Nancy Guthrie Case — Innocent People Named, Legal Rights Explained

0:00Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Chamba. Jump in at chambacasino.com. Let's Chamba. No purchase necessary. BTW Group, voidware prohibited by law. CTNC's 21 Plus, sponsored by Chamba Casino. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side. Race to chambacasino.com. Let's Chamba. No purchase necessary. BTW Group, voidware prohibited by law. CTNC's 21 Plus, sponsored by Chamba Casino. This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Brusky and Robin Dree. A month into the search for Nancy Guthrie, there's still no arrests, no name, suspect, and no person of interest, but that hasn't stopped names from circulating. One man, a 37 year old living with his elderly mother, handcuffed, detained, questioned for several hours after SWAT, served search warns on their home. He was released, an elementary school teacher who plays in a band with Nancy's son-in-law,

1:01been harassed online and at his home. By amateur sleuths convinced he matches the mass suspect, he doesn't. Even the Guthrie family had to be publicly cleared by Sheriff Nannos because the attacks wouldn't stop. So what happens now? Once your name is out there, whether it came from reckless media, police questioning, or internet speculation, how do you get it back? Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Fattis is with us to help break down the legal avenues available to people who've been publicly dragged into a case. They had nothing to do with, and there's a lot of it. There's a lot of walking back, I'm seeing online, by reckless creators who at the beginning of this damn thing were name and names. We didn't do that, and it's almost amazing to watch of, oh, see, see, they're not, they're not part of it. Yeah, no shit. No shit, they're not. One man in the case was detained, handcuffed, questioned for hours, and released his attorney issued a statement saying he has no link whatsoever to Nancy Guthrie.

2:02But as this works, now with social media and people finding a name, however they may have gotten to it, whether it be through a creator, whether it be directly through the police department and arrest warrants and documented filing, Sheriff Nannos publicly has cleared the Guthrie family because online attacks wouldn't stop. But a sheriff's statement is in a court ruling. What is being cleared, Eric, actually mean legally here. And if someone wanted something that carries more official weight, does that even exist when you were never charged? Yes, I mean, being cleared in it essentially means that law enforcement believes they have ruled out that this person could have possibly done this. They have excluded them as a potential suspect in the case. And so that's a pretty definitive statement. In fact, law enforcement doesn't usually make such a public statement in ongoing investigations, which is why it was a little curious. But that's something.

3:03And then I think in our modern social media era, if this happened in the 70s, one of these people could try to get a news interview and just saying, hey, I feel real upset that my life has been turned upside down. That's one way to approach it. It could do like a kind of a social media announcement, just saying, hey, my name has been drunk through the mud, but I've been cleared. I support the Guthrie family. I want the real person to be identified, you know, taking that route can be helpful, but a lot of damage has already been done. You know, I mean, go ahead, Robin. Yeah, I was curious, followed up on that, you know, I hadn't thought about that, Eric, but you're right. I mean, think about, you know, historically, all these cases we had in the past where someone was named like this, and they have then come on the news media and made these public statements. I can't remember the last time that's really happened. What do you think is going on where people that have, you know, like the Sun and Law, and this guy that was arrested in his mom's home, you know, what do you think is happening that's preventing them from wanting to do that is because people are going to double

4:03down and make it worse, or they just trying to put their head in the sand, or is there anything legal going on there, you think? I think there's a few things. I think they probably feel traumatized for one. I think they might just want this to go away. They want their normal life back. And so if they engage with, you know, thousands or potentially millions of people regarding it, it perpetuates it on top of that, you know, on social media, there are all sorts of conspiracy swirling around some are legit and some are complete nonsense. You know, if you continue to engage, do you potentially expose yourself to more of that negative attention, whether it's warranted or not? And then also legally, you know, if they aren't planning a kind of legal action, it makes sense to keep it close to the vest, but law enforcement usually has qualified immunity against defamation and stuff like that. So that is probably not a viable legal avenue for them. Well, and it's an interesting landscape room because it's not just, you know, like the 70s, the 80s and 90s, or even like three years ago, where, you know, it would be like

5:08one entity, like, oh my God. And I mean, thinking back to Richard Jewel, if we're going to go all the school, kicking back to the Olympic Park Bomber of Atlanta in 1996. Big deal. His name was named and he was drugged through the mud, ended up dying many years, there's a movie made about him a couple years ago, and really it destroyed his life, even though he was completely clearly had nothing to do. He actually was helping that situation of trying to find out who did that. But the name, once it's out there, it's out there. And people, they get stuck on something and then they won't let it go. And this is, it's not just, in outlets, not just X news station, XYZ news doing it. It's, it's a cacophony of hundreds, maybe thousands of people that all get their mind, set in one direction, and then they dig. And then they keep going with their theories and then they keep breathing. It's a spidering. It's a bed bugs, a good luck getting rid of this problem.

