Feb. 3, 2026
BREAKING Nancy Guthrie News Conference: Sheriff Ducks Ransom Questions “We Are Following All Our Leads”
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Investigators just held a news conference on the latest information into Savanna Guthrie’s missing mom, and several moments jumped out to us. First, the sheriff was asked twice about whether a ransom has been asked surrounding the abduction of 84-year-old Nancy Guthrie, and both times the sheriff did NOT say no. Instead he said his team was following all of their investigative leads. The sheriff also told reporters that DNA samples processed from Guthrie’s home have not implicated any specific suspect. Also of note, despite the urgency in finding Guthrie given that she’s not with her necessary daily medication, the sheriff said - barring any major developments - the next press conference wouldn’t take place for another 48 hours.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Tuesday, February third, and we sure hope the authorities know more about the disappearance of Savannah Guthrie's mom than they're telling the public, because we just listened to a new briefing and we saw the sheriff several times throw his literally throw his arms in the airs to say I don't know. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. But as we start this episode, Robes, there was something very at least to us, that stood out. We'll get into what he didn't know, but we want to first robe what he wouldn't say, and that's whether or not a ransom has come in.
00:00:42
Speaker 2: And you know what, because he kept saying no, I don't know, and he kept shooting down lots of other questions, it was notable that he quickly glossed over without addressing the ransom question. And then, thankfully you were waiting for it, someone follow up and ask again. I was desperate the last question. A reporter you were like yes, finally followed up and said, hey, when someone asked you whether a ransom has been asked, you didn't say yes or no. And then he just said we are following all leads, which to me and to you, babe, was very talent.
00:01:21
Speaker 1: It's very easy to say no. It's very easy to say no, that's not happening. Does that hurt your investigation? To say no, we've eliminated that. He's eliminated some other things. She didn't wander off, he's eliminated. Say no, to say nope, there's no ransom rogues. He was asked twice he had a chance, and when he asked said it the first time that the answer was was here, we have all kinds of investigative leads we're working on, we have all is there a ransom? We have all kinds of investigative leads we're working on. Rose. That was a non answer. It sounded evasive to me. For whatever reason he has done that. But it was the last Yeah, hey, and he had a chance, ropes.
00:02:03
Speaker 2: And he's and you know, because he quickly and I could see how quickly you could too, he moved past that we are following, you know, all of our investigative leads boom, and just kept going and moved on and shifted to something else, hoping that reporters would forget about it. So when someone followed up, and he repeated it hurriedly to me, and he looked a little nervous. That was the only bit of new information that he didn't give that he actually may have by saying it the way he said it.
00:02:33
Speaker 1: The rest of it, you just take him at his word. He gave direct answers, saying I don't know and everything. This is the only thing if you're trying to read something from this press conference, Ropes, that is something that, in my opinion, at least in that moment and still now after the follow.
00:02:48
Speaker 3: Up, is glaring.
00:02:50
Speaker 2: I agree.
00:02:51
Speaker 1: We have talked about how unlikely it is that somebody just is out there kidnapping random elderly people, and then on top that they just happened to kidnap the mother of one of the most prominent journalists in the country.
00:03:04
Speaker 3: That's just it seems so unlikely.
00:03:07
Speaker 2: Yes, and look, obviously, well, I say obviously, we certainly hope, as you started off this episode by saying, they know more than they're telling us, But it would make sense if they have made it clear that folks who live in the area shouldn't necessarily be concerned when they said immediately that a crime had taken place, that she was taken against her will, that she was abducted. All of that would follow with a targeted and they were asked, was this targeted? Was this random? And he just said, I don't know.
00:03:47
Speaker 1: Besides rogues, we're talking about the ransom question. The other thing that really jumped out at me. The next briefing is on Thursday, Thursday, you have an urgent, immediate search for this woman. Everybody's trying to find her. I'll get back with you all in two days, like there should be another one this evening, one in the morning.
