Should Politicians Ever Interfere in Criminal Cases? The Nancy Guthrie Situation

[0:05] Good evening, everybody, on this wonderful Wednesday. [1:13] Welcome to our Wednesday Night Live, everybody. [1:15] Thank you for being here. [1:17] And go Padres. [1:21] Go Padres right for now. [1:24] As you can tell, nobody on this panel likes the Padres [1:28] other than the three guys here and this young lady right next to us. [1:34] Are we Padres fans? [1:36] We are, and I think we're channeling a hopeful win tonight. [1:39] A hopeful win. [1:41] So hopefully they'll knock it out of the park again. [1:44] Yep. [1:45] No pun intended. [1:45] All puns intended on that. [1:47] And if this is your first time with us, we are grateful that you're here. [1:51] We are so appreciative of your support. [1:55] And we only ask one thing on this channel, [1:58] and that you hit the like button, subscribe, [2:00] and then send this out to all your social media pages. [2:05] We would be grateful for that as a whole. [2:08] And what about our mods, Karen? [2:11] Oh, man, we could not do this without our amazing mods. [2:14] They really make chat a warm and welcome place and help keep it classy. [2:18] So just a big shout out to Miss Sophia, Maui Girl, Mimi J2, [2:23] Laura Walde, and Teresa M. [2:25] Thank you, ladies, for all you do. [2:27] Yeah. [2:27] And, again, also to our Patreon members and our members here on YouTube, [2:33] thank you, thank you, thank you for everything. [2:37] And as you can tell, I got some of my great friends back in the upper left-hand corner, [2:44] John Lamb. [2:45] John, welcome to the program tonight. [2:48] Tell everybody a little bit about yourself and where they can buy your books real fast. [2:52] Well, Chris, as always, it's a delight to be here. [2:56] Thank you for having me. [2:57] And, you know, we have had issues regarding the glare from the bald guys. [3:03] So we've covered up with less glare, less attacking of the eyes. [3:09] My name is John Lamb, and I currently live in the Shenandoah Valley. [3:14] And I've had three decades in law enforcement and basically everything from street cop, CSI, [3:24] homicide detective, hostage negotiator, detective sergeant, [3:29] and worked with both Bob and Chris and actually attempted to keep information away from Karen [3:37] when she was a reporter. [3:39] And my books are available on Amazon. [3:43] There are also links down below. [3:45] And the two books that I have out right now are memoirs. [3:51] They are not for the people who are shocked by grotesque humor or occasional bad language, [4:00] but they are reflective of what cop work was like from the late 1970s. [4:07] And eventually I'll get to the 1990s. [4:09] And so, but again, thank you for having me here. [4:12] And I'm looking forward to this. [4:14] Awesome. [4:15] Thanks for being here, John. [4:16] Yeah, thanks for being here for sure. [4:18] And in the upper right-hand corner, and ladies, you should have seen him in his motor boots [4:23] when he was a motor officer. [4:26] My goodness, our dear friend, Bob Gilliam. [4:29] Bob, tell everybody a little bit about you. [4:32] Well, good evening, everybody. [4:34] Chris and Karen, thanks for having me back. [4:36] And a shout out to the outstanding mods you have on your team. [4:40] My name is Bob Gilliam. [4:41] My name is Bob Gilliam. [4:43] And I was a police officer for 36 years. [4:47] Many of those years, I worked as a detective. [4:49] And later on in my career, I supervised and commanded a couple of different detective units, [4:55] including homicide units. [4:58] So, that's my story. [5:01] I'll keep it simple. [5:02] We love it. [5:03] Well, thanks for being here, Bob. [5:04] We appreciate it. [5:05] And yes, go Dodgers as well. [5:07] And go any baseball team you guys love or like. [5:14] Feel free to put them in the chat, and I'll try to throw it up if I see it. [5:19] But, man, those Dodgers last year, you know, to take it all, you got to give them credit. [5:25] You got to give them credit. [5:27] I thought the pods had a chance, but, you know, we'll see what happens this year. [5:33] And the Cubbies. [5:34] I see the Cubs are coming up here, too, and the Giants, et cetera. [5:37] All right, so for those of you who are just joining us and have never been here before, [5:43] the only reason I want to mention the ground rules here is all of us have, you know, [5:50] certain opinions about certain things, and we just ask that you keep it respectful in the chat. [5:58] This tonight is not going to be a, quote, political conversation. [6:02] It's going to be a conversation about law enforcement and when politicians kind of get in the way. [6:12] And, Karen, my sweetheart, tell them a little bit about your background, Hunt, [6:16] so they understand those who have never been here before where we're going to be going here tonight. [6:22] Okay, well, we are going to be, obviously, we're talking about the Nancy Guthrie case tonight. [6:27] And we have gone back to the beginning and we're going to take a look at, if you guys remember in the beginning, [6:36] Senator Mark Kelly, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, he was quoted in the news saying that Savannah Guthrie had called him, [6:44] actually, when she heard the news from her family that her mom was missing, and even before any of this was made public. [6:53] So, and then if you guys recall, it was maybe less than a week after the first day of Nancy Guthrie being missing, [7:02] he was quoted again, Senator Kelly was shown up outside Pima County Sheriff's Office, he had paid a visit inside. [7:09] And so, we're going to kind of go over that and we're just going to ask some questions about what effect, if any, [7:19] that type of involvement has on the case or can have on a case. [7:25] We're going to be talking about that. [7:26] And then also, I have some original reporting on another aspect of the Nancy Guthrie case that I'm going to be sharing with you guys tonight, [7:34] a little bit later. [7:36] So, that's where we're going. [7:38] Awesome. [7:38] What do you think? [7:39] And what do you guys think about what, I know you've, we've all had experiences, [7:44] and I think this is a needed conversation. [7:48] Would you guys agree or disagree? [7:50] Oh, I agree. [7:51] Yeah, it's very relevant to this case. [7:53] Okay. [7:54] All right. [7:55] So, you know, if we think about this, I'm going to just show you a quick video, [8:03] a news clip of when things go sideways, when investigators are working a case and they're trying to get through it. [8:16] And we're going to approach this from real-time, real-life experience. [8:21] Every one of us has had this experience with those who want to get in the middle of things. [8:28] And we're also going to talk to you about the repercussions of that and what it feels like on the other side, [8:35] not the political side. [8:37] So, back in 1985, those of you who remember those golden years of life and when, you know, [8:46] there was only probably four or five real big news stations, but depending on the market you were in, [8:53] the politicians would always want to position themselves before a microphone. [8:58] Well, one of the most famous cases was when Richard Ramirez was running around Los Angeles killing people [9:08] and they knew that they had Frank Salerno, who was one of the leads, [9:16] and Gil had this idea that they had a serial killer on their hands. [9:23] And for those who don't know, Richard Ramirez was the Night Stalker. [9:25] The Night Stalker, right. [9:27] And so, they had real specific information that only the investigators knew. [9:36] And then they had a case up in San Francisco where they went up and talked to San Francisco PD [9:41] and they discovered a ballistic match on one of the victims up in San Francisco, [9:49] as well as shoe prints that laid it out that, oh my gosh, this guy's moving. [9:56] You guys remember that, obviously, Bob, John. [10:02] Oh, yeah. [10:03] And there were a number of years that it took before they caught him. [10:07] These things were going on and it was a whodunit. [10:11] Yeah, the reality was is that, and when you play this, people were living in a state of siege. [10:21] I don't want to understate that. [10:23] People were very terrified because of the randomness of Ramirez's attacks. [10:31] So, you know, don't think that anybody's being melodramatic about what this, what the atmosphere was, [10:39] particularly in Southern California. [10:42] Yeah. [10:42] This was one of the most notorious cases in Southern California history, at least over the last century or so. [10:50] And a very infamous case. [10:52] If you're not familiar with it, look it up in detail. [10:56] Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker. [10:58] Yeah. [10:58] And so they go up, they sit down with San Francisco, they end up getting a ballistic match, [11:05] and all of a sudden a politician gets wind of it and immediately calls a press conference, [11:13] and here's what happened, and then we're going to tell you what the result was. [11:20] Killer who attacks randomly is described as white, 25 to 30 years old, [11:24] with a predominant feature of badly stained teeth. [11:27] So 5,000 flyers have been distributed to Los Angeles dentists asking for help with identification. [11:33] And last week, San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein announced ballistic tests [11:36] have definitely linked the murder of a man there to the Night Stalker. [11:40] But release of that information is outraged to Los Angeles sheriff [11:43] frustrated by the difficulty of tracking a random murderer. [11:47] It places this community in jeopardy because it impedes our ability to go forward [11:54] fully with the investigation. [11:58] A total of $35,000. [11:59] Okay, so the facts are that Mayor Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco gets wind that the gun and the shoes [12:11] match the seven crime scenes at the time that they had in L.A. [12:17] to the ballistics of a homicide they had, one homicide in San Francisco at the time. [12:24] What was the impact of that, John, if you recall? [12:31] They had identified a firearm and the shoes, and Richard Ramirez immediately got rid of them. [12:41] Yeah, he sure did. [12:43] In fact, when he saw that on the news, he went out to the ocean or the Bay Bridge, [12:52] and he actually tossed the gun, and he tossed his shoes off of that bridge. [13:01] And to this day, they have never recovered those items, ever, okay? [13:08] Now, if we think about the power of that for a brief ego boost, okay, [13:19] we now have to ask ourselves, okay, what does that mean to whenever somebody gets involved in a homicide case? [13:29] So we're going to, let's just a quick recap here. [13:33] So Savannah calls Kelly before the disappearance, quote, becomes public, okay? [13:40] So as this thing is, you know, unwrapping pretty quickly initially, Kelly is called, a senator, [13:51] the United States senator is called, and there's a communication that takes place. [13:59] Right behind that, he immediately calls Pima County sheriffs, Sheriff Chris Nanos, and Tucson police chief, okay? [14:09] And days later, he does an in-person visit, bringing donuts and coffee, [14:18] and he makes a public statement saying he is tremendously competent in the scene. [14:24] Now, Karen, you had a chance to speak with the Tucson police chief, right? [14:32] I did, yes. [14:33] And what does he tell us? [14:35] So this is an exclusive. [14:38] Yes, it is. [14:38] I had a phone interview with the Tucson police chief. [14:42] His name is Chad Kazmar. [14:45] Now, I need to catch people up to speed if you're not up to speed in Southern Arizona news. [14:50] He resigned. [14:52] He left the Tucson police department as the police chief February 13th. [14:58] This, you know, of course, we know Nancy Guthrie went missing February 1st. [15:02] So he was only there for the first, like, let's say, two weeks of the investigation. [15:07] And so we thought it was, I thought it was really interesting that Senator Kelly called both Sheriff Nanos and the Tucson police chief. [15:18] So Tucson police chief, Chad Kazmar, he left his position with Tucson PD, [15:25] and he now works for, as a deputy county administrator for Pima County. [15:31] So anyway, I called him, got him on the phone, and I said, hey, we're doing a story. [15:35] I want to know, what was that conversation like when Senator Mark Kelly called you February 1st? [15:41] You were police chief. [15:43] What did he say, and why did he call you? [15:46] Now, what was interesting is his first reaction to me on the phone was he said, well, that's a private matter. [15:54] That's what he told me. [15:56] And so. [15:57] Stop. [15:58] Hang on just for a minute. [15:59] Okay. [15:59] John, Bob, would you ever tell her that was a private matter? [16:04] No. [16:06] Not unless I wanted to see the equivalent of a piranha school. [16:12] No, John, I was polite. [16:15] I was polite. [16:15] So I said, with all due respect, sir, it's not public. [16:20] You were a public official getting a phone call. [16:24] Or it's not private. [16:25] It's not private. [16:25] Oh, excuse me. [16:26] It's not, yeah, no, it's this. [16:28] I said, it's not private. [16:29] I said, you were a public official and he is an elected official. [16:34] I'm going to say, and I said, let me ask you again. [16:37] What was the nature of that phone call? [16:39] And that's where he said, well, he was, he was out at a crowded and noisy restaurant that Sunday. [16:49] So I thought that was kind of interesting. [16:51] And it sounded like he had to call back Senator Kelly because it was too noisy where he caught him when his phone rang. [16:58] And he says that Senator Kelly wasn't sure what the jurisdiction was for Nancy Guthrie's home. [17:05] That's why he said he called both Sheriff Nanos and Tucson, the Tucson police chief. [17:10] And then he said, by the time he called him back, he already figured out it was Pima County. [17:17] And he said, but then he went on and he said, well, it's not, it wasn't unusual to get a phone call from Senator Kelly. [17:29] Because they speak from time to time about sharing resources. [17:34] So, you know, I'm not, honestly, as a journalist, my instincts were I wasn't sure what to believe. [17:40] You know, I mean, it's going to be what he says, you know, I have no way to verify it other than, you know, that. [17:47] So you guys decide. [17:49] But then I asked him, I said, well, what do you think about how the investigation is going? [17:54] And so what he said was, as a Tucsonan and now as a county employee, we're obviously praying the investigation continues and the investigative leads are developed and that they solve this case to provide closure to the family and to the community. [18:09] So like a true politician. [18:14] Exactly. [18:15] Yes. [18:15] Right, Bob, I saw you shaking your head. [18:18] So what comes to your mind? [18:20] Yeah, a couple of things with respect to Mark Kelly. [18:24] Mark Kelly, both of his parents were police officers in New Jersey when he was growing up. [18:29] And so he knows law enforcement. [18:32] He grew up in a law enforcement family. [18:33] And you would think being such, I mean, we've been told repeatedly that he's really good friends with Savannah Guthrie. [18:42] You would think that he would know where Savannah's mother lives in his district, in his state. [18:49] He claims Tucson is his home, etc. [18:52] So that's a little odd. [18:54] You know, maybe it was an honest mistake on his part. [18:57] Maybe he just simply forgot or didn't know. [18:59] So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there. [19:01] But the other thing is Senator Kelly showing up with donuts and coffee at the location where the detectives are working, where the FBI agents are working. [19:20] He had to have access from Nanos. [19:25] And I respect Senator Kelly. [19:28] I respect his position as a United States senator. [19:30] But he has no business poking his nose around this investigation. [19:36] It's not his place, in my opinion. [19:38] And trying to curry favor, even if it's something as mundane as coffee and donuts, to try and get maybe some inside baseball information on this. [19:49] Is inappropriate, in my view. [19:53] Yeah, because at one of the things we're going to talk about, John, did you have a comment? [19:57] Just, I wonder how many other times he's brought coffee and donuts to the sheriff's department for the, what, 400 unsolved murder cases? [20:10] Or any other, I mean, does he routinely do this? [20:14] Or is this for someone special? [20:19] Someone related with a national media celebrity? [20:24] And that is outside of what Bob just said. [20:31] You don't show up as a politician. [20:33] And even if you claim you're just there to, for whatever reason, you know, you stay away from what the investigators are doing. [20:45] But I guess my thing, the first thing that occurred to me was, does he always come over there? [20:51] Or was it just a special occasion? [20:53] Well, you know, Sheriff Nanos has insinuated, and maybe he came right out and said this, but he's insinuated that he has a close relationship. [21:04] I don't know if it's a friendship, but he has a close relationship with Senator Kelly. [21:08] And that's fine. [21:10] He probably should have as an elected official. [21:14] They're both Democrats. [21:15] They belong to the same party. [21:17] They probably go to the same Democrat functions. [21:19] And that's fine. [21:20] I get that. [21:21] But I'll go back to when Senator Kelly's wife, the former congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, was brutally gunned down in the parking lot there in Pima County. [21:38] He worked closely with the sheriff's office, I'm sure. [21:42] And Sheriff Nanos has referenced this a couple of times. [21:45] So just to put some context on this whole relationship, I think that's worth a mention. [21:50] I'm not passing judgment on that necessarily, but just to put it in context, they have this relationship. [21:58] And it's a close one, and I get it. [22:01] So maybe Senator Kelly figured he was going to go in with the donuts and the coffee and try and get some information that he could either assist the investigation with in Washington, D.C., or do something with. [22:18] I don't know. [22:18] But, again, in my opinion, that was inappropriate. [22:22] Yeah, and because we just saw the Dianne Feinstein thing. [22:25] Now, that was clearly she released information. [22:29] You know, and being fair to Kelly, he didn't release any, you know, confidential information. [22:34] But almost immediately after he left the building, he hit the pavement, and there was a press conference. [22:43] So let's listen to what he said at that press conference, and then we're going to talk about why that's dangerous, even today. [22:55] And we're going to tie this into the totality of this investigation to this point. [23:02] What we know now about Nanos and what we hear in this particular statement, obviously, Kelly apparently didn't know. [23:13] The sheriff's been doing a great job. [23:18] I was in contact with him last Sunday about this. [23:21] He has hundreds of his deputies investigating this case, working 24-7, you know, on this. [23:28] If this case can be solved between the sheriff and the FBI, I've got tremendous confidence that they'll be able to figure this out and bring her home. [23:39] Absolutely. [23:39] And, I mean, obviously, we've also seen a lot of federal involvement, with President Trump even saying that the Guthrie family, the sheriff's department, has the whole force of federal law enforcement. [23:51] I mean, do you think that is the right approach here? [23:54] One hundred percent. [23:55] And she's, you know, 84 years old. [23:59] She's got health conditions. [24:01] But regardless of that, you know, when somebody is kidnapped, you know, this way, you know, I want to see the FBI involved. [24:08] And I want to see local law enforcement do everything they possibly can. [24:11] And that's what we're seeing here. [24:12] OK, so that's an interesting comment. [24:16] He wants to see the FBI involved. [24:19] OK, again, now this goes back to all the things that we've talked about and understanding. [24:26] You know, when when even Trump, when even with President Trump making comments, he he raises that issue. [24:35] He raises the issue about him being there. [24:38] And and that perception of that is obviously two. [24:44] It's a two edged sword because here's the rule for investigations. [24:51] The rule of law requires blind justice. [24:55] OK, that's why Lady Justice has a blindfold. [24:59] She has scales and she has a sword. [25:03] OK, the justice system works only when everyone is treated equally under the law. [25:09] Now, the reason I'm raising this is because this is what the defense will bring up. [25:17] Remember, we talked about every good prosecutor thinks like a defense attorney. [25:23] Well, every good investigator thinks like a defense attorney, OK, because the treating of somebody equally under the law means no special favors, no shortcuts, no shortcuts based on who you are. [25:39] And when politicians insert themselves, that immediately creates the appearance of favoritism. [25:48] OK, now, why is that a problem in this case? [25:53] In the Nancy Guthrie case, it's interesting. [25:55] He said and she has health problems. [25:58] OK, so he has inside baseball before the public is aware of anything going on, i.e., either he has inserted himself into the investigation and somebody inside of the house has said, well, here's the problems that we have. [26:17] OK, now, that means also when he was called before this disappearance became public, he