The Megyn Kelly Show - New Details About Guthrie Ransom Notes as DEADLINE Passes, and Notable Disappearance Timeline Change, with Ashleigh Banfield and More | Ep. 1247

Episode Date: February 6, 2026

Megyn Kelly is joined by Ashleigh Banfield, host of Drop Dead Serious, to discuss new details about Savannah Guthrie’s emotional video appeal about her missing mother, its similarities to the movie "Silence of the Lambs," why the messaging from the family appears carefully coordinated with law enforcement, what Banfield’s source is now saying about who "may be" the "prime suspect" in the Nancy Guthrie case, the latest about a car being taken into evidence, disturbing attempts to exploit the Guthrie family with fake ransom demands, how the timeline surrounding Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance appears to have changed, the critical missing hour before police were called, conflicting statements about the cameras at the home, how these shifting details are fueling concern about the investigation, and more. Plus, Jim Fitzgerald, co-host of "Cold Red Podcast," Chad Ayers, former SWAT team leader, and Jonathan Gilliam, FBI special agent, to discuss new DNA evidence at Nancy Guthrie's home, why a 41-minute window is highly unusual in an abduction, what the extended time inside the home suggests about the perpetrator, inconsistencies in the timeline, the strange details in the ransom note allegedly tied to Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance, the specific references to the Apple Watch placement, how investigators are assessing whether it’s a hoax or real, and more. Banfield: https://www.youtube.com/@DropDeadSeriousFitzgerald: https://www.youtube.com/@ColdRedPodcast-tb2lb/featured Byrna: Go to https://Byrna.com or your local Sportsman's Warehouse today.Relief Factor: Break up with pain—Relief Factor targets inflammation so you can move better and feel better; try the 3-Week QuickStart for just $19.95 at https://ReliefFactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF.ARMRA: go to https://tryarmra.com/MEGYN to get 30% off your first subscription orderSimpliSafe: Visit https://simplisafe.com/MEGYN to claim 50% off any new system!  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 SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. There's a lot going on this morning. I mean, my team and I have been really busting my ass for you guys for the past 48 hours or 24 hours just to make sure that we have everything lined up for today because there was a lot at that presser. There was a lot at that presser about the missing Nancy Guthrie. And it was not consistent with previous messaging. from the sheriff's department. Obviously, the sheriff has reason to obfuscate. And what he obfuscates on is potentially telling. He quite clearly was referencing Ashley Banfield's reporting a couple of times in that presser yesterday.

Without naming her, he definitely seemed to attack her. She's here. And we will ask her directly whether she continues to stand by her exclusive reporting that police consider Nancy Guthrie's, son-in-law, Savannah's brother-in-law, the man married to Savannah's sister, Annie, Tomas, as someone who, quote, may be the prime suspect in this case. She'll update us in two minutes when she's here. The 84-year-old mother of the NBC news host, Savannah Guthrie, remains missing. She was last seen at her Arizona's home on Saturday evening.

And we'll get into the change of the timeline as well. Plus, we have the best law enforcement analyst in the world who will be here later in the hour with his take. But we've got to begin with one of the more bizarre developments in this entire case. We showed you earlier this week the Instagram message that Savannah and her siblings posted to their mother and to her suspected captors. They dropped it on Wednesday evening, and we talked about how it was strange. This is not a judgment of how they handled themselves.

This is an observation about the odd messaging and whether it means something, whether it was potentially directed by the kidnapper to be an acknowledgement of something. It was just so odd in the way it was presented and phrased, and that could have been completely just at law enforcement's direction for reasons we. We don't understand, or it could have been some sort of a signal that was asked for by a kidnapper, or it could have just been the family's choices while under duress. We don't know, but we're trying to figure out what we can. This part in particular is coming back to surface, and we'll explain why, and pay particularly close attention to the ending. Watch.

On behalf of our family, we want to thank all of you. for the prayers for our beloved mom, Nancy. We feel them, and we continue to believe that she feels them too. Our mom is a kind, faithful, loyal, fiercely loving woman of goodness and light. She is funny, spunky, and clever. She has grandchildren that adore her. and crowd around her and cover her with kisses. She loves fun and adventure.

She is a devoted friend. She is full of kindness and knowledge. Talk to her and you'll see. Talk to her and you'll see. It's kind of an interesting phrase. And notice how Savannah's sister Annie seems to take a deep breath at that very moment. It sounds like a phrase we might have heard before, and online sleuths confirm, indeed, we probably have.

They discovered that line is from the 1991 horror crime film Silence of the Lambs. Before we play the clip, let me tell you what the movie's about. Most of you know, but some of our audience is younger and may not. The main character, Clarice Starling, is played by Jody Foster. Starling is investigating the kidnapping of Catherine Martin, the 25-year-old daughter of the fictional Senator Ruth Martin. Catherine, the daughter, has been kidnapped by Buffalo Bell, a serial killer who skins his female victims. In the scene where the phrase talk to her and you'll see is used, it's the kidnapping victim's mother,

Senator Ruth Martin, sending a message to her daughter's captor. Watch. Our top story for this morning. Catherine Martin, the 25-year-old daughter of Senator Ruth Martin, listed first as a missing person, is now believed to have been kidnapped by the serial killer known only as Buffalo Bill. Memphis police sources indicate that the missing girl's blouse has been identified, sliced up the back,

and what has become a kind of grim, all too familiar calling card. Young Catherine Martin, as we've said, is the only daughter of U.S. Senator Ruth Martin, the Republican junior senator from Tennessee. And while our kidnapping is not at this point considered to be politically motivated, nevertheless, it has stirred the government to its highest levels.

Reach for comment on the ski slopes of Stowe, Vermont. The president himself said to be, and I quote, intensely concerned. Just moments ago, Senator Martin takes this dramatic personal plea. I'm speaking now to the person who's holding my daughter. Catherine is very gentle and kind.

Talk to her and you'll see. You heard that right at the end. Let's watch them back to back. She is full of kindness and knowledge. Talk to her and you'll see. I'm speaking now to the person who is holding my daughter. Catherine is very gentle and kind. Talk to her and you'll see.

Both reference how kind the person is and end with talk to her and you'll see. Now we're not the only ones who noticed this and it's getting a lot of attention on social media today. It is one of many, many, many developments that we need to go through. We're going to try to unpack what this means and more. with Drop Dead Serious podcast host and long-term crime reporter, among other kinds of reporting, Ashley Banfield. Let's be honest. America can still be a dangerous place, and you cannot afford to wait for help when you need it.

Sure, you could use a firearm, but in today's America, defending yourself with deadly force can have legal consequences. According to FBI data, 99.9% of all altercations do not require lethal force. And that's exactly why so many are turning to Berna. Burna is amazing. It's proudly American. It's hand assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and it's less lethal self-defense launchers. They're trusted by hundreds of government agencies, law enforcement departments, and private security companies. Over 600,000 burner pistols have been sold, mostly to private citizens who refuse to be victims. Burna launchers fire rock-hard kinetic rounds and also powerful tear gas and pepper projectiles. Up to you. Capable of stopping a third. threat from up to 60 feet away. No background checks, no waiting periods, and Berna can ship straight to your door. Take responsibility, protect your future. Visit berna.com right now or your local sportsman's warehouse. B-Y-R-N-A.com or your local sportsman's warehouse. Visit now and be prepared

to defend. Ashley, welcome back. It is an eerie similarity and the choice of words could be completely coincidental, or it might not be. It could be something the FBI suggested, you know, something, much in the way, if you ever watched that movie Contagion during the pandemic starring Matt Damon, it had what the CDC would do in the case of a pandemic so exact. You knew that there was definitely a playbook from which the CDC had behaved and that they had shared that playbook with the filmmakers in this movie that was made long before the COVID pandemic. And it did make me wonder whether in preparing Silence of the Lambs, the filmmakers consulted with an FBI hostage negotiator, that kind of person, who gave them the kind of messaging that they

would typically give the family members of a kidnap victim. And it made its way into the script. And it may have made its way into Savannah's script too in quite the similar manner. Very astute because, in fact, Jonathan Demi, who created Silence of the Lambs, did confer with the FBI, did have multiple investigators with the FBI and agents with the FBI actually consult on the movie. John Douglas, one of the most famous profilers, worked on Silence of the Lamb. So it's entirely possible that there is an age-old playbook with all sorts of options and suggestions for agents to use when trying to make communications like this. And we were told by the FBI that they were working in concert with the Guthrie family,

as they should be, to help guide them through this extraordinary. process. They were very careful also to say that in the end, all scripting is up to the final decision of the family, you know, who's going to read it, which is obvious. But the guidance was clearly annotated yesterday when they said that they were there. We saw them go in with the ring light and the Apple tripod, the iPhone tripod, to help set up the actual shoot for them as well. So it's maybe not that surprising that perhaps pieces of a, of an FBI play. were used maybe unknowingly to the agents today that had been used, you know, decades ago in creation of silence and lambs.

It does make you wonder what else in the messaging that we've heard from the family because, of course, last night Cameron Guthrie, the brother of Savannah and Andy, issuing his own direct-to-camera statement, just him without the sisters. and in both of the video messages and in Savannah's Instagram post that was written, which preceded both of these video messages, there's just, there are odd phrases that really have us wondering whether they have had more communication with a potential kidnapper than they're letting on, which would be totally appropriate.

Obviously, they're not going to tell all of us everything that's happening. But her Instagram post sounded a little. unlike Savannah, for one thing, Ashley, it was not capitalized, which, okay, it's a social media thing. You could make the case that a lot of people don't capitalize. But Savannah normally does. She does normally capitalize. We went back and checked her Instagram and her Twitter. And much like yours truly, and I imagine you too, most journalists would capitalize. We're not 20 and we're just sort of in the business. So it's like we pay attention to those things. but on this post of all posts,

like the most important post of her life to date, this is the one that came out the night before the video of the three siblings. She posted on Tuesday evening. This is all without caps, even at the beginning of the very first sentence. We believe in prayer. We believe in voices raised in unison,

in love, in hope. We believe in goodness. We believe in humanity above all. We believe in him. Him is capitalized. Nothing else is. Thank you, again, the beginning of a sentence, not capitalized.

for lifting your prayers with ours for our beloved mom, our dearest Nancy, the mentioning of her name. Clearly, that was suggested by law enforcement, trying to get her to humanizer. Nancy, Nancy, she has a name. She has kids and goes on and on. And then it ends with a quote, a Bible quote, and then listen to how she cites it. She writes in quotes, he, that's capitalized, will keep in perfect peace, those whose hearts are steadfast, trusting in the Lord, Lord is capitalized, end quote. A verse of Isaiah for all time for all of us bring her home. You know Savannah. I know Savannah too. That doesn't sound like her. A verse of Isaiah for all time,

for all of us. I don't know whether this is all coded, Ashley, but the messages are being very carefully coordinated, it seems to me, and may just be what law enforcement is telling them or could be responsive to some sort of a demand. Well, you know, Savannah is actually pretty spiritual. I'm not sure that she would have written the message about. No, she's spiritual. She's very spiritual. She wrote a whole book about it.

Yeah, yeah. But the phraseology out of the quote, a verse of Isaiah for all time for all of us. You know what that also could be is for her mom? Because mom is very faithful. Mom goes to church and that might have been something. Again, if we are to believe that this ransom effort is even true, I have. my serious doubts about it. And yesterday, the FBI said something in the press conference that I picked up on very quickly. They were asked about the deadlines, the second deadline, and the FBI

agents said in a normal kidnapping case, there would be contact by now. They have to take it seriously. And it's why it's prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the guy that they pulled in in California is going to have the book thrown at him. I think it's eight to ten as a minimum there for prison because it is... Just FYI, for those who... who didn't listen to AM update. There was a separate man who was arrested this morning or yesterday morning

for demanding a ransom of Annie and Tomas via text message and also made a nine second phone call to some member of the Guthrie family who was just a fraudster. He had nothing to do

with the other ransom notes per law enforcement nor with this case at all, we believe. He was just trying to glom on to someone's tragedy and torture the family further and he's now under arrest.

Yeah, this Derek Kalea, Kaya, I don't know, C-A-L-E-L-L-L-E-L-L-L-E-L-L-L- LA allegedly now charged in this. And very seriously, too, that's interstate commerce when you use the lines like that, using email, using phone lines to cross state lines, and also interfering with law enforcement. There's all sorts of things that could throw the book at him for that. But I would, without question, expect some prison time for this guy if he's guilty of these crimes.

But, you know, to hear in the other notes, because it's a little complicated, right? There's a note to TMZ. There's an email. There's an email to TMZ. There's emails to two television stations that are local in Arizona. and then there's this one that was communicated directly to the family and communicated directly to Savannah, sister Annie and her husband, Tomasso. So that is fascinating to hear, though, that they are focusing on the emailed ransom notes,

but they also indicated not very clearly, but slightly clearly in the press conference, that those three that went to the outlets seemed to be from the same person. And they noted a couple of things in them. For the first time, say that they're identical. For the first time, the FBI confirmed in response to a question that it is the same note. Jim Fitzgerald, who's been on with us every day, formerly of the FBI, has said that's the one thing he really wanted to know was, was it exactly the same? Or could there have been like some sort of a copycat? Or did they, for some reason?

And the FBI yesterday said all three the same. I have my questions about the details in them as well, because there were details released yesterday about floodlights, broken floodlights potentially. Wait, standby. I definitely want to get into that. I do. But let me just finish up on the messaging from the family. Then I want to talk about your exclusive reporting. And then I definitely want to get into these notes because they're very interesting.

