Explosive Interview Exposes Trouble Inside Nancy Guthrie Investigation, Finally Reveals DNA Plan

Summary

Podcast Summary: Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield

Episode: Explosive Interview Exposes Trouble Inside Nancy Guthrie Investigation, Finally Reveals DNA Plan

Air Date: July 29, 2026
Host: Ashleigh Banfield
Guests: Wyatt Sharp (journalist), with featured clips from Sheriff Chris Nanos of Pima County, AZ

---

Main Theme

This compelling episode dives deep into the troubled, high-profile Nancy Guthrie missing persons case, spotlighting a recent, headlining interview by young Canadian journalist Wyatt Sharp with Sheriff Chris Nanos. Banfield breaks down new revelations, the DNA investigation process, tensions between local and federal authorities, and internal issues within the Pima County Sheriff's Department—all while reflecting on the ramifications for the Guthrie family and the ongoing public scrutiny.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Interview “Score” and Wyatt Sharp’s Approach

• Background: Ashleigh Banfield introduces Wyatt Sharp, a 17-year-old Canadian journalism prodigy who conducted a hard-hitting interview with Sheriff Nanos—a rare feat, given Nanos’ limited recent press availability.
• Why it Matters: Wyatt’s interview brought several previously undisclosed or unclear aspects of the investigation to public light.

  “He asked a lot of really pointed questions that I think the sheriff might not have been expecting...This was a tough interview and Wyatt made some very big headlines.” — Ashleigh Banfield [01:51]

---

Revelations from Sheriff Chris Nanos

1. No Direct FBI Communication

• Key Quote:

  “I don’t know the FBI director. Never met him. So my relationship is what we see or hear as you do on the news.” — Sheriff Chris Nanos [03:52]

• Context: Despite the FBI Director (Kash Patel) being involved in the case at multiple points, the Pima County Sheriff has never communicated directly with him—a surprising rift for such a high-profile, complex investigation.
• Discussion: Banfield and Wyatt Sharp both express astonishment at the lack of collaboration.

2. Status of the Investigative Team

• The core group investigating the Guthrie case has remained consistent, though generally, resources dwindle as cases grow cold.

  “But the core membership has been there from day one, and they continue to meet daily.” — Sheriff Chris Nanos [05:22]

• This contradicts some public assumptions about dissipation of resources.

3. DNA Evidence & New Genealogy Strategies

• Main Update: The Sheriff's department is now pursuing forensic genetic genealogy, working to identify the unknown DNA found at the scene.

  “We’re doing all of it...they’re looking at genealogy, but they’re also looking at specific pieces of evidence.” — Sheriff Chris Nanos [06:52]

• Implications: This process, made famous by the Golden State Killer case, could take months or years, but it’s a crucial, previously unconfirmed tactic.

4. Is Nancy Guthrie Still Alive?

• Sharp pressed on whether the sheriff believes Nancy is still alive after six months.

  “I believe that I’m going to support the Guthrie family every way possible, and if they believe she’s alive, so do I.” — Sheriff Chris Nanos [07:31]

• Both Banfield and Sharp interpret this as hedging for the family’s sake, not necessarily reflecting investigative optimism.

5. Sheriff’s Relationship with Guthrie Family

• Despite the scale of the case and ongoing pain for Guthrie’s relatives, Sheriff Nanos admitted he hasn’t spoken to Savannah Guthrie “recently.”

  “But, no, I have not spoken with Savannah recently. Has my contact number...she’s in contact with [the investigative team] at any moment of day.” — Sheriff Chris Nanos [08:00]

• Banfield and Wyatt discuss reported frictions and whether this lack of direct communication is a cause for concern.

---

Wyatt Sharp’s Reporting Experience & Reflections

Securing the Interview

• Wyatt attributes his success in securing the interview partly to the sheriff possibly underestimating him due to his age.

  “Maybe he thought that being 17 years old, I probably would...scale myself back from some of the more difficult questions. But I think he might have been a little bit surprised...” — Wyatt Sharp [09:14]

Tensions with the FBI

• The interview revealed public and perhaps personal tension between Sheriff Nanos and FBI Director Kash Patel, with Nanos openly accusing Patel of being “misinformed” and making harmful public statements.

Genealogy and Family Focus

• Sharp notes the sheriff’s openness to all investigative avenues, including familial genealogy, despite previously clearing Guthrie’s immediate family, raising questions about investigative focus and public messaging.

Early Missteps and Accountability

• Banfield presses on the department’s criticized early decisions—releasing the scene, pausing the public search, and statements minimizing community risk. Wyatt highlights the sheriff’s tendencies to sidestep direct responsibility, instead sometimes blaming lack of FBI involvement.

Lead Flow and Case Progress

• Both Banfield and Sharp emphasize that the pace of tips has slowed while the case inches toward “cold” status, despite high public interest.
• Nanos asserts that actionable leads are still coming in, but acknowledges the volume has waned (“fewer leads, but still high quality” [25:20]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On the nature of the sheriff’s answers:

• “He was playing this balancing act basically for the whole interview. [...] He’s just so nervous that he’s going to say something that will just completely upend the integrity of their investigation.” — Wyatt Sharp [25:20]

On investigative secrecy:

• “I’m not going to talk about anything to do with the physical evidence.” — Sheriff Chris Nanos, as quoted/recounted by Wyatt Sharp [26:39]

On missed or mishandled early leads:

• “There seems to be nothing really done to, you know, put this tip to bed or to put it to rest.” — Wyatt Sharp on the Mexican authorities’ tip [35:27]

On the sheriff’s communication style:

