Insider on rift with FBI - latest on Nancy Guthrie investigation - day 55

Hey guys, thanks so much for checking out my show. I really, really appreciate it. Please click to subscribe. Appreciate all your support for the channel. Today is day 55 in the search for Nancy Guthrie, which is kind of hard to wrap your mind around. It's now been almost two months since Nancy disappeared from her home outside Tucson in Pima County, Arizona, back on February 1st. I continue to be very invested in the story. I've got an interesting episode today.

First of all, of course, I'll get to the latest with Savannah Guthrie's new interview that has come out now, part two. I'll let you know what stood out to me with that. But also an interesting interview that I did that I'm gonna share with you in this episode

with a man named Dr. Carmona. Some new and interesting information about whether the sheriff continues to have issues sharing vital information with the FBI. And you remember I reported early on in the investigation that that was a problem. And I'm learning some new information about why that may still be an issue. And you're going to hear from again this this this man, Dr. Carmona, his name's Dr. Richard Carmona.

People kept telling me, you've got to talk to Dr. Carmona. You've got to talk to Dr. Carmona. He was a Pima County Sheriff's deputy. He was on the SWAT team. He was there for decades. He also is a physician and he was the US Surgeon General.

And he lives in Tucson, and he knows a lot of the players involved, and he has a very interesting take on the Nancy Guthrie investigation, and he has an intimate behind-the-scenes look at what he thinks about the sheriff and the way the investigation is being handled.

So I'm gonna get to that in a second. First, though, I do wanna play for you a couple of the highlights from Savannah's interview that just came out. Again, just like heart-wrenching the agony that this woman and that her family are still in and I can't even wrap my mind around it. You know, 55 days later, the fact that they still have no answers and the grace

that she shows and the strength that she shows in this moment to me is just totally, totally mind blowing. So I want you to hear her talk about how she has kept her faith alive through all of this. And you know, normally I focus on the investigative stuff and I'm going to in a second, but this really moved me.

How she has remained faithful through all of this and how that has kept her feeling close to her mother. Listen to this.

One of my mom's best friend told me that she had been going through a hard time and she said to my mom, how have you kept your faith all these years? Why losing your husband, all the different things that my mom had been through.

Nancy, how do you keep your faith?" My mom said to her, But where else would I go? I hold that with me. But faith is how I will stay connected to my mom. God is how I'm holding hands with my mom.

And I won't let sadness win for her. She taught me. I saw her grieve. I saw her grieve. I saw her world shatter. I saw it. And I saw her get up.

And I saw her believe. And I saw her love. And I saw her hope. And I saw her smile. And I saw her laugh. I saw her smile and I saw her laugh. I saw her joy.

I saw her love of the world and adventure. I saw her belief. I saw her faith. She taught me. She taught all of us. And I may not do it as well as her, but I will do it.

I will do it for my kids. I will, I will not fall apart. I will not let whoever did this take my children's mother from them. I will not let them take my joy.

Just, I mean, again, think of what she is going through and how strong she is. And when she talks about what her mom went through, she's talking about when joy. Just, I mean, again, to think of what she is going through and how strong she is. And when she talks about what her mom went through, she's talking about when her dad died. You know, her dad died when she was young

and her mom had to raise her and her sister and her brother alone at that point. And, you know, it just, the whole thing is, it's hard to wrap your mind around. And again, it's one of the reasons that I remain so invested in the case because I just, I can't stop thinking about the fact that this woman just disappeared,

that Nancy just disappeared and that there's no answers and how does that happen? And we all think about our own moms. And so it's just, it's powerful when you hear Savannah describe the way that she's handling this. She also talks about the not knowing, the fact that there is

no new information, and that there is someone out there who likely, not likely, there is someone out there who could make one phone call and could bust this case wide open.

How can someone vanish without a trace? How? Someone knows something, even if that something is someone's been acting strange for the last seven, eight weeks, even if it's just that. Somebody knows. And maybe somebody's afraid. And I understand that. But our hearts are in agony. We can't breathe.

We can't live. We can't go on. We can't be at peace. We can't go forward. We have to know what happened to her.

So hopefully someone will do the right thing. You heard Maureen O'Connell, the retired FBI agent and friend of mine on the show yesterday saying like, you know, she's a little she hopes that someone will do the right thing and call but at this point if the million dollar reward already has not tempted someone, you wonder what it will take.

