Crime Weekly - S3 Ep379: The Abduction of Nancy Guthrie | What We Know So Far

Episode Date: February 12, 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. Communication with alleged kidnappers also ceased after a reported ransom deadline passed, but there has since been surveillance footage of the potential kidnappers released.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: @CrimeWeeklyPodADS:1. https://www.GrowTherapy.com/CrimeWeekly - Grow Therapy is here to help TODAY!2. https://www.WildGrain.com/CrimeWeekly - Use code CRIMEWEEKLY for $30 off your first box and FREE CROISSANTS for LIFE! 

All right, hey, everyone. Welcome back to Crime Weekly News. I'm Derek Lavascer. And I'm Stephanie Harlow. And as you can probably tell, I'm recording from my house. Stephanie is in the studio. This is a little different for us. We had planned on releasing a new Crime Weekly News yesterday and today regarding Nancy Guthrie. And we recorded on Monday. And you're going to see in the episode that you're going to see part of today that we had recorded. it before a lot of news broke. And we had talked about it. And our number one priority when it comes to crime weekly news is not necessarily to be first, but to be right. And that's what's important in these cases. And I'm going to talk about that a little today. So we made the executive decision not to put the episode out and to come on in and record again today with the more updated

information so that when you're seeing this, although things could change, you are caught up with what's going on right now. Yeah, so we'll be going into the normal episode, but when we say things that have updated or changed, we'll cut in with the updated or changed information. Yeah, we're going to still play the episode that we recorded the other day because some of the information still works. But the big thing is we recorded on Monday and then on Tuesday they released the photos and videos of the suspect. Kind of an important thing. And so we, in the episode, which you will see, some of it,

we might cut some of it out, depending on what we say today. You're going to see us talk about the ring camera or the Simply Safe camera or whatever it is. We're speculating. And then we're learning that it's actually a nest camera. So things like that where we didn't have that information. And so we were going with what we had and now we have more. And there was some updates overnight because we're recording this at 2.45.

on Wednesday. So there might be some updates by the time we're done recording. So we're going to kind of break it up. But before we get into it, I just want to talk about something. And I didn't even talk about Stephanie with this yet because it's something that's been weighing on me the last couple days. And it's become more prevalent with this case, a couple of things actually. And I feel like I'm in a position where I can weigh in on it because I'm coming from a place of being in a similar background. So I'm seeing a lot on social media and podcasts on YouTube and on just regular network television where you have these experts. I'm specifically talking about former law enforcement, current law enforcement, whatever it might be. And I'm talking from

the local level to the state level to the federal level. And they're all speculating on why this case hasn't been solved. And I'm not trying to be a hypocrite because we do this every week, right? So I'm kind of in a similar boat. But my concern is that they're using this case to maybe get their name out there and they're not doing the research. They're not at least getting the basic facts right before going out and speaking publicly. And you might be saying, well, Derek, what are you talking about? And I'm not trying to call anybody out specifically. Again, I've never claimed to be the best detective. There are many investigators out there who have way more experience than I do and have done way bigger cases than me. But there wasn't someone last night,

and I was just looking at it like all of you are. And this person's got an extensive background. And some of you are going to know who I'm talking about. And I did a little research about them, and they have a very impressive resume. However, they came on a social media platform or a news network, a big network, and they wanted to give some insight in regards to the photos and video that were released. And there was two big things that they noticed. And Stephanie, again, we haven't even talked about it. She's going to probably laugh when I say this because I'm assuming she hasn't seen it. But the two big things were, one, the suspect appeared to be very comfortable with this backpack that he was wearing. He appeared to have worn it before. Now, I don't know about you,

Stephanie, but I, you know, I'm no profiling expert, but how does one wear a backpack that makes them look comfortable wearing it on both shoulders? Is there a thing? Is there a thing? that gives it away that if I've worn a backpack before, you'd be like, that's definitely a backpack he's worn multiple times. I feel most of us have worn backpacks before we've gone to school, right? So I think all of us would have some comfortability with a backpack. I don't think that there's anything in that video that says, oh, that's a backpack he's had for a while.

That's number one. But that wasn't even the most egregious part of this interview. The second thing that he really honed in on was he found it extremely interesting, that the suspect had two lights mounted to the straps of said backpack. My guy, it was reflective tape from the straps that was interacting with the infrared sensor on the camera. It wasn't a fucking light. That's a problem to me because that's not something that a detective would know. That's common sense.

It doesn't indicate his level of expertise as an investigator. It just shows that he wasn't prepared for the interview. and again to my theme wanting to be first, wanting to have something out there, even if it's inaccurate, because my problem with it is that someone who looks at his resume will say, wow, this guy is good. He knows what he's talking about. Look what he's done. This guy had two flashlights on his backpack. That means he knew the area and how dark it was going to be inside, and he was prepared. That's what's concerning to me. I don't know how you feel about it, but I figured out. I figured I'd save it for this episode and not do it on a social media post because I can see how it would be viewed as like me just being, you know, critical of other people.

But as a formal law enforcement guy, I think it's my responsibility to say something. Yeah. I mean, the backpack thing is definitely really breaking news. I mean. Right. I think this is one of those really viral social media cases, like so many that we've seen where we got people on the ground. We got people. we have a 24-hour news cycle now.

So we've got people who are anchors and networks that are bringing people on just so they can fill up the air and talk about the thing that's happening and the cases that are happening. And so you will see this a lot where, you know, sometimes I'm like, oh, new information and I'll click it. It's a 25-minute video of somebody who has credentials and has law enforcement experience and they clearly, there is no new information. just this person's take on the old information and it's nothing that is groundbreaking or even accurate sometimes. So yeah, that's why we're trying to do this to make sure that, you know, everything we said with the timeline and everything in the video we made on Monday, still accurate, but new information has come out since. So we're going to cut in. And then once we put it up after this, after today, then we have to update another way. But we're just not going to put

that video on and be like, hey, whatever. It was accurate when we filmed it. So we're good. You know, we want to be on top of it. Yeah. Right. And that's where I'm coming from. I just want to make it perfectly clear, not discrediting this person or anybody else, very experienced people doing it. All I ask is that it's okay to give your opinions, but do your research and make

sure you're basing those opinions on factual information. That's my only concern. Everyone wants to get caught up in this right now. And some people are trying to capitalize it. And the one more thing I want to put out there, and I'll make it very quick, any agencies, any authors or anybody out there who started a podcast recently or wrote a book and has representation. Stephanie and I are not interested in having you on as a guest to give your opinion on this case. The truth is none of us know what's going on right now, not even the people investigating the case apparently.

And we're going to get into that. But no thank you. We're not interested. We're not trying to promote your book. And a lot of these emails that I'm receiving are, you know, the subject line is expert on Nancy Guthrie case. And I don't like it because you're not an expert on it. Nobody is. I didn't realize you were getting those emails. A lot, a lot. And, you know, I'm looking at the resumes of these experts.

They're former law enforcement. Some of them have long resumes. But again, nothing that's going to make me feel like they're going to be able to add value to what anybody else is doing. So we respectfully decline on those. We appreciate the hustle, but we're good on that. So no need to send those anymore. We should talk about these images, though, because the guy does look very comfortable in this book back. Come on. Do you want to start there?

I mean, listen, this episode's going to be a little all over the place, guys, because we're going to be connecting two different episodes. But where do you want to start? Because there's a few different things. Well, let's go into the bulk of the episode first. And we'll talk about what the timeline leads up to. And then when we talk about in the timeline about the camera and things like that, we'll have Shannon cut this next part in.

So let's play that footage. Let's do it. But let's start this episode from Monday. Here we go. Today, we want to talk to you about a case that's been developing over the last several days and has raised serious concern. Nancy Guthrie, an 84-year-old woman, has been reported missing in Arizona. Nancy is the mother of Savannah Guthrie, co-anchor of NBC's Today Show.

And according to authorities, Nancy was last seen on the evening of January 31st. Now, details are still emerging, and investigators have described the circumstances surrounding her disappearance as to circumstances. And at this time, Nancy has not been located and the search for answers is ongoing. This whole thing is weird. It all kind of came in fast. It's been happening and evolving quickly. There's been a lot of things that have been reported and you're trying to follow up on them. We're going to try to be as concise as possible. But I will say right from the get to go, something about this feels odd and other kind of professionals in the field. Not that I'm a professional in the field.

