← Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Possible Shoe Print in Blood? 3 Shocking Expert Theories | Nancy Guthrie Update
01:12:00
Loading summary
Transcript109 lines
- [00:00]
A
Neighbor Gabo, then Doug. There's nowhere I wouldn't go to help someone customize and save on car insurance with Liberty Mutual, even if it means sitting front row at a comedy show.
- [00:12]
B
Hey, everyone, check out this guy and his bird. What is this, your first date?
- [00:15]
A
Oh, no. We help people customize and save on car insurance with Liberty Mutual together. We're married. Me to a human, him to a bird.
- [00:22]
B
Yeah, the bird looks out of your league anyways.
- [00:24]
A
Only pay for what you need@libertymutual.com Liberty.
- [00:28]
C
Liberty. Liberty. Liberty.
- [00:30]
B
Foreign.
- [00:36]
C
Hi everybody. I'm Ashley Banfield and this is drop dead Serious. It's nice to have you here. It is Friday as I record this. It is April 3rd, and this is day 62 of the Nancy Guthrie investigation. I got a couple of things I want to share with you. First and foremost, there's been a lot of talk among the true crime community about some Internet chatter, some photographs of the blood droplets outside of Nancy's front door. Brian Enten from News Nation, Michael Ruiz from Fox Digital. Both were able to capture those images early on, I think around day two or day three. And if you zero in very, very closely on one of those droplets, does that look like a shoe print? Does it look like a partial shoe print, a transfer print, or an impression? It's a really good question. And I had been following along with all your comments as well and looking at it. And finally I decided I think it's time to bring in the experts on this. And I've assembled three very, very good blood experts. They're experts in spatter, in csi, in crime scene investigation, evidence recovery, all those kinds of things. But spatter specifically, they have a lot of savvy when it comes to blood evidence. And so I'm going to ask all of them, what are your thoughts about these images? Does it tell you that it's a sneaker? And some of you have talked about it being a cloud sneaker and some of you have said it's not that at all. But I always want to turn to the experts. So in a moment, you're going to hear from three experts that I've assembled in blood evidence, Dr. Peter Valentin as well as Doct and Dr. Ken Kinsey. And they will have, I think, varying opinions. Super interesting. I've heard varying opinions. And so I can't wait to share that with you. Also a couple of things as well that have happened just in the last few days. So Brian Enten had a really interesting report on News Nation. He talked to a guy in silhouette with his voice altered because this person's still on the sheriff's department force. Right. But the person was very, very critical of not only the sheriff, but also some of the people who were assigned to work the case. Now, if you saw our episodes earlier this week and last week, you'll see that I actually broke news about the lead investor, lead investigator assigned to the case had only two years as a homicide detective under his belt. That was very distressing to hear that. And since that time, I have learned as well that that lead investigator with only two years of homicide experience under his belt, also didn't even attend every daily briefing. Don't know why. I don't know how they work their cases. Maybe there's a good reason for it. Maybe he's out in the field. I don't know. But that was sort of an eye opener to me because that on top of Brian Enten's reporting last night from this law enforcement source he interviewed, was that the homicide sergeant who oversees the whole department. Right. Oversees the lead detective, is the guy who'd never worked a homicide before he showed up at Nancy Guthrie's front door. Also weird. From what we understand, this guy's not a rookie cop. Right. It's not that he's never been a detective, it's just that he hadn't worked homicides. The way it works is many officers will work in different divisions within a department, a sheriff's department, and they'll work their way up to homicide. Like they'll work in burglaries and violent crime, maybe gang, also sex assault divisions. And then we'll eventually, you know, work their way up to what's considered to be sort of the pinnacle, which is homicide. So hearing that the sergeant overseeing the homicide division didn't have any homicide cases under his belt, that's distressing. And then to hear that news of mine added to that, that the lead detective assigned to the case, you know, two years under his belt, that's. That's worrisome as well. And I'm also learning that he didn't even want to be there, that lead detective, so. Yikes. Talk about a confluence of not very good circumstances. Right? Not only that, but Brian. And to learn a few other things that are interesting. He said. Well, his source told him that almost immediately, the sheriff and the investigators focused in on this being a missing person. I get that. I do get that. This is an elderly woman, 84 years old, missing, and the back door is open. So could that have been someone who wandered off? Sure. Oftentimes that is Right. Then you get a silver alert, those kinds of things. But there's a lot of criticism from this veteran officer, the. You know, the source that. That Brian interviewed, saying that there was like laser focus on. On her being a missing person in those first few critical hours. Yeah. That. That was a misstep. There's blood on the front walk. Right. And my source says blood on the inside as well, of the front entrance of the house. The back door is propped open with flower pots. Flower pots. And so is the gate. The back gate propped open. Flower pots, according to my sources. And at this point, of course, they don't know about the guy on the doorbell cam. That doesn't come for well over a week later. So they don't have that. But they do see. You should see a missing doorbell camera. There's a bracket there. Maybe inexperienced officers wouldn't notice that. They just see a bracket and not know what that is, or it would just not. You wouldn't think of it. I don't know. In any case, we do know one thing, and that is that the sheriff, on February 2, easily 24 to 30 hours after Mrs. Guthrie disappeared, had changed his tune and said publicly that they'd thrown all their assets at this. Right. But that they're drawing back the assets, that they now think it's a crime and that Mrs. Guthrie is sharp as attack. She didn't just wander off. She couldn't wander. She couldn't walk more than 50 yards, I think he said, without assistance. So we know that at least a day later, he had changed his tune to know that there was a. A likely crime and they'd called in homicide. But the source talking to Brian Enten in his report said the first instincts of the folks who'd arrived was that this was a missing person. I know from my sources that at least one of the officers who'd arrived there early said to the patrolman, this is something far more serious. Get out and don't compromise the scene. So maybe there's like a disconnect between what the sheriff thinks and what his department thinks. The. The guys on the ground. Right. No matter what, it's. It's problematic because the first few hours are so critical in a missing person's case. We do know that at least 30 hours later, he's laser focused on it being a crime scene. And we know from my source that on day three that he's got a laser focus towards family members. Again, not weird that you look at family members in most missing person cases, if not all, you start there okay. It's also really interesting if you think about it because a couple weeks ago the sheriff said during one of his rare TV interviews with cherry picked, you know, outlets, we know why he was here and we've known since day one. That really just doesn't square with what Brian's source is saying. What the sheriff said the next day and then what the sheriff said just a few weeks ago, that he could strike again. The man who's out there, because you know, on day two, February 2nd, the sheriff said there's no concern out there for the community. The community's not at risk. And those are my words, but effectively his message. But then, you know, day 50ish, he's saying, yeah, this, this suspect could strike again. So known since day one. Hey, don't get me started. Also want to say that Brian's source said, felt that the scene may have been mishandled, felt that the morale inside the sheriff's department is low, not irreparable once the sheriff to step aside and that still there's no suspect. So lots of breaking information. One area of discrepancy that I'm reading a lot of your comments as well on Brian's reporting and my reporting. I had a source on day three that told me there was blood inside the house. Also told me the nest cams were smashed and we learned they were nest cams, we learned they're gone. Said that the sister's car was towed that panned out. Said that the back door is wide open. That also panned out. And the, the report was that there was blood inside