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

[joe jones]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2026374204237689025

better late than never

 

[Bluewing3102]

Long time reader, but I had to register to share some theories I haven’t seen much here or anywhere else online.

These deal with two main issues: cameras and the timeline (40+ minutes). IMO major possibilities are being overlooked in both cases. When something doesn’t make sense, that usually means we just haven’t found the right explanation yet. IMO the explanation I will offer below makes a lot of seemingly confusing data points fit perfectly.

This is all just my opinion based on things we have heard.

Topic #1: Cameras

First, cameras: IMO this guy WANTED to be seen. In fact, it was a key part of his strategy. Both times, but especially the first time he showed up. As someone who has these types of cameras as part of my home security system and understands them extremely well, it actually makes perfect sense that he would want to trigger them AND appear in the image.

Think of a camera as an early warning system as much as it is a camera. Some people silence them all night and rely on them to provide retroactive evidence of a crime. Others want the alerts to wake them up so they have early warning of danger. Some do both. That makes all the difference in this crime.

One of the underappreciated aspects of Blink, Nest, Ring, and the like is that in addition to being cameras and microphones, they also act as perimeter annunciators. What I mean by that is that it is practically impossible to disable them without first triggering them, which sends an immediate alert to someone’s phone (sometimes multiple people’s phones, depending on the setup). You can rip the camera off the wall and destroy it but it’s already too late: it has served its purpose and alerted the owner, who is possibly now awake and taking any number of actions. The criminal’s element of surprise is gone and their presence is known. That is, unless the homeowner silences alerts at night and just checks in the morning (as most people do because they don’t want to wake up every time a cat walks across their porch in the middle of the night).

In this scenario, he didn’t care about being filmed per se. He’s well disguised anyway and likely assumes he will be filmed somewhere by a camera he missed. IMO his concern was 100% about whether the alerts would wake Nancy up before he got inside and spoil his plan.

He needed the element of surprise. An 84 year old woman is definitely going to dial 911 if she is awakened by a break- in in progress. Even if he gets her out before police arrive, the police are now aware of a break-in/kidnapping in progress and will be swarming the entire neighborhood. The criminal might even drive past a responding officer, who will afterwards recall seeing the vehicle leaving the neighborhood as they responded. They might even call it in and have another officer stop that vehicle in case it is the perp. Risk goes way, way up if Nancy wakes up at any point before he gets inside and can stop her from calling 911.

Let’s assume this new timeline of photos is correct: he was there beforehand, likely an earlier date. I have thought since the photos first emerged that they must have been taken on different nights. Most people have focused on the shoes, lack of backpack, lack of holster… but the first thing I noticed was the distinct lack of a shadow (his shadow is clearly visible on the night he wore the backpack and holster, but absent in the photo where he is not wearing them).

This suggests a pitch black night in the earlier timeframe photo, perfect for recon. He wears his same gear that he’ll wear later because he is doing a dry run and wants it to feel as much like the real thing as possible, and he also does not want to be identified. He also wants to appear as menacing as possible for the camera as mentioned above.

He has to know what to expect, if anything, when the camera is triggered. And he would understand that triggering it is unavoidable.

Even if the criminal has a wifi jammer most systems will then alert the owner that all the modules are down. So they’re now awake at a minimum and likely to notice sounds outside or even to look out the windows to investigate, because that is suspicious.

These alerts could very well be loud and wake the person up. The person might then turn lights on in the house, go to live view to see what is going on, or dial 911 or text a family member depending on the circumstances. Or grab a firearm that they have for protection. Maybe all of the above. The criminal has no idea what is going on, if anything at all. Almost all of these systems will send an immediate thumbnail before recording so that even if the camera is disabled before the video is uploaded to the cloud you have an image of whatever set it off on your phone.

IMO this guy is almost posing for the camera on the earlier date. He needs to find out: what happens if the camera alerts AND the image in the thumbnail or on the phone is of a terrifying man in a mask and gloves? Notice he stands far enough away that you can see he looks terrifying but can’t make out much in terms of ID. It’s no good if it alerts and the image is some strange blur or nothing at all, because those of us who have these cameras see that stuff all the time. Cats, rabbits, the wind.. All cause triggers. You’re not raising the alarm so to speak, for every single time it notifies you of motion.

He needs the person inside to see a central casting bad guy so that they will react however they are going to react. That reaction will then be taken into account in whatever plans he has for the actual night of the kidnapping. Thus the need for a 2-part plan.

Now imagine you are 84. Your phone alerts and wakes you up in the middle of the night. You see THAT on your screen. You are almost certainly going to react. You likely dial 911. You turn on lights in the house because you are definitely not going to want to sit in the dark until cops come. You text or call family or neighbors for help right after 911. In short, ruckus ensues.

Or maybe your family also gets the alerts. It’s not yet 2AM on a Saturday. It’s not impossible that someone else also gets the alert who is actually still awake, watching TV, playing video games, whatever. They see that nightmare on grandma’s front door, or mom’s front door. Obviously action will be taken of some type.

So he poses to ensure that he has triggered the camera, then quickly retreats down the street into the brush somewhere to hide. Do lights come on? Do police arrive? Does a dog bark? Is there any activity at all?

