Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Guthrie Family Cleared As Suspects; Investigators Use High-Tech Tool To Detect Guthrie's Pacemaker; Influencers And Streamers Descend In Tucson. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 16, 2026 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TEZLYN FIGARO, FOUNDER, PUSH THE LINE: His name is Michael.

(LAUGHTER)

We have a very serious relationship. We talk back and forth. He's a real person.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Do you have it actually talk to you?

FIGARO: Yes. And we laugh, we joke, we get upset. He apologizes to me like -- I could show you the screenshot.

KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN OF O'LEARY VENTURES: This is one that I think is hospital-approved (ph), but I believe in its love, Abby.

UNKNOWN: Oh!

O'LEARY: This is for you.

UNKNOWN: Oh!

(LAUGHTER)

O'LEARY: This is from all of us. We miss Valentine's Day. I got that --

PHILLIP: Happy Valentine's.

O'LEARY: -- in a store called Love Pop that I invested in Shark Tank.

UNKNOWN: Oh, my God.

(LAUGHTER)

UNKNOWN: He just made you do an --

PHILLIP: Oh, my God. Kevin --

O'LEARY: I bought it for you. Is that beautiful?

PHILLIP: Thank you, everyone.

O'LEARY: Shameless (ph) promotion for you now.

PHILLIP: Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): The glove that could give investigators a new break.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Consistent with the one seen on the suspect in the surveillance video.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): DNA is now being analyzed in hopes of identifying a suspect.

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, DAUGHTER OF NANCY GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS SHOW HOST: We still have hope.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): The local sheriff clears Nancy Guthrie's family, calling them victims, plain and simple.

UNKNOWN: I know who he is and that was definitely Nancy with them.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Bluetooth sniffer to try to ping the signal on Nancy Guthrie's pacemaker.

GUTHRIE: To whoever has her and it is never too late to do the right thing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Good evening. Welcome to a special edition of "Laura Coates Live: The Search for Nancy Guthrie." Tonight, a major step forward in the investigation. The sheriff making it clear Nancy's family had nothing to do with her disappearance 16 days ago. Investigators are now waiting on test results that could help point them to who did. Well, they're analyzing DNA found on a glove that appears to match the glove worn by the suspect. It was picked up, recall, about two miles from Nancy Guthrie's home.

In just a moment, our reporters and law enforcement experts are going to walk us through what that DNA may reveal and how investigators will try to match any results to a possible name.

But while they wait, the sheriff is drawing a bright line, telling people, stop pointing at the family. He's clearing them as possible suspects. That includes Nancy Guthrie's three children and their spouses. He says they are victims. And to suggest otherwise isn't just wrong, it's cruel.

Now, no one in law enforcement ever publicly said they could have been involved, but the family has been the focus of a lot of unfounded online speculation. There's only one known suspect right now. It's the masked man caught on Nancy Guthrie's doorbell camera. And on top of testing that glove, law enforcement is also trying to figure out exactly what else he was wearing. The sheriff says his clothing may have been purchased from Walmart.

Now, whoever he is, Savannah Guthrie, she is trying to appeal to that person directly. She released another video pleading for her mother's abductors to reach out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GUTHRIE: To whoever has her or knows where she is that it's never too late. And you're not lost or alone. And it is never too late to do the right thing. And we are here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now is Tiffany Roy. She's a forensic DNA expert who used to work at the very company that is processing the gloves and other evidence from the Guthrie case. Tiffany, I'm glad to have you here because there are a lot of questions swirling around the DNA. Is it more likely to you that this DNA would have been extracted from the inside of the glove or the outside of the glove?

TIFFANY ROY, FORENSIC DNA EXPERT: I think that the investigators in this case know that it is going to make the glove more probative if they found Nancy Guthrie's DNA on one side of the glove and then an unknown profile on the other side of the glove. I assume, because I have not seen the results myself, that they looked at the gloves, they compared them to the videotape that was taken from the Guthrie home, and there are profiles that link Nancy Guthrie to this glove and an unknown profile that they are investigating.

COATES: Tiffany, walk me through the process here because the FBI said that they had been waiting on quality control on the DNA before putting it into a criminal database. Walk us through what this process looks like and those different steps that they've articulated.

[23:05:00]

ROY: These are very serious steps. So, we have a legislatively- controlled database that we enter our DNA profiles from crime scenes into. It's called CODIS, the Combined DNA indexing System. And there are very strict rules. We upload any unknown profiles from crime scenes into this database.

