C (21:29)

Well, and it's one thing to come to you and say, do you have any video or anything like that. It's another to detain you and search

A (21:36)

your house with a search warrant. Did they tell you why? I guess I assumed, you know, because I live close by or something. But I just said I'd do anything to. If we could find some clues that might help. But I don't. I don't think there's going to be anything in here.

C (21:51)

So when they detained you, did you know that this was related to also them investigating Luke?

A (21:57)

No. You had no idea? No, I wasn't thinking this was about Luke. I found out it was also about Luke, but initially, no, I was thinking it was all about Nancy Guthrie and finding her and whatnot. So that is Mary Chapman Daley, and Brianna Whitney also spoke with Luke Daly, her son, and he had this to say about his experience.

C (22:20)

Many people have believed that you are

A (22:23)

the person on the surveillance video, the

C (22:25)

abductor, the masked person is that you.

B (22:28)

It's not me. I don't see the resemblance of it looking like me, but absolutely not. I have nothing to do with this case. So I was driving home. I noticed two share vehicles following me. They pulled me over at the Culver's right there, asked me to get out of the car, didn't tell me what it was about. So they had me cuffed in the back of a cop car, detained. I was asking, like, what are my being detained for? And they wouldn't tell me anything. They just said that the detectives would be there to talk to me. And once I saw, like, FBI and all the other cars start pulling in, I'm like, oh, this is probably about the. The Guthrie case. I'm like, this should be easy. Like, I have nothing to do with this, so it should be not a big deal to clear my name and. And move on. But the whole time during the questioning didn't really seem like. Seemed like more of. Like a. A fishing expedition for them to try to get me to say something, because all the. The dates I was telling them where I was, things like that, I'm like, all you'd have to do is look at my phone and see my location. I like, it was nowhere near anywhere or have any connection to this. But still, it was just. It was tough, like, being there. Like, I mean, I don't trust the FBI to the extent that I'm, like, thinking that there's pressure on this case and they want to find the person. So, like, the whole time while I'm sitting in the back of the cop car, I'm, like, panicking, thinking that I'm going to be framed for this, or they're trying to pin this on me somehow. They search range over. They. They told my Range Rover, did all DNA testing or whatever, and then gave it back to me, took my cell phone. I've had no way to get a hold of anyone, which is probably a good thing because everyone's looking at me like I'm this person that I'm not. So it's been. It's been rough.

A (24:40)

So that is really fascinating. They towed Luke Daly's silver Range Rover on a flatbed, covered up the license plate so we could never see it. They towed it under a warrant and processed it, and then must have determined that it is not of evidentiary value because they returned it to him. When you take something under a warrant, Fourth amendment, which, you know, protects Americans and people living here against an unreasonable search and seizure from the government. When you take something under Warran, if It proves not to have evidentiary value. You return it. You have to. It's on the judge. The judge is the person who signed off on it. And so the judge is like, yeah, if you're not keeping that for the investigation, you give it back, or my head's on a stake. So what's interesting is that last we checked, Annie Guthrie's car had not been returned. And the sheriff had told Fox it's part of the investigation. We have not had an update today. And again, Today is Monday, March 2, as to whether her car's been returned. But it would be really weird that they would give Luke Daly's car back, which was seized, after Annie's car was seized, and not give Annie's car back. I'm still trying to make heads or tail of that. Okay, so what I wanted to mention to you about was this news that I broke at the top of this episode that my law enforcement source told me that the partner agencies of the Pima County Sheriff were asked to go into the desert in a neighboring county, take the signal sniffer and go with these direct cell tower coordinates and look for, quote, unquote, a body. It did not yield Nancy Guthrie. But what took them there? I mean, that is the big mystery. And fascinating. So I called Tracy Sargent. Dr. Tracy Sargent. Tracy has been involved with, oh, yeah, between 2,000 and 3,000 missing persons cases. So she's been at this game for a long time. And the cases are similar or slightly similar to the Nancy Guthrie case because, of course, there's just nothing like Nancy's case. Right. There's just nothing. Her outfit is called Forensic Investigations and Analysis. Tracy has three cadaver dogs in her arsenal along with those years and years of skills. And she has the edit, you know, the added benefit of being a PhD in psychology. So like I said, she says she puts herself into the bad guy's shoes and then tries to find out what he would do based on the knowledge and the education and the training and the information, especially the forensic information on this particular case. And so that's why I wanted to talk to her, because the signal sniffer was sent to these coordinates in the desert in a neighboring county. Why, Tracy? Why? And what else are they doing? But also the notion because it had happened right at the same time that these two photographs of the perpetrator on the ring cam, all the law enforcement sources have told us they come from different days. So this guy was casing the place. If that's true, then he's checking out the place. He's gonna you know, target in the days to come. So I wanted to talk to Dr. Sargent about the parallel tracks as this investigation changes in numbers. Right. Fluctuates. And there's this task force. I wanted to ask her about the parallel investigations. How you look for a person you're hoping to still rescue, but how you look for a person when you think they may be dead. So here is my conversation with, with Tracy and it's super fascinating given the fact that now again, we're into week five. Tracy, talk to me a little bit about the methodology behind the large scale picture of how to search for Nancy Guthrie. Now that we are in week four. You've mentioned something about high probability areas that should come first. What does that mean?

