Feb. 4, 2026
Sheriff Disputes Shocking Claim that Guthrie Family Member is “Prime Suspect”
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed As police continue to investigate the abduction of the 84 year old mother of Savannah Guthrie, the Sheriff’s department had to put out a statement today refuting an allegation made by journalist Ashleigh Banfield. Banfield has claimed a “high level source” told her that Savannah’s brother-in-law may be the prime suspect in Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance. As several news outlets picked up on the headline, the sheriff’s department responded by acknowledging that while detectives continue to speak with anyone who had contact with Nancy Guthrie, NO suspects have been identified at this time.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:10
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:10
Speaker 2: It is Wednesday, February fourth, and it has been another day not of major developments in the case of Nancy Guthrie, but another day of bizarre twists in the case. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Bizarre twists in that Robes. The sheriff is once again having to spend some time shooting down some media report that comes out about his case. It's happened again, and this time it has to do with someone identifying but it sounds like a suspect.
00:00:44
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is a major development that has now been disputed and refuted by police. And yet, as we know and so many people do, once someone puts outation, it's almost impossible to take it back. It creates suspicion, it creates it takes the case into a direction that the police are saying, hey stop, whoa, this isn't true. And yet once this is why it is so important journalists, the media. When we say something that we received in terms of information from a source from some way that we have identified and we have corroborated and then we disseminated, we expect or hope at least that our audience, the people who trust us, believe what we're putting out there. The problem is when people are rushing to try and get a scoop or say I've got information that no one else has, and then it turns out to be false. It does so much damage to the investigation, to the victim.
00:01:53
Speaker 2: Even before we know if this turns out to be true or not. So the case kind of when to a bit of chaos, to a certain degree, at least publicly robes again many people, you understand what this story is about now. Nancy Guthrie, eighty four year old mother of Savannah Guthrie, Today's show host, has been missing since the last Saturday, last time she was seen. So I'm gonna read the sheriff's statement first, Rhodes, because it seems like I want to I want to go backwards.
00:02:21
Speaker 1: It's almost I don't want.
00:02:22
Speaker 2: To name the person, but this is what at least the sheriff put this out in the Sheriff's department quote. At this point, investigators have not identified a suspect or person of interest in this case.
00:02:36
Speaker 1: Detectives continue to speak with.
00:02:37
Speaker 2: Anyone who may have had contact with missus Guthrie. Detectives are working closely with the Guthrie family. While we appreciate the public's concern, the sharing of unverified accusations or false information is irresponsible and does not assist the investigation. It closes with this, no suspect or person of interest has been idea ified at this time. Ropes, he had to do that, and he had to do that because a journalist did go out there and put out publicly that a family member and we have the quotes, so we don't want a paraphrase. But what she was essentially saying is that a source is telling her that a family member is a suspect.
00:03:20
Speaker 3: Yes, and she said a high level source. She said high high, high level, and also went so far as to say that a family member's car was seized. And I can say right here, TMZ is reporting that The sheriff's department specifically said, we are not confirming a car being seized.
00:03:40
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean they don't have it. We were not confirming or we.
00:03:43
Speaker 3: Don't have and added, we are unsure where that reporter is getting that information.
00:03:48
Speaker 2: Again, that information again, you can read between lines here that's not correct, no versus. We're not sure where the reporter is getting the information. That's saying that that information could prosper be true. That's how I read that stuff. And because there is a lack we just talked about yesterday, there's a void of actual, real official information. So everybody's filling in the blanks, including reporters, including websites, including news organizations that are trying to get something out. I don't know what to do with this, because this is a long it's out there now. Ashley Banfield, this is a long time journalist. She's been around a long time, thirty plus. She I actually heard her say thirty eight in something she knows, and she's worked with networks. She knows what a source and a credible one is. I have a difficult time thinking she would be this irresponsible.
00:04:39
Speaker 4: You've said that from the beginning.
