Spencer Corson (12:09)

One is it's not outside the realm of possibility to go with the person who was with her last, which if that was the brother in law and that was the car that he drove, they would want to at least eliminate that vehicle of any possibility. And of course you're going to look at close friends and family because this kind of a crime typically involves some kind of a grievance. On the pathway to violence. There's there's several key stages. There's a grievance, there's an ideation which is that you can do something to remedy that grievance. Then you get into the research and planning. Then you get into the breach would be breaking into her home and then finally the attack. And who typically is engaged in intimate partner violence is intimate partners, whether that be close friends or family. It's also important to keep in mind that over the course of an investigation, that investigation is going to yield insights that could go beyond what your initial conclusion was. This is why you don't want to get too focused on confirmation bias and believing that it was a close friend or family member. And leave the opportunity or leave the window of opportunity open to have that investigation take you where the facts lead, not where your conjecture had taken you.

Ashley Banfield (13:20)

So Spencer is going to weigh in on a lot more of today's reporting. And let me tell you, I love when I meet someone like him because he is in the thick. He knows his business. And when he says something, it's not just conjecture. It's based on skill and experience. So here's the rest of today's reporting. Harvey Levin got another note today. This is number four, if you're counting. Not including the original note that he got, which was from the original ransom seeker, Alleged ransom seeker that came in on Tuesday. Right. Mrs. Guthrie goes missing on Sunday, on Saturday night, Sunday morning. And on Tuesday, the ransom requests start rolling in. How convenient. And very unlike typical ransom takers. But that first note was, give me 4 million, and if you don't give it to me by Thursday, give me 6 million by Monday. Came and went. Didn't hear from them again. And then this other guy starts sending Harvey notes. First one is, I've got information. I'm prepared to sell it for a Bitcoin 67,000 or so. The next one is, you're not taking me seriously. You should take me seriously. And that third one, I believe was that this is the last time you'll hear from me. Apparently not. We got a fourth note. All right, let me read verbatim from the actual note that TMZ received. Quote, I saw Savannah's latest video, and my heart goes out to her. It really does, But I cannot turn myself in, leaving my family unprotected and broke, especially now that I'm being hunted. I know what I saw 5 days ago south of the border, and I was told to shut up. So I know who he is. And that was definitely Nancy with them. Okay, so again, this guy's only been sending these notes to tmz. Not to the local. To. Not to the local Tucson TV stations and not to the family. Not typical for, you know, ransom. Serious ransom. People in the business of ransom. And by the way, Spencer's going to weigh in on this as well, which is interesting. But Harvey decided to turn the tables, and I think this is interesting. He made a direct appeal saying, number one, if you didn't do this, you're committing a crime, and you're in a whole world of my words. You're in a lot of trouble. It's very, very illegal. And number two, how about this? Send us the Information at tmz, we will take it to the FBI, and you will have the chain of custody that you were the person that gave them that information. And if it bears out, you will get the money because we can prove that you were the person who actually gave us the information. So, checkmate. I don't know. I think it was really quick and. And smart. But I also think these people are full of. I do. I think these are, again, and I'm not the only one, people who are just capitalizing on a tragic situation. A tragic situation and trying to extort money out of the Guthrie family. So next up is the DNA, because this has been a huge deal, Right. So much has been made about the glove that was found two miles away from Nancy Guthrie's home side of the road. Inside, it resembles the glove in the video. That's why it's of interest. Okay. I don't know why the FBI has zeroed so much into that particular glove other than it looks like the one on the doorbell cam. And I'm wondering if there's more to it, because Steve Fisher, who's a private investigator in California, he zeroed in on the finger of one shot on the doorbell video of the guy with the balaclava. And it looked like there was a hole in the finger. It's hard to tell, but it. It kind of looks like it might be a hole. And it also happened after the suspect grabbed at the thistle or the vine and pulled it up. And maybe there was something that pricked a hole in the finger of that glove. And maybe, just maybe, that glove had a hole in the finger. I don't know. For whatever reason, they've zeroed in saying that that one is special. That glove is being tested at the Florida lab. Okay. And the DNA profile that comes back pretty quickly has a chain of custody. So let me read to you a little bit about why this matters, and then we'll get into what the words actually mean. So Libby Dean from News Nation and Michael Ruiz from Fox News Channel both got this same statement from an FBI official. And it says the DNA from the glove in Nancy Guthrie's case is still undergoing quality control in the sheriff's private lab in Florida after being sent from Tucson on February 12th. It is expected to be inputted into CODIS in the near future. Quality control. We've heard that before. So Libby Dean