The Megyn Kelly Show - Ex-Prince Andrew ARRESTED, Anti-American Olympians, and Nancy Guthrie "Today" Segment, with Dan Wootton, Zack Peter, and More | Ep. 1256

Episode Date: February 19, 2026

Megyn Kelly is joined by Dan Wootton, host of "Dan Wootton Outspoken," to talk about the bombshell arrest of former Prince Andrew, how this could lead to King Charles having to step down, the accusations so far and ongoing criminal investigations, the truth about Andrew's connections to Jeffrey Epstein, and more. Megyn Kelly discusses AOC's embarrassing appearance at the Munich Security Conference, President Trump and VP JD Vance's hilarious commentary about it, Abby Phillip’s defense of AOC on CNN, "stomach-turning" American Eileen Gu competing for China, Amber Glenn crying after lecturing about LGBTQ rights, some of the more patriotic American athletes, and more. Then Zack Peter, host of "No Filter with Zack Peter," joins to discuss what's behind the massive interest in the Nancy Guthrie case, why it's helpful to solving the crime to have so much media attention, the sheriff’s mishaps and apparent lack of urgency in the case, and more. And finally Will Geddes, security expert, and Jonathan Gilliam, former FBI special agent, to discuss the reported use of polygraphs in the Guthrie case, the real reason why the sheriff keeps giving so many interviews rather than a press conference, all the unknowns in the Nancy Gutherie disappearance, major questions about DNA and cell phone pings and witnesses, November’s Today Show “Homecoming” segment with Savannah Guthrie going back to Tucson, how Nancy and Annie were framed in the segment, all the details a potential criminal could have learned from the piece, and more. Wootton-www.danwoottonoutspoken.comPeter-https://www.youtube.com/@justplainzackGilliam- https://x.com/JGilliam_SEALGeddes- https://www.icpgroupcompanies.com/index.html BeeKeeper's Naturals: Go to https://beekeepersnaturals.com/MEGYN or enter code MEGYN for 20% off your orderRelief Factor: Find out if Relief Factor can help you live pain-free—try the 3-Week QuickStart for just $19.95 at https://ReliefFactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF.PureTalk: Tired of big wireless prices? Switch to PureTalk for unlimited talk and text for $25/month—dial #250 and say MEGYN KELLY for 50% off your first month.Sundays for Dogs: Upgrade your dog’s food without the hassle—try Sundays for Dogs and get 50% off your first order at https://sundaysfordogs.com/MEGYN50 or use code MEGYN50 at checkout.  Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to The Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone on Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. It's day 19 of the search for Nancy Guthrie. And investigators have revealed that they've found biological evidence at Nancy's home that's currently undergoing DNA testing. Is that something new in addition to the other DNA they said they found? Plus, they say they're giving polygraphs will update you. But first, an absolute bombshell. out of the United Kingdom. We said yesterday that the fallout from the Epstein files was just beginning and that we would get to the Prince Andrew allegations because it was just like separately because it was just too big for yesterday. And boy, did that turn out to be true. This morning, Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct

in public office. Emails from the January 30th US DOJ release of the Epstein files strongly indicate that Andrew shared confidential documents with Epstein while Andrew was working as a British trade envoy. This is not, at least for now, about the women. It's about misconduct in office when it comes to what should have been confidential info. For example, on November 30th, 2010 email, which is after Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 sex crimes conviction, shows Andrew forwarded official reports about his trips to Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong, and China to Epstein. He doesn't say anything in the email. He just forwards on the documents. A few weeks later, on Christmas Eve 2010, Andrew emailed Epstein directly about a, quote, confidential briefing, end quote, on investment opportunities in Helmand Province,

Afghanistan, which at the time was being run by the British military. The BBC reports there's also an email in February of 2011 from Andrew. to Epstein about an investment opportunity in a private company. The UK government says trade envoys carry a, quote, duty of confidentiality. So Andrew could be in some serious trouble here if he violated that duty of confidentiality by sharing British secrets with an American entrepreneur, especially one as controversial as Jeffrey Epstein. To make matters worse for him, misconduct in public office like this is apparently one of the most serious offenses in British law. If one is convicted, the potential sentence could be up to life in prison. There is zero chance Andrew is going to prison for life. This is, that's BS. But, okay,

fine, it does technically carry that possible sentence. King Charles, the third, meantime releasing a statement indicating that he supports the authorities. Listen to this. Quote, I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, and suspicion of misconduct in public office. What now follows is the full, fair, and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation. Let me state clearly, the law must take its course. As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter. Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all. This morning, several prominent British pundits saying this is no less than an existential crisis for the royal family and, and we'll explain why, for the British government, which many are now predicting will collapse and be replaced within weeks. There is so much more to the story for that. We're going to bring in one of our favorites from the other side of the pond, and that's Dan Wooden. He's host of Dan Wooden

outspoken. Let's talk about real health armor, especially if you're done with die-filled toxin-heavy stuff lining store shelves. Beekeepers' naturals can be your clean, no-compromised line of defense. Start your day with their propolis throat spray, a concentrated hit of antioxidants that keeps your immune system fortified. They say one sprits and you are protected. No synthetic fog, just pure bee-powered protection. Are you experiencing a scratchy throat from from winter air or crowded plains? Grab the propolis throat soother. Pair it with their propolis nasal spray to rinse, hydrate, and eliminate germs on contact. Today, beekeepers naturals is giving you an exclusive offer.

Go to beekeepers naturals.com slash Megan or enter code Megan to get 20% off your order. That's beekeepers naturals.com slash Megan or enter the code Megan when you check out. Bekeepers naturals.com slash Megan or enter code Megan at checkout. Bekeepers natural's products are also available at Target, Whole Foods, Walmart, Amazon CVS and Walgreens. Dan, great to have you. My goodness, you're the perfect person to talk to about this because there's no better royal correspondent than you. And you've been saying for a long time how unpopular Prince Andrew is within the family and within the British populace. So put this

news in perspective for us. Megan, this is historic. There has not been a crisis like this in 90 years. What happened 90 years ago, the Nazi sympathizing king, Edward VIII, abdicated. Now, there are a whole load of scenarios here that could see King Charles having to abdicate as a result of what has happened today. Remember, in the United Kingdom, he runs the court. This is the king's court. And so the idea that his brother Andrew will be on trial, potentially. I accept he hasn't been charged yet, but we are heading that way and we can get to that. There are now nine police investigations, Megan, underway into Andrews links, into Epstein. That involves sex trafficking. The former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has today submitted a five-page

memorandum to the Metropolitan Surrey, Sussex, Thames Valley, police departments about the Lolita Express and the way that it was used to potentially sex traffic women to royal palaces. And I just want to paint you the scenario that Andrew ends up in the king's court, in his brother's court. Remember, there's only one person in the United Kingdom who can't be charged with a crime. That is the king. And he says, well, my brother knew about this. And my brother paid $1.5 million in hush money to Virginia Dufray, which is what was reported last week by the Sun newspaper, my former newspaper. it feels untenable that Charles can stay on the throne.

You might remember there was a case, Megan, about 20 years ago, when Paul Burrell, Diana's former butler, was charged with stealing Diana's possessions. And he immediately brought the queen, the late Queen Elizabeth II, into his trial and said the Queen knew about this. Well, the trial collapsed overnight, because you cannot have a situation

where the head of the court is effectively on trial. So there are a whole load of machinations going on, and the one person and the one couple whose hands are completely clean in this scandal, Megan, are Prince William and Catherine the Princess of Wales. I mean, I ran a poll earlier today during my live broadcast of outspoken, and I'd say I've got a really pro-monarchy, pro-royal audience, Megan. We love the British royal family. 75% of my audience saying that King Charles must abdicate here, must hand the throne to William and Catherine.

Now, his statement that you read out made it clear, he has no intention of doing that, but there are lots of paths that I believe could see that end up having to happen. So in the path, are you saying that if Andrew calls Charles or needs Charles as a witness, like I told my brother the following, And he blessed this payment or he blessed that thing, even though he was just Prince Charles at the time. He wasn't yet king. That that could drag him right into this legal proceeding and either kill the legal proceeding or kill Charles's reign as king. Correct. Because no one really believes, Megan, that Andrew is going to plead guilty. Why would he do that?

I mean, he would get guaranteed jail time. I agree with you. It's not going to be life imprisonment. That is the maximum sentence. for misconduct and public office. But I know the type of guy that Andrew is. He is not going to plead guilty here. I cannot see a scenario. And what we don't have in the United Kingdom is the same type of deals that you can do in the US justice system where you make a plea deal. That just doesn't really happen here. So there's no real motivation for Andrew to plead guilty unless he did

want to keep his brother on the throne. So there are serious questions for King Charles. And there are also serious questions for the British deep state, Megan. I mean, this scandal has been hiding in plain sight for 15 years. I was working at Murdoch's former newspaper, The News of the World, in a senior position in 2011. We revealed those pictures. Do you remember of Epstein and Andrew in Central Park in New York? That started this whole scandal 15 years ago. Where Andrew went to visit Epstein after the conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution, pretty controversial. charge that he pleaded guilty to. And it was, of course, we now know just the tip of the Epstein Iceberg. And Andrew went to see him and stayed with him, right? At his New York...

With royal protection officers. Do you see what I mean? This is where the deep state is pulled into this. Because why have the police spent 15 years choosing not to investigate Andrew? Because they probably knew. What did Charles know? What files are included? at Buckingham Palace. We're literally in unprecedented territory, Megan, and just to give you a bit of colour about what's happening today, because we really never thought we'd see anything

like this. There are currently two teams of police on the King's estate searching the King's property. So we've got Wood Farm in Sandrineum, which is where Charles forced Andrew to move. But that

used to be the home until his death of Prince Philip. You know, the late Queen's husband. So there are police currently searching that property, but there are also currently police searching Royal Lodge, Andrew's former home in Windsor. And that's on the Windsor Estate, just a couple of miles from where William and Catherine live. So this really is totally unprecedented. And look, the one person, as I say, who has his hands cleaned. What kind of relationship do Andrew and Charles have? How do these brothers get along? Well, not great. Andrew has always been a bit of a buffoon, but the problem for Charles, Megan, is that it was him who decided to bring Andrew back into the royal fold.

So you'll remember the relationship between the late queen and Andrew was really close, right? She viewed him as his... She loved him. She adored him. She never believed these allegations. I spoke to people very close to the late queen who insisted to me. The late queen always believed that Andrew. was innocent. However, the big problem for Charles is that the queen, despite feeling that way, had completely banished Andrew from public life. She had stripped him of his titles, stripped him of his royal duties. But it was the king who made this unfathomable decision to bring

him back into the fold, to allow him to attend Christmas at Sandridum. You know, that is the number one photo opportunity of the year. He even was allowed to bring his ex-wife, Fergie. There were memorial services where Fergie and Andrew were the most senior members of the royal family to attend because Charles, he's quite a woke guy and he believed in this concept of forgiveness. Whereas you've got William who has been saying, Megan, and I'm not doing William's PR here, this is honestly a fact. He has been saying for seven years after that car crash news night interview with the BBC, where Andrew made a fool of himself, and by the way, told a tissue of lies. I mean, almost as many lies as Harry and Megan told to Oprah Winfrey, right?

Like, we know that now. And Andrew, seven years ago, sorry, William, seven years ago, said, Andrew's got to go. He's got to go. He's got to be banished. Just like William and, just like Harry and Megan have to be banished. So for seven years, Charles made a big mistake. And I also do just want to defend Queen Elizabeth II here.

Because a lot of people in Charles's court at Buckingham Palace are now trying to throw the late queen under the bus. Megan, she was 94 years old and she was suffering from terminal blood and bone cancer, something that we chose not to report at the time. She effectively had handed on the monarchy to Charles, who was operating as a regent. So when this payment of 12 million pounds was made to the late Virginia Dufre, it was Charles who had to make that decision. It was Charles who had to sign it off.

And I think it's really grim blaming a 94-year-old with terminal cancer for that decision. I mean, it doesn't seem surprising when you know, I don't know Charles's story as well, but Andrew just sounds like he would do something like that in a heartbeat. He would blame the late queen. He'll blame Charles. He'll blame anybody in his wife 10 times so. I mean, there's a lot of correspondence in the Epstein files between Fergie and Epstein, whom she loved.

And she brought her daughters, the two princesses, to go stay with him right after, same thing, right after he got out of his so-called jail. I mean, it was daytime released to his office, but technically he was in jail for a year. She seemed very close to him. Neither one of those two cared at all that he pleaded guilty to these disgusting charges. And just so the audience is clear, again, right now he's been arrested for alleged disclosure of British secrets to Jeffrey Epstein, who was not permitted to have them, not the women thing. But all along we've been looking at Andrew and whether he sex trafficked

Virginia Joufrey, meaning Epstein had her, quote, working for him. She says she was trafficked by Epstein. She was under age 17. And she says one of the men she was trafficked too was Prince Andrew, who she says had sex with her and that it wasn't consensual on her part when she was a minor and then produced this picture of herself with Andrew and Galane Maxwell in the background, which Prince Andrew would later say was fake and actually gave this interview to BBC Newsnight, denying that he even knew her. But now we see correspondence in the Epstein files between Epstein and a New York Times reporter in which the Times reporter is saying they had consensual sex.

