Loading summary
Transcript122 lines
- [00:00]
Narrator
Matching outfits, extravagant birthdays, many nicknames, few classic moves of a dog obsessed parent. And at Ollie, they're obsessed with how obsessed you are with your pup, which is why they obsess over giving your dog the best. Ollie's fresh human grade recipes are developed by real chefs and backed by vet nutritionists. The meals are perfectly proportioned and come with a puptainer and a scoop for easy storing and mess free serving, delivering the best experience for you and your pup. And through the Ollie app, you can actually check in on your dog's health with real vets. By uploading a picture, their team can check your dog's weight, digestion, teeth and coat. They'll then provide next steps on how to keep them thriving. And because they're just as obsessed as you are, there's zero judgment. If you check in every day, you could say Ollie feeds the obsession. Go to ollie.com truecrime and use the code trucrime to get 60% off your welcome kit. Ollie Feed the Obsession if you're an
- [00:55]
Grainger Advertiser
H Vac technician and a call comes in, Grainger knows that you need a partner that helps you find the right product fast and hassle free. And you know that when the first problem of the day is a clanking blower motor, there's no need to break a sweat. With Grainger's easy to use website and product details, you're confident you'll soon have everything humming right along. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [01:24]
Adam Carolla
Hey fans of freedom and open discussion. I'm heading over to Substack and there's an ad free audio and video version of the Adam Perolla show that's going to be waiting there in the near future. You'll even be able to watch ACS live unedited as we record it. Participate in the show via live chat. That'll be coming up very soon. You also get an ad free version of the Adam Kroll and Dr. Drew show. You also get an exclusive to my new podcast Beat it out where I share unpolished ideas with my comedian buddies. The first series of episodes is going to be J. Moore. You'll get all this and more for the low, low price of nine bucks a month. A pittance for all we're going to bring you. Subscribe now@adamcarolla.com substack and I'll see all of you in our new speakeasy called Substack.
- [02:30]
Alice
I'm Alice and I'm Brett. And this is the prosecutor's legal bl. Welcome back to the prosecutor's Legal Briefs. I'm your host, Alice, and I'm joined, as always, by my ravishing co host, Brett.
- [03:05]
Brett
Oh, thank you, Alice. I appreciate. I appreciate that.
- [03:09]
Alice
As usual. As usual. I'm sorry, Brett, I have to cut off your. Appreciate it. Because the real ravishing person we have on the podcast today is not you, Brett. I know. It's a big surprise. It is our absolutely hands down favorite person to talk to about all things true crime, former FBI agent and profiler Julia Callie of the Consult podcast. Julia, thank you for joining us yet again.
- [03:34]
Julia Callie
Thank you for having me again. I always enjoy talking with both of you.
- [03:38]
Alice
Well, you need no introduction, but those who don't know Julia, you need listen to her podcast, the Consult. She is the real deal FBI agent as she breaks down cases for all of you. And I say this because we have actually stayed away from talking about a case that has probably clogged up all of the media and all the airways for the last month. And that is, of course, the devastating disappearance of Nancy Guthrie from her home in the middle of the night. We stayed away for a specific reason. And many of you have probably heard all about it from people who claim to be experts, inside knowledge, FBI agents, former FBI agents, But yet there seems to be something amiss, and maybe that's why you're listening today. Julia, have you followed this case at all?
- [04:27]
Julia Callie
Yes, I have been following it, as have my colleagues on the show. Yes, of course. I follow all these big cases in the news just like everybody else.
- [04:37]
Brett
And this is one of those things where, I mean, obviously lots of people are following this case. This is a case that has been covered ad nauseam, really, for the last. I mean, what is it now? Three weeks? More than three weeks or almost three weeks? 18 days. And it is difficult to talk about this case in a responsible way. And that's what I've decided. And we haven't talked about it this whole time because we were hoping that there would be a lot more information that would come out and that we'd be able to discuss it some sort of intelligent way. But people have been asking us to talk about it a lot, and frankly, we only wanted to talk about it if we had you on the show. So as much as I want to talk about the facts of the case itself, I also want to talk about how these investigations actually work. What we're seeing from the police, how the local sheriff's department and the FBI should be working Together? Does it seem like they are working together? And some of the commentary we've seen and whether or not it's helpful for the investigation or whether it harms it or whether it just doesn't matter, I don't know. It could just be that all this is irrelevant. These are the kind of things we want to talk about. So this is going to be a little bit different, I think, episode than maybe our typical episode. But for those out there who somehow don't know who you are, can you just give people a rundown of your background as an investigator, a member of law enforcement? Both, as if I recall correctly, both as a local law enforcement officer and an FBI agent? Can you talk a little bit about that?
- [06:10]
Julia Callie
Sure. Yes. I spent 22 years in the FBI and I was a regular agent for many years. I worked public corruption and civil rights. I know that seems like it might not be conducive to going into criminal profiling, but I also had a violent crime background. Prior to joining the FBI, I was a forensic scientist, and so I worked in a crime lab, but I also went out to crime scenes, processed crime scenes. And then when I joined the FBI, as part of my extra duties, I was a member and a team leader on the FBI's evidence response team. I was also an instructor at the FBI laboratory for agents who were new to the Evidence Response Team, and they were going through the two week basic course. So I was an instructor for that. And then after about 11 years, I joined the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit and I joined the Crimes Against Adults unit. I was also a supervisor in a resident agency out of Boston. So I know what it's like to be in a smaller office and supervise people and have to work with other federal agencies, state and locals as well. It's really important to have a good relationship. It's not always possible. Sometimes you have disagreements and the FBI can get a bad reputation sometimes, but you do your best. So that is my career in a nutshell. So I have a little bit of forensic science background. I have a little bit of criminal profiling, actually have some white collar experience as well. Some violent crime. That's my more than 22 years, if you count my time in the laboratory.
- [07:44]
Alice
For those of you who have ever heard Julia talk, know that she's incredibly humble about her experience. And I think this is worth noting because before we went live to start recording, you know, we were talking with Julia about the fact that you probably are hearing a lot of people who have been FBI agents talk on the news and they seem to have wildly spread speculative things to say that don't seem to be rooted in the way that you've probably heard Julia talk, if you've heard her on the console. And I think this is worth noting, not to necessarily discredit anyone who claims to be an FBI agent, but knowing what their experience and how long their experience is relevant. You were telling us, Julia, how it took you not just one year, not just two years to kind of feel comfortable in your shoes, because these types of cases, they're coming to the FBI precisely because they are some of the biggest cases that face a nation. So can you just talk a little bit about what your path was like when you began to feel like you really had your skis under you as an investigator?