also got this further reporting, and this is what she says. And she's from News Nation. She's great reporter in Washington. She said the decision to send the glove with DNA to a private lab in Florida is causing what one source familiar with the case calls, quote, unnecessary delays in getting the DNA entered into the FBI's CODIS database. That's because the FBI does not accept DNA submissions directly from private labs. Instead, once testing is complete in Florida, it is likely the DNA data extracted must first be sent back to the state system in Arizona where it can be uploaded and becomes shareable with the FBI for entry and into codis. That extra step adds time creating what the source describes as a catch up process when the FBI could have processed and entered the data within a day. According to the source, this sounds a little bit more like the sniping that's been going on between the feds and the locals. There are some definitely on on location in the field in Tucson who've been taking a bite out of the sheriff saying that he's not playing in the sandbox. Well, the sheriff has pushed back on that, saying we work very well together and we continue to work well together. And the FBI actually okayed the idea that the glove went down to the private lab. Let me just tell you this. On 212, on 212, the FBI was in the mix. So that glove went to Florida with the FBI pretty much in tow. That that's the right place for it to go because all the rest of the other evidence is there. Something else you may have heard of today or earlier on today is that the. The house that was raided on Friday night where a woman and a young man, presumably mom and son, were taken out so that a search could happen and that another person related to them, possibly her other son, was detained at a parking lot nearby. And there was a silver Range Rover. Whether he owned it or whether he was connected to it, not entirely definitive at this point. But it was towed away, he was detained and they were all released. Right. There was a car in their driveway that was damaged and had a blue tarp over it. And you can see it in Brian Enten's video when he walks up to the front door to knock and see if they talk. They didn't, but he made a comment about the car that had some damage there. So there was video of a flatbed truck ready to take that vehicle out. JLR, who's a live streamer on YouTube, shot that video. But there were no police vehicles nearby, which is a clue that this may not be a police action. Right. Very coincidental that it's only a couple of days after this massive raid at their home. But then Michael Ruiz came in again with Some killer reporting from the field. Again, Fox Digital. And he said this. There was a vehicle with what appeared to be significant front end damage in Placida de Rogello driveway yesterday and this morning at the home we believe police visited Friday. It's not there now. And then he gives a credit to Dugan Ramirez. And so then Michael Ruiz has an update, and he says a neighbor tells Dugan Ramirez that the car was towed at the direction of State Farm, not law enforcement, because it was totaled in a crash last week. That's very interesting, and it makes sense because, again, no law enforcement vehicles were there along with that flatbed truck. So let's put an end to that. But interestingly, Brian Enten comes in with even more reporting today. Super interesting about this raid on Friday night. Yes, we heard the sheriff, three people detained, no arrests. But Brian Enten is saying that his sources are telling them there's some meat on the bones of that raid and that investigation and that they are still going over evidence, electronics and even DNA in that piece of their investigation. So it's really fascinating. Also, I learned about a guy named Dave Kennedy. He goes by Hacking Dave because he was a hacker and he actually has a extraordinary security business now. He's behind the technology of the signal sniffer. Go figure. He is the guy who gave the feds his technology to put on the skids of their helicopter to fly around to see if it might pair up with Nancy's pacemaker. He, at the time, I thought, oh, my God, you know, the pacemaker and the phone are like, you know, eight to 30ft. You can't get within 30ft of a house and a chopper. And as it turns out, you don't have to. I learned that Dave Kennedy's technology can actually do a handshake with that exact pacemaker. That pacemaker has its own address at 800 to 1,000ft. And then, just one quick addition, I should mention it just because it's making headlines. The president weighed in and threatened the kidnapper with the death penalty. But you should also know that that is a decision. And yes, Arizona does have the death penalty, but that would be Arizona prosecutors, if they find the person. And of course, one other key element here, Mrs. Guthrie would have had to die. This would have had to be considered a murder in order for the death penalty to attach. So it's just important to put context into a statement like that. Yeah. So I just wanted to make sure you all knew that as well. All right, so now to my conversation with Spencer Cordson. Again, he's a threat management Expert, founder and CEO, of course, and Security Group, former special deputy U.S. marshal, author of the Safety Trapp and host of Corson's Corner podcast. Have a listen. And there you have it. There is a lot to think about here. And you know, beware of just reading tweets and assuming that they're facts. Always think about what's the source when. Spencer, what do you make of this? What do you make of this report that the FBI is going around to Tucson gun stores with 40 names and 40 photographs asking if someone in that store has seen anybody come in or purchased a weapon there?

