February 25, 2026 • 41 mins
Part 2: The Nancy Guthrie kidnapping case has sparked national interest as the days continue to add up. As of today, Nancy Guthrie has been missing 25 days. Joseph Scott Morgan and Dave Mack look at the forensic evidence left behind inside the house as well as articles of evidence found by local citizens trying to help find the 84-year-old mother of Today Show Co-Host, Savannah Guthrie.
Transcribe Highlights
00:00.07 Introduction Guthrie Part 2
02:22.10 DNA Profile didn't get hit in CODIS
07:43.42 DNA Profile in feces in a dry toilet
11:31.21 Getting a sample
15:53.69 What is "touch" DNA
20:07.83 Trying to understand movements of suspect and victim
24:58.58 Too many people involved
30:46.46 Tucson Couple finds bloody glove near scene
35:18.30 FBI did not respond as quickly as hoped
40:08.54 Reason agents leak talent contract terms
41:19.73 Conclusion
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Quality times with Joseph Scott Morgan. Hi friends, this is
continuing coverage of the Nancy Guthrie case, and we're gonna
do a deep dive now as we begin to consider
some of the evidence that may have been collected and
(00:23):
maybe some of it that was not. I'm Josephcott Morgan
and this is Body Backs Brother Dave. We had a
rather healthy conversation I think in our first episode talking
about Nancy Guthrie, you know, kind of reflecting over all
(00:44):
of the stuff that's floating around out there relative to
this poor woman.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
There's so much information, Joe, and you know, you and
I have covered the case since it began, and there
are a lot of different aspects to the case. In
the previous episode where we dealt with intruders in the house,
how long were they possibly and there is there a day?
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Is it plural?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
But there are other aspects of this case, Joe, that
are coming to the forefront, and in particular it's DNA.
And I think the part that always amazes me when
we talk about DNA is people assume wrongly that once
you have DNA, you've got the culprit. And granted you
(01:28):
might have something and you might have somebody, but unless
their DNA is in the system, meaning somebody's been arrested
or applied for a job that required it. I mean,
any number of ways that you get your DNA in
the system, but if it's not there, then you end
up with what we did at the very beginning of
this with DNA taking from the glove tested, put into codas,
(01:54):
came back with nothing.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
I could see. I could see everybody getting all jacked
up over this CODIS submission, Okay, and I'm thinking, got
to tell you don't get too don't get too excited
about this, you know, whatever you do, don't you know,
don't go down this road where you think that it's
this is going to be the magic bullet. And guess
(02:16):
what the profile that they got, whatever, whatever the point
of origin of the thing was that was generated down
in Florida and then entered into the CODA system that
the FBI controls, they didn't get a hit. And it's
just not surprising because you're you're your field is very limited. Okay.
(02:41):
You think about, you know, who is in the CODA system,
and you've got a collection of people that are associated
with a variety of different types of crimes and dependent
upon the jurisdiction, they're going to take samples of suspects
and people that have been convicted and all these sorts
of things. Well, your pool is kind of small, okay
(03:04):
from that perspective, and then you've got the other section
of CODIS. For folks that don't know, you have a
section that's it. Traditionally it has been referred to as
the forensic category. And what that means is that you've
got unknown DNA that has been collected at a variety
of scenes, and this is kind of dumped into CODIS.
(03:24):
And what you look for that is if they develop
a pattern, well, if they develop a profile of that individual,
even though they might not know the name, they know
that with multiple depositions at different types of crime scenes,
you've developed a pattern. Here you know this person is
showing up here, here, here, here, and here. You just
(03:45):
don't have a name to go along with the individual.
So that's kind of how the categories break down. They
didn't get a hit on it, and so where we left, well,
we're left with our friends at Authorm. Now we'll get
back to Othram in just a minute, but we need
(04:05):
to go back and really consider Dave how the DNA
was collected. This is still kind of a mystery because
if you think about the house, correct me if I'm wrong, brother,
But they talk about there's multiple I think multiple contributors
inside of the house. We know, you know, everybody that
(04:30):
listens to true crime, has watches television shows. You know
that our standard line is that you expect to find
the occupant of the residents. You expect to find her
DNA there, right and anybody within her intimate circle. Intimate
circle can mean her immediate family, It can also mean housekeepers,
it can mean people that have kind of moved through
(04:51):
the space that worked there for her. And then you've
got these unknowns. But they're saying that there were like
multiple known different profiles that were in there. Am I correct?
Speaker 2 (05:02):
That's my understanding of it so far, and that's what
is being tested further. I'm glad you mentioned that cotis
is not the end. Cotis is very you know, hey, man,
we're going to put it in there first just because
but you know, we've gone something that you mentioned about
the collection of DNA and it's not even known as
(05:24):
kind of as John Doe Jane do type stuff. We
don't know who it is, but we've got it over
here associated with X crime. And then we have another
crime over here, and we actually had a case and
I'm trying to remember which one it was, but it
started out with a John Doe warrant based on a
DNA profile that had been created from multiple crime scenes,
even though they didn't have the person matched to it yet,
(05:45):
but they knew that this person, the same person did
this crime, this crime, and this crime. You've got the
same DNA at all three places. So in this particular case,
Joe and I'm very curious as to where where it
goes because we've got the FBI, local police, the deputies,
the sheriff's office, but we've also got the FBI lab,
(06:08):
the Florida lab that pe mccounty uses and now author them,
and we have at least inside the home one one
sample that they the investigators have found that has multiple
contributors to this DNA. And my whole thought pattern here
(06:32):
is we don't know exactly what they have. Is it blood,
is it spit, It's just I guess some of us
get to I get confused. I'm going to say that
I get a little confused with talking about DNA because
I'm thinking blood, you know that. You I'm just thinking,
so there must have been a blood spot right here.
It's like, no, well, okay, maybe he hawked alugi over there,
(06:56):
you know that kind of thing. And it's like, really,
what are we dealing with here? I mean it, how
do you find it?
Speaker 1 (07:01):
You can see it? Yeah, I wish it was that simple. Uh.
And and listen, I mean there there have been cases
out there where you can't have blood. You can literally
find uh DNA contained within uh within something someone has
coughed up. You mentioned a loogie. Uh. There are people
(07:23):
that spit at scenes. Uh, you can there there been
you know, cases and I was asked to consult on
a case uh some time back where an individual had
left a deposition let's say it that way of feces
(07:45):
and a dry toilet. Oh come on now, Yeah, somebody
had broken into a house where the water had been
cut off and they'd been robbing the house and that
sort of stuff. Anyway, and you can get that because
you know, and you know, even with the fecal sample,
you know, there's a shedding. There's a shedding that takes
(08:05):
place the lining of the intestine, and many people do
in fact have even though it's it's it's not going
to be necessarily obvious to the human eye. But there
is blood deposition, you know, in in in feces as well.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
There's something that you guys don't know. But every time
we talk about vecal matter on this program, I'm meaning
a Reese's peanut butter, Joe finds that out and does
it every time.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
No, no, I'm not that cruel, but no, no. But
you know, there's any there's those obvious things, and then
you know, you get into the world of touch DNA,
but you also have like for instance, I'll give you
I'll give you an example, and this is not touched DNA.
Let's use the example of someone has spit, okay, or
(08:53):
they've sweat. They've sweated, and that's going to be clear.