Hmm, nothing. Nothing happens at all he notices. So he slinks away into the darkness, confident that the cameras are no real threat. The biggest threat of the cameras is that they wake Nancy up before he can get inside, meaning 911 is called.

So he waits a couple weeks and watches off and on. Are more visible security measures taken? Do new cameras appear?

Now, here’s the thing: he is likely feeling better in terms of not alerting anyone inside based on previous recon. But that could be a one-off. Maybe she silenced her phone that night but not this one. So he needs a quick repeat on the night of.

This is where the timeline comes in.

Topic #2: Timeline on the Night of the Kidnapping

I do not believe at all that he was inside the house for 40+ minutes as we keep hearing almost everywhere. That makes zero sense for a kidnapping, where every moment spent at the scene in contact with the victim= increased risk.

In this scenario I have described he returns a couple of weeks later, fairly confident that the cameras pose no real threat. He likely now assumes Nancy has her phone on silent so that every time a cat or other animal walks by at night she doesn’t wake up.

However, he has to make sure, just in case she woke up the next morning (from the earlier recon) and saw that image and NOW takes more security steps, such as having her alerts on loud enough to wake her up. Maybe a neighbor or someone else is also now getting them as a backup. He doesn’t know, so he goes up to the porch, knowing the camera will activate. Of course he ducks his head just in case (why over expose himself to being filmed?).

This is a test… What will happen?

The lantana also serves a purpose: it looks even more scary/wrong. If anyone is seeing someone do that they are raising the alarm 100% for sure. It escalates from a simple prowler on the porch to likely intent to cause harm.

But nothing happens. He slinks to the shadows again and waits. No lights come on. No cops show up. This could account for a solid 15-20 minutes of that 40 minute timeline we keep hearing about. Again, there is no real rush here. If he is detected he will escape into the pitch black and brush unseen. If he is not detected then it’s like he just arrived. It’s likely he has a getaway driver close by but not so close that if police suddenly come flying down the street his car isn’t sitting there parked suspiciously. It’s not like he can hop into a car and take off 2 houses down at 2:30 AM or so when the police are responding to a suspicious man trying to break into a house.

We have also heard about a second motion detection after 2, about 15 minutes or so before Nancy’s pacemaker disconnected from her watch. This could be the kidnapper(s) proceeding to gain entry into the house, meaning they would have only been inside for 10 minutes or less in total, which makes a lot more sense. One restrains her while the other goes and gets the car OR signals the getaway driver that it’s time, which obviously would not be in the driveway to begin with in case their camera test resulted in their presence being detected. So that takes a few minutes, as does getting her into the car, situated, and leaving.

If you take all that into account, we could be talking 5-10 minutes or even less in the house in total. If they were there for 40 minutes they would have cleaned up all the blood drops. Instead, IMO, they got in as quietly as possible after making sure the cameras didn’t wake anyone up, and got her out as quickly as possible, because who knows what little hidden cameras or security items they could miss. Kidnappers act fast. They don’t stick around the scene any longer than needed once the crime is in motion.

Just my theory, but I think it explains this person’s actions. Far from being a bumbling amateur, this was IMO a clever test to see what alerts, if any, would result from the camera before proceeding into the house.

I really like this theory of testing the cameras.

 

[Katrinepa]

I’m just going to speculate that the FBI lab could have done more with the DNA.
That being said, though the partial segment doesn’t qualify for CODIS, it could come in handy if they ever identify a suspect.

Evidence collected can be kept for years, and there have been plenty cases solved with that data, especially when technology is improved over time.

Long time reader, but I had to register to share some theories I haven’t seen much here or anywhere else online.

These deal with two main issues: cameras and the timeline (40+ minutes). IMO major possibilities are being overlooked in both cases. When something doesn’t make sense, that usually means we just haven’t found the right explanation yet. IMO the explanation I will offer below makes a lot of seemingly confusing data points fit perfectly.

This is all just my opinion based on things we have heard.

Topic #1: Cameras

First, cameras: IMO this guy WANTED to be seen. In fact, it was a key part of his strategy. Both times, but especially the first time he showed up. As someone who has these types of cameras as part of my home security system and understands them extremely well, it actually makes perfect sense that he would want to trigger them AND appear in the image.

Think of a camera as an early warning system as much as it is a camera. Some people silence them all night and rely on them to provide retroactive evidence of a crime. Others want the alerts to wake them up so they have early warning of danger. Some do both. That makes all the difference in this crime.

One of the underappreciated aspects of Blink, Nest, Ring, and the like is that in addition to being cameras and microphones, they also act as perimeter annunciators. What I mean by that is that it is practically impossible to disable them without first triggering them, which sends an immediate alert to someone’s phone (sometimes multiple people’s phones, depending on the setup). You can rip the camera off the wall and destroy it but it’s already too late: it has served its purpose and alerted the owner, who is possibly now awake and taking any number of actions. The criminal’s element of surprise is gone and their presence is known. That is, unless the homeowner silences alerts at night and just checks in the morning (as most people do because they don’t want to wake up every time a cat walks across their porch in the middle of the night).

In this scenario, he didn’t care about being filmed per se. He’s well disguised anyway and likely assumes he will be filmed somewhere by a camera he missed. IMO his concern was 100% about whether the alerts would wake Nancy up before he got inside and spoil his plan.