- [08:43]
Julia Callie
There was a specific moment, and I had about five years in the FBI where I had a new supervisor come in. And this is when I was working public corruption. And he had never worked public corruption. He had come from working violent crime for most of his career. He was, I should say he was a very experienced agent, but he had worked violent crime for number of years. Then he went to headquarters where he supervised organized crime unit. And then he was selected to come to the Boston division to be the public corruption supervisor. And by that point, I'd been on the squad for a number of years and I'd been acting supervisor, even though I didn't feel like I was ready for that role, but sometimes you just have to do what you're told. And he was asking me about investigations and about the violation and how to do things and who was who. And he found out I only had five years in the Bureau. And he said, oh, you seem like you have a lot longer in the Bureau. And I think it was that moment where I realized, okay, I think I do know something. I have learned something, because I felt, at least up to that point, that I was just treading water, trying to learn everything that I can and not really knowing. And then what I got really comfortable with throughout my whole career in the FBI is not knowing everything, but knowing who to go to. And I think that was the most important thing. Knowing who the experts were who could explain something to me, knowing what I didn't know, that was critical. And there's no way I could have survived and had any success without other people and their knowledge and expertise helping me along the way. And if you get comfortable in that, you just know who to go to, know who. Who knows what they're doing and who's going to do a good job. And who's going to explain things to you, then you will be successful. And that's how I felt like, okay, I may not know everything, but I can certainly find the people who do
- [10:36]
Brett
so based on your experience. And let's talk a little bit about this case, because obviously people know more about this case, and I would like for them to leave this with a little bit more grounded knowledge. And maybe they have. Now, one thing we're not going to do, we're not going to tell you who did it. We're not going to speculate about which family member is involved or is not involved. A lot of the things we've seen, frankly, I just find to be really disgusting. And we're not going to do any of that. But I am curious. So obviously, one of the big misconceptions about the FBI is the FBI is only involved in a crime that crosses state lines. Like, we hear that all the time. Like, how can the FBI be involved? This is a murder. Like, why would they be doing anything?
- [11:13]
Alice
Right?
- [11:14]
Brett
Can you talk a little bit about when the FBI becomes involved in a case like this?
- [11:19]
Julia Callie
Usually we will become involved if we're invited. You have to remember that relationships are important. And the FBI, despite maybe some misconceptions or the way we're portrayed in the movie, we don't want to come in and just take over. We don't want to do that. That's how you destroy relationships. So you wait to be invited in. But there are also, you know, if you're working well with the state and locals, there kind of becomes a time where you realize this case is better suited to go federal. This case is better suited to be prosecuted locally. And there's a whole bunch of determining factors when that comes in. But that doesn't mean we're not supporting them. It doesn't mean they're not supporting us. I don't think in a case like this particular one or any other ones where you have, you know, all the different agencies, you can just do it all alone. You know, the FBI, we need the state and locals, and on occasion, in fact, we probably need them more sometimes than they need us. But on occasion, when they have a big case or they have things where it does potentially cross state lines, or there's, you know, wire fraud or just things that the FBI is good at, and we have expertise in technology, in, let's say, digital evidence and other types of evidence that they may be dealing with in a specific case, then we will continue to provide that assistance no matter which way it's going to go, whether it's going to be prosecuted locally, whether it's going to be prosecuted federally. And so I can't say. There's just at one point where we decide we're taken over. That's really just not how it works. It's more of an agreement. This is the best course of action based on what we're learning about how this crime was committed.
- [13:13]
Alice
The key thing that you said there was when we're invited, and that's because, as we've talked about on the show, often is that most of the crimes you guys think about in true crime, home invasion, abduction, kidnapping, homicide, most violent crimes fall to state and local jurisdictions. And so the FBI isn't actually the one who would be the first in line to get these. Now, when you say this type of case, it's very likely that the FBI would be invited. Can you talk through what specifically? Because here we are talking about a very strange type of crime. It is actually strange for people to be abducted directly from their home and taken away and then not be able to be found for some time. Abductions happen. Home invasions happen. But there is something about this in addition to, of course, the celebrity aspect of this that is gripping. But can you talk a little bit about why it would be that this type of case the FBI may be invited to come in?
- [14:06]
Julia Callie
Well, obviously we have a missing person. And at some point, and it depends on can depend on the location as well. But at some point when somebody is gone long enough and you don't know where they are, there can be a presumed that they've crossed state lines. And so the FBI does have jurisdiction in that. And so we do assume that, especially if it involves a child and they've been gone for a few hours, I mean, you know, depending on where you live, you could be 10 minutes from the border. So that could be crossing state lines much sooner than in another state where maybe you're in the middle of the state and it's a couple hours to the border. So that would be a time to get involved. If you have communications, cell phone data, digital evidence that you're analyzing. Clearly this has some elements of that in terms of potential communications being sent, whether or not they're related, that remains to be determined. Or related to the original crime, that remains to be determined. So instances like that where maybe state and locals don't have the resources that the FBI has, and sometimes the FBI will just take on that part of the investigation and provide their expertise on that part, while other parts of the investigation remain with the state and locals. And what I want to say is no case follows the same path every single time. There's not a checklist. There's not. You have to do this, you have to do that. A lot of it depends on what the relationship is already, what the understandings are, you know, once you get to know people. When I was a supervisor, things probably would have been handled differently when I was brand new, but after, you know, several years of being a supervisor, I knew exactly who to call. I knew exactly how a case was going to play out. I knew who was going to work it. That kind of you. Just because I learned the lay of the land. And so, you know, depending on how relationships are in different divisions and in between different offices, it could be very different than my experience.
- [16:10]
Brett
I just want to make sure everybody's very clear on this. You know, I heard one, supposedly they were a former FBI agent who said the fact the FBI is involved means that Nancy Guthrie is either dead or she's crossed state lines. That is just false. Right? That's just false. That's.
- [16:26]
Julia Callie
I don't think that's just required. Right.
- [16:29]
Brett
They're the ones required for the FBI to be involved in this investigation.