C (28:46)

Yes, we certainly can't search the entire world for someone. So what we want to do is essentially focus on high probable areas first. What does that mean by high probable areas? Essentially where the person was last seen or any evidence or any technology that leads us to a particular area of interest. That's a high probable area and that's where we want to focus those resources. Essentially start at ground zero and then work our way out from there.

A (29:17)

Being that You've got a PhD in psychology and you apply that to your business of search and rescue, what does this newest news that came out about the fact that this perpetrator was casing, he was there before the night that Nancy disappeared, What does that enter into the picture in terms of how you put yourself in his shoes and then decide what may have come next?

C (29:44)

Absolutely, in all of these situations, the motive is key here. So what is his motive? And now that we know that he was there previously, it's obvious that he's targeted this home. And we have to figure out what his motive, not only for targeting the home, but also why that home interests him. Is it because there's a lone female that lives there by herself? Is it because it's an older female that lives by herself? Is it something inside the home that he's interested in? What is that motive? He obviously is there for a particular reason. He's targeted this home, he's reconning it, and he's certainly fully expected to come back and commit whatever crime that he had in mind.

A (30:35)

So putting the psychology into why someone has come in and how they have decided to come in, what can you extrapolate from that that adds to the, the strategy of how to search for where Nancy may have been taken.

C (30:52)

So we have to look at, you know, again, the motive. We don't. We can theorize what that might be the psychological part of this, his reasoning, and why he's there. So let's say, for example, he decided to stake this house to steal something. And let's theorize that maybe he was surprised by Ms. Guthrie and wasn't expecting her to be there. Maybe he was staking it out to see if somebody was there, see their routine, and thinking, oh, if I come back at the house at this time, there's not going to be anybody there. But in this particular situation, unfortunately, she was there, and perhaps she surprised him. And now he's having to deal with a situation that he wasn't planning on dealing with. So now it's a matter of maybe panic. What do I do? And then, just out of anxiety and adrenaline, he's dealing with a situation he had not planned for. So you have to look at from the perspective of what is he going to do with her? Where would he take her? He's in a panic. He wasn't planning on doing this. And then you have to look at the situation of just physically, her medical condition, her fear and things like that. How is he going to take care of her? Why did he take her? And in this situation, we have to theorize maybe because she could identify him. And now, again, he wasn't planning on taking her. So there's a lot of psychological situations going on in this individual that maybe he didn't plan for, and he's really going by the hip of just trying to deal with this situation and, you know, minute by minute and day by

A (32:37)

day, if that's the case, I mean, it certainly could be another whole theory altogether. And they're. They abound on the Internet, the theories of what may have happened and why and the motives. But I want to go back to the. The high probable areas, because given this news that my source has told me about that, you know, partner agencies have been engaged now to use the signal sniffer and search in a remote area of the desert in a neighboring county using coordinates. What does that tell you?

C (33:12)

Gosh, that would be incredible. If that's the situation, that would really be a game changer in this, to be able to lead us to a specific area, to take resources there, whatever might be needed. And those resources could be varied. And let's say, if she's alive, that's certainly a number of resources that we want to bring in. And unfortunately, because of the extended time frame, she's been missing now for four weeks. So we have to look at the possibility maybe she's not alive any longer. So now you have to bring in other resources to utilize in that situation. And again, the signal will at least pinpoint an area that we can focus on and take those resources, whatever might be needed, and again, search those areas. And they'll tell us two things. They'll tell us where something is and something isn't. Is there evidence? Is Nancy there? Is there something else that will be helpful in this case to move it forward? But due to the fact that they've at least identified an area to check, that's going to be extremely helpful in this situation.

