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

[SaraSmile]

​

Nancy Guthrie Alleged Ransom Account Remains Empty as Deadline Approaches

A bitcoin account allegedly set up to accept funds in exchange for Savannah Guthrie's missing mother Nancy is still sitting empty Monday morning ... with time quickly winding down on an alleged deadline.

www.tmz.com

Edit to add: Thought I copied the headline lol

story about the bitcoin not having any transactions

Perhaps, FBI has asked the family to delay. I really think the bitcoin transfer, if/when they decide to do it, will just be going into a black whole.

No NG, alive or dead will be returned. Sorry, not a solution, in my opinion.

 

[snoopy100]

I want to believe if family involved they would be on their trail by now. I don’t believe that is the case. I totally believe ransom notes from kidnappers because they waited until they had her far enough away and nobody on their trail. And they are sophisticated enough that they are able to get ransom notes done without leaving a digital footprint.

this is what is holding me back from getting on the SIL train.

i don't think it would require a full-scale investigation from the FBI to figure out that this was a crime of passion staged to look like a kidnapping or, if we want to lean towards the crazier theory, that the SIL is involved with the ransom note somehow. similarly, i have a hard time believing that they wouldn't have figured out by now that the ransom note is not related and it's a separate crime they need to investigate after the more immediate crisis of a missing 84 year old.

but, maybe they are actually investigating this as a family murder and focusing less on the ransom note now and we just don't know about it yet.

 

[MassGuy]

If the ransomers are independent of the crime-sceners, the ransomers got really lucky that the crime scene is not inconsistent with a kidnapping, that there was apparently no proof of death at the home AND neither NG nor her body have turned up this whole time. Ransomers IMO seem pretty confident that they had a while week+ to extort money from the family with no risk of a discovery (NG/body) defeating their threat.

JMO

The sheriff was talking about a kidnapping very early on, which means the crime scene must have been consistent with that. Normally the messaging would be that they suspect foul play, which means abduction and/or murder would be on the table.

Being so specific means that someone could have easily been inspired to take advantage of the situation.

You make a good point about risk they'd be taking by dragging this out so long. It's odd to wait to make such a ransom request, and odder still to allow for so much time. On top of that, the whole two deadline thing.

Easily the most confusing case I've ever.

 

[Diddian]

but they said she went in through the garage

No they didn't. They said her garage door opened at 9:48 pm and at 9:50 pm. They did not say why the garage door opened or whether anyone entered or exited because they only have the specific evidence of the garage opening and closing.

Anything else requires assumption or more evidence.

 

[txsleuth70]

Especially when there's a fair chance the church friend doesn't exist, MOO

Exactly. That could have even been an initial call from Calella who knows at this point. There is nothing verifying a call was made or received.

 

[arielilane]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2020904680348410251

 

[mikeshanty]

How is any different than blaming the SIL?

It's not, but nobody is really speculating that on here so the accusation is out of the blue and perplexing.

 

[cady]

Especially when there's a fair chance the church friend doesn't exist, MOO

I expect that "church friend" HAS been interviewed and is probably terrified that his/her name will be publicized. We don't know the name of the Uber driver, either. Not necessary. JMO

 

[louvillian08]

This information was presented by the Sheriff timeline style at the time of the bullet point display.

I assume the call was left out of the display because of the "approximately" where the other points are times verifiable through technology and the Uber driver's recording with NG in the car.

The relatives claimed they arrived to check on NG at 11:56 and the 911 call at 12:03 must be connected as verified in the 911 recording apparently. Guess they looked at the time on their phone as they arrived.

Wouldn't the relatives phone have the exact time and duration of the call from the Church friend to verify that point?

Approximately 11 a.m.: Someone who attends church with Nancy Guthrie called the family to report that the 84-year-old never made it to services, the sheriff said.

11:56 a.m.: Relatives responded to Nancy Guthrie's home and discovered she was missing, the sheriff said.

12:03 p.m.: The family called 911, the sheriff said.

Nancy Guthrie abduction: Sheriff reveals more detailed timeline


imo

Yes they would know the exact time. But the timeline exclusively lists events at Nancy’s house. IE we know she was home at this time, we know the house is empty at this time, we know she officially missing at this time.

The timing of a call to her family doesn’t fit with any of the other events in that timeline. Its inclusion would just beg other questions: what time was the service, what time did she stop answering phone calls, etc.

 

[Ellis' Mom]

the info about church friend contacting family is on page two of that document. Not the snipped portion of the complaint that is featured in the member's post. here's the portion that mentions church friend:

View attachment 642960

Hoax ransom Complaint doc

Thank you! That explains a lot!
It would have eliminated confusion had the portion of the doc referenced in the post been included.

