- Joined
- Aug 12, 2007
- Messages
- 4,706
- Reaction score
- 27,551
Party details would not be verifiable via a third party unless others in attendance; sounds like there were none—we’d know). The church call would show verification via a third party, which would be a significant detail as is the Uber verification. They included SIGNIFICANT details, of which this one was purposefully omitted.I said this yesterday, but I think the timeline given was only intended to show the comings/goings at the house, not everything known.
Notice they don't include details from the party.
guardian or not does not matter, one does not personally insult anyone. Attack the post, not the poster.I'm fairly new here, still trying to figure things out, and I tend to be a strict rule-follower--on one of my first (of few) posts, I was very gently chastised by a moderator for quoting a non-acceptable source, and was directed to the website rules.
Am I correct in thinking that insulting a Websleuths member--and in this case, a Websleuths Guardian--goes against Rule #1?
Maybe it's just "an opinion" and is therefore acceptable. My mom taught me that "if I do not have anything nice to say, do not say anything at all." My mom was pretty cool.
How can he be confident that she will be found alive? No meds, and could very possibly have been deceased from the beginning.
What does he know that makes him say that?
why would they use AB for that? Why would they allow a reporter to potentially compromise an investigation and then walk it back?I haven't been assuming that anything reported was done for the benefit of informing the public. Doesn't LE strategically use the media to help their investigation? Such as saying or not saying something and watching how certain people react? Is it not possible that the Ashleigh Banfield "exclusive" was deliberate? I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist. I just don't take LE press conferences or news releases at face value because I think it's sometimes investigative tactics.
That is a very bold statement to make. I have suspicions that I'll keep to myself to be nice but the focus on the note and this assertation makes me...question a lot of things I guess.He said there is no evidence that she is deceased. That is a pretty bold statement.
Is he basing that on the ransom note that said she was alive but was scared?
I'm not sure.
I can't find anything. I'm reading "at the border", but it happened in Mexico at the border not in the US. Matamoros and Juarez resectively. (2023 and 2025) However, it was in Mexico, not in the US. A border town can be in Mexico.Sadly it's quite common along the border for small sums (50k etc.)
Many border towns on the US side (TX, AZ, NM) have US citizens kidnapped for ransom and brought into Mexico. You can google tons of articles that range from young women, to prominent town figures etc. The US Dept of State has an advisory on it.
I firmly believe it was NOT a burglary gone wrong. I agree that maybe police didn't reveal anything stolen, but absolutely nothing has pointed to it even remotely being a burglary.I can’t believe nothing wasn’t taken from the house, older people usually have money hidden (as another poster said) plus they may have valuable collections over the years, coins, stamps, art work. The person/persons were in the house long enough to look for these items.
Police may not be reporting items taken but I’m sure there’s a lot they aren’t saying.
When someone with a pacemaker dies, they contact the company to turn it off. The machine does not recognize that someone has died (or alert anyone either). Pacemakers are different than internal defibrillators.i know distance from phone can be one reason but what happens if the person is deceased?
He didn’t say that. He says…. She’s here, we’re gonna find her. I don’t think that means the same thing.How can he be confident that she will be found alive? No meds, and could very possibly have been deceased from the beginning.
What does he know that makes him say that?
Possible re-post, fwiw..
Feb. 5, 2026
''Two California teens were arrested in an Arizona home invasion tied to an alleged $66 million cryptocurrency plot that happened the same day Nancy Guthrie was last seen before disappearing from her Tucson home about two hours away.![]()
Teens charged in $66M crypto home invasion plot in Scottsdale as search for Nancy Guthrie continues in Tucson
Two California teens were arrested in an alleged $66 million crypto-related Arizona home invasion just before Nancy Guthrie vanished. Authorities have not said if the cases are linked.www.aol.com
Authorities have not said if the two cases are connected in any way, but the cases do share some bizarre similarities.
The teens, who are not being identified by Fox News Digital because they are both under the age of 18, allegedly posed as delivery drivers to gain access to the Scottsdale home on Jan. 31, before forcing their way inside and duct-taping and assaulting two homeowners inside''.
Doesn't it just mean they haven't found anything that proves she's dead?He said there is no evidence that she is deceased. That is a pretty bold statement.
Is he basing that on the ransom note that said she was alive but was scared?
I'm not sure.
Oh wow good find @dotr , so either connected and the same group possibly or someone used this plot and stole the idea to mimic/copy cat this as a red herring!Possible re-post, fwiw..
Feb. 5, 2026
''Two California teens were arrested in an Arizona home invasion tied to an alleged $66 million cryptocurrency plot that happened the same day Nancy Guthrie was last seen before disappearing from her Tucson home about two hours away.![]()
Teens charged in $66M crypto home invasion plot in Scottsdale as search for Nancy Guthrie continues in Tucson
Two California teens were arrested in an alleged $66 million crypto-related Arizona home invasion just before Nancy Guthrie vanished. Authorities have not said if the cases are linked.www.aol.com
Authorities have not said if the two cases are connected in any way, but the cases do share some bizarre similarities.
The teens, who are not being identified by Fox News Digital because they are both under the age of 18, allegedly posed as delivery drivers to gain access to the Scottsdale home on Jan. 31, before forcing their way inside and duct-taping and assaulting two homeowners inside''.
Exactly my thoughts as well. Why does he think that and why does he have so many interviews?I.....have no words. I mean of course it's possible. Stranger things have happened. Exactly though, what is the basis for him saying this though? No one knows.