00:04:10
Speaker 2: The babe there would always normally be you and I have covered enough of it, and they know this story has garnered national and most likely international interest because of who Savannah Guthrie is. She is a household name, she is the co anchor of the Today Show, and her mom, at eighty four years old, was taken against her will out of her own home. This is a significant story that you would expect a sheriff's department. They've got the FBI there with them to give not hourly briefings, but certainly and not even just a daily briefing. I'm thinking twice a day kind of a briefing situation. So for him to punt the Thursday, and he seemed hurried and distracted, like he wanted to get out of there, because he did say multiple times we have a lot of work to do. Would follow a operating theory that they are actively engaged in some sort of back and forth that they don't want the media to know about it.
00:05:12
Speaker 1: There were a bunch of questions in that press conference Robes and he with those two things. I think it's other than that. I was kind of shocked at just how little he seemed to know. You tick them off? Asked what she was wearing? Asked, hey, what was she wearing? What should we look for?
00:05:33
Speaker 2: I don't know?
00:05:34
Speaker 3: Asked hey, does she leave in a car?
00:05:36
Speaker 2: Don't know?
00:05:36
Speaker 3: Hey?
00:05:37
Speaker 1: Was it one person? Was it several people that were involved in this?
00:05:40
Speaker 2: Unclear?
00:05:41
Speaker 3: And like you said, random or targeted?
00:05:43
Speaker 1: Don't know, knows nothing about nothing. Do you have the surveillance video working on it?
00:05:48
Speaker 3: We should be faster. Has the DNA been processed? Was there blood? No?
00:05:52
Speaker 1: No, we had to send it to a lab. So we're waiting. Robes.
00:05:55
Speaker 3: There was not much of an update.
00:05:57
Speaker 2: It was interesting and look, if any of you have gone on online, which I'm sure a lot of you have because we've been doing it too, because we're all desperate for answers, because this is such a bizarre, unexplained situation crime, so everyone is searching for answers in a lot of there's always leaks in police departments and in these types of investigations, But he would not confirm any of the leaks that are online, and so I would caution anybody from believing anything they're reading online about what police have found or what they're working on. The one thing that he did say specifically is that they have collected samples of DNA. Now he wouldn't get more specific if it was blood, if it was whatever, but he did say that so far, none of those samples of DNA have returned to HIT have given them any indication as to who a suspect might be. So the evidence and the information they've gotten from that evidence so far, he did say, has not shined a light on who may be responsible for her action.
00:07:00
Speaker 1: So hard I was, I was taking at the very beginning, and I think you did it at the end, just how emphatic he was and how direct he was and saying we don't have a clue, like he started the press conference, we need to find her. When asked directly, is she in the area, is she outside the area, we don't know where she is. He didn't know what to tell you to look in Arizona or in Connecticut.
00:07:22
Speaker 2: And it was frustrating to the journalists because look, on one hand, they're asking for the public's help and they still were The FBI agent didn't say much, but he just said, literally, I wrote this down, please help us bring Nancy Guthrie home. I thought that was so interesting. I just I haven't seen law enforcement seem so desperate begging for help. And then when reporters are asking for anything, for people to jog their memory or to maybe help them refine where they could be looking or what they should be considering or looking for in terms of helping the police, they gave zero direction from clothing to car to time. They wouldn't even give the timeline. Are reports out there about when her pacemaker may have stopped connecting with the Wi Fi, but he wouldn't even confirm that timeline as to when she might have been taken. He basically said anytime from nine to five pm Tucson, Arizona time till eleven am on Sunday. There's your window. I can't narrow it down. So that's frustrating to a lot of folks who are You're asking for our help and you won't give us anything to help in your investigation, maybe to help people residents jog their memory or say oh I was here then, or I noticed this. There there's nothing to go on but bae.
00:08:45
Speaker 3: Which is it?
00:08:45
Speaker 1: It's because they don't know anything, or it's because they know a lot and they just need to buy their time publicly because something's going on behind the scenes.
00:08:53
Speaker 2: Yes, and I think it definitely could be the ladder of the two. The other thing I thought because someone asked about Look, they made a big deal when we first got these press conferences that time was ticking that Nancy Guthrie has medication that she needs that she left behind. I mean she left her She didn't bring her phone, she didn't bring her medication, she didn't bring her wallet, she didn't bring her car key, I mean nothing. So they said twenty four hours and it could be fatal. So it's an obvious question for a reporter to ask, hey, it's been forty eight hours, you know what's the situation. And he said, well, we hope she's still alive. That is what he said.