One other thing on the messaging, we noticed that the family, I think, is being very disciplined on exactly what it says and how it says it. We talked yesterday about how very clearly Savannah Guthrie knows how to speak at ease directly to camera unscripted. She chose not to do that. Quite clearly, they're being really careful about if somebody's got her not triggering him, saying what needs to be said to reach him in the best way possible to actually get a response. You know, they're desperate. You can see in the family's messaging for interaction

with this person if he exists and has their mom. You know, yeah, exactly. They want proof of life. And they're, they're desperate to have a communication because very clearly, Harvey Levin made this clear yesterday on various appearances. The ransom note said Thursday night is your first deadline. and Harvey suggested Monday is your second deadline. And it certainly sounds like if they didn't meet the Thursday night deadline, the price was going up. Or the consequences. And by Monday was... Yeah, the price or the consequence.

Some sort of negative consequence. And then by Monday, they were suggesting without saying it that that's when, you know, they said that would be the end for her. That was the clear implication. But in any event, I just want to show you the messaging that both Savannah and now Cameron have offered in their back-to-back Instagram messages here. And this, again, was Cameron alone last night. This is Cameron Guthrie. I'm speaking for the Guthrie family. Whoever is out there holding our mother, we want to hear from you.

We haven't heard anything directly. We need you to reach out and we need a way to communicate with you so we can move forward. But first, we have to know that you have our mom. We want to talk to you and we are waiting for contact. Okay, so that's what we heard from Cameron himself last night. Now listen to the comparison. As a family, we are doing everything that we can. We are ready to talk.

Whoever is out there holding our mother, we want to hear from you. We want to hear from you, and we are ready to listen. Please reach out to us. We haven't heard anything directly. We need you to reach out and we need a way to communicate with you so we can move forward. We need to know. without a doubt that she is alive

and that you have her. But first, we have to know that you have our mom. We want to talk to you and we are waiting for contact. This poor family is desperate for someone if they actually have their mother to be in touch. It's to actually make it possible

for them to interact. It's torture. It is abject cruelty. This is ongoing fucking torture. This is yet another scammer or another alleged scammer. It is abject torture, it is why the penalties in the code are so steep for this, not just because the interstate commerce, but because of the interjection of the law enforcement's efforts, but also just the sheer torture that you put these people through. Yeah, it's so awful. And you and I both

have our doubts about whether it's even real. So it does, if I had to put money down, I'd say this is somebody intentionally torturing the family, trying to scam them, trying to get money from them in their most vulnerable, painful moment. And by the way, if that's true, then it means the real kidnapper, murderer, who never hurt Nancy, however they did it. Yeah, perpetrator is out there watching the whole thing, letting them suffer too. Like, it's not enough that they did something to the mother. They're letting the torture go on day after day after day.

When I saw those three people, Ashley, the other night on camera, all I could think was these are torture victims. That's what's happened to them. Yeah. And so often, and we don't often see this, right? Because this is a very high profile case. But in so many of the true crime cases that we covered, this is the reality. This is what people go through when their loved ones go missing.

Do they get a high profile ransom note sent to TMZ? No. But oftentimes they are left just as terrified and just as traumatized, especially if it's their children. And you don't see as much of it on the media. Yeah. Okay. So let's get to your reporting because it was very clearly. the gorilla in the room yesterday at that presser where it came up three different times, four,

actually, four total with the sheriff saying, we have no suspects, no persons of interest, and then some broadsides quite clearly, I thought, at you. I think you agreed. I watched your show this morning without naming you. And some of the media are piling on, oh, these influencers looking for clicks are reporting irresponsibly. That's bullshit. You are not an influencer looking for clicks. known you 20 years. That's not who you are. So people are dismissing this at their own peril. It is everyone there. Even the sheriff said no one's been cleared. Everyone's a suspect. So it is not inappropriate to start where all law enforcement starts, which is with the family and work out. That's what you're doing. You would be doing that even if your law enforcement source had not

said that the brother-in-law may be the prime suspect. It's not inappropriate to ask questions. about the family. It's actually imperative. So here's what the sheriff said. Let's listen to Sat 19B. Nobody's eliminated, but we just really don't have enough to say, this is our suspect, this is our guy. We know or our gal. We just don't know that. And it's really kind of reckless to report that someone is a suspect when they could very well be a victim. It just, I bring to you to the media, I plead with you to be careful of what it is we put out there because we don't have anybody here listed as a suspect. And you could actually be doing some damage to the case, but you can do some damage to that individual, too. Social media is kind of an ugly world sometimes. Okay. So, Ashley, are you standing by your exclusive reporting broken two days ago now that

three things? A top law enforcement official. Yeah, real early on. Okay. Who's an impeccable source told you that Tomaso Sione, who was married to Annie Guthrie, Savannah's sister, may be the prime suspect in this case. At this time. At this time. At this time. And that the car that was towed and impounded was Annie Guthrie was Annie Guthrie's car. Yeah, the word that was used was towed and taken into evidence. I noticed that that was actually confirmed yesterday. Car was towed and is being processed as per warrant. That was said by the sheriff. Sort of. He didn't say it was Annie's. And the way he said it, Ashley, raised me a bunch of questions. The car. And he made it sound like it was at the crime scene, which is odd. I don't know that Annie Guthrie's car was at the mother's house at any point. Actually, here we have. Actually,

have at SOT 16. Let's listen to how we described it. The car. The car that was at the home, it's just standard investigative practices. It's part of the search warrant scene court orders. We pull it out of there and do our scene processing with the vehicle. Part of the search warrant scene. Well, and at the home. That would speak to it being at Nancy's. It just said at the home. And they've been at two homes. Law enforcement has been at two homes. And my source said, definitively, car was towed and is in evidence. That's three days ago. And that it was Annie's.

That it was Annie's car. Did not say the car said Annie's car. The sister's car was towed and is in evidence. And he only would say the car at the high. He didn't deny it. He didn't deny a lot of stuff yesterday. He took pot shots and I get it. Okay, but let's get to the big headline about Tamas and what your source, because I heard

your show. Have you been checking in with your source on that piece of your. multiple times per day and yesterday I was told by the same source still on target and then he said let me put it to you this way if they're taking shots at you you're standing on the target that was his words no no no wiggling no backing down no no change and let me ask you this is he even though he's a I'm just saying he I don't know whether it's he or she but is this person you say a top law enforcement source but is this person in a position to know about what's actually happening in this case.

Yes. And then after the break, I was informed on day two that the sheriff's department tightened up like a news, angry about leaks. And so if my information wasn't accurate, why would anybody be worried about leaks? Who would care? Ashley Bansfield is reporting. So that also strengthened this information. I didn't need the strengthening, thank you, given the,

level of this source of mine. And by the way, I got asked yesterday, Megan, by somebody in the mainstream media, well, you're not working for a main network now. So have your standards dropped? I've been out of 38 years. I don't think I'd throw my entire four decades away for one story. You know, I get it. People have to have their own headlines too. But I did find that pretty offensive. No, no. My standards have dropped. I've noticed something else. some people who consider themselves close to Savannah, I've observed, have been particularly dismissive of this report. And I don't know if that's out of loyalty to her, like she wouldn't like this or whether they've actually been in touch with her and she doesn't like this. Either way, with all due respect to Savannah and the family, it's fair reporting.

And you can't, you certainly could not go by what Savannah wants you to report in covering this case. of course she'd be inclined to defend her family, even her in-law family members. And there's no question you wouldn't depend upon one of the victims of the crime to guide your investigation as a reporter of the crime. So I've just noticed there's a strain of people who I know consider themselves friends of hers who have been particularly disdainful and are trying to move the coverage elsewhere. And that just can't happen. Well, that would be a hit to integrity of what I do.

Would I change the way I work? because of who I'm covering. No, unfortunately, and it's been very difficult. We've had to cover, I remember, one of the first stories that I covered in 1988 was someone I knew was nicked by the feds for cross-border drug dealing, and I had to put it on the news.

That was one of my very first stories as a cub reporter, and it was like, well, baptism by fire, here we go. And so out it went, exactly as the police had reported it to us, said, CJBN in Kenora, Ontario. But yeah, that would be a questionable move in, you know, journalistic scruples if I decided to couch the reporting because of who I'm reporting on. And it's hard. It is hard.

But I will say this. Law enforcement doesn't tell us everything. That's the way it works. In fact, I think that's what the sheriff actually even said yesterday. I wrote his quote down, yeah, yeah. He was asked, or you purposely withholding information because of the active investigation that might be leading you in a particular. direction. And his answer was this. You know, this is no different than any criminal investigation

that we conduct here. Went on to say law enforcement's conducted investigations since 1865 in Pima County. We are always mindful of what is in front of us and what we should release and can release. There's legal guidelines that guide us, but there's also strategy to you. I'll leave that for you to determine. So that is the way it works. We're not idiots. They don't have to tell us everything. But there is also a balance between the public interest and transparent. and we are always working that balance. In Coburger, they flat out lied to us. They flat out lied to us.

There's no concern for the public. This is a targeted attack on these four kids. That was bullshit. There was an absolute concern to the public for six weeks. Brian Coburger, a maniacal quadruple murderer, was out there. And maybe eyeballing other friends of his at Washington State University. There's a lawsuit. That was going on.

And we know that on the 19th of December in 2022, They identified his DNA as he is the holder of the DNA from the knife sheet, December 19th. What did they do on December 20th the next day? They recorded a video, the police chief, James Frye, the Moscow PD, recorded a video of himself and posted it on the Moscow police website saying, we have no suspect. Let me read it for you. These are his words. No suspect, suspects identified and only vetted information that does not hinder the investigation

will be released to the public. We encourage referencing official releases for accurate and updated progress. They were already chasing him across the country at this point. This guy has full access to every state between Washington State and Pennsylvania with his dad as he's crossing the country. But that's what they chose to tell us. So what is the public's interest in knowing what reporters do and what the police do? We all have a job to do and there is a balance. But there are a lot of people in that neighborhood where Nancy Guthrie lives who are very, very afraid, who said there's never been crime here.

It's a safe place. We're really worried. Well, let me tell you something. CNN had absolutely no problem, none whatsoever, in going with the flimsyest. I'm mentioning them, because there was an anchor over there who was ripping on this, the flimsyest reporting and sourcing possible when it came to Russiagate. Same conclusion times 100 for MSNBC. So if anything that would reflect negatively on President Trump, they don't need double sourcing. They don't need on the record sources at all. Same for the New York Times for that matter. So now suddenly it's just because it's Ashley

Banfield and she's in the quote, influencer realm, that that's not an okay, a top law enforcement official with whom you've had a relationship for years, whom you call impeccable. Over a decade. Now suddenly it's suspect for, yeah, for over a decade. So this is fair game. And I'm a little inside baseball. I resent what's being said about you. Yeah, I do too. But okay, I get I got big girl pants on. But I will also say this, that things have changed many times over in the years that I've been doing this. I've gone from broadcast news, local news, cable news, and then I'm now doing podcasting. But the way it used to be was that if you don't have three sources, you can't take it to air.

That has changed. Now it is the caliber of your source. Now it is really who that source is, the trustworthiness of that source that is oftentimes completely acceptable to all mainstream outlets, right? So I am a little surprised on this one that I'm getting the flack, but especially with the sheriff's answers. It makes sense when you, I don't believe this person is your source, but I'm just going to do a hypothetical here. Let's say the source is Cash Patel. It's obviously not him because he hasn't been in law enforcement for 10 years. But anyway, let's just say it's Cash Patel.

It's the director of the FBI. Do you need two sources? I think you're good. I think you're great. Let's say the source is actually this sheriff, Sheriff Nanos, who's saying one thing to the media, but saying something to you behind. You don't need two sources. That you're good. So, of course, you're fine.

You're right. It depends on the caliber of the source. There's something else that people should know as well, and I don't believe this to be the truth at all. But sometimes the media is used as well. And sourcing is dropped to get stuff out there that may agitate or make suspects nervous. That's also a tactic that excuse. I don't believe that's the case here. But, you know, people should realize that under the law, I don't think a lot of people do know this. If you're brought in for questioning, the law enforcement is allowed to lie to you in order to elicit statements that may be either incongerent or congruent with maybe another suspect. That is part of strategy. And listen, I give them big grace for that. It's a hard job. And I have never castigated law enforcement for using that tactic. It is legal.

You are allowed to do that in law enforcement. So lying to us in the public, that's allowed. But we also have a job to do. When we are put under gag orders like happened in the Idaho case for two and a half years, that's not transparency in American jurisprudence, right? And so either, which way to do you? do you want it? Do you want reporters to do their work? Or do you want them to do their work and then, you know, take pot shots at them when they do? Again, there is this. No, we're not looking for a pat on the

head. Yeah. This is not a, this is not an industry you get into to be liked. To the contrary. It goes a different way for most of us. I want to play you this sound bag because I thought this is very telling. The sheriff was asked again repeatedly about, do you have a suspect? You have a person of interest? No, no, no, no, no, no, we don't. No, no. I haven't identified. Different. We don't have one. No, it's we have an identified one. But then the one reporter put it on the line and said, let's talk about the son-in-law. I mean, it was explicitly like, what about the son-in-law? Listen to the sheriff's answer here, Sot 19C. Are you actively investigating the son-in-law in this case? You said you haven't eliminated everybody. Have you eliminated him or come close to it? We're actively looking at everybody we come across in this case. Everybody. It's so cliche. But everybody's still a suspect in our eyes. That's just how we look. at things and think as cops. Does that mean we have a prime suspect? No. And the family's been very

cooperative. They've done everything we've asked of them. And we want that relationship to continue. And sometimes people can be mean out there. And that can really harm us and harm our. We want that relationship to continue. Yeah. Ashley. There was another key. that I picked up on as well. Another, by the way, some really good questions from the reporters in that room. I have to say, as I was listening, I thought, well, they're on their ball today.