It's not necessarily you you might not know it's on
the surface, but you are going to have to swab
that area. And so one of the ways that this
is collected is that with you have to take a
dry swab, okay, and this is a swab that is protected,
(09:18):
it's sealed. You know, think about like a cotton swab, right, like, yeah,
yeah it is, and you you you have to have
it that is packaged, Like it's not like it's not
like you're going to use the same swab over and
over again. It's like once the swab is used, you
collect it and then it goes back to the lab.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Do you have to document like I got this swab,
it's number three hundred and fifty eight.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Hell to the yeah, yes, yes, yes, And that's one
of the that's one of kind of the tedious things
that you do at scenes like every time. Like say,
for instance, if you're going to swab a specific area,
that swab will be will have a number or an
(10:03):
identifier with it, and also it will concurrently have a location,
like where was this retrieved from? Like you can say, okay,
like I'm sitting here at my desk, I can say
that it's from the left corner of my desk. Le's
not sufficient. I have say that it is the left
corner of my desk, but it's actually beneath the desk, okay,
(10:27):
the lip of the desk. I can't just say the
left corner of my desk because both of these areas.
Think about if you're sitting at a table right now,
put your hand on the table on the edge, and
you think about, well, if I contact the underside of
my desk, that's completely different than the top side where
I'm placing my thumb. Okay, So you and then if
(10:49):
you're talking about your hand going under it, well you've
got four points of contact just with your fingers there
and your finger pads, and then you know your hand.
Do you touch the heel of your hand? And I'm
talking about just this is just one example of grabbing
the edge of the table. All right, maybe you're lifting
(11:10):
yourself up. Remember how we talked about previously about getting
in and out of a car. Things you don't think about,
all right, So you take you take a bit of
a bit of like it's sterile water, Okay, that you
it's distilled water, and it's sterile, and you have to
put one droplet of this distilled water onto the surface
(11:35):
of the swab that you're going to use, Okay, and
then you take it and you swab that area. Once
that area is swabbed, that swab itself goes into a container,
so it is contained, and that swab is is stand alone,
(11:55):
a standalone bit of evidence. So if they do find
a profile there, I'm really getting into the weeds here.
But if they do find a profile here, that profile
has to be specifically identified that comes back to the
corner of that table. Is it on the top side
of the bottom side. And so when this goes to court,
remember how I talked about the twelve jurors in our classroom, right,
(12:17):
So when it goes to court, the expert that gets
up on the stand, first off, you will have had
the crime scene tech, and the crime scene tech will
not be doesn't wear the white lab coat. They're not
there to talk about, you know, building out the profile.
You will have to have them testify to the fact
that they collected it there, all right. Phil mice and
(12:41):
labratts is what we call them at Jack State. So
I've got my kids that are the phil mice that
go out and actually collect evidence. Well, that individual has
to get on the stand and say, you know, agent Smith,
where did you get this from? Well, I got it
from this position on the desk, and when did you
submit it? We refer to my report. I submitted it,
(13:03):
you know here, and this is the nomenclature that it has,
and it was sent to the lab where you know
technician or laboratory scientists. Jones picked it up well to
follow up with that laboratory, you know, technician Jones has
to get on stand and say, okay, so I processed,
(13:24):
I processed Agent Smith's swab that they collected, and this
is a profile we built out. You see how tedious
this is, but it's so very exacting day and it
has to be that way because with those movements, with
every movement that takes place at Missus Guthrie's house, there
(13:45):
are points of contact, and from those points of contact,
we don't need to visualize necessarily the individual moving through
the space. We can scientifically and by the way, more importantly,
numerically quantify and demonstrate that they were in this space,
(14:09):
this space, this space, this space, in this space within
her residence and she's missing. Okay, So it's up to
now that the forensics people cannot explain why the person
was in the house. That's not what we do. Do.
Not confuse what is done in the lab with explanation
(14:36):
as to the individual being there. You're not going to
get that from a forensic scientist. That's just not that's
not how they roll. Okay. It is in fact up
to the detectives, you know, that are kind of piecing
together timeline and all that stuff. They'll integrate that into
the packet and then the prosecutor has to you know,
(14:57):
hold forth on it. Hopefully they're sufficient to the task,
because it gets very very complex looking at this poor
woman's home, and you know, going back to what we
had said earlier about the amount of time that is
spent within this environment, I think that it's plausible that
(15:23):
something could have been left behind at this point in time.
Though we don't know what the nature of this DNA
that has been left behind, because if it's touched DNA,
that means that that's coming from dead skin cells. And
that's only a partial, a partial of a strand okay,
(15:44):
because it's well, it's dead skin cells. You know, it's
degraded to a certain extent.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Can you explain this a little bit, Joe, Yeah, sure, DNA?
What is touch DNA? I mean, we got gloves. The
guy that in this particular case, Nancy's pointed out guys
and gloves, he's reaching up to his mouth for the
mouth flashlight thing. Maybe he's rubbing an eyebrow, he's itching,
you know something, and he gets on the gloves. Then
(16:08):
when the suspect goes in the house, touching the door,
the door knob and all of that. I'm assuming that's
what we're talking about.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
With No, we're not. There's two separate things. I'm glad
you brought this up and clear it up. Man. Here's
why if okay, even though let's just say, you know,
with the example of the light, okay, from the mouth,
if you grab that out of your mouth and you've
got spittle on on on this thing, which you would,
(16:42):
and that transfers to gloves, that is not even though
if you touch the surface and yet there's touching, it's
tactile that goes on. That does not translate into being
touched DNA. That's transfer of DNA rich material. So it's
not degraded. I'm using degraded very broadly here. So just
(17:06):
understand that with touch DNA, what they're saying is, and
I heard somebody had used this term. I found this
quite fascinating. Maybe maybe it'll help people, I don't know.
They describe touch DNA as DNA confetti, and I found
that kind of interesting because yeah, and what they mean
(17:28):
is like you're sloughing skin cells, and skin cells obviously
contain DNA, but they're dead, so there's a different way
of processing touch DNA as opposed to DNA rich material
like a droplet of blood, saliva, feces semen sweat any
(17:50):
of that or a piece of tissue, Okay, which does happen?
You know, that's different than the touch DNA. So if
what they're taught talking about with deposition here is it
saliva you know from the you know what everybody's talking
about right now, that has been transferred over to a
glove or is it they didn't put enough jurgins on. Okay,
(18:14):
And they've got dry skin cells that are falling off,
and all of the sleptest stuff day today today today,
I mean it goes on like if you could go
like into your bedroom and even though you've got fresh sheets,
your sheets are covered with dead skin cells. That really
(18:35):
adds a creep factor state in a hotel, doesn't it. Yeah? Okay,
because everywhere you touch, everywhere, you know, all the stuff
is contacting, you know, in every single environment. And so
it's not surprising that they found multiple profiles. It's just
you know, what's the source of it, how rich was it?
And also profiles the type of evidence. DNA evidence tells
(19:00):
you a lot about the actions of the person. Okay,
it's one thing to passively have. I don't know, I'll
use the term again, DNA confetti, where you've got dead
skin cells just kind of floating about, you know whatnot.
