Megan Kelly, FBI experts James Fitzgerald and Maureen O'Connell dissect the Nancy Guthrie kidnapping, analyzing conflicting reports on a backpack-wearing suspect and a new "porch man" spotted six miles south. They debate Sheriff Nanos's refusal to send evidence to Quantico, attributing jurisdictional friction to his ego rather than field agents, while dismissing Bitcoin ransom demands as distractions. With the reward raised to $100,000 and no proof of life after two weeks, the panel concludes that local inaction and leadership conflicts may be hindering the investigation into an 84-year-old victim with a pacemaker. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East.
Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show.
I'm Megan Kelly.
We are broadcasting live from a remote location today, as we have been yesterday and for the next few days away with the fam for some RR, though not that much RR.
But in any event, happy to be with all of you and continuing our coverage of this case.
I mean, to be honest, I plan on taking the day off.
So I know there's some viewers who would like to hear us talk about some other news besides the Guthrie case.
And we wouldn't have been doing a show at all today had it not been for this case, which people have a lot of interest in for all sorts of reasons.
And we will stay on until it's obvious when it's time to move on.
I mean, this is either going to become a cold case and just a missing person's case, we're going to have to turn the page, or they're going to find a resolution.
But we're not at either of those points yet.
And next week, we'll have plenty of other news as well.
So, in any event, I want to bring in our all-star panel.
We've got James Fitzgerald and we've got Maureen O'Connell.
James is former supervisory special agent at the FBI and the host of the Cold Red podcast.
And Maureen, former FBI special agent and co-host of the Best Case, Worst Case podcast.
And they've been our guides throughout this whole thing.
One of the biggest problems in American healthcare right now is access.
You usually cannot get medication until you're already sick.
Healthcare should not only work when it's convenient for the system, it should work when people actually need it.
That's where all-family pharmacy is different.
They let you plan ahead by ordering prescription meds before you're sick.
You order online, a licensed doctor reviews your request and writes the prescription.
And then your medication ships straight to your door.
No waiting rooms, no insurance delays, no last-minute scrambling.
They offer antibiotics, antivirals, Tamaflu, ivermectin, and hundreds of other prescription medications.
This is about access, responsibility, and being prepared, giving you the ability to plan ahead.
Go to allfamilypharmacy.com/slash Megan and use the code Megan10 to get 10% off your next order.
Okay, guys, a couple of big developments to start with.
There is dueling information on whether, since our show yesterday, the FBI has quote moved on from, and by FBI, I mean FBI and the Pima County Sheriff's Department, from Pac-Man, who we analyzed at length yesterday, the man who had two backpacks in a back alley a few miles away from Nancy Guthrie's case, almost at the same time of the Nancy Guthrie home invasion.
If the camera was right in the alley, put it around 1:53 a.m., someplace around there.
And of course, we're told that the doorbell was disconnected at Nancy's house at 1:47 and that someone was spotted on camera at 2:12 a.m.
So the NBC News nightly program, I think it was last night, Tom Winter, who's been covering the case for them, reports that law enforcement has, quote, moved on.
I think he said that that man is not a person of interest or a suspect, and they've moved on.
And TMZ saying that's not true, saying that their sources say, no, your information is wrong, that no one has been cleared.
That was the word.
They've been cleared.
And Harvey says, no, my FBI source tells me no one has been cleared in relation to that video.
So let's just start there.
What's going on there?
I mean, I tried to get to the bottom of this.
And basically, I was directed to the Pima County Sheriff's Department.
I mean, that they're the ones supposed to be running herd on this.
They're the only ones who can clear or not clear.
And while the FBI may be telling Harvey he's not cleared, no one's cleared, Tom Winter seems to have two just law enforcement sources saying he is.
So, Jim, what do you think is happening here?
No one is cleared in this investigation, Megan, at this point in time.
You can talk at the inner circle of the family to guys like this who pop up, you know, days later or weeks later, a week and a half later on some kind of a video.
So, you know, unless someone's actually in prison, locked up, no answer for but CCTV on him, they know where he is.
No one is going to be cleared.
And even if this guy is not the one or someone is in prison and they know he didn't do the abduction of Nancy Guthrie, you know, does he know someone who did?
Was he involved in some sort of co-conspirator type thing?
So I said yesterday, this guy has to be ruled out before, well, they can do other things at the same time, but he has to be ruled out before they say he's cleared.
We're hearing conflicting stories.
One people said, one set of people said yes.
Other people said no.
My idea is you keep them, you know, you move them down the priority list.
You put them in sections, you know, C, D, or E of suspects, but you still keep an eye on them to keep everything, get DNA, get fingerprints if that's possible, and then compare it from there.
But I would say if I was the investigator, and Maureen can disagree with this if she wants, but this guy is still in the suspect wool because there's too many factors that lined up when they shouldn't have lined up, same time, same location, backpacks, all that stuff.
So he has to be kept in that suspect wool.
I'm not sure if he's been identified or not.
That would be, I mean, no one would have told Tom Winter.
I mean, Tom Winter is a good reporter.
No one would have said he was cleared if they hadn't identified him.
I just can't believe that.
But here is Harvey, who clearly does have some FBI sources.
Here he cites FBI.
Normally he just cites law enforcement, but his only role in this whole case has been the so-called ransom notes, which we know the FBI is handling.
Quite clearly, he's got a source or sources within the FBI.
And this is what he said on Hannity last night, Maureen, here at a SOT3.
Why is MBC dismissing this now that apparently they have determined that the man has been cleared in this case?
Because it looks like a strange coincidence to me.
Yeah, I mean, look, I'm not going to embrace or dispute what NBC said.
I can only tell you about an hour ago, I called one of my sources at the FBI who was involved in this case, who said that nobody has been cleared in connection with the video.
That doesn't mean they're implicated either, but they said they're looking at everything, including this.
So I'm getting different information from the FBI.
Okay.
So what do you make of it, Maureen?
I think that in the Bureau, we're doing different things.
And, you know, Fitz has talked at length about the number of different investigations in all these different silos that are happening simultaneously, including the Sheriff's Department.
Our team is just not going to give up, especially like the CAS team, the cellular analysis team, and others.
We are just not going to give up until we check every single solitary box that we check.
And for two different agencies to have two different ways of going about things is totally natural.
You're always going to have hiccups.
You're always going to have issues among personnel.
But that's where leadership comes in.
If you're a good leader, you, you know, like more than one time, I had a supervisor say, hey, I need you to go over here and build a damn bridge.
And I don't care what you have to do to build it, build it, because we have whatever the situation is at hand.
And here, the situation obviously is an 84-year-old woman.
So we have different ways of going about it.
We're not going to tell them how to handle their business.
They're not going to be telling us how to handle ours.
And then at the end of the day, we just share every or in a really good situation.
We're going to share all the information and we're going to do it in the command post.
The Calm Man on the Porch00:11:18
And we're going to say, this is what we found.
But with respect to this guy, though, I think it's fair to say he's not a great lead.
No one's considering him their hottest lead right now.
Otherwise, the messaging overall would be different.
And so that's disturbing because now we have at least two men who one we know committed a crime.
One we think looks pretty sketchy with the double backpack in the alley in the middle of the night trying to get through some gate.
Doesn't exactly look like he's working on his dissertation.
So I'm not sure what's happening there in Tucson.
And then we have a third person.
Now another video has emerged.
And we're going to show that today of yet another guy.
This guy is on a porch.
This, again, comes from one of the ring camera forums in and around Tucson.
Like people talk and they link their ring cameras and they see it, talk about what they've seen on there.
Now look at this guy.
He was all over this woman's porch in the middle of the night.
Look at him, you guys.
He's got the dark mustache.
He's got the dark soul patch into a beard underneath his chin.
He's got pretty distinguished eyebrows.
Now, unfortunately, he is also kind of skinny.
In my view, that's a distinction from the man who was on Nancy Guthrie's porch.
You can tell he sort of knows about the ring camera here himself.
But look at that.
Before he manages to cover it up or do whatever he did to it, boy, oh boy, you have a pretty good headshot of him.
So, Jim, he does, there is a striking similarity between this guy and his face, at least, and what we think is behind that masked man on Nancy's porch.
And once again, as I've said about the last guy we showed and the guy we, the same guy we talked about yesterday, by the way, Maureen and I came up with the name Tupac for him.
This latest guy?
No, no, the guy from yesterday was.
Oh, Pac-Man.
Oh, Tupac.
Anyway, but this guy, yeah, there are some similarities, certainly through the eye holes.
They've got to follow up with us.
I would want to know how far away from Nancy's house, the exact night, the same or in the time of day.
And perhaps if any other ring cameras pick this guy up along the way, he's certainly acting suspicious like he doesn't belong there.
There's no way to do that.
Of course not.
I mean, unless it's an ex-girlfriend or something, we just don't know that.
But I'm sure the ex-girlfriend wouldn't be putting this thing out unless she wanted to upset her ex-boyfriend.
So he has to be looked into.
Facial recognition.
Local sheriff deputies are going to know this guy.
Most likely, someone will recognize him and say, hey, who is he?
If he's just a normal, you know, street guy doing his thing, that's one, that's one thing.
But if he's obviously if he's there for some other reason, that has to be determined.
And if he never shows up and turns himself in, that's a clue too.
So we have to get these guys identified as the bottom line and maybe just move on from there.
But without knowing who they are, their names, or where exactly they were, you know, at 147 or so that Sunday morning, they got to keep him in the suspect board.
We don't know, but somebody knows.
Here's the information.
The original poster of the video goes by Keene Devine online.
And this was originally posted at, it was dated January 23rd, you know, last month, from the neighbor's like ring camera app, not far from Nancy.
Then our friend, nerdy addict on X, he reposted it, which is where I saw it this morning.
The man showed up on someone's porch.
He said around 3.30 a.m. and then returned again at 5 a.m., prompting a concerned ring user to post about it on the neighbor app.
This home is roughly six miles south of Nancy Guthrie's house.
Look at that.
I mean, short of it like being vertical, this guy gave us like his own little mug shot.
I mean, somebody should be looking into him for what if anything may have gone missing on that porch at a minimum.
The link that the neighbor who posted it on theneighborsring.com, that post says, this guy appeared in the front yard around 3.30 a.m., then returned around 5 a.m.
My dogs went crazy barking and thankfully spooked him away.
I didn't answer the door.
Anyone else see him in the area of 6th between Campbell and Tucson Boulevard?
He's got on a light color.
Now moving on to what we see in the video for listening audience, he has dark hair, dark facial hair, a mustache, the sole patch underneath his bottom lip.
He approaches the doorway, appears to be carrying a light colored sweatshirt or jacket.
He sort of oddly hunches over, we think probably trying to avoid detection on the camera, which failed with his rear end to the camera.
But I mean, he's caught, like his whole face is on there.
He shuffles to the side, appears to try to block the camera unsuccessfully.
You see his entire face.
He does have more rounded eyes.
And it looks a little bit like he has something on his neck, like a tattoo.
It's hard to see.
And he looks Hispanic to me.
You can't really tell in this black and white video for sure.
But I don't know.
To me, still, he seems too skinny.
The guy who was at Nancy's for sure, to me, looks slightly huskier than this guy and huskier than Tupac.
And now, let's see.
Yes, this is somebody on the nerdy addict thread, Chuppa Jones, points out, notice how he uses the same hand to block the camera, then almost seemingly instinctively does the same little crouch down to the left motion as the abductor or as the maslicks guy, as Tupac, he's saying, as the, as Tupac does in the video.
It's like he's reaching for something that isn't there.
A lot of speculation about whether this is the same guy.
Let me just, I mean, any thoughts on all of that?
Because this is somebody who was in the area, came back an hour and a half later.
I mean, this is very suspicious.
And by the way, we think Nancy's abductor may have come back.
You know, he approached that door more than once.
We at least think that because he didn't have the backpack on in that one shot, Maureen.
