Genetic Genealogy and DNA Evidence - Part 3 of Megyn Kelly Investigates Nancy Guthrie's Disappearance | Ep. 1276

That's pure automotive joy.

I'm Peter, the owner of Muscle Car Junior.

It started as a hobby, then I started posting about it.

Before I knew it, I built a business for storing muscle cars on Facebook Marketplace.

And the community of car lovers on Instagram.

Today, new customers send me what's that message from all over.

Not bad for a hobby.

Learn how meta helps over 35 million American businesses, like Peter's Grow, at meta.com

Behind every healthcare statistic is a person's face, paying the price.

Big pharma just increased the prices of 350 drugs.

Hospital monopolies are marking up procedures by 300%.

The drug companies and hospitals set healthcare prices, and they're too high.

America's health insurers are on the side of people working hard to negotiate costs down

and make healthcare work better for everyone.

We see more than numbers.

We see you.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly show live on Sirius XM channel 111 every weekday at

New East.

Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly show.

Still on a remote location.

Still broadcasting for you guys.

And this is part three today of our special four part series into the disappearance

of Nancy Guthrie.

In this episode, we take a closer look at the science and the unanswered questions surrounding

the DNA collected so far in this case.

DNA evidence can be a powerful tool for investigators and prosecutors.

As you know, it can confirm identities and place individuals at a scene.

And there are ways of tracking someone down and even getting a picture of someone

when you find DNA at the scene, even if that specific DNA cannot be matched

to any criminal database.

And we're going to talk about that today.

You could actually come up with a composite picture of someone based purely on unknown DNA,

which can tell you what somebody generally looks like.

Isn't that so crazy?

So it may not match to a criminal database, but you can come up with a profile.

It's like, they're so advanced now.

The real question here is why hasn't that been done?

Clearly, they're not sure whether they have the DNA of the perpetrator.

Now, we know that forensic testing is underway.

And many samples taken from Nancy Guthrie's home,

but authorities have not publicly detailed the full scope of what they've collected.

Somewhere in Nancy's home, there is DNA belonging to the suspect.

That's what virtually every DNA expert will tell you.

Like, this guy was not so forensically antiseptic that he prevented any of his DNA from getting

into that home. It's just a matter of whether it can be found.

Genetic genealogy is hot.

It is the future of law enforcement.

It's amazing.

Cece Moore, who's spent on the show a couple of times,

she's the godmother of it.

I've actually worked cases back to 1958 now.

Whoa, yeah, quite a bit before I was even born.

And so it's just amazing what can be done.

And in those cases where the crime scene investigators were so forward thinking,

they collected things they couldn't have imagined how powerful they would be today.

Touch DNA doesn't have to be yours,

but they find like in their database it can be your sixth cousin.

So it's like reverse engineering someone's family tree,

and eventually their identity based on their ancestors.

She would say, this is why you're not going to have serial killers anymore in the United States.

About 10% of the cases we've helped solve or been able to create profiles for

have been touched DNA.

She actually came on and explained it with respect to the cold burger case on,

because you know, in that case they grabbed trash.

Most states allow this.

It's considered abandoned at that point.

And then they go through the trash and try to find an item that might have DNA on it.

They were able to perform what is basically a standard paternity test comparison

to the profile from the button on the sheath,

and determined that that individual's DNA from the trash was the father

of the individual who left his DNA behind at the crime scene.

It is extremely confident as we saw by the number 99.9998%.

So that means that there's basically no one else on earth that could be the father of that individual.

This is what's now going to be done to the DNA on those gloves,

and probably also that found in Nancy's home.

And you start drawing circles around the person and getting to all their relatives

until you can get closer and closer and closer.

In this case to Tucson, Arizona and somebody who might be living there.

This is very close to home for me, Megan, because the first case I remember as a little boy

growing up in Philadelphia was the boy in the box case.

And late 50s, a little boy found in a box and sort of the outskirts of Philly.

No one knew who he was.

Finally, after all these leads all around the world, who is this little boy?

We got to give him a name.

That breaking news at five o'clock, a major break in the case of the boy in the box.

About two, three years ago, through genetic DNA, that little boy was finally identified.

Sources tell us police have a name and they know who the boy is related to.

They can put a name on his tombstone now.

It's sort of the figure out who killed him, but now we least know his name.

It is amazing what can be done now.

Let's just hope we have something here at Mrs. Gotham's house.

They go to the public databases that have people's DNA in them.

They're not supposed to go to 23andMe or ancestry.com or heritage.com, which are private.

Those are not supposed to be accessible by the feds, but it's just like distrust of having

your information out there and where it could go.

So I can see why they don't really want to be the assistant on this.

Have you ever considered taking one of those DNA tests?

You ever stopped because you were afraid of where that might lead?

Some of my favorite stories on NBC were the 23andMe stories or the ancestry.com stories.

But the question is how accurate are those?

Okay, I really wanted to know the answer to this.

Get Savannah, got three to go to all the companies and say,

please give us permission because you can give us permission.

It's not a violation of law to let us have access to this.

So we can see if there's a match to find this kidnapper.

The problem for us here is we don't know if the abductors DNA is on those

or if the DNA they have found inside the house that doesn't match Nancy or one of her service providers

is in fact the perpetrators.

We're not even at the place yet where we know that we have a SNP unless they have it and they

haven't told us.

Now as far as what we do know, the Pima County Sheriff's Department announced last

month that it did find DNA at Nancy Guthrie's home that does not belong to her or quote those

in close contact to her.

So that's somewhat promising.

But then we since learned that it is mixed DNA, meaning it's from more than one person making it

a little tougher to isolate whose DNA it is.

As of now, there's been no report of any DNA matching anyone in the FBI's criminal database

or leads generated from genetic genealogy matches which does take longer.

But as we've told you, there is much that we do not know about what exactly the FBI and the

local authorities have uncovered in the investigation.

It's very possible they have more than we know.

Joining me now to unpack all of this and more will get us.

Will's an elite bodyguard who is over 30 years of experience as a security expert.

He consults with U.S. law enforcement and federal government agencies and now runs a firm

called International Corporate Protection.

If you get kidnapped, you should call Will.

Have your family call Will.

James Hamilton is here too.

He's a former FBI supervisory special agent and creator of the FBI's Close Protection School,

which is a specialized training program designed for agents to protect high-level officials.

He now runs his own security firm called Hamilton Security Group.

Between these two, you have your family, you call them.

God forbid anything were to happen.

And here for her first appearance on the program, Susanna Ryan.

Susanna is laboratory director at the private forensic DNA lab pure gold forensics based in California.

She has over 24 years of experience as a forensic DNA analyst and has testified

in well over 100 cases, so she knows what she's talking about.

Think about this.

In 2006, $20,000 equaled roughly 33 ounces of gold at spot price.

Today's prices, those same 33 ounces, would be worth about $165,000.

So you would have put in 20 grand and you'd have something worth 165,000 grand.

Pretty good.

That's why many smart Americans diversify a portion of their savings into precious metals.

And that's why you should consider buying gold from Birch Gold Group.