- [16:33]
Julia Callie
We will help on any investigation. It doesn't matter. You don't have to have a death. You don't have to have state lines. You don't necessarily have to have a federal nexus. If a local law enforcement agency is requesting some kind of assistance, then the FBI will figure out a way to provide that assistance. And sometimes they just don't necessarily have the resources. And we have those resources, and we will help them. You don't have to have certain things. Now, it would be when you're trying to decide, okay, how is it going to be prosecuted? Now, that's different. That's a different decision. And that's when we start looking at, did they cross state lines? Do we have federal jurisdiction? That kind of stuff. But whatever crime it is, it was always my policy, and I think it remains the same. When my predecessor took over in our area, if local law enforcement requested anything, they would get it from us.
- [17:30]
Alice
And this is. Since we're in the realm, Julia, of. I know. It's really funny, because I can see you being like, why, Alice? Brett, why are you asking these questions? You know the answers. But the thing is, we keep hearing this over and over. And another thing that I hear repeatedly, not just in this case, but in any case where you have multiple jurisdictions working, it is I hear turf wars. I hear that the FBI refuses to hand over X piece of evidence or vice versa. The locals refuse to hand over this piece of evidence or they're keeping evidence from each other or not talking. And there's all this talk of turf wars, and that's why the investigation isn't moving forward. Obviously it is highly dependent, as you said, on relationships between the different jurisdictions working together. But can you clear up a little bit of kind of this constant buzz whenever the FBI is involved, people automatically jump to the fact that there is some type of turf war or the locals and the FBI are fighting each other for power or knowledge. Did you see that? And was that your typical experience? And I just welcome your.
- [18:29]
Julia Callie
No, it was. It was not my typical experience. Well, I will say when I first joined the FBI, there was tension because I was in the Boston division and a lot of it had to do with James Whitey Bulger and that investigation. And there was corruption in the Boston FBI as well as in the Massachusetts State Police and locals. I mean, there was just a lot of corruption and there were a lot of bad feelings and a lot of that. Everything that had occurred had happened so many years before I ever joined the FBI. But when I did join, there was definitely tension and I was used to that. And so there could be disagreements, distrust. But I will tell you, and I think when you hear many FBI agents talk about their relationships with the locals, when I had opportunities to work with them, I always had a very good experience. I can't. I mean, I'm sure there's times where there were disagreements. There's no doubt about that. But, you know, I'm thinking of the cases that I work jointly, specifically with the Massachusetts State Police. And my experience was phenomenal working with them. And I made friends. And so, you know, but I do know that, you know, just the agencies themselves can not get along. But the individual relationships are what really what make the investigations, make the cases. And I think most FBI agents will tell you that the entities may fight, but when the people actually work together and they get to know each other, the working relationships are very strong.
- [20:04]
Brett
And I think people are surprised or would be surprised by how much overlap there is and how closely the FBI and locals work together. They're task force officers who are local police officers who work with the FBI, are assigned to the FBI, can basically do all their work for the FBI. Sometimes there are things like the Joint Terrorism Task Force, where FBI is involved that, or OCDEAF, which is like organized crime, drug, etc. Etc. Or a lot of different narcotics type things.
- [20:35]
Julia Callie
Crimes against children.
- [20:36]
Brett
Crimes against children, Exactly. Yeah. Project Safe Childhood and Project Safe Neighborhood. Like, these are all these things for the locals, FBI working together. So it's not as if I think. People think, well, they're out in Arizona and the sheriff's investigating this kidnapping. And all of a sudden, like, the helicopters come in. It's kind of like in Die Hard. Right? Helicopters come in and they land there. They are the FBI. Oh, no. They come in there like, this is our investigation now. Right. And that's just not how it is.
- [21:06]
Julia Callie
No, it's not like that. And you make a really good point about the task forces. And the reason why we have that is so that we can have input from everybody. And, you know, I supervised a gang task force, and we had state and local law enforcement on our task force from all over the region. So if you had something like, let's say, a specific city or town, you could call your task force officer and they get you what you needed or put you in touch with who you need to be put in touch with. So you always have knowledge about what's going on in that particular town or city through your task force officers. They know you. They know you through your task. That's why we do it. And it's really important. Like you said, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, I was never part of one of those, but we did have one in our office. And again, you could just pick up the phone and call any one of them and they would help you. And that was always my experience.
- [22:02]
Alice
And you know that that is so helpful to hear because I think what we're trying to get through is if there are different jurisdictions working, you're working one investigation. Of course, there are different heads, but you have people asking, oh, it's a gotcha. It's a semantics question. If the family is cleared by the sheriff, FBI didn't say anything. They didn't say the FBI cleared them. And that supposes that if the FBI and the sheriff is investigating it, they're like, competing with each other to investigate. But rather, of course, there could be a world where some jurisdiction shares information that the other one doesn't. But very unlikely, because the whole point of working together is they are working one investigation. This is not the Olympics of investigations. The FBI isn't trying to solve the case faster than the sheriff's office. They're working one investigation. That was our experience in investigating cases. And if. What a great way to ruin that wonderful relationship you've built. Years of trust investing in. If someone says, hey, we've Cleared it through these methods. We're running some other things. Can you hold back? And someone runs ahead and releases information that could jeopardize the investigation for everybody. That was a long way of saying, I think there is so much, not only turf war, but this image that when multiple jurisdictions are investigating, we don't have one investigation, but rather one investigation per jurisdiction. And that isn't the case, right?
- [23:19]
Julia Callie
It's not the case, no.
- [23:21]
Brett
So to follow up on what Alice is asking, because I think a lot of people are curious about this. So interaction with the public, not every case is going to have that. Frankly, a lot of times, as helpful as the public can be, it's nice to be able to do these without that aspect.
- [23:36]
Narrator
Right.
- [23:36]
Brett
But you have an. You have a circumstance in this case where you have a sheriff, and I believe sheriffs are elected in Arizona just like they're elected in most places. So he's an elected public official. Elected public officials, they like to get in front of TV cameras. They like to talk to their constituents. They like to. They're doing a good job. FBI has a slightly different perspective on press conferences, though. There are plenty of FBI agents and directors who love press conferences. Right. When you have a situation like this, though, where you have these agencies working together, that aspect, the public relations aspect, do you have any insight into how that works? Who decides who the spokesman's going to be? Who decides what information to release? Who decides when to say something like, we've cleared X, Y and Z. How does that typically go?
