August 1, 2026 • 20 mins
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos released two ransom notes from the person authorities believe kidnapped 83-year-old Nancy Guthrie six months ago. The sheriff released them hoping to keep interest alive in the story and hoping that someone may recognize the distinctive patterns of word choice and phraseology. The two notes are chilling, the first one demanding millions of dollars “or she will be killed,” the second one acknowledging that she died shortly after being abducted.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey, folks, it is Saturday, August first, and we now
know the full text of the ransom notes that were
sent asking for millions of dollars in exchange for Nancy
Guthrie's return, And with that, welcome to this episode of
Amy and Tjes. This is a pretty significant update to
(00:23):
this investigation, to this case. It's not the clue that's
leading to her but robes. They're by releasing this, they're
hoping it will yes.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
And it makes sense because when we go through these
ransom notes, the words they use, the phrases they use,
how they spell things, all of that matters. People might
recognize a pattern someone that they know, someone that they love,
who speaks like that, who uses phrases like that. So
(00:52):
it makes sense because if you've got this image that
we have from that surveillance or that door cam that
they were able to find a few days after her disappearance,
if you pair that with this language, maybe it'll spark
some sort of recognition in someone.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Why not do it before? Now?
Speaker 2 (01:12):
I know, I'm surprised, actually, given these the uniqueness of
these ransom notes, I'm so surprised they wouldn't have released
these within a few weeks if not even a few days, maybe.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
They thought they still had a chance and this would
harm the investigation. But again, like you said that in
the following weeks, Okay, it's now six months. This weekend
is the six month anniversary of Nancy Guthrie, the last
time she was seen, the last time she was believed
to be alive. And yes, this is the six month
anniversary of her being taken. So we want to share
and Robes the other part of this as we share
(01:48):
these two notes now in the text of them, of
the other thing is I guess they're sharing these because
they believe there's a decent amount of credibility to them.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Yes, and I thought when we they actually kind of
they didn't have proof of life, but they had proof
that they were in her bedroom, and that made it
seem as if as if, yes, this is in fact
the kidnapper. Also of note, so she was last seen
January thirty first, but so she was reported missing February first.
By February second, they had a ransom note. That was
(02:17):
significant to me too to know that within and that
would make sense within the first twenty four hours they
had a demand for money, and that.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Was that maybe Robes that detail lends more to credibility
than anything, because at that point, on February second, we
were still getting caught up. It was it was not
the national and international phenomenon of a story that it
was yet, so robes if some random person, this was
not a random person who sees headlines and tried to
(02:46):
take advantage. This lends itself to somebody that was ready exactly.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
And I would also say that, yeah, before it was
a big deal and before anyone knew she was kidnapped. Remember,
people were thinking when it was first reported that Nancy
Guthrie was missing, it has to be the son in law,
it has to be her sister, it has to be
the folks who saw.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Her last, who were taking care of her. They owned
her money.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
But they also said she might have wandered off. A
lot of people thought.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
That, So people weren't immediately.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
In fact, I don't think many people were actually considering
some random kidnapping that would have been statistically speaking, one
of the least likely scenarios. So it wasn't until that ringcam,
that doorkam video was made to light that was the
first time people actually got behind and actually believed that
(03:34):
there was a kidnapper, so yet to have a ransom
note the next day absolutely.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Lends credibility to its authenticity.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
No, the other thing in credibility they came out. They
had to tell us pretty quickly, Robes, she can't walk
fifty feet without help, and that didn't lend itself to
her just getting up and walking out of that home
and wandering off somewhere. But this is the first note.
Now this was on February second, is when they at
police say they received this. Also of notes, there seemed
to be at least word of several notes that were
(04:03):
flying around. I believe a couple of TV stations said
they got them. TMZ said they got several, and we're
going back and forth with someone. But these two that
they believe are credible ropes came from the same and
were sent to the same TV station out there in Tucson, Kold.
This was the note authority say they got on February second.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Hello Savannah, we have your mother Nancy. She is safe
but scared. She will be held for ransom and once
payment is received, she will be released unharmed. We will
be holding her for a maximum of seven days. You
will need to send bitcoin to the amount of four
million US dollars before five pm on Thursday the fifth.
