Noise vs. Evidence. Four Cops Discuss the Nancy Guthrie Case | Profiling Evil

0:00But hey folks, this episode walks through the most recent publicly reported developments in the Nancy Guthrie case, and it explains why wild speculation can damage real investigations. There was a neighbor that described seeing a suspicious man in the area weeks before Nancy disappeared. She says she shared that information with the FBI, who at first didn't even know the contact happened, or it hadn't been recorded in cataloged. Investigators are also examining a damaged utility box near Nancy's home. That could be related to the report of internet disruptions and missing or disrupted surveillance footage, but at the same time that Wi-Fi jammer theory has become a headline. Some reporting explains what the jamming is and why it's illegal, and why many outages still end up becoming just a routine tech failure. But all of it became modus operandi before it was ever vetted and discounted. Another major reset occurred when authorities found gloves

1:06two miles, two miles from the crime scene, but it still became a focal point. Now those gloves were traced through DNA to a local restaurant worker who's not connected to the case, and all these diversions are just a reminder that found doesn't mean linked. It's a continuous media frenzy out there. Social content people are rushing, leading conspiracy theories and investigative noise making to the top. Now we're all wanting to know the answers. I just fear we're creating a whole lot of worthless news. Well hey everybody, welcome to Profiling Evil. Now before we get started, just take a second.

2:06Hit the like and subscribe button and give the video a thumbs up. Do that little swipe so you can hype us and don't forget to ring the bell so that you get your notifications when new videos come out. You know there are two versions of this high profile case that runs side by side, the real investigation, and the stuff that's being done by influencers and the media. And for the investigators at this stage, the work is slow, methodical, and often boring. It's a timeline, a canvas, evidence integrity, lab cues, digital artifacts, interviews that just plain don't move as fast as people want them to. And then there's the public case that's living online and it is fast, emotional, and built for attention. It's built for clicks, advertisers, and sensationalism. And all of that produces one thing in bulk, speculation. Now the Guthrie case is operating in both worlds and the challenge becomes separating the noise from the

3:12evidence. Now the noise and the less promising leads still need to be followed. They need to be confirmed or excluded, but that doesn't necessarily mean they need to be reported on. Because all that reporting is doing is fueling speculation, creating false hopes, frustrating investigators, and the public not to mention Nancy Guthrie's family. Everything points to this 84 year old Nancy Guthrie being victimized by a home break-in, likely assaulted and most likely abducted. The rest is speculation outside the fact that she's a vulnerable adult with mobility limitations and medical needs. And that alone raises the stakes. I think we can all agree on that. And I think we can agree that all the possibilities need to be pursued, but do they need to be publicized? And that's what I want to explore in this video. Now here's the first big lesson in how the internet can mislead itself. Let's go back to that

4:18glove story. I've already talked about it, but a glove found in a broader area became a major online break. People convinced themselves it was tied to the porch suspect, tied to the abduction, tied to everything. They wondered if it would have DNA on it. Well, doesn't that seem likely? I mean chances are the glove was previously worn by others, so finding DNA shouldn't surprise anybody. But that became a major story for weeks. A glove discovered two miles away from the Guthrie home? Holy cow. I mean, many people believed this was going to be the smoking gun that solved the crime. And didn't think about the sheriff's statement where he said, listen, we found as many as 17 gloves as far away as seven miles. Yet with every news agency out there covering the glove story, including me, it became the story. Now some didn't do it with the same enthusiasm as

5:18others who were sure this was going to solve the crime. But in the end, the DNA from the gloves pointed back to a local restaurant worker who's not connected to the Guthrie investigation. And this is the point where forensics has to kind of rescue people from our own certainty. Because the internet sees an object and it wants it to be the answer. But in real case work, objects don't speak, lab work does. So I reached out to Dr. Kenny Kinsey, a retired law enforcement commander and a forensics expert. Now you'll remember Kenny from the Alec Murdock case in South Carolina. But let's listen to what he had to say about this topic. Yeah, Mike. I got to kind of admit, I was a little bit excited when I heard about the glove also until my experience kicked in. Looking at it from a lay perspective, you think you've

