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

[Katrinepa]

It feels to me like he is more comfortable talking one on one, instead of in a press conference environment. In the one on one, it's more of a conversations, when he can have some hope at anticipating the next question. In a press conference, you never know what question may come up. And he has documented issues with handling unexpected questions.

He's never had to deal with a case like this before, and from what I have seen/heard, he is very political, which is not helpful Turf wars should be avoided at all costs. He's used to having his way, and frankly, it is his job, but I wish he'd play nice with those who have more experience and more advanced, faster tools. He needs a public relations advisor.

 

[SMK777]

Good point. I don't think I can have another Friday night/Saturday morning passing out in my chair while watching live coverage of a swat bust bust.

Same here

 

[warp3dwing]

Part 2 from conversation (JMO, etc.):

Who drops the glove out the window??

Apparently …


The glove potentially being tossed two miles away by someone who tried to be very careful at the scene is not outlandish, even though many of us thought it was a weird focus. Frequently criminals in home invasions will be very focused on not getting caught at the scene or leaving things at the scene. They are very focused on getting away safely initially, but in a remarkably short distance (200-300 meters), it is common for the mindset to rapidly shift–and this is happening in the context of extreme emotions after the period of trying to be so careful and steady. Suddenly, there is elation from getting away with it, but it is mingled with the objects that provided safety before (mask, gloves, etc.) now seeming to be THE things that COULD get them caught if they are recorded on a street camera, seen by other drivers, pulled over by police, etc. So there is this zone outside of the closest buffer zone from the crime scene, but still (to our observing, non-reactive-state minds) way too close to the scene of the crime, where it is common for perpetrators to discard objects related to the crime.

With a single pair of gloves from a perp, it’s sometimes possible to retrieve finger or handprints, or DNA.

And a perpetrator double-gloving to avoid DNA at the scene is likely to sweat more, so that if the inner pair of gloves is a form that transfers sweat, there is a rich transfer of shed skin cells carried by sweat through the inner gloves into the interior of the outer ones. And if the person is doing something like doubling up on nitrile gloves, there is often sweat pooling and transferring skin cells from the inner pair to the outer pair at the exit point of the wrist of the two sets of gloves.

A few links from the rabbit hole this led me down around related stuff:



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073825002257 (If someone wants to read this in its entirety but can’t access it, I may be able to share the PDF in a message)



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274697121_Geographic_Profiling_Using_home_to_crime_distances_and_crime_features_to_predict_offender_home_location#:~:text=Abstract,Decay phenomena (Levine, 2004)?



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389999476_From_crime_scenes_to_digital_spaces_A_mundane_object's_journey_through_forensics



https://medwinpublishers.com/IJFSC/development-of-latent-fingerprints-on-different-types-of-gloves-by-using-physical-and-chemical-methods.p

This is great! I hadn’t thought about the buffer zone like that before. The criminal feels that they’re further away from the crime than they really are. Sort of an emotional illusion.

Although I wonder in this case if the suspect would be so quick to do anything that might draw attention to their vehicle: speeding, littering, etc. If you have an abducted woman in your vehicle, it won’t be the ski mask that puts you away!

 

[maskedwoman]

Merriam-Webster defines abduction as "to seize and take away (a person) by force". CAN you take away a person by force if they are deceased? I mean, what are you forcing if the body isn't objecting? Serious question, I don't know the answer.

Definition of ABDUCT

to seize and take away (a person) by force; to draw or spread away (a part of the body, such as a limb or the fingers) from a position near or parallel to the median axis of the body or from the axis of a limb… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

In that case, I think it would be desceration of a corpse, tampering with evidence and obstructure of justice. MOO

 

[Katrinepa]

BBM. Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail. MOO.

A Rag, much like the NY Post.

 

[EyeCandy]

this post from SanFrancisco Investigates .. are those teeth in this photo

 

[shonyakay]

I’ll have to go back and find the pictures of the tent going up. Maybe it included the lantana plant inside the tent and tests were done. It would be hard to determine where saliva could fall on the plant and surrounding rocks.

Yes, the tent encompassed the lantana that the suspect picked. The tent went all the way near to the steps at the end of her walkway.

Edited: To make a correction - The tent encompassed the lantana but not the big plants and rocks.

 

[maskedwoman]

You mean to take SG’s place?

Someone doing this to derail her, not for romantic reasons but for monetary reasons?

I’m not sure it’s meaningful to speculate….

I have seen a few episodes of Murder She Wrote like that, but I would find it hard to believe a network news people did that in real life. Stab you in the back? Absolutely. Kidnap your elderly mother? I find that hard to believe. MOO

 

[SRWCF]

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?
View attachment 647008
The answer can be found by looking at the second figure, which shows an aerial view of the front of the house.
View attachment 647010
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.
View attachment 647011
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.

MORE OF THIS TYPE OF IN DEPTH ANALYSIS, PLEASE!!!

You say:

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.

He was spotted unknowingly by the front door camera? I haven't heard that, unless you are talking about the "other" video where the perp is shown without the backpack and gun and LE told us all the video was taken from the same night.