Spencer Corson (24:35)

40 people is well outside the framing of usual suspects and goes more to shooting a fish in a barrel. 40 people is not exactly a narrow. You haven't really narrowed things down at that point. I mean, you can ask somebody if they've remembered one person, maybe two, but if you start showing 40 photos to someone, they're going to get really confused as to who's who, especially if they look even remotely similar to each other.

Ashley Banfield (25:03)

And that's the pragmatic effect of the actual gumshoe work. But what about just the collection of having 40 different people? Do you suspect they're all people of slight interest or more interest, or might there be some extra people thrown in there like they do in a lineup?

Spencer Corson (25:20)

It could be both. I think what's most likely is Occam's razor, right? The most simple explanation is probably the most realistic. So I think they went through their files and looked through anyone who was stopped and questioned or any suspicious behavior, or anyone who maybe was pulled over for vagrancy or shoplifting or some kind of like frivolous crimes, who matched the height, the weight and the description of this particular individual, pulled all those photos, took them around and said let's start fishing.

Ashley Banfield (25:50)

Let's move to the other huge issue today. And that was that the Pima county sheriff cleared the Guthrie family, the children and their spouses. And that's a big deal because early on I had reporting from a very high level law enforcement source in that area that they had not only towed the car of the brother in law and sister, but that they'd also zeroed in on him. The wording they used was maybe the prime suspect. Now that was all within like 48 hours of the disappearance. What do you make of that now changing completely?

Spencer Corson (26:27)

One is it's not outside the realm of possibility to go with the person who was with her last, which if that was the brother in law and that was the car that he Drove, they would want to at least eliminate that vehicle of any possibility. And of course, you're going to look at close friends and family, because this kind of a crime typically involves some kind of a grievance on the pathway to violence. There's several key stages. There's a grievance, there's an ideation which is that you can do something to remedy that grievance. Then you get into the research and planning. Then you get into the breach would be breaking into her home, and then finally the attack. And who typically is engaged in intimate partner violence is intimate partners, whether that be close friends or family. It's also important to keep in mind that over the course of an investigation, that investigation is going to yield insights that could go beyond what your initial conclusion was. This is why you don't want to get too focused on confirmation bias and believing that it was a close friend or family member and leave the opportunity or leave the window of opportunity open to have that investigation take you where the facts lead, not where your conjecture had taken you.

Ashley Banfield (27:39)

So talk to me about the conjecture and the confirmation bias. Do you think that might have been a play here with these detectives?

Spencer Corson (27:44)

Absolutely. I think that we have a police department that over the past several years, has lost a lot of their really key members. I think I read somewhere that the average career time of an officer in that area is about three years. And that is especially if they are not used to dealing with this kind of crime, may be outside of their everyday skill set. One of the things that I'm asked to do in my work as an expert witness is differentiate between competence or incompetence and negligence. And that can really be only determined by what was known at the time.

Ashley Banfield (28:20)

So it's interesting you say that because one of the former homicide detectives in the Pima County Sheriff's Department, his name is Kurt Dabb, he has been on record saying that these guys are very young and inexperienced. He's not throwing shade on them. He's just saying a lot of really good talent left after 2020. There was this mass exodus, and it's been backfilled by younger, less experienced guys. So if you take that to the very first day when the homicide detectives showed up, tell me from your expertise what you could see playing out.

Spencer Corson (28:53)

I mean, you'd really have to be there on the ground. But it's within the realm of reason that if you have a police department, a sheriff's department especially, who mostly does evictions and serves warrants and does traffic stops and does domestic violence calls that this could be something that's completely outside of their everyday realm of experience. And when you have people who are operating outside of their subject matter expertise, mistakes get made.

