Breaking: Almost NOTHING Inside Nancy Guthrie’s Home Explains Disappearance? | Nancy Guthrie Missing

Hey everyone, I’m Ashley Banfield and this is Drop Deadad Serious.

I have a little treat for you today.

Um, on my lap I’m puppitting.

Hold on.

Look, this is Zenyatta.

Hi, sweetheart.

Want to say hi? Do you want to say hi to everybody? She’s eight weeks.

She’s a little golden retriever.

She belongs to my neighbor, Jane.

And I’m babysitting while Jane does a ski patrol event.

So, she gets to be a part of the podcast.

And throughout this podcast, I’ll also have a puppy cam, so you’ll be able to see her.

But can I just tell you, I wish this was like smellvision cuz her little breath smells so good.

I just had her outside.

She had a pee and a poo, didn’t you, baby? She did.

She had a pee and a poo.

And so, I think she’s going to be okay.

Um, but she may want to jump up and run around.

So, I’ll have her on my lap until until she until she’s had enough.

Right, boo boo? Until you’ve had enough.

So, um, thank you for being here.

Uh, don’t forget to subscribe.

I love love having you all and I’m so appreciative of all you subscribers.

Um, and also you members, thank you so much.

Uh, Zenyatta and I appreciate it.

By the way, yes, if if some of you are from a certain age, Zenyatta, Zenyatta Madata, I think that might be part of the name, but apparently Zenyatta means calm.

And I can’t remember what Jane said about what language.

Calm.

And she is quite calm, this little puppy.

She’s a little monkey, but she’s pretty calm and sweet.

So, I wanted to come to you tonight, not just because I had this adorable puppy, but I’m puppitting.

Um, but also because I’ve got some news that I wanted to bring you from my uh Do you want to jump down? Do you want to go down and play? I’m going to put her down.

I I’ve spoken to my sources.

I’ve been having multiple conversations with my uh sources in the Nancy Guthrie investigation.

And we’re at day 56.

I’m recording this on the 28th of March, a Saturday.

And I heard something that kind of just made me shake my head and I wanted to come to you.

Um, normally I do this Monday to Friday.

On occasion, I’ll do the Saturday, but I had to do this today because it uh some of you may have heard me say this before.

In an investigation, sometimes it’s like a duck swimming, right? Above water, the duck is very calm and appears not to be doing anything at all.

And below the water, their little paddles are flying, right? Just paddle, paddle, paddle, paddle, paddle.

And part of me wondered if that’s what’s going on in the Nancy Guthrie investigation, that it’s calm, it’s quiet.

You heard an episode from me the other day where an investigator said, “We ain’t got shit.

” Um, but they’re paddling like crazy, right? Paddling like crazy under the surface, and there’s something really going on.

And uh Oh, sweetheart.

Um, I can tell you that an investigator on the case has described Nancy Guthri’s home this way.

Um, but for the blood pattern in that front hall foyer, the droplets that go over the uh the threshold of the the front door into her entrance at the front door outside and then down the walkway.

But for that and this man appearing on camera and that camera being taken, nothing else inside the home appears that a crime happened.

And the exact words that were spoken to me were this.

It’s as though but for those things, it’s as though Mrs.

Guthrie got up in the middle of the night out of bed and walked out of her house and disappeared.

And that was such a profound statement to me because I also assumed there was a lot of evidence in that home that we just don’t know about, right? The duck paddles under the water.

uh that there’s so much that they’ve processed and that they’re working on and that we don’t know about and what did it look like in her bedroom and was there a scene of a struggle? Was there sort of a um things out of place, knocked out of place? Something, right? Savannah has mentioned back doors propped open plural.

I have a theory about that.

It might actually be um two doors in the same entrance, right? You got the screen door and the heavy door, that kind of thing, or the security door and the heavy door.

It it might be that it’s one entrance with doors plural propped open.

I don’t know if it’s multiple entrances because she has one, two, three back doors.

I know in my podcast before I saw two back doors and then we’ve since discovered a third one that’s very very hard to see under the awning, but three back doors.

So anyway, we’re unclear as to what Savannah means by back doors plural propped open, whether it’s multiple entrances or just uh one entrance with two doors, you know, in it.

Um, but you know, these these clues other than doors propped open, man on the camera, camera smashed, and this uh blood pattern, nothing else.

And that has me really flumxed.

I had this I had this vision that there’s just a huge scene that was processed inside some evidence there of what happened.

Um and apparently that’s not the case.

But I will say this, um early in the investigation, like day of they’re showing up and that may be how the scene presented, right? It may have been early on how the scene presented even to the FBI and the homicide cops and everybody from Pum County.

That’s the first thing they see.

like, “What the hell happened here? Cuz it doesn’t look like anything.

” Weeks in as the FBI gets involved and crime scene investigators, CSI show up and and do, you know, a lot more processing, microscopic kinds of processing.

Maybe things look different.