This shouldn't reflect on you, Jeffrey. this is kind of an Andrew problem. And Jeffrey doesn't say, they didn't have sex. That was all made up. He says nothing. It seems to support the notion that indeed there was an interlude. There's also a picture of Andrew over a young girl. Well, she appears young.

Her face is blacked out, censored. Who's scantily clad on the floor in what looks to be like a sexual, playful position. And there's lots of correspondence between the two of them about hookups for Andrew that Jeffrey was going to provide. I mean, this is just as a reminder, here is what Andrew told BBC News Night in SOT 2 back in 2019. July of this year, Epstein was arrested on charges of sex trafficking and abusing dozens of underage girls. One of Epstein's accusers, Virginia Roberts, has made allegations against you. She says she met you in 2001. She says she dined with you, danced with you, at Tramp Nightclub in.

London. She went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Golan Maxwell, your friend. Your response? I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady. None whatsoever. You don't remember meeting her. No. She says she met you in 2001. She dined with you. She danced with you. You bought her drinks. You were in Tramp Nightclub in London. And she went on have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Girlane Maxwell? Didn't happen. Do you remember her? No. I have no recollection of ever meeting her.

I'm almost, in fact, I'm convinced that I was never in tramps with her. There are a number of things that are wrong with that story, one of which is that I don't know where the bar is in tramps. I don't drink. I don't think I've ever bought a drink in Tramp whenever I was there. It was just the most pathetic denial, Dan. I'm convinced I was never there.

I don't think. That's not what a truth teller sounds like. If I said to you, did you ever have sex with Virginia Joufrey, formerly Roberts, in this bar and buy her drinks beforehand, you'd say, no, it never happened. 100%. and the problem is, Megan, for Andrew,

is that we now know that these were lies because we've seen all the back and forth between him and his team and Galane and Epstein, where they even admit that the photo was legitimate, whereas you say they admit that there was consensual sex. And even more grim was the fact, because remember Andrew told Newsnight that he had actually cut contact with Epstein

after that meeting in Central Park, he was still sending Epstein emails, including pictures of his daughters at the time, sort of in their late teens and early 20s, to a paedophile. You had Fergie, who apparently was in love with Epstein and may have even had sex with Epstein, talking about the fact that Eugène, her youngest daughter, was off on a shagging weekend. And the problem that Charles also has is that he allowed Beatrice and Eugenie to keep their princesses, titles, they are still Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, and there is new reporting today, Megan, that actually they may be questioned under caution by the police, that Fergie may be questioned

under cautioned by the police. And of course, we're in this position where Andrew also remains in the British line of succession. Okay, he's eighth in line to the throne, but is that tenable? Right, that seems crazy that he could be stripped of his royal title, but still eighth in line. Why might the British government go down over this whole thing? Well, because the U.S. ambassador under Donald Trump was a guy called Peter Mandelson, who was also neck deep in the Epstein files for doing exactly the same thing that Andrew is accused of. His home has also been searched by the police. And Kirstama, our corrupted prime minister, knew about his close friendship.

with Epstein, which was, by the way, far more than close. I mean, these two, the emails are so grim. I mean, Peter Mandelson is gay, right? But they are constantly swapping emails about sex with girls, sex, sex with guys. And Stama hired him as the US ambassador, knowing about this close friendship. He is also under at least police scrutiny. He hasn't been arrested yet, but two of his properties have been searched. So it's all well and good for Stama to come out like he has today and said, oh, no one can be above the law. And of course Andrew should testify to the US Congress. But the problem is he has been covering up for his own former US ambassador. His chief of staff, Megan, has already had to go over this.

So Stama, my belief is he will be out of office as a result of this too, probably in May after the local elections here in the UK, which is going to be devastating for him. Wow. And back to the Andrew question. Is there any defense, do we know prospectively, and I know this is all just breaking, that Epstein was an investor. He was seeking his advice on whether these were good investments

for the British people, and it was no more than that. Why isn't he allowed to share confidential information with somebody he trusted when it comes to finances? Yes, well, that is the Mandelson defense. So we believe that will be the defense that Andrew takes up to. No, I was doing it.

what was right for the country. But remember, the prime minister at the time was Gordon Brown, who is actively helping the police with their investigation because he is so furious. So you've got the prime minister of the day saying, no, Mandelson and presumably Andrew, we're not working with Epstein for the good of the United Kingdom. But yes, I do believe that will probably be the defense.

I don't think it's going to stack up at all. And there could be a question about whether it wasn't good for the British people, but it was good for Epstein. I mean, that's really what I think where the police are going here, that he was doing a solid for his buddy, Epstein, who could have used this information to his advantage or to the advantage of God knows whom, and that this was a nice quid pro quo in exchange for all the girls that Epstein kept funneling to Prince Andrew. 100%. 100%. There seems very little doubt that Epstein wasn't using this to make money for himself. that's why we end up in a position where it feels almost impossible to believe that Andrew can try and say that this was in some way trying to help the British public, help the British government. Honestly, Megan, these are perilous times for Andrew, who I think will end up in jail, for King Charles, who I think is going to struggle to stay on the throne, and actually for William

himself, who is like thinking, oh my God, how the hell am I going to save the monarchy from this? Right. Right. I mean, the best way is to be himself. I mean, as you say, he's had a long history of trying to stand up against Andrew's presence, against his loser brother and his grifter wife. And I feel like the British people would welcome a King William and Queen Kate with open arms at this point, Dan. It's got to happen. Well, I can't believe.

If it happens, I'm coming over. I'm going to the coronation. I'll say with you. We'll do that one together. Thank you so much for the update. Great to see you, my friend. So good to be with you. Check out Dan Wooden outspoken.

Dan's been on his own independent and he's crushing it and you can see why. Wow, unbelievable. Okay, we'll be right back. Relief Factor loves hearing from pain-free customers and hopes they can help you next. One user of Relief Factor named Kim wrote to them to say, quote, before trying Relief Factor, I struggled just to make it through my work days. I'd collapse on the couch at night, aching everywhere. Within a few weeks of starting Relief Factor, the daily pain began to fade.

Now I'm keeping up at work and I still have energy left for my family. There are many stories just like this of parents having more love to give, but less strength to share. Relief factor doesn't just ease pain. It can restore evenings, laughter, and the simple joy of being present. If you want to feel the difference like Kim with back pain, knee issues or stiffness that is slowing you down, relief factor could give you your mobility back. Relief factor is 100% drug-free and targets the inflammation that causes pain in order to move better, feel better, and actually enjoy life again. Try the three-week quick start for just 1995. Go to Relieffactor.com or call 804 relief. Let's see if you could be next in getting out of pain.

Now we're going to turn to some news that we've been wanting to get to for a while like AOC's meltdown on the world stage. Vice President J.D. Vance has just weighed in on it and the 2026 Winter Olympics, providing us with some disgustingly unpatriotic displays and divine right order has stepped in. All right, let's get into it. So first, AOC decided to go over to that same Munich conference where J.D. Vance just tore up the place last year in stellar fashion. And then Marco Rubio was excellent this past weekend in his messaging. And AOC actually had the delusion that she could hang with those guys and make an appearance to show them what happens when a progressive comes to town. By now you've seen the soundbite.

I'm going to play it. And then I'm going to show you what J.D. Vance just said in response. Watch her first. To all of you, and Congress will start with you, would and should the U.S. actually commit U.S. troops to defend Taiwan if China were to move? You know, I think that this is such a, you know, I think that this is a, this is, of course, a very longstanding. policy of the United States. And I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point. And we want to make sure that we are moving in all of our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise.

It was a hot mess. It was a disaster. She humiliated herself and proved that she's not ready. for the international stage at all. She would have been better off doing the Gretchen Whitmer. Like, ah, gee, as a governor, I don't know anything. Like, gee, I'm just a U.S. House member. I was a bartender a few years ago.

I don't, I'll get to this international stuff when I run for president, which I'm not doing now. She humiliated herself. She, I'm sorry, humiliated womankind, if we're being honest. She did. And Whitmer was a nightmare, too. Then it turned out she had been training and preparing for this conference for three months. as reported in Politico. She had an advisor, some top political guy, who had been advising her for three months, not political as in from the magazine, but some political operative. And that's the

best she could do. I mean, this is wonderful, because, you know, she's like the great Hispanic hope of most of the left over the next few years. They really think this woman has a shot at becoming president because she is kind of cute and does social media well. Okay. All right. We'll see how that goes. Great. There's also a poll out right now showing that Kamala Harris is polling better than J.D. Vance. Terrific. You should totally go with that and believe in every point. Yes, you're right. She can totally beat J.D. Vance. I agree. Runner. Do the responsible thing. Runner. Go for it. Run Kamala. Run AOC. Run Gretchen Whitmer. We'll see how that goes. Here is J.D. at President Trump's abortion. of peace kickoff meeting this morning. He spoke and had a bunch of world leaders there talking about how Trump has helped them reach peace like Pakistan and India. And J.D. had this to say. President, very much for your leadership, but also for the kind words about me personally. I knew exactly what I wanted to say, but then after the president said that I was so smart

and that I didn't want to repeat our congresswoman who froze for 20 seconds over in Munich. Now I'm tempted, sir, just to freeze for 20 seconds. And just to just. stare at the cameras, and maybe they'll say nice things about me like they do about Congresswoman Cortez. But no, they won't. As we all know, they will never read anything nice about JD. By the way, I meant to say that the poll was between Kamala and Trump, and it's showing Kamala beating Trump.

Okay, that's imaginary because he's not running again. But in any event, if you consider, you know, JD as a sub in for Trump there and that she might be beating JD, let's go with that. I love it. Let's go with that Kamala. You can do it, sister. Here was Trump at the Board of Peace presentation this morning on that same AOC moment, SOT 19. You watch some of the people that were at the event in Munich.

They didn't graduate quickly from college. They had everything they could do. There was one young, attractive woman. She was unable to answer questions. And she didn't do so well like J.D. did in college. AOC. She was unable to answer a simple question. And she could have said, well, I'm studying it, and I'll report back to you next week. You know, you can get away with that. But she just went, uh, it's actually, I think it could be a

career-ending answer because for 25 years, anybody running against her, I think Susie is going to use that little piece of stuff. It was not good. It wasn't. And honestly, don't underestimate Trump as an assessor of what's working and what isn't on camera. I mean, he's extremely good at that. He hosted the number one show in America for some 10 years. I mean, it was insane. That's actually how Trump made a lot of his fortune later in life. He's obviously been a successful businessman, but he made boatloads of dough off of The Apprentice. And he's 100% right. She humiliated herself. And then she called the New York Times her little. stenographers over there to try to completely recast what her mission was. And they just did it. They just wrote what she told them to, as true stenographers will. But it doesn't matter because the people who saw that, all the independent voters who saw that, know in their bones she's not ready. And no amount of cleanup by the New York Times is going to change that. It's too late. I'm sorry, you humiliated yourself. It wasn't the first time. And it won't be the last. You're not ready.

and the reason you're not ready is because you're actually not naturally smart. And so if you want to say anything resembling something smart, you're going to have to study. And apparently you need better teachers because the one who was with you for three months couldn't get you to say the most basic answer on one of the most fundamental issues of our time, which is what the hell are we going to do if the Chinese try to take Taiwan? Are we going to get involved or aren't we? Of course the country has had a policy of strategic ambiguity where we don't really say what we're going to do. That's all she had to say.

We don't really talk about that. We have a policy of strategic ambiguity. Next question. That's it. That's it. She didn't know the answer. She couldn't remember the prep. You could see the little eyeballs like funneling through information.

And she's not familiar enough with, honestly, this is very basic foreign policy. We don't do a ton of foreign policy on this show. We all know that one. she's just not that bright. So that's her, although she did get a lot in the media, not just the New York Times to try to run cover for her. Here's the equally unlikable Abby Phillip from CNN the other night on her show, SOT 17.

Maga is having a field day with this one. A flab for AOC, but the question is also, what happens when the president, the actual president of the United States, does very similar things on the world stage? So, look, I'll give you that AOC probably should have been more ready for that question. But are we going to really pretend that the actual president of the United States has not made similar or perhaps worse flubs on the global? Are we really going to pretend that you're the answer to CNN's need for fair and balanced coverage and new audience?

Because you're failing. No one watches you. your audience has been cut to below 400,000, which is a complete embarrassment. You ought to be fired, and your cocky, smug sense of self ought to be wiped away in one ratings period because no one watches you. What does it say that you're the most interesting thing on CNN and literally nobody's watching you? Okay.

You don't have a long job trajectory, sweetheart. And when you eventually get fired as your network implodes and try to go out into the independent lane, you will fail there too. Because all you do is speak in a monotone and say things that attack President Trump while trying to sound reasonable, but not being reasonable, and constantly cutting off the one conservative on your panel and showing slight indignation whenever they make a good point for the... I mean, who could listen to this one? woman. It's horrible. She's got more people on her panel than she does audience members.

AOC wasn't dumb saying done, saying dumb things. She also thought it was going to be a real slam on President Trump to talk about the Maduro raid in Venezuela and some basic geography that she also didn't know. Saw 13. You know, we look at what happened in Venezuela, for example. It is not a... It is not a remark on who Maduro was as a leader. He canceled elections. He was an anti-democratic leader. That doesn't mean that we can kidnap ahead of state and engage in acts of war just because the nation is below the equator.

