← Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno
Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno
Justin Timberlake DUI Bodycam Battle & Shia LaBeouf’s Bizarre Battery Defense
00:35:58
Loading summary
Transcript70 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hello, and welcome to Crime and Justice. I'm Donna Rotuno. Today we're going to be talking about the tale of two celebrities. First, we'll talk about Justin Timberlake and his desire to keep his body cameras out of the news. And then we will talk about Shia LaBeouf's defense for his actions at Mardi Gras. And after we're done with all of that, we will go to Mike Ruiz and learn the latest on Nancy Guthrie. Daniel Day, 32. First, joining me today is attorney David Wall. David, how are you today?
- [00:37]
B
Great. Very great. Thank you, Donna. Great to be with you and ready to discuss two kind of very compelling and interesting cases.
- [00:49]
A
Yeah, I'm excited to talk to you. David, why don't you tell our viewers and listeners how you got into this line of work?
- [00:58]
B
Well, I. As far as being a lawyer, I was a busboy at a restaurant when I was about 20 years old, and a waitress came up to me one day and says, you know, you argue really well. You ought to become a lawyer. And the next day, I went to my college counselors, the admissions counselors. I said, you know what? Change all my classes from graphic arts, which was what I was taking, then to political science, economics, whatever. I need to go to law school. And here I am. And that was.
- [01:32]
A
I love that.
- [01:33]
B
That was 1982. So it's been 44 years, and here I am. And you never know what's going to
- [01:39]
A
change for you, right?
- [01:42]
B
You never know. But that was what it was.
- [01:45]
A
That is so true.
- [01:47]
B
Yeah. So it was cool.
- [01:48]
C
And.
- [01:49]
A
Yeah. Someone's seeing something. Someone's seeing something in you.
- [01:53]
B
Someone's seen something in me. Yeah. Thank you. I don't even remember her name. I remember her face, but not her name. But, yeah, then. So I've been a lawyer here since 89. That makes 37 years. I can't believe it. You blink and it goes by, you know, so. But I enjoy it. I enjoy it. Even though a lot of guys retire my age, I'm not going to because I'd be bored. And I love doing this stuff, the TV and also the in court, the real lawyer and the TV lawyer. So a lot of fun.
- [02:24]
A
That's fantastic. Well, I spent my morning in court. So here we are, two practicing lawyers, and we're gonna have a great conversation today, and I'm really looking forward to it. So first, let's talk about Justin Timberlake. So we know that Justin Timberlake got a DUI when he was in the Hamptons Sag harbor area last summer. That DUI resolved itself, he took a plea to a lesser charge and it kind of left the news. And then it seems as though that there's a group of people that are seeking to get a FOIL request or foia, depending on what jurisdiction you're in, and ask for the freedom of Information to release his body cameras. And now his lawyers are filing to block that. So let's talk a little bit about body cameras, what the intent of body cameras are, and let's talk about this legal strategy and why his lawyers would really want these cameras to stay put on the shelf.
- [03:21]
B
Yeah, well, you know, here in the course that I work in anyway, Donna, when you start a case and there is a body worn camera, which like 99% of criminal cases, the officers have them now you have to stipulate to the confidentiality of the body worn camera so it's not released, which we do without, I don't think without fail, but we do it 98% of the time. And so you ordinarily, outside the legal process, no one would see what's in those cameras. And in Justin Timberlake situation, obviously one of the most embarrassing things you can do is be asked to perform field sobriety tests, touching your nose, walking a straight line, those kind of things. When you're good and drunk and fail those, or you say weird things like, hey, I'm a super celebrity, please let me go. And he really feels that those will damage his career. So he has filed to keep them out of the public domain. And now the judge is kind of asking them to sort of mediate it and see if they can come to an agreement. Because I imagine there's some pretty interesting and embarrassing events that took place in that eight hours of camera video.
