Speaker 1: Hey, that folks did is Wednesday, February eighteenth, and a
Speaker 1: highly anticipated and major update in the gu three case.
Speaker 1: A major update that turned out to be a major setback. Plus,
Speaker 1: the sheriff out in Arizona did a new round of
Speaker 1: media interviews yesterday and gave several interesting and even confusing updates.
Speaker 1: Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Bros. Major
Speaker 1: setback in that this was a highly anticipated result. We
Speaker 1: were waiting on DNA from the gloves.
Speaker 2: We got that back, yes, and it did not match
Speaker 2: that DNA did not match any known suspect in this
Speaker 2: federal or I guess this national database of folks who
Speaker 2: have been processed through our judicial system. So they did
Speaker 2: not lead to any conclusive suspect.
Speaker 1: And again this is in robes as far as leads go,
Speaker 1: as major leads go, have been a whole lot, at
Speaker 1: least they've shared with us. But it doesn't seem like
Speaker 1: they have a whole lot. When you sit and talk
Speaker 1: to the sheriff, he doesn't seem confident and whatnot. This
Speaker 1: was a big deal because what the gloves they said,
Speaker 1: match the gloves that the suspect has on in that
Speaker 1: ring camera. So this could be the suspect's gloves and wow,
Speaker 1: there's DNA in those gloves. It was just there were
Speaker 1: high hopes that this could lead to something.
Speaker 2: Correct, There were expectations that perhaps this could be the
Speaker 2: smoking gun, or this could be the thing that leads
Speaker 2: us directly to Nancy Guthrie or at least find the
Speaker 2: person who took her. The other thing that was a
Speaker 2: little confusing to me. Well, we'll get into a lot
Speaker 2: of the confusion. But the DNA that was found in
Speaker 2: the gloves is not the same DNA that was found
Speaker 2: inside the Guthrie home.
Speaker 1: Correct, Yeah, so there's another set of DNA apparently that
Speaker 1: was found inside the house, and there is where some
Speaker 1: confusion lies. That we'll get into a couple of updates
Speaker 1: from the share or we'll get into as well. This
Speaker 1: idea of a proof of life that the family has
Speaker 1: been asking for, Well, he did bring that up in
Speaker 1: relation to also a proof of death. We'll explain that.
Speaker 1: Also he talked about this being Yes, this phrase came
Speaker 1: up cold case. We'll explain what he was saying there.
Speaker 1: And yes, robes they might have to turn to, not
Speaker 1: necessarily law enforcement, but maybe commercial companies to piece this together. Now,
Speaker 1: with this DNA with genealogy, gets your help in explaining
Speaker 1: that when we get into that. But let's go back
Speaker 1: to this gloves reminding folks, this was a set of
Speaker 1: gloves that were filed two miles away from the house
Speaker 1: in ropes. These stood out and it was kind of
Speaker 1: incredible to hear that they were finding so many sets
Speaker 1: of gloves as they were canvassing great the area.
Speaker 2: More than a dozen I believe, maybe the number fourteen
Speaker 2: I read that. That's how many pairs of gloves were
Speaker 2: strewn about on the radius around Guthrie's house. Most of them,
Speaker 2: they acknowledged, were from who were wearing gloves looking for evidence.
Speaker 2: Hard to imagine that searchers, trained investigators would just throw
Speaker 2: their gloves on the ground in this beautiful pristine land
Speaker 2: that we have. But apparently they're litterers too. So anyway,
Speaker 2: there were gloves everywhere, but there was one pair that
Speaker 2: they said match within two miles of Nancy Guthrie's home.
Speaker 2: That matched appeared to match, I believe, was the phrase
Speaker 2: they used. The gloves that were seen on the suspect
Speaker 2: on Nancy Guthrie's front porch.
Speaker 1: That was a big deal of all the gloves. You
Speaker 1: found these stood out to you all that was relevant.
Speaker 1: But Rhoades they find the gloves and then we get
Speaker 1: into some kind of I don't even know how to
Speaker 1: explain it that well. But the DNA needed to be tested.
Speaker 1: What lab is it tested at? It got sent to Florida,
Speaker 1: but then they couldn't give some result because it had
Speaker 1: to come.