I always think about DNA confetti. It's like, you know,
in the summertime, when the sunlight's coming through and you
see the dust particles, you know, kind of dancing around
in the sunlight beams. I'm thinking that as opposed to,
(19:25):
you know, if you've got deposition of blood, well, what
was going on here? What was the action that caused
somebody to spontaneously deposit blood? They got a hole in
their body? Are they coughing up blood? Is there an
esophageal versee that they've blown out in there, you know,
in their esophagus, Which is the horrible stories that we
(19:45):
can talk about later on, you know, is it is
it sweat? You know, they're wiping their brow and they're
smearing it everywhere. And again, you know, this goes to
it goes to trying to understan and what the movements
of both the victim and potential perpetrator work to. You
(20:21):
and I both have dogs. Okay, Now we walk outside
and we tracked through dog pooh. Okay. And the reason
I know this is that this happened recently. My precious
granddaughter was over at my house. Which you know, if
I had both my grandbabies here all the time, I'd
(20:44):
be even happier than I am right now. But so
she she went outside and stepped in some of Kevin's deposition,
and I'll say my labrador walked back in the house,
(21:04):
looked at her brother and said, wow, something smells. He
walks over. He walks over and steps in the deposition
that she left behind on my hardwood floors. Now it's
transferred to him, and then he gets it on Gammy
(21:25):
and Papa's runner in the hallway, our carpet. It was
a lovely day. But do you see how that you
know that kind of that's a really kind of over
the top example, but it is the same. It is
the same kind of principle here. It goes back to
the card.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Yeah, so you really could have somebody with no real
connection to this house whatsoever, having I could actually say, Joe,
I've never even been inside the woman's house. But I
shook hands with the cop that I hadn't seen in
ten years, and he was in the scene and it
wasn't all locked up at the time, and while he
was there, he didn't have gloves on. Yeah, so now
(22:05):
he has touched he put me at the scene of
the crime, and I got a alibi.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
Yeah, theoretically it could. It could transpire that way. And
you know, our our supposition is that every time a
criminal or people walk working the scene. If like, if
I leave my house and I'm a crime scene investigator
and I get into my vehicle, I'm bringing a bit
(22:31):
of my house with me. We all do no matter
where you go, and you're going to leave some of
that behind. If you go to the grocery market, you're
going to take some of you into the store. Any
can you handle on the shelf you're touching that. And
(22:52):
also is it possible, and this is a question a
lawyer would ask, is it possible that if you picked
up a can of student tomatoes in my little market
that I go to that someone else's touch, could I
transferred their DNA onto my hands? Yeah? Yeah, yeah, as plausible.
I mean, it is within the realm possibility because it's
very it's very fragile, but it's it will contact the
(23:15):
surface and you can't try I just don't know how
much of a deposition you would get. So theoretically, yeah,
it is possible.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
But still there would still be an expectation that that's
not all you would find. I mean, if you had that,
that is one thing, but you would expect over a
crime scene to find more than just this one littles back.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Yeah, yeah, And how much time are you going to
take to do this? And here's here's the rub, as
the Bard would say, the rub is how thoroughly did
you go through the house the first time. I'm going
(23:56):
to let that hang in the air just for a
second and then you release it. Oh and now Eert
is going to show up the Evidence response team from
the FBI. What are they going to do inside of
the environment? Are they going to go in and do
their own collection, you know, after the fact. Has it
(24:16):
been compromised? Are they you know? And you're thinking, oh,
I know what they'll do. They'll go and look in
different places. Okay, that's possible. They can look in different places.
If they look in these different places, they turn out
to not be different. And the originals have they compromised
it in any way? Is it degraded in any way?
(24:37):
And these are the problems. You know, I'm a worry
ward anyway, and so I'm looking at this and I'm
thinking about problems down the line from not just a
scientific standpoint, but from a prosecutorial standpoint. And not that
I'm a prosecutor, but if a prosecutor came to me
and said, is there a problem with this? I would
say not yeah, but hell yeah, there's a problem with this,
(24:59):
because again we go back to you know, too many
cooks in the kitchen spoil the soup. And that's why
that's why, you know, I use these I use these terms,
you know, and particularly with like Guthrie, you know, I'm
thinking this should be treated as a surgical suite where
(25:21):
you have you have a you know, we've heard the
term evidence custodian, which generally applies to the person that
controls the evidence, like that's in all of the evidence
lockers and all that stuff. You know, at a back
of the police station or crime lab. There should be
and they wouldn't be called this way. It'd probably be
a crom scene manager. But you need to have a
(25:42):
crom scene custodian and this person overlords who's going to
come in and out and that should be the chief,
the lead detective in the case, and also the senior
crim scene investigator. So this is how it plays out.
There is a very very narrow limited group of people
(26:04):
that should walk on to any crime scene. Not your
brother in law, not your sister in law, not your
curious neighbor that wants to come out. It should only
be not the sheriff. You hear what I'm saying. Not
the sheriff. I don't care if he's the high sheriff.
(26:24):
I don't care if the sack which is senior agent
in charge for the FBI for Tucson or Phoenix, shows up.
They should not come onto the crime scene. That's not
their purview. You have specific people that are trained to
process a crom scene and that's all that should go.
And that's why you hire them. That's why you pay
all the money to train them. They should be trained
(26:46):
up to the point where they know what to do,
and you cut them loose and let them do their job.
But what it comes down to is accountability. Well, are
you going to account for all of the fingers in
the proverbial pot of soup? The fact that the Guthrie
(27:22):
case has taken place in the desert or in the
desert area is not lost on me. And and here's
why I think it's a great It's got kind of
a meaning, an underlying meaning or or visual visual element
to it.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
From me.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
You think about being lost in the desert, and everything
looks the same to a certain degree. It's not like
being out in the ocean. But still, I guess the
big question, Dave, is where do we go from here? Ah?
And it's not all gloom and doom on my part.
(28:05):
I'm holding out hope that we'll have answers from a
scientific standpoint. Now, I cannot address on any level Nancy
Guthrie's status. Okay, that's that's not what my comments are
about here. I have my own thoughts about that, and
we can talk about that at another time. However, I
(28:27):
think that that for us, you know, having this chat,
that's my brit friends like to say, having a chin
wag about it.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
It's crazy, though, Joe, that as you look at this
where we have we've got detectives from different departments. We've
got the FBI, we've got the Sheriff's Department, We've got
three different labs, the FBI, Florida and AUTHORM. It doesn't
sound like it's the best organization possible. That the it
(29:04):
doesn't seem to me like we have a direct line
of communication and consistent because they're all different. And I
would think in an investigation of this sort that there
has to be there has to be a line to follow.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
Yea, you exert. Yeah, I got to hang on one second.
You you drop some knowledge on me. I really won't
want to hear hear you say this because it was
striking to me for me personally, and particularly the way
you can tell it. The story about that has surfaced
in the last couple of days. I think about the
(29:44):
found bloody glove and the and the rock. Can you
kind of give us a little insight and again this
kind of gives you, for me broad view, Uh, it
gives us kind of an idea of where we are
are in the situation.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Well, in covering this case, many of us have watched
between the sheriff who seems to be infatuated with the
camera and loves to say things that are not right
and then thinks it's okay to just say, well, if
I say the wrong thing, it's because I made a mistake,
Like that's okay to do and we have the FBI.
(30:26):
Many of us have said, you know, back away your
local talent and let's let the experts get in here
and do their job. Because we have a couple from Tucson,
Arizona that finds what appears to be a bloody glove
less than a mile from Nancy Guthrie's home. Now, as
(30:50):
you know, listening to this show, you've heard Joe and
I talked about this guy. I've asked him, why don't
you call something blood when you know it's blood? And
Joe will say, because we don't know it's blood until
it's been tested. It could be a lot of things
that look like blood. So when a regular person like
you and me finds a bloody glove, we're going with
(31:11):
what we observe it to be and what we think
it is. But still, if you call the FBI, because
if you're living in Tucson right now, all these numbers
are everywhere, you know, for the FBI, call this for
Sherif's burm, I call this for you know, they're everywhere.