Okay, you're an idiot. The nation is entirely above the equator. It's not below. Just all you need is a map. That's it. Maybe they didn't have that on the bar where you were. serve in the cocktails. And don't get into it on the odds. There's nothing wrong with being a cocktail waitress. I know. I was one, actually for quite some time. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

But then when you run for Congress and actually are a sitting Congresswoman, you need to study. Then you actually do need to brush up on a few bare facts before you use them in your little talking point slams of the president. You humiliated yourself again. She's not ready for prime time. And honestly, I have had, okay, Sandy, Sandy from Westchester, Maduro, Venezuela. You do not come from there. You have absolutely no background in this department. You came from a relatively Tony private school in Westchester, which is one of the nicest, richest districts in America. Maduro, Venezuela.

Who do you think you're kidding? Sandy? It's absurd. This woman is an actress, cosplaying the part of a Latina Congresswoman. Okay, I've had it, and I'm sick of the press running cover for her at every turn. Because I know you are asking yourself,

but what does Joy Behar think about all of this? Here you go. SOT 18. Check him out before you start attacking AOC. Oh, by the way, it sounded a little humana, homina, hama, hama. But, you know, compared to him, it's like Mensa. I can take humana homina from Congress people and stuff. You don't have yourself together.

That's on you. Can't take it from the guy who says he's the leader in the free world. We really want to know what you think, Whoopi. Why don't you work on rehabilitating yourself out of your mention in the Epstein files for seeking to use Jeffrey's private jet and stop worrying about he whose name you will not speak? How does ABC allow her to get away with this shit? I mean, this is like ABC fancies itself as having one of the premier news organizations in the country. And they let this nonsense go on every day on The View with their fake conservatives there. Like the one, the blonde one, she's also supposed to be conservative.

What's her name, Sarah? She's like, if that's, okay, she's as conservative as Nicole Wallace is over on MSNBC. So, yeah, the view, as usual is not doing well. All right, now we've got to talk about the Olympics because I don't know if you've been watching the Olympics, but we've been catching some here or there. And there's been some delightful developments. We brought to you an AM update, and I'm sure you've been following somewhat, the story of this figure skater, Amber Glenn, who is extremely annoying and calls herself a woke bitch.

She decided before she went over there to get into her pansexuality and how it's so hard to be this kind of person in Trump's America because he's so awful and he hates gays, I guess. She didn't really elaborate, but I suppose that's what she's saying because she said it's been very tough for gays under the Trump administration. So she, as, you know, I guess some sort of pansexual person on the world stage decided she needed to speak out for the absence of LGBTQ rights in America, America, where gays have complete equal parity, so much so that their organizations have now been faced with a choice of either disbanding or getting on board the trans agenda. And to the extent they get on board the trans agenda, all the gays abandoned

them. Just because you're gay or lesbian doesn't mean you're a nut. Most normal gays and lesbians have taken one look at this trans agenda and said, I'm out. I'm out. It's a divorce. I just wanted to be true to who I was in my sexuality, which obviously is inborn. And I'm not for chopping off the balls and penises of little boys who have a moment of gender confusion. Not my thing. Kay, glad? I think you kind of forgot the mission. In any event, she's still out there claiming it's all the same and it's a very, very

difficult country to be in if you're LGBTQ. Okay, sure, sure it is. So she decides, rather than to focus on her skating, to focus on the letter brigade and lecturing us all about how America needs to do better. And then she was part of the women's skating team that won gold. She was one cog in that wheel. So cool. She got one gold medal.

But, oh, and by the way, after she won her one gold medal, she came out and was very nasty. And once again, came out with her little, I'm a woke bitch, whatever. I don't, do we have that, Deb? Is that not sure if we cut that one. In any event, she did come out. No. And gave a little nasty like, ha ha.

I'm a woke bitch and I'm not sorry. Well, guess what? Didn't go so well for Amber when she had to perform alone for her own individual gold medal. They had the short program the other night. It didn't go well for her. Take a look at Sot 28. No. Zero points for that double oasis.

She does triple axle and then she doesn't do what needed to happen after, which was in sort of another jump. So she's got nothing. No points. She cries on the ice. She's crying as she gets off the ice. And indeed, she placed 13th. Lucky number 13 was awaiting Amber. And I'll tell you something. It's not, maybe it is divine right order, quite honestly. But what I really think is she allowed herself to get distracted. She was so focused on delivering her, let's go LGBTQs. And really what she means is TQs, because everybody else. is fine, that she wanted to make the Olympics about her and her cause, as opposed to making it about us and our country like the Olympics are supposed to be. And you know what Americans did? Who understand the actual mission behind the Olympics and what our athletes should sound like, they turned on her. They turned on her so much she had to shut down her social media. Now, if you are at the Olympics and you have to shut down your social media, you've made a grave error. You've done something very wrong because Americans are very, very much inclined to support their athletes when they're abroad competing for our country. Very. And they will forgive a lot.

They could not care less if you have a poor performance. They're not. It's not like being an Eagles fan. I'm married to one, so I know. They'll stick by you. Look what happened to Ilya, Malin. the other night when he was supposed, I mean, he's like God's gift to ice skating. He's superhuman. His world championship skate was like the greatest skate that ice skating has ever seen. And he got out there for this gold medal performance and completely botched it. He had a terrible night on February 13th. The country didn't turn on him. Everybody felt empathy for him. We were cheering for him anyway. All we all wanted to do was give him a hug and say, don't worry about it. We're so proud of you. You'll get him the next time. And then there was a great story about how all these top athletes started calling Ilya. The only name I remember is Tom Brady,

but it really made me respect Tom Brady, have to say, very, very classy move of Tom, who called Ilya to say, like, don't worry about it, man. And like, that's great. That's a world-class a plus athlete reaching out to another to say, I've been there. I've humiliated myself. And there's nothing that a news anchor or even a civilian could say to a guy like Ilya that would be as much, as much of a soft place to fall as Tom Brady saying, let me tell you about my face plants. So that's great. America will stand behind its athletes if they fail. They will not stand behind someone who bashes the country, especially on the world stage, after we've literally wrapped them in the stars and stripes. I've been through enough

of these. We've talked about it. It's a no. It's like one of the few moments where we really feel patriotic and we get behind one another and we feel super proud of the American flag and the American anthem. You can get in trouble just not for singing. But this girl who gets out there and tries to lecture America on its civil rights because of the TQ issue, I mean, she lumps the whole thing in because she understands she's not part of TQ. I don't know if she is or not. Who the hell knows what pansexual is? That's made up too. You need, you attention needy skater. So she went down in flames and we enjoyed it. That's what happened. And what she needs to do now, Amber, Glenn, to regroup, is to take a lesson.

Okay, she needs to take a lesson from an athlete who did get it right. A skater. A skater who went out. He's on Team USA. He's on the hockey team. And he was asked after we beat Sweden how he feels. His name is Quinn Hughes, how he felt about the win. He's very measured, kind of like he's not overly emotional, but man, does he nail it?

Listen here to Quinn Hughes, top 33. USA flags all over the place You could hear the chance What's that atmosphere? Yeah, it's special. I mean, you know, I love U.S. and the greatest country in the world

so happy to represent it here with these guys and that's a very special. That's it. That's all it takes. By the way, they're about to skate in the final game against our evil top hat, Canada,

who's been cheating left and right in these games. My God, the curling controversy, I can't get over it. That guy, Mark Kennedy, who keeps getting caught, pressing the stone, touching the stone after he's no longer allowed to touch the stone. Now he's complaining that he was unfairly videotaped, doing his cheating. He's like, I was unfairly surreptitiously videotaped. Not unfairly, but surreptitiously, I guess.

First, the Swedes did it because they knew he was going to cheat and sure enough he did. And then the Swiss had to compete against him and he got caught doing the same thing. And for the first time, Switzerland went non-neutral and said, Cheater! And these refs in curling are pathetic, I have to say. Then the Canadian women's team did it too. Look at him. He touched the stone. You're never allowed to touch the stone. Look at this. You are not allowed to touch the stone, period. And you can't touch any part of the rock once it crosses that hog line. But look at him. He's touching the stone. That is touching the stone.

He touched that stone just as much as Harrison Ford romanced his. We all saw it. And apparently he did it not only against the Swedes, but then again against the Swiss. And so did the Canadian women's team. So let's see if their hockey team is just like their curling team, because you, sir, have humiliated yourself and your country. And that leads me to Eileen Gou. Eileen Gou was born in America to, I think, an American father and a Chinese mother. And she was raised here.

She went to Stanford. She had this privileged upbringing in San Francisco. All the gifts becomes this world-class skier. And then, because she got a big fat check from China, she claims it was to inspire young Chinese athletes. She decided to skate in the Olympics under the Chinese flag. So she gets all the advantages of being an American. She gets all the support from her fellow Americans.

She takes an education at an American university, and one of our most prestigious. And then she flies the coop to go compete for China, where she reportedly got a check. Okay, so that's Eileen Goo's values. And Eileen Goo is a heavy favorite to win a couple of golds this week. She did win gold earlier in the Olympics. But instead, she took silver.

She couldn't quite get it done. And someone asked her about it, and you tell me whether this is a likable person. Here she is. Do you see these as two silvers gained or two goals lost? I'm the most decorated female free skier in history. I think that's an answer in and of itself. How do I say this?

Winning a medal at the Olympics is a life-changing experience for every athlete. Doing it five times is exponentially harder. Because every medal is equally hard for me, but everybody else's expectations rise. Right? And so the two medals lost situation, to be quite frank with you, I think is kind of a ridiculous perspective to take. I'm showcasing my best skiing. I'm doing things that quite literally have never been done before. And so I think that is more than good enough. But thank you. Oh my God. She's stomach turning. The self-aggrandizing, self-flattery, The sneering, I'm the best. You will love me.

Fucking enjoy China, okay? Enjoy China. Goodbye. We don't care. We don't want you. I'm so glad you're enjoying your silver. By the way, I don't think China's going to be happy with that. Hate to break it to you. They're kind of like really prone to demands for excellence. Here's the stats on her. she's the highest paid Winter Olympic athlete in the world making an estimated $23 million in 2025 alone amid partnerships with Chinese companies, including the Bank of China and some Western companies. She's never spoken out publicly against China's alleged human rights abuses, of course, because they won't allow that. You're not going to get your payday if you do that, Eileen. No, she hasn't said anything, including what they've done to the Uyghurs and so on.

because she wants her check. And then when that reporter asks, like, the sweetest thing, like, is that a win of two silvers or a loss of two goals to the person who was favored to win the goals, she gets her nasty sneering self onto a reporter who probably makes $35,000 a year to effectively slap him down because she's Eileen goo for China. Well, fuck off. Enjoy China. Okay?

See how you do over there. And she's, oh, she's somebody who also spoke out in defense of that Hunter Hess, who was ripping on America, too, the skier. And she thought it was just fine for him to do all that. And he ripped on ice, remember? And she got quick to get his back because she loves people speaking out about human rights at the Olympics. It just won't be her, you see, because, you know, you could, like, get the death penalty in China if you say any of that shit there. But she got her medals and she got her endorsement deal. She got to make that blue collar reporter feel like shit.

So big win, Eileen. Literally no one over here is rooting for you. However, we are rooting for our American men's hockey team in a game that starts in about half an hour. We will keep you up to speed on that. Coming up, Zach Peter, for the first time, I love this guy. I've been telling you he's coming. And today it happens.

You know Pure Talk's favorite holiday? It's President's Day, because they believe wireless service should only cost you a couple presidents. Just a little Jackson and Lincoln, to be exact. For just 25 bucks a month, Pure Talk gives you unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data. Now compare that to Big Wireless. They'd rather celebrate the Benjamins, Mr. Franklin, to be exact, and his day, so they can charge your family hundreds every month. That's not right. You deserve better.

Pure Talk is an American wireless company who supports our veterans and invests in a U.S. only customer service team. So when you call, you're talking to someone right here at home. Pure Talk uses the same towers as the big carriers. So enjoy superior 5G coverage without the inflated price. Just 25 bucks a month for talk, text, and plenty of data. No contract, no cancellation fee. What are you waiting for? Just dial pound 250 and say keyword Megan Kelly.

And you will get 50% off your first month. Again, dial pound 250 and then say, Megan Kelly, to make the switch to peer talk. I want to turn now to the latest on the Nancy Guthrie case, including a new hit piece from none other than Inside Edition, taking aim at YouTubers on the ground in Tucson. Yes, they're the problem, the ones trying to call attention to a missing 84-year-old, essentially telling them to pack up and go home, which is what the local representative from Tucson also said, a Democrat who told them to go home. you going to find Nancy? What are you doing to find Nancy, madam? Meantime, criticism of Sheriff Nanos is reaching an all-time high. My next guest, I discovered through the Blake lively coverage, but he's been covering the Nancy Guthrie case like no one else. And I have quickly fallen in love with this man. He is amazing. Here are just a few clips and why I fell in love

with Zach Peter. The sheriff just said Savannah and her entire family, siblings and and spouses included are cleared in the whole case of their missing mom. Is the investigation over? No. Do they know who did it? Also no. So do they have evidence that clears the entire Guthrie family, siblings and spouses included? The sheriff said, and I quote, Not going there. Not going where to find the missing lady? What does that even mean? Let me get this straight in this Nancy Bonaid Rampi case. We're on day 17 now, because we're still looking at this as a kidnapping. When nothing about this fits the profile of a

kidnapping, and if anything, it looks at It looks like a murder and a kidnapping cover-up, but whatever, let's continue to go down this wild goose chase of some random old lady snatcher that still has Nancy Bonae Ramsey. None of it makes sense. I don't like it. I think I'm done. I think I am fully done with Nancy Bonaeramsi. Okay, forgive me, I'm just getting back from the gym. And every time I tell myself, I'm going to stop covering this Nancy B'nai Ramsey case.