Right.
I think you're right about this guy.
He's got those large eyes and he's got those eyebrows that are perfectly arched at the bottom.
And he's got the right facial hair around his mouth.
I wish I could see the mouth a little bit better.
Yeah.
Because the perpetrator at Nancy's house has thick lips that were perfectly calm the whole time.
I mean, there are people that can't pick up a plate or turn a doorknob without making some sort of, you know, tightening up their face in some way, shape, or form.
But this, that person on Nancy's porch just was calm as a cucumber the whole time.
I do see a similarity, as you pointed out, about how calm this person is, this new video, the way he just saunters around and he's hunched over.
He seems to be a bit taller and I would agree a bit thinner, but we don't know that right now.
Maybe we can get that team out on the front porch to measure all that, but I don't see this person standing up straight.
Does it say or did it mention at all if this person in this newest video was seen at other houses in the area or just that one particular person?
I did not say that.
And I mean, one notable distinction is he did not wear a ski mask.
So if that was a crime, unlike Tupac or Pac-Man, who was just sort of who looked like he had just committed a crime.
This is just my own supposition, or might be about to.
So, and was in an area where the crime didn't appear to be happening.
It seemed to be more like where he was stashing something.
Could be totally reasonable explanation for his behavior.
Should note that for the record.
This guy was in the midst of something that looked sketchy, like on the porch.
And he was not wearing the face mask, unlike Nancy's abductor, who did have the face mask.
But this is where I want to bring in the latest sketch from this world famous sketch artist, you guys, because I'm holding your head and I'll put it back on the board too when we get to it.
The picture of Porchman, okay?
The new Porchman, unmasked Porchman.
There's a very famous forensic artist named Lois Gibson, and she's now in her 70s.
She's retired Houston PD forensic artist, and she is the forensic artist.
So you are the victim of crime.
You go in, you speak with Lois about what you saw, try to remember what he looked like, and she can translate your memory into a picture.
She actually holds the Guinness World Record for most successful forensic artist.
On her website, she credits her near-death experience as the victim of a serial rapist slash killer as the reason she's so passionate about catching criminals.
She's got a very interesting personal story.
And her website states that her sketches have helped identify more than 751 criminals.
So this woman's pretty badass.
Now, she talked with the Guinness Book of World Records when she was honored about how she helps crime victims remember faces because she said so many of them will come in and say, I didn't see the face.
I don't know.
And just listen to Lois here.
I've had witnesses that were screaming, I never saw the face.
They screamed, they never saw the face.
Well, here's two tricks.
Number one is you ask them, what kind of hair did they have?
And everybody who remembers hair.
I mean, human beings are obsessed with hair.
That's why high school is so hard.
And then the other trick you use, if they are sure, they say, no, I never saw the face.
As you talk about something else, you become very nice to them and you ponder the character of the person that attacked them.
And then you say, what kind of expression did he have?
If they answer that, they saw the face.
It's very clever, right?
Yeah, I like her approach.
Her whole...
Her whole demeanor is good.
So she took a shot at coming up with a sketch based on Nancy's abductor, based on the mask.
Like she took a look at his masked face and here it is.
For listening audience, it looks like a Hispanic man.
He looks, forgive me, kind of handsome.
A good head of hair.
The black mustache sort of right down into a goatee that doesn't have hair all out throughout the chin, just a line of it going down the sides of his little mouth and down into like a devil, a devil beard with the sole patch connected with a little devil beard, but not a pointed beard.
He has a nice nose.
He's got a little age on his face.
I'd say this man here is late 30s and he's got the eyes that you see in the actual photo from Nancy's ring cam, Nest Cam, in that the sides of the eyes, the outside end of the eyes go maybe ever so slightly upward.
You know, they tilt almost a little bit upward at the outside.
Sketching the Suspect's Face00:15:18
There's no hood on those eyelids.
This guy does not need the plastic surgery that gets rid of the upper eyelid.
And we were told yesterday by law enforcement, FBI, that's what they were doing on Nancy's porch with that tent, as Jim and Maureen said.
They were figuring out how tall the perp was and they now said 5'9 to 5'10.
So this guy doesn't look particularly large in stature in the way she's showing him in her sketch that she came up with.
And just before I get it to you guys to weigh in on, I'm gonna give you one more thing on Lois Gibson.
She's solved all these cases or helped solve.
And one of the best was this case of a non-fatal shooting of a cop named Officer Paul Deeson.
She tells the story.
We actually pulled it.
This is again in her interview with the Guinness book.
Who knew the Guinness Book of World Records was doing on-camera interviews, by the way?
She tells the story about how she helped catch Officer Paul Deeson's shooter.
Watch this.
So I had an officer that was shot in the head and shot in the back and run over and drug under a car.
Officer Paul Deeson was patrolling one night and he didn't realize the guy that he stopped to just give a regular ticket was an escape convict.
His name was Donald Eugene Dutton.
So Don Dutton, as soon as he gets stopped by Paul Deason, he jumps out of his car and he shoots Paul in the head and in the back.
And Paul twirls around and falls down unconscious on the ground.
So Don Dutton got back in the car and on purpose ran over Paul, Officer Deason, and it drug him down the street about 60 feet.
So Paul is so tough.
He gets up and walks back to his radio and calls in his own assist and was semi-unconscious.
And he told me, I didn't remember his face.
I didn't see his face.
I only saw the flash of the gun.
So I talked about other things and said, Paul, you're going to live.
You're going to be okay.
And I said, what kind of expression did he have?
And I'll never forget.
He said he looked like a shark, like he didn't care about anything at all.
And inside my mind, I'm going, yee-haw, because that means he remembered the face.
Anyway, Officer Deason swears he doesn't remember doing the sketch with me because I talked to him years later and I've got it hanging on my wall.
They released the sketch.
Three days later, Don Dutton was caught trying to shoplift a chainsaw from a Sears.
When he was arrested for the shoplifting incident, two of the guys at the jail thought he looked like my sketch.
So they held an in-hospital room video lineup for Paul Deason and he picked him out.
And then they went to the parking lot of the shoplifting scene and they found a car with pieces of Paul's skin and uniform hanging from the undercarriage.
So he for sure did it.
And I went to trial and he got life in prison and Paul reached over across the bench and kissed me on the cheek.
Incredible story.
And for the listening audience, her sketch of the perp there, Don, is identical.
Guys, look at that.
Look at that.
It's as if she was working off of the photograph of this man.
But when she drew that sketch on the left, she had never seen his face.
She had a cop who didn't think he had seen his face, a cop who'd suffered massive trauma.
So you'd have to really question whether he remembered anything.
You could be relied on for a description.
It is as if she drew the photograph.
So, we do need to take Lois seriously when she puts this sketch together and says, I took a shot, and here's what she wrote on X.
I guessed at the parts of the face covered with the ski mask on this, this Nancy Guthrie kidnapping suspect.
I used the surveillance photo shown.
I spent 43 years at the job trying to help detectives with similar photos.
Only things somewhat sure are eyes and part of lips/slash/mustache.
I'll take the hit if I'm drastically wrong.
Don't criticize, do your own.
So, Lois is like, she's not taking guff from anybody, she's throwing down.
It was a bold thing for her to do because she knows she could be wrong.
I take her very seriously, and just for not for nothing, but let's just compare her sketch to Porchman from last night.
Something's wrong.
Pretty good.
I mean, it's pretty damn good.
I got to say, for listening audience, it's eerily similar.
Like, do they not have to seriously investigate this latest porch man, Jim?
Well, I'd be curious if Lois saw this latest Porchman, as we'll call him.
I don't think so from what you said.
No, because this came out yesterday, and this latest guy, this can't hit today.
Come on, well, you're not going to hear Jim Fitzgerald on Megan Kelly's show say, don't incorporate this sketch into the investigation.
This is obviously a positive lead.
And by the way, it's refreshing to see sketch artists who actually draw their composite sketches as opposed to using software.
The software is okay, but I really like seeing the artists.
It's a true art, not to use that word over again.
Lots and lots of practice is needed.
You have to be a very good listener, and you have to know how to interact with people.
Obviously, she's not doing that in this case.
So, I would say very much this sketch is worth putting out.
I will add this caveat, though.
And I put some of these pointers out a few days ago with you, Megan.
It's a this guy may have been changed, may have changed his identity since certainly since the abduction itself, but certainly since the video went out, even with the skull mask on.
So, look at the base.
I would tell the public: look at the basic features in this composite sketch, but don't get thrown off, you know, without the goatee, mustache, whatever.
But just think that this guy have it before.
If he wore this most of his life, whatever, or certainly in the last few years, all of a sudden it came off in the last week or so.
Call the FBI tip line.
Red alert.
I mean, Maureen, it's this woman's got a lifetime of figuring out what does someone look like without being shown what they look like by just being given a few clues, a few remembrances.
And here, I mean, I would argue that the face masked subject is probably even easier to work off of than someone's memory because you can see things like face shape and some facial hair, and the eyes are, the eyes are everything.
Right.
But if the face mask is tight, it can smash down the nose considerably.
But I'm not going to argue with this lady either.
I mean, she's she's legit.
She's done the job.
She's succeeded at it over and over and over.
So, but I would agree with Fitz that let's not limit our imaginations to what this person will or will not look like.
They'll definitely be on edge.
They're going to be, you know, they're going to be freaking out.
But this whole where we are now is just like another dip or rise in this roller coaster called the Nancy Guthrie case.
This is just unprecedented.
It's sad because we're here.
We are, you know, it's now getting extremely unlikely that Nancy is still alive because the family told us she can't survive without her critical meds.
And now it's possible they just said that in order to engender sympathy with the kidnapper.
Like this is about to turn into a murder in case you didn't know that or didn't plan that.
But here we are almost two weeks later and we still don't have her.
And they said they'd been checking the hospitals to see if anybody had like popped in to try to get meds.
And at least the initial search suggested no.
Go ahead, Maureen.
With regard to the meds, my mother-in-law was put on hospice because they were, it was during COVID and she was in assisted living and they said, we're taking her off all of her meds for whatever reason.
And we don't expect her to last long.
We don't think she can last long without all this heart medication, everything, right?
They took her off the meds.
She lasted another couple of years and she felt better than she felt while she was on the meds.
So that gives me a little bit of hope.
We have to work this case.
Law enforcement has to work this case like she's alive.
It's the only way to work this.
And that's why tensions run high.
That's why the stakes are so high is because everyone's trying to believe she's going to be, she's going to come home.
Well, I mean, Jim, you know as well as I do that these sketches, they can be really good.
I mean, they can be great like Lois.
They can be not as great.
I mean, the Unibomber sketch is the most famous or infamous sketch in the world.
Everybody knew the Unabomer by his police sketch for the vast majority.
I bet, in fact, when you say Unabomber, I think people think of the police sketch more than they think of the actual image of Ted Kaczynski once you guys got him.
I can't really look.
I'm looking at it now.
Can I really say this sketch artist nailed Ted Kaczynski?
I don't know.
I mean, like, you know, it shows him with the hood, the hoodie and the sunglasses.
And then you see him later with his crazy mane of hair and his crazy beard.
I'm not sure.
There have been others.
There was one, the Night Stalker, a serial killer in the San Francisco Bay Area, LA, April 84 through August of 85.
He killed at least 15 people.
We're showing his sketch on the board right now.
That's not bad.
That one's not bad at all.
Police had released one of these to the media and he was caught later, but that one's not bad.
The one of Dennis Rader, BTK.
I don't know.
You tell me what you think.
It's not going to identify him with his family or friends, unfortunately.
You could rule some people out.
It'll be tough to rule someone in based on that composite right there.
But they tried to.
Let me show you one other.
Here's son of Sam, David Berkowitz, who terrified us all in 1977, one year in New York City.
And let me tell you, growing up in upstate New York during that time, everybody knew who son of Sam was.
This one actually got a lot of criticism after he was caught because they ripped on the sketch artist.
