Nancy Grace (4:32)

Susannah Ryan joining us, lab director, forensic DNA analyst at Pure Gold Forensics and forensic DNA consultant at Ryan Forensics, Suzannah Ryan. What do you make of that? Right.

Suzannah Ryan (4:44)

Well, I can't say exactly why they've held it so long, but certainly any vehicle they get, they're going to be looking for lots of different forensic evidence. And you know, that could be latent prints, it could be trace evidence, could be DNA. But as you said, of course, with this particular vehicle, it would not be surprising at all, of course, to see Nancy Guthrie's DNA in the vehicle. We know that she has written in the vehicle. This is her relative's, her relative's vehicle. So it would not be surprising to see her DNA pretty much anywhere in that car. What might be surprising is if we start seeing blood, if there's blood maybe in the back seat of the vehicle, if there's blood in the trunk of the vehicle, if there's blood that has been transferred somehow to, let's say, the driver's side floor mat or the gas pedal or the brake pedal, somewhere that it's a lot more difficult to experience, explain why someone's blood or DNA might be present. So I think that that's probably one of the things they were looking for. Again, I'm sure there's other digital forensic type of evidence and trace evidence, things like that, but it does sound like at this point they've completed that testing.

Nancy Grace (5:55)

Suzanna, a lot is being made of DNA tonight. What do you make of it and where do we stand right now?

Suzannah Ryan (6:02)

You know, it would not be surprising to me at all that there are multiple contributors to, to some of these samples collected from the home. So we're talking now about skin cell DNA, often called touch DNA. So DNA that is transferred just by someone coming into contact with an item of evidence. Just because one person has touched it doesn't mean that multiple other people have not touched the same item. If we're talking about a doorknob, something like that, where anyone who touches that has the chance of transferring not only their own DNA, but, but whatever else happened to be on their hands at the time. We're constantly picking up DNA. Everything that we come into contact with, we have the chance of picking up other people's DNA from those contacts. And then we, we can further transfer that DNA. So a lot of times when we talk about these sort of transfer or touch DNA samples, we're talking about multiple individuals. And the thing is, there's no way to separate those different components of DNA prior to going through the analysis process. Right?

Tammy Ballard (7:10)

We can't.

Suzannah Ryan (7:10)

I wish we could. I wish we could like target and say, okay, we just want this person's DNA. We're only looking for the male DNA or, you know, something like that. And we really can't, short of, you know, if we have a sexual assault case, you can separate out sperm cell versus epithelial cell DNA, but otherwise you can't whatever is on that sample. When you start the analysis process and you break open all of the cells and then you just have this Alphabet soup of DNA that is present, and then you move forward with it. You get a DNA profile and whether it's a mixture, whether it's single source, great. But usually it's a mixture of 2, 3, 4, maybe even more people. At that point it becomes, you know, there's no way to isolate out one person's DNA unless they're a clear major contributor. There's more of one person's DNA than anybody else's. But otherwise, that's why mixtures are so difficult, and that's why they're having difficulties in this case, because they're probably low level, maybe not even complete profiles with multiple contributors. That's basically the worst type of Sample to try to work with.

Nancy Grace (8:20)

Where is Nancy Guthrie, Savannah Guthrie's mother, still missing. And the scene is shambotic. A pizza guy. A pizza guy drives right up to the house, the crime scene, and goes up to the door to deliver pizza. In the midst of this investigation, why is it still not blocked off? If and when this case ever does go to trial, there's going to be hell to pay. H E double L hell to pay on ice skates because you've got a pool cleaning team coming through. You have pizza delivery. You've got people sneaking up to the front porch taking pictures of Nancy Guthrie's blood, for Pete's sake. I would flip if someone was taking pictures of my mom's blood on the front porch. You've got the first team coming in, failing. You've got the FBI finally joining in after being blocked by nanos. They come in. You know what this means evidentially is that every single person that went into that scene is going to have to be ruled out of DNA. Straight to Dave Mack. Joining us, crime stories investigative reporter Dave Mack who is getting swabbed.

Dave Mack (9:43)

Nancy, we know that Ms. Guthrie has a lot of help around the house because she is living on her own. She is mentally very, you know, she's perfect. There's. But I'm going to assume based on an 84 year old woman living on her own with physical medical issues that there is help coming by to check on her. One thing we do know she has a pool person that takes care of the swimming pool. We do know she has landscape yard, people who do the gardening and keep it trimmed up. We also know she has a housekeeper that comes by and cleans inside the house. So all of those people are considered just outside the inner circle, these employees, people who show up every week on a regular basis and know that house and know all the inner workings of the house.