I'm saying professionals in the field other than me, even though I'm not a professional in the field, have been kind of saying the same thing like, this doesn't feel right. Something about it feels off. What's going on? So let's kind of focus on the timeline for now. And I'm going to ask Derek some questions as we go through the timeline to get his perspective. So here's the timeline that we know so far. At around 5.30 p.m. on January 31st, Nancy took an Uber to the home of her daughter, Annie.

so Savannah Guthrie's sister, and then she had dinner there with Annie and her husband. At 9.48 p.m., Annie's husband dropped Nancy off at her home. The garage door of the home opened at 948, and then at 9.50 p.m., the garage door closed. So law enforcement says that at this time, they assumed this meant Nancy was home and probably going to bed. They assumed because there's no footage of Nancy arriving home. They're just kind of going by what the son-in-law has said in the garage door opening and closing. And it's not to say that Nancy doesn't have security cameras at her house because from what it looks like, she had a doorbell camera. And there was also a camera overlooking her driveway that was there at one point, but it has since been removed,

which is another weird thing. But it doesn't appear that Nancy Guthrie had a subscription. So Derek and I have talked about this stuff before. There's, like doorbell cameras and in certain cameras that you can have and you can set them up. But if you're not paying for them every month, they don't record, right? They don't record what's being shown. So it'll just show you in real time. So you can see on your app what's happening, who's at the doorbell, who you can see in real time as it's happening, but it's not recording to any like cloud server.

And we're going to talk about that. Yeah. We're going to talk about that in a second. So law enforcement said at this time they assumed Nancy was home and probably going to bed. That is the verbiage that they used. So that's why I'm saying it like that. So the next morning at 147 a.m., the doorbell camera at Nancy's home was disconnected. So somebody disconnected the doorbell camera.

25 minutes later at 2.12 a.m., the police said that software detected movement on the camera. Okay. And law enforcement did say a person was detected on the camera. But once again, no video is available because Nancy did not have that active subscription. So none of the video footage was able to be recovered. Now, here's another thing we need to know about Nancy Guthrie. She's obviously an older woman, but also according to family members, Nancy has limited mobility. She suffers from chronic pain.

She had a pacemaker. So there's some pretty serious medical conditions at play here. along with her advanced age. And then law enforcement has also stated that Nancy requires daily medication for survival. They said she needs daily medication to survive. So at 2.28 a.m., we have Nancy's pacemaker app disconnected from her phone. So her pacemaker disconnected from the phone app. And then at 11.56 a.m., Nancy's family checked on her

when she reportedly did not show up for Sunday morning services at her church, They placed a call to 911 at 12.03 p.m. They reported her missing. This is the timeline of what we know about Nancy when she allegedly got home, when everything kind of got disconnected, movement on the security camera. And apparently she didn't go to church the next morning. And that's kind of what prompted someone to call the family. And then the family goes to the house, checks on her. She's not there. They then call the police. It's odd, though, because I did see some reporting that someone who went to Nancy's church claimed, you know, Nancy didn't always come to Sunday morning services. Sometimes she would, you know, attend virtually. And once again, we have a woman who's in her 80s, has mobility issues in chronic pain, has a pacemaker. And it would make sense that she would, you know, sometimes want to go to church virtually

instead of having to go there in person. it looks like she didn't drive as she took an Uber to her daughter Annie's house for dinner on that Saturday night and she was driven home by her son-in-law. So she didn't drive. So she'd have to take an Uber to church or maybe have a friend or somebody bring her there. But if it's true that Nancy did not go to church services in person every Sunday, then what prompted somebody to call the family this Sunday and report that Nancy wasn't at church. But once again, there's so much out there.

We don't know what's true and what's not true. But Derek, I mean, asking you the question of if you were in the position of or you had a relative who was 84, had a pacemaker, was in chronic pain and had mobility issues, would you expect to see them go to church in person every single Sunday? Or would you expect that there were certain weeks that they'd be like, oh, this is a really bad week for me or it's a bad day. I'm having a lot of pain. I'm having flare-ups. I'm going to attend virtually. You wouldn't expect to see them there every week, right? No.

No, I think context matters. I don't know what conversations happened the day before. Did Nancy have an interaction with someone either from the church or a family member where she had planned on attending church that next morning where she was like, hey, definitely going to church tomorrow for X, Y, Z. I don't know what that would be. But if there's context there that says, no, the reason there was a red flag was because we knew 10 hours before Nancy had told me directly she was going to be here or she was going to go. maybe she told her her kids that night before that, you know, you said they dropped her off around what time, 948? 948. Well, that's when the garage door opened.

Yeah. Yeah. And it was Annie's husband who dropped her off, right? So I do wonder if Annie's husband had a conversation with her where he said, you know, what are you doing tomorrow? And she said, oh, definitely going to church tomorrow. I haven't been in a couple weeks or whatever, you know, there might be something there. There was somebody from the church who evidently contacted somebody from Nancy's family and was like, hey, your mom's not here and that's weird yeah yeah and you know members of the church some of them especially

the elderly community they they do get close and that's kind of their like get together time and they have relationships outside of the church so it's very possible she had a friend there that she used to you know conversate with you know outside the church and maybe there was a brief discussion on Saturday where she had said hey i'll see you tomorrow or maybe there was a thing where if nancy was like hey, if I'm not feeling up to going to church, I'll let someone know. Like, I'll shoot you a text and that that didn't happen. So her not being there was odd. Yeah.

And so that's, you know, that's the church aspect of it. Do we want to dive into some of the other things that you've discussed so far? Because there's a couple of things that you mentioned in there that I think are worth elaborating on. And yeah, it's speculative to a certain degree. But I have a lot of questions. And unfortunately, I don't have the answers with the limited information that's been released.

But I'm wondering if people out there have similar questions to what I have based on what you're relaying to us. Well, first I want to tell you that I believe it was just today. This was former D.C. homicide detective Ted Williams. And he was talking about this 41 minute timeline between the doorbell camera disconnecting and Nancy's pacemaker disconnecting. And he said, this timeline is odd. It raises red flags for me. He says that spending 41 minutes inside of a home is not characteristic of a burglary or like a random kind of thing. He said that it suggests the suspect or suspects were familiar with the home

and its security system. He said, quote, that leads me to believe that they were well aware of the cameras and those cameras were inoperable in that home. I think the individuals involved in Nancy going missing definitely knew that they didn't have to worry about law enforcement immediately rushing there. End quote. For some context, Nancy Guthrie's home is located in the Catalina Foothills area of Tucson, Arizona. It's valued over $1 million. And there's been people asking, like, you are an 84-year-old woman in bad health living in a million-dollar home. You have cameras. You have a daughter who's also, you know, doing well for herself financially. Why do you not have a subscription system on these cameras so that if something were to happen to you, even if it's not from an outside source,

maybe it's just Nancy going to get the mail and, you know, she falls or something happens to while she's outside, why would you not have a subscription on these cameras so that somebody can find out what happened to you? Or maybe if Nancy wanders away, they'd be able to tell the time that Nancy left the home instead of being like, oh, well, we can't access any previous video because there's no subscription. So you're living in a very well-off area. You're in a million-dollar home. You have your daughter, Savannah, who's obviously doing well for herself. Why is this older woman who's living by herself and has known significant health issues, why does she not have, you know, this kind of backup security measure of making sure that there's a subscription,

which is not going to make her break anybody in this situation. So for her own safety and security, why is that not there? There's so much to talk about here. I mean, I agree with you. I think it goes back where we're talking about Elizabeth Smart where, you know, you have a security system and yet you don't arm it because you don't think it can happen to you. And yeah, in hindsight, we're all going to say, well, why didn't she have a subscription?

And I agree. You know, we talk about SimpliSafe all the time and having access to that subscription and allowing you to go back retroactively and see if a crime occurred or maybe you can be a good witness based on something in the area. Yeah, if you have the financial ability to do so, you should have the subscription. Yeah, it's an upsell, but it could be extremely advantageous, especially if you're not monitoring your system at all times, which really has the time for that. Okay, so here's future Derek and Stephanie coming in.