6:21got the answer. And we, the general public, the media, certainly the citizens in that area. And I'm sure the family, you want to send up that flag and say, okay, we got it. We're on it. But in reality, you've got to look at those latex gloves and you've got to look at how many of those are used every day and how many professions. I mean, I think it would be safe to say that most everyone with the heartbeat has used the latex glove before and probably most of us have access to my biome in bulk. I use them for processing evidence. I use them to keep me from contaminating evidence when you just get that desire to touch something. Just as a reminder, you know, don't pick up anything and don't touch anything. I use them cooking on the grill. When I'm doing my marinade, that kind of thing. Doctors use them. The healthcare profession

7:24uses them. The sanitation profession uses them. So I look at the glove as a piece of evidence, and possibly the results of that could work into the totality. Because you know, we rarely as investigators, we rarely have absolute 100% proof of anything. So when I heard about the glove, I got it, me, but I got a little bit excited. And I feel like you probably did too. Most of us did because we're warning a certain outcome. But in reality, after the newness of it and the, I guess the shock value of it were off. I realized that that glove may not be the golden egg, per se. And the reason being not just the frequency that those latex gloves are made and the quantity that's available to the public, you've got to look at the type of evidence. And

8:33if you're going to wear latex gloves, you're going to touch a latex glove. You're most likely, and I'm not a DNA analyst, but I sure have explained it a lot. If you're going to wear latex gloves, you're going to transfer touch DNA sweat, that kind of thing inside those gloves, which makes us go, you know, yeah, we're going to, it's a very good chance that the scientists are going to get a profile. That profiles what you want. But I like to give people the fingerprint analogy. You know, when I first started with crime scenes, and I was reviewing and comparing, we didn't have AFIS, so we had to send it to a laboratory for AFIS, but we, you know, we always compared it to our top customers, and we were quite successful with that. But you get a 25 latent lifts from a crime scene, from, you know, deputy smuck Italian, and you start going through them in 24 of them,

9:39or just terrible. I mean, there's too much powder, too much humidity, no ridge detail at all in your lifts, and then you get one beautiful print, one beautiful thumb print, and it ends up being, you know, the deputies thumb print. And that's kind of what I compared this to, probably not a law enforcement officer, I hope not, but I can't say that I've never left a pair of gloves that I've had a scene, and I can't say I've ever, I've never seen first responders leave a set of gloves that a scene pull off with them foam in the bed of your truck, where did they end up down the road? It just didn't give me that warm fuzzy feeling after the newness wore off. If that makes any sense to you, and just another quick one, you know, the Air Force sneakers, one of the top selling, if not the top selling sneaker, you know, at least in my lifetime, and we used to joke about it, you never

10:44work a crime scene or rarely do you work a crime scene that you don't find that outsole design in a crime scene, in a footwear impression. And you've got to look at the millions and millions of those shoes that have been sold and the millions that are made every year. And I think that's kind of the scenario we're looking at with most of the time when you find evidence, you know, an extended distance from a crime scene, you've got to look at it in totality, and obviously they have, I believe they probably developed a DNA profile, but there are times when you wouldn't, if that is if it's degraded, if it's been exposed to chemicals or harsh environment, but generally speaking, you're going to transfer a profile, but there's another thing we don't think about either, and you know

11:45with DNA, as far as DNA is concerned, identical twins share DNA, but there's never been anyone found to share a latent fingerprint. So I don't know if they did it, it's something that we did, there are reagents and chemicals that you can turn that glove inside outwards, and many times you can develop friction ridges inside that latex glove. And I don't know if they tried that, I don't know if they developed a DNA profile and they've already spoken to that person, the obvious he or she obviously was not encoders. So you know, I think we wanted it so bad, we anticipated it so bad, we just expect to wake up every morning and see where there's been a resolution to bring some comfort to the Guthrie family. And you know, unfortunately, everyone doesn't understand it, I understand just enough to be dangerous, but I do understand

