Nancy Guthrie Ransom Bombshell as Sheriff Says Nobody Is Ruled Out | Nancy Guthrie Missing

Summary

Podcast Summary

Podcast: Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Episode: Nancy Guthrie Ransom Bombshell as Sheriff Says Nobody Is Ruled Out | Nancy Guthrie Missing
Date: July 31, 2026
Host: Ashleigh Banfield
Main Theme: Explosive new developments in the Nancy Guthrie abduction case, including the release of complete ransom notes, conflicting statements from officials, and growing controversy about the investigation's direction and transparency.

---

Episode Overview

Ashleigh Banfield takes listeners through the most significant revelations in the Nancy Guthrie case to date, with new evidence released by the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, shifting explanations from law enforcement, high-profile media controversies, and deep dives into what the public has (and hasn’t) been told. Banfield examines the substance and timing of these developments with her signature irreverent, investigative style, offering a critical look at the investigation’s handling and the unresolved questions still dominating the case.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Release of Ransom Notes

• The Pima County Sheriff’s Department released the full versions of two ransom notes related to Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance.
• Noted as the “biggest news” in the case so far, as previous disclosures had only included partial content.
• Banfield reads and analyzes both notes, providing detailed commentary on their content, tone, and possible implications.

First Ransom Note Details (04:05)

• Addressed to Savannah Guthrie.
• Claims Nancy is alive, “safe but scared,” and held for ransom.
• Specifies a seven-day window for payment ($4 million USD in Bitcoin by Feb 5th; after which it rises to $6 million on Feb 9th).
• Implies perpetrators are far from Tucson (“released…back in Tucson”).
• Contains direct threats (“she will be killed” if not paid).
• Emergency/panic language possibly indicative of a scam.
• Mentions physical evidence only someone close to the scene would know:
  “She had a white smartwatch on the floor of the foot of her bed. And the white floodlight in backyard was destroyed.”

“That one line has scam artist to me written all over it.”

• Ashleigh Banfield (06:42)

Second Ransom Note (10:24)

• Addressed to “Guthrie family,” not Savannah specifically.
• Claims kidnappers “did not fully grasp the seriousness of her physical condition.”
• States Nancy “perished shortly after she was taken,” allegedly from “heart-related” causes.
• Says she is “buried in nature,” apologizes, and urges the family to find peace.

“Really? Are you really sorry? You didn’t think the reckless level of taking an 84-year-old woman in the middle of the night out of her bed with no shoes on might have caused something like this?”

• Ashleigh Banfield (11:28)

---

2. Controversy Over Investigation & Law Enforcement Statements

• Recent media interviews (by 17-year-old Wyatt Sharp and major networks) and their fallout are scrutinized:
  • Wyatt Sharp’s YouTube interview triggers Sheriff Chris Nanos to criticize FBI Director Cash Patel for being “misinformed,” allegedly harming the investigation.
  • Cash Patel’s Response (aired on Hannity/Fox News): Rebuts Nanos, argues the FBI offered immediate assistance but wasn’t fully utilized, including delayed evidence processing and missed potential from ring video data.
  • Dispute over whether evidence (including DNA) should have been sent to FBI's Quantico lab versus a private lab in Florida.

“Had we gotten there days earlier and access to [the video data], we could have gotten more out of the cache data that was set to auto-delete because there was no subscription service to that product.”

• Cash Patel (15:34)

• Banfield suggests that the release of ransom notes may be “damage control” following these public clashes.

---

3. Updates on Physical Evidence and Suspects

DNA Findings and Lab Work

• DNA mixture found at the scene, possibly from several individuals and across different material types (blood, hair, skin cells).
• A hair found in the home came back inconclusive—no usable results.
• Up to six labs nationwide are now working on the DNA, some using genetic genealogy.

“My understanding is there’s at least five, maybe six labs across the country that are working on all of this.”

• Sheriff Chris Nanos (24:42)

• CBS & ABC interviews reveal:
  • The blood at the crime scene did not lead to new suspects.
  • Mystery DNA mixture is complex; male DNA does not match anyone in Nancy’s immediate circle.

“DNA could be comprised of a whole lot of stuff. Right. I thought it was touch DNA… but he’s saying… probably a combination of all of that.”