(04:44):
If payment is not received, the ransom will be increased
to six million US dollars, which will need to be
paid by five pm on Monday the ninth. Once payment
is received to the bitcoin addressed below, she will be
released within twelve hours of deposit to a safe drop
off location back in Tucson. If payment is not received
(05:07):
by the last deadline on Monday the ninth at five pm,
she will be killed. Your mother is aware of this,
and her life is in your hands. It is in
the best interest of everyone to have this completed as
soon as possible. You will not be able to contact
me from here on out. There will be no negotiation.
(05:27):
Do not play games. Law enforcement will not be able
to help you. She had a white smart watch on
the floor of the foot of her bed, and the
white floodlight in the backyard was destroyed.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
I don't bros, that's confirmation. How could they not take
that as confirmation?
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Then there's no one else who knew that at that point.
We didn't know the floodlights were destroyed by February second,
and we certainly wouldn't have known that there was a
white smart watch on the floor at the foot of
her bed.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Know how to go about like, how would authorities are
you supposed to go about that? I'm just remembering the
early days of this investigation, Robes, the very early days
where the information that was being put out did not
seem to lend itself to this type of urgency. And
I guess that was them trying to play the right
game with the kidnappers. For Rose hearing this, now, what
(06:23):
in God's name you remember the back and forth and
he did this press conference and not going to do
this when it seemed just a mess. This lends itself
to seriousness. We need to shut this down and figure
this out. What are they doing back and forth in
public robes. I'm confused because this seems to have told
them for sure she is taken. It is urgent, we
(06:43):
are working. We'll get back to you when we can roose.
Her life was on the line that day. What do
we do? Were they really trying to know, you're not
supposed to pay ransom? But were they really trying to
solve this crime and track this person down and didn't
take this?
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Guess I guess they're told not to pay right. I
mean that is the isn't that always the mode of operation?
That you should not pay in four million dollars in
bitcoin that you'll never get back in the hopes that
this person's telling the truth.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
What would you do, man.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Robes, I don't know. You would listen to investigators. You
would listen to what the FBI is telling you they
think you should do. Robes, that's an impossible position because
as a family, first of all, you're saying, do we
have it, we can pay it, let's do this. That's
what your first instinct is, Robes. They know the condition
of their mom. She can't be under this stress for
how many days.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
They told us that she did.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
If she did not have her heart medication within twenty
four hours, she would likely die.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
That is what they told us. That was the urgency.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
And so yes, you get this letter the next day
and you don't act on it. And you know, by
not acting on it, if this thing is real, that
your mom may die like that is, as you put,
an impossible situation.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
So kold TV got another note four days later, on
February the sixth, So February, why don't remember this? February
first was a Sunday.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
February sixth is my birthday, so I know it was
a Friday.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
This is the Friday, so this is all happening in
the same week. She's taken on a Sunday, first note
on a Monday, and then the next note, the follow
up to the same TV station. Ropes came on February sixth.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
And this one is dark. It says Guthrie family. We
did not fully grasp the seriousness of her physical condition.
We never intended to hurt her. That was not our intention.
She perished shortly after she was taken. We believe it
was heart related. She is buried in nature.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
Now.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Nothing you could have done could have changed the outcome.
We want your family to know this and hope you
all can find peace. We are truly sorry. Wow, what
the what the hell? This sounds like a kind person
who is sending flowers, and that makes sense when we
hear Savannah and her siblings put out these. It seemed
(09:15):
at the time, while they were cryptic messages speaking to
this person directly.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Now it all makes sense.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
They were trying to say, we know you're a good person,
we know you didn't mean for this to happen. They're
trying to appeal to that kinder side that was displayed
in this second note.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Do you remember that line we received your message and
we understand.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
I remember her saying that very early on. All of
us were like, what the actual hell does that mean? Ope,
she got this message on February sixth. We're just seeing
it now. Wow, this is so and I the tone
is really striking, Robes. And we have no intention of
hurting her, and we already said we threatened to kill
her that those two things didn't really fly. But this
(09:58):
Robes is written, uh, sincerely, eloquently, professionally, politely.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
She perished shortly after she was taken.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
People don't talk like speaks like that, right, Yeah, I
don't even know if they chat, GPT did or something.