He needed the element of surprise. An 84 year old woman is definitely going to dial 911 if she is awakened by a break- in in progress. Even if he gets her out before police arrive, the police are now aware of a break-in/kidnapping in progress and will be swarming the entire neighborhood. The criminal might even drive past a responding officer, who will afterwards recall seeing the vehicle leaving the neighborhood as they responded. They might even call it in and have another officer stop that vehicle in case it is the perp. Risk goes way, way up if Nancy wakes up at any point before he gets inside and can stop her from calling 911.

Let’s assume this new timeline of photos is correct: he was there beforehand, likely an earlier date. I have thought since the photos first emerged that they must have been taken on different nights. Most people have focused on the shoes, lack of backpack, lack of holster… but the first thing I noticed was the distinct lack of a shadow (his shadow is clearly visible on the night he wore the backpack and holster, but absent in the photo where he is not wearing them).

This suggests a pitch black night in the earlier timeframe photo, perfect for recon. He wears his same gear that he’ll wear later because he is doing a dry run and wants it to feel as much like the real thing as possible, and he also does not want to be identified. He also wants to appear as menacing as possible for the camera as mentioned above.

He has to know what to expect, if anything, when the camera is triggered. And he would understand that triggering it is unavoidable.

Even if the criminal has a wifi jammer most systems will then alert the owner that all the modules are down. So they’re now awake at a minimum and likely to notice sounds outside or even to look out the windows to investigate, because that is suspicious.

These alerts could very well be loud and wake the person up. The person might then turn lights on in the house, go to live view to see what is going on, or dial 911 or text a family member depending on the circumstances. Or grab a firearm that they have for protection. Maybe all of the above. The criminal has no idea what is going on, if anything at all. Almost all of these systems will send an immediate thumbnail before recording so that even if the camera is disabled before the video is uploaded to the cloud you have an image of whatever set it off on your phone.

IMO this guy is almost posing for the camera on the earlier date. He needs to find out: what happens if the camera alerts AND the image in the thumbnail or on the phone is of a terrifying man in a mask and gloves? Notice he stands far enough away that you can see he looks terrifying but can’t make out much in terms of ID. It’s no good if it alerts and the image is some strange blur or nothing at all, because those of us who have these cameras see that stuff all the time. Cats, rabbits, the wind.. All cause triggers. You’re not raising the alarm so to speak, for every single time it notifies you of motion.

He needs the person inside to see a central casting bad guy so that they will react however they are going to react. That reaction will then be taken into account in whatever plans he has for the actual night of the kidnapping. Thus the need for a 2-part plan.

Now imagine you are 84. Your phone alerts and wakes you up in the middle of the night. You see THAT on your screen. You are almost certainly going to react. You likely dial 911. You turn on lights in the house because you are definitely not going to want to sit in the dark until cops come. You text or call family or neighbors for help right after 911. In short, ruckus ensues.

Or maybe your family also gets the alerts. It’s not yet 2AM on a Saturday. It’s not impossible that someone else also gets the alert who is actually still awake, watching TV, playing video games, whatever. They see that nightmare on grandma’s front door, or mom’s front door. Obviously action will be taken of some type.

So he poses to ensure that he has triggered the camera, then quickly retreats down the street into the brush somewhere to hide. Do lights come on? Do police arrive? Does a dog bark? Is there any activity at all?

Hmm, nothing. Nothing happens at all he notices. So he slinks away into the darkness, confident that the cameras are no real threat. The biggest threat of the cameras is that they wake Nancy up before he can get inside, meaning 911 is called.

So he waits a couple weeks and watches off and on. Are more visible security measures taken? Do new cameras appear?

Now, here’s the thing: he is likely feeling better in terms of not alerting anyone inside based on previous recon. But that could be a one-off. Maybe she silenced her phone that night but not this one. So he needs a quick repeat on the night of.

This is where the timeline comes in.

Topic #2: Timeline on the Night of the Kidnapping

I do not believe at all that he was inside the house for 40+ minutes as we keep hearing almost everywhere. That makes zero sense for a kidnapping, where every moment spent at the scene in contact with the victim= increased risk.

In this scenario I have described he returns a couple of weeks later, fairly confident that the cameras pose no real threat. He likely now assumes Nancy has her phone on silent so that every time a cat or other animal walks by at night she doesn’t wake up.

However, he has to make sure, just in case she woke up the next morning (from the earlier recon) and saw that image and NOW takes more security steps, such as having her alerts on loud enough to wake her up. Maybe a neighbor or someone else is also now getting them as a backup. He doesn’t know, so he goes up to the porch, knowing the camera will activate. Of course he ducks his head just in case (why over expose himself to being filmed?).

This is a test… What will happen?

The lantana also serves a purpose: it looks even more scary/wrong. If anyone is seeing someone do that they are raising the alarm 100% for sure. It escalates from a simple prowler on the porch to likely intent to cause harm.