For thousands of years, gold has been a store of wealth.

And today, it's a crucial part of any balanced strategy.

Even better Birch Gold can help you convert an existing IRA or 401K into a tax sheltered

retirement account in gold.

Just text MK to the number 989898 to receive your free Info Kit on gold.

There's no obligation, just useful information.

With an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers,

let Birch Gold help you diversify with gold.

Now that's peace of mind.

Again, text MK to 989898 today.

Well, James Susanna, welcome to you all.

Great to see you again.

Susanna, we're going to start with you because we want to kick it off on the question of DNA.

And we haven't heard anything thus far other than

there's mixed DNA inside of the house.

And so far, they haven't been able to imagine anything

with a known criminal database, like the FBI's CODIS.

So if you were brought in on this case, where would you go from there?

It sounds like they're doing what I would do, which is moving on to genetic genealogy.

Now, one thing I would say is I do hope that they're making full use of the CODIS database.

And what I mean by that is Arizona is one of the few states.

There's only about 11 or 12 that allow for something called familial searching.

And so what that is is searching for a near match.

We're actually searching the regular CODIS database for someone who might be, let's say,

a father or a brother of your unknown perpetrator.

And again, there's only about 11 or 12 states that allow that.

It's not done automatically.

It has to be done by a special request.

So I do hope that they're doing that.

But if they've done that and they don't have a match,

then genetic genealogy is pretty much one of the only ways that short of

finding a suspect and doing a direct comparison that I think this case might be solved.

But of course you do have to just like quality.

Give us the simple explanation.

You run into the CODIS database that the FBI has,

we have criminals and arrestees, and there's nothing.

Now, how do you then say, because I know it's a different kind of testing,

but how do you then say, okay, I'm going to try to see whether I can

use genetic genealogy to figure out whose DNA this is.

Yes, it is a completely different type of testing.

And so you have to have enough sample remaining from that original sample,

where you did your traditional DNA testing.

You uploaded it to CODIS.

You did comparisons to any known reference samples.

There has to be enough remaining, which there isn't always enough

when we're talking about touch or trace DNA.

So if you have enough sample, now you have to do a totally different type of testing

called SNIP testing.

That's single and nucleotide polymorphisms.

And once that is completed,

then you're uploading that SNIP profile into the available databases.

And that includes Jedmatch Pro and Family Tree DNA.

There are other publicly available databases,

but most of those do not allow for searching purposes.

And so, you know, talked about 23 and me.

That's probably the largest one.

I think there are about 50 million profiles in that database.

The databases they're allowed to search have, you know, a couple of million each.

So you're looking for it.

You couldn't find a hit in the criminal database.

And now you're trying to go over to a more widespread sort of one of those databases

people use to find relatives or figure out interesting fun facts about their family history.

Now you're looking for a match over there.

And if you can find a match directly to the perpetrator there, great.

But you might find a match over there to a father or a distant, distant relative.

I mean, it could be like your sixth cousin twice removed.

But you'll see something in the genetic information that's returned to you to show.

I have found a relative of this person who is in Nancy's house.

That's correct.

Right.

So what they're looking for is the amount of what we call centimorgans of DNA.

So they're looking to see how much just chunks of DNA you share with other people.

And, you know, it's interesting, like, for example, the 23 and me database.

That's something that's automatically done.

You know, I've done that.

My sons have.

And when they put their DNA in, it automatically matched up to their aunt, right?

Because she had done it.

So it just is an automatic process.

Now that's exactly what they're looking for.

These pieces of DNA, because we know that, you know, with your parents,

you share about 50% of your DNA.

Brothers and sisters, at least 50% of the DNA.

And then you start moving outward.

Cousins about 25%.

And so they're just looking for pieces of DNA, lengths of DNA that have been passed down

that have to been shared through a family relationship.

And the further you go, the less DNA you're going to share.

But that puts you in a category of, okay, this may be a second or third cousin.

And you have the genealogists who are very skilled then

at building out those family trees and trying to narrow in on a specific family.

Once you do that, once a family has been identified,

you still need to do a direct comparison.

The traditional STR testing that we always do.

That's what the comparison has done.

That's what's used in court is.

What do you mean about that?

Is that like, to take the Brian Colbergor case for an example,

you know, they had a hit on that knife sheath to,

eventually they got to Brian's father.

And then they had to cheek swab Brian to, like, is that the piece you're talking about?

Like now you do a direct DNA on the actual suspect.

Yes, that's absolutely correct.

So the way we kind of look at it is the SNP testing,

the genealogy is sort of a tip.

It's a lead.

What is actually used in court is that confirmation samples.

So once we have that lead and, you know, I've done this in a number of cases.

I have someone, you know, I have a DNA profile.

It's gone into codis.

It hasn't hit anyone.

All right, let's do genealogy.

And they tell me, okay, it might be, let's say, one of five brothers.

And then they have to get a reference sample from each of those brothers,

whether it's a trash pool or they go up to the person and say,

hey, well, you'd give me your DNA.

And then we rule that person in or out based on the traditional DNA testing.

Okay, gosh, it's so complicated.

So what about this, this sheriff is saying it's mixed DNA.

And our friend Matt Murphy, you know, a longtime Orange County prosecutor,

he kind of rolled his eyes at the, at the sheriff saying,

it's going to be tough for the labs to do because it's mixed DNA.

Because Matt was like, he's tried many, many homicide cases.

He was like, the labs deal with mixed DNA all the time.

But so what's your take on mixed DNA?

Does it make it more complicated?

And is it a deal breaker?

So we do deal with mixed DNA all the time.

That's correct, especially with the sensitivity of testing.

I mean, we're getting DNA from, you know, a couple,

a dozen cells or so, right?

So we're getting mixtures all the time.

But that's with traditional testing that you sort of hear about all the time.

The SNP testing, it is much more challenging to work with.

That you need for genetic genealogy.

Yes, correct.

Yes, and the reason for that is just think of the name,

single, nucleotide polymorphism, many changes, right?

So every single base pair, there's different pieces of DNA that they're looking at,

whereas the type of testing, the traditional testing,

it's sort of these chunks of DNA and we're looking at maybe about 24 of them.

They're looking at hundreds of thousands of pieces of DNA.

So if you have a mixture, now it's very difficult to pull that mixture apart

if it's not the correct ratio.

If the person of interest is what we call the major contributor,

there's more of that person's DNA.

That's definitely something that the labs are able to deal with.

Once you start seeing that person of interest being the minor component,

maybe only let's say 20 or 25% of the mixture,

now the genealogists, they have a much more difficult time working with that kind of mixture.

And if you have a mixture of three people or four, which is not uncommon with these type of samples,

it becomes almost impossible.

Now let me ask you something.

At this time, if they brought you into Nancy's house in this investigation and said,

where should we be testing for DNA?

In a perfect world, you'd find that mouth flashlight sitting there on the floor.

Of course, with saliva all over it, but clearly that didn't happen.

So what would you say to them like walking into this crime scene?

What would you want as the DNA analyst?

Right.