But the way that this has been described to me is that it’s as vexing to them as it is to the rest of us.

Like if they didn’t have that blood and if they didn’t have that man on camera’s missing, they might have actually thought she just walked out.

They might have actually thought that because that’s what it looked like in the home.

So it’s just, you know, it’s frustrating and it’s upsetting because I just wish they had so much more to go on, you know? just wish they had so much more to go on.

You hear Savannah and the heartbreak in her voice, the sadness, the the frustration, the bewilderment, you know, the bewilderment when she talked about leaving Arizona and flying back to New York and just wondering where are you? Right? You put yourself in her shoes.

You can’t even imagine what this is like for them, right? For these kids.

So hearing that just made it even more of a puzzle.

If you saw my episode the other day, an investigator saying to the progress of how’s it going, “We ain’t got shit.

” That also is extremely frustrating.

How does a guy who looks like a bit of a buffoon maggyvering his way around the front, how does that guy get away with this? How is it that the the full force of the US government, the feds and Puma County Sheriff’s Department, 400 staff members, agencies, agents, officers, etc.

at one point on this case? It’s obviously afterfeat since, but how is it that this guy this guy can outsmart them? Or has he? Right.

I will say this again.

I will say it as often as I can.

Um, come here, sweetheart.

Hold on a sec.

Just um I’ll say this again that somebody knows something.

Somebody behaved in a really weird way after February the 1st.

Somebody did um just some weird things.

They weren’t right.

They were weird.

They were behaving in an odd way in the days and weeks after Nancy disappeared.

I’ve mentioned it before.

Maybe somebody stole a car to do this because they didn’t want their car on camera anywhere.

So, did you lose your car that like did you get your car stolen at that time? And maybe they stole it and brought it back and it’s hard to even know, but you thought it was weird.

You thought you parked somewhere else and it wasn’t, you know, it wasn’t in the same spot when you came out the next morning.

She’s got hiccups.

I don’t know if you can see that.

She’s hiccuping and trying to chew my hair.

You can’t do that.

No, you can’t.

I’ve forgotten what it’s like to have a puppy after Atlas.

If many of you have just joined or if you’re watching for the first time, uh Atlas was my golden doodle at 15 and a half years old.

Sweetheart, don’t do this.

Um and Atlas was my life.

And I lost him in November.

We had an Atlas cam.

I know a lot of you members and and uh subscribers who’ve been with me for a while, you watched Atlas.

He was a big part of our of our group.

And uh and when I lost him, it was just massive.

And I’ve had this hole in my heart ever since.

So when Jane had this event, I said, “Can I babysit Zenyatta?” And she said, “Yes.

” So I’ve got Zenyatta.

Anyway, um I don’t even know where I left off.

My my thought pattern.

You take my breath away and my thoughts.

What puppy eats hair? I guess puppies eat everything.

So, this is kind of one of my more unusual podcasts, isn’t it? Anyway, I have forgotten where I was, but but I wanted to bring this episode to you because with that information um that they just didn’t have anything in in the house to indicate that anything had happened.

There was not there wasn’t a story that was told forensically in that home, at least in the in the beginnings, right? Um you know, what does that mean now? Especially since, you know, I also had that that information from a source that said, “We ain’t got as to the progress of the case.

What does it mean?” And so, look, I’m a journalist, but there are people who do this for a living.

And Phil Waters is, you know, retired from the Houston Police Department, homicide detective, uh, worked on over 400 cases.

So, he knows what he’s doing, right? And he sees things in a different way.

And so I called him up because I wanted to just get a feel um for what he thinks about this this news that I that I got from from my sources and the investigation and and law enforcement that that that it just didn’t look like anything had happened.

Again, the words are but for the blood in the front entrance and walking outside down the front walkway and the camera missing and the man on camera.

Here she goes.

My goodness.

Uh it just didn’t appear that anything had happened.

and it appeared that she had just up and walked out.

So, I I called Phil because maybe there’s something to that he would see differently.

Um I also asked Phil about the other things that I had broken this week and that was that the Guthrie kids told the police that Mrs.

Guthrie would often leave the back doors plural um unlocked and that the blood pattern inside the home that I had reported on weeks ago that there is a a a blood pattern inside the home that matches the blood pattern outside that front entrance.

Well, I learned this week where it is, and it is right across that front threshold of the front door, right inside at that front foyer, that blood pattern starts and just continues outside.

So, I asked him about all of these things and with his, you know, homicide detective prism, uh, what his thoughts are about all of these things.

And here’s my conversation with him.

Phil, what do you make of that information? cuz I’m floored by the fact that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of a crime anywhere in the home except for that front foyer and the front entrance outside and the blood, you know, trail and the man on the camera.

Well, you know, uh, Ashley, I I always follow evidence and so people talking, sources, uh, Savannah mentioning doors being propped open.

I mean those are uh I don’t know that I would call them evidence from my perspective.

