Nancy Guthrie, Kohberger and Nolan Wells — WHAT Went Wrong?!

**SPEAKER_1** (0:02)
This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Dre.

**Tony Brueski** (0:09)
Six months now since Nancy Guthrie was taken from her bed in Tucson, no arrest, no name suspect, a homicide classification, but nothing to show for it. Days ago, Savannah Guthrie posted the most targeted language she's ever used in a public plea.
Words that suggest something is happening behind the scenes that the rest of us may not be seeing. Savannah posted a video days ago saying, I know you have tried to do things the right way. Help us find her. Tell us where to look for her.
Why? Why this new video? That's where we're going to start this morning. We welcome your thoughts in the comment section on Substack YouTube, wherever you're watching us. Comment away, we'll watch for those. We'll begin our conversation here. Jennifer Coffindaffer, retired FBI special agent with us, along with, of course, Robin Drake, retired FBI special agent, chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program. Jen, you have been the most comprehensive coverage person I know on the Nancy Guthrie case. What's your take? Why this new video from Savannah pleading, I know you have tried to do things the right way, help us find her, tell us where to look for her. What's your take?

**Jennifer Coffindaffer** (1:28)
Well, I think for me, and I know a lot of my colleagues disagree, they still say these notes aren't real, they're not legitimate, meaning they're not from the abductor. That's what we mean by real.

**Tony Brueski** (1:39)
Yeah.

**Jennifer Coffindaffer** (1:41)
I can't find one iota of information that doesn't show they're real.
People like to say they're not real because they say, oh, it doesn't seem like what we've normally seen. Well, that's a pretty crappy reason to say they're not real. Look at the response by the FBI and now look at exactly what you're pointing to. Another response that I believe is aided by the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit related to the language they're having or use, particularly in response to letter 2, that is an apology letter, not really a ransom letter, they don't ask for money. And that's what I think the specific language talks to, because they're apologizing. And she's trying to say, I get you, you tried to do things the right way, and you still have a chance to do, to basically write this wrong.

**Tony Brueski** (2:31)
Is this a response literally to like the note from almost six months ago now, or do you think there's more notes being sent behind the scenes here that we're unaware of?

**Jennifer Coffindaffer** (2:44)
I don't think there's any more notes or any more contact beyond note number two, which came in on the sixth.
The reason I think it's coming out now though, Tony, which is a very important reason, number one, six-month mark, but she sent this before the six-month mark, really. The other reason is because of that Reuters report that just tried to deep-six those. The Bureau came back in their strongest of any retort we've ever seen written saying, no, we're still looking at some of those notes and making that crystal clear. Then all of a sudden on the heels of that, Savannah comes out and I think they're trying to reinforce and trying to hopefully reach somebody who knows who Portugal is.

**Robin Drake** (3:32)
Yeah, I definitely agree, Jen, with the language Savannah used, matching the language of empathy and tone that especially that second letter struck. I'm curious about this because I know other people are weighing in on this as well, because this goes to the original theory that I've been working on and that the abduction was Plan B.
And I know some, and that's why I'm curious about your thoughts on that, because the language used, and I know this is probably why Reuters, I don't want to speak for them, but others are saying that they're skeptical of the first two notes. Well, I think they're skeptical because they don't fit the mold of someone who's actually using her as the primary reason and way to get money. It was an afterthought because what they're hopefully going to do in there when sideways plan B because this is not written by someone who does abduction or has done it before or really planned it out. What are your thoughts on that? Let's see in the full notes.

**Jennifer Coffindaffer** (4:30)
So I still have not waned in my conviction that this was a planned, targeted abduction for money. And I think that the reason, the awkwardness of these notes, I'm very convinced, is they are AI driven and AI created with particular prompts probably from somebody who is not a native English speaker. So that's where we see parished and we see US dollars and we see the sentence structure of the time and the date that they want the money. And we see the R-E-C-E-I-V-E-D, received spelled wrong on just one occasion because AI gets confused. And so it went I-E. That's not what normal people do. People, human people, are there any other kinds of people? When we make it better, we repetitively do it.