Bloodstain Analysis, Sheriff's "Theory" - Part 1 of Megyn Kelly Investigates Nancy Guthrie's Disappearance | Ep. 1274

Summary

The Megyn Kelly Show

Episode 1274: Bloodstain Analysis, Sheriff's "Theory" – Part 1 of Megyn Kelly Investigates Nancy Guthrie's Disappearance
Original Air Date: March 17, 2026

---

Overview

This episode launches a four-part investigative series into the mysterious disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, mother of NBC News anchor Savannah Guthrie. Megyn Kelly, joined by former FBI experts Jim Fitzgerald (“Fitz”) and Maureen O’Connell, scrutinizes the confusing timeline, shifting law enforcement theories, crime scene issues, family involvement, and most centrally, the blood evidence found at Nancy's Arizona home. The discussion is rooted in law enforcement insight, analyzes public statements from authorities, and features a detailed segment with forensic bloodstain expert Dr. Amy Santoro. The episode sets the tone for a methodical unpacking of the many questions plaguing this complex case.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Case Timeline & Early Law Enforcement Response

Timestamps: 00:56–08:10

• Nancy Guthrie, age 84, disappeared 44 days prior under confusing, possibly criminal circumstances.
• Timeline reconstructed via garage door logs, camera disconnections, pacemaker app disconnect, and discovery of her absence the following morning.
• Early law enforcement statements shifted, with initial confusion about who last saw Nancy and when.

"It has now been 44 days since Nancy Guthrie's mysterious disappearance under circumstances investigators are still struggling to fully explain. Early statements from law enforcement were confusing, key details shifted, and a timeline that should have clarified the case has only fueled more questions."
— Megyn Kelly (00:56)

• Sheriff immediately called it a crime scene, raising suspicions regarding abduction given Nancy’s limited mobility, abandonment of personal items, and necessary medication.

"We saw some things at the home that were concerning to us that we do in fact have a crime scene. That we do in fact have a crime."
— Sheriff Nano (03:12)

---

2. Crime Scene Processing & Blood Evidence

Timestamps: 11:24–15:15, 34:46–47:05

• Law enforcement released the crime scene back to the family rapidly, raising concerns from FBI experts on possible lost evidence.
• General crime scene practices—the need to separate and independently interview family members and possible witnesses—apparently not followed with rigor.

"As soon as we realize that Mrs. Guthrie was missing by force...I would want to completely separate all the family members and interview them separately. Doesn't mean they're suspects...But this way...there's not going to be leakage..."
— Jim Fitzgerald Fitz (11:24)

• The early release of the scene and the lack of a public, coordinated search effort remain contentious decisions by the sheriff.

"Having been on the evidence response team for decades, I can tell you that we would have secured the entire scene...We would have expanded the crime scene."
— Maureen O’Connell (66:49)

---

3. Family Dynamics, Media Exposure, and Stalker Theory

Timestamps: 15:15–26:58, 37:11–44:59

• Discussion of Nancy’s home (with video from 2013 of her bedroom) launched analysis of how much public exposure Savannah Guthrie and the Today Show gave to her private life.
• Fitz raises the potential that a stalker, fixated on Savannah or her family, could be behind the abduction—driven by years of media appearances.

"If you are, in fact someone out there suffering from some condition like erotomania, you're basically a stalker...Maybe, you know, you can't get to her kids...This mother happens to live in a remote area...Let me go pay a visit and let me go do something with this."
— Jim Fitzgerald Fitz (19:36)

• Maureen O'Connell notes how intimate bedroom details shown publicly could’ve been leveraged in the ransom note to demonstrate insider knowledge.

---

4. Sheriff’s Messaging, Changing Public Threat Assessment, and Investigation Theory

Timestamps: 28:58–34:25, 70:52–72:54

• Sheriff Nano’s statements about risk to the public have been contradictory – initially saying there was no wider public threat but later warning the public not to assume they’re safe.
• Sheriff also claims to have a theory of the case and motive from early on, but refuses to elaborate, leaving the public and even expert analysts in the dark.

"Well, absolutely. We believe we know why he did this and we believe that it was targeted. But we can't, we're not 100% sure of that."
— Sheriff Nano (29:57)

• Panel voices frustration at the inconsistency, suggesting it not only confuses the public but could undermine building a prosecutable case.

"We can safely say he is consistent in his inconsistencies..."
— Jim Fitzgerald Fitz (78:36)

---

5. Forensic Bloodstain Analysis: What Do the Droplets Tell Us?

Timestamps: 34:46–47:05

Special Guest: Dr. Amy Santoro, forensic scientist and bloodstain pattern analyst.

Key Findings:

• The blood spatter outside the front door appears consistent with a relatively quickly bleeding source, but not necessarily blunt force or gunshot trauma.
• Dripping pattern suggests blood fell from a height of at least two feet – possible sources include hand, arm, face.
• The absence of blood on thresholds and the intact nature of the droplets suggest Nancy may have been already outside when injured, or was carried quickly, minimizing the chance to step through or smear the drops.
• The pattern doesn't match high-velocity wounds (like gunshots); a bloody nose or skin tear is possible, especially as elderly skin is fragile.

"If you're getting pulled or dragged away...you're not going to be stepping in that blood. If you're moving away very quickly, there's just not an opportunity to do that..."
— Dr. Amy Santoro (40:37)

• No forensic basis to definitively determine if Nancy was walking or being carried.
• Discussed the potential for additional forensic information (e.g., presence of saliva to determine nose/mouth injury).
• Blood trail ended abruptly—possible explanations include entry into a car, direct pressure applied to wound, or blood being absorbed by clothing.

---

6. Surveillance Footage, Technology, and Theories of Accomplice Involvement

Timestamps: 51:02–62:49

• Only thumbnail images, not video, recovered from property surveillance cameras—the night of abduction records nothing.
• Discussion on whether a wifi jammer or simple walkie talkie (as possibly seen in the suspect’s hand) could have been used; experts doubt the abductor was technologically advanced enough for a wifi jammer.
• Maureen O'Connell theorizes strongly that there were two people—abductor and accomplice—likely communicating by walkie talkie.

"If it's a walkie talkie, Maureen, it's a. He's got an accomplice."
— Megyn Kelly (58:21)
"Yeah, I believe he has an accomplice. I've said that from the very beginning. I think there are two people involved."
— Maureen O'Connell (58:26)

• Possibility also raised that the device in the suspect’s possession could be a police scanner.

---

7. Family Suspicions, Focus on Brother-in-Law

Timestamps: 74:39–80:56

• Sheriff’s shifting public statements about the family, specifically about son-in-law Tommaso, and conflicting reporting about who dropped Nancy off, fuel suspicion and public speculation.
• Savannah Guthrie made known her anger about coverage involving her family.
• Fitz and Maureen both stress that law enforcement should “never rule anybody out” prematurely and must always re-interview key witnesses, including children who may have seen or heard key events.

"You never clear anybody."
— Jim Fitzgerald Fitz (78:36)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "I think releasing...bringing help in earlier on...they would have then suggested don't release the house yet, give us time to go over it and give it a good week or two and maybe at that point safely release..."
  — Jim Fitzgerald Fitz on the premature scene release (64:55)
• "It's almost like ADD on steroids. He's like all over the place. He says something, then he reverses it, then he dials it back a little, then, then he contradicts that, then he does something that undermines all of it. And in the end, I have no idea about anything..."
  — Megyn Kelly, frustrated with Sheriff Nano (82:51)
• "But this person is going to get caught, they are going to get charged, and the trial is going to be epic. And we're going to see that this person that thinks they're so smart really wasn't that smart, just like all the others. And they're going to get taken down."
  — Maureen O’Connell, expressing hope for justice (83:57)

---

Key Timestamps for Major Segments

• 00:56–03:38: Case Introduction & Timeline
• 11:24–13:17: FBI Analysis on Initial Investigative Steps
• 15:15–22:14: Video Tour of Nancy's Bedroom and Discussion of Public Exposure
• 28:58–34:25: Shifting Public Threat Assessment by Law Enforcement
• 34:46–47:05: Blood Stain Analysis with Dr. Amy Santoro
• 51:02–62:49: Surveillance Camera Evidence, Device Analysis, and Accomplice Theory
• 66:49–69:27: Crime Scene Processing, Missed Evidence, and Search Criticism
• 74:39–81:37: Family Suspicions and Sheriff’s Contradictory Messaging

---

Summary Takeaways

• The episode highlights severe investigative and communication problems in the handling of the Nancy Guthrie case, from premature release of the crime scene and lack of comprehensive search, to public confusion fostered by contradictory statements from the sheriff.
• Expert analysis suggests a blood trail consistent with a quickly bleeding, possibly superficial wound, potentially incurred outside the home.
• The failure of surveillance footage on the crucial night and the presence of a suspicious device on the abductor raise strong new theories about technological manipulation and the likely presence of an accomplice.
• The family, especially Savannah Guthrie’s brother-in-law, remains uncomfortably at the center of speculation due to official inconsistencies, yet experts maintain no one should be ruled in or out prematurely.
• Frustration with law enforcement leadership is a recurring theme, as is hope that investigators’ behind-the-scenes work will ultimately lead to justice.

---

Next Episode Preview

Tomorrow: Part Two will focus on the possible accomplice theory and a detailed examination of the ransom notes received in the case.

---

This summary captures the essence, logical flow, and expert-driven discussion of the episode, providing newcomers a clear, engaging overview of the case’s current state and the major investigative questions at play.

Transcript

[Narrator/Advertiser]

There's a difference between liking a house and actually getting it. Redfin is built to close that gap. Redfin agents close twice as many deals as other agents. So when you find a home you love, you're not a step behind when it's time to make an offer. That means less watching great homes disappear and more zeroing in on the one you'll actually end up calling home. Redfin helps turn saved listings into real addresses. Get [e-mail] own the dream.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Hey guys. Finding the perfect gift for the food lover in your life is easy thanks to Goldbelly. Goldbelly ships America's most iconic foods straight from world famous restaurants right to your door. So if you want to treat someone to Joe's Stone Crab from Miami, Franklin BBQ from Texas, or desserts from famous

[Megyn Kelly]

foodies like Ina Garten or Martha Stewart,

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Goldbelly has you covered.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Just go to goldbelly.com and for a

[Megyn Kelly]

limited time, get 20% off your first

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

order with promo code gift.