I think it's actually pretty good, not knowing, you know, for somebody who's never seen him before, but the face is a lot thinner than Berkowitz really was.
Like Berkowitz was fat.
He was kind of chubby.
Fat and he had that receding hairline that you don't, you know, this, the sketch just looks like some guy with perfect hair versus.
And the sketch shows a nose that looks like, I don't know, it's like more wide at the bottom with wider nostrils and a thinner bridge.
And Berkowitz's nose was, it looks more Italian to me.
Like it doesn't look the same down at the bottom.
And the lips don't look the same.
I mean, it bears a resemblance, I think it's fair to say.
But so I don't know.
Like they're hit or miss, basically.
But let me add here, all this stuff is good and important, but this opens up another door for us that I was hesitant to get into for the last week or so.
I think we touched on it yesterday.
Why is this guy now on the porch of someone else a week before or so, five miles away?
And what is the problem with that?
And was this a mission-oriented project, which I thought it was all along, to kidnap Mrs. Guthrie?
And we'll rule out Tupac from last night, but this guy does look good.
Is this now a random sort of act of violence, an abduction there?
And then hope that even strengthens more now that the kidnapping part and raising the money for ransom is even more specious and not connected at all to the actual abduction.
So why is this guy a week beforehand going on someone else's?
That's why I asked yesterday, was the address very similar or one block away?
The police go to wrong houses sometimes when they're doing search warrants.
And that's a bad thing.
And FBI has done it too.
So this just opens up this other door.
I hate to use the word meaningless, but almost motiveless.
And everything we put into this, all my experience, Maureen's, could this just be some rando walking down the street?
Why he puts on the mask, you know, or Nancy's abduction and not a week before, because maybe he did this surveillance before, looked in the window.
Hey, there's this old lady by herself.
I see a camera.
So if this is directed to kidnap her, why go to some other place a week before?
That's what I'm trying to reconcile in my head.
Unless the guy is not connected at all, but we have to figure out who this guy was from this latest video and figure out his name.
Very good question.
If it's not connected, I think it's safe to say we should not move to Tucson.
Like, how many men do they have roaming in the middle of the night, trying to break in, creepily preying on people's porches, possibly abducting women from their beds?
Like, I didn't know that Tucson was such a hotbed of criminality, but it's kind of disturbing, Maureen.
Well, he's got something in his hands.
Fitz, what would you say to the possibility that maybe he was going around as part of his pre-incident work and trying to get clothing from people that had someone else's DNA all the way, you know, just that's I can't rule that out, but it's a brief.
I don't think this guy is as bright as some people are giving him credit for.
I mean, again, it's a successful abduction.
We have to give this guy credit for that so far.
But is it all by happenstance, by fluke, and some mistakes made early on by the investigators?
I mean, let me let me give you one other.
I have another criminal for you from the Tucson area who's on camera.
This one is a peeping Tom.
And I believe this is from December.
This is a local couple realized that they live in like an apartment complex, it looks like.
And they look at this guy.
He's wearing a reflective vest.
It's almost like he wants to be seen for the listening audience.
He's got reflections, like the stripes all over his shirt.
And the couple that has been spied on is now filming him.
I don't know if it's with their nest camera or their ring camera or they actually just did it, but he's going up on his tiptoes and he's holding his phone in front of a high up window.
The couple spoke to the local media saying that's a bathroom window and that he has been or somebody had been spying through that window for some time.
How old that female victim was in that she's not.
She's young.
She's not old, which is the distinction here.
I mean, I think, because it's like, if you're peeping Tom and you want to look into the windows of young women in their bathrooms, and this woman is young, she looks like maybe young 30s to me.
That doesn't necessarily put you on the line for abducting an 84-year-old in the middle of the night.
Stolen Secrets and Investigation Issues00:15:18
But I am just saying, like, this is Tucson's got a crime problem.
Maybe it's every city that has all this stuff on camera.
This one happened, the one that we're showing you the video of, happened December 18th, 2025.
He was spotted peeping into apartments near Kurtaro Farms in Thornydale and Pima County.
I don't know where that is in relation to Nancy.
Actually, I do.
It's 9.3 miles west of Nancy's house.
My crack team looked that up.
But this man is six foot three to six foot four and has a different, so it's not our guy because the FBI, they wouldn't be off by that many inches in estimating who took Nancy.
And yeah, the couple was reporting that they saw him looking into one of their neighbor's windows as well.
This wasn't the first time.
They say that the estimated population in Tucson for at least 2024, the most recent we have, is 554,000.
They had about 2,200, no, they had 2,084 burglaries in 2024, which is 401 burglaries per every 100,000 residents.
I don't know how if that's, that seems high to me.
But perhaps this is like, I don't know.
Like, if this were the case, is it like Tucson's forgotten how to investigate these or what?
Because nobody has confidence in this sheriff at this point.
And I would think this guy would say, I've been around the block.
I know how to investigate a break-in.
I've done all the things I need to do.
There was no problem with me turning over the crime scene when I did.
But instead, he's been kind of like, okay, if there's someone to blame, I'll take the blame.
It doesn't seem like they're very good at investigating so far.
Well, if you have a city council.
Oh, go ahead, Fitz.
Now you go, and then I'll pick up.
If you have a city council and a mayor that aren't supportive of law enforcement going after any kind of petty crime, this is exactly what you're going to get.
It's like a bunch of three-year-olds.
Criminals are like three-year-olds.
If you let them get away with anything, they're going to get away with everything.
Well, that's clearly what's happening.
And I don't know if it was any accident that, you know, this guy thought he could get away with it on Nancy Guthrie's doorstop or breaking into her house because maybe he's in this crime world, Fitz, to your point.
And like, he's like, everyone's getting away with it.
You know, I can get away with it too.
And then things went wrong in there.
And it just turned into now I got to get rid of the evidence of what I did.
But wouldn't there be something stolen out of the house if that were the case?
Absolutely.
There's always a motive for a crime.
I mentioned your program the other day, Megan, about the double homicide in Vermont of two professors at a Dartmouth College.
My profile was initially off.
We thought it was someone they knew because the Reef family said nothing was stolen out of the house.
I told you later, two teenage boys were arrested.
They stabbed both parties to death.
And they said nothing was stolen.
And then we said it's someone they know, the guy was in business with someone in South America, and maybe there was an affair or something like that, or a former student didn't like the grades they got.
Well, it turns out four days later, the daughters reported cash was stolen from the house.
Somehow the daughters knew where cash was kept.
That changed everything.
That was then the crime scene became a theft, a robbery, a burglary.
They were allowed into the house.
Then they were taken survey.
So there have been some problems with this investigation.
If it turns out that there are some missing items, but you're not going to steal missing items and the person who lives there.
You may kill the person in there if they see you, because they're not going to talk when they're dead, if they somehow have ID, but your identification, but you're wearing a mask to begin with.
So the purpose of this, whatever this break-in, whatever this break-in was, it doesn't seem to be something was stolen, unless there's something the family is not telling us about at all.
And then for some reason, mom/slash Nancy had to come along at the same time.
So, no, the mission, how did you abduct this woman?
Was she the specific one?
Could it have been anyone?
That's what we still have to ask ourselves.
It just seems so unlikely that it's like, oh, and they just happened to get Savannah Guthrie's mother.
Of all people, right?
Right.
Oh, and why don't here, I'm here to rob the house.
I got a great idea.
Why don't you just come with me?
So get dressed.
Yeah.
You know?
Yep.
Stop bleeding.
Oh, you don't want to?
And then how?
Yeah.
And then it seems much more likely they knew exactly who was in there.
It just seems impossible to me.
Though I understand some people there have said it took them years to know that Nancy was Savannah's mother.
Apparently she's not like my mom running around telling like the electrician and everybody.
My mom loves to tell people.
Her doctors, they all know.
I guess Nancy was more reserved about that fact, which my mom and I've had some laughs over the past week.
We've been laughing and worrying together.
You know, gallows humor on our own account.
But in any event, so it is possible that her, that the locals didn't know that this was Savannah Guthrie's mom, but it just seems too extraordinary to think it had nothing to do with the reason she was chosen.
I want to keep going because there's a couple of other things that I've got to ask you about you guys about.
This is just breaking now.
Okay.
Here we are again.
I'm sorry to even raise it, but I have to.
TMZ just says, it says it just received a third email from the man who claims he knows the identity of Nancy Guthrie's killer, or sorry, kidnapper, and that he's now upped his price.
Remember, he was going to give us that information for the low, low price of one Bitcoin, about 65 grand.
No, he's pissed now.
The email says he's contacting TMZ because he doesn't trust law enforcement, but he trusts Harvey Levin, who spends most of his time talking about celebrity news inside the 30 mile zone or Los Angeles.
Okay, he's essentially using TMZ as an intermediary, telling authorities, you don't trust me, I don't trust you.
He suggests the reward is now, he says, oh, he suggests the FBI reward having been doubled to 100,000, because that happened yesterday after our show, was a move designed, quote, to discredit me.
Now he wants the 100,000 from the FBI, and here's how.
He's asking for a fraction of Bitcoin worth 50 grand.
And in return, he will give up the information.
And then he expects another 50,000 in Bitcoin.
He promises not to withdraw the first 50,000 until the kidnapper is arrested.
There's another important change.
He says when he gets the initial payment, he will give up, quote, the name of the main individual, referring to the main individual, suggesting possibly that there are accomplices.
But this fucker, excuse me, like, what's happening here?
You're both shaking your head.
I'm good.
It's fine.
They don't need to go through me.
But I have to say, Harvey Levin is milking this for everything it's worth.
I just feel like he's too salacious.
He's too eager to put himself out there and see himself on TV every night with Aaron Burnett and then with Sean and then with it's like he's forgive me because I have nothing against Harvey, but he's to me undermining the credibility that he had when he reported the initial ransom notes or whatever we're referring to, the original communications.
We could almost say he's an opportunist taking advantage of the opportunist who's taking advantage of the abduction of Nancy Guthrie.
I can't tell you how many times I've been in prison, jail cells with longtimers, short timers.
Maureen, you can probably relate to this.
And you're working in some other crimes.
The guy's part of the gang, whatever.
And you say, Yeah, we need information on this.
Happened in the Unabomb case.
When the New York Times letters, he put a nine-digit number.
So it happened was a social security number that came back to a guy in prison who was in the Manhunt Unabomber minute series in my book.
But the point, and we went in and talked to the guy and he said, Oh, yeah, the Unabomber.
Yeah, I'll tell you what, you get me out of prison.
I'll find this Unabomber guy for you.
Now, that's one big example of a big case, but I've done that other times with guys.
Yeah, yeah, those burglars.
Yeah, get me out of here for my charges.
I'll find who's doing it.
No, the deal is you tell us first, then we'll go to the prosecutor, the judge, and we'll get you a lower sentence and maybe get you out of it's good information.
Yes, this guy, everyone knows.
This guy would have 100,000.
If he had the name of the kidnapper, all you'd have to do is give it up, but he'd get the 100,000.
He doesn't have to do any of this rigamarole.
And he can be anonymous.
And we told him yesterday, the guy, whoever was at the porch, we said yesterday on your show, don't fear that guy on the porch.
He's not going to hurt you, I assure you.
Nor will the main guy, whoever that is supposed to be.
So I would not take this person seriously.
The family of the FBI have to decide.
If nothing else, they'd have to put out there publicly.
And maybe we're doing it right now.
Give us a little something.
Give us a little something to prove that you're valid, that you have decent information.
And maybe we'll then take you serious.
And if he knows this much about the case, he can give something.
Now, we're not going to know if it's true or not, but if he's this close to the information.
And now, TMZ, think about this too.
And I'll let Maureen take over.
So TMZ is putting this information out.
If there's a real kidnapper or team of kidnappers holding Nancy in custody or wherever she may be at this point, they're going to be looking around at each other, saying, Hey, who's talking?
