Crime Weekly - S3 Ep145: Major Updates in the Nancy Guthrie Investigation | Suspect DNA Found?!

Episode Date: February 18, 2026

Nancy Guthrie, 84, was reported missing from her Tucson, Arizona home on January 31 and is believed by authorities to have been taken against her will. Investigators found evidence of foul play and have treated the case as a potential kidnapping. Surveillance footage of the potential kidnapper has been released, and possible DNA evidence has now been found. Try our coffee! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.comBecome a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeeklyShop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shopYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcastWebsite: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.comInstagram: @CrimeWeeklyPodTwitter: @CrimeWeeklyPodFacebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod

Hey Ontario, come on down to BetMGM Casino and check out our newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show. Only at BetMGM. Access to the Price is right fortune pick is only available at BetMGM Casino. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connix Ontario at 1866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Colani Kitchen and Bath can help you. Are you giving away a free faucet this week? Yes, we're giving away a free house of roll faucet or shower kit. What's the cat? No catch. You don't need to buy anything. Just follow us on social media and watch for an announcement of which of our seven stores will give away a free product that week.

I love this. It's as crazy as the Kalani upside down sign at the Berry store. Even crazier? Our price is upside down too. Don't miss out at Kalani Kitchen and Bath. Hey everyone, welcome back to Crime Weekly News. I'm Derek Lavasser. And I'm Stephanie Harlow. And didn't think we'd be doing this this soon. Here we are talking about Nancy Guthrie again because, I mean, just to be frank,

this case has become like world wide headlines, right? Like everybody's talking about it. Everyone's invested. It's become a huge thing on social media. It's just been a really chaotic situation. you have the media covering it, you have TMZ covering it, you have social media creators who were out there who flew out to Tucson who are covering it. Like everywhere I look, it's Nancy Guthrie.

And I will say this, since our last episode, there have been a bunch of new updates. I don't know if they're all critical to the case, but nevertheless, they're updates. I don't know what's critical to the cases. I don't even know what the case is at this point. It's crazy. It's a little much here. Yeah. So I think it's important to talk about this because.

this is kind of a sign of when, you know, who decides what's going to be a big case, you know? And a lot of people are saying, why are we focusing on Anthony Guthrie? Like, there's a lot of people missing. Well, I think that what we're dealing with here is that at least initially, and I don't know if every or anybody thinks that out, but it could have been like a matter of national security given that Nancy has a high profile daughter. The ransom letters are going to TMZ. So obviously, whoever is sending the letters seems to.

know that Nancy Guthrie has some sort of connection to, like, media and entertainment. So it kind of seemed like it was targeted and now the FBI became involved and it's everywhere. It's completely, like Derek said, has inundated everything. And I think that it's, you know, and Derek and I talk about it and he's like, be careful. But I personally think that it's just very odd. This doesn't seem to be what we've been like. led to believe at least initially that it is. But that leaves us with a question of what is it? And I'm not going to lie to you. You know, I'm very suspicious. I don't take a lot of things at

face value. Does that mean I'm not worried about Nancy? Does that mean I don't think she's in danger? No, I am worried. And I do think that it's not looking good for Nancy Guthrie. But what is going on here? None of this is making sense. Nobody's really behaving in the way that they should be. And we're going to kind of talk about that in a little bit when we talk about this new info about how they're kind of trying to track her pacemaker now. And I'll let Derek share that with you because that's his, it's his, his gem to share. Yeah. Well, I think what you're saying right now, the number one thing is exactly what some of your complaints are, which is why is this case receiving so much attention, so many resources where there are hundreds, if not thousands of cases similar to this that do not receive the same amount of attention. Even, we're not talking about just about media, but also just from law enforcement, right?

As far as what they're deploying to try to find Nancy. And you would hope that this would be the case in every investigation. We're not taking anything away from Nancy's case, but just this type of effort for every case out there. And you guys know I started detective perspective, what, over like two years ago? All I cover is unsolved cases. And not that I'm trying to compare the two, but if you're watching that channel, then you know I've covered some horrific stories. And the main reason I'm covering him is because most of the public doesn't know about them. And I stress that every single week.