[Megyn Kelly]

That's promo code gift. Welcome to the Megan Kelly show live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at noon East. Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. It has now been 44 days since Nancy Guthrie's mysterious disappearance under circumstances investigators are still struggling to fully explain. Early statements from law enforcement were confusing, key details shifted, and a timeline that should have clarified the case has only fueled more questions. Today we begin a four part series into all of the outstanding questions and theories surrounding Nancy's disappearance. What happened inside of that house? Why did investigators release the crime scene so early? What can we determine by the splatters of blood left behind? And how many people might actually be involved in Nancy's disappearance. ABC News is now reporting, citing sources briefed on the investigation, that the FBI has recovered additional imagery from the cameras at Nancy's home. It's reporting that the images were recovered in recent weeks from motion activated cameras trained on the swimming pool, the backyard and the side yard. Investigators apparently not recovering video footage, but instead thumbnail images captured when the cameras were triggered by motion. The source is telling ABC News that investigators were able to observe several people in the back and the side yards over an unspecified period prior to the abduction. But the cameras captured nothing on the night of the abduction, which one source describes as odd. Before we dive into that new information, here is a look back at how this case first captured the nation's attention. There is a very disturbing situation out of Arizona involving the mother of NBC News anchor Savannah Guthrie.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

This is today with Savannah Guthrie.

[Sheriff Nano]

We want to get right to what is a deeply personal story for us. Savannah's beloved mother has been reported missing in Arizona.

[Megyn Kelly]

This is she.

[Sheriff Nano]

We saw some things at the home that were concerning to us that we do in fact have a crime scene. That we do in fact have a crime.

[Megyn Kelly]

The sheriff said we believe she did not leave of her own volition. That she left behind her keys, her ID, her purse, her phone, everything. I mean now no 84 year old woman leaves the house without her purse. This sounds about as serious as it can get.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

This they seem pretty sure that a crime took place. We don't know what that information is yet. It's a race against the clock. Older people with dementia wander off but they've been very affirmative that she was mentally sound. And this is really bad.

[Sheriff Nano]

Her meds are vital. I can't stress that enough. You know, it's been better than 24 hours. And the family tells us if she doesn't have those meds it can become fatal.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

This has all the scary, scary components of cases that don't end well.

[Sheriff Nano]

You know, it's happened before. The police is, the sheriff is, oh we this person's dead. And this, that and that. And the next thing you know some hospital calls and says hey, I think I've got this lady in my hospital room. So you know, we're never going to give up hope. Good morning. This is our timeline that we have been able to develop. About 5:32pm Nancy travels to the to her local family's home for dinner and playing games with the family. At 9:48pm Nancy was dropped off at home. And we know that because we have a garage door open. At 9:50pm that garage door closes. It is that time we assume that Nancy's home. Sunday morning, early morning at 1:47am the doorbell camera disconnects. At 2:12am Software detects a person on a camera but there's no video available. They had no subscript and therefore it would rewrite itself. Kind of. It just kind of loops right and covers up. But we're not giving up on that. 228 Nancy's pacemaker app shows that it was a disconnect from the phone. And at 11:56am the family checks on Nancy and discovers her missing. And at 12:03pm 911 is called into the county sheriff's department.

[Megyn Kelly]

Subject last name will be gun free. First of Nancy. The 84 year old white FEMA subject is nowhere to be found. Subject suffers from limited mobility and has

[Sheriff Nano]

medication scheduled to follow up and eats daily.

[Megyn Kelly]

This case is bizarre and disturbing. Law enforcement sources telling the Los Angeles Times that blood was found inside of her Arizona home alongside signs of forced entry, prompting detectives to investigate what they now describe as a, quote, possible kidnapping or abduction. Blood drops were also found leading from the entryway outside down the house's pathway toward the driveway. My mom is up early in Tucson, Arizona. Nancy Guthrie joins me there. She was more vibrant, you know, 13 years ago.

[Savannah Guthrie]

Hi, Savannah.

[Megyn Kelly]

She is here to share one of her famous dinners. Prior to this, nobody ever thought their mom could be potentially endangered. You know, it was just, this is a whole new kind of crime. Already in heaven.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

It's already great.

[Megyn Kelly]

Oh, God, they're already loving it. I mean, I have to say, that's the thing about it. Like these morning shows and having been at the today show for a year, I grew up in the 70s, okay? In Arizona. My mom was like, go out and play. I'll see you at dinner time. They really want you to put your personal life on the air.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

There is no place like home.

[Megyn Kelly]

The Daily Mail is reporting that some at NBC are worried about this segment. I come here every time I come home. Savannah returning to her hometown of Tucson and being with her mother. What made you want to stay in Tucson?

[Savannah Guthrie]

And plant roots and so wonderful. Just the air, the quality of life is played back.

[Megyn Kelly]

Now. What they report in the Daily Mail is that there's a lot of soul searching at NBC about whether their segment made Nancy a target. The best thing about Tucson is coming home and seeing you guys. I mean, what are the odds that this is just some caper where they've kidnapped an 84 year old woman who just so happens to be the mother of one of the biggest news stars in America. She was like the 12th member of the castle.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Savannah's mom.

[Megyn Kelly]

That does not track to me.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Well, in law enforcement, we don't believe in coincidences, and I don't believe in that coincidence either.

[Megyn Kelly]

We are ready to talk. A major development last night when we heard from Savannah and her siblings. In a nearly four minute video filmed on a couch, seated together, Savannah pleads for her mother's return and addresses the reports of a ransom letter. We need to know without a doubt

[Narrator/Advertiser]

that she is alive and that you have her.

[Megyn Kelly]

We're gonna go to someone who's been on the ground in Arizona getting scoop after scoop, and that's News nation's Brian Enten. What is in the ransom notes is that there is specific information about what Nancy Guthrie was wearing and Also specific information about details from inside the house that apparently only someone would know who was inside the house. What I don't know is if any of that information is correct. It was stunning to watch. Hi, everybody. Good morning. Virtually everyone in this country has seen Savannah Guthrie looking directly in the camera. Her mom is our heart and our home. And this was so different. I mean, she looked, her health, exhausted. I'll bet she said absolutely no sleep. How would you fall asleep at night when you didn't know whether your mom was alive or dead, whether she was in the custody of bad guys who wanted to hurt her? When you'd seen what we believe was her blood outside of her home, when you know she doesn't have access to her medication that she needs. I mean, you could just see, you could see that wear and tear on Savannah's face. And you just wanted to reach out and try to make it better for her. It was very jarring. Everyone is looking for you, mommy everywhere. Chilling just to get the oversight again. I mean, you guys know what happened in this case, but just to see it all together like that, just such a jarring series of events. Joining me now to dive into the story, Jim Fitzgerald Fitz. He's a former FBI supervisory special agent and a forensic linguist. Linguist. Along with co host of the Cold Red podcast. And Maureen O', Connell, 25 year veteran of the FBI and co host of Best case Worst case. Spring is a glorious time of year, but it also wreaks havoc on allergies. But let me tell you about Beekeepers naturals. Their propolis nasal spray Max is a non toxic nasal spray. It can be used daily during allergy season to flush out irritants and soothe sinus irritation. Paired with their propolis immune support throat spray get protected with antioxidants that defend against germs on the spot. The spray provides soothing relief with slippery elm and menthol, calming inflammation without a single nasty additive. Today, Beekeepers Naturals is giving you an all exclusive offer. Go to beekeepersnaturals.com Megan or enter code Megan to get 20% off your order. That's beekeepersnaturals.com megan or just enter the code Megan when you check out B E E K E E P e r s naturals.com megan or enter the code Megan when you check out. These products are also available at Target, Whole Foods, Walmart, Amazon, CVS and Walgreens. Fitz. Maureen, great to see you both. Thanks for joining us. There's a lot of places we could go with this, but let's Just start back at the initial crime scene. Let's say you get brought in on this case this week, and Sheriff Nano says we finally got to the best ones, and we want your analysis of how we can go back and start over so that we can get some real clues and make sure we didn't miss anything. Where do you start, Fitz?

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Well, in an ideal scenario, and I'm going to go, what I'm about to say is not casting aspersions or making anyone sound guilty, but as soon as we realize that Mrs. Guthrie was missing by force, didn't walk off on her own, I would want to completely separate all the family members and interview them separately. And again, I'm not saying one of them had anything to do with this directly, but indirectly, we don't know. A friend of a friend, they put some information out, and that way they could be assured from the very beginning that the story lined up with what exact time Nancy was dropped off that night, who drove her. There's been some. Some of the anecdotes are going back and forth in terms of who was in the car that night when she was dropped off. The grinders are open. Did they walk her in or not? So it would have been nice and ideal. And this is what they teach, of course, in the police academy. Separate everyone as soon as you can. Doesn't mean they're suspects, doesn't mean they're bad guys. But this way, there's. There's no question they're not going to. There's not going to be leakage or some sort of a permeation of the. Of the particular story from one person to another. It's their own memory recalling to the investigators what happened. So that's. That's. That's investigative interviewing 101. And I'm not sure if that happened. Something tells me they were all sitting on the couch in the. In the. In someone's living room. Well, the last time we saw her was this. And they're going back and forth, and that even includes the older child, and perhaps that person would have known something. So, ideally speaking, that's the first thing I would have. Want to have done. I hope they did that later that day, or certainly by the next day, that division, so to speak.

[Megyn Kelly]

That's true, Maureen, because if you walk in and just assume that everybody you're looking at is a victim, you're making a basic mistake in law enforcement. Right. Shouldn't the instinct be as soft a heart as you may have, that everyone is a suspect until you have a suspect? In custody, yes.