Like, it just sucks me back in every single morning because now Sheriff Nannan-N-N-N-N-N-N-Nos is on his celebrity press tour. Okay. I'm sorry, but Nancy Bonae Ramsey is very clever. You got to laugh. This whole case has been so dark and Zach Peter helps us do that while he helps keep us up to date on the latest. Joining me now for the first time is Zach Peter. He's hosted the podcast No Filter with Zach Peter, where he gives some hilarious hot takes on pop culture news and more. Zach, welcome to the show.

Thank you for having me. You're so funny and you're so clever. And I feel like you're exactly where I am on this case. where it's like, I'm out, I'm done. This is such bullshit. And then you're like, I'm back in because there's like a new nugget where you're like, I've got to figure out what that means. I know.

I mean, Megan, I feel like at this point we're one OJ glove short of a circus because it is just whack-a-doodle crazy every time. Now we have a reality show. I mean, it's just every day I feel like I'm at Guthrie fatigue and then some new piece of information comes out that just throws me in another tizzy. Yes, same. So like the reality show info came out yesterday that the sheriff's department has been cooperating for a reality show about their department, though it doesn't feature, what do you call him Sheriff Banana. Nana. Nana. Nanos. He's not the star, but his department is. But yeah, reality TV show was all this whole thing was missing. So, I mean, notwithstanding the fact that you're so funny and you find a way of making jokes out of this, which I really do appreciate. I always find humor in the dark even the darkest news it's the way you can handle it you really have been

following the case closely so i want to talk to you about a couple of like where you think it's going because i think what you've been saying lately is you're just not buying the official messaging like something stinks to you yeah i mean in terms of where it's going we're going into a snowstorm like the case is going cold we're not getting any new updates we're day 19 headed into day 20 we have no suspects we have no leads we have no dna matches on any of the evidence we're whether it's one of the 20 gloves that we're out there searching for or the DNA inside the house. Like, there's no information. We have no clear idea of where to even look.

And I feel like we're still looking at this as a kidnapping when statistically, you know, these things have profiles, right? Whether it's a kidnapping or a burglary or a crime against somebody that's elderly, there is a very clear pattern and there is statistical data that follows that pattern. And this has none of that. And it's so strange to me that, you know, I mean, I'm saying Sheriff Nanna, Nana, Nanos, he's on his Taylor Swift Life of a Show Girl Press Tour right now. And the Guthrie family, it's so strange.

I mean, you've been covering cases for a while. For me, this is one instance where we have someone that's missing, and we are seeing the family, like, very, very little. There's no press conferences. Press conferences, we're not seeing them out searching for their mother. We're not getting daily updates from them. I'm trying not to judge them, but like every day, I'm getting more and more curious about what's really going on and what information we're hiding because it feels like the public is not getting the real story. It's a very good point.

We have seen so little of the Guthrie's. We haven't even seen them out, you know, joining in a search or like helping with the grid, you know, pattern where they walk the grounds. Prayer vigil. I mean, prayer vigil or like even an everyday update. Like this is, please keep the pressure on. Please keep looking for our mom. It's just like every once in a while, they drop like a 30 second video being like, if you have our mom, please return her.

It is a little odd. And not even they. It's just Savannah at this point. The rest of the family is dipped out. It's just Savannah. And she gives us like a quick, a strange quick update. But it's even the tone of the video shifted from, you know, we're going to pay the ransom.

We're right. We're ball. Like we're a family and we're in. We're going to pay. And then suddenly the tone of the video is completely. changes and they're not addressing was the ransom paid are they going to pay it why did they suddenly deflect from the ransom because sheriff nanos is out here giving us the impression that this is still a kidnapping and there's some strange old lady snatcher that's out there that has nancy in a bunker

somewhere nearly 20 days later and i'm just like this is an 84 year old woman she needs medication she can't walk on her own and you know we have no sense of urgency you know even his interviews yesterday. He was just like, you know, very monotone, like, you better return her. You better bring her back. And I was like, oh, that's going to really scare this old lady snatcher. Or Savannah's like playing with them and saying, like, you know, please bring her mother back. We believe in the goodness of humanity. And I'm just like, this is a man that you guys believe has kept this elderly woman somewhere for two, for over two weeks now. And we think suddenly he's going to have some compassion and be like, oh, yeah, let me just drop her off at a local gas station. Like, I just, it doesn't make.

make sense to me. It doesn't make sense to me either. And the sheriff is like, he's an enigma that guy. I don't understand what he's doing, right? He no longer is having press conferences. He's just doing like a one-on-one round robin with news organization after news organization. Like, maybe he thinks he's going to do better in like a one-on-one setting, but he just has to keep repeating the same thing over and over and over. So what do you make of that? You think he, like, in a way, it's more exposure for him because he just gets a bunch of play on each one's network. Listen, I get it. He's got his J.C. Penny's finest, and he's out there doing all these interviews. But, like, it doesn't make sense to me either because the interviews that he's doing contradict the information. I mean, we saw Sunday evening

we got an interview that says that nobody has been cleared, right? No one's been cleared in this entire investigation. And then suddenly, you know, 12 hours later, not even a full, 24 hours later, he's unilaterally clearing the Guthrie family and saying that they're the victims. And I'm just like, actually, no, we need to remember the victim here is Nancy Guthrie. This 84-year-old woman is still at large. We have not found her. She is the real victim. And until you bring her home and have someone in handcuffs with real evidence to pin this crime, you can't

clear anybody. Like, I'm not a detective, but I've watched enough true crime to know that nobody is cleared. And in a case like this of a missing person's, the circle. that you look to is their immediate circle, which includes their close family and friends. So the fact that he did that, and he made such a jarring, you know, 1-6, 180, clearing the family, to me felt like that was pressure from the family that's like, hey, the internet is starting to think that this is us. You need to do us a solid, do us a favor. And that kind of feels like what he did. And based off of the experts that I've heard, you know, it seems like this was a personal favor

rather than a strong judgment call on his hands. 100%. And meanwhile, it's like, well, if you don't want us to focus on the family, we're happy not to. Just tell us why. You just explain to us what, like, did they all take in past polygraphs? Like, what is it? Is it a DNA thing? Have they all been able to account for their whereabouts on the night in question?

Just like, you cannot just 24 hours, not even, after saying no one's been ruled out, say they've been ruled out based on no new information and ask us to swallow it. It may be true. I don't think it is. I don't think he's ruled anybody out. Because then the very next day, he changed it to, they're not actively suspects. Like, I'm not actively investigating them, however you put it. I'm not leaning towards it. They've done nothing to, like, make themselves suspects. I'll get the exact language. But he waffled on it again. So we all know that this is a gift he gave to Savannah Guthrie, the one he says he's in touch with, not Tomas and Annie. Right, which tells me he's enamored with the celebrity. profile of this case. And he, I mean, if he's willing to put his professional career, because it was so

interesting that his statement even called out the media and said that they need to stand by their professionalism, I'm like, excuse me, sir, you need to stand by your professionalism and not get enamored by the celebrity profile of this case, because just because you get a call from presumably Savannah, because as you said, that's the one person that he said he's been in the most contact with, with the family. And he hasn't really talked to Annie or Tamaso, which from what we've seen, they were the last person, they were the last people to have presumably seen Nancy Guthrie alive. They spent the night with her before she disappeared. And there's a lot of eyes on them, right?

We've seen the officers in and out of their home. We heard that there was one of their cars that was towed. And we're not getting any real clear answers as to why they, were they prime suspects? Did you do enough to find out that they're no longer prime suspects? And if not, then give the public some answers. Because as I've also been very clear, when it comes to the public interest in this case, we, the public, are funding this investigation. The local sheriff's department and the FBI are being funded by local Arizona members and by all of us, right?

These are FBI resources that are going into this. And from what we've seen, the Guthrie family has not offered up a single penny to help with this investigation. It does seem like that right now, right? They just received an anonymous donation of $100,000 to one of the tip lines. the FBI raised its own money for the $100,000 reward. The other one is anonymous. I suppose it could potentially be from a family member, but I'd be surprised because there was somebody saying

he was going to donate the $100,000 to that other tip line. So it's anonymous, but I don't know if it's really anonymous or if it's the guy who said he was about to do it. Meanwhile, I have something to show you with the sheriff. I saw it on X today. I had noticed the crying in one of the interviews he did, and I was like, that's very strange. I don't think I've ever seen like a cop running an investigation until like something devastating

happened. You know, like I've seen cops like a child has died and been tortured come close to breaking down when they have to tell you this is how it's landed. But that's not at all where we are in this case. And this cop is, this sheriff is giving interviews to everybody and their brother. And as it turns out, he's been crying like on a dime. And it seems to me to be an affectation, but I'd love to hear your opinion. Watch, we put together a little montage. What gives you hope that Nancy is still out there? Wow. You have to have hope. Do you have to have hope? Come on. This is somebody's mom. We're going to find her. I don't, you know, we're just not going to give up hope.

We hope she's out there somewhere. So you still believe this is an active rescue mission at this point? We hope so. I know you've been in contact with Savannah, who we know is in Tucson. What is your message to her and the Guthrie family

and all the viewers who care so much about Savannah? We're not going to give up. We'll get this. Sheriff, we thank you for your time. I know you're busy, and I'm going to be praying that you find Nancy. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right, Zach.

What do you make of that? I mean, I get it. We're in this era of men are allowed to cry, and we're, you know, dominating toxic masculinity. But sometimes we need to bring back a little toxic masculinity because I don't need the sheriff running this case to be in tears with every interview. If that were my mother that were missing and I saw sheriff going around giving all these interviews rather than, you know, focusing on the investigation. and then crying in every interview as much as like, okay, yeah, I have a little compassion for you, but I feel like the family would be deeply troubled by this.

Me is just, you know, a member of the public viewing this and seeing him in tears just doesn't ring of much professionalism. It seems like he's in over his head. He's either performing these tears or, you know, he's way too invested, right? Which, again, makes me question his professionalism and his, you know, his badge at that. this point. If he's not able to separate personal from professional, I mean, you're on the force. You're seeing crimes that are horrific that, you know, we the public hope to never see these details of,

you know, in some of these horrific instances. But like, you can't even get it together for one interview. It doesn't make sense. I mean, I was surprised. Like, I saw it the one. I was like, you know, this is an emotional case. Maybe he just lost it. And then his brother, I think, died in hospice care the same day Nancy Guthrie went missing. So I'm like, okay, he's under strain, but this is a lot, this is a lot of crying for what's supposed to be a grizzled southwestern U.S. sheriff, you know, like, you want those guys with their thumbs and their belt loops and their gunslinger hanging there, and they're going to like kick anybody's ass who messes with somebody from Tucson. That's not exactly what we're getting. No, that and like, this is a missing person, right?

And he keeps saying in every interview, he believes Nancy's alive. I mean, I feel like, and he also said it's going to take years for him to crack this code. So I feel like in eight years, when he finds her alive, you know, we'll have a happy ending to this case. But, like, it makes, it doesn't add up. If he thinks she's still alive and he's trying to find her and they're hoping that they can bargain with this old lady snatcher, this alleged old lady snatcher, then I'm like, then why are the tears? Like, you should have hope, right? You want people to have hope that she's still alive. So go find her. And where's the urgency?

Exactly. I've heard you make the same point. And I feel the same. Where's the urgency? Why is it like, we're going to use the Florida lab. And then we'll just run the results again at the FBI lab. but a bunch of stuff has to happen in between then and now. And then reportedly the Florida lab was actually closed over the weekend, delaying things further.

And I'm going to go to a basketball game in between. But like she's, I'm crying. I'm crying. And I definitely believe she's still alive. But it could take years because I have a lot of basketball games to go. It's just like none of the things makes sense. No. There's no urgency.

You know, he doesn't seem to have much conviction in any of the statements that he's making. So it's hard for me to even have hope. And it's like, again, we have to factor in. This is an elderly woman. She needs medication. She can't even walk on her own. I'm sure transporting her isn't easy. Like, this is where you should be the most, you know, vigilant with trying to be on top of finding her because you know there's a race against the clock.

So what do you think? I mean, no one's like, no one knows, but what are you leaning towards as the operative theory? I think something happened to Nancy very early on. I don't believe the kidnapping story. To me, it's just statistically and based off of the, you know, profile of a kidnapping, it doesn't make sense. You know, you don't steal old ladies and babies, right? There's, they're too much of a liability. There are too much work.

Transporting Nancy is not easy, right? It's not some young teenager or, you know, a young girl in her early 20s that you can just throw over your shoulder and take her to Mexico and tragically put her into the trafficking ring, right? It's not, it doesn't fit the profile of a traditional kidnapping. And also, the ransom notes of it all, like, this isn't the 80s. It's so strange to me that in 2026 with the president of the United States, the FBI, the sheriff's department, and all of TikTok trying to crack this code that we have absolutely nothing. So to me, it feels like I'm leaning towards there's some information that's not being presented and I'm curious as to why. Either the sheriff is completely incompetent or he's compromised in some way.

