Hey everybody.

Uh, good to have you.

Hello.

This is Drop Deadad Serious.

I’m Ashley Banfield.

Thank you so much for joining.

Don’t forget to subscribe.

It’s right there.

It’s cute.

It’s easy.

It’s cheap.

image

Um, and you get, you know, you get alerted when we have new episodes and and news.

So, thank you for subscribing if you already did.

Thank you for joining if you um are a member.

And if you’re not a member, there’s a join button somewhere around there.

So, uh, by all means, jump in.

Uh, the water’s nice.

Hey, I have some news.

Um it’s all sort of coming at the same time that Savannah Guthrie uh has given her first interview to the Today Show doing um an interview with Savannah.

Um a lot of it is in yesterday’s episode.

I think she made the most news about the investigation in yesterday’s episode saying that her mother was taken barefoot uh in her pajamas which was very upsetting.

And then Savannah also confirmed something that I had learned very early in the investigation from a source, and that was that the back doors, she says plural, my source said door, uh, were propped open.

My source said wide open.

Um, and so we’re trying to like get to the bottom of that, whether there were multiple doors that were open or maybe one door that had two like a security door and another door.

Maybe those two doors on the same entrance were propped open.

Not sure or left open.

But um it’s just it just goes to the sources that I’ve been using and proves that the stuff they’ve been telling me is accurate uh since day one.

And so um the news today that Savannah dropped is interesting.

It has to do with when she’s getting back to the Today Show and how she feels about it.

I also have news that I’ve learned from my sources.

spoken to a couple of them today and one of the fascinating things that I’ve learned is that the the DNA lab in Deerfield Beach, Florida, it’s called DNA International.

Please don’t, you know, on them because they’re great.

Like everything I’ve heard from people in the industry, DNA industry, um, in the forensics industry have all said that this is a u, this lab is the man.

is no joke and that they have solved some incredible crimes in the past and we’ve even done work on it on our prior episodes talking about the particular cold cases that they’ve been able to solve.

So, everybody who knows DNA has great things to say about uh DNA International and Deerfield Beach.

What I’ve learned is that that lab has agreed to do a rush job for the Puma County Sheriff’s Department with regard to the Nancy Guthrie investigation.

So that’s great, right? Because this, you know, this is a big case.

All eyes were on it.

400 agents were working on it.

That’s not the case now.

But what they’re working with from what we understand is a partial DNA sample of male DNA that is not familiar to Nancy Guthrie or her circle, but was found inside her house.

Do we know that it’s the guy? No one’s saying that.

All they’re saying is that they found this DNA.

They won’t say what it is.

like they won’t say if it’s one of those really rich kinds of samples which is, you know, blood, semen, uh saliva, those kinds of things.

It’s just male DNA.

And who knows if it’s the male, the one we’re looking for, the suspect.

thumbnail

It would be so much more optimistic about this.

If it we knew it was the suspect.

If we knew it was the suspect, we just need to know who he is.

I would be more optimistic.

But we may get all the way down this road only to discover it’s somebody who was in her house before and should have been there, you know.

So anyway, um what else I have discovered about DNA Labs International, and this is from my law enforcement source on the Guthrie case, um they’re rolled, they’re using high tech methods, like DNA technology that wasn’t even supposed to roll out until next year.

So they’re pulling out all the stops for the Guthrie case.

Anybody who’s had criticism about Nanos using this lab and should have used the FBI lab at Quanico, it’s I don’t think it’s founded.

I think this is a smart move.

And I’m not, you know, me, I’m pretty critical of this sheriff and some of the dumbass things that have been done in this investigation and the stuff he said that doesn’t match with other stuff he said or going back on his word and changing his story.

Um, but this move I don’t think was such a bad move.

you know, sharing, you know, lab they’re sharing the the gloves, etc.

with with this lab in um Deerfield Beach.

Now, we’re hearing that they’re really, you know, pulling out all stops and using next level DNA technology.

So, I called CC Moore about this because she knows everything about DNA.

CC Moore is head of Parabon Nano Labs and she’s a genealogy expert, DNA expert.

She’s basically just the encyclopedia of all things DNA.

I’ve interviewed her before in past episodes.

We’ll link it in a great episode she did with me about partial DNA and the genetic genealogy, how it works, how you get to the person when you just have a tiny little partial or crappy sample as in Kobberger, right? Idaho, they had a partial little sample.

They were able to deal with it scientifically.

they were able to extrapolate what it meant, who it meant, and through uh genetic genealogy get to their man.

So, in this case, it seems like there’s a partial sample and uh but whatever is wrong with it, you know, the sheriff had said it’s mixed.

That’s not always the problem.

In lots of rape cases, the DNA is always mixed, but there’s something about it that makes this a difficult case.

And Cece is going to weigh in with because I’m talking like a but Cece is going to weigh in with her information um and what it all means in just a moment.

Don’t go anywhere.

You have to you have to hear this.