So I think initially people think, oh, he has gloves on.

He's not going to leave his DNA.

Well, that's simply not the case.

We know that people can leave DNA even when they're wearing gloves,

because people have a very common habit of touching their own face or hair or skin and other body parts.

So anything that wasn't covered, if he's touching it,

if he's touching that flashlight in his mouth, now he has his saliva all over his hands.

So I would definitely be looking at points of entry, points of exits,

doorknobs, light switches,

bedding. So let's say Nancy was in bed at this time.

Well, he may have gone up to her and shaken her shoulder to wake her.

If she's under the covers, let's look at those covers anywhere that was touched on the covers.

We have the potential to pick up DNA.

I would recommend using an instrument called the MVAC.

It's basically a wet vacuum that can pick up greater quantities of DNA.

Sometimes dozens of times more DNA than traditional swabbing or cutting of a sample.

So I would definitely want to MVAC that, the bedding.

I've had cases, it sounds like this guy was in there for a little while.

So I've had cases where people use the toilet and they don't always flush.

That could be a source of DNA.

Sometimes people get really comfortable.

These burglars break in and no one's home and they're having a drink of

take a Pepsi or beer from the kitchen and then they leave it on the counter.

So anything that's like out of place appears to have been moved,

would have had to have been touched.

That's the things they want to zero in on.

And then if they start seeing the same profile in multiple places that excludes any of the known

people, then they're going to have more confidence that they have the correct profile to really

that's good.

So if they found his DNA or someone, the same person's DNA, maybe on the remnants of the nest camera

in the front. And then again, in we have video of the inside of Nancy's bedroom that we found

on the Today Show website from 2013. So maybe you'd be testing that ornate and distinctive

headboard that Nancy had in her bedroom or this little lamp.

Like you'd be going to all the little spots right around her looking for the common profile.

Exactly. Because we do have to be careful, people are constantly bringing in DNA.

Yes, they've cleared the people that they know have contact with her.

But for example, if I just shook your hand, I probably have your DNA on my hand.

And then if I go and open a door, now your DNA might be on that door now, but you never touched it.

So we have to be really careful when we're talking about this trace or transfer DNA.

And that's why I say if we start seeing the same profile over and over again,

we have higher degree of confidence that we have the true perpetrators DNA.

So good. Okay, I want to bring in my expert panel here because I'm sure they have questions too.

James, you want to ask Susanna anything?

Yeah, fascinating, by the way, and good to see again. And I think Susanna makes a good point

which we were talking about last week. And I think a lot of people weren't confused about when

we had the neighbor being a mouth swap. And I think Susanna can back me up, but I think they did

that so they could exclude her DNA if it was found in the home. They're just looking to exclude

folks that may have been in the house. That's why when we heard about it, we were like, why would they

swab the neighbor's mouth? Susanna, I have two questions for you, but would that make sense

that that's why they did it? Yes, absolutely. If they want to be able to eliminate any unknown

profiles that are in there, and sometimes that helps work with mixtures. Like, let's say her DNA,

even if she's eliminated, if her DNA is present on something, if we know that we can sort of back

that person's DNA out, that then helps us to isolate the profile that we're really after.

How difficult you were talking about a tool that you would recommend. I think you were

described as a type of vacuum. But would Pima County, are you familiar enough with Pima County

to understand is their crime scene have those type of capabilities?

I don't know if Pima County has it. I will tell you that a number of law enforcement agencies

do. I do know that, for example, the Florida lab that has been discussed DNA labs international

that is doing the testing. I know that they do have an MVAC. They were one of the early

users of the MVAC. So the MVAC is portable. If Pima County needed that, they could bring it out

there. Or on the other hand, certainly they could take the bedding, submit that to the lab,

and then at the lab, the analysts can really focus on particular areas that they want to test.

What do you make of the, ostensibly, we don't have a suspect yet. It's been quite a while.

What do you make of the no DNA match to any type of database, either CODIS or 23 and

me or genealogy? Let's say there isn't a match. What would you make of something like that?

I mean, CODIS may be not terribly surprising. That's going to be only convicted offenders,

maybe some other forensic unknown profiles. Now, Arizona is one of the states that allows

for arrestees. So people who have simply been arrested of certain felony offenses,

their profiles go into the database and not all states are like that. So that does open up

another category to search. But if this person hasn't ever been arrested or convicted of a

serious crime, they're just simply not in the database. So I do think, once we've cleared the

CODIS database, I think that the next possibility is genealogy. Now, there are certain racial groups

that are overrepresented in the commercial genealogy databases, Caucasians, many more Caucasian

individuals than other racial groups. So it's easier to find someone with a relative if they are

Caucasian. I think I heard a stat. It was like 90% solve rate if you have single-source Caucasian profile.

So it can be more challenging if the person is of a different racial background. Doesn't mean

impossible. I mean, for example, this glove that was found, which I was kind of surprised

they were focusing on because it was so far from the scene, but you never know there could have been

other information that they really thought it was connected. But look, it worked, right? They

got a DNA profile. It didn't match anyone in CODIS, but they did genealogy and they did find who

that was, right? The restaurant worker. Exactly. So it works. It's just finding the correct DNA

profile to focus on. It's not as easy as we'd like it to be. And the problem in

I'll bring you in one second, Will, but the problem in getting they'd love to have access to

that 23 and me and ancestry.com. They'd love to be able to run any of these samples in comparison

to those, but there there's a policy at the at those entities, at those companies that does not allow

it because they know that nobody would sign up for this. Not nobody, but fewer people would give

their DNA over if they thought it was also going to be accessible by law enforcement. We're

naturally Americans. We're naturally skeptical of our government. And also, you know, you don't

want your brother to get arrested. You did a lot of us. It's like, I don't want to make it any

easier for my family members to get arrested. But they did do it. They did it in cold burger.

And it was a big deal because they weren't supposed to. And then the defense attorney in

cold burger made an anteler. She made a big deal out of this saying that the whole DNA analysis

should be thrown out because they access those databases and they shouldn't have. But it's not a

law that you can't go into those. It's a policy. And if you can get them to violate their policy,

then great. And that's why some people have been saying, correct me if I'm wrong in this,

Susanna, that Savannah Guthrie should go to ancestry.com, who, by the way, is a huge participant on

the Today Show. When I was there, we had an ancestry.com segment every three days to say,

will you please bend the policy and let us run DNA comparisons against you? Now, so they may

already be doing that, Susanna, right? They wouldn't publicize it. They would not broadcast it for

all the reasons I just said. But it's possible that they are cooperating.

Yes. And short of knowing what I know about the coworker case, I would say, oh, no,

they're not going to do that because this is the DOJ's own interim policy on genetic genealogy,

but they sure did it in that case. And listen, I see both sides of it. I get it why you would want

to do that. But I'm kind of a real follower of their policies and things in place because what

can happen, and I've seen this happen, it gets taken away for everyone, right? Yes.

