True Crime Today | Daily True Crime News & Interviews

Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance has produced something investigators have to contend with in nearly every major case: a flood of theories from people who believe they understand what happened. Retired FBI agent Jennifer Coffindaffer says she heard that firsthand during a week in Tucson, and she brought those conversations back to Tony Brueski and retired FBI behavioral expert Robin Dreeke.
At El Charro, a restaurant described as one of Nancy’s favorites, Coffindaffer says she questioned servers, diners and hostesses. She did not hear anyone express belief Nancy was still alive. One table of visitors from Minnesota recalled the Jacob Wetterling case. A man repeatedly refused to comment, while his wife had strong criticism for the sheriff. Two hostesses did not know who Nancy was. These are Coffindaffer’s recollections of a small set of conversations, not a representative survey or a conclusion about Nancy’s condition.
In the Catalina Foothills neighborhood, she says she collected five theories from five sources. One especially disturbing rumor came from the wealthy part of the area. Coffindaffer says there is no evidence behind it. She also drove toward the border to look at possible routes and has spoken about another idea she is not ready to share publicly.
This combined episode asks what those conversations are actually worth. A witness who saw something is different from a neighbor repeating what someone else said. An investigative hypothesis needs records, timelines or other proof before it can become an accusation. Coffindaffer and Dreeke consider how to filter the noise while Tony keeps the focus on Nancy Guthrie and the questions that remain open. Confidence is easy to find. Evidence is considerably harder.
Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod
This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
#NancyGuthrie #JenniferCoffindaffer #RobinDreeke #HiddenKillers #Tucson #CatalinaFoothills #PimaCounty #MissingPerson #TrueCrime #NancyGuthrieCase

In the Lindsay Clancy case, the jury’s verdict never arrived. The case ended in a mistrial, with eleven members favoring acquittal and one holdout favoring conviction. Now the legal battle has turned to the jury room itself: what did that holdout do, and how far can a court go to find out?
During deliberations, the foreperson sent Judge William Sullivan notes about a juror allegedly refusing to apply the reasonable-doubt standard. Sullivan questioned the panel about its ability to follow his instructions, repeated those instructions, and eventually declared a mistrial on September 4, 2026. The defense says a proper inquiry could have uncovered grounds to replace the holdout rather than end proceedings. The Commonwealth says the judge acted within the law and should not probe the private reasoning of jurors.
Attorney Kevin Reddington has also alleged that the holdout accessed his cellphone and looked up ‘altruistic filicide.’ The juror’s lawyer denies misconduct and warns against treating an unpopular vote as grounds for an intrusive investigation. On October 21, Sullivan rejected a request to question the juror and examine his phone and confidential questionnaire. At a hearing on November 2, the parties argued over double jeopardy and preservation of records. No dismissal was ordered, and another hearing is scheduled for November 16.
Tony Brueski discusses the consequences with defense attorney Bob Motta and retired FBI behavioral expert Robin Dreeke. Their focus is on the distinction between suspicion and proof, between an ordinary jury deadlock and a defect that might change the outcome, and between a defendant’s rights and a juror’s privacy. Three children are dead. The prosecution and defense remain sharply divided. What comes next turns on a question the jury itself never answered.
Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod
This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
#LindsayClancy #HoldoutJuror #BobMotta #RobinDreeke #HiddenKillers #ClancyTrial #JurorMisconduct #DoubleJeopardy #Massachusetts #TrueCrime

Elizabeth Holmes says she has never told a lie. Nathan Fielder hears it directly in You Can See Everything, the A24 documentary he made with Lance Oppenheim about the Theranos founder. Holmes was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy in the investor case and sentenced to more than eleven years in federal prison. That history is why her on-camera claim demands scrutiny rather than applause or a quick psychological label.
The film starts inside the home Holmes shared with partner Billy Evans and their children during the 34 days before she entered prison. What began as a chance to rehabilitate her reputation becomes a study of who controls a public identity after a conviction. Evans has power of attorney, uses Holmes’s social-media presence, and helps shape images of her for the outside world. He has disputed some of the filmmakers’ framing of that arrangement, emphasizing that acting for Holmes did not mean acting without her consent.
The sharpest dispute involves a meeting with A24. According to the filmmakers’ reconstruction, Evans sought a percentage of the documentary’s profits once Holmes stepped out to attend to their children. On camera, Holmes later insists she has no financial interest in the project. The film asks whether those statements can both reflect what each person knew. It also discloses that Evans ultimately gave up compensation, an essential detail in assessing the dispute fairly.
Tony Brueski and psychotherapist Shavaun Scott examine how repeated self-justification, loyalty, image management, and genuine belief can look remarkably similar from the outside. Their question is not whether a confident expression proves dishonesty; it does not. It is how to separate documented actions from the stories people tell about those actions. Holmes’s move to an Austin-area halfway house is scheduled for August 2027, giving the public another future moment to reconsider a figure who has never stopped trying to explain herself.
Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod
This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
#ElizabethHolmes #Theranos #BillyEvans #NathanFielder #YouCanSeeEverything #A24 #ShavaunScott #HiddenKillers #WireFraud #TrueCrime