00:04:40
Speaker 3: And this is someone I don't know her personally, but I have worked adjacent to her. She's been at NBC News, MSNBC, CNN Correct and also recently News Nations. She's now described as an independent journalist. She has a podcast. But to your point, she has had had a long and reputable career. She has spoken out in moments about certain topics that have gotten her into trouble with her network. Because she's an impassioned Uh she has opinions, and.
00:05:14
Speaker 4: She has, but she's never necessary.
00:05:16
Speaker 3: She's never been or I've never known of an instance where she's been she's been messy with the truth or put something out there just to get attention.
00:05:29
Speaker 4: I haven't seen an incident of this.
00:05:31
Speaker 3: And so to you were like, let's let's take her at least for her word. At least because she has had a career where you wouldn't necessarily say, oh, she's just doing her thing, or she's just spouting off, or she's just trying to get attention.
00:05:45
Speaker 4: She doesn't necessary, she doesn't have.
00:05:46
Speaker 3: That reputation necessarily, so it's not like you'd think she's just doing this to get attention.
00:05:52
Speaker 1: I don't need to see her history. I didn't need to see her background.
00:05:54
Speaker 2: I don't think she's It's not what I'm saying is she has been around long enough to know on a story this big, if you have a piece of information, you just don't go blurted out unless you feel damn sure. She's worked at networks where something like this will require minimum up to with sometimes three to four.
00:06:14
Speaker 1: Sources before you go with it.
00:06:16
Speaker 2: I'm saying she knows how big this story is, and she knows how big that tip she has would be.
00:06:23
Speaker 1: She knows not to be irresponsible.
00:06:25
Speaker 2: I'm saying that is my best guess and the thing that gives me most confidence that maybe she knows what she's talking about, because there's no way she knows to be this kind of irresponsible.
00:06:35
Speaker 3: Yes, and I can't imagine that someone someone told her this information and she knows who this person is and trusts in their ability to have access to this information.
00:06:51
Speaker 4: She felt confident. We watched her tell the story.
00:06:55
Speaker 3: She you could tell she felt confident that she was hand or disseminating information that she felt was from a reliable source.
00:07:06
Speaker 2: I don't know, then, do we have the quotes here? Because I saw some of them and I thought she was really couching and really trying to be not just. It wasn't I would say, I would say it wasn't confident. I would say she said something and then was very careful and tiptoed and used particular words, and then at some point even sounded like she was walking something back. I don't know how confident she feels in her source and the information.
00:07:31
Speaker 4: She gave herself. A lot of legal wiggle room. Okay, that's what I would say.
00:07:36
Speaker 3: I think it sounded to me that she felt confident in what she was saying, but she also knows this business well enough and doesn't want to get sued and found a way to say, maybe, may possibly let me tamp that down a bit. She definitely qualified the information she had, and she tried to put it in perspective that gave her some legal wiggle room.
00:08:00
Speaker 2: And the way she said it the first time, quote, I can tell you that there is a family member who is heavily being looked at right now as a potential suspect. I can tell you that there is a family member who is heavily being looked at right now as a potential suspect. That's how she put it the first time in announcing that this was out there. I don't know how confident does she sound in that?
00:08:27
Speaker 3: And then she but you know what, when she was talking about who this family member was and saying, this is a family member of a prominent news anchor, so she seemed she was beefing up the fact that this person wouldn't be looked at just randomly. But within the next breath she did say I want to get this right. She said that, let me tamp that down, because this suspect could be a prime suspect, as in.
00:08:59
Speaker 4: The first suspect. I didn't like because family is always looked at first.
00:09:03
Speaker 1: I didn't like that. Baby. Maybe that was a point. I agree.
00:09:06
Speaker 3: And you can say that and not name the person. You could just say a family member, but she actually named the person. And now if you go online, that person's name and face is everywhere, and you can't take the toothpaste out of the tooth. Once you say something like that, that person's life changes forever.