So these local Tucson heights find what appears to be
(31:32):
a bloody glove less than a mile from Nancy Guthrie's house,
and they call the FBI, Hey just found this bloody glove,
Holy moly, and the FBI puts them on hold, gives
them the run around, don't know if we can get
out there and pick it up, don't yeah, I mean
they're actually saying this to somebody, a bloody glove less
(31:53):
than a mile from Nancy Guthrie's home, and the FBI
is saying, I don't know if we can get out
there and call it. So they get blown off a
little bit. They call the sheriff's department, and this time
there's a little more interest, but nobody seems like they're
in a hurry to get out there. So finally this
(32:14):
couple who found again I'm going to repeat this, what
appears to be a bloody glove next to bloody rock
less than a mile from Nancy Guthrie's house.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
They find.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
This couple finally calls nine to one one Joe, and
that's when they finally get results. Somebody shows up, I
mean right away, two detectives show up. But it took them,
this couple three different phone calls before they could get
somebody to actually treat it with seriousness. That is really
(32:50):
frustrating for those of us who have been spending a
lot of time trying to cover this story in such
a way that we're look, man, we're I'm not knocking
what anybody does, you know, in terms of how they
go about their day making money. However you can, whether
it's you know, on TikTok or whatever, I don't care.
(33:10):
I mean, go for it, you know. But there are
some of us who actually have devoted our lives to broadcasting,
to forensics, to crime. We've devoted the time necessary to
weed out the garbage from the truth. And yet we
get a story like this, Yeah that nobody, you know,
the FBI shares for nobody wanted to collect up a
(33:32):
bloody possible bloody glove.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Come on, Joe. It kind of reinforces a narrative, doesn't it. Yes,
it does. Yeah, And that's that's very sad. And here
here's one other thing, uh, you know, when you're looking
at and this is just the example that we know
of that's being reported right now, and that's that story
(33:55):
I think is actually coming from local Tucson uh Tucson
area uh television uh channel hang on, Oh yeah, k
v o A is is the you know where that
story actually originated. From. I think here's I got a
(34:17):
question for you. Why And I know you said the
numbers are up, but why is it that? Mhm? What'd
you call them to Tucson Nights?
Speaker 2 (34:30):
So I don't know what their names are, you know,
people who live there.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
I'm just trying to nail it down. Why would what
would a couple from Tucson, why would their first inclination
be called FBI? I mean, I don't know. I mean,
is this getting into the zeitgeist because you you know,
is it surrounding there is a zeitgeist that's that's you know,
been created here, you know, because of all this.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
I've been reading a lot of local stuff in Tucson. Yeah,
and a lot of people are pretty embarrassed by their sheriff.
And that's why I think it came about.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
Yeah, and so their their first inclination is called the FBI. Well,
you know, you put your number out there, talking to
you feeds, you know, you need to be responsive. And
this was this was only a few days in. I mean,
this is not like something that happened weeks later. So
there was already there was always something that there was
(35:31):
already something floating through the air. I think you know,
but you know, this is just one of the examples
that you know, hurdles and listen, we're going to find
out we'll hear more relative to these little, you know,
kind of dramas that go on. It has you have
(35:52):
to have them because the media feeds off of that.
They love the drama of it. But it still doesn't
get us necessarily closer to h Nancy Guthrie. You're still
left watching a Punch and Judy show on the side,
and this woman is still out there. I think probably forensically,
I'm I'm hopeful, and of course I'm very partial. I'm
(36:16):
very hopeful that David and Kristen Middleman at Authroam Labs
will will be an answer to this regarding investigative genetic genealogy,
and if for no other reason, I think one of
(36:40):
the things I'm excited about is that a lot of
people that didn't know anything about IgG as a result
of this case, people are studying it now, they're understanding it.
And the more more eyes you get on this technology,
you begin to kind of, you know, get a grip on,
you know, what we have as potential crime solving tools,
(37:05):
you know, and I'm talking, I'm not talking about people
that sit around and create true crome. Uh, you know
copy every day. I'm talking about people, you know, average
person walking down the street. Now, they're really vested in it.
I think that if they can take in you know,
you and I've covered the cases day where we have
(37:27):
greatly degraded DNA, the AUTHORAM has gotten their hands on
and they you know, I love to use term conjured.
They literally conjure somebody up out of this and it's
not a facsimile. It's like something that's real, you know.
They breathe life back into it, even with ages old DNA.
This is this fresh sample, Bubba. You know, this is
(37:50):
fresh sample we're talking about. This is not you know,
like our woman in the well case. This is not
something that happened in in the you know, immediately following
World War One. All right, this is actually something that
is fresh. I'm hopeful as well about the digital evidence
that they've collected, and we still don't know a lot,
(38:13):
you know, everything that might be at play here. That
the Google drop was kind of interesting about whoever it
was that was doing the searches, which is something again,
tech is not necessarily that kind of tech is not
necessarily my Bailey Wick. But the fact that you've got
somebody that's seeking out you know.
Speaker 2 (38:33):
Her Nancy Guthrie's address in Savannah Guthrie's income.
Speaker 1 (38:37):
Yeah, exactly, and again and they live in Tucson, Joe.
Speaker 2 (38:39):
Yeah, the person that did this search lived in Tucson,
Arizona and did this search back in June or July.
That to me, I'm gonna be honest, man, if you
didn't do it, if that person didn't do it, I
want to know why were you looking?
Speaker 1 (38:56):
Yeah, well, yeah, I mean, and look, it's it's I'm
curious as to what people's salaries are. But you know
the thing about it is is that many times I'd
be very curious to know if there if there had
been like a contract renegotiation or anything like this, because
these damn agents that are out there, let me tell
you what they like to do, and all of our
(39:17):
friends that don't know how the guts of this kind
of works. They will take someone like a Savannah Guthrie, Okay,
and if they renegotiate a contract, you'll actually see you'll
actually see the details of their contract renegotiation in what
they call industry industry magazines like Variety, Hollywood Reporter, they'll
(39:45):
actually put that up there. Well, the agents do that,
and the reason they do it is like, hey, look
what I got for her, Look what I got for him.
This is how much money they're making now. And that's
like blood and water. That's why I go back to
to you know somebody that you know, other people we
talked about, you know, everybody in all these other platforms
(40:08):
in you know, the mainstream media out there, that they've
been kind of joining hands over this whole thing. Again.
This is kind of one of those points points along
the spectrum here where it's like, oh, you know, I
don't know if I want my information out there. You know,
it's kind of chilling. I've gotten my you know, I've
got an elderly parent. You know, all the money in
(40:31):
the world is not necessarily going to protect you from evil. Okay,
And I know this, I know this in my heart
of hearts. Whoever has taken her has a completely black heart,
because I cannot imagine in what universe someone would want
(40:55):
to snatch an infirm, elderly woman from her home who
by all descriptors, doesn't hurt anybody, and as kind as
a day is long, I don't understand it, but there's
many things I don't understand. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan and
this is body Backs.