Who's talking to TMZ?
And they're going to start, you know, accusing each other of things.
So, unless that's some wild strategy that someone's employing for that purpose alone.
But I'm not talking.
No, I'm not talking.
So nothing about this makes sense.
What would you be doing with this information, Maureen, if you were investigating this case?
Well, like Fitz, I have had guys in prison on this big case we worked where they would say, if you let me out, I could solve this other one.
That seems to be something that you see a lot.
And I just said, hey, you know, I like your enthusiasm, but I think it's fairly obvious.
I can't let you walk out of prison for some vague promise.
You know, this, I do think this whole thing is a distraction.
I think it's taken away resources from the real work that needs to be done.
And if this clown, we're starting to normalize this theory or this thought that you can just come up with your own rules and try to rewrite the way everything's been done since the beginning of time.
You cannot come in and say, give me money for absolutely nothing.
And I, you know, and I don't have to give you anything.
This is a new idea.
He's just like the other note writers, right?
Just like the original note writers who claim they have Nancy.
He's claiming, I know who has Nancy.
Like, I'll give you absolutely nothing, right?
And you'll give me something.
I'll give you no proof of life and you'll pay me.
And this guy, it's like the FBI has already said, tell us if you know who the kidnapper is and we will give you $100,000 if it leads to his arrest.
If this guy really knows who the kidnapper is, the protocol is very simple.
Any idiot could follow it.
Just tell them.
If you're right, you get $100,000.
But the reason they don't want to do it is because they're going to have to sit down with FBI agents who are going to identify them and check every bit of what they're saying.
And that's why they want no part of it because they have no bona fides and no position to even make these claims.
Last question before I let you guys go.
There's all sorts of news today.
We're going to get into it in our next panel too, but about a turf war unfolding between Sheriff Nanos and the FBI.
That the FBI wanted to send the DNA that it's getting from the crime scene and related searches like the gloves that were found when the New York Post was tracking law enforcement to Quantico, to the FBI lab, and that Sheriff Nanos said no.
That early on, he had sent things to a Florida lab he trusts, and he just wants to send everybody, everything to that lab for consistency.
He says, you can trust this lab.
The FBI's got a great lab too, but this lab already has been processing for us, and we're going to stay with them.
And the FBI clearly has been speaking to the media, pointing the finger at him, you know, like this guy, you know, he's not cooperating.
He doesn't really want us there, which is not a good sign.
It's like my overall thought is this is not a good sign that they're on the eve of an arrest because, you know, as they say, success has a thousand fathers and failure is an orphan.
You know, once they start doing this, it's like very bad for Nancy.
Does not mean they've found Nancy or are close to finding her or a kidnap her.
But can I get your quick takes on the turf war?
The sheriff's denying it.
The sheriff's saying we get along fine.
You know, we're not going to let the media divide us.
I happen to know there is consternation over at the FBI with this sheriff, and it is his investigation.
The protocol is it belongs to the locals unless they want to give it over to the FBI or let the FBI take the lead, which he clearly doesn't.
So thoughts on him and that?
Maureen?
First of all, if the sheriff is the one making the calls as to where the evidence is going, he's the one that's in charge of the investigation.
That's just the way it is.
Yep.
That is what's happening.
But I mean, what do you make of it?
Are you surprised that this is happening, turf war, when we're so many days in and so little to show for it?
I've heard about this turf war for longer than I care to admit.
I think it's a leadership problem.
And I think, you know, I think the line officers and FBI agents are doing everything they can.
And they're just going, they're doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing.
It's just the bosses, it sounds like, that are having issues with each other.
And there were, you know, to be fair, there were big issues at the Boston bombing.
And I think I'm pretty sure in that instance, one FBI boss was removed because, so I know the FBI is ready, willing, and able to remove someone if they're the big problem.
But here, from everything I'm hearing, because all the sheriff's deputies and former deputies and everything are all saying the same thing as the FBI agents.
So it sounds like the outlier seems to be the actual sheriff, but the truth will prevail at some point.
They'll all be, you know, kumbay eyeing it, Fitz if they find this abductor.
Yeah, an interesting combination is alpha males, a high-profile, unsolved case, and at least one elected official.
And you put those three together, and of course, media coverage, that all those other ancillary factors in there, it's going to create these turf wars, or at least these problems.
I remember the D.C. Sniper case.
It was Chief Moose, who was the head of Montgomery County Police Department.
He was technically in charge.
And I witnessed some shouting matches in there and going back and forth between not just the FBI, but every alphabet agency in Washington, D.C. area was involved in that case because everybody's getting shot.
Personality Clashes in High Profile Cases00:06:52
Even an FBI employee eventually was killed.
So yeah, these things are going to happen.
I just hope cooler minds prevail.
And I think Maureen touched on the important part.
The worker bees get along fine.
Even when I was on the joint tax bank robbery task force in New York, the NYPD guys, the FBI guys, agents, detectives all got along great.
It's the bosses that have the personality issues, whatever.
So I'm hoping that stuff can all be put aside.
The people can get the job done on the lower level, the men and the women, you know, wearing the uniforms, carrying the badges, and we get some break on this case, hopefully over this weekend.
One other observation is where in God's earth are the mayor and the DA of Pima County.
How come we haven't seen or heard from them at all?
At least the DA.
Normally you'd see the DA getting involved in this, right?
Right.
Do they isn't that who the sheriff would be working with to get any warrants?
And even the FBI would have to work through, right?
Wouldn't the FBI go to the local prosecutor to get warrants if they need them?
Maybe, or the U.S. attorney in that district.
But yeah, I mean, I wouldn't expect the U.S. attorney to say anything.
They never do.
But yeah, the local DAs would normally be speaking out.
You're right.
Maybe they don't want to step on this guy's toes.
I mean, I'm concerned because he's an elected official, the sheriff.
He knows it's a celebrity case.
I'm like, let me just say this.
You'd think that when you're well known, right?
Like Savannah is very well known, you'd get the red carpet treatment and you'd get better treatment than like the average person.
I mean, I think that's what the average person thinks, that these celebrities get like the red carpet and like a level up.
And there's no question that if this were, you know, some Jane Smith 84-year-old woman, we would not have anywhere near this level of media coverage or law enforcement coverage, not anywhere near.
So there is some of that.
But there's also the risk of like what happened to Kobe Bryant, where like that helicopter pilot flew when he had to know he shouldn't have because it was Kobe Bryant and he didn't want to tell him no.
And he didn't just follow protocol because it was Kobe Bryant.
And like I've had some of this in my own life too, where you're like, it's actually not a gift for them to treat you in any special way whatsoever.
I just want to be treated just like you would treat anybody else.
And so like, if this sheriff is holding on to this case and not sending evidence where, you know, he could voice this off on the FBI and it could be their problem.
That'd be great.
But like, does he really want to take himself off of the Savannah Guthrie case and not be the one to bring Nancy home and possibly get all the glory?
You know, I don't think he's yet at the phase where he's like, I'm going to get all the blame if I don't solve this.
And I wonder whether that's hurting this case.
Some of these personality issues can definitely chime in here.
And you articulated them well, Megan.
I kind of touched on it a few minutes ago.
But a true, and the pilot you referred to with Kobe Bryant and others, if you're a true professional, if you have hopefully decades, one and a half plus decades of experience, you know not to fall for those traps.
You know not to let your guard down.
You know not to back off on what's gotten you to where you are at this point in time.
And I'm not saying, you know, we're going to give the benefit of the doubt, despite some, you know, people at loggerheads.
I'm going to assume the investigation is still running the best it can at this point in time with a number of agencies involved, including our own, with me and Maureen, the FBI.
And I'm just hoping that some of this is just, you know, fodder for the media.
Let other people think this is what's happening.
Maybe some of it's true, but we're still going to get the job done.
But if you're truly experienced, you're going to get it done right.
Maureen, don't you think some of this is coming because the media is used to CSI and they think this should be solved already.
And there's a lot of pressure on the law enforcement, FBI and local, in why haven't you solved this case?
And so that's when you start to see stories planted of it's him.
It, you know, this guy, right?
And then now he feels the need to fight back.
And he's given an interview to Matt Finn of Fox News, which we're going to talk about a little bit more with our next panel.
But to me, this, this has a little bit of that in it.
I don't know.
Think I really think everyone's heart, well, most everyone, except for a couple of outliers, I think their heart's in the right place and they're just pushing as hard as they can and they're trying as hard and they're working longer and overtime shifts left, right, and center.
And, you know, I think people are really trying.
That's been my experience on all these big, and there are times where you see breakdowns, and meaning like it's it just gets to be too much, all of it.
I think the media does add a whole bunch of extra pressure, but then there's someone out there like Brian Anton who's you know out there making news for everyone and doing a good job.
So everyone knows that the stakes are high, the scrutiny is even higher.
And, you know, that's when you just have to put your head down and keep your ammo dry and keep going.
And hope to God you've got a good leader that's going to get you what you need, stay out of your way, and keep everyone off your back.
That's their job.
And too many forget that.
Just like crime.
I'm sure that's true.
I just fight crime.
I mean, just like Cash has said, let cops be cops.
Hopefully that's what's happening at the federal level and the local level.
Guys, thank you both so much.
Have a great weekend.
We appreciate it.
Thank you, Matt.
Five minutes by Maureen.
All right, we're going to bring in our next panel too because there's a lot more to discuss.
At a certain point in life, you realize you are responsible for a whole lot of things, but the most important is your health, because without it, nothing else matters.
We may not think about our liver very much, but it's our body's daily filter processing everything you consume.
It performs 500-plus daily functions.
Think energy production, digestion, fat metabolism, vitamin storage.
And when your liver is overworked, you will feel it.
DOSE for your liver is a clinically backed liver health supplement taken in a daily two-ounce drink.
DOS says it's highly absorbable, liquid formula can cleanse the liver of unwanted stressors that may be slowing it down.
Zero sugar, zero junk, zero calories.
They say people who take dose consistently report less sluggishness, less midday crashes, better digestion, and even less bloating.
New customers can save 35% on your first month of subscription by getting to Dosedaily.co slash mk, Dosedaily.co slash mk or just enter mk.
Sheriff Ego vs FBI Task Force00:16:00
you check out.
That's dose, D-O-S-E, daily, D-A-I-L-Y, dot C-O slash MK for 35% off your first month's subscription.
Clip my fembers.
And what?
The final set of Balcott.
SO Shina in POUR LEUS Legal and priest for two and silence the crony page of saxophone grill pulse failure for 30 families or boxes.
My guests who join me now are Chad Ayers, James Hamilton and Will Geddes, who you've come to know well this week.
And they're going to weigh in on some of these latest developments, including they were listening to the last discussion.
Let's just pick it up where we left it off, guys, on this alleged turf war.
I want to tell you what the sheriff is saying, because the reason he gave an interview when he came out earlier this week and said, I'm not giving any interviews.
I'm done with that right now, not unless there's breaking news.
But he gave an interview to Fox News's Matt Finn on a lot of things.
Let me just give you some of the highlights because he did make news in the case proper as opposed to just the turf war.
He says, First of all, it is not true that his office found a glove at Nancy's home.
There had been a news report that, in addition to that pair of gloves that were found on the road, a glove had been found inside Nancy Guthrie's house and that it had been shipped off.
He said, That's not true.
We have no glove.
We have never found a glove on the property.
He did say, though, that they have found a lot of gloves, not just the pair that the New York Post happened to be on site when they retrieved, in this case.
You know, to the point we were discussing yesterday, it's not that unusual to see gloves discarded in the desert near Cacti and so on.
He said they've all been sent off.
And he defended his use of that one lab, saying, We started sending the Guthrie evidence to this lab from the start, and along with the Guthrie family, DNA and other DNA swabs are all there too.
So it makes sense.
He said to keep sending the incoming evidence there so the lab can immediately run the new evidence against what is already in-house.