But it does feel a little robotic, but also kind
and sincere at the same time. So that's why I
was thinking, maybe this is AI generated, Like what do
I say to a family who I stole or I
(10:29):
kidnapped their mom and she died by accident.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
She is buried in nature, now, Roes.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
And who says that, like, really, truly, no one. I
don't know anyone who talks like that or writes like that.
It's so strange it is.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
I didn't think about the AI option. Maybe this was,
but I just people don't talk like this, and certainly not.
I don't know kidnappers, no offense to kidnappers out there,
but you.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Were worried about it ending kidnappers? Right now?
Speaker 1 (10:54):
What they also do? I can't imagine someone who was
that guy at the front door that we've seen on
ren cam saying yes, she perished. I never intended to
hurt her.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
We didn't fully grasp the seriousness of her physical condition.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
What no one speaks like that.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Yeah, we didn't know how bad off she was, right
you you taught? Yeah, so this one, what do you
do with that? But yes, it's why they keep making
an appeal rose to someone's better angels, because they believe
they have them, Because it appears they have even displayed
it to some degree.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Yes, and I think that is why they The reward
for one point two million dollars is out there for
information about her whereabouts, not about the person who kidnapped her,
not about convicting the person who kidnapped her. But it's
just to find where she is, to not know, to
know that your mom's somewhere out in a field in
(11:46):
a desert, and it's just there's something about that. Yeah,
they want to bring her home, they want to have
a funeral, they want to have a place to go
pay their respects to and just think that she's just
been left somewhere out in nature.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
She'll be found, you know these things. Just people stumble
upon stuff all the time. Where is it just she'll
be found. Just don't know when, and don't know if
this person is ever going to come forward and give
that information, but they do. They again, I dismiss it
now robes like the sincerity or whatever I hear in there?
(12:23):
It does? Is it ai'ed? You have me thinking that
now it sounded.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
It sounds robotic yet sincere, which to me would equal ai.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
But what do I know?
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Well, why why we just talked? It's been six months
this weekend to the day since she was taken, So
why they decide to put it out now? Stay here,
we'll let you hear from the PEMA Count of Sheriff.
They put out a press release explaining why they think
this is so important. Also, there was another Nancy Guthrie
investigation headline this week, another demand for money, this one
(12:54):
coming from the guy who was wrongly arrested. Stay here
all right? We continue here on Amy and TJ two
ransom notes. The text of those ransom notes for Nancy
Guthrie has been released, the Sheriff's office, releasing them now
(13:16):
here on the six month anniversary of her being taken roads.
I guess they are still trying to keep up interest
in this case by releasing the stuff. And they want
folks to possibly recognize something and how the person was writing.
Did the person write that?
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (13:36):
I know, now you're like, what it is?
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Chat GPT And they did it on purpose so that
someone could not figure out their quote. Distinctive patterns of
word choice, syntax, and phraseology that reflect the writer's unique
linguistic style. That's what they are hoping will happen. But
if it is a computer generated letter, then there's no
way they're going to be Isn't that crazy?
Speaker 3 (13:57):
You have to consider that now these days, like.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
That wouldn't even be a thought bubble for anyone even
five years ago.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Right, I don't know how to recognize that. You. I
look at that and go, what the actual hell? And
they said, who talks like that? And they said, oh,
maybe nobody talks like that?
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Right, And If that's the case, this isn't gonna let
much insight now. The first one did seem human. The
first one did seem to be I didn't feel robotic,
the second one did. This is from the PMA County
Sheriff's Department. This was their press release. They said the
notes also provide valuable insight into the person's mindset, motives,
(14:36):
and the evolution of their tone over time. As with
the unidentified male depicted in the video, we believe these
distinctive linguistic characteristics may be recognizable to someone who knows
or has interacted with the notes writer. A friend, family member, coworker, classmate,
or acquaintance may recognize these patterns of expression and possess
(14:58):
information that could help identify by the individual responsible. In
some cases, there are times when people who may have
knowledge initially do not come forward. This may be due
to their close relationships with those who might be involved,
as well as concern for their own safety, reputation, or
standing in the community and amongst their friends. We recognize
relationships and loyalties change over time, as do people and
(15:22):
their perspectives. It's not too late to come forward.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Although those are good and that's true right.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
I agree.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Maybe you've had a change of heart, is essentially what
he's saying. And it's been six months. Maybe they can
put something out again in ten months or every month anniversary,
however they want to do it. But that's a good
point and something good to point out ropes.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Also, the other thing that I thought was interesting in
those notes in I just went back and checked in
both of them.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
They kept saying we.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
So I'm curious if that is truly the case where
it was multiple people, or if he just or I
say he, But I guess that's fair because that's who
we saw depicted in that camera on her porch. But
I wonder or he's just trying to throw investigators off.