I don't want to go down the conspiracy route of saying he's being paid off, but like it could be that he's so enamored with the celebrity profile. that he's allowing his judgment to get in the way. And then you factor in the early reports that we've heard of him, you know, not being very cooperative with the FBI. So maybe he fumbled the ball and made a lot of mistakes early on. And so now he's just trying to cover up what a terrible job he's done. Or he's trying to protect for somebody in the Guthrie family. Something in my gut and my instinct keep going back to the Guthrie family

and there being some sort of connection or tie. And anybody that's watched my show or watched my coverage of these cases, I've always been very good with my instinct. I called out Blake Lively the second that New York Times article dropped. I called out the L.A. fires the second, you know, they tried to tell us that this was, you know, climate change and the embers were flying 45 miles to light up all of Los Angeles. I've always had a really good instinct. And my gut instinct here is telling me there's some sort of connection to the family

and they know something that they're not telling the public. I mean, I certainly hope the latter part is true because what they are telling you, telling the public is all over the board. Meanwhile, you've got, you know, that paragon of journalism inside edition weighing in to tell the YouTubers and influencers and other social media stars, get out. We don't want you. Completely oblivious to the fact that everybody who's got a missing person in their life would kill to have this level of attention on their missing person case, whether

it's an inconvenience to the neighborhood or whether the social media stars sometimes get things right or wrong or not. But that's not what we heard. Here's Inside Edition. And they're featuring the annoying Arizona state legislator Alma Hernandez. Take a listen to this in SOAP 52. Cops say they've had it with the army of YouTube streamers camped out in front of Nancy Guthrie's home. We're here at Nancy's home to try to just get some information. True crime influencers from across the nation have done. descended on Tucson streaming for hours on end. Now there is a person that they did spot with a backpack going through someone's game.

Any snippet of information becomes major breaking news streamed live. They're actually doing more harm than good right now. Arizona state legislator Alma Hernandez has a blunt message for the streamers. At the end of the day, if they really, truly want to be helpful, they should probably go home. because Alma's going to solve it. She's going to get out there, Zach. I'm sure she's going to single-handedly bring enough pressure on the local PD and the feds to make sure that they devote every resource to this case.

Because let me tell you, as soon as these influencers and all these media disappear, so did the 400 officers. Oh, for sure. I mean, she's just embarrassed for her county, right? She's embarrassed for all of Arizona because, I mean, what a laughing stock they've become. This went from being America's grandma to this entire case becoming America's latest meme, right? TikTok videos, Instagram memes, all over X. Like, it's just the investigation has become such a joke, which is so tragic. And my heart breaks for the Guthrie family that this is

where the investigation for their missing mother has gone. And to have somebody like Alma come out on Inside Edition and attack the YouTubers and the TikTok sleuths, I'm sorry, we've seen now that the internet has been an instrumental piece in helping to solve cases in recent years, right? So the fact that she just wants everybody to go away. It's not because she thinks that they're hindering the investigation. It's because they're highlighting what an embarrassment Pima County is and their sheriff's department. She's embarrassed that it's a reflection of her community that she's a part of.

She's a representative of. So that's the real reason she wants us to stop covering this is because she's embarrassed. And she should be. Why doesn't she run that by the Guthrie family? Because I have a feeling that they want attention. And Savannah, of all people, would understand that you're going to get. at NBC when you want attention, and you're going to get YouTubers. That's the nature of the game in 2026 America.

And sorry. I can't let you go. I need to defend these content creators because they're giving us live coverage. Like Brian Enten is boots on the ground right now, and we need to really acknowledge that, like, they're giving us real-time updates. They're not waiting for a segment that's scheduled, you know, on daytime news or on the Today Show. They're giving us real-time updates, and the public is being informed by them because the sheriff isn't giving us this information.

It's true. As we speak, I've just got this update from Brian's YouTube or his ex-feed, just crossed into Mexico to see if people have heard of the Nancy Guthrie case. He's doing the work. He's crossing the border. He's following the cops. He's, you know, he works for News Nation, but he also, he's on his own. And it's his independent journalism that's really been driving a lot of the news in this case, including that I mentioned he just reported last night that they are using polygraphs now in the Guthrie case. All right, before I let you go, I've got to ask you, can you just weigh in on the Justin Baldoni Blake Lively case? Because there were settlement discussions last week that do not appear to have worked out.

So it does appear that this case is barreling toward trial in the spring. Where do you stand on it? And what do you think is really going on in that matter? Shocker, they didn't reach a settlement. I had heard of some of the terms from both parties and what they were requesting in those settlements. and I did not have faith that they were going to reach a settlement by the end of it. We have trial that's set for May. I think Blake Lively's best case scenario.

Right now, Baldoni's team has filed for a motion for summary judgment. They're trying to get her case tossed out ahead of trial. Judge Lyman has yet to actually weigh in on that. I think Blake Lively's best case scenario is that the judge guts her case completely because should it go forward to trial, I think she would be obliterated by a jury because from the evidence that we've seen that's been made public on the docket, it's she's such a laughing stock and I think her reputation will be completely obliterated should it go before a jury because they will laugh her out of that courtroom so I think her best

case scenario judge Lyman guts her case she can come out do her press tour say she's going to appeal say that the law is against women the patriarchy is winning and you know a rich entitled actress can't get her case heard before a judge or before a jury rather and you know she can say that she's still going to be a champion for women. And, you know, she can run that BS narrative. But, I mean, trials... It's not going to happen. She's not going to get thrown out.

I don't think this... I love Brian Friedman. He's my lawyer, too, but I don't think this case is going to be resolved on summary judgment. I think they're either going to have to settle or go to trial. The only sad thing is, unlike Depp v. Heard, it won't be on cam, right?

Because federal court doesn't have cameras, so we're going to be stuck with a sketch artist trying to bring us the drama, much sort of like P. Diddy. It'll be like the P. case, which we managed around, but it wasn't quite as good as having the actual cross-examination. Zach, whatever happens, we will be having you back on to talk about it. Thank you so much. Thank you, Megan. What a pleasure. Okay. Coming up, we're going to have more on the Guthrie case,

including a deep dive into that polygraph news and then an update on the news that we brought you yesterday from Fox News Digital on these searches that were being done online for where Nancy Guthrie lives and what Savannah Guthrie's salary is. All right, that's right after this break. When it comes to your dogs, why does there often seem to be compromised when it comes to their food? It's either fresh and healthy or easy to store and serve. But with Sundays for dogs, you can get both. Founded by Dr. Tori Waxman, a veterinarian and mom, who got tired of seeing so-called premium dog food full of fillers and synthetics.

She designed Sundays. Air-dried real food made in a human-food-grade kitchen using the same ingredients and care you would use to cook. for yourself and your family. Everybody's clean. It's packed with real meat, fruits, and veggies. No weird ingredients, no fillers. And best of all, just scoop it and serve it. No freezer, no thawing, no prep, no mess. Just nutrient-rich food that fuels their happiest, healthiest days. Consider making the switch to Sundays. Go right now to Sundaysfor-Dogs.com slash Megan 50 and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use code Megan 50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at Sundays for Dogs.com slash Megan 50.

Here with me now to break down more on the latest in the Nancy Guthrie investigation is Will Gettis, security specialist and founder of international corporate protection and Jonathan Gilliam, former Navy SEAL and FBI special agent and author of Sheep No More. Guys, welcome back to the show. So the latest today, and there's only a couple of headlines, so we'll make it a quick one today, is this from Brian Enten, who reported this late Wednesday. I was able to confirm that they are using polygraphs when it comes to clearing people in the Nancy Guthrie investigation and that it's been going on for a while. I just, I'd actually heard about it for a while, but I was able to finally report it today just based on the sources that I was talking to.

And this is pretty common in other cases that I've covered. You know, polygraphs, essentially lie detector tests, are not admissible in court. But the law enforcement, the FBI will use them behind the scenes during the investigation just to clear people. And so that is happening in this case. And I'm told they have used polygraphs to clear people in the Nancy Guthrie case. So that's new. Okay. But then Fox News is Matt Finn.

About an hour and a half after that reported, Sheriff Nanos tells me the polygraphs today are for new hires. And then Brian Enton responded an hour later saying the polygraphs I'm reporting about were not today. So it's pretty interesting because the sheriff, I don't know how Brian found out that polygraphs were being given. I didn't hear him say exactly who told him in that report. But clearly the sheriff tried to tamp it down by saying those were for new hires. But Brian's information goes back to earlier. So it seems to me, you tell me, well, but it seems like he's trying to hide the fact that he started to polygraph people, which we were told earlier in this case.

is not a standard practice for the sheriff's office. Yeah, it's an interesting one, Megan. Thank you again for the invite on your show. The problem with polygraphs is they're not a precise science, despite what one may have heard or seen certainly on TV and in the movies. And where it is precise is if, for example, I said, and yeah, I was doing a polygraph on you, Megan, and said, did you go to Starbucks this morning,

you would come back with a typical yes or no. Now, that would be very easy to determine. If I said to you, because you'd had a bad morning, Megan, did you go and get a coffee at Starbucks and intend to rob the place? What it won't be able to pick up is intent. So it's a sort of base level. It's not the answer to everything.

But the fact that they're using it in the background is kind of interesting in terms of determining certainly just some of the categoric facts. of what they may want to identify in terms of people's movements or people's specific activities. And remember, it has to be, it's based on specificity. I'm trying to get my teeth in today. That's a tough one. It's a specificity. I hear that. I, you know, I'm of two minds because I do find it very telling. Like, whenever you listen to the dateline and they give the polygraph, the murderer always fails it. Like, you rarely hear that he passed it when he was actually the murderer.

they usually fail. So I think it's probably hard to beat them. But I know they're unreliable to the point where they're not admissible in virtually all courts, Jonathan. So what do you make of it? And I also do wonder, given how protective this sheriff suddenly is of the family, whether he would even bother giving one to a family member versus like a landscaper or a pool cleaner or a maid. Well, I'll tell you, in this type of situation where polygraphs work very well is in statement analysis. So you got to remember that the polygrapher, is a statement analysis expert. It's not just a machine. The machine really is a game that they use to test the response that a person has. And that's where you can actually see deception. You can't really see a lie. It's not like it has some kind of special vision to look inside the body.

But what it does is it maps certain things that they say, which you would be so surprised how people say things certain ways when they're lying or when they're guilty. So they pick up on that. The machine picks up on things like sweat or spikes in the heart rate. Very little. It doesn't take much. And so in this type of situation where they're bringing people in to quickly see if they

have done something or if they have an understanding or any knowledge of an incident or an action, then they may be able to get in the totality of those things, they may be able to get some hits on it. because if you do know how a polygraph works, it's easier to defeat it. But if you don't know how the whole game works, it's very difficult. And most people just don't know, especially when you're grabbing people very quickly in a situation like this. Yeah, there's no way the landscaper knows how to beat the polygraph. There's just no way.

And also, as far as like, would this sheriff, would he use the polygraphs now on family members, I mean, according to him, they're all cleared. Now, we know that at the beginning, I went back and listened to the whole timeline. And it's, he was saying that, you know, nobody is ruled out. That's in the beginning. But this is a-

Said that on Sunday. This is the same sheriff, though, that I was just reading through the timeline right here on February 2nd, which is a day and a half after Nancy went missing. He says that they were going to give the investigators. They had stopped the investigation, or shut it down to give his team time to rest. And then the very next statement, he says,

we believe now after we proceeded or we processed the crime scene that we do, in fact, have a crime. This guy makes no sense. So he could be using. I know. And that was his excuse for calling off the search and rescue, which is so weird. He's like, we have a crime, so we're going to stop the search. Well, what do you mean?

It's bizarre. Don't we need a search either way? Like clearly we have a missing old lady. Why are we stopping the search that never made any sense, Will? Megan, it's defeating me in terms of some of the logic that we're seeing in the way that he's executing the management of this investigation. And I think the stress is already beginning to show and the cracks are beginning to show. You know, I was watching the show earlier. How about all the crying?

Exactly. Why is he crying all the time? That is not going to instill any kind of confidence in the family or anyone else for that. matter and I would have no doubt, although I'll let Jonathan speak on behalf of the FBI. It wouldn't give me any faith if I was in the investigative arm of the FBI committed to this particular case in the integrity and the credibility of some of the actions that the sheriff is actually undertaking. But the fact that he opened, you know, from beyond the points that Jonathan's just made, that the fact that he opened up, the scene of the crime, the house,

didn't maintain and hasn't maintained accordon and the fact that he's discounted immediate family members when there is no discernible or determinable reason or understanding as to why Nancy is not in her house and she has disappeared and there are evidences and traces of blood that can be corresponding to her showing on her doorstep. It's the whole thing's just getting a bit bizarre. I'm not a detective but I have gleaned that you're British. Yes. And I imagine that that you go by the stiff upper lip policy, which it means no crying unless it's like a severe, severe need. Like an immediate family member has died and you're at the funeral and a prayer is being said.

Like I don't, you're a southwestern sheriff in Tucson, Arizona near the border. What are you doing crying all the time? I didn't realize it had been happening in like every other interview. And to me, it looks like he's intentionally calling up the tears. Which I, like, why? Jonathan, same thing. like you're in law enforcement, like you had a lifetime in it. I just feel like it's a very, very limited window where cops can cry. And it's usually over a deceased child or like something incontrovertibly, incredibly sad

that any human would not be able to stop themselves. But that's only on conclusion, Megan. I mean, that's on conclusion of the actual case. And it's the determination of a body, is the determination of the crime. And then that empathy can show through. But as the old saying goes over here with the stiff upper lip, is there's a time for tears. And now is not that time. If you want...