Nancy Grace (10:35)

We're getting to the DNA found in her home. We do know it is Nancy Guthrie's DNA. However, it's her home. Of course her DNA is there. That DNA significant because it leads law enforcement to state that she has been abducted. When asked is abducted too strong of a word to use. The Pima county sheriff says no. She was dragged out of her home, this 84 year old grandma in the night. Armand was taken in the dark of

Jeffrey Gentry (11:13)

night from her bed.

Nancy Grace (11:17)

And every hour and minute and second and every long night has been agony since then. Crime stories with Nancy Grace. There has been a lot of speculation that it's actually victim blaming that Nancy Guthrie went to the front door and allowed her kidnapper to come in. Nothing could be further from the truth, Dave. We now know that in those critical 41 minutes, 41 minutes, at least one perp was in Nancy Guthrie's home. And this is an important fact and it can prove something. It's probative. We now know that Nancy Guthrie was forced out of her own bed, lying there asleep around 2 o' clock in the morning, an 84 year old woman. What do we know?

Dave Mack (12:22)

We know that when Savannah Guthrie posted the video, it was so shocking that a lot of people missed what she said. She said that her mother was taken from her bed in the middle of the night. That tells us everything that we originally thought that the intruder or intruders came into the home, snuck into her room, awakened her out of a dead sleep and took this 84 year old grandmother out of her own bed. What it does also tell us, Nancy, is that we might have forensic evidence left behind on the bed, in the bedroom, on the floor, on the nightstand. There's no any wonder of places where our kidnapper or kidnappers could have touched, dropped, felt, anything. But again, taken out of her bedroom. Think about that for a minute. 84 years old and you're pulled out of bed. Not an easy trip.

Nancy Grace (13:25)

Joining us, Misty Gilles, DNA expert, investigative genetic genealogist at Parabon Nanolabs. This is one of their specialties at Parabon. They focus on very difficult cases like a miniscule amount of DNA, degraded DNA, a mixture of DNA. When you are Misty, thank you for being with us. When you hear the latest that Nancy was taken out of her bed, forcibly taken, what DNA possibilities does that open up in your mind?

Misty Gilles (13:59)

That opens up the possibility of there being trace amounts of DNA found in that bedroom area. Like, like it was said, possibly it was a nightstand that was touched. Possibly the forcible removal of Nancy had left trace DNA in that bedroom area. There must be a reason investigators are exactly saying that it was the bedroom she was taken from versus answering her door.

Nancy Grace (14:22)

You know, I'm thinking through what we know now. What did the perp do in those critical 41 minutes? First of all, we know he got in. We see him coming in the front door. We know that when he left, the door remained unlocked. We don't know if it was locked when he entered. When you think and try to retrace what the perp did upon entering Nancy Guthrie's home, I want to focus on getting evidence. For instance, if Nancy Guthrie had hardwood or carpet, tablecloths or no tablecloths, tchotchke sitting around little items and figurines or none. A dog, a cat, or no dog or cat. All of these things equal evidence. Explain. Misty, you're going to want to look

Misty Gilles (15:17)

at those more porous samples. There's a device called an M vac that's essentially a wet vacuum that will pull DNA and forensic evidence on those porous surfaces. So if there was something like carpeted flooring and he wasn't wearing booties, he say had touched the carpet, touched the bedding, touched the pillow, that M vac could pull that DNA evidence from that pores surface. When it gets to more non pore surfaces like hardwood and things like that, trace evidence can still be.

Nancy Grace (15:46)

Okay, slow down just a second, Misty, if you don't mind, I want to make sure I understand everything that you just said. That was a lot. You were talking about the bedding. Okay, now. Now you've gotten past the door. If her door was closed and he touched the doorknob, he very likely turned on the light switch. He may have touched the bed frame itself or her bedside table. He may have touched her cell phone, which we understand was near her bedside that was left behind. Okay, so we've gotten past that and I'll circle back to carpet, hardwood, pet, no pet tchotchke figurines sitting around or none. I want to circle back to that. You've taken me to straight to the bedroom.

Misty Gilles (16:32)

So walking in the door, there could be carpet on the ground, there could be hardwood flooring. If there's carpet, that's a porous sample that could an M vac could be used on to collect DNA from. There could be a touch on a light switch, There could be a touch on a table. There could be objects that are touched that could be swabbed for that trace DNA. Now, as he makes his way throughout the house, there could be multiple touch points. There could be a railing on the stairs, there could be a wall that could be touched. Those are surfaces that could be swabbed for that trace DNA as well. And then once he enters the bedroom again, we have things like light switches, we have a nightstand, we have the possible headboard. If he did physically remove her from the bed, there could be DNA that's left on that bedding, on those pillowcases, on her cell phone that perhaps was on the nightstand. These are all areas that need to be looked at for that trace DNA.