So we had this conversation. Hey. We had this conversation about the cameras, how the police were saying it was disconnected somehow. And then we had a discussion about why didn't she have a subscription. As it appears, that all is still valid. So it says shortly after Nancy Guthrie disappeared, Pima County Sheriff said the camera affixed to her door had been disconnected, that she did not have a subscription that would have saved video and the investigators were trying to work with a tech company on the difficult forensic task of recovering any video. And now the new update is against

those odds they were successful. More than a week after her reported disappearance, that video was revealed, marking the most significant public development in a case that has captured the nation. So we have now found out that she did have an internet-connected Google Nest camera, which captured an unidentified person in a mask and gloves carrying a backpack he's very comfortable with and a gun. It shows a gun holster and he's approaching Guthrie's home just before she disappeared. So this is just before she disappeared. FBI director Cash Patel said the Bureau was able to collect the video from back end systems. Now, it's not clear how the FBI was able to collect the video. This is going to raise concerns for people who are like, hey, I don't have a subscription

package and I didn't think of my video is being recorded. So how the hell did you guys get it? Because that's what I first thought. Yep. Yep, for sure. But the FBI has access to everything. I don't know. Surprise.

Yeah, there's a lot. We talked about this a little bit in the last episode and it's going to be in tonight where there are means that the, you know, the big agencies have that they can use to gather information in specific cases that you may not know about publicly, which is, yeah, I get it. It's concerning for sure. Patel wrote on X, the video was recovered from residual data located in back end systems. So that basically means we're already seeing and watching everything y'all do all the time anyways.

Just trust us. It's fine. Now we have these images. And it's a guy who is dressed, not partly, he's not all in black. He's not wearing, you know, black pants, black hoodie. He does have a full face mask on. So his entire face is obscured. It looks kind of like he's just got regular pants on, kind of a zip up sort of maybe a half zip or a quarter zip.

His gloves look kind of like a plasticy material because they're a little reflective. But he's got gloves on, shoes, full face mask, and you can't, there's really nothing identifying about him. I'm not quite sure if you could say there was anything identifying about him. But obviously, this is the person who has something to do with Nancy Guthrie going missing. Was he working or she could be a she. Was this person working alone? I would say probably not. Were they the person sent there to kind of tamper with the camera?

It could be it. And then once that camera was tampered with in whatever way it was obscured, then the rest of the people or the other person came in and did what they did. But this is what we have so far. they do now have video and stills of this person. Do you want to play the video here? Yeah, we have a couple videos we can play, and we pulled a lot of them from Cash Patel's Twitter. I mean, these are the most...

It's X now, Derek. Oh, I apologize. X, forgive me. So the first video we're going to play is 26 seconds, and you can see the suspect walking up to the door. He sees the Nest camera, initially puts his glove, love over it. You could tell he's kind of like tampering with it a little bit. And he's trying to figure out, okay, how do I block this? So he's looking around on the ground and then he goes back

out to the entrance. And you can still see him here looking around around the 21 second mark. He grabs some vegetation from the ground and then walks back up to the camera and tries to cover it. So let's talk about this specific video and what it could mean. To me, again, just my opinion first and foremost. He is not wearing lights. This is reflective material from the straps of the backpack. However, it does appear that he has some type of flashlight

or illuminating device in his mouth. Now, looking to you guys for help, I'm following along with the community, and some people in the field of plumbing, construction, electrical, HVAC have pointed out that potentially

what we're looking at here, which I was not familiar with, is a bite light. This is a small flashlight that could be activated by biting down on it. Pressure from your bite. Pressure from your bite and it's used primarily by individuals who need access to both their hands. So makes a lot of sense. Like they're fixing electrical wiring, stuff like that, yes. Correct. And so that makes sense to me and you have to ask yourself if this person is a professional, did they just buy this light so they would have access to both their hands during these types of crimes? You can buy them on Amazon. I looked it up.

You can buy them everywhere. You can buy them everywhere. Or does this indicate that the person we're looking at here works in that one of those fields? Is this someone who's a contractor, a plumber, an electrician, and someone who may have a familiarity with this property and is using equipment that they already had on hand? It's definitely a valid question to ask. Another thing I want to point out about this video, and I'm not the first one to notice this, so I'm not taking credit for it. But if you fast forward in this 27 second video to around the five to six second mark, and you pause it, and you zoom in on this person's wrist, there's a small gap there, maybe about an eighth of an inch, maybe a quarter of an inch, and it appears that you can see something on the skin that's possibly a scar or a tattoo. Again, I don't have the equipment to enhance this. I don't think you can identify something from the still alone. However, if you identify a suspect, this could be used to confirm if this is in fact the right person.

So that is the one distinguishable thing that I saw that could be used. Someone else pointed out that a little bit further into the video, and may he actually be in one of the other ones that looks like he might have a hole in his glove or it could just be the camera and that could potentially have some type of DNA transmitted over to something in the home. Oh, I see it. Yeah. I think that's just the camera. I think it's a camera glitch because it like pops in and then pops out. I agree.

I agree with you. I'm not sold on it. And I think the other thing, there's two other things we should talk about here in this video because you got to try to take as much as you can from it. To me, the fact that he's looking around for something to cover the camera shows a lack of preparation. I agree. Like he didn't know that there was going to be, I mean, although you would have to

assume there was going to be a camera there and you should have come prepared, I guess, but he's not. What does that tell you? I mean, what does he have in that book bag? If he doesn't have stuff in the book bag to potentially, you know, block a doorbell camera or some other camera, maybe they had done previous kind of looks around her property before and they'd noticed the camera at the driveway. So they had, you know, maybe been prepared for that, but weren't prepared for the doorbell camera because they never got that close before. Once again, I'm not sure why you wouldn't have done proper sort of surveillance to see.

If you're a professional and you had a familiarity with this property, I would think that at minimum, not trying to give any ideas, I don't think this is some revelation, you would have a roll of duct tape with you. You would have a roll of duct tape with you that you could cover up any cameras that you didn't want to be, but based on his reaction

and the fact that he's looking around on the ground for something to cover it tells me that there was a lack of preparation there which may indicate this isn't some high-level professional. We do talk about this in the original episode, talking about what was this? as far as the camera being quote unquote disconnected but still getting motion alerts. And I was asking you a lot of questions about this.

This may be our answer. Maybe disconnected actually means just covering of the camera lens itself and not necessarily the motion sensor. And that's why they were able to capture that motion sensitivity. They did say disconnected, though. They did report that. We weren't incorrect about that. That's what was reported.

And we still don't know. was it maybe disconnected after he tried to obscure it? We don't know what happened after that. But either way, we do have pictures and images of this person. Could be a man, could be a woman. Let's be honest. Do I think this suggests that it's some very highly organized, trained kidnapping abduction team? No.

And that's why I'm kind of concerned that maybe all of this isn't what it appears to be. It's concerning me now that maybe this was more of a somebody who knew her inside job, trying to make it look like an abduction, John Bonae Ramsey style. I mean, listen, it could be something along those lines. It could also be someone who has been at the property before, like a contractor who has seen the layout of the land, knew that Nancy was alone. You think you know about the doorbell camera then, right? You would think, you would think, but this could also be, and what I mean by someone

on the property doesn't necessarily mean it's the contractor showing up it could be the contractor who's at a bar or at a get together with some he's talking you know exactly talking about this old woman being alone we hopefully will get those answers but to that point one other thing i wanted to point out was the gun all right there's clearly what appears to be a firearm in a holster hanging in the i'm just going to describe it as the genital area and what i can see from this is that one thing that we can determine unless this camera is inverted or mirrored is that this person would be right-handed based on the way the handle is facing. For quick-draw purposes, you would want the handle to be facing in the direction of your dominant

and so more than likely this person is right-handed. Again, unless he's just absolutely and has no, or unless he has no idea what he's doing, which, I mean, trying to put some, trying to put some vegetation on the camera is kind of not a, not a good sign. Not a good sign. The other thing to that point is, you know, I'm not saying I'm a firearms expert, but experts don't normally carry their gun in that position, in that location. That's just not a professional way of doing it. It's either going to be shoulder holstered, side holstered, or in your hand ready to shoot in case you encounter someone in the home.