[Maureen O'Connell]

So much of law enforcement goes against what you would do in a normal situation as a member of the public. We have to ask real hard questions. We have to make it as comfortable as possible. And then there are times where it has to go to a totally different level where you don't care how uncomfortable someone is. However, in a situation like this, I would absolutely agree with Fitz. I would also say that if we were taking this case over today, they already gave up the crime scene so early. But my focus would have been on the house. I'm not necessarily judging them at all initially because it did look like a walk away. And there are a lot of people that walk away from their home and sprain their ankle and they're stuck in a ditch or whatever. And being 84, without her medication, you know, she could have almost been unconscious at that part, at that time. But once they realized, once they saw the blood on the front porch, she wasn't there, they searched around the area. They couldn't find her. It's time to expand your investigative priorities, become expanding the crime scene, roping the whole thing off, doing everything you can with DNA, touch DNA, fibers, hairs, all that kind of stuff. And if the FBI ever, ever offers to have the FB to the, to have the ERT team work your crime scene, for the love of all that's holy, just say yes. Because most crime scene teams have two or three people on them. And crime scene work is arduous work. It's, it's hard labor oftentimes. But when you have 25 people that you can throw at a crime scene and they're all specialized in some way, shape or it really, it really makes things work a lot better.

[Megyn Kelly]

You know, I've been dying to ask you to about the video that we uncovered of Nancy's bedroom. We aired this last week and it was from 2013, and we found it just because we were preparing for this series, you know. So we did a deep, deep dive into the archives of the Today show and we found video for the first time of Nancy's bedroom. And I mean, you were part of that evidence response team at the FBI, Maureen. So I've been dying to get your thoughts on what we see in this video. Let's watch it. My mom is up early in Tucson, Arizona. Nancy Guthrie joins us now.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Hi, Mom.

[Megyn Kelly]

Good morning.

[Savannah Guthrie]

Hi, Savannah. Well, I see everybody.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Hi, Mom.

[Megyn Kelly]

I see that you've already made your bed, even though it's 3am there or whatever. Mom, why was this an important skill to teach me?

[Savannah Guthrie]

Well, I think everybody needs to know how to make a bed. And so when the time came to teach you guys how to make a bed, this is what I tried to teach you.

[Megyn Kelly]

This is not just your standard bed making. This is the hospital corners bed making. We're talking. You can bounce a quarter off of it, right, Nancy?

[Savannah Guthrie]

Natalie, don't put me to the test. It's way too early.

[Megyn Kelly]

She's backing off.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Nancy, I just want to know how difficult Savannah was when you tried to teach her this. How much screaming and stomping her feet was involved.

[Savannah Guthrie]

All three of the kids thought it was a really worthless skill.

[Megyn Kelly]

Mom, first you show everybody how to do it. Okay. And then you can judge how we do it.

[Savannah Guthrie]

Okay, that sounds like a plan. Well, basically, since my bed's already made, the most important thing you have to do is to make sure this top sheet is really pulled in here tightly, because that's going to give you your

[Megyn Kelly]

smooth tuck under there.

[Savannah Guthrie]

Then you pull this over and you make kind of like a triangle. I remember.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Get started.

[Savannah Guthrie]

And then tuck it under as tightly as you can. But here's the little skill. See this nice corner?

[Megyn Kelly]

Yeah.

[Savannah Guthrie]

You want to make sure that's as tight as can be and tuck it in.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

And you can keep cookies.

[Savannah Guthrie]

Then when you sleep. Yeah, there you go. And then when you sleep in the middle of the night, it doesn't pull out. All right.

[Megyn Kelly]

For David, this would be a toy bed. Mom, thank you so much. It's so good to see you. Thanks for coming on the show. I know it's early there, Maureen, so there's so much. Right. And Fitz, like, isn't it shocking to see the inside of her bedroom where we know she would be stolen from, you know, these years later? When we saw the tape, it was just. She's been in the Same House since 1991, so I don't know if she'd redecorated since then, but there it is. It doesn't look like a particularly spacious room. Maureen, what were your thoughts when you saw it?

[Maureen O'Connell]

Well, I looked at some things that I thought would be part of a ransom note. For example, that wardrobe piece of furniture off to the left where a gentleman would hang his sport coat for the next night. And the shoes go in the bottom. It's got a little thing generally for, like, cufflinks or whatever. It's an old time, very distinctive piece of furniture that a lot of people don't necessarily have anymore. So they could have used that as something where they're like, whoa, this is legit. Because she has this thing, and, you know, it's. It's not something a lot of people have. Who would know she had this in her room. We would also. They could have described that very distinctive headboard, which is almost Spanish in style. And, you know, like a lot of people, my mom never changed her bedroom furniture after our dad passed away. You know who does? You get comfortable.

[Megyn Kelly]

My mom hasn't changed a thing in her house. And I don't know how many decades she likes it the way she likes it.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Yeah. And they're just comfortable. And it's the way. And. And if. If you were in a loving marriage like your mom. My mom and dad, when one of them. When my dad passed away, she didn't want to change anything. She wanted it to remain the same, and it stayed the exact same until she sold the house. So, you know, there's a lot of. There's a lot of stuff in there that someone could have used nefariously in one of those ransom notes to. In order to get the law, the. The authorities to believe them.

[Megyn Kelly]

What did you think when you saw it, Fitz?

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

You know, I put my behavioral cap on upon seeing. And just right now, Megan, is the first time I watched that video. And, you know, a lot of celebrities out there, a lot of on air personalities have. Have mothers, have loved ones, but Savannah really took it to the next level in showcasing her mother. And these are very human, very emotional, and they're very moving sort of little segments she put together. And it just has me thinking, if you are, in fact someone out there suffering from some condition like erotomania, you're basically a stalker. Again, I don't think this was ever about money. What is more valuable to Savannah, to someone like her, that you may have some sort of fixation or obsession about? Maybe, you know, you can't get to her kids. You don't want to mess with, you know, people that young boy. And this mother happens to live in sort of a remote area with neighbors far away, and look how much she means to Savannah. And, boy, I feel like I know her mother as well as I know Savannah from watching her on TV every day. Let me go pay a visit and let me go do something with this. I can't say I'm locking into this theory. And. But. And this didn't happen in a vacuum. There's been emails to Savannah over the years, maybe going as far back as when mom, you know, did the bedroom interview. So I can't imagine that this personal connection between this personality on the air and the fineness fondness, and the connection and the closeness she had to her mother weren't interrelated. I'm not blaming Savannah for anything here. She had every right to put her mother on the air. She loved her mother. Mother loved her daughter. But could this somehow be a person or persons out there who didn't have that relationship with their own mother, wanted something with Savannah, couldn't get to Savannah or kids, so they chose her own mother as some sort of a Freudian substitute? We can really get carried away there. But I have no doubt that the person who abducted Nancy Guthrie is familiar with all these types of videos we've just seen. They may even have, like, a trophy reel they can play over and over again. And therefore, with Savannah not being a prime target or available target or readily available, they go after her mom.

[Megyn Kelly]

To me, it was one of the things that was creepy about the video in retrospect, not, you know, in the moment, was that it was a very small space between the. You know, that her. What I assume is her side of the bed, the bedside table was right there with her books on it and the wall, you know, like this intruder, if he came in there and actually did grab her from her bed, as Savannah said, he had to squeeze in there, and he.

[Maureen O'Connell]

He.

[Megyn Kelly]

He would have been right on top of her, you know, I mean, he would have been right over her. And you know how we heard she had pretty powerful hearing aids? It just doesn't seem like that would have been an issue at all. Seems like rather close quarters where he would have been able to get right. Right up on her next to the bed in a rather small space and order her out. It's so sc and not a lot of room to maneuver because she had quite a few furniture pieces in that one little corner of her bedroom. That's where we believe the crime took place, according to Savannah. And it's just eerie to see it up close and personal. Don't show your mom's bedroom on tv. I mean, this is something a lot of people would not have done it. I blame the Today show. I've gotta be honest, you guys. I've said this before, but there is pressure on you. I was there for just a year. There is pressure to show all of your intimate details, you know, your family, your children. I mean, they insisted they really wanted my children on the air, and finally I relented. But I insisted that they blur all of their faces. Like, we did a camping spot with my family, and I was the only one who had their children's faces Blurred. I'm like, do not show anything that's identifying about my kids. But this, they're so desperate to show the audience. Like see, it's just one big happy family. And you need to love all of our anchors who are family, women and men. And like I knew with my kids that this would be endangering, I confess, even with my mom who did wind up on my show at the, at NBC, didn't even think about it. Fitz didn't even consider like your mom as a potential source of danger because it much in the way like this is like a new invention. It's like a new, new way of thinking of how to hurt a public figure. It's one of the many downsides of this horrible case.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Yeah, and I just want to go back to the bedroom scene. You can be the toughest MMA fighter, Navy Seal trained FBI, SWAT person, all things. You're sound asleep in rem, rapid eye movement and you open up and there's a masked man with that kind of look that we see on the video standing over top. You, you know you're going to panic and, and, and some will turn over and hide and some will pull the pillow over, some may get up and fight. But that person definitely has an advantage over you. An 84 year old woman, you know, without her hearing aids in and you know, who knows what her med level was even that at that night. So that had to be the most scary moment for her. But yeah, the whole family thing, I mean I've interviewed stalkers, I've worked these type cases and a lot of them had to do with on air female personalities such as yourself, Megan. Over the years, especially with NBC, I was in New York and I had a direct pipeline to their director of security and Ann Curry and a number of others were getting threats all the time and we had to go out and send leads other parts of the country. And so it's one thing interpersonal, looking at the screen and seeing your object of obsession, but then they bring in mothers and perhaps children and kudos to you for at least blurring out their faces on your particular segment that you talked about, Megan. But. And it gets, becomes all that more personal and I just can't rule out that there's someone out there because everything else doesn't make sense about this case. Obviously it's not money oriented, etc. To have some sort of an obsession with, with Savannah and then now be almost like you're part of her family. And you know, the blood takes away from that because as if Nancy was injured, but because she may have put up a fight of some sort. But, you know, this person may have just wanted to have part of Savannah with him for however long, a few hours, a few days or weeks. And that just coming more and more of a possibilities. I see it. And these videos over the years, no fault of Savannah. You can blame it on NBC if you want, but it's certainly a person who's already predisposed to aberrant behavior and plotting something like this. He may have seen this thing live. And I forget when you said this bedroom thing 2013, 12 years ago. He may have seen this live and the fantasies started then. And I said, oh, I love Savannah so much. I want to meet her mother too. Who knows? There could have been a knock at the door over the years and, you know, no one made anything of it. And I have no doubt that there's been some interaction on this person's part prior exactly what it was with other family members. We don't know emails. But it's going to be there. And that's what investigators have to look for and search for. And these videos unfortunately didn't help. And I think other anchors and news personalities such as yourself, you know this already, but leave the family out of it and even mention them as minimally as necessary.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Yeah. Can I add something to this, Megan, please? This, what Fitz just said would answer two questions that we haven't had answers to before. Number one, why nothing was taken. There could have been something taken. There could have been something of Savannah's taken, which they wouldn't even have noticed. I'm sure she has her bedroom. Her old bedroom is still there. And she. She probably wouldn't notice initially if some school trophy from seventh grade was missing or something along those lines because they were looking for her mom. It also answers the question of what were they doing there for 41 minutes? He could have been upstairs trying to find trophies, ones that would really satiate his needs and desire.