But nothing happens. He slinks to the shadows again and waits. No lights come on. No cops show up. This could account for a solid 15-20 minutes of that 40 minute timeline we keep hearing about. Again, there is no real rush here. If he is detected he will escape into the pitch black and brush unseen. If he is not detected then it’s like he just arrived. It’s likely he has a getaway driver close by but not so close that if police suddenly come flying down the street his car isn’t sitting there parked suspiciously. It’s not like he can hop into a car and take off 2 houses down at 2:30 AM or so when the police are responding to a suspicious man trying to break into a house.

We have also heard about a second motion detection after 2, about 15 minutes or so before Nancy’s pacemaker disconnected from her watch. This could be the kidnapper(s) proceeding to gain entry into the house, meaning they would have only been inside for 10 minutes or less in total, which makes a lot more sense. One restrains her while the other goes and gets the car OR signals the getaway driver that it’s time, which obviously would not be in the driveway to begin with in case their camera test resulted in their presence being detected. So that takes a few minutes, as does getting her into the car, situated, and leaving.

If you take all that into account, we could be talking 5-10 minutes or even less in the house in total. If they were there for 40 minutes they would have cleaned up all the blood drops. Instead, IMO, they got in as quietly as possible after making sure the cameras didn’t wake anyone up, and got her out as quickly as possible, because who knows what little hidden cameras or security items they could miss. Kidnappers act fast. They don’t stick around the scene any longer than needed once the crime is in motion.

Just my theory, but I think it explains this person’s actions. Far from being a bumbling amateur, this was IMO a clever test to see what alerts, if any, would result from the camera before proceeding into the house.

Great analysis, but the Nest camera was not hooked up to any service, though the FBI was able to get some pix and/or video from it anyway...Elderly often have hearing issues, and some wear hearing aids, but remove them to sleep. What if he broke in(however??) and spent some time downstairs, perhaps not even knowing Nancy was home, or assuming she'd be asleep.? She may have awakened and surprised him.? Just MOO

 

[Katrinepa]

better late than never

About time, but the area now perhaps has all kinds of unusable data. Certainly nothing they could use in court. Ugh.

 

[Trino]

better late than never

No more pizza deliveries.

 

[Rick7788]

Long time reader, but I had to register to share some theories I haven’t seen much here or anywhere else online.

These deal with two main issues: cameras and the timeline (40+ minutes). IMO major possibilities are being overlooked in both cases. When something doesn’t make sense, that usually means we just haven’t found the right explanation yet. IMO the explanation I will offer below makes a lot of seemingly confusing data points fit perfectly.

This is all just my opinion based on things we have heard.

Topic #1: Cameras

First, cameras: IMO this guy WANTED to be seen. In fact, it was a key part of his strategy. Both times, but especially the first time he showed up. As someone who has these types of cameras as part of my home security system and understands them extremely well, it actually makes perfect sense that he would want to trigger them AND appear in the image.

Think of a camera as an early warning system as much as it is a camera. Some people silence them all night and rely on them to provide retroactive evidence of a crime. Others want the alerts to wake them up so they have early warning of danger. Some do both. That makes all the difference in this crime.

One of the underappreciated aspects of Blink, Nest, Ring, and the like is that in addition to being cameras and microphones, they also act as perimeter annunciators. What I mean by that is that it is practically impossible to disable them without first triggering them, which sends an immediate alert to someone’s phone (sometimes multiple people’s phones, depending on the setup). You can rip the camera off the wall and destroy it but it’s already too late: it has served its purpose and alerted the owner, who is possibly now awake and taking any number of actions. The criminal’s element of surprise is gone and their presence is known. That is, unless the homeowner silences alerts at night and just checks in the morning (as most people do because they don’t want to wake up every time a cat walks across their porch in the middle of the night).

In this scenario, he didn’t care about being filmed per se. He’s well disguised anyway and likely assumes he will be filmed somewhere by a camera he missed. IMO his concern was 100% about whether the alerts would wake Nancy up before he got inside and spoil his plan.

He needed the element of surprise. An 84 year old woman is definitely going to dial 911 if she is awakened by a break- in in progress. Even if he gets her out before police arrive, the police are now aware of a break-in/kidnapping in progress and will be swarming the entire neighborhood. The criminal might even drive past a responding officer, who will afterwards recall seeing the vehicle leaving the neighborhood as they responded. They might even call it in and have another officer stop that vehicle in case it is the perp. Risk goes way, way up if Nancy wakes up at any point before he gets inside and can stop her from calling 911.

Let’s assume this new timeline of photos is correct: he was there beforehand, likely an earlier date. I have thought since the photos first emerged that they must have been taken on different nights. Most people have focused on the shoes, lack of backpack, lack of holster… but the first thing I noticed was the distinct lack of a shadow (his shadow is clearly visible on the night he wore the backpack and holster, but absent in the photo where he is not wearing them).

This suggests a pitch black night in the earlier timeframe photo, perfect for recon. He wears his same gear that he’ll wear later because he is doing a dry run and wants it to feel as much like the real thing as possible, and he also does not want to be identified. He also wants to appear as menacing as possible for the camera as mentioned above.

He has to know what to expect, if anything, when the camera is triggered. And he would understand that triggering it is unavoidable.

Even if the criminal has a wifi jammer most systems will then alert the owner that all the modules are down. So they’re now awake at a minimum and likely to notice sounds outside or even to look out the windows to investigate, because that is suspicious.