Nancy Grace (17:24)

I want to bring in Jeffrey Gentry joining us. Forensic certified blood stain pattern analyst, senior crime scene analyst and death investigator. Jeff. Thank you for being with us, Jeff. When they first told me that her DNA, Nancy's DNA, was found in the home, I was like, well, of course her DNA's in the home, she lives there. But how does that tell you the sheriff, that she was abducted? Looking at the blood pattern that we see, Jeffrey Gentry, that gives me hope that she is alive.

Jeffrey Gentry (17:59)

Of course, any blood at a crime scene is always concerning. It is a tremendous amount of evidence that's in the blood. Not only can it tell you events that happen, but then of course you have the possibility to get DNA. But when I look at these blood patterns, I'm not overly concerned. These are passive blood drops. They are drip stains, a little bit of a drip trail and then there's a blood into blood pattern. A blood into blood pattern is when blood is dripping from height into a blood source and it creates that neat little pattern of drip stains with the little satellite spatter around it. So this would indicate one, that this is not a major injury. Somebody of that age can get skin tears very easily in their arms, on their hands, and those are going to bleed quite a bit. But it also indicates that this person is upright. They are stationary for some period of time. But then there's also movement as well with the drip trail. So nothing that I'm seeing would indicate that one, this person has a traumatic injury like a gunshot wound or a stab wound. You don't see impact spatter. These are all large volume stains that are going straight down, indicating that that person was either walking or stationary, but they're upright.

Nancy Grace (19:07)

Joining me right now is a DNA specialist. It is Susannah Ryan out of Redlands, California, Lab director, Forensic DNA Analyst at Pure Gold Forensics. I want to talk to you about how DNA is obtained at a scene, for instance, through UV lighting, causing the DNA. Well, does it cause the DNA to fluoresce? But when you look at DNA left on a scene, it fluoresces. And you need near dark or complete dark. Or you could use goggles that are tinted red, yellow or orange to block out light. How does that work?

Suzannah Ryan (19:46)

Right, so what you're referring to is sometimes we use something called an alternate light source and that helps us identify things like saliva. Those sort of body fluids will fluoresce. Unfortunately, other types of DNA, especially touch or skin cell DNA, does not fluoresce. I wish it did. I wish there was a way for us to be able to just see it by some invention like that. But what we have to do is use our best educated guess as to what would have been contacted. Where did this person have to touch to Enter the house, for example, is there anything moved in the home that it looks like this person contacted? And I would imagine that they are focusing on items like that, especially as you pointed out, with, with him touching this perpetrator, he's got a flashlight in his mouth that he's moving around that he's probably touching. So even though he's wearing gloves, that does not mean he's not transferring his DNA into that house.

Nancy Grace (20:51)

And saliva is so DNA rich. He touches it multiple times. He touches the holster of the gun multiple times. Then he reaches out to the doorknob. And we were discussing earlier, Susanna, how the home was found with the front door unlocked and all the lights on in the front of the house, which is not Nancy Guthrie's routine. He turned on the light switch. He probably turned on the light switch in Nancy's room or touched her doorknob, which would be an excellent conduit for saliva DNA. It just takes a trace amount. So I guess you're saying that with certain DNA, such as saliva, sperm, urine, you would use the alternate light source. But for touch DNA, it does not fluoresce. So you would swab the likely suspects, the doorknob, light switch, furniture, something that's been moved in the home. Do I have it so far?

Suzannah Ryan (21:48)

Yes, 100%.

Nancy Grace (21:53)

Dave Mack with me. Crime Stories. Investigative reporter Dave Mack explained about the two gloves found a little over a mile in Nancy Guthrie's own neighborhood.

Dave Mack (22:05)

Law enforcement walked along the sides of the road looking through brush and rocks about a mile and a half from Nancy Guthrie's home, a mile and a half from her home on the side of the road in some brush. Glove was found. Second glove found nearby in similar situation. Like it was just tossed out of a car driving on the road.