It's a major problem. But with this case, as Stephanie had said at the top of it, it's hard to separate fact from fiction. Right after the episode came out that we did, there was a late night search warrant done. It was like a simultaneous search warrant done where they hit a house and there was like a traffic stop. And I was up watching it. And initially, based on some reports, there was like a traffic stop and someone killed themselves in the car before. They had three people and somebody, they had three people in custody and one of them took their

own life and I'm texting Derek. And I'm like, oh, now they're, you know, they're texting. It's right around, you know, where Nancy's house is and they're going there. They had the curtain up in front of the Rain Rover. Curtain up. And then Derek was like, yeah, and somebody, you know, took their own life. And I'm like, yeah, that's what I'm hearing too. And what did it end up being?

Apparently in Nothing Burger. Nothing. Not connected to anything. As far as we know, nothing right now, which is crazy. And I'm really curious what your opinions are on this. I really want you, if there's any question that we pose to you today, this is a big one for me because I am slightly skewed being former law enforcement. But I'll give you my take and then I'll pose the question. I feel at this point, the sheriff's department has almost been kind of forced into sharing more.

information than they should be sharing because they're getting criticized and a lot of it is justified. And here's my take on it. The reality is this could be, it could be a robbery gone wrong where there's an active person or group of people who are out there breaking into homes and taking people. And if that's the case because those people are not in custody, the community, specifically in Tucson, has the right to know about that because their family and their friends could be affected as well. Why are you saying a robbery gone wrong? Because that's another thing that I heard recently. Now they're saying it's a robbery gone wrong. How in the world is it a robbery gone wrong? I don't understand. How? Because the only thing they took was a woman. Then nothing else from the house is

missing. No, but that makes perfect sense though. That makes perfect sense. And I'm going to tell you why. If there's a real possibility that if everything is on the up and up and these guys, because there's, by the way, the other videos that are coming out from these other robberies that are on camera and stuff, that they're now showing us from like neighborhoods, you know, nearby where there's a guy without a mask on doing something similar. What the hell's going on down there? But that's a different story for a different day. My point being, there's a real possibility that we end up finding out this person,

if they're in fact exactly what it looks like, didn't even know who Nancy Guthrie was, that they picked this house because they saw an 84-year-old woman living alone in a huge house and figured it was going to be an easy grab. And I hate to speak. speculate. I really do, but I kind of have to hear. There's a possibility that they go into this house, right? Not knowing her health conditions, just knowing big house, woman home alone, elderly woman, we're going to go for it. They go in there. What exactly though? Money, jewelry,

right? Anything, right? A lot of things, collectible items, artwork, whatever it might be, right? Sure. They go in there and during the, you know, the breaking and entering, something happens with Nancy. They get her out of bed and we already know she has some serious health conditions. Now, I pose this to you and I'm talking about myself. If I'm 84 years old in a house sleeping and one or two gunmen come in and point a gun in my face, is there a possibility that, you know, something happened to her medically at that moment where she could have had a heart attack and obviously that's not planned for. That's unexpected. So now you have a breaking and entering that turns into a murder and you're not going to take anything from the home.

Because if they find those items in your possession, now you're not only linked to a robbery gone wrong, but you're linked to a murder. The second thing would be okay, Derek, then why would they take her? I'm not saying criminals are smart, but they could be saying to themselves, hey, you know how we wouldn't be able to be charged with a homicide if there's nobody. So we have to take her so that the running narrative is that she could still be out there somewhere. So God forbid, this does come back on us. Without a body, a no homicide charge is a lot harder to prove. So we take her, we're out in the Arizona desert, and we bury her somewhere so that nobody ever finds her and they can't charge us with murder. Again, I'm not saying it's smart.

If it was an accident, let's say she had a heart attack, something happened. Would they even be really charged with murder? Oh, yeah, for sure. I mean, maybe like manslaughter in a certain degree. Yeah. It might not be first degree, but it could be absolutely. There's maybe no premeditation, but you could still, yeah, they're going to still get charged with at least second degree for sure. But then if you get caught, now you got that same, which you might be, you got the same charge plus tampering with evidence, tampering with a body.