the house from that source. Later, second law enforcement source told me not only was there blood inside the house, that the pattern of the blood inside the house matched the pattern of the blood outside the house. Third law enforcement source that I spoke with said that blood actually replicated right over the threshold of the front door, meaning it's inside in her front hallway and outside on the front stoop. And so Brian has a source saying there's no blood at all in the house. I can't square that because I don't know his, his source and he doesn't know mine. And so this happens in reporting. Sometimes wires gets crossed, wires get crossed sometimes, sometimes it get those wires get crossed with our sources as well. Still working to square that. It is not easy to cultivate sources, I'm telling you in these stories, but still working to, to square that out. But again, I got three different law enforcement folks that have said that. And so, and I'm still working it to get more, but also want to tell you about some things that Michael Ruiz was reporting. They don't bode well for the sheriff again. And the sheriff's really, really struggling. He's under a recall effort right now. And the Pima county board of supervisors, apparently, according to Michael Ruiz, looked for legal advice into how to address allegations of perjury that they say the sheriff committed. Yeah, lying under oath, that's not good. It's also illegal. And it's also something that many have said. He would never have qualified for a law enforcement job in the state of Arizona had the hirers known about that and about a past of alleged missteps in his disciplinary record. Let me clear it up. So he's accused of lying about his past, about his disciplinary record as law enforcement officer. He said allegedly he'd never been suspended on the job, but public records say otherwise. Right. The public records indicate he was suspended, actually for multiple different weeks early on in his career, like in the 70s and 80s. And the things that he's alleged to have been suspended for, according to the public records, excessive force, coming to work late, failure to report for duty, and firing a gun inappropriately. Those are not small. I will say that many police officers have, you know, disciplinary records. It's not always unusual. Look, people hate being, you know, dealt with by cops, and so oftentimes they'll complain. So it's not always unusual to have a disciplinary record. But what is unusual is if you don't say under oath that you have it when you're being asked. So this is the allegation from the Pima county board of Supervisors at this point, trying to figure out if these allegations of perjury are accurate and what to do about it. That's separate and distinct from the recall effort. So I think sheriff Nanos is really feeling the heat and now hearing these reports saying, like, you know, the allegations are. You're installing your friends in positions where people of experience need to be. Right. You don't reward your friends who aren't experienced or don't have the chops to take leadership roles and say, the homicide division, that's problematic. And did that cost the Guthrie investigation, especially in those first critical weeks? I think that's a really valid question to ask, and I think it should be asked in any case. Task force is still at work. We're day 62 again. I'm recording this on Friday, April 3rd, and the task force is being pretty quiet. You know, it's comprised, again, of, like, five or six Pima county homicide Personnel and then don't know how many FBI agents who are based out of the Tucson office. They're all apparently working in the Tucson office from what we're told and whatever it is they're doing. Things are quiet, last I heard. And if you saw an episode of mine a while back, the quote was, we ain't got shit. And there's Brian also reporting that there's still no suspect. I mean, at this point it feels obvious, right? But, man, it's hard to hear that because going into month three, that is painful, especially for the Guthrie family. I'm going to stop there and just say again, it's never too late to think back about February 1, 2, 3rd, 4, 5th, February 10, February 20, all of these dates, right? It's never too late to think about, did stuff go weird with someone? You know, were they behaving in a really weird way? Because if somebody did this, then they're gonna behave weird. It's real hard to be normal after you do this kind of stuff. And it's real hard to cover your tracks if you're out all night because this guy had to be out all night, right? You cannot get into someone's house, bust off a camera at 1:47am be separating her from her pacemaker at 2:28am ostensibly have her in your vehicle at that time. And then somehow some do something, whether it's take her alive back to someplace or take her not alive and do something about that. That's going to take all night. So do you have someone who on February 1, Sunday and February 2, Monday, was behaving really weird and can't account for their time? Think about it. 1-800- call FBI. Were they acting weird on the phone? Were they acting weird on text? Even if you don't live in the Tucson area, were they behaving in a weird way in those days and the ensuing days? And then, let me ask you this, eight or so days later, when that video came out, that person was acting weird because that person got nervous. That person figures they got rid of the camera. They didn't know that we were going to see them, presumably. So they might have been acting real weird around February 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Was somebody acting weird? 1-800- call FBI. It's these tips that lead to solutions. Did your boyfriend recently jilt you and was doing weird things on those dates? Might be time to talk. There's $1.2 million in reward money. I'm just going to keep repeating that. 1.2 million reasons to call 1-800-call FBI. $1.2 million. Is he worth it? Is he worth it to you? I say the money's worth it. Do the right thing. All right, so now to the. The main event, so to speak. I really wanted to get to the bottom of all the conversation that everyone's been having about that, so to speak. Blood stain that looks like a shoe print. Maybe I'm not going to say one way or the other because I do not have the training, but I look at pictures like you do. I zero in on the pictures like you do. I check the cloud sneakers like you do. And I'm curious about those prints. And I just so happen to have a handy dandy kind of dirty. This is Chris's cloud sneaker. And I grabbed it. Didn't ask. I think he works in these. They are really dirty anyway. And please don't think that those are blood stains. They're not. It just looks like that. They're kind of. There's like a color pattern all the way up. I think that's the color pattern on the sneaker itself. Can you see that? I don't know. Like, that weird color goes all the way up. Anyway, so I want you to see the. The pattern along the back. Right. And I'm going to tip it this way so you can see the pattern on the bottom. I also want you to see something really important. Can you see right here, this little thing? That's a stone. Yeah, that is a stone. And the stones often get stuck in there. It's super important because whatever gets stuck in the tread of a sneaker really helps forensic investigators because especially if that stone stays there for a while and happens to be in the perpetrator's closet still jammed into their shoe. And it left that mark. Like, I'm gonna jam it back in there, there. And if it leaves like a mark, you know, with the stone pattern. I remember a case I covered. God, when was it? Ages ago. Where the. The stone patterns in the shoes were still there when they got the perps shoes and it matched the blood stains. So anyway, I want to talk to my bloodstain experts about the pattern, the size of the drop versus the size of those treads. And my size. My husband's like a size, I think 10 and a half, 11 or so, I think. And I don't know what size that guy. Yeah, size us 11. I don't know what size that guy's shoes were, but we know that they're almost the size of a tile. Maybe just a little more than 2/3 the size of a tile from the video. So, you know, it's worth asking the experts, and that's what I did. And let me tell you something really interesting. As you watch these interviews coming up, know this. They do not all agree. They have differing viewpoints on what you're looking at in that blood pattern. I want to start with Dr. Laura Petler. Laura is a forensic criminologist. She's the founder of Laura Petler Associates. LPA is actually an internationally recognized leader in staged death investigation. First of all, I love that title. Also expert in forensic reconstruction methodology and advanced forensic investigation. Here's my conversation with Laura. Dr. Petler. There's been so much back and forth on the Internet about the blood stain. And in particular, one that looks, if you zero real close in, could look like a shoe print, maybe even a cloud sneaker. When you look with your expertise, what do you see?