- [24:26]
Julia Callie
Well, I'll say I'm going to start off in saying I am not used to speaking to the public. As an FBI agent, that is something we rarely did. I think most people know that the FBI never says anything. So in my role as a supervisor, I had to be authorized to say anything. And occasionally, if something came up locally and they wanted a statement from the FBI, I would have to call our media coordinator, get it authorized, make sure I'm saying exactly what the FBI wants me to say, and then I could provide that statement. In a situation like this, I think every situation is different. It really does depend how people are working together. But what you would want to do in something like this is try to have a spokesperson who does regularly speak to the public with things that are matters of public safety or information they want to get out in order to advance their investigation and keep that person consistent. And that would be a group decision. Now, I've never had an experience quite like what is going on out there where we're involved In a case where I have to make decisions about who's going to say something, who's going to speak, I've always been one of the people doing the searches and so I had nothing to do with that. But the managers would all get together, the high ups in the offices and you know, decide who was going to say something. And many times that role is given to a state or local person as opposed to the FBI. It's their area, you know, it is our jurisdiction, but it also is theirs.
- [26:15]
Alice
So the people there.
- [26:16]
Julia Callie
Right, yeah. And you know, and I don't, I don't know if this was all done out there. I have no idea. So I can't say that's what was done or this is what should be done. I'm just saying what my experience has been and you know, those decisions were always made way above my head. Who is going to say something? All I know is it usually wasn't the FBI. In many of the cases and the high profile cases I was involved in, it usually ended up being a state or local official.
- [26:49]
Grainger Advertiser
If you're an H vac technician and a call comes in, Grainger knows that you need a partner that helps you find the right product fast and hassle free. And you know that when the first problem of the day is a clanking blower motor, there's no need to break a sweat. With Grainger's easy to use website and product details, you're confident you'll soon have everything humming right along. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgrainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [27:22]
Alice
On this topic of speaking out, having press conferences, giving the public information, those of us who've been anywhere near a media outlet certainly in the United States for the last three weeks have heard probably 24 hour coverage. So hundreds of thousands of hours from so many different outlets, mainstream media, YouTubers, Reddit Everywhere about the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. But the only information that we really know, I can list it off for you if for some reason you haven't heard of this case. Nancy Guthrie, she's 84 years old. The reason I mentioned the celebrity aspect is you may have seen her on TV before because she's the mother of NBC Today's co host Savannah Guthrie, who was on her way to go co host the Olympics when her mother disappeared and she pulled out because of this situation. And so she's an 84 year old woman who lives in Tucson, Arizona. She doesn't have dementia. She is a little bit limited in her mobility but living by herself and relatively healthy for an 84 year old woman. She has dinner with her daughter and son in law and on January 31st her son in law brings her home around 9.50pm we know from all the electronics that she closes her garage door about two minutes later. So presumptively no one follows her in. At that moment she is able to be in her home. But then a few hours later, when she's probably in bed around the 1 o' clock hour, we now have footage of someone going up to her front door where there was a doorbell camera, removes that doorbell camera and then we know that she's no longer in her house. And we do know that there's blood that is hers in the house. Which of course goes to the presumption that she didn't leave her house willingly and there's been no sign of her. Those are basically all the facts. Of course in the last few days. We now know that there's some DNA left behind in a glove. But I' given you basically all the facts we actually know. Yet we have had hundreds of thousands of hours of reporting. What are they reporting on and what does that kind of reporting do to an investigation like this?
- [29:30]
Julia Callie
Well, what we know is very little, and I know that. And I'm sure your listeners have asked you to cover this case and we've been asked to cover it as well. And I really do try to stay in my lane. And if we wanted to do a profile of this case, I would not be able to at all. I mean, at this point. And one of the things just generally I've made it a policy not to talk publicly about active investigations or try to profile active investigations that we don't have a lot of information or ones that are going to trial. I just stay away from those just as a matter of. I just think it's cleaner and simpler. But trying to profile a case like this, one of the foundations of you need to know what happened and we don't really even have that. And when I start to profile, and I know Brett had asked me this, well, how do you start a profile? And well, I need to see crime scene photos. I start there. That's where my process begins. Looking at the crime scene photos, looking at lab reports, if they're available, I mean early on they may not be available. Looking at victimology, thorough victimology, getting the digital evidence all complete and reviewed, timelines and all of that. So I'm wanting to see everything because we need to make a determination what actually happened here. And we Just don't have any of that. We don't know what happened in the house. We don't have photos of that. We don't know if something's overturned. We don't know anything. And so we could speculate all day. Well, maybe this happened, maybe that happened, but I'm not sure that does any good. It's. It's interesting. People want to talk about this case. I understand that. And they're going to talk about it. And I'm gonna listen.
- [31:28]
Alice
I'm gonna.
- [31:28]
Julia Callie
I am. I admit, I'm gonna listen and watch, you know, when I see it. But I'm not sure. Does it do any good at this point? I mean, I think what does do good is putting out the surveillance photos of, you know, whatever law enforcement is giving us that they think they need information on, then, yeah, that's important. Look at that. Especially if you're from that area. Obviously, the other aspect of this case that we don't know about, we have these communications that have come in. We have no idea really what they say. They've never been publicly released in their entirety. We don't know if they're hoaxes. We don't know if they're related to the crime in some way. We don't know if the offender or whoever took Nancy Guthrie even wrote these. We don't know any of that. So how can we even speculate or derive any behavioral data from that if we don't even know if it's related to the original crime or if it's completely separate? And the thing I want to point out is law enforcement may not have all these details either. They're still working on it. I mean, there is so much digital evidence likely that they're having to review and go through and make sure that it's accurate and analyze it and make connections and timelines, and all of that is still ongoing. So, I mean, what I'm basically saying is we know nothing to try to make any kind of logical assessment other than just the basic facts that you read.
- [33:03]
Brett
Alice, let me ask you this for sort of what's going on in this case in the background. So we don't have that information, but I would think the behavioral analysis unit does. They've been provided. I would hope they've been provided whatever they say they need. How quickly, in a case like this would the behavioral analysis unit be brought in? How long does it typically take for them to put together some sort of profile? And do you think that has happened? I know you're. This is talking about not Speculating. I'm asking you to speculate now. Do you think that has happened in this case?