A (34:26)

And I wish I, I wish I knew what led to those coordinates. And I don't have that information, but it would be fascinating, especially as far out as a neighboring county. But the, and I keep coming back to the high probable areas because if you're, if you're looking, you know, in, in the middle of the desert, there are some limitations to what bad guys can do and what they can get to.

C (34:52)

Absolutely. So what we have to do from a psychology perspective, human behavior, and just the pure logistics of doing something. So we have this signal, it's identified in an area. So now we have to consider theorizing that perhaps he took Nancy out in that area or even some kind of evidence, probably he's not going to walk out in that distance and, you know, far away. So you have to look at. All right, how would a vehicle get in there? Is there some areas where there's a road or there's some routes that would be viable for a vehicle to travel through? So that's going to narrow the area considerably. So then from there is that logistically, once he locates an area, is it an area that maybe attracts him to go, or maybe he's familiar with that, he can go there. And then logistically, can he walk a certain distance? Let's say either walking somebody out into the desert or even carrying someone out into the desert, with all due respect, someone that is dead weight, whether they're unconscious or deceased, that's actually quite difficult to do. No matter how strong or big you are, the dead weight of someone is something you just can't carry some distance. So that's going to be very helpful as well. If we look at it from. Again, when we search these areas, we truly want to walk into the shoes of these bad guys. What not only would they do, but also just as importantly, what can they do?

A (36:35)

Well, take me to the wood as opposed to what can they do? Because that high probable area makes sense when you say if you can't drive there, you're sure not going to walk four or five miles with, you know, like you said, 150 or so some odd pounds. But what about the. What would they do? Tell me about the psychology of that and how that enters into the way you approach search.

C (36:59)

Yes. So again, when I go out there with my dogs or with other investigators to search an area, I truly walk in the shoes of the individual, check the area out. What interests them here. And one of the things we recognized and what I have seen over the years is that when somebody drives in, let's say, a one lane road, interestingly enough, almost without exception, even if there's more people, more than one person in the car, oftentimes we have found what we're looking for, whether it's the person or evidence on the driver side of how they drive in, then we opposite. Correct?

A (37:43)

Yes.

C (37:44)

Even if we have multiple people in the car, because oftentimes the driver is the leader and they take the person out of the car from the driver's side and then take them into the woods. On the flip side of that, let's say on the driver's side there is a big mountain that's a thousand foot high. Well, that's certainly going to alter their behavior to say, you know what, here's this obstacle here we need to consider somewhere else, let's say on the passenger side of where the vehicle is, we need to go out in that direction. So there is a method to this madness. And again, looking at the topography, what attracts them to that area? Why would they go this side and not that side? So there are a number of variables and we approach it strategically. But we go back when you say the high probable areas, let's say there's tire tracks, there's some kind of disturbance in the area. Theorizing this is where they parked or where they were, we start there and then work our way out.

A (38:50)

For lay people like me, think about the county. Pima county is the size of Connecticut and Rhode island combined, and that's just one county. There are all the surrounding counties, you know, in Arizona, northern Arizona, eastern, southern or not southern, but, but, but western. It seems like it's searching for a needle in a haystack. Again, to the untrained eye, is it,

C (39:21)

you know, Ashley, it can be. It's amazing to me after working some of these cases, with the advancements in technology, with cell phones, with cameras, flock systems, all of those things, even social media, how one person can vanish without a trace. And I will go back to two cases that I'm working right now that those individuals, we actually know exactly what, where they were, why they were there, when they were there, what they did. And to this day, we still have no idea where they are. So it is not only a needle in a haystack, but sometimes it can be vanished without a trace situation. Even again, with all the technology that we have nowadays, it's an incredible, insurmountable challenge. And unfortunately, Ashley, it's not like the movies. It's really not. I wished it was. But in these situations, it really just goes back to not only doing the investigations and having a strategic approach to these things, but it comes down to just dogged hard work and quite frankly, some good luck as well.

A (40:38)

I mean, you've done between 2,000 and 3,000 cases. So you are the best person to ask this. When do the authorities who are directing this entire investigation and search, when do they transition from a search for Nancy to a recovery to find Nancy and potentially Nancy's body?

C (41:04)

You know, Ashley, that's a tough one. And it's something that is really difficult to transition, not only for the authorities, but certainly the families. And with all respect and consideration to the Guthrie family and all of her friends in the community as well, we as investigators always want to approach it from the standpoint that someone is alive until we know otherwise. However, the reality is, as time passes and now that we're in weakness for that has to be considered that are we in a situation where it's recovery instead of a rescue mission?