It just kind of looks like it's dangling there. It's not a high-level retention holster either. So it looks just almost like a neoprene or a nylon holster that you would buy on Amazon for like 15, 20 bucks. Not something professional at all. No. So there's some things here. But, you know, on the other hand, this person did take some measures. They got the mask on.

They got gloves. They definitely have a backpack full of what you would assume is entry tools. Maybe things to restrain her with once they get inside. Right. And so we'll go through the photos here. We have the stills up. Shannon will include all these. if you see something in the photo that's identifiable to you as basically someone you know wearing this

similar get this gear please call law enforcement call the FBI let him know there's one other video i want to play too if you don't mind stephanie it's the four second video that he also posted cash Patel it's a quick video but i think it's important because in this video as we have it up right now the suspect is looking at the ground as he's walking up to the door kind of weirdly and there is a flash of light on his chest. And to me, that confirms what a lot have speculated about there being a bite light in his mouth, that he accidentally activated while walking up to the door. And I know I'm saying he and some people believe it could be a woman personally. Well, we just don't know. I think. Based on the size and stature, I'm leaning towards a male

individual, especially if we go back to the photo of the suspect from the video, it appears that the individual has a mustache. You can also kind of see his eyebrows. You can see the eyebrows through the mask. Yes. And yes, I would say they slant more towards male than female. But once again, we just don't know. So that's why I think we can say the individual, not the man or the woman, whatever.

But yes, definitely I agree. There's a bite light there. Once again, from some of the stills released, it's very clear. There's a light in his mouth. And he probably did accidentally activate it by biting down a little bit. And yeah, I agree. That's what's happening. Yeah, overall semi-automatic handgun, possibly a revolver.

There's not too much you can deduce from this, but that's the initial stuff that I see based on the facts that we have. I'm not going to go too far down the road because then I would be a hypocrite based on how I opened this episode. But that's my initial impression. But I do think the wrist tattoo potentially, it looks like it could be a cross to me. I could be completely wrong. There are some people that have tried to enhance it.

So again, I'm not the one discovering this, maybe a cross or sword, not something super helpful right now. But if there's a couple people that they've identified that are potential persons of interest or suspects, this would be something you could go and look at their wrist and say, yeah, look at that. They have an exact tattoo that matches what we can see. Was January supposed to be your big reset? Because sometimes the pressure to fix everything at once just leaves you feeling stuck. Yeah, in February doesn't get enough credit. It's still a perfectly good time to start feeling better. Exactly.

And that's why we want to talk about Grow therapy. They make it easier to reset at your own pace with therapy that's covered by insurance and built around your life. Whether it's your first time trying therapy or your 50th, Grow makes it easier to find a therapist who actually fits you, not the other way around. You know, these times I've tried and stopped, like, oh, it's not the right therapist, or they're too far away, or they're not covered by my insurance. There's always a reason of why it's not working out.

but usually it's nothing that you're doing or not doing. It's just that it's not working out. But with Grow, they're going to connect you with thousands of independent licensed therapists across the U.S. They're going to offer both virtual and in-person sessions, including nights and weekends because life doesn't stop at 5 p.m. And that's perfect for me because therapists never see you on the weekends. And I hate scheduling a therapy session in the middle of my workday or the middle of my work

week because, you know, sometimes you need time to think about what you talked about and process and you can't just go right back into the office. Yeah, and you can search by what really matters to you, insurance, specialty, identity, availability, and you can get started in as little as two days. Which is also huge. And if something comes up, which it does, you can cancel up to 24 hours in advance and no cost, which makes the whole process feel way less stressful. There are no subscriptions and no long-term commitments. You just pay per session, therapy on your time. So whatever challenges you're facing, Grow therapy is here to help. Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans, including Medicaid in some states, and sessions after. average about $21 with insurance.

Some people pay as little as zero depending on their plan. Yep. So if you're ready to get started, visit growth therapy.com slash crime weekly today. That's growth therapy.com slash crime weekly availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan. I do want to go back to what you're talking about with Detective Williams. And he may have more information than I do. I'm not sitting here trying to investigate this.

This is overall just a weird, a weird situation for me because I've been watching. the news and I'm seeing a lot of, you know, experts and some of them are, some of them are not. And they all have an opinion, right? They all have an opinion. And the law enforcement agency and the FBI have been relatively tight-lipped about all of this. So for the most part, it's speculative. And when the facts come out, maybe the opinions will change. But as far as what Detective Williams said, some of the questions that I would have, rather than just coming to a conclusion, would be how is the pacemaker app connected? How is it discontaguer? How is it discontes? connected and also how apparent would it be that there is a app slash pacemaker because those

questions would be important based on what you just said. If they are having, if the offenders are having a conversation with Nancy inside the home, because they have to have it there, then they could maybe learn through a conversation that she has a pacemaker in a pacemaker app that they need to disconnect before leaving the home. My pushback with Detective Williams would be how do we know that they were in fact still inside the home when they disconnected it? And that would go back to the how, right? My first assumption when I hear app is that it's somehow connected to a computer or a cell phone. And so if they're outside the home already maybe in a secondary location, due to their conversations with Nancy at that point, they may have learned that she had a pacemaker and a pacemaker app and they felt the need to disconnect it.

And then if that's true, my next question would be not how, but it would be why. And that question would be, what does this pacemaker app exactly do other than monitor the pacemaker? Are there GPS coordinates associated with it? Is there a tracking device in it where they can pinpoint how close the pacemaker is in proximity to the phone that has the application on it? I have answers to this because I did a previous case where the victim had a pacemaker with an app. And so I looked into this extensively. Okay.

Hit me with it. What I think happened is Nancy's phone was probably left at her home, which the police found when they went into her home. And what will happen with the pacemaker is it will disconnect if the pacemaker disconnects from the Bluetooth of the phone, which would happen if the pacemaker is out of range from the phone. Meaning at that moment they think when it disconnected, it's because Nancy was taken from the home and her pacemaker became out of range from her phone, which disdemeanor. disconnected it. Could it also be possible that it's, we keep seeing the word app and we're automatically thinking app phone when in reality it could be like one of those life alerts where there's a base station at the home and the pacemaker connects to it while they're at home?

The police said her pacemaker disconnected from her phone. They said it didn't disconnect from an app. They said specifically a phone. From her phone, yeah. Okay. So, so to me that again would come back to, yes, she could have been disconnected from the phone. But to me, just again, and maybe I'm missing the pieces of this, I don't know how he, how he basically deduces it down to she disconnected from the phone while it was still there.

Was the phone found in the home? I would assume that the phone was found in the home. Well, I mean, the phone's not with her because then the police would say, well, we know that the phone was turned off at this time and we can't find the phone. They're saying the pacemaker disconnected from the phone. Why would these kidnappers take Nancy and not check to make sure if she had her phone? on her, right? Yeah, of course. They would make sure that she was leaving her phone at home. And so when it disconnected, I would assume either the phone was shut off or it's because

she was out of range from the phone. That would make sense. Yeah. That would make sense. And they might not have released publicly that the phone was found at that location because that would be part of the guilt knowledge, right? That would be something they could use later to confirm or rule out if somebody does have direct information regarding what happened to Nancy.

Another thing I want to bring up, because you talked about. his opinions on what this means and someone having a familiarity not only with nancy's pacemaker but the area and the camera situation and knowing that the cameras weren't recording yeah active and they could stick around for a little while 41 minutes and not worry about law enforcement responding or being caught on a camera that's hidden inside the household and i want to come right out and say because i was talking to a friend who is not necessarily in true crime but this is this is expanded past true crime and they were asking me some questions. And one of the first things I said to them was, this may sound odd, but I'm really hoping in a weird way that this is someone that knows her,

that it's an inside job. And I said, the reason being is because that person would understand her current health conditions, the medication she needs, and also the proper lodging for her to be okay for an extended period of time, which why is that important? Because that gives more of a possibility that she's still alive right now. Because if this person didn't know her from a hole in the wall, and even though this was pre-planned, they may not be properly prepared to take care of her health conditions, which is not good.

Well, the police say that they didn't take her, that her medicine was not with her. I'm not worried about the medication being with her. What I'm saying is if this person knew her and this is that deep, and it seems like it's a pretty intricate operation that occurred here, they would be able more than likely on the black market to get the same medication for her at the secondary location where they could go in, go out, and have the medications available to take care of her for an extended period of time.