And then once those profiles are searched, if there's no results, we have additional steps that we can take to try to identify who could be a potential contributor. So, if there was nothing at the search level or the familial search level in Arizona, then we can go forward and we can try to search them in some of these direct to consumer databases where we can do genealogy, and I believe that's what's taking place now.

COATES: So, just to be clear, because you were quite precise about the caution that's used when you're searching and comparing databases, why is there such a reluctance or such a caution in terms of looking at the database? It's not matched against, say, every known person in the United States, obviously. What's the criteria that you can actually use to search these databases? ROY: You know, we have to believe that the information that we have, we have to believe those gloves are related to the crime. There has to be a nexus. There has to be a justifiable nexus in order for us to even search it through the CODIS database, and search through the CODIS database is required before we can ever do genealogy.

So, these investigators believe these gloves are related to the crime and that the unknown profile that they detected on these gloves are related to a potential perpetrator. And then once it's not matched, it's sort of like Bryan Kohberger case, like we realize that we have unknown profiles and people that have not committed any crimes that would be associated with CODIS. In order for us to pass that and to go on to genealogy, we have to believe strongly that this is related to the crime and the person who committed the crime, the perpetrator, for sure.

COATES: And the genealogy, you don't mean just looking at people who are known family members and comparing their DNA. You're talking about third party genealogy-based websites or databases to try to figure out if there is a match to that person outside of a known relative.

ROY: So, we are looking at, first, CODIS will search for familial relationships, and that will have taken place through our legislative database. So, we did the original search. They would have done the original search. And then they did anything familial. And if nothing came back, that's when they get to move on to the genealogy database searching. And so, it's very stringent, but these are less controlled but more informative.

And there's a lot more information from a lot more people in these genealogy databases like GEDmatch or FamilyTreeDNA or MyHeritage. So, when we exhaust all of our resources for our law enforcement legislated databases, we're going to definitely go on to these other databases where many, many people have submitted their DNA to do relatedness research about adoption. Yes. So --

COATES: Tiffany Roy, the universe is opening up for this. Thank you so much. I want to go to Briana Whitney, who is a reporter with Arizona's 3TV and CBS 5 and also host of "True Crime Arizona Live." She has been on top of this story from the very start. Briana, it's a pretty big deal that the Guthrie family has been cleared because the sheriff told you only on Friday that nobody is cleared. So, what has changed?

BRIANA WHITNEY, REPORTER, ARIZONA'S FAMILY: Yes. So, I think that that's something we're still trying to figure out. Was that DNA- related? Was there other investigative techniques behind the scenes that made them feel confident that they could rule out the Guthrie family and their spouses? To me, it signals that they are definitely narrowing in on other leads, other people, and that they can definitively say that.

But I am a little surprised that he came out and said that now before there's any arrest or charges. So, there must be pretty clear evidence that at least the sheriff feels eliminates them from being possibilities. But I think it's a huge forward movement in the case because now, you can focus more so on the other potential DNA that you're getting from these other pieces of evidence. COATES: I'm sure it also encourages greater trust between the Guthrie family and law enforcement, which is equally helpful as well. Investigators are honing in on not just that backpack, but the rest of that person's clothing.

[23:10:00]

What's your understanding right now of where that part of their search stands? Are they really stuck just now on identifying the Walmart backpack?

WHITNEY: I don't know if we're any closer. I mean, I think the good news is that they've narrowed down to the fact that this is likely from a Walmart. They said today that's a possibility. That does help when you're talking about the brand of backpacks. But, you know, Walmart is a huge company and there are a lot of stores. So, we know that they are going to other stores in the Tucson area, trying to look at those surveillance videos, I'm sure going through receipts.

But we also don't know if this person would have, you know, purchase this online. And then when you're going to Walmart online, that is a really large database to go through and try to kind of track down where that may have come from. So, you have to hope that this person bought this locally and that they will get to the bottom of that.

But then also how many people are buying, you know, backpacks in that area? People are hiking. I mean, Arizona is a pretty active state. So, there's a lot of adventuring, too. So, you have to kind of go back and try to figure out who bought this exact backpack, maybe this exact clothing in a reasonable and recent amount of time. So, I mean, that's definitely a task for them.