• “He said to...a reporter...that they shouldn’t be messaging him at 9:50pm which...a lot of the newscasts there go to air at 10pm so they were trying to...” — Wyatt Sharp, referencing reported friction with local media coverage [33:50]

On reflection (or lack thereof):

• “If someone’s doing that, I don’t know if they’re the type of person who will reflect back and have certain regrets...” — Wyatt Sharp [34:23]

Closing banter:

• “Thank you so much. That was great.”
  “Well, I don’t know about that.” — Wyatt Sharp and Sheriff Chris Nanos, after the interview [40:53]

---

Timeline & Timestamps of Important Segments

• [01:05] || Ashleigh Banfield introduces the episode, the Nancy Guthrie case, and Wyatt’s background
• [03:52] || Sheriff Nanos on never having spoken to the FBI Director—a major rift
• [05:22] || Confirmation that investigative "core" group remains intact, meets daily
• [06:52] || Nanos details the ongoing forensics and DNA genealogy work
• [07:31] || Sheriff on whether he believes Nancy Guthrie is alive: “If the family believes, so do I.”
• [08:00] || Admission of no recent direct contact with Savannah Guthrie
• [09:14] || Wyatt reflects on why he may have gotten the interview
• [10:21] || Analysis of public dispute between Nanos and FBI Director Kash Patel
• [14:45] || DNA evidence strategy and implications explained
• [18:52] || Questioning of sheriff’s speculation on Guthrie’s status and public messaging
• [20:19] || Discussion of Sheriff's relationship with the Guthrie family, attempts to avoid friction
• [25:20] || Banfield and Sharp on dwindling leads and the sheriff’s balancing act
• [26:39] || Nanos refuses ("declines") to comment on specific physical evidence
• [34:19] || Discussion of sheriff’s problematic media relations and responsiveness
• [36:12] || Banfield critiques the handling (or lack) of significant international tips
• [38:23] || Wyatt: did not directly inquire about the no-confidence vote, to avoid derailing the interview
• [40:53] || End-of-interview exchange; Nanos’ cryptic parting words

---

Final Takeaways

• Wyatt Sharp’s interview with Sheriff Nanos exposed cracks in communication, issues with investigative transparency, and a department highly sensitive to optics.
• Key Facts Emerged: No direct Sheriff-FBI Director contact, ongoing forensic genealogy efforts, mixed or evasive answers on family involvement, resource allocation, and physical evidence specifics.
• Public Frustration: Both Banfield and Sharp echo the community’s exasperation at the slow progress and lack of clear answers six months into the case.
• Media’s Role: As leads slow, there’s tension between authorities' desire for less scrutiny and the need for media engagement to generate public tips.
• Personal Reflections: Banfield praises Wyatt’s diligence and notes the significance of his reporting; she encourages listeners to follow up with credible tips as the investigation continues.

---

For Listeners Who Missed It

This episode is a crucial update and analysis on the Nancy Guthrie case, providing exclusive insight via a breakout interview and thoughtful commentary on both case specifics and the broader dynamics between media, law enforcement, and the public. It’s essential listening for followers of true crime investigations and those interested in the real-world complications of high-stakes cases.

---

Notably, if you have information on the Nancy Guthrie case, Ashleigh Banfield urges you to call the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI.

Transcript

[Wyatt Sharp]

Hey, it's your ceiling vent. So I'm dripping.

[Ashley Banfield]

Could be the rain, could be the upstairs bathroom.

[Wyatt Sharp]

Yikes.

[Ashley Banfield]

You could hire the guy your neighbor

[Wyatt Sharp]

recommended, but I'm pretty sure that's just his cousin. Do we know if he's licensed or

[Ashley Banfield]

does he just own a ladder? Listen to your home.

[Wyatt Sharp]

Go with thumbtack.

[Podcast Sponsor/Announcer]

Upload a photo or voice note and

[Wyatt Sharp]

we'll diagnose your project and match you with the right pro for the job.

[Ashley Banfield]

Thumbtack.

[Wyatt Sharp]

We know Holmes. Hire the right pro.

[Podcast Sponsor/Announcer]

Today a snarl in the woods. Ancient forest spirits nip at his heels. He can outrun a force of nature on foot. He needs an instant power machine built for the wild. The only escape is in the Toyota BZ woodland off road handling all electric power. Leave evil in the dust. John Cho stars in Camping Face the Wild Test drive Toyota's new all electric family at your local dealer, Toyota. Let's go places.

[Ashley Banfield]

Hey everyone, I'm Ashley Banfield and this is drop dead serious. Well, well, well. It took a 17 year old guy from Canada who is a rising senior in high school to put Chris Nanos, the sheriff of Pima county in Arizona to the test and to make some very big headlines in the Savannah Guthrie Nancy Guthrie missing persons case. Sheriff Nanos hasn't granted a lot of interviews and certainly very few to the major networks and the big podcasts of late. We are six months into the case of Nancy Guthrie with still no answers, no leads certainly that have been made public and no solutions as to where she is and where porch guy is. But there's so many questions, right, still afoot and looking back all these months, a lot of questions about maybe there have been some missteps along the way and this young man named Wyatt Sharp asked those questions. So first and foremost you should know I've known Wyatt Sharp since he was about 12 because Wyatt Sharp reached out to me and asked if he could interview me and said, you know, I have a, I have a YouTube show and I interview, you know, big name people like the Prime Minister of Canada. And I thought, who is this kid? And I clicked link and I watched his show and I thought, this is a really smart 12 year old kid. I'm doing this interview and since then I've helped Wyatt Sharp along in navigating his, his career and boy, what a career it is. If you've ever seen his show, it's called the Sharp Exchange. Highly advise that you check it out and then subscribe. He's just a really brilliant interviewer and I'm not going to say kid. He's actually one of the smarter journalists I know and has been for years. He's a prodigy. Honest to God. Wait for it. He's. We're all going to work for Wyatt one year. But I will say this. He scored the interview with Sheriff Chris Nanos, and he asked a lot of really pointed questions that I think the sheriff might not have been expecting, because there were big, long pauses in many of the answers that the sheriff was. I think maybe the sheriff thought, oh, it's a high school project. This will be a breeze. Not so. Not so. This was a tough interview, and Wyatt made some very big headlines. Like headline number one. Wyatt was able to assess how Chris Nanos, the sheriff of Pima county, feels about the FBI director, Cash Patel, and he was highly critical. Listen to this exchange between Wyatt and Sheriff Chris Nanos.