Hold on a second because he says that in Soundbite 6, which we have on table.
But more importantly, it adds that additional step.
This lab has this piece, this has this piece.
Now they've got to converge those two pieces to make an elimination or identification.
No, just send it to one lab.
Let's go.
They're both great labs.
Okay, so let's start there, guys.
What do we make of that argument?
Because some people really are hammering him for not using the FBI's lab at Quantico.
James is the former FBI.
I'll start with you on that.
Hey, good to see you again.
Thanks for having me.
I feel almost clairvoyant in that yesterday.
I think we said this exact same thing.
And we said that, you know, everything looks good on the outside, but behind the scenes, there's going to be friction.
And here, here we are.
Not surprised by it at all.
There is some pretty good evidence that, you know, no pun intended, that the FBI lab at Quantico is a superior choice.
And mostly because they do this all the time, they created the technology.
They have access to the CODIS database.
You know, it's a high-profile case.
But, you know, the sheriff made a call, and obviously people aren't happy about it.
And they're going to try to drive a wedge.
And I think you were spot on earlier when you were saying that, you know, we haven't caught anybody and now it's looking bad.
And now we're going to start pointing fingers.
And this is very, very common.
It's a bad, bad sign.
Just as a reporter on the outside, I know when they start doing this, it's bad.
It means they're not getting anywhere.
That's right.
And so it almost to me took out a big eraser and erased all of our leads.
Like, I think I'm starting to think now they're all bullshit because they don't seem close to arresting somebody.
Well, they don't talk like this when they're close to arresting somebody.
No, I mean, certainly my experience on negotiations, one of the biggest, biggest challenges is just trying to control information.
And that's information that's not only imparted by the law enforcement agencies, if they are involved, or it could be the media, or it could actually be the family itself.
So it's about containment of that information, not setting designated schedules for updates or anything like that, and being very cautious about what information is going to be revealed that could potentially heed the law enforcement agencies or the investigative agencies that are getting involved in this.
So I think there is some ego that's kicking off here with the sheriff.
And I think, you know, he's bathing in the spotlight right now as being the sort of the center point for this.
And that's concerning because, I mean, how many cases of this type has he managed before?
And it's only with a lot of years' experience that you realize actually the less you say, you know, the better.
Yes, I know.
I mean, well, Chad, there's been the difference between the sheriff two Mondays ago and the sheriff that has emerged this week, right?
Like when this case first broke, he was talking to everybody.
And that seemed okay because it was a missing person's case.
It was like, we all have to find her.
We need the community's help.
Everybody pitch in, find Nancy, all hands on deck.
And then the FBI got involved.
And then suddenly he wasn't saying as much.
And then they held that Thursday presser and they haven't had a presser since.
And now since then, it's just been rumor, innuendo, accusations behind the scenes, you know, some leaks to the media, then some denials.
It feels more like disarray.
Yeah, I mean, that's the frustrating part.
And I think the sad part through all of this is at the end of the day, there's still a family that's looking for their missing mother.
And this isn't the type of bullshit they need to be hearing or having to deal with.
So listen, I've worked plenty of cases with, you know, three-letter agencies, whether it was the FBI, the DEA.
And sometimes, listen, you've got to lower your pride a little bit and realize that, listen, I was a local law enforcement officer and I understand the resources that the Bureau has.
And so it's not them coming over here and trying to take a, you know, take a part of my case.
It's us trying to work together.
And that's really what needs to happen.
Like there's so much tension right now in this case because it's such a high-profile case.
People want answers immediately.
But guys, we've got to come together and work together because there's a family that is heartbroken and grieving right now.
It's got to stop.
I know.
I can't help but wonder.
And who would know?
I mean, no one has experience, no civilian in dealing with the kidnapping.
Oh, I know exactly what to do or who to call.
But, you know, it's been confirmed that Savannah's first, one of her first calls was to Senator Mark Kelly, who is her home state senator, the state of Arizona and U.S. Senator, Gabby Gifford's husband, and kind of asked him for help and like, let's line things up appropriately.
And it looks like they went with the locals.
They put the locals in the lead and they trusted the sheriff and they didn't insist, as I think you probably could try to, that the FBI got brought in, which is, you know, kidnappings and, you know, possible ransom.
That's, I guess, when the sheriff called in on the ransom, the FBI.
But like, one wonders whether the FBI should have been there day one, James, and like get heard on this.
Yeah, you got to be careful on this just because they don't have the jurisdiction.
You know, they have to have.
They got the invitation.
Definitely.
If they get the invitation, that's absolutely right.
But if there is, you know, some ego in these relationships, as Chad's saying, they're not always great.
And it really, you know, it's not great here.
Right.
There's a history between this sheriff and the FBI and it's not good.
Yeah, exactly.
And you see these things play out and this is what's happening.
And, you know, he has to ask.
Now, if we had solid evidence that she had God forbid to take it to Mexico, international kidnapping, the FBI is going to be at the lead.
If we had information, went across state lines, FBI.
But right now, they just don't have that federal nexus that they can come in, you know, in the typical movie fashion and FBI, we're in charge.
They don't have that.
And so now they're really just at the behest of the sheriff and it's causing conflict, clearly.
I'm going to show you something on this sheriff and the FBI from yesteryear.
Okay, this is November.
No, I don't know the month.
It's 2016, February, February 12th, 2016, an interview with KGUN.
And he is ripping on the FBI because they were investigating his department's spending and he didn't much appreciate that.
SOT 10.
When it comes to an FBI investigation, I was taken back by that as much as anybody.
Here's an agency who for years has been known to deny or acknowledge anything about any kind of investigation.
They're famous for that.
Am I upset at the FBI?
Absolutely.
They get by with saying, no comment.
Who does that in today's world?
Who does that?
I think the FBI, if they are having problems doing criminal investigations, please call us because we have real policemen here.
We'll do that for you.
Because obviously they can't get it done.
I'm upset at that and upset at the inappropriateness of their investigative efforts.
And they are inappropriate.
All right.
It was 10 years ago, but Will, it's on camera.
It's tough to dispute.
They're investigating him and his sheriff's department.
Yeah, he's got a massive chip on his shoulder towards the Bureau.
That's inevitable.
And I think he's obviously not very happy about having to re-engage with them and not allow him to do the proper police work, as he puts it.
One of my concerns, maybe, that I did want to raise, which sort of goes back a little bit, is about the classification of what this case actually is.
In the private sector, one of the advantages we have is that we don't actually have to interact with media agencies.
We can keep it completely under wraps and keep it very, very quiet.
But at the same time, when we're talking to the family, if someone has gone missing, it's always going to be a missing person until such time as a credible proof of life has been sent with a ransom demand.
And my concern is that this has been classified as a kidnapping.
There has been no credible proof of life that has been provided yet.
So again, it changes the dynamic somewhat in how it would be approached.
And again, I very much welcome Chad and James's input on that from their perspective as well.
Should they be treating this as I've heard one of you guys call it homicide nobody as opposed to kidnapping?
Well, before Chad jumps in, I would say real quick with regards to that interview, the FBI is the only one that investigates cops.
Now, the state police can do it, and certainly there's IAs in bigger metropolitan divisions, but the FBI, by charter, they work color law violations against police.
They're the only ones that do it.
And so it obviously ruffles feathers.
And I've been involved in those, and it's not comfortable at all.
So I understand the sheriff's frustration, but that video was quite interesting.
Thanks for sharing.
Here's another one.
And we'll go back to whether this should be declared homicide nobody.
Put a pin in that for a second, Will, because there's another one.
The undersheriff out there, who is now former undersheriff under this sheriff, Nanos, is named Rick Castigar.
And he spoke to Brian Enton.
It doesn't appear that they get along, he and his former boss.
And here's what he said, SOT9.
Should have been recognized initially that once this is labeled an abduction, get a task force together and bring on the FBI and ask them to take it over.
Why do you think that didn't happen?
Unfortunately, the sheriff, Chris Nanos, has an exorbitant ego.
And he, in one case I can think of prior to this one, told the FBI he's the better investigator and he doesn't need their help.
And that was a critical case that we needed their help with.
This one in particular, they have far more resources than the sheriff's department has.
Go ahead, Chad.
It's kind of funny how his, how the FBI says no comment came full circle back to him and every one of his press conferences that he's given so far.
That's funny to me.
What's frustrating, though, is the fact that he cannot humble himself enough.
We have a 84-year-old missing woman, and I'm not here to beat this thing to death.
But listen, you don't have the resources.
You are.
Listen, Megan, I said it day one on your show probably over a week ago.
I feel like the sheriff is in over his head.
We need to rely solely on the Bureau.
Humble yourself.
Your investigators, listen, people out there are telling me, I've got a buddy of mine that's out there in the area that's affiliated with that law enforcement agency, not directly, but is very close to those people and saying that the investigators want the help of the Bureau, but the upper management is the one that's knocking that down.
That's what Maureen seemed to be saying.
She said, I guarantee you the rank and file would love to help, but the leadership is a different story.
Here's what President Trump said, which is, I will say, telling.
Listen to Trump and Sat-12.
It's up to them.
It's really up to the community.
But ultimately, when the FBI got involved, I think, you know, progress has been made.
Okay, so that last part.
Ultimately, when the FBI got involved, progress has been made, which, you know, in Trump speak, he's basically saying we're the ones getting things done.
And what you guys said, we can't take it over unless this sheriff asks us to take it over.
And far from asking that, he's holding on to it.
He's making decisions that it sounds like the FBI disagrees with by not using the FBI's lab at Quantico.
I don't know.
You tell me, James, is it like, Jim, is it, is the FBI's lab at Quantico so special that nothing could be, it can't be replicated by some good lab in Florida?
Well, it's, it's the premier criminal lab in the world.
So that's probably better than the one in Florida.
It does have, again, access to that DNA database.
So that's what you need.
You need to, okay, we run the test, but what are we going to do with it?
Well, we need to compare it for a human being.
And how do you do that?
Well, that lab in Florida is going to have to ask the FBI for access to the CODIS system.
So it's another step that you don't have to be making if we just go direct to the FBI.
But I really want to circle back real quick to the videos because you've got the sheriff saying, and this is very typical, the sheriff saying, you know, we're the real cops.
We're the real law enforcement.
You know, the FBI don't know how to work a case.
We're the real cops.
And then you heard his former deputy chief say, yeah, he thinks he's the only one that can investigate anything.
And, you know, frankly, I don't, you know, I can't tell you how many people I worked with in my academy class who were former cops.
I'm a former cop.
We don't go around beating our chest about it, but you don't get any credit for it.
You know, that sheriff would have you think that the FBI doesn't have a soul that ever worked law enforcement before they got to the bureau.
And that's just nonsense.
That's very telling.
Sloppy Evidence Handling at Crime Scenes00:13:20
That's actually quite interesting because it dovetails perfectly with his behavior, that he is running herd on it, that we are getting some quiet complaints from the feds that they're not getting the cooperation they need and they think is necessary to solve the case.
And now you have Nanos, who clearly is worried about his image, because why would he be sitting down doing an interview when he said, I'm not giving any interviews, two-thirds of which was spent on this turf war if he weren't worried about his image.
And also we're wondering.
I'm sorry.
Sorry, James.
Go ahead.
Well, Chad and I both come from southern sheriff's departments.
These sheriffs are terribly powerful.
I mean, terribly powerful.
And so when people are talking about why in the mayor or the DA there, because the sheriff doesn't work for the mayor.
He doesn't work for the DA.
The sheriff is the highest elected official in the county.
And that plays out.
It may not play out in LA or New York or Dallas or Houston, but I see it in the South all the time.
I'm sure Chad has seen it where he was.
James, we saw it at Spartanburg County just recently.
There you go.
Wow, what happened in Spartaford County?
The sheriff was buying pills on a pill binger and going to dope dealers and buying pills from deputies that had back surgery.
And we're not even talking about Alex Murdoch.