One reporter asked, have you been in communication with anyone you believe to be the kidnapper? Long pause. Then a sigh. You know, it comes back to what we talked about. No one is eliminated, but we really don't have enough to say,

this is our suspect, this is our guy, this is our gal. But the long pause and the sigh, that was telling to me as well. He was getting together his answer because it did seem to me as well. Like he was thinking, well, we might have spoken to the person who did this. But I'm not going to reveal that to you. Yeah. But you know, I give him grace as well, Megan, because honestly, I said this before, I'll say it again.

It is not easy to do his job. It's not easy in best of days. it's not easy to stand in front of the national media that is demanding answers, asking for press conferences, preparing you live with questions, and live is not easy. You don't get a mulligan.

And then try to, you know, do your tap dance to protect your investigation and still be as transparent as you can. Frankly, the sheriff has been more forthcoming than most law enforcement have been in recent cases of note. No one here is ripping on the sheriff.

He's doing the best he can. And he's trying to be as transparent as he can without blowing his investigation, which is the most important thing. If they do have a suspect behind the scenes, he's obviously not going to tell us that. And we understand that. It makes sense until he's ready. But look, you and I are in a different business. And the public has to understand that too. We are actually in the business of figuring out what's real. And that's a different business than him trying to actually solve the case and arrest somebody. We listen to nuance. We listen to signs that aren't just words. We listen to everything. And there was something that happened yesterday. And I crossed her. referenced it with a report in New York Times last night. And that is, he was asked who dropped the, who dropped Nancy off on Saturday night? Because the sheriff has said it three ways. He said, first he said, I think, I might have it out of order, but these three things were said, Annie dropped Nancy off. Then he said, Annie and Tomaso dropped Nancy off. Then he said, Tomaso dropped Nancy off. So

the reporter in the room actually said, what is it? Which one is it? You've said it three ways. And the answer was, I mean, it was just sort of alarming to me. I just thought this is so weird. Let's go with. Just family. We're going to go with family. But then he did tell the new time. We have it.

It's not 13. Yeah, listen to it. It's incredible. It's weird. You know, there's also conflicting reports about who was the last person to actually see Nancy and drive her home. We know she took an Uber to Annie's house. But can you confirm whether was Annie or her son and on tomorrow so who took her home that day?

I think the timeline that the sheriff provided, was a family member, but just family. We're going to go with family. I don't know what that means. We're going to go with family. I don't know what that means. But he did confirm. He was on the record with the New York Times the day before saying it was Tomas. Absolutely. And they printed that last night that he told the New York Times it was Tomaso. Yeah. So I don't know why the, like, look, I have my theories.

But why would you withhold that when you said it already three different ways? Why not just clear it up and not leave this obfuscation for people like you and me to talk about saying, Well, are you trying to deflect from him in some way? Is it strategy? Is it kindness? Whatever it is, it's odd. And just for the listening audience, here it is from the New York Times. The day before, he said, we're going to go with family.

Mrs. Guthrie's son-in-law, Tomas Hosione, dropped her off and ensured she made it inside safely before leaving the sheriff added. He was on the record to the New York Times, which was a shift from his earlier messaging. So clearly he wanted it out there. it was Tamas. And then by the time they got to yesterday's presser, he had shifted back to, quote, family. Now, here's the other, very weird. Like, we're just going to go with family. It's an odd way to put it. Yeah. What does it mean? Okay, now here's the other thing that's really bothering me about, I agree with you, the reporters, many of them did a good job, but there were some glaring questions that were not asked. The timeline was changed dramatically.

on Sunday morning. What this sheriff had been saying to us before was that at 11 o'clock, or just after 11 a.m. on Sunday morning, the family was notified by a friend in the church who noticed Nancy didn't attend, and they went over to her house, and about an hour later, they called 911.

That was the story this whole week. That created a lot of consternation. Then we got to the... And many people said, why did it take an hour? How do you, like, especially seeing blood outside of the house like Brian Enton got on camera, who would take an hour? Now, then last night or yesterday at the presser, that totally shifted. He said they discovered, they got to the house and discovered she was missing at 1157 a.m.

So we've lost a whole hour now, the controversial hour, and called law enforcement five minutes later at 12.03. I think it was seven minutes later. Sorry, my math is off. By the way, my math is off. Okay. Seven is lightning fast. That's fast. Okay, so it's a dramatic difference.

But here, let's just listen. Here's what he had said prior to yesterday. This was the story, SOT 18. Sometime earlier that morning, they got a call from somebody at the church who said, hey, your mom's not here. The family went to the house. I'm thinking they spent some time looking for her themselves before they called this. guessing maybe they got there around 11, so they did some searching and realized we need some help,

and they called 911. She was dropped off at 9.30, and she was found to be missing at about 11 o'clock Sunday morning. I know that when we got there, we got there, the family was already there, and they had already spent some time looking, as you would expect. Probably we got an hour delay there from them, not anything intentional, just that, you know, they went and looked and made some calls and then they decided we better call 911. And at 1156 a.m., the family checks on Nancy and discovers her missing. And at 1203 p.m., 9-1-1 has called in to the Pima County Sheriff's Department. What?

Because just to underscore it here, first it's they got a call from a friend at the church around 11-10. Then he says it was at about 11. Then he told you, that middle clip is on your show. He says they found out about 11 and it was about an hour delay before they called 911. Now yesterday, he says, they checked on Nancy and discovered her missing at 1157, right? Is it a little, I keep, is it 57? No, that's right number. Yeah, 57. So, so what do you mean? Because we've also in the midst of all that had both. The Daily Mail and Brian Enton yesterday told us as well reporting that Nancy Guthrie wasn't going to church physically anymore and hadn't been since the COVID pandemic, that she'd been joining the live stream the church offers and participating from her home. Moreover, the Daily Mail reports it wasn't a Zoom situation where the congregants could see who was joining virtually. It was just a live stream being blasted out by the church, outgoing only. and therefore no one would be aware of whether Nancy was participating or not.

So how did we go from, she talked to a friend who was concerned at the church, which you heard him say on camera there, and they took him an hour and then they called 911 to now it's they checked on Nancy and discovered her missing and within moments called 911. Yeah, I think these are all things that lead to an even bigger mystery and a little confusion. I always give law enforcement grace when there's so much going on and there's an exigent circumstance. And now all these ransom notes which have taken law enforcement's direction elsewhere. Let's be honest. This is awful. These ransom notes, especially the one in California, if this guy is guilty of this, it has taken their attention away. But it's a, you know, fog of war is not easy. I can understand how there'd be communication breakdown.

There's other agencies coming in, sharing of information, maybe telephone, you know, the game of a telephone makes mistakes. But I do think that it adds to another element of confusion about this. I think you're being too nice in this situation. With all due respect to the sheriff, you know as well as I do. The time she was discovered missing is very important. It's critical. It's not fog of war. It is not fog of war. That you know. Yeah. It shouldn't be maybe the dissemination of it was, though. The only grace I give is that it is a complicated task that they're undergoing and we don't make any... Nobody asked about it.

Somebody in that room needed to say, you've adjusted the timeline dramatically, Sheriff. Why? No, there was lots that I wish they'd followed up on the car being towed and being processed by warrant. I mean, where was that? Like, hold it. You and I are going to have to fly out there for the next one. Literally, I think you and I are going to have to fly out there together for the next one. That's at least four questions.

Two for you and two for me. Yeah, seriously. I was very frustrated because it was like, that's an obvious one. Ask that. And the one about the car was the other one. And like he just sort of elided around it. It was like car, standard search warrant, court orders, crime scene. The house, not which house.

Wait, wait. Yeah. Right. No, I know. Nancy's house is the crime scene. Was it towed from Nancy's house or was it towed from Annie's house sheriff? And whose car was it? And if it's annies, why are you towing Annie's car?

I only think that since many of the breaking pieces of information that I had were addressed bullet by bullet in that news conference. Yes. That when he said, the car being towed, I assumed that was because I reported that Annie's car has been towed and is now in evidence.

I assume that's what he was saying because he said the car towed from the house. That's standard. As per warrant, it's being processed. So he didn't say from Nancy's house, he didn't say from Annie's house. I can only go on, he was bulleting my reports

and trying to knock him down. But you know, did you hear what he said about the cameras. Something else I picked up on. Let's talk about that. Yeah, big time. Before we talk about the cameras, let me just say quickly, we actually did reach out. We went and tried to pull the warrants to see if they were public. They're under seal. So we can't get them right now to see exactly what they got a warrant for. But let's talk about the cameras because that's another piece of your reporting that has come under fire. First, tell us what your reporting is. And then we'll talk about what he said.

So the exact words that were used is that the nest. And I was told nest cameras. That was the first time that they'd been named. They weren't ring cameras. They were nest cameras. plural were smashed. That was the wording. Nest cameras were smashed. And when asked about that, the sheriff said, well, first he had reported they were removed

and in the timeline called them disconnected. But when asked about them being smashed, he said, smashed, I don't know where you got the information about smashed, but we're not confirming that. And then he did confirm it as plural, that there were more than one. And that was something that I reported,

that there wasn't just the one that Brian Enton saw the braw, left behind. By the way, he went further about that. And it was interesting. He said, regarding the disconnected camera, do you believe that camera was taken? And the sheriff said, we do not have it in our possession. We have not located it. So does that mean that the perpetrator smashed those cameras off the brackets and took them away? Maybe he just doesn't. Clearly, here he is. Let me play for the audience. It's not 14. It's a montage. Sunday morning, early morning at 1.47 a.m. The door doorbell camera disconnects.

The doorbell camera, it was removed. We know that, but we're not confirming that any cameras were smashed or destroyed around the house. I don't know where that came from, but that's something we're not confirming. When you say the doorbell camera was disconnected, do you believe that that camera was taken? We do not have it in our possession. We've not located. It's a yes. Well, I mean, it's off the bracket. How do you get it off the bracket?

Do you bring a screwdriver or do you smash it? Is this semantics? I don't know. But to me, it was pretty telling that that's more of my reporting that has borne out. Mm-hmm. And then we were able to get to the bottom of. Yesterday, we got very confused as we looked at the timeline that they put up about how he was saying the doorbell cameras were disconnected. And then minutes later, there was a picture captured of a person.

No, not a picture. They don't have the image because... Yeah, it's the alerts. No, no, I know, I know. But there was an alert. The point is not whether it was a picture or a written text. The point is that they got a communication from a camera. Yeah.

After they said the doorbell cameras were disconnected. Which was confusing. And what they said was there were other cameras. That was basically the explanation. We reached out to the FBI. We reached out to the sheriff's office. We went back and watched the end of the presser where they did reference there being more than just the doorbell cameras. and the sheriff's office too clarified basically there were other cameras and it was one of

these other cameras that alerted them to the image of a person. The sheriff later said could have been an animal too. Alerted to activity. And the secret is here, and it's a great message to everybody who's watching and listening, if you have a doorbell service of some kind, whether it's Nest, ring.com or, you know, any of the services, you pay for a subscription to be able to get. your history or for many of them it's just a live alert there's someone at your door right now you can look and you might be able to talk to them but once that's done it's gone you don't have an

archive of it so if you come home and you wonder who was skulking around your front door unfortunately if you don't have the service the subscription you can't go back and and look at all the alerts and what they actually recorded and that was what i think they were trying to tell you i mean it's basically yeah you you can alert in real time. And then if you're there and you catch it, you can look. But once it's gone, it's gone. And so I took that second one.

And it was weird, right? Because it's like, you know, one camera, it disconnects at, it's an earlier time. It's like quite a bit of time to 147. The second camera disconnects to 28. It's almost 45 minutes. So here's what it could be. Because a lot of these cameras are powered by batteries, not because they're plugged in somewhere. It's not because they're plugged in.

The first one maybe was smashed. and then crimes were committed and Nancy's being abducted and the second one is smashed and then those cameras are taken, but it's jostling around somewhere and a battery is recording an alert of movement. It doesn't say what the movement is, doesn't show you what the movement is. It just says movement, motion detected. That's what that might be. So you're thinking it could actually be the dismounted doorbell cameras that produced the alert.

We don't know. He's not specifying just how many cameras were in there and what, if anything, they were connected to. But yeah, that was one of the mysteries of the presser yesterday. We did not understand how there was a doorbell camera disconnecting at 147 and software detecting a person on cam at 212. And now all they're saying is there, it was a different camp. I have something to tell you real quickly.

Brian Enten had drone video. Looking inside the garage, Nancy's garage showed Nancy's car in the garage. So it had clearly not been towed to evidence. At least one car. Very interesting. I don't know if she had two, but at least one car was in that garage and had not been towed. If she had two, maybe...

There's no way. There's no 84-year-old woman who has two cars who lives alone. I'd like... That's not a thing. It's Annie's car. I don't like, but we don't know for sure. I mean, we know from your reporting,

but like, it would have been nice to hear somebody ask that of the sheriff as opposed to just crapping on your reporting. They should follow up on it and ask probative questions. Some did. Also, not everybody. Wouldn't confirm if there was or wasn't,

forced entry. My source said door in the back wide open and he wouldn't confirm whether or not there was or wasn't, wouldn't do that. Ashley, thank you. Thank you so much for your courage and your in-depth reporting. Check her out, guys, on her podcast, drop dead serious. And we are back now with our spectacular legal panel, including Jim Fitzgerald,

Jonathan Gilliam, and Chad Ayers. You're not going to want to miss this. Ever been in a bad relationship? You know, the kind that just wears you down, you settle in, even though deep down, you know this is not how it's supposed to be. Well, that's what daily aches and pains can feel like. You stop expecting to feel good. You start thinking, maybe this is just my life now.