A (41:48)

Is it a parallel. Is it a parallel investigation? Meaning at a certain point, an additional line of attack takes. Takes up position, and that is the potential of a recovery while the rescue is continuing.

C (42:05)

You know, Ashley, that's a great description. A parallel approach is really the best way, especially in these kind of situations, because so much is unknown. But when we look at she has, you know, advanced age, she's 84 years old, she does have some medical challenges, and then just the time frame itself working these parallel is the best description and the best approach in this. We always want to lean into that she's still alive and doing well, but for the due diligence and really wanting to find these answers to so many questions, really looking into and considering what may be a recovery situation. And how does that change things? Well, it changes it in a number of ways. In the beginning, it's certainly the, you know, just a mass wealth of information in trying to figure out what's happening, the motive, where they are, all of those questions going on. Now, if we have to consider recovery in parallel with the investigation of her still being alive, considering other areas that maybe we didn't consider beforehand because we didn't need to. And that would be, let's say, some obvious things like a lake or a pond or maybe a mine or a well or some other areas that may be something, evidence. And unfortunately, maybe Ms. Guthrie may be concealed in some way that we have to consider that now in parallel with the hope always that she is still alive.

A (43:51)

So, regarding concealment, and given the information that I've learned from my source, which is they're out searching the desert with the signal sniffer based on coordinates, specific coordinates. So many cases that I've worked on, and I'm sure you as well, have been broken by seeing grounds that are recently disrupted. In the JJ Valo case, they noticed the ground and, you know, his stepfather's backyard had been disturbed. And lo and behold, they found a grave. Arizona strikes me as a bit of a different animal in terms of the topography and the climate. Can you weigh in on how easy or difficult it is to see recently disturbed terrain

C (44:47)

in comparing. When we talk about the Arizona desert and other areas, unfortunately, with the sand and we have the wind, if something is disturbed there, the challenge is because of the shifting sands and the wind and things of that sort. The concealment of disturbed dirt can be very difficult in that kind of environment. Where you compare it to maybe a wooded environment where the dirt has been disturbed with the leaves and the trees and things like that, it's pretty obvious that something's happened there. So, unfortunately, in the Arizona environment, and I have worked some dead desert type environments, those themselves can be extremely challenging. Unfortunately, you look at all of the parameters that we have for the investigators from day one, all of it is difficult from the topography, from not knowing why this person did this, who they are, what happened, why they did it. All of those things just been extraordinarily difficult for the investigators. And I want to emphasize this really is an extraordinary case in every way. And it's going to take, again, just a tremendous amount of work, tireless hours, endless days to figure this out, but also to go back, some luck that maybe something will happen, somebody will find something or hear something or know something that will help move this case forward in a much, much quicker manner and be able to figure out exactly what happened.

A (46:38)

Well, to the luck, Arizona is different than, say, Ohio in that there's a lot of border patrol. There are a lot of boots literally on the ground in southern Arizona that don't exist in other states. And I'm only imagining that that does present at least a different metric when it comes to luck.

C (47:00)

I would agree with that, Ashley. You know, as they say, more eyes the better. And certainly the high profile nature of this situation and Ms. Guthrie and everything that's being done and certainly you and other news folks that are sharing all this information, I think it's going to be extremely helpful and it is going to be a game changer in this case.

A (47:25)

So.

C (47:26)

And with the Border Patrol being so close by, that's certainly going to be helpful as well.

A (47:31)

I mean, they're out literally in remote parts of the desert searching for people who are using the remoteness of the desert to their advantage. So to that end, you mentioned many eyes are better, but the sheriff in this case has discouraged private search parties. I understand what the sheriff is saying. I can understand both sides of this argument. They don't want to interfere with the work of the sheriff and the searchers or whatever might be happening in search and rescue. But I also know that many cases have been solved by crowdsourcing and actually search parties. Casey Anthony's daughter was found by a civilian, Gabby Petito. That was something that a civilian led to. So what is your thought about the fact that many eyes make lighter work or better work versus don't disturb the professionals?

C (48:23)

Well, Ashley, I think it is a matter of, again, the more eyes the better, with the understanding of respecting what the investigators are doing and not interfering with those efforts. So there is a balance. Certainly want to embrace everybody's interest in wanting to help but also understanding that this is a very serious matter and that the investigation is ongoing and extremely active and not to interfere with those efforts. So I would say folks that do want to help certainly is appreciative but also respecting the sheriff and the investigators that are involved in this. With that said, you know, I certainly would be more than happy to help. I do have three cadaver dogs that are experienced and you know, I'm happy to help in any way. But with that I would not go unless I'm invited and asked and going through the proper channels to help in this situation.