Quality times with Joseph Scott Morgan. Hi friends, this is
continuing coverage of the Nancy Guthrie case, and we're gonna
do a deep dive now as we begin to consider
some of the evidence that may have been collected and
(00:23):
maybe some of it that was not. I'm Josephcott Morgan
and this is Body Backs Brother Dave. We had a
rather healthy conversation I think in our first episode talking
about Nancy Guthrie, you know, kind of reflecting over all
(00:44):
of the stuff that's floating around out there relative to
this poor woman.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
There's so much information, Joe, and you know, you and
I have covered the case since it began, and there
are a lot of different aspects to the case. In
the previous episode where we dealt with intruders in the house,
how long were they possibly and there is there a day?
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Is it plural?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
But there are other aspects of this case, Joe, that
are coming to the forefront, and in particular it's DNA.
And I think the part that always amazes me when
we talk about DNA is people assume wrongly that once
you have DNA, you've got the culprit. And granted you
(01:28):
might have something and you might have somebody, but unless
their DNA is in the system, meaning somebody's been arrested
or applied for a job that required it. I mean,
any number of ways that you get your DNA in
the system, but if it's not there, then you end
up with what we did at the very beginning of
this with DNA taking from the glove tested, put into codas,
(01:54):
came back with nothing.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
I could see. I could see everybody getting all jacked
up over this CODIS submission, Okay, and I'm thinking, got
to tell you don't get too don't get too excited
about this, you know, whatever you do, don't you know,
don't go down this road where you think that it's
this is going to be the magic bullet. And guess
(02:16):
what the profile that they got, whatever, whatever the point
of origin of the thing was that was generated down
in Florida and then entered into the CODA system that
the FBI controls, they didn't get a hit. And it's
just not surprising because you're you're your field is very limited. Okay.
(02:41):
You think about, you know, who is in the CODA system,
and you've got a collection of people that are associated
with a variety of different types of crimes and dependent
upon the jurisdiction, they're going to take samples of suspects
and people that have been convicted and all these sorts
of things. Well, your pool is kind of small, okay
(03:04):
from that perspective, and then you've got the other section
of CODIS. For folks that don't know, you have a
section that's it. Traditionally it has been referred to as
the forensic category. And what that means is that you've
got unknown DNA that has been collected at a variety
of scenes, and this is kind of dumped into CODIS.
(03:24):
And what you look for that is if they develop
a pattern, well, if they develop a profile of that individual,
even though they might not know the name, they know
that with multiple depositions at different types of crime scenes,
you've developed a pattern. Here you know this person is
showing up here, here, here, here, and here. You just
(03:45):
don't have a name to go along with the individual.
So that's kind of how the categories break down. They
didn't get a hit on it, and so where we left, well,
we're left with our friends at Authorm. Now we'll get
back to Othram in just a minute, but we need
(04:05):
to go back and really consider Dave how the DNA
was collected. This is still kind of a mystery because
if you think about the house, correct me if I'm wrong, brother,
But they talk about there's multiple I think multiple contributors
inside of the house. We know, you know, everybody that
(04:30):
listens to true crime, has watches television shows. You know
that our standard line is that you expect to find
the occupant of the residents. You expect to find her
DNA there, right and anybody within her intimate circle. Intimate
circle can mean her immediate family, It can also mean housekeepers,
it can mean people that have kind of moved through
(04:51):
the space that worked there for her. And then you've
got these unknowns. But they're saying that there were like
multiple known different profiles that were in there. Am I correct?
Speaker 2 (05:02):
That's my understanding of it so far, and that's what
is being tested further. I'm glad you mentioned that cotis
is not the end. Cotis is very you know, hey, man,
we're going to put it in there first just because
but you know, we've gone something that you mentioned about
the collection of DNA and it's not even known as
(05:24):
kind of as John Doe Jane do type stuff. We
don't know who it is, but we've got it over
here associated with X crime. And then we have another
crime over here, and we actually had a case and
I'm trying to remember which one it was, but it
started out with a John Doe warrant based on a
DNA profile that had been created from multiple crime scenes,
even though they didn't have the person matched to it yet,
(05:45):
but they knew that this person, the same person did
this crime, this crime, and this crime. You've got the
same DNA at all three places. So in this particular case,
Joe and I'm very curious as to where where it
goes because we've got the FBI, local police, the deputies,
the sheriff's office, but we've also got the FBI lab,
(06:08):
the Florida lab that pe mccounty uses and now author them,
and we have at least inside the home one one
sample that they the investigators have found that has multiple
contributors to this DNA. And my whole thought pattern here
(06:32):
is we don't know exactly what they have. Is it blood,
is it spit, It's just I guess some of us
get to I get confused. I'm going to say that
I get a little confused with talking about DNA because
I'm thinking blood, you know that. You I'm just thinking,
so there must have been a blood spot right here.
It's like, no, well, okay, maybe he hawked alugi over there,
(06:56):
you know that kind of thing. And it's like, really,
what are we dealing with here? I mean it, how
do you find it?
Speaker 1 (07:01):
You can see it? Yeah, I wish it was that simple. Uh.
And and listen, I mean there there have been cases
out there where you can't have blood. You can literally
find uh DNA contained within uh within something someone has
coughed up. You mentioned a loogie. Uh. There are people
(07:23):
that spit at scenes. Uh, you can there there been
you know, cases and I was asked to consult on
a case uh some time back where an individual had
left a deposition let's say it that way of feces
(07:45):
and a dry toilet. Oh come on now, Yeah, somebody
had broken into a house where the water had been
cut off and they'd been robbing the house and that
sort of stuff. Anyway, and you can get that because
you know, and you know, even with the fecal sample,
you know, there's a shedding. There's a shedding that takes
(08:05):
place the lining of the intestine, and many people do
in fact have even though it's it's it's not going
to be necessarily obvious to the human eye. But there
is blood deposition, you know, in in in feces as well.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
There's something that you guys don't know. But every time
we talk about vecal matter on this program, I'm meaning
a Reese's peanut butter, Joe finds that out and does
it every time.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
No, no, I'm not that cruel, but no, no. But
you know, there's any there's those obvious things, and then
you know, you get into the world of touch DNA,
but you also have like for instance, I'll give you
I'll give you an example, and this is not touched DNA.
Let's use the example of someone has spit, okay, or
(08:53):
they've sweat. They've sweated, and that's going to be clear.
It's not necessarily you you might not know it's on
the surface, but you are going to have to swab
that area. And so one of the ways that this
is collected is that with you have to take a
dry swab, okay, and this is a swab that is protected,
(09:18):
it's sealed. You know, think about like a cotton swab, right, like, yeah,
yeah it is, and you you you have to have
it that is packaged, Like it's not like it's not
like you're going to use the same swab over and
over again. It's like once the swab is used, you
collect it and then it goes back to the lab.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Do you have to document like I got this swab,
it's number three hundred and fifty eight.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Hell to the yeah, yes, yes, yes, And that's one
of the that's one of kind of the tedious things
that you do at scenes like every time. Like say,
for instance, if you're going to swab a specific area,
that swab will be will have a number or an
(10:03):
identifier with it, and also it will concurrently have a location,
like where was this retrieved from? Like you can say, okay,
like I'm sitting here at my desk, I can say
that it's from the left corner of my desk. Le's
not sufficient. I have say that it is the left
corner of my desk, but it's actually beneath the desk, okay,
(10:27):
the lip of the desk. I can't just say the
left corner of my desk because both of these areas.
