Nancy Guthrie 2nd ransom deadline approaching

All right, Andres, thank you so much. I you're staying on it. Let's bring back in former FBI Assistant Director Steven Jensen. Steven, we're really working with you today on these different stories, but we're so glad that you are with us to give us some kind of context to better understand the investigation into the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. As you know, there was a Thursday 5:00 PM deadline on this ransom note. There was also a Monday deadline. What does it mean for a note to have two deadlines? When that's happened in the past, what might that indicate, and what does it indicate that Thursday is now gone? It's a really good question. And first, I'd just like to address, briefly, the nature of these cases. The investigators who are working this tirelessly are living this minute by minute. Those minutes, and I've been there, feel like hours. Sometimes hours feel like days. And so first, to the Joint team of investigators, don't lose hope. Keep pursuing it, that she's alive, and you will find that lead that will lead to her safe recovery. Second, the family, this is an agonizing case to work with, and they just want the return of their mom. The ransom note itself, I think-- and the investigators are doing a good job of maintaining discipline over information. The fact that we know there's two demands on it is unique. We don't know the nature of the demands that were placed, and it could have limitations based on how they want money transferred, moving Bitcoin or limitations on bank accounts, things like that. But what we do know is, they're treating this ransom as though it's legitimate. And in order for it to be executed legitimately, you need some sort of proof of life or guarantee that the people who sent that note actually have the victim and are willing to make an exchange and can show proof of life. That's a key component here. But Steve, just to follow up on that point, if they did transfer the money, we don't know how much money is being asked, worst case scenario, they lose the money. Is the proof of life critical just to not influence other people from being copycats and trying to ask for money? So there's already been an example of a hoax ransom note that led to an arrest that required or requested Bitcoin be transferred, and investigators were able to prove very quickly that that was an attempt to fraudulently obtain money from the victim's family. Knowing that there is actual somebody behind that ransom note who has access and information, details that could lead to the safe recovery, it's also an investigative step to try and identify who the perpetrators are. It's the family's decision how they follow up on ransom requests. The investigators are going to try and identify the subjects and safely return the victim.

So Steve, I mean, it's been six days now, just in your experience, what are we looking at? I mean, if they sent a ransom note and the family was trying to engage with whoever might have sent that ransom, why would there be no communication? Why would Cameron Guthrie, Savannah's brother, come out with another video and saying, hey, reach out to us, we want to talk? Yeah, it's another good question. And we don't know that there has there's not been any communication. We do know that there's very public pleas from the family personalizing the relationship and the human nature of their mother. They're using very specific humanizing language about their mom. And that changes the nature of people's perception, the subject's perception of the victim, in particular, that this is an actual person and they have human connections. That's very intentional by the family. And even if there was communication with the suspects, I would expect communications like this to continue. Humanizing their mom, pleading for her safe return, that is just good, forward-facing communication from the family to keep their mom alive as long as possible.

Has that proven effective, Steven? I mean, having that kind of language that humanizes someone who's been kidnapped, that actually works? Because I would think a criminal who's going to do this to begin with is pretty cold and knows how beloved this woman is. And then secondly, what do investigators, what does law enforcement, how do they counsel the family in terms of what information they should put in these videos, and what information they should not put in these videos? Yeah, two great questions. It's an ongoing conference and advisory. From our behavioral analysis unit at headquarters, I believe they're on scene. And our crisis negotiator team from Quantico, Virginia, I believe they're on scene as well. Partnered with the locals, they're going to give advice and counsel to the victim's family. They can advise, but the family can really do what they want to in this matter. Keeping information pure so it doesn't over disclose information that is only known by somebody who is at the crime scene is critical. Not publicly disclosing information that is so unique to the crime, unique to the mom, but only the mom would know or only those who have the mom would know is key to confirming the validity of who has mom. Those are the things that, I think, the advisors would be given counsel to the family. The family needs to listen to the advice they're getting. And as the days go on, desperation is going to increase. That's why I started with that message of don't lose hope. The family needs to maintain hope, and the more videos they put out that personalize and humanize the mom, they will feel that strong connection to their mom. They will have hope that she's alive. It will also generate attention from the public. And that's why the FBI offered a reward for the safe recovery of the victim and/or the arrest of subjects involved in this. It notifies the public that, yes, this is the sixth day. Leads could be growing cold, but their efforts are not, and we need new leads to come forward to the investigative team to try to safely recover the victim. All right. Some really interesting and fascinating details about the investigation there from Steve Jensen, former FBI deputy director. Yeah, Steve, thank you very much, as always. We appreciate it. Yes, thank you.