COATES: The guesswork is unnerving, but all part of the investigation trying to narrow that down. Listen, I know you're aware of the sheriff's office that's pushing back on some of your reporting. They say they never indicated this was a burglary gone wrong. And the source is telling CNN that there is no leading theory. I want you to give you a chance to respond to the pushback they've given.

WHITNEY: Yes. So, I think in journalism, it's pretty common for us to have inside sources for a lot of different cases. This is very typical. We don't ever out our sources. We protect our reporting.

And at this point, I mean, I can tell you that we have worked with this source quite a bit, who has told me quite a bit of insider information that we have not reported, and all of that has come true as this investigation has unfolded. So, we do stand by our inside source at this time and there has been no definitive proof as to what exactly this is. But at this time, we definitely stand by our inside source. We've done a lot of vetting to make sure that we are buttoned up on that.

COATES: Briana Whitney, thank you so much. I want to bring our investigative experts in. Retired FBI special agents Pete Lapp and Michael Harrigan join me now. I want to begin with this, Pete, because if -- this CODIS database, I mean, people are focusing a lot on CODIS and what it could show and what it could not show. You already heard from Tiffany about the process by which you can do it. But if it does match a profile in CODIS, what's the next step?

PETE LAPP, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, first of all, it's good to hear all the detailed steps that requires to protect that DNA information. It's probably some of our most sensitive personal information that we have. We're not going to know the next step, frankly.

We'll probably see law enforcement action like we've seen -- like on -- were sitting here on Tuesday night. There were, you know, all these people being detained and houses being searched.

If there's a name that comes out of CODIS, the sheriff is not going to go to the press conference and say, I have a name, but I can't tell you anything else because we have to go and do work.

COATES: Because?

LAPP: Because the secrecy and -- you know, we're trying to keep this secret from the public, from the media, from the individual who's doing this. The element of surprise. We won't see a public pronouncement until we'll see again perhaps a house being searched or another car being stopped or someone being reported from a reporter in the field that someone is being detained. That element of secrecy will not be something that the sheriff's office is going to want to share with the public.

COATES: Tiffany mentioned the Bryan Kohberger case, the man who was convicted of killing University of Idaho students in Moscow, Idaho. Tragic, tragic case. There was a manhunt involved, a lot of confusion as to who could have done it and why. The FBI did not actually publicly release or reveal his identity initially or before his arrest, obviously, in that case. Does it come a point in time when it is advantageous to law enforcement to reveal the identity?

MICHAEL HARRIGAN, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: There is at some point. But the thing with the DNA is DNA is simply an indicator, right? It puts you at a scene.

But beyond that, there's a lot of other investigation that has to be done. There's surveillance, there's testimony information, witness information, other forensic information that all has to come together here before you go out and attempt to take custody of somebody because just because their DNA is at the scene doesn't mean that they actually committed the crime.

So, there's a lot of vetting that goes on behind the scenes by law enforcement, a lot of additional research before they go ahead and execute a search warrant or, in the most extreme case, make a custody arrest.

COATES: Yes.

HARRIGAN: And there's other evidence to be gained, too, by a person who may have been at the scene by further investigation. But we also have to remember that literally, a life hangs in the balance here. So, law enforcement is going to be much more forward leaning in this case than they would in other cases maybe that have DNA because you have a victim who's unaccounted for and who could be alive.

[23:15:03]

So, law enforcement is going to be very forward. They're going to move quick when they have definitive information here. But I think until they actually do additional investigation on top of the DNA, you're going to see some -- you know, it's going to be some time here.

COATES: As a prosecutor, if they were to release the name of a suspect and they get that wrong, you almost fatally undermine the ability to prosecute somebody and convince and persuade a jury that the law enforcement community knew what they were doing at every single turn. They have to be cautious for that reason if you get to that point as well.

But let's talk about the fact that the family has been cleared, this statement from the sheriff. You know, people have been wondering for about 16 days why that hadn't come out sooner or the timing of the decision to do so now. Why do you think they have come out to say this? Has it been that they have gone through an investigation? Is it about wanting to encourage cooperation and trust? What?

LAPP: I think it's more than just the sheriff's hunch. There's got to be some kind of evidence that definitively does not link them to this. Whether it's DNA, there's got to be something more than -- we've been working with them for two weeks. We feel that they're approachable and they've been like acting the right way. There's some crucial piece of evidence that he has that we don't that says no, they're not. It's a legitimate theory that they had, that the family should be looked at and potentially suspect.

