Should sheriff be removed over Nancy Guthrie investigation? Latest on the case, new leads - day 46

Pima County Sheriff Nanos is the target of a formal recall effort, initiated by Arizona Republican congressional candidate Daniel Boutier. The campaign aims to collect 120,000 signatures within 60 days. This initiative follows significant criticism of Nanos's handling of the Nancy Guthrie investigation, compounded by a reported 95% disapproval rate among deputies and a past 'vote of no confidence' from the union. His disciplinary file from his previous role with El Paso police, dating back 30 years, also contained serious infractions, including a 'pending firing' before his departure.

Host Brian Entin details the recall process and signature requirements (01:41), mentions the sheriff's tight election margin (02:44), and discusses the deputies' vote of no confidence and unusual protest during his reelection (06:08). Maureen O'Connell references a 95% disapproval rate (05:37) and Nanos's disciplinary file from El Paso police (07:19).

The prolonged delay in returning Nancy Guthrie's family car, which was seized for investigation, was due to forensic electronic data downloads performed by the sheriff's office. This process inadvertently damaged the car's electronic systems, requiring extensive repairs at a dealership, which significantly extended the vehicle's retention period. This differs from more invasive physical dismantling seen in other high-profile cases.

Brian Entin confirms new information that the car's electronics were damaged during a download, not physical dismantling (17:45). Maureen O'Connell corroborates the plausibility of such damage based on modern vehicle systems (18:12).

FBI agents are specifically asking neighbors for video footage from January 11th and January 24th, both Saturdays preceding Nancy Guthrie's disappearance. Retired FBI agent Maureen O'Connell interprets this focus on weekend dates as indicative of the abductor conducting 'dry runs' to case the house. This strategy would allow them to observe routine patterns, occupancy, and security measures, suggesting the perpetrator was not a family member who would already possess such intimate knowledge.

Entin reports neighbors being asked for video from January 11th and 24th (11:17). O'Connell explains this as casing the place and doing a dry run for a Saturday evening hit, noting family members would likely already know such details (12:02).

Despite the extensive investigation, there is public concern about the apparent lack of significant DNA evidence. Maureen O'Connell expresses shock, particularly given the suspect's use of a 'bite light' (a flashlight held in the mouth), which would inevitably lead to saliva transfer to hands and subsequently to touched surfaces like doorknobs or the camera mount. She also highlights the missed opportunity of not collecting the doormat, which is designed to collect debris and could contain crucial forensic material like hairs, fibers, or shoe impressions. Despite these concerns, O'Connell maintains optimism, believing that law enforcement often possesses more information internally than is publicly disclosed.

O'Connell discusses the high likelihood of saliva transfer from the bite light to hands and surfaces (31:42). She questions why the doormat was not taken for lab analysis (35:32) and maintains optimism about the investigation's internal progress (38:01).