C (9:35)

Yeah, it's really concerning. And it tells me that it's unlikely that it is Nancy's DNA mixed with the suspect. And that's really what I was hoping for, because if it was Nancy's with an unknown male, then that almost certainly would be the suspect, especially if it was fresh DNA, if it was, for instance, blood, if she fought back, because clearly there was some kind of altercation. So that leads me to speculate. It's more likely it's two or more unknown people's DNA. That's not so straightforward if you don't know who either of those contributors are. There might even be more than two, which really makes it very complex. If it was Nancy's DNA mixed with an unknown male, they have her DNA. They've got the blood from the front porch. It would be relatively straightforward to extract her portion out from that mixed sample. It's called deconvolution, and it's something we do a lot. Our scientists at Parabon are amazing at it. So a lot of my cases I've been able to help solve were from mixed samples. But you have to have a certain proportion of the person that you're trying to identify in that, if they are the minor contributor by a significant amount. If it's, say, 90% one person and 10% the person you want to ID. That can be virtually impossible. So it's, it's really disappointing. I definitely have my hopes up that this was going to be a straightforward deconvolution, that, that it was Nancy and someone else, which would make it more definitively tied to the actual crime. If it's, say, transfer DNA or what's commonly called touch DNA from multiple unknown people, that really does make it difficult, and that's really disappointing.

B (11:21)

I have so many questions about that. And the news that my source has broken to me today is that those blood droplets actually outside continued inside in the same pattern inside. I can't tell you where, just that the, the blood that was found inside the house, My source, law enforcement source, says it is the same droplet pattern. It's not a struggle, it's not a smear. But does that help you to sort of think through what might be happening in Florida?

C (11:55)

Well, we don't even know if it is that sample, you know, at all. It could be something completely different. Maybe they swabbed a faucet. For instance. Sometimes when people are at a crime scene for an extended period of time, which it sounds like this person was, they use the restroom. It's the oddest thing. You know, there's been people who have spit in the toilet, who have used the toilet and left it and didn't flush it. And so we've been able to identify people that way. So it's so difficult to speculate as to what it is they have without more information. But just, you know, as we just discussed, the fact that it's. The deconvolution is difficult if that reporting is true. You know, that does make me believe it's less likely that it is one of those straightforward deconvolutions where you can extract out one person's known DNA.

B (12:48)

Let's be clear that the sheriff has only released that there is biological, you know, matter that they are continuing to test at one point, said DNA, male DNA not connected to Nancy or her immediate circle of known.

C (13:06)

I actually did see him say it was a mixture. First he was talking about separating it out. So I was speculating it was a mixture, but then I actually heard him use those words.

B (13:15)

Yeah. And I have two. And I. And I wondered, is it possible that now knowing this information that there's this blood and it's droplets inside the house that there might have been some kind of a struggle or an injury happening where the assailant, you know, expelled saliva or just. Just expiring, you know, his own breath may have mixed with. With her blood. Is that a possibility?

C (13:41)

It certainly is, but I believe that if that was what they were working with, they would not be struggling with it. Now, I don't know how reliable that reporting is, but if that is correct, that is what leads me to believe that it is something less straightforward than that. Ever since we heard there was a mixture, I was hoping it's Nancy's DNA, it's the suspect's DNA mixed. That would be something that I don't think the lab would struggle with at all. But we've been contacted in the past where they've had three contributors or four contributors. And, you know, if these are unknown individuals, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to separate that out, to be able to just one person.

B (14:25)

A lot of people would wonder, well, what kind of a mixed source might they have tapped? And I'm not suggesting you're going to know, but, you know, I thought if there's male DNA, it could be, you know, it came in. In a FedEx package, and the FedEx package went onto the counter in the kitchen. Is that the kind of thing that might end up becoming a mixed sample, or is that way off?

C (14:48)

No, no, that's correct. And that is why it's so disappointing to me as well, because if it's not blood, if it's not saliva, if it's transfer DNA or touch DNA, as people call it, you know, that is less likely to be the suspect because we leave DNA everywhere we go. And you and I could be together and I could get a piece of your hair on me, and I could go home and transfer that into my home, and you were never even there. So having someone's DNA, if it's transfer DNA, doesn't necessarily mean they were even there. We could shake hands, and I leave a few skin cells on your hand, and then you could transfer that somewhere. And so it's just far less definitive if that is the type of DNA that they're working with, that it's actually the suspect's DNA. And we know he had gloves. We know he was covered. Right. We saw the video. So he was definitely making an effort to not leave any biological material behind.