They are commentary about that particular scene and I’ve I’ve always wondered what the interior of the house looked like because that is something that we have it’s not been shared with us.

Now let’s for the sake of our discussion we can assume that the source is correct or the source says are correct about the inside of the house.

And there is to put it in your words no crime scene.

So, but we do have the blood which indicates something happened in there.

And my questions from the beginning in regarding the blood have been what we knew was that we had the blood droplets.

We don’t have spatter.

We’ve got some droplets out there which would to me would indicate a probable head wound of some kind.

and they’re on the exterior.

So, my my first take was is that’s a storm door and then there’s an interior door on the other side of it.

So, that’s the two doors is the same entrance with two doors both open the same entrance.

Okay.

That’s what I thought.

Okay.

On the on the back side though, right on the back side.

So my question is is were were those doors secured which would be very odd when you’ve got the blood now we’re being told reportedly on the inside in the same area and then you got it on the outside which would indicate what she was taken out of that door up the driveway and put into a vehicle of some kind and took off with her so that that’s kind of confusing.

So now you have this stuff on the back on the back side where the doors are propped open and so forth and and if that is true, why were they left open? Is it because they left through the front door and they’re not going to go back and close those doors? And those doors being open, we have not been told whether there was forced entry or not.

So that’s my other question.

Are the doors on the backside are there signs of forced entry or were they just opened up? Now, I think there’s been some talk that she would leave doors open and that kind of thing.

I’ve heard that.

Don’t know if that’s true or not, but that is a suggestion certainly.

And if the doors are not forced, then that would seem to indicate that there’s something to that particular uh piece of information.

So, but like I said, the the the doors and the blood, that’s that’s I think you’ve got two separate pieces of evidence in that scene.

Yeah, I can tell you what my sources have told me about the doors.

Um, three different sources all saying back door wide open, singular, not prop, just back door wide open.

And my sources also told me that um the Guthrie children have reported to the police that their mother frequently would leave her back doors unlocked.

So it’s possible there might have been somebody who worked um in that yard in the back who witnessed Mrs.

Guthrie going in and out and maybe not locking doors and thought of an opportunity.

Um, and at some point maybe came back and smashed those back lights cuz we saw those flood lights in the back dangling and probably inoperable and made his um, you know, his clandestine entry in the dark knowing that there were cameras on the cassita pointing to the backyard um, and was able to make entry.

But you’re right.

I it is curious why he would leave why he would prop the doors open.

My feeling is that and this is just my my own theory is that his intention was to prop the doors open and maybe get Mrs.

Guthrie out that same way and out to the back garage area and down the driveway to maybe where his waiting car was in the dark out of view of any camera.

But suddenly he realized, I don’t think this woman can make it because Savannah has said on a good day she could get to the mailbox, but most days could not.

And he had to rethink now and scramble and rejig the plan.

And those back doors and that long walk were now out of it.

So now he’s thinking out the front door.

Certainly a possibility.

I mean, that’s the other thing that’s kind of the the conundrum here is that there’s several possib several scenar several scenarios.

Savannah’s use of the word prop.

I I mean, does that mean but but two times because I thought, was she misspeaking? But she said the word prop.

Well, no, I I understand that, but remember she’s getting that information from her sister.

So you know when you start telling a story and and it starts going through the different people we all know that by the time it gets you know the old experiment right you start the story at the first person and then you have them tell the story down to 15 people or a dozen people by you get to the end of it it’s nowhere near the story you started with.

So yeah they gave me the telephone.

Right.

So is that her sister’s term? It was propped open.

Now I it makes more sense to me that the wide open which means the door was left open.

That’s just what it means.

It was left open and however it was.

Now prompt makes it sound like there was something an obstruction put there to keep the door open.

Right? So there’s an implication here.

Either way, what we do know or at least what the sources if we believe the sources, the door was open.

I mean that’s kind of the point, right? So, I don’t, of course, I’m of the school that I don’t believe it was a kidnapping.

I think that something went horribly wrong inside that house.

And the crook says, “Holy crap, what do I do? I got an 84 year old woman who is injured in some way, and we don’t know to the extent of the injury.

Did she die there? Did she was she unconscious there? And now this you crooks do this all the time.

We just got to get rid of a body.

And so that’s where you have them going through the front door because that’s the quickest way.

That’s the path of least resistance.

You know, the quickest way to a destination is a straight line.

So rather than go out the back and come around and do all this finagling, we just go out that front door and get it right to the drive.

Get to the street, put her in a car, and and we’re gone.

So, I you know I it’s just there’s so many possibilities here, but I’m just trying to follow evidence.

And my question is if the blood at the door in the front in the house, if that’s true, were was the storm door and that front door, were they unlocked? Were they if they’re unlocked, then that’s obviously where they they came out.

But then you got the blood on the other side, which indicates that’s where she was taken out that door.

Most people don’t realize how exposed their digital lives really are until something goes wrong, like a charge that you didn’t make.