But also just the news about Savannah.

Um she it’s finally been decided when she’s going to be back on television.

The announcement is that she’s going to take the chair on the Today Show uh a week this Monday, April 6th.

I think that’s going to be really big um because she’s she’s just not feeling like her and we completely understand it.

You can see it in her interview, right? And actually, she talked about what it’s going to be like for her, like how she’s going to manage this, what she’s going to be able to do, who she’s going to be.

Here’s how she um explained it to Hodakopy in her interview.

I’ve been so grateful to have this family.

I consider this my family, my greater family.

And when times are hard, you want to be with your family.

And I want to be with my family.

And so I don’t know if I can do it.

I don’t know if I’ll belong anymore, but I would like to try.

I would like to try.

You know, I think we all want to rally behind her and help her and support her in the horror that she’s been through, that her family’s been through.

um this is not easy.

None of this has been easy.

And this next step of hers going public in front of millions and trying to sort of put on a brave face every day while she’s still living in this this sort of netherworld of not knowing what happened to her mom, right? She says she wakes up every night and wonders about the terror that her mother saw over top of her bed before being taken from her bed in the dark of night.

no shoes in her pajamas, bleeding.

So, you know, we all wish her well and um and I think everybody also wants this solved.

1800 call FBI.

1800 Call FBI if you know anything, even small.

Quick note from my sponsor.

Let’s face it, I cover some of the darkest crimes out there.

But let me tell you, some of the scariest stuff is happening right behind your screen.

your name, your phone number, your home address.

It is all floating out there online.

And it isn’t because you gave it away.

It’s because somebody sold it.

Data brokers.

They’re tracking you.

They know what you buy.

They know what you search.

They know what meds you take and even where your kids go to school.

And now with AI, it’s like handing a loaded weapon to a scammer.

One phone call and suddenly you’re wiring money to somebody who sounds exactly like your kid or like your mom.

This is chilling stuff, but here’s what most people don’t know.

You actually have the legal right to make data brokers delete your info.

Yes, you have that right.

Problem is, doing it yourself could take years.

And that’s why I use Incogn.

Incogn does all the dirty work for me.

They go straight to the source.

They go to the companies and they demand to remove your data, right? They even offer a custom plan, the unlimited, and you can just flag uh a site that’s exposing your info, and Incogn’s privacy team goes after it directly.

This isn’t just peace of mind, it’s power.

So, if privacy matters to you, and it should, go to incogn.

com/drop deadad and uh use the code drop deadad for a 60% discount.

That’s right, 60.

You heard me.

again incogn.

comdropad code dropdead to start taking your data off the market today.

There was another piece of news today and I want to be real clear about this because I’m seeing online people getting all fussy about this.

You know, there was an arrest made today.

It was a Pima County Sheriff’s deputy from the department that’s investigating the Guthrie case.

Somebody who’s been arrested and fired.

Kidnapping charges.

Yeah, I know.

Your first thing goes to, oh god, kidnapping charges.

Whoa.

Are they looking into him for the Guthrie case? That’s what everybody’s saying.

They’re even putting the picture of the the the suspect and and and this this sheriff’s deputy.

It is not related.

Full stop.

Okay.

It’s not related.

His name is Travis Reynolds.

I think he’s 22 years old.

Um if I saw correctly.

Yeah, 22 years old.

So, arrested, facing charges of kidnapping, fired following the announcement.

um the Puma County Sheriff’s Department confirmed.

And here’s what I can tell you.

Um he is accused of sexually exploiting and soliciting a woman that he had under arrest according to the court documents.

Uh the complaint is apparently backed up by some partial video, I think, as they say.

um some evidence that’s video, a witness statement, and apparently some kind of non-denial it seems from the deputy himself.

He is accused.

He’s not convicted.

Uh that a lot of this information coming from TNZ.

Prosecutors say that a female victim, told the authorities that she was afraid of the deputy because of the quote power dynamic between the two of them after Reynolds, the sheriff’s deputy, allegedly called her hot and shared a vape pen with her while transporting her to the Puma County Jail.

That’s of course in Tucson, Arizona.

Uh he allegedly offered to help her with her case, saying that they could quote go to a hotel and have sex.

End quote.

The woman claimed that the officer showed her sexually explicit videos and kept her in the car for a while.

Um, the court report also says that Reynolds quote, “Eventually got her out of the vehicle and demanded that she show her breasts before bringing her into the station again.

” Allegedly, um the video surveillance from the Puma County Jail apparently confirms part of the account according to TMZ.

And um the deputy, Reynolds, uh stated in the complaint that he may or may not, this is a quote, may or may not have discussed, uh having sex with the alleged victim or shown her sexual uh videos.

So, that doesn’t look good uh for that deputy, that’s for sure.

Um and not for the department either.

I mean, yeah, this is a 22-year-old, right? So, he’s probably pretty new.

I don’t know if he was working on the Guthrie case.