- [04:40]
A
Well, let's talk about it a little bit. So, you know, when we see, we've seen other celebrities have DUIs, right? We've seen Tiger woods, we've seen Reese Witherspoon, we've seen Mel Gibson. And these are just a couple off the top of my head. And we have seen portions of those arrests. So in this case, his legal team is trying to protect his privacy. And in doing that, are they creating more of a buzz around this than there would be if they just agreed to a release of certain parts of these recordings? Because frankly, I kind of forgot about the Justin Timberlake DUI arrest until now when we're talking about this and seeing these new filings.
- [05:22]
B
Yeah, of course. And apparently now many other media organizations than the original one have made freedom of information requests and asked to get a copy of the videos themselves. And sure, of course, he's brought a lot of attention to it. And inevitably some of the video will be released. I mean, maybe not all of it, but some of it will be. And, you know, be careful what you wish for. You're right. I mean, maybe he should have just let it go by and say, hey, look, it was a bad episode in my life. We've all been there. I learned a lesson. That's what Uber is for. That's what Lyft is for. When you drink, you don't drive. And he could have made sort of a de facto public service announcement out of it. You know, I don't think it's going to damage a guy like him, a guy who's reached his level of celebrity or a dui. Now, if it were something along the lines of what P. Diddy did and was domestic violence related stuff, that's a different situation altogether. But dui, they're not good. But will it damage your reputation as a celebrity? I. I kind of think not.
- [06:28]
A
I mean, I guess it depends on what he said and how bad it sounds, I guess. But when you. Or how intoxicated he was and you could, we can see him on the screen right now. I mean, he doesn't look, you know, his face is a little bit red. He doesn't look like he was, you know, not able to, to, you know, hold his head up or anything. I mean, he looks like a guy who maybe had a few too many drinks. But, you know, when you really look at this, I think about the fact that, okay, so the criminal case gets resolved fairly quickly, and now that's resolved, and now it becomes this fight here for these records. And I'm wondering if part of the reason that he wanted to resolve it so quickly was so it would kind of be forgotten and there wouldn't be time for these things to be released. And now the fact that the requests for these, these body cameras are happening, it's putting this back up in the news again. So I'm just wondering if you think that part of the strategy to, to resolve the case as quickly as they did was to hope that none of this ever came to fruition.
- [07:25]
B
Oh, yeah, absolutely. And you know, he got what was what basically in most jurisdictions amounts to a reckless driving with alcohol involved. It is a reduced charge. He only had like a $500 fine and 25 hours of community service. That never happened even here. I know in California, even if you get what's called a wet reckless, the punishments are still much more Severe than what Justin Timberlake got. So, yes, he tried to bury it. He tried to get it over with quickly. And a lot of celebrities do. He did. You know, they offered that he took it. Good for him. But, yeah, now it's back up there. But, you know, I mean, these organizations like tmz, you know, they rapidly go after this stuff and inevitably they're gonna get some of it. And so his best laid plans didn't quite work out. But we'll see some of it, for those of you who care. And I don't know that I do, because I see it all the time. And I'm sure you do too. You know, we'll see.
- [08:24]
A
Yeah. I think it's interesting when you look at body cameras and the intention of body cameras, right. The whole purpose of having police wear cameras in the first place is for police accountability. And in some ways, I think you can argue it also can protect the police. Also because there's a lot of allegations made against the police that then you watch a body camera and you say, well, well, wait, no, that's not really how that happened. But I think the original intention of it was the push to say we need to keep the police accountable and make sure that, you know, everything is above board. So taking that into consideration, and if that was the true intent of the reason for body cameras, then is it really for this public exposure, whether you're Justin Timberlake or not?
- [09:11]
B
Yeah, I mean, it is. And I mean, they do serve that purpose, I can tell you right now. There's also the dash cams out here. CHP vehicles all have dash cams. I had a case, a dui, where the officer said in the written report that the. My client was swerving all over the freeway and that was the basis for the stop. And guess what? The dash cam video showed nothing of the sort. He was driving straight within his lane and the case was dismissed. So they do serve a purpose, but they have that dual purpose also. When you. When you behave poorly and gets out there, then you know, it's unintended, but it could be damaging.