 

[SlimPickens]

Sheriff Nanos locks down Nancy Guthrie kidnap probe

A bitter turf war has erupted in the Nancy Guthrie case, with insiders claiming Sheriff Chris Nanos has locked down the probe and sidelined the FBI.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos has 'locked down' the Nancy Guthrie investigation amid escalating tensions between his team and the FBI that have reached the boiling point, the Daily Mail can reveal.

Several sources say that Nanos is now insisting that only he and two of his highest-ranking inner circle will make decisions regarding the case of the missing 84-year-old.
Rbm.
Oh that's so helpful ... not !

They need all hands on deck for Nancy.
Sadly I'm doubting she is alive, but will hope along with others here at WS.
Smh at what looks like someone's hubris destroying any chance of finding Nancy alive.

So sorry for her family members !
Jmo.

I'm not a defender of how this investigation has been facilitated by any means - at least those parts that we know about - but keeping only a couple of close confidantes 'in the know' on a case this big is a sound strategy for a variety of reasons.

Having said this, I don't even think the Sheriff's office is really the lead on this case anymore, so the leaks that insinuate that he is on a power trip are probably from him.

JMO.

 

[Trish51]

Yes, the tent encompassed the lantana, plants, and rocks. The tent went all the way near to the steps at the end of her walkway.

Thank you! I couldn’t remember how far on the front of the house the tent extended.

 

[maskedwoman]

Understand the frustration; however isn't it the job of law enforcement to determine what is or is not a viable tip....?

Absolutely. But an opinion is not a lead/tip. And I'm confident they are getting some wild "tips". MOO

 

[scandiamerican]

Conversation with criminologist acquaintance and how it has affected my views

Part 3 (again, JMO, etc. … thoughts and perceptions after the conversation)

What was happening between 1:40 and around 2:20?

Kidnappings of strangers for ransom are not typically done by one person. But this abduction does not have hallmarks of organized crime, so it may be one person. The post-abduction period has been chaotic. As we’ve all noted, the delay in the ransom demand and the lack of proof of life have not followed the script at all. Nor does the kidnapping seem to have hallmarks of an ideological basis or revemge, because usually kidnappers are fast to get their political message out once the person is abducted, in those cases.

So what likely happened on arrival?

It seems likely Lantana man arrived at the scene and needed to set up carefully before the actual abduction began. Being calm and methodical in the lead-up is what a criminal aims for with this kind of complex criminal act. While wearing normal clothes and a reflective backpack seems amateur, it may have been about blending in if a neighbor happened to glimpse something from a distance. A guy in trainers and a reflective backpack might not trigger the suspicion, even at 1-2 a.m., that a glimpse of a figure in black would. (This is assuming the mask was not yet on or was not apparent at the distance.)

Taking the abductee out the fastest and simplest route from home to vehicle is ideal, especially when the abductee has physical limitations. That step is about speed of getting in and getting away. It would be unsurprising to break in to the side or back of the house, out of sight, through the easiest route, but leave through the front, given the apparent arrangement of the house.

But especially if Lantana Man were working alone or with one other person, having a methodical set-up before the abduction would be key. So it is possible an early step that night was to set up/secure the exit, knowing he would not have the chance to do that well while also paying careful attention to managing NG. He may have cut the wifi off or jammed it or believed he had. Upon entering the porch and seeing the Nest light come on, he probably tried to remove it. As there likely had been no contact with Nancy then, it may have quickly occurred to him in those moments to improvise so that as he was working on the camera, if Nancy got a notification, she would not see his masked face but instead flowers–which maybe would be weird to her but less instantly terrifying than a masked face (and keep in mind he was not seeing what the lantana looked like on the camera, only knowing he should not he seen by her while removing the camera). Again, what looks amateur actually seems to be someone who is managing the stress remarkably well and improvising when something goes wrong. Many people may have been underestimating how well the guy managed this part. He seemingly removes the camera and takes it around 1:50.

But from here, there are two key possibilities. He may be questioning whether NG got an alert and saw him with the Nest camera, or he may not be sure if the Nest lighting up meant an automated call to police. If so, he may be retreating to a safe distance to observe whether police arrive. Ready to abort the abduction, and waiting to see if he needs to. Getting his nerve up, possibly. It would be understandable to wait 15-30 minutes before initiating the main action, if that was his mindset.

Or he may just take a few minutes more to quietly set up the scene. Once the camera is taken care of and he’s checked for others, he can pull the car up to the porch to be ready to move NG and go quickly when they have her. He may be setting up the scene at the back of the house, taking out floodlights, preparing tools, whatever. Just being very methodical for the highest likelihood of getting in, getting NG, and getting out quickly.

….

It’s midnight central European time, so I’m stopping there for now with my notes/thoughts/altered viewpoints from talking to a criminologist. This is taking me forever to type up, so I hope it’s useful to others, too, amidst the chaos of the situation. If my kids are recovered enough tomorrow from the flu, I will try to write up the last few parts.