B (15:47)

But he was breathing. But he was breathing. And doesn't breath just automatically expel, or is that just too small of a. Of a symptom?

C (15:55)

I think it depends. I think if. If somebody sneezed or coughed, you'd have a much better chance breathing, not so much. But he had that. What appeared to be that flashlight in his mouth. So that's really hopeful because he likely took that out. Right. So he's wearing gloves to try to keep from leaving his DNA. But there's saliva all over that, what looked to be a bite flashlight. He takes it out of his mouth. Now he has saliva all over his gloves. And that could absolutely have been left in the home. It would have been very difficult for him not to leave that somewhere. So that's hopeful. But maybe it's on the door, right? I'm not sure.

B (16:36)

I mean, on the door handle, on the cameras that are missing. And my source said smash, but certainly it is gone off that bracket that that could have. And I wondered that what appears to be a bite light in your mouth would also make you salivate and maybe there had been some saliva that dropped on those front tiles.

C (16:58)

Exactly. I've been speculating the exact same thing for the last few days, that if he leaned forward to disable that camera with that in his mouth, it would have been extremely difficult to keep from slobbering on the ground. So I think that's a option too. Although that's more likely to be single source, and it doesn't. And single source means, you know, just that person's DNA. But it doesn't sound like that's what they're working with. If they had that, I don't think they'd be struggling because it's unlikely there'd be anyone else's DNA right there under that.

B (17:29)

And it was found inside the house. We know that the biological matter and that, you know, that this mixed sample of DNA is from inside the house. What else could that be could that be? I mean, I suppose it could be a lot of things, but what sort of examples could you imagine in your line of work that a mixed sample inside the house could be.

C (17:51)

Well, it could be blood, it could be saliva, it could be semen and bodily fluids. It could be touch transfer DNA, and it could be hair, but not mixed. So if it's hair, it wouldn't be mixed. So if we're just talking about mixed exclusively, those are the only ones that I can think of. So it's a, you know, it's either a bodily fluid or sweat. Sweat, which is typically, you know, transfer DNA is. You find that.

B (18:19)

So he can't discover head to toe. So it's hard to imagine that any. Any sweat would have.

C (18:24)

Well, nothing touched something, you know, that outfit looked uncomfortable if he reached inside that. And he could very well have been sweating or maybe some could have dripped because he did have some bits of skin. That were uncovered. And if he leaned forward, for instance, if Nancy was in the bed, for example, and he leaned forward, you know, during the abduction, it's certainly possible something could have dripped on the sheets. I don't think we have any reason to believe there was a sexual assault, but we very commonly see mixtures and sexual assaults. That's very, very common. It's actually one of the reasons we work with them so often. Hopefully, there was nothing like that, but we can't rule it out because we don't know what they found in the home. So, you know, to summarize what you just asked, blood, saliva, semen, sweat, skin cells are probably the options that they'd be.

B (19:23)

So if we're talking about. I mean, skin cells are hard again, because he's all covered up. But like you said, if he touched that bite, light. Now the saliva is on the glove, and he uses a door handle. He's got to open a door, right?

C (19:36)

And then that would be mixed, right, Because a lot of people touched that door handle, undoubtedly. So you have to hope he was the last one who did, and he's the major contributor. You're always hoping in the mixture that your unidentified person that you need to zero in on is the majority of that DNA sample.

B (19:57)

Can I ask you. It's hard to know what the sheriff means when. When he says that they're having trouble isolating mixed DNA samples. Is it. Is it possible they will never get an actual viable sample from a mix, or is it just possible that they're having trouble identifying it?

C (20:15)

It is possible that they would be unable to deconvolute it to the point where it would be identifiable. That's why it's so disappointing.

B (20:24)

You know, why is that too small a sample?