But he did use we the entire time.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I mean, I never imagine how this could be a
one person operation. He walked out of that house with
her and put her in what and they got into
what and headed where with whom? Who knows?
Speaker 3 (16:19):
That's true?
Speaker 1 (16:19):
The thing that jumped out wrote that I heard the
sheriff suggest at least that he believed the person, whoever
it is local. Right, There's been some connections and talk
about Mexico never really panned out, but it was the
first note said, after we get paid, you have her
within twelve hours.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
That's a good point.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Twelve hours is is close where is she was always
in the area, So now it's possible. The Tucson is
a what hour drive from the Mexican border, so sure
that's possible. A robes twelve hours is that's pretty local.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
It has to be.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
That's pretty local.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
Yes, and you mentioned the other money grab or the
other person who is trying to demand money from this situation. No,
not a ransom note to, not a kidnapper, but the
man who was initially detained. Remember that delivery driver DoorDash
driver who was detained for a few hours. Yeah, he
wants to be paid millions of dollars because of that
(17:18):
traumatic experience.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
That was a big story. We're like, whoa, this is it.
They detained somebody, They got a guy, and then the
next thing we know, I don't even know if authorities
announced first or we saw this press conference. This guy
had on his front porch and his mama's inside yelling
at him, and he's on the front answering questions about
(17:40):
being detained and already being released.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
But how long was he in He says he was
in police custody for seven to eight hours. And look,
police didn't name his name, they did not call him
a person of interest, they did not call him a suspect.
They said they were they were questioning. That's true someone,
and that was it. And look, obviously there were reporters everywhere,
and so when they saw police congregating at someone's home,
(18:06):
obviously there was piqued interest and there was there were
cameras around. But look, is it. Do you deserve millions
of dollars because police, yes, disrupted your life, brought you
into a holding area and interrogated you and then let
you go and did not charge you and did not
name you.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
Rops. He's asking for two and a half million for.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
His experience. I'm sure that's the imposition.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
That's just okay, I just I'm trying to leave space.
We're talking about this the other day. I want to
leave space for what his experience was and how he
was treated and what he think he's deserved. But yes,
he said that their possible litigation is coming, but we
can avoid all that if y'all just pay him two
point five million.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Correct what his lawyer said.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
And look, the other icky part about this is that
his mother, yes.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
The homeowner, his relatives.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
They were described does I don't know if it's mom
and brother or what the relations are, but they were
described as family members. But the woman who owns the
house and another male who lives there as well, are both.
He's seeking five hundred thousand because he says he was
handcuffed and under armed guard for hours. And then she
(19:20):
claims that her home there was damage to her home
in the raid, and she wants two hundred and fifty
thousand dollars. So in total, the family wants three point
twenty five million dollars from Pima County for their seven
hour traumatic experience.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
Yeah, it was traumatic as hell.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
That is a that's expensive, that's a that's a hard
day's work.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
God. But that is the update on this investigation obviously. Yeah, yeah, heart.
You can't imagine what that family continues to go through.
