Community Chat

[Linmo]

My glass has always been half-full.  But every day that goes by, I feel less and less hopeful that Nancy is still with us.  I hope that there is resolution one way or another.  Her family, like others in the past,  should not have to suffer like this.  

[Mom2Dogs]

From what I understand the DNA should have been handled by the FBI but the sheriff wanted to use the lab in Florida...so now the DNA is compromised and might not be usable by the FBI lab..big fail on the part of the sheriff.

[JeanLouiseFinch]

My random thoughts this morning...

What I heard about the house samples sent to Florida is that they are mixed (from Nancy's).  If they could extract Nancy's DNA, they could narrow down where the other DNA came from, but it's looking like none of Nancy's is in the house samples, suggesting there could have been more than one person involved, but it could also mean some of the mix belonged to someone else who was invited in (friend, delivery person, worker, or even package transfer).  If Nancy's can't be extracted, they are working with 100% unknown DNA and that makes it practically impossible to ID anyone. 

It seems the presence of onsite newsies is lessening.  There's still a fair amount left but some have packed up.  The neighbors have apparently complained so the police have restricted parking and set up temporary road/traffic signs.  Probably should have done that sooner.

Sheriff Nanos asked that the Searching Mothers from Sonoma stop and let the professionals do their jobs.  But then you watch the scene in live time and there are random people walking up the driveway to get their pictures.  The scene has been compromised numerous times.  The crime scene tape should have never been removed. 

Earlier investigators were going around to gun shops with anywhere from a couple of dozen to forty pictures and names, asking the gun shop employees if any had recently made a purchase.  There have been broadcast interviews of said employees talking about it, but yesterday Nanos said they had no names.  How can that be?  Maybe no names from the group were identified?

On the surface it looks like Nancy is gone and won't be found, and that the sheriff is out of his league.  I'm hoping that isn't the case and that the FBI is going to eventually solve the case, how ever long it takes.  

[LTT1]

@willowbark 

Me too...it's just all very frightening‼️

[elated]

I was listening to Ashleigh Banfield who had an expert in the field of DNA evidence. She was excellent and explained everything in detail. I learned things I would never have known. If you have a chance, it is very informative.

Ashleigh said they found blood inside the house just like the splatters outside. I had been wondering about it.

[manny2]

---

@elated wrote:

I was listening to Ashley Banfield who had an expert in the field of DNA evidence. She was excellent and explained everything in detail. I learned things I would never have known. If you have a chance, it is very informative.

Ashley said they found blood inside the house just like the splatters outside. I had been wondering about it.

---

I have always respected Ashleigh Banfield’s reporting, but I was disappointed in how she handled the claim about the brother‑in‑law. She called the source “impeccable” and held firm until law enforcement said he was cleared.

She never brought the audience forward to what that same source says now. Yes, she noted that the last person seen is always scrutinized, we all know that, but then she pushed the line from her source about “when they go after you, you’re standing on the target,” which made it sound like more than routine scrutiny. The backpedaling and semantics afterward didn’t sit right with me, and I lost confidence in her.

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@Mom2Dogs wrote:

From what I understand the DNA should have been handled by the FBI but the sheriff wanted to use the lab in Florida...so now the DNA is compromised and might not be usable by the FBI lab..big fail on the part of the sheriff.

---

@Mom2Dogs 

I'm not following you here ... why would using another lab compromise the DNA?  

Perhaps the sheriff was promised a very fast turnaround with the lab in FL.  

[elated]

---

@manny2 wrote:

---

@elated wrote:

I was listening to Ashley Banfield who had an expert in the field of DNA evidence. She was excellent and explained everything in detail. I learned things I would never have known. If you have a chance, it is very informative.

Ashley said they found blood inside the house just like the splatters outside. I had been wondering about it.

---

I have always respected Ashleigh Banfield’s reporting, but I was disappointed in how she handled the claim about the brother‑in‑law. She called the source “impeccable” and held firm until law enforcement said he was cleared.

She never brought the audience forward to what that same source says now. Yes, she noted that the last person seen is always scrutinized, we all know that, but then she pushed the line from her source about “when they go after you, you’re standing on the target,” which made it sound like more than routine scrutiny. The backpedaling and semantics afterward didn’t sit right with me, and I lost confidence in her.

---

@manny2  I listened to her because of the DNA expert. She had to back pedal her accusations when media came after her. I knew then it was not valid. It is irresponsible to spread misinformation and not follow up.

Brian Entin had the same DNA expert on his podcast.

[JeanLouiseFinch]

---

@elated wrote:

---

@manny2 wrote:

---

@elated wrote:

I was listening to Ashley Banfield who had an expert in the field of DNA evidence. She was excellent and explained everything in detail. I learned things I would never have known. If you have a chance, it is very informative.

Ashley said they found blood inside the house just like the splatters outside. I had been wondering about it.

---

I have always respected Ashleigh Banfield’s reporting, but I was disappointed in how she handled the claim about the brother‑in‑law. She called the source “impeccable” and held firm until law enforcement said he was cleared.

She never brought the audience forward to what that same source says now. Yes, she noted that the last person seen is always scrutinized, we all know that, but then she pushed the line from her source about “when they go after you, you’re standing on the target,” which made it sound like more than routine scrutiny. The backpedaling and semantics afterward didn’t sit right with me, and I lost confidence in her.

---

@manny2  I listened to her because of the DNA expert. She had to back pedal her accusations when media came after her. I knew then it was not valid. It is irresponsible to spread misinformation and not follow up.

Brian Entin had the same DNA expert on his podcast.

---

In Ashleigh's defense, from the beginning she relied on information that was given to her but also qualified her comments by saying things could always change.  

DNA expert's name is CeCe Moore.

Brian also reported that Sheriff Nanos said regarding the DNA "challenges" at the Florida lab - some will naturally resolve while others could take weeks, months, or even a year to resolve.  That's disturbing.