C (20:27)

It's more if they're. It's the percentages. So if it is the minor contributor that you're trying to identify and he's only 10% of that mixture, it can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify that individual, especially if it's more than two. If it's two, I think, you know, there's a chance. But if it's 3 and 4 and you don't have the reference samples for the other individuals in that mixture, then you've got a real problem. If they could say, okay, there's three people in this mixture and one of them is Annie's, okay, we've got Annie's DNA. We can work with that to extract it, that would be helpful. But then you still have two unknown individuals, and it's Very difficult to separate that out without a reference sample. Unless one person's DNA is, you know, by far the major contributor in that mixture. So it's, I wouldn't say it's impossible. It just depends on so many factors. Depends on how many people in the mixture, it depends on the percentages. Is one person 50%, one person 40 and another 10? Is one person 90% and another 10? You know, all of those things are what go into determining whether it's going to be able to be successfully deconvoluted and then identified.

B (21:46)

And to be clear, I have mentioned this a lot in many of my episodes. This lab in Deerfield Beach, Florida, I think it's called DNA International.

C (21:53)

DNA Labs International, yes.

B (21:55)

DNA Labs International, no joke. They are good and they have solved. Right? Right. And I know that there was a lot of consternation early on, how could the sheriff do this? But literally they are a phenomenal outfit that has solved crimes before, like really tricky crimes to solve. If they can't do it, is there anybody else who could? Or if they can't do it, you're, you're at the end of the road.

C (22:22)

Well, I mean, I, I don't want to advocate for Parabon, but I would say Parabon's bioinformatic scientists are specialists in mixture deconvolution. It's something that they are especially good at. A lot of my successful cases have been. But again, even for them it's going to come down to the proportions and the number. So I don't know. I haven't worked with DNA Labs International's deconvolution because we have such good bioinformaticists at Parabon. So I don't want to say they're better than theirs, I don't know. But I believe very strongly in this lab. I've worked with them, they are great at extracting DNA. Parabon doesn't do extractions, so we've had them extract the DNA from the evidence on a lot of our successful cases that I've been able to go on and help law enforcement solve. And so I know how good they are on really difficult samples. So as I've been saying all week, I have full confidence in them and I actually think the sheriff made a great choice because they're kind of a one stop shop. They can do the extraction, they can create the STR profile which is the one that's uploaded to codis, and they can create the SNP profile that's used for genetic genealogy. All in parallel. Right. As soon as they do the extraction, they can start both of those other processes at once. And so he saved time because if you just send it to someone that only has the capability for the CODIS profile, which, which the FBI does, FBI doesn't have the capability to create a SNP profile for genetic genealogy in house. They always send that out. And that is not something that is done in public labs, government labs. It's always a private third party lab that creates that SNP profile. And so by sending it to a lab he has a lot of experience with, he's had a contract with them for a long time, he's had, obviously had a lot of successes with them. To me, that was a great choice. Was it the best choice? I don't know. I would think so, in my opinion. But I don't know all, you know, the details, but the fact that criticized

B (24:26)

for it, you're in the business, I think, I think people would value your opinion because this literally is your business. You know it better than any of us.

C (24:34)

Well, I think he made a great choice. And the fact he was criticized for it was, in my mind, competitive posturing from the people that were speaking out about it. Because the person who originally was interviewed that came out and said it was devastating owns a competing lab. And they would have, I'm sure, liked to have worked the case. We all would have liked to have worked the case. I would have loved to have helped try to find Nancy. But, you know, only one lab, one team is likely to get that opportunity. At least outside the FBI. They may. The FBI may come in and bring their investigative genetic genealogy team in, just like they did on the Coburger case. It was started by one company and then it wasn't happening quickly enough, apparently. So the FBI took over the investigative genetic genealogy and identified him. We might see something similar here, but first they've got to get that SNP profile and probably the glove that was found two miles from the home. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have that or already, you know, moving forward with that. But the DNA inside the home, which to me is much more compelling, apparently seems to be challenging. So it may take a while for them to create a SNP profile, if they're even able to do so. That's the first time I've said that because I've always thought they absolutely would be able to. But I didn't have all the information

B (25:58)

and I'm going to get to that process in a minute. But I just want to be super clear because sometimes I need people to Talk to me like I'm five.

C (26:06)

Something we're not super familiar with.