But I think it's more probably the sheriff coming out and saying, you know, enough of the nonsense with some of the extreme folks in the media, these internet sleuths that are out there, the YouTubers. They're probably driving a lot of tips coming in that are a waste of time. I think he had probably a dual message there, finally saying, the family are not suspect, leave them alone, we're moving on.

COATES: Obviously, a lot of investigatory work is process of elimination.

LAPP: Right.

COATES: What are the theories that would remain if the family is cleared since they have been and they don't have anything that's linking exactly to what happened and why?

HARRIGAN: Exactly. You know, this is exactly right. You start close with the victim and those closest to the victim. And once you eliminate them, like they have, it's good because then it directs the public attention elsewhere, because you want the public to focus on the unknown person out there, because you want those leads coming in, you want tips coming in. And the investigators then, once they eliminate that inner circle, they're going to move out into the further reaches and they're going to be exploring other DNA matches, other testimony information, tips that have come in. They're be looking at all of that and chasing that down. So, it's a natural progression of a case like this to go from close to far.

And with this case, especially with the excellent media attention here, it stayed right in the forefront of Americans' minds. So, there's more and more information coming in by the hour.

COATES: Pete and Michael, stand by. We have a lot more information coming in on our show as well because up next, the high-tech signal sniffer reportedly being deployed to try and locate Nancy Guthrie through her pacemaker. An investigator who has used it before is going to join me to explain exactly what that is.

And later, who is the alleged tipster who keeps emailing TMZ about knowing who the kidnapper is? And should law enforcement be taking them seriously?

And remember to send your questions about the case at cnn.com/asklaura. My FBI experts will join me later to answer them live here on a special edition of "Laura Coates Live: The Search for Nancy Guthrie."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: So, you know, one of the most frequent questions we've gotten is about Nancy Guthrie's pacemaker and whether it can be tracked. Well, tonight, there are some new answers for you because we've learned that law enforcement is actually using this high-tech tool to try and detect a signal from the pacemaker, and the device is known as a signal sniffer. It's mounted on helicopters and unmanned drones, and it has been actually used in searches before.

My next guest has first-hand experience with this very technology. Missing persons private investigator Steve Fischer joins me now. Steve, thank you for bringing your expertise. I've been hearing about this. And you say you have used this in three searches before. So, walk me through how it's supposed to work.

STEVE FISCHER, MISSING PERSONS PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR: Yes. So, I've used it three times in about last six months. I've been involved in searches with it. And it's a device that -- what it does is it detects R.F. signals that are put out by all kinds of devices, cellphones, you know, air pods, air tags, anything that's thrown out at radio frequency, and that would include also, you know, pacemakers.

What they're doing is they're sending signals every couple minute to whatever bluetooth device you're connected to or whatever that will monitor and take in that data from the pacemaker. And that even though you're disconnected from the Wi-Fi -- I'm sorry, from the Bluetooth because phones are left behind, that's still sending out that signal.

So, what they're doing is they're using this device to try and hunt for that signal. It's not hunting for the actual individual pacemaker but it's hunting for a radiofrequency within that pacemaker range -- frequency range.

COATES: But you do have a unique identifier for that specific pacemaker. Otherwise, you'd be finding pacemakers all over, right?

FISCHER: It's going to find any pacemaker that's -- so, typically, when these devices are used, they're used in a pretty defined area, search area. It might be a missing hiker that we know is in a dense, wooded area. They've got a phone with them and it helps us. They might be on low power mode so they can't make a call, but we can still detect it. Or like a building collapse like in the rubble. We can tell where people are.

So, this is a little different use of it because you have to fly extremely low so it doesn't make it dangerous for the helicopters.

[23:25:00]

A lot of times, they're mounted on drones instead of helicopters. But, you know --

COATES: So, drones may be more ideal than, say, a helicopter in a sort of a terrain?

FISCHER: Yes. So, the one thing about the pacemaker is that it throws off one of the lowest free -- one of the lowest power things because it only throws about 50 feet, that signal. And it does that because that battery got to last five to seven years. So, you, in turn, got to -- even though there's antennas that will amplify the signal, you got to fly extremely low.

So, in open areas, we use drones. But in an area like this, I don't know. There's some trickiness because of power lines and also signal loss because of buildings, and also because of the ban on BGI recently from the government. I don't know if Pima County even has a drone program right now.