• Ashleigh Banfield (21:23)

Status of Suspects

• Early identification of a family member as a “prime suspect,” followed by rapid public elimination by the sheriff.
• Now, no one is conclusively ruled out, including family.
• Two men detained in SWAT raids early in the investigation were released, but not fully cleared; all property returned, but investigation remains open.

“Does that mean they’re ruled out? They’re ruled out for now. But what if somebody comes up and says…”

• Sheriff Chris Nanos (26:01)

• Sheriff Nanos clarifies that “elimination” is always subject to change as new information arises.

---

4. Analysis and Critical Observations

• Banfield questions physical plausibility of some ransom note details (e.g., smartwatch on the floor at the foot of the bed for an elderly, frail woman).
• Criticizes Pima County’s public relations practices—no major press conferences even after “significant developments.”
• Suggests the investigation’s progress seems stalled, with several developments looping back to questions first raised months earlier.

“It kind of feels, you tell me, feels like we are right back to week two or three. Like we’re no further ahead than week two or three in this case. And that is really sad.”

• Ashleigh Banfield (32:40)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Law Enforcement Secrecy/Tactics:
  “The bottom line here is this. We know more than you will ever know because that’s how investigations work.”
  – Sheriff Chris Nanos (21:12)

• On Ransom Note Language and Physical Evidence:
  “Back in Tucson? Are they actually a long way? Like 12 hours from Tucson? Did they take her and travel to 12 hours from Tucson?... That was interesting. ‘Back in Tucson.’ If you’re AI-ing this, AI is not going to throw in ‘back in Tucson’ unless you suggest you’re not near Tucson, that you left Tucson.”
  – Ashleigh Banfield (06:00)

• On Never Fully Ruling Out Anyone:
  “At this point, nobody’s completely ruled out…doesn’t mean they’re cleared. It just means that we don’t have enough now to hold you…But…the evidence we’ve obtained, who knows, maybe a day from now, a month from now, a year from now, somebody might call in and say, oh, you missed this, and guess what? We’ll go back.”
  – Sheriff Chris Nanos (31:47)

---

Key Timestamps

| Time | Segment | Content | |-----------|-----------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:05 | Opening statements | Banfield previews new evidence and law enforcement PR issues. | | 04:05 | First ransom note read & analysis | Detailed discussion of note content, logistics, and psychological implications. | | 10:24 | Second ransom note read & commentary | Analysis of note’s tone shift and possible motivation. | | 14:39 | Hannity, Cash Patel, law enforcement controversy | Extended excerpt of media clash over investigation handling. | | 18:24 | CBS interview with Sheriff Nanos (DNA and hair) | Updates and new findings—or lack thereof—on physical evidence from the scene. | | 24:27 | ABC interview with Sheriff Nanos | More on DNA, labs, possible number of suspects, and family’s suspect status. | | 26:01 | Fox Digital interview clip; suspect elimination | Nanos’ nuanced definition of “eliminated” in ongoing investigation context. | | 31:42 | Follow-up: status of previously detained individuals| Confirmation that “nobody is completely ruled out.” | | 32:40 | Banfield’s closing thoughts | Expresses disappointment and frustration with the investigation’s progression. |

---

Tone and Style Recap

Ashleigh Banfield maintains a tone that is by turns irreverent, critical, and deeply invested. She directly interrogates inconsistencies, challenges official narratives, and adds seasoned insight from her long experience in true-crime reporting. The episode is fast-paced, analytic, and sometimes sharp—a true reflection of Banfield’s “drop dead serious” style.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides major new information on the Guthrie investigation, particularly through the never-before-seen full ransom notes. But it is equally defined by pointed skepticism about law enforcement’s transparency, the persistent ambiguities in the case, and the emotional toll on the victim’s family and community. The ultimate message: while new evidence has emerged, the core truths of the disappearance remain maddeningly elusive, with no one truly ruled out and the investigation’s resolution still uncertain.

Transcript

[Chris Nanos]

Foreign.

