would ask in this case something like, did you deliberately cause Nancy's disappearance? Not are you responsible because, you know, even Savannah and, you know, people that are truly grieving and are heartbroken, they may feel responsible. I could have done more. I should have called her or should have done something.

They may feel responsible. You don't want to ask you feel responsible. But did you deliberately cause her disappearance? Are you, and if it's something where you really do need to know if it's another person, in other words, secondary involvement, they didn't physically take her, but maybe they murder for hire, they paid someone. You really do need to know if they are involved secondarily. I might ask something like, are you protecting the identity.

of the person who took Nancy. Something like that, which is very direct. And if you fail it, there's no, you know, there's no wiggle room in there. If you fail it, then you've got to explain why you failed that test. I was just watching George Savannah crying. Now people are attacking her because she might go back to work. Can people that are very upset, very emotional, they can't stop crying.

Can they take a polly? No, I would say no. There's a unspoken rule. or not unspoken, rather, unwritten rule. Some people call it the 24-hour rule. I don't know if it's 24 hours or 48 people grieve differently, but you should never polygraph. You give someone a polygraph exam immediately following a traumatic experience.

So if she had just found out that her mother's missing and he's in a huge panic, or even if someone just finished getting interrogated on a case, like say, bank robbery or murder, and interrogated for three or four hours, and then you throw them in a polygraph chair right after that to take a polygraph exam because they keep denying it, that's not really a good idea either. A person should be more in a calm state,

and who's to say how long that should be if it should be 24 hours or 48 hours, but it shouldn't be somebody who is crying or sobbing or grieving. It's not going to give you a good result. Again, physiology is not going to be... It's going to be all over the map. Sure. George Guys George Olivo

joining us from Georgeolivo.com former FBI polygrapher in L.A. He learned polygraphs with the FBI. I can see it right now, George.

I would be on a plea and arraignment calendar maybe 150 new defendants a week and I could see during plea negotiations a defense attorney coming down a long hallway in the courthouse as if they knew something.

I'm like, okay, here it comes. He's got something. Sure enough, he has a polygraph. My client passed a polygraph. I'm like, okay, first I'd say, who took the poly? Did you hire a private firm to take the poly? Is it somebody you use a lot? You paid them for the poly.

Then they would have to tell me who administered the poly. I wouldn't like that because I would want law enforcement to administer it. And then I say, well, what were the questions? if you want me to pay any attention to your polly, I need to know what the questions. They would never want me to know the questions. The questions have to be very carefully devised. I've devised questions for pollies and then been corrected rightly by you. The polygrapher would correct me and say that's not a good question.

That's not going to work. It's got to be a very direct question. So for instance, I'm working up to it, George. Thank you for bearing with me. a lot of people have attacked the son-in-law, Nancy Guthrie's son-in-law, who is Annie Guthrie's husband, and Annie. So the questions have to be formulated. For instance, many people have stayed the son-in-law is responsible. I reject that.

Or one of his bandmates, he plays in a band or played in a band. One bandmate has had his life totally destroyed because of this. that said, what question would you ask the brother? You've got the brother-in-law because you've got to ask if he was involved or if someone he knows was involved. And what if he thinks, ooh, maybe the pool guy was involved? What if he's thinking maybe a grocery store delivery person was involved? Maybe a granny and any son was involved. That can really screw up your polygraph test.

question's got to be just right. How do you phrase it, George? Exactly. So yes, you're exactly right, Nancy. Just like I said earlier, you don't want to ask the question, do you know who did it? Do you know who took Nancy? Because you're right. He may say, maybe it was this guy, maybe it was that guy. Maybe it's all the stuff I'm hearing on the news. So if he has an alibi, for example, in terms of where he physically was, when she disappeared, the only other option is that maybe he hired someone or is working directly with somebody so that he's indirectly involved in the disappearance. You want to ask something like, are you protecting the identity of the person who took Nancy? So that would be a direct way of saying, you know, I know who did it, but I'm not

speculating because, you know, if you just ask, how do you know, if you just ask, do you know who it is, then the question is, well, how do you know? Did you have a dream? Did you think it up? Did you hear it on the news. So we don't want those, those, those, uh, those, uh, uh, loopholes in the question. And then of course, the direct, uh, if you doesn't have a solid alibi, you want to ask if he did it. So you don't want to ask, are you responsible? Because again, you may think, well, I, you know, I should have stayed a little longer. I should have called her to the back. You know, I feel bad. So I feel yes, I feel responsible. And that's, that's the loophole that they fail. Oh, yeah, I feel responsible. You want to ask, were you directly involved?

So did you deliberately cause Nancy's, disappearance. There's the key there, the deliberate. You know, George, I think I would ask direct questions like you're stating, such as, did Nancy Guthrie have dinner with you and your wife, Annie, the night before she disappeared? Did you drive her home that night? Did you see her go into her home through the garage door? Did you see the garage door close? Did you go directly home after that?

if for any was there any reason and wait, no, you don't want that that's too open. Did you return to Nancy's home later that night? Direct questions that are more of a yes-no answer. Is that what you're saying, George Livo?

Yes, every question has got to be a yes or no answer, but here's the thing. All the questions that you just lined up there, Nancy, they're all great questions, but they are what I would be would consider secondary issues. Those are all safe. secondary issues. Primary issue is, did you do it? Secondary issue is the mode and methodology and where were you and how did you do it and all those those are all

secondary issues. So here's the thinking behind it. If I ask him a question, you know, did you directly cause Nancy's disappearance? And he passes the test like they say with flying colors, quote unquote, and they're asking him the right questions on the actual involvement, direct or indirect involvement, and he passes all those secondary issues are irrelevant, right? Because he passed. He didn't do it. But if he fails that, then you can go into what's called, you know, breakout exams if you want, or quite frankly, it's in the interrogation process that you get all those secondary details once he fails a test. Okay, George, I thought I would be leading him up the garden path and then dropping the bombshell on him. In other words,

leading him up to that moment and then asking him, did you directly have anything to do with Nancy's disappearance? But you're saying, no, don't do that. No, no. Well, it can't really be done that way because polygraph's not set up that way where people don't realize it's not really designed to be like a Q&A session. Polygraph is very, very short and concise. Really, really we're only using like six or seven questions at most. And there's only a couple, maybe two or three that are going to even be relevant questions. The others are comparison questions and the baseline questions. And, you know, it's very, what, you know, what people don't realize is that polygraph,

when it's done legitimately, when it's done correctly, not the stuff you see on, you know, some of these talk shows and crazy things, but when it's done correctly by law enforcement, it's a very controlled process. Even the sequence of the question, that's part of the format, have to be asked in a certain order. and we're really only asking a very small number of questions on that test. So we're not asking like a bunch of Q&A's and while the polygraph is running. It doesn't work that way.