So there used to be a, that's why it's DOJ policy. Yes, right. But yes. So there used to be a YSTR

database, this sort of a family tree, a surname search. It was publicly available. People could go

online and, you know, search put in their YSTR profile. Well, law enforcement found out about

about that and started searching. And then they found the wrong person in a pretty high profile

prime. And then the company, which I think was a source related to Sorenson, it was in Utah,

they just took the whole website down. So now nobody has access to it. That's what the DOJ is

worried that if we start going into these private databases too much, they will never cooperate.

And no one will ever get their DNA over and they will be rendered maybe not useless, but they will

sort of stop in 2016. March of 2016 or 2026 was the last time anybody willingly gave their DNA

over because that's when the, it became so readily available to law enforcement. So I get it too.

And I mean, I almost understand the cold burger thing. It's like four college students were

murdered in the course of 12 minutes by some serial maniac. Like that, that one seems rather

extreme. You might actually bend the policy with respect to Nancy got three. It's like, I don't

know that this would rise to the same level of like, oh my god, you know, there's some massive

serial killers on the loose. We'll see. Well, did you have any questions for Susanna or comments?

I do, Megan. Thank you again for the invite on the show. I think one of the things that we were

discussing last week, the three of us was about the control of the scene of crime, you know, and how

they were taping off this area and how well protecting or preserving they were of the evidence.

And that was one of our biggest concerns, particularly when they lifted obviously the tape

around the property. Literally, I think it was a day or two after the actual disappearance

of Nancy. And then there was that instant of one of the neighbors dogs having a pee on the

front steps of the actual property itself. And so the question that I would have really for

Susanna is what question is there to the degradation of DNA integrity is there because one of the

biggest concerns is if they were so haphazard potentially about controlling this scene of crime,

what they were actually doing in terms of gathering that evidence, how well they gathered it,

whether there could have been a huge amount of cross contamination on that DNA,

or is it precise enough that it will be preserved for a good period of time? And how long would it last,

do you think? Right. So DNA that's outside the home, if there was anything outside. For example,

you know, that welcome mat that I think is probably still sitting there. That was an item if they

collected right away, what if the perpetrator with that mouth flashlight, there was some saliva that

came out of his mouth and landed on the mat? That would have been great. At this point, I think it's

probably useless because it's been sitting outside. It's exposed to the elements how many people have

walked on that mat that have, you know, transferred or taken DNA, picked DNA up, put DNA down.

So that's going to be an issue for anything that's outside. I don't think we have to be concerned

about degradation, especially the inside sample. So degradation refers to the breakdown of DNA where

we're no longer able to get results because the DNA is sort of falling apart. I don't think that's

as much of a concern as cross contamination or contamination from people walking through the house,

people touching things. Again, even if the investigators, the crime scene people have gloves on,

there's something called investigator mediated transfer. Anything they touch with a glove and then

touch something else, they could have picked up DNA from that one object and placed it on another.

So that is more of a concern to me. Now the DNA can last a really long time. It can last days,

weeks, months, even years, you know, depending on how well that area is cleaned. You know, I had a case

once where there was a codis hit on this, it was a double homicide and there was DNA on the

bathroom door where the murder had occurred and it was a male profile. The same male profile was

on the kitchen hand towel, hit in codis. It couldn't have been him. He was in jail for the past year.

So I mean, DNA just can last a long time. Wow. Oh, I mean, that's very telling. I have a question

for you about, I mentioned in the intro, the ability to create a picture of a suspected

perp without knowing who the person is. So they test the DNA, let's say they go into the Nancy's

bedroom and on her headboard, they find unknown DNA. There's no hit in codis. They actually get

the permission to run it through 23 and me and ancestry, no hits, no idea who this is.

There is a company, I think there's more than one, but the one we featured at NBC was Parabahn

and Andrea Canning, who I work with there, by the way, like her, positive comment about NBC.

She's sweet. They ran her DNA through Parabahn, this company that does this and they came up with

like a profile of what she would look like, not based on what Andrea actually looks like,

just based on the DNA. Parabahn does this service where they say, this is what this person,

they can tell, like, oh, of Irish descent and possibly with like, you know, Spanish influence,

whatever it is. And look at what they came up with. This is the actual Andrea on the right in

the red. And this is the profile of her that they came up with on the left. It's amazing.

They have the general facial, like structure. The nose is close. The mouth is pretty close.

The eyes are pretty good. They've got the blonde hair. I think this is incredible. And that there

was a lot they could tell about Andrea Canning without having anything other than an unmatched DNA

sample to anyone. So can you talk about that, Susanna? Yeah. So interestingly, that was the,

kind of the forebearer of genetic genealogy. So the same type of testing. It's the same data

that they have for genealogy. That is what is also used to find out things like hair color,

eye color, ethnicity. Do they have freckles or not? Because it's all in your DNA, right? So

they're just looking at specific areas that they've already tested. So Parabahn, that's what they

initially, that's what they were known for was doing these sort of genetic composites. Once

Jedmatch, that private DNA database hit about 1 million profiles, they knew at that point they had

a good chance of actually identifying people. So they're the ones that started uploading these

unknowns and getting matches once there were enough people in that database. And it was because

they already had all of these police agencies who had already done the composite profiles.

It's the same DNA. They didn't have to do any more testing. Just we're searching it.

So do you think if they found DNA, let's say on Nancy's headboard and on the back door handle

and on what's left of the nest camera, like it's cradle, which I think remains. You don't know who

it is, but you know, it's the same DNA from the, from the same man, let's say, that they could come

up with a picture like that that they could start determining ethnicity, hair color, the freckles

thing is crazy. In my case, they'd be like, we can tell you for sure she cannot, like do directions

in a car. And she's very bad at facial recognition. I'm convinced this is a genetic problem I have,

but would they be able to do that? Assuming it was not a mixture or not too much of a mixture,

yes, they could. Wow. Oh, that's so interesting. All right, Susanna, this is, you've been awesome.

Final question for you. Do you think that DNA will solve this case?

Yeah, I do think that there's a good chance of it. I feel like it's almost like a needle and a

haystack at this point, right? I mean, we have this, I'm sure there have been so many samples

collected. And the lab is probably working on them or has already gotten results. And

they're, as you said before, there can be a lot going on behind the scenes that we simply don't

know about, right? So it's very possible that they already have a profile isolated and now they're

doing that genealogist step. And that can be very time consuming. You know, if someone isn't in the

database, their close relatives aren't in the database, the further out the relatives are the

longer it takes to be able to build that family tree. So that very well could be going on behind

the scenes right now. I remember C.C. Moore explaining that she would go, she would pull birth

announcements, she would pull marriage announcements, death announcements to try to, like, it's a painstaking

process because they really do have to create the whole family tree around the person who's,

who they did get the hit on, like this sixth cousin, you know, twice removed. You know that this

person's in the database and is somehow related to your perp. But to find the perp, it's this huge

spider web around this person, you've got to figure out their whole life who got married to whom,

what are the other offspring, who are this person's cousins, where did they move? Like, it takes a

long time, you're right. So this could be happening. We're praying that it's happening and that they

have enough DNA in this house to go by. And sorry, I should have asked this, but you were saying before,

even though this guy was covered head to toe, you think he left DNA.