These alerts could very well be loud and wake the person up. The person might then turn lights on in the house, go to live view to see what is going on, or dial 911 or text a family member depending on the circumstances. Or grab a firearm that they have for protection. Maybe all of the above. The criminal has no idea what is going on, if anything at all. Almost all of these systems will send an immediate thumbnail before recording so that even if the camera is disabled before the video is uploaded to the cloud you have an image of whatever set it off on your phone.

IMO this guy is almost posing for the camera on the earlier date. He needs to find out: what happens if the camera alerts AND the image in the thumbnail or on the phone is of a terrifying man in a mask and gloves? Notice he stands far enough away that you can see he looks terrifying but can’t make out much in terms of ID. It’s no good if it alerts and the image is some strange blur or nothing at all, because those of us who have these cameras see that stuff all the time. Cats, rabbits, the wind.. All cause triggers. You’re not raising the alarm so to speak, for every single time it notifies you of motion.

He needs the person inside to see a central casting bad guy so that they will react however they are going to react. That reaction will then be taken into account in whatever plans he has for the actual night of the kidnapping. Thus the need for a 2-part plan.

Now imagine you are 84. Your phone alerts and wakes you up in the middle of the night. You see THAT on your screen. You are almost certainly going to react. You likely dial 911. You turn on lights in the house because you are definitely not going to want to sit in the dark until cops come. You text or call family or neighbors for help right after 911. In short, ruckus ensues.

Or maybe your family also gets the alerts. It’s not yet 2AM on a Saturday. It’s not impossible that someone else also gets the alert who is actually still awake, watching TV, playing video games, whatever. They see that nightmare on grandma’s front door, or mom’s front door. Obviously action will be taken of some type.

So he poses to ensure that he has triggered the camera, then quickly retreats down the street into the brush somewhere to hide. Do lights come on? Do police arrive? Does a dog bark? Is there any activity at all?

Hmm, nothing. Nothing happens at all he notices. So he slinks away into the darkness, confident that the cameras are no real threat. The biggest threat of the cameras is that they wake Nancy up before he can get inside, meaning 911 is called.

So he waits a couple weeks and watches off and on. Are more visible security measures taken? Do new cameras appear?

Now, here’s the thing: he is likely feeling better in terms of not alerting anyone inside based on previous recon. But that could be a one-off. Maybe she silenced her phone that night but not this one. So he needs a quick repeat on the night of.

This is where the timeline comes in.

Topic #2: Timeline on the Night of the Kidnapping

I do not believe at all that he was inside the house for 40+ minutes as we keep hearing almost everywhere. That makes zero sense for a kidnapping, where every moment spent at the scene in contact with the victim= increased risk.

In this scenario I have described he returns a couple of weeks later, fairly confident that the cameras pose no real threat. He likely now assumes Nancy has her phone on silent so that every time a cat or other animal walks by at night she doesn’t wake up.

However, he has to make sure, just in case she woke up the next morning (from the earlier recon) and saw that image and NOW takes more security steps, such as having her alerts on loud enough to wake her up. Maybe a neighbor or someone else is also now getting them as a backup. He doesn’t know, so he goes up to the porch, knowing the camera will activate. Of course he ducks his head just in case (why over expose himself to being filmed?).

This is a test… What will happen?

The lantana also serves a purpose: it looks even more scary/wrong. If anyone is seeing someone do that they are raising the alarm 100% for sure. It escalates from a simple prowler on the porch to likely intent to cause harm.

But nothing happens. He slinks to the shadows again and waits. No lights come on. No cops show up. This could account for a solid 15-20 minutes of that 40 minute timeline we keep hearing about. Again, there is no real rush here. If he is detected he will escape into the pitch black and brush unseen. If he is not detected then it’s like he just arrived. It’s likely he has a getaway driver close by but not so close that if police suddenly come flying down the street his car isn’t sitting there parked suspiciously. It’s not like he can hop into a car and take off 2 houses down at 2:30 AM or so when the police are responding to a suspicious man trying to break into a house.

We have also heard about a second motion detection after 2, about 15 minutes or so before Nancy’s pacemaker disconnected from her watch. This could be the kidnapper(s) proceeding to gain entry into the house, meaning they would have only been inside for 10 minutes or less in total, which makes a lot more sense. One restrains her while the other goes and gets the car OR signals the getaway driver that it’s time, which obviously would not be in the driveway to begin with in case their camera test resulted in their presence being detected. So that takes a few minutes, as does getting her into the car, situated, and leaving.

If you take all that into account, we could be talking 5-10 minutes or even less in the house in total. If they were there for 40 minutes they would have cleaned up all the blood drops. Instead, IMO, they got in as quietly as possible after making sure the cameras didn’t wake anyone up, and got her out as quickly as possible, because who knows what little hidden cameras or security items they could miss. Kidnappers act fast. They don’t stick around the scene any longer than needed once the crime is in motion.

Just my theory, but I think it explains this person’s actions. Far from being a bumbling amateur, this was IMO a clever test to see what alerts, if any, would result from the camera before proceeding into the house.

Interesting thoughts and theory. I agree.

I was listening to Gray Hughes on a Podcast recently and he had the same exact thought as you.

