BREAKING: Suspect at Nancy Guthrie’s house was there before kidnapping - photos from different days

Hey guys, thanks so much for checking out my show. Really, really appreciate it. Please click to subscribe. I'm still here in Tucson. I wanted to show you guys, there's a lot of, I heard about these tunnels, but there's these tunnels,

they're like drainage tunnels, but they go underneath different parts of the city, like where I am now, and there are actually volunteer crews out here searching for Nancy Guthrie over the weekend in some of these tunnels. And I wanted to show you guys what they look like, because some of them go on for quite a while.

It's really dark, it's kind of creepy out here, actually. Chris, who's behind the camera, actually scared me a second ago and pretended like there was someone down here. But you can see they basically go underneath a lot of the main roads,

and they connect to different parts of these neighborhoods and like I said there's I'm told there's there's a bunch of them but in this episode I'm going to show you the latest with the search efforts also something really interesting I heard about could there be a deal worked legally so that someone who has information about where Nancy Guthrie is could come forward someone who may have been involved in the kidnapping could come forward and give who may have been involved in the kidnapping, could come forward and give the information without getting criminally in trouble. It actually has a legal term,

it's called Queen for a Day. Someone brought it up to me and I'm going to really dive into it, into this episode, because if a deal could be worked out, could that, you know, really move the investigation along in terms of what happened to Nancy Guthrie. I'm getting into that in this episode. And also this big question of whether the case has gone cold. I have sources who say it is not cold. And I'm going to explain why coming up in this episode of Ryan Insights.

All right guys, I'm outside Nancy's house with a really, really big update on the story. So we have confirmed, you remember there was the pictures of the suspect, the one with him wearing the backpack and the one with him not wearing the backpack taken on Nancy's Google Nest camera. We have confirmed that these pictures that you are looking at are from different days. The pictures are from different days, which makes sense because a lot of you have been

questioning and I've been questioning why was he wearing the backpack in one photo and not wearing the backpack in another photo? Did he put the backpack down? It never really made sense. Well now it does. Sources have confirmed to me and also to News Nation correspondent Libby Dean in Washington DC that the photos are from different days. So you've got the photo with the backpack, which is the day that the morning,

the early morning hours, February 1st, that Nancy Guthrie was kidnapped allegedly. And then this other photo from a different day, a previous day. We don't know what day it is. I have not been able to report that yet,

but I will tell you, remember, that I talked to several neighbors here who said that the FBI and detectives were specifically asking them about video from January 11th, which would have been weeks before Nancy Guthrie disappeared. So perhaps that is the day that the first photo is from. That I cannot confirm yet though. I just know that it is from a previous day. It is from a different day. So this opens up a whole new can of worms. Was the suspect casing

the house? You know, I mean it would appear the answer to that is yes. Was he planning to kidnap Nancy on a previous day and then backed out and then came back? That is a possibility. But this apparently was not just a random act where someone decided to do this at the last minute and came to Nancy's house and took her. Because again, I have now confirmed that the pictures,

the photos, the surveillance pictures from Nancy's Google Nest camera are from different days. One with the backpack from the day of the kidnapping and the one without the backpack from a previous day. So this is a really opens up a new can of worms of what happened here. I'm gonna try to dig in for more information. I want to go to an interview that I did earlier with my buddy, retired FBI agent Steve Moore, to talk about sort of the progress of the case. A lot of

people have thought the case has gone cold. By the way, one second, something else I just thought of. It's interesting that law enforcement didn't tell us all of this from the beginning in terms of the photos being from different days. And why didn't they? Because obviously the suspect would know that they had the photos from different days because he's probably seeing them and knowing the one when I'm not wearing the backpack is from a previous day and the one with the backpack is from the day of the kidnapping. So it's interesting. I wonder what the rationale between law enforcement not telling us that from the beginning is. But anyway, I want you guys to hear my interview with

retired FBI agent Steve Moore just about the status of the case right now. A lot of people have been questioning whether it's a cold case. He doesn't think so. He explains why. And then also the queen for a day, which is interesting. It's basically an agreement that prosecutors can make with someone if they have information about the kidnapping, if they were involved. There have been other situations where they've made agreements with people to get information out of them, and then they will either get a lesser sentence or no jail time at all.