But, you know, maybe if they see Savannah talking and hear her, the pain in her voice, it'll make a difference. So she's going to be Savannah says she's going to be back on The Today Show April 6th. So you imagine how difficult that'll be. And we'll just have to, you know, maybe between now and then

there'll be some resolution in the case. You never know. But I want to get to my interview now with Dr. Carmona. Again, he was a longtime Sheriff's deputy in Pima County. He's also a physician and he was the U.S. Surgeon General. So he's got an incredible, he's had an incredible career and he has a very interesting perspective on everything going on with Nancy Guthrie and specifically, you guys have heard me talk about before with the sheriff of Pima County. There's this push right now to essentially throw him out. There's a possible recall coming up where they want to have a special election. People are not happy with the way he's handled the Nancy Guthrie

investigation. And there are other issues too. They say he's lied under oath about his disciplinary history at his previous job in El Paso. So listen to my conversation with Dr. Carmona. Dr. Carmona, I really appreciate you joining me. Just for my viewers, tell me a little bit about yourself. I know you worked within law enforcement for quite some time.

You're a doctor, obviously, you were Surgeon General. If you don't mind, just give me a little bit of background so people kind of know where you're coming at this from.

Yeah, sure. My background started in special operations in the military, US Army Special Forces. And that's where I first started getting involved. Now, many years later, I had the opportunity to go to school. I came from a poor family.

It was a high school dropout and I got a GED in the Army. And ultimately I just kept moving up from there with more education. In law enforcement, I worked with the Sheriff's Department for about 34 years and I was a deputy sheriff and then the SWAT team leader for most of that time. I was a detective for a while, but most of my time in law enforcement was in special operations, what you'd call a SWAT team, dealing with high-risk situations on a regular basis.

During that time, I'd also gone to medical school and I continued to work as a law enforcement officer, even though I was a physician. And then when I was nominated as Surgeon General and confirmed unanimously by the Senate, I was still working in both jobs,

being a physician as well as being a police officer. So it's kind of unusual, but I love the public service side on law enforcement. And I also appreciated the opportunity to be a physician and ultimately the Surgeon General of the United States. And all of those experiences really were very germane to being better at the job of Surgeon General, where my job description was to protect, promote and advance the health, safety and security of the United States, which included

responding to all hazards, threats and dealing with law enforcement, federal, state emergency operations, all of those types of things. So it better prepared me for that big job of being

Surgeon General. And how long were you with Pima County, with the Sheriff's Office?

34 years.

34 years. Wow. Okay.

That's amazing.

So we've obviously been covering the Nancy Guthrie disappearance since February 1st. It's now been almost two months. With all your experience and your knowledge of Pima County and all the people that you know, where do you think things are at right now? Because there's some people always is a cold case. Are they close? Like what is your what is your gut telling you?

Hey, guys, you know, I was in Arizona for almost a month and a half. And my eating habits, they were not great. There was so much good Mexican food. And I found myself eating late at night when I would get done with work. So now that I'm back home for a bit, I am getting back into my Factor routine and Factor is the sponsor of today's video. Factor doesn't ask you to meal prep

because they have done the work for you and it's real food. Factor is made by chefs and designed by dieticians and it comes right to your front door. You literally heat it for two minutes and it is ready. That is it.

Lean proteins, fresh veggies, whole food ingredients, no refined sugars or artificial sweeteners. The chicken, the shrimp, the salmon, it is all so good. I absolutely love it and I think you will love it too. There are 100 rotating meals every week and you can customize them like the new muscle pro collection

for strength and recovery. So head to factor meals.com slash and 1050 off and use code and 1050 off to get 50% off your first factor box plus free breakfast for one year offer only valid for new factor customers with code and qualifying auto renewing subscription purchase make healthier eating easy with Factor.

First and foremost, I want to be clear to the viewers that I am not involved in this investigation. You know, this is a department, it's still close to my heart and I know many of the officers are still there, but I know what the public knows. So the thing that we're most concerned with, with an elderly lady who is on medication, has medical problems with this much time, unless there's somebody that is taking care

of her, it's unlikely she would survive this long because, you know, she requires medicine on a regular basis. So we're concerned. And you know, Savannah comes from our, her daughter comes from our community. I knew her when she was a young reporter in Tucson and would interview me on different cases,

interview me on emergency medicine things. So it's really close to our heart and it's just heartbreaking to see what has happened and then have the issue of the case being complicated by some of the challenges that are caused by the present sheriff.