- [19:22]
B
I see blood stains that are passive in nature and inconsistent with a beating, inconsistent with an injury happening there. It could be a transitional location. It's a waypoint. You know, blood doesn't lie. But it also needs to be interpreted with a tremendous amount of responsibility. And it's always best, actually to be ultra conservative when interpreting blood stains because we're looking at this way after the fact. So it's important. It's important to recognize what pictures we're using to analyze these bloodstains versus what might be photographs that might have been captured actually during the crime scene investigation.
- [20:13]
C
That's a huge point to make, that these are pictures the media took. These are not the pictures that hopefully. Hopefully the crime scene analysts took at the front door. I can only assume. Yeah, all of that about, like, media wasn't there in those first 12 to 48 hours. I think that the reporters, Michael Ruiz and Brian Enten were there about 60 hours after the fact. We'll get into why that's significant in a moment. Okay, but. And so it's really clear that, you know, I'm asking you to look at media pictures, not crime scene analysts photographs. So with that and with your, you know, very conservative look, being that nobody should have overreach when they do this, do you see what a lot of people on the Internet are seeing, and that is a shoe print?
- [21:01]
B
No, I don't see a shoe print. I think that you. You could have some type of impression there. It could be consistent with a shoe print. You do have something, like, right in front of it as well. But to overstate that, it's, like, consistent with a shoe. You know, I can't do that. As a scientist, I can't even say that it's a transfer. And that's basically what we're asserting here. So, like, if people are on the Internet, are talking about the shoes weren't being worn by the suspect in comparison to this particular blood stain, there's a whole scientific process that has to happen in order for that to be proven, either to. For that hypothesis to either be supported or refuted. And one of the things that I can tell you by, and I have the pictures pulled up on my screen next to where we're recording here. So I'm looking at the photo, and in the photo, if you had that much volume on the bottom of that shoe, not only would you consider possibly having an impression in that tile, but it might trail off as you go. So if you consider, like dip your hands in paint and then walk them down a wall, when you start at the beginning of the wall, it's going to be heavy in paint because you just dipped your hands in paint. But as you continue walk, walking, your hands pressing your hands down the wall, you have less paint and less paint and less paint and less paint on your hands. So in order to have like that volume, imagine how it has to be. The blood must have to be adhered to the bottom of the shoe in order for it to actually stamp a pattern onto the tile. And then. Is that all the blood? We don't have any blood before it, we don't have any blood after it.
- [23:03]
C
There's no second stamp is what you're saying?
- [23:05]
B
Yeah, it's like not. It's. It would be trailing off. To me now, that is under a normal circumstance of like, if somebody steps in blood and then, you know, it's very normal in crime scenes for us to see this pattern where you step in blood and then you walk through it and then it trails off as you're walking. And so for me, when we only have one little piece of what can be, for me, just several blood stains, it's the same. It actually, to me, it's almost maybe like the same pattern as we have in the photo before, where you have blood into blood. It could be blood into blood, it could be a transfer, but without more information, without measuring it, without seeing it perpendicular. So you'd have to have photography directly over top of it and things like that. And then standards and testing, it would be impossible to render an opinion on if it's consistent with a shoe at this point.
- [24:02]
C
What if that was all you got? I mean, do you know how you Deal with the case you're given. It's not the case you would design. If you could design it, we'd solve everything. But if this is all you had, the naked eye looks at shapes, right at those curvatures. They look like they're semicircle, semicircle, semicircle. Then a big break and then behind it a repeat of the semicircles. And that doesn't look, for lack of a better word, natural. It almost looks like it wouldn't fall perfectly in a pattern. So what does that tell you?
- [24:32]
B
Right, so like the target surface is the most important thing to consider here. And so you see some other blood stains that are right besides it, that are round in nature.
- [24:44]
C
Those are the two on either side?
- [24:46]
B
Yes, on either side of it there's. They're very round in nature. Meaning that the source that was bleeding is above that area and it's own. The blood is only being. So when blood leaves that bleeding source, all the cells go in and they're basically a round ball like this. And they travel through the air in a spheroid, looks just like a volleyball or any other ball. And they travel through the air in a spheroid. And then when they impact a surface, especially a hard, non porous surface, they spread out. But when you have this type of a texture, they can become. Yes, the tile, when you take into consider the fact that it's like made out of clay, it's made out of some type of rocks, stone, those types of things, it may not be exactly smooth. So if you have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 blood stains coming out at the same time, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, eight, nine, you know, 10, something like that in the same area and they're all falling at the same time, that can create a pattern that might look like this too. Could it be a transfer of a bloodied object, basically stamping the blood on a non bloody object, which would be the tile? Yes, it can be, but without further investigation and better photography, it would literally be impossible to tell because the angle of the lens when you're taking a photograph like this, it can make it look very different than it does when, when you're looking at it straight down.
- [26:29]
C
So answer me this. If you can I get the shape of the three blood drops that are directly around this little. What looks like a print pattern might not be a print pattern, it looks like it. What else would cause blood to be in the pattern that we're looking at if it's not a stamp?
- [26:52]
B
Multiple drops falling at a very in, in a Very short period of time and landing in each other while it's still wet. So if you go back to the other photograph where it looks more spattered or looks more broken up, there's another photograph where it looks a bit more broken up that's more consistent with a pattern we call blood into blood. So this is more, these are larger drops. They're about the same size droplets as probably the ones on the outside. You know, the ones that we see that are skeletonized and skeletonized. Ashley means that the peripheral edge, we can see the peripheral edge around where the original bloodstain impacted the target surface. So when blood hit the tile, it starts to dry. Blood dries within, under normal circumstances, within about 16 minutes after it leaves the body. So then as it dries, it dries from the outside into the center. And then after it dries, after a period of time, and I've seen this, I don't, you know, countless times in 25 years, the center of the stain will often lift from the surface of the target surface, which in this case is the tile. It curls like a wave and then blows away. And a lot of times that's because there's dirt on that surface, there's grease on that surface, there's some other type of material in between the actual target surface and the blood, and the blood can't stick to it. But in this case, the blood did stick, it did stick in the center. We don't see any skeletonization except if those areas where you see that, where there's no blood are those actual areas of flaking like we see in the other two bloodstains that are beside it. So like there could be, it could be consistent with the drying element of under normal circumstances. And then the pieces that are missing could have blown away.