6:10It's an infestation of the idea and it just keeps going. And you can't, it's like you can't whack a mullet because there's too many moles to whack. You can't go after the one entity and say, stop reporting this or we're going to sue you or just suing them. You can't like legitimately sue, I guess you could, but you'd be going after hundreds if not thousands of people with an opinion online and good luck trying to do that as a solo individual that doesn't have a gazillion dollars to spend on prosecution. I mean, this is, it's really, it's a new landscape where a, people do seemingly have the ability to say almost anything they want online with very little repercussion. Yes, people have been sued. We saw it in the co-burger case. The person who was accusing a professor of having something to do with it, ten million dollar verdict in that one. And that's great. I'm happy that that took place. But I mean, how do you tackle this? That was, it was one person when you have thousands of people out there online all saying horrible

7:15things about your name and you had absolutely nothing to do with this. Oh, gosh, you know, for example, like you said, you know, if you're this high profile person, you're the person or something and there's a, there's a news outlet that that falsely reports information about you, you could sue them. You know, could just a lay person have likely the same success, probably not. And then on top of that, when you're talking about, you know, thousands of people online, what are you going to send, a thousand cease and desist letters? And then if they don't stop, what are you going to sue a thousand people who probably have no assets? There are serious collectability issues with any kind of such lawsuit. So your options are totally limited. You could go on the offensive and you can make your own statements. But gosh, in terms of legal remedies, those are pretty scant in this context. Yeah, I'm curious, Eric, you know, we're bringing up some amazing, you know, sad facts right now where there's so many people you'd go after that it's really changed that landscape.

8:17Do you see the definition laws kind of changing and evolving to meet that demand now or you think it's going to stay the way it's been? Well, what I see, Robin, is a trend towards social media platforms being held more responsible for what happens on their platforms and they're certainly differing ideas, but whether that's appropriate. But there is a trend in that direction, meta is being sued for, you know, allegedly addicting children to their products, things like that. And so whereas those social media platforms used to enjoy almost blanket immunity on stuff like this, I think things would change. And so I think that perhaps there might be some responsibility on behalf of these plans to ensure that there is correct information that's being posted. But then again, that's a tremendous quagmire end of itself, there are free speech issues. It is just a huge, huge mess with no foreseeable clean solution, but let's go ahead, Tony. I was going to say, I mean, it's an interesting thing because if it's really not that extremely

9:24different than a TV station having reporters and then the TV station putting out a story. I mean, granted that there is a chain of command where the TV, the news director says, yes, this gets on the air, it doesn't. But in some cases, that's very lack. Sometimes it's okay. Here's the package you put together. Let's get it on the air. And it goes to air without a ton of oversight. And TV stations in the past have been sued for reporters somewhat going rogue or not checking their sources or reporting information that's inaccurate. How, I mean, is this all that different at the end of the day when we're talking about something like Facebook or X or whatever, as you're the TV station, and guess what, the people on your platform are the reporters, quote unquote, they know their citizens, they're just individual people. But look, if you're going to create the platform and give them the mic and give them the opportunity to reach just as many people if not more than a television station or a radio

10:26station or a newspaper would have in more traditional media days, 10, 20 years ago, it's just a new variation of it. You're the outlet, you're the station, you're letting this go over your airwaves or your platform, which would be Facebook or whatnot. It's not governed obviously by the FCC, but the FCC also doesn't necessarily have laws about defamation. They've laws about content, about words you can and can't say. The defamation comes in basically more so towards liability of the TV station. You don't want to do it because you don't want to get sued. It should be the same, I would think, in social media land as well. You're making the platform, you're platforming people to say really outrageous and audacious things. That's no different than a TV station saying, you know what, we're not going to give a shit what our reporters do. We're not going to double check them. We're just going to let them say anything and everything they want and how dare you come back and say that it's our problem for broadcasting this out there. No, it is your problem. You're broadcasting it. A TV station would be shut down if this was going on today, but it seems to be different

