AZ Nancy Guthrie, 84, (mother of TODAY Show host Savannah Guthrie) missing - last seen in the Catalina foothills area on Jan 31, 2026
- Thread starter TexLil
- Start date
- Featured
Also, adding on to your “much more possible” scenario, a Google Maps search of her address shows no street lights, a secluded neighborhood with nearly 1 acre parcels each, and homes that are set back from the main road with full grown cactus/trees for more privacy.
A doorbell cam at the neighbors would definitely not see a car driving by unless it entered their driveway.
Also, being so close to the border gives an advantage for evidence or body disposal.
A lot of advantages to her residence for committing a crime.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2007
- Messages
- 4,998
- Reaction score
- 29,991
IMO He's a controversial person here and it's showing even to people who don't live here. Everyone in this thread and those who follow the case want NG found-which means the sheriff succeeds in some way should this happen. IMO if it does not happen, unfortunately it would not surprise many who live here IMO.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
- Messages
- 4,042
- Reaction score
- 67,756
I would greatly rejoice if this were true, and Nancy comes home alive and not damaged beyond repair, but IMO criminals do lie, after all.
Whether their most recent letter was a genuine threat or a bargaining chip or a pure invention, I don’t know. But I trust nothing that comes from a letter that could be sent by anyone.
Without proof of life, I do not trust.
JMO
LE has stated this is not a burglary gone wrong. It's amazing to me that people accept what LE has said and links are posted for sources but when they say something that goes against someone's personal narrative, what LE has said has no merit. Not personal to you bigcityaccountant AT ALL, I like your posts but LE (NANOS) said it was a targeted kidnapping. NOT a burglary gone wrong. This came out this week. We have no idea if she even had a safe. Maybe she fell and fainted. Maybe the perp stopped long enough to make a ham sandwich for the road! He may have knocked her out, drugged her, then tied her up and while disabled, taken her away in a space ship. WE KNOW NOTHING, really! We can go by what has been stated and even that may be said by LE in an effort to keep the perp confused. It's all about motive, imo. MOO
EDITED TO ADD THE LINK ABOUT THE BURGLARY GONE WRONG
Nancy Guthrie update: Sheriff reacts to "robbery gone wrong" theory
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nano explains why he believes the case is a kidnapping rather than a burglary gone bad.
www.newsweek.com
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a land fill not far away.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2026
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 1,326
Are they back at the landfill area again or is this from earlier this afternoon? I can’t discern.
The odd behavior of the front porch intruder can be explained by assuming that a change had to be made to the kidnapper’s original plan to exit the house by the same path used to enter the house; namely, by the back door. The following paragraphs explain this further.
The first figure shows the first frame of video from the front door camera that shows the intruder approaching the front porch. Notice that the intruder is stepping onto the front walk from a position to the left, and not from the right or from straight ahead. Therefore, it is unlikely that he came up the front walk steps where the hand rail is located. So, where could he be coming from?
The answer can be found by looking at the second figure, which shows an aerial view of the front of the house.
This view shows the intruder’s position with a red rectangle. It is immediately in front of a white circular stepping stone that can be seen in both the door camera video and the aerial view of the house. Now, this position is approached most easily by a clear path to the corner of the house as shown by the red dots in the aerial view. It is unlikely that the intruder entered this bath from any point short of the corner of the house because he would have had to climb over a two-foot high pile of rocks to reach the path as shown in the third figure – something not impossible, but a hassle that one would have preferred to avoid especially at night.
Therefore, it appears that the intruder came to the front door from a point beyond the corner of the house. This point was most likely the point of entry into the house, which we are told by authorities was the door to the back porch. If this is the case, then most likely the intruder came from inside the house before he approached the front door.
Now, let’s assume that that the original plan was to for the kidnapper(s) to exit the house by walking out the back door with their victim walking beside them to their vehicle located somewhere down the street. This would have been their safest option to avoid other cameras. And parking the vehicle on the street would have made it easier for a fast getaway than parking in the driveway, where they could have been blocked in. Unfortunately, while they were inside the house it became apparent to them that it was impossible for Nancy to walk to the vehicle where it was, either because Nancy told them she couldn’t walk that far or because they could see for themselves that she couldn’t walk that far (they could have spotted the walker she used inside the house). Therefore, they were forced to make a change in their exit plan and to bring the vehicle closer to the house so Nancy wouldn’t have to walk as far. The front door was decided to be the best option for doing this.