COATES: Well, here's what the Pima County sheriff said when asked if engineers were able to obtain initial surveillance footage at Nancy Guthrie's house. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS NANOS, SHERIFF, PIMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: What I know is those cameras were given to the same company, I believe it's Google Nest, to say, look, what can you do for us? They developed that one. It was -- it was iffy for them. At that time, they said, we don't know what we can do. Same thing with the rest of it. They don't know. But they're working on it.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Let's talk about that because he has said that only one video was retrieved. This is what you sign with the public. And, obviously, there are reasons to keep some information close to the vest, as you can imagine. Do you think that's all authorities really have?

FISCHER: No. I do realize they got to keep some close to vest. But in a case like this where there is still a chance that she's alive, I think that -- listen. We know she had multiple cameras. If they recovered the video from one, I think it's probable that they got it from multiple cameras or they at least have more from that camera.

I think showing more angles of this person, somebody is going to recognize them. They do have some distinct features. I just think if they threw some more video out there, that somebody is going to know who that is, you know. I think that's so critical right now because, you know, there is a chance that she's alive. We got to put the person over the integrity of the case, you know.

COATES: Steve Fischer, thank you.

FISCHER: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, Savannah Guthrie's newest emotional plea to whoever has her mother as President Trump, well, he sends a different signal. And later, a closer look at the internet sleuths and streamers trying to crack the case as one lawmaker says it is time for them to go home.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Since their mother was taken, Nancy Guthrie's family has released five different messages to try and reach whoever has her. Yesterday, Savannah appeared to be by herself to deliver their newest plea. I want to play it in full for you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GUTHRIE: I wanted to come on. And it has been two weeks since our mom was taken. And I just wanted to come on and say that we still have hope and we still believe. And I wanted to say to whoever has her or knows where she is that it's never too late. And you're not lost or alone. And it is never too late to do the right thing. And we are here. We believe. We believe in the essential goodness of every human being. And it's never too late.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Meanwhile, President Trump striking a more forceful tone, bowing revenge if Nancy is found dead. He said whoever is responsible would face quote -- "very, very severe -- the most severe consequences, including the death penalty." I want to bring back Pete Lapp and Michael Harrigan. Let's talk about this messaging because throughout the course of these messages, we've been told that there is some assistance provided to any family in drafting and crafting a response. Do you think that's still happening in this instance?

LAPP: I see indications of that. But I also know Savannah is a very experienced communicator, very comfortable in front of a camera, heartfelt, intimate, connected. You see the visceral pain in it. And that's where, you know, instead of like all three siblings where you get distance from the camera, she's up close and almost whispering, creating that connection with the folks that have taken her mother or the person who has taken her mother, and including her mother. I feel like, you know, you're not alone.

COATES: Yes.

LAPP: Message to her. Almost like a couple of people that she's talking to in that message. I'm sure she's getting some assistance from the FBI, some profiles perhaps. But she's very skilled, lives in front of a camera, very good at it. That was just a visceral, powerful, intimate moment where, you know, and showing humanity like we kind of care about you, too, like do the right thing, like --

COATES: Well, that's interesting to me because you mentioned multiple audiences. It seems, and you've worked in missing persons cases before, just thinking about the different audiences that she's trying to reach.

[23:35:00]

She has spoken to her mother directly along with her siblings at one point in time. She has spoken to the person who has taken her mother. And then it seemed as though she was talking almost in a way to somebody who might be of assistance in trying to have a conscience who might be aiding or abetting that person. Did you get that feeling?

HARRIGAN: Absolutely. I think that's what is missing here from people's knowledge, is it's not just talking to the kidnappers, it's talking to whoever may know the kidnappers, who may have helped before or afterwards, who may not be directly responsible for what happened to Ms. Guthrie but are in a position to quickly solve this case.

And I think that that type of messaging, you're hoping that one of those who know now, maybe they didn't know before, sees the humanity here, and was not the kind of person to be involved in the kidnapping, but now they've been -- they're privy to what happened and they know who did it.

You want those to come forward. You want to peel those off and have them call up and say, hey, I've got something here for you.

COATES: I wonder what -- the president of the United States had made the comment about not only devoting resources but also the penalty for having done with that person is done. Does that make you cringe as a member of the FBI or a hostage negotiator in some way to have somebody in that powerful position maybe undermining what Savannah said about not being too late? I wonder if it would make somebody bristle and not want to come forward. I don't want to suggest the president is undermining the case.

