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

[ab01]

Sheriff is accused of locking FBI AND his own detectives out of crucial decision-making in Nancy Guthrie kidnap probe​

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.

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

whether people chose to believe it or not, where there is smoke there is fire. It doesn’t bode well for a positive outcome in this case.

It’s essential that entities share information and all work together. It makes me sad and angry for NG and her loved ones.

 

[TheDinks]

Talking about the blood...am linking this interview with Joseph Scott Morgan because he gives a great description of the blood drops out front of house. His credentials are second to none imo so worth a look/listen...

fyi Joseph Scott Morgan is the Distinguished Scholar of Applied Forensics at Jacksonville State University in Alabama. Joseph holds a Master of Forensic Sciences degree and is formerly a board certified fellow of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators.

Joseph began his career in New Orleans, Louisiana where he was one of the youngest coroner investigators in the United States. Following his tenure in Louisiana, he was named Senior Investigator with the Fulton County Medical Examiner's Office in Atlanta, Georgia. During his time in Atlanta, Joseph helped create and establish the national training guidelines for medicolegal death investigators. Eventually, the national guidelines would lead to the formation of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators.

And yep...he hosts a podcast, "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan", which was nominated for a Clue Award at CrimeCon 2022 Las Vegas.

 

[acutename]

Well, of course the perps would say that!

They'll say anything to get the money.
They are not going to admit she's dead, and ask for the money anyway!

If they allude to her being alive, it'll all be pretence, because I'm certain in my head and heart, that NG died on the night the perps visited her.

I just cannot really imagine some one taking care of her (anonymously?) all this time- food,water, meds....would she be locked in a basement with a bathroom? bound?

 

[Angelcat13]

If the person or his parents are immigrants there certainly may be less DNA matches to work with. Of course that depends upon their country of origin. Some new arrivals to the US come from countries where people are interested in DNA testing and genealogy. Like Canada, UK, Australia, Ireland, etc. Then you will have more matches than typical with other immigrants. But say for Asian and Hispanic it would be more difficult, but not impossible.

Keep in mind most immigrants to the US are not the only ones from their families who have come to the US. They have had close or distant relatives in the past who came here. I have never looked at a match list with no autosomal DNA matches. Perhaps they exist but I have not seen it.

So you will always get country of origin, ethnic breakdown, some family names. It gives you some direction in your search. If you do YDNA testing you can also get male line surname.

The whole point of DNA investigative GG testing is to find a needle in a haystack. You are searching to find the one person on the planet who matches this DNA. You do it by analyzing the DNA and the DNA matches. Of course we can find out who that person is by looking at the match list family trees.

It is science, you triangulate the DNA amounts with the matches family trees. And you can get a name, birth location, parents, grandparents, etc.

When you do adoption searches of course you can find the biological parents even if you do not know their names. You narrow it all down science wise until you have a short list. Then narrow that down to one person.

It is science, not a guessing game. Well it is a complex process but certainly there are more projects more difficult. I have been constructing family trees for myself and others for over 20 years and can do it in my sleep. And doing genetic genealogy for at least 20 years and can do that in my sleep too. And it is only a hobby for me. The people who make a living at it are most likely way more competent than I am. And yes most jobs take time. Sometimes if you get a close match it takes an hour of your time. No close matches it takes longer and is more work.

Thank you SO much for your detailed post! I find this absolutely fascinating and really appreciate your expertise.

 

[tbgo]

If the person or his parents are immigrants there certainly may be less DNA matches to work with. Of course that depends upon their country of origin. Some new arrivals to the US come from countries where people are interested in DNA testing and genealogy. Like Canada, UK, Australia, Ireland, etc. Then you will have more matches than typical with other immigrants. But say for Asian and Hispanic it would be more difficult, but not impossible.

Keep in mind most immigrants to the US are not the only ones from their families who have come to the US. They have had close or distant relatives in the past who came here. I have never looked at a match list with no autosomal DNA matches. Perhaps they exist but I have not seen it.

So you will always get country of origin, ethnic breakdown, some family names. It gives you some direction in your search. If you do YDNA testing you can also get male line surname.

The whole point of DNA investigative GG testing is to find a needle in a haystack. You are searching to find the one person on the planet who matches this DNA. You do it by analyzing the DNA and the DNA matches. Of course we can find out who that person is by looking at the match list family trees.