[Ashley Banfield]

Hey everyone, I'm Ashley Banfield and this is drop dead serious big news. I mean, probably some of the biggest news that we've received in the Nancy Guthrie investigation to date, and that is that the sheriff, Chris Nanos and the Pima County Sheriff's Department has decided to release some really big evidence. And when I say that we, we've had lots of little pieces of this, but now we have the entire first ransom note and the entire second ransom note. I'm going to read them for you in just a second. But I also want to let you know that there's a lot of developments just in the last 48 hours. First of all, a 17 year old boy named Wyatt Sharp has a show called the Sharp exchange on YouTube and he interviewed Chris Nanos and made a bunch of news because the, the sheriff kind of went after the FBI director, Kash Patel and said, you know, he was misinformed and the things that he said publicly hurt the case. And that has just opened up a huge can of worms and Cash Patel has responded on Hannity. I'm going to play that for you in just a moment. But this is what the, this is what the PR person said as they just blasted this out to a mailing list. Good afternoon, media partners. Please see attached the media release regarding the Nancy Guthrie and investigation and ransom notes. Sheriff Nanos is no longer holding media availability at this time. And then the obvious line we always get, should a significant development occur in this case, a press conference will be called and you will be notified via email and our social media channels. I have seen that paragraph like dozens of times and there have been significant developments all the way along and no press conference. So please just eliminate that from your email. Pima County. I mean, it is just a lie when you say that should a significant development occur, you know a press conference will be called. You, you're not telling us the truth because you do not call press conferences. You just do these scattered random interviews like with Wyatt Sharp and then suddenly, you know, the shit hits the fan and suddenly I guess maybe this is damage control. So. Okay, I'm going to play for you in a moment. Cash Patel's response to the sheriff saying he was misinformed and that hurts the investigation. And also two more interviews just came out on CBS and ABC in which the sheriff said some things I have not heard before, including what's now being ruled out, a big find inside the house that they're saying, nope, nothing to see here anymore on that. Also big news, the sheriff has said something that flies in the face of everything he's been saying since about day five. Right. I will remind you that on day two, sources told me that the Pima County Sheriff's department had identified a prime suspect and it was the brother in law of Savannah Guthrie. And then the sheriff came out and said, that's crazy. You know, why would you say anything like that? And all the while, Toad and Danny Guthrie and Tommaso's car and kept it for two months, processed their home in the middle of the night in the darkness and did all these strange things that made it look like, well, you're. It looks like you're curious about them. And the sheriff said, but they're. They're not suspects. I mean, he eventually said they're. The family's not suspects. The family is eliminated as suspects. Well, now he's saying something else. And also the number of people, people that the sheriff now I guess believes might be a part of that mystery DNA mixture, it's not just one. Okay, so that's coming in a moment. Let me start with the very first ransom note, though, and let me read it for you. You've heard bits of it, so some of it will sound familiar. Like the beginning. Hello, Savannah. I always get a bit creeped out when I see that because it sounds very Hannibal Lecter. Hello, Clarice. I. I get. But that's the way the first note started. And you've probably heard that before, but you won't have heard the rest of it.

[Jonathan Vigliotti]

So.

[Ashley Banfield]