And Savannah has now said, I don't know if you saw her latest interview, but she said, these are some new things that we didn't know, that the back doors were propped open to Nancy's house, that she was taken in her pajamas without shoes, that her phone and items and wallet, everything was still left in the house. What does that tell you?

Well, again, I want to be clear that I'm not part of the investigation.

Right, totally. Yeah, I just mean based on your experience, just as your opinion.

To begin with, why would anybody want to kidnap an elderly lady? Okay, so what is the motive? And so that's the first thing, why would this happen? And that requires an in-depth investigation of everybody from family members, friends, people in the neighborhood, the cameras that you've heard about so often. So it's not clear to me, because I don't understand the motive. And there may be more information

that has been garnered that would be directed at defining what the motive is, which then would be able to identify potential candidates who might want to do something like that, rather than just a senior citizen who maybe was disoriented and wandered. And we would get calls like that all the time. You know, a grandma who has a little dementia who disappeared or a disoriented person because they're taking certain medication. So it's not always a crime. And most of the time when you have somebody lost like that, it is not a crime. It's just that they have medical problems and challenge and you find them walking and they forgot where they are, you know? And so you bring them home or you bring them to the hospital.

So I don't have any specific inside information. I am very curious and I am, things are not coming together in the public with the information I know that makes sense. Why would you kidnap an elderly lady? The fact that the doors were open,

could it be that we have an elderly lady just forgot to close the door, for instance? Again, so I don't want to be making any guesses and it may be that our FBI and Sheriff's Department detectives are aware of some of these things, but those are the thoughts that you have when you're putting this together. Don't jump to any conclusions, look at the evidence, seal the crime scene. The things on day three that may be germane to an investigation that if you didn't keep the crime scene intact, you'd be corrupting the crime scene and they wouldn't be valid

anymore in a case, for instance. So again, I'm looking from the outside in, but I will say that I know many of our officers in the department and they're quite competent. They've handled complex investigations before. The FBI guys in town, I know them very well and I've worked with them over the years, the same thing. And so my concern was the distraction caused by the poor leadership by the sheriff, which created a story of its own at a time when we should all be focused on finding Savannah's mother.

That's the mission, not debating whether or not a sheriff is competent or not. The fact that we raised those issues are outrageous during an investigation.

Yeah, that's a really good point. And you know, initially when we started covering this in the first couple of weeks, we started to hear about the sheriff, we started to hear complaints about the sheriff. I mean, it became pretty clear when we came to Tucson, a lot of people didn't like him

and we were getting all that information, but I was trying to kind of not ignore it, but like you said, keep the focus on Nancy, you know, as an outsider, a national reporter, that didn't interest me as much initially, but then it just kind of became impossible to ignore, especially because we started hearing from our FBI sources that initially, you know, they felt like they were being left out of information, that there was this beef between the sheriff and the FBI.

So it did become more relevant. You mentioned, you know, people in the FBI, have you heard any of those concerns?

All the time, all the time. But even before this case, the present sheriff Nanos has very little support from the community of law enforcement. We have a couple of dozen law enforcement agencies in Southern Arizona, federal, state, local, okay? And most people would prefer not to do business with him because he's just not a good leader. And you hear the same complaints all the time from our colleagues, you know, he is very

volatile, he leads by intimidation and coercion, he doesn't inspire people to be better, which is what real leaders do. So people do not enjoy interacting with him and during this case that was, you know, I actually demonstrated because FBI agents who I knew had told me, he said, you know, I don't know what's the matter. He's not sharing information with us. You know, he sent the evidence to a private lab in Florida, and then he claimed it was

cheaper. Well, the FBI doesn't charge you when you're working with them and you have the best forensics lab in the world. Why wouldn't you use them? Okay, Because they, the fact is, is that we have a very good reputation in southern Arizona with ATF, DEA, FBI, state agencies. When something bad happens, we work together in a seamless system because some agencies may have more depth information technology that can help in an investigation. So we share that. And when we do a press conference, we stand together as one, as what we call force multipliers, working together to solve a problem. You didn't see that happen here. And so from the very beginning,

the talk within the law enforcement community was just that. People going, well, it's Nanos, what do you expect? On a good day, he doesn't work well with us. And so I think the sad part for me and many of my colleagues was that we are generating stories which are not germane to finding Savannah's mom. And that's what the mission needs to be. And all of the other stories, which are important when you have a sheriff that is allegedly incompetent, and that's not my words, but other law enforcement agencies in town feel that way, that detracts from what we're supposed to be doing. Every single shred of our energy should

be directed at finding out what happened and bringing closure to Savannah and her family. And with all the distractions, it makes it much more difficult.