Our mom is a kind, faithful, loyal, fiercely loving woman of goodness and light. She is funny and spunky and clever. she has grandchildren that adore her and crowd around her and cover her with kisses. Getting ready for a game means being ready for anything. Like packing a spare stick. I like to be prepared. That's why I remember 988, Canada's Suicide Crisis Hubline.

It's good to know just in case. Anyone can call or text for free confidential support from a train responder anytime. 988 suicide crisis helpline is, funded by the government in Canada. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. In addition to reports the Guthrie family past polygraphs,

new images from Nancy Guthrie's yard emerging. Dave Matt, Crime Stories investigative reporter, tell me about the images. Well, you know, the shocking part of this, Nancy, is that the images that we have now been told about show the time just prior to the alleged kidnapping and the time directly after it. When I say up to before, I mean, the day before. And the time it starts with picks back up when police are on the scene at the investigation about 1215.

But Nancy, we're talking about the backyard, the swimming pool area, and the side of the house of Nancy Guthrie's house. Dave, Matt, when you're saying the side of the house around the place, around the pool area. I find that very, very interesting because Nanos is saying this new video doesn't mean anything. But isn't there footage? Let's see that aerial footage, please,

control room of the FBI, this is from our friends at Fox News, combing through the side of the home, the entire pool area. And if you stay on it, you will see, I believe it's the first guy, turn around and take photos around the gate. What about that, Dave, Matt?

We're talking about the photos that were taken off from the house, from security cameras, thumbnail photos that were taken up to the day before the kidnapping occurred, and then pick right back up with police during the investigation. But according to what we're being told, they don't have to be. don't have photos of the time in question when Nancy Guthrie was taken from the home. So they have it right up to that point and then right after, but not during. I find that very curious to Scott Eichro joining us, Digital Forensics Expert, founding member of the FBI Cellular Analysis Survey Team known as Cast.

He is a historical cellular analysis expert, former FBI 22 years, former homicide detective at Norfolk, Virginia, PD, currently with precision cellular analysis. Scott, isn't that quite the coincidink that Nana's is saying, oh, don't look over here. This means nothing. First, he said, there is no video. We're never going to have video. Nancy Guthrie didn't have a subscription. then in a Herculane feat, a miracle, Google, out of trillions of data points, finds Nancy Guthrie's porch cam and finds the porch guy. Now we've got more images, thumbnails.

Who's to say there's not more? And what about the coincidence that it's of the pool area and backyard? And then I was just saying, that's nothing. But we see the FBI combing through the pool area and the backyard, even taking photo. why? And why do the photos lead up to the moment she's kidnapped and then pick up after the moment she's kidnapped? Well, if you remember back when we first got these videos of the porch guy, we said, and I said, they're going to keep digging, right? They're going to keep digging and they're going to keep digging and keep digging. That's pushing it on to Google and the FBI if they

get you know different sets of data to come through all this data and to find these little thumbnails of the side of the house and the that pool of backyard stuff like very important I think you're you're showing a timeline of when those cameras were working and when they weren't working and think about looking at the camera or the thumbnails of the pool area prior to mr. got three going missing. Has anything been moved since when she, after she was kidnapped? Did was the gate open afterwards? Was it closed before? So those are things that I think Mr. Nanos just is not thinking through his answers before he's giving it to the media, that there is

going to be some information that could be helpful in those thumbnail photos. Scott Eichor, don't move. Let me see that aerial video again. Scott Eichker just gave me a little. another thought. The aerial video, Dave Mack, they were really coming through the backyard in the pool area. And this is after

Pima County sheriffs had already processed the scene, the feds are back. Isn't it true that a dog started going crazy the night Nancy was kidnapped, and wouldn't that abut her backyard

and pool area? Do. The home in question actually faces the Nancy Guthrie's backyard. And the neighbor said that between two and two 30 of the morning in question, that their dog started losing his cookies and was just barking like crazy, something the dog did not normally do. But Nancy, even more than that, that when the neighbors were looking at their own video camera, surveillance cameras at their home, that they have two cameras face. the front and two facing the back, the two facing the back of their home is closest to Nancy Guthrie's home. And during that time period where the dog was barking, where between two and two 30 in the morning, their video cameras were not, their security cameras were not connecting via Wi-Fi. They were shut down. The two furthest away from Nancy Guthrie's home were still connecting. But the two closest to Nancy Guthrie's home, not connecting by Wi-Fi.

To Brian Fitzgibbons joining us, Director Operations, USA, Nationwide Security, leading a team of investigators around the world, finding missing people, including extractions from Mexico. He's at uspa security.com, former Marine, and Iraqi War vet. Fitzgibbons, you know what this is telling me? The dog goes crazy behind the pool area. The FBI is searching the pool area and taking photos. This is from our friends at Fox. The neighbor with the dog, Wi-Fi is jammed when the dog's going crazy between 2 and 3 a.m. in the morning. That tells me, let's see, the aerial view, please, that at least one of the kidnappers came through the neighbor's yard and entered Nancy's yard.

the dog goes crazy their video is jammed pool area get it yeah very possible nancy and i think that this all amplifies something that we've been extensively saying from the beginning that we don't know when what the timestamp on this ring uh video of the perp on the porch is from and that we do know now the new information that we do have some data coming from the cameras in the backyard, which leads us to add a little bit to this story that it's very possible that some of the early reporting of forced entry through the back of Mrs. Guthrie's house was indeed accurate, and that they're highlighting this through this new information.

To all three of you, help me unravel this. We've got the porch guy. We believe there was an accomplice. did they did one of the accomplices come through the neighbor's yard why do I care even though the video was jammed

the night of what about other nights the FBI honing in on Jan 11 and Jan 24 which by the way Dave Mack correct me if I'm wrong but aren't all of those on weekends

Jan 11, Jan 24 and then of course Jan 31 the night that she's kidnapped into the early morning hours of Feb 1, which was a weekend. It was a Saturday night going into Sunday morning. All three on weekends. Yep. Each one.

What does that tell me somebody that worked during the week and could do this on weekends? Typically, that's what it tells you when someone only strikes on weekends. Maybe not here, but typically that's what it tells you. Okay, hold on. Go with me, Dave, Mac.