I do, especially given the amount of time they think that he was in the house. I just knowing what

I know about how easy it is to get DNA. You know, for example, in the laboratory, we're constantly

wiping down surfaces with bleach. We're putting down fresh paper, changing our gloves. I'll go through

a box of gloves on like one item of evidence because I don't want to transfer DNA. It's so sensitive.

So if you have someone and still, rarely, of course, but it can happen even in the laboratory,

so if you have these protective equipment and things that are going on in the lab and you can

still occasionally transfer DNA, think about how easy it's going to happen in real life.

And the longer he spends there, anytime he's touching anything, even that mask that he has on,

his DNA is going to be sort of sloughing off the skin cells on that mask. And DNA doesn't just stay on

one's, you know, it's not going to just stay on the inside of the mask. It's a tiny little cell.

It's going to go through to the outside. And he could be picking up DNA from his mask, from his

clothes. You know, so it's very easy to transfer DNA. And even though he was covered, I do think that

there's a good possibility he left DNA behind.

Gosh, you make a good point though about that welcome mat. It's too bad that was still sitting

there. Right? There was such a good observation. What else was left behind that should be an evidence

bag. Susanna Ryan, thank you so much. Absolutely. Thank you. Appreciate it.

It's time for a little spring cleaning. Here's a place to start. Go drag your old dated wireless

contract out of the closet and beat it with a broom. Then fresh and things up by switching to pure

talk, who gives you unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data for just 25 bucks a month with no

contract, no cancellation fees, and no overseas customer service if you ever need help.

Maybe you'll like them as much as lowest. Listen to this review, quote,

switch to pure talk a few years ago. Amazing. Same coverage and clarity as Verizon or AT&T at a

fraction of the price. Award winning customer service just upgraded to an iPhone 16E and the

support and deals were superb. Why anyone is still getting ripped off by the big guys is beyond me.

Want to make the switch? Dial pound 250 and say Megan Kelly. And then switch to pure talk. You get

an extra discount if you say it with an Irish accent. Dial pound 250 and say Megan Kelly.

No, it's not true. You get the same discount, but try it just for fun. And you could say 50%

off your first month. Good deal. What is comfort that really carries you from morning to night

feel like? For many, it's cozy earth. It starts with their essential socks, their soft,

breathable, and thoughtfully cushioned to support you step by step from the first step out of bed

to the end of a long day. With multiple styles, they fit seamlessly into everyday life.

And when the day winds down, that same comfort shows up at night with cozy earth's

comforter. It's luxuriously soft, light, and naturally temperature regulating. So you stay

cool, calm, and comfortable all night. No heaviness, no overheating, just deeper rest.

That's what sets cozy earth apart. Every piece crafted with intention and attention to detail,

designed to quietly elevate the everyday. And it's completely risk-free with a 100-night

sleep trial and a 10-year warranty. Discover how care in every detail transforms simple routines

into real comfort. Head to cozyearth.com. Use my code Megan for up to 20% off. That's Megan for

up to 20% off. And if you get a post-purchase survey, be sure to mention you heard about cozy earth

right here.

Hey everyone, it's me Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own

channel on SiriusXF. It's called the Megan Kelly channel and it is where you will hear the truth

unfiltered, with no agenda and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to

hear from people like Mark Halperin, Lake Lauren, Morgan Callahan, Emily Doshinsky, Jesse Kelly,

real clear politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news. Only on the Megan Kelly channel,

SiriusXM 111 and on the SiriusXM half.

James and Well, how interesting was that? Right? That was good stuff. Yeah,

totally fascinating. I learned a heck of a lot. I have to say from Susanna, she certainly has

subject matter extra. That's for sure. Yeah, she's testified in 140 cases, so she definitely knows

what she's doing. And maybe this really will be the way. So I teed it up with her first,

because there's a place I'm going with this. And it has to do with your theory, James, about

this being potentially a South American, like, be any crew breaking. I see I'm like in the

business now, be any breaking and entering crew, because you've been saying on this program for

a couple of weeks now that you've seen video of like the South American criminals who were

breaking into homes. So we finally went and pulled what you were talking about. And this is my

new number one theory. You're you've got me. Now that I see the video of these guys, I totally

get it. Well, you've got to look at this. We pulled video of what James is talking about.

We have a few different episodes. Here's one. This is in, hold on a second. This is video four,

which is San Diego. Okay. They for the listening audience, they look a lot like our perp.

They have a hoodie sweatshirt on. They have black masks. They have gloves. They are pretty much

covered head to toe. They're clearly not wanting to be recognized and potentially not wanting

DNA. Now here's another guy. He's got like a it looks like a balaclava that you'd wear skiing

over your head. You can only see the guy's eyes. Now here's here's another group sneaking onto

somebody's back porch. There's three or four of them in each of these videos except yeah,

that there's like they're together. Now here, this guy looked the backpack, the face covering,

and there's another one that we're going to show. But they, I'm going to start with you on it

well because it's not your theory. But look at this guy. This is in Tennessee. He's got the backpack.

He's got the reflective thing on the front of the backpack or a light. I can't tell which. This

almost looks like the actual guy who broken the Nancy's. So your thoughts on it well.

Okay, so my initial thoughts and James and I have we've discussed this at some length and

I think we're going to continue to argue the toss on this one. My gut feeling is it isn't a B&E.

The simple reason being is the value of the content of the house. And secondly, the actual

disappearance of Nancy's body itself, her person, it's vanished. And without wishing a sound flip

and in terms of the outfits that these individuals are wearing, it looks like a standard day in London.

If I'm absolutely honest with you, we get a lot of people walking around dressed like this.

So it's really about the fact that the disappearance of Nancy, which sort of conflicts me

to fully buying into the B&E theory. You're on the so you're on the fits program of

victimology is where you start. Like look at the victim, what happened to her, who would have a

motive to hurt her. That's how you solve the crime is supposed to. And why remove her and

by take her away from the property. Yeah, go ahead, James.

Well, I was going to ask Susanna, you know, not having a DNA match so far and they might have one

again, they're keeping this very close to the vest, what they do have, what they don't have.

But if you came in here on a tourist visa, you flew in from another country and you came in

you know, through a port, port of entry, we're not going to have your DNA. If you haven't been

arrested in the US, we're not going to have your fingerprints. So all this DNA, if they're

coming up blank, again, to me, that might point toward the this theory of, you know, it was a

criminal transnational criminal group. And that's why we're not getting any DNA hits. You know,

as far as the body, again, I'm with Will, I wrestle on that a lot, but I also know that, you know,

these guys aren't stupid. And it's very difficult for you as an American to understand, you know, how

little human life can be valued. And if you're from another part of the world where, and I've been

there and so as Will, human life doesn't mean as much. And, you know, take her, why? Because there's

evidence on her, just as Susanna pointed out, there's a trace DNA evidence all over her body.

So they took her, you know, that could be a theory that would explain, you know, why, why they did

take the body. But again, you know, it is a theory, but a lot of things seem to, you know, be adding up.