12:49with other pieces of evidence, that shell casing that's you know found a mile and a half away by that good Samaritans, and I'm not saying you would ignore that evidence, you certainly have to look at it. But when you pick it up and it's got grass growing high up, and you know it's not related to your crime a week ago. So you know, hopefully they'll get somewhere with it as far as the glove you and I both know with over 60 years of experience between us, that they couldn't ignore it. So hopefully it didn't send them down, rabbit hole somewhere, hopefully they've got enough investigators working this, that they can chase leads, and we'll just have to see where it goes. But it surprised me a little at first, until my crime scene mind kicked in, and then you just want to wait on some verification to validate your theories or not, and more times or not,

13:50you're going to hear the dead end. Well that's exactly the point, a glove is a glove, until time, location, pattern, forensics, all of it connects it to the crime. But until then it's just another object recovered in the search area, and this small example can show how we can get tunnel vision, not only as investigators, but as the public, and that tunnel vision can negatively impact our mindsets. The reality was this was a piece of evidence that needed to be included in the puzzle, or it needed to be excluded, which it was. It's important that we keep in mind that the search areas produce artifacts, things like gloves or items dropped by searchers, things the neighbors might have dropped, or the handyman, but it doesn't mean it's evidence of a crime. They still need to be processed, but they don't need to be reported, unless I guess it results in clicks and advertising dollars. So if the glove wasn't the story, what was the next big

14:57conspiracy theory? And I think this neighbor observation reported by Brian Anton, who I think is a great reporter, and I personally like him a whole lot. He reported that this neighbor, a neighbor of Nancy Guthrie's, saw a suspicious man in the area weeks before. Well, that's really great information, and that neighbor should have shared it immediately with investigators, and I think that she did. Now, Brian reported she had spoken to investigators, but when he talked to the FBI, they weren't aware of it until they checked their records and found out that yes, it was, but either way, it was the result of good police can't canvassing, or a neighbor who stepped up and reported something that they saw that was suspicious. Now, the neighbor described the man with a baseball hat, kind of pulled low, hunched poached posture, not dressed like a typical walker in the area, moving slowly, looking around. Well, I wonder, did she call the police then? This doesn't necessarily

16:03prove anything by herself, but it's absolutely an important observation that needed to be followed up on. It could have been corroborated with camera searches in the area, seeing if somebody might capture the individual where they could post in the image, validate who it is, and determine whether they were there legitimately or not. We have folks were talking about the evidence in the Nancy case where it can lead us and the places where it can drive us down a rabbit hole of nothingness. I want to pause quickly for a word from our sponsor. So here's where I thought I'd call Phil Waters and just get his sense on some of the current developments. Primarily, I wanted to know how he fell after decades of homicide experience. If you remember, Phil worked at the Houston Police Department. How he would have treated these pre-offent sightings, the corroboration that's needed, and how he would separate the interesting

17:06things from the actionable things. Because this is where people get tempted to either dismiss the neighbors sighting completely, or they turn them into a full suspect theory in their head, and neither approach is disciplined. Let's catch Phil's comments. Of course, ask them did they report this at the time? Did they have a deputy or an officer dispatched to their location? Did that deputy take any kind of action? Did they locate this suspicious person? Did they get them identified and so forth? And is this event documented?

18:13If not, and then it's information that's relative but can't be proven to be credible or not, I would go out and recalvest the area of where this report is calling in from to see if there's anyone else that may have witnessed or seen this suspicious person at the same time. And then, of course, you're going to check for ring cameras, nest cameras, you're going to check for video, for cameras, CCTV cameras mounted on homes, and see if this suspicious person may have been picked up because you have a time frame of when this occurred, hopefully, and take a look at it, and see if you get anybody identified as that suspicious person. And that would be a matter if you do get that person on a video of taking that back to your original report E and saying,

19:17is this the person you're talking about? Now, the danger here is is that you may have a caller who is simply trying to get involved in the investigation. And I think a good interview would be able to determine that and may turn out to be just a big nothing burger. And if that's the case, that's the case, but you still, the detectives must do their due diligence to go out and track down this lead. Now, how many times these types of leads end up being relevant, something that action can actually be taken in the course of my career, I can think of maybe maybe one or two, and we were able, they became very relevant because we were able to go back and pick up the alleged suspicious person on video walking through the neighborhood.