[Sheriff Chris Nanos]

Well, I don't. I don't. I. I don't know. The FBI director. Never met him. So my. My relationship is what we see or hear as you do on the news.

[Ashley Banfield]

Okay, so there you have it. You know, that's a rift and a bit shocking that the sheriff has not spoken with the FBI director because this is a really high profile case, right? Really high profile case. The FBI director's been in Tucson, met with this team. You know, there's this joint task force between the Pima County Sheriff's Department and the FBI. They've been working on this for six months. And the. And the FBI director was there. And the president weighed in on this case. Hate to say the president said like, six months ago, well, we're real close to, you know, resolving this. My word's not his. But, no, that was not the case. And what the heck information was the president getting, And I only assume he was getting it from his FBI director. So what information did Kash Patel have from his field office? And why no communication between the homicide detectives from Pima county and the FBI field office Agents? This is nuts to me, but great headline that Wyatt scored. And not only that, he was able to say that the core group of investigators is still the same. I've been wondering how long it's going to take for it to dissipate, but at least Chris Nano said that core group is still there. Here's how he put it.

[Sheriff Chris Nanos]

But the core membership has been there from day one, and they continue to meet daily.

[Ashley Banfield]

Huge headline that. That Wyatt was able to score as well with the sheriff of Pima county, and that was that. You know, all this discussion about the. The unknown male DNA that Was found inside the home of Nancy Guthrie. DNA that didn't belong to anybody that Nancy had in her immediate circle. So maybe it's the killer slash the kidnapper. Well, that was just this big, hot mess. I mean, it went down to a very, very reputable lab in Florida. But then after that, we could get very little information about. What are you doing with it? What's happening with that? All we heard was, well, it's a mixture, and we gotta separate. And it's a really tricky process. Like, no, come on. Lots of crime scenes have mixtures. And so this one did, too. But the headline that Wyatt was able to get was that they are actually doing what we were thinking. Thinking they might be doing. And that is forensic genetic genealogy Fanning out to the tens, hundreds, or thousands of people that might share a little bit of that DNA and figuring out if they might have a connection to the person whose DNA it actually is. And that is a gumshoe detective process that could take months and years. And that is what the sheriff actually conceded and confirmed to. To Wyatt sharp that that's the process they're in right now. Here's how we put it.

[Sheriff Chris Nanos]

We're doing all of it, and that's really. The labs are doing it all. They're looking at genealogy, but they're also looking at specific pieces of evidence that they're hoping to get enough kodai to say, this is who we're going to get.

[Ashley Banfield]

And then the big question. Wyatt asked sheriff nanos if he thinks that Nancy Guthrie is still alive. Listen to the answer, because I think this is very telling. Obviously, so many people think after six months, how. How could she. How could she possibly be alive? And we almost expect the sheriff to. To say that, but here's how he put it.

[Sheriff Chris Nanos]

I believe that I'm going to support the Guthrie family every way possible, and if they believe she's alive, so do I.

[Ashley Banfield]

And then the big question. I assume there's an open line of communication between Savannah Guthrie and her family and the pima county sheriff's department through the sheriff himself. And Wyatt asked very pointedly, have you been speaking with Savannah? And the answer was pretty astounding. Apparently not. Have a listen.

[Sheriff Chris Nanos]

Well, our relationship is a good relationship. I mean, these are tough times. But, no, I have not spoken with Savannah recently. Has my contact number, as you and the rest of the world seems to have. But she's very gracious and. And she doesn't need to contact the sheriff. She needs a. A team that she's very well aware of that works with her and she's in contact with them at any moment of day, any time of day that she needs to.

[Ashley Banfield]

So naturally I wanted to ask, you know, Wyatt about all the other questions that he asked Chris Nanos and also what conducting this interview was like and whether he thought that maybe he got this interview because the sheriff just thought he was some 17 year old kid and doesn't know that he's this like prodigy who's one of the better journalists alive today. And so here's my conversation with Wyatt and listen carefully because there's a lot of stuff that he touched on that we're going to talk about in this interview. Wyatt Sharp, good to have you on drop dead serious. Thanks for being here.

[Wyatt Sharp]

Thank you so much. Happy to.

[Ashley Banfield]

So listen, first off, congratulations. That's a huge score getting that interview with Sheriff Nanos because a lot of people have been rebuffed by him lately. Were you surprised he said yes?

[Wyatt Sharp]

I was just because I was looking at some of the more recent interviews that he had done. And before mine, the most recent one that he did was with kvoa, the local Tucson affiliate station. And so I thought to myself, obviously I'm going to ask because that's what you do as a journalist and as someone in the media. But I thought to myself, I'm going to do it and probably nothing's going to come of it because there's, you know, hundreds if not thousands of outlets around the world and you know, in the United States who are requesting interviews with him. And so I did it. And sure enough, he responded and said yes, I'd be happy to. Which looking back on and reflecting on it, I'm sure was in part due to my age. Maybe he thought that being 17 years old, I probably would, you know, scale myself back from some of the more difficult questions. But I think he might have been a little bit surprised with perhaps the magnitude of the questions that he got.