Right. Jonathan, I feel like you never cried on the job in this kind of scenario. I cannot see it. Only because of the bad management. I would sit and weep often because of that. But Megan, if you really want to see the reality of these tears from this sheriff, go look at the interview that John Huddy from Newsmax did with him, where he gets enraged because John asked him a simple question. And I don't remember what the question was,

but it wasn't a pointing question. He just was trying to get some facts. And he just was enraged. Was it John or Brian? He also had an explosion with Brian. I saw that as well. So, you know, who is he talking to when he has these tears or these red eyes? He's talking to the liberal media.

I mean, I hate to bring it up like that, but that's the absolute truth. And he is a Democrat. But it does seem like it's an affectation, Jonathan. To me, it seems like he's, forcing it. Like whenever he gets to like, oh, I really hope she's still alive. To me, I feel like he's calling up something that makes him sad. Maybe he's the death of his brother recently. And like forcing it to show us he's this like empathetic man. Like we've got a sheriff in command who's like feels our pain. And maybe he knows his jurisdiction well. And that's what these

Democrats in Tucson want. But I can tell you out here in the heartless media, it's definitely not what I want. I want a tough as balls cop who's in there like kicking ass and solving crime. I think it goes beyond even an act. I think what I've seen from this type of personality and this liberal type of mentality is that when they're talking to people that they identify with, they present their emotions. When they talk to people that they don't identify with, the only emotion that they present is anger. That seems to be the case in most of these situations. So, you know, I listen, as long as the investigators that are on there doing the real work,

are working hard and diligently doing what they need to do. I think we'll get closer to resolving this eventually. But I just have lost faith in law enforcement executives. I mean, I lost faith in that long time ago when I left to hear it. Listen to this. Here's the former Pima County Chief Deputy Sheriff, Richard Carmona, who has spoken out now on behalf of not just himself, but it sounds like some other law enforcement out there in Pima County in SOT 53.

Many of my colleagues in law enforcement here had some concerns with the way the sheriff was managing this, and especially his communication or very poor communication to the public, making statements that were, well, quite frankly, just awful and incorrect, and taking actions that were incorrect as well. So a number of us decided we needed to say something about it because we did not want it to reflect on our community and the Sheriff's Department, which has been an extraordinary law enforcement agency that I worked with for three decades and had a national reputation. But this aberrancy hopefully will go away

and we'll get back to doing what we're supposed to do. But we're all, I speak for most law enforcement in Southern Arizona, that we are very unhappy with the way this sheriff has conducted himself during this very important investigation. In asking what my colleagues feel, all of us have been very embarrassed with the way law enforcement has been represented here.

Let me tell you something. Will. I think I know why the sheriff's doing one-on-one interviews with media now instead of a presser. Go on. No FBI. You don't have to worry about the FBI. It's just the Sheriff Nano show. It is the Sheriff's show. That is absolutely so obvious. I mean, he, and the thing is, is it also is showing that he doesn't have the experience to be able to manage a case like this. I've managed some instance, which have been significant and undeterminable in the first instance. And it takes some time to actually pick it to pieces to determine and find out and establish what's actually happening or what has happened. And these are marathons. They're exhausting. You'll work and operate on Little's Sleep. And he fits

the profile, the type of individual that, you know, comes in very robust in the first instances, but cracks after a very short period of time. They have little puff inside them and they are spanked within a very, very short period of time. This is endurance. And it's all, also something that we were talking about last week, Megan, which was you keep this information close and you're very cautious about what information you release because inevitably, and particularly in these times of social media influencers, anything you say is going to be interpreted. It's going to be scientifically torn apart and forensically torn apart by analysts like ourselves, like Jonathan and me and your other panel members. And we're going to interpret it based on our

own experiences. And to me, he's just showing that he is not strong enough. If he lost his brother recently, that's awfully sad, but he should be taking compassionate leave and move this entirely over to the FBI, second his team to them. They can crack on, do the actual work, and ensure that the messaging is accurate, but also limited. That's very important. And consistent, not like, no one's been ruled out. Oh, all the family's been ruled out. Wait, no, they haven't been ruled out. I did pull the language. They have not been identified as suspects, which is not the same as ruled out. Like all over the board, the rest of us all have whiplash and trying to keep up. Now that I'm updating the record, I want to update two other things I said in the show.

It's not the men's hockey team that has the final today at 115. It's the women's American hockey team against the evil top hat neighbors, Canada. And then the men's are still going into the semifinal. And if they make it, then they'll play on Sunday. I think my team told me. And one other correction, courtesy of my husband, Doug Brent, romancing the stone was Michael Douglas, not Harrison Ford. Okay, that's good. I got all my movie trivia is straightened out. Excellent film. Now back to the case. I want to talk about the possibility of a second suspect. I have a couple of things to show you here. We've talked before about the one image released by Cash Patel, where the perpetrator on Nancy's doorstep isn't wearing his backpack or his little reflective,

I don't know if they're reflective bands or flashlights. I've never figured that out on the backpack, but he definitely had that mouth light. None of that is on him. And his face mask looks like it's on backwards. You can't see eyes or a mouth in the one shot of the guy. People are comparing that shot and it's background where they're looking at the sky to what we know is the actual abductor on the night in question who does have all the gear on and has the lights on his face. And the night that Nancy was taken, it was apparently a full moon. It was brighter out in the sky than it normally is. they don't allow really a lot of lights on in Tucson. And you can see that in this side by side,

that where we see the for sure abductor, the guy who messed with the doorbell, the sky's a little lighter. And then on the right, you see the guy without all the stuff on him. And this guy is definitely darker. And every time we've taken a close look at these photos, we see the difference. The sky is lighter with backpack man and it's darker with non-backpacked man. And that has led to some people saying, maybe this was a dry run by the same guy, or maybe this was a a different guy. Maybe this was an entirely different guy. And here's the second piece on, I don't think it's a different guy because the outfit looks the same to me, but okay, let's just keep an open mind. Here's the second piece of that. This is, again, thanks to somebody online,

who took a look at whether the suspect, you know, getting the vegetation and messing with the ring doorbell, and ask the question, is it possible he's actually about to not. that he was about to knock on that door with the theory that somebody might have been inside, like an accomplice, might have been inside the property. Let's look at that VO. It's V-52. And I know what they mean. You see the guy with the backpack walking up.

It looks like he's about to knock right there. And then instead he sort of turns and he gets, I mean, it does look like he's knocking on the ring cam there. But what do you guys think about the possibility that A, there were two of them, or B, that those two photos were not even taken on the same night and that the one photo of the darker background is this same perp doing recon in advance of the big night. I think when we look at that video, it depends on where that camera is located because if it's right above where the doorknob is, it almost looks like he's reaching to see if the door is unlocked as he covers the camera. That's what

that almost appears. You can see the doorknob right there. So he's reaching for either the doorknob or that might be something that has to do with the screen or a glass door or something. But you can see the knob right there. I don't think that he was, what was, what were you saying? Where he put, he was getting ready to knock. I don't, I don't see a knock movement. I see a cover up of the, of the camera at that point. And as far as those two pictures go, I see the same exact individual. I just don't see the, the light reflecting as brightly. There could have been something in the way of the camera at that point of time, it looks like it's darker. And so, you know, and I think if you enhance this in any way, you'd probably see that there's

eye holes. I mean, you can kind of see them in that same jacket, same reflective strip that goes across, just not reflecting. So it depends on when they caught this. But I would say from stature and clothing and the colors of the mask and the gloves, it looks like the same exact individual. What do you think, Will? Well, my gut is leaning on your second question, Megan, because I agree entirely with Jonathan and his perspective on that. My position on whether there was more than one person there on the night would be leaning more towards it being a single individual. And the reason for that is based off one of the sheriff's spurious briefings in interviews that he gave.

When the question was asked, and I spoke with a panel during one of the breaks last night about this, he was asked about the retriever of the cameras and the recovery of obviously the imagery from Google from the Ness camera and what the journalist sadly missed the opportunity of is that the sheriff mentioned cameras in the plural and the journalist didn't sadly press him

to ask him how many extra cameras there were and my hopes would be that if cash released one photograph if these other cameras were there unless they had failed, and there's no reason why the sheriff couldn't say, you know, those cameras weren't operational and they had failed for one reason or another, why there wouldn't have been footage captured from those of a second individual who might have been coming into the rear of the property. So at the moment, until some evidence is proven otherwise, I think we're only looking at one individual.

But that's on the night of Nancy's disappearance. This advanced reconnaissance, that's not untypical. Even burglars might come and do a what we call a soft probe, and that is just to test the house to see what security there might be, what levels of resistance they're going to have. The one thing we know with burglars, they're always looking for that path to police resistance. So they want it to be easy. And that's why I've discounted the fact that this is potentially a burglary. I think there is more to it. And obviously, the fact that Nancy's disappeared.

What that actually is, again, we have yet to find out. Yeah, we don't know. Updating the report on the Google searches yesterday, Google pushed back on the Fox Digital Report somewhat. And they say Google Trends does not show actual volume of queries. Just to update the audience yesterday on the show, we broke the news that Fox had broken on its digital property, that they had found, Google Trends had found somebody had searched for Nancy Guthrie's address on Google. on certain dates preceding the kidnapping, abduction, and had searched for Google images of her show,

and then someone may not have been the same someone, searched for Savannah Guthrie's salary. And now Google, after the, you know, later in the afternoon, they push back with Fox News Digital saying, we do not show actual volume of queries. So the suggestion that an individual person did a given search is not something you can claim, at least not based on our Google Trends tool.

Very important, they say. For queries with very low or even no search volume at all, Google Trends charts will show statistical noise as a privacy protection measure. Because of this, Google Trends charts are not definitive evidence of a specific search having occurred. It sounds like they're trying to say they'll only register it if a few people searched for it. And if it's just like one person, you would see it as noise on their trend line. And but something showed up that Fox Digital found it and they were clearly pointed to it. Like they say Fox News has learned and I don't know who pointed them to it. So I'm not sure if it's as solid as they led us to believe it was yesterday. Fox has changed its report to an internet user may have searched for Nancy Guthrie's home address in the weeks prior to her abduction. And there may have been activity for her address in the Catalina Foothills, Phil Hills before she was abducted, which may have been seen again on January 11th. And then they say her salary, Savannah's salary, may have been searched from Tucson sometime

just before the abduction. So it's a little softer today. We got to, we got to say about our serious XM. Well, we got to sign off for this hour because I'm going to turn it over. I'm going to have to take an ad. But we're going to come right back. So I'm going to get you guys to weigh on this right after the break, and then I'm going to show you a segment from the Today Show in full that I want your reaction to. Stand by. Hey, everyone. It's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius XM. It's called the Megan Kelly Channel, and it is where you will hear the truth, unfiltered with no agenda, and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren, Morin Callahan, Emily

Drosinski, Jesse Kelly, real clear politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news, only on the Megan Kelly channel, SiriusXM 11, and on the Sirius XM app. Back now with Will Gettis and Jonathan Gilliam. All right, guys, so what do you make on Google Trends pushing back on the Fox Digital reporting and saying you can't really know what you purported to know? And if it were just like one person doing a search, it wouldn't register at all. Well, thoughts. Okay.

Would you like my cynical side, Megan? My cynical answer. My cynical answer. Well, my cynical side to this is Google is a incredibly capable organization that works primarily and entirely on data. And that's data collection and data transferral and distribution. So in terms of things like trends, my cynical side would be that they allegedly would have the capability to capture the IP addresses. of any kind of search in any particular kind of area. And we saw, certainly, by some of the Snowden releases,

certainly in terms of a prism, and that operation, which was capturing lots of people's private data without their knowledge, that allegedly they may have the capability to be able to do so. So I think Fox, pouring back on their statement, yes, perfectly understandable. And unless we knew exactly what the back end is to the trend system, it's very difficult to say either way,

whether they could or they couldn't. But I think the issue for Google would be there is a certain amount that they need to keep behind the curtain. If I was a big data company like them, certainly I wouldn't necessarily be revealing all the things that I could potentially do. I totally like that answer.

And the reason I like it, Jonathan, is I worked at Fox for many years and I feel pretty confident that they have no contacts at Google whatsoever. Google is a left-wing, woke Silicon Valley type company that is not Fox territory. However, Fox does have very good connections with law enforcement at the federal and local level, including the FBI, which sounds exactly like the kind of organization that might have figured this out and knows that it happened and possibly

leaked it to a friend at Fox Digital. And then Google would have possibly freaked out and said, no, no, no, no, no, we don't do that, right? Like, and the Fox softened it. But my feeling is Fox probably got this from law enforcement, probably the FBI, and therefore I continue to believe it. I would say that they probably got it from the NYPD. You know, NYPD as an incredible intelligence unit, but they also have a terrible habit of leaking things to their buddies in media.

And so that could be where that came from, you know. But when we look at, again, you know, You know, Megan, I always come on here and say the totality of the circumstances when I look at all the things that we do have that makes sense. And then I'll look at this one Google thing that they have, whatever you want to call that. I wouldn't call it evidence. But, you know, people look up other people that they see on TV all the time. And then they look up how much they make. You know, they find out they live in Arizona.