All three on weekends, all three in the middle of the night. If they went through the neighbor's yard, what about the video? They didn't jam the video on Jan 11 and Jan 24. Can we get that? See where I'm going with this? Yep. I do see where you're going. And you know, that's why the FBI has been going in the neighborhood, Nancy, looking at Jan 11 and Jan 24. And in fact, one of the neighbors sat down with the FBI who watched their nest or ring doorbell video in the home. The FBI watched it with the homeowner as they scrolled through the video from these specific nights, not bothering to take you, just looking at it right then and there. So they are focused.

on January 11th, January 24, and they are looking at all through this neighborhood for any scrap of evidence they can find. And I think the zeroing in on this is proven by some of the things we're already finding out. Some of the things we've seen there, we're showing the video that was taken the night around between 230 and 250 behind about two and a half miles behind Nancy Guthrie's home. We do have the neighbor reporting the stranger in the neighborhood, Remember? That was around January 11. Well, you know what? Looking in this video, hold on, I don't want to lose a thought, Dave. I'll circle right back to you. Scott Eicher, joining as digital forensics expert.

Again, Nano said at the get-go, that car video, eh, not so much. Well, it is. I wonder, and that video is from our friends at Fox News, by the way, Scott Eicher, if that same yard cam can be resurrected for Jan 11. and Jan 24, when we think the porch guy was in the neighborhood to try to catch vehicles going by, because you know they test ran it, not just on foot. They had to get there somehow. They didn't drop in from a helicopter for Pete's sake. They drove there, and they were testing it out. I'd want to see that yard cam from 11 and 24 as well.

I agree. If you're going to go do this type of crime, you're going to pre-scout. at first right you've got to go out and kind of get an idea of what the with the property is like where that points of access so if you're gonna do that ahead of time there hopefully can be footage again we know that the Guthrie's did not have a subscription so that causes a big problem but have Google continue to push through those dates and times get for the video from the neighbors those dates and times trying to

catch someone suspicious in that area at that time. So Scott Eicher, how did they get these new thumbprints? Their thumbprints now, maybe there'll be more. It ain't over yet. It ain't over yet. How did they get these? We were told by Nana's. There's nothing.

Then there's something. Now there's nothing else. And now there's something else. There could be more, Eicher. How are they doing it? Yeah, these thumbnail little photos are, you know, not very good quality and very small, they're not like we could see with the video at the front porch. So they're going to be tough to kind of analyze, but that's kind of just a, you know, I have nest cameras. And when I,

you know, I get an indication there's someone at my front door, it sends me a little small picture of what the camera saw. And then I can go into the app and look at it more detailed, but it sends me a quick little thumbnail photo, and that's what they got from Google. Also tonight, we are getting reports that the Guthrie family car has been returned. Has been returned. I find that to be significant. To Brian Fitzgibbons joining us, USPA nationwide security, do you find that significant as it relates to the Guthrie family and accusations being made against them? Yeah, absolutely.

Hopefully we can finally put this to bed with regards to the Guthrie family. As we've said before, there were hundreds of investigators on this case. Certainly many of them assigned to eliminate the possibility of a family connection here. The vehicle has been extensively searched and returned. Polygraphs have been done. And hopefully that narrative can be put to bed at this point. Dave, Matt, what can you tell me about Uber ride video? We've seen it in many.

many cases. We've used it in many, many cases. I mean, who's to say it wasn't a Tesla? They gets a 360 degree view. We don't know that, but what if? There are just a myriad of possibilities. Where's the Uber video? We know the Uber driver has been cleared. Yes, the Uber driver. First of all, let's just start at the beginning. Why, where does an Uber fit into this timeline? Let's just start with that. Okay. Nancy Guthrie took an Uber from her home to Annie's home, to her daughter, Annie's home for game night, you know, having dinner and playing games so that an Uber driver picked Nancy Guthrie up at her home at 532 p.m. She then took her directly to Annie's home, dropped her off, and went on about her Mary

Way. I say her, I'm not sure if we're talking male or female right now about the Uber driver, but we do know that the earliest parts of this investigation, the Sheriff's Department detective sat down with the Uber driver. The Uber driver gave the law enforcement videos from the car for the time in question and gave them every answer they could possibly want and was immediately cleared because remember, Nancy Guthrie took the Uber from her home to her daughter's home. She did not take an Uber from Annie's home back to her own home. Okay, what about us, Scott Eicher, what benefit would there be in us seeing the Uber video? Well, there's several different things. We're trying to make this timeline that we have concrete, right?

Well, all what the family has said when she was over at Annie's house, when she got home. So that's one piece of the timeline we can verify through the video from the Uber driver, which also things you can see is how Ms. Scott. dressed, right? Is she wearing the clothes that she was dropped off in according to the family? When she was kidnapped, was she, were those clothes at the house that she was wearing earlier that day? We've used, you know, Uber videos, Lyft videos, in many different cases to see things that are not intended. There's, you know, the people that are in the car, And then there's a camera facing like forward towards the front of the car and we pick up a ton of different information license plates

What if someone was following miss Guthrie that night and to make sure that she had left the house? Was there a video of that from the Uber driver and if someone following her following the Uber vehicle to Annie's house? I mean there's a hundred possibilities. That's just throwing into the weeds but but why not look at that video and make sure you've got every bit of piece of information you can from it. Fitzgibbons, he's right. Brian Fitzgibbon's USPA Nationwide Security because a lot of nights, my mom who lives with me will be getting her ready for bed and she will just be too tired to change into her PJs.

So she typically wears like a jogging outfit or a cute little velour jogging thing. and sometimes she'll just want, she'll say, I'm just too tall asleep in this. So I'd like to know just what Eicher said. Was she wearing those clothes that are pictured in the Uber video? What was her demeanor? Did she look ill? Did she seem incoherent in any way? I don't know what I'm looking for.

I don't know it until I see it. That's why I think the video should be released. Absolutely. And I think at this point, it can certainly help if we had a description of the last known clothing that Nancy was wearing, to your point. You know, another thing has just happened. Nanos says he knows the motive. What happened, Dave Mack?

You know, Sheriff Nanos has said many things during the course of this investigation that are problematic, and this is another one. because Sheriff Nano says, yeah, we know the motive. We know why this happened. But he is not willing to share that with the rest of us. But he adds, this is a targeted event. He also says, well, wait a minute. Kidnappers could still be out there.

You need to be, he's actually saying to watch out for yourself. So in one breath, he says, we know the motive and we know it's a targeted event, but then turning right around to say, nobody's safe. I mean, not something you want to hear from the sheriff's. of your county. You know, Brian Fitzgibbon, that's exactly what happened in the Idaho case, where four beautiful University of Idaho students were slaughtered. The local law enforcement came out and said, this was targeted, you're all safe. And then backtracked and went, hey everybody, lock your doors, you're not safe. This is very eerily reminiscent of that faux pa.