- [28:59]
C
I am super interested that you say the skeletonizing, the flaking, because like I said, I think that I'm going to give a really rough estimate here, but I think these videos by Michael Ruiz and Brian Entin were taken around 60 hours after Nancy disappeared. Disappeared. And in that 60 hour time, lots of things happened. There presumably was a sizable number of agents and sheriff's deputies and patrolmen and Homicide Response Team ert.
- [29:34]
B
Yep.
- [29:35]
C
Evidence Response Team members. I don't know how many people might have just walked over it. To me that sounds crazy. You see blood, you avoid it, you tape it off. But, but I don't know that at the beginning they didn't see it. They showed up to what they thought was a missing woman. They knocked on the door, stood there Walked around, talked, looked around the front, were stepping in and maybe didn't notice it right away. So it's possible that this has been walked on.
- [29:59]
B
I would actually grid this whole thing off on the front porch. Yes, we have these beautiful tiles that could act as help, you know what I mean, to help understand the size and the shape of the suspect's shoes and, and, you know, how he walks and all that stuff. But I would actually grid these off into areas. So, you know, all these different blood stains on the porch would be labeled. So if we had area one, area two, area three, area four, area five, because that's kind of what I see in the video. Say we have four to five areas within those areas, Ashley. Every single one of those blood stains would have been labeled for me. So like, like say the one, the photograph that we're talking about with the alleged impression or the maybe the potential impression, let's say that's area two. So the blood stain to the left would be area two, blood stain one. The one in the middle would be blood stain two, blood stain three, blood stain four. So there's four different things that we're looking at in area two. So the first one's a skeletonized stain. The second one, is it a transfer or is it actually like six different drops of blood dropping in the same area? And then the third one would be again a skeletonized stain. And then the fourth one appears to be maybe a drip pattern or again, it looks like it almost could be skeletonized, then ran downward, maybe a flow pattern, maybe some type of other activity after the deposition of blood. So as experts, when, when we write this down, we would say something to the effect of the blood stain. Number one in area two is consistent with a passive drop that impacted a hard, non porous surface. And after the period of drying, the center appears to have been removed by either flaking wind or some type of disruption like what you're talking about somebody walking through it now in the crime scene, like you said, let's block it all off, let's tape it all off, let's mark all the blood stains, photograph them from a macro to micro standpoint, overall, mid range, close up, close up with scale. We don't know if they did that or not because we're not inside the investigation, but that would be the appropriate way of handling this. So hopefully those kinds of photographs exist so they can be compared to shoes.
- [32:31]
C
Right, that's what I was going to say. And you think with all that you could do comparative shoes, solid comparison, send it to Somebody, but. But to any kind of sneaker, right?
- [32:42]
B
I mean, you send it to, like, someone like Leslie Hammer up in Alaska or another footwear impression expert that is really, really good at impression evidence. And, you know, ask them, does this. Can, you know, does this look like a shoe, an impression? And what we would call that scientifically would be. It would be a transfer because the shoe has to have come through blood, and then the blood has to stick to the bottom. Then after they walk over to this location, the blood then has to, you know, be deposited. But, you know, I'm not sure if people are thinking it's the edge of the shoe, the center of the shoe. Do you know that for sure?
- [33:24]
C
Well, I think everybody's just talking about the semicircles seem to match a lot of what a cloud shoe would look like. And look, I'm sure there's a lot of other sneakers as well. But I do want to say this, Laura. We're a quarter of a tile away from the welcome mat. And so is it possible, if this is a shoe print, this initial the hands of the paint nice and dark, and then next step is over on the mat. Where else is wiped away so you don't get a second impression anywhere?
- [33:49]
B
That's correct, Ashley. So then that way, you know, you would want to use alternative light sources, potentially lasers, potentially reagents like Blue Star, forensic. Or because it's black, you wouldn't want to use amido black. It's not going to show up. But you would want to bring that latent blood up on that mat. So you would darken that entire area with like. Like contractor bags or some kind of black curtains, and. And darken that area, set the camera up to have a very low F stop, which means that the shutter's gonna stay open a long time, and then start spraying these things on the mat. They could also do that in a laboratory setting. I would probably do it there as well to put it in context with the other blood stains. And then, of course, send that mat to the lab. But the mat's still there.
- [34:38]
C
So the mat didn't happen.
- [34:39]
B
Collected. Yeah, I would have collected. I personally would have collected the mat, you know, myself, but I tend to be on the. I am one of those people that is. What if, what if, what if, what if, what if? We can always. We can always release the evidence later if we don't need it. But we have one shot, one search warrant, you know, one opportunity to get this crime scene right. So let's take everything and then decide, because if if they hadn't done full victimology by this point in the investigation, there's no way to know what pieces of evidence were important yet and what weren't.
- [35:14]
C
Do you think that that tent that went up outside the front door. I think it's FBI who mostly came and put that tent up. I think almost two weeks after the disappearance. Do you think that that's what they were doing, trying to black out, measure, spray, do all that?
- [35:30]
B
It could be. It could be. Yeah, it definitely could be. If. If it was right there at the front door. I remember that now that you're mentioning it, there was like a white tent right there at the front door. It does sound like it. That may be potentially for what they were doing, processing the front porch.
- [35:46]
C
And then. And we also know they were. They brought in measurement tools, you know, height boards and everything as well. So they were probably trying to figure out. And. And then shortly after, we got the relative height of the. The suspect. I just wonder if they were doing a little bit of luminol business under that tent as well. But you think they could have been?
- [36:02]
B
Yeah, yeah. I mean, hopefully somebody processed the front porch.
- [36:06]
C
Oh, you and me feel that way both. And I think everybody watching right now is saying, I sure hope the right stuff happened. I mean, there's been a lot of criticism about the folks early on who were there. Lots of inexperience, lots of young new detectives. One of them who was the boss, who'd never done a homicide before. So it's. It's a little upsetting to think what might have been missed.
- [36:27]
B
Homicide investigation is purely a reflection of the education, training, and experience of the investigator.
- [36:34]
C
This is why I call you Dr. Pettler. Thank you for this. You're welcome.
- [36:38]
B
Thank you for having me.
