Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos faces backlash over the 16-day-old Nancy Guthrie disappearance, with critics slamming his office for sending DNA evidence to a Florida lab instead of the FBI’s Quantico facility. Nanos denies delays in involving federal agents but has history: a 2024 election tied by 481 votes, administrative leave for political foes, and a 2015-2016 civil asset forfeiture scandal where he clashed with the FBI. Skepticism grows over procedural gaps—like unsecured crime scenes—and the plausibility of Guthrie surviving without care, while baseless political ties are dismissed. His leadership’s credibility hangs by a thread amid mounting scrutiny. [Automatically generated summary]
My friend, there is a word, a technical term, an abbreviation for what is happening regarding the Nancy Guthrie abduction case and Sheriff Nanos' performance is called RFU, as in royally, up, royally.
It is beyond anything anybody can imagine, because my friends, as the desperate search for Nancy Guthrie stretches towards beyond the two-week mark, 16 days as of today, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos finds himself yet again confronting more than a, well, more than a complex abduction or kidnapping case.
He faces a renewed and loud scrutiny over leadership decisions and his past controversies and, moreover, questions about judgment, and that's not good.
Questions about judgment at a moment when the public trust is everything and it is waning precipitously.
The disappearance of an 84-year-old woman from an upstairs Catalina Foothills home is the kind of case that defines a career.
It demands speed and clarity and celerity and coherence and confidence.
That's what it does.
Instead, many people say that confusion over the evidence handling and long simmering political disputes is what we are seeing.
That's placed the sheriff's office under an uncomfortable spotlight.
And you know it's true.
This is prototypical.
You've seen the case.
Even the movie, remember Die Hard, how the FBI wanted to move in, and Bruce Willis says, no, I want to deal with the police.
Anyway, it's a turf battle.
We've heard about this, but I thought this was over with, especially when something this serious is happening.
And one of the sharpest points of criticism centers on the decision to send key DNA evidence to a private forensic lab in Florida rather than the FBI lab in Quantico.
This is incredible.
Former federal investigators publicly questioned the move, suggesting time is critical and of the essence in cases involving elderly victims with medical needs where you have to act now and you have to establish yourself as being quick and on the case.
Nanos has defended the choice, saying his office had already been working with that lab and didn't want to, as he says, split evidence between facilities.
Again, why are you insisting on a Florida facility?
It's okay.
But ultimately, remember, this result has to go into CODIS.
Why don't you grease the skids?
He insists that both labs are highly capable and that using one avoids unnecessary complications.
Really?
Really?
Because in a high-profile case, optics matter.
They're getting the word optics.
And for critics, the question lingers, why not use the most recognizable, the most thorough federal lab in the country when the FBI is already involved?
Why not?
I think we know why.
And it's sad.
It's sad.
The sheriff has also denied any delay in contacting federal authorities.
He says the FBI was brought in right away on the first business day after the investigation.
And he says that, most importantly, he said that all forms of cooperation and working together have been seamless.
Yet, yet, my friends, the perception that his office may have slow-walked federal involvement continues absolutely to plague the environment and to circulate in public discourse.
And in cases like this, perception can be as powerful as fact.
Oh yeah, ask Erica Kirk about perception.
Now, the Guthrie investigation unfolds against a Well, I guess a backdrop of political and legal challenges that have followed Nanos for years.
How about this?
His 2024 reelection was razor-thin, decided by a mere 481 votes.
In the heat of that campaign, he placed his opponent, Lieutenant Heather Lappin, on administrative leave.
That's good.
Around the same time, Sergeant Aaron Cross, and well, shall we say, an outspoken critic of Sheriff Nanos, who campaigned publicly against him, was also placed on leave.
There you go.
Mr. Subtle, Mr. Suab.
Cross later filed a federal lawsuit claiming retaliation and alleging inter alia, among other things, that his First Amendment rights were violated.
He argued he was punished, punished for speech on matters of public concern that are a part of his job.
And Nanos has maintained that department policies were breached, of course, and that actions taken were absolutely and totally and absolutely consistent with internal rules.
Rawd.
Raw.
And the litigation remains ongoing, leaving unresolved questions about oh, motive and management.
But those will be addressed later.
But I think you know where that case is going.
And Lapin has also sued, claiming she faces a, or faced rather, a retaliatory campaign after declaring her candidacy.
See, her lawsuit, among others, claims or alleges that there's an unusual disciplinary action in the transfer she describes as punitive in effect.
You would think most people would say, not now.
Of all the times, not to move.
Your opponent, it's now during the election.
And before announcing her campaign, she had one internal affairs referral in nearly two decades of service.