Well, here's the other thing that's interesting about the theory.

You know, Jennifer, Coffin-Daffer, she's former FBI and she's a commentator frequent on news

nation and on X. And she was pointing out, she's retired FBI special agent, that an FBI spokesperson

has said, they said last month, that they're posting billboards in cities throughout Arizona,

Texas, New Mexico, and California, with pictures of Nancy, you know, call 1-800-call FBI.

Now, you could just say those are the states around Arizona, Arizona and their surrounding states,

or you could draw conclusions from this. And here is what she asked. While law enforcement

doesn't have the DNA from Nancy's house entirely sorted out, she writes, do they have a DNA

contributors origin figured out, kind of like the paraben thing we were discussing? Is the person

of Mexican descent? This is why I ask. Billboards in California, Arizona, and Texas, particularly Houston.

These are all states, she writes, with large Mexican populations, just because the DNA has not

identified the exact person has the sex and ethnicity of any of the profiles and the samples

been determined. Culturally, many Hispanic men groom their eyebrows like women. That's just a

fact she writes. She continues, I am Hispanic, so I'm very familiar with this. I bet that DNA

has already provided some answers. The FBI did not randomly choose where those billboards

should go. There was a reason. What do you guys make of that? I think there's every good chance

that they may have some sort of profiling there in terms of the ethnicity. I think that's all

together possible. My only concern is, and again, that's from principally working in the shadows as

I suppose to say James and guys in the bureau, is that when you have a call 1-800-FBI,

the likelihood of someone who may be connected to the individual or individuals responsible

for Nancy's disappearance may feel a little suspicious about calling that line in the event that

they could be captured or they could be identified through that process, even there, even though

they may be assurances. We're trying to figure out whether there's something to glean from

the chosen states. Arizona, Texas, Houston, and New Mexico. Did I say California? Arizona,

Texas, New Mexico, and California. In particular, a concentration around Houston could be interesting

news. The thing about the eyebrows, James, we all talked about that. He does look like he has

especially groomed eyebrows, Nancy's perp, though we've also been debating whether it just looks

like that because the ski mask may be cutting off the top bushy or half that most men would have.

Most men don't have perfectly groomed eyebrows like this guy appears to, but it could just be

they're sliced off by the mask. Yeah, I remember when I was first with you. I thought it might be a

woman just based on the eyebrows, but I think Jennifer is making a good point there. The other

thing I just wanted to comment on was that I've seen two stories now. The one you just showed about

the billboards, which is called this 1-800-general FBI number. Then there was an article in the New

York Post this morning about FBI agents recamficing the neighborhood, asking about two particular days.

What I'm not seeing here is any mention of task force. I'm not seeing any mention of Pima County.

You would believe that the FBI alone is working this case, which we know is not the truth. What is

happening is the FBI getting information. Pima County is getting information. Then how are we

getting this together as a symbiotic or a task force type of investigation? To me, it still seems

bifurcated. It seems like the FBI is over here doing something and Pima County is over here doing

something. I don't like to see that at all. I would have loved to have seen that the task force

was here. The Nancy Guthrie task force made up of Pima County, FBI, even Arizona state police,

but I'm not seeing any of that. I think it's interesting.

What do you make of the fact that the sheriff was out there, Will? A couple of days ago saying

he thinks he knows the motive in the case, and that he's had a strong suspicion about it from

the beginning. There's absolutely nothing that steered him off of that suspicion. What?

What is it? Why wouldn't you be sharing that? To be honest, the sheriff is beyond comprehension.

My book right now, Megan, anything that comes out of his mouth is trivial as far as I'm concerned,

and there is no substance or credibility. It's just white noise running in the background,

but to go back to your original question, which was about these build boards being put into

particular areas, having worked a lot in Latin America and certainly working on missing persons

and kidnapping cases, the one thing I do know is in Latin communities, they can be a very close

knit community, as they can be, for example, in Islamic communities in the Middle East,

they can be very close knit. They don't necessarily want to share information with the wider

populace. They may know, and they certainly tend to know, a little bit about each other's business.

So those locating off those build boards could be very relevant to specific ethnicities and

specific communities. But again, there is a suspicion of law enforcement. There's a suspicion of

federal agencies as a suspicion of the government, which may in itself be counterproductive,

although it's a great gesture. Sometimes it can be better to try and disguise these things in a

different way, make it slightly less confrontational to invite people to communicate.

What do you make well of the fact that there's no, sorry, it's a quick point,

that there's no picture of the perpetrator on the billboards. There's a picture of Nancy,

okay, great, but aren't we actually trying to find somebody who might recognize that guy?

I realize it's not exactly like a high school graduation photo, but there is a decent image of him

from the video released by the FBI, and it's not on the billboards. Absolutely, I mean, and again,

it's who's serving the purposes? It's a huge, huge sign. Why isn't there a full length picture

showing his physique, or as far as we can deduct his physique from what he was wearing, the face,

the eyes, even the weapon that he was wearing, and the holster that he had that weapon

contained within. There's a lot of information about the perpetrator. I mean, in the same way,

as people will issue, or law enforcement agencies will issue photographs and impressionist drawings

of suspects. Again, anybody who worked their soul, if they want to know what Nancy got through,

looks like, then absolutely yes, it could be useful to have that picture if she may have been seen

with other parties, but why not have both? Yeah, because the odds of this perpetrator, if Nancy

is still alive, parading her around in public, are probably very slim. But this man is going to have

to be out and about, and we presume is out and about right now walking around living his life,

and somebody knows him. Somebody knows him, but not everybody even knows that Nancy got three was

kidnapped. Jennifer was pointing out. Remember, there was that pizza delivery guy

who showed up to deliver a pizza to one of the independent journalists who was on site, courtesy

of like, I think, a viewer who seemed totally unaware he was walking right into a crime scene. You

know, he went up and was like ringing the bell and Nancy's property had no idea. You know, most people

are not obsessed with the news. A lot of people don't ever watch the news. Those are the happy people

in life. And it's very possible that they don't even know Nancy's missing. But if you put a picture,

yes, okay, she could be on it. But if you put a picture of this perpetrator, big on a billboard,

it's tough to pull your eyes away from. Even if you haven't heard about the case, James, your thoughts.

Well, yeah, I think you're exactly right. And I think it's it's a misstep, but, you know,

from the FBI perspective, because to me, missing person doesn't resonate as much as abducted.

So if the words on the billboard were abducted and exclamation point, that would get a lot, you know,

I mean, it's a great point. Missing, right? Missing person mean, okay, there's a lot of missing

people, right? Well, let's say abducted and then you're right. Let's have a picture. And you just said

what all these other experts have been saying since this case started, which was what?

Oh, someone knows this guy. And that's why they went up to a million dollars. Well, someone knows

this guy. Well, guess what? It doesn't look like anybody knows this guy or they're not talking. And

what again, the reason you may not know this guy is he's not from here. He is not from this area.

So that's the other thing I wanted to ask you about. I raised this in our special yesterday.

Nancy Grace had on a tattoo expert, you know, a guy who's been doing tattoos for three decades.