- [33:44]
Julia Callie
I do. I think it's very likely, and I'm only speaking from my own experience. So in a case like this, I do believe the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit would be engaged in some kind of form and they would be consulted early. What would likely happen is that agents would go out to Tucson from Virginia, and so you'd have a couple agents there, and then you'd have the remaining agents in the unit back. And there would be probably phone calls and conference calls throughout the day as information is developed. And one of the things, I mean, I think, you know, is it possible right off the bat to develop a profile, even if you do have all the information that law enforcement has to that point? And it's not, a lot of what the Behavioral Analysis Unit may be doing is providing suggestions or saying, I need this, I need this. And then as that information comes in, they can make an assessment and then they can start building it. But it's really tough so early on. And what this case reminds me of, and I'm not saying that it reminds me of, like, all the facts, but it reminds me of how we dealt with the cases involving Israel Keys, because we were involved in those very early on and we didn't have all the information and we were asking for things, and there would be several phone calls a day and we would get updates, and then we would advise, okay, this is what we think you need to go do. And here's what we're starting to think about what likely happened based on what you're telling us. But that was all kind of real time and not real, real time, but, you know, very much involved, not way after the fact as a lot of our cases that come to us or, you know, they may be cold cases, they may be years and years old, so profiling those cases. This is what is probably what I think could be going on with this case, with Nancy's case, where they're being. They're constantly being updated, they're providing suggestions. Maybe they're starting to form some kind of analysis to some extent, getting some kind of idea about motive, about personality traits and characteristics. You know, the other thing is one or two offenders. I mean, all of these things will be assessed, and that's all based on what was found at the scene. As the evidence is starting to come in and be processed, what is that telling everybody? And not only the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit, but in this case, probably the hostage negotiation Unit as well. They likely, in my experience, when we had cases that involved maybe a ransom note or communications where you have to negotiate something, the Hostage Negotiation Unit took the lead and we would be there as kind of backup as discussion. But that was their area of expertise. So I wouldn't be surprised if the negotiators are involved as well on ransom notes.
- [36:51]
Brett
So obviously there have been several. I think the one person has been arrested for falsifying one. How often? I mean, ransom notes are pretty rare, right? I'm not, I'm not wrong to say, like an actual ransom is pretty rare.
- [37:03]
Julia Callie
Yes. I was trying to think if I've ever actually worked a case where it was a kidnapping with a real ransom. I'm not sure. I mean, maybe I'm familiar with one. I couldn't remember. The cases that I have worked on that involved ransom notes of some sort were either hoaxes or they were cover ups in a way. Or, you know, it may be an attempt to get money, but it's also a way for some offenders to prolong what they've done. And I think that was the case of Israel Keys. He was an opportunist. He's like, I might as well try to get money as well. But it was also a way to continue to hurt and torture the family. So those are the cases that I've worked. I, and I know I've had colleagues that have worked on true kidnappings with ransoms, but I just, I don't think that I ever have. They're, they're rare.
- [37:59]
Alice
I know you've already said this, but like, hoax is man. So at least we've heard of, you know, as soon as the disappearance was reported on, I think there were different outlets. They didn't always come from the outlets themselves. Other people would say some outlet received a ransom note. Why would someone risk federal prosecution in, you know, writing a hoax letter like this? Is it just for trying to eke out, you know, maybe some bitcoin from the family or are they trying to get their, you know, two seconds of fame in that moment. Why would you possibly hoax this?
- [38:31]
Julia Callie
I mean, I think there's a number of reasons somebody could do that. And I think that's exactly why we're having this conversation. We really just don't know because there's probably a significant amount of time and energy being spent on trying to identify where those are coming from and who's writing them and what's the motive and are they actually related to the crime itself? I mean, it's a crime itself. If it's what they're doing. But to the actual disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, you know, we just don't know. And there could be a whole host of motives depending on if it's actually the person responsible versus someone who has no connection to the crime.
- [39:14]
Brett
So let me ask you this, because one big aspect of this case are the videos by the family. And people have noted that some of those videos even seem to contain similar, if not the same language as used in the movie the Silence of the Lambs, which.
- [39:33]
Julia Callie
Yeah, I think one sentence was word for word.
- [39:35]
Brett
Yeah. Which obviously features the Behavioral Analysis Unit. What are your thoughts on that?
- [39:39]
Julia Callie
Movies?
- [39:40]
Brett
Why?
- [39:41]
Julia Callie
It is my favorite movie.
- [39:42]
Alice
It's great. Oh, is it? Wow.
- [39:43]
Julia Callie
That's my favorite movie.
- [39:45]
Alice
But actually somehow is not.
- [39:46]
Julia Callie
So I immediately recognized the line. I did, yes.
- [39:50]
Brett
So what are your thoughts about. Because. And once again, this is going to be some speculation, but what do you think the impetus behind that was? Do you think that was family driven or law enforcement driven? Does it tell us anything about this investigation that those statements were made?
- [40:07]
Julia Callie
Oh, no. This is where I get a little uncomfortable getting into too much. I don't know. I don't think I can answer that question.
- [40:16]
Brett
Have you ever seen that before, responsibly, your investigations, not the word for word thing, but just putting the family in front of a camera and having them make statements. Have you ever seen that before in your experience?
- [40:29]
Julia Callie
I have not. Not that I recall. There may be something. I mean, we have. I've been part of investigations where we've advised either law enforcement or maybe somebody who's a victim of an extortion how to respond, but not publicly like that, that I've been a part of, that I can recall, and I really just don't want to say anything wrong.
- [40:52]
Alice
Have you ever had a situation where you advised people close to the case, not law enforcement, family members, friends, not to say anything, but they do say things if they want to. Can that happen? Can you control them?
- [41:05]
Julia Callie
Oh, sure. No. No, we can't control them. No.
- [41:10]
Alice
And I think that's worth noting without you getting it, you know, speculating too much. But I think a lot of people just assume that anything being put out on the case is all coordinated through law enforcement. It may be, it may not be. I, from my investigations, I can't control it. I don't have gag order power. And, you know, I can advise someone, please don't talk about this all over Instagram right now and post all these sorts of things because we don't know yet. And I can't control witnesses in a case, for example, unless, you know, at least some sort of criminal conduct. But I think that's worth noting because a lot of people will say, oh, they're parroting, or there is absolute symbiosis or hand in hand and whatever is put out there about this case. And I think in big cases like this, sometimes it could be just as chaotic as the. The outside reporting of it.