Nancy Grace (22:29)

We were showing you is from our friends at FOX News. I want to see the day shot and I want to show that to all of our guests. This is also from our friends at FOX News. Straight out to Nima Rahmani. Joining me, former federal prosecutor turned trial attorney. Nima. I like this shot because you can see them going in couples in daylight, and you can see exactly where they're looking. They're kicking, literally beating the bushes along a roadside. There were, as Dave Mack said, scores of them out in pairs, looking all up and down the roadways in Estrada, Strata, Tucson and Campbell and beyond. Then suddenly at the same time, they find not one but two black gloves, highly similar to the ones worn by the intruder, the kidnapper. I'm wondering if they got a tip, Nima, that someone Saw someone throw something out of a window. They don't know what roadway, but they're looking all the roadways. See that? What do you make of it, Nima? There is no coincidence in criminal law.

Sheriff Nanos (23:46)

No.

Dave Mack (23:46)

And we know, Nancy, that they've received thousands of tips.

Nancy Grace (23:49)

Some of them, of course, uncorroborated.

Sheriff Nanos (23:51)

But they have to chase these down.

Nancy Grace (23:53)

The fact that they're there searching that area, you're right, likely means they received a tip. And the gloves, they are also very important. Obviously, you can get DNA from a glove, but sometimes you can even get fingerprints. So the FBI is involved. It's going to be sent to the best crime lab there is, and hopefully they can get something off this glove.

Sheriff Nanos (24:14)

And even if it's not DNA in

Nancy Grace (24:16)

the database, you know Nancy better than anyone. With today's familial DNA searches, you can find people based on their family members. So if there's anything on these gloves, this could be the evidence that breaks the case wide open. We learn that there is DNA that has been recovered inside Nancy Guthrie's home. And seemingly it said that there's another glove in there. Dave Mack, what did we learn?

Dave Mack (24:44)

Learned that inside the home, Nancy, multiple gloves, plural gloves, were found inside the home. You know, we've been talking about the glove that was found outside during the search about a mile and a half from Nancy's home. But we're finding out that gloves, plural, were found inside the home and were apparently shipped to Florida for analysis.

Nancy Grace (25:07)

Tammy Ballard joining us. DNA crime scene consultant, crime scene investigation and reconstruction expert. What other DNA or evidence, fiber evidence, could be found in the home of Nancy Guthrie?

Kelly Hyman (25:21)

Yes, fiber evidence. That's, that's different. A little tougher to come by. But hopefully something is, is very well processed. But also fingerprint evidence is a big one. Hopefully they did a lot of fingerprint evidence potentially. I know there are gloves involved. The big one I would be looking for as well is the blood source that's on the front porch. Does that start and begin in the household? And if so, was Nancy able to fight back? Do we have two bleeders? So you can't take any of that blood for granted. You've got to look at blood stain patterns and see if there's some outlier that actually could be from the perpetrator. Maybe she was able to fight back pretty well. You just don't know. And you can't take anything for granted. So it's basically a process everything and collect everything that could be a potential.

Nancy Grace (26:19)

To Scott Eicher joining us, digital forensics expert formally with the FBI. What do you make of it? You were also a homicide detective. What else do you believe they found in the home? Touch DNA, maybe fiber a hair. All it takes is one hair.

Dave Mack (26:37)

One.

Joseph Scott Morgan (26:39)

I agree. Hopefully they process that, that house very well. But you got to remember when they first went there, it's a missing person. And then later on it turned out to be okay. This could be a kidnapping with ransom and now the video. So initially the police department's in there walking through the house, you know, look, looking in, you know, the basement and the attic and the every room and making sure she's just not there again with the property, doing the same thing. So you got to remember, I think we were talking about this DNA. The FBI was called in a little bit later, a day or two later to try to help, or the FBI came to ask if they could help. So at that time, maybe the sheriff's department was on their own saying, hey, we should probably take this glove that we found in the house and send it to the lab. Even if we do get some DNA and it's put into codis, we're not sure if it's going to match anybody

Nancy Grace (27:38)

that's known in the Golden Gate Killer case. Joseph Diangelo, one of the first of its kind. Familial DNA, genetic genealogy DNA. Hey, that video we were just showing you is from 12 News, so that's a possibility. If the perp doesn't have a record, he may not show up in codis. But it if he has a brother, a cousin, a father, a son with a record, we're going to get a match. It won't be a full match, but then we'll be onto something that doesn't work. We'll go to genetic genealogy, familial DNA, which has been approved in practically every jurisdiction. To Dave Mack, crime stories, investigative reporter, DNA. Tell me everything.

Jeffrey Gentry (28:19)

DNA found at Nancy Guthrie's home has been determined to belong to someone not in close contact with Nancy Guthrie. This is explosive information as it's the first indicator we have that DNA belonging to someone not related, not in close contact with Nancy, found at the home. Nancy. We also have the glove, the glove found about a mile and a half from Nancy's home. That too is being tested and that too has male DNA. The glove with the DNA looks like what the glove we saw in the surveillance video from the NEST camera on Nancy Guthrie's front door. That glove that we saw in that video is what appears to be the glove found in the desert a mile and A half from her home with male DNA. So those are your two big DNA explosions right now in the investigation?