Do you think the issues that you describe with Sheriff Nanos have specifically impacted this investigation?

Well, I would say I don't have any inside information being I'm not an investigator, I'm not involved in the case, but I would say yes in this way. It distracts from all of the attention being on the mission because we have reporters more interested

in what the Sheriff said or didn't say each day or how he has, you know, pushed away federal agencies trying to help us and so on. So I, that's where I think it takes away. I will tell you the investigators are great investigators out there. The guys I know that are involved, the commanders I know, good people, but the leadership has failed. And that creates a story of its own that is unnecessary and self-imposed because of incompetence.

Do you think it's gotten better between the Sheriff's office and the FBI as the investigation has gone on? I'm just wondering, you know, it's been almost two months. Do you think they're still having, I mean, are you still hearing from the FBI that they're having issues working together?

Here's what I would say on that. I think that the FBI are, you know, these are, you know, the preeminent investigators in the world and the lab and technology they have are second to none. I think they have been very gracious and diplomatic

in dealing with a person that has not been fair with them, and offered all the resources of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which were not accepted at times. So again, I'm not there, but the circle of people I know, there's still concern of how he's operating.

So not having inside information, I cannot tell you specifically an answer to your question. But the fact that we arrived at this point where we have to ask, is there collegial relationships between these agencies, right there tells me there's a problem. Because what the public should see is that we're working seamlessly as law enforcement specialists in this area to solve this crime.

And right now there's many questions that are being generated by the public as well as law enforcement agencies as to the competence of the individual who is ostensibly in charge of this, the sheriff.

One thing I've wondered from the beginning is, you mentioned how robust the FBI is, the resources that they have, even the way they were able to work with Google to get the camera, you know, the images off the camera when the sheriff initially said it was impossible. Why wouldn't he want to utilize them as much as possible? Because in the end, if they solve the case,

it still would make him look good, I think. I mean, he's still the sheriff, he's still a part of it. You know what I mean? Like, I guess that's the way if I were him, I would be thinking.

Well, if I were him, that's the way I would be thinking, okay, if we had that position. And it is really a conundrum for all of us, because we've worked with these agencies before. And we have a great group of investigators, but a lot of these agencies have unique capabilities, like the forensics lab with FBI. I think they brought in almost 70 FBI agents to assist in this investigation. And yet to have them shunned and not use them maximally is a bad decision to begin with. So it's really confusing for all of us. I would say that what we would expect to see is at a press conference,

not only the sheriff, but the senior investigators there, other agencies are helping, and have the public see that this is a team effort with people that have diverse backgrounds and experiences and technology that are working together to solve this crime, rather than having one guy wanting to be in charge and claim credit for everything.

What do you think about the Sheriff's messaging? Cause I think some people in the public are confused cause sometimes he'll say one thing, he'll say another thing even there's this January 11th date that we've been reporting for weeks that is significant. You know, the FBI has told us through sources

that they believe one of the photos from the front camera is from January 11th. And the sheriff just kept saying, we don't know why everybody keeps reporting that, it's not true. And now he's actually said,

oh, actually it is significant. And we do think it's, like, do you think that though, that mixed messaging confuses people?

Well, first of all, your question is germane to this issue. The public has to have trust in its law enforcement agency. You cannot lead without trust. And when you have a sheriff that has to keep correcting himself

and changing his story every day, the public loses faith in you. They lose trust in you. This information was available. He didn't understand, and I don't know why he kept making mistakes. But it was like when he sent the evidence to a private lab and was questioned about it,

and he says, well, I did that because it was cheaper. Well, but we all know the FBI doesn't charge you for an investigation. The tax dollars are already supporting that. But he would come out with these things and it was like below the level of a real seasoned leader. I mean, was he just ignorant? Was he being stressed and he just couldn't communicate well?

But the fact that you have to come back repeatedly day after day and give explanations of what you said the day before and why is it different, you're undermining your position and the public continues to lose trust in you. That is the problem. And it creates a whole other problem because now the people don't know, well, is this a good investigation? Are they really doing the right thing? You know, why isn't the FBI more involved? Why isn't other agencies more involved? You know, I remember the day he showed up at the basketball game,

and we had FBI agents from around the country all helping, and he's sitting there with his chief watching a basketball game, and the optics were so bad, because this was at the peak of the investigation. And you think, everybody said, and I was standing in that stadium with the FBI agents, and they said, you know, a regular person would realize that the optics of this are so bad, if you want to watch the game, you'd watch it at home on TV, not sit on national TV when the major investigation in the nation is taking place.