Like, it just doesn't, it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make sense, but these guys are not bright. Did you see the guy trying to cover up the ring camera? Yeah, with the grass. And then you also have to acknowledge the fact that there was blood there from Nancy. So she's got very thin skin. She's probably on blood thinners because of her medical conditions. they hit her or injure her in the process of getting her out of bed.

Maybe there's a brief struggle. And because of those injuries and because of the blood thinners, she's bleeding out. And these guys aren't equipped to handle that. There's a lot of variables that could have taken place here, which would explain what happened. But that's what I'm doing right now is part of the problem. But if they're so stupid and they haven't gotten caught,

which is what I'm saying, if they're so stupid and they would do something so stupid, why haven't they gotten caught? Sometimes being lucky is better than being smart. And I will also say, which we can kind of segue into, this has not been a great investigation. And I wanted to talk to you guys, give you a little inside baseball, about the dynamics of a federal agency coming into a local case. Because this happens more than you know. We're just hearing about it now because of the notoriety surrounding this case. But there are a lot of occasions where the FBI will come in and assist local authorities on an investigation,

because they usually have more resources and they have more technology to use to try to assist in those cases. But we have heard some rumblings that the sheriff's department has not been sharing all of the evidence with the FBI. I don't know if that's true or not.

The sheriff has came out and said that's not true, but here's what I will tell you, and this is not speculation. There is this dynamic between federal agents and local authorities that can go one of two ways. I've worked with a lot of federal agents, awesome dudes, great at what they do.

But I've said this before and I'll say it again. Not every person with an FBI jacket is better than the local guys. The local guys, some of them doing it 20, 30 years, have worked thousands of homicides, really know their shit. And then you'll have an FBI agent come in who their background isn't accounting and they've been a federal agent for three years and they come in there going, all right, I'm here to solve this murder, right? It's not how it works.

So if it's not done in a. a smooth way, there can be some friction there, where the FBI comes in, they try to take over, and there's egos involved. That's the human side of things, where the local guys are saying, these people don't know what they're doing, we got this, we don't need your help, and the FBI saying, hey, we're the FBI, we're taking over, we're doing this. So is that what happening here? I don't know. But on the other side of things, and we don't know, because we're not there, if you've got a couple good FBI agents who have been around the block and have done multiple cases like this, they'll come in and say, hey, guys, this is your case, we're just here to help. We're here to provide

the resources and technology you need. And if you want a second opinion or you want some extra bodies out there doing the searches for the grids, we're here to help. But it all comes down to communication. And communication is probably the biggest issue in this case. As I said at the start of this, I'm a little torn. And this is the question I posed to you guys. On one hand, I see the need to share information because these people responsible are still out there somewhere. And they're a danger to everybody as long as they're free. Share information with the public?

Like what's going on in the case? With the public. Or between the FBI and the local law enforcement? No, now I'm transitioning to with the public. Okay, okay. And you're sharing all this information. You have people on the ground, sharing the locations of the officers, what searches they're doing, what they found.

And we're going to talk about some of the things that they've already. found in the technology they're using, but they're sharing all this information to keep us updated. And I'm sure there's going to be a group of you that say, that's awesome. They should have been doing that from the start. There's also going to be a group of people who are going to say, okay, I appreciate you sharing that information. However, not only are you sharing it with us, you're also sharing it with the perpetrators. They now know what you're doing as well. And so it's a balance. And I feel like the sheriff's department is getting hammered, rightfully so, because they're back and forth on everything. But overall, that is the issue. And, and, and what we were just talking about

where they're doing these search warrants, they're not really announcing that they're doing the search warrants. It's the local journalists that are live streaming it and talking about it. So now the sheriff's department feels to, the need to come out and speak about it. And now they're being criticized because it's like, oh my God, you're doing these traffic stops. You're doing these search warrants. You're doing all this stuff. And it's leading nowhere. And in reality, that happens a lot in these cases. That just means they're following up on every lead they have that seems. valid, which is part of the investigatory process. So it's a mess if I'm just going to sum it down to one sentence. But I definitely want your opinions on that. And obviously, I want your opinion, Stephanie.