 

[danablue1]

Welcome @Old Jim .

I tend to agree with this theory, makes no sense to go to the front door unless you were expecting someone on other side to open for you. Or you had opened it from inside already.

I listened to Gray Hughes today and he had similar theory as yours.

This is such a great video and makes so much sense. I think she was kidnapped for ransom, subcombed to her injuries so no proof of life and their plan was now foiled. Now where did they put her is the question. Sad to.say i think she is no longer with us. Thank you for posting this

 

[shonyakay]

Thank you! I couldn’t remember how far on the front of the house the tent extended.

You're welcome. I just went and looked it up again and the tent definitely appears to cover the area of where the suspect picked the lantana but it doesn't appear to have covered the big plants and rocks on the left side of the walkway.

 

[Katrinepa]

So many Ifs I feel so sorry for the family. The stress is horrific. Sadly, I think she is probably no longer alive, but the family will not be able to rest, or find any peace until she is found, dead or alive. The unknown is the worst part. Also, without knowing a motive, the family and neighbors will be constantly worried and afraid.

Thank you Shony. It was in 1991, Middlesex, NJ. Still on the internet. Mom's name was Anita Hoynes, and she was murdered in her home, by a former foster child she and my dad took in. It was horrible, but we had great support from everyone. He got a Life sentence, but just came up for parole a month ago, and thankfully can't apply for parole for another 3 years. A Life sentence is not a life sentence in NJ for the killer, but only for the family. No good deed goes unpunished. I hate that phrase, but it applied in my family's case. Hoping for the best in Nancy's case.

 

[wibbleflea]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2024981234271879520

 

[korncrasy]

When were the roofers there? If my floodlights were damaged when I had roof work done, I’d be pretty annoyed. I think I would want them repaired/replaced very quickly.

Mine, damaged by roofers, is still in need of attention months later.We never use the light nor the door .At our age it’s just another repair on a long list.

 

[shonyakay]

Thank you Shony. It was in 1991, Middlesex, NJ. Still on the internet. Mom's name was Anita Hoynes, and she was murdered in her home, by a former foster child she and my dad took in. It was horrible, but we had great support from everyone. He got a Life sentence, but just came up for parole a month ago, and thankfully can't apply for parole for another 3 years. A Life sentence is not a life sentence in NJ for the killer, but only for the family. No good deed goes unpunished. I hate that phrase, but it applied in my family's case. Hoping for the best in Nancy's case.

A life sentence for a killer should be a life sentence. It is so heartbreaking that your mother suffered so much and at the hands of someone she lovingly and unselfishly had helped. It is just not fair. Like you, I am hoping the best outcome for Nancy - that she would be recovered alive and brought back home to her family. Stay strong. Thoughts and prayers to you and yours.

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Re: Conversation with a criminologist acquaintance who is NOT working this case: I did not mean to leave anyone in suspense; I asked if I could post and then my family was hit by the flu the next morning after a mod said I could post under MOO. I did take some notes but this was nearly a week ago now, so some parts of the case understanding may have shifted since that conversation, and if there are errors in accuracy, I am sure they are mine. All of this should be taken with a dose of JMO, etc.

Amidst the family illness, I’ve given up on trying to get it all out quickly, but I will post some in pieces.

I should also say anything is possible. Outliers exist. But we were discussing probabilities, not rare exceptions beyond this whole thing being a rare exception. As we say in my own field, first think horses, not zebras.

So my own understanding now, part 1:

Regarding the theory that Savannah had an obsessive stalker who went after her mom: Unlikely. In general, abducting her mom would be a very rare expression of that sort of obsession. If Savannah had a stalker like that, that person would have made increasingly intimate and extreme efforts at forms of contact with SG before trying to abduct someone, so that person would very much be on the LE radar. But the behavior after NG’s disappearance also does not fit that at all. The person would desperately want to communicate with Savannah directly and would feel compelled to tell her specific and probably very outlandish things. Instead, we have no direct communication with SG re: the abduction, random, etc.

What is much more possible re: SG is that someone local discovered there’s an accessible individual with a high-net-worth family member, making NG someone to target not because they care about SG other than her being a source of funds, but because NG is convenient to them, appears vulnerable on some research/recon, etc. That might be because someone mentioned to them a famous and successful ‘hometown girl’ whose mom still lives around here, or from Today Show coverage that included SG, etc.

And NG had lived 50 years in that house without being targeted, and without violent crime in her neighborhood, so it was not a focus as a possibility. So while we can all think in hindsight they should have made NG more secure in X, Y, or Z ways, NG was just living her life by her long-term standards of peaceful expectations, and people should be careful not to shame or blame her family, who are going through hell, for not anticipating this incredibly rare risk.

Again, MOO after the conversation, etc.

Will post more in the next day or two as I can.

Thank you! This makes so much sense to me. Look forward to your other posts. — I once read that the hardest crimes to solve are those committed by strangers with no link to the victim. I keep thinking of that on this case.