Nancy Guthrie: Ransom Evidence vs. a Mother's Belief

0:00This is the Big Breakdown, a long look back at some of the biggest stories we're covering for you at the Hidden Killers Podcast and True Crime Today. This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Brusky and Robin Dree. Let's continue the conversation about another aspect of this case. Sheriff Nannos, his own deputies, just voted unanimously 241 to zero to demand his resignation records reported by the Arizona Republic, so Sheriff Chris Nannos resigned from the El Paso Police Department in 1982 in lieu of termination after allegedly accumulating 26 disciplinary allegations in five years, including excessive force and insubordination. His deputies say none of that was disclosed when he came to Pima County many, many years ago, 40 some years ago now, and according to reporting by the Arizona Republic and ASPYM, when Nannos was asked in a December 25 deposition, whether he had ever been suspended,

1:06he reportedly testified that he had not in the course of his career. And he goes back and goes saying, I thought you were just talking about here in Pima County, even though the question was about his career. So the Board of Supervisors is now trying to compel him to answer these questions under oath, and also, well, his union wants him to resign. Jen, what are your thoughts on all of this? Another vote of no confidence. It's not the first one that he's had. It's kind of a pattern and a track record that he's got going on. But he kind of does things his own way. What do you think? When everybody's saying we don't believe in you, is it time? Well, you know what? He is a guy that I've really tried to give some difference to because it's difficult to be in his shoes. It's difficult to run an investigation with everybody breathing down your back, looking at your every move. But he has officially on my last nerve with all of the misinformation, the back and forth, about the 11th,

2:09not knowing the date or at least saying it correctly, that she went missing the confusion about, or not the confusion, I should say, the decision not to allow these searchers to search, when now it's clear they don't have a pointer. It seems pretty clear. I actually gave him a difference on that because I said, listen, you know what, public? There's a chance that they know exactly what happened to Nancy, and she's in Mexico. So imagine what happens now when everything comes out, and arrest is made, it's a huge deal. And we find out that from such and such a date, they knew they were in Mexico, yet they have the Cajun Navy searching, Madre's Buscadoras, an ecu-search spending weeks there when they knew that she wasn't there. So I said, let's just give them the benefit of the doubt with this decision making. But now there's just, there's just so much. It just seems like he wants to be the hero,

3:11even though he was at a basketball game, literally right before and after, I believe, it might be right after or before those that initial statements were made by the family. They're getting ready to go on and bear their souls, and he's out of hoops game. His optics are horrendous. I'm with you, Jen. When I research the stats on him as the department, and then I looked at other people in positions like his with big cases, and when you look at the numbers, he's average. His department is really good for clearance rates, which says, hey, we got good investigators, but that's again, not because of him, maybe in spite of him. But all these other things are just, he wore himself down. He wore his own credibility down. No one else did it for him. Like you said, I'm curious, what do you think the impact on the investigation, on the investigators themselves is because of those actions? That is such a great

4:16question. And this is, this is where I look at it right now. For instance, there's a guy that was his supervisor. Some of you, he's been interviewing all over God's green earth, but he, which is great, because he's trying, obviously, he cannot stand nanos. He was his supervisor. He is, I believe, the most experienced in terms of years of a sergeant, they have in their department, and they have the guy answering phones about missing cats and whatever. And you look at that, and you just ask yourself to me, you look at it and you say, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. Why, if these are these little vendetta's that he has, and I think that's the biggest part of this nonsense vote, is that you, if you don't, if he doesn't like you, he gets rid of you. He deep sixes you. He makes it so you're not working. And what if that guy is the guy that had the

5:18thought process that could have led or saw the clue that myth this could have been solved? I'm just saying the more brains with the most, most experienced, that's who you want out there in this. You don't want to find a telephone. So I think it has a lot of impact, not just morale, but, but much more significant than just a lot. Yeah, because in, as telling Tony the other day, you know, inside organizations with people like this, been there, done that, you typically find a way to work around people like that. You know, because you know, hey, they're just looking up out for their promotion. They're just taking care of themselves. Hey, no big deal. I'm not going to hold it against you. That's your thing. But I'm going to do the righteous work here. And I know how to work you so I can work my cases. That happens all time in organizations. But like you said, in this case, he's derailing the investigation potentially because he's taking those righteous workers that are there for the mission and removing them from the mission and they have years in generations of reps that they're bringing to the fight. And so as I said the other day, he might