So that is the update for now. I don't they
didn't give us any anticipation robs of another one or
anything major. He keeps wanted to say that the case
isn't cold, but this is going to generate probably some
(20:02):
fresh leads.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
And that's the hope that maybe someone will Maybe this
wasn't chat GPT. Maybe someone says, holy hell, that's exactly
how my weird ass cousin talks.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
You never know.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
So the hope is that this will come with some
fresh new leads. And there's that one piece of DNA
left that they still have to separate and hopefully test,
and that's kind of the last glimmer of hope when
it comes to forensic evidence. So we hope at least
one of those two things provides a new lead for
investigators and certainly for the Guthrie family. And with that everyone,
(20:35):
we always appreciate you listening to us. I may need
robot alongside TJ.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
Holmes. We'll talk to some
Hey, folks, it is Saturday, August first, and we now
know the full text of the ransom notes that were
sent asking for millions of dollars in exchange for Nancy
Guthrie's return, And with that, welcome to this episode of
Amy and Tjes. This is a pretty significant update to
(00:23):
this investigation, to this case. It's not the clue that's
leading to her but robes. They're by releasing this, they're
hoping it will yes.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
And it makes sense because when we go through these
ransom notes, the words they use, the phrases they use,
how they spell things, all of that matters. People might
recognize a pattern someone that they know, someone that they love,
who speaks like that, who uses phrases like that. So
(00:52):
it makes sense because if you've got this image that
we have from that surveillance or that door cam that
they were able to find a few days after her disappearance,
if you pair that with this language, maybe it'll spark
some sort of recognition in someone.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Why not do it before? Now?
Speaker 2 (01:12):
I know, I'm surprised, actually, given these the uniqueness of
these ransom notes, I'm so surprised they wouldn't have released
these within a few weeks if not even a few days, maybe.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
They thought they still had a chance and this would
harm the investigation. But again, like you said that in
the following weeks, Okay, it's now six months. This weekend
is the six month anniversary of Nancy Guthrie, the last
time she was seen, the last time she was believed
to be alive. And yes, this is the six month
anniversary of her being taken. So we want to share
and Robes the other part of this as we share
(01:48):
these two notes now in the text of them, of
the other thing is I guess they're sharing these because
they believe there's a decent amount of credibility to them.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Yes, and I thought when we they actually kind of
they didn't have proof of life, but they had proof
that they were in her bedroom, and that made it
seem as if as if, yes, this is in fact
the kidnapper. Also of note, so she was last seen
January thirty first, but so she was reported missing February first.
By February second, they had a ransom note. That was
(02:17):
significant to me too to know that within and that
would make sense within the first twenty four hours they
had a demand for money, and that.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Was that maybe Robes that detail lends more to credibility
than anything, because at that point, on February second, we
were still getting caught up. It was it was not
the national and international phenomenon of a story that it
was yet, so robes if some random person, this was
not a random person who sees headlines and tried to
(02:46):
take advantage. This lends itself to somebody that was ready exactly.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
And I would also say that, yeah, before it was
a big deal and before anyone knew she was kidnapped. Remember,
people were thinking when it was first reported that Nancy
Guthrie was missing, it has to be the son in law,
it has to be her sister, it has to be
the folks who saw.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Her last, who were taking care of her. They owned
her money.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
But they also said she might have wandered off. A
lot of people thought.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
That, So people weren't immediately.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
In fact, I don't think many people were actually considering
some random kidnapping that would have been statistically speaking, one
of the least likely scenarios. So it wasn't until that ringcam,
that doorkam video was made to light that was the
first time people actually got behind and actually believed that
(03:34):
there was a kidnapper, so yet to have a ransom
note the next day absolutely.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Lends credibility to its authenticity.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
No, the other thing in credibility they came out. They
had to tell us pretty quickly, Robes, she can't walk
fifty feet without help, and that didn't lend itself to
her just getting up and walking out of that home
and wandering off somewhere. But this is the first note.
Now this was on February second, is when they at
police say they received this. Also of notes, there seemed
to be at least word of several notes that were
(04:03):
flying around. I believe a couple of TV stations said
they got them. TMZ said they got several, and we're
going back and forth with someone. But these two that
they believe are credible ropes came from the same and
were sent to the same TV station out there in Tucson, Kold.
This was the note authority say they got on February second.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Hello Savannah, we have your mother Nancy. She is safe
but scared. She will be held for ransom and once
payment is received, she will be released unharmed. We will
be holding her for a maximum of seven days. You
will need to send bitcoin to the amount of four
million US dollars before five pm on Thursday the fifth.