Speaker 2: What was this It was some sort of law, I
Speaker 2: believe that is a state law that there had to
Speaker 2: be an Arizona lab had to act process the DNA
Speaker 2: and so when And the question was why would the
Speaker 2: Sheriff's department not know that? So why would they send
Speaker 2: it all the way to this lab in Florida and
Speaker 2: then only to have the Florida lab say we can't
Speaker 2: give you the results. Have to go then retest the
Speaker 2: DNA in an Arizona lab to then get the results
Speaker 2: we got yesterday, which were a big disappointment.
Speaker 1: And yeah, he in some of his interviews tried to
Speaker 1: explain why he had to do the process that way. Fine,
Speaker 1: but ultimately nothing matched. And again the CODIS system, as
Speaker 1: was the acronym here combined DNA index system. You hear
Speaker 1: it all the time, certainly if you watch true crime,
Speaker 1: or if you just watch a lot of fictional TV
Speaker 1: and crime dramas, they use cotis cotis codis. You watch
Speaker 1: any trials, you'll hear COTIS a lot of times. But
Speaker 1: it's the combined DNA index system is what it stands for.
Speaker 1: And it's just a database and national database, as you said,
Speaker 1: rogues of DNA profiles of convicted folks. So the DNA,
Speaker 1: they have it, but they don't match it to anybody,
Speaker 1: But they have somebody's DNA.
Speaker 2: On a pair of gloves that may or may not
Speaker 2: be connected to the Guthrie kidnap.
Speaker 1: And there's the thing we had to remember that robes.
Speaker 1: These gloves might have nothing to do with this.
Speaker 2: Somebody could have gotten hot while driving, or they fell
Speaker 2: out of their pockets when they were cold at night
Speaker 2: walking around the desert. I don't know. It could have
Speaker 2: been a lot of different reasons why there were gloves there.
Speaker 2: The bigger issue, I would think doesn't take an investigator
Speaker 2: to realize this, that that DNA inside the house that
Speaker 2: doesn't match Nancy Guthrie or any of her family members
Speaker 2: or close friends. That DNA would seemingly be a lot
Speaker 2: more important and potentially much more likely to actually be
Speaker 2: from the suspect.
Speaker 1: Well, it is more important. And the sheriff doing these
Speaker 1: interviews and explaining or the disappointment of the DNA and
Speaker 1: the gloves not matching anything, he almost wrote qualified those
Speaker 1: gloves now, he said, I'm much more concerned about what's
Speaker 1: in the house now I would be about some gloves
Speaker 1: two miles away. I'm fine, and we get that. But
Speaker 1: he was a little more dismissive of the gloves after
Speaker 1: they didn't have a hit.
Speaker 2: But makes sense.
Speaker 1: He was saying, the DNA in the house is critical.
Speaker 1: And this is where some confusion came in. I turned
Speaker 1: to you even listening to his interviews and saying, did
Speaker 1: they test the DNA? Did they tell us that they
Speaker 1: put that through codis, Because sure enough, in one of
Speaker 1: the interviews he did with someone, will you hear him
Speaker 1: clearly say that the DNA in the house, we may
Speaker 1: need to put that through codis. Later say what he
Speaker 1: clearly says, the DNA in the house has not been
Speaker 1: put into this DNA database to see if they get
Speaker 1: a match. But Robes then we turned to another interview.
Speaker 2: He did, and he said that it had been tested
Speaker 2: and that it was an unknown person.
Speaker 1: Correct, no match from the DNA in the house either,
Speaker 1: But again he said something different to another reporter, so
Speaker 1: I'm sure they'll clear that up. Again. He has a
Speaker 1: lie coming at him, and maybe he got an update
Speaker 1: in between interviews, who knows, but he gave two different
Speaker 1: answers to them.
Speaker 2: My thought was that maybe he just misunderstood or he
Speaker 2: misspoke in terms of how he characterized the DNA from
Speaker 2: the house, because you and I both looked at each
Speaker 2: other and said, it wouldn't make any sense that investigators
Speaker 2: would have the DNA from the gloves tested but not
Speaker 2: yet the DNA in the house tested, which they had
Speaker 2: before they even knew of the gloves. So they've had
Speaker 2: this DNA from the home almost from day one, it seems,
Speaker 2: they said, within the first few days at least of
Speaker 2: her disappearance, they said they had this DNA that was
Speaker 2: not Nancy Guthries inside the home. So we have known
Speaker 2: about this DNA for much longer than anything in the gloves,
Speaker 2: So it would make zero sense that they hadn't tested
Speaker 2: that yet or hadn't processed that yet.