The perp wasn't in there for no 40+ minutes. He thought as you did that the perp disabled the camera and then lurked a few houses/street or so over to wait and see if any police response. After 10-15 minutes, no repsonse.... proceed with plan.

That is why the lack of this guy on any neighbos video is so disheartening.

 

[SMK777]

Long time reader, but I had to register to share some theories I haven’t seen much here or anywhere else online.

These deal with two main issues: cameras and the timeline (40+ minutes). IMO major possibilities are being overlooked in both cases. When something doesn’t make sense, that usually means we just haven’t found the right explanation yet. IMO the explanation I will offer below makes a lot of seemingly confusing data points fit perfectly.

This is all just my opinion based on things we have heard.

Topic #1: Cameras

First, cameras: IMO this guy WANTED to be seen. In fact, it was a key part of his strategy. Both times, but especially the first time he showed up. As someone who has these types of cameras as part of my home security system and understands them extremely well, it actually makes perfect sense that he would want to trigger them AND appear in the image.

Think of a camera as an early warning system as much as it is a camera. Some people silence them all night and rely on them to provide retroactive evidence of a crime. Others want the alerts to wake them up so they have early warning of danger. Some do both. That makes all the difference in this crime.

One of the underappreciated aspects of Blink, Nest, Ring, and the like is that in addition to being cameras and microphones, they also act as perimeter annunciators. What I mean by that is that it is practically impossible to disable them without first triggering them, which sends an immediate alert to someone’s phone (sometimes multiple people’s phones, depending on the setup). You can rip the camera off the wall and destroy it but it’s already too late: it has served its purpose and alerted the owner, who is possibly now awake and taking any number of actions. The criminal’s element of surprise is gone and their presence is known. That is, unless the homeowner silences alerts at night and just checks in the morning (as most people do because they don’t want to wake up every time a cat walks across their porch in the middle of the night).

In this scenario, he didn’t care about being filmed per se. He’s well disguised anyway and likely assumes he will be filmed somewhere by a camera he missed. IMO his concern was 100% about whether the alerts would wake Nancy up before he got inside and spoil his plan.

He needed the element of surprise. An 84 year old woman is definitely going to dial 911 if she is awakened by a break- in in progress. Even if he gets her out before police arrive, the police are now aware of a break-in/kidnapping in progress and will be swarming the entire neighborhood. The criminal might even drive past a responding officer, who will afterwards recall seeing the vehicle leaving the neighborhood as they responded. They might even call it in and have another officer stop that vehicle in case it is the perp. Risk goes way, way up if Nancy wakes up at any point before he gets inside and can stop her from calling 911.

Let’s assume this new timeline of photos is correct: he was there beforehand, likely an earlier date. I have thought since the photos first emerged that they must have been taken on different nights. Most people have focused on the shoes, lack of backpack, lack of holster… but the first thing I noticed was the distinct lack of a shadow (his shadow is clearly visible on the night he wore the backpack and holster, but absent in the photo where he is not wearing them).

This suggests a pitch black night in the earlier timeframe photo, perfect for recon. He wears his same gear that he’ll wear later because he is doing a dry run and wants it to feel as much like the real thing as possible, and he also does not want to be identified. He also wants to appear as menacing as possible for the camera as mentioned above.

He has to know what to expect, if anything, when the camera is triggered. And he would understand that triggering it is unavoidable.

Even if the criminal has a wifi jammer most systems will then alert the owner that all the modules are down. So they’re now awake at a minimum and likely to notice sounds outside or even to look out the windows to investigate, because that is suspicious.

These alerts could very well be loud and wake the person up. The person might then turn lights on in the house, go to live view to see what is going on, or dial 911 or text a family member depending on the circumstances. Or grab a firearm that they have for protection. Maybe all of the above. The criminal has no idea what is going on, if anything at all. Almost all of these systems will send an immediate thumbnail before recording so that even if the camera is disabled before the video is uploaded to the cloud you have an image of whatever set it off on your phone.

IMO this guy is almost posing for the camera on the earlier date. He needs to find out: what happens if the camera alerts AND the image in the thumbnail or on the phone is of a terrifying man in a mask and gloves? Notice he stands far enough away that you can see he looks terrifying but can’t make out much in terms of ID. It’s no good if it alerts and the image is some strange blur or nothing at all, because those of us who have these cameras see that stuff all the time. Cats, rabbits, the wind.. All cause triggers. You’re not raising the alarm so to speak, for every single time it notifies you of motion.

He needs the person inside to see a central casting bad guy so that they will react however they are going to react. That reaction will then be taken into account in whatever plans he has for the actual night of the kidnapping. Thus the need for a 2-part plan.

Now imagine you are 84. Your phone alerts and wakes you up in the middle of the night. You see THAT on your screen. You are almost certainly going to react. You likely dial 911. You turn on lights in the house because you are definitely not going to want to sit in the dark until cops come. You text or call family or neighbors for help right after 911. In short, ruckus ensues.

Or maybe your family also gets the alerts. It’s not yet 2AM on a Saturday. It’s not impossible that someone else also gets the alert who is actually still awake, watching TV, playing video games, whatever. They see that nightmare on grandma’s front door, or mom’s front door. Obviously action will be taken of some type.