[Ashley Banfield]

Well, and I'm going to get there because you did ask him something at the end of your interview, which I think is very telling how he answered it. We'll play that in a bit. But let's get to the headlines that really you were able to make in this interview. He went after Kash Patel, the FBI director. So what did, what did you ask and what did he say?

[Wyatt Sharp]

Yes, so Cash Patel did an interview on Fox News where he had claimed that if the FBI, the bureau that he oversees, had obtained access to the scene earlier, that they would have been able to help with more forensic evidence and kind of get more on the ground investigation done than if it was just the Pima County Sheriff's Department on their own, which Chris Nanos took almost offense to, in a way. He said Kash Patel is misinformed. He said when Kash Patel goes out there and makes statements like the one that he did in that Fox News interview, it doesn't help anybody, he said. It hurts the case, was his words. So definitely a lot of, I think, frustration between them. And the most interesting part to me that I thought was very puzzling was he said that he has never spoken to the FBI director, Kash Patel, which, if you're having this public back and forth in the media, what sense does it make to not call the person who is overseeing the investigation, you know, not just any other case, but one that has captivated the nation, if not the world.

[Ashley Banfield]

Well, and that, you know, Kash Patel's boss weighed in on early. I remember him on Air Force One saying, oh, we're close. We're. We're close to getting some kind of resolution. Those are my words, not President Trump's. But I recall thinking, well, clearly the president has spoken with the FBI director, and the FBI director must be dialed in on the ground in. In Tucson. So it is astounding to think that they've never spoken.

[Wyatt Sharp]

Yeah, totally. And I think for me, like, there was a certain part of me when I was asking that question, right. That I was like, he might just say, and take the approach, which he did, that it's unorthodox for the FBI director to be involved in a direct case. Right. With the local sheriff's department. But my pushback on that was. Yeah, but, sir, it's not any other case. Right. Like, this does not get the same parameters that any other case does. You have thousands of leads, which does not happen with cases that aren't in the public eye. You have, you know, different ransom notes that you aren't able to verify the authenticity of. When a case is this public, clearly you should have the FBI director involved in conversation. So I was just very, very surprised when he said, I've never. Not even. Not only. Just with respect to this case, has he never had a conversation with Cash Patel. He said he's never met Kash Patel, which, again, was just very surprising.

[Ashley Banfield]

Well, it's this case only that makes me surprised about that, because Kash Patel was there. I mean, early in the case. The FBI director was actually in Tucson. He was clear to, you know, us that it wasn't because of the Nancy Guthrie case that he was going to be There anyway. But obviously he was there and he met with the, you know, the team that's, that's working this case. And there's been this, this joint task force between Pima County Sheriff's Department and the homicide investigators and the FBI local, you know, field agents there. So it is a little surprising, but like, I'll move on. Okay. There's been a lot of weird stuff in this.

[Wyatt Sharp]

Well, actually, just on, just really quickly on the task force point, because I asked him about that as well, because I was trying to get him to quantify or at least make some kind of a comparison between what the task force was like at the very beginning compared to what it is like now. And he was definitely inferring that it has shrunk a little bit. But he did confirm that the core investigative team has remained together since the beginning of the case, which is not surprising necessarily, but we can get into this in a little bit. But he also talked a lot about some of the tactics that investigators have been using in terms of what types of DNA they're gathering and such as. Well, but again, I'm sure we can get into that shortly.

[Ashley Banfield]

Well, that's exactly where I want to go because, you know, every one of us has been wondering how much atrophying has happened with that task force. And understandably, in every case we are past the six month mark, those numbers dwindle. They have to. There are other crimes, there are other, you know, resources that are needed elsewhere. And so I get it. Still curious about how many people are on that force, but interesting that the core is still together. So as to what they're doing, early on and then throughout the DNA reporting, the sheriff seemed to only indicate that there was a mixture of DNA that they're using very sophisticated new technology to try to deal with, but they said little else other than that. And I feel like you kind of got further in what exactly they are doing with the DNA they found in the house.

[Wyatt Sharp]

Yeah. So I was asking him about, like, the different types of DNA that they were gathering, and he made an analogy. He was like, are we looking at people like the second cousin? Which of course was a hypothetical example, but that would mean the forensic familial genealogy, basically, which was, you know, the same kind of construct, if you will, that was developed from the Golden State Killers case. And he had said that everything is on the table. They're reviewing everything, including the familial genealogy side, which I thought was interesting because he's also ruled out, you know, the family from being suspects. In the past, the immediate family, that is. So when he said that, I just thought to myself, okay, well, is this opening up, you know, back to the family, you know, as potential suspects? Does that mean they're still reviewing things, even though he has said in the past that the family is totally clear, which, you know, he didn't directly answer that question either. But I just thought, again, it was an interesting kind of juxtaposition there.

[Ashley Banfield]

Well, that's one of the things that I've been sort of toiling over for a while, and that is that it doesn't take that long to separate, you know, mixed DNA. Otherwise we'd never, ever solve rape cases. Those are mixed cases. Multiple murders, those are mixed cases. So it doesn't take that long. What does take a long time is the process of forensic genetic familial genealogy. And that's because whatever they found in that house, that was foreign, you know, DNA that wasn't supposed to be there. We still don't know if that's the actual killer or the porch guy. We just know it's a DNA. They need to figure out who was it. Was it the FedEx guy or was it the bad guy? And in order to do that, you can get a little piece that can fan out to be thousands of people, all who share that little piece. Then you gotta do the lengthy process of gumshoe detective work. You gotta find all those people, eliminate them based on, well, this guy's too old, and that's a woman, and that guy hasn't left the uk and this guy has never left Mexico. Whatever. You limit it down. And then when you get the possibilities, then you've actually got to follow them and pick up a pizza box or pick up a Coke can or a Kleenex, and you've got to test the DNA to find out who's your guy. And maybe that's what he's referring to about the length of time it's taken.