After entering the race, after entering the race, she was referred five times, according to court filings.
Co-ink and ink?
I don't think so.
And Nanos has not publicly conceded wrongdoing, of course.
You understand how that works.
The courts are going to ultimately determine the legal matters, but politically, politically, the narrative, as you can understand, has been rather damaging.
And does this fool you?
Did you see this guy?
Have you heard the way he's been so, he's been dogged in keeping this my case?
Now, shortly after his narrow victory, the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously, unanimously, to pursue an independent investigation into whether criminal wrongdoing, criminal wrongdoing occurred during the election period.
And the matter was referred to the Arizona Attorney General.
Now, no charges were filed, but even so, the very existence of such a review underscores the level of tension surrounding his leadership.
And the controversies didn't begin in 2024.
Nope.
In 2022, a deputy alleged sexual assault by a supervisor at a holiday party.
The supervisor was later convicted of attempted sexual assault and sexual abuse.
Critics within the deputies organization argued the department did not adequately examine in any way how leadership handled or didn't handle the investigation.
Once again, the matter was referred for independent review.
This is getting costly, a lot of independent reviews.
And the Attorney General found no criminal wrongdoing, but noted possible internal rule violations.
The board later asked Nanos to clarify the status of internal inquiries to the public.
Pretty good, huh?
Now, further back in 2015 and 2016, the department was investigated by the FBI over misuse of civil asset forfeiture funds.
A chief deputy was indicted and later took a plea deal on misdemeanor theft charges.
Nanos was never charged himself, but during that period, he gave a pointed interview criticizing the FBI for confirming the existence of an investigation.
And he then challenged the agency's public silence policies and expressed frustration.
Now, for some observers, as you can also understand, those comments have resurfaced now that the FBI is again deeply involved in the major Pima County case.
You and I know that leadership style matters during crisis.
Critics argue that past public clashes with federal authorities and contentious relations with internal critics raise legitimate questions about, among other things, temperament and transparency.
And supporters counter that strong leaders, strong leaders inevitably face pushback and that no charges were brought in the prior investigations.
They note that law enforcement careers spanning decades often include political friction.
Comes with the territory, they say, comes with the territory.
And in the Guthrie case, every decision is amplified.
Billboards have appeared.
Federal agents have canvassed neighborhoods.
SWAT teams, SWAT teams have executed operations near the victim's home.
We've seen bomb squads and Walmart sales records have reportedly become part of the evidence trail.
Each development heightens public anxiety and focus and sometimes, frankly, gives the impression of confusion, kind of a Keystone coppish look.
Sheriff Nanos has defended his office's handling of the investigation in interviews, emphasizing repeatedly coordination with federal partners and an adherence, an adherence to investigative protocol.
He argues that sending all evidence to one lab avoids confusion.
It makes sense.
Why do you want confusion?
The whole case is confusion.
He says there was no delay in calling the FBI, that his department and federal agents are working side by side.
No big deal.
They're friends.
We're friends.
And he's described it as an absolutely nuts involvement not to partner with him.
He acknowledges that, of course, we work with the FBI.
Yet, yet criticism persists because the stakes are so high.
Nancy Guthrie is not just a missing person.
She's the mother of a nationally known television anchor who, by the way, has put up none of her own money and the reward.
I mean, the first reward, was it $2,500?
What's going on with that?
That's a different issue.
The case has drawn national, international media, political commentary, and intense, intense public scrutiny.
And in such an environment, even routine procedural decisions can appear, well, suspect or curious, to say the least.
And the broader question, my friend, is not simply whether the sheriff followed protocol.
That's not it.
It is whether the public feels confident, confident that every possible resource is being deployed without hesitation or political ego.
As you know, in crisis management, trust is currency.
Trust is critical.
If past controversies have eroded that trust, then even sound decisions now will face skepticism.
Ultimately, ultimately, the courts will reside the employment lawsuits.
The attorney general has already declined to bring charges in prior matters.
And the asset forfeiture scandal concluded without any charges against Nanos.
And that's good.
Those are facts.
But politics and perception operate on a different plane than criminal liability.
Ask Erica Kirk.
As for the search for Nancy Guthrie, as it continues, the focus should remain on bringing her home safely and identifying whoever is responsible.
And at the same time, at the same time, scrutiny.
Scrutiny of leadership is inevitable and to be expected in cases of this magnitude.
And Sheriff Chris Nanos now stands at a defining moment.
His legacy will be shaped not only by past disputes or campaign battles or problems with underlings, but by how effectively and transparently this investigation is conducted in the days ahead.
In law enforcement controversy, if controversy, in essence, can be survived, that's what's critical.