B (26:08)

Right. STR is the standard thing that most people are used to hearing about. But snp, how does that differ? In the most simplistic terms, it's just

C (26:17)

a completely different type of genetic marker. So an STR is a short tandem repeat. It's a certain type of genetic marker. SNP is a single nucleotide polymorphism. It's a type of genetic marker that changes quickly. So we share 99.9% of our DNA. But if you want to identify someone, you need to look at the portions of the DNA that mutate more quickly, that vary among us. And the only reason that two people would share a significant stretch of SNPs is if they have a common ancestor in their family tree. And that is what our work is based on. We need to find people that share these long stretches of SNPs in their DNA because they can only inherit that from a common ancestor.

B (27:05)

Most of what you're saying is lost on me, but let me ask.

C (27:08)

Okay, yeah. I'm not saying it easy way. Okay, well, strs, you have.

B (27:11)

Let me ask you if this is accurate. And again, this is sort of my. I'm the neophyte in the. In the room right now. But the way I've always understood it is you. You take a sample and you upload it to CODIS. And if it's a perfect 100% match, you get. You get your result.

C (27:27)

And it'll be the same string of numbers.

B (27:30)

Yes. Okay. If it's not quite a full match, but it's a 50% match, CODIS will say we can't help you, but you should take that 50% because we might actually have here a family member, a parent is 50%. If you get a 25% match, maybe it's a sibling or a cousin at 12% or an aunt or an uncle, and you're on your own as a law enforcement agency, you can't use CODIS now, but. But you can go off to the state databases. Cause some states have a pretty robust database of offenders and even arrestees. And if the state database doesn't help? Well, then I'm going to get to this. It's a longer conversation. You go sort of like the Hail Mary, and you look to the retail genealogy databases like 23andMe and Ancestry. And because they're private and not available, you got to use a warrant. Does that sound right? The way I explained it, mostly.

C (28:30)

So let's break it down. There's Three different types of searching in databases. There's the STR profiles in CODIS where they're looking for an exact match. They can also search the state and local databases for that exact match. They're looking for that person who's been arrested and or convicted of a serious crime and has had, they've been compelled to put their DNA in that database. Some states allow what's called familial searching. There's a lot of confusion with genetic genealogy and familial. Familial is using that same STR profile, that law enforcement genetic profile, to look for immediate relatives. It really only works for very close

B (29:11)

relatives, typically like the 50 percenters, like

C (29:15)

the parents, parent, child and full siblings. So full siblings also share on average 50% parents and children exactly 50% full siblings, on average 50%. There is a more complex type of familial DNA searching in the law enforcement databases called YSTRS. And they're looking for people who share their direct paternal line, so their father's father's father's father's line. And those could be more distant relatives, but they connect on that direct line. Then there's investigative genetic genealogy. So if both of those fail, we can broaden the search because we're looking at about 700,000 genetic markers across the genome, which gives us the power to find distant relatives, second, third, fourth, fifth cousins and beyond. Anyone who uploads their DNA or tests at one of those companies will have hundreds, if not thousands of relatives on their match list. But now a match means a partial match. They might share less than 1% of their DNA, but they are still your relatives. It's just a matter of how far back your common ancestors are in the tree. If you share 12% of your DNA, you're probably first cousins, you share grandparents. If you share 3%, you're probably second cousins, share great grandparents. If you share 1%, you may be third cousins and share great great grandparents. So the amount of DNA tells us how far back we have to go in the tree to find the common ancestor. Now you got into the next thing, which is though, despite the fact there are over 50 million. Sorry. Despite the fact that there are over 50 million people who have taken direct to consumer DNA tests, law enforcement is barred from using the vast majority of those profiles because the three largest companies have barred their use. So, answers.

B (30:59)

And again, it's not that they're trying to obfuscate or be difficult. These are private companies and their clients, their customers maybe didn't expect that suddenly, you know, they they bought this service and they were going to be opened up to law enforcement and maybe their uncle would be arrested because of it. I mean it's a, it, it's a fair move that they made to say it's, it's private and it's not open for, for law.