[Wyatt Sharp]

Which I was surprised because going into that question, I framed it in that way, right? I was like, usually DNA testing doesn't take this long. What's the holdup? And asides from confirming the familial genealogy side, he didn't really say a lot about the DNA, and he was kind of punting it off to. I have a team of people in. In my office who are doing the DNA side. I'm not really involved with that, which I'm not, obviously, disputing the fact, like, I know he's not, you know, a scientist or an expert in DNA but usually you would think that he would be briefed to the point that he can say more than that, but it seemed like he was almost using it as a scapegoat to not, you know, give out more information on where things are at with the DNA.

[Ashley Banfield]

Yeah, possibly, or quite frankly, the FBI are the masters of this. The local agents usually defer to Quantico, and in this case, they actually went to a phenomenal DNA lab in Florida. And I believe that Quantico could be involved anyway with the results. And then, of course, it's the gumshoe work after that, which could be the local guys. But it is a lengthy process. It is a finite process, though, and it can take months or years, but usually they get to the end. I mean, they do get to the end of their. Of their searches. So it'll be interesting to see what, you know, what he has to say later at. We're at six months. How much longer are we going to wait? But talk to me a little bit about the length of time. I mean, you know, Wyatt, every single time I talk to someone on the street about the Nancy Guthrie case, the very first question is, do they think she's still alive? And I know you had a chance to ask Sheriff Nanos what he thinks. That's different than what the. The public line is, what he thinks, and how did he answer?

[Wyatt Sharp]

So I kind of started it by saying, like, I recognize this is an uncomfortable question because it's almost getting you to tell us, you know, where your investigation is going, kind of. But I said in an interview with Elizabeth Vargas that he had done. Done five months ago on News Nation, he said, yes, I believe Nancy Guthrie was still alive. So I put the question to him, and he said. Said eventually that if the family thinks, you know, she's still alive, then so do I. But he also said something that was really interesting, and that was, as the sheriff, what benefit does it do to the public if I say I think she's dead? Which to me, you wouldn't say that if you think she's still alive. I think he's saying that because he knows that the public sentiment is very much right now that unfortunately, she likely, you know, is. Is dead. And so he's saying that because he's trying to satisfy the needs of the investigation while also satisfying the desire from the public to have more information.

[Ashley Banfield]

You know, he walks a fine line because obviously, it's super painful for the Guthrie family. Savannah just came out with her comments, I think, yesterday, and I'm recording this on 28th July. But to that end, how is his relationship with the Guthrie family? What? Talk to me about your questions, you know, that you put to him about his repartee with them and maybe why he's saying, I'm not about to just say she's dead.

[Wyatt Sharp]

Yeah. So, I mean, he did say that of like, if the Guthrie family thinks she's still alive, then so do I. But then my follow up to that was, okay, well, when was the last time that you talked with the Guthrie family? And all he said was he hasn't spent spoken with them recently. He did make a joke, though. He said, she has my contact information. The whole family has my contact information. And then he said, practically the whole world does, too, including you, referring to me, because I reached out to him for the interview. But there had been reports, right, that there was some friction between the Guthrie family and the sheriff's office. There was, you know, some reports as well that had said that Savannah Guthrie was developing her own team, kind of. Which he acknowledged in the interview. But he said that he has, quote, zero indication that the Guthrie family is frustrated with law enforcement, which I don't know if that's fair because I think obviously anyone who was in this unimaginably tragic situation probably would want the pace of the investigation to be moving a little bit faster than it probably is. But I think he just is trying to, you know, stand up for law enforcement and clear his own name as well in all of this, because he's obviously been prone to a lot of criticism on social media by local officials, facing, obviously, the vote of non confidence by his own sheriff deputies. So I think again, he's trying to kind of protect himself while also serving the interests of the investigation.

[Ashley Banfield]

Ooh, I'm going to ask you that in a minute because I know you were going to, you know, talk to him about the vote of no confidence and if his guys. How he feels about the fact that his guys don't have confidence in him. But I want to ask you about the early off inclusion. Cause I'm one of those people who's been extremely critical of the sheriff because I'm in the business of true crime and I know investigations. And I saw some things early on in this investigation that were a total mess. And that is within 36 hours, he released the scene. He said, there's nothing to see here. There's no cause for alarm in the community. And we've stopped the search for Nancy Guthrie. And I thought, what the heck were you thinking? Did you press him on Those early decisions and whether he now recognizes that they were all real, really bad decisions.

[Wyatt Sharp]

He. To be honest, what I tried to do was stay away from things that he's been asked about, you know, a bajillion times. And so he had said to the Arizona Republic that he thought the scene was released too soon. But then later he told KVOA that he thought any kind of suggestion otherwise was silly was the word that he had used. And so the kind of angle that I took with this was highlighting some of the contradictions that, that he previously had. But I mean, he's acknowledged, of course, several times that some of the early scene decisions may have implicated part of the case. But I think that he, even in the interview, his mentioning of the FBI director Kash Patel was almost an attempt to try and again use it as a scapegoat, to take accountability away from his office and put it on somebody else.

[Ashley Banfield]

I have wondered early and often if they focused on the wrong thing too early and too hard. Early his guys told me that they had their prime suspect and it was the brother in law. They towed the car of the brother in law and his wife Annie, and they kept it for over two months. And I'm wondering if that's why he said the words there's no cause for concern in the community. We've shut down, you know, the search for Nancy and we've released the scene. And I'm wondering if. Because perhaps they were focusing too much on the brother in law that they missed porch guy, whoever the heck he was.

