What To Know
- Investigative reporter Brian Entin believes DNA evidence, particularly a stranger’s DNA found in Nancy Guthrie’s home, may be crucial to solving her disappearance.
- Forensics expert April Stonehouse notes that despite suspects’ efforts to avoid leaving DNA, traces are often left behind and DNA processing in this case has been moving rapidly.
- Both Entin and Stonehouse are optimistic that DNA analysis will be key, citing past cases where even small DNA samples have cracked major investigations.
It’s been a month and a half now since Nancy Guthrie, mother of Today co-anchor Savannah Guthrie, disappeared from her home in Pima County, Arizona. And investigative reporter Brian Entin, who has been covering the story at the scene almost since day one, says it’ll likely be DNA that solves the mystery.
“I really believe, at the end of the day, DNA is what may crack this case,” Entin said in Friday’s episode of Brian Entin Investigates. “The DNA is important — obviously, with any case, but especially with this case — because it doesn’t seem like there’s been a lot of other solid leads. And remember, the big piece of DNA, that I think is going to end up being the most important, is the DNA that was found in Nancy’s home … is a stranger’s DNA, so it could be the suspect’s DNA.”
In Friday’s episode of his show, Entin spoke with April Stonehouse, a professor of practice at Arizona State University’s School of Interdisciplinary Forensics.
“I would be hopeful that [investigators] found at least a few items of evidence because, by virtue of the fact [the suspect is] in a home he doesn’t belong in, he is going to leave some of his DNA behind,” Stonehouse said. “Now, he’s obviously taking measures to try and avoid leaving his DNA behind. He’s wearing gloves. He’s wearing a mask. But we know scientifically that they will leave behind traces of their DNA. It’s just a matter of locating it and finding it.”
And Stonehouse said that the DNA processing has “actually been moving at a very rapid pace,” pointing to the confirmation that blood found at Nancy’s residence was hers.
“They ran that blood immediately,” she said. “When that all came back to match the victim, then they found themselves in the position of having to go back and submit additional items of evidence for testing. And so when they worked the blood, they wouldn’t have known what the results were until they actually got the results back. … It’s part of this process of working items, seeing what the results are, and then if the results aren’t helpful, working more items of evidence to try and advance the investigation.”
Like Entin, Stonehouse is hopeful that DNA cracks the Nancy Guthrie case. She told Entin that in 2006, she worked on the case of an unidentified woman murdered in Pima County in 1981. “And the DNA in that case single-handedly made the difference in figuring out her identity and who had perpetrated that crime,” she said. “And so yes, DNA, and to your point about if DNA is left behind, yes, it could be left behind in very, very small quantities. Sometimes half the battle is just finding where it’s located.”