And by the time you see it, the damage might already be done.

And that is why I want to tell you about OmniWatch.

Omniatch helps protect your identity, your credit, and your financial accounts all in one place.

Takes about a minute to set it up, and after that, it runs quietly in the background 24/7.

The system uses AI to scan credit bureaus, data breaches, and even the dark web.

If something suspicious shows up, you get an alert right away, so you can secure your accounts fast.

And on top of that, eligible users are backed up by up to $2 million in identity theft insurance.

If you want a simple way to safeguard your credit and identity, go to omniwatch.

com/banfield and get 50% off your first month.

Yeah, I mean, he without question, Mrs.

Guthrie uh according to my sources was bleeding in her front foyer.

The droplets continued in the exact same pattern over the threshold of the front door out into the front entrance under the the archway and down that gravel pathway and then it stops at the driveway.

Theoretically that would be where the car was waiting that took her away.

Um but I mean it’s just it’s hard to for anybody who games this and tries to figure out exactly what might have happened.

The confusing aspect also involves the timeline that the sheriff has given us.

Now, I start to question everything the sheriff’s given us because so many things have turned out not to be or he’s talked, you know, he’s reversed course on it or he’s been just flat out wrong.

Um, but his timeline was the A camera is disconnected at 1:47 a.

m.

Doesn’t mean it’s the front camera.

Could be another camera inside the house because there are apparently cameras inside the house.

So, a camera’s disconnected at 1:47 a.

m.

and a person appears on a camera at 2:12.

And we believe it’s an outdoor camera because the sheriff at one point said could be an animal, could be a person.

So, now it’s like, well, the animal’s not going to be inside.

So, you must be referring to an outdoor image at 2:12 a.

m.

And that’s why I only thought if he came in those back doors and intended to go back out those back doors, propped them open to make it easy to walk Mrs.

got three out and then realized she won’t make it all the way out and around that garage and down the driveway.

I got to rethink it.

I’m going to bring the car around and I’m going to take her out that front door.

But in the meantime, I’m going to have to make sure she doesn’t run away.

So, I’m going to zip tie her or tie her hands and feet or whatever it is at that front hallway.

Go back out the back door so as not to be seen and bring that car in, park it outside the purview of that front camera.

Disable that front camera and bring her through that front door.

path of least resistance.

Like you said, short distance, one walkway to the driveway to the waiting car that’s just out of the view of the camera, but he’s disabled that camera on the way back in through that front door, which I’ve always assumed was locked, but we can’t see that.

He may have opened it when he was inside.

And if he zip tied Mrs.

Guthrie in that front foyer, that might have caused her to bleed because she’s 84 and her skin is fine and she has blood thinners.

Right.

Yeah.

Right.

Right.

I I I just the zip tie thing.

I don’t think I mean why would you zip tie an 84 year old woman? She’s not going anywhere.

There there’s a there’s a walker at the house.

There there’s a walker there’s a walker.

I mean it’s pretty clear she’s not very mobile.

And I I think I I just I just believe that something went wrong and and caused that.

I mean that the the I believe it’s a head wound because that’s the way in my experience I have seen uh you know even a minor even let’s just assume for the sake of our discussion that he uh let’s say he gave her a stroke with a pistol and opened her head up the head bleeds like you know like nobody’s business and so again I’m trying to go on evidence here what we know for certain And those blood drops indic wound and they’re moving her out the door.

Now whether she’s conscious or not, that’s that’s the whole question here.

I don’t again, this is just my speculation, but I don’t think she was conscious when they moved her through when he was when when she was moved through the door.

So that’s why that’s we we find that blood something went wrong inside that house and of course we don’t know for certain uh what other evidence may be there that we just don’t know about that sources don’t know about and so forth and so on.

So well this is why I called you because honestly Phil this is the mystery I mean mystery upon mystery.

I assume there must be lots of other evidence inside that home that we don’t know about.

But my source says honestly, but for the blood and the image of that man on the camera, it appears that Mrs.

Guthrie got up and walked out on her own and disappeared.

And that to me was shocking.

That really shocked me.

Well, I just based on what Savannah said and based on what we know about Mi Miss Guthy’s health, I don’t think she got up and walked anywhere.

Uh because even Savannah said that, you know, if she was able to walk to the mailbox, that was a success.

You know, she felt, you know, her mom thought, you know, great, I got to the mailbox.

So, I don’t think we’re giving Miss Guthrie a whole lot of mobility here that I don’t believe she had.

No, I think my point is though, my point is that that’s the appearance They know that didn’t happen.

They said the description of it.

Yeah.

Right.

As far as evidence inside the house, cuz I think we’re all wondering what else do they have, right? What else have they got? What else are they processing? And the word came back to me is that but for the blood and the image of the guy on the camera, it just appears that she got up, walked out, and vanished.

There’s nothing else.

There’s no sign of a struggle.