6:20not be derailing it, but he's slowing it down. But if you actually are moving these successful people, in other words, he has these high clearance rates, like 90% for the last five years or above and 100% and 94. I mean, in 2024. But if you're removing the guys from those positions, I got you that, that is really a problem. Is his goal to be the superhero here at the end of the day? Is it to be the one who, I don't know that you walk back from any of this or fix your image at this point when everybody has no confidence in you unless he delivers Nancy Guthrie alive on a platter tomorrow? In lieu of that, I don't see anything that's going to save his image. But does he care? Does he even care what people think of him? I'm going to go with no. I don't think it even bothers him in the least of any sort of negative opinions that people have about him

7:24because it seems it's kind of been his track record. It's just white noise at this point. It seems well, you know, Robin and I, I think we'll agree on this point that past behavior is a predictor of future behavior and past things that happen in the past predict what will happen in the future. And when you look at the Idaho 4 case, which there's only really about a handful of cases that were ever this big, right? John Vene Ramsey, Gabby Petito, the Idaho 4, off the top of my head, Lacey Peterson, that just blew up and exploded like this for an extended period of time. And when you look at the Idaho 4 case and chief fry, which by the way, I actually really like chief fry. I felt terrible for him because the fact that his messaging was such a train wreck, like saying that nobody out there is dangerous. And what happened to him? He retired after that case,

8:26and then he tried to be a sheriff there in his own Layton County and lost by a huge mark. And so my point here is, I don't think there's any way that Sheriff Nanos will ever survive this. But look, I loved chief fry generally. I mean, I think he's a good-hearted, hardworking guy that just was over his head, so to speak. But when I say over his head, I mean, just having a case that would be all over almost anybody's head. Yeah, absolutely. But when you look at this guy, oh my gosh, he has such a different way of coming off that is so unlikable and arrogant. And all the words, you know, and I think he's a fighter. I think he'll throw out anything, any sort of mud against the fence. I think he goes after people who disagree with him and tries to them. And I don't think he's going to go away. They're going to have to drag him kicking and screaming to get

9:31him off the sheriff's stage. Which does that mean he just has to run out his term? I mean, I know they're trying to do the recall election, which I mean, that's a feat unto itself to try and accomplish that. I mean, could it be done sure? But, you know, again, my microwave could take me to the moon too. I don't know that it will. But, you know, it's like, yeah, the technology is better, but it's not going to do it. So like, what do you think there's any lever that's going to be pulled that's going to get him out of here? Hidden resigning? Or is it just going to be, he's got what, a couple of years left. And then then as he does, he's reelected. I think that's the future. I doubt this recall election will work unless they have tens of thousands of people collecting votes because they've got to get 10,000 votes a day. They've got only 120 days to get it's actually over 120,000 votes that they need because it's a sentence. I just, it's so rare. I mean,

10:33looked up all these cases and they haven't been able to do it in the past. I don't think it's possible because of not that people don't want to sign it, but you just also think how many people have no idea who Sheriff Nanos is. Yeah, right. And it's also your point. You know, we agree on a lot, Jen. And especially when it comes to Chief Fry, I love judging an individual also by how the people around them view them and his department was really good. I like their handling of a lot of things. You could see how they interact with the community because how they interact with the community is how they interact internally. And again, when you see healthy communication, healthy behavior, that comes from the top. And so he might, like I'm with you, not experience, that one from zero to 100 in his in his in his spandars. I think what was it? I think it was only 14 years ago prior to that murder of Coburger is when they actually had their last murder. I mean, there's no reps there. And so, but again, good healthier community, good healthier culture,

11:37where people liked him. Nanos completely different. Everyone, hey, I mean, who came out and said they liked them? Who's defending them? No one, no one person. I actually early on. I mean, it was funny because I would, I'm not saying trying to make excuses, but I would at least say, hey, listen, this is a tough job. He's got a lot going on. These are his statements, which I don't think he would do if the bureau wouldn't wasn't behind them. Why don't I try to give some leniency to these guys, but he's a hard one. I guarantee you, Chief Fry does not have a souped up that he's swirling around in in the middle of his face. And here in lies, then it goes to that question too. Should these people in these positions be elected or appointed? I know, because Chief Fry, he wasn't elected. I mean, he rose to ranks and this is a position he got because he had his experience. He's, you know, you're groomed into it. You're trained into it.