C (31:21)

Yes, it's fair. But what I've come to learn over the years is the vast majority of people believe that law enforcement is using Ancestry DNA and 23andMe when they're not. In fact, I even hear it in the media all the time. So I've spent a lot of time trying to dispel this misconception. I also get a lot of emails and comments on social media when I where people say I wanted to help you solve cases. So I tested at ancestry or 23andMe and I have to say no, we can't access that. There's even people in my comments right now swearing that they were given the option to check a box to help law enforcement in Ancestry. That's not possible. That's never happened. So they're misremembering. But the majority of the people in those databases seem to believe law enforcement is already using them. Now of course, the people that are more educated about the subject, the genetic genealogists, the people that are, you know, have spent more time in this, know that they're not in there. And those people certainly, you know, may have objections. But there are studies that have been done, long term studies on the public perception of genetic genealogy. And it's been surprising, even I was surprised at the level of support. About 91% of people support supported the use of genetic genealogy to identify violent criminals. And so that wide support in the public I would think would encourage these bigger companies to create an opt in system like GEDmatch. GEDmatch is one of the small databases that we can access. You check a box there. If you're willing to let law enforcement compare against violent criminal profiles, Ancestry could do that. 23andMe could do that. They've chosen not to. They've taken the stance we're not even going to give our customers that choice. That if they would do that, that would be a good middle ground. And I don't think law enforcement would serve them with warrants. But I think the way it's going with the resistance that these companies have put up, I think there will be warrants served on these companies. There can be a knockdown, drag out, fight. Some of these companies have really deep pockets and it's going to Be tough for them to win it because of the precedent that's been set in the past that it's hard to keep law enforcement out from somewhere that the public is able to go. And so I've had this explained to me by a former FBI lawyer, a brilliant man, Steve Kramer. And, you know, it sounds. I'm not a legal expert, but it sounds like they're going to have a very good basis to serve these warrants in a very good chance that they could win and get this court order. And then, then they're in there seeing the whole database. It would be, you know, so much better if people were given that option to choose. That's always what I'm advocating for, is freedom of choice.

B (34:09)

I agree with you. It should be something that, that the customers have the right to, to opt into. Because I do think a lot of people want to help. I mean, just look at the 40,000 tips that, that have come in to the FBI and to the local law enforcement in Tucson.

C (34:23)

They just know that they have to download their raw data and put it in one of the three databases we can access, which are GEDmatch and name

B (34:30)

those three, just so everybody can hear. Name those three other databases that you can check a box and you can be part of the problem solving.

C (34:38)

The three databases that we are allowed to use for these types of cases are GEDmatch, Family Tree DNA and the new nonprofit database called DNA Justice. It's the smallest at the moment, but we're hoping to grow it. And what it's really good for are people who don't want their DNA in a public database where other people can see them. I have people contact me saying, I want to help law enforcement, but I don't want to be seen by my relatives. I don't want adoptees to see me, for instance. And so in DNA justice, it's exclusively for law enforcement and investigative genetic genealogists who are working their cases. Nobody else can see the match list. So you don't log in like you do at GEDmatch and see the other people in there. So those are the three options. But you have to kind of jump through hoops if you're going to upload to GEDmatch and DNA justice because they don't test DNA, you have to have tested elsewhere. So you have to download your raw data and then go create an account and upload family DNA. Will. Yeah, and we lose a lot of people who want to help us during the process because it's a big process

B (35:41)

that's a lot to ask. It's already a lot to ask of someone to just come in, come in and volunteer this privacy issue and then to ask them to take these other steps. Let me ask you about how rare the warrant process is, because I've heard you speak in the past that you're just so nervous in terms of crime fighting. You're just so nervous that you're going to lose that incredible opportunity if it's overused by too many warrants.