A (49:34)

And you've made overtures?

C (49:36)

Yes, ma'. Am. I did reach out to the sheriff's office on their website and provided my information to them that if I can help in any way, I would be more than happy to do that. And I, being a criminal investigator and law enforcement enforcement myself, I still would not go out there unless I'm invited and approved because I don't want to interfere with what they're doing. I want to be an asset. I want to work in cooperation and collaboration with them. So I would say the same thing to anyone else, law enforcement or otherwise, to work with the sheriff's office and get that approval to come out there and help.

A (50:22)

There's always a push pull when an emergency situation is in front of us, and that is finding Nancy alive. That's the priority that has been for day one, from day one. But there is also the care and consideration to preserve any kind of prosecution once the bad guy, God willing, is found. In that respect, there have been private searchers, average civilians that have come out and searched drainage culverts. I mean, we've got pictures of them finding a black backpack in one of the drainage culverts. I believe it was a Swiss made backpack with an icon in the back that doesn't appear to be the same one in the doorbell cam. But in that respect, helpful. Yes, because at least something was found harmful. Because forget using that in a. In a prosecution, even though they found it on a stick and tried to preserve it best they can until the sheriffs come up.

C (51:16)

You know, Ashley, that's a great point, because when we're out there and working these operations, we always have to take in consideration the chain of custody. And the end result is we want this person to be held accountable. And it could be that one piece of evidence that may be disturbed or gathered by someone, you know, all good intentions, but it could influence and hamper the case in a pretty dramatic way, especially when we get to the prosecution part of all of this. And again, we certainly want to find Ms. Guthrie and bring her home. So that can certainly take, you know, some. It could hamper with that as well. So you're absolutely right. Good intentions. But we want to make sure these are done correctly and appropriately, because the end result, that once she is found, whether, with all respect, whether she's dead or alive, there's still a lot that has to be done afterwards, that this is just phase one and then phase two, and then we go to another phase three and four and so on, so forth. So this is just the beginning, not the end or even in the middle. So there's still a lot of work and a lot of questions. And we, again, what we're doing now can have a huge impact, both positive and negative. And that that applies to anyone that is involved in this case.

A (53:00)

As you talk about the phases, 1, 2, 3, 4, and you went as far as, I think, 6. And we're in phase one now as the investigation, the search, the recovery the rescue, the recovery moves from phase to phase. And there's a parallel operation, as you mentioned, that will ultimately be working. And it looks like it may be now, based on what my sources reported, what additional equipment would be employed all of a sudden in this secondary phase. Parallel phase, yes.

C (53:32)

So, Ashley, what they've been using now is a lot of the same resources you would continue using. So again, we're talking about the investigators, the ground searchers, drones, all of that. And then even behind the scenes, the technology, we talk about the signals and all of those things that are happening behind the scene that we may not even be aware of, all of that is still happening. And then in addition to other resources, let's say divers, sonar, boat operators, we talk about the drones, we continue using those certainly search dogs, in this case cadaver dogs, which technically are human remains detection dogs. So those additional resources that maybe we're not using now, we want to implement now and again work in parallel with the ongoing investigations of this parallel route of her still being alive. And we need to find her, but also look at the possibility of not only her maybe past passing away, but also evidence. We talk about the backpack and some other things. So I would incorporate the divers and sonar and other specialized resources like that because we've had four weeks now thinking like the bad guy. He's had all of this time to get rid of evidence, to try to conceal his action actions, to hide things, to get rid of things. Because if he's ultimately caught, he certainly doesn't want to incriminate himself or certainly not incriminate himself as much as he would at the beginning of this. So there's a lot of parts happening right now in parallel with one another. And all of this hopefully will give us some answers.

A (55:36)

Talk to me a little bit about the dogs, because I think you've mentioned in the past, not only can they find where someone is, equally importantly, they can find where someone isn't. And that's important.