But it doesn't have to be. With Relief Actor, you can break up with pain, just like Anthony did. He wrote, quote, I was dealing with debilitating pain and fatigue. I've been taking Relief Factor for about two months, and now I'm back to running my business, fishing, gardening, and doing the things that really matter to me. And listen, maybe it's your back pain, knee issues or stiffness that's slowing you down. Relief factor might help give you your mobility back. Relief Factor is 100% drug-free, and it targets the inflammation that causes pain so you can move better, feel better, and actually enjoy life again.

Try the three-week quick start for just 1995. Go to Relieffactor.com or call 800 for relief. Break up with pain and get back to what matters. We're going to bring in our panel a second, but I just want to go through one thing with you, okay? This is the timeline that they gave us yesterday. 9.48 p.m. Nancy's garage door opened. We believe that's the family.

We believe it was Tomah. dropping her off, though we could be wrong because the sheriff keeps changing his story on that. He told the New York Times, it was Tomas. Then he changed it at the press or two. We're going to go with family. So dropped her off 9.48 p.m. Saturday night. 9.50 p.m. her Nancy's garage door closed. So clearly she went in through her garage to her house.

So in that two-minute time frame, it opened it closed and we believe she went inside. Then at 1.47 a.m., the police said yesterday, her doorbell cams were disconnected. So that's when we believe the bad guy, whoever it was, destroyed and took. That's our understanding. These doorbell cams, Ashley's reporting on the front and the back at 147 a.m. 2.12 a.m., software detects a person on cam. No video is available. 228 a.m., the pacemaker app shows a disconnection from the phone.

So she's got a pacemaker in her body that communicates with her phone and an app. and we are told that if it gets some 30 feet away from the phone, if she gets some 30 feet away from the phone, you'll get, it'll disconnect. Now, so clearly she was being taken out of the house around that time. 228. So if you go from 147 a.m., which is when the doorbell cam got disconnected, to 228 a.m., which is when her pacemaker,

meaning she, got far enough away from her phone that the app stopped communicating with the pacemaker, that is 41 minutes. 41 minutes. What was a kidnapper doing in Nancy Guthrie's home for 41 minutes? How does it take 41 minutes to kidnap an 84-year-old woman? I realize they don't move slowly. It certainly appears as though she fought.

Something happened to cause her to bleed on her front porch or patio area as it appears she was being taken out of the home. But 41 minutes? You got to take off some time to smash the cameras, but that happened, you know, 147, the doorbell got disconnected. I don't, was that, how long could that possibly take? 10 minutes? 157 now, now it's 31 minutes. To get her and get out of the house, why? That's too long. I don't know whether something else happened inside that house. Was there a struggle? Did someone take her life? Is that what happened? And then in a panic removed her? So with her would go the evidence. There is a question about what other evidence was inside the house. And I'm going to play you the sound bite and then I'll bring in my panel.

Let's play the sound talking about what went on inside that home. I think it's not AP. in the house, were there any signs that someone tried to clean up or maybe destroy evidence? I can't talk about the crime scene. So I'll give you another shot, another question. Is there any missing bedding from the home? Again, I can't speak to that. There are certain things in that home that we know only the intruder knows about and the things that occurred. And we don't want that information out.

So the sheriff has been meticulous, both in an interview with Ashley earlier this week and at the presser yesterday, about not revealing what evidence they have inside of the house. But whatever it was, it plus, we believe, in addition to the blood drops out front led them to call in the homicide unit. 41 minutes is a long time. We're going to bring in some guys that will give you insight on this. You won't get anywhere else. former FBI supervisory special agent Jim Fitzgerald, co-host of the cold red podcast, former Navy SEAL and FBI special agent Jonathan Gilliam, and former SWAT assistant team leader, Chad Ayers. Gentlemen, welcome, 41 minutes. Think about it. I hadn't really thought of it in those terms up until they laid out the new timeline last night. That's a long time. And the sheriff is saying that there is additional DNA evidence that they're waiting on the results of. So clearly they did find something else inside that was DNA related.

We just don't know what. Jonathan, let me start with you on that. It's a long time, 41. Yeah, sure. You know what this kind of points me towards, Megan. First of all, we're putting so much attention. Everybody is looking at ransom, ransom, ransom, ransom, that it's easy to overlook the other possibilities.

And the fact that you honed in on this is really good, the 41 minutes, because that could be the time period when somebody would, was looking for something. So they go into the house. There was no robbery, but were they looking for something else? Is there paperwork? Is there something going on that we don't know about with Ms. Guthrie? And somebody was in there trying to find something in particular, because I can't think of any other reason for them to be in there for that long. It's not like they're going to interrogate her before they kidnap her. So it would be a quick in and a quick out typically. So it almost appears just from this timeline that somebody may have been in there and then perhaps

she woke up and there was a scuffle and it took a dark turn. That has happened before. I've read case studies where that's occurred and then they have to go down a different road and in this case it could be a fake ransom. So I'm not exactly, I'm not sure, but I think that this kind of alludes again to the fact that whoever was in that house, house had had been there before. I just have this suspicious feeling and that they were doing something other than just setting up to abduct an 80-year-old woman. So I think this is something that is causing me to pause for just a moment. The reference to some unspecified DNA found inside of the house that's now being tested makes you wonder exactly what was it? You know, was it just they swiped

the door handles and the windows and maybe Nancy's bedposts for touch DNA, or was it actual bodily fluids? Without putting too fine a point on it, it is the case that sometimes when you take someone's life, they'll relieve themselves. They'll lose whatever urine or feces are in their bodies, but not in every situation. But that would certainly, if there was any evidence of that, I feel like they'd be treating this case differently, Chad. I feel like they'd be talking about it differently. But I don't know, because his first move was to call in homicide detectives. And there was additional DNA inside that house.

Listen, I'm not one to hold back. And something that we haven't discussed, Megan, is, is it possible that a sexual assault also took place? And, again, I hate to even briefs the topic, but is that a possibility? Listen, two counties over from where I am, two or three years ago had the exact same situation. The only difference was this lady here was 89 years old, but it was a person on drugs, sexually assaulted her in the middle of the night, brutally murdered her.

Now, she was still there, but is that a possibility? 100%. That's still a possibility. The thing is that when he says, you know, we are still processing DNA and being so vague, it could make us go down a rabbit hole. There's all sorts of options that we have. What do you make of it all, Jim?

This was a clearly successful abduction. If it is a kidnapping, it's poorly undertaken. You don't spend 41 minutes as a kidnapper in the place where you're taking your victim. You get in and you get out. And that's why I'm leaning away somewhat and a lot of the questions about this alleged, you know, ransom letter. I know they're finally come back to be identical. But again, a successful abduction for whatever reason. Is it to hide evidence?

41 minutes, was there an argument of some sort? And I'm not going to point to family, but is it someone known to this woman? And they started having interaction of some sort. And the person snapped out and hit her. Oh, my God. Now, if it's a stranger, leave the body there, get the heck out. If it's someone known to the woman, what do I do now? They better take that body and put it somewhere else.

Or if she's still alive, who knows what condition she's in. but I got to somehow remove her from the scene. So that 41 minutes does open, assuming that number is correct, and it doesn't change on this again, Megan, you know, that's going to be very critical there. So again, a successful abduction, but a poorly run kidnapping at this point, and I have other examples we can talk about, of other kidnappings down the line here today,

but it's just not being run very efficiently or effectively so far. If their ultimate goal was they get money out of these kids, unless there's a lot of things, mitigating circumstance will be things that we're not learning from law enforcement. But successful deduction, not a good... And yet it doesn't... It doesn't look like a full lunatic because they did think to get the ring cameras or the net... They were nest cameras.

And apparently managed to do that without, I don't get getting caught. I realize that those were not subscription cameras. So maybe the images were on there, but just were written over. That's what the sheriff said happens with these cameras when you don't have this subscription service. By the way, get the subscription service, you know? I don't think most of us... understood, you know, that that was a thing. But you got to get the subscription service because it's useless to you in solving crime if it just rewrites every couple of hours, as the sheriff

said, or writes over itself. Like $100 a year. I do want to talk about, I want to talk about the ransom notes in a second, but I got to be honest, I'm with you guys. I'm not totally intrigued by the ransom notes because I don't, I don't believe personally that they're from the real kidnapper. Though I could totally be wrong because the more I listen to Harvey Levin, And the more I think he's starting to believe that they actually are from the hostage taker. But we'll get to those in one second. I just want to stay on a couple of the items that we discuss with Ashley, too. How about the change in the timeline on Sunday morning, guys?

I talked about this a bit with Chad yesterday, but I didn't get to talk to you other guys about it. It was, as we played from the sheriff, I don't know if you guys heard this, but the sheriff had been saying all week that it was an hour delay, that the family had been called by a constituent at the church. I'm reading here. Pima County Sheriff Chris Nannos has said a congregant called Nancy's family at 11 a.m. on Sunday. This is the Daily Mail reporting. A congregant called Nancy's family at 11 a.m. on Sunday after she failed to arrive at church. And then we played the sheriff on camera this week, repeatedly saying that, putting the time around 1110 that the family got notified and got over to and or got over to Nancy's house.

either notified at 1110 or there at Nancy's house. They live only a couple minutes down the road. And then suddenly yesterday, it's completely changed to know the family discovered her missing at 1156 a.m. discovered her missing. And then within seven minutes, called 911. Now that to me seems like a rather large thing to have wrong, like when the family discovered that she wasn't there. And coupled with the new information that Nancy,

now this could turn out to be wrong too, a lot of things have, but that apparently Nancy was not going physically to church. She wasn't going to church. The Daily Mail spoke with a woman who said, hold on, I'm finding my quote here. Let's see, a fellow congregate in Nancy's Church reading from the Daily Mail in Tucson was initially reported to have alerted her family that she failed to attend the morning service on Sunday.

Curiously, however, a source is now told the Daily Mail that the elderly mother of the Today Show host had not been at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church for years. Ever since the COVID pandemic, she has been worshipping online. It is understood that St. Andrews did not have a large-scale Zoom call for online viewing, as some religious organizations do. Instead, the church's 9 a.m. and 10.45 a.m. services on Sunday are live-streamed,

and it is impossible for other participants to know who else is watching. To know who else is watching. Now, the church responded by saying, all we can tell you is that Nancy has been a member here for many years. She is part of our community and we love her, said Ed Coates, administrative assistant at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, quote, we're praying for her. And that's really all we have to say right now. I'm sure the media will know before we will, you know, how the story unfolds, but we are

praying for her safety and praying for her family. So this was her church, the Daily Mail, and also Brian Enten reporting that she had not been to this church physically for years. So how could a congregant have noticed she wasn't there and called the family to report it on Sunday morning? You know, I would, whenever I hear these things, Megan, first of all, this timeline, I'm looking at it as you're talking, I'm going through it. And it's a little odd. The timeline that we have versus the verbiage of the sheriff before is different. And there's some things like the camera detain. detecting or being disconnected and then detecting movement.

There are some things there that don't make sense. It could be easily explained, but they don't make sense. But I would like to know who the person is that reported this to the family. Who called the family? Right. Yes, same. If she's not known to be there or to be on camera, who was it that suspected? Is it somebody that she usually talks to while she's on there?

And they said, oh, you know, and they're just not telling us that. That would make sense. and perhaps it's that simple. But if somebody, if the church or somebody's reporting that there's no way to know if she's online, yet somebody comes up with information that she's not there, then who was that person and how did they have that information? So there's these things. And also the timeline of the family, this reminds me, again, of Idaho where, you know,

they found all this crazy stuff. And instead of calling police immediately, they called a bunch of friends over. to decide what to do next. And so if the family went there and discovered that she wasn't there, and it took that long for them to notify police, if the first timeline that the sheriff went over is correct, that is also very suspicious to me why you would get there and take that long to call police

when apparently it was odd enough for you to go over there and check in the first place. See, I have been defending the hour long, delay because I feel like I would be so reluctant to involve law enforcement without knowing for sure this is that level of situation. I'd be like, she wandered, let's check on our own first, or she may have been picked up by a friend and gone over to a friend's house. Let's check out that. Now, the blood on the front stoop makes it all less easy to understand the hour. That's, that takes it. But that's assuming they saw it. Maybe they too came in through the garage,

which doesn't take you right over the patio. I don't know. And we also don't know what the scene was inside the house. Was it chaotic? Was it obvious that some sort of struggle had happened in there? In which case, the hour-long delay would be weird to law enforcement, too, right? You go to your mom's house and she's not there. That's one thing.

You go there and you see, like, tables overturned and a blood trail leading up to the bedroom, you call within 30 seconds. You know, all that's relevant. I find it very odd. Can I say this one thing? He's changed it so dramatically. One thing real quick is that what I have to guard against is an FBI agent and the other gentleman can speak to this or as an investigator, I should just say investigator. I do not get into the trap of offending people because I assume somebody may have done something.