C (36:08)

Yeah, I mean, so it's not something that has been done. There have not been warrants served on these large companies, 23andMe. And never Ancestry DNA? No, because they release. They have a transparency report where they release if they have successful warrants or I think any warrants, and they have gotten credit card information from their members. But no law enforcement, to my knowledge, and I'm pretty in the loop, has ever been able to get a sample into their databases, either surreptitiously or through a warrant. It just hasn't happened yet. But I believe it is coming. It would have happened if the Charlie Kirk murderer had not been identified so quickly, or the attempted assassination of President Trump. If they hadn't found that person, I can almost guarantee those warrants would have been served. But they identified those individuals in other ways. I don't know if this will be the case, but I think it's very possible this is the case. If it's not this case, it'll be another case very soon. I think the FBI is ready to serve those warrants on those companies. And, you know, myheritage is a whole different discussion. We know it was used in Coburger, but that's because they accepted outside uploads. They used to allow you to test elsewhere and then port your raw data over there and upload it, just like Gedmatch and Family Tree DNA do. But they stopped doing that after the Coburger hearings revealed that their database was used. So now you have to swab your cheek and send it in to them@ancestry in 23me. You have to spit in the tube and mail it in. And they can tell people say, well, they'll just sneak the forensic sample in. No, it's not that simple. Because when you spit in a tube, it is fresh DNA and lots of it. They make you put. I don't know if you've done it, but you put quite a lot of saliva. They do that partly. So it's consented. They don't want people stealing other people's DNA. You know, I Want to see if my boyfriend has any kids out there? Right, let's get his toothbrush. They don't want that to happen. They want to make sure the person whose DNA is being tested has consented to that. And so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to try to sneak a small amount of a forensic sample in there. They'll reject it. They reject lots of samples. My brother in law's was rejected three times before it went through because some people don't have as many skin cells in their saliva, for instance. So they're very, very careful and they have very strict standards for what DNA they will accept. So it's not like you can just dump some of the crime scene DNA in that tube and mail it in. It's not going to happen.

B (38:49)

I always wondered about that and, and it makes perfect sense because I couldn't understand why I had to fill half of a tube. When a crime can be solved like co burgers with a tiny amount of DNA on the.

C (39:00)

Yeah, they don't really need that much, you know, it's. They really just need a much, much smaller amount.

B (39:06)

Let me ask you this. I mean it's frustrating, right, because there are just many millions upon millions of identities and samples, et cetera in these commercial databases. But what do you think is going to break the seal? A case like Nancy Guthrie's where there is this, this challenge, this warrant served. I thought that multiple warrants have been served in the past, but just not many really in the rarest of cases. And you're saying it's just never happened?

C (39:29)

No. Do you see it? Well, there's going to Warrant served on GEDMatch. I just need to clarify that when they went into opt in, opt out, they used to be wide open and now it's opt in opt out. And right after they switched to that system, there was a warrant served on them for the full database. But we already had the match list in that case. I worked that case, I already had the pre opt out match list. So it really wasn't necessary and we weren't seeing anything new. I think maybe it was a test case for the people who decided to serve that. But it's been greatly discouraged because all of us doing this don't want to lose this amazing tool for law enforcement. So detectives, agencies, prosecutors, the FBI, everyone has kind of treated it with kid gloves. We don't want to alienate the public by going in there like a bull in a china shop. So that's why it hasn't happened yet.

B (40:28)

But, but do you do you think that it's going to happen?

C (40:30)

I do.

B (40:31)

In this case, in Nancy Guthrie's case,

C (40:33)

if they get a viable SNP profile and they're unable to identify that DNA contributor pretty quickly, I believe it will happen. If not this case, it's going to happen in another case very, very soon. I think they are ready to go. I think it's already written. I think they already have their arguments laid out and it's just a matter of time before that happens. And the problem with that is once that happens, going to the dam is going to be open. Right. And every agency, every law enforcement agency in the country and maybe outside the country may start serving those warrants. And that is probably not what we want either. But there's a lot of law enforcement agencies that are sitting on cases that we haven't been able to solve yet that are itching to serve a warrant themselves. And so far they've all held off. Everyone's kind of waiting to see what DOJ and FBI, FBI does. But once there's a successful one, I really think there will be many. In fact, those companies will probably have to make a whole separate unit for dealing with them, which I can't imagine they want to have to have a legal team that is dealing with warrants and court orders all day long.