12:41And as opposed to elected into it, because that adds a whole nother dimension to this. You know, we're talking about this the other day too is, you know, this guy's elected like our politicians are elected who can't lead themselves out of a paper bag 90% of the time. You know, so why should that be the same process for someone who actually like this is going to be literally responsible in leading hundreds of lives and then responsible for hundreds of thousands of lives in the territory that they're covering? That is, that's a different kind of thing. You need to have different levers. You can pull to remove morons from bad positions. No, thanks. I would agree. I would agree. Your thoughts in the comments section on Substack in YouTube. We'd love for you to weigh in there. We'll continue the conversation right 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 and the Hidden Killers podcast. This is Hidden Killers with Tony Brusky. Here now, Tony Brusky.

13:46Savannah Guthrie said across some Hota Kata weeks into the worst experience of her life and said something that stopped me cold. She said she believes two of the ransom notes her family received about her mother are real. Not all them. She was clear about that. Most of them in her understanding are fake. She didn't even see those. But the two her family responded to the two that sent her and her siblings to Instagram recording videos begging a stranger to prove their mother was still breathing those. She said she tends to believe are real. I want you to sit with that word for a second. Tens. That's not certainly that certainty that that's not an investigative conclusion backed by forensic analysis that that is a daughter. Reaching for something to hold on to and a nightmare that has offered her almost nothing to grip. And I don't fault her. Not for one

14:49second. But we owe it to Savannah. We owe it to the Guthrie family and we owe a tenancy to look at what that belief is actually built on. Because when a family this visible tells the world they believe a ransom note is real. It shapes a millions of people understand this case. And the evidence behind that belief deserves the same scrutiny. We would give anything else. I invite your opinions and your thoughts. There's no right or wrong in the comments section on substacking YouTube. Links are in the description. So let's look at what these notes actually contain. What they didn't contain and what history tells us about ransom communications in cases exactly like this one. Within days of Nancy Guthrie's disappearance, ransom communication started flooding in. They were sent to KOLD, the CBS affiliate in Tucson. They went to TMZ. They went to K Gunn, another television station there in Tucson. They went directly to the Guthrie family. The FBI

15:50confirmed that the notes sent to media outlets were identical. The same document distributed into multiple newsrooms. They demanded millions in Bitcoin. They said two deadlines. Friday or rather February 5th at 5 p.m. And then February 9th. They referenced Nancy's Apple Watch and a damaged flood light at her home. And they opened stating that Nancy was okay, but scared. 511, the founder of TMZ called the notes carefully crafted and layered. He said the grammar was perfect. The structure delivered. He pointed specifically to a detail about the placement of Nancy's Apple Watch, where it was found inside the home is something that hadn't been publicly reported. He told News Nation that the insider details were the kind only someone present at the scene would know. KOLD anchor Mary Coleman echoed that assessment. She said when her station received the note, it was clear within a couple of sentences that it might not be a hoax because

16:54it contained very sensitive information. Anonymous law enforcement sources told the Los Angeles Times that the notes included at least two details about the home that hadn't been made public. That sounds compelling. And if the story ended there, you might lean towards believing the notes carry weight, but it doesn't end there. At the February 5th press conference, the same week, those notes arrived FBI special agent in charge. Heath Jackie addressed the content directly. He confirmed the notes referenced an Apple Watch and a flood light. And then he said something that cuts directly against the narrative that these details prove insider knowledge. She said the information was publicly available. That's the FBI's lead agent on the case, standing at the podium, telling reporters that the details journalist found so convincing were accessible to anyone paying attention. And he wasn't alone in that assessment. Retired ATF agent Jim Kavanaugh pointed out that if your Google Nancy got three photos

17:58from today's show, sat the come up where she's wearing an Apple Watch, clearly visible on her wrist. Anybody sitting anywhere could hit Google and see those pictures and demand Bitcoin, he said. Sonoma, you have two confelling conclusions drawn from the same set of details. The journalist to receive the notes believe the information could only come from someone who was there. The FBI's own lead agent says the information was publicly available. That contradiction has never been resolved publicly. And it sits at the foundation of everything Savannah believes about the two notes. I want to say this. Opinions of journalists, YouTubers, myself, whoever, they are exactly that. Opinions, they are not conclusions, they are not definitive conclusions.