00:09:25
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't like. By okay, here's her. She says that there's a family member who is being heavily looked at right now as a potential suspect. And she goes back in saying now at some point saying prime suspect, couching it to the point, Well, maybe it just means first because it's a close family member and that's what they mean by prime. That's not how it goes Rose. No, that's no, that's not okay. So I forgot about that line.
00:09:55
Speaker 1: I don't know.
00:09:56
Speaker 4: That one is the line that bothered me.
00:09:58
Speaker 3: She was she was giving herself legal protection period and maybe thinking that she was. She was giving a little space for people who were listening to suspend judgment. But once you name someone's name and once you say he's being heavily looked at, you can't take that back. And that's all people hear. And we know this when people see a headline. When people hear someone like Ashley Banfield say something like this, they believe it. And then they look at everything now through that lens, through the lens that this person might be guilty, and you say might be, But all they hear is guilty or suspect, prime suspect. They're not hearing the maze or the possibly or a source says, none of that actually registers with people when they're listening to someone a journalist telling them something, or reading a headline or seeing a picture. And then now you have look, we know what it's like to have cameras and people all up in you and they're hiding, right, So they've got pictures of a family member alongside their spouse, covering up, hiding their faces because they.
00:11:09
Speaker 4: Don't want cameras in their face, and now that makes them look guilty.
00:11:14
Speaker 3: It all feeds into this narrative that Ashley Banfield's set into play and it could be true.
00:11:22
Speaker 2: It could be true, But even if it is true, is it responsible? Is the thing?
00:11:27
Speaker 1: I don't know.
00:11:27
Speaker 2: This is a big story. Everybody is any little bit of information they're trying to jump on and say they've got something exclusive, and this may be the most exclusive, and she might be ultimately right, but right now, ropes every headline, brother in law, prime suspect. Brother in law is the prime suspect. Brother in law may be a suspect, brother in law, brother in law. So it's out there everywhere, and I'm sorry, I'm reading the headlines. I'm mistakenly, but it's certainly out there the suspect that they're talking about.
00:11:54
Speaker 1: So I apologize there. I'm gonna go back and edit this out now. That sucks.
00:11:59
Speaker 3: Anyone who's fallen this case closely, who's listening to this podcast, I'm sure already knows at this point that she put it out there.
00:12:05
Speaker 4: She put out this was.
00:12:06
Speaker 3: The brother in laws of Savannah's sister's husband, and so yeah, that is they're already going through hell right now. And look, we don't know what police are doing and who they're looking at and who they're zeroing in on. But I'm just imagining like you're already struggling as a family to find your mom, and now you've got people pointing the finger at your relatives and your It's just a mess.
00:12:30
Speaker 2: We don't know what that family dynamic was before. This is what is going on now. But this is nobody wants to be dealing with this. The other line she was. We watched Ashley Benfield later doing an interview on another online platform and she said about her source, how high up. They don't get a lot higher than this level. So she's saying she got somebody really high up in this investigation saying it, but that was her response, They'll get much higher up than this level. And again how she said it. The source said this that this person, this family member, may be the prime suspect in the case. Then she said it that way.
00:13:13
Speaker 4: Can we just talk about that.
00:13:14
Speaker 3: As journalists, you and I have covered plenty of high profile criminal investigations. We would never go on the record with someone's name, with an unnamed source that hasn't had a second source or a third source and name that person and couch it by saying they may.
00:13:33
Speaker 4: Be a prime suspect. No news organization.
00:13:37
Speaker 3: Certainly, no network news organization, any news organization that could be sued and has a team of lawyers that has standards and practices, would never let you, ever, and rightfully so go on the record with this because this has consequences.
00:13:52
Speaker 1: Maybe it's different now it's the wild West of journalism and independent journalists. It is getting I believe that.
00:13:58
Speaker 2: Oh, and again I want to give credit to what has been certainly is a career of hers that I respect. And she might be absolutely right and feel she might have a confidence we don't understand, and she might have a confidence that we don't get and that's not coming through in what she's saying. But that is a tough line.