B (41:47)

Well, this has just been so enlightening and so helpful because I think there is a lot of confusion about the business of DNA and genealogy and familial testing, etc. So thank you so much a for the work that you do for, for the incredible wisdom that you've been able to gather and, and digest and thank you for imparting it on us. I really appreciate it. There's also new reporting from the New York Post today that is troubling for the sheriff. I know he's come under a lot of fire, but this is what the New York Post is reporting. They're saying Sheriff Chris Nanos is under fire for locking down the investigation into Nancy Guthrie's abduction, limiting all decisions to just himself, himself and two senior officers. According to a new report. Nanos, who has also faced intense scrutiny for sidelining the FBI is only allowing Chief Jesus Lopez and Captain Juan Carlos Navarro control over the hunt for Mrs. Guthrie. Quote, he will only let himself or two of his hand picked staffers make decisions on the case. One insider said, quote, everybody else is being told what to do. No one else has a say so or an opinion. It's just three men making decisions. It's incredibly unusual to do that. When you have so many people working together and the FBI are involved. The source added, additional quote, it's limited to the thought process of three men. They keep everything from the FBI. They just aren't sharing. It's a pretty strident, you know, accusation from someone who says they're inside the investigation. And this is what they added. So no actual detectives are steering this, just command staff. This is highly unusual. Normally an experienced detective would steer it and provide updates through the chain of command. This insider explained. To be fair, it's typical. This insider continues to keep details under tight wraps as we saw in the Idaho case. What is unusual, the source says, is command driving the investigation. It's the tail wagging the dog. So again, more sort of chatter from the ground through sources. Again, this is a report in the New York Post. They're citing the daily mail from people who are just upset and saying that they just don't like the way this investigation is being run. For his part, sheriff gave a statement again today and here it is. Not a lot there. Neighborhood activity. They start with detectives are back, detectives and agents. Which means detectives from the sheriff and agents from the FBI are back today in the Guthrie neighborhood, canvassing as part of the investigation. No additional details will be provided. We appreciate the cooperation this morning with the traffic movement. Apparently the crews came out, they placed barricades on the roadway. There was a bunch of signs that came up. I saw that we Fox Digital, they captured these crews coming out posting no parking signs. And I can tell you that's basically just it's been a zoo on Nancy Guthrie Street. You know, upwards of 300 media at one point showed up. And so as of just late in the week, they decided to change the roadway to one way only and allow zero parking on one side. And you know, they're just trying to make things workable for the people who still live there. Emergency vehicles that need to get through, garbage trucks that need to get through. It was all just getting very, very difficult. And so this was sort of the the update. Also, there's another mention gloves. The sheriff says in the update detectives and agents have collected multiple gloves from the area and analysis is part of the investigation. Specific details about these pieces of evidence will not be shared publicly as this remains an active investigation. Resources. There have been no changes in resources in this investigation. There may be fluctuations day to day based on investigative leads. Several hundred law enforcement personnel remain dedicated to this case. This will remain an active investigation until Nancy Guthrie is found where all leads are exhausted. And then the comment from the Sheriff, about DNA. All evidence from the crime scene and search warrant scenes has been submitted for analysis. Lab experts are working through that analysis. As with any biological evidence, there can be challenges separating DNA, etc. There are currently no updates regarding this process. Well, there is an update, Sheriff. You just gave it to NBC. So this is what makes people very frustrated because they hear one thing from you today and you taped something with NBC yesterday that is different, saying, in fact, there is a struggle going on at the lab in Florida to separate this unknown male DNA from a mixture. So again, you know, clear as mud in the messaging and also a little unfair, too, because this is what happens when things are complicated. You get messy reporting and the public gets messy details and messy facts. All right, something else that the sheriff put in his statement. Helicopter slash landfill. That's the top. That's the title. Yesterday there was a lot of reporting about a private helicopter searching in what looked like a grid pattern over a landfill in the Tucson area. What the sheriff says is the private aerial activity near a landfill yesterday was not related to this investigation. All that says to me is that the investigators weren't involved. Does it mean that a private searcher wasn't trying to do something? It's hard to say because even if they were using the. The signal sniffer, that would be part of the investigation. So take that for what it is. Also, private search parties. The sheriff is, it seems, discouraging. Volunteer search parties. Let me read you his words. Volunteer search groups have inquired about being in the area. Per the sheriff, they were asked to please give investigators the space they need to do their work. We appreciate their concern and we want. We all want to find Nancy, but this work is best left to professionals. FEMA County Sheriff's Department has volunteer opportunities if they wish to get involved with the department. Private property laws apply. It is up to each individual property owner to grant permission for anyone to be on their property. I understand that, that, that makes sense, but I also have heard criticism that, I mean, for God's sake, the desert is a big place. Why not enlist the help of others? I mean, search parties for Elizabeth Smart were enormous. Private search parties came in and they were looking everywhere. And in a lot of the cases that I've covered, private search parties come in. People that are well established with law enforcement, work well with law enforcement. So I'm a little surprised that they're just being discouraged outright by the sheriff because, again, the desert's a big place and they need as many eyeballs as they can get. Would think. But again, doesn't want to corrupt or disturb their investigative process in any way. Media availability. There are currently no press briefings scheduled. We do not anticipate any sheriff media availability next week. Woof. If that changes, we'll let you know via email or via the Pima Sheriff account on X I. Okay, well that's, that's why there's mixed messaging. You know, you give these cherry picked interviews out and then you put out a statement the next day that doesn't even match the interview that you gave yesterday. It's all very troubling. It's been frustrating. I'm not going to say, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna lie. But I encourage you all. I've said this a few times and I'll say it again. 1-800-call FBI is the place to call for tips. Okay, 40,000 plus tips have now come in to the sheriff and to the FBI. But they do ask that think about it before you call. Think is this a viable tip? Don't call with your theories. That's not what they need. Or complaints. Don't do that. It is really just tips. And to that end, is there somebody who's been acting weird, somebody you know in the Tucson area that started acting weird on February 1st, Sunday, February 1st, that habits changed, patterns changed, behavior changed. They disappeared for big chunks of time and then reappeared and they were nervous. But then they disappeared again. And maybe in the ensuing days their patterns were just inexplicable, as was their behavior. That's a tip. That is a tip because whoever did this to Nancy Guthrie didn't have a normal routine that next day or the day after probably had some real abnormalities in their routines. So you've got the body shape, you've got the, the bending that, the, the gait, the way the person moves, the mustache and the, what looks like a goatee. You've got all that to go on. Some of those clothes, that gun holster, that backpack, balaclava. Got all that to go on. And then the behavior. Does it just. Yeah, so and so has acted real weird and didn't come to work for like two days with not a good excuse or. Yeah, they just keep vanishing and no explanation or they're acting real strange and uncomfortable. I can't explain it. Those are good tips. 1-800- call FBI. Thank you everybody for watching. Thank you so much for listening. Don't forget the member chat is tomorrow night, Sunday, February 22, 6pm Eastern. Just join the membership if you want to put in your questions and also don't forget to subscribe. I really appreciate it. Thank you everybody. Don't forget, truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.