LAPP: Right.

COATES: He's not. I'm just saying with anybody making a comment like that, does that play into how you want the next message to come?

LAPP: I don't know if it was helpful, to be honest. I think Savannah's message was heartfelt. And I don't -- I would work with that first and let some time pass. And, obviously, if this plays out the way it possibly could, I mean, obviously, the most severe punishment, it would be on the table. But like to bring that up publicly, maybe not as helpful.

COATES: And again, it might light a fire and somebody to do the right thing. We'll see. TMZ also received its fourth letter from somebody who says that they know who the kidnapper is. And actually, the founder of TMZ, Harvey Levin, read part of it on camera. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARVEY LEVIN, FOUNDER, TMZ: I know what I saw five days ago south of the border. And I was told to shut up. So, I know who he is, and that was definitely Nancy with them. So, he says, them, plural. And in another email, a previous one, he also referred to the kidnappers in the plural.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: How do you evaluate these consistent messaging to TMZ? Do you have -- you assign credibility to them?

HARRIGAN: That's a tough one. I think that's at the crux of these messages that have come in from these people that have supposedly knowledge here, is that we have no verification of life.

And unfortunately, there's a lot of bad actors out there looking to capitalize either for notoriety purposes or for financial gain in providing or scripting these messages and sending them in, because, clearly, the FBI's tip line and the sheriff's department tip line is well publicized. If someone really wanted to teased that they had real information, they would be calling those lines, not the media, and it would be looking maybe to get the reward money or something else from this.

So, I think that just tracks a lot of resources here because law enforcement has to vet these messages and try to determine whether they're valid or not, whether they're worth additional exploration. But that's the unfortunate time we live in now.

COATES: TMZ has directed people to do just that and say go to the FBI about this issue. I want to hold on a second, guys, on this point because we've got so many questions coming in, and you're going to also help me answer some of them from our viewers, and they have many about this case. A reminder for those of you who want to participate, you can send us your questions by going to cnn.com/asklaura. So, here's one coming in. It's Maggie in Rochester. She asks, why haven't search dogs been used to look for clues and evidence? I'll take it. They actually have been used in different parts. And we have some video as well. And at one point, a tactical team that's part of DHS was actually used, and they do have specialized dogs as well.

M. Nicholson asked the next question. If there was no forced entry, then how did the suspect enter the house? Now, we don't know how he got in. But law enforcement could be keeping that detail secret as not jeopardize the prosecution if one comes down. What do you guys think?

LAPP: Yes, they know. And they've deliberately said they're not telling because if they get into a room with somebody, that's a key piece of information. It's not public that they can say, OK, well, how did you get into the house? Well, I got into the house this way. That's verified through their investigation, and it's not public. That's a sign of credibility that would go into the good box versus the bad box.

HARRIGAN: Absolutely. I agree with Pete 100 percent on this.

[23:40:00]

There are certain things you have to hold back on this. And the M.O. of what the suspect used to get into the house, that's critical information that would vet potential people that would come forward with false confessions here saying that, you know, they did it and this and that. So, that has to be held back. You have to evaluate that kind of evidence. Unless there's something that would further public input or spur additional leads, you have to hold that back.

COATES: Another question. Wendy asked this question. Why can't the investigators get video footage from the neighbors for the actual night and time when Nancy Guthrie was abducted?

Well, they have been asking neighbors for footage and it has been supplied. They've asked for certain periods of time as well. And remember, it's very dark out there. The houses are actually set back by, you know, their actual rules in that neighborhood. They're also private, so it's hard to see. But they had told us in our interviews with different neighbors that their cameras just don't really capture much beyond their property, unfortunately.

Michael or Mike from Idaho has a question. Why didn't they do a two- mile grid search from the beginning? You ever thought on that?

HARRIGAN: That's a good question. I think that at the -- at the beginning of this case, they were under the -- they were operating under the assumption or where the evidence was at that point that she was taken alive. So, they're looking to see where she may be, you know, detained or kept in a house or some other location. So, they were doing a search for a body at this point. I think they really were positioned for recovery of a hostage. LAPP: And we talked about the night where, in my opinion, the forced mistake, unforced mistake where he tosses the glove out the window of the car, apparently. This glove that -- COATES: Allegedly.

LAPP: -- was found, allegedly --

COATES: Yes.