- [36:40]
C
My great thanks to Dr. Laura Pettler. I love talking to her. I always learn so much. Now I want you to listen to what Dr. Peter Valentin has to say. Dr. Valentin is an associate professor, department chair, forensic science at University of New Haven. He's testified in seven different states, including federal court, as a blood stain expert. Here's my conversation. Dr. Valentin, thanks so much for helping me muddle through this. But just to summarize, a lot of people online think they see a shoe print in this particular spot of blood. Is that what you see?
- [37:14]
D
I don't see enough detail to identify that as a shoe print. There's definitely something that's made contact with the blood in some of the areas after the blood's been deposited and before the blood has dried. And so for some of the circular droplets, you see an absence of blood in the center of those droplets. So we call those skeletonized droplets. Right. So there's something called a perimeter stain. So basically it's the, it's the outline of a circle and the absence of blood in the middle is the perimeter stain or the, you know, the skeletonized droplet. So what that means is blood landed on the surface, it started to dry, which is how you get that perimeter stain. And then something came into contact with that stain before it dried. Now investigatively, what that does for me is it tells me two things. It gives me a sense of time because I know how long it takes blood to dry. And then it tells me that there is some other object that left that scene, presumably that has Nancy Guthrie's blood on it, which is a huge piece of information for me investigatively.
- [38:19]
C
But, but, but all skeletonized droplets. Can't some of them have just been affected by, by wind? These are possibly the pictures you're seeing are possibly 60 ish hours after the blood was deposited and it's outside.
- [38:33]
D
Yeah, so that's a good question. We tend to see artifacts of blood that has dried in that way where you could then infer that something happened to them afterwards. So you tend to see it, they crack or they have cracking in them. And that's not what I see here. And we don't see them in any more than just one or two droplets. So that if that were the explanation, we'd be seeing that across multiple stains in, in the outside of the house. And we don't see that.
- [39:03]
C
So if we look at the so called shoe print, and I'm not saying that it's a shoe print, just people are referring to it, that it looks like it, it's a shoe print. If you look at that photo, on either side of it are two round droplets that look skeletonized with some missing blood in the middle. What would account for that?
- [39:22]
D
So one thing we want to make sure we don't do is we don't want to conflate what is probably or could be two separate events and say that they have to be together. So if you want to get to the idea that that must be a shoe print, then you're saying the two skeletonized droplets are happening at the same time as that larger, you know, blood pattern that looks like, you know, a footwear impression. So we don't say shoe print, we say footwear impression because we don't really know. Right. You need a lot of detail to say shoe print.
- [39:52]
C
Right.
- [39:53]
D
We need like Tread and all sorts of things. But a footwear impression covers socks, covers bare feet. Right. So we really don't know what we have just yet. But if we consider that those are two separate events and they just happen to be right next to each other now we open up different possibilities that just happen to be in the same place.
- [40:13]
C
Separate events, meaning separate times.
- [40:16]
D
Separate. We could have the larger stain occurring, and then subsequent to that, or before that, you have the skeletonized droplets, and they're not related to each other. Two different events cause those two blood stains, but they're right next to each
- [40:30]
C
other, meaning it could have been seconds apart. A foot could have gone down and then left, and then those two droplets could have happened afterwards. So that. That does help explain. Let's get to the meat of the matter. And that is all the debate online, that this sure looks like a shoe print impression. And I said it earlier in the podcast that it looks. This is what a lot of people say it looks like a cloud shoe. You see these treads and the bottom. Size wise, you've seen the tile. Each tile looks to be, you know, and again, this is not very scientific, but each tile looks to be about big enough for him to step into it, and his foot looks to be about a little over two thirds of the length of a tile. What does that tell you about the size of this impression, if it is one?
- [41:15]
D
So I frequently see crime scene photographs that are missing scale. So the ruler, everybody knows what that looks like. And so when I'm missing scale, I need to find other things in those photographs to help me get a sense of relative size. So I can't tell from those photographs just yet, because exterior tiles can be 16 inches square. You know, interior tiles are very often 12 inches square, which gives me a rougher sense of what we're looking at. But I'll give you a better way to get a sense of is this footwear or is this something else? So we have this whole group of reagents that we use when we're working with blood stains that are called latent development reagents. And we use these not to determine is it blood or isn't it blood, but we use them in situations where we think blood is supposed to be here, but we don't see any. And when we use these reagents, or very often we spray them onto surfaces, what happens is in the presence of blood, we get a color change. There's a reagent that's called leukocrystal violet, and violet is the key word. Here because it turns a very dark blue, purple color in the presence of blood. If I thought that that was a component of a footwear impression, right? And on running, there's my, my shoe of choice right now. Really helps my old body when I run. If that was a footwear impression and we used a latent development reagent, we would see that pattern repeating on other sections of tile, either closer towards the door or closer towards the driveway.
- [42:54]
C
Unless. Hold it. I said this to Dr. Laura Pettler as well. If you made that step and you put that imprint down there, then your next step was onto the welcome mat where you worked your way around a little bit or struggled a little bit and rubbed everything off of your shoe. Would you still see those additional prints with a reagent?
- [43:18]
D
I would use a different reagent on the welcome mat. Because one, the primary thing that you have to consider when deciding what reagent you use is contrast. Am I going to see the reaction if there is one? And so if I'm dealing with a dark colored welcome mat, I can't use a reagent that's going to turn a dark color.
- [43:39]
C
What about after he stepped off the. And I'm just, again, this is, this is just me theorizing and asking if that is a shoe print. And then the next step was onto the welcome mat where he worked his way around and wiggled around and then the blood was wiped off, so to speak, then his next few steps are down the entrance towards the walkway. And you used reagents on the walkway at this point, would you still, even though you can't see it with the naked eye because he's rubbed it off on the map, would you still see, would reagents still help you see those footprints as they continued out to, say, a waiting car?
- [44:13]
D
It's possible. But considering that the particular shoe that we're talking about here, there's not much tread there, right? These are very big blocky sections. And it's very likely or it's conceivable that if they stepped onto the welcome mat, all the blood would come off on that one step. And so if we don't really think about the welcome mat as being where all the blood could have transferred, we get a situation that we call a false negative, right? We do something and we think that, you know, we use our reagent, we don't see a reaction and we're like, well, that wasn't blood or it wasn't a footwear impression. It turns out, well, there actually was evidence there. But because we applied the wrong logic, or we used the wrong reagent, or we didn't critically examine this. We walk away thinking we don't have evidence there, but in fact we do. We just didn't do it the right way. So we have to treat the welcome method differently than we have to treat the tile. And so for the welcome mat, I would actually take that welcome mat away from the scene and I would use a reagent that a lot of people are familiar with. It's the one that everybody thinks is the coolest one. We have Blue star Luminol. Right. So that's something called chemiluminescence. So essentially we have a reaction where the product of that reaction is a glow, a faint blue glow. Now, the reason why I want to take the welcome mat away is because that glow is very, very faint. And it's very easy to miss if you don't do it under very dark conditions.