C (55:51)

Absolutely, Ashley. What I've learned over the years is that knowing where someone isn't is just as helpful and very important to the investigation. In many of these cases I've worked, it's been a process of elimination. Also, the great thing about dogs is that they can check an area much more quickly and efficiently and even more accurately than human searchers. Because in essence, we talk about the desert. When the ground is disturbed and the shifting winds and the sand, it's very difficult for, for us to look and see. Well, you know, it all looks disturbed out here. How do we Figure out where something might be. Well, we're dogs. You can't hide scent. We've been. You know, people have been trying to hide scent from dogs for many years, but dogs can pick up scent days, months, years, and in fact, many years later. So dogs are an excellent resource for some, something like this. In addition, they also can find evidence for us whether something was there and is still there, tangible. Something tangible that we can pick up and take into custody as evidence, but also something that was there and then removed, but the scent is still there. But at the same time, if the dogs are telling us there's no scent here, we can mark it off and then move on to an area of possibly finding evidence, finding Ms. Guthrie and finding answers.

A (57:31)

Talk to me a little bit about the environment. I think of Arizona as hot and dry and dusty. It's not. It is in the day, and it can be different at night. How does that affect the dogs and their work?

C (57:41)

Absolutely, Ashley. So if we think about scent as moisture or water, in the heat of the day, that water or moisture is going to dissipate very quickly. So the scent is essentially going to disappear and die out. Whereas at night, it's going to be much more alive and much more viable for the dogs to be able to pick that up, while at the same time, they'll be able to work longer and better. So in a hot, dry, arid environment, oftentimes we'll deploy the dogs at night instead of during the day, and it works very well.

A (58:13)

I think I'd heard somebody say in your line of work that a very light rain actually enhances the scent that they might be looking for. But a big rain is exactly what you don't want.

C (58:25)

That's exactly right. So if you think about scent, again, when the moisture really percolates, that scent, if you think about after a rain where things smell much cleaner and better and fresher, even for us, it's the same thing for dogs. So a little bit of moisture is extremely helpful and makes a big difference in the scent. Whereas you're right, the heavy rains can wash it away.

A (58:52)

What about the longevity of scent? I mean, I keep coming back to the fact that we're in week number four. If there was scent in a particular area, let's just say in the desert, would it still be there? 4, 5, 8, 10, 30 weeks out.

C (59:06)

So we're again working parallel investigations. And it's the same thing with scent. If we're looking for somebody that's alive and you're walking down this path or wherever, scent can Die out pretty quickly, a matter of hours, certainly in a matter of days. Whereas if you're looking for someone that is deceased, their scent can be absorbed into the environment and last hundreds of years. I have used my dogs in revolutionary battlefield sites where they have actually found soldiers buried on the battlefield. So that scent can stay there for many, many years and be viable for the dogs for a long, long time.

A (59:55)

Literally, the difference between the scent of decomposition and the scent of a live person.

C (60:00)

Yes, ma', am, Absolutely.

A (60:03)

How long does the scent of a live person fall off?

C (60:07)

So when we're walking, we have our skin grafts that fall off. And again, let's say if somebody's walking down a paved road, hot airy conditions, that scent can dissipate in a matter of minutes. Whereas if they're walking in a wooded environment with trees and brush, that scent can be collected in the vegetation. It might last a few more hours, maybe a day or two. But I would say probably the max would be about 48 to 72 hours in optimal conditions, where live scent would still be in an area that would be viable for the dog to be able to pick up and actually follow

A (60:46)

where that scent goes again, the first, you know, 48 to 72 hours. So critical may be the reason why we're not seeing a lot of canines out right now, and maybe the reason why we may see different canines coming out, you know, in the. In the near future. And to that end, to the search efforts. Again, as we talk about parallel search efforts. A search for Nancy alive. A search for Nancy maybe not alive. Tell me about the plan. Like, what is the overall strategy? Grid searches, line searches, regional. I mean, we've got this news about a neighboring county going out with the signal sniffer, but technically, how does it work?

C (61:30)

So if we transition into two investigations, certainly her being alive has been going on for four weeks. So let's say if I'm called on this case or a similar case, that, all right, we're going to consider the person is no longer alive. How I approach this is literally going back to ground zero, starting over where the person was last confirmed to have been seen in this case, at her home. Start there and then work our way out. Because if you think about it, from day one, we've been looking for Ms. Guthrie alive. So with the anticipation that she would be visible and she would be found and things of that sort, let's just say, theorize now we're looking for Ms. Guthrie, that maybe she's not alive, maybe she's concealed in some way. So that's why when I work these things, cases, and I'm coordinator for a cold case unit here in Georgia, that we all start from ground zero, where that person was last seen, whether it was four weeks ago or 40 years ago. We're going to start there. I just worked a case here In Atlanta, a 30 year old cold case, and the dogs found evidence in the garage where this person was confirmed killed, that we found evidence. And that case has been reopened even after 30 years. And I would approach this case the same way. Start at her home, work our way out, and then go to other areas such as where the signal is. Again, start there at ground zero and work our way out from there.

