True Crime Today | Daily True Crime News & Interviews

Eighteen thousand tips. But someone out there still hasn't called.
A neighbor who saw something. A coworker who's noticed something off. A family member protecting someone. A friend who heard something and told themselves it was nothing. The tip that breaks the Nancy Guthrie case is probably sitting in someone's head right now — and they haven't made the call.
Former FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke spent his career getting people to talk. He served as Chief of the Bureau's Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program. He recruited spies. He built trust with people who had every reason to stay silent. He knows why people hold back — and what finally opens them up.
In this interview, Dreeke breaks down witness psychology. The different reasons people don't call. The person who doesn't realize what they know is important. The person scared of the spotlight. The person protecting someone they love. Each barrier is different. Each requires a different approach.
What makes someone finally break their silence? What tips the scale from protection to confession? How do investigators reach the person who has information but hasn't connected it to this case?
Dreeke speaks directly to whoever's out there with a piece of this puzzle. What would it take to get them to call today?
#NancyGuthrie #RobinDreeke #TrueCrimeToday #WitnessPsychology #TipLine #FBISpyRecruiter #SavannahGuthrie #WhyPeopleDontTalk #MissingPerson #FBIExpert
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod
Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872
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.

Former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney Eric Faddis delivers in-depth legal analysis on two high-profile cases — the Alex Murdaugh Supreme Court oral arguments and the Nancy Guthrie kidnapping investigation. During the Murdaugh hearing, the justices came in hot, pressing the state on Becky Hill’s perjury conviction, the jury tampering standard Judge Toal applied, and the broad admission of financial crime evidence under Rule 404(b). Chief Justice Kittredge described the corroboration of the tampering claims as “striking,” while Justice Few questioned how the state could continue defending Hill’s credibility. 
Defense attorney Jim Griffin emphasized the lack of direct evidence — no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, no biological transfer. Faddis outlines three potential outcomes and explains why a federal appeal could be on the horizon no matter how the court rules. In the Guthrie case, he details eleven days of documented investigative missteps by the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, including the early release of the crime scene, a grounded thermal imaging aircraft, a ten-day delay in surveillance footage later recovered by the FBI, and the family’s decision to communicate with alleged kidnappers through Instagram. Prosecutors point to a forty-one-minute pacemaker window as the backbone of the forensic timeline, but connecting that timeline to a specific defendant remains a challenge. Faddis breaks down what must happen next in both cases. 
#AlexMurdaugh #NancyGuthrie #MurdaughSupremeCourt #EricFaddis #BeckyHillPerjury #GuthrieKidnapping #SheriffNanos #Rule404b #MurdaughCase #TrueCrimeAnalysis
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod
Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872
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.

Cameras on every doorbell. GPS tracking in every phone. Digital footprints everywhere. We assume the surveillance world we live in makes vanishing impossible.
Nancy Guthrie proves otherwise.
Twelve days into this investigation. More than a hundred investigators. FBI resources deployed. Eighteen thousand tips. And an eighty-four-year-old woman with a doorbell camera, a pacemaker app, and family nearby is gone without a trace. No vehicle of interest. No named suspects. Nothing.
Former FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke spent twenty-one years in counterintelligence — a world where people professionally try to avoid detection. He served as Chief of the Bureau's Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program. He knows the blind spots because he spent his career watching people exploit them.
In this interview, Dreeke confronts the question this case demands: how does someone vanish in 2026? What are the gaps in the surveillance architecture we trust? What would an extraction from a home like Nancy's actually require? And what does this case reveal about the difference between the security we think we have and the security that actually exists?
We're told you can't disappear anymore. This case says otherwise.
#NancyGuthrie #RobinDreeke #TrueCrimeToday #HowToDisappear #SurveillanceGaps #FBIExpert #SavannahGuthrie #MissingPerson #CatalinaFoothills #DigitalFootprint
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod
Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872
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.

Did the South Carolina Supreme Court just tip its hand in Alex Murdaugh’s double murder appeal? During oral arguments, the justices came armed with pointed, highly specific questions — and most of the heat was directed at the prosecution. Criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down what stood out and what it could signal.
Justice James immediately focused on the “egg juror” affidavit that Justice Toal excluded from the evidentiary hearing. Chief Justice Kittredge described the corroboration between jurors and independent witnesses regarding Becky Hill’s alleged conduct as “striking,” noting that Toal’s order never addressed claims Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh. The defense maintains Toal applied the wrong legal standard — and based on today’s exchange, several justices appeared open to that argument.
Hill’s subsequent perjury conviction, which occurred after Toal’s ruling, loomed large over the discussion. Justice Few challenged the state’s characterization of Hill as “not completely credible,” pointing out the obvious tension in relying on a convicted perjurer. On evidentiary issues, Kittredge pushed back on the state’s use of Rule 404(b), emphasizing that the rule is designed to limit other-acts evidence, not automatically admit it. He suggested the trial court may have allowed sweeping financial crime testimony without meaningful boundaries.
Defense attorney Jim Griffin reiterated that the state’s case lacked direct evidence — no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, no biological transfer linking Murdaugh to the killings. If the financial evidence is ultimately deemed improperly admitted, the prosecution’s case could narrow significantly. Faddis outlines three possible outcomes and explains why, regardless of the state court’s decision, a federal appeal may be next.
 #AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughHearing #SupremeCourt #BeckyHillPerjury #EricFaddis #JusticeKittredge #CreightonWaters #404bEvidence #MurdaughCase #NewTrialMurdaugh
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod
Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872
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.

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Alex Murdaugh's appeal today, and Creighton Waters had a rough morning. From the opening moments, the five justices made clear they had serious questions about both the jury tampering ruling and the evidentiary decisions at trial. Justice George James immediately asked whether the court could consider the egg juror's affidavit — the juror Justice Toal refused to let testify in 2024. Harpootlian told the court he couldn't explain why she was excluded. On the Becky Hill issue, Chief Justice Kittredge pointed out that Toal's order didn't even mention the allegation that Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony, and that corroboration between juror accounts and an independent witness was striking. Justice Few asked Waters how you call someone not completely credible when she's now a convicted perjurer. The second phase turned to evidentiary errors, where Jim Griffin argued five categories of trial court mistakes. Kittredge told Waters that South Carolina's Rule 404(b) is a rule of exclusion, not inclusion, and that the gate was left wide open for financial crimes evidence — he couldn't find a single piece that was kept out. 
Waters tried to use a Fargo movie reference to illustrate financial motive and Justice Few shut him down. Defense attorney Phillip Barber argued in rebuttal that the financial evidence was used to paint Murdaugh as a person capable of anything rather than to prove motive. The court took the case under advisement. A decision could come within 60 days. The three possible outcomes: affirm the conviction, order a new trial, or remand for further proceedings. Today's hearing laid bare the fault lines in this case.
#MurdaughTrial #AlexMurdaugh #OralArguments #BeckyHill #CreightonWaters #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #JuryTampering #TrueCrimeToday #NewTrial #TrueCrime
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod
Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872
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.