Therefore, while one of the kidnappers remained with Nancy to ensure that she didn’t call the police, the other kidnapper exited out the back door to get the vehicle. While on his way to get the vehicle, he remembered that there was a front door camera that could see the vehicle approach the front of the house, watch them enter the vehicle, and make their getaway. He knew this camera existed because of his reconnaissance of the house a few weeks earlier, when he was spotted unknowingly by the front door camera. Therefore, he had to either cover up the camera or remove it entirely before bringing the vehicle to the house. So, he went directly from the back porch to the front porch to disable the camera.
One can see on the camera video that he knew the camera existed because he held his head down while approaching the camera from the side. When he was unable to remove camera easily, he decided to temporarily cover it up with something so that it could not see the vehicle, assuming he could find a tool later in the vehicle or in the house that would help him remove the camera while they were exiting through the front door. So, he decided to use some nearby vegetation to disable the camera. While covering it with vegetation appears to most people to be a sign of gross incompetence, it actually served his purpose quite well because the camera was unable to see him later bring the vehicle to the front steps, get out, and approach the camera once more to remove it, either by approaching it from outside the house or from the inside. Then, after the camera was removed, no one could see them take Nancy down the front walk, put her in the vehicle, and then leave in the vehicle. And we know that they exited this way because of the blood on the front porch that wasn’t there when the intruder approached the camera the first time.
So this change of exit plan explains the following:
1) The front door video occurs while leaving the house and not while entering the house.
a. The intruder at the front door was inside the house prior to going to the front door and was likely the driver of the vehicle.
b. This explains the full backpack used by the intruder at the front door. It contains objects taken from inside or outside the house like possibly cameras, and other objects of value, and not just tools for entering the house.
c. It explains why covering the camera with vegetation was an effective action and not a sign of gross incompetence.
2) The intruder on the video at the front door likely had an accomplice.
a. Someone had to guarantee that Nancy would not call the police while the intruder was at the front door.
b. Someone had to guarantee that Nancy would not call the police while someone else disabled cameras and flood lights before exiting the house, which could have caused sounds that Nancy might have heard. (Nancy was hard of hearing and used hearing aids, but the kidnappers likely did not know this ahead of time).
c. The intruder appears to not have full use of his right hand, right elbow, and right leg, making it difficult for him to climb to the roof to remove cameras.
d. If the intruder did not have an accomplice, then he had to ensure that Nancy could not call the police while he was absent by tying her up with tape or cord. But it still would have been risky to leave her alone.
3) Change of exit plan does not depend upon how Nancy entered her house prior to her kidnapping.
4) Change of exit plan does not depend upon how the kidnappers entered the house.
a. Either Nancy left the back door unlocked, or
b. Someone else had left the back door unlocked, or
c. The kidnappers picked the lock on the back door. (There was no forced entry).
d. The kidnappers could have entered the house via a sliding door to the bedroom. In this case they would have still planned to exit via the back door because exiting via the sliding door would have required the victim to climb over a low brick wall. The rear porch did not have a sliding door.
5) The camera removed by the FBI from the roof of the guest house would have seen all entry and exit movements by any intruders via the back door. This camera was overlooked by the kidnappers because it was not on the roof of the main house. At this time only the FBI knows how much of this video data was stored within this camera, stored onsite in the house, or transmitted to the cloud. Perhaps some data was stored. Perhaps none was stored.
The first figure shows the first frame of video from the front door camera that shows the intruder approaching the front porch. Notice that the intruder is stepping onto the front walk from a position to the left, and not from the right or from straight ahead. Therefore, it is unlikely that he came up the front walk steps where the hand rail is located. So, where could he be coming from?
The answer can be found by looking at the second figure, which shows an aerial view of the front of the house.
This view shows the intruder’s position with a red rectangle. It is immediately in front of a white circular stepping stone that can be seen in both the door camera video and the aerial view of the house. Now, this position is approached most easily by a clear path to the corner of the house as shown by the red dots in the aerial view. It is unlikely that the intruder entered this bath from any point short of the corner of the house because he would have had to climb over a two-foot high pile of rocks to reach the path as shown in the third figure – something not impossible, but a hassle that one would have preferred to avoid especially at night.