- [45:48]
C
Right. Well, we did see the FBI, it looked like showing up with a big old white tent in about two weeks since the disappearance and do some experiments. They had a height board and all sorts of things they were taking in there. And who knows if they were doing that or. Listen, I don't know if the sheriff's department and their homicide detectives did that in those first 30 hours before they released the scene. We didn't see that the media wasn't all there at that point. But let me get to the actual shape of the blood dropping question that everyone's debating. Does this look like it could be an impression, a shoe impression, or do you have other, you know, other theories that resembles to the expert eye instead?
- [46:35]
D
I think there are other potential explanations. And if you look at that stain closely, you'll see that there's some circular edges to it. Right. Semicircular edges.
- [46:49]
C
Yeah. I mean, that's the whole thing, is that they all look so perfectly symmetrical. And in nature, nothing's symmetrical.
- [46:56]
D
Right, right. And to me, what that suggests again, and you know, I have to be careful not to prematurely form hard and fast opinions about things. Right. You have to stay open until you have all the information possible. Those look like aspects of drip stains. And if you had a couple drops of blood land in the same approximate area, you could get those stains merging together to create one larger stain. But yet you have some of the artifacts of the original droplets before they merged.
- [47:34]
C
But wouldn't they all have to be perfect to have all those little semicircles lining up in a line? And then there's one more little, what looks like stamp in the same pattern. Behind that big shoe print looking thing
- [47:46]
D
you're referring to, there's an area that, where there isn't blood, right?
- [47:51]
B
Yeah.
- [47:51]
C
I mean, there's, there's the main, you know, so to speak, shoe print that looks like shoe print and then behind it there looks like a continuation, a piece of. A continuation of a, so to speak, shoe print. I'm not convinced it's a shoe print. I'm just saying that that's what a lot of people are saying.
- [48:04]
D
Yeah. So, yeah. Any place where I have a disconnect between two stains, I have to entertain the possibility that they're formed by two separate events. Unless, you know, there's a latent, you know, I can develop blood in between those two that suggests that they actually were the same event. And I just couldn't see the blood between it because it was so faint. That's one explanation for it. But I do see the potential that those were actually, that's what we call a drip pattern. Series of droplets landing in the same place, and then before they had a chance to dry, they actually merged into each other.
- [48:41]
C
Hmm. And it would give you that perfect symmetry all the way down.
- [48:46]
D
Yes.
- [48:48]
C
So you're the second person who's not so convinced that this is a shoe impression. Could you be convinced it's a shoe impression? And if so, what would take you there? Like, what about the. And again, knowing that these aren't CSI pictures, what would take you there? Or would nothing take you to that point?
- [49:05]
D
Certainly that nothing I could be taken there. But the first thing is better photographs, right? Higher, higher quality images so that I could zoom in and see more detail. So we're looking at photographs where we're not, you know, we're off at an angle. So what, what that means is that, you know, what's closer to me, you know, what's at the bottom of the picture is closer to me than what's at the top of the picture. So you have this distortion of distance or size. So the way that that stain actually looks in reality is different than the way it looks in the photograph. So that, you know, changes the way you actually perceive things. So I would want to see a few more aspects of it that would lean in the direction of it being what's called a transfer stain. So long before we get to the, the notion of what made the transfer, we first have to say it's a transfer stain because, you know, transfer stains are very common in blood. You know, in blood stain cases and casework that we have and that simply, it's, it is what it sounds like. There was blood on one surface and it transferred to another surface. And very often that's the end of the decision making process that, you know, in bloodstained pattern analysis, it's a transfer stainless. Sometimes we can decipher information about what it was that made the transfer. Sometimes we see finger marks, but sometimes, because humans love to see meaning in patterns, we think something is a finger mark or a series of finger marks. But it wasn't at all. It was simply the folds of a sweater or, or, you know, some other arrangement of a random object that we thought meant something. And if I'm losing your audience for a moment, has anybody ever looked into the sky and seen, you know, a cloud that looked like a horse or something like that? That's the same effect. We tend to create meaning from, you know, random arrangements of things.
- [51:18]
C
That happens on the Internet a lot, by the way. Yes, it does, which is why I wanted to get scientists and experts to weigh in on it because I myself am getting very taken by the pattern. And again, I keep looking at the cloud shoe and the, you know, the treads, I think, oh God, it sure looks like that. Not to say that other sneakers don't have that tread. I do want to ask you about the size of it again. You're right. We don't have aspect. We don't have the lovely little, you know, forensic ruler sitting beside, which I'm sure, I hope the CSI analysts do have from the homicide investigators. But we do have his foot on the tile in some of the other video stills that we grabbed. And it kind of shows that his foot is a, is not quite the length of a tile, but it is about a little more than three quarters of the length of a tile. So with that kind of aspect ratio, are you able to look at that blood stain and say that is way smaller than a potential shoe tread or a sneaker tread, or it is actually the right size for a, a sneaker tread or none of the above.
- [52:25]
D
So the, that's that circled area of the image which captures foot relative to one of the tiles is instructive in the sense that it shows you that it's within the realm of possibility that that area could be a portion of a footwear impression. One thing that your audience should understand is that whether or not it is or it isn't is really dependent on how the footwear made contact with blood before it transferred. What was that volume of blood and where was it located? Now, what we haven't seen Is another source of blood, another location where the transfer could have occurred, meaning a drop
- [53:13]
C
big enough to stamp your foot into it so as to make a stamp that big.
- [53:18]
D
Right. Now this does not need to be a one for one like a, like a, like a stamp pad. I don't need the same exact size blood pattern in order to make the transfer because you can imagine blood is going to move laterally along the surface as you put pressure.
- [53:36]
C
Yeah.
- [53:37]
D
So it doesn't need to be that exact, but we do need to have some sense of is there enough volume somewhere already on the surface that could spread along the bottom of a footwear, you know, of a sneaker, whatever it happens to be a boot, so that it would then be available to then transfer onto the tile in the way that we're looking at it.
- [54:00]
C
Well, I'll tell you what, we don't have a picture that shows that. We do know from one of my sources that the blood pattern continues inside, but nothing different. So there's not one big pool of blood somewhere. We also don't know because of the darkness of the welcome mat, if there's a whole bunch of blood on the welcome welcome. Matt. We just, we can't see that from the naked eye and the journalists pictures. But if you had to render a guess based on, you know, the crude materials, work materials that we've been able to provide for you, which is just the journalists pictures and the, and the video, your best guess would be.