Speaker 1: So yes, to your point, it may may have just
Speaker 1: bespoke a little bit in that moment. But the DNA
Speaker 1: at this point has led to nothing. We will mention
Speaker 1: as well. Robes and a couple of reporters asked. And
Speaker 1: the idea of this being a cold case, they don't
Speaker 1: seem too in his interviews. Have a major lead right
Speaker 1: now that they're following that video is key and they're
Speaker 1: analyzing and whatnot. But they it hasn't sent them in
Speaker 1: a particular direction. But the word, the phrase cold case,
Speaker 1: you don't want to hear, he explained, at least rogues.
Speaker 1: And it makes sense. This case is not coal. It's
Speaker 1: only cold if you don't have a lead to follow,
Speaker 1: and they have literally thousands of leads to follow, they
Speaker 1: just don't have the one.
Speaker 2: Yes, And in spite of the fact that they had,
Speaker 2: I believe they said, was it thirty, forty, fifty thousand,
Speaker 2: like crazy numbers of leads coming in. You still hear
Speaker 2: him on these rounds he made throughout the day yesterday,
Speaker 2: with all of these reporters, still asking for the public's help,
Speaker 2: still saying, Hey, even if you think it's nothing, even
Speaker 2: if you think I don't want to bother them, even
Speaker 2: if you think, oh, they already have too many tips,
Speaker 2: I don't want to flood their tip line. Call us anyway,
Speaker 2: that's our job.
Speaker 1: That was funny, you're bringing up making me at least
Speaker 1: remember he used a bizarre almost reference. He said, Yeah,
Speaker 1: this person might call and that's a Tier one lead,
Speaker 1: and then there's somebody else who might have just had
Speaker 1: a dream last night about aliens abducting Nancy Guthrie. That's
Speaker 1: a level four lead. But if I tell you not
Speaker 1: to call, then somebody else who has a very important
Speaker 1: lead might call. He used a weird reference, but he
Speaker 1: was saying, we got we need everybody to call in
Speaker 1: and keep calling in. But Rose, that's the suggest that
Speaker 1: they seem to not have a whole lot in this case.
Speaker 1: But we heard a few other updates from him that
Speaker 1: were they kind of make your ears perk up. Stay here,
Speaker 1: we'll tell you what he said about clearing the family
Speaker 1: and why he is still still convinced this was a kidnapping.
Speaker 1: And we continue here on this Wednesday morning here on
Speaker 1: Amy and TJ. Ropes. It's in some of the interviews
Speaker 1: we did yesterday and listening to the shaff here talking
Speaker 1: about the GOV three case. I don't know. I try
Speaker 1: not to interpret body language in the words being used sometimes,
Speaker 1: but he almost lacked a confidence to a certain degree
Speaker 1: when asked very specifically about it being an abduction, very
Speaker 1: specifically about being a kidnapping. Do you still stand by
Speaker 1: and he used some words sometimes, Well I do. That's
Speaker 1: what I still believe. I don't know what's going on here,
Speaker 1: but he's giving us and you and I have had
Speaker 1: to make this decision on our podcast doing non update updates,
Speaker 1: like he sits down for all these interviews for updates
Speaker 1: and you don't get really updates. But this was a
Speaker 1: it was weird to listen to him. Doesn't he didn't
Speaker 1: sound that sure.
Speaker 2: I don't think he's ever sounded sure.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, there you go.
Speaker 2: From the beginning, I feel like that's been a complaint
Speaker 2: you don't like. It's not as if he isn't Let
Speaker 2: me put this the right way. No one is saying
Speaker 2: he isn't competent. But it's just that he makes it
Speaker 2: very clear that he is just as baffled as the
Speaker 2: rest of us.
Speaker 1: Damn. There it is, and I don't want that from
Speaker 1: my share. Maybe that's what it is. Okay, that's a
Speaker 1: good there you go. That's what I was looking for.
Speaker 2: You're like dang. If he's that unsure, then wow, what
Speaker 2: I'm feeling is absolutely fair. Like you just want to
Speaker 2: think that they're at least going down the right path,
Speaker 2: and you're not sure that's the case when you're listening
Speaker 2: to him.