19:01Now I can come to a conclusion in my mind, but it's still my opinion of what I've concluded. It is not a fact. So because a reporter at a television station in Tucson, and whoever else says, you couldn't have come from anywhere else. Well, what are you basing that on? Because it kind of looks like that because you go, there's no way, no one, yeah, I mean, it does look specific. And if somebody is out there trying to make you think they have inside knowledge, all you have to do is look at the today's show archive and you could find a handful of Nancy Guthrie videos, even videos of her in her own bedroom. And I'm not faulting Savannah for doing bits with her mom and pieces with her mom and showing her mom in her house. That is normal stuff. People have done it for decades and nobody's dead. And I honestly don't think those

20:08bits had anything to do with her disappearance. I think they may have everything to do with fake ransom notes, trying to make you think somebody has her, but I don't think they actually have anything to do with the planning or taking of Nancy Guthrie. Again, my opinion, not fact. That's how quickly this stuff moves. On this show, me and Robin, Robin Drake, retired FBI special agency for the counterintelligence behavioral analysis program. Scott, a track record. Got an opinion that people listen to. But everything he says too, opinion. I've seen stories that literally just take our show. And then suddenly publish it as a news story. I've seen the sun do it. I've seen many publications do it. I've seen it all over the internet. I've seen it. You know, you name it. Someone has done

21:09a story on a story we've started here. And what we're doing here is not a story. What we're doing here is opinion journalism. We're discussing a case. Me saying something out loud doesn't make it fact. One of my guests saying something out loud doesn't make it fact. You can put a bunch of these people together in a piece and go see all these people say this, but the FBI says something different. I'm going to go to the FBI because they're the ones that are actually doing the investigating. What I'm doing is sitting here expressing the opinions of the dots I'm connecting in my head. And I might know pad as I sit here and absorb the information. One's boots on the ground. One is sitting in a studio in Arkansas regurgitating news and giving opinions. Big difference. So I think that's important to understand as we run all of this information through our news cycle brains and land on what is fact versus fiction versus opinion. Now could could this be right?

22:17Could there be somebody that maybe and we haven't seen the damn notes. We've heard what the notes contain or at least somewhat of what they contain. But yes, really, truly, the information in those notes could have been gleaned from those other videos. And it sounds amazing and it sounds convincing and it looks convincing. Robin Drake did an experiment about it with his own family. He had an AI write a fake read some note based on information online. That exists about things around him. And damn did it come up with a convincing note from not a human that has never been to his home. It's easy to believe things when you want to believe them. Not that he wants to believe that

23:22this could even happen to begin with. But when you're searching for answers and you're searching for a sign of life and someone mentioned something that seems like only they might know but where a watch is placed on a nightstand where you could actually see it in a video. The mind is quick to discount little things like that. Or could it be seen? Yeah, it could be. But who's going to do that? Well, it turns out a lot of people who want to make a lot of money are the people who would do that. But we are good as human beings of discounting those things and applying what we want to apply to a specific situation to make it make sense to us because we're constantly in the back of our mind and our subconscious trying to make sense of everything that's going on. And if it doesn't make sense, we fill in the blanks. It's what we do as humans. It's not a fault. It's just what we do. And I don't blame Savannah for putting those dots together and coming to that conclusion. And look, she may be completely right. What I'm expressing to you is my opinion. And it's just that, an opinion.

24:30But it's worth looking at everything. We don't have Nancy. So to say the notes are bunk, that's an opinion. To say the notes have validity. That's an opinion too. Both should have the same way. Everyone is entitled to their own, and I'm curious to see yours as we continue to work through this in the comments section on substacking YouTube. But even if we set that dispute aside, even if we give the notes, the benefit of the doubt on the Apple Watch and the flood light, the way these communications behaved tells a story that doesn't align with how real kidnapping for ransom operations work. And I need to walk through this because it matters. The notes demanded millions in Bitcoin. They provided a wallet address, but they provided no way for the family to contact the sender.

