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

[shonyakay]

A United Front needs to happen here between the Sheriff and the FBI

This needs to stop what is happening at the moment

And a Media Conference should be scheduled for a particular day, then mention that we will have another update scheduled for next week, etc.

Obviously, they can't talk about specific police intelligence, but they can give a rundown on what has happened

At the moment, there is NO United Front, and too many discrepancies

Honestly, do we even know that this so called rift between Nanos and the FBI is accurate?

This is what Sheriff Nanos said a week ago...

 

[warp3dwing]

It's hard to say. Could be his teeth, but there is far too little definition to be sure. It could be that what is seen between the masked person's lips is one of those small keyring lights that need just be compressed to light.

Hoping he drooled. And that it was picked up by swab.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned so far, it’s that staring at a single frame of bad surveillance footage causes hallucinations. No single frame really shows the truth.

It’s like looking at a Monet up close. Just swirls and dots. The image only appears when you step back. But I’m the video’s case, the image only makes sense when you play it. Frustrating.

 

[stmichael]

I wrote earlier on that I had given up faith in his ability to lead this investigation. The former sheriff is outraged at his handling of the case and he does not have the support of his department from what the previous sheriff said in the video I posted.

Nanos has only been sheriff since 2021 and was immediately embroiled in controversy.

This act shows his gross incompetence in my opinion

Chris Nanos was appointed Sheriff of Pima County in 2015 (former Sheriff retired). He lost his first election in 2016 after an FBI investigation of the dept. misuse of federal RICO funds. Many sources including Sgt. Cross state that Nanos blames his loss on the FBI who almost cost him his career and carries this grudge.

He won another election in 2020 and reelection in 2024 which brought an election investigation by the county and a lawsuit by his opponent Lt. Heather Lappin., who ran based on her training classes saying they had no confidence in Nanos (per her lawsuit).

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2026/02/06/chris-nanos-pima-county-sheriff/88536580007/

 

[Dontknow?]

No....it's....more then that. Not political IMO. If you're local, you know.

I'm local and it appears political to me. JMO

 

[TBYOOL]

OMG I am shocked any crimes out that way ever get solved. That is scary. Such a beautiful place too. This is too much. How many people are out there never to be found. I think I am going to consider a very high security penthouse in a high rise when I retire. Can't break into my place because I will also have a full out panic room which I will sleep in. This case really has me thinking about the future and how I will feel safest.

This thread moves fast as I catch up but this made me smile (not in a mean way!) as I had just watched a Netflix series about this case—penthouse, safe room, private security—didn’t matter.

The True Story Behind Netflix’s ‘Murder in Monaco’ and the Death of Edmond Safra

A 1999 fire in Monte Carlo left a billionaire dead and sparked an international mystery.

www.biography.com

 

[shonyakay]

I suppose they could’ve sent info only known to Nancy and her family in the ransom emails. It wouldn’t even have to be a photo. Would’ve been better than nothing. (Unless they did do that, and that’s why LE thinks she is - or was - alive.)

True but that is assuming that the other ransom notes are even from the first ransom note author. The first ransom note said there would be no further communication.

 

[Boxer]

Late at night any movement around a city by any camera. Hard to believe they don't have a vehicle of interest, or maybe I missed it.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

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

Possible charges are kidnapping and murder. And it is not necessary to list, or discuss, every lesser and included crime (that aren't going to be used in a murder trial) so early in the case since we don't know what the evidence shows or what could happen at trial, if there ever is one.
The charging codes of the state define the crimes and list the elements of each crime, the dictionary definitions are not relevant. Arizona has the felony murder statue, when the suspect entered that property/house, be it forced entry or not, whatever crime he intended on committing is not relevant, he did commit a qualifying felony and if the victim is deceased, it is murder, no matter how she died or where she died.

• Definition: Under Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1105, a person commits first-degree murder if, acting alone or with others, they commit or attempt to commit specific felonies (e.g., robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault) and, in the course of that offense, another person dies.
• No Intent Required: The prosecution does not need to prove the defendant intended to kill the victim, only that they intended to commit the underlying felony.

MOO

 

[shonyakay]

I’ve stayed far away from commenting on this topic, hoping it would go away, but it’s back again, like herpes.

 

[GMG1999]

Even if Perp managed to obscure camera with lantana, chances are neighbors had cameras. He couldn't disable them all. Maybe a vehicle parked on the street will emerge from one of those. JMO

I must say, I am surprised that they have not located an associated vehicle. This might be the biggest surprise to me at this point.

 

[stmichael]

I haven't met a Sheriff that isn't controversial or that had'nt had a faction against him.

It's political, imo. It's more overt when it used to be covert. Even in the middle of a active investigation they can't accept its his job and he is working it as elected.

Further It's condemning the deputies and the whole team working hard at their jobs when they need support the most. They have lives that need attention too as this draws on.

Even sort of conceding the SO succeeds in some way sounds so reluctant!


Imo

Perhaps. But there are very significant motivations here going back way before his case.

After being appointed in 2015, Nanos and his dept. was investigated by the FBI for misuse of RICO funds. It cost him the next election and almost his career. Many including Sgt. Aaron Cross is the president of the Pima County Deputies Organization, believe Nanos blames the FBI for that loss and that is a big part of the friction between the two agencies on this case. Nanos has ridiculed the FBI publicly and dared them, before this case put them back in his backyard.