Speaker 1: You know what, hot pursuit, that's what you want. They
Speaker 1: don't feel like they're in hot pursuit of this lady.
Speaker 1: And it's very important. I forgot to put this in
Speaker 1: our note there roads, but this is a very important
Speaker 1: note because of TMZ. He did address at least the
Speaker 1: idea of what we're hearing about TMZ getting all these
Speaker 1: notes from someone who says they know who the kidnapper
Speaker 1: or kidnappers are, said be prepared to go international, and
Speaker 1: said they saw something south of the border. Yes, well,
Speaker 1: he addressed this idea. He said, they have no reason
Speaker 1: to believe they're still doing in what they're doing in
Speaker 1: their search area. Said authorities are aware of those notes,
Speaker 1: but he suggested that not actively pursuing anything south of
Speaker 1: the border.
Speaker 2: Yes, he didn't seem like Mexico was on the table.
Speaker 2: It didn't seem as though there was any active investigation
Speaker 2: into the credibility of whether or not Nancy Guthrie could
Speaker 2: be with an abductor or abductors in Mexico. He didn't
Speaker 2: acknowledge that at all. And you would think unless they're
Speaker 2: protecting the investigation in some way, which could always be
Speaker 2: the case, but he absolutely, by what he said, did
Speaker 2: completely seem to dismiss that concept.
Speaker 1: Do you make of that? What do you if that
Speaker 1: is the case, what do you then? That means they
Speaker 1: are lending not a whole lot of credibility to these
Speaker 1: notes being sent to TMZ.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I'm curious why just from the reporters that
Speaker 2: that we watched and we saw, it didn't seem like
Speaker 2: they got specific about some of those things, like the
Speaker 2: questions that I wanted to ask him. I didn't hear
Speaker 2: being asked by reporters specifically about the TMZ and the
Speaker 2: credibility and how seriously they're taking it and have they
Speaker 2: actually been pursuing what this person who has written four
Speaker 2: emails now has claimed.
Speaker 1: Okay, maybe we missed, maybe we didn't watch all the
Speaker 1: interviews and maybe haven't read every single article, but that's
Speaker 1: got to that's a significant Are we talking to legitimate
Speaker 1: players or not? That's a big deal. It seems like
Speaker 1: that's the biggest lead.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's the only thing that we know about at
Speaker 2: least that has seemed to offer a direction for the investigation.
Speaker 2: And whether or not this person is just full of
Speaker 2: it or not would seem to be very important that
Speaker 2: you could decide pretty quickly. I saw someone online asking,
Speaker 2: with it being twenty twenty six and all, how is
Speaker 2: it that we aren't able to trace these people sending
Speaker 2: these emails? How to if we're even getting bitcoin addresses
Speaker 2: and we know how to give them money, but we
Speaker 2: don't know who they are. That is shocking to a
Speaker 2: lot of folks with the technology we have, that we
Speaker 2: are now like two weeks into it, we don't know
Speaker 2: who is sending emails repeatedly. Yes, not even like letters
Speaker 2: with strange postmarks. No, these are emails that have IP addresses,
Speaker 2: So it's confusing.
Speaker 1: That is confusing to me. They can track down anybody anywhere.
Speaker 1: It seems. Yes, a very good point, Robes, but if
Speaker 1: this is so hard, that has got to be your
Speaker 1: biggest lead unless you have a reason for knowing it's not.
Speaker 1: You have somebody telling you they know who the kidnapper is.
Speaker 1: I saw them, I saw her, and that's not the
Speaker 1: biggest lead you have, he did, wouldn't you even come out?
Speaker 1: And no, no, I'm not going to speculate on that. But
Speaker 1: it doesn't seem like they are chasing that down publicly.
Speaker 2: Right or they don't want us to know they are.
Speaker 2: I mean, I always hold that to be possible as well.