So I mean, as far as the local police and the sheriff being accused, what's his name, Thanos, Nanos? Yeah, whatever it is there. Thanos. It's definitely not Thanos. And he said, why would I not share information with the FBI, which I kind of agree. Like, I'm sure he is. I'm sure he is. But what would be his reason for doing that? And, you know, he's gotten criticism that they released the crime scene too early. He was like, my guys were there for 20 hours. Like, that's not too early. Whether it is or whether it isn't, apparently now there's a glove they found about two miles away from Nancy's house.

So I guess they tracked this, they found this glove two miles away. And it looks like one of the gloves that the person on the doorbell camera was wearing. and they found male DNA in the glove. So now they are sending that DNA for testing. And obviously they're going to put it in CODIS and all of that jazz. Here's my thinking about that. This is too much information to be releasing personally. I'm with you.

If you do believe as law enforcement, this glove belongs to the person who is seen on Nancy's doorbell camera. And you're publicly saying, we found the glove. So many weeks after she goes missing, by the way. But we found the glove. And by the way, the suspects would know if. they lost a glove. They're automatically going to know if they actually do have a glove. That's there. That's there. That could implicate them. Exactly. And now you're announcing,

we found DNA, male DNA in the glove. And now you're announcing we are doing DNA testing on this. We're putting in Dakota's. If you're the person who has Nancy, and let's say she's still alive, well, she's not going to be alive much longer. Bingo. And you're also not going to stay where you are. Yep. Exactly. So if you think, hey, that is my glove. That's definitely my DNA in that glove. And I have a criminal record. So I'm in Codis. I'm out of here and I'm getting rid of this, this thing that is making me a target right now. So I'm not sure. This is what's leading me to believe that once again, everything that's being portrayed to us as, it's a kidnapping and there's ransom and they're going to keep her alive for the ransom. All for show. I don't believe that anybody in law enforcement

believes that Nancy Guthrie is still alive. It's becoming less likely as time passes. Yeah. It's just the honest truth. Nobody can deny it. And a robbery gone wrong, really not buying that either, but they do continue. I mean, TMZ is still getting like ransom letters. I don't know. They're not though. See, that's another thing that's misinformation. Or they're getting like, they're getting letters from someone who says they know who the kidnappers are. The person is saying, I know where she is. And if you put this much Bitcoin in, I won't take it. I won't take it. I won't take it. That's what they told TMZ. I won't take the stuff. I just want you to put it in there a little bit. And then that's how I know that you and I are on the same page and we're going to work

together. I won't take it and then I'll give you the information about where she is and then I'll take it, which it's like, okay. Yeah, they're saying they're not responsible. From what we know, there has been no communication with the people who have Nancy and the Guthrie family. There's been nothing. And that there's been no proof of life, no ransom notes, no nothing, which is not good news. So they release the stuff about the glove, the DNA, they're testing it. They're going to put it into CODIS and, you know, given how high profile this has become, I think that's going to move pretty quickly. If you're the person who has Nancy or did something to Nancy, you're going to make yourself pretty scarce, like leave the country, which isn't hard to do if you're in Arizona, number one.

Number two, now they're saying, oh, we actually might have a way to track her pacemaker. Derek, I'll let you take it from here. I'll also throw it back to you because last time we covered Nancy's case, I was about to say something. And I was like, oh, you know what? I'm not going to say it because I don't want the bad guy. the person to know that I, that this is a potential thing. Yeah. So me, the podcaster, was cognizant of the fact that if there's a way of tracking Nancy,

I don't want to be the reason that they go, he's right. They could do that. So I purposely didn't put it in the episode, but as soon as we stopped recording, what did I say to you, Stephanie? You said, I guarantee you that there's a way to use some sort of technology to, basically, you didn't say fly around like they're saying, but basically like drive around and use this technology.

and then when her pacemaker is in range of the technology again, it would give off some kind of indication. And you said that that's what they could do. And we had to go off camera for you to say that. But you were like, remember that I said this because when this pops out and it turns out to be what they did or what they announced that they're going to do, I was right. And yes, Derek was right.