Could that be a possibility? Could that come up in a case like this? I want you guys to hear my conversation with Steve. I am joined now by retired FBI agent, Steve Moore. Steve, it's nice to see you. I've lost track of days since I've been here. I guess it's now day 23, which is...

Wow. Yeah, I keep extending because I keep thinking that I thought maybe I'd be here a few days and oh, it's really it's not going to take more than a week. And we've reported that, you know, that this isn't a cold case. NBC News is now reporting today, according to three law enforcement sources, that this is not a cold case. And I'm always kind of interested in the NBC reporting just because of their connection to Savannah Guthrie, you know.

What do you think? I mean, what's your sense?

Well, it's certainly not a hot case. And the way I would define that is that if they thought something was going to happen right now, the last thing they would be doing is releasing assets, people going back to their home offices, agents going back to their divisions. So they don't think it's imminent, but it is not cold, cold to where they assign it just to one or two agents and they see what they can do with it. So technically, no, I would not call it cold.

I would say that it is cooled off quite a bit. And they, you know, I guess the one case that I would analogize this to is the, what do you call it, Olympic bomber from Atlanta. That case went years. And I don't know how many times I was just told to get on a plane and get to a city they had a suspect possibility.

You know, and I was back when I was working surveillance and we would jump on these things. So the FBI has the capability to kind of sit there spring-loaded ready to go but maybe not eating up hotel time and keeping agents from being at their home office working on their own cases.

So at what point do you think they start to peel back agents?

I understand they've done that.

They're starting to do that.

Yes. I'm sorry. I got a call here, so I'm going to silence my phone.

No, no, no problem.

Happens to me all the time.

My understanding is that they are already releasing assets back. I can't confirm that, but my understanding is that agents are being told that they may be going back to their divisions at least until more information comes up. I mean, if you've got 50 evidence response technicians, they're highly skilled, highly trained people who are of no, you know, they're brought in from other divisions, usually like Los Angeles or San

Francisco, maybe Dallas, something like that. They are important to their own divisions. And so while they're out there in Tucson, they can't help with what's going on at home. So they may, they may pull those back and the those offices, make no mistake, are asking for those people back at the earliest possible opportunity. So what you come up with is a, there's a hot standby where you're standing by on the scene and there's kind of a ready standby when you're in your division, which is, you know, probably

take you six hours to get to Phoenix is, you know, probably take you six hours to get to Phoenix, if you understand what I'm saying. You're still packed, ready to go, but there's nothing for you to do there. I mean, you process the scene about 20 times.

Yeah.

One thing, one of the questions, the top questions I've been getting comes back to the timeline. And I was just looking back at it again, that the doorbell was disconnected at 1.47 a.m. and that her pacemaker app disconnected from her phone at 2.28 a.m. So it's like a 41 minute window from when it seems, you know, the person was at the front door and disconnected the camera to when she was moved far away from her phone, or maybe her Apple Watch,

with the pacemaker disconnected. So 41 minutes. I mean, what do you think was happening in that 40? I'm just trying to think about that 41 minute timeframe. Does that seem like a long time to you? Because if you were gonna go in and kidnap someone,

wouldn't you do it faster than 41 minutes?

Yes, yes, that would be the expectation. The entire time you're in that house, you are, I mean, what if she had a silent alarm going off? What if she had, being elderly, what if she had a neck alarm saying, I have a medical emergency? It makes no sense for them to stay in that house for as long as they did. And there is no doubt in my mind that that's causing the agents on the case pause.

And this may be one of the main reasons that there are questions about whether kidnapping was the initial reason for the entry into the home or whether it became a kind of an adjunct, you know, something that they could that they could leverage later on, or whether there was no intent to kidnapping at all. And it's just a ruse.

Like something happened to her. I'm just thinking, again, 41 minutes. Like, do you think it could have been a burglary and then something happened to her? When you say a ruse, what do you mean?

Well, first of all, burglars do not carry guns generally. They may carry something else. But if you have a gun at a burglary scene, your charges are enhanced crazily, and you stand a good chance of getting shot by somebody inside if they're armed. Generally, burglars do not come in armed with anything more than a club or maybe a concealed

knife, and if you are going to carry a gun, you are not going to make it visible. That's just foolishness. So the visible gun makes me lean away from a pure kidnap or from a pure burglary and more to something else. And the other things that you could, that you could think about just make the mind sick. So I've tried to avoid concentrating on that too much. But there could be other types of crime that they were engaged in.