00:14:14
Speaker 1: Robes.
00:14:15
Speaker 2: My source told me that this family member may be the prime suspect. We would never attempt ever to put that on to broadcast.
00:14:28
Speaker 3: And it will be interesting, that's the case, yes, But it's interesting too because now, after having said this, to have the police so staunchly come out and say we have not identified a suspect or person of interest in this case. Now we know we know police keep things close to the best. We know things that I mean, we know that they know things that we don't know, and they won't tell us, and we understand that and we respect that because that's what they have to do to maintain the integrity of their investigation. So we know they're not going to tell us everything, and they're not going to say, oh, you're right, you got it right. Oh, well you found out. We understand that. But still that was a pretty strong statement to come back with.
00:15:08
Speaker 2: Oh goodness, well, folks, a bizarre day of developments. Yes, but there's more. We got updates about the Olympics. NBC is having to make some major changes because of this story, and also will tell you about the phone call from the White House that Savannah Guthrie got. All right, we continue here on Aby and TJ, just to wrap up Rogue.
00:15:39
Speaker 1: No surprises here.
00:15:41
Speaker 2: NBC is having to scramble, no doubt when this happened. Plans have been in place for two years for Savannah Guthrie to go to the Olympics, and all of that has gone away, and now it's impacting her co anchor over there as well.
00:15:55
Speaker 1: There. It's gonna look.
00:15:56
Speaker 3: Different, Yeah, Craig Melvin was supposed to be in Milan as well alongside Savannah Guthrie. NBC has made the decision to keep Craig Melvin back stateside.
00:16:06
Speaker 4: While this all goes on.
00:16:08
Speaker 3: So they made some announcements about some shuffling of talent. Basically, who was supposed to be at or at least headlining the Olympics. It's now switched up a little bit. So Akmed Freed is stepping in for Creig Melvin's place, and we've got Mary Carillo is joining Terry Gannon I believe.
00:16:27
Speaker 4: For opening ceremonies.
00:16:28
Speaker 3: So they've made the appropriate staff changes to compensate. But yeah, it's a big deal for Craig to stay back and be there in New York. And look, a lot of times the Today Show they take the whole show overseas, they everybody moves over.
00:16:45
Speaker 4: So look, this is a this is a who.
00:16:48
Speaker 3: Could have ever imagined them having to address or deal with a situation like this, But they are adjusting and this is the right call.
00:16:56
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:16:56
Speaker 2: Oh, and I'm sure he didn't want to go if he they probably if they asked him, he probably will want to stay. That's his family member, and he doesn't want to be across the world while this is going on.
00:17:07
Speaker 1: I get that.
00:17:08
Speaker 2: So oh it makes so it makes absolute sense. Good to hear that, and also he was asked about it yesterday. I think the President was about Savannah. Guthrie made some brief comments, but we did a good word that he in fact did touch base with her going to the White House, was able to speak to her. The President was and offered assistance. I don't know exactly what.
00:17:25
Speaker 3: Yes, So well, Tom Yamas actually was the evening news anchor there, the nightly news anchor who we've both worked with and know very well, was actually doing an interview with President Trump that's going to air in the pregame coverage of the Super Bowl, so he was already talking to President Trump, and he did say that the President called Savannah and that Savannah thanked the President for taking the time to.
00:17:49
Speaker 4: Call her to call her family.
00:17:51
Speaker 3: She told him that they were devastated, they were praying, and she said, according to Yamas, that Savannah thanked President Trump for the hard work of and federal authorities on the case.
00:18:02
Speaker 4: And she reiterated, and she's been saying this.
00:18:04
Speaker 3: From what we've heard from her on social media, that what the family needs right now prayers. More than anything. They are praying for her mother's safe return. And we also heard from the sheriff saying they believe Nancy Guthrie is still alive and he said that today, Well.