And you're sitting there with your chief watching a basketball game where all of these federal resources and state resources are being dedicated to this case. The optics were terrible. But then that, you then that brings up another issue, common sense. And it seems in his leadership, common sense is uncommon.

So you worked together for a long time, right? When you were at the...

Yeah, I know him well. I never worked... Well, I guess a couple of times we may have crossed paths, but you know, most of my work, as I said, was SWAT and a SWAT team leader. I was in CID for a while, but I never had, you know, working cases with him, things like that. And if I did cross paths, a lot of it was administratively when he was working in a job, things like that. But you know, he was never, he was okay, let me put it that way, but nobody looked at him as a leader of the future, in other words, okay? He was just

there and he did the job. So we were all kind of confounded when he was in the right place at the right time for him and became the sheriff, acting sheriff first, because there are, you know, years and decades of issues that occurred that would question why he would be in a leadership position. But again, it's an elected position. The public spoke, but I don't think the public really understood the core competencies essential to do a job like this.

Do you think anyone has spoken to him? I mean, like I just think about someone of your stature, someone on the outside of the department and said, look, like, you know, we've got this missing woman. The whole nation is looking at Tucson. Has anyone gone to him, do you think?

Yes, they have. I know they have. I've, I've, I'm not gonna give any names, but I've spoken to highly placed public officials, both elected and in holding offices in law enforcement, who have gone and said, hey, this is not going to end well.

You know, you need to get this together and trying to give him advice. But for those of us who know him, he is very adverse as it relates to taking in guidance from others. And I think, as you see, he tends to double down and as the guys jokingly say, he just keeps digging the hole deeper. And so I don't have any explanation for it except maybe ego. And then we find out recently that allegedly he didn't tell

the truth when he came over from El Paso, that he had left the El Paso apartment to come work in Tucson. That was years ago, but now we find out allegedly again, this is information I've read in the papers as well, that he was having problems there. He was going to be fired possibly, and there was some irregularities in how he worked as a law enforcement officer, which my colleagues at the county had told me,

well, had we known that he would have never been hired. So that's a whole other investigation now that's coming forth that undermines his credibility as a law enforcement officer.

Yeah, and I know that was the early 80s and times were different and there wasn't email and technology. But one thing I just keep wondering, I mean, that doesn't really make Pima County look very good. I mean, like how did they not, because when

you look at the disciplinary issue and eight suspensions and there was a lawsuit involved and police brutality, like how did no one know that when he got hired?

I have no knowledge because I wasn't here even here then. I came to town in 85. But what I do know is there's a process when all law enforcement come in. And so the way we do it now, and I don't know if it was done that way, there's a pretty deep dive on anybody even coming into the police academy. They want to know your background and before they accept you, there's a thorough background investigation to ensure that you are who you say you are. Did that happen? Was there fabricated information that was

sent? I have no idea. I'd only be guessing, but I had the same question. How did he slip by with all of these allegations from El Paso, Texas, that would have constituted a no hire, definitely, based on what we're hearing from El Paso.

And the fact that he allegedly testified under oath and was asked, have you ever been suspended and said no. I mean, granted, this was a very long time ago. But at the same time, I guess I'm just thinking about my own, the different places I've worked in different TV stations. You know, if I had been suspended, I think I would, it doesn't seem like something you forget,

especially one of them I think was a two week suspension and there were eight suspensions. I mean, do you give him any leeway because it was so long ago, or do you think he, in his mind, was thinking, I'm going to actually lie about this? No, I give him no leeway at all.