That'll come later on, Maggie.
That also was in the South.
Will, go ahead.
Yeah, no, I was just going to sort of just compliment what James and Chad were saying.
I mean, and certainly from my experience around the world, you know, when I've been connected to kidnappings in some shape or form, the FBI, if this does turn out to be a kidnapping and a credible proof of life is presented, then the FBI are one of the best, if not the best, negotiators and crisis managers of these types of events.
So I'm sorry, Sheriff, you know, get back in your lane because to be honest, he's stepping well beyond his capability and should be leaving it to the experts to get on with it and compliment him.
Especially at this point when we're not, we don't appear.
I mean, I want to say we don't appear close to solving it.
That's not how this feels.
Maybe right now, somebody who knows masked man is calling the FBI with a tip and this thing gets solved by midnight tonight.
I mean, that could happen at any moment, but very discouraging that it hasn't happened so far.
Look what happens.
Like if somebody called saying, I know who that is, they would make it to the top of the tip line, right?
I mean, there's a system for that.
Is there not?
It's not like it's just going to be sitting in the midst of the 4,000 and they have to go through them one by one.
Like the person who's like, I know who that is, does get forwarded up and that goes quickly, does it not, Jim?
Yeah.
And look what happened yesterday.
Again, like you and I are clairvoyant.
What did they do?
They raised the reward to 100%.
You are clairvoyant.
Here you are.
Wait, we pulled it actually.
This happened on our show yesterday, SOT5.
I'm shocked that we're only talking 50,000 bucks right now.
I mean, that reward, that's a joke.
Really amp it up?
Hell yeah.
$50,000, that's nothing.
What should it be?
I put it up to half a million dollars.
It's 11, 12 days now.
I want this woman back.
Well, it's 500 grand.
We got that kind of money.
You know, I just, for me, let's get some, let's get some strong, strong interest to identify these people.
Are you not worried that it's going to incentivize the crazies?
You know, like I think you're incentivized already.
We're dropping Bitcoin money and all that's already happened.
Those horses have left the barn, as we say where I come from.
Called it.
Not quite a half a million yet, Jim, but you called it.
Well, I mean, gosh, and that shows the FBI is like, we need to get some pressure here and we need to get these people identified.
And I was glad to see it, but wow.
Let's keep going a little higher.
And let me keep going on the Nanos interview and get to some of the news he made non-Turf War related.
On the ransom notes and their legitimacy, he punted and said the XBI is the expert at that one and he wouldn't comment.
On whether this is a kidnapping will or something else, he says, quote, we believe it's a kidnapping, but quote, you always consider all possibilities.
Okay.
He did, the sheriff said in a local news interview, Matt Finn notes in his Fox News report, that they found a few different gloves in the area some miles away.
On this topic, he told Fox News they are not necessarily prioritizing every glove.
For example, they're getting calls of gloves in Phoenix a long way away.
So news of every glove that's found may not be critical.
When asked whether anybody has been ruled out, the answer was, quote, nobody is ever really eliminated.
When they talked about the Rio Rico man in Arizona, Carlos, who was the DoorDash delivery man who got roughed up a bit by the officers the other night and then they moved on, he said that he was a delivery person who was, quote, in the area of Nancy's house, quote, more than one, end quote, issue led the sheriff to the Rio Rico man.
After talking, the sheriff feels satisfied with his alibi.
So notwithstanding his nobody's ever really eliminated comment, it sounds like he has eliminated poor Carlos.
Nanos will not confirm to Fox if there was forced entry at Nancy's house or whether the front or back door was used.
He's still not giving it up on that.
Nanos, of course, Ashley Banfield's reporting is that there was forced entry and they used the back door.
Nanos said Nancy's blood was found outside of her home and Nancy's DNA was recovered inside, but cannot confirm that the DNA inside the house was blood.
On the criticism that he released the Guthrie crime scene house too soon, opened it up too quick, he said it's not true.
They got what they needed.
Finn writes, I asked him if they should have cleaned up the blood out of sanctity.
And he said that's not their role.
Said it's a slap to his team to say that they left too soon.
Also says the deputy cars out front now are at the request of the family for safety.
It's not that the sheriff is signaling they left too soon.
On allegations that family members are involved, the family has been fully 100% completely whatever we've asked for, they've done.
It was getting crazy out there with allegations about the family.
You can't accuse people of a horrific crime like that and not have any facts behind it.
But in the same interview, he does say that no one is ever really ruled out as of today.
Nanos has talked to Savannah.
He says they've talked and texted, but she doesn't need to talk to the sheriff.
She has people, quote, the whole family has my number.
Okay, that's odd.
And then one final comment on the FBI on reports in previous incidents suggesting they don't have a good relationship, he with the FBI.
You Google what you Google.
You read what you read.
I've got no response.
I've always had a good relationship with the FBI.
They're a good team.
They're good people.
And there was another comment where he said an officer, like a lower guy in the FBI had said to him, like, let's not let the media divide us.
It's not the media.
The media is making the reports, but they're getting this from obviously federal sources who are not happy with this sheriff.
Let's go to the substance here.
I mean, I think it's very interesting the part about how he's defending, turning over the crime scene.
Guys, just today, I mean, she's not found.
Okay, like we don't even know if this was a kidnapping or a murder.
So it's very disturbing that just any Tom Dick or Harry can walk up there as one did when our own Phil Holloway was still there this morning filming.
And a woman walked up.
I believe we have this.
Again, I can't communicate to my team when I'm remote.
So forgive me because I don't know if we have this sound.
A woman walked up and her dog peed on.
Yeah, here it is.
Peed on the crime scene.
This is a neighbor.
There she is.
Her dog took a pee on the crime scene, which I like, I'm kind of guessing that's not ideal.
You guys tell me.
I mean, I'm sitting there thinking, didn't we just have a tarp and a tent set up yesterday to continue the process of this crime scene?
Really and truly, that whole property needs to be roped off and secured until Nancy Guthrie is found dead or alive.
That's still a crime scene.
For some reason, we still, you know, agents keep coming back.
Law enforcement keeps coming back.
For some reason, if the family is not at, you know, Annie and Tommaso's house and they keep going back there personally, both of those need to be secured.
Taped off, nobody in and out, unless it's an investigator at this point.
Yeah, because you tell me, Will, but don't you, you don't know what's relevant to look at for sure until you know what crime you're dealing with.
Like you come in, you initial survey, you take a guess, you proceed.
But like there may be something they learn when and if they catch this guy that then they want to go back into that house and check out again.
And there's no reason to release it.
Nancy's not in it.
And if we get her back, she can stay with her other daughter, Annie, down the road.
Absolutely.
It should be a sterile area.
Megan, you're absolutely right about the whole area just basically being sealed off until such time as we can determine what's happened to Nancy.
Because right now, she's just evaporated.
We don't know where she is.
We don't know in what capacity.
We don't know what the motive was of the individual that broke into the house or individuals as yet to be confirmed.
And ultimately, it really comes down to the fact that this environment needs to be left alone because there could be some subsequent information or intelligence that is brought to the attention of the bureau or of the sheriff or to the sheriff that they may want to revisit the house and look for something.
I seriously doubt within the last two weeks, they've intrinsically and forensically gone through that house in every part.
Yeah, I have the same doubt.
What do you make, Jim, of his comment about the family saying the family's been fully whatever we've asked for, they've done.
It was getting crazy out there with allegations about the family.
You can't accuse people of a horrific crime like that and not have any facts behind it.
Now, this, of course, is a reference to Ashley Banfield's reporting week one.
It hit on the Tuesday after Nancy disappeared, which was the wee hours of a Sunday morning, that her law enforcement source, impeccable, she describes him or her, high up, she says, that she's known for years, said that as of that day, right now, the brother-in-law, Tomas, is maybe the prime suspect.
Now, she has said even this weekend, just up until yesterday, she has said, nothing's changed.
She talks to this person every day, and this person has not said, no, we've gone in a different direction.
And I asked her personally, let me ask you if this person is in a position to know.
And the question was basically trying to get at, is this like just some rando in the FBI or is this somebody who's actually on the investigation?
That was the implicit gist of the question.
And she said, yes, this person is in a position to know the facts of the investigation.
So you tell me what you make of that, Sheriff's answer, Jim.
Well, he's playing both sides against the middle.
He's saying that, you know, they've given 100%.
I hate that, by the way, 100% cooperation or something, but you can't rule out anyone.
Which one is it?
And so, right, we're kind of playing both sides there.
And I did want to really quick go back to the comment.
And he said that it's not their job to clean up the blood.
Yes, I agree with you and Chad and Will that it was given up too soon.
And now, by the way, when you go back with your white tent to get whatever, it's compromised.
Okay.
A defense attorney is going to have a field day with that, an absolute field day.
And we are always taught like basic 101, don't give up the scene until you absolutely need to.
And in this case, as you pointed out, you don't need to, right?
She's not going to be upset.
She's not there.
But to say that we don't clean up the blood, well, then what?
Her family has to do that?
Is that what we're hearing, Sheriff?
That that's okay?
That her poor family is going to have to go and clean up the blood?
You know, certainly you have crime scene people who have vendors that do, you know, disposal and cleaning of crime scenes and terrible like suicides and stuff.
That is a service that we are all familiar with through the coroner's office.
They could obviously do that.
And I think that's extremely callous.
That's just my opinion.
To say something like that, that we don't deal with that, and you let the family deal with it.
I just find that to be quite callous.
It's just, I also feel like, isn't it a little odd?
I don't know, like to leave Nancy's blood sitting there.
Like, that's that's evidence.
Don't you try to preserve that and like bottle it or keep it someplace for trial as opposed to just leaving all those blood, those drug blood droplets on the porch?
I don't know.
Seems kind of sloppy.
Even forget like what's kind to the family or sanctity, as Matt Finn put it at Fox News.
It's like, that seems evidentiary to me.
It seems like something you'd want all of the evidence to be gathered, not any of it to be left at the crime scene if you can.
Well, we keep seeing too, Megan.
We keep seeing that blue shirt that's been laying out there since day one, it seems like.
Every time they pan on that porch, we see that blue sweatshirt or something that's been laid out that they've identified.
Preserving Blood Droplets for Trial00:02:49
Why was that not even taken?
That's so confusing to me.
Any type of clothing needs to be taken.
Yeah, I mean, look at this.
I mean, this is like Police 101.
Looks sloppy.
You've watched the GLP1 craze explode, friends, celebrities, everyone's talking about it.
And yes, the results can be impressive.
But if you are looking for a safe, effective, natural alternative that's needle-free, consider Veracity.
Veracity was founded by a certified hormonal health coach dedicated to creating holistic solutions for metabolic health.
Their signature formula, Metabolism Ignite, is a unique blend of hibiscus extracts, green coffee bean extract, magnesium, and more.
It's caffeine-free, and Veracity says clinical trials showed no negative side effects from these wholesome ingredients.
They say Ignite is the number one doctor-recommended natural GLP-1 alternative and booster.
And they say it's safe for people already on GLP-1 meds and even for new moms who are pregnant or breastfeeding.
But check with your doctor.
So consider GLP-1 benefits the natural way.
Head to veracityhealth.co and use code Megan for up to 45% off your order.
Once again, that's veracityhealth.co for up to 45% off.
Promo code M-E-G-Y-N, so they know we sent you.
Relief Factor loves hearing from pain-free customers, and they hope they can help you be one of them next.
Let me tell you about Bill and his Relief Actor story.
Bill says, I've been crawling under sinks and working long hours for decades.
My back and my knees took the punishment.
I thought pain was just a part of the trade.
But Relief Actor surprised me.
Within weeks, he writes, I was working without wincing.
I could get down on the floor and get back up again without thinking twice.
End quote.
Yes, Bill knows hard work.
He knows pipes, tools, and long days on the job.
What he didn't know is how good life can feel when pain stops tagging along.
Relief Actor did not change Bill's trade.