25:31No phone number, no email address, no dead drop location, no encrypted channel, nothing. I mean, think about that. If you have abducted someone and you want money for their return, the single most important thing you need is a line of communication with the people who have the money. You need to negotiate. You need to coordinate a handoff. You need to prove you have what they want, so they'll give you what you want. These notes did none of that. They made a demand to the void. And then when silent, the family begged for proof of life, Savannah recorded videos, Cameron recorded a video. They posted them publicly on Instagram. They said explicitly on camera that they needed to know their mother was alive. They said they were ready to talk. They said they would pay. They responded. The response they got silence. No photo of Nancy holding a newspaper, no recording every voice, no detail about her condition

26:31that couldn't be pulled from existing coverage. Nothing. Both deadlines came and went. February 5th, 5 p.m. The note warned that a man would change. February 9th, the note warned of far more consequential outcomes. The Bitcoin wallet was monitored in real time by TMZ, by law enforcement, by anyone who knew the address, zero transactions in, zero out the deadlines passed and nothing happened. No consequences, materialize, no follow-up demands, no escalation, just silence. And then there's this. The first note cited explicitly that there would be no further communication. This was it. Take it or leave it. Then a second message derived to KOLD from a different IP address using similar cloaking software, but different in almost every way from the first, according to the station's news director, Jessica Bulbum. It made no new demands. It provided no proof of life. If this is the same person, they're contradicting their own stated terms. If it's a different person,

27:31we're looking at copycats stacking on top of each other, which is exactly what the historical pattern predicts. Every single hallmark of a legitimate ransom negotiation, communication channels, proof of life, escalating demands, and actual exchange is absent. What's left in a well-written is a well-written document that references details. The FBI's lead agent called publicly available. Information demands untraceable cryptocurrency and then vanishes into silence when the family asks for the one thing that would prove it is real. So why does Savannah believe? And this is a part you have to take with compassion. Because it's not about being right or wrong. It's about what grief does to a human being. Savannah Guthrie broke down during that interview through tears. She said something that reveals the emotional architecture underneath her belief about those notes. She said she's terrified

28:36that her fame, her success, her wealth, that being Savannah Guthrie is what brought this to her mother's door. Quote, to think that I brought this to her bedside, that it's because of me, I'm so sorry, mommy. I'm so sorry. If you carry that guilt, if you believe in your bones, that your career painted a target on your 84-year-old mother's back, then a ransom note is not just a piece of paper. It's a framework that makes the whore make sense. Someone took her for money, which means someone has her, which means she might still be alive somewhere, which means there's still a transaction that can bring her home. There's still something you can do. There's still a door. That's what you're feeling. That's what Savannah's feeling. At least that's, again, my opinion, my interpretation. I can't tell you what she's feeling.

29:37That's how I'd be feeling. The alternative, this is a burglary gone wrong that someone improvised, something horrible. When they realized a camera was watching, that the notes are opportunistic noise from strangers who saw a famous family in agony and decided, hey, it's payday! That alternative offers nothing. No negotiation, no channel, no path back to Nancy. Just avoid where your mother used to be and no one on the other end of the line. That's not stupidity. That's not naivete. That is what extreme grief and guilt do to the human brain's desperate need for a narrative that contains hope. Savannah is not wrong to feel what she feels, but feeling an evidence operate on different frequencies. In a case where an 84-year-old woman's life may hang in the balance, the distinction between the two matters more than it's comfortable to say out loud. And here's the thing about ransom fraud and high-profile cases.

30:40It's not a new phenomenon. It's not unusual. It's not a fringe occurrence. It's one of the most documented predictable patterns in the history of American crime. In 1932, when the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped, a real abductor did send ransom notes, so did dozens of strangers. Frick fake communications flooded in. From opportunists trying to insert themselves into the investigation or extract money from the family. The real notes were eventually identified through forensic hand-running analysis, but the noise nearly buried the signal and the child was found dead regardless. In 1973, when John Paul Getty III was kidnapped in Rome, his own grandfather initially refused to pay because he suspected the whole thing was a hoax. And he wasn't entirely irrational for thinking so. Opportunists were already sending fake notes and calling the family claiming to know the kidnappers. It took the actual abductors mailing the boy severed ear to an Italian newspaper before the family was convinced the demand was real. The proof of life

31:43as horrific as it was is what separated the legitimate communication from the fraud. Without it, the family couldn't tell the difference. In 2002, while Elizabeth Smart was still missing from her Salt Lake City bedroom, police received fake ransom emails, demanding millions and threatening to harm her. The man behind them had absolutely no connection to the abduction. He pled guilty to federal charges. Smart was eventually found alive nine months later, rescued by alert citizens, not ransomed. And in this very case, we already have a confirmed example. Derrick Kaleila, a 42 year old from Hawthorne, California, with a prior fraud charge admitted to the FBI that he sent fake Bitcoin demands to Annie Guthrie and her husband, Thomas O. Cione, told agents he'd been watching TV coverage and was trying to see if the family would respond. He used a VOIP app to disguise his number. He registered it to his personal gmail