Hello, Savannah. We have your mother, Nancy. She is safe but scared. She will be held for ransom and once payment is received, she will be released unharmed. We will be holding her for a maximum of seven days. I had not heard that there was a seven day timeline on this, but wait until you hear what they say they're going to do. So we'll be holding her for a maximum of seven days. You will need to send Bitcoin in the amount of 4 million USD before 5pm Thursday the 5th. That would be the 5th of February. She was taken on the very early morning of the first. If payment is not received, the ransom will be increased to 6 million USD, which will need to be paid by 5pm on Monday the 9th, the 9th of February. And that would be a full week and one day since they had taken Nancy Guthrie. The. The ransom note senders, I won't say kidnappers because I'm not 100% convinced that these are really the kidnappers. I think these are folks from overseas trying to make a buck. But that's me. Once payment is received to the bitcoin address below, she will be released within 12 hours of deposit to a safe drop off location back in Tucson. Back in Tucson? Are they actually a long way? Like 12 hours from Tucson? Did they take her and travel to 12 hours from Tucson? So when you pay, we'll start our trip and 12 hours later we'll get her to a safe drop off back in Tucson. I mean, if you're AI ing this AI is not going to throw in back in Tucson unless you suggest you're not near Tucson, that you left Tucson. So that was interesting. Back in Tucson. If payment is not received by the last Deadline, Monday the 9th at 5pm she will be killed. It's the first time I've seen that. I mean, look, we all assume that the ransom was killed. Give us money or, you know, we keep your mom. But I had not. I had not heard. I did not know that there was a specific threat. We will kill her. She will be killed. Your mother is aware of this and her life is in your hands. It's in the best interest of everyone to have this completed as soon as possible. That bit there, that's the scam artist language. Like hurry it, let's go. Time is of the essence. Let's move on this. You have no time to spare right now. There's an emergent problem if you don't pay. Scam artists always put in the emergency so that you fear and you start, you know, acting out of more fear and panic of the deadline than of contemplation and thinking it through. So that's the one. That one line has scam artist to me written all over it. It goes on to say, you will not be able to contact from here on out. Me, not us. You will not be able to contact me. Not. You will not be able to contact us. Interesting. From here on out, there will be no negotiation. Do not play games. Law enforcement will not be able to help you. And then there's something redacted. And then one other line. And I'm assuming that the redacted maybe is the bitcoin address. But then there's one, one other line at the end here, and this is significant. She had a white smartwatch on the floor of the foot of her bed. And the white floodlight in backyard was destroyed. Okay, This smartwatch, we knew, right? We knew that there had been some mention of a smart watch on the floor, but we didn't know at the foot of the bed. So now I'm interested in what can you See through a window in the backyard. Well, if you're in the backyard, you can see the floodlight, right? But can you peer in and see that she charges her smartwatch, maybe at the foot of her bed? Maybe you can. Maybe the person who did this has been in her backyard in a situation comfortable enough to peer in the windows. Sometimes landscapers can get right up close as they're trimming hedges and doing whatever and be right next to the windows. Maybe, maybe this was something that the kidnapper did in reconnaissance. If the kidnapper came a few times beforehand to scope out the place, you know, make sure that he or she knew what was going on. I'd say she definitely a dude on the camera anyway, but he seemed a little confused when he got to the front door, you know, like over here and then over here and then the mucking about, trying to get the ring camera off. I think that's what he's doing with the, with the, with the vine, trying to pull the ring camera off. I don't think he's trying to cover the camera. But if he'd been to the place before, you know, it was there, why didn't he bring a tool? Did he forget the tool? But I find this really interesting. It would be really cool to be able to see in that back window to see if you could see the foot of her bed and to see if a smart watch charger is at the foot of her bed. But here's what's weird. This is a woman who is elderly and frail and has trouble walking. So she's charging her smartwatch at the foot of her bed. Look, maybe there's a bench there, I don't know. In her Today show live shot a couple years ago, it wasn't there. It didn't seem like we could see anything at the foot of her bed. But you never know. Things can change all the time. But on the floor, can you imagine an 84 year old woman just, you know, waking up and then going to the foot of the bed and then crouching all the way down to the floor to pick up the smartwatch off the floor where she charges it? This is all very unusual and it's confusing. However, it seems to track with the family because Savannah has said in the past, I tend to think that these two notes are real. I'm going to read the second one in a hot minute. So Savannah has said that she and the police tend to think that these first two notes are real. And so that little piece of information has to track with Savannah and her Family that the smartwatch is on the floor at the foot of the bed. Hmm. Unless. Unless the smartwatch fell. It doesn't say charging, right? Just says she had a white smartwatch on the floor. The foot of her bed doesn't mean charging. What if there was a fight and it came off or she was grabbing for it and the kidnapper made her throw it down and it was thrown down at the foot of the bed. And so this references. That's how I left the scene. It's also an interesting thing to ponder. I. You know, we were all confused about what the scene. Smart, white smartwatch. Where could it be? Where could it be? Then we learned on the floor, but not at the foot of the bed. Now, here's the specifics. The white floodlight in the backyard. There were lots of drone pictures, but the timing of them is still a little up in the air. When did it hit the mass media? When might this writer have seen some of that drone video? Outside to see the smash light, but pretty fascinating. Okay, so let's look at note number two. And this we had an inkling about. Now, it is addressed not to Savannah. It says Guthrie family. Doesn't say hello. It doesn't say to the Guthrie family. It doesn't say to Savannah. It says Guthrie family. We did not fully grasp the seriousness of her physical condition. We never intended to hurt her. That was not our intention. She perished shortly after she was taken. We believe it was heart related. She is buried in nature now. Nothing you could have done could have changed the outcome. We want your family to know this and hope you all can find peace. We are truly sorry. Really? Are you now? Are you really sorry you didn't think the reckless level of taking an 84 year old woman in the middle of the night out of her bed with no shoes on might have caused something like this? You didn't think there was a possibility something could go wrong and an elderly woman who was frail might actually not survive this terrorizing ordeal? Really, we are truly sorry. Are you super curious as to the timing of the release of these notes again? Nano's taking it on the chin again. Doing an interview with 17 year old Wyatt Sharp. And the Sharp exchange. Get it. Subscribe to it. This kid's going to run the whole world one year. I'm telling you, trust me, one day we're all going to work for Wyatt. But you know, the heat was on suddenly because he took the boots to Cash Patel a little bit, saying that he was misinformed. And when you say those things out Loud, it can hurt the investigation. So Cash Patel was called by his friend Sean Hannity on Fox, and he appeared on Fox to address what Wyatt Sharp got in that interview with Chris Nanos. I want to play for you sort of how the whole piece of business played out on Fox News with Sean Hannity last night. Take a look.