[Wyatt Sharp]

Yeah, I mean, I didn't actually ask him directly about the brother in law for one reason. I was trying to be a little bit strategic in terms of like the behind the scenes of the interview about things that I had seen him get angry about in the past. And I know that he's obviously cleared the family and he wasn't going to say anything too different, likely. But he gets quite angry when people ask him about the family members. He gets quite angry when people ask him about his own criticism that he's facing or some of like the local politics in his county there. So my angle with it was trying to ask him questions that I knew would make news depending on his answer, and also balancing that with not making him so angry and egotistical in some ways as well that he would not want to answer some of the other potential newsworthy questions that I had had.

[Ashley Banfield]

Yeah, I mean, he, he does have an ego. And that's not me. That's a lot of sources. Many of the people who work for him and people who are no longer working for him say that that is his Achilles, that he just has such an ego and that he's rewarded people on the force with big jobs who weren't ready for prime time. You know, that there were very few people with homicide experience running homicide and running this show. And that's what of the things I wonder, like, you make critical mistakes early on and you may completely blow the case. And here we are six months later. Did he say anything about leads? Did he say that leads are still piling in, that they're still. They've got thousands to still go through?

[Wyatt Sharp]

I mean, he said that they had slowed down. I asked him if he could quantify that in some way. Obviously, quantifying it in this instance isn't necessarily an exact number so much as just like a general indication. And yeah, he said they have slowed down, but I think the way in which he was trying to provide this answer was acknowledging the truth. And that is, again, that they're not getting nearly as many leads as they were at the very beginning without making it, you know, a reason to think that the case had gone cold. And so he said, we're getting a fewer amount of leads, but, you know, we're still getting some of high quality. And it's. He was playing this balancing act basically for the whole interview. And so in the context of that question in particular, I pushed him on it a little bit. But I think it goes back to the balancing act and the fact that he's just so nervous that he's going to say something that will just completely upend the integrity of their investigation. And he did rely on that a lot when I asked him questions about the physical evidence, because I asked him about the flower pots that were reportedly near the door and whether or not he thought that they did that for a fast exit. He declined to answer that. I asked him about the blood pattern. You know, was there blood both inside the body?

[Ashley Banfield]

Wait, wait, go back to the flower pots. How did he decline? Did he say, I'm not going to discuss that? Or did he say, I don't know if the flower pots were left there for that reason? Like, how did he decline? Because sometimes you can get info.

[Wyatt Sharp]

No, he declined because. So on that one and the blood pattern one, both of them together, he declined, saying, I'm not going to talk about anything to do with the physical evidence, which, I mean, I think there was one question that I asked him. I can't recall exactly what it was, but it was a physical evidence. Question that I had thought he had addressed before. And so then my mind went to, well, maybe he's just refusing to answer any questions at all now on physical evidence, Even the ones where he could theoretically give an answer on, because he doesn't want people to, you know, be able to identify which questions he's kind of hiding from and not giving an answer on.

[Ashley Banfield]

So did you get the feeling that he's answered physical evidence questions before, but suddenly you've asked those ones and he's

[Wyatt Sharp]

all, yeah, that's kind of what I'm getting at. Like people have asked him. I think you even might have asked him when you interviewed him about the flower pot stuff, right? Like he.

[Ashley Banfield]

No, no.

[Wyatt Sharp]

God, no, you didn't.

[Ashley Banfield]

He won't talk to me because I, you know, I get. I had an interview with him on day one and after that he hated me because I talked to his guys and. And they said, we've got our prime suspect and it's brother in law. And he was so angry that either that I said it or that his guys said it and I said it.

[Wyatt Sharp]

Yeah, well, so I think any of the times I've seen him weigh in on physical evidence, he does it very carefully. But I still thought there was maybe a possibility that he would answer some of those questions because as you said earlier, we're six months into the investigation now revealing that type of information, like, it could help the public, you know, find leads that could then lead the department to figure out, you know, a potential suspect. Because the way I'm kind of was approaching this interview was we're six months in the public, as far as most people are concerned, don't really have, you know, much more information than they did on February 1st when it first happened. And the department really hasn't done very much to reassure the public. He said, even when I asked him, is there a possibility that the suspect is still in the Tucson area, Referring to that ransom note that had quoted. Quoted as outside Tucson, he said, well, absolutely, that's still a possibility. So I think if they haven't even ruled the suspect out of the Tucson area, which is, you know, not a massive, massive area, especially where Nancy Guthrie's home is located, that speaks, I think, to the broader uncertainty with the investigation as a whole.

[Ashley Banfield]

Kind of feels like they're no further along now than they were in the very first know few weeks and months of the case, which is really upsetting for, you know, for Savannah's family. To that end, has he said what the. What the. What the trickle or flow of of leads is like at this point, other

[Wyatt Sharp]

than they have slowed down and other than, you know, talking about how they have received some leads that have helped the investigation. Didn't say obviously what those were, but he gave a number of hypothetical examples. He said, you know, he gets leads from people in Ireland, for example, about the case was one reference that he had made. So I think again, he's trying to highlight some of the examples that make it seem as if they're still getting these really high quality leads while in some ways hiding from the fact that they really probably aren't getting the high

[Podcast Sponsor/Announcer]

quality this episode sponsored by Apollo still moving deals forward from your desk. With Apollo, you can go to market on the go, find leads, research accounts and launch outreach right Inside Claude and ChatGPT. You can even make calls or research leads from Gmail, your CRM or company websites. So whether you're at the airport or on a coffee run, Apollo works where you work no more switching tabs or devices. Grow boldly with Apollo, the revenue engine trusted by over 3 million teams. Visit Apollo IO anywhere and start free today. That's Apollo IO anywhere.