[Megyn Kelly]

Right. Well, and we don't know for sure if he was in there for 41 minutes because we never really totally understood how. It was at 1:47am that the Ring cameras went offline, and then at 2:12am that an image was detected, we think, but we don't know that the video of the man on the porch was the 2:12 timeframe. So I, you know, what happened between 1:47 and 2:12 with the man. We don't know if that's actually how this went down, but that would shorten the timeline that he was inside from 2:12 to 2:28. Still plenty of time to go rifling around in Savannahs childhood bedroom and to mess with Nancy too. It's still a long time to get in there and shouldn't have taken that long to get Nancy out. But one of the many mysteries in this case, we're talking about the sheriff. So he's changed his messaging again on whether there's a threat to the community in a way that I would argue seems to undermine that this is a stalker, that this is an NBC News stalker or family member. Just to take you back through it. At the beginning of the investigation, the sheriff said this about whether there was a public safety threat. Stop. 21.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

With this being an active crime scene, is there any threat to the general

[Sheriff Nano]

public trying to figure out my torn. Well, you know, no, I don't think there's an active threat but I hate to say that because you know, we're going to canvas that neighborhood and, and maybe there's a prowler been seen around.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

There's a lot of work still to do.

[Sheriff Nano]

We don't have any indication that the public is in danger.

[Megyn Kelly]

You're not sure if it's targeted.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Why do you believe there's no wider

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

threat to the public?

[Sheriff Nano]

Well, we have crime in Tucson all the time. Right. Like any city. And so when you say a threat to the public, is there somebody out there who's kidnapping elderly people in the middle of the night every night? We've not heard that. We don't believe that's the case.

[Megyn Kelly]

No threat to the public. Now here he is in an interview with NBC News just this past Friday, sat 22.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Do you think that this suspect could

[Megyn Kelly]

strike again, whoever did this?

[Sheriff Nano]

Well, absolutely. We believe we know why he did this and we believe that it was targeted. But we can't, we're not 100% sure of that. And so it'd be silly to tell people, yeah, don't worry about it. You're, you're not his target. Don't think for a minute that because it happened to the Guthrie family, you're safe. No, keep, keep your wits about you.

[Megyn Kelly]

What Maureen?

[Maureen O'Connell]

Well, I think what he's trying to say is, you know, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So if someone is predisposed to doing this type crime, they may do it again. But the statistics, as he also said, don't support serial offender or, or people pulling 84 year old ladies out of their, out of their bed. There's just, it just happens so rarely. I, I Don't. I kind of just stopped listening to him a while ago because he. He should have hired his PIO. His PIO should have been the person delivering a clear and concise message. They should have been working with the FBI's P. It should have just been delivered regularly in an organized fashion with no back and forth.

[Megyn Kelly]

It's pretty diametrically opposed. Say, at the beginning, there is no public safety threat. And then now, 44 days in to say, don't think for a minute that you're safe. And then he also adds, fitz, we believe we know why she was taken. It was targeted. So what is he trying to tell us here?

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Well, he's covering his ass, to be cya. To be blunt, there at the end with those other statements. He wants to make sure if anything by chance does happen again, something similar, even in some other part of the country, that can somehow be linked to this. He doesn't want to be the one that they quote. You know, at least his last quote, that, well, it could never happen anywhere she was specifically targeted. You know, this is not going to happen in Tucson or elsewhere. So I think he's obviously talked to other people and maybe said, all right, you may want to lighten that up a little bit there. You may have gone a little bit overboard in the beginning. I mean, Obviously, it's been 44 days, and as far as we know, there have been no other abductions such as this one. But I think he just wanted to make sure he's kind of buttering his bread on both sides there, and he just. He's covered if something bad does explicitly,

[Megyn Kelly]

we believe we know why she was targeted is new.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Well, that's. Yeah, that's a little bit different that comes out. And. And. And that, you know, we've said all along when we were together, Megan, with Maureen and others, that, you know, the investigators know a lot more than we do. And for him to say early on, at least they know why she was targeted, that means they have motivation listed. And if they think it was kidnapping earlier for profit, that seems to have been put, you know, off the shelf there. So I would like to hear more about why the person was targeted or why Mrs. Guthrie was targeted, but they're keeping that close to the vest.

[Megyn Kelly]

Obviously, to your point, Maureen, you have to take everything the sheriff says with a grain of salt. But if that's true, that's huge. That's actually a huge development.

[Maureen O'Connell]

It is huge. And it tells us just what Fitz just said. And we all know those investigators know so much more than we do. And they're onto something. They're onto something big. They just may be having a hard time proving it. But if you look at the Corey Richards case, that took over, what, a year and several months in or before she got arrested, before they were able to really build a case. And building a case is like building a cage. You're doing it link by link by link. And, you know, you have to have a certain sense of confidence. And for him to say, you know, no one's really safe. He may just be saying, hey, we're not. We know what the motive is, but we don't know who you are. To give the offender a sense of security or something where he doesn't feel like he's in that cage yet because they want him to trip up. I've always had the feeling since the beginning that they're trying to get him to trip up. And they, as far as we know, haven't been able to. But we don't know everything they know. They could have another legitimate ransom note for all we know. And if it went straight to the FBI, we wouldn't know about it.

[Megyn Kelly]

And we don't know whether his statements suggesting they didn't find anything from the DNA and the backpack investigation didn't go anywhere is true. We don't know whether any of those statements to us are true. He has no obligation to tell us the truth. And they often use the media for subterfuge around what the suspect may be hearing. So everything's got that huge grain of salt.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Huge.

[Megyn Kelly]

It's the. It's the huge, coarse sea salt grain of salt, not the tiny tables salt, salt that you get at the deli. Yeah, I want to talk about the blood because this is something that's always bothered me. We have the blood spatter outside of the house, outside the front door. And we saw those. The video of those drops in the sort of the front patio area. And then we saw FOX News release more video. This is Brian Enten's video here showing the blood right outside of the front door. And then we saw more blood when FOX News released its own video showing that the blood continued down the walkway from this area here toward the driveway, the circular driveway. Now, in the video that we see of the perpetrator, we don't see a car sitting in the driveway, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there, because we couldn't. It's a very large driveway. And here's the FOX News video showing more blood spatter. So clearly, we all believed Nancy was Taken out the front door in some way and taken down this gray concrete pathway and we're assuming put into a car. But one of the things that's always bothered me, you guys, is that, as you know, when you're trying a case, you bring in an expert. You don't. You know, you. Typically in any criminal trial, you will have the. The prosecution will call, or the defense sometimes will call a witness in and put that person on the. On the stand as. As an expert. And you know, this is going to be extremely relevant in this case, too. Law enforcement did confirm that this is Nancy's blood, but what else can we deduce about that? Right? Like, what else can we tell from these droplets? We've all had lots of speculation about whether they look like this. It's probably straight up and down blood drops. Well, let's check our speculation and bring in a true expert. Her name is Dr. Amy Santoro, and she's worked as a forensic scientist for 18 years. She's especially adept at analyzing blood at crime scenes. She's investigated over 1,000 cases, including more than 500 crime scenes, and holds a certification in bloodstain pattern analysis. Dr. Santero, welcome to the show. Thanks so much for doing this. So you're the expert. Tell us what you see when you see those blood droplets outside of Nancy's front door.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Well, thanks for having me. The blood outside, I think, is really concerning because to me, assuming that Ms. Guthrie is moving at, you know, somewhat of a walking pace, these blood stains show that she's bleeding pretty quickly. What type of injury is it? I don't think we can tell from the stains. They look like drip stains to me. And those small dots of blood are what we would call satellite spatter. That happens when blood falls from a certain height onto a target surface like this. So what I can tell is that the blood is falling from a height probably more than two feet. Whether that's from her hand, her arm, her face, I don't think we can tell, But I think it's an indication that she is bleeding very quickly. There's so much blood out there that if you were walking, I don't think you would see that distribution of blood. With a slower bleed, you can see there are multiple drip stains in that area. So unless she's standing there stationary for a period of time, which, of course is possible, although I think unlikely in an abduction, I think it shows that she really is bleeding pretty badly.

[Megyn Kelly]

Does that suggest to you that she had any particular kind of wound?