A (63:17)

Well, Tracy, if Mrs. Guthrie was killed in her home, if that is one of the possibilities, wouldn't a cadaver dog be able to tell right away that that happened?

C (63:32)

So I think the terminology there is that the dogs can't tell us if somebody's been killed or not. They can simply tell us if there's human remains sent. So we as the human investigators have to determine, all right, is this person deceased or not? Because of whatever situation that we have found. The dogs can simply lead us to an area that, quote, warrants further investigation, but they can't tell us if somebody's been killed there or not.

A (64:04)

How quickly after someone dies do they give off the scent of human remains? Is the blood that we've learned was found inside the home any different than the scent of, say, decomposition? If someone were killed in the home and say we're there for a few minutes, or say 20 minutes?

C (64:54)

Well, that's a great question, Ashley. So when we talk about, again, most people know as cadaver dogs, they are technically human remains detection dogs. And that again, is the full spectrum from a full size body to skeleton remains to everything else between. From the training perspective of dogs, we train them with all different types of human remains, whether it's blood or human remains or bones or whatever that might be. The point being is, is that when the dogs respond, they're going to respond exactly the same way. If it's just blood or if it's a full size body or a bloody rag or maybe somebody was buried there and removed, whatever the circumstance might be. And it also could be something totally unrelated to a crime. Let's say somebody cut themselves in the kitchen, had nothing to do with a crime, there's blood there, the dogs are going to respond to that. Another situation that we have come across is if there is a mention female that lives inside the home and there's products used, products in the bathroom, garbage can. The dogs would go there and alert to that, just like they would to a dead body, because to them, it's all human remains. And they respond exactly the same way. So that's when we have to step in and determine, why did they alert here? Is it a crime? Is it not a crime? Is it related to this crime that we're involved with?

A (66:31)

It's almost as though it would be more helpful if there weren't blood inside the home. And if a dog alerted to human remains, they would have more of an answer.

C (66:40)

Yes, I would agree with that assessment. Yes.

A (66:43)

Well, that's fascinating. Talk to me about the psychology again, with your background, you know, having a PhD in this of the high profile nature of this case, and the bad guy with regard to distance, because the sheriff has said that he thinks that, you know, she's close. Other people have posited that, you know, if. If Nancy's pacemaker separated from her apple product, well, Don was only a couple hours away, and therefore, he'd probably have to have done something within a few hours. What are your theories when it comes to how close you think Nancy might be either alive or dead?

C (67:25)

Well, I think the overwhelming agreement here is that this house was targeted by this individual. So that goes into. As investigators, the number one thing we're going to ask is motive. Why did this person, first of all, target this home? And then second of all, why did they take Ms. Guthrie away from her home and keep her? So there's a lot of questions that we have, and it's all about motive. And that's very, very important. That's key to figuring that out. So when we think about the bad guy's behavior and why he's doing what he's doing, it gives the appearance of, all right, he targeted this home for a reason. Maybe she surprised him. Maybe he wasn't expecting her to be home, that the home would be vacant, it would be empty during his time, and he was surprised by her. And now he's like, oh, no, I was not expecting to take her out of the home because she's going to identify me. And now what do I do next? And so on, so forth. Being the fact that he's targeted this home, I would say, not only from my experience, but also the research I've done, is that most likely he lived close within the area. I can't imagine him living, let's say, two hours away and then driving to this home, which I understand is a pretty isolated area, very low Crime area, coming to this home, checking it out, and then driving back two hours. So my, I think, is a presumption would be from a psychological perspective and just from my experience and research, that he's likely much closer than two hours away. And I think it's also important to note that what people do during nighttime can actually be quite different than what they do in the daytime. So I think that's a factor to consider as well.

A (69:45)

Meaning.

C (69:47)

Meaning that most cases at nighttime, their behaviors are much more quick, much more shorter, much more unplanned. So because they can't see what they're doing, meaning if they go out into the desert and they think, all right, if we take somebody out into this desert, they may think they've walked a mile, and most often it's just maybe 40 yards. Because our depth perception, and we think that we've gone much further than we have, is often the case. Because when you're driving at night, it does seem like you're driving much further distance because you can't see exactly what's around you. Whereas the daytime, you have a clear perspective of how far you've driven because you can see around. And then when you park, you can actually go into the woods, be able to determine the distance much more clearly because you can see what you're doing, whereas nighttime you cannot. So if we're searching for somebody at night, or we believe that they've done something to somebody at night, almost without exception, we generally find them much closer to the road or to the pathway or some way of transport, a roadway that maybe they drove in, the person is typically not that much further into the woods.