- [09:52]
A
Well, and don't you laugh, too. You see those cameras, right? And like you said, the report says one thing and then you watch the camera and it shows a completely different set of circumstances. And don't you wonder. I know I sit in my office and I. And I look and I think, did they really think I wasn't going to watch this? Like the fact that you have this evidence that's so contradictory. Right. Or the search of the vehicle. Right. And they say, oh, well, I saw something in plain view. And then you watch the body camera and you think, there's nothing in plain view in that car. So I just think it's really interesting that. And you're right, it happens more often than not where there's a narrative in the report. And then you watch this camera and you think, wait, is this the same arrest?
- [10:32]
B
Exactly. They're very important. They really do serve a purpose.
- [10:35]
A
Yeah, they do. And so I'm wondering if you think that once a case is disposed of, so case is over, Justin pleads he gets his sweetheart deal, and we can go back and forth about whether or not that's because he was a celebrity, which I'm sure many people think, or maybe the sufficiency of the evidence wasn't great. Who knows? We don't know what happened at that stop. And so, you know, maybe they figured they would give him a deal and the whole thing would go away and both sides would benefit. But what I'm wondering is, is once that deal is done, do you think that the laws should be different about whether or not these body cameras should be released after something has been adjudicated? Or do you think it opens it up to this whole transparency? Because as we're seeing now in the Charlie Kirk situation, the shooter of Charlie Kirk, Tyler Robinson, there's all these conversations about what can be shown, what shouldn't be shown. How much transparency. Do you think that these body cameras sort of fall under that same umbrella of transparency that we're talking about with cameras in the courtroom and putting evidence out for the public?
- [11:43]
B
Yeah, well, I mean, I guess, fortunately, Donna, that this is extremely rare when someone petitions a court to get a copy of the body worn camera, because the only two parties that are usually interested is the district attorney and the defense attorney.
- [11:59]
A
So.
- [12:00]
B
And that's why one of the reasons the court requests confidentiality is because of their, you know, the potential of the salacious, you know, distributing of this type of video, having it on Instagram and Facebook. And they don't want that, you know, and once, once the video, whatever it is, of Justin Timberlake is released, you know, that's exactly where it's going. And I think it demeans the process. You know, you don't want everybody's criminal case turning into, you know, a three ring circus. So that's one of the reasons they like to keep these very confidential. But in a case like his, there is a strong public interest that has to be balanced against his right to privacy. And hopefully they reach some Sort of a, you know, an agreement that'll accomplish
- [12:46]
A
both, which I think ultimately will happen. I think the lawyers, and I think the judge told them to do that. I think the judge said, okay, you know, try to come up with some agreement. And like you said, some portion of these, These are going to be released. Not the full eight hours, but some portions of these. Obviously, if he's giving his name and his address and his phone number, you know, those things will be the name, excuse me, the phone number, the address, those things will be redacted, you know, those types of things. And, you know, maybe certain statements he made with regard to something going on in his life, you know, who knows what he said to the police at the time of these arrests, but we'll probably be able to see the. The way he interacts with the officer, and we'll probably be able to see some level of field sobriety test is my guess.
- [13:31]
B
Agreed. Sounds about right.
- [13:33]
A
Yeah, I. Yeah. And I think, you know, really looking at these things, it's, again, like you said, most people in these cases, no one's asking about this because no one cares. It's between the prosecutor and the defense. Now, if Justin Timberlake were to go to trial, and then a trial is public record, and, you know, obviously, whether there's cameras there or not is a different story. But journalists can sit and journalists can watch, and if portions of the body camera are played during trial, then of course, it's a little bit different. But when you do take a plea, I do think that that should be taken into consideration in terms of what is released. If both sides are in agreement to what happens.
- [14:13]
B
You know, it could be. I mean, this is a very, very small, insignificant case. Big picture. You've been doing a great job covering the. The Nancy Guthrie tragedy, it looks like, at this point. And there, in my view, in reviewing it from the very beginning of this case has been so many missteps by the investigators, by law enforcement. How many petitions do you think are going to come forward in this case? Requesting video, requesting reports that aren't exactly having been released so far? This is a huge case. And this is where, my guess, law enforcement fights it tooth and nail, because there's going to be a lot of incompetency exposed when that petition comes forward. You know, it's. It's been. It's been terrible.