Nancy Grace (29:26)

That's right. The glove found near Nancy Guthrie's home, about 1.5 miles from her home, does contain DNA evidence. All those so called experts claiming it would not contain DNA are wrong. Also, the glove found with DNA evidence on it appears to be what the suspect in the video was wearing. According to the FBI, the black glove found near Nancy Guthrie's home contains DNA evidence and it is being tested. We could be hours away from that DNA match. And again, the FBI says the glove appears to match the gloves worn by by the suspect on Nancy Guthrie's porch. This guy we're showing you right now, the one with the DNA profile recovered is different from other gloves. What does that mean? That it is different from other gloves? Dave Mack what other gloves?

Jeffrey Gentry (30:37)

Nancy There have been reportedly 16 other gloves, maybe even more that have been found in this investigation. But Nancy, the 16 gloves that have been found range in different colors, from red to brown to black. They range in the different types of gloves that are available.

Nancy Grace (31:04)

Tammy Ballard this is a bombshell. If these are the gloves worn in the video, let's see the video again. And according to police sources, the pert was wearing gloves under the gloves. We don't know that that's true. Whatever the case, DNA has been found on these gloves. Tammy Ballard and it is male DNA. What comes next?

Kelly Hyman (31:36)

Next is the CODIS search and then they'll know if they have some sort of direction to go with that search if there's a hit. If not, the next step would intuitively be can we start with the genealogy process and go down that path with a different DNA profile from the same glove. So hopefully it was a single source enough profile and there's DNA remaining so that they might have to be able to share that DNA with that second process for genealogy. But it can be a multi pronged approach to identify the individual as fast as possible.

Nancy Grace (32:19)

Tammy Ballard, what is an STR analysis?

Kelly Hyman (32:24)

That is what I would consider your standard DNA testing. Most forensic laboratories across the country, that is what we have all used stands for short tandem repeat testing. Very distinct, regulated, validated locations of DNA that are being tested for potential comparison to suspects or uploads into databases.

Nancy Grace (32:54)

Okay, then we will take the STR results and put it into codis. Codis, the Combined DNA Index System Anachronism. CODIS is FBI managed it's software and it operates on local, state and national DNA databases. IT IDs suspects and they do that by Comparing convicted offenders, not necessarily just felons, misdemeanors, sometimes two, all of them across the country. Missing people and DNA found on crime scenes Kohberger Brian Kohberger's DNA is now in codis. Now here's the problem with codis and CODIS is fantastic. It matches DNA profiles, even from unsolved cases to individuals and other crime scenes. It also uses the 20 core short tandem repeat genetic markers. Here's the thing, the only people in codis, generally speaking, are convicts. So if the perp is not already convicted, then once you put the DNA into codis, you may not get an identical match, but you may get an EH match, which would mean the perp is related to the person in codis. It could be a brother, a cousin, a dad, a son, a nephew, a distant nephew, a distant cousin. You'll get a quasi match. Tammy Ballard, DNA Expert Isn't that true?

Kelly Hyman (34:42)

Yes, it is going to be a different kind of search in the CODIS database, but first and foremost, you're going to be comparing that traditional STR profile from this unknown male to convicted offenders who's in this database, but also other forensic unknown cases. So samples from other cases that may have identified a potential perpetrator could also be related to this case.

Nancy Grace (35:14)

Crime stories with nancy grace. If Nancy Guthrie is still alive, which many of us believe she is, especially if the kidnapper is somehow close to her inner circle and knows them, would the perp kill Nancy, knowing her family, knowing those close to her? Tonight, a lot happening in the search for Nancy Guthrie. This as the police, FBI, law enforcement rise from the ashes of a gut punch that the DNA in the glove found about a mile and a half away from Nancy's home does not get a hit in codis, the National DNA Depository. It's not over yet. Straight out to Joseph Scott Morgan joining us, Professor, Forensics, Jacksonville State University, author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon. Jo Scott, I want to talk to you about why is everyone whining, carrying on like it's the end of the world that we didn't get a hit on Koda's first try? Cases always have setbacks. What is next DNA wise?