Therefore, it appears that the intruder came to the front door from a point beyond the corner of the house. This point was most likely the point of entry into the house, which we are told by authorities was the door to the back porch. If this is the case, then most likely the intruder came from inside the house before he approached the front door.
Now, let’s assume that that the original plan was to for the kidnapper(s) to exit the house by walking out the back door with their victim walking beside them to their vehicle located somewhere down the street. This would have been their safest option to avoid other cameras. And parking the vehicle on the street would have made it easier for a fast getaway than parking in the driveway, where they could have been blocked in. Unfortunately, while they were inside the house it became apparent to them that it was impossible for Nancy to walk to the vehicle where it was, either because Nancy told them she couldn’t walk that far or because they could see for themselves that she couldn’t walk that far (they could have spotted the walker she used inside the house). Therefore, they were forced to make a change in their exit plan and to bring the vehicle closer to the house so Nancy wouldn’t have to walk as far. The front door was decided to be the best option for doing this.
Therefore, while one of the kidnappers remained with Nancy to ensure that she didn’t call the police, the other kidnapper exited out the back door to get the vehicle. While on his way to get the vehicle, he remembered that there was a front door camera that could see the vehicle approach the front of the house, watch them enter the vehicle, and make their getaway. He knew this camera existed because of his reconnaissance of the house a few weeks earlier, when he was spotted unknowingly by the front door camera. Therefore, he had to either cover up the camera or remove it entirely before bringing the vehicle to the house. So, he went directly from the back porch to the front porch to disable the camera.
One can see on the camera video that he knew the camera existed because he held his head down while approaching the camera from the side. When he was unable to remove camera easily, he decided to temporarily cover it up with something so that it could not see the vehicle, assuming he could find a tool later in the vehicle or in the house that would help him remove the camera while they were exiting through the front door. So, he decided to use some nearby vegetation to disable the camera. While covering it with vegetation appears to most people to be a sign of gross incompetence, it actually served his purpose quite well because the camera was unable to see him later bring the vehicle to the front steps, get out, and approach the camera once more to remove it, either by approaching it from outside the house or from the inside. Then, after the camera was removed, no one could see them take Nancy down the front walk, put her in the vehicle, and then leave in the vehicle. And we know that they exited this way because of the blood on the front porch that wasn’t there when the intruder approached the camera the first time.
So this change of exit plan explains the following:
1) The front door video occurs while leaving the house and not while entering the house.
a. The intruder at the front door was inside the house prior to going to the front door and was likely the driver of the vehicle.
b. This explains the full backpack used by the intruder at the front door. It contains objects taken from inside or outside the house like possibly cameras, and other objects of value, and not just tools for entering the house.
c. It explains why covering the camera with vegetation was an effective action and not a sign of gross incompetence.
2) The intruder on the video at the front door likely had an accomplice.
a. Someone had to guarantee that Nancy would not call the police while the intruder was at the front door.
b. Someone had to guarantee that Nancy would not call the police while someone else disabled cameras and flood lights before exiting the house, which could have caused sounds that Nancy might have heard. (Nancy was hard of hearing and used hearing aids, but the kidnappers likely did not know this ahead of time).
c. The intruder appears to not have full use of his right hand, right elbow, and right leg, making it difficult for him to climb to the roof to remove cameras.
d. If the intruder did not have an accomplice, then he had to ensure that Nancy could not call the police while he was absent by tying her up with tape or cord. But it still would have been risky to leave her alone.
3) Change of exit plan does not depend upon how Nancy entered her house prior to her kidnapping.
4) Change of exit plan does not depend upon how the kidnappers entered the house.
a. Either Nancy left the back door unlocked, or
b. Someone else had left the back door unlocked, or
c. The kidnappers picked the lock on the back door. (There was no forced entry).
d. The kidnappers could have entered the house via a sliding door to the bedroom. In this case they would have still planned to exit via the back door because exiting via the sliding door would have required the victim to climb over a low brick wall. The rear porch did not have a sliding door.