20:18So sometimes it is, and sometimes it's not, but that's what doing the follow-up, doing it in a thorough manner that makes this particular clue relevant or not. Well, this is a really grounded way to look at these kinds of problems. You document them, you test them, you look for corroboration. Most importantly, you don't marry the idea until it connects to something else that validates it. And frankly, I'm not sure that same diligence happened with the video footage that was reported a month after Guthrie's break-in, the one that showed the vehicle's traveling past a home. Now, in that situation, reporting suggested that the camera owner was frustrated because they hadn't been contacted by police. They were two and a half miles from Guthrie's home. I'm just throwing that question back of, why didn't you call the police

21:19and give the tip immediately after the break-in? I mean, I think the question, perhaps the criticism can go both ways. And in recent reporting, another interesting discovery was made that became headline news, that damaged utility box. Now, describe damaged first and foremost, because when I look at it, it looks like it was just left open, but NBC reported via Yahoo that investigators confirmed that they're looking at that utility box around the corner from Nancy's home. It could be connected, they say, to the reported internet outage issues that some of the people in the neighborhood, at least one, reported having. Well, this is where I think discipline thinking really makes a difference, because a damaged utility box can mean a lot of things, vandalism, routine wear, oversight locking it up after someone worked on it. And yet on the other hand, it could be

22:21absolutely relevant because of the connectivity has now become a new form of evidence. So that's why I guess I was a little bewildered that this became a news item. I did a little research because I didn't quite know for sure, but the wiring looked to me like it was telephone wiring, not fiber or coax cable like you'd see for most internet systems. Well, the home wiring systems using this kind of wiring are much slower. And statistically, fewer residents use that method of communication and connection nowadays, especially with coax and fiber out there, even starlink. But it's certainly a possibility, although it would seem like a red herring to me. And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this is excluded pretty quickly by police. But the question becomes, why do they become a news story? If you want a practical way to think about it, here are the tests that the investigators try to run.

23:26They might look at that box, they might look at the connectivity disruption, whether it happened in a timed manner or was localized or consistent with the damage on the box. Things like this should be explored before it's reported as a connection to a crime, which brings me to that Wi-Fi jamming question. Fox reported discussions around Wi-Fi jammers as a point of speculation after somebody had theorized that the item that was sticking out of the porch guy's pocket right here appeared to be a jammer to them. I don't know how they knew it was that not something else, but I want to be really careful because this is where we can slide into conspiracy. A jammer is certainly possible, but possible isn't probable and probable isn't proof. Most outages are boring tech issues. I mean, I have interruptions with my internet here at home from time to time.

24:29But we have to consider the hypothesis and test it. I've wondered though, if this predator was savvy enough to knock out the internet by going to the box, is this the same guy that would be surprised by a doorbell camera and then just rip it off the wall after he tries to cover it with weeds? But he did take some preparations here, Mike Kang. I mean, why is this become such a, oh, what am I going to do now? There's a camera. You know, Vinnie, when we think about the earlier imagery of him approaching without the backpack, and then the imagery when this occurs and we see him finding that camera, it really makes me kind of want to theorize more around the idea that he made a attempt to come up and see what the response would be to see if a motion-centered light might come on or something. When he came the second time, he came under the idea that he could walk up onto the porch undetected. And you know,