And I hate being right. I hate being right. But personally, if I was in charge of this case, as much as I feel a need to share information with you guys, this is something that I would. You would never say. Because I would have not only a helicopter going around with this technology. So tell us before we go forward. What's the technology and what are they planning to do?

I'll be honest with you. I don't know this sniffer technology. Apparently it's very advanced technology that I wasn't even aware of where they can put it on a helicopter. They have to fly at low heights to have it work. I was actually thinking more in line with if this is a Bluetooth or Wi-Fi-enabled pacemaker, whatever the technology that's used to connect to it, log into her application or log into a general application. that would detect a pacemaker if it was in the area. Yeah, like the manufacturer of the pacemaker would have a way to do that, yeah.

Let's say it's pacemaker LLC, right? They have an application that they will detect a pacemaker so that you can connect to it, right? If you're in the area, every single investigator should have this app uploaded on their, downloaded on their phone and open and active when they go to houses, when they're searching certain areas, you know, dirt areas, whatever it might be, to see if their, their application says, hey, we have a pacemaker in the area. the serial number is this, this, this, this, would you like to connect, right?

Yeah. It's a long shot, but I thought it was a pretty good idea. You were describing it like, oh, how when you lose your earbuds and you open your find my iPhone app. Like your hair tag. And it shows you, yeah. But if you're not in the same house or if you're too far away, then you won't be able to see it or it'll just show its last known location, but you won't be able to track

in a real time. I think the sniffer is probably just a stronger version of that, right? It's advanced technology where they're able to amplify the range of this application, sure. But, you know, now as brilliant as that is to do it, I also think now the suspects know it as well. So if there's a way to- Which is another reason why I think that they don't think the suspects are in custody of Nancy anymore. Maybe not. Maybe not. And they're looking for a body at this point. It could be a search effort at this point. Yeah. It's a high-tech tracking tool called a signal sniffer. It's been mounted on a helicopter and may

help detectives pinpoint her location. Signal snifers are often used in missing person. cases because they can detect low power electronic signals such as those emitted by a pacemaker, which I've never heard of this before. I hadn't known about it either. There was something that literally as we were recording, I was like, hey, wait a second. And I was like, oh, let me not say it. They said, according to the sources, the helicopter carrying the devices flying slowly and at a low altitude over the area where investigators are still hoping to find Guthrie, which, once again, where is that area? and why would you think that she would be there?

Yeah. And everything else we've heard from from this is basically, this could be anyone. His back rack was from Walmart. The description of this man, how they believe that he might look, like every single man you've ever seen in your life. Could be me. Yeah, it could be anybody, you know.

5-8, between 5-9 and 5-10, average bill, like, I don't even know why they bother saying this stuff. Like giving no description would be better than giving that description right now because it's just adding to the noise. Yeah. Like, oh, he's between 5-9 and 5-10 and of average build. So go out there and find the guy with the backpack from Walmart who looks like every guy on the street of every town of America. It's just really getting to be frustrating, but not looking good. No, not looking good.

That's it. Each day that goes by, it's becomes more dire. And that's just the reality of it, the longer that we don't hear from. Nancy or the people who took her, it's not good because if they're not communicating with the Guthrie family behind closed doors, that means they have nothing to offer. They have nothing to barter with. However, here's what I would do if I was in charge of this case. There's a way to accomplish both sides because I feel like at this point, the fact that they're sharing information about the technology they're using and the DNA they've found, they've almost been

forced into this because they're being scrutinized so much for not being transparent and communicative with the public, right? And you have these independent journalists on the ground who are sharing everything, even though sometimes they're sharing it too quickly and it's completely not related to the case, right? Different story for a different day. But if I were the sheriff working this case or the FBI, whoever was in charge, every day at 8 p.m., I would have a daily briefing. I would take questions from the media. I would let them know that we are out there. We are actively working this case. But whenever it came to the technology, science, or evidence that we are using or working with or have found, I would have. I would have.