Like, I mean, we don't have to go deep into it. I get it. But you're like a sexual assault kind of thing. Are you thinking? Yeah. Yeah. It's awful to think about with, you know, anyone, let alone an older, you know, age is not a age is not protection against that. Yeah, that's I heard someone else saying that and it's terrible to think about. So I've been away from home for a while for work. And one of the things I miss so much are my Factor meals. They make it so much easier to eat better. And Factor is a sponsor of today's video.

Factor doesn't just ask you to meal prep because they've done the work for you. And it's real food. Factor's made by chefs and designed by dietitians. And it comes right to your door. You heat it for two minutes and then boom, it is ready. That's literally it. There's lean proteins, there's fresh veggies, there's whole food ingredients, no refined sugars, no artificial sweeteners. The chicken, the shrimp, the salmon, those are all my

favorites. They're so good. I think you will also really like it too. There are 100 rotating meals every single week and you can customize them like the new Muscle Pro collection for strength and recovery. So just head to factormeals.com slash NTEN50OFF and use code NTEN50OFF to get 50% off your first Factor box, plus free breakfast for a whole year. Offer only valid for new Factor customers

with code and qualifying auto-renewing subscription purchase. Make healthier eating easy with Factor. All right, guys, I want to introduce you to the sponsor of today's episode, Incogni.

Identity theft, it is such a big problem. It actually just happened to my dad recently and it was just awful for him. He had to close so many accounts. It took a long time to resolve. I mean, it literally took like months.

And the truth is we're all at risk. I've been alerted by several banks that I've used that there was a data breach and that my data is out there. And criminals, they can get a hold of your personal information for scams, for stalking, for harassment, and literally all sorts of other illegal activities. And that is where Incogni comes in. It is a personal data removal service and it truly is so easy.

Signing up online, it literally took me one minute and look at this, my dashboard, it already shows hundreds of data brokers that Incogni has contacted to make sure that my data is not public. And they also have a new custom removal feature, it's on the unlimited and unlimited family plans.

If you see a website and you spot your personal info, you literally just put it into Incogni's custom removal feature and one of Incogni's privacy agents will take care of the rest for you. So to check it all out, go to incogni.com slash Brian Enten

and use code Brian Enten for 60% off. Incogni helps wipe yourself from the internet. They cannot harm you. If they can't find you, click the link below to claim your 60% off and get your personal data off the market.

So if the case, again, you don't think it's going cold but it's getting cooler. When you're an agent on the case or you're a supervisor on the case, like what do you do now? I mean, are you just going back

and looking at old leads again and for a second time? Are you what do they do in a situation like this?

At some point, there are good things about less visibility or or I'm sorry, the case being drawn down and there are bad things. One of the good things is less visibility. And all of a sudden the case agent becomes able to work the case the way they want it to work. When you get a case like this, when the president of the United FBI is commenting on it, the problem is that there are 20 or 30 people in a very small kitchen.

And when, as a case agent, you sometimes feel like, hey, I know what I'm doing. I've done this before. None of you are as experienced as I am in this situation. Would you please let me do it my way? I can guarantee you that pure investigative action has been compromised by political concerns, by concerns about getting along with the Sheriff's Department and other issues like that. When the case starts to draw down a little bit,

all of a sudden you find you have a lot more freedom to explore things the way you want.

So less attention may be a good thing.

Yeah, you know, I'm thinking about a time, a case I was on where I was actually on the wrong side of this equation. There was a, there was a, believed to be a top 10 most wanted person in a small town in Montana.

And they sent like eight of us and I was one of them. They sent eight of us to do surveillance on this person and try to find them. And we worked for a week trying to locate them. And the closest we came to one day is we saw him in traffic during a snowstorm and were unable to catch him. The single agent that worked that town had worked it for 25 years and said,

if you all would just leave, I'll have this guy, you know? And he was right. After we left, about two weeks later, he just walked into a card, a place where they were playing cards, sat down next to the guy and arrested him.

And so these things sometimes get more energy and more traction when management isn't involved.

Let's go back to the beginning with the sheriff. And, you know, they they seems like they didn't do a great job processing the scene, at least those are some reports, because then the FBI had to come back in and they had opened up the crime scene. Do you think he or that they did damage that that could be a big issue now that can't be undone?