It changed Bill's future.
Relief Actor is 100% drug-free, and it targets the inflammation that causes pain so you can move better, feel better, and enjoy life again.
Try the three-week quick start for just $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call 800 for relief.
Let's see if you're next getting out of pain.
The Sophisticated Ransom Note Mystery00:15:42
Du får også 600 gram grillpølse fra Gilde for 35 kroner og utvalgte 033 Coca-Cola-bokser i 20 pakk for 119 kroner hos brusboks.
Nei, bunnpris.
It's called the Megan Kelly Channel, and it is where you will hear the truth unfiltered with no agenda and no apologies.
Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Lake Lauren, Maureen Callahan, Emily Drushinsky, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more.
It's bold no BS news only on the Megan Kelly channel, SiriusXM 111, and on the Sirius XM app.
Okay, let me go back to the breaking news today that I didn't get your opinions on, and that is there's another porch man.
The audience has heard this discussion from the facts of it, but there's a man who was spotted on somebody's ring or Nest Cam in the area not far from where Nancy lives, and he looks like he's stealing packages.
That's that's my guest or thinking about stealing packages.
That's just me without that's not confirmed, I should point out.
But this guy has the look of the abductor.
He's got the same facial hair, he's got a similar build, but he's skinny.
He's a little too skinny, in my view.
Nonetheless, this is awfully suspicious, guys.
It happened right before.
I'm trying to look for the exact date, January.
I'll find it, January 23rd, around 3:30 in the morning.
And then he returned again at 5 a.m.
It was a woman who said, I didn't answer the door, but my dog started barking and scared him away.
He, again, is trying to appear to block the camera, but it wasn't very good at it because there he is.
It's about as good a mugshot as you could ask for.
And we had, we compared it now to the sketch that this famous sketch artist, like the she's in the Guinness Book of Records for her amazing sketch artists.
This is what she came up with based off the masked man features that we could see on Nancy Guthrie's porch.
It's not a bad comparison.
Maybe I'm being swayed by the beard, which is identical.
But what do you make of this latest porch man?
A couple things.
I'll take it.
I was listening to your segment with Fitz and talking about Tucson and this area, this Catalina Hills, and I looked up their crime rate.
It's a C, I believe I read on the internet.
And there are some missing persons in this area.
So now we've got three guys walking around porches at 2 a.m.
Like, what's going on?
And I think there I read something that her impetus to get, I'm sorry, Miss Guthrie's impetus to get the ring hammer to begin with is because of some stuff that was going on in the neighborhood.
And even though she said something about wanting to watch animals, but she was concerned about things going on in the neighborhood.
So what is going on in this area?
There's all these people on these porches at 3 a.m.
That's a hell of a coincidence.
You know, and yeah, I think the sketch looks great.
Another lead.
These are real leads that the real cops use the sheriff's term need to start, you know, identifying these people, ASAP.
Not like the TMZ.
Right.
Smoke screen.
That's all that is.
Now you're not moved by the $100,000 demand.
And that's, but I want to split 50 in Bitcoin and then another 50.
And then I'll just say that.
I've dealt with the bizarrest of ransom demands.
And you can weed them out very quickly, Megan, you know, between obviously those that are actually legitimate and genuine and are professional, or even the amateurs who are doing it to the chancellors who are simply looking for opportunity.
But, you know, the one thing that we would know, certainly pertaining to Nancy, is that, you know, abductions, whether they be for whatever reason, whether it even be for kidnapping, are rarely spontaneous.
There will always be some advanced reconnaissance.
There will be some scoping out of the environment, the location.
Okay.
And in this instance, obviously with the porch guy trying to dismantle and remove the ring doorbell, he obviously didn't have a great deal of success as he proved yesterday in terms of using the key.
But certainly, I think this guy cannot be discounted as a viable prospect or suspect.
I mean, that would certainly be my feeling as he is the closest that they've got yet.
Right.
And like, I don't know.
I mean, that picture of him is so clear, Chad.
I mean, it is like he's looking right into the camera, almost posing for a headshot.
Somebody knows this guy.
There's got to be a call coming into the FBI on who this is.
Yeah, I'm sure that's already happening because that was something I wanted to bring up is people around him.
Let's start surveillance on him.
Let's talk to people that are in his inner circle.
Has he started changing the way he's acting?
Can you imagine?
Unless you're an absolute sociopath, which you have to be pretty crazy to do something like this.
It almost takes me back to that Todd Colhep case here in the upstate of South Carolina where he kept the girl in the conex boxes and all those people he had murdered.
But let's find out, is this guy acting strange all of a sudden?
Has he disassociated himself from friends?
But I truly believe within the next, I honestly think by now, if this picture's come out, that they already have an idea of who this guy is.
Yeah.
Notice, Megan, he had a pretty good neck tattoo on that.
And that, you know, they can zoom in on that.
It's pretty, you know, those are really good because there's not so many of them.
Then you, you know, you go to the artist, all that type of thing.
But I would, you know, I tell you, now we've got a third.
So yesterday we had this Pac-Man guy.
Now we got this guy.
And we've got, you know, all around the same time.
For me, the more these things start popping up, the less and less I think this was a targeted at Nancy, at Nancy Guthrie because of who Savannah is.
That's how, I mean, I just feel less and less inclined to believe that it was targeted because of who she is and more that it's that there's something going on in this area where there's somebody, you know, not go up on porches.
And somebody, you said that a lady said that, you know, he knocked on the door or something and didn't let him.
No, he came, he came on the, on the porch at 3.30 and then her dogs went crazy and he left and he came back.
He came back at five.
Yeah, I think if I keep seeing these ring videos about the same time in the same area, I'm less and less thinking this was targeted at her because of who Savannah is and more and more like this is.
In the first hour, we also showed the video of the peeping Tom in late December, who boldly is standing there outside of a woman's bathroom just filming her, like holding his cell phone up.
He's trying to get naked video of this woman or this couple inside this house.
He said it had happened repeatedly.
That's also happening in Tucson.
I mean, like, am I wrong that like this is a high percentage of like porch crime to have on camera in a two-month period, less than two months, like six weeks?
I think you're more, personally, I think you're MO on the peeping Tom.
More likely to have an MO to commit some type of sexual assault or kidnapping or violent crime than you do a porch pirate.
He's 6'4, Chad.
I should point out.
So it's not him because FBI says that Nancy's abductor is 5'9 or 5'10.
I think certainly to concur with what the guys were saying.
I mean, what we're seeing here is a very unusual patterns of behavior by these particular individuals.
I mean, the peeping Tom, yeah, they're usually pretty predictable.
But I think in terms of the other two, this is, you know, it's not the typical time of day or night for a porch pirate to come and steal someone's packages, which have been left outside.
That's generally going to be around those predictable times where they will be delivered.
And therefore, this individual actually lurking around, and as you said, Megan, returning a couple of hours later, something very unusual.
There's something very odd that's going on in this particular town.
Okay, but let me say something.
Let's say this latest porch guy is the guy.
I mean, it's interesting he didn't wear the face mask for that crime or possible crime.
We don't know if it was a crime on January 23rd, but by January 31st, he was.
I don't know.
And he would have had to gain some weight too because he seemed skinnier, I think.
I'm not totally sure because you don't see his body as well as you saw Pac-Man's.
But let's say it's him.
Like, once again, this does not look like a sophisticated criminal at all.
He probably is a sophisticated consumer of the criminal justice system.
You know, I mean, didn't look too nervous to be on some lady's porch in the middle of the night twice, coming back, even though there's dogs.
And he didn't live there because it's the woman whose home it is saying, who's this creepy guy who came on my porch not once but twice?
So my point is simply that guy, that guy is keeping 100 FBI agents and sheriff's deputies befuddled for two weeks now.
Like he covered his tracks so ably that they can't crack that guy.
I just, I have a hard time believing it.
He just, Mr. I look straight into the camera.
Like, no, I don't believe it.
And then the next time you bring a bouquet of flowers or weeds to try to cover up the camera when you come in, come on.
Well, and that guy didn't look that sophisticated to me either with the flowers, you know?
Like Ashley's theory is that he was using the flowers to like divide the Nest camera from its base, like possibly get it off.
I don't know whether that's true.
It seemed to me to look more like a camouflage.
And as we demonstrated with our videotape demonstration by Jake Whitman, our producer, all you have to do to get that Nest camera off its cradle is this.
It's like you just a couple of times and it's off.
You definitely don't have to go through like the camera with the, I don't know, the vegetation.
I don't know.
But none of these guys seem all that sophisticated to me.
I mean, I will say this guy with the ski mask is definitely, he looks the scariest and he means business with that mouth light and that backpack.
You know, these other guys, they don't look as businesslike as the real abductor.
And is it possible there's not a group?
Is it possible there's not a group of people hitting these houses at two, three in the morning?
Yeah.
We don't know.
But clearly there's something amiss in this in this town or this area of Tucson that we have this much activity on porches with these men.
It's a fail by the sheriff.
I think that's fair to say.
He should spend less time at the basketball games and more time arresting people who are harassing law-abiding citizens in their homes.
I don't know.
We're now almost at the two-week mark.
Today's Friday.
A lot of people will listen to the show over the weekend.
It'll be Saturday and it will be two weeks.
It was in the wee hours of Sunday morning, overnight Saturday that she was taken and possibly worse.
Where do you put the chances, like scale of one to 20, that Nancy is still alive?
Personally, from my own experience, I will always keep the balance in there until such time as you've got a body and you've got a confirmation or you've got her back alive.
I think it's just a very, very slow process.
I've had some negotiations in the past, which have taken, if not weeks, certainly months, to try and identify what's going on.
But my biggest concern, Megan, is that there's been no credible proof of life.
So that's why the numbers will probably tilt more towards the pessimistic than the optimistic, as far as I'm concerned.
Go ahead, Joe.
Yeah, a million percent.
I'm with Will.
Yeah, without any communication.
I mean, if this was, like we said before, if this was a kidnapping for ransom, we would have had communication.
And that's the proper way to do it.
Nothing about this case has been proper.
If you got her, why aren't you telling somebody?
I think something bad wouldn't happen.
I think something happened in that house.
He ended up hurting her more than he wanted to.
I think she died.
And that's where we are.
That's what it feels like to me without anything, any communication, nothing.
It's just bizarre.
Go ahead, Chad.
I'm on the same page.
And also, we're dealing with an 84-year-old woman that had serious health conditions, health issues.
She had a pacemaker.
She can't go without her medication.
Two weeks, the trauma and stress that's on her body, if she was taken alive and held captive, I don't know if she had the wherewithal or the strength, if her heart was even strong enough to maintain everything she went through.
I agree with both guys.
I don't think she made it out of the house alive that night.
Chad, I know you got to run.
I'm just going to keep you other two guys for a couple of extra minutes.
I got a couple of questions to ask you.
Good to see you, Chad, and thanks for everything.
Thank you, man.
On the subject of the, you're both concerned because there hasn't been proof of life.
And we don't know whether there's been a proof of abduction or legitimate ransom demands either.
Put aside the nutcase, who keeps coming back for a coin to tell us who it is.
Let's focus just for a second on the original alleged ransom note that TMZ and the two local stations got, and then the follow-up note that only one of the local stations got, neither of which had proof of life.
The first one said we have her.
The second one, even though they had begged for proof of life, did not provide it.
But Harvey Levin has said, has is saying this.
Today he posted this on an X.com video.
Okay, this is today.
He's saying this about that original, give us $4 million by Thursday.
And if not by Thursday, then by Monday, $6 million or else ransom note.
Here's Sat 4.
I will tell you this.
I know.
And when I say I know, I am positive that authorities, including the FBI, are vitally interested in that ransom note.
I know this to be true.
And I can't say the specifics because I promised I wouldn't, but I can tell you they are absolutely still vitally interested in this ransom note.
But I will tell you, they are still really interested, really interested in that ransom note.
Okay.