(04:44):
If payment is not received, the ransom will be increased
to six million US dollars, which will need to be
paid by five pm on Monday the ninth. Once payment
is received to the bitcoin addressed below, she will be
released within twelve hours of deposit to a safe drop
off location back in Tucson. If payment is not received
(05:07):
by the last deadline on Monday the ninth at five pm,
she will be killed. Your mother is aware of this,
and her life is in your hands. It is in
the best interest of everyone to have this completed as
soon as possible. You will not be able to contact
me from here on out. There will be no negotiation.
(05:27):
Do not play games. Law enforcement will not be able
to help you. She had a white smart watch on
the floor of the foot of her bed, and the
white floodlight in the backyard was destroyed.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
I don't bros, that's confirmation. How could they not take
that as confirmation?
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Then there's no one else who knew that at that point.
We didn't know the floodlights were destroyed by February second,
and we certainly wouldn't have known that there was a
white smart watch on the floor at the foot of
her bed.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Know how to go about like, how would authorities are
you supposed to go about that? I'm just remembering the
early days of this investigation, Robes, the very early days
where the information that was being put out did not
seem to lend itself to this type of urgency. And
I guess that was them trying to play the right
game with the kidnappers. For Rose hearing this, now, what
(06:23):
in God's name you remember the back and forth and
he did this press conference and not going to do
this when it seemed just a mess. This lends itself
to seriousness. We need to shut this down and figure
this out. What are they doing back and forth in
public robes. I'm confused because this seems to have told
them for sure she is taken. It is urgent, we
(06:43):
are working. We'll get back to you when we can roose.
Her life was on the line that day. What do
we do? Were they really trying to know, you're not
supposed to pay ransom? But were they really trying to
solve this crime and track this person down and didn't
take this?
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Guess I guess they're told not to pay right. I
mean that is the isn't that always the mode of operation?
That you should not pay in four million dollars in
bitcoin that you'll never get back in the hopes that
this person's telling the truth.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
What would you do, man.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Robes, I don't know. You would listen to investigators. You
would listen to what the FBI is telling you they
think you should do. Robes, that's an impossible position because
as a family, first of all, you're saying, do we
have it, we can pay it, let's do this. That's
what your first instinct is, Robes. They know the condition
of their mom. She can't be under this stress for
how many days.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
They told us that she did.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
If she did not have her heart medication within twenty
four hours, she would likely die.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
That is what they told us. That was the urgency.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
And so yes, you get this letter the next day
and you don't act on it. And you know, by
not acting on it, if this thing is real, that
your mom may die like that is, as you put,
an impossible situation.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
So kold TV got another note four days later, on
February the sixth, So February, why don't remember this? February
first was a Sunday.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
February sixth is my birthday, so I know it was
a Friday.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
This is the Friday, so this is all happening in
the same week. She's taken on a Sunday, first note
on a Monday, and then the next note, the follow
up to the same TV station. Ropes came on February sixth.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
And this one is dark. It says Guthrie family. We
did not fully grasp the seriousness of her physical condition.
We never intended to hurt her. That was not our intention.
She perished shortly after she was taken. We believe it
was heart related. She is buried in nature.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
Now.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Nothing you could have done could have changed the outcome.
We want your family to know this and hope you
all can find peace. We are truly sorry. Wow, what
the what the hell? This sounds like a kind person
who is sending flowers, and that makes sense when we
hear Savannah and her siblings put out these. It seemed
(09:15):
at the time, while they were cryptic messages speaking to
this person directly.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Now it all makes sense.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
They were trying to say, we know you're a good person,
we know you didn't mean for this to happen. They're
trying to appeal to that kinder side that was displayed
in this second note.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Do you remember that line we received your message and
we understand.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
I remember her saying that very early on. All of
us were like, what the actual hell does that mean? Ope,
she got this message on February sixth. We're just seeing
it now. Wow, this is so and I the tone
is really striking, Robes. And we have no intention of
hurting her, and we already said we threatened to kill
her that those two things didn't really fly. But this
(09:58):
Robes is written, uh, sincerely, eloquently, professionally, politely.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
She perished shortly after she was taken.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
People don't talk like speaks like that, right, Yeah, I
don't even know if they chat, GPT did or something.
But it does feel a little robotic, but also kind
and sincere at the same time. So that's why I
was thinking, maybe this is AI generated, Like what do
I say to a family who I stole or I
(10:29):
kidnapped their mom and she died by accident.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
She is buried in nature, now, Roes.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
And who says that, like, really, truly, no one. I
don't know anyone who talks like that or writes like that.