This podcast is sponsored by Jace Medical. For 250 years Americans have valued freedom, independence and the ability to take care of ourselves and our families. This fourth Jace Medical is celebrating with a special anniversary offer. Get a Jace case for just $250. The Jace case is a physician curated emergency supply of critical antibiotics and medications designed to help you prepare for travel disruptions, natural disasters, supply shortages, unexpected emergencies and more. The freedom to act begins with preparedness. Visit jace.com that's J-A-Com and claim your $250 Jace case today through July 31st.

[Wyatt Sharp]

The leads that they need in order to put an end to this. Because if they were back to the Tucson thing, I think he would have been able to rule out Tucson, Arizona

[Podcast Sponsor/Announcer]

this episode sponsored by Apollo. Still moving deals forward from your desk. With Apollo, you can go to market on the go, find leads, research accounts and launch outreach right Inside Claude and ChatGPT. You can even make calls or research leads from Gmail, your CRM or company websites. So whether you're at the airport or on a coffee run, Apollo works where you work. No more switching tabs or devices. Grow boldly with Apollo, the revenue engine trusted by over 3 million teams. Visit Apollo IO anywhere and start free today. That's Apollo IO anywhere.

This podcast is sponsored by Jace Medical. For 250 years, Americans have valued freedom, independence and the ability to take care of ourselves and our families this 4th Jace Medical is celebrating with a special anniversary offer. Get a Jase case for just $250. The Jace case is a physician curated emergency supply of critical antibiotics and medications designed to help you prepare for travel disruptions, natural disasters, supply shortages, unexpected emergencies, and more. The freedom to act begins with preparedness. Visit jase.com that's J-A-S-E.com and claim your $250 Jace case today through July 31st.

[Ashley Banfield]

Yeah, I mean, it's a natural that the leads fall off and, you know, early in the case, the press gets the hammer taken to them for talking too much about the case or being outside on the street out in front of Nancy Guthrie's home. And then when you get to this point, six months and the leads slow, sometimes to a trickle, suddenly everybody wishes the media was all over it again and that the lead, you know, would keep coming in the good ones. Because like you said, some people from Ireland are calling with their ideas or their theories. That's not helpful to the police. They need good leads, which are information that's actionable and that's. That's the hard part. And it's never a cold case because I know you mentioned that the sheriff said it's not a cold case. Well, heck no. It's never a cold case until every lead has been run down and there's no longer any more leads. And then they put the shoebox up on the shelf and then it's a cold case. So this is a long way still from being a cold case. But is there anything that, like, does he have any regrets, did you get any notion in your interview that he has any regrets about his part in all of this? Not really.

[Wyatt Sharp]

Going into the interview, I obviously did extensive research and I had seen some of the ways in which he had treated different people. And I have to say this isn't my own experience because he was very gracious with me, but he said to. It was reported on the crime junkie podcast. They were interviewing one of the local reporters and he had told one of the reporters about a week or two into the investigation reportedly that, you know, they shouldn't be messaging him at 9:50pm which in Arizona, a lot of the newscasts there go to air at 10pm so they were trying to.

[Ashley Banfield]

I think that's Brianna Whitney, wasn't it?

[Wyatt Sharp]

I think so, yeah. I don't recall her name, but I'm sure that's who it is.

[Ashley Banfield]

She couldn't believe it. Like, what are you talking about?

[Wyatt Sharp]

About. Well, especially, like, again, it's one thing, if it's a year into the investigation and, you know, the sheriff is probably with his family, it's a week into the investigation, absolutely no leads, right before their newscast. And he obviously, in that instance, didn't feel any remorse telling the reporter to, you know, not message her or not message him rather. And so that, I think speaks to the broader fact of, like, if someone's doing that, I don't know if they're the type of person who will reflect back and have certain regrets, if that makes sense. And so, I mean, I did kind of try and get to that when I was asking him about if he thinks, you know, he should have done more with the Guthrie family. I also asked him if he thinks back to the Nogales and Sonora tips that were brought in. Should you have made an earlier attempt to engage with the Mexican authorities, for example? And he got a little bit puzzled. He was like, well, I don't know what earlier or bigger would have looked like. Like, if you can tell me, then let me know.

[Ashley Banfield]

Are you kidding me?

[Wyatt Sharp]

Yeah. Which I thought was kind of strange because he.

[Ashley Banfield]

He's asking a 17 year old.

[Wyatt Sharp]

He was very nice. He was very nice. I don't want people to get the wrong impression, but I just thought it was interesting. I think he was kind of talking, you know, as the collective you, so to speak. But I just thought it was weird because when that tip came in from Nogales about the burial site, I thought, okay, we did an interview about this on my show. And I thought, okay, well, this is the first, like, real, real tip about her whereabouts that we've received. And my notion in this question was just there seems to be nothing really done to, you know, put this tip to bed or to put it to rest. And so I just thought, you know, maybe there's more tips like this. Should you be engaging with them more? Because we've only heard of that one from Mexico. And he. Yeah, he didn't really answer that question either.

[Ashley Banfield]

That's frustrating because the Mexican authorities thought it was important enough to dispatch some of their security forces to help that search group. They're very serious, bona fide search group. Look, look in the. The killing fields where they had unearthed 25, you know, unmarked graves before. Yeah. So the Mexicans took it seriously enough. It's sad that the, you know, that the Pima county authorities didn't jump on that and say, you know, we should jump in here, too, and maybe do a team effort and maybe pull on this thread and see if there's More to it. Maybe that'll happen in the future. Who knows? But it is a little frustrating to hear that that's not a big deal to them.