Maybe they live in Arizona. And they look that up. I don't, yeah, I don't put much stock in that. I wouldn't discount it. I mean, if I could dig something up and find an IP address. I would do that. I mean, crazier things have led to solving a case. So I wanted to say one thing, I don't know. Especially if it was the same person. Yeah. If it was the same person who looked up Savannah's salary right around when they looked up Nancy's home. There's one thing that we talked about or you

played on the other show that I would still think that law enforcement needs to look into some of this stuff was the excerpt from the book where she talks about the kidnapping game that she had with her cousin. And I did a, you can look on, on X. That segment went everywhere, by the way, everywhere. You would not believe the number of people who have contacted me over that. Everybody I listened to that, their face looks exactly like mine did when I was listening to it. I was shocked. And so I did, I've been talking about this, about the distance they could have traveled before the sun came up if they were there until close to three o'clock in the morning. And twilight is about 540. So I did a post on X where I show a circle that encompasses anywhere you

you could go within basically two hours because I believe that's that is where they would at least have either dropped her body if they had it or they would have stopped and waited until they could move her comfortably and as the sun comes up, it's a terrible time to be moving somebody. And that's about two hours. And what's interesting is inside of that space, when I was re-listening to that last night, that segment, she talks about how they would, her cousin would put them in the car and then they would go and stop somewhere between Tucson and Phoenix and call the mom. And when I heard that, listening back to that, that's within that circle heading towards

Phoenix. And, you know, I mean, stranger things have happened where either somebody heard this or there could be some family member who has some kind of weirdness about fixation on them and they don't like them and they basically did the same thing. I would start looking between Tucson and Phoenix. These are the types of clues that you could go on. If you're going to look at one search on Google, then you should be looking at this type of stuff as well that is so coincidental that it's creepy. And so it is so coincidental. This is where social media influencers do a fantastic job, by the way, where media or where cops say, yeah, social media influence will say, yeah, I'm going to look at that. Yeah, I totally agree. I don't have it in front of it. Well, we named

the woman who found it who, who we got it from when we first did it. And it was a, so, social media person. It's like the same person that all these inside addition and this local representative are saying, get out and stop covering this case. No, it's a no. Go ahead. Well, no, I mean, again, in addition to what Jonathan was saying, the one, the two things I'm really interested in is the retrieval of any footage in the neighborhood by neighboring residences of the patterns of behavior, any particularly unusual vehicles that can't be attributed to any those residences or to a particular business or to a specific individual that could be discounted. It's that pattern of life happening in the neighbourhood, which I think in the preceding weeks,

which is really key. Because anybody who's going to be carrying out a malicious attack, murder, assassination, kidnapping, they're going to plan their operation remotely. They will retrieve as much information through open source, you know, going on to Google, going on to Google Earth, looking at various things, seeing if the fabric, the landscape has changed right up until the very last minute for when they actually carry out their operation. And the second thing is the cellular data

and the cellular data from the local towers. It will be mapping again and attributing some of the IMEIs to various residents and determining what... Some of the ones. The IMEIs to the residents. So the particular handsets to... What's an IMEI?

IMEI. So that's the identifying number to each handset. So your cell phone will have a totally different one to Jonathan's, as it will to mine. But what it will do is it's your own personal signature to your device. And it will be very easy and very simple to actually go through that data very, very quickly to determine, okay, this IMEI is the immediate neighbor to the left of Nancy. This IMEI is the neighbor to the immediate right, opposite, so on and so forth. And what other IMEI is, and they can be white listed, and then you can narrow it down to any new IMEIs they've come in.

You can then attribute those to DoorDash guys, to delivery guys, to UPS, to all those until you start narrowing the field to, is there one that keeps showing up? And it should be done over a period of time. So, Will, I mean, here we are going on, you know, we're two and a half going on three weeks since she was taken. Yeah. Wouldn't they have that data already? Does this, should we be concluding now the guy did not have a phone on him? I don't think he'd be professional enough to go on this operation. I mean, the way he was carrying his far arm, I would say he was indicative of his level of professionalism.

Yes, he had a scheme mask, but hey, you know, who doesn't these days. I think they may very well have that data. But we did see, Megan, you showed that footage, was it yesterday or the end of last week, where there was someone up a ladder on a neighboring house, retrieving one of the cameras which was there. So that would tell me that they haven't gathered all. all that data yet, but I would hope that the network's working with them, certainly on the cellular data, and would be providing that pretty quickly and expediently. They may be sitting on it whilst

they're joining this jigsaw puzzle of evidence or intelligence together. I would be, if I was, they probably are. That's one of the first things the Bureau does in most investigations. So I'm pretty sure that they've, they've pulled that information. But I would be going back and pulling that all the way back, you know, month or months before and looking at that period in time. I mean, I didn't even know until this show that there was this other picture that you guys showed. I didn't see any report of that for whatever reason. And so that shows you that, and also the Brian Colberger case, you know, they went back and looked at how many times that phone had pinged around where he did that killing prior to that. So they have to go and look at that period in time a month or as long as they can and see if there's anybody pinging because he may not add his phone on that time.

but the other time he might have. And I think that's very important. And, you know, we also have to say it is possible they're doing that. You know, as in Goldberger, when they did look like Keystone cops and we were all like, oh, my God, how can they not have caught anybody? You know, crime that happened mid-November and they made the arrest Christmas week. That's longer than we are right now. You know, it's about six weeks later he got arrested.

And here we are two and a half weeks. And so they could be doing in this case what they did in Colberger, which is maybe they do have a cell phone that they suspect. And they're running the numbers to see how many times that cell phone has come by Nancy's and who it might be associated with. And maybe they are waiting on genetic genealogy on DNA that was found inside that. Like, that's how they got Colberger. You know, but in that case, and we don't know in this case if they have it.

In that case, they knew they had something belonging to the murderer in hand, that knife sheath. In Nancy's case, we just don't know. They haven't said that. All they've said is that there's DNA inside. the house that doesn't match Nancy and doesn't match somebody they would have expected to find it from, like a maid, et cetera, or Nancy's relatives. So it's, does that mean it's the abductor? Yeah, do you remember one of the things that we mentioned last week, Megan, which was about the 70% rule, and this supplies obviously in kidnappings, and 70% of kidnappings, if this is indeed a

kidnapping, there will be someone close to the target, to the hostage, that will have some conic activity. And that happens in the vast majority of cases. And having worked a number of these cases over the last 30 years, I've found that always to prove out. So again, they may be holding back on giving information. And to a certain extent, let's hope so. And it's not the sheriff just being incompetent and spilling his guts every five minutes on contradictory statements. So let's hope that the Bureau are holding on to some of that data. They may not necessarily be sharing it with the sheriff, I don't know, but if I was there, I wouldn't be until I've got a few more pieces in the puzzle figured out. And I also think... They reportedly want this case and they can't get it because it's up

the sheriff to give it. Go ahead. I also think that they should look at, so one of these other pictures and any videos they find, as they go back and they say, okay, this is the first time we see this individual or the first time we see this phone ping at this period of time, I would be looking at who was working in that area at that time. Was anybody newly? hired. She has a new roof. We talked about, you know, is that when that occurred? Because that's how people, you can kind of start to see a timeline on when somebody started to key in on this house. And that's why I'm still, I'm just not really focused. Your previous guest that you had on before us said a comment, and I love it. Kidnappers don't want to take babies and old people because

they're really hard to deal with. Babies, I think they could do that and get away with it if it was a very rich family. I've worked a case where somebody, usually it's parental kidnapping where they kidnapped their own kid. But with an elderly person who's injured, I just can't, I can't wrap my head around somebody injuring the person that is 84 years old and bad health that they're going to try to get money out of. I would see them tying her up and carrying her out before I would see them injuring her. And that's why I'm just, I keep going back to this burglary gone wrong. And if we see that this individual was casing the neighborhood, that leads, I think, more credibility to that. And in which case, again, I would have expected him because the way that Will was just talking about,

kind of the stupidity that he showed and the arrogance and the comfortableness, those people, when they get into a situation that they're not familiar with, which is like, oops, I just shot this person or I just hurt them inside the house, they will sit there and panic, potentially for 40 minutes or more before they figure out a way to move her. I just, and if that's the case, then I just think she's going to be within probably a two-hour window somewhere in that area. And so this is one thing I do want to point out. It's a little off topic.

But if anybody saw anything on that day, which I believe was February, the morning of February 1st, if they saw anything within two hours of that home, it looked like somebody was, something or they were moving suspiciously within two hours of Tucson, they should report that because if law enforcement could go there and find DNA of Nancy and DNA of anybody else, then I mean, it's right there. And I think that there's a possibility that somebody saw something two hours away and never even thought about it. And if I was long, that's the messages that this sheriff should be putting out, is that people should be looking that far out. All right, last but not least, I wanted to touch on this.

We've shown now a piece of the Today Show segment featuring Nancy when Savannah went back home to Tucson for it was like a homecoming series that they did for all of their anchors. And my executive news producer, Canadian Debbie, we call her, she's been saying since the beginning, you've got to show the whole thing. Like, show more because it's a very, like, very telling piece of tape that they ran. we've shown the only part that shows Nancy, but I'm going to show you guys what they put on the air involving Savannah leading up to that moment when we included that moment in it. So just look at this.

I'm really excited about this. People ask me, where are you from? I'm always proud when I say Tucson, Arizona. I grew up there, went to college there. My mom still lives there. And honestly, a part of me has really never left. I can't believe it. I'm back.

This is my alma mater, the University of Arizona. It's just as beautiful and sunny as it ever was, but I want to meet some real students of today. Zines with Savannah on the cover. I know just where to go. Not from here, but where is everybody? Welcome back home, Savannah! There's a marching band suddenly.

El Charo is the oldest family-owned Mexican restaurant in America, and the perfect place to catch up with mine. My mom Nancy and sister, Annie. I come here every time I come home to Tucson. I have to come to El Charo. How long has El Charo been here? A hundred to three years. Cheers. Cheers. I love being home. Don't drink the whole thing. Mom, you guys came here in the 70s and you'd been moving all around. What made you want to stay in Tucson and Troutes? And so wonderful. Just the air, the quality of life is played back and gentle. Yeah, I like to watch the Havolina eat my plants. But the best thing about Tucson is coming home.

Yes. Should we raise a glass? Fricly Fair Margarita. Cheers. Cheers. Cheers. Love you. Love you.

From the love of family to the familiar beauty of the scenery, I will always be a daughter of the desert. Okay. So when you watch that, we see that play out, Jonathan. What jumps out at you? What do you think? Well, first of all, that was in 2019. Is that correct? Is that? No, no. That aired November 5th.

November 5th. Okay. So for some reason, again, Nancy was taken February 1st. So the date in which that was kind of, is kind of telling because that is recent, not far away. I think there must have been something. When I looked that up, I saw a date of. Oh, they're always doing that. Right. So, they're always doing stuff.

So that's, I mean, that would lead more to the possibility that somebody latched onto that and that somebody may have seen that and then searched her. I would like to know when they, that search was, or they said it was right before she disappeared. I guess what I'm saying is these timelines and when these things occurred. Well, listen, wait, let me just tell you, the Google Trends thing and the Fox News report said that Savannah Guthrie salary may have been searched. Now they changed it to may have been from Tucson between December 13th and December 20th.

So it would have been a month after that. So, you know, I don't know. I look at these different things that occurred and it's hard to put them together. But it's always possible that somebody clicked and they saw that and then they started planning from that point forward. So that could be why it took a while for them to get to that point. But I tell you one thing I did notice is how her sister, again, I don't want to bring anything up, anything up. And I know the sheriff doesn't like this. But her sister just kind of seems like the sidebar of the conversation. And again, when you have one sister who's famous, one brother who's a fighter pilot, and then you have a sister who is a poet who's married to a guy in a band.

It's just, I don't know. When I look at all these different... And they're doing the labor's work on the mom. And they're the ones who live the closest to the mom. And maybe the ones that aren't the closest, even though they live in proximity. I don't know. I wouldn't rule them out. And those are things that pop out to me quite a bit.

And by the way, so that there's the one search for Savannah Guthrie's salary dating between December 13th and 20th. then they say between November 30th and December 1st, a Google image search for Nancy's address. So it's not long after that segment. It's not the day of the segment, but the segment then went up on the Today Show's website and has lived there ever since. What jumps out at you, Will, watching that? Well, I think the dates are very important.

If Google came back and said that the search was actually foundationed or initiated out of Tucson, that would tell me that Google has a great deal more information about the IP address than it does anything else. And it does say, it does say, may have been searched from Tucson. Savannah Guthrie's salary between December 13th and 20th. Oh, by the way, we also record these cameras that you don't know. There's a lot that Google's doing, I think, it's being very clear here that we're able to see. Yeah, through its Nest camera. That's exactly right.

The guy in Ring, we played this yesterday. He was like, our cameras don't do that. If you don't pay for this a subscription plan, we don't record. There's no extra tape lingering anywhere. But Nest, thankfully for us in this case, but to the surprise of many Nest camera owners, is recording even when you don't think it is. Now, that's an interesting aspect, isn't it, Megan, that they will actually be recording when you believe it's passive or it's not actually operating. So again, having operated in some darker areas of the cyber world, let's just put it that way, and I probably weren't elaborate,

And let's just say there's a lot of capability and technology out there that the general public is not going to be aware of some of the abilities that some of the big tech companies have. And I would say there was a bit of a reveal in the fact that the search was initiated from the Tucson area because that's a little too precise for my liking. That's such a good point. Let me tell you what I noticed in that video having now watched the whole thing. It was done, you know, within two months of the time Nancy Guthrie was abducted, went missing. She said my mom still lives there at the beginning of the segment. So you didn't even have to watch long to find out where her mom lives. She then said it again and interviewed her own mom, like, what made you want to stay in Tucson all these years?