It's so strange it is.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
I didn't think about the AI option. Maybe this was,
but I just people don't talk like this, and certainly not.
I don't know kidnappers, no offense to kidnappers out there,
but you.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Were worried about it ending kidnappers? Right now?
Speaker 1 (10:54):
What they also do? I can't imagine someone who was
that guy at the front door that we've seen on
ren cam saying yes, she perished. I never intended to
hurt her.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
We didn't fully grasp the seriousness of her physical condition.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
What no one speaks like that.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Yeah, we didn't know how bad off she was, right
you you taught? Yeah, so this one, what do you
do with that? But yes, it's why they keep making
an appeal rose to someone's better angels, because they believe
they have them, Because it appears they have even displayed
it to some degree.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Yes, and I think that is why they The reward
for one point two million dollars is out there for
information about her whereabouts, not about the person who kidnapped her,
not about convicting the person who kidnapped her. But it's
just to find where she is, to not know, to
know that your mom's somewhere out in a field in
(11:46):
a desert, and it's just there's something about that. Yeah,
they want to bring her home, they want to have
a funeral, they want to have a place to go
pay their respects to and just think that she's just
been left somewhere out in nature.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
She'll be found, you know these things. Just people stumble
upon stuff all the time. Where is it just she'll
be found. Just don't know when, and don't know if
this person is ever going to come forward and give
that information, but they do. They again, I dismiss it
now robes like the sincerity or whatever I hear in there?
(12:23):
It does? Is it ai'ed? You have me thinking that
now it sounded.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
It sounds robotic yet sincere, which to me would equal ai.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
But what do I know?
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Well, why why we just talked? It's been six months
this weekend to the day since she was taken, So
why they decide to put it out now? Stay here,
we'll let you hear from the PEMA Count of Sheriff.
They put out a press release explaining why they think
this is so important. Also, there was another Nancy Guthrie
investigation headline this week, another demand for money, this one
(12:54):
coming from the guy who was wrongly arrested. Stay here
all right? We continue here on Amy and TJ two
ransom notes. The text of those ransom notes for Nancy
Guthrie has been released, the Sheriff's office, releasing them now
(13:16):
here on the six month anniversary of her being taken roads.
I guess they are still trying to keep up interest
in this case by releasing the stuff. And they want
folks to possibly recognize something and how the person was writing.
Did the person write that?
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (13:36):
I know, now you're like, what it is?
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Chat GPT And they did it on purpose so that
someone could not figure out their quote. Distinctive patterns of
word choice, syntax, and phraseology that reflect the writer's unique
linguistic style. That's what they are hoping will happen. But
if it is a computer generated letter, then there's no
way they're going to be Isn't that crazy?
Speaker 3 (13:57):
You have to consider that now these days, like.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
That wouldn't even be a thought bubble for anyone even
five years ago.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Right, I don't know how to recognize that. You. I
look at that and go, what the actual hell? And
they said, who talks like that? And they said, oh,
maybe nobody talks like that?
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Right, And If that's the case, this isn't gonna let
much insight now. The first one did seem human. The
first one did seem to be I didn't feel robotic,
the second one did. This is from the PMA County
Sheriff's Department. This was their press release. They said the
notes also provide valuable insight into the person's mindset, motives,
(14:36):
and the evolution of their tone over time. As with
the unidentified male depicted in the video, we believe these
distinctive linguistic characteristics may be recognizable to someone who knows
or has interacted with the notes writer. A friend, family member, coworker, classmate,
or acquaintance may recognize these patterns of expression and possess
(14:58):
information that could help identify by the individual responsible. In
some cases, there are times when people who may have
knowledge initially do not come forward. This may be due
to their close relationships with those who might be involved,
as well as concern for their own safety, reputation, or
standing in the community and amongst their friends. We recognize
relationships and loyalties change over time, as do people and
(15:22):
their perspectives. It's not too late to come forward.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Although those are good and that's true right.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
I agree.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Maybe you've had a change of heart, is essentially what
he's saying. And it's been six months. Maybe they can
put something out again in ten months or every month anniversary,
however they want to do it. But that's a good
point and something good to point out ropes.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Also, the other thing that I thought was interesting in
those notes in I just went back and checked in
both of them.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
They kept saying we.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
So I'm curious if that is truly the case where
it was multiple people, or if he just or I
say he, But I guess that's fair because that's who
we saw depicted in that camera on her porch. But
I wonder or he's just trying to throw investigators off.