- [42:00]
Julia Callie
Yeah. And I think the other thing, you know, and I know a lot of people, including myself, you know, and so I don't want to say it's everybody else, but, you know, in listening to the family statements, we're trying to interpret what they're responding to. We don't know really what was said in the original communication, so we don't know what they're responding to. And you're right, we don't know who crafted those statements. You know, just because I've never done it doesn't mean, you know, the law enforcement is not involved or they didn't advise that. That, you know, I have not done everything. So I want to make that, like, some. Some people, you'll hear, they've done everything. I have not. And I try to, like, I don't remember a. Like that. And so it's hard for me to say what would I do necessarily in that case, or who's responsible or. But you're right, if there's a family and they want to make a statement, we can't stop them. We can advise, or we could advise. Like, as a person at bau, we would maybe say, and I'm not saying this about this case particularly, but let's say we're talking about a case and we don't think there should be communication. We would just tell whoever we're working with or advising that we don't think a statement should be made, and they can tell the family or whoever. We don't think you should make a statement. But if they decide to do that, then we can't stop them. And so there's kind of these layers of communication because as an FBI profiler, we're not in charge of the investigation. We're only advising people who are working the investigation. And even they don't always have control over everything. We're just saying, well, this is probably the best way forward based on what we're seeing at this point, and that's all that we can do. But it's a good point to say we don't know really anything about how those statements came to be made.
- [43:59]
Brett
Let Me ask you this. And I mean, I don't know, maybe this investigation is a complete disaster, right? I think that's what people want to say, but, you know, this investigation is being followed blow by blow. And so people, they see things and they assume this is a sign that they don't know what they're doing right now, give you an example, they recently used some technology they can use to try and detect signals for the pacemaker. Right. And people are like, why would they do that if they know X, Y, and Z? Or they don't think X, Y, and Z is true? In your experience, does the FBI and really any investigative organization often try lots of different investigative tactics, even if one tactic might seem diametrically opposed to another one? Try both and see if anything happens. I mean, is that necessarily a sign of some sort of problem in the investigation that people are seeing them do things like that?
- [44:53]
Julia Callie
I don't think we can assume anything about what's going on in the investigation. I mean, yes. So I don't think you could just assume, oh, there's a problem because they're trying this. I mean, we. We just. We don't know. And, you know, I like to give law enforcement a wide berth. And I've never had the kind of pressure on me working a case. I have. I've worked crime scenes where I've had cameras in my face. That has happened, but it's never been like we see today, where every single move is on camera and they're lined up. I've. I've not had that problem before. And so I try not to make assumptions about, oh, you shouldn't have done this, or this, or why are they doing this or why are they doing that? I mean, I root for them. I feel like sometimes people out there are just looking to find fault with what they're doing, and, like, they somehow know better. And I want them to be successful. I don't like to see mistakes made. And I. And I don't want to harp on them if I do think something doesn't look right. And I'm not saying that I see this in this case. I just. I just feel like, just let them work the case. Let them solve the case. Give them a wide berth. Don't criticize every little thing that they do, because that is. I mean, they're human. They're human. And I have been a part of investigations where you don't really have time to sleep. You don't have that luxury. And when you do get a chance to take a break, you feel bad about it. And so, you know, tensions get high and people get extremely stressed out. And I know that feeling and the pressure you feel because you have a situation where you cannot take a break. You just can't. And I don't want to add to what they're already feeling. There's not one law enforcement officer out there that isn't trying their best, that doesn't want to find them and resolve this safely and without loss of life and find who did it and prosecute them. They're all doing their best. And so I try not to pile on with criticisms or, why are they doing that? Or why are they not doing that? There may be a very good reason why they chose one investigative tactic and then they're trying a different one. We don't know what information they're getting. It's funny, because I just interviewed the case agent for the Gardner Museum heist, and he was the case agent for, like, 22 years or something. He retired. He wrote a book. And what struck me in his book is he talks about having read a journalist who wrote a book about the case and read in that book that there was a secret meeting that had been held by maybe some suspects in the Gardner heist that the FBI knew nothing about. And it turns out the FBI had arranged that meeting, and he was listening in. And I read that part, and I. It just. It really is like, you know, we don't know what's going on, and, you know, they may be doing something, and we have no idea why, because they got a piece of information. We're not privy to that, nor should we be. We want to be like, I want to know what's going on. Why are they doing that? But I like to think they have good reason.
- [48:14]
Alice
Julia, your restraint is the responsible reporting that I think we all crave. Because it would be so easy to just say what you think, because I know you think something, but you don't. And that's precisely the point here, because thank you for humanizing all of this with all the reporting out there and all the poking and prodding of all the things that are going wrong. You're absolutely right. There isn't one person working this case who doesn't want it to be solved. They wouldn't be giving up sleep and time with their families and, you know, living at these intense adrenaline anxiety levels if they didn't believe in what they were doing. And then to have all of us on top of them, nitpicking every last detail is. People have breaking points, especially when you're 18 days into an investigation, I mean, that is just non stop. You know, there's no closing your laptop at the end of the day. You dream about it, you can't sleep at night, you don't eat well because you probably eat your meals as you're running from call to call, if you even have an appetite. Thank you for humanizing that aspect of this and all investigations. So what does that mean for everyone who, like you said, wants to know? You know, I follow it. I definitely follow.
- [49:30]
Julia Callie
I do too. I do follow. I want to know. I want to see it resolved. I want to see it successfully resolved without loss of life, with the offender or offenders being prosecuted and held accountable, having Mrs. Guthrie reunited with her family. And I want the law enforcement officers who are out there, everybody, to be successful. And like I said, I never had that kind of pressure. I mean, I've worked on big cases, but I never had the way it is now, the way we see it today and the way it's covered. And, you know, I don't want to lecture people, but I just wish sometimes people would think about what if that were you. Having to do this and you're getting hit from every direction with criticism and conspiracy theories and hate. It makes it even that much harder to do the job and figure out what happened because you're dealing with all this other stuff that is not even related to the investigation.
- [50:35]
Brett
Let me ask you this. We're not now, but five minutes ago. Culture, right? This is February 18th. She was reported missing on February 1st. So that's, that's where we are time wise. Is 18 days just an incredibly long time? And how could they not have solved it by now, what's going on type situation?