[Sean Hannity]

And much more is FBI Director Cash Patel. Director, please correct me if I'm wrong. Am I not correct in my understanding that he did not want the FBI involved in the very beginning? He did not send the evidence where it should have been sent, which would be to the Quantico, the best equipment available. When the FBI finally was brought in, we finally got the biggest break in that case, which was you were able to use your connections to, to, to get that videotape of that guy trying to cover that camera. The biggest breakthrough in the case. He's saying this today, and I know it all to be a lie. Your reaction?

[Cash Patel]

Look, Sean, the FBI, the world's premier law enforcement agency, is here to help in every missing person's case. And just like most missing persons cases, their state led cases because the state has a jurisdiction. And in this case, like others, we offered our help from day one. And we'd gotten to some of that information and evidence earlier. You just outlaid what we did and what we can do. But the state has the right and the sheriff has the right to conduct his investigation, and he has the right to own it as well. They sent the DNA to a private laboratory, which took six weeks. We offered Quantico from Jump, the world's best laboratory. And of course, we worked with our private sector partners at Google brilliantly to show you that imagery and data from the ring doorbell. But had we gotten there days earlier and access to it, we could have gotten more out of the cache data that was set to auto delete because there was no subscription service to that product.

[Sean Hannity]

So in other words, if you got it earlier, if you were brought in earlier, they could have had the best people, the latest, greatest advanced technology, and they didn't have it. Let me talk to about everyone on day one. And you were willing to help them on day one, am I correct in that, sir? Yep. And President Trump tweeted out that every federal resource would be made available to them. So then they send the lab, they send, you know, some of the evidence to some independent lab in Florida. Made no sense.

[Ashley Banfield]

So, you know, obviously big, big headlines. It's in the new. I mean, what Wyatt's interview went everywhere. New York Post, Daily News, Daily Mail, every You know, TV network and Fox News Channel, obviously with Cash Patel responding. So is that why the Pima County Sheriff's department decided the day after to release these ransom notes? So that maybe the attention would be on the ransom notes and not so much on Chris Nanos taking the boots to the FBI director and the FBI director responding, Right, Saying, no, not. Not our fault. We did everything. We. We gave them everything. Okay, that's one aspect to all of this. Second aspect is a couple of interviews that were just conducted because Chris Nano suddenly had to respond to a lot of people. Once Wyatt's interview aired, everybody called him and he started giving more interviews. Like he gave one to CBS and he gave one to abc. And in the CBS interview, he made some news, because up until now, we have been wondering, what was the mystery DNA that they found inside Nancy Guthrie's house? You know, the mixture that had male DNA in it that did not belong to anyone in Nancy's immediate circle. And so they thought, ha, maybe this is the kidnapper killer. So cbs, Jonathan Vigliotti, asked those questions of Sheriff Nanos, but he also asked about the hair, because there was a lot of news early on as well about a single ha being found in Nancy Godby's house. And he got answers to both. The hair one, interesting, but the DNA one, fascinating. Take a listen.

[Jonathan Vigliotti]

Do we know what that DNA is? Is it blood? Is it fluid? Is it hair? Is it a fingerprint? Can you give us that guidance just

[Chris Nanos]

for our own reporting accuracy? What I can tell you is that it's probably a combination of all of that. But what I would tell you is that I think there was some mention from the FBI about a hair that was found in having it DNA. So we gather all this DNA from all types of sources, and it's given to who? Oh, sheriff's department, you handle the DNA forensics for cameras and that FBI, you handle it. That was just a sharing of responsibilities for resources.

