New ransom note claims to know where Nancy Guthrie is — but is it real? Day 65 in the search

TMZ reported receiving another ransom note claiming knowledge of Nancy Guthrie's location and the kidnapper's identity, demanding half a Bitcoin. Both the host and retired NYPD Sergeant Joe Jackalone express strong skepticism about the note's legitimacy, highlighting the unusual public channel for such demands and a history of fake notes in the case.

The host states, 'I don't know if this ransom note is real. I think most of the ransom notes have been fake. I think that TMZ has overblown a lot of these notes.' (00:51) The note explicitly stated, 'I know where her body is and where the kidnapper is. Give us half a bitcoin and I will tell you.' (02:33)

The latest ransom note surfaced on the same day Savannah Guthrie returned to the Today Show after her mother's disappearance. The host speculates this timing might not be a coincidence, suggesting it could be an attempt to spark new interest or a reaction from the perpetrator.

The host wonders, 'is it just a coincidence that TMZ has received this new um alleged ransom note on the same day that uh Savannah Guthrie went back to work.' (00:37) He later adds, 'I think the timing is interesting that this is coming uh on the same day that Savannah Guthrie is back at the Today Show.' (03:44)

Retired NYPD Sergeant Joe Jackalone severely criticizes the initial handling of the crime scene, pointing out the premature clearing of the house, lack of systematic searches (grid or zone), and failure to utilize specialized K9 units like bloodhounds. He emphasizes these are basic investigative steps that were overlooked.

Jackalone states, 'I mean, there was no reason to let that crime scene go. I'll tell you right now, if that case happened in New York City, not only we would have kept the house, we would have cordoned off that entire piece of property.' (15:06) He also questions, 'Dava dogs. Why aren't we bringing them in? Why have they never brought back blood hounds?' (15:33)

The Pima County Sheriff's office is embroiled in political drama, including alleged beefs between the sheriff and the FBI, and the reassignment of experienced homicide detectives due to election-related conflicts. This internal turmoil is believed to have 'bled into this investigation,' causing lost time and hindering effective collaboration.

The host mentions, 'I heard from sources is initially that there was an issue between the FBI and the local sheriff's office, that the sheriff's office wasn't sharing everything, that the sheriff has this long-standing beef with the FBI.' (14:07) He later adds, 'the experienced detectives were moved out of homicide because of a beef with the sheriff and all this drama with the election.' (19:21)

The host and guest criticize Sheriff Nanos for directly engaging with the media instead of utilizing a dedicated Public Information Officer (PIO). This approach led to inconsistent messaging, damaged public trust, and created opportunities for defense attorneys to exploit contradictory statements.

Jackalone states, 'I just wish that the sheriff... would have just used a public information officer at the very beginning stages of this.' (23:37) He elaborates, 'When you, the executive, say something, everyone expects that to be the truth... Who can walk back the executive? There's nobody above you. That's why you have the PIO.' (23:08)

Joe Jackalone theorizes that Nancy Guthrie was likely not a targeted attack but rather a planned burglary that escalated. He bases this on the perpetrator's amateurish actions, such as not rushing to cover cameras, and the high-risk nature of targeting an elderly, immobile individual, which would likely result in murder charges if planned.

Jackalone states, 'I don't believe she was a targeted attack. Uh I think there was going to be a planned burglary and that this thing went bad.' (26:40) He adds, 'He did not look prepared... this guy was an amateur.' (27:00)