He won his elections in 2020 and 2024 but there too he had a scandal in his last election, putting his opponent Lt. Heather Lappin on administrative leave cause she dared to run against him. The board of county supervisors launched an investigation, and even his own party members called for his resignation. Lt. Lappin sued him. Since then many other detectives have come forward talking about how the dept. is now very inexperienced because of turnover related to Nanos and how many hate his guts. There were a few other investiagtions against him I left out.

 

[Serononin]

So sorry for your loss - that is awful.

I was basically making the point that LE wouldn't have details at the scene that tells them that Nancy was removed from the scene "against her will" if those theorizing that she was killed somewhere else and the perp(s) then staged a kidnapping were correct.

Although the sheriff himself did say not to take his word choices too literally after having to walk back the "taken from her bed" statement. I don't think the "against her will" phrasing was supposed to indicate anything about whether or not she left the house alive, just that she didn't leave voluntarily. I think at that point he was still trying to emphasise that this wasn't a wandering situation

 

[stmichael]

Honestly, do we even know that this so called rift between Nanos and the FBI is accurate?

This is what Sheriff Nanos said a week ago...

It cost him his first election after he was appointed in 2015. The FBI investigated him for RICO fund misuse and nearly killed his career. We have news interviews years back of him yelling at the FBI calling them out, and daring them to take him down. Many have gone on record including Sgt. A. Cross who say he blames the FBI for costing him his first election and has a chip on his shoulders against them. Agencies are territorial to being with, I;m sure this history didn't help and Nanos went out of his way years ago to tell everyone how he feels (posted a fiery KGUN interview from 2016 pages back).

 

[warp3dwing]

True but that is assuming that the other ransom notes are even from the first ransom note author. The first ransom note said there would be no further communication.

Very true. In that case - and I hate to say it - the criminal "wins" either way. Either they get the money (doubtful from the start) or they inflict cruel, lifelong pain and crippling doubt for the family. Humans can be so mindbogglingly horrible, it defies explanation.

 

[GMG1999]

True but that is assuming that the other ransom notes are even from the first ransom note author. The first ransom note said there would be no further communication.

If it was a kidnapping for ransom, my belief would be that she died before the ransom was due. Since we have heard nothing from the original letters, sadly I don't think she is still alive. JMO

 

[stmichael]

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.

I'm all for pointing out the flawed Sheriff's mis-steps but he did handle a big case before...

Rep. Gabbie Giffords Shooting - National News at the Time
During his tenure, Nanos has led several big investigations, including the investigation into the shooting rampage that killed six people and injured 13, including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2026/02/06/chris-nanos-pima-county-sheriff/88536580007/

 

[shonyakay]

Although the sheriff himself did say not to take his word choices too literally after having to walk back the "taken from her bed" statement. I don't think the "against her will" phrasing was supposed to indicate anything about whether or not she left the house alive, just that she didn't leave voluntarily. I think at that point he was still trying to emphasise that this wasn't a wandering situation

You are right that he did say taken from her bed but he explained that is because he believes that she went to bed that night and in the morning she was missing. He said he doesn't know exactly what happened from the time she went to bed until the time she went missing. He wonders if she got up to go to the door, or got up to go the refrigerator etc. in the middle of the night. He doesn't know the specifics but he did say there were things at the scene that indicated she was removed against her will.

“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.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/03/us/nancy-guthrie-missing-savannah-mom

 

[TheDinks]

Although the sheriff himself did say not to take his word choices too literally after having to walk back the "taken from her bed" statement. I don't think the "against her will" phrasing was supposed to indicate anything about whether or not she left the house alive, just that she didn't leave voluntarily. I think at that point he was still trying to emphasise that this wasn't a wandering situation

I agree, that's exactly my take. His words have been scrutinised too literally imo...which is not wise, given the way he speaks off the cuff.

 

[stmichael]

Even if Perp managed to obscure camera with lantana, chances are neighbors had cameras. He couldn't disable them all. Maybe a vehicle parked on the street will emerge from one of those. JMO

We've gone over quite a bit.

The houses are laid back, fronted by tall vegetation/obstacles for privacy, and the streets are stunningly dark due to the low-light ordinance. Neighbors cams don't extend out to pick up cars (which would be an IR washed out blur at that distance, IR only goes so far, you can see how much detail is lacking in the washed out footage of Latanas guy w/o the backpack, and that was what 12 -15 ft away. Even if you get extra IR emitter spot lights it still washed out in the distance which is why I keep bright spot lights on cause night cams are a great disadvantage and work in short distance). Several neighbors interviewed said they didn't have cameras at all (mostly elderly) and those that did said in interviews that they would not pick up any cars in the obscured views of the street, and cars never motion detect for them.

I have dozens of cameras on my property, which is laid back like NG with privacy landscaping, including 4K POE and 4K wifi cams 100 feet down my driveway and I couldn't pick up a car on any of them, and I have commercial style spot lights. In the dark, forget it, 35 feet away in the night relying on residential IR cams you wouldn't make out a make or model...and if they drove up with their headlights on at the cams like a delivery driver, the footage would just be a bright glare (best way to obscure IR night cams, shine a bright light directly at them,) Pointing a powerful IR emitter light at any night cam will also blind it, and neighbors would not see any light.

NG's area was a blind spot, even the main street DOT cams at intersections nearby did not record, according to police (and Tucson does not have police or flock cams on the roads).

 

[shonyakay]

I agree, that's exactly my take. His words have been scrutinised too literally imo...which is not wise, given the way he speaks off the cuff.

But he mentioned that there are details that he can't release that indicate that she was removed from the scene against her will. I just located that article today and posted it.
Speaking off the cuff is one thing but stating there are details that indicate something at the scene that he can't release because of the integrity of the investigation is another. IMO.