Think about if you're sitting at a table right now,
put your hand on the table on the edge, and
you think about, well, if I contact the underside of
my desk, that's completely different than the top side where
I'm placing my thumb. Okay, So you and then if
(10:49):
you're talking about your hand going under it, well you've
got four points of contact just with your fingers there
and your finger pads, and then you know your hand.
Do you touch the heel of your hand? And I'm
talking about just this is just one example of grabbing
the edge of the table. All right, maybe you're lifting
(11:10):
yourself up. Remember how we talked about previously about getting
in and out of a car. Things you don't think about,
all right, So you take you take a bit of
a bit of like it's sterile water, Okay, that you
it's distilled water, and it's sterile, and you have to
put one droplet of this distilled water onto the surface
(11:35):
of the swab that you're going to use, Okay, and
then you take it and you swab that area. Once
that area is swabbed, that swab itself goes into a container,
so it is contained, and that swab is is stand alone,
(11:55):
a standalone bit of evidence. So if they do find
a profile there, I'm really getting into the weeds here.
But if they do find a profile here, that profile
has to be specifically identified that comes back to the
corner of that table. Is it on the top side
of the bottom side. And so when this goes to court,
remember how I talked about the twelve jurors in our classroom, right,
(12:17):
So when it goes to court, the expert that gets
up on the stand, first off, you will have had
the crime scene tech, and the crime scene tech will
not be doesn't wear the white lab coat. They're not
there to talk about, you know, building out the profile.
You will have to have them testify to the fact
that they collected it there, all right. Phil mice and
(12:41):
labratts is what we call them at Jack State. So
I've got my kids that are the phil mice that
go out and actually collect evidence. Well, that individual has
to get on the stand and say, you know, agent Smith,
where did you get this from? Well, I got it
from this position on the desk, and when did you
submit it? We refer to my report. I submitted it,
(13:03):
you know here, and this is the nomenclature that it has,
and it was sent to the lab where you know
technician or laboratory scientists. Jones picked it up well to
follow up with that laboratory, you know, technician Jones has
to get on stand and say, okay, so I processed,
(13:24):
I processed Agent Smith's swab that they collected, and this
is a profile we built out. You see how tedious
this is, but it's so very exacting day and it
has to be that way because with those movements, with
every movement that takes place at Missus Guthrie's house, there
(13:45):
are points of contact, and from those points of contact,
we don't need to visualize necessarily the individual moving through
the space. We can scientifically and by the way, more importantly,
numerically quantify and demonstrate that they were in this space,
(14:09):
this space, this space, this space, in this space within
her residence and she's missing. Okay, So it's up to
now that the forensics people cannot explain why the person
was in the house. That's not what we do. Do.
Not confuse what is done in the lab with explanation
(14:36):
as to the individual being there. You're not going to
get that from a forensic scientist. That's just not that's
not how they roll. Okay. It is in fact up
to the detectives, you know, that are kind of piecing
together timeline and all that stuff. They'll integrate that into
the packet and then the prosecutor has to you know,
(14:57):
hold forth on it. Hopefully they're sufficient to the task,
because it gets very very complex looking at this poor
woman's home, and you know, going back to what we
had said earlier about the amount of time that is
spent within this environment, I think that it's plausible that
(15:23):
something could have been left behind at this point in time.
Though we don't know what the nature of this DNA
that has been left behind, because if it's touched DNA,
that means that that's coming from dead skin cells. And
that's only a partial, a partial of a strand okay,
(15:44):
because it's well, it's dead skin cells. You know, it's
degraded to a certain extent.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Can you explain this a little bit, Joe, Yeah, sure, DNA?
What is touch DNA? I mean, we got gloves. The
guy that in this particular case, Nancy's pointed out guys
and gloves, he's reaching up to his mouth for the
mouth flashlight thing. Maybe he's rubbing an eyebrow, he's itching,
you know something, and he gets on the gloves. Then
(16:08):
when the suspect goes in the house, touching the door,
the door knob and all of that. I'm assuming that's
what we're talking about.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
With No, we're not. There's two separate things. I'm glad
you brought this up and clear it up. Man. Here's
why if okay, even though let's just say, you know,
with the example of the light, okay, from the mouth,
if you grab that out of your mouth and you've
got spittle on on on this thing, which you would,
(16:42):
and that transfers to gloves, that is not even though
if you touch the surface and yet there's touching, it's
tactile that goes on. That does not translate into being
touched DNA. That's transfer of DNA rich material. So it's
not degraded. I'm using degraded very broadly here. So just
(17:06):
understand that with touch DNA, what they're saying is, and
I heard somebody had used this term. I found this
quite fascinating. Maybe maybe it'll help people, I don't know.
They describe touch DNA as DNA confetti, and I found
that kind of interesting because yeah, and what they mean
(17:28):
is like you're sloughing skin cells, and skin cells obviously
contain DNA, but they're dead, so there's a different way
of processing touch DNA as opposed to DNA rich material
like a droplet of blood, saliva, feces semen sweat any
(17:50):
of that or a piece of tissue, Okay, which does happen?
You know, that's different than the touch DNA. So if
what they're taught talking about with deposition here is it
saliva you know from the you know what everybody's talking
about right now, that has been transferred over to a
glove or is it they didn't put enough jurgins on. Okay,
(18:14):
And they've got dry skin cells that are falling off,
and all of the sleptest stuff day today today today,
I mean it goes on like if you could go
like into your bedroom and even though you've got fresh sheets,
your sheets are covered with dead skin cells. That really
(18:35):
adds a creep factor state in a hotel, doesn't it. Yeah? Okay,
because everywhere you touch, everywhere, you know, all the stuff
is contacting, you know, in every single environment. And so
it's not surprising that they found multiple profiles. It's just
you know, what's the source of it, how rich was it?
And also profiles the type of evidence. DNA evidence tells
(19:00):
you a lot about the actions of the person. Okay,
it's one thing to passively have. I don't know, I'll
use the term again, DNA confetti, where you've got dead
skin cells just kind of floating about, you know whatnot.
I always think about DNA confetti. It's like, you know,
in the summertime, when the sunlight's coming through and you
see the dust particles, you know, kind of dancing around
in the sunlight beams. I'm thinking that as opposed to,
(19:25):
you know, if you've got deposition of blood, well, what
was going on here? What was the action that caused
somebody to spontaneously deposit blood? They got a hole in
their body? Are they coughing up blood? Is there an
esophageal versee that they've blown out in there, you know,
in their esophagus, Which is the horrible stories that we
(19:45):
can talk about later on, you know, is it is
it sweat? You know, they're wiping their brow and they're
smearing it everywhere. And again, you know, this goes to
it goes to trying to understan and what the movements
of both the victim and potential perpetrator work to. You
(20:21):
and I both have dogs. Okay, Now we walk outside
and we tracked through dog pooh. Okay. And the reason
I know this is that this happened recently. My precious
granddaughter was over at my house. Which you know, if
I had both my grandbabies here all the time, I'd
(20:44):
be even happier than I am right now. But so
she she went outside and stepped in some of Kevin's deposition,
and I'll say my labrador walked back in the house,
(21:04):
looked at her brother and said, wow, something smells. He
walks over. He walks over and steps in the deposition
that she left behind on my hardwood floors. Now it's
transferred to him, and then he gets it on Gammy
(21:25):
and Papa's runner in the hallway, our carpet. It was
a lovely day. But do you see how that you
know that kind of that's a really kind of over
the top example, but it is the same. It is
the same kind of principle here. It goes back to
the card.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Yeah, so you really could have somebody with no real
connection to this house whatsoever, having I could actually say, Joe,
I've never even been inside the woman's house. But I
shook hands with the cop that I hadn't seen in
ten years, and he was in the scene and it
wasn't all locked up at the time, and while he
was there, he didn't have gloves on. Yeah, so now
(22:05):
he has touched he put me at the scene of
the crime, and I got a alibi.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
Yeah, theoretically it could. It could transpire that way. And
you know, our our supposition is that every time a
criminal or people walk working the scene. If like, if
I leave my house and I'm a crime scene investigator
and I get into my vehicle, I'm bringing a bit
(22:31):
of my house with me. We all do no matter
where you go, and you're going to leave some of
that behind. If you go to the grocery market, you're
going to take some of you into the store. Any
can you handle on the shelf you're touching that. And
(22:52):
also is it possible, and this is a question a
lawyer would ask, is it possible that if you picked
up a can of student tomatoes in my little market
that I go to that someone else's touch, could I
transferred their DNA onto my hands? Yeah? Yeah, yeah, as plausible.