- [50:56]
Julia Callie
It seems long because every single day we're being bombarded with news reports about and people are out there 24 7. So it seems long. But if this were just a regular case without a lot of publicity under the circumstances, it's really not that long. I mean, you know the Bill and Lorraine Currier from Vermont who were kidnapped and murdered by Israel Keys, I mean, we didn't know what happened to them. It took over a year to finally find out. You know, so sometimes cases can go on for a long period of time. And so, yeah, so this is not all that long in relation to some other cases that I have familiarity with. It just seems long. Like every day we wake up hoping, you know, there's going to be an announcement she was recovered.
- [51:50]
Alice
Yeah, that's great perspective. For what it's worth, I don't think I had a single case file except for maybe like, you know, illegal possession of a handgun, where the investigation spanned fewer than 18 days. It's usually not years.
- [52:05]
Julia Callie
I'm used to long term cases. I mean, it's like, don't make it a federal case. Right? That's. Everybody knows that thing because they take a long time. I'm used to that. I've become very patient because of that. And just because it's taken 18 days does not mean they're not having success. It doesn't mean they're not making progress.
- [52:24]
Brett
You know, this case has now become. There's going to be forensics, like DNA is being tested, we're looking at cell phone data, all that stuff. That stuff all takes time. You can't just turn that around in 24 hours.
- [52:37]
Julia Callie
Right? I mean, and I think this is a real, you know, example. I mean, we all know about the CSI effect, we're all aware of it, we have heard about it, but this is a perfect example of that. We expect our answers right away. And you said it best, Brett. I mean, we just are expecting things to turn around as quickly as they do on television. And that just is not reality whatsoever, especially digital evidence.
- [53:04]
Alice
It's so funny because that's exactly right. Click a button. There is a reason, you know, we would usually have cases completely finished and the last thing we're waiting on is a cell phone dump or something to do with like a cell phone subpoena. Because the massive amount of data that we have digitally actually makes it really difficult to be able to turn it
- [53:24]
Brett
over so quickly or anything that requires a lab. You know, the lab has to do the work. And yeah, you can do rushes like this.
- [53:32]
Julia Callie
Yeah, you can do a rush, but there are certain procedures and protocols that have to be followed. And some of the testing will take like, it might take 24 hours to run a test. You know, you have to. It's just not immediate. It's not like you just push a button and it tells you that, you know, it has to be. It does take time. It's not instantaneous. You know, they can get results pretty quickly. But again, it's not minutes. It takes a little bit longer than that. And then just also analyzing it and figuring out what does this mean, what am I looking at, what is it telling me? And what direction are we going next based on this new information? And they're probably getting information in all the time, plus they're probably getting in a lot of tips that are unrelated,
- [54:17]
Brett
but like 30,000 tips or something.
- [54:20]
Julia Callie
It's incredible. It's an incredible amount of work organizing all that information, making sure everything is covered, nothing is missed. It's overwhelming. It's unbelievable. And you know, and that's one thing I'll say too. The FBI does really well with all the information that they get and trying to coordinate it and making sure all the leads are covered. And then are there follow ups once you go out? Is there some additional information that that is required or additional investigation that is required based on a lead that you just covered? All of that has to be managed. It's just absolutely overwhelming.
- [54:53]
Brett
Sometimes somebody asking this question, it's an unfair question and you don't have to answer it if you don't want to. But as we've discussed, this was a bait and switch.
- [55:02]
Julia Callie
I knew, right?
- [55:03]
Alice
I knew he was going to do it.
- [55:04]
Brett
Give me your profile right now. It was a family member, wasn't it? Anyway, so there have been. People have criticized this investigation up and down. Every single thing they do, everything they don't do is criticized. Is there anything that you have seen that in your experience concerns you about the way the investigation has been handled?
- [55:25]
Julia Callie
Okay, I'm going to answer this carefully because the way certain things have been reported, you know, sometimes it doesn't look good. But is that accurate reporting? Is that really what happened? I feel like we don't always know if that's even really what happened, but read something and I'll be like, oh no, they didn't do that. And you know, is that. But then I back up a little bit and I'm like, is that actually what happened? Is this really what's going on or is this misinformation? I really try to be careful with just jumping to conclusions based on what's being reported because again, I don't know that you can trust everything that gets reported. And I'm not saying it's. People are reporting this on purpose. They just may have misinterpreted or whatever was told to them was wrong. So I just wouldn't make any assumptions. Even if I do think, oh, I don't think that was done right or this was done incorrectly. I don't think I can really make that assessment because I may be making that based on inaccurate information. Really wordy because it's an uncomfortable question for me.
- [56:38]
Brett
The people in the chat are focusing on the same thing everybody has over the last couple weeks. You know, they have a pool service and the guy showed up and cleaned the pool and they have a landscaping service and landscaper showed up and did the landscaping. Some journalist, clearly, because they wanted to have the story, ordered a pizza and had it delivered to the house and the guy went to the front door, like all those types of things. What are your thoughts on that?
- [57:03]
Julia Callie
I think that it should have been sealed off.
- [57:06]
Brett
So why didn't they do that?
- [57:08]
Julia Callie
I don't know.
- [57:09]
Alice
I'm going to play defender, slightly devil's advocate. I'm going to defend her. No, really defend the law enforcement. Right now, I agree with the sealing off, but I think this also shows how difficult it is to actually seal off a crime scene in the sense of having this much media. Doesn't make it any easier to do your job. Because if someone wants to interfere in some way like that, really it's only the journalist. Right. But it's not like when you have a missing person case like this, you all of a sudden have a Rolodex of all the things that happen at the house. And you can call every servicer and say, hey, by the way, it's crime scene don't come. You physically have to have enough bodies there to make sure it's sealed off. Which is. Which is a lot of resources.
- [57:51]
Julia Callie
Right.
- [57:51]
Alice
I mean, people think there's a button you can press where it's like sealed. That's not how it works. There isn't a bubble that appears around it. The bubble is physical law enforcement officers around.
- [58:02]
Julia Callie
Right, right. Having somebody there 24 7, but also putting up tape. I mean, all of those things. But it's difficult to guard a scene once it's been processed and you have a search warrant. You know, you. You don't have that forever.
- [58:20]
Brett
So that's the point. I want to. The scene has been processed. Right. I mean, it's 18 days later, presumably.