If they didn't take the medication and they were not aware of these health conditions, that's a major problem because they've already come out and said publicly that she wouldn't be able to survive without this medication for an extended period of time. So that's why I say I'm hoping that this person had a familiarity with her because that gives a little bit more hope that she's still with. us and that she's going to be returned safely. I want to talk. There's so much here. We could do a whole crime weekly on this. So on the evening of February 1st, the Pima County Sheriff's Department announced Nancy's disappearance on social media and then later that night, the sheriff basically came out and he

said Nancy was a missing person. The following day, law enforcement announced that they believe Nancy was abducted and taken against her will. That same night, Nancy's daughter, Savannah Guthrie, posted to her social media asking her followers to pray for her mother. Now, here's the interesting thing. As far as we can tell, there have been multiple alleged ransom notes sent to the media and family members in the days after Nancy's disappearance. And some of them, not so real, like a guy was arrested for sending a fake ransom letter or message, but this was only after the initial ones were coming in that were being reported on that it seems the police believe are real. The first one, it kind of came in at approximately 5 p.m. on Monday. So this was a week ago.

And pretty soon after Nancy's disappearance was being reported, this was sent to some news station. So it looks like the first one was KOLD News 13 in Tucson. Even TMZ has received one. So when they first got it at the KOLD news station, they sent it directly to the police. They kind of talked to the police and they agreed like, hey, we won't report on getting this until you law enforcement and the FBI release a joint statement. We'll kind of keep this under wraps. Now, apparently a demand for millions of dollars in Bitcoin was made. And once again, there's different kind of reporting,

but it looks like it was $6 million in Bitcoin. And they gave two deadlines. So they gave a deadline of 5 p.m. Thursday and then another deadline of Monday, which is today when we're filming this, February 9th. The message warned that if the first deadline was missed, the demand would change. And if the second deadline was missed, there would be a more serious consequence. They did include a Bitcoin address, but also no way for the family to contact the sender. Now, according to the police, the message included details that they had not released to the media yet.

So details. Yeah, details with, you know, someone with only inside information would know, such as like what Nancy was wearing, information about her Apple Watch, information about floodlights at her home, things like that. Now, I guess not something that the everyday person would know, but maybe something that people would know if they knew Nancy had been to her home, had seen her that night, et cetera, et cetera. Or it could be a contractor or a landscaper as well. What she was wearing, you know, what she was wearing. Oh, that particular day. Yeah, that's true.

That's true. So the second ransom note arrived to the station, I guess, at 1145 a.m. the following Friday, and both of these submissions came through the television stations tip submission service. And then I guess the second ransom message did not make any further demands, but as we are talking, we're Monday, which is where the last deadline was kind of given. And at this point, Nancy's kids have gone out. They've made multiple videos, which here's another thing. Let me talk about this first, because on Wednesday, February 4th, investigators, were seen at Nancy's home collecting evidence.

And then that night, Savannah Guthrie and her siblings, her brother and her sister, they put out a public video sending a message to their mother and like whoever had their mother. And I just found this interesting. And I'm going to say this, just because I find it odd, it's such a very intense situation. Your 84-year-old mother, she's missing. We're going to find out that law enforcement revealed they tested blood found on Nancy's front steps and the blood was a DNA match for Nancy Guthrie. So your mother's missing.

She's 84. She doesn't have medication. Her pacemaker's disconnected from the app. There's blood on the front steps that matches her. Clearly you think somebody took her. There's ransom letters coming in asking for Bitcoin. And Savannah Guthrie and her siblings put out a call to Nancy and to her captors. They put it on Savannah's Instagram.

This is where I kind of had an issue because I'm thinking, okay, your Instagram is great. And yeah, it's going to make it to news outlets, but you work for NBC. If you want to reach a larger audience right away, why wouldn't you contact the station, the huge media conglomerate that you've worked for for a very long time, who has been very supportive of you in the wake of your mother going missing, and say, hey, do you mind if I just take 10 minutes and put this out on NBC and NBC affiliates so that it gets to all these other media affiliates and it gets out there quicker? Instead of on her own personal Instagram, do you know,

know what I mean? I do know what you mean. My argument to that would be it is implied that everyone, including her network, is going to share it. I just looked it up on her social media. Right now, that video, the first one, has 15.4 million views. And, you know, the next one they did was 17.5. So I think they're looking at it like, this is kind of the funnel. We're going to use my platform and everyone in the media has the right to reshare this video, which they all have. So I personally don't have a problem with it. It's just instead of sending it to one network and making it specific to them, I think she knew that her colleagues would obviously rip that video and share it on their platforms. Or maybe she contacted them and said, hey, share this. Yeah.

Yeah, I'm sure. I'm sure. And this way it's like, hey, this is going to be the source. We're going to use my platform and then everybody is more than welcome to share this video. And let's be honest, the power of social media. I mean, I would argue is even stronger than NBC at this point. Who's watching the today's show compared to social media? I mean, this post alone, the first one, has one million likes. I mean, it's getting to a lot of people very fast, even people who don't watch NBC. I also think it could be looked at the other way where it looks like she's putting it just towards the network she works for. We're here.

She's just like, hey, listen, I want my mom back. I'm not going to any network giving them the exclusive. I'm going to share it here in my social media platform. And I want everyone, NBC, ABC, CBS, everyone, grab it, record it, share it. And, yeah, and unfortunately, everyone's covering this, which is a good and bad thing. Can we play this video for everybody to watch in case they haven't seen it? Of course. Okay, let's play it now.

On behalf of our family, we want to thank all of you for the prayers for our beloved mom, Nancy. We feel them and we continue to believe that she feels them too. Our mom is a kind, faithful, loyal, fiercely loving woman of goodness and light. She is funny, spunky. and clever. She has grandchildren that adore her and crowd around her and cover her with kisses. She loves fun and adventure. She is a devoted friend. She is full of kindness and knowledge. Talk to her and you'll see. The light is missing from our lives. Nancy is our mother. We are her children.

She is our beacon She holds fast To joy in all of life's circumstances She chooses joy day after day Despite having already passed through Great trials of pain and grief We are always going to be merely human Just normal human people

Who need our mom Mama, Mama, if you're listening, we need you to come home, we miss you. Our mom is our heart and our home. She is 84 years old. Her health, her heart is fragile. She lives in constant pain. She is without any medicine. She needs it to survive.

She needs it not to suffer. We too have heard the reports about a ransom letter in the media. As a family, we are doing everything that we can. We are ready to talk. However, we live in a world where voices and images are easily manipulated. We need to know, without a doubt, that she is alive, and that you have her. We want to hear from you and we are ready to listen.

Please reach out to us. Mommy, if you are hearing this, you are a strong woman. You are God's precious daughter, Nancy. We believe and know that even in this valley, he is with you. Everyone is looking for you, Mommy, everywhere. We will not rest. Your children will not rest until we are together again. We speak to you every moment, and we pray without ceasing,

and we rejoice in advance for the day that we hold you in our arms again. We love you, Mom. We love you, Mom. strong. So now at this point, let's talk about the ransom notes or the messages and kind of what that says to you. I mean, they're asking for Bitcoin. Once again, there's people who have said, oh, it's strange. Maybe they're not from the United States. And these are like the so-called experts that you speak about, the talking heads on all these shows. And they said, oh, they've asked for, you know, this money in USD. And if you weren't in the United States, why would you, what,

Could you say USDA? It would just be assumed. And no, in my opinion, nothing's assumed in this kind of thing. And they're probably trying to word it in a way where it just sounds very mechanical, very to the point, very descriptive, you know, so nobody's trying to pull any fast ones and give it to them in any other sort of currency, I guess. I don't think that that says anything. But the fact that the police are saying, hey, they knew things that, like, technically

they wouldn't know if they were close to Nancy or if they'd been there. do you think this is a valid kind of ransom? And if so, why Nancy Guthrie, of all people? What would have put her on the radar to be grabbed and held for ransom? Well, the obvious answer would be that they know that her daughter is famous and financially well off. I don't know if it's something more from the offenders or maybe from that community. And she's a local celebrity, if you will, where they know her. And they figured she was. an easy target, soft target, elderly woman living alone. And they learned the schedule and thought, hey, we can get in, we can take her, we can get some money out of this and move on, not realizing how big of a story this would be. And there's, and there's so many questions. First off, this whole crypto thing. And I know, I'm by no means an expert, but my understanding of crypto and I'm, I dabble in it a little bit is it's decentralized exchanges. But, and so you're removing the banks and you're

removing quote unquote the paper trail, but you're really not because with crypto, there's, there's what's called a blockchain. And the blockchain is essentially a digital ledger. And any transaction, any transaction is available on that blockchain and you can see money going in and out of specific wallets. And if you know that wallet's ID, you can actually figure out who the person is, right? And that information is sometimes shared publicly. So there was a wallet set up for this ransom. And yet that to me poses a lot of problems because we were, I was watching the news right before hopping on here.