25:35it is pitch black there in Tucson. They have lighting ordinances that prevent street lights and other kinds of things. And so it is really dark. And I think we see that when he's approaching and how he's acting, that he's having a hard time seeing. I think it speaks also to what Jason was saying. And that is that I think there was a lot of fantasy involved in this. There was a lot of preparation. There was a lot of thought in putting gloves on and a mask and strapping on his sidearm and swaggering in. But all of a sudden, he sees that camera and everything short circuits. So this disorganized fantasy mind he was working from suddenly becomes disorganized and he's trying to figure out what am I going to do next. If he was, if he was aware that that camera was there, he would have had to come with a paper clip or something in order to release that camera so that he could get it off of the wall quickly. He would have done what you said a month ago. Why didn't he have a piece of tape to stick over this thing? And so we have to take into account

26:41that it also might be, we don't know if there was the influence of drugs or alcohol involved if if he's got tunnel vision because he's so focused on the prize that he's not seeing everything happening around him. But what is absolutely clear is that he didn't plan on a doorbell. And that's when we see him really start to fall apart. He looks pretty calm wandering around for the weeds, but he didn't plan on that. And everybody keeps getting kind of wrapped around the axles that there was a 40 minute time period that it was in the house. Maybe he wasn't Vinnie. Maybe he ripped that doorbell off and then he went out into the cover and concealment of night and waited for 30 or 40 minutes to see if a police officer drove up or if somebody turned the lights on in the house. So there's a ton of behavior happening here that I think when we get the answers it's going to all make perfect sense. I don't know. I guess I would have preferred this discussion to be more about the fact that there were reports of internet disruption and investigators

27:46are checking into simultaneous patterns of outages or outage confirmations and an interesting box that they discovered that was left open. Well hey folks, if you've been thinking about attending CrimeCon, I've got a special discount code down below. All you've got to do when you're going through the registration process is enter the word one word profiling evil and that'll get you a great discount. If you come to CrimeCon, make sure we get a chance to meet. You can come by my booth or you can catch me on the big stage as I talk about coercive control, the root of all evil. Hey, I hope I see you in CrimeCon in Las Vegas, Nevada, May 29 through 31. Our modern true crime environment rewards certainty but it also rewards dramatic claims and exclusive sources and that competition creates three major problems for police investigations. So let's look at those for

28:49a second because problem number one is the tip line overload and we've seen it in this case. It went national and they have got 50,000 plus tips they're working through. So those tip lines become fire hoses. One report in the case cited that there were so many tips that they had to put more teamwork into that. This is what happens in high profile disappearances. Now the majority of those tips are going to probably not be actionable but some require personnel, triage, documentation and follow up in every hour that a cop spends chasing a fantasy or a feeling that somebody had is an hour that they're not spending validating a real lead. Now the second problem witness contamination and I think this one is real. If a neighbor had a vague recollection of a vehicle but then they see the online post all day describing a dark SUV with a rack, well that memory can become

29:53distorted and people don't do it maliciously. It's just how our memories work. The more a story is rehearsed in our minds, the more it becomes shaped by the last version that we hear, not the original perception. So that's a big problem and problem number three is the offenders and the feedback because I believe the offender is watching and most offenders do watch. They watch the internet teaches them what the public thinks law enforcement is focused on. Now that can change the offender's behavior. It can lead to disposal decisions. It can lead to movement. It can lead to trophy decisions. It can lead to false communications like hoax notes, maybe even hoax ransom notes. And it could be a way of taunting law enforcement because they have this open audience. Hey folks, I want to talk quickly about how this can impact a criminal investigation with a

30:57commander from the Los Angeles Police Department. But first I want to get a word in from our sponsor. So I thought I'd reach out to retired Los Angeles Police Department Commander Captain Paul Vernon to get his perspective on how public speculation and constant media pressure can impact active investigations. I also wanted to know from him what he thought the one thing is that he wishes that the public us would understand about why law enforcement can't chase every online theory. Mike, that's a really good question because when a case becomes a public spectacle, it changes the environment investigators are working in. From a command perspective, the investigation itself doesn't change. Detectives still follow evidence, timelines, and forensic results, but the operational workload around the case can increase dramatically. When speculation explodes online, agency suddenly have to manage two parallel tracks. One is the real investigation,