00:18:19
Speaker 2: Folks, that is the hope. This is a fast moving story. Top right corner of your Apple podcast app where you see our show page button, it says follow click that you can always get our updates coming directly to you. You don't have to go looking for them. And again, there have been a lot. We will hop back on anytime there are relevant, significant updates in this case, and there have been a lot. But folks, we appreciate you sticking with us on TJ. Holmes on behalf of Amy Roboc. We will talk to you all soon
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:10
Speaker 2: It is Wednesday, February fourth, and it has been another day not of major developments in the case of Nancy Guthrie, but another day of bizarre twists in the case. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Bizarre twists in that Robes. The sheriff is once again having to spend some time shooting down some media report that comes out about his case. It's happened again, and this time it has to do with someone identifying but it sounds like a suspect.
00:00:44
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is a major development that has now been disputed and refuted by police. And yet, as we know and so many people do, once someone puts outation, it's almost impossible to take it back. It creates suspicion, it creates it takes the case into a direction that the police are saying, hey stop, whoa, this isn't true. And yet once this is why it is so important journalists, the media. When we say something that we received in terms of information from a source from some way that we have identified and we have corroborated and then we disseminated, we expect or hope at least that our audience, the people who trust us, believe what we're putting out there. The problem is when people are rushing to try and get a scoop or say I've got information that no one else has, and then it turns out to be false. It does so much damage to the investigation, to the victim.
00:01:53
Speaker 2: Even before we know if this turns out to be true or not. So the case kind of when to a bit of chaos, to a certain degree, at least publicly robes again many people, you understand what this story is about now. Nancy Guthrie, eighty four year old mother of Savannah Guthrie, Today's show host, has been missing since the last Saturday, last time she was seen. So I'm gonna read the sheriff's statement first, Rhodes, because it seems like I want to I want to go backwards.
00:02:21
Speaker 1: It's almost I don't want.
00:02:22
Speaker 2: To name the person, but this is what at least the sheriff put this out in the Sheriff's department quote. At this point, investigators have not identified a suspect or person of interest in this case.
00:02:36
Speaker 1: Detectives continue to speak with.
00:02:37
Speaker 2: Anyone who may have had contact with missus Guthrie. Detectives are working closely with the Guthrie family. While we appreciate the public's concern, the sharing of unverified accusations or false information is irresponsible and does not assist the investigation. It closes with this, no suspect or person of interest has been idea ified at this time. Ropes, he had to do that, and he had to do that because a journalist did go out there and put out publicly that a family member and we have the quotes, so we don't want a paraphrase. But what she was essentially saying is that a source is telling her that a family member is a suspect.
00:03:20
Speaker 3: Yes, and she said a high level source. She said high high, high level, and also went so far as to say that a family member's car was seized. And I can say right here, TMZ is reporting that The sheriff's department specifically said, we are not confirming a car being seized.
00:03:40
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean they don't have it. We were not confirming or we.
00:03:43
Speaker 3: Don't have and added, we are unsure where that reporter is getting that information.
00:03:48
Speaker 2: Again, that information again, you can read between lines here that's not correct, no versus. We're not sure where the reporter is getting the information. That's saying that that information could prosper be true. That's how I read that stuff. And because there is a lack we just talked about yesterday, there's a void of actual, real official information. So everybody's filling in the blanks, including reporters, including websites, including news organizations that are trying to get something out. I don't know what to do with this, because this is a long it's out there now. Ashley Banfield, this is a long time journalist. She's been around a long time, thirty plus. She I actually heard her say thirty eight in something she knows, and she's worked with networks. She knows what a source and a credible one is. I have a difficult time thinking she would be this irresponsible.
00:04:39
Speaker 4: You've said that from the beginning.
00:04:40
Speaker 3: And this is someone I don't know her personally, but I have worked adjacent to her. She's been at NBC News, MSNBC, CNN Correct and also recently News Nations. She's now described as an independent journalist. She has a podcast. But to your point, she has had had a long and reputable career. She has spoken out in moments about certain topics that have gotten her into trouble with her network. Because she's an impassioned Uh she has opinions, and.