I’ll be I’ll be interested to find out though because lots of new guys were on the case.

So, um about Savannah, I want to tell you something else.

She well her her colleagues said that um her arriving back on the set, back on the show after two and a half months um is right after Easter.

And they said this is almost symbolic after Easter, after the resurrection.

I saw um Al Roker talking about it on the air.

You know, Savannah is a very deeply faithful woman and she’s written a book uh about her faith and she talked a lot about her faith in this interview with Hoda.

And so it’s probably apppropo that that Al Roker would make that comment.

She also said, “I won’t let sadness win for her,” meaning for her mom.

And she says, “She taught me.

” She talked a lot about her mom’s resilience after her dad dying.

I saw her world shatter.

I saw it and I saw her get up and I saw her believe.

Wow.

It’s really hard.

And I saw her love.

So, lot of talk from Savannah in the Today Show interview about faith and about love and about resilience and um about, you know, her love of her Today Show family and that she really misses that family and needs family that in trauma everybody needs family.

Um and she has two families, her own and then the Today Show family.

So, good luck to her on on um April 6th.

Okay.

Now I want to bring in Cece Moore, genetic genealogy expert, head of Paraben Nanos Labs, to ask her about this news that I have discovered from my source that the lab in uh Deerfield Beach, Florida, DNA Labs International, um is rushing the job for Pimac County and they’re rolling out technology early.

Something that was supposed to roll out next year, they’re using it now on the Guthrie case.

Here’s my conversation with Cece.

So Cece, what do you make of the news that I learned that the DNA International Lab in in Deerfield is rushing the job and using tech that is, you know, state-of-the-art wasn’t even supposed to roll out till till next year.

Well, earlier we heard from the sheriff that this case might not be able to be solved for a year or so, right, when they were talking about the mixture.

So, we know there was something in the offing that they were looking forward to.

I don’t think that that was just completely random.

That tells me that DNA Labs International may have told him there’s some new tech coming out that if we haven’t solved the case, we may be able to apply to this.

And then I think what happened is whoever was working on that was either encouraged to speed it up or was just really inspired by the case to try to do that.

when companies are working on new tech, you know, there’s usually a schedule.

And so I’m guessing that whatever this new tech is, they sped that up and they, you know, tried to put it in this quarter or next quarter versus next year at this time.

You and your colleagues speak a whole other language than I do and and I think a lot of our listeners, too.

But I imagine you all getting together at like super egg head conferences and having the most incredible dialogue and then being so optimistic about what is on the horizon.

Can you talk a little bit in my language about what is on the horizon and what this might actually be and what it might mean? Sure.

But let’s go backwards a little bit.

When we first started genetic genealogy and creating this methodology, it was just this little niche thing.

People laughed at us to be blunt and or rolled their eyes at us.

It was just considered this thing for genealogologists or to help adopes and people didn’t take it that seriously.

Boy, you showed them.

Yeah, right.

We sure did.

We love doing that.

We were actually told by scientists that we would never be able to use this type of DNA, autotosomal DNA, for genealogical purposes to learn more about someone’s family tree.

So, we definitely proved them wrong.

But what that meant is there wasn’t a lot of advancement that was done specifically for this field other than what us volunteers and citizen scientists were doing.

So on the academic side, on the scientific side, there wasn’t as much progress helping to push it forward because they were working on other things.

Now sometimes they would develop something that also benefited us, but we were not the focus.

Well, once we started solving these cold cases and high-profile active cases like the Coberger’s case with investigative genetic genealogy, suddenly there was a lot more attention and interest in what we’re doing.

And so, I think that sparked a lot of advancements that we hadn’t seen previously and they’ve been moving at a really rapid pace.

So, it’s always difficult to predict what’s coming unless you’re the person working on them.

But the things that we run into, I’ll say that are challenges are highly degraded DNA.

You know, we we already do have ways to work with that and mixtures, which is what we’ve heard a lot about in this case.

So, the company I work with, Parabon, is really uh expert.

They are expert in working with mixtures.

But what has not been developed successfully yet is using whole genome sequencing for mixtures.

it’s been on this other platform like when you spit in the tube and mail it into Ancestry, they’re using something called a microarray chip or a snip chip.

That is the platform where it’s easiest to separate out mixtures called deconvolution.

And so my guess is there’s a lot of work being done on trying to deconvolute or separate out mixtures, different people’s DNA using whole genome sequencing.

Well, there’s where I get confused because honestly, with all of the rape cases and all of the messy murder scenes, all I’ve ever imagined is mixtures.

And all I ever hear in court is mixtures, but they seem to talk as though it’s not uh, you know, an impediment to solving a crime.

So, what kind of mixtures are you talking about that are an impediment? Well, they’re simple mixtures where you have two people’s DNA and the person you’re trying to identify is the majority.

Say the suspect, the rapist is 90% and the victim is 10%.

That’s really straightforward because you have the victim’s DNA.