Lori Vallow Daybell’s appeal does not ask the Idaho Supreme Court to revisit every piece of murder evidence. One of its central claims is about something that happened before her trial: a judge removed Mark Means, the private lawyer she had chosen, while she was in treatment after being declared incompetent.
On November 2, 2026, lawyer Craig Durham told the justices that prior representation of Chad Daybell did not automatically prove an actual conflict requiring Means’s removal. The state said the judge had an obligation to act. Chad and Lori were co-defendants in the killings, Chad helped pay the attorney, and the court had concerns about Means’s filings when Lori could not competently participate. The justices questioned whether the procedures were constitutionally sufficient.
The distinction is easy to lose in a headline. Lori was convicted of murdering JJ Vallow and Tylee Ryan and of conspiring in the murder of Tammy Daybell. The convictions and life sentences remain in force. A successful challenge could lead to more proceedings or a new trial, but the court did not grant either at oral argument.
At one point Justice Cynthia Meyer raised the possible price of success: the death penalty might again be in play if the Idaho convictions were overturned. Durham responded that his client understood the possibility, even as he said the legal obstacles were significant. That was a hypothetical risk discussed in court, not an announcement of a new capital prosecution.
Tony Brueski and defense attorney Bob Motta walk through Means’s disqualification, the competing arguments about counsel of choice and the stakes of the court’s eventual decision. This episode connects the extraordinary facts of the Daybell case with a much more ordinary legal principle: even defendants convicted of terrible crimes retain constitutional protections. The harder question is what remedy follows if those protections were violated.
Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod
This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
#LoriVallowDaybell #LoriVallow #ChadDaybell #MarkMeans #IdahoSupremeCourt #BobMotta #HiddenKillers #DeathPenalty #TrueCrime #DoomsdayMom

A single claim at a civil hearing has reopened one of the hardest questions in the Lindsay Clancy case: did her mental health providers receive a warning about possible harm to her children? Patrick Clancy’s attorney says she will testify that they did. Lindsay’s own lawyer says she did not tell them that—and has not agreed to testify in Patrick’s case.
The contradiction emerged during an October 28 hearing in Massachusetts. Patrick’s wrongful-death suit accuses psychiatrist Jennifer Tufts, psychiatric nurse practitioner Rebecca Jollotta, and their employers of negligent treatment. He alleges that inadequate psychiatric care and medication management contributed to the deaths of Cora, Dawson, and Callan in January 2023. The defendants deny liability and have asked the court to dismiss the action.
Their lawyers pointed to a Massachusetts statute that can limit a mental health professional’s duty to protect a third person unless specific criteria are met, including certain threats or a history of violence. Patrick’s lawyer, Howard Cooper, countered with an expected account of what Lindsay had communicated. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington then publicly denied that Lindsay had disclosed homicidal ideation to her providers or committed to testify. The judge took the motion under advisement.
Lindsay has also filed her own civil malpractice claim against a wider collection of providers and facilities, alleging failures in diagnosis, treatment, and coordination of her care. The civil filings are allegations, not findings. Her separate criminal prosecution ended in a mistrial in September 2026 and remained unresolved.
Tony Brueski is joined by Robin Dreeke, a retired FBI Special Agent and behavioral analyst, to discuss what can and cannot be inferred from interviews, patient records, family conversations, and lawyers’ courtroom arguments. The conversation asks whether information reportedly shared at home was also shared during medical treatment—and whether the difference controls the civil claims.
A pending motion does not answer that question. It determines whether Patrick’s lawsuit can proceed to the stage where the competing accounts may be tested.
Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod
This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
#LindsayClancy #PatrickClancy #HiddenKillers #RobinDreeke #KevinReddington #HowardCooper #WrongfulDeath #MedicalMalpractice #Duxbury #TrueCrime