And I'll add in one more recent one after the horrific shooting. at Brown University, Mayor Brett Smiley was all over the cameras saying there's no threat to the public, et cetera, et cetera, right? The situation's well in hand. There's no continuing threat. Why government and officials and law enforcement officials say things like there's no threat to the public is beyond me. time and again, it's proven that they have no rationale or logical basis to make such a claim. And it shows that their main goal there is to control the narrative and keep people, you know, feeling secure in their power. So it was a number of missteps here by Nanos. This is just one of them.

Let's take a listen to Shire of Nanos. believe we know why he did this and we believe that it was targeted, but we can't, we're not 100% sure of that. And so it'd be silly to tell people, yeah, don't worry about it. You're not as target. Don't think for a minute that because it happened to the Guthrie family, you're safe. No, keep your wits about you. From our friends at NBC, there's Nanos at it again. Okay, go with me here on this. What about it, Eicher, that he doesn't know who did it, but he can divine why they did it. For ransom, that would be a plausible explanation to explain away what Nanos is saying.

Or what about this? Financial scam. Someone connected to her in some way that was taking advantage of or planning to take advantage of her financially. I definitely agree. And I would more term as a robbery than a financial scam because they're forcing basically someone to go to an ATM and withdraw money. I mean, that's a robbery. That's a threat of violence or to that extent. So if we're dealing with that possibility, maybe Nanos is inferring that, is that they grabbed Ms. Guthrie and took her to a bank ATM and then something else happened. don't know, I wish he would be more specific on the motives that he's found or through the

investigation, then we can at least focus our direction. You're right, Scott Eicher, and to Brian Fitzgibbons, there's many, many plethora of financial scams to siphon money, steal money from the elderly. It doesn't have to be going to an ATM. It could be any number of things. It could be them calling their financial planner and asking for money. to be moved. So there's a myriad of things that a financial scam could entail. In this case, have they found evidence of those financial scams? And is there a money trail that could lead us to the perp? Or is this straight out for ransom? Ransom gone wrong. Yeah, in my opinion, right, this leads more to ransom. Not many of these financial scams, at least ones that take place

face to face are going to happen at two in the morning over a weekend. Those are very typically, especially with the elderly, are going to happen in broad daylight when banks are open, when access codes can be granted to ATMs and things like that. For this to happen at two in the morning leads me to believe that this is more towards the ransom gone wrong than a direct financial scam targeting an elderly woman. Getting ready for a game means being ready for anything. Like packing a spare stick. I like to be prepared.

That's why I remember 988 Canada's suicide crisis hubline. It's good to know just in case. Anyone can call or text for free confidential support from a train responder anytime. 988 suicide crisis helpline is funded by the government in Canada. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. We learn the FBI is back in Nancy Guthrie's neighborhood, questioning neighbors. They are questioning specifically about January 11 between the hours of 9 p.m. and 12 a.m. Why? We can confirm the prevailing theory is. The porch guy was on Nancy's

front porch, Jan 11. Jan 11 is taking center stage. Also, scrutiny on neighbors that had a rental home and quickly vacated as soon as Nancy Guthrie goes missing. Dave Matt, Crime Stories investigative reporter. What can you tell me about the FBI back in Nancy Guthrie's neighborhood going door to door? What do they want? They want any kind of video that they can possibly follow.

from ring cameras, nest cameras, any kind of surveillance video, and they want to talk to everybody about January 11th. You know, we've had the two videos or the two photos, rather. We have one where porch guy who has the gun of the backpack. And then we had the other photo. There we go, where he's not wearing a backpack and there is no gun. Well, now we know the no gun photo, no backpack photo. That's why the FBI is back in the neighborhood and they're talking to everyone in there about January 11th, specifically 9 p.m. to 12 midnight. Straight out to our panel of experts to Joseph Scott Morgan, Professor Forensics, Jacksonville State University, author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon, and Star of a hit podcast, Bodybags with

Joe Scott Morgan, weigh in. Well, you know, the fact that we have time stamps now, Nancy, is significant because you can go back, I don't know how far back they've gone with the videography that they have in hand. And what I'm talking about are all the peripheral areas. Did they have anything that goes back to that date in January where they can see a potential suspect moving around in that environment? And also, let me throw this out there to you, the backpack that he's wearing, and we're back on this again relative to the Ozark backpack, I think that it's critical here to try to understand, did he acquire this after that date in preparation of everything that he's been doing? It's also been stated that, that

that holster that he is wearing is also a purchase from Walmart, which is where Ozark is also sold as well. Now, granted, he could have bought this online. He could have gone to a thrift store and picked it up. But it just seems like a coincidence at this point in time, not a coincidence, rather, that he acquires all this stuff and he changes his appearance. I stated some time ago that I felt as though that whoever did this had been casing her home, all right, that they had familiarity with this environment, that they were trying to understand it, trying to get a feel for the environment before they take her in whatever form that they took her, whether it was walking out the door with her, luring her out, or whatever potentially happened in this

particular event. And I think that that goes to this narrative, Nancy. Also, joining us in addition to Dave Mack and Joe Scott Morgan, Brian Fitzgibbens is with us, Director Operations, USPA nationwide security, leading a team of investigators, and extracting missing people from around the world, former Marine Iraqi War vet. Brian, this is big. This is big because now we have evidence directly linking January 11 to Nancy Guthrie's disappearance. We have January 24 linked to her disappearance. And we have the 31st bordering into the first.

All three of those on weekend nights. That is extremely probative. When I would work up cases to present to juries, I would always look to see what night of the week incidents were occurring, specifically in, let's just say, a serial murder case, a serial case, stalking cases, because that gives me a bead on who is my perp. He's always doing this on weekend nights. Why? Why? But that said, the fact that we now have somewhat of a timestamp is significant. Why?

Absolutely. It adds a tremendous amount of color behind the profile that we're building of this suspect. Why was it just on the weekends? Is this somebody who traveled a distance who was maybe working somewhere Monday through Friday, elsewhere during the week, traveling to the Tucson area on the weekend to conduct this reconnaissance. And the second thing I'd like to add is it also corroborates other information that has been revealed from the investigation. Nancy's neighbor reported to numerous media outlets that mid-January, she wasn't sure of a specific date, that she saw someone, a strange person walking around the neighborhood. And this wasn't a typical walker that they would see or somebody in exercise clothing, that somebody was walking up and down the neighborhood.