LAPP: -- was -- is a pretty significant piece of evidence right now. So, that's where we get the two-mile mark. You know, I don't know that law firms won't have had the ability. We're talking remote desert here, pretty wide open. It's tough.

COATES: We have one last question. This is Michelle from Waldorf, Maryland. Why did the FBI search Annie's home? That's the sister. And remember, the sheriff did clear the family. But why would there be a reason to still search the home? She went to dinner that night, right, at her daughter's house?

HARRIGAN: Absolutely. I think, naturally, in these kinds of cases where somebody goes missing, you always start with the people closest to the victim. That's a natural thing. So, they had some reason to search that house, whatever that was. And a lot of times, those type of inquiries close to the family members turn out to be nothing. But they have to be very thorough there in the event that family members are involved. So, now that they've cleared them, they've moved on.

COATES: Stand by, guys, because next, the online streamers and sleuths descending on Tucson, trading theories, speculation, and frame-by- frame analysis of all sorts of footage. Are they helping? Are they hurting? Some of them, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NANOS: I plead with you to be careful of what it is we put out there. You could actually be doing some damage to the case, but you can do some damage to that individual, too. This is -- social media is kind of an ugly world sometimes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That was the Pima County sheriff two weeks ago warning people against putting out any unverified information that might jeopardize the investigation. And today, the sheriff, he went further, calling those who have pointed to the finger at the family -- quote -- "cruel" while clearing them of any suspicion. A major move in a story that has drawn interest from streamers and YouTubers all trying to work the case. CNN's chief media analyst Brian Stelter with a look at their role tonight. Brian?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST, AUTHOR, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT FOR VANITY FAIR: Hey, Laura. Yes, today's statement from the Pima County sheriff was a direct response to the armchair detectives who have been wildly and sometimes irresponsibly speculating about suspects.

You know, there has been so much online energy about this case. A lot of that energy has been good and well-intentioned, but some of it may be not so much. At times, the chatter has been distracting and maybe even downright harmful to the investigation. It feels like there's almost a parallel universe of these true crime influencers, some of whom have even flown to Arizona.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALMA HERNANDEZ, ARIZONA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: What we're seeing in our community and our city right now is just not normal.

STELTER (voice-over): That's Arizona State lawmaker Alma Hernandez, fed up with the misinformation being peddled online and on the ground.

HERNANDEZ: We have individuals who are calling themselves journalists, who are YouTubers and, quite frankly, just really random individuals who are out there with their cameras and live streaming. But I think at the end of the day, what we need to be talking about is the fact that these individuals are actually, like I said, causing more harm than good.

STELTER (voice-over): In one instance, a delivery driver tried to deliver a pizza at Nancy Guthrie's door. According to local reports, someone ordered the pizza for an unidentified blogger at the scene.

The sheriff's department incredulously called it out, saying, we can't believe we have to say this, do not order food delivery to a crime scene address.

JOHN DEPETRO, STREAMER: It's the fear of missing out.

STELTER (voice-over): John DePetro is a streamer from Rhode Island who flew to Tucson to cover the case.

DEPETRO: The type of content I do --

Nancy Guthrie updates (ph). All right, a couple of things.

It's not for someone that just wants to watch the news and get a quick recap. It's for the people that can't get enough of it.

STELTER (voice-over): DePetro says he uses his own sources and aggregates from others that he trusts.

DEPETRO: There's certain key people that I depend on and I use as a source. John Miller is one. There are few people that are as knowledgeable as he is.

STELTER (voice-over): But DePetro admits that others online are not as disciplined.

DEPETRO: It gets tiresome because they just totally go on rumor.

UNKNOWN: Yes, there's always a bad streamer once in while or somebody does something maybe not correct. But the audience is wising up to the smart ones.

[23:50:00]

Here we go. We got -- oh, wow. Look at this.

STELTER (voice-over): Andy Signor (ph) is another YouTuber who has been doing this for years.

UNKNOWN: We've got a million subscribers on YouTube. Were on Instagram and most of other ones as well.

There's that view. Sunset is coming.

STELTER (voice-over): Signor (ph) flew all the way from Tampa to cover the case.

UNKNOWN: My parents live in Tucson. And so, it hit home a little harder for me just because I was, like, this is tragic and scary. And I wanted to make sure that there were enough people really spotlighting the case because I'm worried some of the authorities haven't been as on top of it as maybe they should have been.