- [54:37]
D
So my best guess is that what we're looking at is a drip pattern. And what I think is complicating the interpretation a little bit is that there's what's called a void pattern in there. Right. So there's this like little wedge shaped area where there isn't any blood. And that makes the pattern a little harder to make sense of. Had that area been filled in, I think a lot of people would be easily understand, like, oh, that's simply a few droplets of blood that fell in the same place. Or at least you'd understand why some of us would initially consider that. Now why does that happen? Why do we get void patterns a lot of times? You know, these are what we often see with spatter. Right. When blood is traveling through the air. But in other situations, and this might be one of them, it could be an, an artifact of the tile itself. You know, was there some kind of treatment on the tile? Right. To make water bead on it. Right. You know, we call it, you know, is it hydrophobic? Right. Does it repel water? And so in that one area, the blood really couldn't stay there because of some treatment on the tile. And so as a result, it kind of moved left and right of that one area. So you got this distortion to what otherwise would have been a regular pattern. So you have a void. And so now that complicates things because now it looks like the aspect of a footwear impression or something like that. So before we get to the idea that it has to be footwear, we have to make sure that we're not over interpreting something that is more easily explained by some characteristic of the surface itself.
- [56:16]
C
Dr. Valentin, thank you. I so appreciate your wisdom on this and all those years that you studied it.
- [56:24]
D
Thank you. Ashley, good to see you again.
- [56:26]
C
You too. My great thanks to Peter Valentin. Dr. Valentin's a favorite of mine. He's talked to us before in previous episodes about the bloodstains outside of Nancy's house. I am so thankful that he gave me his expertise. Now I want to switch gears to a third expert. And you may know Dr. Ken Kinsey well. You may know him from his prior work or you may know him from his street cred. But here's his street cred. He's a forensic crime scene analyst and forensic scientific expert. His company is Kenny Kinsey and Associates, Crime scene consultants, crime scene and violent crime consultants. Or you may know him from a very famous trial, the trial of one Alex Murdoch. He was the crime scene expert, the blood expert who was up on the stand talking about Paul Murdoch's blood. And so you may know him from there. But Dr. Kinsey has testified in roughly 100 trials, whether it's blood pattern analysis, blood stain pattern analysis, or crime scene reconstruction, he has done a few things with regard to this kind of CSI. So I asked Dr. Kinsey what he thought of that particular bloodstain. Here's our conversation. Dr. Kinsey, I've been asking the experts and I'd love to hear your opinion. Do you think that pattern that everyone's talking about is in fact a footwear impression or something else?
- [57:53]
E
Completely, Ms. Ashley, it very well could be a footwear impression. I, I don't like to to assume because you may have an imperfection. It does appear to have characteristics, at least some outsole design, as with a footwear impression. But we've got to remember it's two dimensional. So without a one to one, it'd be kind of hard to interpret that. But it appears to be characteristic of a partial footwear impression.
- [58:26]
C
And I'm interested to hear you say that. And again, I Understand that these are sort of crude tools that we've given you. Just the journalists pictures are not the same as the investigators pictures. But I like when we're looking at this scale, we can see the relativity of the size of the perpetrator's foot as compared to the tiles. And so then you can see that his foot takes up almost a whole tile, a little more than 2/3 of a tile. So when you think of that and the size of that particular blood pattern, does it make sense that it could be actually the size of a tread pattern in a typical sneaker or say the sneaker that I'm holding up, which we've talked about a lot. It's one of those cloud sneakers.
- [59:12]
E
Absolutely. It certainly could. And we use scaling in this line of work, My colleagues and I, we use scaling a lot. The only problem with the scaling, it's going to give you a general size. And the first thing you learn in footwear comparison when I, when you're actually matching a known to an unknown, is that several manufacturers, and depending on their, their manufacturing process, you can't just look at the size of the impression and determine the size of the shoe. And what I mean is some manufacturers may use utilize a 9 and a half, a 10 and a 10 and a half for. With the same outsole, they may produce it with the same outsole design and the same size. So it's going to give you a general area of what you're looking for as far as shape, size and outsole design. But it's not going to lock you in definitively unless you've got a known to compare to that unknown. But it will get you brand many times it will get you characteristics of a certain brand and it'll, it'll get you a little bit closer to where you have to go.
- [60:25]
C
Well, I'm fascinated to hear that you think there is a possibility of it being a footwear impression. But then there's the wild card. When the police showed up at Nancy Guthrie's home, they were responding to what sounded like a missing person, not necessarily a bloodbath or a murder or anything like that. So my thoughts are the officers walked up to the front door and may not necessarily have seen that blood. And what we're looking at might even be the imprint of one of the police officers shoes as they stood there waiting for someone to answer that door.
- [61:08]
E
Absolutely. And great, great. Crime scene preservation starts with a crime scene log. And most of these logs are going to contain not just the identity of all first responders, but it's going to go down to the brand and size of their footwear. And that way, if you're. If the person is examining those unknown footwear impressions, if they're drawing a blank. And many times it's the same way with DNA, especially with the advent or the discovery of touch DNA. You can do the same thing with footwear. When you. When all else fails, you can go back, because you're going to have to eliminate those first responders. And it is highly likely that it could be a partial footwear impression from a first responder. But it's still better to have it than to discount it and not collect it.
- [61:58]
C
Well, the only thing that I'm curious about is if that is a footwear impression, where are the additional impressions that would have happened after that one? Because that doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the vicinity of the front entrance, at least from the images we can see.
- [62:16]
E
Well, they may or may not be there. And with blood, many, many times, you're gonna. Blood's really, really thick. It's very viscous. So the majority of that blood could have been transferred, or maybe not. But with chemicals and reagents, you can bring out additional. And you may be able to enhance this and get more detail of that outsole design, also with chemicals. I've started with just the smallest piece of a partial footwear, and sometimes you can develop the entire footwear, depending on the chemicals you choose.
- [62:54]
C
Wow. I never thought of that. I did think that you could maybe use a reagent and see additional prints that aren't easy to see with the naked eye, But I didn't think about filling in the gap of what we're seeing.
- [63:06]
E
Yeah, I actually work on in the corrections department here in South Carolina, and we tracked the offender back to his cell, and there were no visible footwear. And we. We physically sprayed each foot. You know, we sprayed the entire area and followed the footprints and went right back to his cell. And none of those prints once probably two foot from the victim cell. There were no prints visible. And we were able to follow it all the way to the offender cell.
- [63:36]
C
That's amazing. You know, I think back to the Idaho case and Bryan Kohberger murdering four innocent kids at 1122 King Road. And they said that there was a partial shoe print in blood outside of Dylan Mortensen's bedroom. And we never heard much more than that. We sure never heard, you know, in the settlement conferences in the. You know, when he stood up in court and pledged, we never heard that it was his shoe print. I assume because as a criminology student, he got rid of everything he was wearing. So while it's fascinating to see a partial shoe print, it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to find the shoe that goes with it.
