Skip to content
TrackPodcasts
newsMar 10, 202625:43

Nancy Guthrie: Pacemaker Data at 2:28 AM, a DNA Mixture, and the Evidence Picture Nobody's Fully Explaining

About this episode

The evidentiary details in the Nancy Guthrie case are accumulating — and several of them aren't getting the scrutiny they deserve. Hidden Killers digs into the evidence layer with former FBI behavioral analyst Robin Dreeke and host Tony Brueski in this listener Q&A focused on what the physical and forensic record actually tells us.

The pacemaker. Nancy's device last synced at 2:28 in the morning. In a case where the timeline of events that night is still not publicly established with precision, that data point is significant. Tony and Robin examine what a pacemaker sync can and cannot tell investigators — and why this detail isn't getting more airtime.

The DNA at the scene has been characterized as a mixture — potentially from multiple contributors. That's not a minor detail. A mixed DNA profile opens the possibility that more than one person was present, which fundamentally alters the behavioral question of how this secret has been kept. Robin addresses what the psychological and behavioral profile looks like when two or more people share culpability in something like this — and which of those scenarios is more likely to crack under pressure.

A million-dollar reward has been announced, payable in cash. From an investigative standpoint, does that generate actionable intelligence — or primarily volume? Tony and Robin address what large reward escalations have historically meant for tip quality and case trajectory.

And if no remains have been located after this much time in a case with this evidence profile — what does that mean for investigators, for the family, and for the likelihood that Nancy is still alive?

Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/

Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1

PRE-ORDER Robin's NEW Book! - https://a.co/d/0iR9U8U0

Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/

Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod

X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod

This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

#NancyGuthrie #GuthrieDNA #NancyGuthriePacemaker #NancyGuthrieMissing #ForensicEvidence #RobinDreeke #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimeInvestigation #MissingPersons #TrueCrimePodcast

Get every episode summarized

Each time Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.

Email me new episodes

Free for 3 shows. No card needed.

Hosts & guests

Transcript ready

433 searchable segments. Every word is indexed and playable.

Nancy Guthrie: Pacemaker Data at 2:28 AM, a DNA Mixture, and the Evidence Picture Nobody's Fully Explaining

Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary

0:00
25:43

Full transcript

Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & CommentaryNancy Guthrie: Pacemaker Data at 2:28 AM, a DNA Mixture, and the Evidence Picture Nobody's Fully Explaining. Machine-transcribed; use the interactive transcript above to jump the player to any line.

We are doing questions today from you guys about the Nancy Guthrie case. You can leave them in the comment section on YouTube and on substack. We'd love to see them. Be sure to press subscribe wherever it is you are listening or watching. Let's get into our second batch of them here with Robin. Okay. This one. It's about Nanos. This is okay. Tony and Robin be honest with me. Sheriff Nanos keeps going on TV and saying he's definitely closer and that he personally believes Nancy is alive. This was as of this recording, I believe last week. I think the statement was made or pretty darn close to and time matters in something like this. And he's made that statement throughout this investigation. At some point are those statements actually helpful to the investigation or is it just a guy protecting himself on camera?

I think both. I look at this. It's fascinating statement because you're like, that's interesting. Why would he say that? Why would he say it now, especially when you're looking again in the law of probability and averages? Part of this calculus is remembering, he's an elected official. The officials always have to maintain face and if he said that he thought she was gone and dead and passed away, it's now his fault because he didn't save her. And so to say she's still alive says, I'm still doing my job and everything's still going to be okay. So I think that's part of the calculation. And the other part of the calculation is, too, it keeps interest on the case. So that's glass half full towards Nanos is like he's doing it for self-preservation to say these things. And then you go on the other side of further the investigative side. The more the public keeps their eyes on this, the more tips you're still going to keep getting in. And one of those tips might be the one that cracks this thing open. So I think it's bolted for investigative helpfulness as well, self-preservation mode.