Ashley Banfield (29:20)

If they had locked in on one suspect in this case, the brother in law in those first 48 hours, does it stand to reason that they would call off the search, that they would return the house to the family and that they would tow the brother in law and sister's car so soon, so quickly into the investigation?

Spencer Corson (29:42)

Well, I think this goes back to saying, you know, how much experience did these officers have? You're only going to clear the house if you believe that you have gleaned all of the forensic data that you could once that has been cleared and turned back over to the family. Because the reason you want to make sure you have all that evidence beforehand is because you don't want to re contaminate the crime scene. But if it turns out that they didn't have everything that they thought they had, or if there was some level of negligence involved in clearing that house, that could have real repercussions in impacting the outcome of the investigation.

Ashley Banfield (30:15)

Well, that seems to maybe have borne out when the FBI arrived and then showed back up and put the crime scene tape back up. And since then, there have been these scattershot efforts to glean forensic information. A white tent even went up in the last few days to glean information from that front entry. It's just sort of fascinating to also go Back to day two, which would be Monday after Mrs. Guthrie was reported missing and the sheriff called off the search and he said permanently. And I remember sort of doing a double take at the time thinking, permanently. Why would you call off a search so soon? What does it speak to you?

Spencer Corson (30:55)

Well, we touched on a couple of things there. First, getting back to the white tent. That goes back to did they collect all of the physical evidence and all of the. All the intelligence that they had at the time. The reason that the FBI put up that white tent was so that they could recreate the conditions that existed on the ground at the time of the attack. They brought in another NEST camera that was identical to the one that Nancy used. They blocked out all the light as best they could so they could reenact the situation and the circumstances that were involved at that time on that camera. Since there was no light, they were dependent on the infrared features of that camera. So it looks like that person's wearing all black, but was he really wearing purple? Was he wearing navy blue? Was he wearing a dark gray? That Just look black on that camera. And so they're recreating the conditions in the environment of that moment so they can get as much intelligence as possible. That was obviously something that the police department did not think to do at the time.

Ashley Banfield (31:50)

But I would think they would use a black tent for that because a white tent would let in so much light, there'd be nothing even close to resembling the conditions of 1:47am or 2:12am whichever time it was that that front door activity happened.

Spencer Corson (32:03)

Well, I don't think we want to confuse the color of a material with the translucent of the material. There are blackout curtains that are white, There are blackout curtains that are purple. I mean, so. And we don't know what was inside the tent that also attributed to facilitating those conditions.

Ashley Banfield (32:19)

Yeah, it's a good point. It's a good point. And then what about this other aspect that they called off the search within 48 hours of her being reported missing? I just remember being very surprised. I'd been at the game a long time. I don't recall many other disappearance cases where an authority called off a search permanently unless and until, you know, any searching might be needed later, which was slightly his wording.

Spencer Corson (32:44)

Right. And this is where confirmation bias can really impact the inexperience of a young detective or young officers. If you are doing a murder investigation and you find a smoking gun, you may go, oh, okay, case solved. But you haven't yet taken it. That next five, you know, that next three or four steps. Are there fingerprints? Do the ballistics match? Can you trace the point of sale? Is it registered to a known offender? Does it match the photos and the videos that we saw in the surveillance feed? Yes. Great. If not, then it was. One of my instructors used to say, then that gun plus a nickel is worth about 5 cents.

Ashley Banfield (33:18)

What do you make of the fact that just yesterday Sheriff Nanos was asked by the Daily Mail, you know, is anybody cleared? And he said, absolutely not. No one is cleared. And then 24 hours later, this very definitive statement came out. Is that not unusual? And he's taking it on the chin from a lot of people. But, you know, when your mind is made up, you put out your statement regardless of what was said 24 hours before. But what do you make of that really quick change?

Spencer Corson (33:46)

It could be pressure. It could be outside influence. It could be that the evidence that is at hand is informing that decision. At this point, we really don't know.

Ashley Banfield (33:56)

And of course, everybody is Talking about this DNA that was found inside a glove 2 miles from Nancy Guthrie's home. It is a glove that resembles a glove that was seen on the nest cam. And everyone's so excited about it being loaded up in Dakotas. If it yields a person, it could be a criminal. It could be somebody who's got a criminal past who happened to discard a glove as he was riding in the back of a pickup truck from the last job that he did. But how much faith do you put in that particular glove?