And, you know, in the Gonzávez family, when the Idaho murders went down, I wasn't that I was suspicious, but I made the comment that the father, Gonzávez's father, his behavior was very odd to me. So I just pointed that out. And the vitriol that I got, because I pointed that out, was overwhelming. But see, that is what an investigator cannot do. If the family members, other family members are saying, no, no, it's not this person or it's not this family member, you have to ignore that because the potential there is that you are going to look past somebody who was involved. And if you look at anything, go and binge watch 48 hours mysteries, which has been on for 30, 40 years,

and you will see that the vast majority of these things are done by family members. And in a lot of cases, the other family members protest about looking at their siblings or spouses and things like that. And keep in mind, we got Savannah living, staying with her sister right now as well. Is it in that, Megan, what we... Clearly, Savannah believes in her sister and her brother-in-law. I mean, I think that's obvious. She wouldn't be staying at that house otherwise. And look, we don't know them at all.

They may be completely lovely people and, you know, this is like crazy to be even looked at. But the reality is if a loved one dies or is missing under very mysterious circumstances where very clearly a crime has been committed, you're going to be looked at. That's just the reality of it. That's just like there's nothing wrong with that. That is crime solving 101. And more than likely, they understand that. and if they have nothing to hide, I mean, they'd be like, we'd be, which is like, go ahead and look at me.

Here's my phone. Here's my car. Here's ask me anything. Like, I appreciate, look at me. Get me off of your radar as soon and as quickly as possible. So you can move on to, you know, whoever really did it. And that leads me to the car. We discussed a bit with Ashley.

But that car, I did not like that sheriff's answer. It was very ambiguous. He was like ticking off the things that Ashley had reported without name. naming her. And he's like, as for the car, that standard procedure, I'll play it again for you guys, it's SOT 16. Listen to this. No one had asked him a question. He was clearly going through Ashley Bainfield's exclusive reporting and trying to, like, dispute her reporting, but he didn't really. He just kind of said, we're not commenting on that, or I don't know where anybody got that. The one thing he really did kind of confirm without confirming was her report that they have seized

Annie Guthrie's car and that it's been impounded. And here is his comment on that in SOT 16. The car, the car that was at the home, it's just standard investigative practices. It's part of the search warrant scene court orders. We pull it out of there and do our scene processing with the vehicle. Guys, I don't even know what that means because if it was Annie Guthrie's car, it was, I believe, at Annie Guthrie's house. I haven't heard any reporting that her car stayed at her mother's home for days until it was allegedly. impounded. And I don't know that that would be part of, if it was at Annie's house, that would not necessarily be part of the crime scene in a standard search warrant. So how does

that grab you? I'll start here, Megan. Just we talked about this the other day. I mean, I think they would be remiss as investigators to not search that car, impounded, put in the evidence lot, and bring in a team to go through it. If they had found anything of viable evidence there, There, forensic evidence, hairs, fibers, DNA, of course, anything related to that. That's off to the lab right now. They're trying to get their comparisons. Obviously, no arrest made. The messaging is complicated and confusing.

I sometimes wonder if they're playing 4D chess or we're back at checkers when we're listening to some of this stuff being said. We're not going to even comment on the sheriff in his delivery style. I think he's drying his best. I agree with that part. I'm giving them some room too, like Ashley said. but the car part, I think I'm not going to get too over concerned about that. I think that is something they had to do. And there's probably other cars they're also looking at.

They should be interviewing a lot of other people too. Why did they have to do it? Explain why they had to do it. Because they were within that inner concentric circle of family members. And that may have been the car that the mother was last driving in, dropped off by someone, one or two people the night before. So that's the last car she was in. Let's see what we can find in there.

If it's in the front seat, hairs and fibers from mom, backseat, no big deal. trunk or a rear SUV, then it means something else. So they did it, apparently a consensual search, maybe a search warrant, whatever it was. And so far, they're awaiting results or the results were negative, and they're moving on in a different direction. I mean, the one thing I think we can say, because I'm just thinking about, you know, we think that the time of kidnapping or, you know, disappearance was around 2 a.m., you know, right around there. I mean, the pacemaker stopped communicating at 2.28 a.m. I think it's fair to say, if she, if she's, you know, if she was a.m., She was taken or, God forbid, killed prior to that point, we would know thanks to the pacemaker.

Because the pacemaker does communicate with the Apple Watch and the Apple phone. And as I understand it now, it's kind of constantly downloading information on there. And if you have like an event, it'll show you. But it's constantly collecting information, the iPhone from your pacemaker. Which they haven't reported an event. If her heart stopped... They haven't reported an event. Right, but I'm saying

like if her, yeah, so if her heart had stopped beating. Right. You know, prior to, you know, at any point from 9.45 when she was last seen forward, we'd know that. We'd know if she were no longer alive prior to the moment that her pacemaker stopped communicating with the phone.

So I think we really can, in this case, unlike a lot of cases, really put the time of whatever happened to her, removal from the home, at 2.28, you know, not before 228 a. And would we assume that the sheriff would come out or the FBI would come out and say, we believe she is still alive. If they have that cell phone data from the pacemaker and we see that, hey,

actually her heart has stopped X amount of time, would he still be standing standing in front of that podium saying, we believe Nancy Guthrie is still alive? No way, no way. And like going so depth into the ransom notes, go ahead, Jonathan. Well, you know, who else would know this is they have, have emergency contacts. When you have a pacemaker, you also have emergency contact and the information goes to your doctor. And if there is an incident, that is reported to the doctor, but it's also

reported to the person who is your emergency contact. And they do these things for a reason, because that's why you have a pacemaker. So if it went offline, who was her emergency contact and did the signal go to the doctor? And why did nobody call 911? And well, because I mean, And that could just be you forgot your phone. I don't think they would alert the doctor in the middle of the night that, like, you got too far away from your phone. But, I mean, but that's not the same thing as having an event, like a cardiac arrest. That's the other thing.

If she's being abducted and her heart rate spikes in the middle of the night and it doesn't usually spike like that or it stops, that is going to notify your emergency contact and the doctor's office. It'll be a record of that there. That should be on there. I agree. So I just, like, to me, it makes who drops. her off, even though there's been weird messaging around that at 948, a little less relevant.

Because I don't think this is a case where whoever dropped her off, you know, took her then or did something to her then. Because I do think the pacemaker would have recorded something between 948 and 228 that night. We would have seen an event or something. She was clearly still in the house between 948 and 228. At least her body in some form was still in the house during that time. She had not been taken yet. They did make a point to say that the son-in-law had made sure that she was safely inside the house. I don't know what that means.

And is that an excuse for his DNA to be around that area? I don't know. Mm-hmm. They did make a point of that. That's interesting. His DNA should be there anyway. That would not necessarily prove anything. blood or of course other body fluids would tell us a lot of his or whoever else it is.

But these people, if I just add in here, they really have to start re-interviewing. They probably interviewed them at least twice so far, separate. Start offering polygraph examinations to them. You know, polygraphs aren't perfect, but have done right, but the right polygraphist and, you know, the pre-interview, the first interview, post-interview, you can get a lot of information from people. So this concentric circle we're talking about. Wait, Jim, can I ask you a question on that?

It should be done. Can I ask you follow up on that? Isn't that dangerous? You know, you heard the sheriff say the family's been very cooperative so far and we want to keep it that way. You say then, yo, would you sit for a polygraph? I'm thinking I'm going to lawyer up at this point because I know exactly where you're going. Maybe even if I'm innocent because you never know. You don't want to get in trouble.

Well, and that's law enforcement has to put the cards on the table and say, look, we have to rule everyone out. They may be telling them in confidence. This case is going nowhere. We don't have suspects outside. We don't have phone cameras, facial recognition or red light cameras, all that stuff, phone pinging off towers. So we just want to go to this one more time and then we're basically done with you. And, you know, I'm from old school.

If you say you want a lawyer and you say you want someone to represent you or you're refusing to be interviewed or a polygraph, I didn't want to ask some work questions about you. But I certainly want phone records too from everyone and ask them about. out, all right, well, your phone call to this person, to that person. And even the person at the church, whoever this person was allegedly called, let's get them interviewed in depth, in detail, maybe a polygraph to them. And let's start throwing these things out there. And there should be another team, of course, working, you know, the alleged ransom note and email, whatever it is, and looking at all those factors, too, from far away. But that concentric circle, a team has to be in there

saying, we're doing this for your sake, everyone. Please. And if someone turns down in that family, that request, the other family marriage goes, well, wait a minute, why don't you want to talk to the investigators? And who knows where that would go from there? But it may lead to a break somehow of the family and someone come forth. I'm not pointing at the family at this point, but do they know someone indirectly, even tangentially, that somehow thought they were doing the right thing and abducted the woman, whether it's a kidnapping or not. We just don't really know that yet, for profit, that is. Go ahead, Chad. So I know yesterday, you know, all of us were kind of this timeline.

and the disconnect. We know the ring doorbell. I know Jonathan, you and I were talking about this. The reed doorbell was destroyed. And then we get that, then the disconnect. So I did a little research. And these cameras do oftentimes, Megan, operate independent of each other. All right.

So just because you messed up the ring door. It was nest, by the way. I don't know if that matters. Okay. It was nest. Well, and what I read is that you can disable, break, whatever they want to call, the ring doorbell, let's just say on the front door.

And this is kind of the theory now. I'm kind of, because obviously Ashley talking about the back door, it appeared that there was some type of entry made to the back door. So is it possible when we look at these two disconnects was they disabled, you know, someone knew how to approach this door to not be viewed or whatever, or it did view them and they just didn't capture the image. They destroy that nest camera. all right at that point we know that is that is that is that is going to be the exit or we believe that's the exit

then at that point they can pull a vehicle to the front door but the entry whether they're working with one or two entry is made into the back now again this doesn't help with the 40 some odd minutes or however they were inside the house all right but when they go into the back door to make entry that is that that is that um you know the other picture that we are gaining from so that's that's That's one thing. Where we had a disconnection at 147 a.m. And we had 2.12 a.m. Software to text person on cam. No video available.

They could also be hardwired, but they also have batteries. Most people use them for the batteries. The batteries last a long time on these nest cameras. So it could be that the camera itself was taken offline and moved, but somehow was able to report movement because it was being moved. The camera itself was being moved. So that's a possibility as well. Also, you know...

Or there could be another camera. There could be a third... We went back. We did ask and specifically tried to get clarity on the camera issue. And we spoke with law enforcement. And they said there was more than one camera in the house. That's what they wanted us to know. Like there was...

That's how they explained the fact that the NEST camera, possibly plural, were gone. And yet they still had this... data that at 212 a.m. software detects a person on camp. They said there was not a camera. What we're doing right now, by the way, Megan, is exactly what happens when you're investigating something. And you have all these different aspects of known, known behaviors or known things that have occurred at a scene. And then, but you don't know the total picture. So where you have to guard, this is where conspiracy theories come up is you have to take what you

know and put in in categorize that or catalog it and then not go down the road too far of theories of each one of those things because we're making educated decisions based on what we know however what we know about this may have nothing to do with what actually happened and that what we're doing right here is really how this works in a lot of ways is we take what information we have and we try to piece it together or find uh evidence of the gaps that exist. so we can connect those things. And that's where we're at versus law enforcement. A lot of these things don't make any sense. And I think a lot of this has to do with the sheriff's verbiage. I'm still stuck on 41 minutes. Why is it to take 41 minutes to get an 84-year-old

out of the house? And I also am focused on that. There's other DNA that we're having tested right now. You guys know as well as I do. They probably lit that house up in Luminal to see whether anybody had done cleanup to see whether there had been more blood that had been cleaned up, in particular on the inside of the house versus the outside. And they know the answer to that right now, like how much blood was spilled. And what other bodily fluids may have been spilled? And is that what they were doing? Were they cleaning up? Were they covering their tracks before they left? Or did something more nefarious happen during that time? The blood drops out front? You know, we've had some people who are familiar with crime scenes suggest the way the drops hit

suggest that they came straight down vertically as if from like a bloody nose, that kind of thing. I'm not sure we know that. I think that's just armchair analysis. We haven't heard like a true blood expert opine to that effect. So we just we just don't know. Stand by that because we do have to investigate the notes. And Harvey Levin really revealed a lot last night about what's in them. And they are very clearly being taken very seriously by the Guthrie children.

I mean, and they've seen them. So I think those three absolutely believe that this might be the hostage taker and that they might need to negotiate with this person to save their mother's life. And Harvey Levin really revealed quite a bit about what's in there and why they might believe that. That's next. We'll take a quick break first. Be right back with more.

Feeling sluggish, bloated, not quite like yourself, life constantly bombards us with silent threats, processed foods, artificial. light, nonstop stress, all of which can disrupt gut health, drain energy, and weaken immune health. When that happens, it's not that your body is broken, it's that it might be missing the right inputs. That's why I want to tell you about armour cholesterol. It's packed with more than 400 bioactive nutrients that they say can work at a foundational level to fortify gut health, support immune health, fuel recovery, and promote whole body vitality. Strong gut integrity can support metabolism, skin and hair health, even performance and recovery, which is why

cholesterol has long been valued by some elite athletes as well. If you are looking to take back control of your health from the inside out, consider Armra. And they have a special deal for you now. Go to armora.com slash Megan or enter Megan to get 35% off your first subscription order. That's A-R-M-R-M-R-A-com slash M-E-G-Y-N. We're back now with our panel and more on the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. And we're going to get into the ransom note now. The ransom note, the authority confirmed yesterday that it was the same note sent to all three media outlets, TMZ and two Tucson local television stations. That was a question Jim had been asking from the beginning. We're told by the FBI, same note, three different recipients. And now Harvey Levin is offering new details of what

was in the letter. Here's a little of what he told Aaron Burnett last night, Sot 5. The Monday deadline is far more consequential. I will say this, that they do mention an Apple Watch as the FBI said, and they do mention the floodlight, the damage floodlight. There is something else, and it is the placement of the Apple Watch, which has not come out. And if that placement is accurate, I'm sure that is something that puts this letter on the FBI's radar. They went to great lengths in sending this email to us in making sure that it stays anonymous. I don't know that the FBI is at all close to figuring out where it came from. They began the letter.