[Jonathan Vigliotti]

Likely blood and possibly hair.

[Chris Nanos]

Well, the hair sample. So if you know anything about DNA, which I don't, others have had to tell me hair is very rare to find DNA in. Extremely rare. But we did have hair. So the FBI said, hey, we got somebody out here that has new technology. Hey, give it to them. Because it wasn't on our priority. When we prioritize DNA, we go, what's the best DNA we have in front of us? The hair would be one of the lowest ones. Blood or semen or whatever you've got. That would be probably higher because of its probability of identification. But we said, absolutely you can help us take that.

[Jonathan Vigliotti]

Is the hair still viable today?

[Chris Nanos]

It came back with no results.

[Jonathan Vigliotti]

No results.

[Chris Nanos]

Even when a case goes cold, we don't give up on it. God forbid this ever take 50 years. But it could.

[Jonathan Vigliotti]

That statement from Pima county sheriff Chris Nanos, who said potentially critical evidence recovered from Nancy Guthrie's Tucson home hair came back inconclusive.

[Chris Nanos]

It came back with no results.

[Jonathan Vigliotti]

No results. Was there blood that is still being analyzed right now that could belong to the suspect or suspects?

[Chris Nanos]

I know that there was blood at the scene.

[Jonathan Vigliotti]

That blood and other DNA Nanos says has yielded no results. No new video has been recovered. And it appears the suspect or suspects is evaded traffic cameras. Do you think that the suspect or suspects could be local?

[Chris Nanos]

Sure. Absolutely.

[Jonathan Vigliotti]

You do?

[Chris Nanos]

Absolutely. Do I have evidence of it? No. But. But let's look at crime across the country. 90, 95% of your criminals are aware right here.

[Ashley Banfield]

Locally, our family is in agony. We are in a nightmare that will not end.

[Jonathan Vigliotti]

On Monday, Savannah Guthrie addressed her mother's kidnapper, who it's believed sent two notes to the family, but before going silent.

[Ashley Banfield]

So I'm asking you, begging you, to do the right thing now. Make the right choice. Help us find her.

[Jonathan Vigliotti]

You say you are optimistic. You're positive that there will be a resolution here. Is that based on any evidence that you have before you, or is that driven by your gut?

[Chris Nanos]

It's based on all the evidence before me. The bottom line here is this. We. We know more than you will ever know because that's how investigations work.

[Ashley Banfield]

So there you go. CBS is able to learn from Sheriff Chris Nanos that the DNA could be comprised of a whole lot of stuff. Right. I thought it was touch DNA, maybe, you know, saliva, anything. Right. That was just inadvertent. But he's saying, you know, there's Jonathan saying, is it blood? Is it fluid, Is it hair, Is it a. Fingerprints? Can you give us that guidance? And Sheriff Nano says it's probably a combination of all of that. Okay, so you don't really combine a fingerprint, but maybe skin cells is what we mean. I don't know, but it is pretty fascinating. I'm curious if Chris Nanos is informed and knows that it's actually a combination of all of that. Or if he's just speaking colloquially. I don't know. He has said things before that don't make sense, that don't add up and end up being wrong, remember? No, there are no agents or representatives, the sheriff's department going around to gun Stores asking about, you know, a list of purchases and guns. Well, there were, because we actually talked to the gun stores and they said, yeah, they've all been in here and they've shown us a list of names and asked us if we've sold stuff. So, yeah, Sheriff Nanos makes a lot of mistakes in the press. I just don't know whether this is a mistake, that the DNA mixture, When Jonathan Vigliotti says, is it blood, Is it fluid, Is it hair, Is it a fingerprint? And he says, probably a combination of all of that. That's interesting. So separating it out, is that what they're separating again? We're six months into this, so, you know, let's pick up the pace here. I thought that the length of time that it's taken has been because of genetic genealogy and the amount of gumshoe detective work that it takes to fan out into the public and find all the people that share a tiny bit of that DNA and then start eliminating them one by one as to who they are, where they are, whether they were capable, whether they were in the country, in the vicinity, all the rest, male, female, you know, so that's the CBS interview and the news that was made there and that the hair was inconclusive. So ABC also did an interview, and in the ABC interview, they also discovered a couple of things that were interesting. End of note. Again, they ask about the hair, and again you get an answer from Sheriff Nanos about that hair that they discovered inside Nancy Guthrie's home. ABC also talked about the number of labs that are working on this. We had always assumed it was the Florida lab. DNA International. They're fantastic. Don't let anybody tell you that. You know, the Pima County Sheriff's Department made a mistake sending it to that lab. They are unreal. And they have solved cold cases in the past. So, yes, Quantico's great, but these guys are great as well. So that I assume that they were working with that lab. But now the sheriff in this ABC interview says, oh, no, no, they're not the only lab you hear in that in a moment. And in the ABC interview, he's also alluding to multiple potential perpetrators. Here's the interview that was done with Aaron Katersky of abc.