Spencer Corson (34:32)

More than zero, but less than a lot. Everyone who's worn a glove or every worn glove has DNA by its very nature, especially latex gloves like that. Also, black latex gloves are very common. I live in downtown Austin. I could walk outside and find 50 within a 2 mile radius and they.

Ashley Banfield (34:49)

Found 16 just around her house. They were all different kinds, but this one they said, this one they said really matched the appearance of that glove on the camera.

Spencer Corson (34:57)

It looks like a very special black latex glove.

Ashley Banfield (34:59)

Yeah, I know. I mean they really are a dime a dozen. You know, I was listening to Brian Enten's reporting the other day and I didn't even think of it, but he said hairdressers use those gloves. Construction, you know, contractors use those gloves. Mechanics, so many people use them. And so to have them discarded on the side of the road two miles away. I guess the only issue would be is if it matched the DNA. The male source of the DNA inside her home that was unknown. DNA that didn't match any of her close confidant.

Spencer Corson (35:28)

Exactly. And this goes back to what I said before. You found a smoking gun. Does it have the fingerprints? Does it match the ballistics? Can you trace the point of sale? It's not just the one thing, it has to be the other things involved.

Ashley Banfield (35:39)

There's also been a lot of, you know, there's been a pissing match. Frankly, people I think interjecting drama where it's maybe not as big as it seems to be in the headlines between the feds and the locals. The sheriff at odds with the feds, the feds at odds with the sheriff. I think there's maybe a little bit of an element of truth to both sides, but generally speaking, I don't think it's World war three. Three. And yet people keep picking on the notion that the evidence has been sent to a private Florida lab. P.S. a private Florida lab that is balls out. Incredible. They have solved remarkable crimes. You know, they are great at what they do. But people are taking the piss out of the sheriff for having done that and saying even now it's causing a delay because of the chain of custody to get back to the FBI for CODIS uploading.

Spencer Corson (36:26)

So I think it's very important that you, when you think about chain of custody and when you think about continuity of care, you don't want to have all of your eggs in different baskets. You want all of your forensics here, you want all of your tips here. You want all of your data forensics here, you want all of your investigations here. You want multiple silos and then bridges. What you don't want is forensic evidence here and forensic evidence here and forensic evidence here and. And tips here and tips here and tips here and tips here. Because then everything's everywhere. And it's really hard to categorize and collate and assess that data and compare and compare. So if you have a facility in Florida that is already doing all the DNA for this case, that should be where all the DNA goes.

Ashley Banfield (37:11)

You're the second person who I trust who's got great credibility who has said that to me on this podcast. Others have said it elsewhere, but there's just been more criticism than sort of measured response to that. And on Sunday, when those homicide investigators from the Pima County Sheriff's Department were in that home, that is when they sent it. It wasn't until the next day the feds arrived. So I do think it's unfair criticism.

Spencer Corson (37:34)

I agree.

Ashley Banfield (37:35)

Yeah. All right, talk to me a little bit about the. The raid on Friday night. Oh, my God, I thought it was, you know, Eric Rudolph or Ted Kaczynski instead of this guy who's seen on the camera with a Mexican carrying. That was a hell of a show of force. Talk to me about why you think that much heavy handedness was brought out in this particular raid.

Spencer Corson (38:01)

The only legitimate reason for having that. I mean, you had swat, you had federal police, you had local police, you had sheriff's department. To be involved in a raid of that magnitude is if there was legitimate actionable intelligence, this would not be something where you got a random tipster that said, hey, I think the guy lives at 4:20 Walnut. And then you just amassed all of these people to go out and hit this house. On the flip side, we're in week three. There needs to be a show of force. Maybe they're hitting this house with this show of force to get the people that are really involved more jittered or to make a mistake or to do something on the back end. But for that case to have been cleared or that incident to have been cleared so quickly with that kind of show of force involved really surprised me.

Ashley Banfield (38:49)

You know, interesting you should say that because Brian Enten said today there's some meat on the bones of that particular action that was taken on Friday night and that there is still investigative work being done. He actually mentioned there's work being done on DNA testing, there's work being done on other leads. Let me get the actual wording because I thought it was really interesting what he said about it. He said evidence, electronics, even DNA still being investigated. With regard to that Friday night raid, are you surprised that the three people who were detained were released, not arrested, and yet we're hearing that there's meat on the bones of that raid?