It is science, you triangulate the DNA amounts with the matches family trees. And you can get a name, birth location, parents, grandparents, etc.

When you do adoption searches of course you can find the biological parents even if you do not know their names. You narrow it all down science wise until you have a short list. Then narrow that down to one person.

It is science, not a guessing game. Well it is a complex process but certainly there are more projects more difficult. I have been constructing family trees for myself and others for over 20 years and can do it in my sleep. And doing genetic genealogy for at least 20 years and can do that in my sleep too. And it is only a hobby for me. The people who make a living at it are most likely way more competent than I am. And yes most jobs take time. Sometimes if you get a close match it takes an hour of your time. No close matches it takes longer and is more work.

DNA tests for ancestry or genealogy are actually banned in France.

 

[RaspberryMama]

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.

Wow, that’s a heck of a first post!! This is brilliant and makes perfect sense.

 

[SlimPickens]

Talking about the blood...am linking this interview with Joseph Scott Morgan because he gives a great description of the blood drops out front of house. His credentials are second to none imo so worth a look/listen...

Great analysis by Mr. Morgan. If this perp or perps stabbed or hit her with such force as to make her aspirate blood from her nose and mouth at the rate that he suggests, and if she was also bleeding like that in the house when she was accosted, then it suggests that someone came there to kill and dispose of her rather than kidnap and hold her for ransom.

If that is what happened, then I am at a complete loss as to a motive for why a seeming stranger would target someone like her simply to kill and dispose.

JMO.

 

[submarine7]

At this point I'd probably hope that she died quickly during the initial abduction period and was spared further days of terror and grief.

I believe so. There's no way that guy or anybody cared for her.

 

[rebel123]

I wondered if she's living in a gated community. I am hopeful that there are cameras around the community and neighbors have them too

I don't think it's a 'gated community'.

 

[RoseyBush]

Wow, that’s a heck of a first post!! This is brilliant and makes perfect sense.

Great point! But I cant dismiss the Apple Watch. My mum wears one. Nancy Guthrie would not need to call for help because these watches have an alert feature. The wearer only has to push a button if they have a medical emergency, or feel unsafe and an alert is immediately sent to nominated people and/or authorities. This is why I believe Nancy did not hear anyone entering the house. The question is was she wearing the watch, did she remove it to sleep but kept it nearby, or was it removed from her? An 84yr old woman with heart and mobility issues getting up In the night to go to the bathroom is a falls risk and that Apple watch is her life line. As far as we know no alert was sent. I agree with your point she was taken out the front door. I don't believe she walked out, and I haven't seen any reports of anything stolen from the house, I may be wrong. A masked gunman confronting an elderly woman in the middle of the night would be absolutely terrifying, so why the backpack? What else could he possibly need, maybe things to restrain, conceal or carry? If ransom was the motive, he would take her medication to preserve her life until the exchange of money, but he didn't. My opinion, this kidnapper had no intention of returning Nancy Guthrie. There has been no proof of life and the authorities still haven't figured out if the ransom emails are real or a hoax. I don't believe this is a kidnapping for ransom.

 

[Kemug]

WelI I'll say this for the Sheriff, at least he hasn't shot and killed a Judge!

 

[rebel123]

Great analysis by Mr. Morgan. If this perp or perps stabbed or hit her with such force as to make her aspirate blood from her nose and mouth at the rate that he suggests, and if she was also bleeding like that in the house when she was accosted, then it suggests that someone came there to kill and dispose of her rather than kidnap and hold her for ransom.

If that is what happened, then I am at a complete loss as to a motive for why a seeming stranger would target someone like her simply to kill and dispose.

JMO.

There are lots of scenarios, i.e. she uses a walking stick, the individual pushed her along without her walking stick, she lost balance and fell forwards, thus hit her face. So saying the individual hit her, no one knows what happened. Law enforcement will have an idea as they have access to the scene of the crime.

 

[flakesofsnow]

dbm

 

[Gunther Toody]

IMHOO….people have no idea how inept the tyrants are. They have absolute power and access to all information and they still fail.

This is very true and I have seen it in action.

 

[Simply Southern]

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.

Wow… makes perfect sense. Excellent post !!

 

[Gunther Toody]

It is curious. But everything about this disappearance seems to be novel.