The fact of the matter is, I don't care what job it is. If you've been suspended from a job, had disciplinary action, you don't forget that. And with that many, I mean, if you had one bad encounter, you'd say, OK, maybe they forgot. But this is a record that so clearly the only thing that could be is

that he misrepresented himself when he applied at the Sheriff's Department, not knowing who did the background investigation or if it was done or if they just look at it at face value, well it's an officer from another department transferring and we'll just accept him. I have no idea. I have no idea. But the fact still remains even if it was 40 years ago, as far as the integrity of the person

who did not provide that information, who relied on an application to be able to get another law enforcement job. You know, because right there, that erodes the trust in the public when they see that people that have been involved

with alleged criminal behavior as a police officer don't reflect that in an application and then come in. And as I said, in my estimation and many of my colleagues over the years, he's been quite average and marginal. I mean, he wasn't a guy you turned to for leadership. He wasn't a guy that you trusted with anything. He just happened to be, you know, another cop. And it's sad that it wasn't picked up early on,

because I know that that would have prevented him from being hired. But like you said, years ago, I don't know who did the investigation, what the circumstances were, what paperwork he submitted. Did they accept that at face value, what he said?

Because he came in as a active police officer from another community. Today, that would never happen, because no matter where you came from, you would be investigated fully.

And just my last question, and again, I know you don't have insider information. I'm more asking you this just because of all of your experience. Where do you think things go from here with the Nancy Guthrie case?

I mean, is this something where years from now we're gonna be having another conversation and gosh, I can't believe still nothing or does your gut tell you, you know, that there's going to be movement soon?

Well, I can't give you an informed comment now because I'm not part of the investigation, but I know there's still a very active investigation going on, you know, determining motive, what happened, all of those things. So I think that it will continue to be an active investigation for some time, because whether it is looked at as an elderly woman who was disoriented and just wandered off into the desert, well, we should be finding somebody then, okay? Or if it's a kidnapping,

well, why has there been no input from the kidnappers? Because if they take her, it's because they want money, they want something. So, you know, allegedly, at least publicly, nothing, none of that has surfaced. So it's still quite perplexing. And I think that's why the investigation continues right now. And I, again, I want to emphasize, I think that the fact that you and I have to have this conversation in the public space about the competency of the senior law enforcement officer detracts significantly from, and it takes, undermines the public trust in that leader,

not the organization, but that leader. And it takes away from the energy that we should all be putting to make sure we find Savannah's mom. It's a very, very sad situation. But I thank you guys in the media for following this and alerting the public, because the faster we can get through this and clarify the leadership that is necessary in that position

is important. And without the press, you know, the public would not understand what was going on. So thank you.

Yeah, I'm hoping just by us continuing to cover it, you know, there'll be some pressure, you know, you don't want people to think everybody forgot about it. And you're right, there's so much we don't know, but I think we can safely say she didn't wander off because even Savannah again today said she could barely walk to the mailbox.

It appears that way. I agree with you 100%. But all options are open now because it's an active investigation. But can a weakened senior citizen who's on medications just walk away and not be found?

No, she wouldn't have gone that far anyway. And so it leads back to the thing that perplexed all of us when Nanos on TV says that he opened the crime scene. And we were like, how could you open the crime scene? That's not something a sheriff does. It's the lead detective that's out there that says we can open this area now because we have, in our determination, have made this determination that all of the evidence

necessary has been photographed, bagged, tagged, and so on, and now we can have it. But I remember watching on TV, and you see the pizza delivery man walking across the yard. I was like, this is crazy. Because normally you lock down this crime scene, and you have a logbook. Anybody coming in and out has to sign in the time and everything that says you have to justify the integrity of the crime scene because if you're going to court and you're

making a case, you know, a defense attorney says, well, that crime scene was corrupted. You had people delivering pizzas, you had photographs on the front door. How do we know this is real evidence? And yet he was the one that said he opened the crime scene and then he made a comment about reconstituting it and I was like, you cannot reconstitute a crime scene. Once it has been corrupted, that's the end of it because you have not maintained the integrity of that space that the detective said are absolutely necessary to discover any evidence that may be germane to this case.

But again, this is coming from the senior law enforcement official, the sheriff, and you go, what is he thinking about? All of us were just perplexed with some of the things that he said, the worst being, I'm trying to get the words right.

I'm not used to being held accountable for my words.

For every word, yeah. And we all- You're the sheriff. I mean, of course the media, we're gonna take you every little word he said. The biggest story in the country.

Most of my colleagues said, no, actually we want to be held accountable by our words and our actions, okay? Because that's where the public trust comes from. Right. So the fact that you would say that, Just, you know, and actually it makes us all look bad, you know, when that's the guy allegedly representing us.