You can extract out that DNA profile and you’re left with this majority suspect profile.

When you are dealing with complex mixtures, that either means there are multiple people, three or more, or the person you’re trying to identify is by far the minority.

So the scientists were I work at Parabon can go down to 40%.

Which is actually pretty groundbreaking.

They can uh deconvolute or separate out the perpetrator’s DNA if he’s at least 40% of that sample.

But if you have three, four, five people, right? And everyone’s only providing 20% or 10% 15% that’s really not doable for investigative genetic genealogy right now.

And so that’s where we could see the most progress.

And I think with scientists, academics, forensic scientists, all really excited about what we’re doing now, that’s why we’re seeing so much forward motion.

We’ve seen a tremendous amount of advancement just since the Golden State Killer was identified through investigative genetic genealogy in 2018.

We needed quite a lot of DNA at that time.

And now we need just the tiniest amount.

And that’s thanks to our scientists.

That’s not something the genealogologists can help push forward.

So, we’re reliant on the scientists to push the technology forward and the techniques in the lab.

But I do need to make one distinction here, which is when you’re in court and you’re hearing about mixtures, they are talking about STR profiles, short tandem repeats, which is what is admissible in court.

That is the type of DNA that law enforcement has used for decades.

That’s the type of DNA that you always hear about in court because one, that’s what’s been used and two, that’s what is admissible as evidence.

That’s what’s used to arrest somebody, charge someone, convict someone of a crime.

That’s a totally different type of DNA than what we use for investigative genetic genealogy.

So, they often can deal with complex mixtures for STR profiles.

There are many many years of historical advancements on that side because that’s what’s been of interest, right? STR profiles are what have been helping get criminals off the streets for decades.

And so there are a lot of scientists who’ve worked on uh mixture deconvolution packages, software packages that can help law enforcement to separate out those mixtures in their criminal labs.

And so this is totally different.

This is a different type of DNA that we use.

So our profiles are made up of single nucleotide polymorphisms or we call them snips.

And so that’s a whole different technique and science to deconvolute that type of DNA mixture.

And so you can’t really compare the two.

The STR mixtures have had decades to be worked on, developed, refined.

SNIP profiles have only been used in law enforcement for a relatively short time, less than 10 years.

And so the techniques to deconvolute mixtures are still new and are still being developed.

Can I ask you um if I were in fifth grade, because that’s sort of how I think.

Um what’s the difference between the STRs and the SNIP? They’re just a different type of genetic marker or different type of DNA.

When you test someone, you can test their STRs or you can test their SNPs, their SNIPS.

The SNIPS are, how do I say this? The SNIPS are locations on your genome that vary widely between people because, as you know, 99.

9% of our DNA is the same.

So when you’re looking at the snips, you’re looking at the ones that mutate more quickly and that vary between you and me and you know someone over there and that helps us to identify someone.

STRs are how many times uh something is repeated, the short tandem repeats.

So that’s where you’re seeing uh maybe there’s eight repeats at that location or 10 repeats.

So, it’s really just a different type of DNA.

And it’s uh there’s not really any reason for us to get too technical about it if we’re talking to, you know, an eighth grader, right? If that’s what you want.

Well, I always say fifth because I think the eighth graders are smarter than that.

But, but I’m curious that we’re just not there yet with SNIP uh research and development, but at some point, is it going to be as good as what STR has been in the last, you know, five, six decades? Well, in my opinion, it’s much better because we are able to h broaden the search, right? With STRs, they’re using just a small number of them, 20 traditionally.

It used to only be 13 as you probably know, and that has worked great for its usage, but that means there’s been a lot of cold cases.

There’s been a lot of violent criminals who’ve left their DNA behind at a crime scene, but have not been identified.

So snip profiles because we look at hundreds of thousands of those genetic markers in genetic genealogy, we can find their cousins, right? And we’ve all seen that we’ve been able to reverse engineer the identity of these people from their distant cousins.

So to me, snip profiling is actually far superior.

Another example is if there’s a missing person.

If we find unidentified human remains or what’s commonly known as Jane or John Doe’s, traditionally you have to have a firstderee relative.

So a parent, child, or full sibling to identify that person legally.

They don’t always exist.

Mom and dad might have died.

This person might have died before they ever had children.

They might not have any living siblings.

And so now we’re able to use SNIP profiles to close those cases.

Not only to identify that unknown individual, but then to let uh to have the medical examiners rule it’s legally closed.

That legal identification has always been through STRs.

And so a lot of those cases just sat even if they thought they knew who it was.

Now, if we write up these very conclusive reports using SNIP profiles, saying we’ve got a first cousin on each side of this person’s family, for instance, or we have their maternal aunt, some medical examiners are willing to take that now in addition to the other evidence to close those cases.

So, it really just broadens what we’re able to do with the DNA profile.

And so, I think we’ll be moving more and more towards SNIP profiles in the future.