That's the way I've read it. It was fifty-fifty. Yeah. I mean, it can be a little bit of both. I mean, not only just self-preservation mode, but investigative preservation. If you want to keep pressure on this, if you want to, because if people are already writing an office, Usher's already dead. I mean, as I'm not trying to sound heartless here, but talking about human brains are going to work, if there's no hope and you are blatantly stating it, well, a lot of people will accept that answer and move on their mind to the next thing. And if we're still actively trying to figure out what the hell is going on here, the more people actively believing and looking at this glass half full, actually can help fuel this a little bit better to maybe get to the final destination of getting to an answer as opposed to, well, it's hopeless guys, she's dead. And I agree. And, you know, in the outlet for that pressure, I mean, again, I'm so visual on this. You always use these visual representations. If you think of him keeping that pressure on, so here's the perpetrator in the middle here, and he's keeping this pressure on, like, I'm getting closer, I'm getting closer,

I'm getting closer. What happens is the pressure is going to build, so it's going to be like a horrible pimple that pops. And the pop is going to be through that one person that has knowledge and they want that money, they want to solve this, there's empathy in here. So that pressure applied and it pops through a lead that comes in because someone's looking for that million or the 250 or 200,000 plus. And so you have an outlet, you have the grace that Savannah keeps putting out there. It's almost like I really would hope that if he's making a statement, it would be helpful and at least in my mind, if her and the family would come out with another statement. So in other words, here's the pressure, here's the outlet, here's the pressure, here's the outlet. So if her or someone else could get on there and give that relief valve to an individual either might know what happened or to the individual themselves, again, if you're going to have pressure, pressure, you don't want to explode, you want it to be directed in an area that's going to be helpful. And I would say, let's get another message out there saying, hey, we still believe, we

still believe, and I like how Savannah's phrased it, we just want her home, we want to celebrate her. I think it was great language. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it kind of covers a lot of bases. The reward is now at a million dollars and Savannah said it can be paid. This is obviously going through this specific, correct channels to do it. It's not just Savannah writing a blank check to ever says that they have information. What do you think about that? I mean, obviously, we don't have an answer yet. The reward initially was lower. It was at a hundred, it was, it was at least 10,000, then it was 50, then it was a hundred and then it's two, and then Savannah came in and then said offering a million. And there's different ways of thinking about rewards and different strategies involved. If you throw out a million dollars right out of the gate, you might just get a million leads. That lead absolutely nowhere. There's only so many people to go through it. So you don't want to just turn the spigot on full blast when you're really trying to be careful.

It's on a full blast now as far as everybody give us your information, there's the big prize at the end of the game. Do you think the million dollars is helping raising this is this is just making this a case with with more that they they can go down more leads to track down. Certainly, that's happening, but has it would it improve the quality of those leads? Is it taking them anywhere? And they just need more time to get through all of this flood of information that's come in or as it just created more noise. Believe it or not, more is actually better, you know, when you are able to increase it and you have a plethora of leads coming in, it does create a lot more work and a need to really triage and filter those things, but that's why you have people like me when I was in the bureau. I can't tell you how many tip lines I sat on, even as a I was a full time investigator, you know, for my own cases, but right after 9-11, which I was in New York City for, we had the anthrax scare. And we had a lot of, can you imagine the tips and leads that were coming into the bureau

and across a country for anthrax scare stuff, anyone that saw a white powder anywhere was calling in the tip line. And I sat on my favorite things where I coined my own phrase of nutter, but I talked to so many nutters that would call in with what they thought was a lead and a tip that was critical. And so you have these filtering things and I wasn't even close to the lead investigator on this, but I was at that first, you know, you'd sit a shift for a couple hours and you'd be that first line of defense of kind of being that filter that comes in. They prep for that, they're ready for that. It doesn't mean it's not going to slow it down, it doesn't slow it down, but at the same time though, having that, elevating that lifeline to have someone overcome the fear of sharing to share it as a potential reward, it can move that needle, and especially when you put a price tag on that. And the one thing I didn't do is I got to do this, and probably people are already just going to do it after I mention it. I'm curious about how easy it would be to get that money anonymously, because Savannah said I can get it to you anonymously.

How? Who do you contact? In other words, like I know the tip line to call, if I want to call in the government, but I'm always leery of that, I'm not leery of that, but if people would be leery of that, if they don't want to be associated, I'm very curious. Now, if I took the initiative right now to say I got a lead and I don't want to be identified and I want that million dollars and I think my leads the one, I wonder how easy it would be for me to contact the right channel to actually get in there. So I think that's important. I mean, well, think about it. Is it easy? Well, exactly. I mean, and let's just run this scenario for a second. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from doing this, but let's say you have information that truly does lead to Nancy being found dead or alive. Okay. What do you just wait for your check or like wait for the transfer and it doesn't come? I think they're going to, at some point, they're after you guys going to, we need to know who you are if we're going to give you this money. I don't think they're just going to be like, well, turns out what you said led to it. Now here's your money.