32:01interviews, search warrants, forensic analysis, digital evidence. The other track is the information environment, media requests, public inquiries, and a surge of tips coming in. Some of those tips are valuable. Someone who actually saw something or knows something firsthand, but a large percentage are based on online theories or speculation. And those still have to be evaluated because investigators can't ignore them completely. You'd still have to make sure nothing legitimate is buried in the noise. Ladd evaluation takes time, and it takes people. Detectives, analysts, sometimes even supervisors, after review claims circulating online, and determine whether they have any factual basis. Every hour spent doing that is an hour that could have been spent moving the real investigation forward. Another challenge is focus. Great investigations are methodical. Detectives are building a case step-by-step, re-constructing guidelines, verifying

33:04allies, analyzing evidence. On the line speculation often pushes the narrative forward to quick conclusions. But good investigations don't work that way. They move deliberately because the goal isn't just to make an arrest. The goal is to build a case that will stand up in court. Public interest is understandable. You'd want answers. But investigations don't move at the speed of the internet. They move at the speed of evidence. The most helpful thing the public can do is provide firsthand information through official channels that allow investigators the time and space to follow the facts where they leave. Because that's how real cases get solved. Speculation fills airtime, but evidence solves cases. And that's the reality, isn't it? I mean it's not that investigators don't care. It's again that every hour they're spending chasing internet smoke

34:06is an hour that they're not spending on evidence that could stand up later in court. And the media presence around the Nancy Guthrie home is another issue that I want to just touch on because they became so intense that local officials had to put no parking zones. They had to try to control a better. There were complaints about congestion, trash, trespassing, just general disruption from journalists and from streamers. Now that should tell us something because this case has not only become an investigation, but it's also become an event. And when neighbors become a stage prop, the characters start showing up and the event energy changes behavior. For instance, think about how much attention that intoxicated man keeps getting the shows up at the Nancy Guthrie home. High profile crime scenes attack repeat visitors, summer legitimate, summer not, summer

35:07well meaning while others are unstable or simply opportunistic. Now they not only become a management issue for law enforcement and the people in the community and these repeat offenders who disrupt should be a law enforcement issue, not a social media turning point. So I want to kind of bring the focus back to the behaviors at the crime scene, the behaviors in the community, what's next? If the neighbor suspicious man sighting is legitimate and if it correlates with other data, then it suggests possible pre-offence surveillance. That pre-offence surveillance changes the potential pool of suspects and it speaks to organization, to planning, to preparation. So we have to think about how we're reconciling all of that with the bumbling actions we saw in the porch guy video. Now if the utility box damage proves relevant, then it suggests again

36:11an offender who either created the connectivity disruption or the exploited one that was happening and that too can lean toward planning or at least opportunism with awareness. That Wi-Fi jamming, I think that becomes more than speculation if it suggests sophistication but here's the nuance. Jamming can also be something used by criminals who just aren't that smart but they're using a tool that a friend gave them and told them works. Now it's not a guarantee marker of genius but it is a marker of intent to distribute and thinking and planning and preparation but above all these are just speculation and all of it makes me think about the psychology of what's happening because when we don't get the answers that we want our brains get frustrated. Uncertainty creates attention in our minds and itch that can't be scratched and the longer the

37:15question stays open the more our minds start trying to close the gap even if it means we start making up things or introducing guesses or half information. Damage utility boxes for example, Camina dozen ordinary things. There could have been vandalism, routine wear, they forgot to lock it like I mentioned earlier but it can also be relevant because in 2026 video systems, smart doorbells, routers and app logs can all become evidence and haven't we seen that from the recovered doorbell evidence in this case but when the public brain takes over anything that looks off starts getting promoted as a clue and it's not because people are dumb it's because we're pattern seeking machines that hate randomness. We hate the idea that something awful could happen and there isn't an immediate clean explanation for it. That's kind of why we

