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

[maskedwoman]

In the US, LE have been allowed to lie since the case of Frazier v. Cupp (1969)

But I agree, it is a terrible practice to lie to the public because it can lead to people not reporting information that they have that may be inconsistent with the lie and it generally degrades trust in LE. Personally, knowing that police are allowed to lie makes me not consider them trustworthy.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't consider that they are lying to me. In my view they are lying to the criminal, which I am totally ok with. LOL

 

[Sadi]

Does the fact that the Guthrie's gave LE their consent to search their (AG's) home per Brian Entin change anyone's opinion about their speculated involvement?

No.

 

[VTHOMM]

This is a very confusing case, every theory has major problems.

Theory 1- The SIL did this. This is statistically favorable, most people who are victims of violent crimes are injured by someone they know. We know she arrived at AG's home from the Uber driver. We know she came back to the home because the pacemaker pinged there and her possessions were there, hearing aids, phone (which she would have needed for the Uber), keys, wallet and her blood is there, in addition to the camera going offline and face detection. For the SIL to have done this he would have needed to return undetected in the middle of the night, killed his MIL, hid her body, then returned home all while leaving no digital trace and not alerting his wife (or she could be his accomplice). The timeline seems to suggest someone who was comfortable at the site and may have had some familiarity with the layout of the house; i.e. they felt comfortable walking around and exploring, or they knew there was a back door. This seems like a story that would fall apart easily under questioning or a forensic examination of their car, phones, cameras at the Circle K etc...

Theory #2- Someone did this purposely for ransom. Statistically unlikely. The only indication of this is the ransom note but the details in it that seem to indicate the perp was at the crime scene were all available online before the note arrived- pictures of her white apple watch, google images of her home with floodlights, which almost everyone has, news reports showing the home with a damaged floodlight before the ransom note arrived, and finally no actual proof of life. The note could have been produced from publicly available information.

Theory #3- A robbery gone wrong, or a sexual assault. This is also statistically favorable, it is a not uncommon crime in around the US. The issue with this theory is that it less common to take the victim with you and it is difficult to wrangle a dead body, or a live person out of the house, especially if they are injured, bleeding, and perhaps have mobility issues. It is even more difficult to understand how you get away undetected (no traffic cams at all).

Yes, my thoughts too.

 

[Cipher Vale]

Snipped by me.

Maybe someone who knows more about this can help me out. Does this actually reveal that they got DNA from the scene? Or could it just be something they're doing to cover their bases in case DNA shows up somewhere? I'm not convinced that it is as clear-cut as the retired Las Vegas police lieutenant makes it sound, but maybe it is. Are they not allowed to collect DNA samples from people unless they already have something from the crime scene to compare it to?

Doubt it's to exclude people as suspects .

Asking for samples tells me it's to match unknown DNA with known samples. DNA collected from carpet not matching family can then be matched with the housekeeper - doesn't mean the housekeeper is excluded as a suspect, just means they know who that sample belongs to.

Thats my personal experience. Others on here who have been in LE may have worked places where things are handled differently

 

[BrittMontero]

Snipped by me.

Maybe someone who knows more about this can help me out. Does this actually reveal that they got DNA from the scene? Or could it just be something they're doing to cover their bases in case DNA shows up somewhere? I'm not convinced that it is as clear-cut as the retired Las Vegas police lieutenant makes it sound, but maybe it is. Are they not allowed to collect DNA samples from people unless they already have something from the crime scene to compare it to?

I think it would be routine to interview & collect samples from anyone who routinely entered the premises. For purposes of elimination, if nothing else. It doesn’t indicate that any domestic worker or tradesperson is necessarily a suspect.

 

[K9Enzo]

Has it been confirmed that AG’s car was towed for possible evidence? With media camped outside, someone would have photographed this, IMO.

You are right to question me on this. I believed “A” vehicle was removed from AG home. I will report my post if I cannot find a credible link. Thank you. IMO

 

[Cipher Vale]

I think it would be routine to interview & collect samples from anyone who routinely entered the premises. For purposes of elimination, if nothing else. It doesn’t indicate that any domestic worker or tradesperson is necessarily a suspect.

The unsettling thing about this is that it took a week to ask for samples.

 

[CrimeDawg123]

This is a very confusing case, every theory has major problems.