They're not going to give it before they find her. And I'm going to think that they're going to require some sort of identity check before they just give you the money or give whoever it is the money. I would think I don't think it's just like, oh, now you hold up your end of the bargain or what? What are you going to do if we don't? We have Nancy. Now we'll give it to you, but you got to come forward to claim it. And if you come forward to claim it, I think they might do a little research on who you are. Yeah. I just, as you know, as you're talking there, I looked it up. Yeah. Yeah. What do we got? So if you're going to go the main route and anyway, someone put there, how do we know 41 minutes? That's actually from the time of things being disconnected in the house is how they came up that 41 minutes inside that house from time of disconnect of the webcam and Nancy's heart rate, her heart rate being disconnected. So they list on the official tip lines and I did this with Grock in direct ways to reach Savannah's family and can DM her directly through Instagram, but it's still going to come

back to someone. But again, it can be anonymous. You can contact her through the day show. Time Stoppers also has another way to do it, 88 dash crime on a web form. And you can also do an anonymous VPN when contacting through any of those things. And so there's a way to do it. How do you claim that on your taxes, like million dollars, what's this for? I knew who killed Nancy got three. Might be a weird explanation moment with the IRS when they audit you. Do you think they're going to be thinking that far ahead? I don't know. Yeah. Like it might be a little awkward. I don't know. So it's interesting. So there are a ways that you can anonymize yourself for a bit on the initial claim. I would be curious about how they'd have to set up something for a transfer of money. It's interesting. Something would have to be. And if you, yeah, I mean, again, I think there's probably why I guess it's a 1099 form, isn't it? For Miss Elaine, isn't come. I guess. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, there's, yeah. I mean, it's not as, there should be a clear path here. But look, if you have the information, they're going to need to know who the hell you are. Right. I don't think there's really a way around it. I guess. So here's something good for the audience. If anyone in our audience happens that knows something or have a tip on this case or any other case, you know, all you got to do is literally plug it into an AI and it'll give you all these different routes to do it. And you just pick your least, your most favorite color and go with that one, I guess. Well, I mean, at the end of the day, too, like, look, if you know something, this shouldn't be about money. They shouldn't be about you cashing in or being like, I'm not going to tell you because there's no safe way for me to cash in this check. It's like, if you can just do it anonymously and you're not going to be harmed, turn it in. Yeah. If they, if you can't reflect back on you, turn it in, dude, just do the right thing. It's not because it, it should be a profitable endeavor for anybody. But who knows? I mean, people are motivated in different ways for different things.

Let's, let's talk about this. This person has almost, actually, I want to ask you about this before we do this because you were talking about nutters and I know that's a very specific, very scientific term that's used within the FBI, and Jennifer's Wackadoodle, that's true. And Jennifer's Wackadoodles. And I think Shavon has some too from the psych world where it's like, batshit crazy and things of that name. And I also use broken brain individuals. Yes. And that's it. So I want to talk about the calls that are coming in because you, you fielded these things. What? And this is not specifically on this case, but yes, crazy calls come in from people that have some of the most, they are convinced that they have information, but they're batshit crazy. And what they're saying does not add up to much, or at least, at least that phone call certainly sounds like it.

Sometimes they turn in to be actual things that, that, oh God, this person is sounding crazy. What the hell? This is actually real. Some example, there was a guy that was in one of Trump's hotels in New York several years ago shooting it up, claimed that he had been abducted or that he was being held captive by Diddy as a sex slave, turns out he was, turns out he actually ended up getting called as a witness in the Diddy trial. And he was the guy that was doing that turns out, and I don't know how much he was being held captive, but his story of being part of this, the ecosystem where they're turned out, it had some legitimacy to it. On the surface, everybody was like, this guy's on him, his mind. Like he's shooting up a Trump hotel and he's got, he's connected to did, like what? Like it just sounds like the words of a madman. How do you on the end of picking up that phone call on the FBI determined who's a madman

and who's not? All these claims can seem pretty damn out there. Do you run them all down? Can you run them all down? Where do you decide how much weight you're going to put on? What someone is saying when they're calling in that timeline? Tony, this is such a great question and I'm actually, and I apologize for an ego moment here on this one. Isn't this what I do with you all the time? I haven't dismissed. I never dismiss what anyone says and I, let's just, I've run them all down. It's part of my ethos of curiosity and because you always had to ask yourself, what motivated this person to do this? What's their intent and then you can break down each of the elements they're doing because if someone's doing something, something caused them to do it. Now it could be a chemical imbalance in the brain but it can't have been a trauma response from I was abused by Diddy. You don't know what that is and so you, you don't judge the information or who it comes from. You just take it, what it is, you take what is is and you just flush it out.