- [64:17]
E
Correct. And it depends on the motivation and the intelligence of the offender. A lot of times in street crimes, you know, these shoes are very, very expensive. A lot of times, just in your normal street crimes, they will not get rid of the shoes. They'll try to clean them. But someone with his educational background. I know I wouldn't keep anything. I would get rid of everything, probably even burn my car down. But he probably did dispose of those if he was responsible.
- [64:50]
C
Well, and he. We can't tell. He looks like a bumbling idiot when he comes up to the front, you know, trying to, you know, figure out where the camera is at first and then go and MacGyver away to pry it off or smash it off or cover it. Some people think he's covering it in leaves. I don't. I think he's using the vine to get between the bracket and the camera and yank it. In any case, Savannah Guthrie did use the word yank. So I'm curious about that. But the other issue is, is without being able to extrapolate the size. Right. Because you can't take the. Like you mentioned, you can't take this small impression, if it is one, and extrapolate out to what size it is, because the manufacturers don't necessarily have a relativity to their sizing. They might just use the whole pattern and cut it smaller or bigger.
- [65:32]
E
Right, right. And with a very big case that I was involved in, it was something similar. It was a tire, and we actually had to cut it down. And that manufacturer made three different tires. So that's why we couldn't give a definitive match. We were able to say it's the same shape, size, and design, but we couldn't say this tire, above all others, made this impression. And you've kind of got the same thing with footwear, maybe even more with footwear, because there are so many brands, sizes, and styles out there.
- [66:10]
C
What is it about this pattern that would lead you away from thinking that it's a footprint?
- [66:17]
E
It has the characteristics of a partial footwear. I would, if I saw it in my regular, everyday life, that's what I would take it to be, a partial footwear impression.
- [66:28]
C
If you had the actual. And again, these are journalists pictures 60 hours or so after the fact. But if you had the actual CSI pictures vertically taken with the measurements et Cetera. Is there something that could dissuade you?
- [66:43]
E
Well, I would want to see it enhanced. I would document it here, and then I would use a chemical or a reagent and try to enhance it. So I may not conduct my comparison on this partial, but if it's all I had, if I could come up with a suspect shoe, you would do an overlay, and hopefully you would be able to find some unique, random characteristic in this. And like you said, it's kind of a crude photograph, but there are most likely random details in this that could be used to match back to a shoe.
- [67:18]
C
Does anything concern you about the perfect round droplets on either side of this, what looks like a shoe print? Did those dissuade you, or could they have been dropped at a different time?
- [67:35]
E
You can't age it, to be honest, but when you look at the totality of it, I would think it was from this incident. And the skeletonized. It's a very slow drip. This person is vertical, 90 degrees, moving very, very slow, or stopped when this bloodletting took place.
- [67:54]
C
I don't mean a different date. I mean, it could have been a second later. Meaning the shoe print goes down, imprints that blood pattern. There's movement, and then two additional drops fall afterwards. That's what I'm sort of wondering about. The different time the shoe print goes first, thereby it's not stepping in the drops.
- [68:13]
E
Well, this doesn't appear to be a shoe print in a drop to me. This appears to be a transfer from a shoe. So there was some blood, a quantity of blood somewhere else that this person stepped in before they transferred this. And it may be out of screen, or we may not have the benefit of looking at it. But that does not look like a distorted drip or drop to me. It looks like a. It looks like what we call a swipe. If there wasn't a shoe involved, it's blood on a surface that transfers.
- [68:49]
C
And I'll tell you something, Dr. Kinsey, we have not been able to see a larger source anywhere. Not in the pictures that the journalists are able to capture. Michael Ruiz from Fox Digital and Brian Enten from News Nation, they were able to just use their iPhones and take their pictures or their smartphones, take their video up at the front entrance, and then, you know, head back out. And they didn't see what was inside the house either, because I've got reporting that says that this blood pattern is replicated inside the front door as well, but exactly the same, and that there's no scuffle marks. Or scene of a struggle in that pattern. So does that change your opinion at all? If there's no source that you can actually see where the shoe could have picked up that blood? Or could that have happened on the welcome mat either?
- [69:39]
E
But it doesn't change my opinion. There is a source somewhere. And this, to me, appears to be a. An absol. In blood that walked. And. And most of that blood, like I mentioned, and we use a quantity, and you wouldn't believe how fast that blood stops transferring. So inside that doorway may be a more complete footwear. If that is indeed what this is, and I believe it to be, it. It's. It has too much characteristics to. To just be a tran. A drop or a drip pattern. This is going to be a footwear, I'm fairly certain, but I wouldn't hang my hat on that unless I had a little bit better photograph.
- [70:26]
C
Well, I hope at some point we have a suspect that he is arrested, that this evidence is entered into a court of law as exhibits, and then you and I can have this conversation once again where you're able to see the more specific CSI versions of the photographs and that they hang him into this crime. I mean, I just hope that they're able to get some resolution for the family and for those who are just, their hearts go out to Mrs. Guthrie and her family and this mystery Dr. Kinsey. Thank you so much. I really appreciate this.
- [70:59]
E
Thank you.
- [71:02]
C
So there you have it. Or not. I came into this thinking. I'll bet I'll have a definitive answer on what we're looking at in those pictures, and the Internet will be settled for good. And here we are. Totally different opinions among Dr. Peter Valentin, Dr. Laura Pettler, and Dr. Ken Kinsey. But that's why I wanted to talk to all of them, because everybody has different expertise, everybody has a different set of eyes, whether the crime scene analysts who are actually working the Nancy Guthrie case in the FBI and the Pima County Sheriff's Department are seeing the same things or different things than these three experts did. I don't know. But at least you can take these interviews to the bank, because they've got more degrees than a circle. And I'm so thankful that they joined me. And thank you so much for being here. Thank you to my subscribers. I appreciate you. If you haven't already, blink. Boink. There's the subscribe button. Thank you so much, and thank you to the members. I appreciate you guys. And I hope you've liked some of that exclusive content that I've sent out just your way. Sort of fun on. It's like after dark or after hours. A little bit of Ashley time. And by the way, I appreciate you thinking your way through this video and having an open mind. And remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.
- [72:33]
A
And, Doug, there's nowhere I wouldn't go to help someone customize and save on car insurance with Liberty Mutual. Even if it means sitting front row at a comedy show.
- [72:43]
B
Hey, everyone. Check out this guy and his bird. What is this, your first date?
- [72:47]
A
Oh, no. We help people customize and save on car insurance with Liberty Mutual together. We're married. Me to a human, him to a bird.
- [72:53]
B
Yeah, the bird looks out of your league.
- [72:55]
A
Anyways, only pay for what you need@libertymutual.com Liberty.
- [72:59]
C
Liberty. Liberty. Liberty.