00:09:32
Speaker 1: So, given what they said about the medication, twenty four hours and it could be fatal twenty four there was a lack of some type of hair on fire urgency. I don't need him to be hurried or fearful or scared or that type of thing. But I don't know how you're telling us we urgently need to find her and press I'll talk to you in two days. You all that we need your help and keeping this story gone and keeping with information, we'll talk to you in two days to update you.
00:10:06
Speaker 3: Robes. That doesn't make sense.
00:10:08
Speaker 1: It doesn't We don't need three decades in journalism to make that sense. That doesn't make sense.
00:10:14
Speaker 2: I've never heard of that. And he did say he did leave this caveat unless there's a development.
00:10:21
Speaker 1: We don't anticipate a quick end to this to where I can plan for two days.
00:10:27
Speaker 3: Robes.
00:10:27
Speaker 2: That does We both looked at each other when he said that. It was confusing. That doesn't make any sense. This is urgent, that the time is ticking for her well being, she needs her meds, and yet we'll talk to you in two days.
00:10:43
Speaker 3: It just did not make sense. But stay here.
00:10:46
Speaker 1: Will will tell you what investigative tool he thinks he is going to need to help crack this case when we come back. Also, of course, we'll give you a reminder of the words of Savannah Guthrie. Certainly hoping for everybody's not just their help and their tips, but also their prayers. Stare we continue here on this Tuesday, February third. Just got an update from the Sheriff's department out there in Arizona and update Robes that wasn't much of an update.
00:11:24
Speaker 3: Reeled off what.
00:11:25
Speaker 1: He didn't know, didn't know, didn't know, didn't know having to do with Nancy Guthrie, the mother of Savannah Guthrie and Rose the simplest of things. What should we look out for, apparently just her face because don't know what she was wearing, don't know if she was in a car, don't know if she was with one person, two persons, don't know anything.
00:11:44
Speaker 2: They have offered now a twenty five hundred dollars reward for any information leading to I believe finding Nancy Guthrie not a big incentive. Financial incentive. I thought that was a little surprising that just twenty five hundred dollars. I would have thought that would have been more.
00:12:01
Speaker 1: Again, I know some of those come through crime stoppers crime so it's limited. But you never are going to suggest or tell the family to put up that type of money for a reward. They will tell them not to do so.
00:12:20
Speaker 2: You don't want to, Yeah, you don't want to incentivize people to target members of your family if you are a high earner. Obviously Savannah is a high earner, but still in that moment, you would want to do anything, throw money at whatever to try and get information to find your if you're desperate and you have means. I was just I understand why police would say, please don't do that, because you're just going to incentivize folks to commit crimes like this. But I do think it's interesting they talked about one of the reporters did actually ask about a missing camera. They've talked about how they've submitted all the cameras, all the surveillance, all the DNA anything. He said that you would typically spect investigators to take from a crime scene. They have taken all that they need. In fact, they said they're done with Nancy Guthrie's home. They said they it's they no longer because I think someone said there's no more crime scene tape. He's like, because we're done with the scene, we've processed the scene, and everything that we could possibly use or get our hands on is now being process It's been submitted and it's being processed. And he even said, I get it. I'm frustrated too. I want answers to but who's going through that video? Who's going through those surveillance cameras. But one of the reporters noticed that where there seemed like there was a camera, it isn't there now, and so he was saying, did you all take the camera? Could the suspect or suspects have taken the camera? And he just said, I don't know.
00:13:46
Speaker 3: Didn't he also say I don't know?
00:13:48
Speaker 1: And he was asked if he or any of his investigators had seen the footage it correct, like they didn't have it correct.
00:13:55
Speaker 2: It was almost as if the reporter was shining a light on something that at least he was not aware that there was a missing surveillance camera. You know, it's got a hole store basically, and then so the camera's missing strict way, did you all take that or could the suspect have taken it to take away the evidence.
00:14:11
Speaker 3: They try to.
00:14:13
Speaker 1: In the midst of this, if you if you found it a little comical, a little relief. But he was asked, like the reporter, they're just kind of eliminating things, right, if it's not this, not this, not this, Say wait a minute, how do you know the public shouldn't be worried. You're not telling us she was abducted or it was targeted. That was the point, and through his arm it was a funny response. He said, well, no, I don't think so. I don't think anybody's out there kidnapping elderly people from their homes.