then contacts the sheriff immediately and he contacts a police chief and directly followed by an in-person visit with donuts and public praising of the investigative team. [26:43] OK, we just heard that and Bob just commented on that, OK, to most people, the this would appear an elite access to an ordinary family that an ordinary family could never get. [27:01] OK, that perception alone damages trust, even if no rules were broken. [27:09] Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason. [27:12] She shouldn't see political connections or celebrity statuses. [27:18] OK, all right, Karen. [27:20] No, keep going. [27:21] John, any thoughts? [27:22] No, you're on a roll. [27:24] OK, because what ends up happening is it creates a two-tiered justice system. [27:30] OK, when politicians get involved in high-profile cases and now you add the media celebrity, they often receive faster access to resources, [27:43] more personnel and more public attention than similar cases involving regular citizens. [27:49] We just heard him tell the public almost a word-for-word statement about the condition that Nancy Guthrie was in before the sheriff had really had a better understanding of what's going on. [28:09] And that fuels widespread complaints about the connected and the unconnected injustice. [28:18] Now, here's an interesting thought. [28:22] I got a phone call yesterday from a mother of a triple homicide. [28:29] One of her daughters was the victim in Phoenix. [28:35] And she called me. [28:36] Her name is Rachel Glass. [28:40] Her daughter was killed 16 years ago in Phoenix, OK? [28:48] She said, I don't have any political connections, but I saw your YouTube channel, and I would like some attention on my daughter. [28:58] Which is a cold case. [29:00] Which is a cold case. [29:01] Her daughter's is a cold case. [29:02] OK. [29:03] As much as the senator is giving Nancy Guthrie's mother, OK? [29:10] By the way, she's your constituent, all right? [29:17] And she said, I didn't see anybody show up for my daughter who was brutally murdered 16 years ago in Tucson or Phoenix, OK? [29:30] Now, why do I even bring that up? [29:33] Because it's obviously, it's obvious. [29:36] The celebrity senator link helps keeps the story national for months. [29:41] I mean, there's no question about that, right? [29:43] But it also helps to generate tips, et cetera. [29:49] But it also sparks backlash from families of other missing persons in Arizona who are feeling that their cases are being ignored. [30:02] Why is this? [30:03] Why are we doing this program tonight? [30:05] Because over time, that will erode public confidence, and people start to believe that justice depends on who you know, rather than what has taken place. [30:21] OK? [30:22] Bob? [30:22] Let me just, just to be fair, in this discussion, it bothered me when President Trump came out and publicly said that he was throwing, he had directed Director Patel to throw all of the available resources of the FBI into the Guthrie case. [30:46] And the first thing that came to mind was, well, what about all these other missing people in the country? [30:53] What about these, what John referenced earlier? [30:56] How many politicians, whether they're a senator or the President of the United States, have weighed in on their case? [31:03] Zero, probably. [31:04] Maybe Kelly has a few of them. [31:06] I don't know, but I doubt it, and I'm pretty certain the President hasn't weighed in. [31:11] So, once again, this is not political, it is, but, you know, politics do not have a place in these criminal cases like this. [31:23] Zero place in these cases. [31:26] Yeah. [31:26] Well said, Karen. [31:27] Yeah, I agree. [31:28] And then I'm looking at this on the flip side, or what are the investigators? [31:33] Think about the pressure the investigators are already under. [31:36] Now they have even more public scrutiny going on, the people who are working under Sheriff Nanos, okay? [31:44] So, it can't be good. [31:46] It's got to affect the investigation. [31:50] And I want to hear from all three of you guys, because you're all former homicide detectives, [31:56] what that kind of additional unwanted, in my opinion, unnecessary scrutiny coming in from a politician. [32:05] It's already there from the public and the media. [32:08] And so, what does that do to the investigator who's working the leads every day, who's trying hard to solve this? [32:16] What is that like in what I'd call the war room, the Nancy Guthrie war room? [32:21] What's going on in there? [32:22] Knowing that Mark Kelly just dropped off some donuts, may or may not have had access in. [32:28] Oh, he did. [32:29] So, if Mark Kelly went in the war room for the Nancy Guthrie case, me, you, and the four of us could never go in. [32:37] Never, ever. [32:39] Okay. [32:39] And so, what did he hear? [32:41] What does he know? [32:43] But again, more importantly, from the investigator's side seat, what are they thinking when Mark Kelly strolls in with, you know, a box of donuts, [32:52] wants to know about the case, and these, the team, men and women, have been working their butts off, trying to solve this. [32:59] What is the pressure like? [33:01] That is a great point. [33:03] And I think we should all put our astronaut helmets on, okay? [33:07] Because we know a whole bunch of information about going to the moon, okay? [33:15] And, right, because essentially, when politicians get into the, you know, the thought process of, I want the FBI involved, okay, [33:28] what they have done is interjected themselves into a extremely high-profile investigation. [33:36] And what's that do? [33:37] That they know nothing about. [33:38] That's the point. [33:39] If I had astronaut helmets, I would issue those to all three of us right now so that we could wear them to think like an astronaut, okay? [33:51] Because that's essentially what you're saying is, you know, I'm an investigator and I play one on YouTube, okay? [34:01] But for them, they play one in the national news. [34:04] Bob, what were you going to say? [34:05] Well, Mark Kelly also is a, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty certain he is on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. [34:14] And for him to do what he did in injecting himself in the case is like us going into his office or on the floor in the Senate [34:24] and start telling these guys that have all of this sensitive information and have all of this intelligence on what our military is doing overseas, [34:34] telling him how he should proceed with this. [34:37] And so your point is well taken. [34:42] And, you know, it's pretty clear that this is what it appears to be. [34:47] And Senator Kelly was using his position as a United States senator and potentially his influence to get something here. [34:56] And it wasn't just a show of support because I don't believe that. [35:00] That's BS if he's saying that. [35:02] Absolutely. [35:02] And we're going to show what the repercussions were. [35:05] And we're going to tie it together, actually, for the public. [35:07] Because you know us, I like to follow the bouncing ball. [35:12] And Karen, towards the end of this, you're going to listen to an email that we received. [35:19] OK, I love this girl. [35:21] And some original reporting that we've done. [35:23] And you're going to follow the bouncing ball. [35:26] And we're going to ask this question because we're asking the questions that the defense is going to ask [35:31] because we're trying to think outside of the box. [35:33] John, what say you? [35:34] Well, place yourself in the war room and the senators there. [35:41] We've all investigated homicides and we've all had journalists come to our desk and say, [35:52] tell us what you want or tell us what you know. [35:55] So the senator comes in. [35:58] He delivers his box of donuts and coffee. [36:03] And then we're presuming he wants to know what's happening with the case. [36:08] My response would have been, it's none of your expletive deleted business. [36:16] Now, what's the likelihood that actually happened with a United States senator? [36:21] Now, if a journalist comes in, my response is going to be, it's none of your business. [36:27] I'm not going to tell you. [36:29] Well, journalists would never be allowed in the war room. [36:31] Well, exactly. [36:32] But I mean, what we're doing is we're actually assuming that in this instance that you have, [36:39] as a journalist, access to me. [36:41] You want to know what's happening with the case. [36:44] And you could even bring a box of Tans donuts, which Tans was in the ocean side, [36:50] was like the place to get donuts. [36:52] And I might even eat a donut, but you aren't getting any information from me. [36:58] So what sort of... [36:59] I never showed up with donuts. [37:02] I knew it was obvious. [37:04] It would never work. [37:05] Yeah, you know, let me... [37:06] You'd have wasted your money. [37:09] Because we're, you know... [37:10] But a senator, and you know the senator didn't walk in all by himself. [37:16] He was probably accompanied by a command staff member. [37:19] So what's the likelihood that you have a sheriff's captain and a senator standing there [37:24] and they say, hey, tell us, you know, what you know. [37:29] Knowing what we know about if you don't play ball with a Pima County sheriff's boss, [37:35] what's the likelihood that you're going to say, none of your business, [37:40] and by the way, shut the door on the way out. [37:43] You know, it's just... [37:44] It enormously... [37:46] If we're not going to give the general public or journalists access, [37:52] why are we giving it to him? [37:54] Well, and so you are right on target because he... [37:59] I'm going to play the rest of the interview here real fast. [38:03] But he's got a staffer right there with a phone who's recording the entire conversation. [38:08] And everybody on this call and our chat knows that same staffer is inside of that war room. [38:18] And we don't know what they're doing. [38:21] We don't know if they're taking pictures. [38:23] We don't know, you know, yada, yada. [38:25] And they have not identified a suspect that day, for sure, [38:31] because they haven't done it yet, day 74, which is today, okay, that we're aware of. [38:37] Go ahead, Bob. [38:38] Well, I was just going to say that scenario is the recipe for a leak, [38:43] a leak that could be detrimental to the case. [38:46] Okay, hang on. [38:47] Hold that thought. [38:47] I know you're going there, but... [38:49] Hold that thought. [38:50] Go ahead. [38:51] I didn't know that about the phone and the staffer, so that was news to me. [38:55] But first thing that comes to mind is leak. [38:58] Okay, so you guys see? [39:02] This isn't our first rodeo. [39:05] And I'm not saying that he leaked anything. [39:07] I'm just saying that the potential is there, and so you don't give them the opportunity. [39:13] Yeah. [39:14] And, okay, so let's listen to the rest of this. [39:18] And tell me if you guys pick up on anything else on this one. [39:21] Thank you so much for your attention. [39:25] Appreciate it. [39:25] Thank you. [39:28] My daughter's here. [39:39] Well, I was either showing support to the sheriff, and I've been working really hard on this, hundreds of them. [39:47] Okay, let's stop right there. [39:49] Who is he showing support for? [39:53] He just said... [39:54] The sheriff. [39:55] I'm showing support for the sheriff. [39:57] And the deputies. [39:58] And the deputies. [40:00] Okay. [40:01] That's what he said. [40:01] Meanwhile, he got a phone call from Savannah that sent him down to the sheriff's department and sent him to the phone with Tucson and the sheriff's department here. [40:13] Do these guys need this support from this guy? [40:16] Honestly, did you ever need support from a politician on a homicide case? [40:23] No. [40:24] No. [40:24] I mean, anyone? [40:27] Okay, and this gal here with the black, all dressed all in black, that's his staffer. [40:32] See her phone out? [40:34] She's recording everything about this, Karen. [40:37] Well, there's two people out with the phones, and we don't know that for sure. [40:40] Well, she leaves with him. [40:41] Okay. [40:42] Yeah. [40:42] The other one isn't, but... [40:44] Yeah, the other one is a journalist. [40:46] Okay. [40:46] She's recording. [40:47] See how she's getting a video? [40:48] Uh-huh. [40:48] This gal is just getting audio. [40:51] Mm-hmm. [40:52] And... [40:53] But watch this. [40:55] That's the first thing I caught. [40:56] It was like, well, wait a minute. [40:58] Okay. [40:58] Let's play it. [41:21] The law enforcement agencies who have also stepped up to help, you know, they've got the [41:26] right people, you know, doing this. [41:28] I think if this can be figured out, they're going to figure it out. [41:32] Is there anything else that can, more that can be done? [41:35] That's what I'm trying to figure out. [41:37] You know, the... [41:38] I mean, the president is even paying attention to this, and the, you know, the FBI is here, [41:44] and they're incredibly capable. [41:45] So it seems like they're doing everything they can. [41:46] So you mentioned you've known Savannah for such a long time. [41:50] Did you ever have a chance to meet Ms. Nancy? [41:52] I have not, no. [41:55] In terms of how this investigation has been handled so far, do you approve of what's been [42:01] happening with the FBI? [42:02] I've been in contact with the sheriff and with the Tucson police chief about this since [42:09] last Sunday, since I first learned about it. [42:12] And yeah, I think they're doing everything they can. [42:15] Thank you so much, Senator. [42:16] Appreciate it. [42:17] Appreciate it. [42:17] Thank you. [42:18] Thank you. [42:18] Okay. [42:20] So he says, when he's being asked and talked, talking to the media, he kept saying he was [42:27] trying to figure out what more can be done. [42:31] Well, nobody, in my opinion, nobody invited him. [42:36] Nobody called him to say, you know, we have an 84-year, missing 84-year-old mother of Savannah [42:41] Guthrie and, you know, we don't have a clue what to do. [42:45] We really need you to come down, bring donuts and, you know, hold hand, wring your hands [42:50] with us. [42:51] No, they're working the case. [42:54] They're working all the leads. [42:56] You know, so it's like, who is this guy showing up saying, you know, well, I'm lending support. [43:01] We're trying to figure out what more we can do. [43:03] And then on the other hand, he's saying, well, you know, everybody is here. [43:08] The FBI is working this. [43:10] Because there's hundreds of sheriff's deputies working this, he kind of makes himself irrelevant [43:16] if you keep on his talk track. [43:18] Like, you don't need to be here. [43:20] Why are you here? [43:21] Well, you know, being a former military member of the military, a former astronaut, I respect [43:32] Senator Kelly's service to the country immensely in those areas. [43:38] Being a United States senator, I respect that, just the position of it. [43:42] Um, but being the son of two police officers doesn't give you anything more than maybe [43:49] having a little inside baseball on the law enforcement culture, but not necessarily investigative [43:56] techniques and certainly not any experience investigating abductions and potential homicides. [44:02] So, I don't know why he was there. [44:05] Um, only he can answer that, but I have my suspicions. [44:09] And that was to influence the investigation or get something from the investigators and or [44:16] the sheriff's office, uh, possibly to provide to his good friend, Savannah Guthrie. [44:22] I don't know, but, but that's the inference. [44:25] Okay. [44:27] So let's go back to this risk of perceived interference. [44:31] Okay. [44:32] And how Karen, you asked what, what that does to investigators. [44:38] And I want the public to follow the bouncing ball here because, you know, we've heard people [44:44] say, Oh, come on. [44:45] You know, he's down there building morale with donuts and coffee and all this other stuff. [44:50] Okay. [44:51] But let me tell you what it feels like for an investigator in a very high profile case. [44:58] And every one of us have, have worked very high profile cases. [45:02] Okay. [45:03] In our careers. [45:04] And, you know, if you need us to go down the list, we'll be more than glad to do that [45:09] for you. [45:09] Okay. [45:10] But in this situation, what ends up, uh, being perceived as supportive actually crosses over [45:20] a line because now the investigator gets private phone calls from other powerful figures that [45:27] can unintentionally put pressure on them to prioritize one case or avoid certain leads. [45:37] Okay. [45:38] Hey, I need to tell you that I spoke to so-and-so, such-and-such. [45:42] I just want to make you aware of it. [45:45] Okay. [45:46] And maybe you should think of it. [45:48] I.E., you know, yada, yada, whatever that conversation is going to be. [45:53] Praising, you know, making public statements or criticizing the team or investigator. [45:59] Can also influence how aggressively detectives work or what they say publicly. [46:07] Okay. [46:07] I.E., nanos. [46:10] Okay. [46:11] Uh, everybody's on the table. [46:13] Well, no, everybody's been cleared. [46:16] No, everybody's back on the table again. [46:18] And that in of itself develops frustration with inside of the investigative team. [46:26] And that's when the door to leaks and concerns about witness intimidations or conspiracy theories [46:34] start to distract from the actual evidence, i.e., mass suspect on the footage, DNA, pacemaker, [46:45] ransom note, and the list goes on. [46:47] The mere appearance of investigative favoritism threatens equality impartiality in the law, [46:57] i.e., the haves and the have-nots. [47:01] And that's why I got a phone call the other day, yesterday, from this, you know, from the [47:08] young lady. [47:09] We're going to cover her case, by the way. [47:11] And that undermines what I'll call the investigative independence. [47:18] And it also strikes at the heart of morale when a task force has been assembled. [47:24] Because career investigators and law enforcement, such as ourselves, are professional in nature. [47:31] That's what we do. [47:33] Okay. [47:33] Sheriffs, forensic teams, et cetera. [47:36] They're trained to follow evidence without fear or favor. [47:42] Okay. [47:43] When others get involved, and this is my own personal opinion, investigators start to worry [47:49] about their career repercussions. [47:51] If they disappoint a senator or a high-profile family. [47:57] Or the boss, Sheriff Nanos. [47:59] The boss. [48:00] Okay. [48:01] And now, we didn't know all of this when Kelly was standing on that sidewalk. [48:06] But we learned later, that same sheriff that he has supported had 37, count them, 37 on [48:15] the beach, okay, days on the beach, because he violated department policies and subsequently [48:24] was told, you're gone. [48:29] Okay. [48:29] So, this guy, unfortunately, by the senator standing there, gave credibility to Sheriff Nonats. [48:39] And he hurt himself, in my opinion. [48:44] What do you guys think? [48:45] Well, real quick, maybe Senator Kelly or someone from his staff will watch the show, whether [48:52] they're watching it live or on a replay. [48:54] And maybe they can come out and clarify why he was there on that day and what he helped, [49:03] what he hoped, rather, to gain from his appearance there and what more he thought he could do to [49:10] assist in the investigation. [49:11] Because I'd like to know, as a citizen, I would like to know that, the answer to those [49:15] questions. [49:15] So, maybe he'll do that. [49:17] Well, I doubt it, because number one, his staff has ignored and not responded to our emails. [49:25] Well, I doubt it too, Karen, but I had to ask. [49:28] You know, and, you know, this, it's an important, this is an important point and piece to talk [49:37] about the investigation. [49:39] You know, a lot of people, everybody has a different opinion. [49:42] You know, we're at day 74. [49:44] Has the case stalled? [49:45] Is this case growing cold? [49:48] Are they working leads behind the scenes? [49:50] And they're just not doing, you know, they're not saying anything publicly. [49:54] Sheriff Nanos hasn't given a press conference in over two months. [49:59] And, you know, we don't speculate here on our channel, but it's an important, it's an [50:07] important piece of this investigation because we don't really know anything. [50:12] And I was thinking, you know, back to like, let's say the Koberger case or the Idaho 4 case. [50:18] When the university officials got involved in that case, we did many programs about why [50:25] that was so detrimental to the investigation and to a subsequent prosecution. [50:32] And so, you know, this is kind of an equivalent, but, you know, we're, we're, we're not making [50:38] things political. [50:39] We're pointing out why any politician, I don't, you know, it doesn't matter who is doing it, [50:47] but we're saying that any political or let's say any elected official putting their nose [50:55] in a high profile homicide investigation is never good. [50:59] And, and, and to this point, right. [51:01] And thank you for putting, uh, uh, making this comment, Pam, because basically we're not [51:08] the senators. [51:09] Okay. [51:11] We weren't standing on the sidewalk delivering donuts. [51:15] Okay. [51:16] We're, because what ends up happening is we, we're talking about investigative repercussions. [51:23] Okay. [51:24] Because the focus, then you, to your point here, the focus shifts from solve it quietly [51:30] and thoroughly to manage the optics and the media and the frenzy around it. [51:36] Okay. [51:37] Now, what