A (71:19)

What about the notion that because this is so high profile, this perpetrator might want to put as much distance between himself and the epicenter of this crime as possible?

C (71:32)

I think that's a real possibility here. With the caveat that this is so high profile that the idea that he would take her, you know, two hours away without getting caught. And to be frank, Ashley, it's actually quite uncommon for anyone, whether it's a planned abduction of a child or a woman, to take them and travel many, many miles with them away. It does happen, but it, you know, when you look at the research and the reality, it's quite rare. And I would say in this case as well, that the idea that he would take her and travel hours and hours away with her, I think is unlikely. At the same time, if he wants to get away from her as far away as possible, I think that is a possibility. But I Don't think he would take her with him.

A (72:35)

We've covered so many cases where criminals have tried to burn their evidence. Does that, is that something that hinders dogs, Ashley?

C (72:43)

Actually it does not. So when we search areas, one of the things I'm always looking for is any evidence of burns, whether it's an actual fire pit that might be in the backyard or somewhere else. If I see any possibility that anything's been burned, I have the dogs check it. And for my experience, the dogs have no problem detecting scent even after something's been burned.

A (73:11)

And then last question, and that is the pacemaker has changed the metric on, on this search from so many cases that we've covered before. The pacemaker presumably has metal parts. It's sending the signal. So the signal sniffers have been brought in. But what about just good old fashioned metal detectors? Is that something that you could foresee being part of this?

C (73:32)

Absolutely. Not only just for her pacemaker, but any evidence that might be jewelry and with all due respect, firearms or, you know, something, any kind of metal that might be part of this criminal investigation. Metal detectors are an excellent tool to use, not only in this case, but actually they're used in many cases.

A (73:57)

Doctor, Dr. Sargent, thank you so much. That's just been remarkable. You're a wealth of information.

C (74:03)

Well, thank you, Ashley. It's been a pleasure and thank you for inviting me and I certainly wish the investigators the best of luck and thank you again for covering this case so well and so respectfully. And my thoughts and prayers go to the family.

A (74:19)

I think we, we all feel the same way. Thank you again.

C (74:22)

Thank you.

A (74:22)

My great thanks to, to Tracey Sargent. And I'll tell you what, we are going to keep watching how this investigation continues because like I said, there always has to be a drawdown. But what's that going to look like? And is the FBI, even though they've scaled back much of their operation back to Phoenix and the headquarters, they do say they've got their operators on the ground in Tucson. But how's it going to look? What is this task force? How many hours, how many man hours, how many people are they going to put on this? Because they still have thousands of hours of video to go through from what I understand. And so that's a lot of eyeballs and a lot of real time video watching to see if there's some clue, any clue that comes through the video. And that's not, you know, even touching on the tips, the 40,000 plus tips that have come into the FBI and the Pima County Sheriff's Department. That is so much material to, you know, these are rabbit holes. Many of them. Look, some of them are like looney tunes. And you can write them off pretty quick. But a lot of them have to be investigated, and they all have to be looked at, and they all have to be looked at by human eyes. Right? And so that's just time. It's just time and it's gumshoe work. But, guys, you know, we were six weeks. From the Idaho murders to the arrest of Bryan Kohberger. Don't lose faith. It can happen. And I particularly have a lot of hope with genetic genealogy. I know, I know it feels like that trail went cold, but believe me when I say this. I think that guy, when he put on his gloves, forgot about the bite light in his mouth. And when he took it out of his mouth with those gloves, his DNA, his saliva was all over those gloves. And he touched something. He got in a door. He touched that bracket for the ring camera. He touched something else in that house. So I fully believe that it's possible that maybe they'll still find his DNA and maybe he's not in the offender database. Right, codis. But with genealogy, I think they can find him. It just sometimes takes weeks, months, and even years. But if they can find the Golden State Killer, maybe they can find this guy, too. In the meantime, if you know anything, if you know anything at all, if you think someone acted in a strange way on February 1st or 2nd or 3rd, or even in the weeks ensuing, somebody just didn't act the same way they normally do. They took weird days off. They vanished without a trace. They had no good answer. They behaved weird. They were tense, they were nervous. They were odd. And they maybe look like someone on that ring. Cam, if you know anything like that, 1-800-call FBI. 1-800-call FBI. Your tip could break the case wide open. Thank you everybody for listening. Thank you so much for watching. And remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.