That's certainly a possibility, Brian. The issue is, first of all, I wanna say that I don't know what they know. You know, they've got evidence that I don't know of and they have complications and dead ends that they found that we still might think are open.

So I'm only going to go discuss these things in terms of complications rather than, you know, what they might have resulted in. It is a complication when you get a case where you've got somebody missing, you haven't gotten a ransom note, and you don't know that it's a pure taking for ransom at that point, especially because there's visible blood. So at that point, you may think that you have a violent takeover and taking of a person, not necessarily a ransom thing. So you as the Sheriff's Department

are working this with the assumption that you only have a few hours, maybe 24, to find this person. And so you are thinking less of a long-term detailed investigation as you are finding obvious clues

that will let us go right now and do something. So the philosophy of the case in the first 24 hours is we've got a missing, possibly injured person. This could be a violent thing. We've got to find her. So I understand why certain things had to be done.

You know, you can't go in and even search the place for her to see if she's in a closet or somewhere without damaging the crime scene. That's just the way it is. So that's a big complication. I think releasing the crime scene as early as they did,

I didn't see the reason to do that. I mean, are you concerned that you don't want to have officers and officer guarding it at night? That one I didn't understand.

Yeah, it seemed like it just happened maybe too quickly.

Yeah, that that certainly is a strong possibility.

I was thinking about the ransom notes and the Bitcoin account and, you know, the emails that went to TMZ and the messages that went to the local TV station. I guess I would have thought by now the FBI, with all of their resources, would have been able to track some of that.

Yeah. Yeah. It is extremely tough to when somebody is adept at hiding their location. I mean, they'll bounce these things off like 10 different locations all over the world, you know, as sender from sender to sender to forward to forward. It's extremely difficult. And, you know, as far as, you know, what the FBI probably we think should have found, yeah, I think as an FBI agent that a lot of this stuff would seem to be within the FBI's capability. But I can't tell you how many times as an FBI agent I was disappointed when they said,

see, there's just no way we can get anything from this or from that. And they don't have to tell us, they don't have to tell me why it didn't work. I just know, you know, I don't know what they're doing, but I know who they are. And I think that they are extremely capable with the tiniest bits of evidence to do amazing things. So the fact that we haven't seen something tangible yet indicates to me that somebody has either been extremely lucky in how they did this, or they have made some pretty good

plans that have possibly stymied the FBI. And at this point, I would actually, as an agent, start looking at people who know how these things are investigated. You know, it's not going to be somebody who's kidnapped before because those people are all in prison or dead. It is somebody possibly who knows how kidnappings

occur. I remember we had a string of bank robberies in L.A. and we could not figure out how they were getting around us, how they knew to hit the banks we weren't at or we weren't watching. And it turned out to be law enforcement, you know, rogue law enforcement who knew how to use radios and stuff. So that's where I would be leaning right now.

So when you, do you mean find someone who has been involved in kidnappings before and try to talk to them to get ideas from them? Or what do you mean?

I'm saying that you might, I mean, you have to consider the possibility that a former law enforcement officer or somebody like that, somebody who knows enough or has a friend in law enforcement or who has a friend in a prosecutor's office. Those are people who you would consider and say, maybe through them they found out how these things are solved and are working backwards and saying, we're not going to do those things.

Interesting. Wow, yeah, I hadn't thought about that before. There were some reports over the weekend, the New York Post actually had a story with several sources saying that the FBI is frustrated and wanting to take over

and just waiting for the sheriff to hopefully at some point give it up, but that it would be the Guthrie family who would have to push for that. Is that really how it works? I mean, if this Guthrie family came forward

and said, sheriff, we want the FBI to take over. Is that enough for the FBI to come in and say, OK, we'll do it?

There's no there's no written procedure. There's no point where you say at this point the FBI can or may take over a case. There's nothing like that. It is all predicated on voluntary cooperation. And if one side doesn't want to cooperate, there are some things you can do, but they're pretty draconian to take over a case. And what that does is it harms cases years down the line. So while we are concerned about Nancy and the Guthrie family, one thing the FBI doesn't wanna do

is make the cooperation between the FBI and law enforcement in Tucson the same as ICE and Minneapolis police. You know, you want to have a cooperative relationship going forward. And so while you're trying to solve this case,

you're also trying not to destroy future working relationships.