does that mean to an investigator? [51:40] Well, investigators then lose their independence and they start to think about how actions will [51:49] look politically rather than what the evidence will demand. [51:52] And also they could go along with group think instead of maintaining independent theories [51:59] and following the leads and sticking to their gut instinct because there's so much pressure [52:05] from coming down from above. [52:08] And that's what we're pointing out with this scenario. [52:11] That's why we're doing the program tonight. [52:13] Yeah. [52:13] And absolutely. [52:14] And to your point that also the public trust starts to erode. [52:19] Okay. [52:20] Evan, and the fact that we just had that comment, okay. [52:23] She just proved our point tonight. [52:27] Okay. [52:27] That we're making it, we're making it political. [52:31] It's us. [52:32] It's us on this panel. [52:34] Okay. [52:34] Yeah. [52:35] It's not Kelly stand coming from, you know, DC to stand on the, you know, bring donuts for [52:42] an optical. [52:42] Okay. [52:43] Because what's happening is the public trust starts to erode and people assume the case [52:49] is being handled differently because of connections. [52:53] And, and that is a perception of a two-tiered justice system. [52:57] Okay. [52:58] Now we're, I'm expressing myself from an investigator who's been on both sides of the coin. [53:06] Okay. [53:06] Because those distractions start to multiply. [53:10] And the day he was there, here's the bouncing ball. [53:15] I'm going to point out the distractions that started to multiply in the Guthrie case. [53:21] The sheriff is, has now been spending more time defending his leadership and resume instead [53:29] of briefly solid leads, the DNA progress or the mask suspect, i.e. press conferences that [53:40] Karen was just talking about. [53:42] So how did, what does that mean long-term? [53:47] John, you've had many cases where the mayors have shown up or others have shown up. [53:54] Tell us about the homicide scenes. [53:56] Yes. [53:58] And which is, I think one thing I want to stress is, is that this is certainly not a new problem. [54:06] And it's not, it, it runs up and down the entire political system. [54:13] So you'll have mayors or city council people show up. [54:18] I can remember one instance where when I was a patrol sergeant securing the scene of a homicide [54:28] and an apartment complex when a city councilman showed up who was running for mayor and announced [54:36] that he was going in because he had a right as a city councilman to see the homicide scene. [54:44] And I respectfully told him, no, you stay on the other side of the yellow tape. [54:52] And we had, what do they call it in diplomatic circles, a frank exchange of views that finally came to a point [55:02] where I told him, if you cross that yellow tape, you're not going to see the homicide scene, [55:09] but you will see the side of the county, inside of the county jail, because I will arrest you. [55:15] So it's, and the reason why he was there was it was a free campaign stop. [55:22] The local newspaper is there. [55:25] He comes across as being caring and I'm interested in my constituents. [55:30] When all it is, is he wants to be a tourist and grab a little free publicity. [55:36] If politicians, I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, don't come in and waste my time. [55:44] Because if you come in and want to ask me questions, that is, let's even call it five minutes. [55:50] That's five minutes of my life devoted to a case. [55:53] I will never get back. [55:55] Well, let me do my job and leave me alone. [55:59] Well, John, and to the bigger point is that you had a crime scene to preserve [56:04] because the only way that there would be a successful prosecution, [56:10] whoever took the life of the person whose, you know, residence you were standing outside of [56:16] would be to preserve that crime scene. [56:19] And if, you know, politicians or anybody unrelated to the case or law enforcement [56:25] is wanting to come in, and if they did, that could be huge problems to prosecute and get a conviction. [56:34] So there's a very real issue and we're talking about it. [56:39] We're raising the issue. [56:40] And, you know, it's all from experience here. [56:45] So we think it's a valid point in the Nancy Guthrie case. [56:49] Yeah, because, and then, Bob, tell us about your experience where you had a guy, [56:55] but before you do that, because one of the things that we are heavily invested in here [57:00] is because whenever a situation gets politicized, okay, and remember, these are politicians. [57:08] That's their job, okay, to get as much FaceTime as they want, you know, for their constituents, [57:15] constituents, et cetera, we're not, we're not saying that the donut visit and, you know, [57:20] the early, you know, senator call ruined anything at any way. [57:26] However, they contribute to an environment where mistakes get amplified, okay, [57:32] when they, when they step into the middle of this. [57:34] And let's think about this. [57:36] You know, the sheriff is fighting for his job right now, okay? [57:39] And the focus sometimes, and the focus has shift, has shifted from find Nancy to manage the narrative, okay? [57:49] And that is very dangerous in a high-profile case like this. [57:55] Bob, tell everybody about, you know, your situation. [57:58] Well, let me just first say, just to add to that a little bit, Chris, you know, [58:03] if Senator Kelly had just shown up there with the coffee and the donuts and stood outside [58:07] and asked the high-ranking sheriff's officials, whoever that was, with him to please express my appreciation [58:16] for all the detectives and agents working the case, and I hope that they have some success and so forth. [58:24] But that's not what happened here. [58:26] Senator Kelly went into the war room. [58:28] He went into the war room apparently with an aide that possibly could have been recording it. [58:34] And that is the problem, and that's why we're talking about this. [58:38] It could affect the case. [58:40] We may very well see that video of Senator Kelly again sometime at trial if we have an arrest in this case [58:48] and it goes to trial. [58:50] I'll bet you we see something about Senator Kelly influencing or injecting himself into the case. [58:58] Okay? [58:59] So, mark my words, if we have a trial, that will come up. [59:04] So, when Chris and I were planning this program and we've been talking, talked out what we're going to say, [59:10] what the talking points should be, need to be, and we do a lot of behind-the-scenes, you know, [59:16] back and forth, different ideas, I said to Chris, I said, [59:21] here's how the phone call between Savannah and Senator Mark Kelly could have also gone. [59:26] Savannah calls him. [59:30] Again, this is before she's on an airplane to come out. [59:33] This is before it was made public, but yet it would have been right after the time [59:40] that the family called 911 and had sheriff's deputies there. [59:47] She calls him and Savannah says, oh my gosh, Mark, my sister just called me. [59:52] My family called me. [59:53] My mom's missing. [59:55] We're in a panic. [59:56] We can't find her. [59:57] I'm getting on an airplane and I'm going to Tucson. [1:00:02] And the option he could have said was, oh my goodness, you're my close friend. [1:00:08] My wife and I will start praying for your mom. [1:00:11] We will keep you in our prayers. [1:00:13] When you get here, you know, let me know. [1:00:16] I can, I can, let me help. [1:00:18] We can bring dinner. [1:00:19] We can find an Airbnb for you to stay at. [1:00:22] What have you. [1:00:23] OK, he could have helped behind the scenes instead of picking up the phone and calling [1:00:28] Sheriff Nanos and the Tucson police chief option as well. [1:00:34] What do you guys think? [1:00:36] John nailed it in the beginning when he said how many and when he asked the question, how [1:00:39] many of the 400 and something unsolved murder cases has Senator Kelly injected himself into? [1:00:48] And maybe he has, but I doubt it. [1:00:51] Could be. [1:00:52] And I've got a question just to throw out a speculative question. [1:00:58] Apparently, we still have hundreds of personnel devoted to this investigation. [1:01:04] If that's accurate. [1:01:07] I don't know where on the timeline. [1:01:09] Perhaps people have been off. [1:01:11] What happens tomorrow if there is a murder? [1:01:14] That case needs to be worked every bit as hard as the current case. [1:01:23] And we don't know what status it is involving Nancy Guthrie, because there's always stuff [1:01:30] coming down the pike. [1:01:33] And every, every major violent crime case deserves the same level of attention, focus, energy, [1:01:44] and work that's being devoted to this case. [1:01:48] Now, there, you are entitled to it. [1:01:50] And I know that everybody on this panel embraced that attitude when we work homicide cases and [1:01:57] major violent crimes. [1:01:59] You know, to quote, um, Danny Aarons quoted Harry Bosch the other night, and I'll quote [1:02:06] Harry Bosch again. [1:02:07] And the quote is, everybody counts or nobody counts. [1:02:13] And that's what we're talking about here. [1:02:15] We're talking about these crime victims. [1:02:17] That, that's, those are great points because you're, I agree with you that the long-term [1:02:23] damage here now is the Senator's involvement, uh, even though it was, you know, an innocent [1:02:29] friendship, okay. [1:02:31] It sets a precedent, uh, you know, for future other high profile cases, uh, that will even, [1:02:39] that will get even more politicized potentially, uh, in the, in that area. [1:02:44] While ordinary cases like you're talking about, John and, and, and Bob, and welcome Gary, uh, [1:02:49] to the, to the panel, they, they, they could potentially stay under resourced like John is [1:02:57] talking about. [1:02:57] That's a lot of pressure to put on a law enforcement agency because of your political clout. [1:03:05] Okay. [1:03:06] That's a tremendous amount of patience or pressure because the, I mean, let's, let's admit, [1:03:12] let's just be honest here. [1:03:13] The case became a national obsession, obsession partially because of the celebrity Senator [1:03:20] connection, right? [1:03:23] I mean, now what does that do? [1:03:25] It floods investigators with tips, both good and bad. [1:03:30] Okay. [1:03:31] And that forces, you know, additional media briefings. [1:03:35] It turns into, you know, case that turns the case into a spectacle. [1:03:39] It shifts the optics, uh, uh, into politics instead of following the evidence, uh, et cetera. [1:03:48] Okay. [1:03:49] And the team now has to deal with all of these other conspiracies that create themselves with [1:03:57] inside of these optics. [1:03:59] Okay. [1:04:00] And look at Tyler Robinson, a perfect example of a kid picks up a rifle, shoots a, an icon [1:04:09] that people felt he was there. [1:04:11] And next thing you know, it, it's a conspiracy. [1:04:16] Okay. [1:04:17] Well, I'm here to tell you the, the audience here that adds a tremendous amount of pressure [1:04:23] on the investigators and the investigative resources. [1:04:27] Okay. [1:04:28] Public statements from politicians, even though they're supportive, okay. [1:04:33] Like tremendous confidence in the team can make detectives feel like they're being watched. [1:04:39] And not only that, undue expectations, unrealistic expectations to solve this case. [1:04:48] Yeah. [1:04:48] Extra pressure that doesn't have to be there. [1:04:51] They're already under tremendous amount of pressure starting with themselves, then the [1:04:56] command staff, then, you know, the embattled sheriff and the community. [1:05:02] They don't need any more. [1:05:03] And so to your point, that can't be good for the men and women who are working this case [1:05:10] day in and day out. [1:05:11] You know, and once again, uh, some people are commenting in the comments, uh, we did discuss, [1:05:17] uh, Trump's comments about this case and that they, and that they were, no place, they were [1:05:24] inappropriate. [1:05:25] And, uh, this is both sides of the aisle. [1:05:27] This is, you can call it political if you want, but it's not political, at least not in [1:05:31] my eyes and I, I doubt it is with Chris, Karen, and John either. [1:05:35] So, um, it's not political. [1:05:37] It is inappropriate as we're the, the case we're making or trying to make here is that [1:05:42] it's inappropriate for these politicians to weigh in on these cases to this extent. [1:05:48] Yeah. [1:05:48] You're making it political by mentioning it in the chat. [1:05:51] It's you're the one doing it because we're just talking about the Senator showing up. [1:05:57] Okay. [1:05:57] And we're talking about from the position of what that feels like from an investigator [1:06:02] and, and the very real repercussions it has on solving a case, a criminal case. [1:06:10] That's what we're talking about. [1:06:12] And the acquisition and the accusations of favoritism, it projects this idea of a two tiered [1:06:18] justice system. [1:06:19] Yeah. [1:06:19] Okay. [1:06:19] And most of the cases that we've covered here over the last five years are, are victims that [1:06:26] have no political power. [1:06:29] They're, you know, regular people who show up every day and, and work, go to work, pay [1:06:35] their taxes, just try to raise families, you know, um, or their grandparents, whatever, [1:06:42] whatever the case is. [1:06:43] And, um, those are the ones, you know, everybody's case should be treated the same. [1:06:50] Um, that's, I think that's the point, one of the points we're trying to make here. [1:06:54] Yeah. [1:06:54] And when you have elected officials, as I like to say, poking their nose into an investigation, [1:07:02] it, it creates a lot of problems and there's an imbalance there. [1:07:07] Yeah. [1:07:08] That's what we're pointing out. [1:07:09] Yeah, exactly. [1:07:10] Because, you know, as, and if we follow the bouncing ball right now, that added pressure. [1:07:16] Okay. [1:07:16] The investigators then start again, worrying about their careers. [1:07:20] What are the follow, what's the fallout if this case drags on, what's the fallout if [1:07:26] I make mistakes and they get highlighted in the news and all of these things get amplified, [1:07:33] uh, because it is such a, it's gone to the president of the United States. [1:07:41] Now think about that. [1:07:43] Okay. [1:07:44] That those amplifications start to show the cracks and, and, and not only in the investigation, [1:07:52] it starts to show the cracks within an organization and because of all the external criticism. [1:07:59] And let's, let's just cover a couple real fast. [1:08:02] Okay. [1:08:03] In a high profile situation like that, I like this, there were existing issues. [1:08:09] Okay. [1:08:11] What is one of them? [1:08:13] Inexperienced investigators. [1:08:14] Okay. [1:08:16] That came to the, it came right to the top instantaneously. [1:08:23] Okay. [1:08:24] Okay. [1:08:25] That's a really interesting blowback from raising a case to an international level. [1:08:35] Okay. [1:08:36] Because now every decision is criticized and scrutinized really example, releasing the home [1:08:46] early DNA too quickly. [1:08:50] The choice of private DNA labs versus the FBI lab delays in certain searches. [1:08:57] Okay. [1:08:57] And I'm, I'm following my notes that I've been taking. [1:09:01] Okay. [1:09:02] Sheriff Nanos right now is under heavy fire, facing a recall, a no confidence vote from the [1:09:09] deputies union, questions about his resume, his work history, and separate workplace complaints. [1:09:17] A former sheriff that used to work with him, even accused him of corruption. [1:09:22] You know, and an ex FBI agent called the scrutiny of Danos a huge distraction from actually solving [1:09:34] the case. [1:09:35] So by standing and delivering donuts to support the team has actually had a negative effect [1:09:44] on an investigation. [1:09:47] The classic ripple effect is what, what we'll call it. [1:09:51] Okay. [1:09:52] Okay. [1:09:53] Political involvement has turned this investigation into a political football. [1:09:59] Okay. [1:10:00] And guess what? [1:10:01] We're just pointing out the bouncing ball because at this point, resources start to get [1:10:08] diverted or damage control, media management, and defending the department instead of pure [1:10:17] evidentiary work. [1:10:18] Work. [1:10:20] What does that mean? [1:10:21] Morale can suffer. [1:10:22] Good detectives start to burn out or worse, start to second guess routine decisions that [1:10:30] are now held under a microscope. [1:10:33] Okay. [1:10:35] That's what we're trying. [1:10:36] That's why we're raising the awareness in this conversation tonight about why politicians should [1:10:43] stay in their lane. [1:10:46] What say you guys, Gary, you have any thoughts you want to weigh in? [1:10:52] Well, first of all, I want to apologize that I, that I, that I got stuck doing something [1:10:56] else. [1:10:56] Uh, and I hope I wasn't rude to a party here, but I was listening to part of Craig came on [1:11:03] and I, and I'm always fascinated by everybody's thoughts on this. [1:11:06] Um, well, it's complicated, I think, because, um, part of the problem is that they're supposed [1:11:14] to be independence of the branches of government. [1:11:18] And the idea is you, you don't want to give the impression of leaning on or influencing [1:11:23] the judiciary if you're in a different branch. [1:11:26] And so, I mean, even the Supreme Court has said that people in power should generally refrain [1:11:32] from commenting on crime because it can be seen as a very serious bias that can affect [1:11:38] the outcome of the case. [1:11:39] Part of the problem also, in my opinion, when I've seen politicians do this is that if there's [1:11:44] a, uh, for example, someone is accused of a heinous act, um, and the politician comes [1:11:50] out and comments on it before the case is adjudicated, um, because they think it's in line with what [1:11:55] they want to say politically, it's tantamount to coming out to the public and saying the person [1:12:00] did it, the act occurred, and it hasn't even been adjudicated. [1:12:06] The person could be innocent potentially. [1:12:09] Right. [1:12:09] So, so that, that's a problem too, and, um, and there have been some examples of what you're [1:12:15] talking about that I have found, uh, particularly sickening, um, because after a lot of attention [1:12:23] from the government in front of the camera, the case is then sort of tossed to the wayside [1:12:28] and there is no further involvement. [1:12:29] And I, you know, I won't go down the rabbit hole naming some of them, but they can be very [1:12:33] heartbreaking because you get people's hopes up that there's a, they're getting special [1:12:37] treatment and attention. [1:12:38] And I mean, simple example, Chris, Emily Pike. [1:12:41] Absolutely. [1:12:41] Yeah. [1:12:42] Whatever happened to that? [1:12:43] Great point, Gary. [1:12:44] That is a great point. [1:12:45] It's been one year. [1:12:46] It's been one year since her family met with. [1:12:49] Cash Patel. [1:12:50] Cash Patel. [1:12:50] And what's that? [1:12:51] Any arrests? [1:12:52] No. [1:12:53] We even have a photograph. [1:12:54] They sent us a, you know, because we're close to the family. [1:12:57] And they sent us a photograph of their meeting in, you know, internally with the FBI director. [1:13:04] And we got a phone call or I had a conversation, but a couple of weeks ago about the Emily Pike [1:13:10] case from an, an inside situation. [1:13:13] And I was, and I was like, yeah, no, we're still on it. [1:13:18] Trust me. [1:13:18] We're just, you know, we're, we're waiting for what the feds are going to do. [1:13:24] Well, you know, you think there'd be constant commentary. [1:13:27] You know, you can't help but wonder if it's because Emily comes from a background that is [1:13:34] less elite that, that might be considered more unseen and so forth. [1:13:40] So there's this sort of, wow, we're paying attention to a group on the outskirts photo [1:13:44] op, and then, you know, basically tossed. [1:13:46] So, I mean, perhaps that's an unfair characterization because we don't know what's going on behind [1:13:50] the scenes, but it can look that way to the outside. [1:13:53] Now, of course, the counter argument that you always hear is that a politician is required [1:13:59] as part of what he or she does to assuage anxiety in the public about crime and to give [1:14:06] statistics on crime rates dropping or increasing or so forth. [1:14:11] But unfortunately, they, I think sometimes they wiggle that a little bit to get in front [1:14:16] of the cameras and make a comment about something that's advantageous politically. [1:14:21] But, but I really do have a problem with it. [1:14:23] I do. [1:14:24] And, you know, so it sounds like we're all in agreement and it does happen on both sides. [1:14:30] Absolutely. [1:14:30] It's, I've been saying that for years and years. [1:14:32] It doesn't matter who's in power. [1:14:33] It's a thing people do, especially more narcissistic attention seeking people who want an excuse [1:14:41] to get in front of the camera and almost take credit. [1:14:44] Sometimes you even see them act like they're taking credit for the, for the investigation. [1:14:48] And they say, we have caught so-and-so. [1:14:52] And you're like, what? [1:14:53] Like you've never left your office. [1:14:55] And this is one of the things that we pointed out earlier. [1:14:58] I'm going to play it again. [1:15:00] We. [1:15:00] Dianne Feinstein. [1:15:02] We're