I don't think I'm giving anything away here. They began the letter by saying that Nancy is okay but scared. So they say she is okay. And also that she's aware of the letter and the demands. That Nancy Guthrie herself is aware of it. Yes. So that's very interesting, the part about the watch guy. because one of the questions at the presser yesterday was, okay, you know, you're saying in this note,

they referenced the Apple Watch and something about the floodlights on her home. Well, you can see the floodlights on her home from outside. Like there are pictures right now on Fox News Digital showing them, you know, it's not like a big news thing. And the reports about her Apple Watch hit, I think, on Monday, like right after this story first became national news. So, and the ransom notes, as far as we know, did not go to the media outlets. until we believe Tuesday. So the question was asked to the FBI, like, you know, why do we believe these are real, as opposed to somebody who just heard information in the news

and then try to capitalize on this family's pain? And the FBI director seemed like he didn't say, oh, no, there's other stuff in the note. He was like, yeah, that's one of the things we're considering. But now you have Harvey Levin saying, no, no, no, there was something specifically about the placement of the Apple Watch, which he suggested only the kidnapper could know if the placement of the watch as described in this note were correct.

You know, if the person, maybe they said she had it right on her bedside table next to a picture of the one grandchild and a notepad. You know, maybe it was something that truly only the kidnapper could know. So that's one of the reasons why he's taking it very specifically or very seriously. there's one other thing, there's two other things I want to play, but let's just start there. Does that, what do you make of Harvey's take on the specifics of the note? I'd like to know if that note is, how similar is it to the one that the guy got arrested for? So that first and foremost is kind of spark of my interest because I need to totally rule that guy out for everything else, which law enforcement may have done that already.

But the specific. They're saying they're not related. Okay. I mean, look, I think the FBI's doing what they should be doing first and foremost, which is taking it seriously. It doesn't mean it's real. It means they're taking it seriously because they don't know if it's not real. And so, you know, how much do people vary in where they put their watches? Or did they put the watch in a certain place and then mention that? You know, I don't know that.

And so I think speculating on the reality or the realism of these notes, even though they sound very compelling, it may just, it may not be anything, or it may be, again, Megan, 41 minutes in a home before you abduct somebody, it just may be the fact that people who were in there know her and know that house, and they're using this as a ruse,

and they can say these specific things because they were in there for that long, whether they meant to hurt her or not, or wake her up or not. Hmm. Wait, are you suggesting, Like if they took her life and now they're just play acting, that there's a kidnapping underway? Very well could be.

I mean, that would not be the first time that that has happened. And it would not be the first time that people have gone into. If it was a sexual assault, as we were talking about earlier, I doubt that that individual that would go into the house and do a sexual assault of that nature of an elderly woman is going to go down the road of this ruse. So those wouldn't be probably connected. But a family member, we have seen in the past where they have tried to send the police down another road either blaming somebody or some type of ruse. So I could see that occurring, especially if the death was not intentional.

Let me get to two other soundbites from Harvey describing what's in the note. Here's SOT 6A to Hannity. I don't know. But the way it's written, they say this is it. It's the only communication. And the police aren't going to be able to help you. They're that bold saying that. There is a phrase in this email that absolutely makes me believe this person who wrote this.

And if they're telling the truth that Nancy is within a radius of the Tucson area, not in Tucson right now, but in a radius. It would be New Mexico. I don't know how far. But I think at least what the authorities have is they've got a radius. And that's something. There's a little bit more on her allegedly being in the. Tucson area where he spoke with Aaron Burnett, SOT 6?

My sense is this is whoever sent this letter is based in the Tucson area. And I say that because of a reference made in the letter, a sentence in the letter, it feels to me reading it that this is Tucson based. And I think that's a fair analysis based on, you know, my discussion. today in the office and just reading this letter. So this doesn't feel like this is somebody out of state or out of the country who hatch this plan. It feels more localized. And then today on his show, he expanded even further saying why he believes she might be held in the Tucson area if this note's real. Quote, there is a demand of millions in Bitcoin for

Nancy's safe return. And there is a time frame for how long it would take Nancy to be returned to Tucson after getting the money. Now, I disagree with Harvey. That does not mean that this person is not overseas. He could be overseas, and this whole thing is a fraud. He's trying to take advantage of Nancy Guthrie's disappearance. He could absolutely be sitting someplace in India doing this whole thing. Harvey's suggesting if it's real, then the person's got her near Tucson, because obviously he's suggesting, Chad, that they could have her back very quickly once they get their millions. Yeah, and I think what it really boils down to, I mean, if we're just using common sense here, it's not like they took her to an airport or even an FBO and got her on a private plane, right?

You've got to have an ID unless you've got some, you know, janky airfield behind your house in the middle of the desert and they were on some prop plane, probably very highly unlikely. So we can probably eliminate that aspect. So where is she? Does this mean she's right in that immediate area? I don't know. It's hard for me to believe that you would risk getting in a car and driving states away with her in the vehicle, risking getting pulled over, risking getting an accident, anything like that.

I call bullshit. Mm-hmm. That's a good point. I mean, how seriously should we take these notes, Jim? All right, let's like break it down in the cases that I've worked over the years with some similarity to this one, or certainly I'm familiar with. It's, we'll just focus on the note now. It's either a hoax or it's real. And I'm sure investigators are looking at both possibilities there. If it's a hoax, it could be for three separate reasons, just an opportunist saying, hey, I'm going to make some quick money off this like you just described.

They're in India, Eastern Europe somewhere. They have nothing to do with the case. if it's it could be harassment. Just someone could be some college kids having fun with this. Hey, I know how to put these emails together. You know, I watched criminal minds back in the day and they put something together. Or, and this brings us back now to what is the reason for the abduction

for a profit or is it for a revenge taking of this woman and possibly doing bad things to her? And they put this out, as I described yesterday, a POMIC post-offence manipulation of investigation communication. Lots of syllables. I coined that term because I was seeing these things happening. In other cases, I worked over the years, certainly back in the late 90s and early 2000s. And these are, it's a whole sort of separate set of letters that people were putting together. So is someone sophisticated enough who took Mrs. Guthrie, then put her somewhere,

not still alive and not alive, and said, hey, I'm going to become a suspect. I better put this fake email out to two news stations and TMZ. Y TMZ, I'm not sure, but that's probably what the person watches. And that's a clue, too, about who this person is. So the investigators have to handle this as being real. I've never said they shouldn't. But they also have to consider other options here. And I'll tell you what, the family, it's easy for me being objective,

sitting on this side of the investigation or actually out of it. But knowing enough about it, they should be demanding as best they can for a proof of life somehow, some way. And if you're a good kidnapper, you're going to provide that. Because you didn't do this for fun. You didn't do this just for kicks like they did 100 years ago, the two college kids kidnapped the young boy in Chicago. But you did this to make money.

So this is a whole failure. If she winds up dead and you wind up getting no money, that you're still going to be held liable for it. So they better be some kind of proof of life that they offer. And then the parents, I should say the family will know she's alive or not. But these are all the options and the different sort of silos that the investigators have to look at. of what this letter actually means is email and how and it's authenticity.

So do you guys believe if we don't, if the family doesn't get proof of life between now and Monday, which is the second deadline in there, which is the more serious deadline according to Harvey, I can only guess he's suggesting they're saying that's it for Nancy on Monday, but something much more serious, he said, is going to happen on Monday if they don't get the money. If they don't offer proof of life, which is what Savannah and her siblings ask, for, which is what Cameron her brother asked for last night. They want to be in communication very, very badly, and they want proof of life. And this, and you know what, I bet Savannah, if she got proof of life, I bet she'd pay the money. I bet she would pay the millions of dollars. I mean,

who wouldn't if you had it? So if they don't get it and Monday passes, do you feel like we can safely say this was a hoax? Well, we can say it was a ruse or a hoax. And so what's the difference there. Somebody is, like the guy in California, is just trying to extort money from somebody, basically. Whereas if the people who did it use this as a ruse to get the tension away from them, and then they just drop off the radar, I think it's very, very telling. Because a true person, listen, there's two phases of this crime that happened. One is, actually three, entry to the house and whatever reason they were there for 41 minutes, removal of the victim or kidnapping, removal if it was a body, and then this potential ransom issue. And the ransom part of this is

really the most technical aspect of this. So somebody to do all three of these things for the first time ever is quite a big deal. Now, they're doing these in Mexico. The cartels are using Bitcoin now as ways to collect ransom. But there's no evidence that that's occurred over the border, which is not really far from where she lives, her type of person, a person, the persona that she, or the person that she is rich and going, had she traveled to Mexico and being kidnapped to there, that would make sense. So I just look at this as we're going down a rapid hole here that has two different types of phases of this crime. And the second one, which is this, this ransom issue, it's very hard, it's very hard to figure out. And I'll say, I think because in the,

if she is there, if the ransom is real, they said 5 p.m. They didn't say Greenwich Mountain Time, right, which I think a professional would probably say that. They said local time. So that kind of tells me that the potential is that they. I don't know if they said that. I don't know if they said local time. Can I just ask you, can you guys stick around for just another couple of minutes? I know you're very busy, but I feel like we need to finish this discussion. I won't keep you long. Can you stay past the top of the hour for a bit? Yes. Okay, great. We're going to do an ad. We're going to come back with the guys who are going to finish the ransom discussion properly. Don't go away. Let's talk about something we all want. Real peace of mind. It might start with knowing your family

is truly safe no matter what. That's where simply safe comes in. It's the security system millions of Americans rely on to protect what matters most. Traditional alarms, they only react after a burglary is already inside. It's too late. SimplySafe's active guard outdoor protection changes that. AI-powered cameras with live professional monitoring agents watch your property 24-7. If someone is lurking or acting suspicious, those agents spot it, speak to them in real time, blast spotlights, and call police before they ever get near your door. No long-term contracts, no cancellation fees. Monitoring starts at about $1 a day, plus a 60-day money-back guarantee. It's been named Best Home Security System by U.S. News 5 years running and number one in customer service by Newsweek and USA Today.

So why wait? Protect your home today and enjoy 50% off a new SimplySafe system with professional monitoring at Simplice.com.com slash me, M-E-G-Y-N. There's no safe like SimplySafe. Hey, everyone. It's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. 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 Jashinsky, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news, only on Megan Kelly channel, SiriusXM 11, and on the SiriusXM app. What is in the letter, because there's been a lot of disparate reporting, What is in the letter that can serve as a proof of the fact that they were in that house? You know, there's stuff about the floodlight, the watch.

You know, remember, there's images of her wearing the watch online. And that's one of the things I would be doing, LJ, by the way. Those images of her online, I've seen at least one of her with Savannah. I would get my tech guys and hammer that website. Who's been hitting that website? Can you identify any out-of-country IPs that have been hitting that website? Somebody hitting it continuously recently? stuff like that to try to contextualize this letter to see if it's legit.

Because without something that really tells you she was in that house, there's no way you can pay this ransom because there's no way to confirm you're going to get her back. That's Paul Morrow, former NYPD inspector on Fox News earlier, back now with our panel. So that's a really good point, you guys. I mean, truly, like, if you're in the Guthrie's position right now, desperate to have her back, you probably would pay anything. if the kidnapper would just make clear he actually has her. You can't.

You can't send Bitcoin or anything else right now. How could you possibly do that without proof of life? I mean, even in your most desperate, you know that would be absolutely foolhardy, right? Like there's no way the FBI is going to advise them, Jim, to do that. Yeah. And there's no way a real experienced kidnapper would not be willing to give proof of life. It's done in many cases in the past in which I am familiar, and there's just no reason for it. I think a more logical thing right now for the family to consider. And again, we don't know all the

facts and where this watch was placed that was in a dog bowl hanging from a chandelier and a toilet. That could be something significant. Oh, yeah, I left the watch in the house. That's not as much to me important proving what this is. And all that really means is the person was inside the house and saw the watch. It doesn't mean this is a for-ransom kidnapping, even if that is the case. What I would consider the family doing right now is putting out a million-dollar reward.

And they will consider turning that over to the cryptocurrency to the address they were given if, in fact, they get proof of life. And let's see what that generates. $50,000 is nice. The FBI put that up. But I'd just see a million or even more as a reward for the location of Mrs. Guthrie.

And then if we get proof of life, we can transfer that to a cryptocurrency account somewhere. And let's see what that generates. These people want the money. They didn't do this for fun or an exercise if, not emphasis is on if, if it's an actual kidnapping for profit. If it's anything else that changes the entire paradigm and there are other factors in there that we've already discussed. Well, Jim, let me run something by you.

think about this. Would if, because we started off the show again and we heard Ashley talking about the son-in-law, if the son-in-law is involved, is this letter? And if it's from him, is that just a BS letter? Because you would think if the son-in-law went in there to, you know, take her life in hopes of getting, you know, insurance money, getting grandmas or mother-in-law's house, would you go to the extent? of writing this full letter? Well, it's an email.