[Chris Nanos]

I think the hair analysis was done, and there was nothing.

[Ashley Banfield]

That leaves a mixed sample of DNA as the only potential piece of biological evidence left. The sheriff said they're working to untangle a mix of DNA from as many as four people.

[Chris Nanos]

My understanding is there's at least five, maybe six Labs across the country that are working on all of this and

[Ashley Banfield]

they are using genetic genealogy. And tonight, six months after Guthrie was taken from her home, the sheriff is unable to say whether that masked man was working alone.

[Chris Nanos]

I don't think anybody's here ready to say it's one guy. It's 10 guys. Did he have help? Could have.

[Ashley Banfield]

Now, to Sheriff Chris Nanos and the comments he made about the Guthrie family being eliminated. You know, that early on he had said, the family is eliminated, they're not suspects. And this was following, you know, sourced information I got from the sheriffs saying that the brother in law was the prime suspect on day two. Then again, they towed the car of him and his wife Annie, and they searched their home and photographed it in the dark of night. They canvassed neighbors around Annie and Tommaso's house. I mean, they did all these things that didn't look like what Sheriff Nanos was saying, which is the family's attention eliminated. And here we are at month number six and Sheriff Nano seems to be saying something else. Are they eliminated? Yes. Does that mean they can come back at some time and still be in the mix?

[Cash Patel]

Yes.

[Ashley Banfield]

I don't know that that's what eliminated means. But here is what Sheriff Nanos told

[Chris Nanos]

Fox Digital and that's something. Absolutely, yes. They could come up again. You know, I, I think I early on said, look, there is no suspects. The family is not suspects. They're not. Now does that mean that ends it forever? No. What happens if next week somebody calls and says, hey, a family member did this? And here's how I know it. You know, that always opens the door, but we look at it and go, okay, can we eliminate these people from what we have in front of us? The evidence, the DNA, the whatever, the videos? Yeah, I think you can eliminate them. And so that elimination happens. But it's like any case criminal, because you're eliminated doesn't mean you didn't do. Doesn't mean that we can't get more information. Says the two search warrants, I think one was down south in Rio Rico and one on the north side. Here we had information that made us believe that there's a potential that Nancy's there or there's a potential that the bad guy's there. That evidence is presented to the judge that says, yep, go get them. We go in, oh, now we look at it and go, all right, she's not here. That was evident. That was number one. And we've talked to these individuals and they've given us an Alibi, if you will, or whatever, to say, hey, we feel comfortable in letting them go and not charging them. We don't think there's probable cause, so we let them go. Does that mean they're ruled out? They're ruled out for now. But what if somebody comes up and says, hey, this guy said such and such. Such and such, that he did that. And it's one of the guys. We looked back in the past. It is. It's the crime scene. Oh, you gave up the crime scene? No, we processed a crime scene and we left. Yeah, but you came back. You know, we do that. When we got video of a man at the door, the FBI said, hey, we can give us some weight, height, do that with some stuff. They use some of the technology they have. If we could go back. Absolutely. So it could be a burglary. Hey, we went in, we processed the scene, and we leave. And two, three days later, the wife says, I found this screwdriver. It doesn't belong to me over here behind the bed or something. We're not going to say, ah, too late. We go back and pick it up. So, yeah, the fact that, oh, we closed, it reopened. The only reason we went back that day was the family was upset that we had released the scene. It's there, their home. And they called and said, hey, there's news media, and I don't know who it was, is at the windows taking pictures of our house. It's like, okay, all right, can I do something about it? Yeah, we put a deputy there. And I thought, okay, we're going to keep a deputy there 24, seven for a week. Turns out it's two weeks, three. Look, it's working with the victims of a horrible situation. And dealing with the media has been 99% just great to deal with. They've helped us. But sometimes some knuckleheads do some things and you gotta. You gotta, Gotta deal with that. And I think we've dealt with it. I'm glad to see that they've gone on and they're doing other things, but, yeah, we have other things to do than babysit a neighborhood. But if that's what it takes to keep that community safe and not have their peace disturbed unnecessarily, then we'll do those things.