going to play it. [1:15:04] And remember in 1985, when they were searching for the, the Night Stalker, they had, they had [1:15:11] a major piece of evidence. [1:15:12] And that was the shoe impressions on, I think, I believe if, if I remember right, it was like [1:15:16] seven homicide scenes. [1:15:18] And then they also had ballistics and they matched that ballistic to the murder of one [1:15:26] of the victims up in San Francisco. [1:15:28] Well, the politician, Dianne Feinstein could not prevent herself from going to the public. [1:15:37] And what's the first thing Richard Ramirez did? [1:15:39] Gary, I know, I know you. [1:15:41] He tossed the sneakers over the Golden Gate Bridge. [1:15:44] And the gun. [1:15:46] Let's listen to the, let's listen to the press conference and why we're talking about this [1:15:51] killer who attacks randomly is described as white, 25 to 30 years old with a predominant [1:15:58] feature of badly stained teeth. [1:16:00] So 5,000 flyers have been distributed to Los Angeles dentists asking for help with identification. [1:16:05] And last week, San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein announced ballistic tests have definitely linked [1:16:11] the murder of a man there to the Night Stalker. [1:16:13] But release of that information is outraged to Los Angeles Sheriff frustrated by the difficulty [1:16:18] of tracking a random murderer. [1:16:20] It places this community in jeopardy because it impedes our ability, our ability to go forward [1:16:28] fully with the investigation. [1:16:32] Now that's, that's a sheriff pushing back. [1:16:35] That is a sheriff pushing back against politicians. [1:16:40] That's how it used to be. [1:16:43] That's Los Angeles Sheriff Sherman Block. [1:16:46] And for perspective on people that aren't aware of the case, the Night Stalker case was [1:16:53] largely handled by LA County Sheriff's Department, excellent detectives. [1:16:58] They did an outstanding job. [1:17:01] And Sheriff Block, in my opinion, was an outstanding sheriff. [1:17:03] That press conference was held at about midnight or 1am after Feinstein had made those comments [1:17:12] and the detectives were pissed and rightfully so. [1:17:16] So just to put all this in perspective, that's when all that, all of that happened and the [1:17:23] sequence in which it happened. [1:17:24] So that's unusual for a sheriff or any politician to go out at midnight and give a press conference [1:17:30] to that magnitude. [1:17:31] Yeah. [1:17:33] And, and, and, and the other reason is, you know, politicians should not and inject themselves [1:17:43] into police investigations. [1:17:45] Gary, you're seeing it already today with your mayor in New York. [1:17:50] Okay. [1:17:52] Where he is commenting on the cop that threw the cooler at the guy got six years. [1:17:58] Okay. [1:17:58] And he's saying, yeah, that's a good thing. [1:18:00] Guess what the appellate courts are going to do. [1:18:02] They're going to reverse that. [1:18:03] Okay. [1:18:04] It, it will come back. [1:18:06] Okay. [1:18:07] I guarantee it. [1:18:09] Okay. [1:18:09] It will go to the Supreme court that his attorneys will take that all the way to the Supreme court. [1:18:14] Okay. [1:18:14] And, and what's going to be the wake of all of that says, is the fact that you have somebody [1:18:22] who has no formal control over a case and their presence, just their presence alone. [1:18:28] Okay. [1:18:29] Creates the appearance that law enforcement's being influenced. [1:18:34] Right. [1:18:35] The division of the branches of government is very important to get a fair trial. [1:18:42] Right. [1:18:42] And that, go ahead. [1:18:44] Have any of you ever seen anything positive come out of a politician weighing in on a criminal [1:18:53] case, a heavy case, like, like the Guthrie case or the Night Stalker? [1:18:58] I haven't, maybe, maybe you guys have, but I, I, I can't think of any case where that has [1:19:04] done any good at all. [1:19:06] And I, and I don't, I don't hate Mandami. [1:19:08] I just think he's stupid. [1:19:09] That's it. [1:19:09] It's only if it draws attention to a case that needs attention because it's, it's touching [1:19:17] on a major issue socially. [1:19:18] But even that I think is, I just think the problem is I know as somebody who is a professional, [1:19:24] I know that I have to be sensitive to what I say, because having doctor in front of my [1:19:29] name adds authority to what I say. [1:19:31] So I have to be very sensitive about what I say. [1:19:34] It can be construed as giving advice or swaying somebody in a different way than if somebody [1:19:39] is just making a comment randomly. [1:19:41] The same thing happens with politicians that it comes across that they have prejudged the [1:19:46] case and it is already adjudicated. [1:19:49] So what's the point of a trial? [1:19:51] It doesn't make any sense. [1:19:52] I mean, if I were a person's attorney on the other side, I would get it, try to get it [1:19:57] overturned too, because it's, it is kind of outrageous. [1:20:00] Well, enormous favoritism. [1:20:03] I would say that the thing is with politicians commenting, what is the motive? [1:20:11] The motive is to get their mugs plastered on your screen and to have the voice come out [1:20:17] of the news radio. [1:20:17] It's not like they feel that they're going to, you know, offer anything meaningful for [1:20:24] the solving of the case. [1:20:25] They're egomaniacs. [1:20:27] It's, it's every one of them, you know, and, and I say that as somebody who has been [1:20:35] accused of being arrogant and egomaniac myself, but I look at them and I, I say, I like, I'm [1:20:42] playing single A baseball and these guys are major leaguers. [1:20:45] They need to be seen to be commented, uh, to comment. [1:20:51] So their motive has nothing to do with helping to solve the case. [1:20:55] It's just to grab 15 seconds of airtime. [1:20:58] Uh, I've never heard of any detective anywhere wanting a politician to weigh in on their homicide [1:21:08] case ever. [1:21:09] And maybe there is an instance of that happening, but I'm not aware of it. [1:21:13] And I've never covered a homicide case that had a successful prosecution where a high profile [1:21:19] elected official weighed in, in any part up until let's say sentencing. [1:21:24] Cause at that point, you know, it's over. [1:21:27] Right. [1:21:28] Right. [1:21:28] And that's a great point, Karen, because that, that can damage the fact that, you know, you [1:21:35] get, you know, photo ops, you're out interviewing with the press out front, you know, after bringing [1:21:40] donuts in and, you know, I'm here to support the team, but you know, that can, uh, I guarantee [1:21:46] you that's going to be a sixth amendment argument right to a fair trial from a defense attorney, [1:21:51] because that public trust, uh, now starts getting looked at like, wait a minute, you [1:21:57] know, how many other murderers are on trial in Phoenix? [1:22:01] Okay. [1:22:01] And they didn't get the Senator who showed up. [1:22:04] Okay. [1:22:05] And that, that will, that issue will be raised from the defense about outside pressure. [1:22:11] Isn't it true detective? [1:22:13] You did such and such so-and-so because of pressure from the outside. [1:22:18] Uh, no, but, but all the defense has to do is put the argument out there. [1:22:23] And now you're going to put that, that investigator on the defense job. [1:22:28] I have to ask Chris, as we're in your experience and your vast experience detective, would you [1:22:34] say that there were more resources allocated to this investigation than others you've worked? [1:22:41] Now you have a point at that point, you can either say, well, no, I, this really is unique [1:22:47] or you can perjure yourself. [1:22:49] Now there's, there's no good answer. [1:22:53] Right. [1:22:53] Because it can, it can go ahead, Bob. [1:22:55] Well, and, and, and we have to give credit to Trump as well, because he's the one that [1:23:01] told cash Patel to put every available resource on this case. [1:23:05] And as we said earlier, that's totally inappropriate. [1:23:08] And yeah, so it was, that was imbecilic behavior. [1:23:12] I just don't understand that. [1:23:14] Keep your mouths shut. [1:23:17] Yeah. [1:23:17] You could come in and do our jobs. [1:23:19] Well, because it creates from an investigative side of things, it, it creates a competing [1:23:29] messaging. [1:23:29] I'll call it because investigators want one clear public message, at least any murder I've [1:23:38] ever worked. [1:23:39] I want it one clear public message. [1:23:41] That's why she was so dangerous, you know, because, you know, my boss would come to me [1:23:47] like my, my, one of my bosses up there, it's like, what, what's going on out here? [1:23:52] Hey, here's the talking point. [1:23:54] Stay with it because here's what we know. [1:23:56] Here's what we need. [1:23:58] Please call this phone number period. [1:24:01] Okay. [1:24:01] This is what we know. [1:24:03] This is what we need. [1:24:03] Call this in. [1:24:04] What, but when a high, when a high politician or a public official speaks, the media then [1:24:10] starts to try, starts to treat their words as more important than the police statements [1:24:16] there, thereby the narrative gets distorted, you know, and, and that's exactly what happened [1:24:23] here. [1:24:24] Well, she's a friend of mine. [1:24:26] Okay. [1:24:27] And, you know, she called me before she told before the public knew. [1:24:32] Yeah. [1:24:32] Why did he, why is that relevant? [1:24:34] That, that, that has to be pure ego. [1:24:37] Gary, I'm, I'm interested what you think about that. [1:24:40] So just to clarify, when he was interviewed by the media, Senator Mark Kelly made a point [1:24:47] to say, look, Savannah called me, um, when her mom went missing and she told me this even [1:24:55] before this was made public. [1:24:57] And it just, it, to me, it comes across as just a narcissistic statement. [1:25:03] Like I, you know, I knew before anybody else did, like, why, why, why mention that? [1:25:12] Yeah. [1:25:12] I mean, what, what was the purpose of that comment? [1:25:16] You know, why do you have to tell the public? [1:25:18] It's, it's hard to tell. [1:25:22] I mean, that, that's pretty vague, uh, because it could also be construed as meaning something [1:25:27] like, you know, I just want to give, give people a sense of how close we are and our [1:25:33] relationship is so unique. [1:25:34] So I have her back and care about her very deeply on a personal level to the point that [1:25:39] she shared this intimate thing with me that isn't even known to the public yet. [1:25:42] Like, I'm always like a member of the family. [1:25:44] Practically, I was told to everybody else knows. [1:25:46] I mean, it's, it's hard to say what it means, but I just think that, um, without getting [1:25:52] into a specific person to be sensitive about that, I just think as a rule, one should resist [1:25:58] the urge to go out and make any comment at all, because it, you have to ask yourself what [1:26:04] the motivation for doing it is. [1:26:05] And it's very hard to see a world in which it has anything but a selfish motive behind [1:26:12] it, self-serving motive. [1:26:14] I mean, without naming any specific person, I just think that generally it's a, it's a, [1:26:19] it always is a self-observation and it doesn't seem now, I don't want to be criticized for [1:26:24] saying it, but a lot of times it comes across as the inversion of the victim, the victim centered [1:26:29] approach that you're supposed to have. [1:26:32] It looks like it's victim centered, but ultimately it can sometimes feel that the victim is a [1:26:37] pawn or a photo op or a, uh, you know, it's something being put in the newspapers to draw [1:26:43] attention to what a good crime fighter you are or how much you deeply care about, you [1:26:47] know, to give people the impression that the average person is deeply beloved by the government [1:26:52] or the political powers, like you're safe, we got your back, you know, that kind of thing. [1:26:57] But it, it can feel very disingenuous. [1:26:59] And, and, you know, and then at other times I think people get too passionate, they get [1:27:03] too caught up there, you know, and they just talk. [1:27:05] And, and I, and I just think it's all a problem, uh, because an astute lawyer will tear you up. [1:27:13] What's the problem, Chris, what's the problem with just simply saying it would be inappropriate [1:27:19] for me to comment on that? [1:27:22] Exactly. [1:27:23] That's the standard. [1:27:24] I mean, is that, and it's, guess what? [1:27:26] It's a thoughtful answer. [1:27:28] Well, and, and, and, and what did he say when he, when he spoke to the Tucson sheriff or [1:27:34] the Tucson police chief, he said, well, we're not going to get into that. [1:27:38] Well, that, that in of itself creates this, you know, why not? [1:27:44] Why, you know, we're asking you, you're standing here, we're doing a press conference, you know, [1:27:48] and that, again, that creates this hype. [1:27:51] Whenever a high profile individual gets involved in the middle of these things, [1:27:55] while there's an ongoing investigation, okay, that creates public pressure and it pushes [1:28:02] the public to say, well, we want quick answers in today's bits and bytes type of environments. [1:28:08] Okay. [1:28:09] Yeah. [1:28:09] What are you holding from us? [1:28:12] Okay. [1:28:13] Now, what does that do on the opposite side to the, to the agencies and investigations as [1:28:18] we've all experienced, well, that can push agency into rush decisions, okay? [1:28:26] Premature focusing on suspects or premature relationship information. [1:28:31] It, it's like a, it could be a blowback that will come back at you. [1:28:36] Okay. [1:28:37] And, and that jeopardizes an investigation because again, it, it creates a dual messaging, [1:28:46] a competing messaging and in high profile investigations in media pro and media PIO one-on-one, Bob, [1:28:56] you've been to the FBI training, Karen's been to the FBI training. [1:29:00] You want one clear public messaging, okay? [1:29:06] Right or wrong? [1:29:07] Yes. [1:29:07] Yep. [1:29:08] Yep. [1:29:08] They can tell you don't issue two separate phone numbers to the public. [1:29:13] If you're asking for tips, at least my training was one, don't muddy the waters, make it clear, [1:29:20] concise, and all coming from the same source. [1:29:25] Okay. [1:29:26] And, and so what's the other blowback? [1:29:30] What's the other potential? [1:29:33] When other, whenever the victim or the family gets perceived as being politicized, the case [1:29:44] becomes a political spotlight event. [1:29:46] And, and, and this chat tonight has proven my point tonight. [1:29:53] I love it. [1:29:55] They fell right into the honeypot. [1:29:58] Okay. [1:30:00] Because what ends up happening is arguments turn into partisan arguments, conspiracy theories [1:30:09] that why are you harassing the family or the investigators? [1:30:15] And then there are all kinds of grandstanding accusations. [1:30:21] Okay. [1:30:22] Guess what? [1:30:22] We haven't talked about Nancy Guthrie because that type of environment actively hurts Nancy [1:30:34] Guthrie and the type of cooperation necessary to solve a very high profile murder. [1:30:42] It's exactly the opposite of what is necessary to find this 84 year old missing woman. [1:30:53] And that's why I bring this out sometimes and people can agree or disagree. [1:31:01] That's okay. [1:31:02] Guess what? [1:31:04] I'm here for Nancy Guthrie. [1:31:05] That's why I'm here. [1:31:08] I'm not here for Mark Kelly. [1:31:10] I'm not here for Donald Trump. [1:31:13] Okay. [1:31:13] I'm, I'm not here for Mendonny, who I think is stupid in New York. [1:31:18] I'll say it again, just to remind everybody, okay, my position on that. [1:31:24] And guess what? [1:31:25] I'm entitled to that position. [1:31:27] Okay. [1:31:28] Because I don't, I don't go partisan arguments. [1:31:32] I'm not red. [1:31:34] I'm not blue. [1:31:36] I'm, I'm not a color. [1:31:38] God does not see in color. [1:31:40] Why do you, why do you to the, to, is my question. [1:31:49] Why do we see in color? [1:31:51] God doesn't see in color because around the corner is potentially a trial for somebody that [1:32:01] may have done this. [1:32:04] Okay. [1:32:07] That may have done this because Karen also has done a little more research and got an, [1:32:13] got an email recently. [1:32:15] And I'm going to put it up for you. [1:32:17] And she, and you guys tell us what this means. [1:32:21] First of all, tell them who it's from. [1:32:24] Well, and I'm going to read it to you because it's the type here is very small, but I reached [1:32:30] out to the Pima County attorney's office. [1:32:33] That is one agency we have not heard anything from over the last 74 days with the Nancy Guthrie [1:32:42] investigation. [1:32:43] So I got an email back from their PIO and here's what it said. [1:32:49] And I thought this was really interesting. [1:32:51] And I told Chris, you know, I'm, I can't wait to share it with you all. [1:32:55] And I feel like, you know, we work for you guys. [1:33:00] I keep digging. [1:33:02] I do a lot of stuff behind the scenes every week. [1:33:05] Sometimes I get answers. [1:33:06] Sometimes I don't. [1:33:08] And we're sharing this with you. [1:33:10] We're putting it out there and you guys decide. [1:33:13] We're not going to tell you what to think. [1:33:15] We're going to, you know, go over this and you guys come to your own conclusions. [1:33:21] Okay. [1:33:21] So the email says, um, thank you for the email county attorney. [1:33:27] And by the way, the Pima County attorney, her name is Laura Conover. [1:33:30] Well, you forgot to say hi, Karen, because it just shows how, how sweet she is. [1:33:37] Okay. [1:33:38] I don't think this woman thought I was very sweet. [1:33:42] I got my email pressing her on some questions about the Nancy Guthrie case, but maybe. [1:33:47] This is another exclusive. [1:33:48] Okay. [1:33:50] So it says, um, she said, uh, the county attorney Conover is not available to speak on the Guthrie [1:33:57] case. [1:33:57] However, I can offer you the statement below. [1:34:00] So here's what it says under some outcomes, the United States attorney's office may have [1:34:08] a forthcoming prosecution. [1:34:09] And under other scenarios, the Pima County attorney's office may have a prosecution to pursue. [1:34:17] Given the work we're doing night and day to prepare for that outcome, it's inappropriate [1:34:23] for us to share any information about the investigation at this time. [1:34:27] Now, I thought it was fascinating that the Pima County attorney's office is actually speaking [1:34:34] for the U S attorney's office in this statement. [1:34:37] So that tells me they're working together. [1:34:41] Okay. [1:34:42] And I'm going to go over this again, because, you know, we don't, we can't read into this, [1:34:49] but I think there's some breadcrumbs here for people who know, you know, about this. [1:34:56] Let me, let me go over this again. [1:34:59] It says under some outcomes, the U S attorney's office may have a forthcoming prosecution. [1:35:04] Under other scenarios, Pima County attorney's office may have a prosecution to pursue. [1:35:10] Given the work we're doing night and day to prepare for that outcome, you know, we don't, [1:35:15] it's inappropriate for us to share any information. [1:35:17] Okay. [1:35:18] So my question, I said to Chris, why would you work night and day to prepare for a possible [1:35:25] outcome if you're really far away from an arrest in this case? [1:35:30] Okay. [1:35:31] John, you go first. [1:35:34] Well, the semantics would suggest that there's some element of urgency regarding the federal [1:35:42] case that may specifically refer to the gentleman from Hawthorne who jumped into the middle of [1:35:51] the most celebrated crime case on the planet, uh, with the text messages regarding the Bitcoin. [1:36:02] But it certainly, certainly the wording would suggest that there's apparently some notion that, [1:36:11] that something may break, or maybe they're just, maybe you're just getting verbiage from them to, [1:36:18] uh, to foist you off for another couple of weeks. [1:36:23] But why would you say attorneys in the county attorney's office are working night and day [1:36:27] to prepare for a trial when there's no arrest? [1:36:35] There's no, um, people of interest that we're, that we've been told that we're aware of that [1:36:41] we're aware of if they have somebody in custody, obviously they're going to be working night [1:36:46] and day around the clock. [1:36:47] But why say that at this point, day 74 in the investigation, if it's true now, I, I know [1:36:55] that a statement from a government entity, we should accept it as holy writ. [1:37:00] But if true, I would be wondering, are indeed, uh, are they indeed there night and day? [1:37:12] Um, because I, frankly, I've dealt with a lot of attorneys and I haven't seen many of them [1:37:19] work night and day. [1:37:21] Uh, but if it's possible, then it suggests to me there's, there may be some sense of urgency, [1:37:26] but there's just not enough there for me to make a, um, a measured judgment of it. [1:37:33] And that's fair. [1:37:34] That is fair. [1:37:35] We don't want to read into this, but we want to accurately assess it. [1:37:39] Now, Bob made an observation last in our last program about the U S attorney's office. [1:37:45] Remind everybody about that, Bob. [1:37:47] And then what's your, what say you about this particular email? [1:37:52] Well, I commented a while back actually, and then, uh, restated it last Sunday that, uh, [1:38:01] I