Notice: Function wp_get_loading_optimization_attributes was called incorrectly. An image should not be lazy-loaded and marked as high priority at the same time. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.3.0.) in /home/globabjn/spygist.com/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6260
Notice: Function get_loading_optimization_attributes was called incorrectly. An image should not be lazy-loaded and marked as high priority at the same time. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. in /home/globabjn/spygist.com/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6260
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Almost exactly six months ago, Nancy Guthrie was kidnapped and held for ransom.
It is widely believed that she died shortly after her abduction.
DNA evidence thus far seems to be a dead end.
A man is preparing to sue authorities for his wrongful detention and the ransacking of his family home. More than anything, he wants them to publicly clear his name.
DNA evidence is a bust so far
On Thursday, July 30, investigators for the Pima County Sheriff’s Department (PCSD) confirmed that the hair sample found at Nancy’s abode did not lead to a suspect.
Authorities did not disclose much about the hair sample, including where in Nancy’s home they may have found it.
It is possible that the hair is suspicious but did not turn up any matches in their search, almost exactly six months after the fact.
Alternatively, it seems possible that the PCSD did determine whose hair it was — only to find that the individual is not a suspect.
Remember, we all leave epithelial cells, hair samples, and fingerprints just about everywhere. Most crime scenes, especially residential ones, are home to countless samples from friends and loved ones.
Just over a week after Nancy vanished, police detained Carlos Palazuelos.
An attorney representing Palazuelos and two family members filed a notice of claim on Monday, July 27. This is the formal precursor to a lawsuit against the PCSD.
According to his filing, Palazuelos was held “without probable cause” for seven to eight hours after being pulled over. Meanwhile, news of his seizure was spread far and wide.
“Carlos’ arrest was made in a public fashion that was intended to damage Carlos’ reputation and subject him to humiliation and suspicion by implicating Carlos in the kidnapping of Nancy Guthrie,” the notice of claim describes.
Palazuelos is not the only member of his family highlighting the outrageous behavior by the PCSD.
Carlos Palazuelos wants his name publicly cleared
The notice also describes how men in military gear pointed guns at family member Daniel Maddox and “ransacked” the home.
Maddox was removed from the residence, forced to the ground, and handcuffed.
The fruitless raid resulted in “significant property damage” including breaking the front door, the door frame, ceiling tiles, the attic entrance, and more.
In addition to not turning up any evidence, the lawsuit notes that the detention and home search were based upon “false and baseless evidence.”
Family attorney Jesse Showalter affirmed: “Whatever this purported evidence was that the sheriff’s department used to obtain the search warrant, it’s wrong. It’s not good evidence.”
Additionally, the PCSD has refused to clear Palazuelos’ name. There are, obviously, paranoid conspiracy theorists who are convinced that he is a suspect.
The family will file a lawsuit, seeking $2.5 million for Palazuelos, $500,000 for Maddox, and $250,000 for Josefina Maddox, who owns the house.
Additionally, they want Palazuelos’ name cleared publicly.
Many of us can imagine the horror of our homes being ransacked for no apparent reason, our loved ones manhandled or handcuffed without any clear cause, and all for nothing.
Unless investigators are holding onto some secret belief that Palazuelos is involved, it’s unclear why they would not seek to clear his name. (Also, it’s generally the municipality, not the department, that pays to settle these cases — taxpayers pay while officers sued for wrongdoing often face no repercussions.)
They have 60 days to respond to the notice. The clock is ticking.