00:05:14
Speaker 4: She has, but she's never necessary.
00:05:16
Speaker 3: She's never been or I've never known of an instance where she's been she's been messy with the truth or put something out there just to get attention.
00:05:29
Speaker 4: I haven't seen an incident of this.
00:05:31
Speaker 3: And so to you were like, let's let's take her at least for her word. At least because she has had a career where you wouldn't necessarily say, oh, she's just doing her thing, or she's just spouting off, or she's just trying to get attention.
00:05:45
Speaker 4: She doesn't necessary, she doesn't have.
00:05:46
Speaker 3: That reputation necessarily, so it's not like you'd think she's just doing this to get attention.
00:05:52
Speaker 1: I don't need to see her history. I didn't need to see her background.
00:05:54
Speaker 2: I don't think she's It's not what I'm saying is she has been around long enough to know on a story this big, if you have a piece of information, you just don't go blurted out unless you feel damn sure. She's worked at networks where something like this will require minimum up to with sometimes three to four.
00:06:14
Speaker 1: Sources before you go with it.
00:06:16
Speaker 2: I'm saying she knows how big this story is, and she knows how big that tip she has would be.
00:06:23
Speaker 1: She knows not to be irresponsible.
00:06:25
Speaker 2: I'm saying that is my best guess and the thing that gives me most confidence that maybe she knows what she's talking about, because there's no way she knows to be this kind of irresponsible.
00:06:35
Speaker 3: Yes, and I can't imagine that someone someone told her this information and she knows who this person is and trusts in their ability to have access to this information.
00:06:51
Speaker 4: She felt confident. We watched her tell the story.
00:06:55
Speaker 3: She you could tell she felt confident that she was hand or disseminating information that she felt was from a reliable source.
00:07:06
Speaker 2: I don't know, then, do we have the quotes here? Because I saw some of them and I thought she was really couching and really trying to be not just. It wasn't I would say, I would say it wasn't confident. I would say she said something and then was very careful and tiptoed and used particular words, and then at some point even sounded like she was walking something back. I don't know how confident she feels in her source and the information.
00:07:31
Speaker 4: She gave herself. A lot of legal wiggle room. Okay, that's what I would say.
00:07:36
Speaker 3: I think it sounded to me that she felt confident in what she was saying, but she also knows this business well enough and doesn't want to get sued and found a way to say, maybe, may possibly let me tamp that down a bit. She definitely qualified the information she had, and she tried to put it in perspective that gave her some legal wiggle room.
00:08:00
Speaker 2: And the way she said it the first time, quote, I can tell you that there is a family member who is heavily being looked at right now as a potential suspect. I can tell you that there is a family member who is heavily being looked at right now as a potential suspect. That's how she put it the first time in announcing that this was out there. I don't know how confident does she sound in that?
00:08:27
Speaker 3: And then she but you know what, when she was talking about who this family member was and saying, this is a family member of a prominent news anchor, so she seemed she was beefing up the fact that this person wouldn't be looked at just randomly. But within the next breath she did say I want to get this right. She said that, let me tamp that down, because this suspect could be a prime suspect, as in.
00:08:59
Speaker 4: The first suspect. I didn't like because family is always looked at first.
00:09:03
Speaker 1: I didn't like that. Baby. Maybe that was a point. I agree.
00:09:06
Speaker 3: And you can say that and not name the person. You could just say a family member, but she actually named the person. And now if you go online, that person's name and face is everywhere, and you can't take the toothpaste out of the tooth. Once you say something like that, that person's life changes forever.
00:09:25
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't like. By okay, here's her. She says that there's a family member who is being heavily looked at right now as a potential suspect. And she goes back in saying now at some point saying prime suspect, couching it to the point, Well, maybe it just means first because it's a close family member and that's what they mean by prime. That's not how it goes Rose. No, that's no, that's not okay. So I forgot about that line.
00:09:55
Speaker 1: I don't know.