It’s just it’s so ingrained in law enforcement and the courts to use STRs.

And so I don’t see them moving away from that soon or totally, but I think SNIP profiles will be used more and more.

And we’ve seen that even uh we had a case where we were able to narrow it down to twins and that was as far as we could get because they had identical DNA through traditional uh methods of comparison.

So STRs, their STRs were exactly the same.

But Dr.

Janet Katy, one of our brilliant scientists at Parabon, was able to find novel mutations.

So small differences in the full genome of this person looking at their snips.

And she was able to say it’s more likely this twin than this one.

And the court accepted that as identification for the very first time in history.

This just happened a few months ago.

And so once courts start accepting snip profiles for identification, that changes the game.

And we’ve seen that a couple of times now.

Also with rootless hairs that didn’t have an STR profile.

We recently saw that.

I’m going to get back to a rootless hair in a moment because that’s on my mind about what’s going on in Florida.

But back to the Egghhead conference where you guys all talk about stuff none of us understand.

If you had to wager a guess on what kind of tech they’re working on that they’re going to roll up next year, what would it pertain to? Not suggesting we know what the tech is, but where’s the real friction point in your industry where everybody’s trying to get this this piece of the holy grail? Like where do you suppose that might be? I think it must be the mixture deconvolution and I think that is there’s two reasons for that.

Uh there’s really only two options that I can see and that would be a more advanced software package to work on more complex mixtures or some type of equipment that is really sensitive that can pick up tiny amounts of DNA.

But we’ve already seen tremendous advancements in that area with the MBACK for instance.

And in this case, it doesn’t seem as relevant to me because if you’re picking up really tiny amounts of DNA or or finding really degraded DNA, that’s less likely to be relevant in a an active case like this.

And you’re much more likely to get someone’s DNA who is not your suspect.

And so if this is something they’re really excited about, to me that leans more in the direction of the mixture issue.

And this is, you know, such an issue in the field.

We’ve had a lot of success solving cases with mixtures because we get them all the time with sexual assault cases, but I wouldn’t say that that’s been true across the whole field.

Um, we’ve definitely been a bit ahead of the game because of our really brilliant biioiniratic scientists at Parabon.

and they had a jump on others because they started working with mixtures way back in I think it was 2014 when they pioneered using snip profiles for forensic purposes because they were using snips to predict someone’s physical traits.

When you see those images that are created just from the DNA, the hair color, eye color, skin color, shape, face, that’s using snip profiles because you need more information from the DNA than you can get from an STR profile.

So, they started working with those before investigative genetic genealogy was even a thing.

And so, they had kind of a jump on everybody else.

Hey, quick note from my sponsor.

This episode is sponsored by Cowboy Colostrum.

And if you have been trying to fix your gut health, this might be something you want to look into.

You know that colostrum is packed with nutrients that support your gut, right? Your immune system, your skin, even your hair, and your energy levels.

Well, cowboy colostrum is sourced from 100% American grass-fed cows, and it is true first day whole colostrum, which means it’s loaded with bioactive compounds like imunoglobulins and growth factors.

And just to be clear, the calves, they get what they need first.

Cowboy only collects the surplus.

You can mix it into coffee or smoothies.

They’ve got chocolate, vanilla, matcha, strawberry.

great flavors and people have noticed glowing skin and stronger hair, less bloating and steadier energy throughout the day.

And for a limited time, our listeners get up to 25% off your entire order.

Just go to cowboyc colostrum.

com/banfield and use my code banfield at the checkout for 25% off.

I mean, hey, use the code banfield.

cowboyc colostrum.

com/banfield.

Quick question about the mixtures because you said something that sort of sounded interesting to me in in that I didn’t expect it.

Um the mixtures that are too tricky to solve are when the contributor is 40% or below.

Is that what you said? Yes.

Okay.

That seems like a lot to me.

Um but 40% isn’t.

I think we are able I said as I said at Parabon they’re able to work with 40% or above for that perpetrator for a case like this.

I’m sure they would try if it was say 30%.

They would because they’re making advancements all the time with what that still sounds like a lot though like I I was thinking you know oh well if he’s only 0.

01% of a contributor it’s too hard but I mean 30 to 40% to the lay person that’s like really to my knowledge parabon’s the only one who will even work with a 40% mixture.

Most labs or all the other labs I’m aware of say at least 50% or more.

And so you you’d probably be surprised if you went to one of these labs and said, “I’ve got a mixture that’s 50/50.

” They might even say no.

Um because we’ve had a lot of people come to us who had been turned down other places.

The I mean the issue is if you are going to perform genetic genealogy, right, you need those at least the majority of those snips, those genetic markers to be from your unknown suspect.

And so if it’s a minority of that mixture, that becomes more and more difficult.

We can work with, you know, quite a few of those missing.

I’ve helped like the Angie Dodge case in uh Idaho Falls, Idaho, Idaho that I worked on.