believe that the U S attorney's office is building a case. [1:38:05] And they're building a case to present to a grand jury at some time in the near future. [1:38:12] And of course, I don't have a crystal ball. [1:38:15] I don't know when, when that will be, but the reason I say that is, um, to see a group of [1:38:23] U S attorneys walking through, um, Nancy Guthrie's home, walking inside, walking around the grounds [1:38:30] and so forth and the investigators pointing out, uh, uh, a myriad of things around the house, [1:38:37] obviously items of evidence, um, uh, things that, uh, that detectives have picked out at the scene [1:38:46] and walking through and briefing them in detail. [1:38:49] That just tells me that they're building a case and that we are likely to see a grand jury, [1:38:57] um, a case presented to the grand jury sometime in the near future. [1:39:02] And then, um, this email, uh, that Karen received is just, it just bolters, um, my assertion that [1:39:11] they're going to do that sometime in the near future. [1:39:14] Well, let me ask you, do you agree with John? [1:39:16] John thinks this is potentially about Derek Colella, the noted, uh, so-called fraudster [1:39:24] who sent the Bitcoin text messages to Annie and Tommaso. [1:39:29] Do you think it's regarding that person or do you think there's more to it? [1:39:35] Well, it could be, I think there's more to it. [1:39:36] Uh, as far as we know, Eric Colella had nothing to do with Nancy Guthrie, Guthrie's home. [1:39:42] So they, they went in quite a bit of detail in making that presentation to those AUSAs. [1:39:50] So, uh, you know, it could be, it could be both Karen. [1:39:54] So I, it's hard to say at this point with the information we have. [1:39:58] That's fair. [1:40:00] Yeah, fair enough. [1:40:01] Gary, you have any thoughts on the email? [1:40:05] I mean, it's a little hard to tell, uh, uh, you know, I, I mean, I could see [1:40:09] all the points you're making. [1:40:10] It could also be that they just don't want to answer you. [1:40:13] They're fading, answering you, uh, with the pretext of it wouldn't be appropriate. [1:40:18] Yeah. [1:40:18] Um, but, but, um, I don't know, but I have to say that I, I am increasingly, um, sensing, [1:40:26] um, that they may have an idea of what went on and, um, are in search of the proof of it, [1:40:34] of the concrete proof of it. [1:40:36] Um, but I can't help, but think that if you've got, you know, at this point, I just think [1:40:42] they've looked at so much there's, you know, and I just think they've sat down and they've [1:40:46] said, look, this is what we think happened, but we just don't have remains of, you know, [1:40:50] if she passed away, we don't have remains. [1:40:51] It's, you know, these people, you know, did a pretty good job of covering their tracks [1:40:55] technologically and et cetera. [1:40:57] And, you know, the DNA is mixed. [1:40:59] It's a little complicated, so we can't pin it on, you know, but I, I can't help but think [1:41:04] they have an idea and, um, and that they're sort of preparing for when they can come forward [1:41:12] and say, all right, now it's time to charge. [1:41:14] I mean, because, I mean, I just feel like from experience that that's what this looks [1:41:18] like, but you guys tell me, I mean, do you believe the narrative in the public that they [1:41:22] have absolutely no clue who did this? [1:41:25] I, I don't, I don't buy it. [1:41:28] No, no, no. [1:41:29] We said that the other night. [1:41:30] We said that Sunday night. [1:41:32] And they told us that with Koberger and then he was arrested a couple of weeks later. [1:41:36] Right. [1:41:36] Right. [1:41:37] If I were a detective on this case, I probably wouldn't, I wouldn't tell you anything. [1:41:43] And, and you can conclude to yourself that we have no suspects and I know there have [1:41:47] been leaks, but we don't know how credible these so-called leaks are. [1:41:51] I mean, that's doesn't make sense. [1:41:54] Yeah. [1:41:54] You don't want to release that because, you know, for, for four reasons, you know, first [1:41:59] it will tip off a suspect. [1:42:02] It may also compromise surveillance and or undercover efforts that are taking place, you know, behind [1:42:09] the scenes. [1:42:10] It can also contaminate witness statements. [1:42:13] You don't want that. [1:42:14] You know, well, I heard it because the cops said it. [1:42:17] Okay. [1:42:17] And then it also encourages false confessions and hoax tips. [1:42:23] Okay. [1:42:23] I mean, this is a couple of ideas. [1:42:25] I mean, and, you know, you know, it, so you, you, the, you want to keep those investigative [1:42:34] details close to the chest. [1:42:36] And that's why political statements become very, you know, risky, you know, endeavors, you know, [1:42:45] and accidental, you know, because what the investigators are trying to keep quiet, you know, the politician [1:42:51] may slip like a Feinstein, potentially like a Kelly. [1:42:56] He, he, he, I'm not saying he did it in this case, but the fact that he's engaged into this [1:43:02] creates this problem of, okay, well, what if he says something? [1:43:08] What if he saw something, you know, in that war room that we don't want anybody to see. [1:43:15] And now you have a sitting U S Senator out there and he gets a phone call that says, Hey, [1:43:21] uh, at zero 300, we're going to hit this. [1:43:24] We're going to make it happen. [1:43:26] Get your press people ready. [1:43:28] Okay. [1:43:29] And the press person gets that and sends a tweet in today's environment, you know, [1:43:35] you hope that doesn't happen. [1:43:37] Well, it ha it's happening all the time in this world today. [1:43:41] And, and this is why, you know, we're part of having, you know, this conversation because [1:43:47] what we want is, you know, we want the public to amplify the official police line. [1:43:54] Right. [1:43:55] Or politicians, even, you know, Hey, if you're going to say something, tell them what the [1:43:59] phone number is. [1:44:01] Okay. [1:44:01] Stay away from any type of speculation or anything like that. [1:44:05] And by all means, don't, you know, uh, criticize any of the investigative steps, you know, don't, [1:44:12] don't say, Hey, what a great job boys here and gals. [1:44:16] Here's some donuts. [1:44:17] Here's some coffee. [1:44:19] We really appreciate it because that puts unwanted pressure, which we talked about on an investigator [1:44:24] who's going, a new investigator in this case, which unfortunately that even puts 10 times more [1:44:32] pressure on that individual. [1:44:33] Am I doing it right? [1:44:35] Is, you know, is cash Patel happy? [1:44:38] Is, you know, the Senator happy, you know, and the list just goes on because, and we also want [1:44:45] them to stay away from operational decisions in any way, shape or form. [1:44:50] So, so can we dub this donut gate? [1:44:54] Is that what we're going to call this? [1:44:57] Donut gate. [1:44:58] I love it. [1:44:59] Yeah, absolutely. [1:45:01] Somebody took that out. [1:45:02] Donut gate. [1:45:04] That's so funny. [1:45:05] You see right there, watch how fast that will spread on Twitter. [1:45:11] Why? [1:45:11] I mean, this is a, this is a social experience experiment, and this is exactly why you should [1:45:19] not inject yourself into these types of problems in any way, shape or form. [1:45:25] Okay. [1:45:25] Karen, what are you thinking? [1:45:28] Should we get to the questions? [1:45:30] Yeah. [1:45:30] Let's take some questions. [1:45:31] Okay. [1:45:32] Guys and gals, we're going to jump into the question here and put some donuts in the chat. [1:45:37] But cops love nothing more than donuts, not Dr. Bracado. [1:45:41] He does not like donuts. [1:45:43] That's true. [1:45:45] Yeah, I know. [1:45:46] You told me that a while ago. [1:45:47] I'm just. [1:45:49] Although I like, I like the money in your waistline. [1:45:51] Gary, you don't like donuts. [1:45:53] That's un-American. [1:45:54] I like the munchkin that they make out of the donut hole, but I don't like the, I mean, [1:46:00] at least the flavors that we have around here. [1:46:03] Man, I want a cinnamon, I want a cinnamon roll that I need to have an angioplasty after I finish. [1:46:10] Hey, there's a, there's a YouTuber by the name of Ike who owns a donut shop. [1:46:15] I think it's in Kansas. [1:46:17] Um, if you can look him up on YouTube, he's hilarious. [1:46:21] That's so funny. [1:46:21] Cracks me up. [1:46:22] And he makes donuts while he's doing his little skit. [1:46:25] So it's pretty funny. [1:46:26] And hi, Adrian from Scotland. [1:46:29] We, we appreciate you. [1:46:31] She's been very supportive of our channel. [1:46:33] She sends a lot of information out. [1:46:35] Yep. [1:46:36] And thank you. [1:46:36] I love your country. [1:46:38] Yes. [1:46:40] Uh, we've got a lot of new members here. [1:46:42] We'll just highlight them real fast for everybody. [1:46:44] Cat H, Sandra. [1:46:47] Thank you. [1:46:49] Uh, let's see here. [1:46:50] Lucky Ducky. [1:46:52] Oh, Lucky Ducky. [1:46:53] You've been around for a long time. [1:46:55] Thank you so much for always being here. [1:46:57] And thank you for gifting, uh, a membership to our members. [1:47:01] Okay. [1:47:03] Uh, uh, Ellen Woodsman. [1:47:06] Savannah knows the rule of law. [1:47:08] She's an attorney. [1:47:08] That's right. [1:47:10] Can't disagree with that at all. [1:47:12] Can't disagree. [1:47:14] And, and we can't blame her for picking up the phone. [1:47:17] That's, we're not saying that in any way, shape or form, but Gary, what were you going [1:47:21] to say? [1:47:21] I was going to say it's, it must be very difficult for law enforcement to always have to [1:47:26] worry that things could wind up in the press to compromise, you know, and then, and then [1:47:34] having to be worried about, you know, maybe your own sheriff or your own, you know, the [1:47:40] political part, but it just feels to me that it creates a hampering that is adds an extra [1:47:46] element to everything that makes it more complicated. [1:47:49] I mean, for law enforcement to do its job. [1:47:51] If you guys, have you guys ever dealt with a high profile case where you had to worry [1:47:54] about leaks to the press all the time? [1:47:56] It must be a big pain in the butt. [1:47:59] I can't even imagine it. [1:48:01] Welcome to planet earth, Gary. [1:48:03] Well, as I'm saying, I mean, I can't even imagine it. [1:48:05] I mean, with any major case that's in the papers, but imagine one involving the celebrity. [1:48:09] Yeah. [1:48:09] Well, it's even worse today from when we were doing these cases. [1:48:13] I mean, it's 10 times worse today. [1:48:15] You remember junior say, Oh, killed himself in our town. [1:48:19] Like, I mean, we'll, we'll just talk about high profile cases. [1:48:23] That's just, okay. [1:48:24] He's just one. [1:48:25] I mean, we walked out of the bathroom of Matthew checky, which changed the way bathrooms are [1:48:31] made in the United States and around the world, family bathrooms from a nine-year-old [1:48:37] little boy by the name of Matthew checky. [1:48:40] When I walked out of that bathroom as the case agent, I had 16 satellite trucks from [1:48:47] around the world, including Japan. [1:48:53] And guess what? [1:48:55] To this day, I haven't even spoken to the boy's mother. [1:49:02] Oh, really? [1:49:03] Yes. [1:49:03] Really? [1:49:04] Somebody else did on the team. [1:49:06] It's not that you wouldn't care enough to talk to the family. [1:49:09] Her name is Sharon and Sharon knows because I love her. [1:49:13] She knows that, but here's the reason why I didn't want to compromise the, the death of [1:49:20] her son on that filthy, rotten bathroom floor in any way, shape or form. [1:49:28] And so we could go on about celebrities and all this other stuff. [1:49:34] I mean, we've all, we've all had very high profile cases. [1:49:39] Okay. [1:49:41] And I mean, John, what were you going to say? [1:49:43] This is going to say, if you'll remember the case of, um, where I didn't have quite the [1:49:50] coverage you had with the Matthew checky case, but as a detective sergeant, when my detectives [1:49:57] were looking at, I don't know how we would use CP and it turned into a revelation of Marines. [1:50:10] And I mean, I was interviewed by the BBC and, and, and it's just time wasted because their interest [1:50:22] is not that they feel that the public is going to be learned something useful or meaningful. [1:50:29] They're just attempting to fill 25 seconds of airspace and ideally titillate the public. [1:50:36] So you stay on long enough to listen to the commercial. [1:50:39] I mean, ultimately it's qui bono, who benefits go to, go to Netflix and look up the, the documentary [1:50:47] killer Sally. [1:50:48] Okay. [1:50:49] That, that happened in, in our town. [1:50:52] Okay. [1:50:53] I did the crime scene where she blew off his face. [1:50:57] Okay. [1:50:58] I, I, I stood there in the kitchen. [1:51:01] Okay. [1:51:02] Well, you know, I wasn't the, the, the primary on that case. [1:51:06] I was assigned to manage the crime scene. [1:51:09] Remember we used to break it up. [1:51:10] We had, we had protocols. [1:51:12] Okay. [1:51:12] Was that involving the bodybuilders, Chris? [1:51:15] Yeah. [1:51:15] Remember the two mornings and she, she blew his face off. [1:51:19] Uh, well, you know, he was there in 97. [1:51:24] I w I was contacted by Lou Schmidt in the John Bonnet Ramsey case. [1:51:29] Okay. [1:51:30] Now that, that was a leak. [1:51:31] That was, I did a front page story. [1:51:33] Karen did a leak on that one. [1:51:35] She, who I did my job, you say, I was doing my job as an investigative reporter and there [1:51:42] was a leak at the Lieutenant level at the police department and he blabbed. [1:51:49] And I had a front page story on that, that got picked up by Colorado media. [1:51:54] And I was on the radio radio show talking about that one story that was a leak because it was [1:52:01] such a high profile case. [1:52:02] I, I interviewed the, uh, Christopher Morgan and his, his buddy in the West Memphis three [1:52:11] murders out of West Memphis, Tennessee. [1:52:14] And who sent you there, Chris? [1:52:17] John lamb, right above me. [1:52:19] Okay. [1:52:20] So it's nice that you look at the West Memphis case, you will find his name in the case files [1:52:25] and my name in the case files. [1:52:28] And so we we've, we've had our share of high profile stuff. [1:52:33] I mean, I'm not talking, you know, like I've never done that. [1:52:37] Okay. [1:52:38] We're talking this panel. [1:52:40] When we come to the table, we bring experience a lot of it. [1:52:45] Okay. [1:52:46] We don't play a homicide detective on YouTube. [1:52:49] We've actually done the job. [1:52:52] Okay. [1:52:53] And now I can tell you, I'm, I'm just going to, the last one of the one I'm going to tell [1:52:58] you about, it's a funny story. [1:52:59] You guys will all laugh. [1:53:00] John will remember. [1:53:01] We had a guy thrown in a dumpster, uh, off of Oceanside Boulevard, uh, behind our, uh, [1:53:08] Ralph supermarket. [1:53:09] He was wrapped in plastic and duct tape, et cetera. [1:53:13] Okay. [1:53:14] We figure out who the guy is. [1:53:16] And we, we do some search warrants up in Huntington beach. [1:53:20] Okay. [1:53:21] We're hitting that we're in there and we're interviewing, you know, some people inside [1:53:26] the house and there's a knock on the door, a front door. [1:53:30] We had the door closed and, uh, Mike Perretta Fatso says, Hey, uh, answers the door. [1:53:38] I'm like, okay, I opened the door and I said, can I help you? [1:53:43] She goes, yeah, I'm looking for, you know, the guy's name was Lance. [1:53:47] We're looking for Lance. [1:53:48] I said, well, okay, well, you know, hi, we're the popo. [1:53:53] And, uh, you know, do you know, Lance? [1:53:55] Uh, yeah. [1:53:56] Okay. [1:53:56] What do you, you have an ID true story. [1:53:59] She goes, you don't recognize me. [1:54:01] And I said, am I supposed to, she goes, you don't know who I am. [1:54:07] I said, no, I said, who, who are you quote? [1:54:13] I'm Lisa Kudrow from friends. [1:54:17] I said, okay, do you have an ID? [1:54:22] She's your word for it. [1:54:24] Yeah. [1:54:24] Friends. [1:54:24] Give me your ID princess. [1:54:26] And it was, it was her. [1:54:27] It was Lisa Kudrow. [1:54:29] Okay. [1:54:29] Now, did I, did we run back to the station and tell the world, Hey, we just had, you [1:54:37] know, so-and-so such and such. [1:54:38] No, because we were, especially because of the journal. [1:54:42] And at the time friends, the TV show she was on was hugely popular. [1:54:47] Everybody watched it. [1:54:49] That would have actually been a really good story. [1:54:50] Yeah. [1:54:51] Maybe you should have said to her was asked her the question. [1:54:56] Where's Kramer. [1:54:58] Now I know for everybody. [1:55:00] I know Kramer's on Seinfeld and not friends, but you had a big caper that was just recently [1:55:07] a big news. [1:55:09] I mean, how old was that a cold case you guys just shut down up in Carlsbad that you just [1:55:14] had testified in? [1:55:17] Yeah. [1:55:17] Uh, Hernandez case, uh, it was a 1987 murder that went cold. [1:55:22] Um, it's my case. [1:55:24] And, um, uh, my, uh, colleagues at Carlsbad PD got a DNA hit on it in 20, was it 20 or [1:55:34] 21? [1:55:35] Um, and, um, a couple of years later, mostly because of the so-called pandemic, um, we went [1:55:42] to, to a trial on it and, uh, convicted this guy of, uh, I won't name him cause I don't [1:55:49] want to give him any publicity, but he, uh, he, uh, abducted, um, raped, I'm sorry, essayed [1:55:57] and, um, strangled the victim, uh, along a major thoroughfare on Carlsbad, California. [1:56:04] And, uh, yeah, that was, uh, that was a good, a good win. [1:56:09] And the current detectives, um, one of whom was, uh, Josh Bubness at Carlsbad PD, they [1:56:17] all did a, just an outstanding job. [1:56:20] And, um, and what I really appreciated was, uh, that, that case stuck with me and it bothered [1:56:25] me that it had gone cold all these years. [1:56:27] In fact, I had called down to my old department, uh, a couple of times through the years and [1:56:34] asked them to resubmit the DNA and, um, and to their credit, they submitted the DNA and, [1:56:43] uh, and then Josh, um, followed up with me and, uh, did it anyway, everybody did a really [1:56:49] good job. [1:56:50] So it was a good case. [1:56:51] Uh, it did make some national news and, uh, it would have had some publicity. [1:56:55] So in our area, we had the hail Bob people in San Diego County in Rancho San Diego, they [1:57:04] were all dressed in the, right. [1:57:07] And who was it? [1:57:08] What was his name? [1:57:09] Marshall White. [1:57:09] Marshall White. [1:57:10] Heaven's gate, John. [1:57:11] That's it. [1:57:11] How about Betty Broadway, right down in San Diego, the kook and who killed her husband, [1:57:23] Mark 15, real life, fatal attraction, the real life, the other Linda had the real one. [1:57:28] Linda, Linda Richie. [1:57:30] Oh, she's the original fatal attraction killer. [1:57:32] She's still, um, in prison. [1:57:34] In fact, she just had her fifth parole hearing and it was denied. [1:57:38] And then there was the James Huberty episode of the McDonald's. [1:57:43] Yeah. [1:57:44] One of the first mass shootings in the country. [1:57:48] Okay. [1:57:48] So we're, so to answer your question, Gary, yes. [1:57:54] He's out getting a donut right now. [1:57:57] He's out grabbing a donut or some kind of, you know, instant breakfast drink or whatever. [1:58:03] Oh, I reset the wifi because people in the audience said I was glitching. [1:58:10] Oh, you look great. [1:58:13] I'm not glitching now. [1:58:15] A lot of compliments on your, uh, your, your beard, by the way. [1:58:19] Oh, thank you. [1:58:20] Okay. [1:58:20] So this is, this is one for you, Karen. [1:58:23] Yeah. [1:58:23] Why, why can Mark Kelly have access, but journalists are discouraged from asking questions. [1:58:28] Something doesn't seem right. [1:58:29] I agree with you completely. [1:58:32] Exactly. [1:58:34] Yeah, it doesn't seem right. [1:58:37] And not only that, it's, it's not that they're not holding Sheriff Nanos isn't holding press [1:58:42] conferences, but they push the media completely, not just away from Nancy's street down the street, [1:58:52] but I heard they were issuing tickets for anybody coming by the house. [1:58:56] Now I can, I guess I can, I can understand that, you know, the neighbors, you know, deserve to have [1:59:02] their privacy and all that. [1:59:04] Um, but if you were providing semi-regular updates, there would be no need to have anything going [1:59:13] on in Nancy's neighborhood at all. [1:59:15] So anyway, Tuna Dog says, uh, excellent discussion. [1:59:20] We better see Kelly do personal calls, media donuts for every single constituent moving forward, [1:59:26] but we won't. [1:59:28] We know only certain people are entitled to special treatment. [1:59:31] Yeah, that, that's a great, again, we talked about this early and thank you to that precedent [1:59:37] has been set now, uh, and to his, uh, to his constituents. [1:59:42] And we're going to have a mother on with this panel, uh, who's been fighting for justice. [1:59:49] Her daughter and another friend were, uh, who was pregnant were murdered and strangulation [1:59:59] in Phoenix. [2:00:00] They have DNA and the Phoenix PD has stalled on the investigation. [2:00:07] They won't push the DNA through because of cost. [2:00:13] And we're going to have this mother on and we're going to, we're going to hold him to [2:00:20] make a couple of phone calls. [2:00:22] Well, do we need to hold a bake sale or