I mean, it is within the realm possibility because it's
very it's very fragile, but it's it will contact the
(23:15):
surface and you can't try I just don't know how
much of a deposition you would get. So theoretically, yeah,
it is possible.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
But still there would still be an expectation that that's
not all you would find. I mean, if you had that,
that is one thing, but you would expect over a
crime scene to find more than just this one littles back.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Yeah, yeah, And how much time are you going to
take to do this? And here's here's the rub, as
the Bard would say, the rub is how thoroughly did
you go through the house the first time. I'm going
(23:56):
to let that hang in the air just for a
second and then you release it. Oh and now Eert
is going to show up the Evidence response team from
the FBI. What are they going to do inside of
the environment? Are they going to go in and do
their own collection, you know, after the fact. Has it
(24:16):
been compromised? Are they you know? And you're thinking, oh,
I know what they'll do. They'll go and look in
different places. Okay, that's possible. They can look in different places.
If they look in these different places, they turn out
to not be different. And the originals have they compromised
it in any way? Is it degraded in any way?
(24:37):
And these are the problems. You know, I'm a worry
ward anyway, and so I'm looking at this and I'm
thinking about problems down the line from not just a
scientific standpoint, but from a prosecutorial standpoint. And not that
I'm a prosecutor, but if a prosecutor came to me
and said, is there a problem with this? I would
say not yeah, but hell yeah, there's a problem with this,
(24:59):
because again we go back to you know, too many
cooks in the kitchen spoil the soup. And that's why
that's why, you know, I use these I use these terms,
you know, and particularly with like Guthrie, you know, I'm
thinking this should be treated as a surgical suite where
(25:21):
you have you have a you know, we've heard the
term evidence custodian, which generally applies to the person that
controls the evidence, like that's in all of the evidence
lockers and all that stuff. You know, at a back
of the police station or crime lab. There should be
and they wouldn't be called this way. It'd probably be
a crom scene manager. But you need to have a
(25:42):
crom scene custodian and this person overlords who's going to
come in and out and that should be the chief,
the lead detective in the case, and also the senior
crim scene investigator. So this is how it plays out.
There is a very very narrow limited group of people
(26:04):
that should walk on to any crime scene. Not your
brother in law, not your sister in law, not your
curious neighbor that wants to come out. It should only
be not the sheriff. You hear what I'm saying. Not
the sheriff. I don't care if he's the high sheriff.
(26:24):
I don't care if the sack which is senior agent
in charge for the FBI for Tucson or Phoenix, shows up.
They should not come onto the crime scene. That's not
their purview. You have specific people that are trained to
process a crom scene and that's all that should go.
And that's why you hire them. That's why you pay
all the money to train them. They should be trained
(26:46):
up to the point where they know what to do,
and you cut them loose and let them do their job.
But what it comes down to is accountability. Well, are
you going to account for all of the fingers in
the proverbial pot of soup? The fact that the Guthrie
(27:22):
case has taken place in the desert or in the
desert area is not lost on me. And and here's
why I think it's a great It's got kind of
a meaning, an underlying meaning or or visual visual element
to it.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
From me.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
You think about being lost in the desert, and everything
looks the same to a certain degree. It's not like
being out in the ocean. But still, I guess the
big question, Dave, is where do we go from here? Ah?
And it's not all gloom and doom on my part.
(28:05):
I'm holding out hope that we'll have answers from a
scientific standpoint. Now, I cannot address on any level Nancy
Guthrie's status. Okay, that's that's not what my comments are
about here. I have my own thoughts about that, and
we can talk about that at another time. However, I
(28:27):
think that that for us, you know, having this chat,
that's my brit friends like to say, having a chin
wag about it.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
It's crazy, though, Joe, that as you look at this
where we have we've got detectives from different departments. We've
got the FBI, we've got the Sheriff's Department, We've got
three different labs, the FBI, Florida and AUTHORM. It doesn't
sound like it's the best organization possible. That the it
(29:04):
doesn't seem to me like we have a direct line
of communication and consistent because they're all different. And I
would think in an investigation of this sort that there
has to be there has to be a line to follow.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
Yea, you exert. Yeah, I got to hang on one second.
You you drop some knowledge on me. I really won't
want to hear hear you say this because it was
striking to me for me personally, and particularly the way
you can tell it. The story about that has surfaced
in the last couple of days. I think about the
(29:44):
found bloody glove and the and the rock. Can you
kind of give us a little insight and again this
kind of gives you, for me broad view, Uh, it
gives us kind of an idea of where we are
are in the situation.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Well, in covering this case, many of us have watched
between the sheriff who seems to be infatuated with the
camera and loves to say things that are not right
and then thinks it's okay to just say, well, if
I say the wrong thing, it's because I made a mistake,
Like that's okay to do and we have the FBI.
(30:26):
Many of us have said, you know, back away your
local talent and let's let the experts get in here
and do their job. Because we have a couple from Tucson,
Arizona that finds what appears to be a bloody glove
less than a mile from Nancy Guthrie's home. Now, as
(30:50):
you know, listening to this show, you've heard Joe and
I talked about this guy. I've asked him, why don't
you call something blood when you know it's blood? And
Joe will say, because we don't know it's blood until
it's been tested. It could be a lot of things
that look like blood. So when a regular person like
you and me finds a bloody glove, we're going with
(31:11):
what we observe it to be and what we think
it is. But still, if you call the FBI, because
if you're living in Tucson right now, all these numbers
are everywhere, you know, for the FBI, call this for
Sherif's burm, I call this for you know, they're everywhere.
So these local Tucson heights find what appears to be
(31:32):
a bloody glove less than a mile from Nancy Guthrie's house,
and they call the FBI, Hey just found this bloody glove,
Holy moly, and the FBI puts them on hold, gives
them the run around, don't know if we can get
out there and pick it up, don't yeah, I mean
they're actually saying this to somebody, a bloody glove less
(31:53):
than a mile from Nancy Guthrie's home, and the FBI
is saying, I don't know if we can get out
there and call it. So they get blown off a
little bit. They call the sheriff's department, and this time
there's a little more interest, but nobody seems like they're
in a hurry to get out there. So finally this
(32:14):
couple who found again I'm going to repeat this, what
appears to be a bloody glove next to bloody rock
less than a mile from Nancy Guthrie's house.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
They find.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
This couple finally calls nine to one one Joe, and
that's when they finally get results. Somebody shows up, I
mean right away, two detectives show up. But it took them,
this couple three different phone calls before they could get
somebody to actually treat it with seriousness. That is really
(32:50):
frustrating for those of us who have been spending a
lot of time trying to cover this story in such
a way that we're look, man, we're I'm not knocking
what anybody does, you know, in terms of how they
go about their day making money. However you can, whether
it's you know, on TikTok or whatever, I don't care.