So he poses to ensure that he has triggered the camera, then quickly retreats down the street into the brush somewhere to hide. Do lights come on? Do police arrive? Does a dog bark? Is there any activity at all?

Hmm, nothing. Nothing happens at all he notices. So he slinks away into the darkness, confident that the cameras are no real threat. The biggest threat of the cameras is that they wake Nancy up before he can get inside, meaning 911 is called.

So he waits a couple weeks and watches off and on. Are more visible security measures taken? Do new cameras appear?

Now, here’s the thing: he is likely feeling better in terms of not alerting anyone inside based on previous recon. But that could be a one-off. Maybe she silenced her phone that night but not this one. So he needs a quick repeat on the night of.

This is where the timeline comes in.

Topic #2: Timeline on the Night of the Kidnapping

I do not believe at all that he was inside the house for 40+ minutes as we keep hearing almost everywhere. That makes zero sense for a kidnapping, where every moment spent at the scene in contact with the victim= increased risk.

In this scenario I have described he returns a couple of weeks later, fairly confident that the cameras pose no real threat. He likely now assumes Nancy has her phone on silent so that every time a cat or other animal walks by at night she doesn’t wake up.

However, he has to make sure, just in case she woke up the next morning (from the earlier recon) and saw that image and NOW takes more security steps, such as having her alerts on loud enough to wake her up. Maybe a neighbor or someone else is also now getting them as a backup. He doesn’t know, so he goes up to the porch, knowing the camera will activate. Of course he ducks his head just in case (why over expose himself to being filmed?).

This is a test… What will happen?

The lantana also serves a purpose: it looks even more scary/wrong. If anyone is seeing someone do that they are raising the alarm 100% for sure. It escalates from a simple prowler on the porch to likely intent to cause harm.

But nothing happens. He slinks to the shadows again and waits. No lights come on. No cops show up. This could account for a solid 15-20 minutes of that 40 minute timeline we keep hearing about. Again, there is no real rush here. If he is detected he will escape into the pitch black and brush unseen. If he is not detected then it’s like he just arrived. It’s likely he has a getaway driver close by but not so close that if police suddenly come flying down the street his car isn’t sitting there parked suspiciously. It’s not like he can hop into a car and take off 2 houses down at 2:30 AM or so when the police are responding to a suspicious man trying to break into a house.

We have also heard about a second motion detection after 2, about 15 minutes or so before Nancy’s pacemaker disconnected from her watch. This could be the kidnapper(s) proceeding to gain entry into the house, meaning they would have only been inside for 10 minutes or less in total, which makes a lot more sense. One restrains her while the other goes and gets the car OR signals the getaway driver that it’s time, which obviously would not be in the driveway to begin with in case their camera test resulted in their presence being detected. So that takes a few minutes, as does getting her into the car, situated, and leaving.

If you take all that into account, we could be talking 5-10 minutes or even less in the house in total. If they were there for 40 minutes they would have cleaned up all the blood drops. Instead, IMO, they got in as quietly as possible after making sure the cameras didn’t wake anyone up, and got her out as quickly as possible, because who knows what little hidden cameras or security items they could miss. Kidnappers act fast. They don’t stick around the scene any longer than needed once the crime is in motion.

Just my theory, but I think it explains this person’s actions. Far from being a bumbling amateur, this was IMO a clever test to see what alerts, if any, would result from the camera before proceeding into the house.

Thanks for posting!
Still digesting.
Yes, I had read somewhere there is a technical explanation for that 41 minutes--
it was likely 12 minutes.

 

[VeronicaVaughn]

DBM

 

[warp3dwing]

Long time reader, but I had to register to share some theories I haven’t seen much here or anywhere else online.

These deal with two main issues: cameras and the timeline (40+ minutes). IMO major possibilities are being overlooked in both cases. When something doesn’t make sense, that usually means we just haven’t found the right explanation yet. IMO the explanation I will offer below makes a lot of seemingly confusing data points fit perfectly.

This is all just my opinion based on things we have heard.

Topic #1: Cameras

First, cameras: IMO this guy WANTED to be seen. In fact, it was a key part of his strategy. Both times, but especially the first time he showed up. As someone who has these types of cameras as part of my home security system and understands them extremely well, it actually makes perfect sense that he would want to trigger them AND appear in the image.

Think of a camera as an early warning system as much as it is a camera. Some people silence them all night and rely on them to provide retroactive evidence of a crime. Others want the alerts to wake them up so they have early warning of danger. Some do both. That makes all the difference in this crime.

One of the underappreciated aspects of Blink, Nest, Ring, and the like is that in addition to being cameras and microphones, they also act as perimeter annunciators. What I mean by that is that it is practically impossible to disable them without first triggering them, which sends an immediate alert to someone’s phone (sometimes multiple people’s phones, depending on the setup). You can rip the camera off the wall and destroy it but it’s already too late: it has served its purpose and alerted the owner, who is possibly now awake and taking any number of actions. The criminal’s element of surprise is gone and their presence is known. That is, unless the homeowner silences alerts at night and just checks in the morning (as most people do because they don’t want to wake up every time a cat walks across their porch in the middle of the night).

In this scenario, he didn’t care about being filmed per se. He’s well disguised anyway and likely assumes he will be filmed somewhere by a camera he missed. IMO his concern was 100% about whether the alerts would wake Nancy up before he got inside and spoil his plan.