[Sean Hannity]

So is it safe to say, because

[Ashley Banfield]

we started this on the hair, and then we talked about the people who've been ruled out for now, is it safe to say that that hair, even though there's no DNA on the hair, that hair itself, that doesn't match any of their hair?

[Chris Nanos]

No, I can't say that. I don't know that yet. I don't know what's done with the hair in terms of its analysis for comparison purposes. We are right now just focused on the DNA in front of us. Hair analysis isn't going to positively say this hair came from that head. Doesn't work that way. And I don't even know. Are there roots to the hair? Are there not. Not roots. All those things are part of the. A lab would have to come out and say what the lab could say is it matches based on what they believe. There's color, the strand, the coarseness, all those things. But that's all challengeable in court.

[Ashley Banfield]

Also, ABC News asked Sheriff Nanos about the two people who, early on in the first few weeks of this investigation, since. Since Nancy Guthrie disappeared, were targeted as part of a SWAT operation. Two different nights, and it was wild, all right. There were dozens and dozens of vehicles, helicopters, all the rest like bomb squad. It was. I mean, it was like they were going after, you know, a drug kingpin. But nothing happened. Nobody was arrested. And it appeared that those guys seemed to be cleared. I'm not sure if that language was really strong, but, you know, it was. It was obvious that. That. That they had nothing to do with it or certainly that was what the results of the raid were like. No arrests, no evidence, nothing to see here. Well, Sheriff Nanos said something else about those guys as well, and I don't think they're going to like it.

[Jonathan Vigliotti]

The two folks we saw detained in February, have they been completely ruled out?

[Chris Nanos]

At this point, nobody's completely ruled out what it is. We took information, developed it for a warrant from a judge, a magistrate, and we served that warrant. All the information we gathered is gathered. And because we didn't make an arrest or we released some people, doesn't mean they're cleared. It just means that we don't have enough now to hold you. We don't have. The courts get to tell us that, and we release them, release their property back. But the evidence we've obtained, who knows, maybe a day from now, a month from now, a year from now, somebody might call in and say, oh, you missed this, and guess what? We'll go back. So, yeah.

[Jonathan Vigliotti]

Are you still actively looking into those individuals or. No?

[Chris Nanos]

I. I wouldn't talk about that. I can't talk about that.

[Ashley Banfield]

So if I can summarize, There's a guy on the front porch camera, and he looks really scary with a mask and a gun and I think he's ripping the camera off because the camera's gone. And my source said cameras were smashed off. There's blood, Nancy Guthrie's blood at the scene, but very little else in inside the home to indicate that there was something awful that went on in there. No suspects. Warrants executed, photographs taken, cars seized, family members and two random guys and a lot of that property all returned. Took a long time for them to return Annie Guthrie's car. Couldn't figure that out. Like weeks and weeks over 50 days, I think they had that car. And if you take something, you gotta return it. Usually around two weeks, right? Fourth amendment, unreasonable search and seizure not allowed in this country. And if you don't return it, it means you went back to a judge to say, I need more time. There may be some evidentiary value here. So it was weird that they kept Annie and Tommaso's car for 50 plus days and then they returned the car of one of the guys, you know, whose warrant they executed as Mom's house, took his car. They returned it pretty quickly, but now nobody is entirely eliminated. So it kind of feels, you tell me, feels like we are right back to week two or three. Like we're no further ahead than week two or three in this case. And that is really sad because, you know, Chris Nanos made a comment like, I sure hope it's not going to take a long time. It's not a cold case. Not yet. It's not a cold case case. But I sure hope it doesn't take 50 years to solve it. I hope so too. I hope so too. Thank you everybody for listening. Thank you everyone for watching. If you haven't subscribed yet, please do. If you have, thank you. And remember, truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.