Spencer Corson (39:27)

Well, it's kind of like if you arrest a low level drug dealer, do you want to charge them right then or do you want to throw it back in the water and, and see who they talk to? So I don't know who's, you know, quote, quarterbacking this investigation or, you know, the reasons and the rationale for the decisions that they're making. But you know, as a, as looking as being involved in operations like this as I have, and looking at this from a 30,000 foot perspective, it would not be uncommon to release someone without charging them, just to see what they do.

Ashley Banfield (39:55)

That's super interesting. I didn't even think of that. You know, a lot of strategy is going on behind the scenes that we're not made aware of, just to sort of rattle people's cages and then follow what they do and where they go.

Spencer Corson (40:08)

Yes. Investigations are not checkers. It's chess.

Ashley Banfield (40:12)

Yeah, good point. Talk to me about the new. Let me ask you about this fourth note that has arrived at Harvey Levin's door at tmz. I mean, it's serious because whoever's doing it is committing a crime. If they're lying and is involved in something or privy to something that is terribly, terribly dangerous and immoral and illegal and deadly. But I mean, four notes of the same ilk from the same person trying to sell information. What do you make of that?

Spencer Corson (40:47)

I think that we all wanted to believe that this was a kidnap for ransom issue, which is very rare in the United States. It's more common in Latin America and in the Middle East. Most kidnapped for ransom cases in the United States are about child custody or abduction. But when that first call for the ransom demand came in and there was no proof of life, a lot of bells started going off in my head because that doesn't make sense. Kidnappers are professionals and who they kidnap is interchangeable as it would Relate to their return on investment. Kidnappers. Professional kidnappers care about three things. They care about privacy, they care about the procedure, and they care about the profit. They don't want to involve news organizations. They know that they need to establish a proof of life. They're going to reach out to the family. They're going to say, here's how you can contact me, or here's how when you can hear from me again, let's get this ball rolling. Let's get it settled, let's get it down, let's get it over. Involving TMZ is just wild. TMZ is where you go if you want to start a bidding war for a celebrity sex tape. It's not where you go if you want to facilitate a kidnap for ransom demand.

Ashley Banfield (42:01)

I've had this conversation before, and, you know, generally speaking, kidnap for ransom is a business. They want their money, and they don't want attention. And typically, the last thing they want to involve is the press or the police. In fact, that's usually one of the demands.

Spencer Corson (42:16)

You.

Ashley Banfield (42:16)

You tell anybody, and we take a finger or we kill. Like, you put the money in, you have this much time, and we're done. And they want their money. So it is odd that any of these overtures went to the media 100%.

Spencer Corson (42:29)

Which is why you see, like in express kidnappings, where they follow someone who goes into a movie theater. They know they turned off their phone, they call the parents, they say, hey, we're going to. You know, you have two hours to wire us $1,000, or you'll never see your daughter again. The parents call their daughter. They can't get through because the daughter turned her phone off. In the movie, the parents venmo the money, and the kid comes out of the movie theater going, hey, what was. What do you mean? What's going on? Why do I have all these missed calls? The last thing you want to do is involve law enforcement, because that is a real inhibitor to the control. The timing and the. And the options that you have as.

Ashley Banfield (43:00)

A kidnapper, you call those express kidnappings. I didn't know it had a name. Express kidnappings, meaning you have two hours. And they know that. That two hours is a safe two hours, that they can actually effectuate what they want, learn something new every day. Okay, another question for you. Harvey made a direct appeal to this person, saying, if you're lying, you're breaking the law, and you are in a world of hurt if you get caught. If you're not lying. How about this? We'll get Your information to law enforcement. And if it pans out, you'll get your money through our chain of custody. What do you make of that again? Is this chest.

Spencer Corson (43:38)

Now, I listen. I know Harvey. I've met Harvey. I have respect for everything that Harvey does. This is also very good for Harvey. This is very good for tmz. It keeps their name in the media. It's not like TMZ has never paid for information before. So if they really wanted this information, TMZ could just make that payment themselves.