Now, this has been widely reported. And now with this date and time stamp on the perp or the suspect on Nancy's porch, it certainly provides some more validation to that tip. The mass suspect seen on Nancy's front porch three weeks before her abduction, It's been narrowed down. Definitely Jan 11. Definitely Jan 11. To Todd Shipley joining us, digital cybercrime expert, former detective Sergeant Reno, 25 years in law enforcement. Author of Surviving a Cyber Attack, Securing Social Media, Protecting Your Home. He is at darkintel. Info. I know on the outside looking in to civilians, this is not a big deal.

It is a big deal. Now we're looking for sure at January 11, January 24, and January 31, February 31, February 1. This narrows down the identity of the suspect. Now people can think back. Where was X on these dates? Why was he out late that night? That's just a small example. But digitally speaking, forensically speaking, how will this help us?

Well, one of the things that has happened now is that they've taken that NEST camera and gone to the next level of investigation. The general, you know, connecting to it and getting data off is the average forensic work that is done every day. What happened in this case, I'm pretty sure, is that they actually did what we call a chip off. They took the device apart, went to the motherboard, took the actual memory chips off, and read them directly to get this. extra data that was there that they couldn't get otherwise because it was deleted or otherwise removed from the average ability to get to it. So they did a very sophisticated process, got the data off there, and now had new evidence that we didn't have. And this took them a while to do. It wasn't something that was

easily done because it's partly destructive when it takes this kind of technique to get the data off. And so they were able to get that information and produce new photos that show exactly when this guy was there at a previous day. Back to Dave Mack, the FBI in Nancy Guthrie's neighborhood in the last 24 hours, asking about neighbors who moved out before Nancy vanished. They're also keenly interested in a home that is under construction, and they want the names of all the crew members who worked on the house. Bam!

What about it, Dave, Mac? Nancy, dead on accurate. Let's take them one at a time here. The FBI was back in the neighborhood and looking at these homes under construction and wanting to get all of the employees, names, numbers, contact info, so they can start running down timelines on every employee that was working on these homes under construction. Now, we've talked about this neighborhood before. It is a very upscale neighborhood.

And there was one home particularly in this neighborhood that was for rent. They don't have a lot of rentals here. In this one rental home, the neighbors moved out immediately after Nancy Guthrie's disappearance. Now, read into that what you will, but they were there until the kidnapping and then gone. So we've got the rental home and we've got construction work. Okay, before we start a vigilante hunt for the people that move, moved out. You remember how everyone has been attacking Mrs. Guthrie's son-in-law and one of his bandmates in some band he plays or played in? I mean, the bandmates been having to hide in the home

and he has children, by the way, and his wife have children, I learned. But that said, before we start pitchforks and torches outside the homes of the people that moved out, I want to point out that the idea of crew members on construction sites have been notoriously singled out in the past, and it's often been correct. It's going to be hard to put those crew members' names back together again. But that said, I find that really interesting, the FBI back in the neighborhood trying to determine who worked on a construction crew? Do I have that correct, Dave Mac? Yes, you have it exactly correct. They want to know who was there and when they were there. You know, you've got a lot of

day workers that do construction work, depending on the work being done in any given day, Nancy, it could be regular crew that do the work on a regular basis, or it could be people we picked up on the way in to do one day or two days of labor. They're trying to track everyone down. So it's going to be a Herculane effort, one I thought they would have gone through before now. Well, they may be just learning about the construction crew, but that said, Joe Scott Morgan, you know the case, Jennifer Kessie, and I've worked on it for years, focus now on the construction crews working along her set of condos and behind them at the time Jennifer goes missing. They never have tracked them down because, as Dave Mack just reported, a lot of them were day work

that you pick up at the grocery store, standing out in the parking lot that need work for the day. It's really hard to find them, some of them being illegals, you know, just all sorts of problems tracking down a construction crew. Yeah, it is, but I got to, you know where I'm going to start? I'm going to start with all of these cameras that are on homes around there and any of those cameras that are pointed toward that construction site, and guess what I'm going to start doing, I'm going to start going frame by frame of every bit of data that I can during the daylight hours, of that construction site, we're going to pull those license plates off of all of those trucks.

You know, because construction sites, what do you think about? You think about big pickup trucks. You think about delivery trucks, all these sorts of things. And that's where the investigation should start relative to this. You find the site foreman, you go back, you press him. Do you have anybody here that works in this area? I don't care if they are a day laborer, somebody that's here consistently, or did one of these consistent people bring in a cousin said,

Hey, man, can you slip my cousin a few bucks? You know, he'll carry a bucket of nails for us or plaster or something like that. You have to press, press, press, press. On this bit of information, this is gold, Nancy, relative to that site. And also something I would be very curious about, points of observation, going back to that construction site, what could you see from that construction site, for instance, looking back toward Ms. Guthrie's home? Is it even visible?

from that perspective. You know, with construction workers, they climb all over these structures, the skeleton of these structures. They have a POV that nobody else has. They can look down into areas. They see a little old lady living in a house. Perhaps, perhaps they frame her out as an easy target. So these are the things. I think this is an evidence-rich source here. I think they need to press on it, and hopefully they're doing that right now. Here's another tidbit of information. We need to know Joe Scott that whoever the construction crew is that they're interested in would have to have been there on Jan 11, probably before that. Because if one of them is involved, and that's a big if, because whoever it is is smart enough to outsmart local sheriffs and now take the feds on a run down a wild goose chase, that have to be there. before Jan 11, the first day of interest.

Because they didn't just see her home that day and come up with a plan, right? They saw the home. They thought about it. And then went in the neighborhood. So it was somebody that was there, Jan 11, at least. Now, did they work on the crew that whole time? No, they could have come back to the neighborhood. But that said, that's the origin point, Jan 11.

Agree, disagree. Yeah, I agree. And also this idea of case. that I mentioned earlier. You know, they kind of got the baiting, the blood in the water at this point in time. If they, if that's from an observable position where you're looking back at her home, then that puts blood in the water relative to one individual, perhaps showing back up to say, you know what, let me take a closer look here.