There’s nothing in the bedroom to to suggest that there was a fight or even anything towards, you know, but we got to remember this is coming from a source and we don’t know what the detectives know.

We don’t know when they process the scene what they collected.

So, u everything we’re doing now is p pure speculation, of course, based on what your sources are telling you.

And and again, I’m a guy that I don’t give a lot of credence to sources until I see something that is evidentiary that’s probitative that says, you know what, they were right.

So, I’ve got I got to be one of those guys that, you know, I got to see it to believe it and or at least be told by someone who’s in the inside that’s in the involved in the investigation who comes out and says, “This is what we found or this is what we did not find.

” And now in regards to Nanos, his communication skills have screwed this thing up from the very beginning.

Mhm.

He admitted in the first press conference that he’s not good at this.

He’s not used to communicating this.

And now you’ve got this high-profile investigation that is a nationwide, worldwide event.

and he does not know how to handle that kind of a of a spotlight and he’s only made it worse now all the stuff about his past and all this other stuff to me again people have said you know you’re defend I’m not defending him look we all have a past we all got a story we all got a backstory he’s been in law enforcement for 40some years and he’s become the sheriff in Puma County now wherever mistakes he’s made in the past and so forth and so on.

That’s nice to talk about.

But in talking about the investigation, where I see his problem has been communicating the part of the investigation as it’s going along.

When he got up there and did the timeline, the timeline was provided to him.

He didn’t formulate the timeline.

The detectives and the agents put together that timeline.

So, uh, the best decision he made was after the second press conference, I’m not going to do another one until we’ve got something.

And then there haven’t been one.

But then he goes and makes the mistake and and you know, you’re you’ve been in media, you know, and you know this is he starts doing these individual interviews, Jerry, where he start Yeah.

where he starts saying stuff and then he starts saying other stuff that counterman’s the other stuff.

So that was bad.

He should have just given it to your PIO people.

They get paid to do this.

Give it to the FBI’s PIO people.

They get paid to do that and let those people do the media stuff.

I I think he’s made a tremendous mistake in going out there and get he’s get he’s way out of his wheelhouse when it comes to communicating about the the progress or lack thereof of this investigation and it has not helped it has not helped the investigation at all because all the distraction is with him and and that just it’s not necessary.

It’s not necessary.

Let me ask you um and you’re you’re very right like there are a number of investigators who have been in and out of that home, right? There are the early people who arrived when they got a 911 call, the patrolman.

And then there were the other investigators who arrived and, you know, said to the patrolman, “Out like this is way beyond what you think.

It’s not a woman who’s wandered off.

There’s blood.

There’s a door open.

There’s a wrecked camera out front.

” Um, and so, and then there’s what I believe is the FBI who arrived and then have been back and forth and in and out of that house doing various iterations of processing.

And perhaps to the naked eye, which is what my sources are saying, it just doesn’t look like a crime happened in here other than the blood in the front entrance, right? and the front foyer inside um and the man on the camera obviously in the smash camera but inside nothing is out of place nothing looks unusual the bedroom is not arai there’s no struggle anywhere that may be to the naked eye but the CSI may show something different well you’re right you know that and that’s that’s again we’re going back to what we don’t know and the detectives and the agents know now I I I will tell you that agents going back, deputies going back.

That’s because they got a clue that sent them back.

So, none of this stuff happens in a vacuum.

And I know there’s been a lot of talk about we released the scene too soon.

This look, you know, they processed the scene.

They processed what they had and they Well, I don’t know.

I mean, that’s that’s kind of about 30 hours.

I mean, it was No, I think it’s You tell me if it’s subjective at around 30 hours or so before that scene is released.

Okay.

Well, well, that’s a tremendous amount of time.

I’m just telling you that I I have not I have there have been a couple of scenes that I’ve had where it took us all day and into the night to process them.

And I and once we clear the scene, we’re done.

And that is when at least in Houston, we have a detective that works the scene side and works the witness side.

When I’m working the scene side, I get with the crime scene unit and I’m directing them on what I see as probit of evidence that we need to collect and they are doing the same thing.

So, we’re working as a team to make sure that we get this thing processed properly.

They’re doing the pictures, they’re doing the collection, they’re doing the videos, they’re doing all the recovery stuff.

I’m in there with them saying, “Take that.

Take that.

” and we’re taking things that we may not need, but you’d rather take them and not need them than need them and not take them.

Right.

So that processing of that scene, they processed it and they did what they needed to do and they released it.

Now, and I don’t find that to be anything weird, strange, or anything based on what they had.

And now you got FBI agents that come into it because now they’re looking at it as a kidnapping.

And the FBI always comes in to a kidnapping case.

I work kidnapping cases in Houston.

The FBI is always there with us to partner with us and give us support because they have resources we don’t have.

And they were wonderful.

They’re great.

So this thing as it starts to pick up steam now you have all the noise and everybody’s telling everybody else what they should be doing and they’re doing it.

You know, the guys that are in the belly of the beast, they’re doing it.