32:44address. He was arrested by an FBI SWAT team charged federally and his communications were confirmed to have no connection whatsoever to whoever took Nancy. The pattern is consistent across nearly a century. High profile abduction plus media saturation equals ransom fraud. The vultures always show up. The question is never whether fake notes will arrive. They always do. The question is whether any of them are real. And across all of those cases, the only reliable way to separate real from fake has been the same. Proof of life, direct communication and demands that evolved through actual negotiation, none of which have materialized in the Guthrie case. Now the forensic linguistics angle remains an open question. The notes were described as grammatically polished, well structured, and written with what multiple people interpreted as familiarity with the Tucson area. It's worth noting, but it's also not hard to fake.

33:46We live in 2026. AI assisted writing can produce grammatically flawless, locally specific content in seconds. Grammatical polish is no longer the differentiator at once was. And local familiarity with the Catalina foothills, the neighborhood, the terrain, the way people talk about it can be absorbed from a few minutes of cable news coverage. None of this provides or proves the notes are fake. I want to be clear about that. The FBI has not publicly confirmed or denied the authenticity of the primary ransom communications. That determination, if it's been made, has been shared with the public. What I can say is that every piece of publicly available evidence, the absent proof of life, the empty Bitcoin wallet, the loan deadlines, the silence after the family's pleas, the contradictory second message, the FBI's own characterization of the key details is publicly available.

34:47And the confirmed arrest of at least one opportunist points in one direction and it's not the direction Savannah is hoping for. Savannah said something during that interview that has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with the human cost of this case. Speaking about the people who sent fake ransom notes to her family, people who looked at a mother's disappearance and saw an opportunity, she said, a person that would send a fake ransom note really has to look deeply at themselves to a family in pain. She's right about them. Whatever else remains unsolved in this investigation, she's absolutely right about that. The Guthrie family asked for proof of life and got grifters. They posted videos begging for contact and got silence. They said they would pay, said it publicly on camera with tears running down their faces and the wallet sat at zero while

35:48strangers in California type Bitcoin demands from their couches. That's not a kidnapping negotiation. That's a family being circled by people who saw suffering and smelled money. And every historical case in the book confirms it. When a famous family loses someone, the fraudsters arrive before the investigators finish processing the scene. The notes may still hold forensic value. The FBI may have information. The public doesn't. I'm not closing any doors, but what I'm saying with full respect for what Savannah got three and her family are enduring is that a daughter's belief, no matter how deeply felt, is not the same as evidence. And right now, the evidence and the belief are pointed in very different directions. Both of those things can be true at the same time. The notes can be exploitative, fraud. And Savannah's pain can be completely devastatingly real. One does not cancel the other.

36:53And Nancy got three. Whether she deserves an investigation, guided by evidence, not by the hope that any of these notes will lead someone back to her. That's what she deserves. Because hope is not a strategy. And Nancy is still missing. Your thoughts in the comment section on Substack in YouTube. Are they real? Why do you think so? And I'm going to say this, if you think they're real, I don't think you fully grasp just how well AI works. Because if you gave me your address, your name, I could probably come up with a pretty convincing random note that would make people think I know you well. It's amazing what can be done today with the smallest amount of effort and a keyboard.

38:02It's scary. And if I know how to do it, as a reporter here talking about this case, trust me, the people who are using this stuff nefariously, they know how to do it 10 times better than I do. But again, it's an opinion. And I too hold on to hope for Nancy. But I also am grounded in the reality of where we're at. And to get to the reality of where we're at for a family and grief, that's up to them. When and how that's their terms. It's not for me to say that's not for you to say it's not for anybody to say. That's a process only those individuals can go through at their own pace.

39:04Unfortunately, they have cameras on them. Watching their every move and every statement and breaking down everything they say. But as observers out here, that's my point. Understand opinion versus fact versus fiction. There are three different lanes. We'll continue our conversation in the comment section on Substack and YouTube. The links are in the description. Join us over on Substack right now, please. It's absolutely free. There's no paywall. And you may be part of our exclusive community. You also get to our videos and our reporting a day before they go everywhere else. So do check that out. All right. Until then, I'm Tony Bursky. We'll talk again real soon.