5) The camera removed by the FBI from the roof of the guest house would have seen all entry and exit movements by any intruders via the back door. This camera was overlooked by the kidnappers because it was not on the roof of the main house. At this time only the FBI knows how much of this video data was stored within this camera, stored onsite in the house, or transmitted to the cloud. Perhaps some data was stored. Perhaps none was stored.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2021
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 1,367
Are you saying that she never left her house? If NG never left her house then where is she?
Just a question in case you meant to word things differently.
I think it’s likely fox news sent the chopper after they caught wind of the search happening earlier.
Or atleast that’s how it appears to me. I don’t see an active search happening when i watch the live feed. moo
When I posted it it said 13 minutes ago but I am not really sure, to be honest.
afaik they are still going round gun shops with 40 photos of possible suspects.
factseeking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2026
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 467
As a few people said earlier today I'm at the point where reading posts and thinking about what could have happened is exhausting. So many days and so much media that is not reliable theorizing based on info that isn't factual or is misleading and labeling their theory as fact. Add to that the facts being reported by reliable sources and I feel like I'm in a tornado unable to keep straight what is true what is theory and what is just bs.
I don't feel alone at least as I've seen others here doing the same thing I'm doing in my head "I know someone said X but I can't remember if it was the neighbor or was it the sheriff and what day was that" and then going off to hunt for it and not being able to find it. So frustrating right? I took a break this morning and I'm going to step away this afternoon as well.
There is one thing I know for sure and I keep seeing it come up in here and just need to say my opinion. Whatever SG chooses to do from here with her career is something we don't know and I don't think we should even speculate about it. It's not relevant to solving this case. She will do the best thing for her and her family. I remember when KC's (past cohost of the Today show) husband died of colon cancer at age 42. She came back to Today after just a few days because she said it helped her think about something else for several hours a day. And then she launched a public campaign about getting colonoscopies and talked about that on the Today show. She even had a colonoscopy live on the show. She turned her grief into positive actions.
People process grief in different ways. That was KC's way and SG will have her own way but please, let the DM speculate if they want but can we just not?
And as always, this is Just My Opinion.
I don't feel alone at least as I've seen others here doing the same thing I'm doing in my head "I know someone said X but I can't remember if it was the neighbor or was it the sheriff and what day was that" and then going off to hunt for it and not being able to find it. So frustrating right? I took a break this morning and I'm going to step away this afternoon as well.
There is one thing I know for sure and I keep seeing it come up in here and just need to say my opinion. Whatever SG chooses to do from here with her career is something we don't know and I don't think we should even speculate about it. It's not relevant to solving this case. She will do the best thing for her and her family. I remember when KC's (past cohost of the Today show) husband died of colon cancer at age 42. She came back to Today after just a few days because she said it helped her think about something else for several hours a day. And then she launched a public campaign about getting colonoscopies and talked about that on the Today show. She even had a colonoscopy live on the show. She turned her grief into positive actions.
People process grief in different ways. That was KC's way and SG will have her own way but please, let the DM speculate if they want but can we just not?
And as always, this is Just My Opinion.
I think they went to google and google went to the cloud. JMO
Nor do I trust criminals to take care of a vulnerable, elderly person's needs for 3 weeks.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2014
- Messages
- 1,164
- Reaction score
- 11,856
Great post and welcome Old Jim (love your name by the way). You seem to hit on a good point in the way the perp approach the front door. He does seem to come from the side.
What crime was committed, though? Not burglary. Kidnapping...Assault....WHY???????? JMO
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,843
- Reaction score
- 20,742
“We also have some things at that scene that indicate to us that she was removed from that scene against her will. I can’t go into all those details” to protect the integrity of the case, Nanos said Monday.
What evidence would that be? Maybe her blood trail? I am not ruling out those two lines down the left side of her driveway either.
What evidence would that be? Maybe her blood trail? I am not ruling out those two lines down the left side of her driveway either.
submarine7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2026
- Messages
- 357
- Reaction score
- 2,215
Lots of abandoned mines in the area.
Similar threads
Guardians Monthly Goal
Staff online
-
BreezyflavorModerator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 123
- Guests online
- 3,209
- Total visitors
- 3,332