00:14:41
Speaker 3: But I don't know, I haven't heard.
00:14:43
Speaker 2: He was like, He's like, it's not like we have an elderly person abducted from their home every day. So he was just like, it's not like it's some spree that somebody's on, some some abduction spree taking elderly people as he or she goes. So, I mean, you did you laughed out loud, you said, okay, I needed that.
00:15:00
Speaker 3: You know. It was just it spoke to.
00:15:04
Speaker 1: A degree of ridiculousness of just how little information was being shared and that's okay. They don't have it. But his response was, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, not too deep heavy really heard investigative questions. Now these are the basics, and he didn't want to release those or he didn't know. And if he has a strategy for if he needs to do what he needs to do at that podium today to get that woman home safely, then do your thing. And ain't nobody mad at.
00:15:28
Speaker 3: You for it?
00:15:28
Speaker 2: Yeah? I mean, I think, And he also he's not used to this. Obviously, I wouldn't expect. Tucson is in an area where we were constantly reporting on crime. But I do think he seemed a little overwhelmed by the media that has a mass there, and you know, that's what happens in these types of stories. Everyone sends reporters and they just take over these towns. And so he was complaining that basically he couldn't escape the media asking him questions until ten pm last night, which I'm sure it probably extended even later than that. So he was like, We're just going to do this one press conference and I'm not going to be doing what I did yesterday because he was everywhere, he was doing one on one interviews with all the networks.
00:16:09
Speaker 3: Which he knows he shouldn't.
00:16:10
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you do one press conference, you can't go to say yes to all those requests. Again, we've been the reporter and we appreciate the one on one time sitting and watching it from here. Obviously we understand dos one press conference and go to work.
00:16:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's got work to do, and he said that repeatedly. We have a lot of work.
00:16:28
Speaker 3: To do, which also.
00:16:30
Speaker 1: A right, folks, which is one to hop on and give that update again, just getting it from the sheriff out there. If we get anything else, we will certainly pass it back along to you, but we always appreciate your spending time with us. You want to make sure you get our updates. Top right corner of your Apple podcast app where you see our show page, it says follow click that and the updates will be coming to you. There have been a lot lately, folks, so don't miss out. But we appreciate you for my dear Amy Robot. I'm TJ.
00:16:53
Speaker 3: Holmes. Talk to Elser
Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Tuesday, February third, and we sure hope the authorities know more about the disappearance of Savannah Guthrie's mom than they're telling the public, because we just listened to a new briefing and we saw the sheriff several times throw his literally throw his arms in the airs to say I don't know. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. But as we start this episode, Robes, there was something very at least to us, that stood out. We'll get into what he didn't know, but we want to first robe what he wouldn't say, and that's whether or not a ransom has come in.
00:00:42
Speaker 2: And you know what, because he kept saying no, I don't know, and he kept shooting down lots of other questions, it was notable that he quickly glossed over without addressing the ransom question. And then, thankfully you were waiting for it, someone follow up and ask again. I was desperate the last question. A reporter you were like yes, finally followed up and said, hey, when someone asked you whether a ransom has been asked, you didn't say yes or no. And then he just said we are following all leads, which to me and to you, babe, was very talent.
00:01:21
Speaker 1: It's very easy to say no. It's very easy to say no, that's not happening. Does that hurt your investigation? To say no, we've eliminated that. He's eliminated some other things. She didn't wander off, he's eliminated. Say no, to say nope, there's no ransom rogues. He was asked twice he had a chance, and when he asked said it the first time that the answer was was here, we have all kinds of investigative leads we're working on, we have all is there a ransom? We have all kinds of investigative leads we're working on. Rose. That was a non answer. It sounded evasive to me. For whatever reason he has done that. But it was the last Yeah, hey, and he had a chance, ropes.
00:02:03
Speaker 2: And he's and you know, because he quickly and I could see how quickly you could too, he moved past that we are following, you know, all of our investigative leads boom, and just kept going and moved on and shifted to something else, hoping that reporters would forget about it. So when someone followed up, and he repeated it hurriedly to me, and he looked a little nervous. That was the only bit of new information that he didn't give that he actually may have by saying it the way he said it.