In the first week, there were appeals about Nancy. But now with the extensive coverage from diverse media outlets and rampant discussion on social media platforms, LE and Nancy's family don't need to make pleas to get the word out. Everywhere reachable by those methods is already tuned in. Direct appeals at this point won't extend that reach further. IMO.

SG is a media professional. The family is wisely controlling their messaging through SG's short clips on Instagram.

Investigators and the family may have concluded the best route to bringing Nancy home is to find the kidnapper, so that's where their focus is. If NG is alive, identifying the kidnapper will lead to her rescue. If she is deceased, her remains are in the desert, IMO. The desert is too vast for unfocused searches. If anyone comes across a body while engaged in recreational activity in the desert, they'll call LE whether they're aware of NG specifically or not. There is no upside to the family repeating public appeals as things stand. I trust that when appeals would be productive, when investigators need information from the public to advance leads, they'll be used.

This is a good point to keep in mind. One thing I just thought of to add is that at least in my experience, blood pressure plays a part in when it's deemed safe to give that pint. In my case for eg. I generally don't donate in the AM because I've been turned around before and told to come back in the afternoon when a little more stressed. Jmo

* Aside, RBBM, where I give blood we also get a biscuit, sometimes

Talking about the blood...am linking this interview with Joseph Scott Morgan because he gives a great description of the blood drops out front of house. His credentials are second to none imo so worth a look/listen...

fyi Joseph Scott Morgan is the Distinguished Scholar of Applied Forensics at Jacksonville State University in Alabama. Joseph holds a Master of Forensic Sciences degree and is formerly a board certified fellow of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators.

Joseph began his career in New Orleans, Louisiana where he was one of the youngest coroner investigators in the United States. Following his tenure in Louisiana, he was named Senior Investigator with the Fulton County Medical Examiner's Office in Atlanta, Georgia. During his time in Atlanta, Joseph helped create and establish the national training guidelines for medicolegal death investigators. Eventually, the national guidelines would lead to the formation of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators.

And yep...he hosts a podcast, "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan", which was nominated for a Clue Award at CrimeCon 2022 Las Vegas.

His blood analysis sounds spot on. I posted much earlier that I believed that as NG was being removed from the house, the perp probably hit her in the mouth/nose area to stop her from calling out or screaming. Morgan's assessment is saying basically the same thing. What I did not see early on was the tinier droplets that he described and his findings make perfect sense.

Thanks for this great video, it is very enlightening.

 

[kirsa]

What happened with the ransom money? I thought SG said they were willing to pay.

 

[Jade]

whether people chose to believe it or not, where there is smoke there is fire. It doesn’t bode well for a positive outcome in this case.

It’s essential that entities share information and all work together. It makes me sad and angry for NG and her loved ones.

I prefer the Sheriff's own words on that topic over unknown sources from the Daily Mail thats looking for cheap clicks.

If true as another poster noted there is a too many cooks in the kitchen possibility.

I'm not sad or angry for the Guthrie's as far as LE mobilization. It is far and beyond what other cases receive. The resources being utilized are astounding for a single missing person case, imo.


Check media thread for more balanced coverage. Imo.

Imo

 

[Scooby-Doo]

I have posted this before, but I can't work out why Nancy's front door mat hasn't been picked up and bagged

It seems the Sheriff, FBI, and Forensics have forgotten about her outdoor mat, and they have all walked on it and probably wiped their shoes on it before they entered inside.

A front door mat is a critical "trap" for evidence, often serving as the primary site for trace evidence transfer between a suspect and a crime scene

The mat can contain DNA from saliva, blood, or sweat, especially if the suspect was injured or left behind biological material.

Finding specific, unusual fibers or soil on the mat that match a suspect's shoes or clothing can place them at the scene.

There might have been another offender standing on there as well, plus possibly more of Nancy's blood.

 

[samiam33]

If they have some idea of a vehicle of interest, that angle might pan out.

I’m surprised that the doorbell footage hasn’t provided a clear cluster around one name. The clothing could all have been bought for this crime, never to be used again, but the gait and movement seem distinctive enough for someone to recognise.

I agree about the clothing. I'm starting to wonder if the person may not know many people, if any, in the US, where the video is widely publicized. Otherwise, I would expect someone to have recognized the gait and movement and to have come forward.