Joseph Scott Morgan (36:33)

JOSEPH SCOTT Morgan for me, Nancy, it has been and shall ever be investigative genetic genealogy with this. And here's the thing, I don't want them to blister through the sample that they have. Whatever these samples are, they have to be conservative with them because you can have samples that you acquire at scenes. You don't want to do anything that is going to Waste the samples that you have. So the idea is you have to get enough of the DNA material to a lab that can do investigative genetic genealogy where they can plug this in, create a family tree, hopefully through open source DNA, and create this profile where maybe you can find who this individual might be related to. CODIS is not a magic bullet, Nancy. Not every person in the US Is in the CODIS system. And, you know, the idea that this person would be. I think that they're. They're thinking, and they have to. They have to entertain this thought from an investigative standpoint. This individual has had interaction with the system before that would compel the system to take their sample and put it in. That doesn't necessarily always happen. This might be this person's first time. And I got to tell you, looking at some of the things I've seen on these images, this guy's an amateur. All right? So it doesn't surprise me they didn't get a hit on codis.

Nancy Grace (37:53)

Dave Mack, how many more times can we say it? The DNA on the random glove found about 1.5 miles away from Nancy Guthrie's home, thrown to the side of the street, did not get a CODIS hit. That's the Combined DNA Data Bank. The national data bank.

Dave Mack (38:13)

Correct?

Nancy Grace (38:14)

Right.

Dave Mack (38:14)

It did not. It did not get a CODIS hit. You're correct.

Nancy Grace (38:19)

Okay. Which means, you know, if you follow that through, the DNA in the home was not connected to that glove and the DNA, the DNA in the home did not get a CODIS hit. Is that correct?

Dave Mack (38:34)

That is correct. It's not all of it, but it's correct.

Nancy Grace (38:38)

Okay, what do you mean by not all of it?

Dave Mack (38:42)

Well, there was also a partial DNA collected inside of the home. That partial DNA was sent to the Florida lab, just like the DNA found on the glove and in the other. In the other DNA found in the house. The difference here is that it is a partial DNA profile and they have yet to. The people in Florida at the lab have yet to develop it out where it could be checked in codis. So that partial DNA that they've developed from inside the home has not yet been subjected to a CODIS hit because it is a partial DNA.

Nancy Grace (39:17)

Dave Mack, you're right, and I appreciate the way you said that because some reporters have stated there was a partial DNA profile and it didn't get a hit at codis. The reality is CODIS is a national data bank. It's very, very strict on what DNA profiles, what DNA it will even accept to enter into the data bank. Unlike the Data bank there in Arizona. I'm thinking about how to go old school to find Nancy Guthrie, starting with LPR's, license plate readers, red light cams. Yes. Jeffrey Gentry joining us, forensic certified blood stain pattern analyst. Next, let's talk old school. We've heard over and over from mainstream media that nobody's door cam could likely catch anything because as the houses in that neighborhood are set far off the street and there is a lot of foliage, trees, you name it. That's why people want to live there. You have a secluded look at all the. Oh, can I see that aerial again? Look at all the trees, the foliage around each home. I see what they're saying. But those streets, Jeff Gentry, have to have to pour out somewhere, like the stream to the river, like the river to the sea. There's an outlet somewhere. And at that outlet, I guarantee you there's a red light. Bam. What about it?

Sheriff Nanos (41:00)

I completely agree. You have to rely on traditional police work and you have to rely on science to solve this crime. This is not your typical criminal. It's not somebody that has made huge mistakes. They probably didn't have their cell phone with them where they're going to get cell tower pings. They're not making major mistakes like you see in a lot of crimes of passion. This is obviously planned out. This is not your typical crime. But you see that they did make mistakes. They took things from the home, like the camera. They made mistakes by leaving blood stains behind. So when you're talking about forensics and science, you think about every single contact leaves a trace. That's one of the foundations of forensic science. Every single contact leaves a trace. So when this person was preparing for this crime, they left forensic evidence. When this person was traveling to the scene, they left forensic evidence. When they broke into the home, and we're talking about forced entry, Somebody used some kind of a mechanism to unlock a door. So that's what forced entry means. So they're leaving behind evidence. Looking at the front door, I don't see any fingerprint dust. So what I would do in this case is I would scrap everything, start from scratch, recreate this whole event, try to think about how this criminal got in the home, walk their path. How did they interact with the victim? Walk their path? Did they sit down somewhere? Did they touch things? Did they wash their hands? Did they eat something out of the refrigerator? All of these contacts inside the home and with the victim can leave trace evidence. It could leave fibers, it could leave fingerprints, it could leave DNA. You can't rule anything out. In this case, you have to think like a criminal in these cases. How did this person get in? How did they exit the door cam? Most of these door cams, you can't just pull them off. They require some kind of special tool to get them off. So was there some kind of a scratch or did they leave a fingerprint behind when they were reaching through the door to remove this camera so it wouldn't see when they're walking her out? We know that she was bleeding. We know she's standing there for some period of time. We believe that she was upright and walked away because the nature of the blood stains. But why didn't she fall to the ground? What was the reason that she left that home without being dragged away or carried away? You have to think about all these things. You can't rely on, you know, assumptions at this point. You have to recreate everything and figure out where this person messed up because this criminal did mess up somewhere and they will be caught.