Speaker 2: You never know. I thought it was really interesting when
Speaker 2: he was asked and I saw a very detailed, a
Speaker 2: very detailed report about how they cleared the Guthries. I
Speaker 2: thought this was interesting what was going on behind the
Speaker 2: scenes that we didn't know as all of this speculation
Speaker 2: was going on about whether or not the brother in
Speaker 2: law and the sister who last saw Nancy Guthrie had
Speaker 2: anything to do with her disappearance. He talked about how
Speaker 2: all of the family members and their spouses had their
Speaker 2: home searched, had their view searched, had their DNA extracted,
Speaker 2: they went through interrogations. He said, these family members were
Speaker 2: treated as suspects basically, and they now have been completely
Speaker 2: cleared and are deemed victims. But he was like, just
Speaker 2: kind of going through the process of getting cleared. It's
Speaker 2: not an easy or a comfortable situation, especially when speculation
Speaker 2: is swirling around you. So I just thought that was
Speaker 2: interesting people for people to take a step back and
Speaker 2: think about. While you're grieving the loss of your mother
Speaker 2: or not knowing where she is and fearing the worst,
Speaker 2: you now are also going through a fairly rigulous, rigorous
Speaker 2: process where you have to be cleared from actually being
Speaker 2: considered a suspect.
Speaker 1: And they did that immediately, and we all know that,
Speaker 1: and they did. I say, we know that. Obviously, that's
Speaker 1: detective work. One oh one. They were all treated as suspects.
Speaker 1: I all was great that he sorry for him to
Speaker 1: come out and say so definitively. I think he used
Speaker 1: the phrase one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: Yes, he did a hundred.
Speaker 1: Percent cleared, and I did appreciate that. Hey, this is
Speaker 1: the timing of he didn't have to do this. He
Speaker 1: chose to put that statement out to say, get off
Speaker 1: the backs of the family. Did we ever hear from
Speaker 1: Ashley Banfield? Did you say anything I regard this? I
Speaker 1: did not.
Speaker 2: I did not in any major way.
Speaker 1: We can okay, we can do that at another time.
Speaker 1: The last thing here the genealogy robes what other case
Speaker 1: or we were watching something or but they're able to
Speaker 1: now the twenty three and me type folks can take DNA. Actually,
Speaker 1: everybody's familiar with this. Yes, at this point, you put
Speaker 1: your DNA in there, and all from of a sudden
Speaker 1: you start finding relatives with DNA matches. That's what they're
Speaker 1: trying to possibly do. Now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I got a new second cousin just yesterday in
Speaker 2: an email alert. So look this. Yes we all anyone
Speaker 2: who has gone on these No I didn't see that. No,
Speaker 2: but yes, so you if they even if the person
Speaker 2: the suspect didn't join twenty three and Me or whatever
Speaker 2: genealogy website you for, one of his relatives likely has.
Speaker 2: So you're talking, it could be anything from a you know,
Speaker 2: a random cousin to a direct descendant to a sibling.
Speaker 2: But they can find someone who is related to this
Speaker 2: DNA and literally go through a family tree and figure
Speaker 2: out who the suspect, or at least narrow it down
Speaker 2: quite significantly as to who this possibly could be. And
Speaker 2: there have been plenty of cases. We were just talking,
Speaker 2: I believe, yesterday about a true crime story we were watching.
Speaker 2: This is happening more and more and more folks go
Speaker 2: on to twenty three and meter and even if you didn't,
Speaker 2: one of your relatives, did you ken and will be
Speaker 2: likely found.
Speaker 1: I've seen true crime episodes about this where they can
Speaker 1: narrow it down. Okay, the killer is one of these
Speaker 1: five guys, and they just went and found those five
Speaker 1: guys and starting narrowing it down, so it could be helpful.
Speaker 1: We'll keep an eye again. No press briefings per usual
Speaker 1: with this case, so we said you won't do another
Speaker 1: press conference unless there's a major update. He decides to
Speaker 1: do a round of interviews in which we got little
Speaker 1: nuggets roads, but we haven't gotten the big break yet.
Speaker 2: We have not, but we will continue, of course, to
Speaker 2: follow this story closely. It's just shocking that we're now
Speaker 2: in the middle of week three and still doesn't seem
Speaker 2: like we're any closer than we were on February one.
Speaker 2: But my goodness. We can only hope that investigators get
Speaker 2: that break they're looking for, and you can make sure
Speaker 2: we will be on top of it for you in
Speaker 2: the meantime. That were everybody, Thank you for listening. As always,
Speaker 2: I'm Amy Robock alongside TJ. Holmes. We will talk to
Speaker 2: you soon.