00:02:33
Speaker 1: The rest of it, you just take him at his word. He gave direct answers, saying I don't know and everything. This is the only thing if you're trying to read something from this press conference, Ropes, that is something that, in my opinion, at least in that moment and still now after the follow.
00:02:48
Speaker 3: Up, is glaring.
00:02:50
Speaker 2: I agree.
00:02:51
Speaker 1: We have talked about how unlikely it is that somebody just is out there kidnapping random elderly people, and then on top that they just happened to kidnap the mother of one of the most prominent journalists in the country.
00:03:04
Speaker 3: That's just it seems so unlikely.
00:03:07
Speaker 2: Yes, and look, obviously, well, I say obviously, we certainly hope, as you started off this episode by saying, they know more than they're telling us, But it would make sense if they have made it clear that folks who live in the area shouldn't necessarily be concerned when they said immediately that a crime had taken place, that she was taken against her will, that she was abducted. All of that would follow with a targeted and they were asked, was this targeted? Was this random? And he just said, I don't know.
00:03:47
Speaker 1: Besides rogues, we're talking about the ransom question. The other thing that really jumped out at me. The next briefing is on Thursday, Thursday, you have an urgent, immediate search for this woman. Everybody's trying to find her. I'll get back with you all in two days, like there should be another one this evening, one in the morning.
00:04:10
Speaker 2: The babe there would always normally be you and I have covered enough of it, and they know this story has garnered national and most likely international interest because of who Savannah Guthrie is. She is a household name, she is the co anchor of the Today Show, and her mom, at eighty four years old, was taken against her will out of her own home. This is a significant story that you would expect a sheriff's department. They've got the FBI there with them to give not hourly briefings, but certainly and not even just a daily briefing. I'm thinking twice a day kind of a briefing situation. So for him to punt the Thursday, and he seemed hurried and distracted, like he wanted to get out of there, because he did say multiple times we have a lot of work to do. Would follow a operating theory that they are actively engaged in some sort of back and forth that they don't want the media to know about it.
00:05:12
Speaker 1: There were a bunch of questions in that press conference Robes and he with those two things. I think it's other than that. I was kind of shocked at just how little he seemed to know. You tick them off? Asked what she was wearing? Asked, hey, what was she wearing? What should we look for?
00:05:33
Speaker 2: I don't know?
00:05:34
Speaker 3: Asked hey, does she leave in a car?
00:05:36
Speaker 2: Don't know?
00:05:36
Speaker 3: Hey?
00:05:37
Speaker 1: Was it one person? Was it several people that were involved in this?
00:05:40
Speaker 2: Unclear?
00:05:41
Speaker 3: And like you said, random or targeted?
00:05:43
Speaker 1: Don't know, knows nothing about nothing. Do you have the surveillance video working on it?
00:05:48
Speaker 3: We should be faster. Has the DNA been processed? Was there blood? No?
00:05:52
Speaker 1: No, we had to send it to a lab. So we're waiting. Robes.
00:05:55
Speaker 3: There was not much of an update.
00:05:57
Speaker 2: It was interesting and look, if any of you have gone on online, which I'm sure a lot of you have because we've been doing it too, because we're all desperate for answers, because this is such a bizarre, unexplained situation crime, so everyone is searching for answers in a lot of there's always leaks in police departments and in these types of investigations, But he would not confirm any of the leaks that are online, and so I would caution anybody from believing anything they're reading online about what police have found or what they're working on. The one thing that he did say specifically is that they have collected samples of DNA. Now he wouldn't get more specific if it was blood, if it was whatever, but he did say that so far, none of those samples of DNA have returned to HIT have given them any indication as to who a suspect might be. So the evidence and the information they've gotten from that evidence so far, he did say, has not shined a light on who may be responsible for her action.
00:07:00
Speaker 1: So hard I was, I was taking at the very beginning, and I think you did it at the end, just how emphatic he was and how direct he was and saying we don't have a clue, like he started the press conference, we need to find her. When asked directly, is she in the area, is she outside the area, we don't know where she is. He didn't know what to tell you to look in Arizona or in Connecticut.