 

[shonyakay]

My working theory is the time of the contact of the church friend is the exact same time that the family started looking (allegedly) for Nancy (11:56 a.m.) and that is why it wasn't listed during the February 5th presser.

 

[SMK777]

I expect that "church friend" HAS been interviewed and is probably terrified that his/her name will be publicized. We don't know the name of the Uber driver, either. Not necessary. JMO

We don't need the name. Just acknowledgment that such a contact with family was made.

 

[Inthedetails]

Yeah it is. I know from being in a ministry family, elderly ladies keep an eye out for who misses services. That’s the vision I had in my head about this situation. That’s a really good thought as terrible as it is also. If someone didn’t contact the family on Sunday then would the kidnappers still had waited until Monday to send the ransom note.

I'll chime in as someone who has served on every kind of committee at church - if someone is signed up to do something Sunday morning, an absence is definitely noted! Did she serve as greeter, coffee hour hostess, altar prep. Was she in t he choir or scheduled to read scripture, etc? I know she can't walk long distances but it's not out of the realm she can still volunteer to serve at church.

If not, I would think a friend would wait until service is over before alerting a family member. I mean, people are sometimes late, ykwim?

Having said that, I have doubts about the call from a church friend. Did it really happen? idk

jmo

 

[SMK777]

My working theory is the time of the contact of the church friend 11:56 a.m. is the exact same time that the family started looking for Nancy and that is why is wasn't listed during the February 5th presser.

A very strange detail to leave out. A third party alerts you to your mother's absence.

 

[Ellis' Mom]

https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/media/1426976/dl?inline

"On the morning of February 1, 2026, a friend of N.G.'s contacted the victim's family and notified them that N.G. had not attended church that morning."

Thank you! It would have eliminated confusion had the portion of the doc referenced in the post (or the link, as you've done) been included.

 

[SMK777]

I'll chime in as someone who has served on every kind of committee at church - if someone is signed up to do something Sunday morning, an absence is definitely noted! Did she serve as greeter, coffee hour hostess, altar prep. Was she in t he choir or scheduled to read scripture, etc? I know she can't walk long distances but it's not out of the realm she can still volunteer to serve at church.

If not, I would think a friend would wait until service is over before alerting a family member. I mean, people are sometimes late, ykwim?

Having said that, I have doubts about the call from a church friend. Did it really happen? idk

jmo

Thanks .
Your last sentence says it all.

 

[missy1974]

The sheriff was talking about a kidnapping very early on, which means the crime scene must have been consistent with that. Normally the messaging would be that they suspect foul play, which means abduction and/or murder would be on the table.

Being so specific means that someone could have easily been inspired to take advantage of the situation.

You make a good point about risk they'd be taking by dragging this out so long. It's odd to wait to make such a ransom request, and odder still to allow for so much time. On top of that, the whole two deadline thing.

Easily the most confusing case I've ever.

What would make the Sheriff talk about kidnapping early on?

Favourite shoes missing? Jacket? What would make them think that? What makes a crime scene consistent with that?

 

[303gmf]

It's not, but nobody is really speculating that on here so the accusation is out of the blue and perplexing.

Excuse my flabbergasted response, since thread 2 or 3 plus Banfield’s position many, many posts suspecting him!

 

[txsleuth70]

I don’t understand where the expectation of LE to publicly identify a concerned friend comes from?

Not even speaking publicly identified. They have not said "we spoke to the church member and verified the call" or "call records confirm" or a timeline shows "11:04 church member called". There's nada, zilch, nothing.

 

[MommaV]

I am looking into the confusion surrounding the parishioner who first notified Nancy’s family of her absence. While few details were provided—and the information was eventually omitted from the press conference's updated timeline—the timing is critical.
Many believe the family was called(we're still uncertain how they were notified whether they went by Annie's house or called her) at 11:00 AM, but I find that unlikely. An alarm wouldn't typically be sounded only 15 minutes after a service begins; it is more probable that the call occurred after Mass ended and Nancy’s absence was confirmed. Based on the church website, the timeline becomes much clearer:
Contemporary Mass: Early morning.
Traditional Mass: Starts at 10:45 AM.
Assuming Nancy attended the traditional service, which typically lasts 60 minutes, the Mass would have concluded around 11:45 AM. This creates a very narrow window between the end of the service and the moment the family arrived at Nancy’s house to discover the scene.
It is likely the family made several calls while en route, which may have served as an additional red flag. Furthermore, we should consider if Nancy used an automated medication dispenser; these devices often sound an alarm or alert a designated family member if a dose isn't taken, which could have been another factor in the family's quick response.

So what you’re speculating is if she would have attended the 10:45 mass, her missing was an emergency to report to family during the mass by a churchgoer, rather than waiting until after mass ended?