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

[MissLaura]

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.

 

[ArabianLover]

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

 

[Beans]

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.

 

[mikeshanty]

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)

 

[Starkville]

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.

 

[nhmemorymaker]

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.

 

[simlyme]

"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 .

 

[Pharmasgirl]

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

 

[Sakura2Sophia4Lucia]

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.

 

[su5ie]

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

 

[Rumination1]

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

 

[LAhiker]

"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.

 

[birdbox]

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?

 

[whitelilac]

Sometimes, when a crime is carefully thought out, in detail, with all sorts of deflections to hide actual facts, the perpetrator(s) can be identified because of a simple mistake.
oops

In this case, (maybe) the churchgoer call. So simple for LE to discover it never happened....no record of the call, or text, or whatever communication, on either of the subjects' phone.

We see this often. A small thing throws a wrench into the whole well plotted crime and leads to the culprits.

 

[moonglow123]

Is there any innocent reason they could’ve spent hours taking photos in and removing items from AG’s house yesterday? It’s all so confusing.

 

[HoveringWombats]

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

IMO this very much sounds like a situation where it would have been better to say "I'm don't have that information" than "I'm sure we have" but I also don't envy his position having to speak extemporaneously in a stressful situation, so I understand some poor choices of words and mistakes.

 

[mikeshanty]

Guys, this is the earliest press conference I found. Well worth a watch:

 

[mickey2942]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> ... my husband is 85, and requires a pretty much routine life. Any change, completely messes up his sleep, bowels, mood, multiple medical conditions. I mean, we are talking, maybe going to a medical appointment. That completely messes with his routine and schedule. And he is still pretty sharp.

So, this...I don't see a happy ending. And I go back, to my original opinion, is that the perpetrator, never expected this over saturation on news. MOO, is that the news wants more than the ICE situation in Minnesota, and the weather. Slow news week, I guess.

 

[Friday Fan]

Can you prove this?

She hasnt surfaced. They have received ransom notes. There would be no point in murdering her or holding her without getting money in return. The ransom notes are real. What if she suddenly turned up before the money was paid? She hasnt. The ransom notes are a direct result and authored by the kidnapper or his collaborators. jmo

 

[Sadi]

Mat

so strange to me. Yes, why would he not have memory of such a critical and absolutely necessary piece of information

Maybe because that call never took place? He avoided saying yes or no for a reason. IMO