And they had said that they had identified that wallet. And as of that time, I think it was like 2 p.m. on Monday, there was no money in that wallet. There had been no money sent to that wallet. So even if they had sent the money, my question would be how do they expect to spend it? Because even if that money goes into that wallet, they have to move it. Because there's not going to be a way for them to spend that money without it being tracked. So are they just going to let it sit in that wallet forever?

No, no, they're saying they're going to launder it. So it would go from one Bitcoin account and then be laundered into another Bitcoin account and then another. And they said this is why they're using Bitcoin to make sure it's not traceable. Obviously, nothing is completely untraceable, but it buys them more time because it makes that traceability more difficult. Now they've said, hey, the FBI is getting much better at tracing Bitcoin than they have in the past because it's a new. your form of money and you have to develop skills to get there. And you kind of have to be, I mean, there's people out there that are figuring out ways that they're just dedicating a lot of time every day, every week to figuring out ways to get Bitcoin

and then make it actually untraceable. So law enforcement's obviously not going to be as skilled at doing that as somebody who's making it their entire meaning of life to figure out how to get Bitcoin and then have it not be able to be traced. I still don't know how they're doing it. I mean, I'm not an expert on it, but from the people that I've seen talk about it to launder it. Like, let's say the blockchain wallet that they set up was 13. If they wanted to launder it to 30 different wallets, every transaction that they make, even if it's only for a penny, it's tracked on that decentralized blockchain.

So, like, unless they have a black market blockchain that we're not aware of, I don't know how they're going to move the money without it being digitally tracked. And there was even some conversation by some FBI agents talking about IP masking with emails and things of that nature. VPNs and things. Yeah. Although it's not publicly addressed and talked about, I can tell you directly that there are methods for the FBI and the CIA to go through that metadata even on a masked IP address and figure out who you are. So I wouldn't say those things now and I don't think the FBI is going to say them either. because they don't want to give these offenders ideas on how to circumvent that system. But I think it's, I'll tell you what, I think it's, I think it's a flawed system which scares me because these attackers or this attacker seems relatively prepared.

And this seems like a misstep, but maybe they're way smarter than me. Okay, let's talk about now there's another ransom note that's been delivered. So. And I don't even know if it would be considered a ransom note. It's a letter from someone who wants to help, apparently. Now we talk about this new letter that's been sent to TMZ, which once again, another letter had been sent to TMZ prior to this, but this new letter is reportedly including a demand for one Bitcoin in exchange for information

about Nancy's kidnapper. TMZ reported that the $67,000 payment, because one Bitcoin equals out to $67,000, would be in exchange for the name of the individual involved. And this letter, it contained details of a working Bitcoin address. And this is different than the Bitcoin address that was given in previous letters. So the letter, the ransom demands say, if they want the name of the individual involved, then I want one Bitcoin to the following wallet.

Time is more than relevant. They said they want one Bitcoin sent to a Bitcoin address that they have confirmed as active. It's a real Bitcoin address. And as they put it, time is more than relevant. So we have no idea whether this is real or not, but they're making a demand. I don't know anymore what's real. I don't think that the, I would say that these people are just taking advantage of the situation. And they're hoping that they get this one Bitcoin, the $67,000, and they can somehow manage to, you know, traffic this Bitcoin out and not give any information about who Nancy's kidnapper is.

We've seen this in case after case where people will insert themselves into the case. They will even go as far as to say they are the ones responsible. They'll go to the police and confess to being the ones responsible just to insert themselves somehow. Or they'll call the parents of a missing child and say, oh, I know where your child is and I have her. And just to be, I don't know, dark and like messed up and just to cause pain. So I don't think that this is legitimate, but once again, it's just the newest development in this case, which continues unfolding and is absolutely insane. And at this point, I don't think that this new demand for Bitcoin is, like I said, different Bitcoin address than the first. We don't even know if the first ransom demands are related to or have anything to do with Nancy Got Three.

They say they are, but we don't know if it's just somebody capitalizing on her disappearance. Yeah, and even the first couple notes could have been, I don't know if there was guilt knowledge in there, it could all be just opportunist. We do know that the original ransom, there was a wallet set up on the blockchain. We talk about that in the episode we recorded the other day. It appears that there was some activity on that account. $300 in Bitcoin was put in there. Not a lot. But I would assume that was a test done by law enforcement to see maybe if they could track something or if this person would open that wallet, although I'm not too familiar with that.

technology and what their capabilities would be. And I'll also put out there because Stephanie just went to this new letter that basically we learned about today. We're skipping all of the drama that happened last night. And Stephanie and I were talking about it as it was happening. I was watching Twitter until four in the morning. And the reason we're skipping over is because at least at this point, it appears it was all just a nothing burger. It was just a red herring because they were down in Rio Rico. They stopped this individual who possibly was a suspect,

a person of interest. And the short version is they detained this person, they searched their house, and then within a couple hours, he was out giving full-fledged interviews basically saying, hey, I'm a DoorDash driver. I might have delivered up there,

but, you know, they let me go. I have nothing to do this. I didn't even know who Nancy Guthr was. Is this the Carlos guy? Carlos, yeah. We won't put out his last name, but he seems like a good guy from what we can see and if that changes, we'll let you know.

But he appeared to be genuine in his answers where he's like, dude, I'll talk to anybody. I'm, I was petrified. I don't know what happened here. And, you know, I'm not the guy. So, you know, listen, missteps like this will happen. And I know that everyone's coming out to be critical of the FBI. They're trying, guys. This isn't like a movie.

This isn't like TV. They're trying to find her. And they know that time is of the essence and mistakes can be made. And they're doing so much, so much behind the scenes. that we don't even know about, you know? No, your head would spin. So they're trying. This is them trying to find her because they know time is extremely important here.

All right, Derek, we're talking about Wild Green, which is my favorite thing to talk about. And quick winter question, are you in the I Want Warm Food, but I don't want to leave my house era? Deeply. That is the season we're in, for sure. Same. And that's why this episode of Crime Weekly News is brought to you by Wild Green, which is honestly, I want to say it's honestly changed how I do meals at home. I say it has changed my life this winter. It's made me a happier person.

Yeah, Wild Green is the first bake-from-frozen subscription box for sourdough breads, artisanal pastries, and fresh pastas, and everything baked in 25 minutes or less, which feels almost like a cheating. Yeah, I mean, it is basically cheating because it tastes amazing. Even my mom, she'll help me out sometimes with the kids, and she'll have dinner ready, and she's been using Wild Green all the time, and she'd be like, she comes home and I come home and she's telling me, oh, you have to try this chabot. of bread. It tastes like it came from a bakery. Oh, this is so good. Every single Sunday morning now, it's become a tradition, croissants in the morning, whether the chocolate ones or the regular ones. And unlike a lot of store-bought bread, wild grain uses simple ingredients you can actually pronounce, plus a slow fermentation process so it's easier on your stomach and richer in nutrients and antioxidants, no preservatives, no shortcuts. Yeah, and they're also fully customizable. You've got

the variety box, the gluten-free box, vegan, and their new protein box, which is great if you're trying to at least be a little intentional. I know it's hard with bread, but this one will help. I don't care about the protein box. I do. I do. I like it. I like it. Anything that sounds healthy, I don't want anywhere near my carbs. But I will say fully customizable as in you can put whatever you want in there. So I'm getting like croissants and breads and raviolis and the yokees are amazing. And because it comes frozen, you can just bake what you need. So it's a perfect way for, you know, you to compliment an easy dinner, cozy weekends or when it's freezing outside and you just want comfort food without effort.