It wouldn't take a whole lot to do it. And apparently it's a real crypto address. I don't know enough about that or how easy to do to research cryptocurrency accounts. But yeah, this happened a lot with other cases I work. I had a heart surgeon who was accused of killing his wife,

but the police in Pennsylvania couldn't prove it. Next thing of these anonymous letters show up to his lawyers, it's different. Not a kidnapping looking for money, but these people put these letters together the nurse in northern New Jersey who killed her husband, chopped them up, put them in the Chesape. She put a bunch of letters around North Jersey saying, oh, no, the mob did it. Others did it. She got convicted in court. I testified in that case. People do these kind of levers to cover their

track. They think they're original and clever, but they're really not. There's actually a formula to how these things are written. And just because the person knows where a watch may have been placed, if you're a real kidnapper, you're going to have some real specific information. You're going to have maybe a lock of hair. The case in 1993, the Tuxedo CEO in New York City, these guys lowered down, they put them in a hole in the ground by train tracks. They lowered down a tape recorder, had them talk into it, and then they would put that over an untraceable cell phone, even back then. There's a woman in Norway who went missing. I actually know one of the people working on it.

And 20, no, it was about four years ago, I think. And there's a note left on the table. She was missing. No one ever saw her again. but the note was for a ransom amount. So there are other cases that and phone calls are made in the Exxon Executive's case. Because they seriously

wanted the money. That was the reason for doing this. It doesn't seem these kidnappers are real serious now from what we know, and I want to emphasize from what we know. And the family has every right to ask these questions. It's not easy one at your own mother or child, of course, but from an objective viewpoint,

demand that proof of life, put a reward out at the same time, and you'll transfer it to a cyber account once you get that proof of life. That would be my suggestion. I mean, how difficult, obviously, it's very. I think the answer is obviously very, very. How difficult is it really for the FBI to trace the provenance of an email that went to three different news organizations? And also, there's another electronic trail there somewhat in setting up the Bitcoin account, I guess.

Although I do think they're very, we did look into that a little when we did our first. fraud week, and it's like good luck, good luck tracking the Bitcoin, unfortunately. But this seems like it should be within the FBI's capabilities. Like Jonathan, do you have any thoughts? Like, how hard can it be? Well, it all depends on the person that was sitting the email. If they have a system set up like Nigerians do, a lot of the times when they do these bank fraud cases, where they are broadcasting the actual email from a different location. have a program that pushes it into a different location. That's where it becomes a little difficult for the Bureau.

But the FBI and their investigators that are specialized in this, they are really good at being able to reverse engineer any type of tactic that somebody using an email would have done. But again, Megan, we look at the Nigerians and these bank frauds. These are people that do tens of thousands of these almost on a daily basis. So somebody who has never done, you know, a ransom email before, but maybe they know a little bit about Bitcoin. They're more likely to get caught, hence the guy in California. Yes. Right?

So that makes sense. I want to point this out real quick. This is kind of a bottom line for me right now about where we are in this investigation and some things that they could be looking at, and they may very well be. But what were the movements around that house before this? I'm talking about days before this. We look at Brian Colberger. He, you know, he was around there.

They, I think they said over a dozen times around that house. And then the night that he went to the house, he shut his cell phone off on the way there and turned it back on when he was on his way back home. Those are very telling pieces of evidence. And I would be looking at the family members like that. I'd be looking at their cars because nowadays you can, the computers in the cars tell you when it was turned on, when it was turned off, putting parks, so on and so forth. they can pull that information.

And then lastly, that pacemaker could still, it could still be broadcasting. And because it went offline, it's still a Bluetooth product. So 10 to 100 feet is the typical distance that a Bluetooth can be picked up. And we do have technology in the Bureau. It has been declassified, but I still don't like to talk about it too much. But they are very effective at picking up cell information, so effective. effective that they can tell you where a person is in a building if they need to. So I think if she is somewhere in the vicinity of that home or somewhere where they kind of get an idea, perhaps

where an email went back to, they could go with this specific equipment and potentially, if they got close enough, still find the broadcast from that pacemaker, but they'd have to be very close. Can you imagine, Jonathan, they're walking around the Tucson area with her phone, you know, waiting for it, like with the Bluetooth on, waiting for it to connect to something. You know, just walking in front of as many houses as they possibly can in areas that, you know, look sketchy or like a place you might hide somebody. And if it actually were to connect, that would be absolutely stunning and miraculous. And we pray, we're all praying every day that this is how this ends, that they find her,

that this isn't a ruse, that kidnappers really do have her. and that for some purchase price or other pressure point, the Guthrys can get her back. I mean, I'm sure that's what they're praying every morning and every night. If there's a way to have a holding account where they could put money into it and say, we're not going to give you this money until we get proof of life. Or if it was the big amount, we're not going to let you make the final transaction until we get her body.

But we don't have any, we can't touch it and bring it back, but you can't grab it until we get this. I don't know if that exists in Bitcoin, but if it does, that would be something that I would be looking into. But again, well, like an escrow. Sure. Yes. Yeah. Well, I mean, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the Bitcoin piece of it, I don't, I feel like that's, it is kind of sophisticated. I feel like, you know, if this were a family member, obviously Savannah's worldly and all that, but like, I don't think her siblings are as worldly. The brother's a fighter jet pilot and doesn't seem to have, I don't know, he was late to even get out to Tucson. on the sister Annie and her husband, they seem like working class people. You know, she's a poet. The husband's part-time middle school teacher and plays drums in a band.

I just, unlike the Nigerians, I don't think that they would necessarily have the sophistication to, like, craft this, the email thing and, like, hold tough and, like, do the crypto account that's untraceable and get the email that's untraceable. That guy out in California got caught because he was, you know, a Nimrod. He used some service that will change your phone number and make it look like you're not calling from your phone. And then they traced the fake phone number back to some account that had his email attached to it. They're like, oh, hello, we know exactly who it is. So he was a dope. He was a stupid criminal. But the people setting up this whole Bitcoin thing don't seem like unsophisticated people.

They seem to me more like people who've probably done this before. So that could be. And when we did our fraud week, we could be Nigerian groups. We learned that these people like, they operate. like serious frauds. Like the guy who tried to defraud me and my husband's mom, they had a cast of characters playing actors, like different parts. They had different phone numbers set up to like, you can call here. This is the courthouse. You can verify they're there. This is another number. We spoke to several different people who were involved.

There was an actress who had changed her voice to sound like my sister-in-law. It was like crazy how elaborate it was. So this, first of all, they have absolutely no feelings and would in a second try to hurt Savannah and her siblings at their lowest. worst moment without even thinking. They would not give a shit. And second of all, they really are sophisticated. And if they think there's a deep pocket and they could get a couple million bucks quickly, they'd absolutely do it, which makes way more sense to me. That's exactly right. That's the people who could jump in on this and use that, are these professional people. That's where the difficulty in validating this, you pay 25 million. It may be going to some Nigerian group that does bank

and Bitcoin fraud. You know, that could be the case. Okay, so wait. So let's just follow that down the line for a second. Okay, let's say we're blaming the Nigerians, but let's face it, they deserve it. Let's say it's Nigerians, okay, just for short form. That leaves us with, okay, so the whole ransom thing is a fraud. That's just a, that's a regular, basic garden variety fraud.

Opportunist people. Many people have been opportunist, right. Thank you. that leaves us with the question of what happened to Nancy. Right? Okay, so now under this scenario, she wasn't taken by anybody looking for ransom because there's been no other demand other than this fake guy in California that we know of. Jim would want us to say that that we know of.

It's possible they've got something they're not letting out of the bag. Maybe something that somebody showed an AI version of Nancy or a version of Nancy that led the family to say images can be easily manipulated. So can voices please give us actual proof of life? that could have happened behind the scenes and none of us knows about it. Except 41 minutes seem a lot more interesting, doesn't it? But the family continues to say both Cameron and Savannah and Annie the day before, we need proof of life and we need to hear from you.

We need to hear from you. We need a way of contacting you. So it certainly doesn't sound like there's any person, either behind the scenes unknown to us or the person behind the Bitcoin demand that's actually willing to engage with the family, to talk to them to make clear their needs or to provide the proof of life. So if there's no proof of life coupled with the ransom demand,

I don't think we have a real kidnapper making it. I just, like Jim points out, the person, if they're doing that, is doing it to get paid. So if what you need to get paid and you actually have Nancy is a picture of Nancy, you're going to find a way to give it.

You found a way to set up the Bitcoin. You found a way to set up the email that's undetectable. How hard can it be to set up an undetectable, like a Polaroid picture of Nancy and sent it. it. So that leaves us to the question of what happened to her. Like, somebody didn't just kidnap her for fun. You're like, let's just kidnap Nancy and like never give her back. Like, that'll be a good time. You know, it's not like a baby where like they get kidnapped

and they can get sold. You know, there's a black market for babies or, you know, for young children get sold into sex trafficking. It's horrid. But those are things that happen. But those are things that happen. There's no like market for 84-year-old elderly women with heart problems where they're, I don't mean this in the cruelest sense that it sounds, but like, where they can't do any good for anybody. You know, they can't be used in a way that's sellable. No value. Yeah. So what is her monetary? Monetary. Monetary. Monetary. So what does that mean? So what is her value and who does that value belong to. So that is the question that you now have to ask. If it's

not a ransom, then who has a motive, either value in the way of something they'll inherit or because they have an emotional need to get rid of her through anger or some kind of But just before we even get to that, Jonathan,

what we're saying is, if there's no kidnapper, then this is a murder. That's what we're saying. No one's just going to kidnapper. Keep her alive for no reason. None of us can think of an, yes, no one here can think of an alternate purpose.

Hence the removal. For an 84-year-old woman. Hence of removal, not a kidnaping, which would also, if she was deceased inside the house and her heart is no longer beating, you may only have droplets of blood, not somebody bleeding. And so that's a big difference as well. There would be blood potentially where the injury occurred, or maybe she just died, you know, because of her heart issue.

But there could be some blood. but you would not see blood a long ways. Once a heart stops, the heart is, the pumping stops. But wouldn't that be on the pacemaker? The pacemaker was communicating with the phone until 2.28 a.m. So the phone, which they have, they don't have Nancy, but they have the phone and the app's data up until 2.28 a.m. that morning, wouldn't they see her, Her heart is no longer beating.

So I feel like that's the argument against Nancy was murdered in the home. That's why I understand. The 228. That's why understanding what if there was an issue. If there was an issue that pacemaker was reporting increased heart rate, you know, something that was an incident that was occurring before it went offline, that is an important part of this because then you would see that she was actually assaulted or she was awakened.

And if that's closer to the beginning of that 41 minutes or at the end of the 41 minutes, that may be telling one way or the other of how they reacted at that point, if that makes sense. Okay, but yes, but back to my point, don't you agree if they had killed Nancy in the home, we would know it thanks to that pacemaker, which was communicating with the phone up to 2.28 a.m. Go ahead, Jeff. That's right, Megan. I'm just looking it up. And it says for data transmission to a smartphone app, pacemakers generally need to be within a recommended distance between one meter to ensure us. Our information was it's like 30 feet that they'll stop.

Like if you get out about 30 feet away from your phone, your pacemaker will stop. Which is it very far? No. But my point is like, well, what's your point? I mean, do you think, I feel like, I feel like. if Nancy had been killed in that house prior to 228 a.m., we'd know, thanks to the Facebook. That's what I'm getting out, and I agree with that if she was murdered in that house and her cell phone is there, that data should. If we see a heart stoppage during that 40-minute time frame,

I feel like it would be on the phone. And the crime scene would reflect it too. Sure. Yep. And we don't know whether it does. You know, the sheriff is being pretty good about not saying anything about the crime scene, though we know there's additional DNA, and he did call homicide detectives, first thing. But I, and maybe I'm wrong about it. Maybe I'm not thinking about something with that pacemaker, but I just feel like if they're saying the pacemaker disconnected from the phone at 2.28 a.m., then that means they were still communicating, which means that the app on the phone would show her heart stopped. That's the whole point of having the app is so you can see what's going on with your heart and your doctor could potentially say, that's to be the first thing they would check.

Did she, was she killed? Did the heart beat all the way up to 228 when the communications stopped? And I'm sure it did. Otherwise, why are we doing all this? Otherwise, why didn't they say we know she's dead? You know, like that the sheriff's not in the business of wasting the nation's time. So it must have, she must have been alive as of 2.28 a.m. Her heart must have still been beating and they, and when it stopped communicating, which means she was taken out of that house alive. And so now that's the next question. If you're not kidnapping her for money, but you are kidnapping her, what the hell? Like what, then what next in this case?