I mean, I think part of what Harvey's suffering from here is what his normal day job is.
But he's a very talented lawyer.
I mean, I disagree with him vehemently on his take on Don Lemon.
But that aside, Harvey's been in the legal business for a long time.
He's no dope.
So I'm trying to like sort of check what people's biases may be because he, you know, he did a celebrity tabloid news for a living.
But he clearly has sources on this case because he's 100% been dealing with the FBI on these alleged ransom notes.
Of course they've been dealing with him.
So for sure he's got sourcing.
And, you know, what do you guys make of that?
That they're saying they're still taking that note, those notes deadly seriously, vitally interested in that note still.
And like, maybe that is still their best lead.
Negotiating with Anonymous News Sources00:05:20
I mean, other than face mask man, which so far hasn't gone anywhere, that is, is it possible still that the actual kidnapper did communicate with them and that there's some way of tracking him, either through those anonymous forms or the Bitcoin account that the man or the person posted?
James, if I may jump in, if you don't mind.
I would say, okay, so firstly, in the background, what happens with these kinds of demands when they first come in, Megan, is that the crisis management team will obviously assess it.
They'll evaluate it as clearly as they possibly can as to the credibility.
Then they will refer, they will treat it as a serious request and they will obviously revert back, giving the assurances to the individual who's claiming this ransom of some sorts or claims to have this information.
And then what they'll do is they will make it very clear and they will put in the rationale and the reasoning to say, look, you know, we would love to help you.
We'd love to give you that money, but there are certain processes we have to follow and there are certain processes we have to go through to verify that you are in fact telling the truth, which we believe, of course.
But we need you to provide us with that sufficient evidence and information to confirm that you do have this information and you can provide it.
And obviously, if you can, you'll be paid.
And as you said, Megan, earlier in the show, you said, you know, there's a $100,000 award now.
So, you know, don't have to go through the complicated process of one Bitcoin initially and then a subsequent Bitcoin later down the line.
If he provides good information, he'll get paid.
It is as simple as that.
I think, unfortunately, TMZ are making massive theatrics about this.
And I would find this, if I was within the FBI team, I'd be very irritated by this somewhat.
What do you think, Jim?
Yeah, I think he said vital and really interested.
I think he said it four times.
Who's negotiating?
So even if, and by the way, it's a big if, even if it was a kidnapping and they reached out to TMZ and not the family or the police or the FBI to begin the communication to get their money, okay, well, at some point, that communication with the news agency would then be turned over, as Will's saying, to the crisis management team, to the family, to the people who could actually get the cash.
Unless, you know, Mr. Lovin's going to get the cash and he's negotiating the safe return of Miss Guthrie, then I don't understand why you would continue to go to TMZ.
Remember, we want right.
We want our money.
So if it's not the legitimate kidnapper who sent the first two, forget the weird charlatan at the end, the guy who's continuing to text about his Bitcoin now split into two.
If you're not the legitimate kidnapper on notes one and two, what are you doing?
You're just a fraudster.
You're an opportunist.
Certainly.
Just wasting time.
I mean, quite often, some of these guys can be complete fantasists at all their chances and they just want to make some money out of it.
But there should be consequences, obviously, to that kind of behavior because it is absorbing resource to even qualify the nonsense that they're presenting.
But I'm with James 100% on this.
Megan, I discount this particular demand to TMZ and certainly how they're framing it that they're managing it.
No, it doesn't wash with me.
I agree.
Here we are, stymied.
Some leads still out there, DNA being analyzed.
Maybe we'll get a hit from the Florida lab on somebody who's in the database, somebody who was in that house who wasn't supposed to be, who possibly has a criminal record.
That would be huge.
It's taking kind of a while, but you know, I don't want to be the CSI misled reporter either.
These things can take a while.
They don't want to screw them up.
So, fingers crossed, we get a breakthrough on the DNA or possibly an identification of masked man on the porch soon this weekend.
Guys, thank you.
I'm sure we'll be talking soon.
Good to see you.
Thanks so much.
You too.
All the best.
There's one final point I wanted to make just without the guys.
Maureen, actually, Maureen Callahan, part of the MK Media Network.
If you haven't tuned into her show, you should.
The Nerf.
She raised this point.
And I have to say, it resonated so strongly with me that I wanted to get into it here myself, which is, you know, I've been telling you all this stuff like, we're a family at the Today Show.
It isn't true.
And there's no question that I have an axe to grind with these people.
As you know, I have a bias here.
So you can factor that into my analysis.
But it's not true.
It is a bunch of backstabbers over there.
Nobody likes anybody.
They may go out to lunch with you.
They may have dinner.
They could even vacation with you.
But trust me when I tell you, they're all planting stories about one another behind their backs.
And if their neck is on the chopping block, they make sure somebody else takes it.
I mean, it's this is network news is a vicious, vicious place, way more so than cable, way more so.
And so they put on an image.
I'm not saying everybody's bad.
I'm saying the relations between them are set up to be fraught and very nasty.
And everybody's on guard because they all want their seat.
You know, they want their precious seat and they don't want anybody else to get it.
And, you know, the knives are always out for the people who have those seats.
Sneaky Feelings and Office Backstabbing00:02:21
So Maureen noted that on the Chanel and Jenna show, I guess that's a show now.
I don't, I think it's in my old time slot in the third hour of today.
Everything's wonderful.
We're all such happy friends and family.
They decided to do a segment yesterday, Thursday, involving an actress who Chanel knows from some past.
She's an actress who was there to promote something.
And they ran a clip of the two of them hugging, okay, Chanel and this actress.
I'm going to show it.
Here it is.
If you look for it, I've got a sneaky feeling you'll find that love actually is all around.
She's holding this older woman, she's hugging her.
And that was the voice of Hugh Grant from the movie Love Actually.
If you look for it, I've got a sneaky feeling that love actually is around.
She's hugging Adrian Balin Houghton's mom.
And someone at the Today Show posts this.
It's like the show Instagram.
And they post this with the caption, Nothing Beats a Mom Hug.
Chanel shares that Adrian Balan Houghton's mom comforted her, Chanel, in the days after Chanel's husband's passing, which was a tragic event that happened, I think, earlier this year.
They reunited in Studio 1A today.
I'm sorry, but what news organization, what set of producers, what news anchor who is responsible for that account would allow nothing beats a mom hug to go out on the Today show social media.
The same day, Savannah Guthrie posted this to her Instagram about her mom.
It's video of Nancy Guthrie, much younger.
She looks absolutely beautiful and her two daughters, Annie and Savannah, dressed alike.
And it ends on a still shot of the whole family.
Well, not the whole family.
Their dad wasn't it, but their mom and the three children in a black and white.
Okay, so Savannah posted that.
Heartless Responses from Coworkers00:07:20
Thursday, she posted that.
And this was the response from her coworkers.
Okay, so she posts this about her mom with a note.
Hold on, I'm trying to find it on my, I can't seem to find it.
Oh, here it is.
Here it is.
Savannah's note was, Our lovely mom, we will never give up on her.
She's suffering quite clearly.
And this is what her colleagues do.
Nothing beats a mom hug.
I'm sorry, but network television is a vicious, thoughtless, heartless, nasty place.
And you should not be misled into thinking you are watching loving, wonderful people who are just, it is not what they would have you believe.
And I just think that it was a despicable oversight, intentional move.
I don't know.
At some point, someone's going to have to take responsibility for it and say, I did a thoughtless thing and I'm deeply sorry.
You know, they brought Hoda in, like, Hoda's back to help.
I'm sure Hoda's back to help.
Hoda has been dying to get back on the set of the Today Show ever since she left it.
Morning television isn't making the money that it used to make.
It's not bringing in anywhere near the revenue.
Neither is cable for that matter.
I mean, the CNN ratings are in the shitter.
Literally, they've lost more than half their audience, almost two-thirds of their audience now.
They were getting like 1.3 million in like, I think it was 2016, 17 when Trump took over in their prime time.
And, you know, they were fighting him every night with Jeff Zucker directing the coverage.
They went hard partisan.
And people did tune in for that because there was a lot of Trump hatred.
Now it's down to on average in the 400,000s per night.
400 fours, the 400s, 500s at best in the prime time.
I can't tell you how dreadful this is.
I mean, we were averaging 3 million and change every night on the Kelly file in the demo, in the key advertising demo.
We'd easily get a 400,000.
I mean, like, if you didn't get that in the demo, which is a much smaller group, 25 to 54 year olds, cable, as you know, is much older viewers.
You'd be horrified if you didn't get that.
Like now, the overall number at CNN is down in the fours or fives.
I mean, that is just a five-alarm fire.
They are not going to survive.
This show's views on YouTube are surpassing their entire networks or at least making it a battle every month.
The total views on all of their shows.
And even now in a battle for their website hits.
Like it's that thing used to be a monster.
It's not going to survive.
That's the bottom line.
That's CNN.
But the Today Show is not far behind, people.
Compared to where they used to be, they are a shadow of their former selves.
The ratings are dwindling.
Their salaries are dwindling.
The report was that they asked Hoda to take a pay cut because they can't afford her huge salary anymore.
And she like with dignity walked off the set rather than take the pay cut.
I don't know what actually happened there, but she walked away and she's been back about 4,000 times since she did because it is a thing with TV people that they need to see their mugs on TV or they don't feel like they matter.
That is true for many of them.
So I just, I'm sorry, I didn't buy that either.
I'm back to help.
Okay, sure, sure you are.
Why were you back all together 10,000 times when nobody wanted you?
Everything is a manipulation.
Just keep that in mind.
Everything's a manipulation.
Don't let them manipulate you.
What Savannah's going through is genuinely awful, horrible tragedy.
Everything that's happening on the set of that show is theater.
I believe that Tom Winter, the reporter they're using for reporting on this issue, is an honest reporter who is doing his very best to stick to just the facts and to not get ahead of his skis on anything out of respect for the family.
And I trust his reporting.
He was, it's not, he hasn't been perfect, but he's been legit.
And I think he tries his best to stay factual.
But as for the propaganda that gets pushed out on their evening news or their morning news show, beware and don't buy it because that was pretty damn heartless.
Nothing beats a mom hug.
Having said all that, that is a true sentiment.
And for those of us who are lucky enough to have them here and well, live up to it.
Man, I'm sure Savannah would want that from all of us.
Thank you all for watching, for being with us this week, and last as this bizarre, gripping, troubling story has unfolded.
I think it's about more than it's certainly about more than celebrity.
It's interesting, of course, because we all know Savannah Guthrie, but I think it's about the value that Americans place on a life.
They just do.
You know, don't get me started on the abortion issue.
Trust me, we've all had many debates about it.
But the way we all come together when someone's life is in jeopardy, whether it's minors in a cave or a little toddler who we can't find, or the mystery around four Idaho college students who met a grisly end.
The nation wants answers and it wants accountability and it wants a rescue.
If there's any chance for a rescue and then and or justice, the nation wants it.
It wants it desperately.
And the more invested they get in a case, the more insistent they are on having it.
And I think that's to our credit.
I actually think that's something we should be proud of.
Having said that, we will be doing some other news next week as well.
We got to get back.
There's a lot, a lot happening.
Epstein, my God.
And the hearing with Pam Bondi was crazy this week.
The whole Super Bowl fallout and all the craziness there.
The Olympic stuff.
Did that French judge steal our medal from our ice skaters, our ice dancers?
Certainly looks like people believe that.
I'd like to know what the truth is, but a whole scandal's evolving now on whether the French did not deserve to win that gold into that.
And the Olympics in general are sort of a nice getaway from the darkness of this news story.
So take those in.
See, I'm not that biased against NBC.
I can't tell you to go watch the Olympics.
Some of it is still fun.
The ones who still love America, like the hockey team, yeah, we can root for them.
Not so much the men's freestyle skiers.
Oh, live and learn on the ones that we support once we go.
I support all of you and I appreciate your support of this program.