And he said, because you can see a little bit of a tat on the perpetrator's wrist.

And he took a close look at it and there are shades of gray and black in there. And he said,

in his experience, that could very well be a Mexican. It could be a Mexican gang member who he

said they use this exact shading. Like the gray is an odd choice. And he said, I guarantee you

that tattoo goes all the way up the arm. He said it actually could go all the way up the neck

or possibly even to the face. And he said that is very common amongst Mexican gang members.

That choice to shade and possibly even those who have been in prison. He had a lot of thoughts

on it, actually. But that was the other thing that made me think of you, James, in your theory.

Yeah. Again, it sounds right to me. And where's the body? Well, if they went 60 miles south,

went across the border and put her somewhere, it's very, very, very difficult to find her.

And that's why we don't have the body yet. How can you satisfy will that these south of the

border, you know, gang members would, why would they take her? I can buy into James's suggestion

that it is in south of the border team that have come in. Whether it was from breaking and entering,

again, it depends on whether there are particular items, anything that was taken from the property

in inclusion, obviously, to Nancy herself. So, but it could have been a team. And James knows this.

Sometimes you get professional organized crime groups, which will come across the border to

conduct a snatch of an individual or to take someone for a kidnapping. My only big question here

is what options have law enforcement taken to communicate with their kind of parts across the

border to see if there is any gang activity that they're aware of, any intelligence that they're

aware of of any particular group that might have been or could be deemed as a viable prospect to

carry out an operation like this. I mean, sure enough says that he has good contacts down there,

which I would imagine, because he's his, you know, Tucson's an ally from the border. But,

but I mean, I get the skepticism because in those other cases, we were showing a Patrick Mahomes

was targeted by these gangs reportedly about a year ago, along with another football player,

I think. And okay, there you go. But nobody ever got stolen, right? So it's like they're looking

to steal your high end goods, not you. Let me, if I could, Megan, just real quick go into that.

It is a very, very difficult thing for us to mentally try to understand the activity of these

individuals, okay? You, me, will, we would not break into someone's house at two in the morning,

right? Because we just aren't that way. But these folks do. And so when we start to take our rational

brain and try to, you know, put it into what, what are they thinking? It's a very difficult thing.

I worked a case in Nebraska as an FBI agent where a guy from, you know, South America, he shot and

killed seven people in a bank. He didn't take a penny. He didn't steal a dime. And when I asked him

why, he said, because I could, okay? Now I can't even, I can't even fathom shooting seven people for

no reason. But he did, right? And so it's very, very difficult for us to, you know, to try to put our

brain into their brain. Oh, why do you take the body? Well, it's hard for you to understand that

because you've never been there, right? They do things that will boggle the mind, right? And

it's very, very hard for us to mentally go there. That's, yeah, that's just my experience. My mom

who was, she spent her career helping veterans at the VA in behavioral health, mental health. She

would always say, I cannot respond to irrational behavior rationally. That's exactly right. That's

exactly what you're saying. Like we're kind of playing a fool's game here because, yeah, we would

not be putting on the, you know, the outfit and the backpack and breaking into somebody's house

in the middle of the night, never mind kidnapping a woman. I want to play you guys a sound bite that

Chad Ayers said, something he said on our show on episode two. He broke some news here about

this case and that he'd heard from, I'm presuming a law enforcement source that he said is very

solid on the ground in Arizona. Listen here. As of about two hours ago, Megan, I can report from a

very, very reliable source that is boots on the ground there that the FBI and the Pima County

Sheriff's Office have no leads, no solid suspects. What? And this is from someone boots on the ground

that I trust. All right. They have no solid leads. I can also report that it has been confirmed

this morning. And I'm sure we all assume this that every family member passed polygraphs with

flying colors. The FBI has no suspects. So he did want to clarify that it wasn't no leads. It was

no suspects, no suspects. And that the family not only passed polygraphs, but with flying colors,

which we released this clip early because we wanted to get the news out there. And

many, many people chimed in saying that doesn't mean anything, right? Like you can't admit the

polygraphs in a court of law. I'm kind of persuaded by it because it's just the thought. Let's take

the brother-in-law, for example, because there's been speculation about him. So I thought that this guy

in a band and a part-time middle school teacher was able to beat the polygraph seems ridiculous to

me. So if he passed that thing with flying colors, I'm much more inclined to say, let's move on

from the brother-in-law. But you tell me, James, because you know, you've had a career in law

enforcement and I have it. Yeah. Well, a couple of things. Conclusive and inconclusive. That any

polygrapher, an examiner, is what they call them, a polygrapher, is going to tell you that you're

conclusive or you're inconclusive. There is no such thing as, quote, pass with flying colors

end quotes. That doesn't happen. That means someone is conclusive, meaning they're telling

the machine is indicating that their answers are conclusive. Then there's inconclusive, meaning

they're not sure. So that's that. And then the second thing is that maybe they don't have anything,

but as close to the vest as Sheriff Nan, we have a story. I think you reported it or I read it,

that Sheriff Nanos and two of his top deputies are the controlling people of this case.

Not the investigator. Well, if they're making all the calls, that wouldn't make sense to me while

Chad is hearing from law enforcement sources down way down the totem pole that they have no leads,

because they don't know anything, because they're being kept at an arm's length. That's you know,

that's my inference from from what he's saying. Either they don't really have anything or Sheriff

Nanos and his two handpicked guys are not telling the soul. And if it is Sheriff Nanos controlling

the information, then you have to at least put an asterisk after the polygraph information,

because he clearly, I mean, in my view was leaned on by the Guthrie's to say, the family's

exonerated, they're not suspects. And then when everybody said, how can you say they're exonerated

when you don't have anybody under arrest? He then took steps back from that and said, well,

they're not active suspects at this time. It was like, all right, well, which is right. So I don't

know, but what do you make of that bit of a scoop there? A scooplet, as we call it, the news.

I mean, to me, it seems, I mean, I agree with James entirely on this, that there's a huge

compartmentalization. We've seen this from the outset and Sheriff Nanos, giving everything to

himself, wanting to use his own DNA testing labs, you know, all those who Zana has obviously vouched

for them and said they're very, very good and they can do the job. But it's point scoring that we're

seeing by Sheriff Nanos right now. And I don't think this issue of substantive leads that he has

right now. Again, until such times, he just breaks cover and actually tells us what those are.

Megan, it means absolutely nothing. And the danger that we've seen historically, like you said,

about the brother-in-law being released, that there's big question marks over the integrity of

the information that Sheriff Nanos is sharing. And the false hopes that he's potentially sharing.

