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

[Sadi]

And if you're renting one, maybe if you needed to hide somebody there for a while I was just trying to think outside the box. Thanks for the support Internet stranger.

Of course I like about this group is the wide range of different opinions, sometimes I’m so sure to have a strong sense about something and someone else posts something that makes me think differently.

 

[EJB123456]

BODY? Yes.

I assure you you would be able to see a body floating in her pool. I've seen the aerial images, it's a typical Arizona pool, you can see to the bottom.

 

[Cloudydiamond]

Do we know when anyone else last saw NG alive besides the family?

JMO

I would imagine whomever she played Mahjong with?

 

[acutename]

I mean, AB's been around plenty long enough to know the legal ramifications of defamation/slander/libel.

Did she say qualify her statements about the SIL with "allegedly, reportedly" to cover herself?

If not, she must either really, really, really trust her source or be really, really, really desperate for cash, or both.

JMO.

If you listen to her, she presents the information but she couches it as possibly completely false- she actually points to the Smarts' father as initially a person of interest but completely innocent. She also talks about "the last person to see the missing" as always the initial focus of investigators because well... what was the missing person's mood? what was she wearing? what did she say? etc. etc. So while she presents this info as a potentially big thing, she backtracks on it too. (Just thinking about this, suppose NG had a blister or a cut already in the car on the way home - would that make the blood drops not a sign of an attack? I personally doubt this but just tossing it out as how important what observations the last person or people to see a missing person could be.)

 

[keek]

Thanks I'd considered that, but wouldn't LE have searched the home and grounds/yard fairly thoroughly before releasing the house back to the adult kids ?
Imo.

IF they thoroughly searched sewer, pool, any type of 'hole or so' on the grounds, drained them for her or any evidence, then I'd think they would. I'd also be hoping everything was 'dusted' for fingerprints, though of course, many from her, family, workers would be there, BUT still useful for sure. I hope her room and walk way to the front door and point of 'forced entry' were also given the same detailed search, not just visual. IMO

 

[Sadi]

I believe the people at the game night ?

Besides Annie and Tom (her husband), were there others who were there? Maybe Camron? I hope he has support right now, haven’t heard anything about him, but totally respect that.

 

[investigatoroffacts]

Agreed. Unfortunately, when media gets involved mentioning possible family involvement, human nature is to ignore all other avenues.

Ain’t that the truth.

 

[EJB123456]

Are they presently draining a location, whether pool, septic tank, well or whatever or is this speculation ?

Speculation

 

[Inthedetails]

I suppose they could be draining a well, if there’s one also.

Or making a show at the house to keep media there and out of LE's hair while they work elsewhere.

Seems like an expensive endeavor to send a chopper, though, just for show.

jmo

 

[Diddian]

According to a house nearby (via Zillow) ...yes ...they could be on septic and that is a dark thought. Eek.

My own experience with septic tanks is that you'd know if we recently uncovered the lid and opened it. Earth would be displaced. Hopefully this would have been something at the top of their list.

Whether or not you'd know if the lids had been recently removed depends on whether the lids are covered, say with soil or landscape stones, or lawn.

At our vacation home, the lids are fully exposed, so you would not know if they had been lifted recently unless you took a close look at the bolts that attach the lid to the riser from the tank below.

 

[browneyes]

I just thought maybe their names would be on both of them. And it was just an observation and a legitimate question but thanks for making me feel like an idiot. I'm gonna see myself out now thanks.

I’m sorry. I was just giving a reason for having two residences. I didn’t mean to make you feel bad.

 

[osu]

Are they presently draining a location, whether pool, septic tank, well or whatever or is this speculation ?

A reporter tweeted that there is a flatbed trailer with a tank currently parked at the home of NG.

 

[keek]

I assure you you would be able to see a body floating in her pool. I've seen the aerial images, it's a typical Arizona pool, you can see to the bottom.

Precaution for anything, as yes for sure you could see a body floating in a clear pool. She would of been found that day if so. Septic's are another story. I think they just took her out, but who knows who did what before going in, scoping it out or after. IMO

 

[tricia]

Since law enforcement strongly pushed back on the Ashleigh Banfield report, I decided to take a closer look.

A friend pointed out something important in Banfield’s video. In the thumbnail and at about 18:32 seconds into the segment, Banfield states that the son-in-law is the prime suspect. Just seconds later, she walks that back and says he may be the prime suspect. That is a significant difference.
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO A CLIP OF WHAT BANFIELD SAID

Below is a screenshot of the thumbnail from Banfield's video.
I'm showing you this so you can see the claim she makes, but she walks back that claim in her video. It is crazy.