And when these FBI agents go back to the scene, they’re either getting a phone call clue or they’re getting some other piece of evidence that’s been processed that’s giving them a clue and saying, “We need to go back and check this.

” You saw the one thing where they came back, I think days later, and they brought a dog.

Well, the first amendment I saw the dog, I’m going, “That’s got to be a cadaavver dog.

What other reason would you have a dog there? Then when you saw them come back again and they started probing what looked like a septic system in the back.

So as they’re getting information and as pieces of evidence are being processed, they’re going back to the scene.

I had I’ve had scenes like that where we didn’t know what we didn’t know at the time, but then we saw something on a video and that we went, “Wow, we need to go back.

” I had one guy that he touched a we had a video of the entire of a triple homicide and he touched a chair as he was walking across uh shooting these people, but he touches a chair and I go, “Oh crap, we didn’t know that.

” So, we went back to the scene having already released it and did the DNA swabbing on that particular chair.

So, what we’re seeing here, and I hate to keep going on and on, but what what we’re seeing here is an investigation taking place.

The public is seeing an investigation taking place in real time.

Mhm.

And we all got these critics out there.

So, I I use the example of we all like sausage, but we don’t want to see it being made.

So, here we go.

We’re seeing the sausage being made.

And here come the critics.

So my my statement has been all along, let the detectives do their job.

Let the FBI agents do their jobs.

They’re working together.

What all this other conflict and and I’m I’m really I really get ticked off when I hear sources inside the investigation are saying this.

If that’s true, those people need to be run out of that investigation.

That because that does nothing to assist in the investigation or enhance it in any way.

It’s definitely part of me think part of me thinks and the wording is always different.

Um when people refer to their sources, they sometimes say law enforcement sources, sources connected to the investigation, sources with knowledge of the investigation, sources adjacent to the investigation, federal sources, local sources.

I mean, there’s all sorts of verbiage that try to cover.

And I tend to think, and you tell me if I’m wrong here, um, there are some crimes that the public never knows about, and there are other crimes that are the Gabby Patitos and the Idaho 4 and now the Nancy Guthrie’s of the world.

And the public is transfixed by them, as are people in the department.

And so there’s a lot of talking within the department.

Sometimes there’s a conversation in the in the men’s room.

whatever it is, that information gets out more in a high-profile case, even within the department itself.

No, I agree.

I I agree.

And and what’s bad about that is is because they use that nuance, you know, a law enforcement close to that could be somebody in the detective bureau who is not involved directly in the investigation, but they’re in the detective bureau, so they would be considered a legitimate source.

and they may be revealing some information that they heard somebody talking about around the coffee pot that is involved in the investigation and thinking, “Okay, hey, here’s the little tip.

” And they don’t even understand the context of the conversation.

So, no, that’s that happens all the time.

And yeah, and that’s that’s unfortunate.

And for people that are doing that, I’m I’m just saying that if I ever knew in one of my investigations that there was a a officer or a detective inside the division who was releasing information about my investigation, I’d have a serious chat with them.

I mean that that’s just I do I do want to say because I listen I’ve talked to a lot of sources um and I want to pro protect them uh because I don’t believe that many of them are nefariously releasing information.

I think it’s again there is a lot of sharing among the agency itself and that tends to get out.

It’s at a point where this is not a person who’s actually assigned to it.

Um and I will also say that the information that I got on day three has borne out all the way along.

I mean each time I hear something more where Savannah says herself back door propped open.

It’s like well there I was on day three back door wide open blood droplets.

Well, there we have it, you know, and so um and a car towed.

Anniey’s car was towed.

I learned that on day three.

It was.

So, um I tend to think my sources are very good.

Um but you’re right.

You are you operate differently.

You operate with evidence that you know about from the official when you get it officially.

And I’m curious about the difference between a scene when you first arrive and you see it with your naked eyes and it appears the way I am being told it appeared and what that scene looks like under a microscope.

How different can it be? Well, that’s a great question.

I I I can tell you that in in my experience when you walk into something like that and look and I I’ve had I I’ve I’ve walked into scenes where there’s a there’s a body and just that first look around the scene because you know you walk in you you want the scene to talk to you and you walk in there and you’re just going wow there’s not a lot being said here.

You know, we’ve got a body sitting here and no other explanation of of why they’re here.

And I the one I recall is a a a guy that was shot in a he was in an apartment.

There was a disturbance in the apartment below and somebody down here went boom and hit him and he’s on the deck.

and died there.

Well, there his apartment there’s nothing except him laying on the floor with a bullet in it.

And so, uh, so I’ I’ve been in those where there’s not a lot initially and then that’s where you go to work.

You know, you you hit the bricks and you start checking that scene, processing the scene.

Let’s see what we do have.

And and and it’s always a journey for the truth.

So, you got to let the evidence lead us where we need to be.

We can’t take it someplace you want it to go.