So, you know, I guess enough said about that. Again, I appreciate you guys covering this and hopefully we can find something out and help with bringing closure to Savannah's family. Because you know, as I tell people, think about it, if somebody said, your mother has been stolen. I mean, my gosh, you know, what she's going to with her family, her children,

her husband, and you know, the whole family that's up there, you know, have been part of this community for years. I mean, it's painful for me to just see that anguish every single day. So I'm hoping we can bring some closure to this and at least help the family to bring closure. And I, you you know still a piece of all of us Hope that there's something we've missed that she's fine someplace else But being that old with her medical problems and limited mobility, we're all real worried

Yeah, of course when it comes to the crime scene. Yes, there's been a lot of People critical that it was opened back up We were able to go get video on the front porch of the blood and then then the FBI came later and they closed it again. Who typically is in charge?

Who makes that call? First and foremost, the jurisdiction is in charge. So this is in the county. So the Sheriff's Department has the jurisdiction. Okay, FBI is involved, but it's not yet a federal case. Okay, but the FBI is involved. So there's a lead detective who will be the lead investigator for this particular thing. And there'll be many people because you have some detectives

doing what they call canvassing. I want you guys to go to all the houses on this block and talk to everybody and get their cameras, okay? I want you to get a list of anybody who was in and out of the house the last 24 hours, you know. And so there's lots of detectives, but there's one sitting on top who is the lead detective of the case.

And that's the one then that reports up through command ultimately to probably a lieutenant, a captain, and then the chief and up to the sheriff. So they're the ones that say, we've done everything we can to be able to get all of the information necessary in this crime scene. And they define how big the crime scene should be. And usually when you start, you make it bigger than you think you need, because you never know there could be something, the house next door.

So you make it wide, and then nobody goes in or out except the particular investigators. And you'll notice they'll have booties on, they'll be wearing gloves because you don't want to contaminate it with your own presence. When it is felt that it is safe now to release the crime scene, that is the chief investigator, the detective that is responsible for this. It could be a sergeant, it could be a lieutenant, but a lead investigator that has the team and they'll let the sheriff know, okay, we're opening it up, we've got all the evidence we need. It was highly

unusual for a sheriff to say, I open the crime scene, because you're not at the crime scene, you're not the one knowing where all the evidence is. And this is pretty common across local, state, and even federal crime scenes. It's the same approach. You have to be able to state emphatically that this area we call the crime scene has not been corrupted and everything out of here that we think is germane to this case is pure and related to the case and not inadvertently dropped by somebody who came in afterwards. And we use the term bagging and

tagging. You find that everything gets photographed, you put it in a plastic bag, you send it to property and evidence, and then there's a log of all of the evidence that comes out. So there's a process. Everybody follows it that way. But it is all predicated on the crime scene remaining sterile during the investigation. Does that help you?

Yeah, it makes sense. So it's unusual that the sheriff would make that call

to open it up. I've never seen that before, that the sheriff or chief of police say, I'm doing this. No, you talk to the lead detective and say, what do you think, can we open it now? You know, that's reasonable.

But most of the time, the sheriff or the chief of police is not involved at that level. They're getting fed information as the leader of the organization, and you defer to the local leadership, the senior detective, who's making the minute to minute calls

on what is evidence and how it is bagged and tagged, and when and if others can come into the scene now.

But it's your understanding the sheriff

is the one who made the decision? He said that, that I'm saying his words were I and I can't remember the exact words something to the effect well I opened the crime scene okay and I and we all thought well that's not the way it works okay so again not having again this is hearsay from the press and I and his own words on one of the interviews. And we were all perplexed at that because we would rather hear that, you know, Detective A or B, who was the lead investigator, decided at this point all evidence has been acquired and now we can have the pizza guy deliver his pizza or the press can come and take a

picture of the front of the house. Those kind of things.

Really appreciate Dr. Carmona for taking the time to talk with me and appreciate people in Tucson for pointing me in the direction of finding him. Again, people in Tucson have just been so great. Like one person will tell me to talk to someone else and then someone else will talk. It's kind of like, you know, you live in that area this is yeah all of us are upset about this case but if you're from there and you're from that neighborhood it's like people have trouble sleeping at night knowing that whoever is responsible for Nancy's disappearance is still still out there so

I'll stay on the case again it's day 55 today it's Friday hope everybody has a good weekend I'm going to be going back Arizona, working on some plans right now and some new angles that I wanna look into. So I'll keep you guys posted on that. And again, I appreciate you guys for watching these episodes. I appreciate you guys for keeping the story alive

and hopefully maybe we'll get some closure soon. and hopefully maybe we'll get some closure soon. All right, talk to you guys later.