But does it take time, effort and resources? Yes. That's my question there on that aspect of it is, okay, yes, flush them out but you're getting tons of them at any given time and time is of the essence here. So are you literally flushing them out in the order in which they were received or do they, does it get like a prioritization as they comment? It gets prioritized. These things do get triaged and so for example, I know I've said this numerous times right after 9-11, I had literally lead number two because I had it on the ticket, lead number two for the pent bomb investigation was originally called in New York or no twin bomb is what the original one was called in New York and it was Guy C's planes flying down Hudson River. Did that get, that went to me, I was not even close to the lead investigative team on this on the joint terrorism task force and so it got delegated to a guy with six years in the bureau. Now, what happens is when it comes in to the, because the first, the first filter that

happens inside is the tip line, the tip line is man by people that are typical, that starts out with our, our phone operators that take in calls every day, they're the ones that route calls for the bureau or in a law enforcement organization, they come in and they typically are very, very good to have lots of years of reps of screening calls and whether something needs to be forwarded to a squad or a case agent or we'll just take a note and everything's logged, everything gets logged and this is the exhaustive work that used to drive me nuts because I am so impatient with everything. This is why I could never do evidence response stuff because even when we're doing an evidence search, when you are seizing a file cabinet, you and a file cabinet has got thousands of pound thousands of papers in it, you have to individually log every single sheet of paper has many hours as it takes for what you know is probably garbage, but every single thing has to be logged. That's why investigations take a long, long time sometime and so yes, and I know all of us, me, Jennifer and the other ones have said these things can take a long time because

every tip that comes in will be flushed out, but it does get triaged and so and it gets triaged by, once it gets past the first phone bank of people, then it'll go up to the next level and so you have folks like me that are not the lead investigation, investigators normally, but maybe we're sitting, it's been an all, like when you hear all hands on deck, all hands on deck means that they'll take everyone from that field office, division or an area and region and make them sit the phone banks and then they'll have a group that are taking leads where they're canvassing neighborhoods and then what to do is those people based on their years of experience and backgrounds, they'll be a lead for that group that'll help triage to ones and then pass it up to this level or it'll say it down to this level. So there's always layering to get it up to the lead investigator, see what should be done with it. Everything will be covered, but they are triaging so that the most, the ones that look like they can pan out make sense isn't coming from a complete nut or maybe half nutter will get filtered up because, yeah, I mean, nutters can call and stuff.

I mean, I get emails from people all the time, I mean, I'm sure you do too on cases that we cover. I mean, you get pages and pages of text, I mean, people have researched these cases more than anyone else have. What I've met. Here's the thing with nutters, they typically think they're very, I mean, they're very adept at doing research, but it's all through their cognitive distorted filter of reality. So it ends up looking very crazy. Sometimes there's little nuggets in there that may actually be something, but you don't know until you look at it. I mean, for example, here, not this case whatsoever, but here's an example of a nutterer, probably similar to what you would get at an FBI office, this is when I got at the radio station years ago, and do somebody that wanted to call and wanted to share some very important information with us, and they were insane. So I'm going to throw this example out there and tell me how this would be filtered through

the FBI if they were to call in for something like this. This guy called the radio station very serious, wanted me to know about the experiments that Halliburton had done on him. This is all in his mind, that Halliburton had done on him. This was during the George W. Bush years. He had a big thing against Dick Cheney and that he was experimented on years ago, and he was also experimented on and then violated by members of the group super tramp. Yes, the group super tramp was somehow involved. And he had secret government information, I forgot exactly what it was about, but he had this information and he wanted to make sure that we were going to be aware of it. That's the, it turned to be like a 15 minute phone call, because I entertained the guy for a while and let him tell his story, and it went on and on and on and on and every turn and twist was like, oh my God, how are you doing this? I mean, it was like tell Chatsy P to talk crazy, but like 20 years before Chatsy P.T. It was just one thing after another and he fully believed his story.