And there’s always, you know, you’re talking about, you know, people telling you things and and they turn out to be true.

So there’s a contextual problem with some of these things, right? So just take the Annie’s uh vehicle being towed.

That’s a fact, but we don’t know the truth about why it was towed at the time.

It was towed under a warrant, you know, right? So, we don’t know other other than that, we don’t know the truth about why it was towed.

So, and everybody speculates, of course, you know, she’s involved and blah blah blah blah blah, but I can tell you is a matter of drill, is a matter of of an investigation.

Again, we’re seeing this in real time.

That to me did not strike me as being particularly strange.

Uh, a case like this, you work from the inside out.

So, the first people you’re going to talk to, you’re going to investigate are going to be the family.

And look, she had been over at the house that night having dinner.

She’d been brought back to the to the uh to her place by I think the uh the son-in-law or the Annie’s husband or whoever he is, whatever he is.

And uh so they’re processing the car for what? They got blood on the front porch.

And if your source is correct, they got blood on the inside.

Well, they’re going to process Annie’s car because that’s the last vehicle that she’s known to be in.

Do we have Miss Guthri’s blood inside that car? And if we do, we got some questions.

Right.

Right.

And that makes sense.

Um I’m curious about the day that I saw the white tent go up out front of Mrs.

Guthri’s home.

And I think it was about 2 weeks or so after her disappearance.

and went and the white tent was only up for a matter of an hour or two and then it came down and the front uh doorbell cam bracket was now gone.

And I thought, wow, did it ever take a long time to take that bracket in for testing because once the video came out, we saw that he got a bite light in and presumably he’d had to put it in his mouth and take it out of his mouth and then he’s manhandling that that light.

So, I assumed there there had to be some DNA of his on that uh on that front bracket.

Who knows if the mixed DNA that they’re talking about at the Florida lab came from that bracket or came from a door handle.

Um but I that’s what I that’s what I mean by the microscope, right? You can’t see that at first blush.

You arrive and you think this scene doesn’t look like anything happened.

Um, but then you come in with the FBI microscopes and black lights and all the rest and then you start to see more perhaps forensics.

Is there a huge difference once you start applying that kind of CSI technology to seeing more evidence of things that maybe weren’t evident to the naked eye? Well, I I I think the answer the short answer is yes.

Uh, again, you know, the uh I’ve used the FBI evidence recovery teams on several of my homicides.

They’re great.

Uh, and and the the great thing about them is is I had a vehicle that was in Louisiana and we just I called my Houston guys, they called the uh Louisiana guys and sent the ERT team to that pro that place in Louisiana and processed that car for me.

Uh, and so and I’ve had and around the state where we’ve had to send uh they they’ve always been on the ready to go and they’re very good at what they do.

And so those kinds of things that come in there uh and that’s a you know there’s a discussion with the with the uh local crime scene units that process that scene.

They’re not doing this in a vacuum.

Nothing I think people may have a hard time understanding is it’s a it’s a team concept and and they’re discussing with those local crime scene units.

Okay, this is what you did.

Did you think about this? Did you do this? Did you do that? Did you take any pictures? Uh and and they obviously did not take the the torn away uh uh nest camera that had the bracket up there.

And so a decision was made.

Well, let’s go back and let’s let’s reprocess that part of it and see what kind of probitative evidence we can get out of the way we’re going to recover it.

And so and we don’t know, right? So all these pieces of evidence take time to to process and we don’t know the amount of evidence that they have that have gone to the lab for particular different types of processing.

So I mean look I I would I know when I processed the scene uh when our crime scene units processed the scene we did DNA fingerprints and trace evidence.

So if they’re collecting trace evidence, which is a whole different piece of evidence, which goes to a different lab to be examined and processed.

So, uh, I’m just I’m just I guess what I’m trying to get at is the volume of evidence regardless of what a scene may look like to the naked eye has to get processed and it takes time to do it.

So, uh, again, we don’t know what they know and we don’t know what evidence that they were able to recover.

So, because you have, you know, roughly 400 cases under your belt, um, you’re the right guy to ask about the other pieces that I’ve, um, that I’ve learned about, and we’ve talked about a little bit about them.

Uh the blood pattern is the same um from the outside over the threshold of the door into the inside foyer.

The the pattern is is the same and there’s no sign of struggle in it.

It doesn’t appear there’s a bunch of footprints or anything like that.

So that’s the first thing.

Um second thing is again these um the doors in the back of the house the family told the police that they are they were often left unlocked that Mrs.

Guthrie would often leave those doors unlocked.

That’s another piece.

And then the third piece, and again, these are this the things that I’ve learned this week from my sources.

Um the third piece was that one of the investigators um said the following quote, “We ain’t got shit.

” When it came to where were they in the investigation, how are they doing? How much progress? The answer was, “We ain’t got shit.

” And I was struck by that only because I thought that there was stuff happening behind the scenes and that they were on to leads.