- [14:59]
A
Yeah, for sure. I agree with you. I agree with you. Well, and we talked a little bit about the fact that the injunction that Timberlake is asking for, he's saying that this would cause this irreparable harm to him is that embarrassment that he's saying would be an irreparable harm. Is that legally protected? Right. So is that harm legally protected? And in my research, I'm seeing that not really on its own, standing alone, that's usually not enough. What's your take on that?
- [15:33]
B
Well, that's the legal terminology. Excuse me, that is used to sustain an injunction like this one. The irreparable harm standard that if you release it, the harm that will befall me is not something I can fix. And so he's using that terminology. Do I think that's. No matter what happens in that video, I don't think it will do any harm. Big picture to his career. But there's something in there that he doesn't like. And like I said, he may have been, hey, I'm a big celebrity, you know, let me go this time. And that's embarrassing. And that could embarrass him and family that could do damage to possibly contracts that he has with entertainment, you know, issues that he's engaged in. So that's possible. But again, that's a legal terminology that's always used in injunction requests. So I don't think it's going to cut it. I think they're going to probably get together and work something out. They'll stipulate to a certain amount of the video being released and everybody will see it.
- [16:37]
A
Absolutely. Zootopia 2 is coming home to Disney.
- [16:41]
B
Let's go get ready for a new case. We're the greatest partners of all time. New friends, Gary the snake and your last name the snake Dream team. And new habitats.
- [16:50]
A
Zootopia has a secret reptile population.
- [16:52]
B
You can watch the record breaking phenomenon at home. Disney Zootopia 2. Streaming March 11th on Disney. Rated PG. And right now you can get Disney plus and Hulu for just $4.99 a month for three months with a special limited time offer. Ends March 24th. After three months, Plan Auto renews at $12.99 a month term supply.
- [17:09]
A
All right, let's move to Shia LaBeouf. Shia, Shia, Shia. He gets himself in a bunch of trouble in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. One arrest, I think it was February 17th, which was fat Tuesday. He's out, he's enjoying himself. Gets into some kind of a bar scuffle and. And about a week later he gets arrested or 11 days later, whatever it is, he gets arrested and charged with two more batteries that arose out of the same event. So these are misdemeanors he goes to court, he gets very high bonds for a guy with no background. Now, granted, he can afford the bonds, but, you know, we can talk about all that in a minute. So in looking at this now, there is this defense that they're basically coming out with, and, you know, they're kind of talking about the Napoleon complex, and they're. I think they're sort of throwing a few things out there to maybe take away some of the attention on what happened here. And apparently there was some allegation that some man touched his leg and then he made some gay slur, and then this whole. This whole fight started. So do you think that some of these defenses that the defense is throwing out there are sort of in an attempt to take the focus away from a possible hate crime and. Or these commentaries that were allegedly made in the bar that night?
- [18:38]
B
Yeah, I mean, I don't think his lawyer instructed him to say things like that to the media. And certainly you and I both know there's no jury instruction that says, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you find Mr. LaBeouf was suffering from Napoleon complex, you shall acquit. So we. We know that's not there.
- [18:58]
C
He.
- [18:59]
B
You know, look, he has. Reality is he has a history of arrests going back 30 years, the first one being when he was nine years old stealing a pair of Nikes. And from there, it has just spiraled out of control. And reality is, I mean, clearly he has an alcohol problem. And I think shifting toward maybe possibly a diversion program that might result in a dismissal based upon his treatment in an alcohol program would be his best bet. Those two things you mentioned are not legal defenses, and they're certainly not something any competent lawyer would bring up in a court of law. Blaming, you know, and a gay man for touching his leg. I'm just not. That's not going anywhere. So I think he's got a lot of problems. I think it may even be dual diagnosis for him, which would be some form of mental illness and then the alcoholism. Either way, he needs serious, serious treatment, probably inpatient. And at some point, he's late 30s. Right. He said he's got to realize that you can't continuously behave like a juvenile delinquent your entire adult life and expect to have a productive life. I mean, does he still act anymore? I don't even know. He was great in the Transformers. I loved him in that. That was a long time ago.