Theory 1- The SIL did this. This is statistically favorable, most people who are victims of violent crimes are injured by someone they know. We know she arrived at AG's home from the Uber driver. We know she came back to the home because the pacemaker pinged there and her possessions were there, hearing aids, phone (which she would have needed for the Uber), keys, wallet and her blood is there, in addition to the camera going offline and face detection. For the SIL to have done this he would have needed to return undetected in the middle of the night, killed his MIL, hid her body, then returned home all while leaving no digital trace and not alerting his wife (or she could be his accomplice). The timeline seems to suggest someone who was comfortable at the site and may have had some familiarity with the layout of the house; i.e. they felt comfortable walking around and exploring, or they knew there was a back door. This seems like a story that would fall apart easily under questioning or a forensic examination of their car, phones, cameras at the Circle K etc...

Theory #2- Someone did this purposely for ransom. Statistically unlikely. The only indication of this is the ransom note but the details in it that seem to indicate the perp was at the crime scene were all available online before the note arrived- pictures of her white apple watch, google images of her home with floodlights, which almost everyone has, news reports showing the home with a damaged floodlight before the ransom note arrived, and finally no actual proof of life. The note could have been produced from publicly available information.

Theory #3- A robbery gone wrong, or a sexual assault. This is also statistically favorable, it is a not uncommon crime in around the US. The issue with this theory is that it less common to take the victim with you and it is difficult to wrangle a dead body, or a live person out of the house, especially if they are injured, bleeding, and perhaps have mobility issues. It is even more difficult to understand how you get away undetected (no traffic cams at all).

Theory 1 remains the most likely I think.

Excellent post. I'm thinking #3 is most likely, with them abandoning the plan when things went awry.

 

[HerNameWasBuffy]

RE: SIL. Motive, means, opportunity just don't fit. I have to do brain acrobatics to think that he would do this. He would have to have had help and not care about what this would do to his wife and son, and he stood to benefit from an inheritance in the not-to-distant future, being AG's husband. Not likely that he has harbored a dislike for Nancy for twenty years and he and AG, at least, on the surface seem to be content with their chosen lifestyles. JMO JMO

I'm struggling with the SIL in this, too. Even if a family member were to have done this, why do it in a way where they'd know it would be a nationwide spectacle? They can't get the money even if it was paid without blowing their cover.

And awful as this is, if a family member just wanted to get rid of her she is 84 with severe mobility issues and health problems. It would be a lot easier to make it look like an accidental fall than to risk the scrutiny of an abduction.

 

[Curiousobserver]

Doubt it's to exclude people as suspects .

Asking for samples tells me it's to match unknown DNA with known samples. DNA collected from carpet not matching family can then be matched with the housekeeper - doesn't mean the housekeeper is excluded as a suspect, just means they know who that sample belongs to.

Thats my personal experience. Others on here who have been in LE may have worked places where things are handled differently

It is encouraging and may suggest they have some samples where they have DNA, or think they have DNA to compare to people in and around her sphere.

You are right to point out that the context of DNA samples matters. For example: Housekeeper DNA from a hair in the carpet is casual. Housekeeper DNA from a semen stain on the bed is not casual, for example.

 

[txsleuth70]

Just my impression, but I think Nancy was savvy enough to not be extorted.

Maybe not savvy enough with someone she's more familiar with. MOO

 

[HoveringWombats]

Doubt it's to exclude people as suspects .

Asking for samples tells me it's to match unknown DNA with known samples. DNA collected from carpet not matching family can then be matched with the housekeeper - doesn't mean the housekeeper is excluded as a suspect, just means they know who that sample belongs to.

Thats my personal experience. Others on here who have been in LE may have worked places where things are handled differently

Thanks. This is helpful.

Just to clarify my question, I wasn't really wondering about excluding or eliminating people as suspects. It's more about, does this mean that they definitively HAVE found unknown DNA already, and now need to match it to someone? Or could be more that they have now built up what they believe is a fairly complete list of people who worked in the house, and they are now going down that list to collect DNA (and maybe other info from them), so that if and when they find unknown DNA, they have a "library" so to speak of samples to try to match it against.

Basically, I'm just questioning the premise that the DNA testing proves they have already found something in the house, as the expert said. I hope it does, because I want them to figure it out. And if you, and other experienced people here, tell me that's what it means, I will believe you. Just as a lay-person, absent further confirmation, it didn't sway me. It seemed reasonable to proactively gather DNA samples from anyone who may be around, so they don't have to scramble to track people down and do it if they do find something to check it against.

 

[CrimeDawg123]

Extortion gone wrong? Maybe someone had been borrowing money, asking for a little here and there and NG grew weary of it. Then it got ugly, they conked her on the head, panicked, nabbed her.

Or maybe they found evidence of SA. The perp realized he left DNA everywhere, panicked and nabbed her to get out of there.