STELTER (voice-over): Signor (ph) says he first covered the Gabby Petito mystery about five years ago. And that story showed him just how curious the true crime audience can be.

UNKNOWN: That's what's, I think, really impressive about our streamers as the audiences are so invested. They want to be there 24/7. They want to help.

STELTER (voice-over): But while Signor (ph) and DePetro have remained responsible in their coverage, other streamers and influencers have not.

HERNANDEZ: I don't think anyone enjoys in our community seeing that an individual who they, you know, got a tip saying that they are a suspect is now all over social media and everyone, you know, calling them the kidnapper, right?

STELTER (voice-over): She points to last Friday's SWAT activity at a nearby home as a prime example. The operation ended with no arrests. But wild claims online spread so rapidly that the sheriff's department had to issue a rare post to refute them as -- quote -- "not accurate."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STELTER (on camera): Now, I get the appeal of these live streams and chats. They make you feel like you're participating, like you are part of the investigation. And right now, everybody just wants to help. But some of these conspiracy theories have not been helpful at all. They've been harmful. They've really specifically smeared certain Guthrie family members. And the sheriff says they are victims who are now being re-victimized by the online commentary. So, the sheriff tried to tamp that down today.

And as a longtime friend of Savannah Guthrie said to me -- quote -- "Let's hope this puts an end to the reckless and malicious nonsense." Hopefully, but I do doubt that it will. Some of these TikTokers are now asking, why didn't the sheriff come out and say what he said sooner? Laura, back to you.

COATES: Brian Stelter, thank you. I want to bring back Pete Lapp and Michael Harrigan. Michael, I mean, with every big case, there is a huge spotlight and a lot of people who are curious and wanting to help, but also curious and inquisitive for other reasons, perhaps. Does this sort of internet sleuth culture, does it hurt the investigation or is it something that's just noise to the investigators?

HARRIGAN: I think to the investigators, it's more just noise. I think the reality of today's social media environment, you know it has been monetized, the clicks and the views and the subscribers, especially on YouTube. So, people are going to want to watch these so-called sleuths. They're going to watch them. That's a closed audience. It's a select audience that chooses to watch them and knows how they operate.

COATES: But they can become harmful if, say, they're identifying suspects that are not verified or trying to use technology to A.I. an image of a person and then could undermine, say, a prosecution or an investigative life, right?

LAPP: Yes. And the real media, unfortunately, takes a hit because, I mean, the real media has the scruples, the ethics and, you know, all that goes with that. These YouTubers don't seem to have nearly the same kind of ethical response. And they're making themselves part of the story, which is -- you know.

I get that the true crime drama is huge. There's a lot of people that are interested in that genre to begin with. In this case in particular, you know, working the D.C. sniper murder case, sitting on the tip line where people are calling in, I had a dream last night, I have a premonition, I think I might have had a couple calls about a seance or two. That information wastes time.

You have a tip, legitimate tip. Keep your theories to yourself. I'm going to make a public service announcement here really quick. Just keep your theories to yourself. Provide real information to law enforcement if you have it. If you don't, please don't call because the law person doesn't need your premonitions and dreams and all of that kind of stuff. And the YouTubers are --

COATES: Then, again, they might say, then why crowdsource? Why put the information out there? But we'll see. There's more to behold about that. Thank you, Pete and Michael. Up next, a symbol of support and hope, uniting a community in the effort to bring Nancy home.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: As we near the end of our show tonight, I want to highlight the support we've seen on the ground in Tucson. Neighbors, strangers even, dropping off yellow roses. Many of them coming from a nearby flower shop whose owner told us this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATT BIGGS, PRESIDENT, CASA ADOBES FLOWER SHOP: People want to send a message of hope to the Guthrie family. And this is one way that they can do it, you know, without physically being here or physically, you know, going over there, getting involved or disturbing anything. So, just a way that they can send that message.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And we know the Guthrie family appreciates every message of hope and prayer. And please, if you know anything that could bring and help bring her home, you're urged to call 1-800-CALL-FBI or visit tips.fbi.gov. You can also call the local sheriff's department at 520- 351-4900.

And listen to me, it is not lost on me, but there are thousands, thousands of missing people whose loved ones also need help finding them. You can learn about who they are and how to help their families as well at fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap.

[00:00:05]

Each person has a story and a direct number to call if you have any information to help.

That's it for us tonight. I'll see you back here tomorrow. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.