He'd call quite often believing these stories. How do you handle something like that? If somebody's telling you like, oh, I knew this happened, it was because of a conspiracy with Halliburton and super tramp, all these, I mean, how far do you run that lead down if you're the FBI or do you just go, thanks for calling, we'll, we'll make a note of this. And do you just go right away? This guy's out of their mind, we're done. Or do you go, is there, is there something more here with this person? So a few minutes into someone monologueing at you, you'll pick up on that just like you did. Yeah. And then I typically will say something to the effect of, hey, I'm so sorry, I tell you what, our time on the phone today is limited, because again, a lot of calls, and I'll tell you what, what you have to say is extremely important. But people in prosecutors, and if you want action to be taken, this can't go on a story. They need actually tangible facts, status, and details. What specific evidence do you have? And if you can send me specific evidence that's not known in the public domain,

that's not in the newspaper or something, or as part of a story, send that in. And then, unless you have, and then if they call back, no, and the one happens, they were validated by you, they were listening. So they're going to keep calling you. And so every time they call, they say, listen, do you have anything brand new? That is a specific fact detail or evidence of something. If you don't, I can't listen. I just, you just, you got to shut them down right away. Okay. Saying that, listen, it's a great story. I believe you were wronged in your mind, I just say your mind, because then you're judging. But in order for someone to take action, they're going to need actionable information. That is not a story, but something very tangible and specific. Do you have a video? Do you have an email? Do you have something like that? Not a theory, not something you saw in the internet. I need something first hand knowledge of this, this, and this. In other words, I go down the road of, you got to be specific about who was wronged, what the action taken was, and what evidence you have of that. I mean, I used to cover loosely, like, like white collar stuff here,

where I live in Fredericksburg, and political stuff. Because political opponents will love going to each other and try to turn them into FBI. I mean, I have to add that a lot, where you get a political point on one side of the other, even at local level politics. And I say, great, I believe that you think they're a corrupt individual, what specific evidence do you have of their corruption? Well, I think they're doing, I don't care what you think. What do you know from a specific fact or detail? I said, I need to, I need to be able to see a action taken and what statute that violates. If you can't do it, I can't help you. But I'll tell you what, I will always listen to you when you get it. So make sure, because again, you don't know, nutters might have access. And so you've got to give the, the nutters, very specific guidance on, I need specific, actionable evidence of a wrong that violated very specific statutes. So you've got to, anyway, yeah. I mean, it's fascinating where what what what what people's minds are capable of. And I'm sure you're probably going to agree with this too. A lot of folks who can be down those lines, they do tend to then attach themselves to anything

that their interest brings them into. So if it's this case or that case, they're suddenly going to have information on this case and that case and the other case, because what's going on in their brain is telling them that they believe it. There's something wrong with with a lot of these folks and they need help. Unfortunately, that's another reflection and a whole other conversation we can have about our system and just, you know, they don't there's no opportunity for them to get the help. And it's very scary too, because they sound extremely plausible at first. Yeah, right. For quite a while. And so here's the challenge. It happens it's it's when you're covering leads in a tip line, it takes a lot of bandwidth and bandwidth that you don't want to have a lead investigator, you know, some of the experience sitting that tip line because they need to be doing more important things, you know, watching out real tips and leads. But at same time, if you have someone so inexperienced that they think this is some real shit, they'll get they'll get all spun up with this person. And so that I've seen it happen. You know, where you have a newer agent or

a new investigator, you know, it gets all spun up with them or someone is working a tip line. And all of a sudden, they're going down to conspiracy road too. And then it just starts spread. And then, and so it you can spend a lot of bandwidth in an office as well as people kind of get spun up on someone that sounded so plausible, so real, so believable, so sane. But what they're spewing is really out there until you get someone with some experience to come and say, dude, what are you doing? You need to shut them up. How many cats do you have? 42. Okay. Thank you. I had this. So on the anthx line, I had this individual that kept calling in and kept getting me because the phone bank was having a fun time passing on me. That was literally trying to give us tips on an anthrax like powder and this, this and this and it was sound I'm writing all this stuff down and I said, it's always interesting because whenever you say, what else? Well, once they get off the thing, they think it's going to hook you, then they're going to go into their own monologue. And that's when this woman was saying about how the CIA was actually

shooting RPGs across from one apartment building to her apartment building there. And no one's doing anything about the RPGs coming in my window. Okay, thank you very much, man. Thanks for calling. Here's your free two-legged thigh chicken dinner coupon for calling. So many questions fascinating conversation on Nancy Guthrie. Your thoughts in the comments section, be sure to leave them on our sub-stack. And our YouTube, we do read them, so please, please do and we'll continue our conversation off the air over there.

More episodes

More from Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary

View all episodes →