something? [2:00:25] Exactly. [2:00:26] Because of the costs? [2:00:28] Well, what, what they're doing is they're doing, uh, IgG. [2:00:33] Okay. [2:00:35] And they're trying to, they're working from the outside in instead of the inside out right [2:00:41] now. [2:00:41] And I had a, almost a two hour call with her, uh, yesterday. [2:00:45] You know, for the, for the parent of a, of a murder victim to hear that the agency, if [2:00:51] it comes down to money is just, that's just disgusting and should never be the case. [2:00:57] Something is very wrong there. [2:00:59] I hope that's not the case. [2:01:00] I hope maybe that there's, you know, some garbled information back and forth. [2:01:06] I hope that's not the case, but if it is, that's obviously that's very wrong. [2:01:10] And yeah. [2:01:12] And, and it sounds like her case needs some sunshine. [2:01:15] People need to, to, we need to revisit that and share it with everybody and get the word [2:01:23] out. [2:01:24] Yeah. [2:01:25] And, uh, thank you. [2:01:26] Don't be mad at the one pointing out the corruption. [2:01:29] Okay. [2:01:30] Yeah. [2:01:30] Thank you. [2:01:31] Suzanne says law enforcement should talk to Nancy Guthrie's hairdresser. [2:01:35] They can pull all kinds of info from a person and porch guy may be associated or related [2:01:41] to with the hairdresser. [2:01:43] We hope they did that. [2:01:45] I said that at the beginning of the case, because I was, it reminded me of the Gene Hackman case [2:01:51] and, um, Gene Hackman, as we know, died in his home along with his wife, Betsy. [2:01:58] Um, and, but there was a period of time. [2:02:01] Remember, we didn't know if it was, it was, it is a homicide because they just didn't know [2:02:05] if foul play was involved or not. [2:02:07] And, uh, those, you know, reporters, somebody got to Betsy's hairdresser and, um, I thought [2:02:14] it was great. [2:02:15] I thought it was, you know, tell us about the victims. [2:02:17] We want to know. [2:02:19] And in this case, not for nothing, no one in Nancy's circle really has come out. [2:02:26] I saw one, we highlighted on a couple of shows, one interview that a newspaper did with some [2:02:32] of Nancy's girlfriends, but we haven't heard from any, you know, long time family friends, [2:02:39] people who grew up with the Nancy's kids. [2:02:41] We haven't heard anything about Nancy from them. [2:02:46] I've always found that odd about this case. [2:02:49] Yeah. [2:02:49] We want, remember, we all talked about the, what are the dynamics of the, the, the siblings [2:02:54] and to their friends groups? [2:02:56] I mean, to that point, right. [2:02:59] I mean, we have, we have not heard about that of you guys. [2:03:01] I mean, right. [2:03:02] We just think that's kind of interesting. [2:03:05] What does Senator Kelly say about nanos? [2:03:08] Well, in the press conference, and we're going to play it again towards the end here. [2:03:12] It's just two minutes long. [2:03:13] He supports him a thousand percent. [2:03:18] Okay. [2:03:18] Now this was before all the other stuff came out. [2:03:22] So we don't know what his position is now. [2:03:23] Okay. [2:03:25] But, you know, you support somebody after you discover they have falsified their credentials. [2:03:32] That says a lot. [2:03:34] That says a lot about the person on that side of the coin as well. [2:03:38] Well, it feels like everybody's keeping quiet, you know, at that high level about this. [2:03:43] Yeah. [2:03:44] Let's see. [2:03:44] We'll see how it plays out. [2:03:45] Because the Board of Supervisors just got a report where they hammered him on a couple of things. [2:03:51] And I can put that up, but not today. [2:03:53] Go ahead. [2:03:53] What does it put? [2:03:54] Karen Cardwell says, if attention is the same for all, there would be a panel of brilliant minds on my murdered brother and members. [2:04:02] We're so sorry to hear about this, Karen. [2:04:04] So sorry for the loss of your brother. [2:04:06] And you're a great example. [2:04:11] Yeah. [2:04:12] Great point. [2:04:13] Thank you for sharing and for having the, for trusting us with this information. [2:04:20] Thank you. [2:04:21] Hopefully the Senator will see this. [2:04:25] Carly says, did the Senator happen to stop by a food pantry, a homeless shelter, or the Children's Cancer Center while he was there? [2:04:37] Go Padres. [2:04:39] Can I ask something very quickly, Karen? [2:04:42] Yeah, of course. [2:04:42] So, you know, I'm not getting into the question of what Nanos did or didn't do, because, you know, I don't know the full story or anything. [2:04:51] But what are the repercussions generally for, and how frequent is it, that somebody with a law enforcement background would exaggerate or fudge credentials? [2:05:02] What happens? [2:05:04] Is it criminal? [2:05:06] Is it just ethical? [2:05:07] I'm not talking about him. [2:05:09] I just mean, when someone does that, what could happen to you? [2:05:12] And why would you do it? [2:05:13] That's a great question. [2:05:15] I don't know if it's criminal. [2:05:18] It could be depending on what context it's in. [2:05:24] So if he, you know, well, even then it would probably still be civil. [2:05:31] It could be civil for sure. [2:05:33] Criminal, it just, I think it depends. [2:05:35] If he filed an affidavit, let's say a search warrant affidavit and gave his credentials in the, wrote his credentials in the affidavit, like a CV, and it was false, then, of course, that could be, he could be criminally liable for that or something like that. [2:05:56] If he had any kind of illegal document affidavit, where he might embellish his credentials, that could be a problem for him. [2:06:03] But with respect to a resume, I mean, I'm not an attorney, but I would think that that is not a criminal offense. [2:06:11] But it certainly could be cause for a termination or, in Nanos' case, a recall. [2:06:19] My understanding is, is the County Board of Supervisors can sanction Nanos officially, and that is just a proclamation on their part, you know, saying whatever. [2:06:40] I don't think it has any official avenue to remove him as sheriff. [2:06:46] So I think if I was, if I read the statutes and the laws pertaining to elected officials in Arizona, the only way that they can forcibly remove Nanos is through a recall election. [2:07:03] I see. [2:07:04] But really, I didn't mean the question specifically about him. [2:07:08] No, I get it. [2:07:09] I'm just curious if that's something that happens often and why a person would do it. [2:07:14] Well, it's kind of like, I'll just give you the reader from my opinion, and John, you weigh in. [2:07:22] If we think about stolen valor, basically, is what you're asking. [2:07:27] Yeah, and it must stick in the craw of other people in law enforcement. [2:07:30] Like, it's crazy because it's offensive. [2:07:34] Because, understand a couple of things, right? [2:07:37] Just because you are a law enforcement officer did not mean you served in certain divisions within agencies, okay? [2:07:49] Like, Bob was a motor officer, you know? [2:07:52] I can't go around and say, hey, I, you know, I knew a motor officer, therefore I am a motor officer. [2:08:01] Does that make sense? [2:08:03] Of course. [2:08:03] People do that all the time in every profession. [2:08:06] It's terrible. [2:08:06] I can do heart surgery because my uncle's a heart surgeon. [2:08:10] You know, let me go out and talk about heart surgery, you know? [2:08:13] Exactly. [2:08:14] So, it's incumbent upon, you know, let's just use true crime for an example. [2:08:20] Just a simple example. [2:08:23] It's incumbent for people to vet me, okay? [2:08:27] That's important to me. [2:08:30] It's important to me because if I'm valid and I say, look, you know, just run my name through newspapers.com. [2:08:41] Do detective Chris McDonough homicide. [2:08:44] Right. [2:08:44] And watch what happens, okay? [2:08:48] If you have doubts about somebody, because that gives him credibility, he gives me credibility, it gives him credibility, and it puts us in a volume of, oh, yeah. [2:09:02] These guys are the real deal, okay? [2:09:05] What ends up happening if you have retired cops, retired FBI agents, all, I mean, the list goes on, okay? [2:09:15] And they've never done certain jobs within their agencies. [2:09:21] But they projected out there in today's environments, okay, that, like, social media, YouTube channels, the list goes on, okay? [2:09:33] The other cops go behind the scenes, and they look it up, and they go, that guy was never a Navy SEAL, okay? [2:09:43] And what that does is it hurts all of those individuals that have actually stood there at 3 o'clock in the morning over the dead bodies. [2:09:52] But more importantly, it hurts the families, because now they get hoodwinked thinking, oh, that guy can do the job, because they talk like they did the job. [2:10:05] And therefore, I'm going to send them a note. [2:10:07] I'm going to send them a letter, yada, yada, yada, yada, okay? [2:10:11] That's why when all of us saw that Nanos had 37 benchmarks against his career, we went, whoa, okay? [2:10:22] So, it is a form of fraud. [2:10:26] It's a form of stolen valor. [2:10:29] But they know it, and it's more about them than it is anybody else here, because we have nothing to prove. [2:10:38] Evident in the fact, you asked the one question, have you had, you know, high-profile cases? [2:10:44] Well, go look us up. [2:10:45] Of course. [2:10:46] We talked about it, right? [2:10:48] That would be like me saying, you know, hey, I hang around with Dr. Bacato. [2:10:51] So, therefore, I'm a forensic psychologist, right? [2:10:56] And so, do we like, I don't like it. [2:10:59] It drives me crazy, personally, okay? [2:11:02] Just like, I mean, not, I'm never going to, you know, make a big deal out of it. [2:11:07] But at the same time, nobody likes that. [2:11:10] Nobody likes that. [2:11:11] Because this, we, I have more respect for this chat and all of these people. [2:11:18] And they demand that I am who I am. [2:11:25] They demand it, okay? [2:11:27] And the audience demands it. [2:11:29] They demand that Karen is who she is, that John is who she is, that Bob, that you. [2:11:35] When you say, I wrote a book, right? [2:11:40] The Most Evil, right? [2:11:42] Right. [2:11:42] When you do that, you had better have the chops behind it. [2:11:49] But people don't vet enough, in my opinion. [2:11:53] They don't vet them enough. [2:11:55] And so, they get away with it. [2:11:57] And we end up talking about it. [2:11:59] Right. [2:11:59] Which is crazy. [2:12:01] Because what ends up happening in the long run, and we'll use Colorado Bureau Lab as an example. [2:12:09] Bob knows, they had a forensic scientist in there who was falsifying DNA results. [2:12:18] Really? [2:12:19] Years. [2:12:19] She did it for years. [2:12:21] Mm-hmm. [2:12:22] And was finally caught. [2:12:23] Hundreds of cases have been overturned. [2:12:26] To what end? [2:12:27] We don't know. [2:12:30] I don't know. [2:12:32] But the fact that she, you know, fluffed her credentials and fluffed the results, okay? [2:12:38] The appellate courts, all the defense attorneys are going to line up, and they're going to say, [2:12:44] hey, my guy, let him out. [2:12:47] Now, think about all of the families and the repercussions to hundreds of those families. [2:12:54] Yeah, it's sickening to think about it that way. [2:12:57] Yeah. [2:12:58] It makes your stomach turn. [2:12:59] It's like this domino effect, okay? [2:13:02] It's a domino effect. [2:13:03] Because every one of us on this panel could still get subpoenaed to go testify in an old [2:13:09] homicide case that we work. [2:13:12] And we have to put our hand up, okay? [2:13:16] Well, so you want to ask the question to the person that's telling you, well, I've worked [2:13:20] murders. [2:13:21] Okay, ask them which one. [2:13:24] Show us the one. [2:13:27] Show us the one, okay? [2:13:30] Show us. [2:13:30] Show us, because at some point, if that person ever gets subpoenaed, and they pull up on YouTube, [2:13:39] okay? [2:13:40] Hey, you said you worked at WC&D. [2:13:43] Right. [2:13:43] Let's talk about it, okay? [2:13:46] Show us. [2:13:46] I hope that answered your question. [2:13:47] I know it wasn't. [2:13:48] No, it's just that, you know, if a high school kid said, you know, I was the manager of, you [2:13:58] know, the white castles I worked at in, but they really were like the kid who cleaned the [2:14:02] floor, I could kind of understand it. [2:14:05] You know, you don't have prior experience. [2:14:06] You know, you really need to pay the rent. [2:14:08] You know, you're a dopey kid. [2:14:10] You're not thinking it through, whatever. [2:14:11] But when people in authority do that, and I don't mean any specific person, it just shocks [2:14:16] me because it takes a very different kind of personality to do it. [2:14:20] And I don't know, I just, I can't understand why it wouldn't bother a person to do it. [2:14:26] I mean, I'm very particular about things like that. [2:14:28] The people that, you know, that Chris is talking about very often come in as a, they're [2:14:35] a lieutenant or a captain. [2:14:37] Or a command. [2:14:38] What? [2:14:39] This lends a certain gravitas to the, you know, he's a lieutenant. [2:14:45] He must have, you know, a boy, he must have. [2:14:48] My experience is now my terminal rank was sergeant because I wasn't going to survive as a manager [2:14:56] and I wasn't going to get the lobotomy scar to be a lieutenant or a captain. [2:15:01] A lot of these guys who have gotten to this place, the lieutenant I worked for who ran our [2:15:08] homicide unit had never investigated a homicide in his life. [2:15:15] Now he could go on and say, I was lieutenant in charge of the homicide unit. [2:15:21] Well, that sounds pretty impressive, doesn't it? [2:15:24] But I can't recall ever seeing him in a murder scene. [2:15:28] So this is how people, now this fellow's not doing this, but it does illustrate talking heads, [2:15:35] you see, who will tell you that they did such and such a thing. [2:15:39] But them becoming bosses doesn't mean they actually did the job. [2:15:46] Right. [2:15:46] Right. [2:15:46] It's just that people get really colorful with the way they fudge. [2:15:50] Oh, yes. [2:15:50] It's just, it's like the old joke of the woman who writes on her resume that she did 25 years [2:15:57] of anthropological research, but it turns out she was a housewife. [2:16:00] And they say, why did you lie? [2:16:02] She said, I didn't. [2:16:03] It just sounded better than saying I spent 25 years with a caveman moron living in the house. [2:16:07] Well, it's like there is that way of spinning, you know, that some people do, but to change [2:16:13] a rank, something that somebody could easily send in a, I mean, isn't it very easy to send [2:16:19] in a request to find out if somebody actually held a rank? [2:16:23] Yes. [2:16:23] It's very easy. [2:16:24] Public records, every state in the country has a public records request form on all the [2:16:33] websites. [2:16:33] Not only that. [2:16:34] The agency you would, that you would reach out to, to get proof of somebody's rank. [2:16:42] And not only that, Bob, you've been an undersheriff. [2:16:45] You've been a supervisor, John. [2:16:48] Tell them about POST requirements and what type of documentation you get from POST that [2:16:54] talks about that rank. [2:16:56] You get a management certificate, right? [2:16:59] That's right. [2:16:59] Well, for people who don't know, POST is Police Officer Standards and Training. [2:17:08] Do I have that right? [2:17:08] Yep. [2:17:09] Yes. [2:17:09] So this is the, this is from state to state. [2:17:15] These are the, this is the agency that, that monitors and holds police officers, not necessarily [2:17:22] accountable, but this is where their training is. [2:17:26] It has to be POST approved and it's housed at POST, right? [2:17:32] Yeah. [2:17:33] It's, it's standard, standard, standardization of training from state to state. [2:17:38] That says, yes, this person has been to medical school, hypothetically, you know, I'm using [2:17:43] it as a crazy example, but it says, yes, this person is a doctor and this doctor is at this [2:17:51] level, not an associate professor. [2:17:54] He's a professor. [2:17:55] Okay. [2:17:56] Because he had to do this associate professor for so long. [2:18:00] And it's the same thing in law enforcement. [2:18:03] You get certificates that say, yes, I was, I was a sergeant. [2:18:08] I was a supervisor. [2:18:09] Bob, what, what else am I missing? [2:18:12] Well, you touched on earlier. [2:18:13] There are different levels of POST certificates in most states. [2:18:17] Some, some don't have this, but most states now have, you have a basic POST, you have an [2:18:23] intermediate POST certificate, and then you have a supervisory POST certificate, and then [2:18:28] you have an executive or a management POST certificate. [2:18:32] And so the basic obviously would be your, you know, your, your young officer, intermediate [2:18:39] would be maybe a five-year to 10-year officer or deputy, and then supervisor would be John's [2:18:46] rank of sergeant, or maybe even lieutenant. [2:18:50] And then it would go up from there. [2:18:51] Right. [2:18:53] And so, to your point, Gary, all the public has to do is, can you show us your certificates? [2:19:00] That's it. [2:19:01] And, and you can vet somebody even on YouTube in about two seconds, if they can't hold it [2:19:07] up to the, to the camera and say, here they are. [2:19:12] The law enforcement, and that's true for FBI also? [2:19:15] Well, they're, they don't, FBI doesn't have a, a POST per se, but they have their own system [2:19:22] in federal law enforcement. [2:19:24] In fact, the FBI may have their own, I don't know. [2:19:28] So I, so I won't comment, but there is a different system within federal law enforcement. [2:19:33] Wow. [2:19:34] That's just very, very interesting. [2:19:35] Those are not easy to get. [2:19:37] Uh, and it's very difficult to get, um, any kind of response out of the FBI, my, my, in [2:19:45] my opinion and, um, my experience with it. [2:19:50] But yeah, yeah, you're right. [2:19:51] But you know what, you know, who will tell us is Maureen. [2:19:53] She'll tell us. [2:19:54] Yeah. [2:19:54] Maureen will tell us. [2:19:56] Yeah. [2:19:56] We have to ask her about that. [2:19:58] Yeah. [2:19:58] Yeah. [2:19:58] You know, one, one thing missing from this conversation and Gary to your earlier question, [2:20:03] um, as a journalist, to me, it comes down to one word and that is fraud. [2:20:10] And credibility. [2:20:13] Well, can I add that word? [2:20:15] Sure. [2:20:16] You could add to credibility, but I'm saying if, you know, if someone's going to lie on [2:20:19] their resume and fake, I mean, fake credentials and, you know, I guess anybody can put anything [2:20:27] they want on a resume, but the end user is the one that needs to vet them to your point, [2:20:32] Chris. [2:20:33] Um, it, it, at the end of the day, it's fraud. [2:20:37] I mean, we can wrap it up and call it any, you know, call it whatever you want, but it's [2:20:42] fraud and, and the public is being misled. [2:20:45] If somebody has credentials or a false resume out there, plain and simple. [2:20:50] And this is why a, um, detailed background investigation. [2:20:56] In fact, most States require it. [2:20:59] And I can't imagine a state that would not require it in this day and age, um, prior to [2:21:06] being hired. [2:21:06] So even if you're a lateral officer, so if I go from Oceanside Police Department to Carlsbad [2:21:13] Police Department, which I did in 1986, Carlsbad had to do a thorough background on me before [2:21:19] they hired me, even though I'm just basically walking, um, across the street, so to speak [2:21:26] to the neighboring agency. [2:21:29] So. [2:21:29] Interesting. [2:21:30] Yeah. [2:21:31] I think it's, that's a great point, Gary, that you brought up. [2:21:34] And I think it's, it's important that because there are a lot of, you know, retired folks [2:21:40] coming to YouTube for lack and look at journalists. [2:21:43] I mean, journalists are, are now coming to YouTube because they're realizing, you know, [2:21:48] this, this is a new way of doing stuff. [2:21:51] This is where the audience is. [2:21:52] The audience is not watching any network TV anymore and hasn't been for quite a while. [2:21:58] Right. [2:21:59] And so people, I mean, audiences are becoming much more attuned to, Hey, wait a minute. [2:22:06] This person said, ABC or D, is that a real journalist? [2:22:10] Okay. [2:22:11] I, I, I'm going to find out. [2:22:13] Okay. [2:22:14] And, and that's what ends up happening. [2:22:15] So unfortunately what ends up happening also the, the danger of it for those who are faking [2:22:22] it is there's going to be a domino effect. [2:22:24] And when that domino effect happens, it, I feel sorry for those people. [2:22:30] I really do that. [2:22:32] I feel sorry for the officers that said, yeah, you know, I've worked this, I've done this, [2:22:37] I've done that. [2:22:38] Okay. [2:22:38] And then we and others go, well, no, you haven't. [2:22:42] I worked with you. [2:22:43] I know you. [2:22:45] Okay. [2:22:46] You're, you're not even close. [2:22:48] Why are you deceiving the public? [2:22:50] Okay. [2:22:51] You, you shouldn't do that. [2:22:52] Therefore, I don't want to hang out with you. [2:22:54] I'm going someplace else. [2:22:56] I'm going to do my own thing because I don't want, I don't want that to damage my reputation. [2:23:02] And because I, I'll be honest with you is, you know, Karen will tell you, I, I just recently [2:23:08] testified in a baby murder case in Virginia. [2:23:11] Okay. [2:23:12] Okay. [2:23:12] I, I