Failure in a high-stakes case like this cannot.
And this is what you have to understand.
There are things that we sometimes, as laypeople, will look at and will say, I don't understand this.
Scrutiny Of Leadership00:10:58
Now, I am not there.
I have an understanding, both as a former prosecutor, a trial lawyer, been involved in these things.
And one thing I can tell you that I would do.
I would do this.
I would do this.
First and foremost, that area would be sterile within five miles.
You know, all these people you have, these reporters standing in front of the house, yep, there it is.
Get out.
Get out.
What are you doing there?
This is a crime scene.
Sorry, TMZ.
This is a crime scene.
You don't belong here.
And then I couldn't believe this.
They said a pool, a pool company was invited by the family.
Hey, we got to get the pool clean.
What?
People with poles and brushes moving about in a crime scene?
I don't care.
No.
I don't care if the pool turns green, brown, or evaporates.
No.
Because you keep finding new gloves and new.
That means that the areas that we're talking about have not been thoroughly searched.
I would have every square inch, every centimeter in a grid checked off so that anything that we find now had to have been added later.
And the stories themselves, none of it makes any sense.
None of it.
And this isn't really the sheriff's fault, but these people, what do they want?
I think we should look for some retarded, I guess, with a guy with a sherpal, little lawnmower backpack who walks up, putting his hand in front of the, not the ring.
I'm always clear, always corrected.
It's the nest camera.
It's a nest.
Okay.
But he puts his hand up.
And then he takes foliage and weeds.
And what are you going to do?
Bless this like sage?
Like some Native American ceremony?
What is this?
What's going on here?
And everybody, by the way, is a blood drop expert.
Everybody knows.
Oh, that's obviously the blood from hemorrhaging.
Oh, that's a face drug.
Well, that blood splatter.
Excuse me, Henry Lee.
I saw the same thing during the OJ case.
Remember the OJ case?
Overnight.
I remember this like it was yesterday.
Overnight, people said, why wasn't there more blood in the Bronco?
Why wasn't there more blood in the Bronco?
To which I answered, why was there any blood in the Bronco?
What are you talking about?
More blood, less blood, splatter.
Henry Lee, remember him how he was throwing the blood and the show.
Everybody's an expert.
Everybody.
And for those people who are asking, what could this be?
Is this kidnapping?
Is this?
Well, obviously, she's not there.
And I want to know, and maybe Sheriff Nanos could say, could you tell us a little bit about inside the house?
You have to show us pictures, but just for curiosity.
Was her bed made?
Was she ever in bed?
Was this violence seen in the house?
Were there ever any points of entry?
Are you talking about these two, this Jadroel decides to come in through the front door with the lights?
A door is the most reinforced part of the house.
Nobody goes through the front door unless it's an apartment or you have one entry.
There were windows.
Remember, the back entrance was open.
How does that work?
I know nobody cares about my opinion, but I'm telling you what I think I would focus on.
I do not believe, I do not intuitively believe, I'm sorry, that the brother-in-law has held a grudge and is somehow involved in it.
Tomaso, I do not believe this.
And if you did suspect the brother-in-law, the first thing you do is you sit his ass down and start asking him questions.
When he takes the Fifth Amendment, that's the guy.
But have they even done that?
Is he around?
Greg Gutfeld, to his defense, said something that was not that far-fetched.
If Nancy, if Savannah were to say, let me take the poly, as Mr. Guttfeld said, if he takes the poly, others would say, well, let me do that too.
And don't kid yourself.
Polygraphs work.
Believe me.
Believe me.
They may not be allowed into court.
That's a different story.
They work.
Under the right polygrapher, they are absolutely perfection.
And that's what you've got to realize.
That's the thing which we have to understand.
There's a lot of questions I don't understand.
If I had to guess anything, the storyline that makes kind of the most sense to me that I could work with, granted, one that I'm creating out of thin air, I would still submit to you, dear friend, that in nearby Mexico, there are abductions and kidnappings all the time.
It's what they do.
Americans have been told in Mexico City, be careful.
A kidnapped, kidnap, kidnap.
It's easy for somebody to understand who this person is.
It's easy for somebody to understand in this community.
It could be a worker.
Remember the poor DoorDash bastard?
Remember, they got him and his mother.
I don't know nothing.
Okay, fine.
But who knows?
A guy working in the house, a pool.
Who knows?
And if you, and also, I hate to use the word retarded, but I don't know what it is.
How would you best disable a nest camera?
It's called duct tape.
Piece of tape.
That's it.
You don't need to.
What is this?
He's got this oven.
What is he?
What is he?
Jake Lamano?
What is he doing with it?