38:22almost breathe a sense of relief when we hear about a tangible object like a glove or a utility box or a camera. It's something that we can grab onto and we can hope that it leads to that aha moment that leads to arresting a suspect and most importantly to recovering Nazi Guthrie. But the media and social media creators know that a damaged utility box is also a headline that gives viewers a sense that the story is moving along, something's breaking. It gives people something to talk about at the water cooler or in the comments down below and I think it's all good because it keeps the story in the forefront of people's minds but it also bewilders me when it becomes the major news item and that's what I'm so concerned about in this case because when narratives outrun the facts we start getting confirmation bias and this is one of the most common

39:23ways that the internet can solve a case incorrectly and that's the difference between curiosity and conspiracy. Curiosity is going to wait for some linkages to occur but conspiracy it'll declare closure before the evidence ever shows up and I'd really like your thoughts and I hope you'll enter them in the comments section down below and before I close I want to just take a second and talk about the legitimate media people versus social creators because both can do good work and both can do damage. Legitimate outlets often have standards, editors, accountability and they can also become pretty dang competitive and sensational in their own right especially if a story is trending. Social creators don't have those same kind of limitations although recently we saw one creator who was sued for millions of dollars for just coming up with conspiracy theories. Hopefully that

40:31tide is changing where there's more responsibility on social creators than there's been in the past but social creators can surface useful leads like overlook video they can pressure official channels they can also become the worst version of the internet chasing nothing but attention creating nothing but fear and monetizing uncertainty. The Associated Press talked about that parking restriction problem that's what happens when coverage becomes an encampment and all this distraction can take investigators away from the real work that they should be doing because instead of driving the investigation investigators have to start responding to what the public's demanding for that particular day or moment they get pulled into press management rumor control and demands to clarify this or deny that so if we care about Nancy Guthrie the best thing I think we

41:36could do is hope for no more noise but a whole lot better information and this is why that neighbor sighting becomes so important because it's a specific observation that can be tested this is why the utility box matters because it's a physical artifact that can be examined and that's why the internet outage matters because connectivity forces forensic breadcrumbs if it's treated correctly and that DNA on the glove it matters because it's a reminder that the lab is the lab and the internet is the internet it is absolutely normal to have questions and it's normal to be frustrated it's normal to look at timelines and think why wasn't the camera found earlier or why wasn't that box examined sooner why isn't there an arrest in this case

42:37but our frustration doesn't equal in competence when it comes to the investigation sometimes investigators hold the information back because disclosure could help the offender sometimes they hold the information back because the case is still fragile and sometimes they hold it back because they want the right confession later not a confession that's been shaped by the internet's script you know the most honest answer to all of this is that really investigations are messy they are often slow moving and it's more likely than not the good police work is being done and this puzzle is going to ultimately be solved that's my belief so I hope you'll take a moment and share your thoughts in the comments section below and while you're there please spend a moment reading what other people have to say weigh in on what they're saying keep the discussion going because your perspective really matters and like I've asked before the only thing keep it respectful

43:41and we'll learn together hey make sure you're watching for profiling evil on Facebook Instagram YouTube Twitter and TikTok and if you like to get your true crime on the go make sure you're checking out profiling evils audio podcasts on your favorite podcast platform I hope you're downloading my newest podcast Gardens of Evil inside the Zion society cult we're in the sixth episode of a 10 hour series and you're not going to want to miss this we are so thrilled that we were rated number one by Apple podcasts worldwide don't miss Gardens of Evil and please consider visiting us on our website at profilingevil.com where you can check out our interactive story maps you can dive into other cases and you can sign up for our digital newsletter the Bolo Bolo stands for Beyond the Lookout and the only way you're going to get it is by subscribing through

44:41profilingevil.com website and while you're on the website consider picking up one of my books now my latest releases wolves and sheep's clothing and it was written specifically for true crime enthusiasts like you so if you live in the US I'll sign that thing and I'll ship it to you for free otherwise you can get it anywhere in the world through Amazon or your favorite bookstore and if you have any questions for me please send them to profilingevil at gmail.com and I'll try to answer them in the upcoming video I'm Mike King and this is profilingevil we'll see you soon at the next crime scene