[Narrator/Advertiser]

I don't think we can say, and I think it's important to be conservative. I don't want to go out on a limb and certainly I don't want to speculate on, you know, the severity of the injury other than to say it's, I think it's fair to assume that there's some sort of, of quickly bleeding source that could be, you know, just a tear to the skin on her arm. She's an elderly woman. You can see even in some of her older media appearances that she has kind of a typical thin skinned appearance that people tend to get when they're older. So if there's some sort of struggle and her skin rips, that could cause it. If she receives some sort of blunt force trauma to the face, she gets hit in the face, that could cause it. You know, we often see blood dripping like this from a bleeding nose, but it really could be anything.

[Megyn Kelly]

Can you rule anything out? Because it is a little odd that there's so many perfect droplets.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

You know, I, I don't know that we can rule anything out, but I do have some suspicion that perhaps she received this injury outside. And the reason I say that is because when I look at the video, I really don't see any blood in the area of the door. There's not any blood staining on the threshold. There's not any blood staining or doesn't appear to be any blood staining on the door itself, which makes me wonder if she's already out, outside, past that threshold when she receives this injury. And if it's outside, you know, I know it's a fairly secluded area, but nobody heard anything. So that's probably something more like a strike or, you know, just a simple skin tear and not some sort of injury that's going to cause a very loud noise.

[Megyn Kelly]

Why do you think that the blood droplets all appear to be intact? You know, I'm just picturing like Nancy possibly walking, possibly with a bloody nose. And it seems to me, especially with an elderly woman, that blood would fall and then you'd likely step in it and possibly even drag your foot. You know, a lot of elderly people shuffle for, you know, stability's sake.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Well, I do think that there are some stains that look a little bit strange. They're irregular in shape, which could be transfer stains from something like, you know, the blood on the bottom of her feet. But you're only going to step in that blood if you're standing in that area. And if you're getting pulled or dragged away and you're moving pretty quickly or you're being carried away. You're not going to be leaving those types of stains. You're not going to be stepping in that blood. If you're moving away very quickly, there's just not an opportunity to do that.

[Megyn Kelly]

So you can't tell whether she walked of her own volition or was carried?

[Narrator/Advertiser]

I don't think I can, no. I mean, you can see that there are some unusual looking stains there, but I don't think it's enough to determine if it's from a foot, from a shoe. Also, I think it's important to understand that this is after the crime scene has been released. And we know that there was at least some sampling taken of these blood stains from crime scene responders. So they could have caused some alteration to the way these stains look by taking their swabs. You can see that parts of those blood stains are missing. The center of some of those blood stains are starting to flake away. Some of that could have been removed by crime scene responders as they're taking samples.

[Megyn Kelly]

This may go back to the question you already answered about what? You can't rule anything out necessarily. But not having been to any murder crime scenes, can you say that this was not, for example, a gunshot or like a stabbing wound? Because those would have produced a lot more blood. I've heard some say this, to me looks like a nosebleed where you get. Get a fair amount of blood, but it falls pretty straightforward, you know, straight down, as opposed to forgive the term, but like a real gusher of a wound.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Yeah.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

It doesn't seem like the type of blood staining that you would get from a very serious injury like a gunshot. We typically expect to see much smaller stains associated with a gunshot. And then once you are bleeding from a serious injury, we do tend to see a lot more blood. There are so many variables that can affect this. You know, people oftentimes just bleed internally. And certainly I've worked shooting homicides where there's almost no blood on scene, but it doesn't look to me like it's associated with something like a gunshot. There's patterns that I would expect to see in a gunshot case that I don't see here. But we don't know what the inside of the house looks like.

[Megyn Kelly]

Maureen and Fitz, do you guys have any questions you want to ask Amy?

[Maureen O'Connell]

I do. Two things, Amy. First, you think that these blood stains are consistent with someone moving quickly across the porch?

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Well, I think the blood source is bleeding quickly because you can see all of these drips. Right. So if you're standing on this porch for a minute, you can be bleeding slowly, drip, drip, drip. But that's probably not the situation. You probably aren't hanging out, having a conversation out here at 2:30 in the morning in the middle of an abduction. If you're trying to take Mrs. Guthrie away from the house, you're trying to get out of there. So if she is being pulled or she is walking, then what we see is that much faster drip, drip, drip, drip, drip. A much more serious injury because there are quite a lot of stains there. Even down the sidewalk, you can see those stains are pretty close to each other. So however she is bleeding, it's replenishing quite quickly. But again, she's a lady of a certain age.

[Megyn Kelly]

Right.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

And they do tend to bleed. You know, that happens.

[Maureen O'Connell]

And secondly, certainly the investigators have a much better idea as to where the blood came from, because if it came from her nose, there would be all kinds of. Of residue in there. If it came from her mouth, there'd be all kinds of saliva. Right. So they would. They would be able to rule some things out, and they'd probably have a much better understanding of where, in fact, this blood came from.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Yeah, I would hope that there was some serological testing that was done. We know that there was DNA analysis, and we know that this is Nancy Guthrie's blood. But we can do serological testing to determine if there is saliva present in these stains. I don't see any indication that there would be, but we can certainly test for that in a laboratory setting.

[Megyn Kelly]

That's interesting. I didn't know that you could figure out what part of the body it may have come from. Go ahead, Fitz.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Amy, I've been asked this question a few times over the last month. The bleeding seems, or I should say the blood stains seems to have stopped at a certain point. And I. The best I could speculate is either direct pressure was put on whatever the wound was by perhaps Nancy herself or the abductor, or perhaps in whatever condition she was, the abductor picked her up. I know she's about 140 pounds. I guess, you know, a fit guy could carry someone, and perhaps the blood just, you know, kind of dripped down on whatever she was wearing at that time. But you're the expert here. Do you have any potential hypothesis as to why the blood drops stopped at a certain point?

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Well, the first thing that I think when we have something like this, a trail of drip stains and then they stop, is that person got into a car. That's the most obvious answer. That kind of occurs to me. But you're right. If there's some sort of pressure of applied even by Nancy Guthrie herself, that's going to lessen the amount of blood, which I think would suggest that she's able to at least tend to her wounds. Maybe, you know, just able to put her hand over wherever is bleeding, or maybe able to move her clothing around to cover so that the blood is being absorbed into her clothing and not dripping onto the concrete anymore. But I, I think we really just don't know. Those are answers that we just don't have right now. I'd like to know what the rest of the driveway looked like at the beginning of crime scene processing. You know, it's interesting to me that there was this much blood that was left outside after the crime scene was released. That's probably not a choice that I would have made if I was managing this crime scene. But since we do know that crime scene responders were there before these images were taken, it's possible that there's more blood that was already collected and we just don't see it.

[Megyn Kelly]

Ever been in a bad relationship? You know the kind, it just wears you down. You settle in, even though deep down you know this is not how it's supposed to be. Well, that's what daily aches and pains can feel like. You stop expecting to feel good. You start thinking, maybe this is just my life now. But it doesn't have to be. With relief factor, you can break up with pain just like Anthony did. He wrote, quote, I was dealing with debilitating pain and fatigue and I've been taking relief factor for about two months. And now, now I'm back to running my business, fishing, gardening, doing the things that really matter to me. If you have back pain, knee issues or stiffness slowing you down, Relief factor could give you your mobility back. Relief factor is 100% drug free. It targets the inflammation that causes pain, helping you move better, feel better and actually enjoy life again. Try the three week quick start for just $19.95. Go to relieffactor.com or call 804 RELIEF. Break up with pain Break and get back to what matters. If you are looking to make smarter choices for your health this year, consider Riverbend Ranch. Their steaks are not only delicious, they also contain real high quality protein that helps fuel your body. Beef is a complete protein and contains all nine essential amino acids your body needs to function. It also keeps you fuller for longer, reducing cravings and snacking. But here's the key. Not all Beef is created equal. The quality of the beef depends entirely on how it's raised and where it comes from. And that's where Riverbend Ranch stands apart. For more than 35 years, Riverbend Ranch has been building an elite Black Angus herd, carefully selecting cattle for exceptional flavor and tenderness. All Riverbend Ranch cattle are born and raised right here in the usa. They never use growth hormones or antibiotics and the beef is processed at the ranch in their award winning USDA inspected facility. No shortcuts, no middlemen, just incredible, healthy and flavorful beef shipped directly to your home. Order [e-mail] and use the promo code Megan to get 20 bucks off your first order.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

UnitedHealth Group is simplifying healthcare by investing in tools to help patients know more and pay less. These tools help patients find providers and compare costs and save hundreds of dollars annually. Learn [e-mail] commitment with the Venmo Debit Card. A taco in one hand and ordering a ride in the other means you're stacking your rewards.

[Megyn Kelly]

Nice.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Get up to 5% cash back with Venmo stash on your favorite brands when you pay with your Venmo debit card. From takeout to ride shares, entertainment and more, pick a bundle with your go tos and start earning cash back at those brands. Venmo Stash bundle terms and exclusions apply. See terms at venmo me stashterms max $100 cash back per month.

[Megyn Kelly]

Hey everyone, it's me, Megyn Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius xm. It's called the Megyn Kelly Channel. And it is where you will hear the truth unfiltered, with no agenda and no apologies. Along with the Megyn Kelly show, you're gonna hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren, Maureen Callahan, Emily jasinsky, Jesse Kelly, RealClear Politics, and many more. It's bold. No BS news only on the Megyn Kelly Channel, SiriusXM 111 and on the SiriusXM app. And we think there may have been blood inside the house as well. We know her DNA was. But he won't specify that it was blood though. Ashley Bamfield's reporting. It was. Was that it, Fitz, or. We're good.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

No, I'm good with the blood, thanks.

[Megyn Kelly]

Thank you, Doc. It's such a pleasure. We really appreciate it.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Thanks for having me.

[Megyn Kelly]

Well, that's interesting, right? It's like all along I've been wanting to hear from somebody who Actually does this for a living. As you know, there are these real experts. I'm kind of relieved. I know it's maybe it's simple at this point to say such a thing, but I'm relieved that it didn't look like gunshot blood. I know we don't have a whole lot of reason to believe that Nancy's alive still, but I'm still relieved that maybe even to the expert, it looked more like a possible nosebleed.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Guys, I'm still so sad after watching that. The intro video you guys put together of everything that happened. And there's this poor woman. We've been all been hoping and praying for her since the very beginning, and this is just too much. And my blood simultaneously is boiling with whoever did this to her.