I don't even know.
Back and forth.
And they're even looking at the gate.
Oh, it's a woman.
They had a body language expert.
Listen, a body language about how this guy's walking.
He's got 200 pounds of bricks or whatever this thing is.
What do you mean the way he's walking?
Look at him.
Who can walk like this?
Somebody was saying the other day, and I like a lot of people, I like Ashley Banfield a lot.
I like her style.
She says, Bala Clava, you know, the scheme mask, where the hell do you get that in Arizona?
Where do you get that?
A lot of places.
And there's this place called, what's the name of it?
Oh, yes, Amazon.
It's not exactly the hardest thing to get, but you have to answer.
Why is he going back and forth?
And is this the only person who's involved?
Is that the abductor?
Is that the person?
And if you find, and by the way, just to let you know, if I represented this guy, if they arrested him, I would tell Pedrito, you're not going to say a word.
And I would say, he was there.
So what?
Get him on trespassing.
Prove he was inside.
Prove he was inside.
Does he have her blood on him?
Any other pictures?
Anything else?
I don't care how many times anybody went to the front door.
That's not necessarily the killer or the abductor.
And finally, and I don't say this with any degree of relish or ha ha ha, it's horrible because I think about if my beloved mother, if that were my grandmother, I'd be going crazy.
I think it is extremely unlikely that it's 16 days past the abduction, that she somewhere is being fed and watered and hydrated.
I don't know about her medicines.
I don't know how critical they are.
High blood pressure medication.
Who knows?
I do not know.
I hope I'm wrong.
She could be in Mexico.
She could be in a safe house being fed tortillas or whatever.
I still think the Mexican angle, no offense against our Mexican brothers and sisters, but I'm saying in that society, in that criminal element, that's what they do.
We don't have, we don't really kidnap in this country.
We abduct.
We will snatch.
But under the laws, remember this, and this is what's important.
Under the laws, kidnapping in Arizona is, of course, taking somebody, but it is confining them.
It doesn't mean necessarily what you think it means.
It doesn't mean what you think it means.
It's a different story.
In Arizona law, under section 13-1303, kidnapping is essentially basically false imprisonment, so to speak.
But under 1304, excuse me, kidnapping occurs when someone knowingly restrains another person, restrains them.
Not takes them, restrains them with specific criminal intent.
And the restraint must be coupled with one of the following.
One, holding the victim for ransom or as a shield or a hostage, victim shield, hostage shield, human shield, hostage.
Two, using the victim as a slave.
Three, inflicting death or physical injury or sexual offense.
Remember, abduction plus this.
Or placing the victim in reasonable fear of imminent injury or interfering with a governmental or political function or taking control of an aircraft, train, bus, ship, or other vehicle.
That is called kidnapping.
Restraint means restricting somebody's movements without consent, but you have to have that second aspect of it.
That's when it becomes kidnapping.
You don't have to necessarily move.
You can break into a house and hold them.
Remember the case of this one of this man who he had women, well, obviously they were his slave, but you could go to someone's house and basically confine them there.
It's the idea of movement.
Movement is limited.
Restraint is the issue.
It's a horrible case.
Would a federal involvement in it to bring the feds in?
You've got to show interstate travel or that the assailant, the bad guy, the perp, has to travel interstate via interstate to get to this.
Let Us Remove This Issue00:01:43
One would argue that if they were from Mexico, maybe.
All I know is simply this.
In times like this, it's horrible.
I also ask, let us stop.
And I do it too.
I don't know why.
Maybe I think we all do it.
We all want to pick apart the Savannah Guthrie.
What is she doing?
Why is she doing it?
Why is she acting like this?
Is she legit?
How come she's wearing makeup in the second time?
How come she used this word?
One of the actual speeches, she, or the speeches, but the addresses she gave used a code word of celebrate or whatever.
So I know this.
And her husband, I know he worked for the Democrats.
Okay, fine.
That has nothing to do with this.
It has nothing to do with this.
And you can make all the Epstein connections you want.
Yes, she was brutal in some of her interrogations of President Trump.
So what?
We're not talking about that now.
This is a different story.
Let us compartmentalize.
Let us remove.
Let us differentiate.
Let us remove this issue from other political issues as well.
I thank you for this.
What do you think?
What are your thoughts?
What are your observations?
What about this sheriff?
What is this show?
What does this say about him?
You know exactly.
This is his turf battle.
And this is what happens when you put politics into the middle of this stuff.
What do you think about this?
All right, my friends.
Please, I've got some questions for you.
I ask you to weigh in and comment on.
Please also accept my utter thanks for your incredible involvement, your review, and your absolutely brilliant analyses.