And you go back to that date, that Jan 11 date. And that's the moment in time where they step in. And who knows, they may have, they may have approached from a different perspective and looked at this residence from that perspective and they're not caught on the camp. They could be kind of circulating around this environment. You never know relative to the perspective that they have. There's something that drew this individual's eye. I think that I still think that people are aware because out of all the residences in this neighborhood, they focus on her home, Ms. Guthrie's home out of everybody else's. They targeted her names. Also, we are learning investigator-seeking video, as I mentioned,

9 p.m. to midnight, Jan 11, and are also interested in a, quote, suspicious vehicle spotted on via Entrada. That's a street near Nancy Guthrie's home around 10 a.m., 10 a.m. Jan 31. Interesting. What can you tell me about that, Dave, Matt? A suspicious vehicle on a street via Entrada, 10 a.m. Jan 31. Right. And the FBI is looking for every possible surveillance camera, ring doorbell camera that they can find pointing towards the road to get a shot of this suspicious vehicle. And they're asking for a block of time from him to 1130 a.m. on January 31st, the morning before the kidnapping that took place later that night. So we're talking about the morning of. So this suspicious vehicle on a road nearby. Now, suspicious, not exactly sure what that means, but it stuck

out, Nancy, and it stuck out during the daytime. That says a lot. Again, let me stress that no one on that construction crew, no neighbor that moved out has been named as a suspect or a person of interest. These are lines of inquiry by the FBI, and it gives us an idea as to where they're headed in investigation. Again, the last thing you want, would you agree Fitzgibbons is to rush down the wrong avenue and name or suspect a POI or suspect prematurely? That's the first thing you will hear on cross-examination if there is ever a trial. Isn't it true? You named Brian Fitzgibbittance as your first person of interest. And now you want the jury to convict my guy? You don't want to hear that.

So no lynch mobs, agree? Absolutely. And in this case has drawn so much public attention that, you know, law enforcement needs to keep any persons of interest or suspects very close to the chest at this point. Not only to keep the lynch mob, so to speak, from forming, but from a very functional standpoint. They don't want the suspect or this individual. to have really any information about what they do or don't know. So totally agree there. Getting ready for a game means being ready for anything.

Like packing a spare stick. I like to be prepared. That's why I remember 988 Canada's suicide crisis helpline. It's good to know just in case. Anyone can call or text for free confidential support from a train responder anytime. 988 suicide crisis helpline is funded by the guy. government in Canada. Crime stories with Nancy Grace.

To whoever has her or knows where she is, that it's never too late. And you're not lost or alone. And it is never too late to do the right thing. And we are here. We believe. And we believe in the essential. goodness of every human being. And it's never too late.

Straight out to Dave Mack, crime stories, investigative reporter joining us tonight. Dave Mack, just what we don't need. Allegations of misconduct tampering with evidence within the Pima County Sheriff's Department. What? The allegation is that the Pima County Sheriff's Office has prevented evidence from being turned over in a timely manner to the FBI and allowing others to investigate this. the tampering is holding back with holding information and evidence from others who could actually provide possible solutions to the problems that exist. And we know that NANOS has prevented the FBI

from coming in right off the bat. And that's where this goes back to now. Claims of tampering with evidence, allegations of misconduct. Now a recall effort on NANOS. What's happening, Dave? You know, Nancy, this started last week. Local politicians have just had they're filled. They're embarrassed and humiliated with what Nanos has done. Plus, there also was an interview with him under oath in December with Nanos, where he said he had never been suspended in the line of duty, and that turned out to be not true. So Nanos is really under the gun here, and a recall vote is being sought. They have 90 days to get all the signatures necessary to actually move forward with a recall vote, and it has begun in earnest.

Now, question, in order for a recall vote, I believe they need 100,000 signatures to make that happen. Here's my concern. To Brian Fitzgibbon's joining us, Director of Operations, USPA nationwide security, leading a team of investigators around the world to find missing people, including extractions from Mexico. He is a former Marine and an Iraqi war vet. recall. Maybe a good idea. Maybe not, but not right now in the middle of this investigation. Nanos's attention is already diverted between this investigation, claims of misconduct and tampering. Of course, he's got his reality show to handle, but that said, he does not need another diversion of attention. Yeah, and it's important to remember here that Sheriff Nanos is in a

elected official. And I know that that's not a 100% uniform across the country where law enforcement officials are indeed elected, but there in Pima County he is. And what this seems to be is political opportunism bringing about this recall. And it's certainly going to add quite a bit to the plate of Sheriff Nanos where he's going to be worried about protecting his politically elected position now. Dave Mack, do you recall the discovery of a backpack near Nancy Guthrie's home? And after a lot of media attention, it was determined the backpack was not connected to Nancy Guthrie's kidnap. In fact, there were items in the backpack that belonged to a child, a juvenile, and the weathering of the backpack suggests that it had been out in the elements for a really long time predating Nancy's

kidnapping. Do you recall that? I do. It was found in an area that is often used by homeless people looking for a place to get out of the elements. And there were other items found in there that were indicative of having been out in the elements for a long time. And so while it was a backpack, and while it was near the home of Nancy Guthrie, it really was not part of the case. Over a month after our 84-year-old Nancy Guthrie vanishes from her Tucson home, the The investigation has taken a very disturbing turn. Allegations of misconduct in tampering with evidence. Information leaks, coordination failures between various agencies.

Now taking center stage when all eyes, all attention should be on finding Nancy Guthrie. More scrutiny around the investigation and how the evidence has been handled. Now, mounting questions about the handling of the evidence as the investigation enters a, quote, more complicated phase. Now, I want to go back to not just the backpack, but a recent discovery found near Nancy Guthrie's home in a wash. What that means is where the water, torrential water has washed out the soil. looks kind of like a dry creek bed. That's what a wash is. Now, I want to show you what Adrian F posted on X.

I believe we're seeing tan capri shoes, a bed spread, and a knee brace. Am I missing anything? Dave Mack? What you're looking at here, Nancy, is you're looking in an arroyo that has this pants, the tan pants that are seen in that arroyo, the tan shoes that you've mentioned before and a knee brace and all of this near Nancy Guthrie's home. It is shockingly close to the home and you would think that this would be a big deal finding pants, shoes and a knee brace.

Thoughts on tan pants, shoes, knee brace, and bedspread, whether they are connected or not. don't you think straight out to Todd Shipley joining us. Todd, digital cybercrime expert, former detective Sergeant Reno Nevada PD, 25 years in law enforcement at dark intel. info. Shouldn't that have at least been gathered and processed to determine if it's real, if it's connected it anyway? Well, certainly you would think that in this kind of case, they would have been gathering everything they can find,

even if they don't necessarily think it's relative at the time. Because once somebody calls something in like that, where are they going to go? They don't have any information now. So yes, they should be collecting everything they can find and trying to identify whether it's related or not. According to Adrian F posting on social, here are the items found today exploring with Jim

and were called in. JLR investigates call the items into authorities. Now, I want to address that to Joseph Scott Morgan joining us, Professor Forensics, Jacksonville State University. He is the author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon, and he is a star of a hit podcast, Bodybags with Joseph Scott Morgan. More important for our purposes tonight, he is a death investigator with over 10,000 death investigations under his belt. deaths of all sorts. Of course, there are only a few alternatives, natural causes, accident, suicide, unexplained, and homicide. That's what he's done, his whole life. Now, when we get information, it doesn't have to come from law enforcement. The FBI doesn't have to be walking

along the side of the road and a hazmat outfit and find this. Citizens can find information and call it in. Then when you put the citizen up on the stand, Joe Scott Morgan, that citizen can be cross-examined until the cows come home, until the defense attorney is blue in the face. But that doesn't mean the evidence isn't real just because law enforcement didn't find it. You're absolutely right. It doesn't invalidate what a citizen might find. As a matter of fact, I've been involved in a number of cases where you have pedestrians that are just kind of walking along the way where bits of items, bits of what turned out to be evidence were recovered. They found weapons, shell casings. Hell, Nancy, I've had cases where a person's dog has drug human remains up in the yard. So yeah, the cops don't have to be directly involved in it to validate the evidence. So anything that they're out there, and our colleague mentioned this just a moment ago, right now, they don't really have Buckus.