11:30because it's a website. Yeah, I feel you know, I mean, let's be clear, Meta and these big social media platforms they're making billion, they're just making stupid, stupid money in part due to the engagement of their users and that engagement can be inflammatory, it can be defamatory, it can be completely fabricated and they don't and at least so far. The platforms haven't been held responsible for that. So they're making all the money, but they have none of the risk. They have none of, you know, when people pop off on social media, I might say something completely false and defame another person, that's money for a man should it also be a potential liability, should there be some quality control, should there be some oversight just in terms of how those web platforms function and when harm is caused, who is responsible because you're not getting any money from, you know, Johnny, the Facebook user, but you

12:30might get money from Meta if there was such a legal pathway. I know some of our challenges with defamation is demonstrating damages and I apologize Eric, have you worked defamation suits before? Yeah. Because I'm curious, you know, what are the challenges for defamation? Because I know it's a, it's a very, very hard thing to prove. And so what are some of the challenges that people face? You know, like, so for example, in the Guthrie case here, you know, what were some of the challenges be for one of these people that had been accused to actually file a defamation suit and actually prove it in court? A few things Robin. So one, one of the challenges is whom you can actually suit. So you typically cannot suit law enforcement, they have qualified immunity. If they make a misstep in investigation, they misidentify somebody tough, bro, but if there are private outlets like news media who report and, hey, this is the guy when it's not the guy, then then you have a false statement. Now is it, you got to make sure that even within the context and that that it is truly false

13:38and then on top of that, you got to prove the harm. So it sucks to have people be not liking you. But I think in that context of the Guthrie case, the full suspect could show, hey, I got all these emails, I got all these DMs, I got all these threats, I got all these people hate me now. That's reputation of damage. You know, did it stop him from being considered in certain employment context or something? There are ways you can go about it, but certainly not an easy road. Right. Any, I mean, what would, as I know, that's the hardest part. I know someone has actually been sued and sued for defamation before and actually showing the monetary aspect. Is that what they have to do in a defamation, should just actually show the monetary impact of this or is it a lower on bar that has to be hurtled? You've got to prove damages and that usually includes economic harm. And so how is this economically harmed you? You know, somebody not liking you, that sucks, but what sort of money does that translate into? A DM from a complete stranger who says, you know, you're a shit bag murderer or something,

14:42that sucks. But is that like a hundred bucks, is that like a thousand bucks? How do we do that? We calculate that. The damages can get dicey. Right. Yeah. It's, I know that some sort of rails need to be put up soon, I would think, because at some point, something's going to happen with these platforms, I would imagine that's going to take them to the cleaners in one way, shape or form, where they're going, and that's probably what it's going to have to take. I don't know. I mean, they can get ahead of this, but they seem to be waiting and I don't know why. Because probably whatever the settlement's going to be someday, they're making far more letting the fire spread because people like watching the fire, unfortunately that I think is the reality of it. Your thoughts in the comments section on YouTuber sub-stack. The link is in the description. We'll continue this part of the conversation there. Want more on this case and others? Then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony Brusky

15:46and the Hidden Killers podcast. Step into the world of power, loyalty and luck. I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse. With family, canolies and spins mean everything. Now, he want to get mixed up in the family business. Using the Godfather at chumpacacino.com, test your luck in the shadowy world of the Godfather slot someday. I will call upon you to do a service for me. Play the Godfather now at chumpacacino.com. Welcome to the family. No purchase necessary VGW group void were prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and conditions apply. Telloretic here from 2311 Racing. Game night's fun until someone spends five minutes lining up one shot. Chalk. Breathe. Re-chalk. Still aiming. You're at out. I fire up chumpacacino. I can spin anywhere, anytime, and there's always a new social casino game every week. Spins happen way faster than that shot. Play now at chumpacacino.com. Let's chump up. Sponsored by chumpacacino. No purchase necessary VGW group void were prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and conditions

16:49apply. Drew McIntyre here from WWE. Wheeled in the claymore can be a life of chaos. When I'm not dominating in the ring, chumpacacino is how this warrior takes a wee break. With hundreds of online social games and new weekly releases, there's always something fresh to try. And those daily boosts, next level, even my free time feels like foul howling. So when life feels like a battle, kick up your feet, have some fun, and let's chump up. No purchase necessary VGW group void were prohibited by law, CTs and Cs, 21 plus, sponsored by chumpacacino. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah, it's even better with Chumba by my side. Race to chumpacacino.com. Let's chump up. No purchase necessary VGW group void were prohibited by law, CT and Cs, 21 plus, sponsored by chumpacacino.