Also over the weekend, the sheriff said that there's issues with the DNA. He called them challenges. You know, they're testing DNA from the house. There's also the glove that they found a couple miles away. And apparently some of it is mixed DNA, which is causing issues. And he even said it could take weeks,

months, even a year. He said a year, which was kind of alarming to hear. And this is the private lab that they're using in Florida. Do you think that's going to be a serious

issue?

Yeah, maybe they should send it to the FBI lab. Yeah. I mean, yeah, I'm sorry. But when you decide against apparent FBI disagreement to send this to your lab that you've used instead of the world's foremost crime lab, then you're responsible if it doesn't work out. And so I think that to me is the most glaring issue right now that I would be concerned

about if I was the sheriff, that the FBI knew the pitfalls of sending DNA to a private lab and he did it anyway. And guess what? The things the FBI was afraid of are exactly what happened.

Yeah. Which I guess if the FBI could just take over, that would alleviate some of these issues.

Yeah, if they could take over. But you know, you've seen all the movies how they are. The FBI always arrives on scene in a suit and, you know, they say, hey, thanks for all your work here. We don't need you anymore. And please hand us your investigative notes. You know, it's that bad old stereotype of the FBI coming in and taking cases. And the FBI has tried over the past, I know it was a big deal when I was there, tried not to assert any authority over case, just try to come alongside.

I suspect that at the street level, the agents and the detectives are getting along very well. I think where the problem is, is maybe FBI management and the sheriff not getting along and being concerned about who's getting, who's appearing to be second fiddle.

And I kind of think that if the sheriff would, himself would recuse himself, there wouldn't be such a divide.

What I wonder if they're keeping things from the sheriff because he does interviews and little things seems to leak out. You know what I mean? I wonder behind the scenes if there's stuff that they're doing, the FBI,

that they're not even telling the sheriff about and even vice versa.

Yeah, if you have a friend that you know tells secrets, how do you deal with secrets with them? You keep them to yourself. Yeah. And the FBI is not dumb. And they know that, you know, when they see the FBI despises reading about their investigation in a newspaper or in on these in these days, seeing it on a podcast, you know, or hearing

it. Or hearing it, it's it's something that just drives them up a wall and there will be immediate consequences for that. And then as a result, the people who are not being told some things are now complaining that the FBI is locking them out. Well, the FBI doesn't the FBI smart enough to know that locking somebody out really doesn't help the investigation unless that's your only,

that's your last resort.

Just back to the DNA, if they start sending it around to be tested, like they need to do additional testing or they end up sending it to the FBI, does that, is that an issue? Like does it, does it wear it down?

I don't know if that's

the right terminology, but.

You mean the DNA itself?

Yes. Yeah.

The DNA is finite. I mean, every time you do a test, you use part of the DNA. And that was the Amanda Knox case I was involved in years ago. The Italians who were claiming she had murdered somebody had so little DNA that they said we don't even have any to provide the defense to test it. You know, and so they're saying, well, then you don't have enough. You know, both sides have to be able to test it.

And it turned out it wasn't the blood they claimed it was. It was it was starch from pasta. And a girl spent four years in an Italian prison for that. So the DNA, you can't just shop it around, because then what's going to happen is a defense attorney is going to say, this lab over here said they didn't know whose it was. So then you send it to the FBI lab, the prosecutor, and all of a sudden you knew who it was.

And he builds, even if everything they did was legitimate and the FBI found something the private lab didn't, and I'm not saying the private lab is incompetent, by the way, they're probably pretty good. But if you have two different results from the same piece of DNA, you can just throw it out as far as its value in court for prosecution standpoint.

Interesting. I also heard there was a criminal defense attorney this weekend talking about this, they call it like sometimes queen for a day, you know, where someone can come forward with a lawyer and work with a prosecutor to give information and sort of get like immunity, like maybe someone who knows who kidnapped Nancy Guthrie or who was involved somewhat, you know, on sort of an outer layer, and they can get some kind of deal where, hey, for 24 hours, you can give us information and you won't end up getting in trouble, which was really interesting to me, because it seems like if this is cooling

down, could that be a way for them to get info?