[Wyatt Sharp]

Yeah, I think so. I also think just more broadly about the way in which this investigation is going. They're very much focused on the optics for the sheriff's department, which, you know, I had actually received advice from Brian Enten, and he told me, like, maybe, maybe avoid going to the local politics because he gets very flustered when you ask about that. And if that happens, then, you know, he might not answer some of the other questions that you have. And so I wanted to ask him, though, because the overall optics of the sheriff's department right now, the non confidence vote and some of his deputies expressing a lack of confidence. There was a few, I think even it was days into the investigation that he was spotted rather at a sports game, that incident with the reporter. So I just thought to myself, like, all of these different examples combined, surely there must be some reflection of what could have been done differently. You know, could you have brought other people into the investigation sooner to help with it and perhaps most notably, like, maybe not dismiss people? Don't get me wrong. It's obviously very tragic and very sad for the Guthrie family, but clearing the family's name out of the investigation from the get go might give the public the wrong picture.

[Sheriff Chris Nanos]

And.

[Wyatt Sharp]

And, you know, I think just in general, like, you know, why aren't we asking more questions and why are we just trying to put things to rest from the bat in order to save the optics of his own department?

[Ashley Banfield]

Well, the optics have been the pits, you know, for him. He's taken it on the chin repeatedly, and I think a lot of it is deserved, a lot of it. But how did he respond when you went there about the no confidence phobe, effectively saying none of your guys has confidence in you. How do you feel about that?

[Wyatt Sharp]

Yeah, I actually didn't ask him about that directly, is what I was saying, just because I didn't want that to get away from the newsworthy questions.

[Ashley Banfield]

Did you get in the back door on it, though, and at least try to figure out how he responded to that?

[Wyatt Sharp]

That's where. Cause that's where I was going kind of right with the Savannah Guthrie question and whether or not he thinks that the Guthrie family is satisfied with them? Because in my mind, I'm like, if the, you know, your own deputies don't have confidence in you, how could the Guthrie family have confidence in you? Right. And obviously that sounded very, you know, firm and Very assertive. So I was hesitant to ask that one directly just because I thought there's other questions here that might not, you know, be as punchy necessarily, but could help move this investigation along. And I think he did do, you know, a relatively good job of answering some of those ones. But it was just this idea that, like, he had just been very dismissive in general of the fact that people in his own office were failing to express confidence, you know, in him at a time when they should be very united. Like, this is the one time that they are being put in the spotlight ever since Gabby Giffords was the last time that they were in the spotlight. He talked about that as well, the Gabby Giffords investigation. He said he was the one leading the investigation into her as well. He had said that it's a little bit different because the investigation into her was less of a kind of who did it talk type of investigation and more of a corroborating the facts and a motive behind it and everything. But he was drawing some similarities between that and also, you know, making reference to some of the exceptions he was trying to highlight. I think that the Pima County Sheriff's Office has been in the news for a lot of bad reasons, obviously recently with how slowly this investigation is moving in some ways. And so he said, in an effort to, I think, counter that there was a homicide case recently in Pima county. And he said, in my department, you know, found the suspect and got through with it very quickly, within a matter of just a couple of days. And so he, again, I think that goes back to the optics and wanting to paint his department in the best light possible. Which, you know, I have to say the fact that he gave an interview to me and answered some of these questions, I at least give him, you know, some credit because frankly, it wasn't looking like he was going to do that with, you know, a major outlet even for the past little while, because that last interview he did was like an 8 minute interview with the local affiliate station there in Tucson. And so to me it looked as if he was maybe dodging accountability. But I guess this kind of, for me anyways, made things look like he's willing to answer some questions.

[Ashley Banfield]

How did it go when you said, you know, thanks for being with me today? How did you go when you wrapped it up?

[Wyatt Sharp]

He said, I don't know if I want to read too much into this or make your viewers read too much into it. But I said to him, I said, thank you so much. That was great. It's very Common that I say that after the interview. I want to end on a good note regardless of how the interview went. And he said, well, I don't know about that. So I don't know if it was like a playful thing for him where he was like, you know, joking about the quality of his responses or if it was more of a serious, oh my goodness, I can't believe that I answered those questions right. Like it was very hard to gauge. But it was definitely a moment that resonated with me because either way, it's interesting that he said that after the conversation.

[Ashley Banfield]

Well, I have been on the other end of an interview from you and I remember being astounded at how much research you did and how much background you knew. It was one of the most researched interviews I've ever actually sat for. So I get it. I don't think he was joking. I think he was gobsmacked by this 17 year old kid who's, you know, about to become a senior in high school who really put it, you know, put him to the table task. So good job, congratulations, very well done and thanks so much for being on with me. I hope it's certainly not the last time and I, I really know it

[Wyatt Sharp]

won't be, of course. Thank you so much.

[Ashley Banfield]

My great thanks to Wyatt Sharp. Again, the Sharp Exchange. You must download, you must join his membership, do whatever. But, but watch this kid because his interviews are amazing. He's, he's literally interviewed almost all of the A lists. Senators and congressmen, prime ministers of, of other countries, leaders of other countries. I don't know how he does it. And somehow maintains a 98 average in school. I was not like that at 17. I'm just gonna say it anyway. Thank you everyone for listening. Thank you everyone for watching. 1-800-call FBI if you know anything about the Guthrie case. If you know anything about that guy who was seen on the porch camera. If you have heard, heard anything. Because loose lips sink ships and often it happens months after the crime. 1-800- call FBI. I'm Ashley Banfield and the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious. You're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you may not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote with discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.