00:09:56
Speaker 4: That one is the line that bothered me.
00:09:58
Speaker 3: She was she was giving herself legal protection period and maybe thinking that she was. She was giving a little space for people who were listening to suspend judgment. But once you name someone's name and once you say he's being heavily looked at, you can't take that back. And that's all people hear. And we know this when people see a headline. When people hear someone like Ashley Banfield say something like this, they believe it. And then they look at everything now through that lens, through the lens that this person might be guilty, and you say might be, But all they hear is guilty or suspect, prime suspect. They're not hearing the maze or the possibly or a source says, none of that actually registers with people when they're listening to someone a journalist telling them something, or reading a headline or seeing a picture. And then now you have look, we know what it's like to have cameras and people all up in you and they're hiding, right, So they've got pictures of a family member alongside their spouse, covering up, hiding their faces because they.
00:11:09
Speaker 4: Don't want cameras in their face, and now that makes them look guilty.
00:11:14
Speaker 3: It all feeds into this narrative that Ashley Banfield's set into play and it could be true.
00:11:22
Speaker 2: It could be true, But even if it is true, is it responsible? Is the thing?
00:11:27
Speaker 1: I don't know.
00:11:27
Speaker 2: This is a big story. Everybody is any little bit of information they're trying to jump on and say they've got something exclusive, and this may be the most exclusive, and she might be ultimately right, but right now, ropes every headline, brother in law, prime suspect. Brother in law is the prime suspect. Brother in law may be a suspect, brother in law, brother in law. So it's out there everywhere, and I'm sorry, I'm reading the headlines. I'm mistakenly, but it's certainly out there the suspect that they're talking about.
00:11:54
Speaker 1: So I apologize there. I'm gonna go back and edit this out now. That sucks.
00:11:59
Speaker 3: Anyone who's fallen this case closely, who's listening to this podcast, I'm sure already knows at this point that she put it out there.
00:12:05
Speaker 4: She put out this was.
00:12:06
Speaker 3: The brother in laws of Savannah's sister's husband, and so yeah, that is they're already going through hell right now. And look, we don't know what police are doing and who they're looking at and who they're zeroing in on. But I'm just imagining like you're already struggling as a family to find your mom, and now you've got people pointing the finger at your relatives and your It's just a mess.
00:12:30
Speaker 2: We don't know what that family dynamic was before. This is what is going on now. But this is nobody wants to be dealing with this. The other line she was. We watched Ashley Benfield later doing an interview on another online platform and she said about her source, how high up. They don't get a lot higher than this level. So she's saying she got somebody really high up in this investigation saying it, but that was her response, They'll get much higher up than this level. And again how she said it. The source said this that this person, this family member, may be the prime suspect in the case. Then she said it that way.
00:13:13
Speaker 4: Can we just talk about that.
00:13:14
Speaker 3: As journalists, you and I have covered plenty of high profile criminal investigations. We would never go on the record with someone's name, with an unnamed source that hasn't had a second source or a third source and name that person and couch it by saying they may.
00:13:33
Speaker 4: Be a prime suspect. No news organization.
00:13:37
Speaker 3: Certainly, no network news organization, any news organization that could be sued and has a team of lawyers that has standards and practices, would never let you, ever, and rightfully so go on the record with this because this has consequences.
00:13:52
Speaker 1: Maybe it's different now it's the wild West of journalism and independent journalists. It is getting I believe that.
00:13:58
Speaker 2: Oh, and again I want to give credit to what has been certainly is a career of hers that I respect. And she might be absolutely right and feel she might have a confidence we don't understand, and she might have a confidence that we don't get and that's not coming through in what she's saying. But that is a tough line.
00:14:14
Speaker 1: Robes.
00:14:15
Speaker 2: My source told me that this family member may be the prime suspect. We would never attempt ever to put that on to broadcast.