a very blanket answer which would say for the integrity of the investigation, I cannot share this with you. My number one priority is to find Nancy because if I find Nancy, I probably can find the people responsible and get them off the street to protect each and every one of you out there. But if I'm sharing everything with you, it's going to impede my ability to do that. However, I will come here every day. I am an elected official. I have a responsibility to this community, and I will be available for questions and we'll answer your questions whenever I can. I want to be open and transparent. I will not be on Twitter,

letting you know that there'll be an update when we feel like it. You'll have me every single day. I will be here for you. That is part of my job. However, you guys elected me to make this place safer. The only way I can do that is by making sure that I keep stuff out of the media,

out of the public, so that the bad guys don't know all of my moves. And I think most people would be open to that. I think it's the lack of communication that's causing other people to fill that voice. and that's where misinformation can come in. So by him not speaking, he's creating this monster. And now he's being backed into a corner where he's divulging information that technically,

I don't think he should be sharing. I also think it's not, you know, and I'm not trying to defend Thanos because I don't really know anything about him. We're just going to call him Thanos from now. I don't know much about him. But I would also say it's these, you know, journalists on the ground who are also creating this monster. Right.

He's having to respond to it. Yeah, they knew. It's Savannah Guthrie's mom. It's going to be huge. It's going to be big. They got on planes. They got there fast. And they are, yes, I think answering the public's questions, but also probably getting things

on video and seeing things that they were not meant to see, which is making it difficult to maintain the integrity of the investigation when you've got people putting things out. And then people, you know, they're putting out what they see. But then they're interpreting it in a way that they don't know. So they're saying, oh, this is what we're seeing and this is what it could mean. and this is what it possibly means, and then all the people who are following them in the comments are saying, well, it could mean this, it could mean that.

But they don't know what it means. They just know what they're seeing. So now the police have to come out and say nothing and then get criticized for saying nothing. Or they have to say, oh, that's not what it means, what you guys interpret it to mean. This actually means this. It's pretty standard, blah, blah, blah. But by the time they do that, there's already people in a tizzy about everything because now they've created this grand conspiracy theory in their head about, oh, it's Annie. and Tomaso, because they're at their house.

Well, no, maybe we're just searching here because Nancy was here that now. And do I think there's suspicious things about this? Yes. I think it's suspicious that Nancy Guthrie took a freaking Uber to her daughter's house who lives like four minutes away from her. And then they dropped her back off. Why didn't you pick your mom up? She's got limited mobility.

And then she was there for like four hours for dinner. I think it's suspicious that the garage was only open for two minutes. But Nancy is an older woman who has limited mobility. health issues, like, what does she speedwalk through the garage to get in there in two minutes? That's suspicious to me. There's stuff that is suspicious to me that I look at and I say, I don't know how this adds up or how it fits in, but I also don't know everything else. So I'm trying to put a puzzle together with missing pieces as we always try to do.

And so I'm not going to come right out and be like, this means this. And this big injunction with them looking at Annie's house means that she must be, we don't know. So I think that the journalist on the ground while probably going in with good intentions have created another kind of wave of chaos and confusion. And once again, adding to the noise when I think that this case is the last one that you would need more noise added to. Well, you also have a lot of people who have kind of crossed over from the pop culture lane and are now covering this as well because it's almost in the entertainment sector because of Savannah. and I feel like there's a lot of people commentating on it and giving their opinions on it when they're not necessarily from a true crime background, which can also complicate things. But yeah, there's a lot here. I don't know what happened.

I have my suspicions on what could be in play. What I will say for everybody out there to try to maybe qual some of your concerns, like it may seem on the surface, like they don't know what they're doing because they're doing these search warrants and traffic stops and they're leading nowhere. I will tell you firsthand, there's been some big cases. that I've worked, not even been in charge of, but where we ultimately solve it. And you get the big media release and there's a press conference and you guys see the end result and you're like, wow, they did such a great job.

But I will tell you in a lot of those cases. You didn't see everything that led up. Yeah, there were so many things that went wrong and so many leads that we followed up on and so many traffic stops and search warrants that were dead ends that you would be shocked. But it's actually very timely. Yes.