D (51:31)

When you're a pro, you got to do a little bit of everything. A little, a little and even a little. And it helps to have something that works as hard as you do. That's why Valspar has durable, high coverage paint for every job. Every time made. For more Valspar pros, head to Lowe's today and talk to a pro rep about saving time and money on your next job with Valspar Signature paint exclusions apply. See valsparpro.com for details.

E (52:01)

This podcast is sponsored by IQ Bar. I've got good news and bad news. Here's the bad news. Most protein bars are packed with sugar and unpronounceable ingredients. The good news? There's a better option. Will and I created IQ Bar Plant Protein Bars to empower doers like you with clean, delicious, low sugar, brain and body fuel. IQ Bars are packed with 12 grams of protein, brain nutrients like magnesium and Lion's Mane, and Zero Weird Stuff. And right now you can get 20% off all IQ Bar products plus free shipping. Try our delicious IQ Bar Sampler Pack with seven plant protein bars, four hydration mixes and four enhanced coffee sticks. Clean ingredients, amazing taste and you'll love how you feel. Refuel smarter, hydrate harder, Caffeinate larger with IQ Bar. Go to eatiqbar.com and enter code BAR20. To get 20% off all IQ Bar products plus free shipping. Again, go to eatiqbar.com and Enter code BAR20.

F (53:01)

If you're an H Vac technician and a call comes in, Grainger knows that you need a partner that helps you find the right product fast and hassle free. And you know that when the first problem of the day is a clanking blower motor, there's no need to break a sweat. With Grainger's easy to use website and product details, you're confident you'll soon have everything humming right along. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgrainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.