But he did use we the entire time.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I mean, I never imagine how this could be a
one person operation. He walked out of that house with
her and put her in what and they got into
what and headed where with whom? Who knows?
Speaker 3 (16:19):
That's true?
Speaker 1 (16:19):
The thing that jumped out wrote that I heard the
sheriff suggest at least that he believed the person, whoever
it is local. Right, There's been some connections and talk
about Mexico never really panned out, but it was the
first note said, after we get paid, you have her
within twelve hours.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
That's a good point.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Twelve hours is is close where is she was always
in the area, So now it's possible. The Tucson is
a what hour drive from the Mexican border, so sure
that's possible. A robes twelve hours is that's pretty local.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
It has to be.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
That's pretty local.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
Yes, and you mentioned the other money grab or the
other person who is trying to demand money from this situation. No,
not a ransom note to, not a kidnapper, but the
man who was initially detained. Remember that delivery driver DoorDash
driver who was detained for a few hours. Yeah, he
wants to be paid millions of dollars because of that
(17:18):
traumatic experience.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
That was a big story. We're like, whoa, this is it.
They detained somebody, They got a guy, and then the
next thing we know, I don't even know if authorities
announced first or we saw this press conference. This guy
had on his front porch and his mama's inside yelling
at him, and he's on the front answering questions about
(17:40):
being detained and already being released.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
But how long was he in He says he was
in police custody for seven to eight hours. And look,
police didn't name his name, they did not call him
a person of interest, they did not call him a suspect.
They said they were they were questioning. That's true someone,
and that was it. And look, obviously there were reporters everywhere,
and so when they saw police congregating at someone's home,
(18:06):
obviously there was piqued interest and there was there were
cameras around. But look, is it. Do you deserve millions
of dollars because police, yes, disrupted your life, brought you
into a holding area and interrogated you and then let
you go and did not charge you and did not
name you.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
Rops. He's asking for two and a half million for.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
His experience. I'm sure that's the imposition.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
That's just okay, I just I'm trying to leave space.
We're talking about this the other day. I want to
leave space for what his experience was and how he
was treated and what he think he's deserved. But yes,
he said that their possible litigation is coming, but we
can avoid all that if y'all just pay him two
point five million.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Correct what his lawyer said.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
And look, the other icky part about this is that
his mother, yes.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
The homeowner, his relatives.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
They were described does I don't know if it's mom
and brother or what the relations are, but they were
described as family members. But the woman who owns the
house and another male who lives there as well, are both.
He's seeking five hundred thousand because he says he was
handcuffed and under armed guard for hours. And then she
(19:20):
claims that her home there was damage to her home
in the raid, and she wants two hundred and fifty
thousand dollars. So in total, the family wants three point
twenty five million dollars from Pima County for their seven
hour traumatic experience.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
Yeah, it was traumatic as hell.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
That is a that's expensive, that's a that's a hard
day's work.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
God. But that is the update on this investigation obviously. Yeah, yeah, heart.
You can't imagine what that family continues to go through.
So that is the update for now. I don't they
didn't give us any anticipation robs of another one or
anything major. He keeps wanted to say that the case
isn't cold, but this is going to generate probably some
(20:02):
fresh leads.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
And that's the hope that maybe someone will Maybe this
wasn't chat GPT. Maybe someone says, holy hell, that's exactly
how my weird ass cousin talks.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
You never know.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
So the hope is that this will come with some
fresh new leads. And there's that one piece of DNA
left that they still have to separate and hopefully test,
and that's kind of the last glimmer of hope when
it comes to forensic evidence. So we hope at least
one of those two things provides a new lead for
investigators and certainly for the Guthrie family. And with that everyone,
(20:35):
we always appreciate you listening to us. I may need
robot alongside TJ.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
Holmes. We'll talk to some
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com