(33:10):
I mean, go for it, you know. But there are
some of us who actually have devoted our lives to broadcasting,
to forensics, to crime. We've devoted the time necessary to
weed out the garbage from the truth. And yet we
get a story like this, Yeah that nobody, you know,
the FBI shares for nobody wanted to collect up a
(33:32):
bloody possible bloody glove.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Come on, Joe. It kind of reinforces a narrative, doesn't it. Yes,
it does. Yeah, And that's that's very sad. And here
here's one other thing, uh, you know, when you're looking
at and this is just the example that we know
of that's being reported right now, and that's that story
(33:55):
I think is actually coming from local Tucson uh Tucson
area uh television uh channel hang on, Oh yeah, k
v o A is is the you know where that
story actually originated. From. I think here's I got a
(34:17):
question for you. Why And I know you said the
numbers are up, but why is it that? Mhm? What'd
you call them to Tucson Nights?
Speaker 2 (34:30):
So I don't know what their names are, you know,
people who live there.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
I'm just trying to nail it down. Why would what
would a couple from Tucson, why would their first inclination
be called FBI? I mean, I don't know. I mean,
is this getting into the zeitgeist because you you know,
is it surrounding there is a zeitgeist that's that's you know,
been created here, you know, because of all this.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
I've been reading a lot of local stuff in Tucson. Yeah,
and a lot of people are pretty embarrassed by their sheriff.
And that's why I think it came about.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
Yeah, and so their their first inclination is called the FBI. Well,
you know, you put your number out there, talking to
you feeds, you know, you need to be responsive. And
this was this was only a few days in. I mean,
this is not like something that happened weeks later. So
there was already there was always something that there was
(35:31):
already something floating through the air. I think you know,
but you know, this is just one of the examples
that you know, hurdles and listen, we're going to find
out we'll hear more relative to these little, you know,
kind of dramas that go on. It has you have
(35:52):
to have them because the media feeds off of that.
They love the drama of it. But it still doesn't
get us necessarily closer to h Nancy Guthrie. You're still
left watching a Punch and Judy show on the side,
and this woman is still out there. I think probably forensically,
I'm I'm hopeful, and of course I'm very partial. I'm
(36:16):
very hopeful that David and Kristen Middleman at Authroam Labs
will will be an answer to this regarding investigative genetic genealogy,
and if for no other reason, I think one of
(36:40):
the things I'm excited about is that a lot of
people that didn't know anything about IgG as a result
of this case, people are studying it now, they're understanding it.
And the more more eyes you get on this technology,
you begin to kind of, you know, get a grip on,
you know, what we have as potential crime solving tools,
(37:05):
you know, and I'm talking, I'm not talking about people
that sit around and create true crome. Uh, you know
copy every day. I'm talking about people, you know, average
person walking down the street. Now, they're really vested in it.
I think that if they can take in you know,
you and I've covered the cases day where we have
(37:27):
greatly degraded DNA, the AUTHORAM has gotten their hands on
and they you know, I love to use term conjured.
They literally conjure somebody up out of this and it's
not a facsimile. It's like something that's real, you know.
They breathe life back into it, even with ages old DNA.
This is this fresh sample, Bubba. You know, this is
(37:50):
fresh sample we're talking about. This is not you know,
like our woman in the well case. This is not
something that happened in in the you know, immediately following
World War One. All right, this is actually something that
is fresh. I'm hopeful as well about the digital evidence
that they've collected, and we still don't know a lot,
(38:13):
you know, everything that might be at play here. That
the Google drop was kind of interesting about whoever it
was that was doing the searches, which is something again,
tech is not necessarily that kind of tech is not
necessarily my Bailey Wick. But the fact that you've got
somebody that's seeking out you know.
Speaker 2 (38:33):
Her Nancy Guthrie's address in Savannah Guthrie's income.
Speaker 1 (38:37):
Yeah, exactly, and again and they live in Tucson, Joe.
Speaker 2 (38:39):
Yeah, the person that did this search lived in Tucson,
Arizona and did this search back in June or July.
That to me, I'm gonna be honest, man, if you
didn't do it, if that person didn't do it, I
want to know why were you looking?
Speaker 1 (38:56):
Yeah, well, yeah, I mean, and look, it's it's I'm
curious as to what people's salaries are. But you know
the thing about it is is that many times I'd
be very curious to know if there if there had
been like a contract renegotiation or anything like this, because
these damn agents that are out there, let me tell
you what they like to do, and all of our
(39:17):
friends that don't know how the guts of this kind
of works. They will take someone like a Savannah Guthrie, Okay,
and if they renegotiate a contract, you'll actually see you'll
actually see the details of their contract renegotiation in what
they call industry industry magazines like Variety, Hollywood Reporter, they'll
(39:45):
actually put that up there. Well, the agents do that,
and the reason they do it is like, hey, look
what I got for her, Look what I got for him.
This is how much money they're making now. And that's
like blood and water. That's why I go back to
to you know somebody that you know, other people we
talked about, you know, everybody in all these other platforms
(40:08):
in you know, the mainstream media out there, that they've
been kind of joining hands over this whole thing. Again.
This is kind of one of those points points along
the spectrum here where it's like, oh, you know, I
don't know if I want my information out there. You know,
it's kind of chilling. I've gotten my you know, I've
got an elderly parent. You know, all the money in
(40:31):
the world is not necessarily going to protect you from evil. Okay,
And I know this, I know this in my heart
of hearts. Whoever has taken her has a completely black heart,
because I cannot imagine in what universe someone would want
(40:55):
to snatch an infirm, elderly woman from her home who
by all descriptors, doesn't hurt anybody, and as kind as
a day is long, I don't understand it, but there's
many things I don't understand. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan and
this is body Backs.
Host
Joseph Scott Morgan
Popular Podcasts
Math & Magic: Stories from the Frontiers of Marketing with Bob Pittman
How do the smartest marketers and business entrepreneurs cut through the noise? And how do they manage to do it again and again? It's a combination of math—the strategy and analytics—and magic, the creative spark. Join iHeartMedia Chairman and CEO Bob Pittman as he analyzes the Math and Magic of marketing—sitting down with today's most gifted disruptors and compelling storytellers.
Eye On College Basketball
CBS Sports’ official college basketball podcast is the most entertaining and informative of its kind. Gary Parrish and Matt Norlander bring the sport into your ears at least three times per week with commentary, reporting, insider information and statistical analysis throughout college basketball all year long.
The Questlove Show
The Questlove Show builds on the award-winning Questlove Supreme podcast, bringing listeners into intimate, one-on-one conversations with peers, influences, and friends. Hosted by Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson, each episode uncovers the unexpected — from morning rituals and hidden talents to the art and experiences that shaped a guest’s journey. Sometimes playful, sometimes profound, always curious, QLS offers rare insight into leaders in music, film, television, comedy, literature, mental health, and beyond. It’s a fresh, unpredictable spin from a trusted source — a place where randomness is encouraged, tangents are welcomed, and conversations are anything but ordinary.