Ashley Banfield (43:55)

Yeah, but I do like that he put it back in his court. Meaning you'll get your money. All you need to do.

Spencer Corson (44:01)

I think that he is handling this very responsibly and is. Is involving the FBI at all turns. But this is not what TMZ does.

Ashley Banfield (44:09)

Okay, last question. And it's a big one. The signal sniffer tech. I've been trying my best to get back into all of my university courses that would have made me better prepared to understand this technology. But listen, if I'm talking to you like you're five, for viewers who don't understand this, it is a very simple kind of. Of action. The signal sniffer is sending out a handshake to just Nancy's device address, meaning if they get over Nancy's device, it's going to grab that device. And I learned just last night that it's not 30 to 50ft. It is 800 to 1,000ft. This is good tech.

Spencer Corson (44:54)

It is amazing tech. And the best way for, I think, to explain it to an audience is you have a phone, and you have CarPlay in your car. When you get into your car, your phone automatically connects to your car because your phone has a special id and your car has a special id, and it has been previously paired since Nancy's phone was left back at home. They have metadata from her phone for that handshake. So when they are doing this, they are not looking for all the pacemakers in the world. They are looking for Nancy's pacemaker. And that can be a huge asset and a huge advantage to. To the investigation.

Ashley Banfield (45:28)

Spencer. All I keep thinking is the helicopter that Brian Enten saw hovering over the neighborhood. It was Nancy's neighborhood the other day. And I thought, whoa, that's a. That's a big piece of. That's a big asset to bring out. What about just a phalanx of drones that are loaded with these devices that do the kind of search that we did for MH370. They search that ocean by grid. Could they not do the Same in the desert.

Spencer Corson (45:53)

They could do the same in the desert. But we also have to keep in mind that whoever took Nancy is also probably watching the news and probably also knows that these assets are being deployed. And it's probably also googled, how do I defeat this?

Ashley Banfield (46:06)

Yeah, and we do know that there are ways, you know, heavy concrete and all sorts of things. But it just makes me feel like since we learned that the pacemaker will continue alive or dead, it will go for years, that there's some hope to be able to find her, at least with this kind of search technology. Last question, and this is really just your gut and your experience, how long do you think this can go on for?

Spencer Corson (46:33)

I have seen missing people cases go six months, six years, 60 years, we don't know. What I do know is that life expectancy drops about 90% when you are moved to a second location. So if the audience is going to take anything away from this conversation, if you think for a moment that you are about to be abducted, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight. Like your life depends on it. Because it very well might if you get moved to a second location. If an abduction is attempted at the first location, you have a 90% survival rate. Once you get moved to a second location, that survival rate drops to 10%. Because now you have given the abductors control, you have given them time, and you've given them options.

Ashley Banfield (47:23)

I'm glad you said that. It takes me back to the training that I got before I was a war correspondent. And they drilled it into my head, if you're put in a car, you're probably not coming out. So take the bullet, run in a zigzag, do whatever you can. Handguns are terrible for aim. If they got a handgun, run like hell, take the the bullet. It's your best chance at getting away. But never ever let them get you into that car. But we're talking about an 84 year old woman.

Spencer Corson (47:49)

I know, I know, and it breaks my heart. But I, I hope and pray every day that this case is resolved yesterday.

Ashley Banfield (47:59)

And I'm glad they have an open mind and that they are shifting because if they are shifting, hopefully they're shifting closer. And even NBC said they're leaning away, you know, from their original suspects. So maybe they're leaning towards something that actually will yield a result. Spencer Corson, this has been such a good conversation. I hope it's not our last.

Spencer Corson (48:18)

My absolute pleasure. Thank you so much.

Ashley Banfield (48:20)

And there you have it. There is a lot to think about here. And you know, beware of just reading tweets and assuming that they're facts. Always think about what's the source. When I go to my sources, if they are impeccable sources, that then I trust them. If people are just throwing theories out, it's not the same. So be careful about what you're reading, because I think there's a lot of people doing some really good work now on this case. And God willing, the ultimate goal here is to find Nancy Guthrie alive. Find Nancy Guthrie alive. We are at day 16, and it is really, really hard to think anything else. And of course, everybody is thinking of the Guthrie family at this time. Thank you so much for listening. Thank you so much for watching. And remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead. Seriously.