Those two statements are not the same thing. Saying someone is a prime suspect versus saying they may be a prime suspect carries very different implications—especially when law enforcement has publicly denied that claim.
Because of this inconsistency, and because law enforcement has pushed back hard against the report, we are not going to allow discussion identifying any specific person as a suspect.

What is allowed:

• Discussing evidence
• Discussing theories
• Discussing possibilities in general terms (for example: “someone close to her,” or “possibly a family member”)

What is not allowed:

• Naming specific individuals
• Identifying any person as a suspect

We need to be able to discuss all possibilities—that’s what we do here—but we also have to balance that with the rights of real people not to be publicly accused of a crime they have not been charged with.

So please speak in general terms and do not identify individual people as suspects.

If you’re unsure whether something crosses the line, just ask in the thread and we’ll clarify.

Thank you for helping keep this discussion fair, factual, and responsible.
Tricia

P.S. By the way, a great reporter on YouTube (and he is an approved source) is Brian Entin. He is in AZ covering this case.
Click here for one of Brian Entin's videos

Click here for Ashleigh Banfield's full video but please do not repost.

 

[MadCowWisco]

I’m sorry. I was just giving a reason for having two residences. I didn’t mean to make you feel bad.

All good. We're all just a little sensitive right now wanting this to just turn out well - fingers crossed

 

[Inthedetails]

Do we know when anyone else last saw NG alive besides the family? TIA

Always a good question.

jmo

 

[avalonisland]

Maybe she was attacked by like one or more Bobcats at her front entryway while opening the front door to get inside. This could explain some blood at entry way inside and outside home plus the smashing of front door cameras. She could have left the apple watch charging when she went to dinner which is why she was not wearing it. The son in law dropped her off after the dinner event 1/31/26 and perhaps he did not walk her inside the home and make sure all was sa fe and secure for her to get to bed. The daughter lived 10 mins away and posted in past about Bobcats at daughter's Tucson property.

 

[Bluewing3102]

I was watching a report currently on television, but here is a digital link. It was two days ago (not yesterday, as I incorrectly wrote) the helicopter was up and the officer was sitting, legs hanging out, of the open side of the helicopter wearing whatever that helmet-thing was.

Sheriff's helicopter hovers over area where missing Nancy Guthrie is believed to live | Fox News Video

A Pima County Sheriff's Department helicopter flies over the area where missing Nancy Guthrie is believed to live. (Fox News Digital/Christina Dugan Ramirez)

www.foxnews.com

Hello, based on this video I can't see the equipment too well. I work on government helicopters though. Helicopter crews often wear helmets due to the rotor wash to protect eyes from debris. If you're flying low with the window/door open in a sandy environment like Arizona you're going to want to protect your face from debris and your eyes from glare.

In my professional opinion, he's just wearing a crew chief helmet.

 

[azure]

Serious question: has Ashleigh Banfield ever circulated the name of the wrong suspect before?

 

[DS2021]

Since law enforcement strongly pushed back on the Ashleigh Banfield report, I decided to take a closer look.

A friend pointed out something important in Banfield’s video. In the thumbnail and at about 18:32 seconds into the segment, Banfield states that the son-in-law is the prime suspect. Just seconds later, she walks that back and says he may be the prime suspect. That is a significant difference.
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO A CLIP OF WHAT BANFIELD SAID

Below is a screenshot of the thumbnail from Banfield's video.
I'm showing you this so you can see the claim she makes, but she walks back that claim in her video. It is crazy.

View attachment 641628

Those two statements are not the same thing. Saying someone is a prime suspect versus saying they may be a prime suspect carries very different implications—especially when law enforcement has publicly denied that claim.
Because of this inconsistency, and because law enforcement has pushed back hard against the report, we are not going to allow discussion identifying any specific person as a suspect.

What is allowed:

• Discussing evidence
• Discussing theories
• Discussing possibilities in general terms (for example: “someone close to her,” or “possibly a family member”)

What is not allowed:

• Naming specific individuals
• Identifying any person as a suspect

We need to be able to discuss all possibilities—that’s what we do here—but we also have to balance that with the rights of real people not to be publicly accused of a crime they have not been charged with.

So please speak in general terms and do not identify individual people as suspects.

If you’re unsure whether something crosses the line, just ask in the thread and we’ll clarify.

Thank you for helping keep this discussion fair, factual, and responsible.
Tricia

P.S. By the way, a great reporter on YouTube (and he is an approved source) is Brian Entin. He is in AZ covering this case.
Click here for one of Brian Entin's videos

Click here for Ashleigh Banfield's full video but please do not repost.

So unbelievably irresponsible on Banfields part