00:07:22
Speaker 2: And it was frustrating to the journalists because look, on one hand, they're asking for the public's help and they still were The FBI agent didn't say much, but he just said, literally, I wrote this down, please help us bring Nancy Guthrie home. I thought that was so interesting. I just I haven't seen law enforcement seem so desperate begging for help. And then when reporters are asking for anything, for people to jog their memory or to maybe help them refine where they could be looking or what they should be considering or looking for in terms of helping the police, they gave zero direction from clothing to car to time. They wouldn't even give the timeline. Are reports out there about when her pacemaker may have stopped connecting with the Wi Fi, but he wouldn't even confirm that timeline as to when she might have been taken. He basically said anytime from nine to five pm Tucson, Arizona time till eleven am on Sunday. There's your window. I can't narrow it down. So that's frustrating to a lot of folks who are You're asking for our help and you won't give us anything to help in your investigation, maybe to help people residents jog their memory or say oh I was here then, or I noticed this. There there's nothing to go on but bae.
00:08:45
Speaker 3: Which is it?
00:08:45
Speaker 1: It's because they don't know anything, or it's because they know a lot and they just need to buy their time publicly because something's going on behind the scenes.
00:08:53
Speaker 2: Yes, and I think it definitely could be the ladder of the two. The other thing I thought because someone asked about Look, they made a big deal when we first got these press conferences that time was ticking that Nancy Guthrie has medication that she needs that she left behind. I mean she left her She didn't bring her phone, she didn't bring her medication, she didn't bring her wallet, she didn't bring her car key, I mean nothing. So they said twenty four hours and it could be fatal. So it's an obvious question for a reporter to ask, hey, it's been forty eight hours, you know what's the situation. And he said, well, we hope she's still alive. That is what he said.
00:09:32
Speaker 1: So, given what they said about the medication, twenty four hours and it could be fatal twenty four there was a lack of some type of hair on fire urgency. I don't need him to be hurried or fearful or scared or that type of thing. But I don't know how you're telling us we urgently need to find her and press I'll talk to you in two days. You all that we need your help and keeping this story gone and keeping with information, we'll talk to you in two days to update you.
00:10:06
Speaker 3: Robes. That doesn't make sense.
00:10:08
Speaker 1: It doesn't We don't need three decades in journalism to make that sense. That doesn't make sense.
00:10:14
Speaker 2: I've never heard of that. And he did say he did leave this caveat unless there's a development.
00:10:21
Speaker 1: We don't anticipate a quick end to this to where I can plan for two days.
00:10:27
Speaker 3: Robes.
00:10:27
Speaker 2: That does We both looked at each other when he said that. It was confusing. That doesn't make any sense. This is urgent, that the time is ticking for her well being, she needs her meds, and yet we'll talk to you in two days.
00:10:43
Speaker 3: It just did not make sense. But stay here.
00:10:46
Speaker 1: Will will tell you what investigative tool he thinks he is going to need to help crack this case when we come back. Also, of course, we'll give you a reminder of the words of Savannah Guthrie. Certainly hoping for everybody's not just their help and their tips, but also their prayers. Stare we continue here on this Tuesday, February third. Just got an update from the Sheriff's department out there in Arizona and update Robes that wasn't much of an update.
00:11:24
Speaker 3: Reeled off what.
00:11:25
Speaker 1: He didn't know, didn't know, didn't know, didn't know having to do with Nancy Guthrie, the mother of Savannah Guthrie and Rose the simplest of things. What should we look out for, apparently just her face because don't know what she was wearing, don't know if she was in a car, don't know if she was with one person, two persons, don't know anything.
00:11:44
Speaker 2: They have offered now a twenty five hundred dollars reward for any information leading to I believe finding Nancy Guthrie not a big incentive. Financial incentive. I thought that was a little surprising that just twenty five hundred dollars. I would have thought that would have been more.
00:12:01
Speaker 1: Again, I know some of those come through crime stoppers crime so it's limited. But you never are going to suggest or tell the family to put up that type of money for a reward. They will tell them not to do so.