Nancy Grace (43:30)

New DNA evidence discovered. Dave Mack, joining me, Crime Stories investigative reporter, New DNA what?

Dave Mack (43:37)

Investigators found biological material that does not belong to Nancy Guthrie. They found it inside the home weeks after the home had already been searched, after evidence had been collected, and after the home was briefly turned back to the family before the investigators shut it back down.

Nancy Grace (43:58)

Guys, we're showing you Nancy's home right now. This is from our friends at 12News. There's so many directions to go with this bombshell. It's maybe a bombshell to only crime watchers, crime aficionados, people like us, prosecutors, former FBI lawyers, shrinks, DNA experts. You got a big, big problem with the fact that this DNA is discovered two weeks later. Let's go ahead. Let's tackle it head on. Joining me, Kelly Hyman, veteran trial attorney, analyst, podcast star of Once Upon a Crime in Hollywood. Kelly, go ahead. I've got. I'm ready for you. See, I know what you're going to say, and I'm ready for you. Go ahead, attack the DNA. I'm ready.

Suzannah Ryan (44:50)

DNA is key to this case. Why is DNA so important?

Nancy Grace (44:56)

Because the DNA can prove who was there.

Suzannah Ryan (44:59)

The DNA can help substantiate who was in the house at this time. The police went in and then two weeks later find this DNA. All of a sudden, after two weeks, it's found. Now I could see a lot of

Nancy Grace (45:16)

couch investigators saying that there's something wrong with that.

Suzannah Ryan (45:20)

Why didn't they find this DNA the first time?

Nancy Grace (45:23)

Why is it all of a sudden being found?

Suzannah Ryan (45:25)

Nancy?

Nancy Grace (45:27)

Okay, there you go. That's Just a tiny, tiny tidbit. Kelly Heim is actually being generous and delicate with this attack because let me assure you that when and if this goes to trial, there will be a frontal attack on this DNA. Here's my response. So they find the perp, okay? This DNA has already been found, okay? Even though it's late to the party, when they find the perp, that's going to be much later. So what, they're mind readers? They now know who the perp is. They go get his DNA and they plant it. Yeah. Susanna Ryan Lab Director, Forensic DNA analyst at Pure Gold Forensics how will authorities go about ruling out every worker, every crime scene investigator that had been in the home? So we're not subjected to claims of cross contamination?

Suzannah Ryan (46:28)

Well, that can be done pretty simply by getting their DNA profile and doing a comparison to any developed DNA that we get from that crime scene. And I really don't see it as a problem. I think one of the things that you mentioned in the past is we don't have a suspect yet, so we're not creating DNA. We cannot create a DNA profile. Whatever is on that evidence is on there. We don't even have the suspect's DNA to compare it to. So once we have that, if there's a match, we.

Tammy Ballard (46:58)

We can't.

Suzannah Ryan (46:59)

No one can say they, you know, somehow planted his DNA. We didn't have his DNA. So I really don't see it as a problem. I work on cold cases all the time where we have DNA that, you know, maybe was collected in the 80s or 90s, and we're just getting a profile today. That doesn't mean that we somehow created it. It's always been there. We're just developing the DNA profile at this time.

Nancy Grace (47:25)

To Mary Coleman. Joining us, K O L D Crime Files investigator Mary Coleman. We now know that DNA in Nancy Guthrie's home is stranger DNA, but yet we are also hearing that there are problems because it's not mixed DNA. What do you know? Yeah, we're hearing the same thing, Nancy. We've been told that it's going to take a longer amount of time, even

Suzannah Ryan (47:55)

up to a year, to get some

Nancy Grace (47:57)

of this back, to let us know whether this person is in a system

Suzannah Ryan (48:01)

or whether they have a relative who

Nancy Grace (48:03)

we can trace this to, or anything of that nature, which is obviously concerning time is of the essence right now.

Suzannah Ryan (48:08)

We've seen this technology used in so many other cases, and so to hear

Nancy Grace (48:12)

that it's mixed and that it might

Suzannah Ryan (48:13)

not be as reliable as some of the other DNA that we've seen in

Nancy Grace (48:17)

previous cases is alarming for the community

Suzannah Ryan (48:19)

and especially for the family. As you can imagine, they just want answers here.