[Megyn Kelly]

Yeah. Who's watching shows like this, as you've been pointing out, Fitz enjoying it. You know, to your point about the person who may have taken her because they're obsessed with Savannah and just getting off on knowing. Now Savannah's thinking about him. You know, like, all this time, Savannah's had to think about him and speculate about him, and now that there's an image from the front door, you know, possibly think about the actual him. It is. It's infuriating. And speaking of the photos, can I just ask you your thoughts on that? But also this report now that they did recover some additional still images from the cameras around Nancy's house, but no moving pictures, no video, and they say ABC News is reporting, like. I don't know if I should say. Nothing of interest. That's not. That's not fair. But nothing incriminating. You know, random. Random pictures that don't really tell us much. I guess it's just. To me, it seems like just yet another big disappointment. Jim, I don't know. What do you make of it? The reports of. They did get some photos, but not video. And they are still checking. You know, at least they're still checking the cameras around her house.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

And just to go back to the first part of what you said to me, if this person who abducted Mrs. Guthrie had a trophy room before about Savannah with her pictures and little incense and candles, I assure you, it is much more incorporated now in terms of a whole second wing of that trophy room or trophy section of the house. In terms of artifacts keeping to remind him of his. His. His very keen interest in Savannah. And again, I, I. I'm not locking into that, but that's something that these guys. Investigators have to look into. And as far.

[Megyn Kelly]

And let me just add One other detail before you get to the camera analysis. They. The ABC is reporting that the cameras recorded nothing suspicious. That's how they put it, nothing suspicious. But they were able to observe several people in the back and side yards over an unspecified period prior to the abduction. And they said that also they have images of after Nancy was taken, law enforcement officers seeing near the pool. However, the cameras captured nothing on the night of the abduction, said sources. Investigators have drawn no conclusions as to why, but one source described it as odd. No images on the night of the abduction. I mean, why? This is like the same thing as, like the neighbors saying their cameras went off on the night of the abduction for the period they believe around the time she was taken. But we've had other smart analysts say they don't believe that the guy had a WI FI jammer because there's no way we'd be seeing those images of the guy pulling the vegetation out and putting him on the doorbell if he had a wifi jammer on him. You know, I don't know what to believe, but it is strange that they see lots of thumbnail images prior to her abduction, the police after the abduction, but nothing the night of.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

You know, in my early days as an investigator, some places would have surveillance cameras, security cameras, and the bank cameras always work, and I'm sure Maureen can attest to that. You move the old film, take it, get in process. There you have pictures of the bank robbery in progress, but invariably the other ones, private security, whatever, if you're lucky, if you get half the time that they actually work. Then we went to a whole point in time where all these cameras worked all the time. And they solved so many cases. Not just cases Maureen and I worked, but, you know, other cases we read about in the media. Now we have this case of Nancy Guthrie. They have enough, enough wherewithal to install a camera system in there and, you know, even around the pool, whatever. And we have these failures to perform, if you will, were failures to provide an accurate recount of what happened that night. And yeah, I mean, the jammer part was always I listened to. I think we discussed it last week. And I listened to that part and sure, it's a possibility, a little bit extra sophistication that I would have given this guy. And really nothing else makes sense so far. But does a person somehow know the system to begin with, and it didn't require a sophisticated jammer type mechanism, but just knew the weaknesses and the flaws contained therein, or did they do something days or weeks before to somehow counteract that system. I don't know. He could have just been lucky. And these particular images don't work. And the last thing I'll leave you with here is I appreciate all the sources that media people have. I was never a source. I never asked Maureen this question. I'm positive she was never a source for a media outlet. And you just have to be careful sometimes in what ABC and other outlets are reporting. And I just have. I. We know for a fact, I will say this emphatically, that the investigators have a lot more information, including surveillance images, than we know about. Of course, they're not perfect, not all the ones they might want to see of the guy in progress, but at the same time, they have more than we know, and, and still shots to moving video. People could be animals, could be human. These are all things that the investigators know. And hopefully they're. They're. They're. They're pouring it down into a funnel, and they have a little stream of evidence that they will eventually know will take them, take them to the actual abductor.

[Megyn Kelly]

I don't know, Maureen. You know, the neighbors are saying that their, their cameras stopped working on the night in question right around the time that Nancy was taken. But again, other experts are saying if, if you. If you had a WI fi jammer sophisticated enough to jam the WI fi at the neighbor's property, there is zero chance we would have those images of the guy coming onto the patio and messing with the ring doorbell. Like, if he had the WI fi turn the jammer and it shut things down at 1:47. Right, because they're saying the doorbells went offline at 147, cameras went offline, but then an image was captured at 212. Like what happened with the, with the WI fi jammer. It worked at 147, and then we forgot to use it when we actually approached the house.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Well, it depends on the user. You know, so much of this could be chalked up to user error. But I agree with Fitz. I think it's a jammer. Just seems a little bit too sophisticated for that clown we saw on the front porch. I think it's far more likely it was a walkie talkie because clearly they didn't have their phones with them or their phones certainly weren't on because we weren't able to find them. The cast team wasn't able to find them. And they're the best in the world at this stuff. So my guess is it's, hey, it's a walkie talkie. They're easy to get. They're cheap. You can buy them at a swap meet. You can buy them anywhere. And it's just like, yeah, we've got her at the front door. Pull up to the front of the house. The camera's been disabled.

[Megyn Kelly]

So that's it. So if it's a walkie talkie, Maureen, it's a. He's got an accomplice.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Yeah, I believe he has an accomplice. I've said that from the very beginning. I think there are two people involved. I don't think there were five people involved, but I think two people were involved. And who knows? Maybe the guy that was at the door is dead already. Because it's pretty hard to keep a secret when you have two people involved and there's a million dollars on the table, $1.2 million on the table. It's hard.

[Megyn Kelly]

Well, it would make perfect sense. If that's a walkie talkie, he's got somebody helping him. But what doesn't make sense is that person around at the back door getting in that way again. Our report was that there was signs of force. Ashley reported that there were signs of forced entry and that the back door was found wide open. But why wouldn't the Nancy Ring cameras or other cameras on her property show any images of someone in the backyard or the side yard on the night in question? You know, maybe because they could have

[Maureen O'Connell]

been broken weeks before. Like Fitz says, that's. I see it all the time. My company, we do. We do those video camera. We. We install systems, we design systems, all that kind of stuff. You cannot believe how people have things hobble together at their home and. And then they just stop working or a tree branch fell, and that whole side of the house isn't working. It's, you know, it's oftentimes just a matter of that, or the system becomes inoperable because you added something else and accidentally disconnected these two cameras on the west side or something along those lines.

[Megyn Kelly]

Just want to show the picture that we do have of whatever that device is, whether it's a WI fi jammer or a walkie talkie or something else. It's on the side. In the front, you see the gun, that. That black and white thing? And this is the. The gun in the front. But if you look on the side, we put a little circle around it. That's it. I don't know what that is. Why do we think it's a walkie talkie, Maureen?

[Maureen O'Connell]

I think it's a walkie talkie because the that's the same type of antenna that you can get on a lot of these inexpensive walkie talkies. The antenna will never. I mean, you have to have giant pockets for you to be able to put the whole thing in there like that. It's certainly not a phone like a lot of people were saying, because the last thing you want is for your iPhone to be flopping out of your pockets and left at a crime scene. That's, you know, that's a great way to get caught. But you can see it's one of those. Now, some of the jammers have a very similar antenna, but the jammers, in my opinion, have a couple of antennas and they're not that strong. They usually wouldn't be able to go all the way to the neighbors unless it was a really high quality one. Not so much military grade, but it would have to be a pretty high quality one or you'd have to have another person standing over at the neighbors with their inexpensive jammer, which is just getting too complicated.

[Megyn Kelly]

It's getting too complicated. Go ahead, Fitzgerald.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Two things related to the last picture you showed, showed to, to us, it can't be ruled out that that device is not necessarily a walkie talkie, but a police scanner. And this person may have an interest in listening to the police, what they're doing. Doesn't mean he's doing it in real time as he's doing this, but may have some kind of a headphone connection. And he can, when he gets back in the car, he can certainly follow if there's been a 911 call of any sort suspicious, I can't rule out. And of course it is a walkie talkie. There's at least another person involved and, and that, you know, none of us ruled that early on. There's cases of serial killers. One well known case in Canada from like 30 years ago was a husband and wife, or at least a man and woman partner. And she would help him entice these young women, do his van, and he would do his thing after that. And the other part is just look at that picture. I happen to watch one of my favorite movies over the weekend, Tombstone. And they look at the very end, the, the Doc Holliday confrontation with Johnny Ringo. That's how Doc Holliday held his gun or the holster. Part of it was in front of his waist, not exactly in front of the groin like this guy here, but. But very close. And I already mentioned that is this guy, he's a fan of the Zodiac killer with the mask. He choose choose to wear. I know your folks even found it in real time. They put the, that picture up of the Zodiac person. Now we have someone wearing a holster like Doc Holliday did in the movie, portrayed by Val Kilmer.

[Megyn Kelly]

Well, that movie maybe got a lot of play over the past year since Val Kilmer died even we watched it. And I'm not big on westerns, but you know, that, that could have been in the consciousness of somebody for, you know, good reason. I want to keep going because there's a couple of other facts around the initial days that she was missing that we should get to in this episode. And that includes the fact that the crime scene was turned over to the family within two days of Nancy's disappearance. I mean, less than she went missing as of Sunday morning. They discovered it. And by Monday evening he had surrendered the crime scene back to the family. I mean, it was very strange and it was very quick. And he said the scene is done, we're done with the residents. If we need to go back, we will, but we've turned it over to the family. And then on February 5, fresh crime scene tape wrapped around the length of the house and was then promptly taken back down. Then on February 8th, the sheriff's office said it's going to keep a security presence at the home for security concerns. On February 25, that was the day that they went back and they spent considerable time near the front door, appearing to focus on the porch and the walkway where the trail of blood was discovered. We believe that was the day the FBI went and took pictures. But, but why, why Fitz would he turn the crime scene back over to the family so early in this? And then a related, I think question is why didn't this sheriff accept help from anyone in the searching? I, I have never covered a missing person case where they don't have the citizen grid search. You know, they're all but holding hands, covering the acreage around where the person was last seen to make sure they, they didn't lose a phone, they didn't lose a sneaker, there isn't a strand of hair. Time and time again, he turned down those offers from reputable search groups with very successful track records. Just saying it's going to interfere with law enforcement. So he turned the house back over immediately to the family and he rejected outside help. Thoughts on those?