And so anything that's out there that is within the spectrum of the vicinity of her home has evidentiary value. It's a matter of evaluating it to try to see what it's worth at this point in time. But in order to do that, it has to be documented. It has to be preserved. It has to be collected. And then it has to be brought in for processing. If you don't do these things, then it ain't worth a gunpowder to blow it to hell. You've just got photos by some citizen out there that's saying, well, yeah, we found this.

But it was never moved on. So everything in this case, Nancy, is more than critical. Just got Morgan, you've been in court so many times that as an expert witness, regardless of who finds the evidence, and maybe that person can be attacked on cross-exam. Did the evidence exist? Is the evidence real? Every witness you put on the stand is not going to be a nun, a priest, or a virgin. Let's just go with that.

But the reason I care about this blanket is because there is a theory that Nancy Guthrie was wrapped in a blanket. or wrapped up in something, they're on the front porch and transported wrapped up. Is it true? Don't know. But that's why I care about that blanket. If it's even real,

what does the blood tell you? Is that theory possible based on the blood on her front porch? We could go down two roads with this, Nancy. First off, I've had cases. where people are bleeding, okay? And say, for instance, a perpetrator is trying to do what is called stem the bleeding. And that can either be an individual that is injured and still alive, or can be an individual that is deceased.

And suddenly the perpetrator looks down and says, oh, my God, I've got blood, I need to stem, I need to stop the flow or the presentation of blood. That could happen. Okay, I've seen that happen. And then all of a sudden, you know, when you think about this collection, that has been identified as Mrs. Guthrie's blood, why does it just suddenly end? And I think that that's a big question,

and it's a valid question. Or if you've got a surface that is so inundated with blood, that would mean a profuse amount of blood in order to have it seep through that medium and have it transfer onto the ground, I think this happened prior to being wrapped. So bottom line, is it possible? That's a yes, no, Joe Scott.

Yeah, it's possible she could have been wrapped up in a... She is 84 years old. Her health, her heart is fragile. And every hour and minute and second, and every long night has been agony since then. She is without any medicine. She needs it to survive. We need your help.

In the midst of the search for her mother, Savannah Guthrie also having to deal with. attacks. Why? Why attack a crime victim? Joining me, renowned psychoanalyst out of the LA jurisdiction, Dr. Bethany Marshall. She is the author of Deal Breakers. You can see her now on Peacock, and you can find her at Dr. Bethany Marshall.com. Also with us, Guru, PR Guru, to the stars, Rob Shooter. He's the author. of a hit new book that is climbing the charts on Amazon, it started with a whisper. He's also at robesheater.suscast.com. Some of his clients, the infamous Sean Puffy,

aka Diddy, aka Love Comes, Britney Spears, I could go on, but I don't understand why this is happening. Straight out to Dr. Bethany Marshall. the most recent attack on our friend Savannah Guthrie crime victim is because she is considering going back to work. Nancy, I would question all of these haters, all of these criticizers, do they spend their entire lives with their parents? No, they have work, they pay bills, they take care of their children. They have lives. And you know why they have lives? Because their parents raised them to have lives.

Nancy. I think everybody who's criticizing Savannah has what we call pathological envy. Pathological envy is the sense that if you have something good, it means I will never get it for myself. And we know Savannah has a lot of wonderful things about her life. She has her sibling group that seems so supportive. She's a star on TV. She had and has a wonderful relationship with her mother. She has a supportive spouse, two beautiful children, and I think that the haters are so envious. This has put a spotlight on Savannah's life, and when the spotlight went on her life, everybody who is envious just stepped forward. Rob Scheter joining me. Rob, we've all faced various ups and downs in life. That video from our friends at Fox News,

by the way. Thank you, Fox. When, as you know, my fiancee was murdered, I dropped out of school. My plan was to be a Shakespearean literature teacher at the university level. That dream was dashed. That said, it took me a long time to get it together to go back to school, which I did. But Savannah, on top of, facing the Kidnap of her mother, her disappearance, her horrible health issues, Mrs. Guthrie's, the specter that her mom may be dead, that she has not survived this ordeal. That's looming heavily, but unlike me, I had no responsibility like Savannah because Savannah has children. And that is an overarching responsibility. So it's not just returning to her position at the Today Show. It's returning to her two minor children.

I mean, that is her priority in my mind. That is my priority. And I guess I'm projecting. But what do you advise? You know, the other day who was, oh, it was Catherine Heigel. Somebody was hating on her for going to a charity event. and she actually engaged with the haters. And I get it.

You want to say something back and you may be right. But is it worth it? I mean, are they worth it? I say no. But what do you do in a situation like this? She's getting hate from every corner from going back to work to her recent reunion with her Today Show co-hosts and friends. I think that just poured gas on the fire of the haters. claiming some people claiming that she's part of the plot to kidnap her own mother

that she's trying to cover up for the brother-in-law. It's crazy talk. So you're the PR guru. What should she do? Yeah, professionally she should tune it out and focus on what really matters, which is her health, her family health, her children. Being a mom is her priority. You have it absolutely right, Nancy.

That's not a projection. I've met Savannah many, many times. We have mutual friends together. this is what she wants to do. She wants to be with her kids. And her kids have lost their, potentially lost their grandmother too. So she's being a mom. That's her first priority.

She will go back to work. She's indicated that she will return to the show. We don't have a date. It's completely mind-blowing to me that people have been this cool. And I think people are going through is there's no roadmap to this. We unfortunately all know what it's like to have trauma in our lives. However, to have a parent go missing with very few answers, there is no prototype. There is no standard behavior.

There's no roadmap to follow. So Savannah here is a pioneer. What should she do? And I think she should just follow her heart. She's got a deep, deep faith. And so she's really leaning into that. And she's been spending a lot of time here in New York with her friends. So I think she's doing everything she should do, everything she needs to do.