00:14:28
Speaker 3: And it will be interesting, that's the case, yes, But it's interesting too because now, after having said this, to have the police so staunchly come out and say we have not identified a suspect or person of interest in this case. Now we know we know police keep things close to the best. We know things that I mean, we know that they know things that we don't know, and they won't tell us, and we understand that and we respect that because that's what they have to do to maintain the integrity of their investigation. So we know they're not going to tell us everything, and they're not going to say, oh, you're right, you got it right. Oh, well you found out. We understand that. But still that was a pretty strong statement to come back with.
00:15:08
Speaker 2: Oh goodness, well, folks, a bizarre day of developments. Yes, but there's more. We got updates about the Olympics. NBC is having to make some major changes because of this story, and also will tell you about the phone call from the White House that Savannah Guthrie got. All right, we continue here on Aby and TJ, just to wrap up Rogue.
00:15:39
Speaker 1: No surprises here.
00:15:41
Speaker 2: NBC is having to scramble, no doubt when this happened. Plans have been in place for two years for Savannah Guthrie to go to the Olympics, and all of that has gone away, and now it's impacting her co anchor over there as well.
00:15:55
Speaker 1: There. It's gonna look.
00:15:56
Speaker 3: Different, Yeah, Craig Melvin was supposed to be in Milan as well alongside Savannah Guthrie. NBC has made the decision to keep Craig Melvin back stateside.
00:16:06
Speaker 4: While this all goes on.
00:16:08
Speaker 3: So they made some announcements about some shuffling of talent. Basically, who was supposed to be at or at least headlining the Olympics. It's now switched up a little bit. So Akmed Freed is stepping in for Creig Melvin's place, and we've got Mary Carillo is joining Terry Gannon I believe.
00:16:27
Speaker 4: For opening ceremonies.
00:16:28
Speaker 3: So they've made the appropriate staff changes to compensate. But yeah, it's a big deal for Craig to stay back and be there in New York. And look, a lot of times the Today Show they take the whole show overseas, they everybody moves over.
00:16:45
Speaker 4: So look, this is a this is a who.
00:16:48
Speaker 3: Could have ever imagined them having to address or deal with a situation like this, But they are adjusting and this is the right call.
00:16:56
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:16:56
Speaker 2: Oh, and I'm sure he didn't want to go if he they probably if they asked him, he probably will want to stay. That's his family member, and he doesn't want to be across the world while this is going on.
00:17:07
Speaker 1: I get that.
00:17:08
Speaker 2: So oh it makes so it makes absolute sense. Good to hear that, and also he was asked about it yesterday. I think the President was about Savannah. Guthrie made some brief comments, but we did a good word that he in fact did touch base with her going to the White House, was able to speak to her. The President was and offered assistance. I don't know exactly what.
00:17:25
Speaker 3: Yes, So well, Tom Yamas actually was the evening news anchor there, the nightly news anchor who we've both worked with and know very well, was actually doing an interview with President Trump that's going to air in the pregame coverage of the Super Bowl, so he was already talking to President Trump, and he did say that the President called Savannah and that Savannah thanked the President for taking the time to.
00:17:49
Speaker 4: Call her to call her family.
00:17:51
Speaker 3: She told him that they were devastated, they were praying, and she said, according to Yamas, that Savannah thanked President Trump for the hard work of and federal authorities on the case.
00:18:02
Speaker 4: And she reiterated, and she's been saying this.
00:18:04
Speaker 3: From what we've heard from her on social media, that what the family needs right now prayers. More than anything. They are praying for her mother's safe return. And we also heard from the sheriff saying they believe Nancy Guthrie is still alive and he said that today, Well.
00:18:19
Speaker 2: Folks, that is the hope. This is a fast moving story. Top right corner of your Apple podcast app where you see our show page button, it says follow click that you can always get our updates coming directly to you. You don't have to go looking for them. And again, there have been a lot. We will hop back on anytime there are relevant, significant updates in this case, and there have been a lot. But folks, we appreciate you sticking with us on TJ. Holmes on behalf of Amy Roboc. We will talk to you all soon