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

I think the second part of your question answers the first part. Clearly the house was turned over too soon and they could have had a full time team in there of 25 evidence response team members. You know, Going through it. But even 48 hours, I think would be too much or too soon, I should say, to let it go. And the fact that he wasn't looking for assistance, or at least additional help outside, at least not publicly, of which we are aware, that could explain why some of these hasty decisions were made in this regard. Any crime scene is a treasure trove of evidence, but you have to know how to look for it and find it. And of course, some scenes have more evidence than others, depending the sophistication level of the offender or offenders. But the scene was turned over too early. And I think, you know, I'm not going to overtly criticize the sheriff here, but elected officials around for a long time. Just in the last week, some things came out from his past when I think he was with, with El Paso pd, some questions about some things back then, I believe you can get an ego and you surround yourself with yes men and women and this is how I'm going to run it. This is what I'm doing. And then all of a sudden it comes back to kick them in the, in the, in the rear end. And, and they realize then, then he had to retighten it again. But once you let a crime scene go to pizza delivery men, media people, otherwise you're going to potentially lose some evidence there. There's never any mistake to be made to hold a crime scene longer. So, yeah, I think there's some, maybe some hubris on the part early on of the, of the sheriff and I'm not going to overly criticize him. I haven't really called him names or like some other people have, but I think releasing, I think bringing help in earlier on. And they would have been, they would have then suggested don't release the house yet, give us time to go over it and give it a good week or two and maybe at that point safely release him it with all the evidence collected.

[Megyn Kelly]

Thoughts on that, Maureen, on either one of those points?

[Maureen O'Connell]

Yeah. Having been on the evidence response team for decades, I can tell you that we would have secured the entire scene. We would have expanded the crime scene. We would have had the crime scene tape all the way around that house so that we could really thoroughly take our time and go through it with the primary scene, the secondary scene, which would be the exterior, the entryway, the porch, the yard. We would have taken that mat because he was standing on the mat, moving around on the mat. What was on the bottom of his shoes? Fibers from the interior of his vehicle, dirt from the yard where he keeps his Boots or on his back porch dog hair from his family pet. There are just so many things that can be on the treads of your shoes. That, that mat would have just been very important to me. It would have also been important because there could have been blood droppings on that mat as well. Also with that, that bite light in his mouth, his mouth had to be watering. I'm sure he got it on his gloves. You can see when you see that close up photo of his face with the face mask on that it's slightly askewed, almost like he was wiping his nose or his mouth because that bite light was causing him to salivate. That could have been. There could be saliva on that, on that mat. I also would have have really done a number on that door. You know, a lot of police officers say they would have taken that front door. You can, if you take the door, you can just slow everything down and you can have just like a, when you're in the lab and you have a big piece of evidence, you can stand around with a bunch of ten pound brains and you could say, all right, we could do this or should we start with that? Or what's our number one goal? Back in the day it was do we want DNA or do we want fingerprints? Well, now you can get both. But you have to be very, very careful in your approach and the way you develop that DNA and take possession of that evidence for testing. So there were just a whole lot of things. The shoe or the vehicle impressions was the driveway. They may have been destroyed when the police vehicles pulled up in the driveway when they thought it was a walk away, which is understandable, but it was just too soon, I think. And the bureau would have just sent in, as Fitz was saying, and I said earlier, just teams of people. One team for the primary, one for the secondary, one for the tertiary and the team to do the whole grid search like we talked about.

[Megyn Kelly]

I just, I don't get it. Like, I haven't done, I haven't solved a case as a member of law enforcement, but I've covered so many missing persons case cases and you just always see it. We're used to see it. We're used to it gives the family something to do, you know, to be out there hand in hand with, with volunteers to look for any little clue and, and there's so much area to cover. This is like a wide array of desert right around where Nancy lives. Just doesn't make any sense to me. I wanted to follow up on this is the aerial view of Nancy's house. You can just see it's just huge, huge. There's so much, much, so many places to go. And since we don't have any clear evidence of the car driving away, you know, the foot search seems pretty relevant. I want to go back to possible suspects. So we talked about how the sheriff said, you're not safe. I mean, like, for lack of a better term, he's now saying to the community, don't relax. Yeah, you're safe. Don't anybody put your. You're not safe. Don't put your guard down. Like, oh, great, Sheriff. Thanks a lot. So that would suggest, if he's sincere, that he's leaning more toward not a stalker and not a family member, like an actual burglar, abductor, intruder type. And there was a little bit more of that interview with the NBC News reporter, the local reporter, Liz Kreutz, along those lines. I want to show you the second shot we had cut here. Watch. There is something that's come out in the investigation that gives you a sense of motive here and why this person did this.

[Sheriff Nano]

This, you know, I think it's come out from the. From day one. I think from day one, we had some strong beliefs about what happened, and those beliefs haven't diminished.

[Megyn Kelly]

Do you believe it was a burglary gone wrong?

[Sheriff Nano]

I'm not going to get into those theories. We have our beliefs. Everybody else has theirs.

[Megyn Kelly]

Nano says he's intentionally withholding their theory and other details in the case, citing the integrity of the investigation. So he's saying something without saying something there. Right. Maureen? Like. Like, from day one, we had strong beliefs about what happened, and those beliefs haven't diminished.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Right. It sounds to me like it's the Corey Richens case all over again, or a number of other, you know, just a myriad of other big cases where it takes a while to build this cage around this individual. And you have to. You can think someone's guilty all you want. A lot of people do think some people are guilty in this case and other people suspect other people. But you have to be able to prove it in a court of law. You have to have it locked down with all kinds of evidence. And you have to really take a close look at the exculpatory evidence and make sure that that is what it looks like and disprove it.

[Megyn Kelly]

If I can ask you about that, the Corey Richards thing, just for the listening audience in case they don't remember that case we talked about on Kelly's Court last week. But she's the woman who is Accused, she's on trial right now of killing her husband with fentanyl in his Moscow Mule cocktail. She, a year later published a children's book on grief, how to deal with grief of loss of a parent. Meanwhile, she's alleged to have killed her husband and she got arrested three days after the publication of her book and is now on trial for his murder. She says it was a suicide and that he was depressed, but all the while they let her be free. And that whole year, clearly they were building a case against her. So when you say it's like the Corey Richards case, do you mean, are you suggesting maybe the sheriff has, let's say, a family member or someone known to Nancy, who they're building the cage around right now?

[Maureen O'Connell]

Yeah, I mean, yes, I think there's someone they think may have done something. Maybe it's a handyman, maybe it's a delivery man. I, I don't know who it is, but whoever, whoever they're thinking, I think they're building the cage right now. That's what I call it.

[Megyn Kelly]

Well, that would explain his more confident statements, you know, suggesting, we think we know the motive, number one. And then in the follow up, saying, from day one, we had strong beliefs about what happened and those beliefs have not diminished. So he's definitely got a theory of the crime and he says it's only gotten stronger. It sounds like he's not since learned that he was wrong about his initial instinct, which again, I think we all believe were probably that she was murdered, just for one thing. Because he did call it a crime scene. He called in homicide and he called off the search for her within 24 hours, even though he gave a lot of like, we have to believe she's still out there comments. His behavior was more telling, in my view. So that leads me to who?

[Maureen O'Connell]

Well, some of that, Some of that saying, we still have hope. We hope she's out there. We really want to bring her home alive. Please. Some of that is to try to get the offender to slip up and try to go for, you know, the money. But that hasn't worked. Whoever these, this offender or these offenders are, they've just felt that going for the money is too dangerous. They can't do it. They cannot. They just can't do it without getting caught. That's their belief. That's what I.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

That was ever their goal. At least I would add here.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Yes.

[Megyn Kelly]

Right now, that leads me to one of the people who we've discussed as, you know, somebody they may be looking at. And the whole question of the brother in law. Again, do not mean to suggest the brother in law committed this crime, but he's one of the family members and he was the last one to see her, so he's fair game to discuss. I told the audience last week, My own information is that Savannah Guthrie is very angry. People are discussing the brother in law or anyone in her family. She clearly believes her family are all innocent victims and had nothing to do with her mother's abduction. For what it's worth, you know, I mean, on the one hand, you would expect her to defend her family. On the other hand, she does know them and we don't. So it does count for something.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Yes.

[Megyn Kelly]

Having said that, the sheriff's messaging around the brother in law has been yet another thing that's been very confused and ever changing and did the family no favors. Let's face it. He started off to the new York Times on February 4th. As a reminder, Nancy was taken overnight January 31st into February 1st. By February 4th, he was telling the New York Times, Ms. Guthrie was taken sometime between 9:45pm on Saturday and Sunday morning. She had dinner with her daughter Annie and her son in law, tommaso. And the son in law, tommaso cione, dropped her off and ensured she made it inside safely before leaving. The sheriff added. So he specifically told the New york times that it was Tommaso who dropped Nancy off at home. In other words, the last person to see her other than the abductor. Then the next day, on February 5, he said the following about who dropped her off.

[Sheriff Nano]

You know, there's also conflicting reports about

[Megyn Kelly]

who was the last person to actually see Nancy and drive her home. We know she took an uber to Annie's house. But can you confirm whether it was Annie or her son in law, Tommaso, who took her home that night?