was hired as, as a consultant to take a look at this baby murder case. [2:23:19] Okay. [2:23:20] And they put me on the stand and I testified and I was for tired by three people. [2:23:31] Okay. [2:23:32] And the judge finally said, yeah, the guy's an expert. [2:23:34] Okay. [2:23:35] But how did I do that? [2:23:37] I had to show them my case book. [2:23:40] I had to show them the murders that I worked. [2:23:44] Okay. [2:23:45] And one of the, the, one of the, uh, attorneys said, well, you know, why don't we, they basically [2:23:54] tried to throw me under the bus and they brought up the crow case. [2:23:59] And the, the second attorney said, well, detective, you want to talk about the crow case? [2:24:05] I said, absolutely. [2:24:06] Let's talk about it. [2:24:08] Okay. [2:24:08] And next thing, you know, it, they discovered that the guy that everybody went after, I was [2:24:15] the only one that said, uh, you got the wrong guy here. [2:24:19] And the jury had actually found him not guilty. [2:24:22] And that was Richard to it. [2:24:24] Okay. [2:24:25] But you see, they, they focused so much on what everybody else had said. [2:24:32] They didn't look at what was actually the result and what I said. [2:24:37] And guess what? [2:24:38] The jury found that person not guilty. [2:24:41] After I had testified. [2:24:42] That's exactly right. [2:24:44] Yeah. [2:24:44] Go ahead. [2:24:45] You know what? [2:24:45] I have to say, um, with respect to, uh, law enforcement falsifying their resumes, in [2:24:53] my opinion, and in my experience, um, it is, those are few and far between cases where [2:25:01] officers do that. [2:25:02] Uh, 99%, and this is for the audience. [2:25:05] I know, you know, this Gary, but 99% of cops out there that say they've done this and say [2:25:11] they've done that, have done this and have done that. [2:25:14] So, um, the resumes are valid and we actually hire really good people, um, that are qualified. [2:25:21] And, uh, um, anyway, I just wanted to say that it's important for the audience to hear [2:25:27] that, I think, because it's, it's, you know, we're just talking, we hear about it occasionally [2:25:31] in the media, but it's, it's really, those are very, very rare occurrences. [2:25:37] Yeah. [2:25:38] And I'm not reflecting on law enforcement in the job. [2:25:42] I'm post law enforcement. [2:25:44] I think that's where Gary was at when they retired. [2:25:47] That's when their resumes get fluffed. [2:25:50] That's when they get fluffed. [2:25:52] That's when the resumes go all Hindenburg. [2:25:57] Right. [2:25:58] Full of gas. [2:25:59] Okay. [2:26:00] Let's get back to the conversation. [2:26:01] Well, well, I, is it, I was just going to, can I answer that very quickly? [2:26:05] All I was going to say is that, that the phenomenon is very interesting because it reminds me, and [2:26:09] again, we're not talking about nanos just generally, but the phenomenon reminds me of [2:26:14] what you see among young people, for example, who become Instagram famous or something like [2:26:20] that, where the idea is that a person can construct their own fame or their own rep. [2:26:25] And then it is. [2:26:26] So, you know, it's like what Chomsky called manufactured consent. [2:26:30] If you say you are famous, you are, it's as simple as that. [2:26:33] You go around saying it. [2:26:34] The next thing you know, everybody's talking about you. [2:26:36] And I think the problem is that, especially with YouTube and things like that, anybody [2:26:41] can set up a background, a camera, whatever, and present as an authority. [2:26:46] And then it's constructed that they are. [2:26:48] And the next thing you know, every news agency is quoting you and then, and then your fame [2:26:52] is manufactured. [2:26:53] And, and, and so I think what happens with some people is they forget, and I'm not, I [2:26:58] don't mean anybody specific, but in general, you can forget that you've constructed the [2:27:03] reality and then start to think it's true. [2:27:06] And then, and then somebody goes, you know, that doesn't exist in real life. [2:27:11] You just sort of think it is. [2:27:14] Believing your own BS. [2:27:16] Yeah. [2:27:16] What did you say, John? [2:27:18] Believing your own BS. [2:27:20] But it happens, it happens, it gets all bloated. [2:27:23] And the next thing you know, you know, they, they think, you know what I mean? [2:27:27] It's just the way that it is. [2:27:28] I remember I talked to somebody once who was an author that had investigated a case in [2:27:34] the sense of talking to the offender, like post incarceration, when they were like in [2:27:40] jail, you know, in prison for a long time, like decades. [2:27:43] And then, you know, I remember a documentary or something came out of her, but the person [2:27:47] said, but I investigated it. [2:27:50] I was involved in an investigation. [2:27:52] I said, you didn't investigate anything. [2:27:54] You mean you went in and you got answers after the person was behind bars. [2:27:58] That's not investigating. [2:27:59] I mean, technically you could use that word. [2:28:01] If you look up the dictionary definition, you were investigating, but not in the way that [2:28:06] you think you mean. [2:28:07] And I just think that does happen. [2:28:09] People lose touch with the reality there and they get pulled into it. [2:28:13] You guys know what I mean? [2:28:13] Well, yeah, and I think also we're at a place where journalism has declined and that's such [2:28:20] a polite way to put it, journalists don't do their jobs anymore. [2:28:26] And so the higher the person is or the bigger the name or whatever, we're not seeing journalistic [2:28:35] organizations, people within them vetting these people. [2:28:40] They just keep elevating them without doing the necessary checking. [2:28:44] And it's so frustrating because it's 20 years ago, we would have seen it differently. [2:28:51] But today, you know, and that's why I'm I've always been positive for citizen journalists, [2:28:59] because, you know, their perspective is great, but there's still a need for real journalists. [2:29:06] And it gets so frustrating. [2:29:08] You know, the Nancy Guthrie case is kind of an example to, you know, especially like local [2:29:16] reporters in this case. [2:29:18] Because back in the day, if the Nancy Guthrie case happened in the town I worked, if the [2:29:24] sheriff wasn't having any press conferences, there's many things that I would do and could [2:29:29] do to try to get answers or a bit of new information or whatever. [2:29:35] And you just don't see that kind of drive or tenacity. [2:29:41] You know, and that's why I did print media, because broadcast media, you only get two minutes [2:29:46] anyway. [2:29:47] They never really delve deep into anything. [2:29:51] But obviously today everything is, you know, this show is actually broadcast media. [2:29:55] Yeah. [2:29:56] You know, that's just where we're at. [2:29:58] And again, journalists, especially in, you know, high up on the food chain. [2:30:05] Let's borrow a phrase from Vinnie Paulitan. [2:30:08] I don't see them. [2:30:09] Who we love. [2:30:10] Shout out to Vinnie Paulitan. [2:30:11] Shout out to Vinnie. [2:30:12] Who we, you know, they need to vet if you're going to put somebody on as a so-called expert, [2:30:18] then you better vet them, especially if you've got a national program or a large YouTube channel [2:30:23] or whatnot. [2:30:25] Yeah. [2:30:26] Well, but this is the postmodern world where, you know, you could make anything so if you [2:30:31] imagine it and, you know, and that's a problem when it comes to credentials have to be real. [2:30:38] Yeah. [2:30:39] And because other cops don't like any, any officer, you can ask anybody, just what Bob said, [2:30:48] you know, 90% of everybody that's gone into the agencies around the world, they're, they're [2:30:54] awesome. [2:30:55] Okay. [2:30:55] There's nothing worse than having other friends when you retire, go, Hey, did you hear what [2:31:01] Frank did? [2:31:02] You hear what Frank is saying? [2:31:04] Do you, you know, did you hear what Bubba's done? [2:31:07] You know, yada, yada, yada. [2:31:08] Okay. [2:31:09] And, you know, because that's all we have, we is our credibility and our honor. [2:31:19] Okay. [2:31:20] And, and at any time, those things outside of having a beautiful wife and Bob fishing and [2:31:28] John, you know, just an amazing human being. [2:31:30] But, but, and we all have beautiful people in our lives and Gary, you're great beard. [2:31:37] You're shining, man. [2:31:39] You're looking good, but we always have to remember, especially of having worked murders, [2:31:45] that phone could ring and Hey, this is the DA's office in San Diego. [2:31:51] Well, yeah. [2:31:52] What's up? [2:31:53] Hey, you worked a case back in blah, blah, blah, and blah. [2:31:57] Yeah. [2:31:58] Well, I had that happen two years ago. [2:32:00] That's the point. [2:32:01] Right. [2:32:02] And what do you remember about that? [2:32:05] And by the way, what's your new address? [2:32:08] We're going to throw a subpoena at you because we need you to testify. [2:32:11] We just got the guy. [2:32:13] Okay. [2:32:14] Now those who are out there pretending, and if they ever got that, a phone call like that, [2:32:22] that they were just the, the guy handing the log. [2:32:27] Okay. [2:32:28] And if they ever went back of a good defense attorney ever went back to their YouTube channel [2:32:34] and they said, yeah, I've worked, uh, you know, I remember working a homicide, you know, [2:32:39] and it was, you know, blah, blah, blah. [2:32:41] Guess what? [2:32:42] They're going to press play the moment you sit on that stand and they're going to impeach [2:32:47] you in front of the world and in front of that jury. [2:32:53] Yeah. [2:32:53] They tried that two years ago. [2:32:55] And that's what we don't like about phonies. [2:33:01] Okay. [2:33:02] And, and the person that says, well, I'm not a phony. [2:33:05] That guy's a phony and great. [2:33:08] You know, show me the money, show me the receipts, kids. [2:33:17] Show me the receipts, kids. [2:33:19] Okay. [2:33:20] Uh, let's grab back the, uh, because you're right. [2:33:24] You know, junior politicians won't be held accountable either ever. [2:33:28] Okay. [2:33:29] Sometimes. [2:33:31] Yeah. [2:33:31] We feel that way. [2:33:32] Don't we? [2:33:33] Uh, and, and, you know, we feel that way. [2:33:36] I don't know. [2:33:38] I think things come back to haunt you. [2:33:39] I really do. [2:33:40] I think you can't get away with things for that long unless you die. [2:33:44] Chances are at some point in your life, things are coming back to haunt you. [2:33:47] I really, that's been my general experience that, that at some point somebody goes, wait [2:33:53] a minute, what? [2:33:54] And then it gets exposed and the whole house of cards of the trust you've built with an [2:34:00] audience over a long period of time where the public can collapse instantaneously. [2:34:04] Look at what happened to Eric Swalwell. [2:34:06] Exactly. [2:34:07] And others too. [2:34:08] I'm reading from others too. [2:34:10] Yeah. [2:34:10] But it's like one second, the whole thing's gone. [2:34:12] It's all it takes. [2:34:13] There are some people who are inexplicably immune to scandal, but there are some people [2:34:18] that one thing happens, done. [2:34:19] That's it. [2:34:20] And I think trust is like that. [2:34:23] Trust just has that, that way of, um, of going very fast, you know? [2:34:29] So I think people are skating, they skate on the nice when they lie, they, they, they think [2:34:36] they can, you know, get away with it, but you can't hold it together forever. [2:34:40] It's too hard, especially when the lie is intricate. [2:34:43] I love this. [2:34:44] And says, that's so funny. [2:34:50] Thank you, Micah. [2:34:52] We appreciate you gifting a TIR membership. [2:34:55] And aloha, we really always appreciate you being here as well, friend. [2:34:59] Thank you. [2:34:59] Well, I'll be. [2:35:01] Okay. [2:35:01] We haven't, uh, you've been with us from the beginning. [2:35:04] 59 months. [2:35:06] Wow. [2:35:06] Oh my gosh. [2:35:07] I like that name. [2:35:08] It's been around a long time. [2:35:09] Thank you. [2:35:09] I liked, but I thought it was very interesting, Chris, to hear you talk about, to delve into [2:35:14] YouTube, true crime ethics. [2:35:17] It's actually a topic worthy of its own show because there are a lot of things that drive [2:35:22] me crazy about what people do to other shows and content related stuff and all that. [2:35:28] I mean, it's like, that's a whole topic. [2:35:29] Yeah. [2:35:30] You want to be careful too, because then people, and they turn it on you as if you, you know, [2:35:37] you've done something. [2:35:38] You know, I don't understand that phenomenon, but. [2:35:40] Or you get alienated if, if you do something to another, like I've seen there, like a creator [2:35:46] will turn on another one and then there's, you know, and there's all kinds of interesting [2:35:50] dynamics that go on when people should be collaborating for the victims, not. [2:35:55] And it's called crime drama. [2:35:57] There's a whole genre of crime drama on YouTube. [2:36:01] I mean, it's. [2:36:01] Krama. [2:36:02] Krama. [2:36:02] But it's an interesting topic. [2:36:04] It really is. [2:36:05] Sharon says, a reporter with a source says, FBI has a name or a person of interest. [2:36:13] Bitcoin guy was paid. [2:36:15] Maybe dovetails with Karen's letter that they are preparing. [2:36:18] What? [2:36:19] Is that true? [2:36:20] Have any of you heard that before? [2:36:22] First time I've heard it. [2:36:23] Yeah, I haven't heard that. [2:36:23] Bitcoin guy was paid. [2:36:26] Let's hope. [2:36:28] Private Eye says, opinions, please. [2:36:30] Elected officials are considered politicians, but sheriff is elected and I see him as a politician. [2:36:35] Should the sheriff be elected? [2:36:38] Bob, you are an undersheriff. [2:36:40] Well, you know, it's a traditional position. [2:36:44] It's as American as apple pie. [2:36:47] I mean, all you got to do is look at the old Westerns and every town or county had a sheriff [2:36:53] and so, you know, it's a tradition in America and I believe in it. [2:37:01] I have no problem with it being an elected official, much different from a police chief [2:37:07] nowadays. [2:37:09] So, but, you know, every group of people are going to have its misfits and, you know, you [2:37:16] just have one of those every once in a while. [2:37:18] And we also said at the beginning of this case many times on the show that typically [2:37:24] you don't see the sheriff. [2:37:26] You don't see a police chief getting involved in the day-to-day operations of a high-profile [2:37:34] homicide case. [2:37:35] You just don't. [2:37:37] You usually see a commander or a civilian PIO, public information officer, address the [2:37:46] media, and the leader of the organization stays back in their office and does their thing. [2:37:52] And so, a lot, you know, you know, in this case, it's been the actual total opposite with [2:38:00] Sheriff Nanos. [2:38:02] Can I just comment real quick on that? [2:38:03] So, in my opinion, I don't begrudge Nanos coming out and making some statements with regarding [2:38:12] the Nancy Guthrie case, especially at the onset. [2:38:16] He is an elected official. [2:38:18] He is the head of the agency. [2:38:20] If all of this, if his behavior had been stellar throughout this and something went bad in this [2:38:28] case, it would reflect on him. [2:38:31] So, or if this was a stellar case and they went right out and made an arrest and we had [2:38:39] a prosecution going on, he would look good in this case, too. [2:38:44] So, I don't begrudge him in that regard, making an initial statement. [2:38:50] But where he failed, in my opinion, is he just kept going on and on and on. [2:38:55] And then he became selective and then he copped an attitude and then he started crying in the [2:39:01] interviews. [2:39:02] Last week, there was a deputy-involved shooting in Pima County, and I watched a local news report [2:39:10] where a Pima County Sheriff PIO, who we have seen in the background in some of the video, [2:39:16] gave a great synopsis of what occurred at the scene of this deputy-involved shooting. [2:39:24] So, we've said this, all of us, I think, have said this throughout this panel, and that [2:39:30] is we believe that the Pima County Sheriff has some great PIOs. [2:39:35] And this guy that I saw given the media briefing on this deputy-involved shooting just did a [2:39:42] fantastic job. [2:39:43] I mean, classic textbook, professional dissertation on what occurred. [2:39:48] And so, we know they're there. [2:39:50] And so, why, again, not to beat this dead horse, but why did Nanos have to take this route? [2:39:58] And it just, it's unfortunate. [2:40:02] Interesting. [2:40:03] Let's get to some more questions, Chris. [2:40:07] Thank you, Sue. [2:40:08] We appreciate you being here. [2:40:11] That's very kind of you. [2:40:15] Let's see. [2:40:16] Sharon says, Guy called a creator to say, brother is Porch Guy. [2:40:21] Seemed unwell, spoke of secret codes, et cetera, but his YouTube playlists include adult content [2:40:28] around old ladies and female narcissists. [2:40:31] Law enforcement apparently ignored him. [2:40:36] Okay. [2:40:36] Thank you. [2:40:38] Speaking of hope, so appreciate the factual presentation of information and using [2:40:43] respectable language and opinions. [2:40:46] Many YouTube channels reporting are crude, bad language. [2:40:50] Blessings to you all. [2:40:52] Thank you so much. [2:40:52] That means a lot to us because we all work really hard to, you know, to keep the language [2:41:03] under control, you know. [2:41:06] Annie Grace says, thank you for all your time and effort you put into these cases. [2:41:10] I'm glad I'm able to catch live streams again. [2:41:12] Peace and love. [2:41:13] Thank you so much, Annie. [2:41:14] We're grateful that you're here. [2:41:16] And thank you for your continued support. [2:41:18] And Tusson says, the law is the board is using Arizona Revised Statute 11-253A, which allows [2:41:29] them to request reports from county officials with potential for removal if the official [2:41:34] fails to comply. [2:41:37] Okay. [2:41:38] Thank you for that. [2:41:39] So they're moving towards... [2:41:44] Yeah. [2:41:44] But all he has to do is fulfill their request. [2:41:46] I don't think it matters what's in the request the way I read that. [2:41:53] But I could be wrong. [2:41:55] Again, I'm not an attorney. [2:41:56] But my interpretation is the board of supervisors cannot remove him. [2:42:02] It has to be the electorate. [2:42:07] And that's a longer process because not only do you have to get enough signatures to get [2:42:11] it on the ballot, then you have to wait for the election. [2:42:14] I don't know if it's a special election or if you have to wait for the regular, you know, [2:42:20] next election. [2:42:21] Yeah, Karen. [2:42:23] I think once they get the required signatures, which is quite extensive, then they can hold [2:42:30] a special election. [2:42:31] I think they have to, the state has to hold a special election, or the county, rather. [2:42:37] Yeah. [2:42:37] That could take months, if not longer. [2:42:40] Much longer. [2:42:41] Yeah. [2:42:41] Yeah. [2:42:42] That's right. [2:42:42] Okay, we've got one more. [2:42:45] And let's see here. [2:42:51] The Springfield 3 is still unsolved for my hometown. [2:42:55] Are any of you familiar? [2:42:56] Been 35 years. [2:42:58] Afraid it's happening again. [2:43:02] Well, that's an interesting thought. [2:43:04] Gary, do you know about the Springfield 3? [2:43:06] I think I have it in my database. [2:43:08] I could probably look it right up. [2:43:13] I think she's talking about the case that involved the three women. [2:43:16] It was like the early 90s, right? [2:43:22] It's like three, two young women and a middle-aged woman, maybe. [2:43:28] I think that's the one she talked about. [2:43:29] I think I have it. [2:43:29] I'll find it. [2:43:30] But what is it that they're suggesting that there's another, potentially another murder [2:43:35] linked to that case? [2:43:37] I don't know. [2:43:37] That's a, isn't that a cold case for a long time? [2:43:43] Yeah. [2:43:43] I think it's a cold case, a missing person's case, if I remember. [2:43:48] I can, if the person wants to write to me, I can tell them what I'm, you know, what I [2:43:52] have in my notes about that case, because I, I'm sure I have it. [2:43:57] You know what I want you to find out, Karen, one day with your investigative skills, how much [2:44:01] this investigation costs Pima County. [2:44:04] I'm dying to know what they spent on it. [2:44:06] Can you imagine? [2:44:10] Yeah. [2:44:10] I mean, interesting you brought that piece of it up. [2:44:13] I remember the, the research we did with the Idaho four case. [2:44:17] Oh yeah. [2:44:18] That's, that's like 8 million in climbing. [2:44:22] Yeah. [2:44:23] Well, it, it, it tends to climb when you use a private DNA lab versus the free lab at Quantico. [2:44:31] Well, that's an interesting cop. [2:44:33] I mean, do you think we're in the millions? [2:44:36] Oh, oh, but I get that. [2:44:38] Easily. [2:44:39] That rose to the millions because the, what they paid the defense for prosec, prepping [2:44:44] for prosecution. [2:44:45] We're not even there yet, obviously on the Nancy Guthrie case. [2:44:49] I'm just saying we look at the numbers on that case and it blew our minds. [2:44:55] I think we're well into the millions on the Guthrie case. [2:44:58] Don't you, Karen? [2:44:59] I don't know. [2:45:02] I don't know. [2:45:02] I do. [2:45:03] Yeah. [2:45:03] To, to