So now again, we've reaffirmed that the mom lives in Tucson. They show the name of the restaurant, El Churro, and she says, whenever I come home, this is where we go. So now you're getting closer to knowing what neighborhood she's in because no 84-year-old travels 30 miles to go have her dinner. She said this is one of the family favorite restaurants. And so now you're getting closer and closer to where Nancy is. And same thing you just said, Jonathan, about the family dynamic. The sister, she's not even given a speaking line. Like, I'm sure the sister said something.

But not only does she not get to speak at all, not one word of her. is aired. But look at the setup piece. It is a marching band for her sister. It is a hero's welcome at the sorority. It is Savannah's face all over the magazines as kids on the campus are, you know, allegedly reading magazines about Savannah Guthrie. And she just happens to walk by and they say, no, can't be. The table where they were sitting. It is the. It's like she's all crammed up next to her mom and their sisters over on the other side eating shrimp cocktail, not even, looking. Yes.

She's running heard on the conversation. She's driving it because she's the anchor of the show and of the segment. The sister barely has a bit part. I'm just saying it's like, to me it's relevant for a couple of reasons. What is the sister feeling? It's possible she's feeling total pride and, you know, joy in her sister's success. It's also possible she wasn't and that there's a level of envy since I guarantee you she was doing the lion's share of all the work with Nancy and Savannah wasn't.

Savannah may have been paying for some of those caregivers, but there's, you know, it's different when you're the one who is there. You know, my sister and I just went through this with my mom. My sister was, she passed, unfortunately, a couple years ago, but she died at 58. And my sister was living with my mom. My sister was definitely taking care of my mom physically way more than I was. I was paying for all my mom's expenses. But, you know, my sister was doing her part because an 80-some-year-old lady does need a lot of help, a lot of physical help, and it can be difficult on the caregiving child. So there's that dynamic. But the second thing is, it's not a great idea. It is not a great idea with the general population to parade around your hometown,

tout what a star you are, how beloved you are, what a, you know, what a celebrity you are as a news person. It's in my view that can only lead to bad things. It can lead to envy by some at home toward you because there are a lot of people who actually are not rooting for you when they see things like that. It can spark somebody's idea on like, I'm going to end that. I want to disrupt that. I don't appreciate that joyful, I'm a celebrity and everybody loves me situation, and I know just the way to bring an end to it. And it just reveals a lot of of information about yourself and your family, a lot. And I'll just finish it with one other thing. When I was at Fox and I was first like coming up, you know, I was making a name for myself and

becoming better known. Bill O'Reilly pulled me aside and said, don't reveal anything about yourself personally. And I was like, what do you mean? You know, like it's kind of natural. Sometimes you're talking and something comes up. You say something about your, and he was like, never. He's like, if you watch me, I almost never do it because it's dangerous. He was saying, like, it can trigger people and there will be some nutcase out there who's writing it all down, ready to use it against you at just the right time. And, you know, O'Reilly and I don't really get along now, but he's a smart guy and he gave me a lot of sage advice. And I feel like that was a piece of very good advice. Your thoughts on it. Will?

Solid, solid advice. I work with a number of sort of Hollywood, A-List. and various other prominent people. And the one thing I always say to them is keep your personal life personal. You need to live two lives. Your celebrity life, which obviously has to be very clearly thought about in terms of what you talk about, where you go for your meals, that sort of thing. It can even be fabricated in terms of this is my favorite little restaurant that I always go to and you'd probably never been there before.

And then there's your personal life. And keep that information down because that can be used as leverage in various different shapes and forms. So absolutely keep the two lives entirely separate. You know, if people, Megan, if people wanted to see the reality of, I mean, we see social media, right? So we see how the white Karens in the world have like, are destroying this country. You would never have expected that. But that craziness didn't just pop up because of social media. I mean, there's craziness in the world that you don't see if you don't put yourself in that environment.

And like Will, you know, I've been with celebrities. and it is amazing what people will do. They'll be having dinner and we're sitting over there and all of a sudden somebody gets up from a table and walks over and asks for an autograph during dinner. Okay, that's one person. They go back to sit down and they open a floodgate of crazies that now will come up and interrupt dinner for this individual

just to get an autograph or a picture. It's so inappropriate that you sit back and you think, how are these people comfortable doing this? Well, it only gets worse from there. And so there's crazy all in the world. And when you add celebrity into that, then people can fixate and say and do absolutely crazy things. I still think, though, when we look at the totality of the circumstances and we look at how this individual acted, now that we know that he was around that area before that day, I just, I keep thinking of somebody casing that area. and the behavior is more like a criminal,

like somebody who's going in to burglarize a home, than somebody who is going in there to remove an individual. I just, most of the issues I've seen when it comes to kidnapping, they are stalking somebody, not walking up and covertly looking at the house with full mask and gloves and everything on, because that could lead to them getting caught. and when you're trying to kidnap somebody, you want complete anonymity.

So I don't know. There's just issues about this kidnapping versus burglary that when you look at how many of these people, I mean, how many videos have come out with people just walking up to people's doors? That is some of the creepiest stuff that's out there. How many people are poking around neighborhoods at night? And so, again, the evidence will lead where it needs to go. Let me tell you something right now. You come to my house.

It's going to be like starring. in an MGM movie. Of course this. You have no idea how many angles we will have you on camera from. And there are many other measures that we've taken beyond. So a face mask is not going to help you.

Yappy dog. Nothing's going to help you. A yappy dog is the best security thing. There are many, many layers of protection. And you have to. You have to. What were you going to say? No, I was just going to say that,

no, I understand where you're coming from. I still believe this was an abduction or a kidnapping that it's gone wrong. I don't think there was. were enough items of value that were removed from the property, even if the accident or there was an accident and the death of Nancy occurred through the process. And then there's the removal of the body. Ultimately, I think for a burglar, and I'm open to be proved wrong. But it just doesn't fit the profile for me personally anyway of it being a...

Well, and I have to say, like, on the burglary front, most 84-year-old ladies are not keeping a lot of expensive things in their homes. First of all, they were all raised in a certain era where that wasn't done. You know, I mean, I think they tend to be frugal. I know a lot of 84-year-olds, I do, through my mom. That's not where you go if you want really good loot. You know, I think you go more to like the 40-year-old couples or the 50-year-olds couples who have made money and they haven't given it all away.

You know, they're not living more humbly now that they're elderly. I think most elderly people live somewhat humbly just because they don't want to deal with a bunch of stuff. and most are thinking about end of life and they don't want to pass down a bunch of hassles to their loved ones once they're gone. I'll just, I'll just say that. They've given it away or they've made sure it's not cluttering, you know, that kind of thing. I'll say this in response. And first of all, Will and I looking at this from different directions, that's okay.

That's the way investigations work. Yeah, no, I like it. We got to keep it all over. And you've got to continue to look. I mean, a really ferocious investigator says, no, I think this is it. That's okay as long as you're not letting that guy guide the entire investigation. If he wants to look in that, that's good. If that individual wants, if Will wants to look over there, that's great.

You know, but Megan, I'll just say this about what your comment was there about 84 year old women. When you are 84 and you as successful as you are and the things you will have acquired, somebody looking at your home and identifying you is going to see a home totally different than an 84-year-old woman who, you know, retired when she was 60 from teaching school, right? So, yes, you're correct about that 84-year-old woman, but we're not talking. Nancy Guthrie is not that 84-year-old woman. She's wealthy, and she lives in a wealthy neighborhood, and people in those wealthy neighborhoods do keep stuff in their homes. And it could have been, you know, that's true. And we don't, we don't even know necessarily that he knew an 84-year-old lived inside. Maybe not. Like, we don't, we actually don't know whether he knew who lived in there. He might

have thought it was somebody younger. It was a million-dollar home. It's a nice neighborhood. It's set back where I can get in and get out without getting seen by anybody. I've never asked, in fact, this would be an interesting question to ask, are the neighboring houses nicer? Like, there might be something that could be relevant. You know, like, do the other neighbor's houses dwarf nancy's, or does her house dwarf theirs, or are they all pretty much the same? Like, hers is worth about a million. Was there one worth five million, two doors down? That might be kind of relevant to this. I think another good question to ask Megan is also the current status of that property, the condition of that property. You know, was that property well maintained and well kept?

You know, the lawns were manicured and the bushes had been trimmed. A new roof, that's very tall. Or a new roof, for example, a good point. Or an expensive vehicle that's parked outside. Burglars will generally profile, and even kidnappers will. They will profile the property by the current state of it and what it presents. Does it represent any visible value? And yes, for an elderly lady like Nancy, she may not demonstrate, she may have a very typical

standard vehicle. It may not be very expensive. She may not have spent a lot of money on the property itself. But it's the condition of it. How is it being kept in comparison to the other houses and other residences in the neighborhood? And living in Arizona, I will tell you this, that the rich communities in Arizona are the darkest communities because they, they, as you see, you can't quite, they, they kind of hide their house with the shrubbery and things like that. So it would be very easy to poke around in those

areas. And, you know, when he's standing out there looking around, he could be looking for floodlights. He could be listening for dogs and looking for all the things that you have in your, in your house, Megan. And so I think if he was going to, if he did key in on her, her personally, then it would be easier in that neighborhood because most I've never been there, but most likely from what I've seen in all the wealthier neighborhoods is it's really dark because they just don't want the streetlights. They want to live in the desert. Dark, isolated, far back from the road. Let me ask you guys as like security experts, do you leave all the lights on the outside of your house on overnight or do you turn them off? I would generally suggest for a client that they

have a passive infrared movement detection lights. So, you know, and you, want to set it up in such a way that it's not going to be inconsiderate to neighbors and start shining into their bedroom lights in the middle of the night if a coyote or over here in the UK a badger walks into the field of view it really does depend the one thing i would certainly say is that any kind of intermittent light that can shine is always going to be good as a deterrent to an individual who's going to be wanting to use the concealment of darkness or bushes or otherwise to try and get close to a property you know you know one of the best of Best things, well, first of all, Belgian Malinwa is great. I think that they're better in any light.

But, you know, one of the simplest things that you can get is a driveway alarm, which they cost like $30. You get a couple of units. You set them out there. They work within usually 300 feet. And you have a little alarm that's inside your, you put inside your home. And it sounds like, you know, when you go into a store and it goes, ding, dong, when you walk in, well, you can put those around your property. and anybody that comes on there, they work, they're waterproof, they work in the dark. It's going to alert when somebody walks up your driveway or your walkway, and it doesn't record, but it notifies you if somebody is walking through that location. So when I'm in my RV, I have those all around my RV. Anybody comes close to my RV, it's going to ding.

So I think these are. I like, we have an advertiser called Simply Safe, Simply with an eye. And they have, their company doesn't just like go off. when somebody breaches your home. They get you, like, outside as you're, as you're, like, trying to get in, it goes off and somebody starts yelling at you. Like, intruder, the police are on their way.

I'm like, this is the thing to do. Scare the bejesus out of them before they get in, you know, like, it's great once they're in to scare them, but, like, be much better to be like, we see you, the cameras, the 911 is on its way, like you're screwed. And then, you know, 99% will run. they don't, it's not worth it to them.

You know, it's not like the made up stuff we see in Mr. and Mrs. Smith where it's like, you're the target and I'm going to get you no matter what. The only thing I would say is you've got to be able to calibrate these things accurately because if you do have small animals, whether it be someone's cat or their dog or whatever, that you're not waking up the neighbors every morning at 3 o'clock, you know. We actually have had that in the past, like we've had like new guards who didn't really know the rules thanks to us. It was our fault. And like our little one's friend would get like dropped off

and start walking up to the house. And they're like, you know, these kids are like, oh. You also have another great advantage over us over here. And that's the Second Amendment. You're very fortunate to have that. Yeah. And that's a great thing about Arizona as well is.

Yeah. By the way, we're sorry for your eighth in line over there in the news of his arrest today. We're not. I'm a royalist, Megan. I'm not. I mean, he's out. He's not really the royal anymore, right? He's kind of just like royal life now. He's kind of a royal embarrassment, I think, more than anything else. Well, we can talk about that another time, if you wish. Hey, I will say this about that, though, Megan, it's good to see somebody resting somebody who's even close to power. I have a real problem with the way this never occurs. And so that's, I think, is amazing. And I wish we would see more of that in this, in this country. You know what? And now if the UK could only get going on all the Pakistani rape gangs, that would be terrific. Don't even get me started on that, Megan. Don't even get me stashed on that one. Right? Like, oh, okay, now that we're in the mood to arrest, I got a whole bunch of other people for you to look at.

All right, guys, thanks as always to be continued. You got it. Thank you, Megan. Thank you, Will. All right. We'll talk soon. Well, and thanks to all of you for listening. Tomorrow on the show, we've got Maureen Callahan here for the full show. We need that, don't we? See you tomorrow. listening to The Megan Kelly Show, no BS, no agenda, and no fear.