Because after this, we are filming Elizabeth Smart Part 3. and I've known the cases I know it, but I never went through the police reports. And we're going to talk about that in this part where it was like, I can't even believe the nonsense that these police officers got, that they had to follow it and clear it. And the nonsense. And it was hard because, I mean, there's thousands of pages of these police reports, and I had to go through them. And lots were redacted, so you can't really use keywords to go through them.

So you just got to read them. And I was like shaking my head and I was like I could not do that. And they got to make a report. They got to make a report about everyone. Yep. It could be as simple as someone coming and saying, hey, listen, I was here the other night at this address. I saw a woman who looked like Nancy inside.

That's exactly what. And so now they got to go get the search warrant because guess what? If they don't do it and Nancy was there, people are losing their job. So who knows what's going on? When this is all said and done, I hope we get a debriefing. I hope it's solved. and I hope there's a positive outcome and we get to see the behind the scene stuff

and how it actually went down. But right now, it's exactly what it looks like. A lot of conjecture and speculation and, you know, TMZ reporting on it every day. They're getting these notes from this guy personally. I haven't even been paying attention to that. That is completely, in my opinion, a nothing burger. I think this person is not related to the crime whatsoever.

I agree. I think they're an opportunist. They're a grifter. And when they get caught, they're going to be charged with a felony. But as of right now, From TMZ's perspective, I mean, listen, they've never been hotter. Yeah, exactly.

They've never been more popular. So they're going to, they want. And they've been, they've had some stuff they've done recently that they've had to do damage control on. So as far as they're concerned, this is great for them. This is great. This is great. So they're going to cover it and they're going to talk about it.

Like forget all the stupid unethical things we've done. Let's focus on how we're helping a fine Nancy Guthrie. And they're covering it and they're going through these notes and they're talking about them. So what I would say to everybody out there is just keep your head on a swivel. You know, take everything in, but also use your own. judgment, do your, do your own due diligence to see if there's any validity to it. And when you do see something or hear something, don't immediately react. Wait until, you know, give it 12 hours to see how it unfolds so that you're not reacting negatively or positively when you initially

hear the information. But here we are covering it again, Nancy Guthrie. We know you guys are talking about it. And we want to obviously be part of that conversation. And I hope that we kind of answered some questions as far as where this is and what you should be looking for. if there's another major update, we'll either do another crime weekly news or we'll do a live, whatever's more convenient. I will say we've talked about it like doing a live when one of these traffic stops

or search warrants happen because we're up. We're talking to each other. But candidly, we don't because we feel like it's going to end up being like this where we could have been on a live with you guys for three hours for that night and then the next day we're telling you that that live was completely pointless. So we're waiting for the information to develop to see if there's anything there.

One other thing before I forget, and I almost forgot, and I know we got to get going because we want to record Elizabeth Smart, but the glove, you mentioned the glove, you mentioned the DNA. I'm also cautiously optimistic about the glove because as others have pointed out, searchers are out there and they're wearing plastic gloves and they're dumping them all over the place. They're saying that this glove could be connected. I'm really hoping they're right, but there's also a possibility that it's just another glove that was used by someone for gardening or whatever, and it's going to turn out to belong to someone who has nothing to do with the crime. And then the final note I want to make, as we're talking about these independent journalists, one journalist who I do not have a personal relationship, but I like how he's doing it would be Brian Enten, and I'll tell you why. He was following a SWAT team the other night.

And he came out and he put that information out on X. He said, hey, I'm out with the SWAT team, but I'm not going to reveal where I am. Good. And he had the opportunity to do so. He could have been the first. He does it pretty good, man. Just a little integrity is all you really need. I like how he operates.

I like how he's trying to give the community. the information they need because everyone's really concerned about this while also not jeopardizing the case. So he's someone who, again, no personal relationship with. I don't even think I've ever met him. But as someone as an independent person watching what's out there, he's someone I would recommend watching, although I think most of you guys probably already know who he is. So that's all we got.

Any other things from you? You want to get into this Elizabeth Smart? I do. I do. We're going to be back with Part 3 later this week. If there's any major updates in Nancy's case, we'll be sure to bring them to you. Until then, everyone stay safe out there. We'll see you soon.

Bye.