We only had 61% of the snips that we normally have because we had a low call rate.

A call rate is how much of the DNA you or how many of those snips you were able to call you were able to get the values for.

So if if you know I’m sure at DNA Labs International they’re trying everything they can they’re a great lab and so I’m sure they’ve tried even if those proportions are not optimal even if they do have only 30%.

But can I ask you about the Well, listen.

I I’m going to ask you to read some tea leaves only because I cannot imagine what sort of mixture they got.

We are unaware that there’s blood or semen or anything like that.

That those are the big obvious ones in in u you know, we know this is the guy.

We just have to find the guy.

We don’t know that the mixture they have is even the guy at this point.

And I expect it’s not only two people.

Usually two people would be considered a simple mixture.

It’s when you get three or more that it’s complex.

Now, as I said, if your perpetrator was only 10%, you’ve still got a challenge.

But complex mixtures implies there’s three or more.

So, I think there could be four people.

Where do you find things like Where would you find mixtures like that? Because I’m thinking a toothbrush has one unless someone borrows it.

I’m thinking a Kleenex has one unless somebody was rooting around in the trash.

Where would you find a complex mixture like the one they might be sampling right now? Well, I think it’s, you know, transfer DNA or what’s commonly known as touch DNA.

It is something that was touched probably with that glove after he took out the bite uh I guess what I think the bite light or whatever they call it.

If it is a bite light, I think it is.

It looks like it bite light.

I mean, we’ve kind of assumed it was and when we’re talking about this, that that’s the best chance of getting that perpetrator’s DNA is if he took that out of his mouth.

I can’t imagine for 42 minutes he would keep it in his mouth.

So then if he touched somewhere in NY’s home where many other people had touched, like say a doorork knob for instance, if he touched a doororknob with that glove, it would have some of his DNA on it.

even if he just scratched his nose or adjusted that mask he had on.

And but by the way, people do that.

They put gloves on and then they still touch their They touch their steering wheels.

They touch their car seats.

They touch their seat belts.

They they touch their car door.

Maybe even their own door.

So yeah.

And then they touch them and they scratch their face or their, you know.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean Yeah.

Even like with Kberger, right? He was so careful.

But then he left a sheath that he had touched the snap, right, without gloves.

And so this person could touch their gun holster that they touched before they had gloves on or something, you know, along those lines.

Or if they pulled a gun on Nancy, for instance, a gun maybe that they hadn’t fully wiped down from touching before without gloves.

So it might just be skin cells, you know, a tiny amount of DNA that’s mixed on a surface of her home that many other people have touched over the weeks or months or whenever the last time something was thoroughly cleaned.

So I think that is likely what we’re looking at here.

If he had uh drip saliva, for instance, on the ground, that’s less likely to be a complex mixture, right? There might be some things that people dragged in from their shoes, but that’s a pretty good source of DNA.

So, I don’t think that is what they found.

But again, it’s all speculation, right? Yeah.

No, I because we know so little and I think the deputies know so little as well.

But I keep going back to the things we know that he touched.

We know he had to have touched.

We know we saw him touching the nest cam and the mount because he’s got his fat hands on it and wrenching it.

head.

I mean, I’m angry when I talk about this guy.

I think everybody else feels the same way.

They probably don’t mind my fbombs, but, you know, he’s wrenching on that camera and then he’s, you know, using I believe he’s using the the twig to get between the camera and the mount to yank it off.

Maybe he isn’t, whatever, but he’s messing with it with his disgusting hands.

So, we know he touched the mount.

We know he touched the camera.

We don’t have the camera, but we have the mount and they took it off the wall.

And then we started hearing about DNA.

I believe after that, I’ll go back to my notes, but I believe we started hearing about DNA after.

I think that’s a great theory.

Yeah, I didn’t realize they had taken them out, but that makes perfect sense.

They finally took them out, but it took them weeks.

It was up there for about two or maybe three weeks till they finally took them out off and they and I think that was after they saw him do his business, you know, but they had to have known he was there because he took the damn camera.

So, he didn’t have to have the video to know that he’d messed with it.

Then we also know, as has been proven out, I had a source that told me on day three, back door wide open.

Savannah has confirmed back doors propped open.

So, we know he had to have touched something on that door or doors to get in.

So, whether it was a handle or puddled on it or whatever it was.

Um, yeah.

And how often do you clean the outdoor handle of your back doors? Probably not very often, right? How about never? Yeah.

And so that could Are you supposed to? Wait, CeCe.

Yeah, I I I don’t I haven’t either, but maybe if you know you’re a germaphobic person and you go in and out, you might think to wipe it down, but likely that would be a great source for a complex mixture that because honestly, think about it.

No one touches your door handle if they don’t belong to the house.

You know, like your FedEx guy is not going to touch your door handle necessarily.

They might, but it’s unlikely.

So, the people who touch your front door handle are going to be your family, you, your friends, maybe a guest who stayed there, you know, however long ago, but generally speaking, maybe a gardener possibly.