00:12:20
Speaker 2: You don't want to, Yeah, you don't want to incentivize people to target members of your family if you are a high earner. Obviously Savannah is a high earner, but still in that moment, you would want to do anything, throw money at whatever to try and get information to find your if you're desperate and you have means. I was just I understand why police would say, please don't do that, because you're just going to incentivize folks to commit crimes like this. But I do think it's interesting they talked about one of the reporters did actually ask about a missing camera. They've talked about how they've submitted all the cameras, all the surveillance, all the DNA anything. He said that you would typically spect investigators to take from a crime scene. They have taken all that they need. In fact, they said they're done with Nancy Guthrie's home. They said they it's they no longer because I think someone said there's no more crime scene tape. He's like, because we're done with the scene, we've processed the scene, and everything that we could possibly use or get our hands on is now being process It's been submitted and it's being processed. And he even said, I get it. I'm frustrated too. I want answers to but who's going through that video? Who's going through those surveillance cameras. But one of the reporters noticed that where there seemed like there was a camera, it isn't there now, and so he was saying, did you all take the camera? Could the suspect or suspects have taken the camera? And he just said, I don't know.
00:13:46
Speaker 3: Didn't he also say I don't know?
00:13:48
Speaker 1: And he was asked if he or any of his investigators had seen the footage it correct, like they didn't have it correct.
00:13:55
Speaker 2: It was almost as if the reporter was shining a light on something that at least he was not aware that there was a missing surveillance camera. You know, it's got a hole store basically, and then so the camera's missing strict way, did you all take that or could the suspect have taken it to take away the evidence.
00:14:11
Speaker 3: They try to.
00:14:13
Speaker 1: In the midst of this, if you if you found it a little comical, a little relief. But he was asked, like the reporter, they're just kind of eliminating things, right, if it's not this, not this, not this, Say wait a minute, how do you know the public shouldn't be worried. You're not telling us she was abducted or it was targeted. That was the point, and through his arm it was a funny response. He said, well, no, I don't think so. I don't think anybody's out there kidnapping elderly people from their homes.
00:14:41
Speaker 3: But I don't know, I haven't heard.
00:14:43
Speaker 2: He was like, He's like, it's not like we have an elderly person abducted from their home every day. So he was just like, it's not like it's some spree that somebody's on, some some abduction spree taking elderly people as he or she goes. So, I mean, you did you laughed out loud, you said, okay, I needed that.
00:15:00
Speaker 3: You know. It was just it spoke to.
00:15:04
Speaker 1: A degree of ridiculousness of just how little information was being shared and that's okay. They don't have it. But his response was, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, not too deep heavy really heard investigative questions. Now these are the basics, and he didn't want to release those or he didn't know. And if he has a strategy for if he needs to do what he needs to do at that podium today to get that woman home safely, then do your thing. And ain't nobody mad at.
00:15:28
Speaker 3: You for it?
00:15:28
Speaker 2: Yeah? I mean, I think, And he also he's not used to this. Obviously, I wouldn't expect. Tucson is in an area where we were constantly reporting on crime. But I do think he seemed a little overwhelmed by the media that has a mass there, and you know, that's what happens in these types of stories. Everyone sends reporters and they just take over these towns. And so he was complaining that basically he couldn't escape the media asking him questions until ten pm last night, which I'm sure it probably extended even later than that. So he was like, We're just going to do this one press conference and I'm not going to be doing what I did yesterday because he was everywhere, he was doing one on one interviews with all the networks.
00:16:09
Speaker 3: Which he knows he shouldn't.
00:16:10
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you do one press conference, you can't go to say yes to all those requests. Again, we've been the reporter and we appreciate the one on one time sitting and watching it from here. Obviously we understand dos one press conference and go to work.
00:16:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's got work to do, and he said that repeatedly. We have a lot of work.
00:16:28
Speaker 3: To do, which also.
00:16:30
Speaker 1: A right, folks, which is one to hop on and give that update again, just getting it from the sheriff out there. If we get anything else, we will certainly pass it back along to you, but we always appreciate your spending time with us. You want to make sure you get our updates. Top right corner of your Apple podcast app where you see our show page, it says follow click that and the updates will be coming to you. There have been a lot lately, folks, so don't miss out. But we appreciate you for my dear Amy Robot. I'm TJ.
00:16:53
Speaker 3: Holmes. Talk to Elser