Yeah, there's nothing like having an artisanal bakery in your freezer to chase away the winter chill. And now is the best time to stay in and enjoy comforting homemade meals with Wildgrain. We highly recommend you give Wildgrain a try. I really, really will keep saying to the end. We love it. I love it. I'm so happy with it. And right now, Wildgrain is offering our listeners $30 off your first box plus free croissants for life.

When you go to wildgrain.com slash crime weekly to start your subscription today. Once again, that's $30 off your first box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain.com slash crime weekly or use promo code crime weekly at checkout. Not to skip around. This may come into the episode later. We talk about blood in the original recording. And I didn't have an idea of how much blood. But now we do. This is a specific image that I'll throw up on the screen right here where it's the front door. And there's two things that I can see. One, you can clearly see that the harness of the doorbell is there. The doorbell is now gone. So clearly it was removed. It was disconnected. I'm assuming that's by the kidnapper, not by law enforcement. You can also see the vegetation on the ground that we could clearly see in the previous video we discussed. And we can also see if you zoom in blood. This is something we talked about. My observations here, it's a decent amount of blood. It's a low velocity blood spatter pattern, which indicates that it was more than likely from, if they're saying it was Nancy's. So I'm going to assume. it was Nancy's, right, because of what they've said. It looks like Nancy had been either bleeding a lot as she was walking out or more than likely at that point, for some reason, they had her stop. They had her stop in that location and she stood there for a couple moments and was bleeding from either her nose or a cut that was exposed and she was bleeding while standing in place.

There's also some blood leading down the steps as well. So it doesn't automatically indicate an injury that's fatal. It could be just a bloody nose, but it does appear she was injured. And significantly enough where you have a decent amount of blood trail outside that door, which is very concerning. It is significant. And as you had said when we filmed on Monday, well, maybe it was from a previous injury. It doesn't look like that because in the doorbell camera, you can, yeah, in the doorbell

camera footage, when the guy's doing whatever he's doing with all his plants, there's no visible blood there. So this definitely happened after the tampering of the doorbell camera. And when you say low velocity, you mean basically like this is not a, she's not a fast moving person at this time. It's dripping down and she is standing or being held still enough for the blood to. And I mean, this is ridiculous. I mean, you go and kidnap an 84 year old woman. You have to injure her. This is just really disgusting to me. Yeah. Maybe she was fighting back or something. something might have happened, but basically low velocity versus high velocity. Usually when you have high velocity, it's going to be like a spray.

It'll look a little bit like a tadpole almost, where the front end will be, you know, a little bit more of a glob, and then it'll be like a tail on the end. If you look at this blood spatter here, you can see it's more circular in shape. They're drops. And their droplets, probably from, I would say, at least arm height, probably higher. If I had to speculate, I would say more than likely, the face. But that's not anything conclusive. It could easily be from the arm. But if they're trying to get her to comply with them and maybe she's fighting back, resisting, they could have hit her in the

face, which caused her nose to bleed or caused a split to her face. It could be from the butt of a gun. Something as simple as that. And if anybody knows, a head injury will bleed quite a bit, even if it's not a bad head injury, like if you just knocked your head, like that it's going to look worse than it is. I'm not saying how badly she was injured, but I'm saying that an injury to the head or face area does typically bleed more than other injuries. And it looks like, because blood is seen on the ground near the front entrance to her home with a trail going from the entrance to the edge of the driveway, she was walked down, down her front porch, her steps down the front path, down the driveway to a waiting vehicle, wherever that vehicle was parked. They did not pull up

into her driveway. So she was walked down towards wherever the getaway driver was or wherever they had parked their vehicle. And that's it because obviously this trail of blood did not continue down the street because then police would have been able to follow it. It just says to the edge of the driveway. Yeah, to the edge of the driveway. And you could absolutely be right. I would pose another theory, which I'm sure the FBI and everybody else has already looked into I'm going to pull up an image of Nancy's house. And what you can see when you pull out a little bit is that there are some dry creek beds surrounding her home.

So yes, to your point, it could absolutely be a waiting vehicle and that's why the blood trails stops. It could also be that she went off the path and there may be some other blood that law enforcement hasn't revealed yet. And obviously, if that's the case, you want to go over those dry creek beds with a fine-tooth comb because there could be evidence there that could link back to the offender or give you more of an indication of what happened to Nanty. As of about an hour ago, they said that they are searching exactly in those areas.

They're searching the streets around, the paths around, the trails around, because now they're saying they're trying to pick up maybe if the guy seen on the camera, and we know what he was wearing, we know book bag, things like that. They're trying to see if he discarded anything as he went. So I'm sure. Or drop something. Yeah. So I'm sure if there's more blood out there, then they'll find it.

Let's play this out, Stephanie. And to do this, we've got to put ourselves in the mind of the criminal, okay? So bear with us here. But you and I are going to decide to do something like this, okay? We're going to rob a house, okay? And we know that we're in an affluent area where there's big houses, expensive homes. And what are we going to assume? That she has a camera?

She has a camera, but also everybody in the area has a cameras as cameras as cameras as as well. And now those cameras are usually where on the front door? On the front doors. And they're usually facing the street, right? That's the minimal level of security most people have these days. So what are those cameras going to pick up? Our vehicle.

They're going to pick up our car. So to me, one of the first things that I would say as my co-conspirator is we can't go through the front. If we have a vehicle, even if we drive from 20, 30 minutes away, they can reverse engineer those camera angles that they pick up and identify our vehicle. And maybe there's one camera that gets a partial license plate or gets a clear shot of our car. So for me, number one thing would be to enter this property through a back channel where the getaway vehicle is somewhere far away where you would have to know the path that we took to get

to it in order to retrace our steps. And it wouldn't be on a main roadway. Well, why would the blood go down to the edge of her driveway then? I think it could be, again, depending on the level of expertise on these guys, it could have been down the driveway and then off the path to make people speculate that it could be car to have law enforcement investigating that for weeks while you're going out the back door. I mean, it's a really simple move. Yeah, that's why would they bring her out the front door and down the driveway? So maybe they injured her specifically so they would have blood that they could then drip

in a path to lead police to believe that they showed up in a car. So now they're pulling ring cameras and they're looking at the neighborhood surveillance when in fact they went out the back because that's where I would go out, right? The back where there's not going to be as much security. She didn't go as planned possibly either. We know that, right? The guy's trying to put brush on a camera when he shows up. Is it possible that when they got outside and they were trying to, you know,

discard anything that could lead back to them, Nancy tried to walk away. And they had to follow her down the path and grab her and then take her off the path. There's a million things I could throw out to you that could potentially explain why the blood's the way it is. She's an 84-year-old woman with limited mobility. So she's not going to get all the way to the edge of the driver. If you look at the drone footage of her house, it's quite a hike from the front door to the edge of the driveway. So I would say either that's how they walked her out or they want us to think that's how they walked her out. Oh, they want it.

And if she went through the desert, there's bootprints potentially. There's a lot there that I'm sure law enforcement is not disclosing right now. Rightfully so. So as far as what the police seem to have done, and I think this might be because they don't really know what else to do, right? So they said they don't have suspects. they've got these ransom letters from people that it appears have inside knowledge, but they would have no idea how to find these people, track these people. They don't know what they're doing.

They probably have cyber people on that, but on the ground. They definitely do. Yeah, the police have been kind of searching at Nancy's house and also at her daughter, Annie's house, where she had dinner that night. So it looks like they've been to Annie's house twice now. The last time was Saturday. They left there Saturday night. They were wearing gloves.

They were carrying brown bags. We don't know what they were taking. don't know what they're collecting. They've also been seen at Nancy's house. They were on the roof. They were removing something. They also looked at the septic tank. So they were searching the septic tank. And somebody said that they might be doing this because Nancy's house, when you flush the toilet, it doesn't go into like a public sewer system. It goes into the septic tank. So somebody was at her house for an extended period time, like 41 minutes. Maybe something was flushed. Yeah, some sort of DNA, something would be in there. And that's kind of where they are. Now, here's

my question. Yes, Nancy's cameras not working didn't record anything. However, she lives in a neighborhood. There's other houses around her and the police have said, hey, if anybody lives in this area, give us your surveillance footage, your doorbell camera, stuff like that. It's a little strange to me that they haven't seen anything on that footage, like a car in the area that wasn't supposed to be there, a person walking, you know, whether it's, you know, behind the house, like looking in the backyards or at the street, there doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary, which means once again, these people, whoever did this, have concealed themselves very, very, very well and either have gotten incredibly lucky or know exactly what they're doing.