Uh, and you’d think they would know those people as you’re saying, but but do they know every single person that Nancy ever hired to work on or help with her home? Since she lived alone, I still think it’s very possible they don’t know every person.

I mean, you could go back through her financial records.

Hopefully, there’d be checks or something, but maybe she paid with cash sometimes.

And so, maybe they’ve got two unknown males.

I think they have to have at least two unknown males because if not, they could pull the Y chromosome.

So, the Y chromosome is the DNA that men get from their father who got it from his father.

Father, father, father.

And you could learn a lot about this person’s background, even if you couldn’t identify them, from that Y chromosome.

And maybe they’ve done that.

You know, it can often tell you the surname of a male because that Y chromosome is passed down in the same pattern as surnames in many population groups, but not all.

And so, for instance, the Hispanic population group, they take mom’s and dad’s last name and they have a different naming pattern.

So, it probably wouldn’t give you their surname if it was a Hispanic person.

But if it was somebody who had deep roots in say northwest Europe, you very possibly could get their surname from that Y chromosome.

And sometimes that works in cases where there’s nothing else to work with.

So I suspect they must have at least two Y chromosomes or they would have already been going down that road and probably already told us at least the population group that that person’s father’s father’s father’s line comes from.

So, let me ask you if um presumably uh NY’s daughter Annie and her husband Tomaso, they’re going to use that door in their regular course of um interaction with their mom and mom.

Um and then of course NY’s going to use that front door, maybe a couple of her friends.

If and I assume the police have gone and they’ve they’ve gotten the DNA from her direct circle of friends to compare it.

If you have all those um those DNA um profiles, is it easier to deal with that mixture because you’re just canceling out the ones you can see or when it’s mixed like that and you’ve got 10% 10% 10% 10% you can’t even match the ones you know it starts becoming a real jumble.

It’s made the snips are ATC’s and G’s that make up our DNA.

So you either have an you know an A there or T C or G.

When you start getting too many people’s profiles, it’s just a jumble of those letters and it gets harder and harder to know which goes where.

So, there have been a lot of studies done that allow them to predict if you have an A at this location, then you may have, you know, G or whatever at this location because population groups tend to have patterns in their DNA, the way it lines up.

And so they can use that to a certain degree to predict this A goes with this G and this A goes with this T, you know, and so on.

But if it’s just too many people, I think that is going to become extremely difficult if not impossible.

So what about um what about the last guy to touch the door handle? So for instance, many people have touched the door handle, but the last guy, he’s all over it.

Does that help? Does that make it? Yeah, it should be that that person is the majority contributor.

But if this is a second person, for instance, not the guy that we saw with the possible bite light, right? Who hadn’t touched his face yet or had just a tiny amount of his DNA on the outside of those gloves, then there’s probably not going to be much of his DNA there.

So even if he’s the last one to touch it, he has to actually have some DNA to place there.

And if that was the beginning of the crime being committed, maybe he didn’t have any DNA yet, or maybe he had just a super tiny amount of DNA on those gloves.

As the time went on, I would believe that they would have more and more DNA that has been transferred onto their gloves because, like we just talked about, you’re going to touch something, right? But or you’re going to move your mask over because the holes aren’t lining up for your eyes.

So, you’re going to just move it over.

Yeah.

You’re sweating.

You know, it there’s certainly ways that you would be able to transfer DNA.

But at what point in the crime? I would think it would be later when they’re leaving that you would have a better opportunity of detecting that person.

I don’t know.

He was working pretty hard outside that house to, you know, conceal things by the guy in front, right? Yeah.

But is he smacking the camera? Is he the one who went in the back door though? And well that I mean look a lot of people think that there might be two perpetrators.

I don’t.

It’s just my own personal theory.

I see the same then went around the back and yeah I I I think he my just my personal opinion is that I think he came to the front door to get rid of that camera.

Whether he smashed it off its mount, broke it off its mount, yanked it off its mount.

There were glass shards according to Fox found down below and it’s gone.

So he got it off its mount and I think he planned to bring her out that front door cuz she’s bleeding all the way down the front door the path.

She’s bleeding inside according to my source as well.

She’s bleeding inside at the front door.

the front foyer, you know, just in the front.

The pattern of blood drops, according to my source, in the front foyer of her home is the same as the pattern that goes over the threshold of the front door and out onto the front entrance of the tiled, you know, entrance of her home and then down that gravel pathway and stops at the driveway.

So, I think I think his plan was to break in through the back because you’re not getting through that front door.

There’s no way.

um come in through the back and our sources also told us that the Guthrie kids told the police that Nancy Guthrie rarely locked her back doors.

Oh no.

Yeah.

So So he’s come in through the back.

Now we know that my source was accurate when they said back door wide open.

And however he got Nancy out of there, he then gets her out the front door um and into a waiting car.