- [20:18]
A
Yeah. Yeah, I think he does act. I don't think he's been in anything major. But then again, there's so many things on streaming and everything else, I can't keep up with who's acting where. But what I will say is what I find interesting about this, and you're right, there is clearly a substance abuse problem, alcohol and, you know, whatever else potentially. And, you know, you can definitely tell that. And I think the biggest problem with this is, is that he, there isn't really a desire or willingness to sort of admit that. So I watched this hour plus long interview he did with a podcaster and he, although took accountability for his actions, he did not really take accountability for the drinking. You know, said, yeah, I drank, but not that there's a problem. And every time he tried to talk about it kind of strayed away from it actually being a problem. And I'm thinking as a defense attorney, you know, we can see that with that behavior and with the escalation of the behavior with the wife leaving him, you know, all of these things that kind of happened. There was a domestic call to that house in 2024, and drinking was mentioned at that point. So, so we see this escalation. And I think to myself, okay, his best bet would be to fall on that sword whether he truly felt it or not. But that would be the best way to defend yourself in a situation like this. Right? I mean, this, this nonsense about, you know, Napoleon and everything else, I, I, I think is just not only silly, but it's actually minimizing his alleged taking responsibility. Right. It just, yes, he says the words, but it doesn't seem to mean much with the rest of this on the backside of that.
- [22:10]
B
And, you know, I'm sure you know this, the courts are very sympathetic toward people with substance abuse problems who take responsibility for those problems, and you end up getting great outcomes. But when you don't do that and you start making up silly excuses for your alleged criminal behavior, then it usually doesn't go well. And I don't know, he's, he's, he's basically brushed aside allegations of marital discord and said, we're fine, there's no problem here either. And, and so I don't think he's the type of guy, at least not right yet, that is going to take responsibility for a very serious alcohol abuse problem that is leading to these kind of, you know, know, personal foibles and, and criminal behavior. And he, he's got to do that, or if he doesn't, it's, it's not going to turn out well.
- [23:00]
A
Yeah, it's sad, and it's sad to see, especially when you watch and, you know, his lawyers did not tell him to go on that podcast. I mean, my goodness. And so you watch him have this conversation where he's truly all over the place. I mean, it's just. You can. There's the stream of consciousness. A lot of it doesn't make sense, and he's kind of answering the question, and then he's getting up and he's sitting down. And so if other issues that he's dealing with, mental, emotional, whatever, they definitely need to be addressed or, you know as well as I do, there'll be more contact with the criminal justice system if he can't get those behaviors under control.
- [23:39]
B
Absolutely, 100%. And that's one of my. One of the issues I have with my clients. I say the judge will always. If you take the bull by the horns, the judge will always respect you, and you'll always get a better outcome if you fight. There's nothing wrong with fighting a case if you've got legitimate issues that need to be contested. But if you're just saying, I'm a victim across the board and you're not accepting any responsibility, it just doesn't work out too well.
- [24:09]
A
So do you think the bond they set in this case, which was $100,000, which, you know, for misdemeanors, is. Is fairly high now, I live in a state that no longer has cash bail, so I guess at this point, a lot of this conversation is relative. But, you know, that is a high number. And if we look at, you know, was that number really about assuring his appearance in court, or is that more to say, hey, look, you know, we're on to you, and it's sort of a way to incentivize controlling this behavior.
- [24:44]
B
Well, Donna, you're right. I mean, this is $100,000 for misdemeanor cases. Outrageous. I don't care where you are.
- [24:50]
A
Yeah, it is.
- [24:51]
B
I mean, here.
- [24:52]
A
Yes.