gauge that. [2:45:04] And are we including, we're not obviously including the FBI's efforts. [2:45:09] No, just to the county taxpayers. [2:45:13] I think we're into the millions. [2:45:16] Just my guess. [2:45:17] I don't know. [2:45:18] It's a lot. [2:45:19] Listen, let them first respond to our public records requests for all the information we [2:45:23] are asking about the case. [2:45:25] Then I'll send them in for, hey, how much have you guys spent? [2:45:28] Turn over your financial sheets. [2:45:31] We want to see that. [2:45:32] Well, if anybody will find it, you will. [2:45:33] I mean, you know, you'll get it. [2:45:37] I'm sure. [2:45:38] But it, but it is disturbing. [2:45:40] It is disturbing to think about. [2:45:42] It is because. [2:45:44] Yeah. [2:45:45] They're not spending equal amounts on every other missing person's case. [2:45:49] Well, it's, I'm sorry. [2:45:50] No, it's a valid, it's a valid point. [2:45:53] Yep. [2:45:55] And we're going to have, again, we're going to get a couple of cases together. [2:46:01] We got, you know, what we talked about earlier tonight and we, we. [2:46:05] That's a great idea, Chris. [2:46:08] Yeah. [2:46:08] And we've got, wait till you hear her story about her daughter. [2:46:13] Yeah. [2:46:13] Yeah. [2:46:14] I want to learn about the case. [2:46:15] Yeah. [2:46:16] Absolutely. [2:46:17] And then we can, you know, opine on maybe giving her some clarity of focus on what they're [2:46:22] looking at and so that said, uh, any, uh, closing ideas, thoughts, uh, from anyone, [2:46:30] John, where can they get your books? [2:46:33] Well, the links are down below at the bottom of the page. [2:46:36] Uh, service with the snares, the first book in the memoir. [2:46:40] The second one is beach blanket bedlam. [2:46:43] And sometime likely in may bring out your dead will be coming out. [2:46:50] And that actually covers a series of major, um, homicide investigations, uh, a serial essay. [2:46:58] And, uh, uh, I don't want to thank everybody who's bought the books and, uh, it's a delight [2:47:07] to be here. [2:47:08] And if you're really, I mean, you can even find my, uh, my earlier cozy mystery series [2:47:15] on Amazon too. [2:47:16] And that was Teddy bear series. [2:47:20] All your books are great. [2:47:22] The teddy bear series. [2:47:23] Thank you so much. [2:47:24] It shows a lot about John's heart. [2:47:26] Yeah. [2:47:27] Those teddy bear series. [2:47:28] I can't, I'll tell you something. [2:47:30] If I would give you just 45 seconds, I waiting for a new book to arrive. [2:47:37] And I happened to pick up, uh, the clockwork, Teddy and started to read it and realized I [2:47:45] couldn't, I had to put it down because the character, uh, the main characters are basically [2:47:52] thinly disguised me. [2:47:54] And then my, my wife, and it was too close to, to being there with my wife. [2:48:02] And I'm not ready for that yet. [2:48:04] So, uh, but if you do like the mysteries, they're fun. [2:48:08] They've got some awful puns in them. [2:48:11] And, uh, but they're pretty good mysteries too. [2:48:14] They're cozy mysteries, no blood or guts. [2:48:16] I cannot make that guarantee for the memoirs. [2:48:20] So thanks. [2:48:23] And we love, we love John. [2:48:25] And, uh, if you're, if you're new with us, John lost his wife years ago or how many, where, [2:48:32] where are we at now? [2:48:33] Uh, it's, uh, well, I'm a year and a half ago, December, uh, 2024, a few days before Christmas. [2:48:40] So this is what friends do. [2:48:42] We, we keep them engaged and keep his books out there. [2:48:47] You know, you guys, uh, are a great support mechanism for a lot of us. [2:48:52] And we appreciate you very, very much. [2:48:55] So Bob, you're fishing still. [2:48:58] Yep. [2:48:58] No YouTube channels, no books, no skincare products. [2:49:02] No, nothing. [2:49:03] Sorry, care. [2:49:04] I'm enjoying my stay out of state at, uh, at this beautiful cabin that I've stayed in. [2:49:20] Frank, is he going up there with you? [2:49:23] Bruckner? [2:49:24] Uh, no, I talked to, uh, Frank the other day though. [2:49:27] He's doing well. [2:49:28] Yep. [2:49:28] Frank, Frankie Lee Bruckner. [2:49:30] Good man. [2:49:31] Captain Crunch. [2:49:32] We love him. [2:49:33] Winner of the Medal of Valor. [2:49:35] Yep. [2:49:35] Yes, sir. [2:49:36] Yep. [2:49:36] He ran me in the Academy like I was going to die. [2:49:39] And I, because I was the worst runner. [2:49:43] At least you have good memories of that. [2:49:47] I do. [2:49:48] Frank is just an amazing human being. [2:49:50] A great leader. [2:49:52] An amazing leader. [2:49:53] He's a good man. [2:49:54] Yep. [2:49:54] Very good man. [2:49:55] Dr. Bricado, you're in the dark there. [2:49:58] It looks like you're just kind of hanging. [2:50:01] You got a black, a dark shirt on. [2:50:03] I got a black shirt on, yeah. [2:50:04] Yeah. [2:50:05] Where do they grab you? [2:50:06] Anything, uh, of, uh, wisdom as we close out tonight? [2:50:12] Um, I don't know about wisdom, but I, I will say that, um, one of the only good things to come out of this Guthrie nightmare, um, has been the fun of getting together with the panel and talking to the panel and making new friendships. [2:50:25] Um, and, um, um, I have to say, I, it is amazing to me. [2:50:30] I've been on a lot of podcasts where there are six or seven people on the screen at the same time. [2:50:34] And somehow this group is cohesive and, and, you know, balanced. [2:50:40] I don't know how, it just says something about the people. [2:50:43] We can do that. [2:50:44] Um, but it is amazing how, and we all agree and there's no stepping on people or, you know, egos or, I think it's great. [2:50:52] And, um, so it's been a lot of fun for me. [2:50:54] I hope that's true for all of you guys too, but I, but it's been, it's almost sad to think that it won't keep up, uh, because the audience loves it. [2:51:01] You know, they're ready to get like John Lamb t-shirts and people are asking Bob out left, right, and center on the, in the chat. [2:51:08] And I don't know, God knows what kind of messages I'm getting, but, but, but it is happily single. [2:51:14] Uh, we're definitely getting a lot of interesting messages from people, but, but, but I will say regarding, um, the new evil, thank you to those who continue to buy it and keep it up there. [2:51:24] And the numbers I'm working on more writing, including a few chapters away, Chris, from being done. [2:51:29] I, I, I, I, thank you. [2:51:31] Wonderful. [2:51:32] Um, and then we can get that over with, and then John and I'll probably. [2:51:35] And maybe we'll, you know, it would be really cool if we got him. [2:51:38] If this panel and if we could get Maureen and, and, and all of us get invited to CrimeCon to do a presentation. [2:51:46] Well, I think when our book comes out, we probably will. [2:51:50] How fun would that be? [2:51:51] I can, I think that's doable because, yeah, um, I hope so. [2:51:55] We could propose it at least, but, and I, and I will say, uh, John's books, it's really nice to see them moving up and the sales numbers. [2:52:03] I mean, people are really buying them. [2:52:04] Your audience is really buying them and it's great. [2:52:06] Yeah. [2:52:07] John, you've got two of them that are like in the top hundred in their category. [2:52:11] And it's really nice to see that. [2:52:13] It's so good. [2:52:14] Most people are buying the electronic version to read it immediately. [2:52:19] I'm glad they're enjoying it. [2:52:21] And I'm glad, uh, and I, I, the, the best messages are from retired cops from that era who go, dude, you nailed it. [2:52:29] This is exactly what it was like. [2:52:31] Yeah. [2:52:32] So, yeah, no, it's, it's great. [2:52:35] I, you know, and I'm, I'm reading one to write a blurb, but I'm having a ball reading it. [2:52:38] And it's, I don't know how you make such morbid stuff funny, but there is a gallows humor to it. [2:52:47] And I, I just, you know, I mean, it's a, it reminded me of, um, you ever watched the show Frazier? [2:52:53] Yeah. [2:52:53] So you remember it's supposed to be that Martin, who was a homicide detective, his first father, and he met his wife, who was a forensic psychologist, standing over a dead body, over the outline of a dead body. [2:53:08] So on their anniversary, she would make cookies in the shape of an outline of a dead person. [2:53:14] And the Frazier and his brother don't find that out until they're in the forties or something. [2:53:19] And they're like, yeah, why did you think the people were all twisted? [2:53:23] And Niall says, we thought they were dancing. [2:53:28] This is very morbid and hilarious, but it has that kind of humor to it. [2:53:34] It's just, it's really dark and twisted and snarky. [2:53:38] I really like it. [2:53:40] Thank you. [2:53:41] It's exactly, it's exactly what we say at these scenes. [2:53:46] And I know some people will go, my God, that's horrible. [2:53:50] How can you do that? [2:53:52] But it is the, by embracing this gallows humor. [2:53:57] That's it. [2:53:58] Or as the Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius observed, that you have within you the power to, to control your reaction to an event. [2:54:11] So that isn't painful. [2:54:14] And one of the, but now I'm departing from the philosopher. [2:54:18] One of the ways you do that is you find humor in the situation. [2:54:22] Oh, yeah. [2:54:23] There's no doubt about it. [2:54:24] I think it's a, it's a very, actually, I think a very high defense mechanism that you see in very bright people to, to find humor where you don't expect it. [2:54:34] But I think it keeps you from losing it. [2:54:35] And it also bonds people. [2:54:37] Like you're working in an emergency room together or in a, you know, like you guys, you know, the work you're doing. [2:54:43] I mean, if you don't laugh, you're going to go a little out of your mind. [2:54:46] Oh, yeah. [2:54:47] And, and then every once in a while, you sit around and you admit how dark it is, but only to people who can handle it. [2:54:55] Yeah. [2:54:55] You know what I'm saying? [2:54:56] I used to have those talks with Michael, with Michael Stone. [2:55:00] And, you know, he used to warn me, you're going to do this work? [2:55:03] Like, all right, well, don't think it isn't going to come back and haunt you after a little while. [2:55:07] And here's what's going to happen. [2:55:09] And it's, you know, it's reality. [2:55:11] Right. [2:55:11] But we can talk about that offline. [2:55:14] I don't think the general, anyone who doesn't deal with this kind of work doesn't understand. [2:55:19] It's not possible to understand. [2:55:21] You know, I can tell you. [2:55:24] And because waking up every day and having your day begin with a cup of coffee and hearing a story about gruesome murder is not for everybody. [2:55:32] But, yeah, we don't get invited to very many dinner parties. [2:55:36] It's a pretty lonely, it's a pretty lonely life. [2:55:39] You know, and that's why I'm glad that, you know, that's okay. [2:55:42] I swear to you, I mean, every once in a while we'll be out and Karen will bump me under the table. [2:55:47] Like, yeah, don't tell that story. [2:55:49] Yeah, that's right. [2:55:50] Exactly. [2:55:51] But that's why I like that. [2:55:53] Every time, Chris, you introduce someone new to the group, you know, I meet someone new. [2:55:57] Like Danny, when you introduced him, you know, you're dealing with someone who's been to that planet. [2:56:04] You know what I mean? [2:56:05] Someone speaks that language. [2:56:07] They're from that planet. [2:56:09] And you immediately love them because you know that, first of all, you have to be a very good soul to want to do that work. [2:56:15] There's a kind of spiritual element. [2:56:16] You're kind of selfless. [2:56:17] You've given up so much of your life to be in that darkness, to help people. [2:56:24] And, you know, and it's, and you get robbed of a lot of things that other, the innocence that other people get to experience. [2:56:31] You know, it's interesting because I've, my philosophy is to keep those who come on this channel who can teach with authenticity. [2:56:40] And, and, and whether it's through the pain of their own individual experiences and, or their own, you know, individual abilities, because I think everybody can relate to somebody that has been there. [2:57:01] And, and it's an, it's an understanding of the human condition. [2:57:05] And I think we've lost that, we've lost that ability. [2:57:10] I mean, when I was a kid, you know, my father used to tell me whenever we would be out or someplace like that. [2:57:18] And as you guys know, I, I was raised by two Marines. [2:57:22] Yeah. [2:57:23] So my mother was a woman Marine and my father was a master gunnery Sergeant, 31 years, fought in World War II, Korean, Vietnam. [2:57:31] Both in Arlington. [2:57:32] Both of my parents are buried in Arlington National Cemetery. [2:57:35] Yesterday was my mother's birthday. [2:57:38] The day before that was my parents' anniversary. [2:57:41] And on the 6th was my father's date of his passing. [2:57:45] So April's kind of a interesting month for the McDonough's over here. [2:57:50] But that said, it's never about me. [2:57:53] My dad used to say, do me a favor. [2:57:56] And he used to call me Topher, T-O-P-H-E-R. [2:57:59] That was my nickname. [2:58:01] Because my nickname, my name is Christopher. [2:58:04] And so he cut it off. [2:58:06] And he would say, do me a favor, son. [2:58:09] I said, what's that, dad? [2:58:11] He said, go sit next to that guy and learn about his life. [2:58:16] Now, you have to understand where that came from. [2:58:20] Because my father was one of 15 guys that survived in Fox Company in the Chosen Reservoir in the Marine Corps. [2:58:30] He was one of 15 guys that came out of Fox Company. [2:58:34] And they were overrun by the Chinese. [2:58:37] And Bob Pratt, we knew Pratt back in the day. [2:58:40] He was also a Chosen Marine. [2:58:43] My father was a senior enlisting guy at Khe Sanh in Vietnam. [2:58:49] I have his memoirs. [2:58:51] They're right behind me in the bookcase behind me. [2:58:56] And one day we'll do a show about military families and what it means. [2:59:01] And I know John is a military historian. [2:59:05] I mean, the guy knows more stuff than I could ever try to stuff in my two-pound brain. [2:59:12] And he's got the 10-pound brain with Bob. [2:59:15] Bob's got a 10-pound brain. [2:59:16] Gary, I think you've got a 25-pound brain. [2:59:20] I don't know where your stuff comes from. [2:59:23] Somehow, if we put her on a scale one day. [2:59:27] I think mine's at about seven and a half now. [2:59:29] No, I think you're a 10-pounder, buddy. [2:59:32] You know, I think you understand yourself sometimes. [2:59:34] But Gary's definitely got a 25-pound brain. [2:59:37] Gary does, for sure. [2:59:38] But everything you guys are saying drives home precisely why it's so terrible when people fake the experience. [2:59:47] Because that's the whole thing. [2:59:49] It's like, is that there's a sacrifice to doing this kind of stuff. [2:59:52] It's like military service. [2:59:55] You're giving up a large amount of ordinary life to make life easier for other people. [3:00:03] It is very hard to walk around with that stuff in your head 24-7. [3:00:07] But it's a loving thing to do, right? [3:00:09] No greater love with any man than this. [3:00:11] And that's the thing. [3:00:12] I think people just don't grasp that, that in those professions where day in and day out, you're playing out an act of mercy. [3:00:20] I mean, chances are it's going to have a toll, you know, in terms of having to compartmentalize it. [3:00:27] And I think that's why the faking, it just horrifies me so much. [3:00:30] Because it's like you've never even been through that. [3:00:33] It's a phony. [3:00:34] You know what we love about you, Gary, is you have the ability to pull it out of us. [3:00:38] And you do it diplomatically. [3:00:40] And we love that. [3:00:41] Diplomatically, yes. [3:00:41] That's my advice. [3:00:42] It's like, you know, tell me about your mother whenever you, you know, one of those things. [3:00:48] I always say that to my brother as a joke. [3:00:51] My brother, but he does something zany. [3:00:53] I say to him, lay down and tell me about your mother. [3:00:56] And it's always about the people around us, right? [3:00:59] I mean, these friendships were forged years and years ago. [3:01:03] And I had, and we're going to end it. [3:01:07] I had a class recently, one day, I wrote up on the board, 10 years, 50,000. [3:01:18] And I had the class, and John, you remember when we taught a class even in Maryland back in the day. [3:01:24] Yeah, we applied in Maryland. [3:01:25] Yep. [3:01:26] And we had a whole room full of homicide guys. [3:01:29] And we were just giving them the fundamentals. [3:01:31] And I wrote on the board, 10 years, 50,000. [3:01:35] And I asked the room, I said, who can tell me what this number means? [3:01:44] And, you know, you get the crazy answers, yada, yada. [3:01:46] And I said, okay, how about this number? [3:01:50] Okay, 10 years, 230. [3:01:57] And, you know, of course, you know, you do it as an icebreaker. [3:02:01] And I said, well, the top number represents, actually, it should say 53,000 to 58,000 in 10 years. [3:02:08] And that's the Vietnam conflict. [3:02:09] And that's how many Americans gave up their lives so that we could sit here in this room tonight and talk about the ability of freedom and gifts from those who sacrifice more so than will ever sacrifice. [3:02:28] I said, now, the second number is approximately 23,000 people a year are killed through violence and murder in the United States of America every year. [3:02:44] And those numbers, by the way, have actually decreased a little. [3:02:47] But they're consistently from anywhere from 18,000 to 23,000, okay? [3:02:53] And then I asked the question, 230,000 in America in 10 years, 53,000 in a war in 10 years. [3:03:04] Where's the war? [3:03:07] And you can hear a pin drop because they get it. [3:03:11] And so I ask always, where are we as a culture, where are we as a society, and how can we do better? [3:03:22] And this young lady here has put up with that for a very long time with me. [3:03:26] And for that, I'm always grateful. [3:03:29] And I'm grateful for our friends. [3:03:31] And I'm grateful always for everybody in the chat. [3:03:34] And thank you, veterans. [3:03:36] Thank you, first responders, nurses, doctors, for your service to this great country. [3:03:44] And hopefully we can keep it going. [3:03:47] And again, tonight was, I thought, a really great show. [3:03:51] And they're Andy. [3:03:52] Oh, they're sweet Andy. [3:03:53] I've had questions. [3:03:54] People wanted to see Andy. [3:03:56] He's a cutie. [3:03:57] He is. [3:03:58] Look at that. [3:03:59] Is he a pure golden retriever? [3:04:01] You don't need me enough. [3:04:03] Is he a pure golden retriever, John? [3:04:05] He's a golden retriever. [3:04:07] Pure, 100%? [3:04:09] Yes. [3:04:09] Adorable. [3:04:10] And you should see him drive. [3:04:13] Yeah, he drive. [3:04:14] He's going to have his own YouTube channel. [3:04:18] Absolutely. [3:04:19] Highly talented. [3:04:21] I love him. [3:04:22] Well, Chris, you know what I say about you? [3:04:24] I say, accept no imitations. [3:04:26] You are definitely one of a kind. [3:04:29] That is for sure. [3:04:30] Well, I was born in a chocolate. [3:04:32] So that says a lot. [3:04:34] But I think, I have to say, Chris, just in close, I have to say that, [3:04:38] you do really assert through this show and the people you bring on, [3:04:42] I think you can really see how much influence there is on the way people think about any given crime that you happen to be covering. [3:04:52] It really does shape. [3:04:55] And you can see people sometimes even take what you say and put it out there. [3:04:59] And I just think imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. [3:05:04] But there is something about that, I have to say. [3:05:07] So I think you really do a service for the community by doing it because it elevates the quality, you know, in the true crime community. [3:05:15] And, you know, but like anybody who has an artist's touch, don't expect to get sung for it anytime soon because that's how it works. [3:05:23] You know, aesthetic appreciation takes a little time. [3:05:26] God knows what he's doing. [3:05:28] I just stay out of the way. [3:05:29] I really do. [3:05:31] He knows exactly what he's doing. [3:05:34] So thank you for your kindness, though. [3:05:37] All right, everybody. [3:05:38] In Hawaii, they say be Akamai. [3:05:42] My brother, John, my brother, Bob, my brother, Gary, and all of you, thank you so much for being here. [3:05:49] We will see you Sunday night on the next one. [3:05:52] All right. [3:05:53] Good night, everybody. [3:05:54] Good night, everybody. [3:05:55] Aloha and prayers for Teresa, Mimi, her husband, and any other folks that I hopefully haven't forgotten. [3:06:03] But if you're suffering, please know that somebody's there for you. [3:06:08] And you can always come to this channel and hang out. [3:06:11] So we'll see you on the next one. [3:06:12] Aloha. [3:06:13] Hard workin' every day. [3:06:24] I'm stressed out. [3:06:26] 24-7, babe. [3:06:29] No timeouts. [3:06:31] Wish we could fly away. [3:06:34] And I go to our favorite place. [3:06:40] Fresh remember. [3:07:17] I need a song. [3:07:37] Takin' away. [3:07:41] We're takin' away. [3:07:43] Yeah, we're takin' away. [3:07:44] We'll never. [3:07:52] My face in a while. [3:08:09] Y'all, I'm stressed and head is. [3:08:34] Sure as hell. [3:08:38] Cause see my. [3:09:13] Fly as well. [3:09:31] Maybe. [3:09:32] Sure as hell. [3:09:35] I hear. [3:10:30] And you're so.