- [58:30]
Julia Callie
Yeah. And there could be reasons to go back and they could be legitimate reasons. It doesn't mean they miss something. We went back in Cleveland, the house where the women were kidnapped and kept for many years as. As hostages, basically, and they were freed. One of them escaped and they. They got away. Well, the house had all been processed and, you know, I don't know, it was a long time later, but they were getting ready for trial. So we went back to take measurements because they were going to make a scaled model of the whole house. So we went back, we spent four days in the house so that it wasn't that anybody missed anything. The whole house had been processed and it had been processed thoroughly. We just went back to gather more information for trial so they could do a scale model. So there may be reasons why they finish processing the scene, they release it, but then they go back for another reason. And it could be legitimate. It doesn't necessarily mean, oh, we messed up, we forgot something and at some point it's done and you close it up and you're done and you leave it with that.
- [59:44]
Alice
We all know those of us who know and love you, Julia, know that we've kept you up so many hours past your bedtime. And like you, I could talk to you about this case forever. But one of the things that you've shown and people have said this in the chat, and I agree with them completely, you have patience and grace of a saint. But I think most importantly, the way you talk about this case, despite us really just curious about your thoughts and asking you unfair questions about the case that you don't want to opine on. You show restraint in a way that is sorely lacking in the reporting industry around this case and around many true crime cases. So I want to say thank you for what you bring to this space. I think it's so important, important. But I also want to let you. Is there anything else you want to talk about this case or this investigation before we sign off?
- [60:33]
Julia Callie
I do want to say just one more time to reiterate to anyone covering it. And I understand, I'm not trying to say this case shouldn't be covered, it is of interest, but do so in a way that helps law enforcement. Because when you cover it irresponsibly, not only are you hurting the investigation, you may be tampering with witnesses or jury pools. If you wrongly accuse somebody, that could put them in danger. Even if you do accuse somebody and they did do it, that could cause problems later on down the line as you're prosecuting. But you know, and I know I'm just, just one little person and I don't have a big voice, but I guess if I had to say anything, just please, you know, when we report on these cases and we talk about them, do so responsibly in a way that actually helps forward the investigation, that helps law enforcement, and that helps solve the case and get the victims back to safety.
- [61:34]
Brett
That's why you're the best.
- [61:36]
Alice
Truly, you are the best and I truly mean that. Julia, thank you for giving your time to talk about this case and being hopefully you won't be the lone voice in this restraint and the grace on this case and many other cases. My hope, of course, like yours, is that they're able to bring Nancy back home and that when we next Talk about this case. It's talking about bringing justice to the family and that Nancy is home, happy and healthy. But in order to get there, we also all have a part to play in not making it harder for law enforcement to do their jobs, because 18 days in into an investigation like this is no joke. Thank you, Julia. You guys, you have got to go listen to the consult, because you get to hear this wisdom all the time. Along with her former colleagues at the FBI, and it is amazing. You will have never. You will leave changed and a smarter person having listened to them. Brett, is there anything else you'd like to say? Really? You better just be complimenting Julie at this point.
- [62:36]
Brett
Well, I mean, I am. I mean, number one, Julie, I want to have you back once I find this person so we can talk more about this case. But I mean, to echo what Alice just said, if you are not listening to the console and you listen to true crime, I do not know what's wrong with you at this point, because it is pure. I mean, it is real. It's not somebody reading a Wikipedia page. I mean, it is real analysis of these cases and how they're solved and how they're investigated. It's incredible. It's amazing. You got to listen to it. I mean, there's just. If you've never listened to it before, go give it a try right after you hear this. This episode. And you'll probably never listen to us again because you'll be busy catching up on the console. So you got to listen to it. It's amazing. The best thing that came out of this podcast is getting to meet Julia because I kept insulting behavioral analysis analysts. It's my fault. But just thank you again for coming. And, yes, thank you for how you handle all of this. You bring honor to the FBI and to everything you do, and it's always a pleasure to have you.
- [63:39]
Julia Callie
Thank you.
- [63:40]
Alice
Amen to that. Julia, you are basically a fixture on this podcast. So when we sign off, I hope you'll do us the honors of signing off with us. But before we get there, maybe we'll all do better in our lives and in true crime news, if we adopt the Julia Pause before she answers any question. I've been in an interrogation situation with her, and she employs it there, too. She takes a breath and she dares you to speak first, but I think that's why she's able to show so much restraint. And we would all be better for adopting the Julia Pause in our life. So thank you for teaching all of us something, Julia. But until next time. I'm Alice.
- [64:21]
Brett
And I'm Brett.
- [64:22]
Julia Callie
And I'm Julia.
- [64:23]
Alice
And this is the prosecutor's legal brief.
- [64:30]
Julia Callie
Sam. All right.
- [65:02]
Brett
Either way. Oh, hello.
- [65:04]
Alice
Okay. I don't know. There's so many ways I could go with the descriptor, but I should. I should keep it. I should keep it chill.
- [65:08]
Brett
Keep it chill.
- [65:09]
Alice
I'm gonna keep it chill. Thank you, Julie, as always. I don't want to stop, but I'm like, it's already well past an hour.
- [65:18]
Julia Callie
Yeah, I. Well, I appreciate it. I know, like, when I watch Dateline with my husband, he'll be like, well, what do you think? I'm like, I don't know. And he. What good are you?
- [65:27]
Alice
What?
- [65:28]
Brett
I need all the information to be able to build.
- [65:30]
Julia Callie
I know I don't know. And I, you know, I can look at all the statistics, but I, I think. Brett, you te.
- [66:01]
Alice
Pluto TV has thousands of free movies and TV shows.
- [66:05]
Brett
If I'm lying, I'm dying free.
- [66:09]
Julia Callie
This is the mantra.
- [66:10]
Adam Carolla
Free.
- [66:10]
Alice
This is with movies like Interstellar Dream Girls and gladiator entertain and TV shows like Survivor, SpongeBob SquarePants, the Fairly Odd Parents and Ghosts. Pluto TV is always free. Pluto TV stream now pay.
- [66:30]
Grainger Advertiser
Never.
- [66:38]
If you're the purchasing manager at a manufacturing plant, you know having a trusted partner makes all the difference. That's why, hands down, you count on Grainger for auto reordering. With on time restocks, your team will have the cut resistant gloves they need at the start of their shift. And you can end your day knowing they've got safety well in hand. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgrainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. If you're the purchasing manager at a manufacturing plant, you know having a trusted partner makes all the difference. That's why, hands down, you count on Grainger for auto reordering. With on time restocks, your team will have the cut resistant gloves they need at the start of their shift. And you can end your day knowing they've got safety well in hand. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgrainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.