[Sheriff Nano]

I think the.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

The timeline that the sheriff provided was

[Megyn Kelly]

a family member, but just family there. We're gonna go with family we're gonna go with.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Which is just so ridiculous.

[Megyn Kelly]

You just told us that it was Tomasso. You know, I mean, that was just.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Well, it was also a prompt, though. Megan from the FBI prompted him to say family member. We're gonna go with family member, you know?

[Megyn Kelly]

Right. Like you should have done that the first time and you didn't. And the messaging in general around the family has been all over the board. I mean, he. He wants us to not suspect the family, but he doesn't actually have any real reason to tell us not to suspect them. We just came up with this. So Tuesday February 3rd was an Ashley Banfield reported that a law enforcement source told her the brother in law may be the prime suspect. Then the car of Annie and Tommaso got towed and impounded and is in evidence as of that same date. Tuesday, February 3rd. February 5th. Sheriff Nanos, we've not identified a suspect or a person of interest. Nobody's been eliminated. Everyone's still a suspect. February 7th. They were inside Annie Guthrie's Arizona home for hours. The law enforcement officers were taking photographs of multiple rooms until about 10:30pm local time. February 16th. Sheriff Nano's to a local Tucson affiliate. Not one single person in the family is a suspect. They've been ruled out as suspects since the first few days of the investigation. I am saying they are clear. We have cleared them. He said to be clear, the Guthrie family, to include all siblings and spouses has been cleared as possible suspects in the case. The next day, February 17th. At this point point, the Guthrie family, including siblings and spouses has not been identified as suspects. They have not. So he, he's walking back. They're cleared to. Well, they haven't been identified as suspects. So I mean he's just. I mean I can't. Like I'm. It's. It's annoying me yet again, Fitz, because he caused this. I'm sorry. But he helped cause this.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Well, I think we can safely say he is consistent in his inconsistencies and certainly when it comes to the family itself. And I hate, I hate, you know, this, you know, ruling out of family members or other people early on and, and I can only envision a prosecutor someday getting this case if it so happens it is somebody who was cleared in a case. I'll just keep it generic here. And they have to know and they have to bring charges against that person and put them before a jury. When a sheriff or some other DA or whomever said no, no, no, they've been cleared all along. You never clear anybody. And there's other cases I've worked, I've been directly involved in. I've even been sued over in which people family members were automatically ruled out by the DA So no one can be here. I still say one of the strongest family members I hope they've interviewed and re interviewed. This person was the child of Annie and Tommaso. And I think there's only one. Maybe there's another one. I'm not sure. But I think that person separately figured

[Megyn Kelly]

out that he's about 20. Deb will double check me on that. I think. Yes, keep going. I've heard.

[Maureen O'Connell]

I've heard 20 and I've heard 11.

[Megyn Kelly]

Oh, no, no, sorry, sorry. No. She said it's a son who's eight. A son who's eight.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Okay, now eight. Okay.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

I believe we're gonna double check. Be a wealth of information regardless of the age. And I believe they were in the house that night when Nancy came over for dinner to Annie and Tommaso's house. And again, I'm not, again, careful here, not to cast aspersions, but that person is sort of almost a neutral arbiter. Wouldn't have enough sense at a relatively early age to know how to cover things up if in fact there is any sort of a cover up. And there's experts out there, and I've known a few of them over the years with the FBI. Their full time expertise is in fact interviewing young children. Three, four, five, even younger sometimes. But certainly an eight year old has their, their, their will and their wits about them. So. Yeah, so no one can be ruled out why the sheriff insisted on doing that. It may have been pressure from the Guthrie family to do so.

[Megyn Kelly]

Hey, all these, you know, for sure

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

there was accusations and intimations, whatever. Sheriff, you got to get out there and say something. Well, I really can't. And back and forth and something was negotiated and he went out and said that, then kind of came back a little bit the next day. I can't figure that out. I don't know, is he Clouseau or is he Colombo? I'm not sure.

[Megyn Kelly]

Yeah. Does it tell us anything, Maureen, that he's telling the NBC affiliate? I've had my theory from day one, and basically I haven't moved off of it. I've only had more reason to believe my theory. And since day one, you know, I mean, day 17, he was saying, they're cleared, they've all been cleared. I mean, he did reverse it, you know, he dialed it back a little by saying, well, none of them has been identified as a suspect. But does it tell us potentially that he doesn't believe the family had anything to do with it when he's saying, today, I've had the same theory since the beginning. My theory's only gotten stronger. And in that time he did come out to say all of the family have been cleared?

[Maureen O'Connell]

Yes. I mean, if you believe he's not gonna change his mind again, this is why I'm a logic driven thinker. And when things go wonky and back and forth like this, I just, I have a very difficult time with it. He's a law Enforcement official, his PIO should be handling this. It should be a clear and concise message every single time. And that's never what we've received. And the other thing you should be doing with your PIO or your messaging in general, is to assuage any of the fears that your constituents or the citizens of your AOR have. And that's not happening either. So I just don't know what to think with this person. But I agree, it sounds like whatever his opinion was at the beginning, it's just gotten stronger. But that's in complete contrast to other things that we've heard.

[Megyn Kelly]

Yes. Like him saying in the beginning, there's no threat, don't worry, we believe this was targeted. That's what he said in the beginning. And now today, you should be afraid.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Batting down the hatches. Yeah, Everybody get guns, you know, I

[Megyn Kelly]

so agree with you though, Maureen. That's one of the things I love about you, is that I too, am a very logical thinker. Like, my logical reasoning is probably my strongest communication skill. And I love it to be linear, a thread that I can follow that takes me someplace or doesn't, you know, in a sort of a logical fashion. But this guy is so. It's almost like ADD on steroids. He's like all over the place. He says something, then he reverses it, then he dials it back a little, then, then he contradicts that, then he does something that undermines all of it. And in the end, I have no idea about anything, which is why we finished this whole hour plus today. We don't actually have a leading theory right now amongst us on whether it was an intruder, it was a real kidnapper, it was a family member, or it was some random passerby or thief who went in there, or nevermind, Mexican drug cartel. It's like we all have like a general, like, hey, if you just want to ask me over a cocktail what I think happened, I'll tell you. But you can't really build the case for anything right now because nothing real has been shared by this guy.

[Maureen O'Connell]

No, but I'm taking great solace in the fact that the investigators are outstanding, they're working together, they're just doing. The trial is going to be epic. This person's going to get caught. I'm not sure if we're ever going to get Nancy back. I have to tell you, I'm losing faith on that, and that absolutely breaks my heart. But this person is going to get caught, they are going to get charged, and the trial is going to be epic. And we're going to see that this person that thinks they're so smart really wasn't that smart, just like all the others. And they're going to get taken down.

[Megyn Kelly]

Mm. My team is not. They're. They're trying to figure out how old Annie and Tommaso's son is. And it's unclear, but we think he was around seven and a half in December of 2020. So if that's true, here we are, what, six years after that? And he'd be around 13 or early teens, but we don't know for sure. We're just looking at pictures, and he appears to be a little older than Savannah, his daughter, who's 11. So that would track maybe early teens. In any event, just to answer our question from before.

[Maureen O'Connell]

Oh, there you go. Yeah, that's right.

[Megyn Kelly]

But to your point, Fitz, of an age where you would be more than capable of speaking to what you had seen and witnessed with your grandma in your house that last night and any other details. And maybe they did speak to him, and maybe that's why the cops were back there photographing the inside of that house at 10:30 at night. As Maureen pointed out when we talked about it, at the very same time that. That Nancy would have been inside the home, you know, just before she went missing. All right, so to sum up, we know very little. I did think the walkie talkie piece of this was very interesting. That if he's. If that was a walkie talkie, he has an accomplice. And I do think the blood information is new too, Right? Like our blood expert did not think she saw the blood. You'd have potentially after a massive, massive wound from like a gunshot or a stabbing. And did think potentially it was the blood falling from a woman who was being forced to or walking quickly, potentially toward a car. Let's be honest, America can still be a dangerous place and you cannot afford to wait for help. Sure, you could use a firearm, but in today's America, defending yourself with deadly force could have legal consequences. According to FBI data, 99.9% of all altercations do not reach require lethal force. And that's exactly why so many are turning to Burna. Burna is proudly American hand assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana. These less lethal self defense launchers are trusted by hundreds of government agencies, law enforcement departments and private security companies. Over 600,000 burner pistols have been sold. Most to private citizens who refuse to be victims. Burner launchers fire rock hard kinetic rounds and powerful tear gas and pepper projectiles capable of stopping a threat from up to 60ft away. No background checks, no waiting periods, and Burna can ship straight to your door. Take responsibility. Protect your future. Visit byrna.com right now or your local sportsman's warehouse. That's by r n a.com or your local sportsman's warehouse. Visit now and be prepared to defend. There'll be many more questions we need day. Ask an answer later. Love doing it with the two of you. Fitz, Maureen, thank you.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Thank you, thank you, Megan.

[Megyn Kelly]

Tomorrow in part two of our series, a closer look at the suspect and potential accomplice theory and at the ransom notes. Don't miss that. We'll talk to you then. Thanks for listening to the Megyn Kelly Show. No bs, no agenda, and no fear.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

When a trip to the hospital or pharmacy leads to a bill no one saw coming. We're here to help. Your health insurance provider is working every day with hospitals and drug companies so families can get the care they need at prices they can afford. That's why we're investing in new technologies that make care easier to access, more predictable and more more affordable, and helping bring down high hospital and prescription drug prices. There's more to do and we'll continue fighting for you.

[Jim Fitzgerald Fitz]

Real talent is defined by what people can do, not where they learn to do it. So by stopping at the education section of a resume, you might throw away the perfect Hire skills first. Hiring helps you see talent others miss, like more than 70 million stars skilled through alternative routes, let their stories unfold and gain a competitive advantage. Because hiring managers who start with skills are 60% more likely to find a successful hire. Hire skills first. Learn why at tear the paper ceiling.org brought to you by opportunityatwork and the Ad Council.