- [24:52]
B
Or how much money you have for a misdemeanor case. I don't think I've ever had a client been ordered $100,000 bid. The only exception is multiple DUIs, sometimes that haven't been charged as felonies yet. But they're. But, you know, what are the issues? Usually risk of flight. They took his passport. There's no. He's not going to go anywhere. Risk of reoffending potentially, but I wouldn't think it's that high. Will he come to court? I'm sure his lawyer will ensure that happens. So this is an outrageous bail. If they took it up on A writ. I think it would be reduced, but I think the guy probably has the funds, you know, 10% of 100,000. $10,000 cash. I think he probably was able to put that down fairly easily. So I don't, you know, I mean, ordinary. In ordinary circumstances, I would think completely outrageous. But for him, well, he made it anyway, so.
- [25:49]
A
Well, the. The football coach from Michigan got a lower bond on his felony case that he had. So that was. That was a pretty. I think his was half that, but anyway. And what about the fact that this happened during Mardi Gras? Does that in any way change the. Now, the judge always has discretion in terms of what to set for bond or what. But do you think that, given the fact that it's Mardi Gras, given the fact that there's probably more problems than normal going on in New Orleans, do you think it's a way for judges to say, look, we're. We're taking this seriously. We want to keep this event as safe as we can, but at the same time, we also have to take these things more seriously because we want to make an example out of the people that are getting in trouble during this high, you know, tourist season in New Orleans.
- [26:41]
B
Yeah, no, I mean, I totally get that. And also, he was headbutting people, which, I mean, ordinarily, that could very easily be charged as a felony. I mean, anything that causes great bodily injury or risk causing great bodily injury and headbutting is a misdemeanor. I don't think I've ever seen that. So maybe the judge is saying, look, you're charged with misdemeanor, but the conduct was more like felony conduct. So I'm gonna slap you with a heavy duty bail. Although, even though, I mean, I don't. I know here in the bail schedule, that couldn't. There's no way you could give that kind of bail for a misdemeanor. But maybe in New Orleans, you can. And yeah, judges do send messages sometimes, and celebrities who think they can just do anything they want and get off and walk out and get a slap on the wrist. It could well be that.
- [27:27]
A
That.
- [27:28]
B
That was part of the judge's reasoning.
- [27:31]
A
And although bail is not meant to be punitive. Right. It's meant to ensure your. Your ability to come to court. It's meant to keep society safe. But do you think that now, obviously, giving him this bond, and like you said, he can pay it, he paid it, no issue. But if you gave a bond like this to someone who couldn't pay it and they end up sitting in custody, it almost becomes a de facto punishment in terms of the bail number without looking at, you know, your actual due process. So I think, you know, given the fact that he could pay, it is fine. But if we're talking about it just in general, that number really does become a punishment 100%.
- [28:13]
B
I mean, if this is somebody who is indigent and was given that kind of bail, I would expect their lawyer would take it up on a writ to the court of appeal and it would not survive. It would be severely reduced. You're right. But I'm sure the judge knew that he could make the bail, and maybe that's one of the. It still isn't appropriate. I mean, in my mind, it still isn't appropriate for a judge to gauge how much bail they demand of a particular defendant based upon their celebrity or financial worth. I don't know, something about it that just hits me wrong.
- [28:49]
A
Yeah, no, it hits me wrong, too. And even, you know, yes, flight risk is. Is the main thing that they should be looking at. But, you know, really, I just think this looked like it just didn't look good for the court, frankly. And, you know, now that he's out there acting the way he is and giving these interviews, maybe it waters down that argument. I don't know. But, yeah, I think overall, this is not a practice that should be continuing in New Orleans or otherwise. Now I'm going to bring in Mike Ruiz, Fox News digital reporter, for the latest in the Nancy Guthrie case. Day 32 today. Mike, how are you?
- [29:29]
C
Donna? I'm well. How are you?
- [29:32]
A
I'm doing great. It's good to see you. Are you still in Tucson?
- [29:37]
C
I am still in Tucson. I have been here for more than a month. Things are slowing down in terms of the flow of information on the case, but Sheriff Nano said just this week that he's confident it's going to be solved.