What would be the point of doing that to move her to another location to murder? Well, one thing that comes to mind to me would be if this person is acting alone, it's very hard to move dead weight. I don't care how strong you are. So was that something where they put a gun to her and said, get in the car and then they took her away from the residence to kill her, or were they operating in two people to remove her? So that's one angle to look at as well. What are you going to say, Jim? Well, if this is a stranger and it was some kind of a burglary

or some other reason to go in there, we haven't discussed this week yet at all, the concept, I'm not going there, but I'll mention it, murder for hire. It doesn't always have to be someone directly goes and strangles, punches someone like that. But if someone goes there and it's a stranger with no other reason, but maybe a burglary, something like that, there's no reason to take the body with them. Exponentially, you increase the odds of getting caught, arrested, all those things down the line. You have the hassle of disposing of a body. If it's someone known to the person, there may be more of a reason, especially if you're scared, maybe you haven't done this before, to get that body out of there. This body could be just 100 yards away in a shallow, in a shallow

grave. And I'm assuming they've done everything they could around the house. I'm hoping the trunk of her car has been open. There's cases I've been familiar with over the years. They search for days and the missing kid is inside the trunk of an old car. I'm sure that's all been examined. But it could be, it could be much closer to home than we even know. Animal activity will reflect some of that. I don't want to get too graphic here. I still want to think she's alive. But it's, there's a whole different set of personality issues that come into play, whether they know the woman, whether they don't know the woman, whether someone else had them go there to do something to her, perhaps it went wrong. And then what is the reason that someone would hire someone to go there

to do something bad to this woman? It just boggles of mind. And I think it was Jonathan talked about puzzle pieces that even law enforcement are dealing with. We have even fewer puzzle pieces out here because we don't have all the facts about this. So I think it's our best when I've had investigators come into me at Quantico to do. a, you know, put together a profile or behavioral assessment of a crime, I'd say here are the different options that you have to look into. Here are the scenarios that have to play out. And I think, I think we've done a pretty good job today, Megan, of laying out the different options in that regard. And police know more than we do. And hopefully they're following through every single lead

that we talked about and things we don't even know about in terms of this investigation. I will say at the local level, you know, kind of from the local sheriff's office and in investigating home invasions. Whenever I hear home invasions, personally, I don't see home invasions in the middle of the night on 84-year-old woman. When I see home invasions at the local level that we work, you're involved in gambling, dope, prostitution,

something like that for just a random home invasion. Look, it's 2026. And again, yes, we know that the doorbells were disabled or things like that. A normal, you know, just criminal, this is just called a crackhead that's just trying to break in and try to steal some money. Usually, though, they don't have the wear a thought of do what, at least some of the things that are in this timeline, I don't believe. Well, and as far as we know, nothing was stolen.

Yeah, and so it's incredible what Chad was just pointing out there. And also, when James was pointing in his things earlier, is that in all of these different aspects of criminality, there are typical behaviors and statistics that go along with that. A crackhead going in and sexually assaulting somebody is most likely not going to try to bring the person out and they're certainly not going to try to extort them to this level. Somebody who is going to try to extort for ransom money and that is their objective, they are probably not going to be this vague and they're probably not going to linger in the house for 41 minutes. And so you have to look at each one of these potential avenues and look at what is the typical behavior because it's all been done before. What does the statistics say that they will probably do when this crime occurs? And then we need

to start looking at the investigators will look at all of those things. And so as we go through these scenarios, it's, this is how this whole system works. but when you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle, it becomes very chaotic. And especially for press when they're doing this, dealing with a sheriff who may be great at his job. But even Moses in the Bible asked God if his brother Aaron could go and speak for him because he wasn't eloquent.

This sheriff would be very good to hand off the speaking part of this to someone else because he's very confusing for the public. It is confusing. I do want to mention the van. the New York Post reporting that Nancy Guthrie's neighbor, Brett McIntyre, told the post on Thursday that he reported seeing an unmarked van to the police who asked him basic questions about what he observed in the days leading up to the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. Quote, it was somewhere on that street, I think he means Nancy's. It was a white van full-sized with no printing on the sides. It was parked on the street.

The McIntyres couldn't recall the exact day. they spotted the van, but Brett said he did report it to the police. Now, when they say unmarked van, I think they just mean there was nothing on the size. I don't think he means there wasn't a license plate. Maybe we're too tough on unmarked or on white vans. I have to say, as a woman, I don't go anywhere near them. You know, if I pull into a parking lot and there's a white van there, there's zero chance on parking my car next.

And it's like, I grew up in the 70s. That's exactly who's going to grab you, you know, like, you know this. We were the same way of the rider trucks after. Pune the white van. Yeah, right. I don't know. It's like this is shoe leather reporting and potentially police work. Go ahead, Jim.

D.C. sniper, white van. That's all that they were looking for. And of course, it was not a white van, a blue caprice or something. You know, something I just want to throw out here. I've interviewed serial offenders in prison long after they've been sentenced and convicted. And you'd want to know about how they chose certain victims and how they're ingress or egress. And there's been at least a few of these guys that told me, sometimes even just taking a confession across the table.

You know, why did it take you so long to do whatever you're doing? And it could be something as simple as a, oh, I saw a police car go down the street. Now, it would be interesting to get the patrol logs of the officers on duty that night. Did by chance anyone go down an officer go down the street? And that scared the bejesus out of the people in there. And that's why they spent the extra 40-some minutes, you know, in the house laying low. And I'm not saying it was actually a police car. It could have been some other facts.

some other car even that went down the street and that scared them. And they said, we better lay low for out. Of course, the lights are out and whatever, white van, some other kind of a vehicle, no doubt a vehicle took her away from the scene. And they said, let's lay low and make sure they're clear. So I know we kind of kind of move past the missing 40 plus minutes, but there could be a very logical reason when they finally identify these people and they would say, well, that's why we did it. That's why we hung around longer. There has to be video I want to ask you of the car going in and going out. At that point, in time of the night. There has to be video footage, just of a clip of a car so they could even

identify the shape of the car. But she, you know, she's 5-5. She wasn't slender built. So to carry somebody, you're not going to carry her down the block, you know, they drove there. So that vehicle had to have come there and left. And I just, at two in the morning, almost three in the morning, that vehicle is going to be on a camera somewhere. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you'd like to think, But one of the problems with this neighborhood is each lot is about an acre, two acres, and they're spread out and they're remote, like they're set back. And so it's not like a normal neighborhood, you know, where like you have neighbors. I can see my neighbors, you know, like my neighbors can see me.

I think it is possible in this particular neighborhood to maybe get in and get out without anybody's nest camera or ring camera detecting you because all the houses are set back. It could be a bank down the road, though, or grocery store. I mean, just any cars in the vicinity of that area, you know, I'm in Arizona, and it is a dead, it's a desert at night. There's hardly anybody moving at night. And so, especially in that type of location, if there's any store that has any video at all, within, I would even say 10 miles, I would try to pull some camera at that time to see any cars that might have been heading to or from at those particular times, I would suggest that if they haven't done it, They should do it. And Megan, you know, I was, I didn't work this when it happened, but I was later inherited the case of the 2008 bombing, pipe bombing of the recruiting state, the military recruiting depot in Times Square. A guy rode up on a bicycle at 3 o'clock in the morning, put a pipe bomb on, rode all the way back over to like 32nd Street, and we've never identified that guy. And that's the most filmed place in the world. But we know a guy on a bicycle rode up at that time. And that, I think, would help in this in this Senate.

I would be remiss if I didn't run the latest, like, Silence of the Lambs thing by you guys? Did you hear that? It is interesting that it turns out Savannah used the exact same messaging in her video with her siblings that we saw in Silence of the Lambs. We talked about it in the top of our first hour. I'm just going to play the juxtaposition for you guys here in Sat Zero C. She is full of kindness and knowledge. Talk to her and you'll see. I'm speaking now to the person who's holding my daughter. Catherine is very gentle and kind. Talk to her and you'll see.

Jim, you're the linguist. Is that a coincidence? Life imitates art, huh? Ironically, in a way, in a fake kidnapping case, the John Bonae Ramsey case, of course she was never left the house, found dead in the basement six hours later. In that ransom note, there were three separate movie references, one from Dirty Harry, one from the movie speed, and a strong reference to the movie from the usual suspects with the whole foreign faction thing. So now this is different. That's the criminal, you know, whoever wrote that letter, that's for another episode. But, you know, they borrowed from that. So here are the family members of the kidnapped or missing victim.

them, Mrs. Guthrie, using words from a movie. Is that subconscious? Is that conscious? There's no doubt the FBI and the BAU went over their script. It would have been their words, but they certainly wanted to maybe suppress some items and emphasize others. And somehow, I would like to think someone would have recognized those lines from the movie.

And again, I don't want to give too much sophistication to whoever the ransom note writer is or the team behind that if it is a for-profit kidnapping, but I'm not sure that would even make any difference to them. I give credit, I didn't pick up on that line. I give credit to whoever did doing their research. Somebody on the internet. Yeah, good for the internet. But I don't, maybe someday Samantha,

when all this is over and done with with a happy ending, Savannah. I'm sorry, Savannah, she could tell us who, in fact, you know, came up with those lines. So coincidence, maybe, again, like imitating art, a subconscious, out there. It's it's not untrue what she's saying. I'm sure her mother is a very nice person, Savannah's mother. And hey, talk to her. Again, it comes down to Megan, what we said a few days

ago, humanize Mrs. Guthrie, give her core name, core mom, mommy. And that's part of what they said there. I guess it worked with Buffalo Bill. I believe the senator's daughter was rescued eventually. And so as bizarre as the extrapolation is here, let's hope it works out the same way. It's not so odd a phrase that it couldn't have just come up again, you know, talk to her. You'll see that it's not such an odd phrase. It couldn't have just been uttered spontaneously, although nothing was spontaneous in the video. I'm sure it was all scripted. Can I ask you guys about the Cameron video last night?

Because I do think it's interesting. Now it's just him. Now the sisters are not there. Now just the brother who said almost nothing in the first video has the whole show to himself. they shot the video like basically almost neck up, little lower than neck up, but not like more of a body shot. And that's interesting because it cut off his script, which he was very clearly reading.

In the first video with the three siblings, you could see their script. They weren't trying to hide that they were reading a script. But in this one, they shot it such that you couldn't see the script, but you could very clearly tell he was reading, but he seemed to not necessarily want you to know he was reading. Like he was, here, we'll play it. This is Cameron Guthrie. I'm speaking for the Guthrie family. Whoever is out there holding our mother, we want to hear from you. We haven't heard anything directly. We need you to reach out and we need a way to communicate with you so we can move forward. But first, we have to know that you have our mom. We want to talk to you and we are waiting for contact.

Any thoughts on why he played such a bit role in the first video, but was the sole player in the second one? My take on this is, and I may be totally wrong, but he, you know, he's a military man. And he's a fighter pilot, I think, is what you were saying earlier. I mean, that's an aggressive personality. I don't think he was happy with that first video. I think he, it was kind of a long video, and they looked like they were being held captive, reading it. And I think that he or somebody, a group of the family members, wanted to do a different one. That's what that, that appears to me.

And the flowery language and the things in the first one, I don't know what the relationship is between these siblings. You know, it's hard to tell. But, you know, that appears to me as though that was done with a cell phone as opposed to a camera with a script in front of you. And a little bit more of he wanted to do that. That's what it appears to me. And Megan, I brought up the other day the first video. I'm not questioning the brother at all. but interestingly he wore a baseball-type cap that I couldn't make out what it said.

He wore it again last night the same cap, or whenever this was released and done. And here I did get it blown up and a friend of mine helped me. Saguaro National Park, which is a national park near Tucson, not too far from where they live. Could just be the hat he wears every day or does it have some kind of meaning? It's actually a physical geographical location, not far from there. And he wore it both times and both videos. I'm not putting a whole lot of stock into it. He could easily say, hey, I go everywhere without that.

All right, that's it. But for some reason, a geographic location was represented on his hat in the two different family and pleading to be kidnappers, whoever they may be, videos. Take careful what it's worth. And now he's actually, if we think about it, we heard really Savannah and her sister talk. But thinking about it, he's now the patriarch of that family. Dad's not around. All right. Mom, and he's the only son, he's the patriarch. And maybe they're saying, hey, listen, you're the, you're the strong patriarch of this family. You didn't say anything. We want, you know,

let's put a video out from you. I felt like he looked aggravated. I think he is the oldest. I think he looked aggravated in that first video, myself. Well, I think I, my, we were just wondering behind the scenes on the first video, maybe they didn't have the man speak too much because, you know, men can be more aggressive. They're more threatening. Maybe it's better to have the soft or women, the tearful, soft women say, please, please, please, our mom, she's a grandma. We love her. Maybe that works better. And then not having gotten a result, they tried a different tactic, you know, like sort of man to man. I'm here. I am the patriarch and I'm subjugating myself to you. I'm begging you to be in communication. Like we're all here on bended knee.

Maybe they intentionally lined it up that way. So they had like a third, a third in reserve, you know, who could come forward and do his own video. And I don't know what they do over the next few days. I'm sure they're getting increasingly desperate if they have reason to believe that that Monday scary deadline is real. I mean, I can only pray that this is all, that he was told to wear the hat, that Savannah was told to use no caps in her Instagram post, that Savannah's language and the way she and her sister were talking were somehow codes for some other kidnapper ransom note that we have no idea about from somebody who has actual proof of life

or something that could become. Like that's, I just feel like short of that, I feel, I don't feel hopeful, you guys. I don't, I mean, does anyone feel hopeful at this point? It's pretty shocking how a lot of these cases end up being just simply a bad family member or a bad encounter with somebody. We haven't even talked any more about the person that called in saying that they were worried about the church issue.

I mean, it's astounding how many of these cases end up being where we go down all these roads, and it just ends up being somebody who's a real dirt bag that did something in some cockamamie scheme that they thought they could get away with, and they just didn't plan through it, and so they end up killing the person. And if that's the case, I think they have an issue. Yeah. Right? Wouldn't you say? Is that an accurate?

Stapped off the top of it. It's like the vast majority are exactly that. This was just so bizarre in so many ways. You know, we're hoping for a better outcome than some nutcase got in there and hurt her or took her life. And now we've been led falsely down this kidnapping lane. You guys, you've been like doing yeoman's work on this. We're so grateful to all three of you. And I'm sure more to come. So thank you. Thank you, Megan. Thanks, thank you, Megan. We're going to be following any and all developments in this case. If there is anything significant, we would. will come live to you over the weekend. And at a minimum, we'll be bringing you the very latest on Monday. Thanks to all of you for listening. Have a great weekend. Hug your loved ones. Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show.

No BS, no agenda, and no fear.