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

  • #18,081
  • #18,082
Confused why they go to effort to conceal their face yet look directly into the camera
 
  • #18,083
I know we have the timeline released last Thursday stating the camera was disconnected around 2am on 2/1/26, but the above eagle eye obaervation of @desert-blue combined with the FBI poster stating images are from 1/31/26 makes me wonder if the suspect approached the house both before and after midnight? Obviously the 1/31/26 on the poster from X.com could be a typo but you’d think they’d get that detail correct before hitting publish … right?

View attachment 643420
It's before the blood was deposited on the front porch, for sure. How long before is impossible to say. He/she/they may even have entered the home while NG was out at dinner. A timestamp on that video would be nice. IMO
 
  • #18,084
I’m a hiker and the shoes look like a light-colored hiking or trail boot, low to mid height, with a rounded toe. Most of the big hiking brands make something similar (Merrill Moab, Keen Targhee, or Salomon X ultra).

I was thinking more like this

1770753801096.webp
 
  • #18,085
Camping out? As in nearby? I visited my aunt many time in the desert area of Tucson and every night around 4am would be awakened by coyotes howling. Also she told me about the javelinas that often walked around the streets. Not to mention rattle snakes etc. Braver person ( or more naïve) than I’d be to sleep out under the stars there. JMO.
Yes, essentially staking out until night when he would walk in to the neighborhood to avoid a traceable car (except for a getaway car). Given it sounds like he was possibly at NG's home for a while (up to 45 minutes or longer) it makes sense he wouldn't want a car on premise. I realize there are a lot of assumptions there. But to follow the theory of the investigator. I think it could make sense as well. I'm not sure how long he could have been camping out - could be a transient type person, or maybe only for a few hours until nightfall. But the backpack would imply some sort of supplies such as food or a blanket. I'm sure there are places that he could stay fairly concealed without worrying about coyotes (on/in an abandoned building, etc.) but I get your point.
 
  • #18,086
My opinion only:

The video of the assailant is earlier when they are disabling the camera.

Later, they gain entry to the house thru some other means.

Once they get inside 30 minutes later, the abduction is pretty quick.. and she is removed from the front door (where the camera is now disabled) and that is the difference in time.
Yes, just realized he might not have gained entry at 1:47am. I think you're right.
 
  • #18,087
I think you meant to type "Guthrie family." Interesting autocorrection...
I am a horrendous typist. Thus, sometimes the all caps, because I have to look at my fingers when typing. Then I look up and it's all caps! Yes, i spelled the name wrong..I thought it was obvious nonetheless, who I was referencing..
 
  • #18,088
The authorities should post that to help with tips! I don't think a lot of people know that.
Maybe the same day AG's website did?
 
  • #18,089
  • #18,090
I know we have the timeline released last Thursday stating the camera was disconnected around 2am on 2/1/26, but the above eagle eye observation of @desert-blue
re: Suspect wearing and not wearing backpack, combined with the official FBI poster stating images are from 1/31/26 makes me wonder if the suspect approached the house both before and after midnight? Obviously the 1/31/26 on the poster from X.com could be a typo but you’d think they’d get that detail correct before hitting publish … right?

View attachment 643420
It could be a typo. Or, despite the mention of Tucson right below it, it could be that the date was from a different time zone, reflecting either the time zone of the place that processed the video data or FBI HQ.

JMO
 
  • #18,091
Has LE said what time the video was taken?

Already answered. Slow reader.
 
  • #18,092
Who is DE?
Not supposed to post names, and not sure how much I am allowed to post. I'll just say DE is well known to the SIL.
 
  • #18,093
dbm
 
  • #18,094
Honestly though, someone will recognize him. Very clear shots of his body type, attire, eyes and mouth. It's a rarity in unsolved cases like this. No way he can get away with it forever.

I hope LE has an idea of the vehicle he was in and can give the public tips on that as well.
 
  • #18,095
  • #18,096
  • #18,097
Why would he want to expose his eyes and mouth? Like why not wear night vision glasses? Also, not cold in Tucson and he seems to wear such padded clothing.
 
  • #18,098
I’m never catching up, so apologies if I’m repeating anything.
That outfit screams layers, and it’s all so deliberately random and ‘vintage’ to me. IMO several layers, to distort looks and change top layer in case a BOLO went out, and purposefully be unlike clothes/bag/holster the subject is widely known to have in regular life. It looks like it’s a thrift store/garage sale/lost & found costume. For example, the outer balaclava is old school, (looks to me like a couple of layers of mask underneath) and the holster is a good style, but ill suited for the gun the subject has. Everything about the outfit looks staged to my mind.
JMOO
 
  • #18,099
It’s most certainly a man. No need to even question it
I agree. The eyes look feminine, but I do think this is a man who has good lashes.

jmo
 
  • #18,100
Maybe something like this
My husband and I have little flashlights like that on our key rings. They are quite small but very bright.
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
608
Guests online
3,907
Total visitors
4,515

Forum statistics

Threads
641,058
Messages
18,768,461
Members
244,737
Latest member
Miss Moxie
Back
Top