- [29:51]
A
Wow. Well, let's hope that he's right. And he said a lot of things during the course of this investigation so far that are suspect. So let's hope this is one that is not. Mike, tell me what has been going on since we talked last time, Most specifically, the ring camera videos that you and Fox News digital basically discovered. Tell us about what's going on there. Tell us what they found on those cameras. And is that information helping law enforcement?
- [30:18]
C
Yeah. So, Donna, we did find some video that hadn't been recovered by law enforcement during their canvas of the neighborhood. It was actually recorded at a home about two and a half miles away. Which is just outside. They, they had a two mile radius of where they were asking for video. So this was outside that they hadn't canvassed that and they hadn't been telling residents who live there to look at their cameras. And. But the resident who lived there did look at their camera and they found on the night of Nancy's abduction, or really the early morning of Nancy's abduction, they found a number of cars going by, including one that passed their home about eight minutes after Nancy's pacemaker last synced with her Apple watch, which was discovered in the home right behind me. And the interesting thing about the timing of that is not only was the vehicle going away from Nancy's house, it was at a house about a seven minute drive from here. So the timing kind of lines up. We don't really have any firm confirmation that this vehicle is part of the case at all, but it is something that investigators say they are looking into.
- [31:16]
A
Wow. And that camera was tendered over. Did you found that or how did that get to. I know you were knocking on doors and did you knock on doors after that or did you knock on that door? How did you get that?
- [31:31]
C
Yeah, so we've locked on. We've knocked on a lot of doors in this neighborhood. Outside the radius, inside the radius. But the interesting thing about how we came across this video is that a resident who lives on Camino Real, which is the side street somewhat behind me, there's a main road called North Campbell Avenue that runs north to south. Camino Real also runs north to south. And it's kind of a back way in and out of this neighborhood. And a resident who lived on that street contacted me and said, hey, you know, if I was looking to get out of the neighborhood, quietly avoid major intersections, get away from the traffic cameras, this is the way I would do it. So we met up with her and she took a drive down the road with me in her car and showed us the neighborhood. And we passed as we were going, a house that had a ring camera right on their front gate. So they had a gated driveway with a post right next to the side of the road. And there was a camera visible from the street. And it's actually really interesting. I've spent a lot of time in this neighborhood. Most of the houses are set back, they have thick landscaping. A lot of them don't see the street from the front door. So these people had a camera right there on the road that was basically just aimed at the road, catching cars going by all the time. So we were able to get in touch with the homeowners there, and they checked the cameras, and they found 12 vehicles passing on the night in question between midnight and 6am including the one in the time period that really stood out.
- [32:54]
A
Wow, that's really fascinating. It's really amazing that a sheriff's office, you know, maybe the FBI, not as familiar with the area as much as the sheriff's office that's patrolling it on a regular basis. But you would think that someone else may have thought that that was a path that may have been taken by these abductors and maybe asked for some of those cameras. I mean, it is unbelievable to me that almost four weeks in, this is the information that you're getting, and law enforcement hadn't had it yet.
- [33:25]
C
Yeah, well, maybe that is the negative effect of setting the radius. People didn't tune into that. And also, the Ring alert app is designed to give people alerts by the radius. So if you live outside of that, you know, these people that lived in this house, they had the app, they didn't get the alert. They were outside the zone, but they did look into it. I think now at this point, a lot of other neighbors in the surrounding area, maybe a little bit further away, are looking through their cameras, and we know that law enforcement has been back out canvassing and expanding their footprint.
- [33:56]
A
Wow. Well, let's hope it leads to something. Mike, you have done unbelievable work out there. I know it's been grueling, and some days are much slower than others, but I know you are continuing to knock on doors, and I know we at Fox and this podcast and the Guthrie family are grateful for the work that's being done out there and hoping that we do get some answers and hope Sheriff Nanos is correct and we have some answers about Nancy very soon.
- [34:23]
C
We are hoping the same thing. Thank you.
- [34:26]
A
Well, once again, thank you for joining me on another episode of Crime and Justice. Until next time, goodbye.