Too many unknowns to make a better guess.

If there's a money trail, LE will be on that like white on rice

 

[Athos65]

It already exists. Search Media, Maps, Timeline thread.

Thank you. I am older and new here. Still learning to navigate and appreciate all the help anyone can kindly give me.

 

[ZZZZZZZZZZ]

This is a very confusing case, every theory has major problems.

Theory 1- The SIL did this. This is statistically favorable, most people who are victims of violent crimes are injured by someone they know. We know she arrived at AG's home from the Uber driver. We know she came back to the home because the pacemaker pinged there and her possessions were there, hearing aids, phone (which she would have needed for the Uber), keys, wallet and her blood is there, in addition to the camera going offline and face detection. For the SIL to have done this he would have needed to return undetected in the middle of the night, killed his MIL, hid her body, then returned home all while leaving no digital trace and not alerting his wife (or she could be his accomplice). The timeline seems to suggest someone who was comfortable at the site and may have had some familiarity with the layout of the house; i.e. they felt comfortable walking around and exploring, or they knew there was a back door. This seems like a story that would fall apart easily under questioning or a forensic examination of their car, phones, cameras at the Circle K etc...

Theory #2- Someone did this purposely for ransom. Statistically unlikely. The only indication of this is the ransom note but the details in it that seem to indicate the perp was at the crime scene were all available online before the note arrived- pictures of her white apple watch, google images of her home with floodlights, which almost everyone has, news reports showing the home with a damaged floodlight before the ransom note arrived, and finally no actual proof of life. The note could have been produced from publicly available information.

Theory #3- A robbery gone wrong, or a sexual assault. This is also statistically favorable, it is a not uncommon crime in around the US. The issue with this theory is that it less common to take the victim with you and it is difficult to wrangle a dead body, or a live person out of the house, especially if they are injured, bleeding, and perhaps have mobility issues. It is even more difficult to understand how you get away undetected (no traffic cams at all).

There is an alternate possibility that NG took the Uber to confront someone at AG's house. Once there, SIL had an altercation with NG, and NG never returned to her home. Someone else may have returned all of her things there, and staged the house to look like a crime scene.

 

[SMK777]

I'm very confused by yesterday's deadline passing, the chilling warning from the "ransom" people described by CNN; and all the headlines about it.

Why did the deadline pass? SG said they would pay. So why did it pass?

Purported deadline passes: Guthrie’s possible abductors demanded $6 million by 5 p.m. yesterday, CNN affiliate KGUN reported, citing a note sent to the station. The note included a threat to Guthrie’s life, KGUN said. The FBI said it was not aware of any communication between the Guthrie family and suspected kidnappers.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/nancy-guthrie-savannah-missing-mom-02-10-26

 

[Sadi]

Doesn't really reveal they have DNA from an unknown source inside the home. Just reveals that NG's hired associates are submitting DNA samples. And likely voluntarily in case they do find unknown DNA in the home and want to distinguish it from known DNA (so that they can rule out or scrutinize it more).

JMO.

I may be reading into this too much, but why not all of the hired help, just some? Unless they have a specific reason…?

 

[missy1974]

I keep thinking about this message posted yesterday from Brian Entin. "New leads" that are bringing an "active presence" to both Guthrie houses.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2021008852385477030

Then we're hearing about DNA testing. Maybe that's related.

MOO

I don't think they did any searching last night though, the media would have been all over that, so not sure why they put that out there and then didn't show up anyway.

 

[dalsglen]

It is encouraging and may suggest they have some samples where they have DNA, or think they have DNA to compare to people in and around her sphere.

You are right to point out that the context of DNA samples matters. For example: Housekeeper DNA from a hair in the carpet is casual. Housekeeper DNA from a semen stain on the bed is not casual, for example.

And you certainly wouldn't expect any dna from the pool guy or landscaper to be in her bedroom for example.

 

[dalsglen]

I'm very confused by yesterday's deadline passing, the chilling warning from the "ransom" people described by CNN; and all the headlines about it.

Why did the deadline pass? SG said they would pay. So why did it pass?

Purported deadline passes: Guthrie’s possible abductors demanded $6 million by 5 p.m. yesterday, CNN affiliate KGUN reported, citing a note sent to the station. The note included a threat to Guthrie’s life, KGUN said. The FBI said it was not aware of any communication between the Guthrie family and suspected kidnappers.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/nancy-guthrie-savannah-missing-mom-02-10-26

They ARE paying. Paying the price of someone's sheer evilness rather than monetary. Or maybe they did pay after all.