Nancy Grace (48:24)

Straight out to Tammy Ballard joining us. Tammy is a crime scene investigation investigator and reconstructionist, former DNA criminalist for the San Diego Police Department crime Lab. Tammy Ballard, in this day and age, mixed DNA is to be expected and is actually routine. Explain exactly how. Well, first of all, what is mixed DNA? Deoxyribonucleic acid. And how exactly mechanically is it evaluated and analyzed? How do you do it? How do you handle mixed DNA?

Tammy Ballard (49:05)

Mixtures of DNA are going to make law enforcement and attorneys very nervous. So in the DNA world, mixtures are everywhere. As technology advances, the sensitivity increases. You're going to find mixtures in almost everything, even blood stains that used to be single source. You might get that 1% contributor that's going to make it a mixture. So that being said, in this case, we know Nancy's profile, we know her family's profiles. So there's a lot to work with and basically remove from those mixtures. Do I think it's going to take a year? Not at all. I think that's the law enforcement translation because it's probably lack of understanding. So what they've got is probably good mixtures that they have to deal with and they're going to put those out, but it is not going to take a year, in my opinion.

Nancy Grace (50:07)

You know, Tammy Ballard, little known fact, DNA has been used for decades. It's been used on the battlefield to identify victims, our, our military. And it has advanced, advanced, advanced. I tried a lot of cases before it was accepted in court and a lot of cases after it was accepted in court. And it makes all the difference. When I heard nanos blurt out again, it could take a year. That's not true. Anyone that has worked with DNA knows that is not true. Now, what can take some time? And please, Tammy, jump in. What can take some time is when you're trying to build out a family tree with genetic genealogy, that can take some time. It can take weeks, it can take a month. It does not take a year. And I'll point to one of the first times it was used successfully in our country, and that is the Golden State Killer. I always use him as the poster boy for genetic genealogy because it was one of the first. Right. That didn't take a year and it had never been admitted in court before. So you said a couple of things I want to follow up on. Number one, you said there could be a mixture of 1%. What did you mean by 1%? 1% what?

Tammy Ballard (51:32)

When I testify in court, as I just did last week, I inform a jury that the sensitivity is so advanced at this point and the technology is so advanced that when, historically, if you would swab a bloodstain off of a surface, you're going to get a single source profile, one person, your bleeder. Now, because that sensitivity has increased, I take a swab, I swab that blood stain, and I'm very likely collecting cells from underneath that blood stain and those cells are showing up in my and creating a mixture of DNA. So what everyone needs to realize is that there are mixtures, but the technology is advancing so much and that we're able to deal with those mixtures so much better. Now, there are limitations. So genealogy is coming along very rapidly. But that type of testing, that SNP testing, not the traditional STR testing, has the limitations that you may not be able to work with something that is a three person mixture. Now, again, we have Nancy's profile. So if we take Nancy out of any mixture now, maybe we're dealing with a two person mixture and that might be something that we can use for genealogy. But with traditional STR testing, we're up to evaluating five person mixtures. So it is definitely something that we can work with and it does not take a year.

Nancy Grace (53:11)

Tammy, you said 1%. And when you were originally explaining, explaining DNR DNA, mixed DNA, and I took that to mean the mixture could be 1% Nancy, and 99% the Stranger. Can you actually tell a jury we had a mixture of DNA? Let's just pretend we're talking about a rape case. We had a mixture of DNA and 50% of the DNA that we obtained off the victim's body was the victim's DNA. 50% was the defendant's DNA. You can actually ISO it down to a percentage?

Tammy Ballard (53:52)

Yes. With the current computer technology, the software that is developed, you can actually estimate. Now it's an estimate. So you can estimate the percent of contribution from each person in that mixture. So when I report the data and I say, okay, I have a three person mixture, 92% of that is estimated to come from one contributor and 8% of that is estimated to come from another contributor. I say those values because I was able to get an 8% contributor up to a CODIS search. So we are moving so far forward with the technology that it's just better and better. So as long as the laboratories that they're sending them to are utilizing this technology, which they are, this is not going to take a year.

Nancy Grace (54:50)

If you know or think you know anything about the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, again, we call on you to dial toll free. 800225 5324. 800, call FBI or if you wish to remain anonymous. 5208-8274-6352-0882, 7463. There is a 1.2 plus million dollar reward. No arrest, no conviction required. Just information leading to Nancy Guthrie. Prayers. Go on. Good night, friend.