And let's hope that she can tune this hate out. We should point out, Nancy, though, this hate is a minority. Most of the response, most of the response has been overwhelming love. Okay, Rob Schuter, maybe I've got the information incorrect here, but aren't you the author of a brand new book that's climbing the charts at Amazon? It started with The Whisper. Isn't that you? It is me, Nancy. That is my book. Okay, and aren't you the star of Robshooter.com and host of naughty but nice podcast?

Isn't that true? A star of both, yes. Okay. And isn't it true that you are the so-called publicist to the stars? Isn't that you, Rob Sheeter? That's I've been called that, Nancy. Yes, I am. Okay.

And your advice is follow your heart. That's your advice. It's good advice. People pay money for that? Really good advice because everybody wants to speak. When I got into crisis management PR, one of the hardest things to teach people was to let it go. You do not have to respond to every.

every single critic out there. They won't be remembered. In the moment, right now, we're talking about them. But two, three years from now, we won't be. We'll be talking about how Savannah handled this with grace and dignity and where her life is then. So I know it does sound flippant. I know it sounds like the obvious.

But try and do it yourself. If somebody comes at you at Twitter, try not respond in. It's a real skill, and I think it's a skill that Savannah has mastered. I usually just say, thanks for watching. Because what else can you say? So your advice is follow your heart. Also, don't engage in warfare, with battle, with haters. Because, you know, nobody's paying me thousands of dollars for this advice like they pay you, Rob Shooter.

But I would say engaging with them is like mud wrestling with the pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it. So don't do it. it. Another thing to, and you can use that if you want to and you can get good money for that, Rob Shooter. Bethany Marshall, on top of everything else that she's dealing with, I think she's trying to compartmentalize, which is a ploy of mine. Maybe I'm projecting that when it's just too much to think about, do something else. Put that over there and focus on this. And by achieving something, you slowly, in the back of your mind, process everything that's happened.

She was attacked, she's being attacked for even mentioning going back to work. Then, how did this happen, Dr. Bethany, that when the haters saw a video of her having a little mini reunion, she went back to thank everyone at the Today Show set for their support, that seemed to throw gas on the fire. Why did that inflame so many people, those those, those, those, those, those, photos of her. Because Nancy, they can see that she's loved. And that that triggers the envy as well. If she has something good, it means that my life is miserable. But you know, Nancy, the number one thing I tell trauma victims and I work with trauma patients is to reestablish their regular routine.

I get very basic with them, Nancy. First of all, validate their feelings. Of course, this is horrible, tragic, terrifying. She must be preoccupied with her mother. So validate the feelings. Then I tell them to drink water. It's that basic, Nancy, to practice what we call sleep hygiene, to go to bed at the same time and get up at the same time every morning, open all the windows and open the curtains in the morning so that she can get sunshine. And then go back to your regular routine where there's structure and where there is social support. These people have been her very. friends and her professional family for many, many, many years. She probably does not have that kind of support in Arizona where her mom is. So she needs to go back to the people who love her

and who can listen to her trauma. Trauma patients also have to talk about what happened to them as they are ready. Don't ask them too many questions because it will trigger anxiety and trauma and stress. But they have to know that there's a listening ear there somewhere so they can talk about their experience. That's what she has with her husband and with her friends in New York City and with the Today Show. Joining us now in addition to Dr. Bethany Marshall and Guru to the Stars, PR Celebrity, Rob Shooter, Dave Mack joining me, Crime Stories, investigative reporter. There have been so many attacks on her. Remember the attacks regarding the ransom?

Well, Nancy, the attacks about not paying the ransom really go back to things that we are not privy to, information between law enforcement and the Guthrie family, because we don't know the veracity of these claims, these ransom demands. The family does. And the family, from what we look at on these videos, they're responding as they're being, I'm guessing, told to respond. This isn't something that they're doing in a vacuum. They actually have a lot of people bending their ear and explaining what to do. I mean, who goes through a kidnapping on a regular basis? So the experts are leaning on the family, explaining what to do and how to do it. And I'm guessing they're following that instruction.

Dave Mack, the haters online, have even attacked Savannah Guthrie as it relates to her husband, claiming that somehow his job has triggered the kidnap of her 84-year-old. mother in the middle of the desert. Listen to this, Dave, Mac. Her husband, his last name is Feldman. He worked for the Clintons, the eight years they were in office. Okay?

He started a company called Grover Park. Basically what they were, they were scrubbers. They would scrubbed the internet of anything bad, that they did not want the public to find out. They would scrape the whole internet. So when you did a search, you couldn't find out anything about it. How much you want to bet because the Clintons are going in front of Congress that they struck out to this guy because he was their cleaner.

Oh, my gosh. Okay, I could listen to her all day long. And she's taken a lot of correct facts and woven them together with this theory. That is proud shrimp her daughter on TikTok. To Rob Shooter joining us, Rob, there have also been attacks on Savannah's looks. Describe. Yeah, people have gone after her for not wearing enough makeup, not looking sad enough, not acting like she's riddled with grief.

And there we see Savannah. She looks very different there than what we're used to seeing her on the Today Show. And I think people might find that a little jarring when they see somebody that normally comes into their living room five days a week looking different, People have had a lot of questions about that. There she is without a professional hair and makeup person. She does not have a hairdresser with her in Arizona. She can't win here, Nancy.

Had she traveled to Arizona with a glam squad? Had she made these videos when she was in full hair and makeup, then she would have criticism about doing that too. And so my heart breaks for Savannah here, because there's always going to be people that are going to criticize her. There she is again with her sister. and her brother and she's not looking like she looks on the today show and she shouldn't look like that either this is raw savannah this is not the savannah that we see on end news this is real life

savannah and i think we should all cut her a break a lot of people out there are confused by this i i want to i want to give them the benefit of the doubt here but it's cruel it's really cruel the only silver lining here nancy and you know savannah too is she's a really strong person and she has a a really strong faith and as upsetting as this is, she'll get through it. She's going to be okay. To whoever has her or knows where she is, that it's never too late. And you're not lost or alone. And it is never too late to do the right thing. And we are here. We believe and we believe in the essential goodness of every human being. And it's never too late.

If you know or think you know anything about Mrs. Guthrie's disappearance, please call 1-800-225-5-3-24 or 520882-7463 if you wish to remain anonymous. There is a $1.2 plus million-dollar reward for information. leading to Nancy's whereabouts. Thank you to our guests, but especially thank you to you for being with us tonight. And keeping the search for Nancy Guthrie alive. Nancy Gray, signing off for tonight. Good night, friend.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed human.