But hearing that makes me just it sort of dashes my optimism.

Well, I can only tell you that I’ve made that kind of comment when we in a in a detective’s mind, in a homicide cop’s mind, if they don’t have I’ll speak for myself, if I didn’t have what I wanted, then my attitude is going to be we ain’t got, you know.

So, uh, we’ve got a whole lot of stuff, but it’s not the stuff that I need.

And so, that may that comment that that may be that frustrated comment that comes out.

That that would be the context in which I’m hearing you say that the way that was communicated, that would be a that’s a homicide cop that’s frustrated because they got a whole bunch of stuff.

And uh I mean because to say that we we ain’t got anything.

I mean look, they’ve got the video.

They’ve got a lot of stuff, but uh we don’t have the stuff.

We don’t have the thing, the one thing that would turn this thing in the direction that we need to go.

So I I understand the comment out of frustration, but I don’t think it’s a it’s a it’s a it’s an overreaching.

Yeah, we don’t have a thing.

You know, I just I don’t think that’s the way that that that didn’t come across that way to me.

Well, it’s so funny.

I’m glad you said that.

Um because all the way along leading up to day 47, which was the day that they arrested Brian Coberger, right? Um they were working feverishly on a lead that was good.

They had him.

They had him in their sights.

They followed him across the country.

They pulled his father’s trash.

They surrounded and surveiled.

And all that was happening with the rest of us completely unaware.

And to us on the outside, it seemed like they didn’t have And the truth was, and that was a good thing.

That was a good thing.

I remember that was wonderful.

Yeah.

But they did have something.

And And so I I’ve got to be honest, this is my optimism about the Nancy Guthrie case.

I assume the same kind of thing might be happening.

Now, we’ve surpassed day 47.

We’re recording this on uh the 28th of uh March, which means it’s day 56.

56.

And I had assumed before I heard that comment that they probably were working feverishly on some really good stuff.

And I don’t think someone would say that if they weren’t.

Well, again, I’m just telling the context in which I’m taking that statement.

Um, I I don’t Now, look, here’s the other possibility, and it’s happened to me that you I think they’re still in the mode of waiting for evidence to be processed.

I think we’re still in that mode.

Um, but look, sometimes there does come a time where you hit the wall and all you’ve got left at that point is to wait for that phone call.

Wait for that uh scorned woman that uh makes that I’ll take a scorned I’ll take a scorned woman every time.

And uh so that that may be what’s happening here.

Um I’m not ready to say that they’ve hit the wall, but that possibility may exist.

I get I get a little peeved when I hear people, oh, it’s gone cold.

They don’t even understand what it takes what what the parameters are for a case to be classified as a cold case.

And we’re not even close to that.

So, uh not with 40,000 tips that came in cold case.

You got to get rid of all those nothing, you know.

Yeah.

It’s usually I mean I know the standard at at at HPD and and I think that’s pretty much the general standard.

Three years, no leads, no witnesses to talk to.

Nothing.

All the evidence has been processed.

There is nothing else there.

And so it goes to it go at least Houston PD it went to the cold.

It was assigned to the cold case squad once it met the parameters of uh of being a cold case.

So, uh, this one has still got life to it.

And I just, uh, you know, people, I said it during the the Coberger thing.

Um, uh, I don’t like to say his name, the evildoer thing.

Um, be patient and and things are going to happen.

Now that so going back to Nanos and that chief in Moscow, what a contrast.

So I I kind of look at those two guys in the way they communicated the way that investigation was going.

The chief was very composed.

The chief got up and said what the chief needed to say.

And he had the same criticisms that Nanos has.

Same stuff.

You don’t know what you’re doing.

your detectives, you know, been a detective for two days.

I mean, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

All that noise directed at the chief and saying saying horrible things about him, about the Moscow Police Department, so forth and so on.

And what did the chief do? He maintained his composure.

He maintained his grasp and control of the investigation.

He communicated it in the way that he needed to.

Doesn’t mean the media got the answers they wanted, but it meant that he gave them the answers that he needed to give them, that he know he needed to give them.

And then when it was all over and they had the evildoer in custody and that case was amazing, incredible event.

What did that chief do? He stood up there and he showed an incredible amount of grace to all of those people that had been criticizing him in every way possible.

Nanos does not have that type of composure.

He doesn’t have that type of communication skills and he has in in terms of communicating with the public and with the media, he has now turned everything on him and it’s all negative and it’s all self-inflicted and he’s brought it on himself.

So, um again, you know, I always say it all the time.

I said it during the uh the uh Idaho investigation.

you people have got to be patient and and getting out here with conspiracy theories and all this other stuff doesn’t enhance the investigation.

I think it’s disrespectful to family when that kind of stuff goes around.

And um I can only tell you Ashley that I’ve done a lot of things in my life.

I scooped uh ice cream from at the age of 14 at BaskinRobins.

Continue reading….
	Part 1 of 2Part 2 of 2	Next »