But he’s he’s made sure to to take out the camera so you’re not seeing all of that.

I wonder if that’s my guess anyway.

I I wonder if he made her open the door because if he did, I would expect he would be the majority contributor on that door handle.

You mean on the front door like as they’re leaving? Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Do you know was it like this kind of door handle or was it like this kind? I think it’s I’d have to look at it.

I think it’s circular but um she may have been incapacitated.

We don’t know.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I and we know but Cece, we know she’s bleeding, so we know she’s hurt in some way.

Yeah.

Which I hope means she fought back, tried to fight back.

That’s so often the answer to these cases because that’s when you get DNA from the perpetrator.

So, everyone should always fight back if they’re able.

Uh because that is often what solves the case in the end.

And you know, getting DNA under fingernails, for instance, is huge.

I’m sure you’ve heard that many times.

Many times.

And I don’t know if an 84y old woman will fight back, but I do know that they, you know, she’s on blood thinners likely and with her conditions and and her skin is probably if like my mom so tissue papery that, you know, you bump into something and you can bleed, you know, if you’re if you’re in your 80s, it can be very very easy to bleed uh even with a harsh grab, you know, that kind of thing.

So, she might not even have fought back.

But, um, but I am fascinated to hear that the door handle might be the place or I swear there’s no way you could put a bite light into your mouth without those grubby little fingers getting something on them and holding I mean, you wouldn’t hold it in there.

That would be very uncomfortable.

I can’t even imagine.

Well, not if you’re giving verbal commands.

It’s got to come out.

Fingers have to take it out or you have to spit it out and then it’s on those gloves.

It’s all over those gloves.

There’s more DNA somewhere in that he had to have touched other things and thought he was fine because he was wearing gloves, but there’s got to be in and I had talked about this publicly and there was these interviews saying that I was giving the FBI advice.

I was not giving the FBI advice.

All I was saying is I too agree with you that there had to be more DNA there and I was hoping that if law enforcement had did not find a viable profile that they would go back and re-wab and you know look around and even look for a rootless hair if just any hair root or rootless can solve the case.

And that’s what you reminded me of because I’ve got it written down.

Ask her about rootless hair.

Ask her about any hairs like a beard hair.

anything cuz let’s not forget he’s got some goatee going on there and those little ski masks aren’t meant to be used in a hospital.

They’re meant for warmth and so they’re rubbing up against your face and presumably they might be loosening some hairs and they might be able to fall out below.

If there’s a um a rootless hair that’s part of that they found anywhere in that home, that wouldn’t be what we’re talking about as a mixture, would it? No, it wouldn’t.

And it would be solvable if they have that.

And that is thanks to the brilliance of Dr.

Ed Green from UC Santa Cruz because again we were told you will never get DNA usable DNA from rootless hair and he proved everybody wrong and he developed a method to extract DNA uh snips specifically a snip profile from rootless hair and we’ve been able to solve a number of cases already that that is the only physical evidence they had even a pubic hair excuse me but you know that’s not that different from a beard hair.

So, if we’re able to do it with a pubic hair, you certainly could do it with a beard type hair or mustache type hair or even an eyebrow, I would imagine.

I haven’t heard of that yet.

I can’t imagine why not.

I find it hard to believe that there isn’t something there.

I mean, we’re shedding all the time.

And if he did all these terrible things in this home, I just feel as though it just seems as though there would be.

And I just Who knows if they did the right collection? Who knows if they knew what they were doing? And who knows if the might have been a hair, but it took took it found its flight out of that home on the bottom of someone’s shoe.

Yeah.

How do you find a single hair, you know, from somebody with short hair or from a beard? It would take a lot of luck for that crime scene investigator to have found that.

And so, even if they’re very experienced and very thorough, I think it’s highly possible they could have missed something.

And not even through any fault of their own, just that that is such a challenge and current crime scene investigators need to know now just how important those hairs are.

In the past, they were useless if they didn’t have the root.

And so they might not have been looking for that type of hair as much as now they should be.

And so, you know, I’m hoping that they’re getting training in that and they’re being made aware that that can be what solves the case.

And we know that Nancy was taken from her bed.

Therefore, he had to have been close to her bed and there wouldn’t be short beard hairs near her bed from anybody likely except for a guy like this.

Or if she’s got a male cleaner, maybe.

Who knows? But it would just seem like such a a natural if that happened.

Do you know if there was blood in the bedroom? Um, my source told me the only blood was at the front entrance, meaning inside the house in the front foyer over the threshold of the front door and out towards the path, but and they were identical.

The pattern is identical both inside and outside.

It very well could be from, like you said, grabbing her at that point and trying to get her to leave the home.

And yeah, that’s kind of unfortunate.

I would I had hoped there might be blood in the bedroom because if there was more of a struggle there, there’s a greater likelihood he would leave his DNA in that bed or maybe on that bedside table if she had that was somewhere I could see him bracing himself or touching.

Continue reading….
Next »