Yeah, and it's always been like that. I think that the way it was explained to you might have been a little bit general, because what you would do, I mean, it was standard policy where, like, we would come in and you would have two possible suspects, and you know that both of them knew who, who was involved. And so, you know, I would just go into the first one and say, you know, I have in my

hand a golden ticket, and either you or your friend are going to get it. And I flipped a coin and came in here first so you get first shot. One of you two is going to rat out the other one. That's just the way it's going to happen. And so one of you is going to get a very light sentence or maybe walk while the other one is going to go to prison for a long time. Do you want the golden ticket or do you want me to go next door? And that's kind of what they were talking about. You can make a deal.

And sometimes people come in with their attorneys and say, we want to make a deal. Doesn't mean that person's going to walk, especially if they're involved in a violent crime that ends in death.

But it could mean that they will see the outside of a prison again in their life, and the other one won't. Did you have those situations come up a lot? Not a lot, but enough to make it interesting. Yeah. And can the lawyer come and say, look, we're not going to talk to you unless you make this deal and then we'll give you our info? Yeah, they can say that. Yeah. I mean, it's just because I'm just thinking if there's multiple people involved, which it seems like there probably is with this kidnapping, maybe a getaway driver,

maybe someone who went around the back of the house. Like, how could someone pull this off alone without ever telling anyone else? There's got to be other people that know, and this is sort of wearing on them.

Yeah, I would be very surprised if this is a one person gig. And the FBI knows probably more about it that than we do, like that video they released. I don't for one minute believe that that's all the video they got. You know, if they got that much video, they probably got the stuff before and after that. So they've got a lot more video and there may be another person involved that they didn't get quite a good video of. I don't know. But yeah, somebody could come in and say, I'd like to make a deal. And then if they say, you know, but we demand this, we demand no criminal prosecution, we say no,

at least now we've got a suspect.

When people have come in and they say, I have information, but I want a deal, are they usually truthful?

Only to a certain point. I mean, obviously they're gonna wanna get the best deal out of it. I would analogize it to somebody coming in and trying to trade in a car to buy a new one. They're not going to tell you the transmission leaks. They're not going to tell you that it was in an accident six months ago. But they will tell you, you know, the brand and the model and that it's what you're

looking for. And so before you go into one of those situations, there is a signed legal document requiring them to disclose everything and disclose everything accurately. If you go forward then and the person does not tell you everything that they know about the case, you can rip that agreement up because they violated it. They can come in and say, I can show you who it is. And you and you

neglect to tell them that you were the getaway car driver. All the immunity that they've that they've negotiated for is now out the door because you have held back information.

When you brought up just like when things get to court and defense attorneys, I was thinking back to the crime scene again, when the tape went up and down and went down on February 4th, then the FBI returned to do their processing on February 12th. Could that be a problem legally?

Yeah, yeah, it could be a problem in trial, but there are two things that go on here, Brian. There is finding Nancy alive. That's job one. So what you want to do, and I have, I'm aware of things like this, where you will do something when you get a person in who picked up the ransom or something like that. And you need to find the victim before they're before they are deceased. There, the interrogators, the interviewers

are not necessarily going to be concerned about what down the line is going to be admissible in court, because they've already got them picking up the ransom. Now we're just trying to save a life. So they may resort to things that are not admissible in court, make the testimony not admissible in court just to find a location of the person.

So there's two factors here. Number one, we need to take, we need to save a life. We don't care as much about prosecution. Then there's the other side where it says, if we can stay within these lines, we need to prosecute down the road.

So, closing the, or releasing the crime scene, and then coming back and sealing it up again, could be a big complication, and could be a big complication and will be a big complication during trial. Because anything found after that first release of the crime scene can be assumed or the defense attorney will want the jury to assume that everything is compromised and

planted after that. So it will hurt in the prosecution. It won't necessarily hurt in the efforts to find Nancy.

Yeah, makes sense, which is really kind of the more pressing issue right now, obviously. As always, I appreciate Steve for talking with me. I appreciate all of you for for following along Again day 23 today. It's it's Monday. So thank you guys for who have followed me since the beginning of this whole thing I really hope still have hope that Nancy can come home that The Guthrie's can get sort of a resolution to this whole thing some closure

And I will keep you guys posted with any updates appreciate you guys guys for subscribing. It's a hot day today by the way in Tucson. One of the, I think maybe the hottest day since I've been here. It felt like the hottest. But it cools down at night. So anyway, I'll keep you guys posted if there's any But it cools down at night. So anyway, I'll keep you guys posted if there's any updates and I'll talk to you guys later.