AZ Nancy Guthrie, 84, (mother of TODAY Show host Savannah Guthrie) missing - last seen in the Catalina foothills area on Jan 31, 2026

  • #13,121
If you find it, could you link it? I've been trying to locate it but can only find the most recent one.
Is it one of these two?


 
  • #13,122
  • #13,123
I have made a post that explains things more clearly. We have been announcing to use initials only. Here is the latest post that hopefully clears things up once and for all.
I probably missed it, but has it been definitively said that the son-in-law took her home alone? I thought they changed it to "family" which had me confused because originally I thought they did say it was the son-in-law? It keeps changing and I can't keep up on the thread so any clarification would be so appreciated!!! TIA.
 
  • #13,124
She has sensationalized the story, she has not offered a single ounce of empathy or sorrow for someone who was once her former colleague, she has allowed unfounded speculation to run riot. I don't doubt she is "reporting the story" but it is undignified the way she has carried on when most of SG's colleagues are giving her some dignity and space right now.

The first sentence is untrue. She has offered empathy and sorrow...I listened to it. Agree to disagree about MK's eporting, but plenty of her former colleagues have reported on this story.
 
  • #13,125
Can anyone explain why the sheriffs department would be there, but not the FBI?
If a murder case is filed it would be by the local authorities. Kidnapping would be a federal charge and investigated by the FBI
 
  • #13,126
It would be dumb for them to lie about something that could be so easily verified as false so I wonder why they would.
Couldn't they have just stated they decided to go visit her for lunch?

Like others, i realised quickly that the Sheriff was a little scattergun in his phrasing and probably wasn't meaning some of the things he was saying as literally as a) the media and b) the public would read them. But even if you toss the detail about a bit, the comment about the alert and the church can't really be interpreted in any way other than "the family received an alert from someone connected to the church which set this whole thing off in the morning".

Either Sheriff made it up entirely (improbable), he didn't get the detail quite right (hard to see how the relevant substance of the comment would change in a significant or meaningful way with a little tweak to detail), the known details of the church service or event she was planning to attend that day are simply wrong, or that's what they believed at the time but investigation revealed something which made them snip that right out of timelines and avoid further discussion for some reason.

I can't believe anyone would just make that story up knowing very well that these things would be checked by LE. There's something to it though, and I really want to know what it is.
 
  • #13,127
It's here:


Sheriff: We were told she was left at her home by the family. At 11:00 in the morning the family got notice from somebody at church that she was not at church. They went to the home found her to be missing. That's that's the timeline. From Saturday night 9:45 we'll say to Sunday morning 11:00.

Question: Have you interviewed the people that reported her missing? The people from the church?

Sheriff: That's the family. Oh, from the church as well. We're doing all kinds of interviews. Yes, I'm sure we have.
Is that the earliest one? Because I can see the FBI person there and I thought there was an earlier press conference without the FBI like this one: (click "Watch on Youtube", it might not show up here)

 
  • #13,128
just want to be very specific commenting on this following paragraph. Is there any question about the underlined???? I THOUGHT that LE had talked to the churchgoer.

Is this true, or not???? I thought we had learned that LE had talked to the churchgoer????

if Nancy didn't go in-person to church and if LE can't get a name from the family about who notified them, this is a red flag. Also, the cell phone of the family member contacted would show a call came in from somebody at church at the time they reported receiving the call.
We don’t know.

Normally I wouldn’t have questioned this. It makes perfect sense. It doesn’t matter if we don’t know their name, if it were confirmed that LE interviewed this person.

But as I’ve said (probably to an annoying degree), the Sheriff quietly omitted this part of the story from his most recent presser on Thursday, both verbally and in writing. That’s significant, IMO.
 
  • #13,129
Anybody know if LE had talked to the church person who had contacted the family? I have never heard that LE had talked to the church person but could may have missed it.
God, this is such a very very important question. We really do need the answer to this.
 
  • #13,130
"Church member called family because she was concerned NG wasn't in church" is no longer on the LE timeline. Agree with Masked Woman that we are totally dependent on AG and TC for this critical part of the timeline.
And I think the dependency on AD&TC was thrown out the window early on .
 
  • #13,131
Is it possible that the Sheriff is meant to appear "bumbling" on purpose? Sounds like a long shot, BUT if he sounded confident in knowing what happened, that might spook the perp and cause quicker/further destruction of evidence, running, etc.
 
  • #13,132
Supposition is that mahjong needs 4 players, so 4th must've been the boy. JMO
There are numerous ways to play Mahjong.
I even play it solitaire fyi
 
  • #13,133
  • #13,134
Maybe they have different theories they are testing, and need to see if evidence supports them? Such as she never went home, and home was staged? MOO
Imagine there are several different theories they are testing. Looking for evidence by thoroughly examining her car, her daughter and SIL's house, etc.

Since Friday, it seems that LE has been carefully looking in the area around NG's home, the outside area of many of her neighbors' homes and on the properties between NG's house and AG's house.

I believe they likely have a suspect or suspects but want to have more very specific evidence so that it can be proven without a doubt that the suspect or suspects committed this crime.
 
  • #13,135
The first sentence is untrue. She has offered empathy and sorrow...I listened to it. Agree to disagree about MK's eporting, but plenty of her former colleagues have reported on this story.
I'm sorry but I am not here to engage in a discourse about MK. I am here to discuss the case.
 
  • #13,136
It's here:


Sheriff: We were told she was left at her home by the family. At 11:00 in the morning the family got notice from somebody at church that she was not at church. They went to the home found her to be missing. That's that's the timeline. From Saturday night 9:45 we'll say to Sunday morning 11:00.

Question: Have you interviewed the people that reported her missing? The people from the church?

Sheriff: That's the family. Oh, from the church as well. We're doing all kinds of interviews. Yes, I'm sure we have.
So by saying " yes I'm sure we have " means at that moment he did not know personally and based his answer off of assumption imo
 
  • #13,137
My thoughts are if it was a family member who didn’t want to kill her , they d be giving her meds

If it’s a random she hasn’t had her meds …

If it was a death before 2 am and then staged , also not good

So really only a 1 in 3 chance of a positive outcome .
I d be giving my $$ for that chance today
 
  • #13,138
"Church member called family because she was concerned NG wasn't in church" is no longer on the LE timeline. Agree with Masked Woman that we are totally dependent on AG and TC for this critical part of the timeline.
We may be dependent on AG & TC for that, but I certainly hope that LE asked them who called and double-checked that with call records, interview with the person who called, etc. The removal from the timeline probably does reflect a problem with that account, but we don't know for sure.

In terms of news outlets, the Daily Mail said she hadn't attended church in person since the pandemic. Brian Entin also heard that she wasn't attending St. Andrews Presbyterian but figured she was going to another church. With regard to attending St. Andrews virtually, I've heard that one can't tell who's on the livestream, but I've also heard that there are parts that are like a Zoom meeting so you can tell...

The New York Times stuck with the original account, namely that a churchgoer saw that she wasn't "in the pews" at church. I think ABC said something similar.

All of this is to say that it's not totally clear whether a fellow churchgoer could've reported her missing either in person or virtually. Those who believe that the SIL was involved in her disappearance may tend to favor the reports that she wasn't there. I don't know.

JMO.
 
  • #13,139
  • #13,140
Have question: regarding ring camera removal on front of house. Would this have been done standing directly in front of it, or from inside door frame reaching around? Also, interested to know who installed it for her. As in family member or security company?
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
403
Guests online
4,152
Total visitors
4,555

Forum statistics

Threads
640,486
Messages
18,761,060
Members
244,680
Latest member
NonnaBalogna
Back
Top