In the same way as he says, we're going to we're going to solve this case. He can't say that

with any residue conviction. So we still have no faith in the Sheriff. But one of our guests

is pointing out, you know, we are we just being impatient, right? Because we're still it's like

we're not even 50 days into the case. And a lot of these big murder cases take months and months

and sometimes over a year to solve. Like Maureen really believes that there that he he probably knows

who he who he thinks it is. And she believes he's building a cage around this person, you know,

bit by bit like evidence and evident, but it takes time. So how do you like that theory? Or do you

think James he's as clueless as he looks? No, I don't know him. And, you know, Maureen, if she

believes that, that very well could be happening and it's methodical. But again, that's a murder

investigation. I thought we started out with an abduction, missing person kidnapping,

lie body situation, which is again, like I've talked about, there's there's a lot more speed,

there's a lot more attention, there's a lot more, you know, sense of urgency. But if we're building

a case on an individual and it's going to take a long time, well, yeah, okay, that that is a

theory. And I certainly hope that that works out. And I certainly hope we find the perpetrator.

But I don't think we're being impatient. I think the the statistics on an 84 year old woman,

my friend, you know, Jim Gagliano was talking about this today. I think it's less than one percent

of the kidnappings in America or, you know, of that age group. And so it's extremely rare. And

that's why we're all kind of looking like, where is she? Where is this person? This is not the

norm. And I don't think we're being impatient at all. And last thing I would like to say is,

and I know I probably shouldn't do this, but sometimes if you look at the comments of people who

either watch your show or, you know, on some social media that I'm on, you know, they'll say things

like, why do we care? Well, this story is being dragged out. Well, we care because we all have,

you know, mothers. And we all have 84 year old, you know, a lot of us have mothers of that age

group. And we don't want to live in a country where an 84 year old can just be taken and nobody,

no leads, no nothing. This is America. That's the story is like, that could happen to my mother or

your mother. And first of all, it's chaos is hell to say that. The people will say, why do we care?

Well, that's why we care. Because I want to live in a country where an 84 year old isn't taken

from her bed at two in the morning. And we can't find her bodies. Yes. Thank you for saying that.

I feel the same. We've done a lot of work on the case of missing baby Lisa Irwin, who was taken

from her crib at 10 months old out of Kansas City, Missouri. And it's just she vanished into thin air.

She was never seen again. No leads didn't track anybody down. All the time later, still missing.

She could still be out there. There was never a body found. There was never a perp. Same thing,

right? Well, it's like, no, we can't we can't live in a society where an 84 year old is stolen

out of her bed. We're a 10 month old is stolen out of her bed. And the Lisa Irwin case,

forgive me for putting it this way, but like at least it made some sense. Like a baby is valuable,

you know, in terms of commercial sales, I'm sad to say, but it you could sell a baby on the black

market. An 84 year old you cannot sell. So like this one is even more mysterious. Yeah, absolutely.

And I think also where your show is doing a huge service to this particular case is and I'm sure

James will agree with me. And probably most of your other guests that you've had on is the distinct

difference between what one sees on TV on Netflix of crime thrillers and everything else,

which gets solved literally within one hour's episode to the reality of what actually goes on,

the complications, the complexities of these cases, the various different strands,

tenuous or otherwise of evidence that then have to be sifted through. This is your your I think

showing a perfect profile of how a case like this, which is most unusual and could potentially

to happen to any one of us would be potentially conducted. What are the considerations that are

being made? So I think this sort of forensic analysis that you're doing, Megan on this, I think

people should actually pay attention to to actually see what the reality is really like.

Well, we're lucky to have guys like you who actually know what they're talking about.

One last thing I want to hit on and that is tomorrow we're going to have on Ashley Banfield and

talk about where her reporting is right now and all of this. But one of the things she's been focused on

is Annie Guthrie's car. We first learned from Ashley the first week that Nancy was missing,

that the authorities had impounded, towed whatever Annie and Tomasso's car. This is Savannah's

sister and brother-in-law. The car was just returned this past weekend. We're talking six weeks

that they've had her car impounded. Other cars were taken and returned already from other people.

So like well in advance of this. So what does it tell you if anything?

I think that makes sense that they would have it longer as they probably went much deeper with

that with regards to any type of evidence collection with all kinds of different tools that,

not only Pima County, but the FBI might be recommending and therefore that equipment may be hard

to find and it takes a while to get it there. I'm not terribly surprised by the length

that they held onto it. They want to make sure and that makes sense to me. Why they gave up the

other vehicles that quick? I'm with you. I don't know why these people were let go or even taken

in or detained. The sheriff would understand that. But I don't make a lot of it being a long period

time. I think it was just further testing and that takes a while. They wanted to make sure they

got as much as they possibly could from the vehicle before they returned it. Okay, so that one doesn't

doesn't chump out of you. To me, that seems like a long time. But I don't know what they do and

you know, like you went out. It was the thing that answered was less seen in.

Yeah, I mean, it's a bit like phone forensics, for example. It can be done actually relatively

quickly. If it's done in the in the private sector, you could turn it around within one day,

but it's not uncommon for law enforcement to hang on to people's devices to do the forensic

imaging on them. And it could take weeks, sometimes months. Okay. Well, we don't know what

direction they're going in. All we know is Sheriff Nanos is now saying he believes he has a motive

and that whatever's happened since day one has confirmed his early suspicions about who likely

did this, whether he will share that with us remains to be seen.

If you are looking to make smarter choices for your health this year, consider riverbend ranch.

Their steaks are not only delicious, they also contain real high quality protein that helps

fuel your body. Beef is a complete protein. It contains all nine essential amino acids your

body needs to function. It also keeps you fuller for longer, reducing cravings and snacking.

But here's the key. Not all beef is created equal. The quality of the beef depends entirely on

how it's raised and where it comes from. And that's where riverbend ranch stands apart.

For more than 35 years, riverbend ranch has been building an elite black angus herd,

carefully selecting cattle for exceptional flavor and tenderness. All riverbend ranch cattle are

born and raised right here in the USA. They never use growth hormones or antibiotics and the beef

is processed at their ranch in their award-winning USDA-inspected facility. No shortcuts, no middlemen,

just incredible, healthy, flavorful beef shipped directly to your home. Order today at riverbend

ranch.com and use the promo code Megan for 20 bucks off your first order.

You guys are so great. Well, and James, thank you. Thanks for being here.

Right, being with you. Thank you, Megan. Thanks.

And thanks to all of you for listening. Tomorrow, as promised, in part four of our series,

Ashley Banfield will be here. She's been all over the story from day one. Where does she think

the investigation is going? She'll be here to tell us you won't want to miss that.

Thanks to all of you for being with us too. Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly show,

no BS, no agenda, and no fear.

Behind every healthcare statistic is a person's face paying the price. Big pharma just

increased the prices of 350 drugs. Hospital monopolies are marking up procedures by 300 percent.

The drug companies and hospitals set healthcare prices, and they're too high.

America's health insurers are on the side of people, working hard to negotiate,

cost down, and make healthcare work better for everyone. We see more than numbers. We see you.

Bringing your business dreams to life takes heart, and about a thousand decisions a day.

That's why Atlantic Union Bank's knowledgeable bankers are here for you. With the right

guidance and customized solutions to help you reach your business goals. So whether you're planning

your next move, upgrading your space, or scaling to meet demand, we make sure your business is

ready for what's ahead, because we're big enough to support you. It's small enough to know you.

Atlantic Union Bank. Anyway, you bank.