What do you make of that? Yeah, I think it's a strong possibility that they did some counterintelligence and learned where the cameras were. on the other hand, I remember with the Brown University shooting, I was hearing things behind the scenes and it was being reported different publicly, but I can say it now because the case is basically over that. Providence police and the FBI had more information than they were disclosed and they had interactions with the suspect and other angles of footage that they did not share, including a vehicle that they did not share because they didn't want the suspect to know how close they were to apprehending him. So here, if there is more going on where they are on a trail and they're tracking this person and they're aware of something, like you just said at the top of the segment, it's not law enforcement sharing this information. It's the media with their drones and their vans with their high cameras and all the podcasters where, you know, they're, I don't want to say impeding their investigation, but they may be disclosing things that law enforcement would rather not be out there because there was a part, I saw a video with Brian Enton where, the FBI basically pushed all the media back because they were in the right area.

They were not doing anything wrong. But they were like, listen, we got to have room to work. And I'm sure there was a conversation where they're like, dude, these guys are filming everything we're doing. And guess who's watching this? Yeah, we don't want the people who might be responsible for this to know what we're doing and where we're looking. Yeah.

Exactly. Exactly. So I hope that it's not what you just said. And there is some video out there that they haven't released yet. And that law enforcement is keeping that close to the chest because that's the only. ace in the hole they may have. Everything else is being talked about so publicly, it's common sense to assume that the offender or offenders involved in this, and I have to assume it's probably more than one person. It seems to be. That's how they're being referred to. They've done their due diligence.

Yeah. But I also want to talk about something else you said because we talk about what investigators are doing behind the scenes. We talk about the digital aspect of this and all the science and technology that's being utilized and blockchains. I'll tell you what else is being done. I know that you mentioned Annie's house being searched and law enforcement has come out recently and said that's just part of their process. Maybe that's true. Maybe it isn't. They're going to say that regardless. But I'll tell you what is being done behind closed doors. They are investigating every single person close to Nancy, not only to see if they had any issues with her, but also to see what type of trouble they were in, right? You could be looking at a situation where a caretaker of Nancy's or someone was

in financial trouble and said, hey, listen, I don't have the money you need, but I know where to get it. this is not something new, but they have to go through and look at every single person in Nancy's life and figure out what was going on in their personal lives. Did they have substance abuse issues? Were they hanging around the wrong people? Did they have gambling problems? Was there anybody that would have this information who may have experienced something in their own lives where as a bartering chip, they gave up Nancy because they knew it would be

an easy target. And maybe in their mind, they thought, you know what? they're going to hold this woman for a little bit. They promise me nothing would happen. They'll get their money and then they'll leave me alone. I mean, it sounds like a movie, but let's be honest. At this point, this whole thing feels like a movie. And I think when you say that you mean anybody in her life,

including potential family members, which is why, yes. Everybody. Or it was there a will of something, you know, because at this point, the ransom messages, whatever they can, they're not calling them ransom letters because they're coming through electronically. But they have not, I guess, as far as it's been reporting, shown proof of life for Nancy, unfortunately, which is really devastating considering the circumstances.

And Savannah and her siblings have come out since the ransom messages and said, you know, we'll pay, we'll do whatever. But there doesn't seem to be communication at this point. And obviously they would want to see proof of life before sending $6 million in Bitcoin. Whether you have it or not, you want to see proof of life. And that hasn't happened. So yeah, it's very tragic. And I think us filming this on the date, the last deadline that was given in the ransom messages is kind of, you know, we're in a place where we don't know what's going to happen now.

Is it going to happen tomorrow where these people reach back out and say, hey, you did not meet our deadline and therefore, you know, you're never going to see your mother again? Is there going to be another bid for money? like, okay, we will give you proof of life, but you have to send the money by today at midnight, you know, what's going to happen now? Or is it just going to go completely quiet and we're never going to know what happened to Nancy Guthrie? But either way, as you said, with something as sensitive as this when you're dealing with something this organized and... Intricate? It appears to be intricate and kind of done by people who know what they're doing. there is probably definitely so much more

that law enforcement and the FBI know that we do not. So they could be on a trail. They might be on to something. They might be a day away from making arrests or they might be no closer than they were when they started. I will say you mentioned the few videos. There were three videos. There was the group video.

Then there was a video from Savannah's brother. And then there was another group video. And I want to say we started recording this. It's Monday. It's 4.45 p.m. East Coast time when we're recording this. while we were recording this, Savannah released another video on your social media that we're going to play for you right now because I haven't even seen it yet. Hi there, everybody. I wanted to come on and just share a few thoughts as we enter into another week of this nightmare.

I just want to say first of all, thank you so much for all. of the prayers and the love that we have felt my sister and brother and I, and that our mom has felt because we believe that somehow, some way, she is feeling these prayers and that God is lifting her even in this moment and in this darkest place. We believe our mom is still out there. We need your help. Law enforcement is working tirelessly around the clock trying to bring her home. trying to find her. She was taken and we don't know where.

And we need your help. So I'm coming on just to ask you, not just for your prayers, but no matter where you are, even if you're far from Tucson, if you see anything, if you hear anything, if there's anything at all

that seems strange to you, that you report to law enforcement, we are at an hour of desperation. And we need your help. All right. So there it is. Direct from Savannah, you know, just a horrible situation. And here's what I'll tell you.

And some of you may not agree with this. I'm sure there'll be some pushback when this is all done. But here's what I can guarantee you. There is no lack of resources in this case. It's reached all the way up to the president of the United States. Everybody's talking about it. And so I know that we could talk about other. cases that may not get the same level of attention and it's a it's a warranted uh conversation for sure but

now is not the moment they're you they're exhausting every resource every science and technology available to to them to find nancy as fast as possible and you know even though it's not directly impacting myself or stephanie or you it could happen to any one of us we talk about it every week on crime weekly. So I'm really hoping that Nancy is brought home alive soon and we find the people responsible because this may be part of a bigger entity. This might be part of a bigger organization that's doing this throughout the country. And yet you haven't heard about it because it wasn't Nancy Guthrie. So maybe by finding her and identifying these individuals, we prevent the next Nancy Guthrie. That's how I'm looking at it. So not you today, could be you tomorrow.

And that's why it's on all of us to do our best. Like Savannah said, if you see something, say something. If it's something in your gut, report it to law enforcement and let them decide whether it's relevant or not. We've seen hundreds, if not thousands of cases solved by some individual who's walking through a parking lot and their spidey sense goes up and whatever they say and relay to law enforcement ends up leading to the victim or the offender and or the offender. So that's what I'm hoping happens here.

Okay, guys, so that's what we have. And I do apologize. We apologize. So it's not our best put together production episode, but we didn't want to cut out everything we already did because there was some good information in there and it's tough to repeat it all. But this is what we know so far.

And that is subject to change. We're going to keep you guys updated. We all want the same thing. We're hoping that Nancy is found soon and that she's okay. And that the people responsible are brought into custody sooner than later because I have a feeling this is something that could get a lot worse before it gets better, including opportunists trying to take advantage of the situation and get rich off of it.

Oh, yeah. I caution all of you, even with us, take what we're saying with a grain of salt. Most of the people out there speaking about this right now, it's purely speculative, including from us. We're just trying to give you guys an update because we're getting all the messages saying, hey, what do you guys think? well, here's what we think, but overall, if you have any information, please contact the FBI immediately, regardless of how insignificant you think it might be.

Yeah, I think this is weird. I don't know what's make of it, but I definitely think this is weird. I think it's when, if we find out the truth about what happened, it's not going to be what we've expected it to be and what it's kind of set up to look like, but we will wait and see. That's what we have. Please, in the comments, let us know what you think. We appreciate you being here. We'll be back later this week with Elizabeth Smart, Part 2.

Until then, please, everyone stay safe out there. We'll see you soon. Bye.