He needed the element of surprise. An 84 year old woman is definitely going to dial 911 if she is awakened by a break- in in progress. Even if he gets her out before police arrive, the police are now aware of a break-in/kidnapping in progress and will be swarming the entire neighborhood. The criminal might even drive past a responding officer, who will afterwards recall seeing the vehicle leaving the neighborhood as they responded. They might even call it in and have another officer stop that vehicle in case it is the perp. Risk goes way, way up if Nancy wakes up at any point before he gets inside and can stop her from calling 911.

Let’s assume this new timeline of photos is correct: he was there beforehand, likely an earlier date. I have thought since the photos first emerged that they must have been taken on different nights. Most people have focused on the shoes, lack of backpack, lack of holster… but the first thing I noticed was the distinct lack of a shadow (his shadow is clearly visible on the night he wore the backpack and holster, but absent in the photo where he is not wearing them).

This suggests a pitch black night in the earlier timeframe photo, perfect for recon. He wears his same gear that he’ll wear later because he is doing a dry run and wants it to feel as much like the real thing as possible, and he also does not want to be identified. He also wants to appear as menacing as possible for the camera as mentioned above.

He has to know what to expect, if anything, when the camera is triggered. And he would understand that triggering it is unavoidable.

Even if the criminal has a wifi jammer most systems will then alert the owner that all the modules are down. So they’re now awake at a minimum and likely to notice sounds outside or even to look out the windows to investigate, because that is suspicious.

These alerts could very well be loud and wake the person up. The person might then turn lights on in the house, go to live view to see what is going on, or dial 911 or text a family member depending on the circumstances. Or grab a firearm that they have for protection. Maybe all of the above. The criminal has no idea what is going on, if anything at all. Almost all of these systems will send an immediate thumbnail before recording so that even if the camera is disabled before the video is uploaded to the cloud you have an image of whatever set it off on your phone.

IMO this guy is almost posing for the camera on the earlier date. He needs to find out: what happens if the camera alerts AND the image in the thumbnail or on the phone is of a terrifying man in a mask and gloves? Notice he stands far enough away that you can see he looks terrifying but can’t make out much in terms of ID. It’s no good if it alerts and the image is some strange blur or nothing at all, because those of us who have these cameras see that stuff all the time. Cats, rabbits, the wind.. All cause triggers. You’re not raising the alarm so to speak, for every single time it notifies you of motion.

He needs the person inside to see a central casting bad guy so that they will react however they are going to react. That reaction will then be taken into account in whatever plans he has for the actual night of the kidnapping. Thus the need for a 2-part plan.

Now imagine you are 84. Your phone alerts and wakes you up in the middle of the night. You see THAT on your screen. You are almost certainly going to react. You likely dial 911. You turn on lights in the house because you are definitely not going to want to sit in the dark until cops come. You text or call family or neighbors for help right after 911. In short, ruckus ensues.

Or maybe your family also gets the alerts. It’s not yet 2AM on a Saturday. It’s not impossible that someone else also gets the alert who is actually still awake, watching TV, playing video games, whatever. They see that nightmare on grandma’s front door, or mom’s front door. Obviously action will be taken of some type.

So he poses to ensure that he has triggered the camera, then quickly retreats down the street into the brush somewhere to hide. Do lights come on? Do police arrive? Does a dog bark? Is there any activity at all?

Hmm, nothing. Nothing happens at all he notices. So he slinks away into the darkness, confident that the cameras are no real threat. The biggest threat of the cameras is that they wake Nancy up before he can get inside, meaning 911 is called.

So he waits a couple weeks and watches off and on. Are more visible security measures taken? Do new cameras appear?

Now, here’s the thing: he is likely feeling better in terms of not alerting anyone inside based on previous recon. But that could be a one-off. Maybe she silenced her phone that night but not this one. So he needs a quick repeat on the night of.

This is where the timeline comes in.

Topic #2: Timeline on the Night of the Kidnapping

I do not believe at all that he was inside the house for 40+ minutes as we keep hearing almost everywhere. That makes zero sense for a kidnapping, where every moment spent at the scene in contact with the victim= increased risk.

In this scenario I have described he returns a couple of weeks later, fairly confident that the cameras pose no real threat. He likely now assumes Nancy has her phone on silent so that every time a cat or other animal walks by at night she doesn’t wake up.

However, he has to make sure, just in case she woke up the next morning (from the earlier recon) and saw that image and NOW takes more security steps, such as having her alerts on loud enough to wake her up. Maybe a neighbor or someone else is also now getting them as a backup. He doesn’t know, so he goes up to the porch, knowing the camera will activate. Of course he ducks his head just in case (why over expose himself to being filmed?).

This is a test… What will happen?

The lantana also serves a purpose: it looks even more scary/wrong. If anyone is seeing someone do that they are raising the alarm 100% for sure. It escalates from a simple prowler on the porch to likely intent to cause harm.

But nothing happens. He slinks to the shadows again and waits. No lights come on. No cops show up. This could account for a solid 15-20 minutes of that 40 minute timeline we keep hearing about. Again, there is no real rush here. If he is detected he will escape into the pitch black and brush unseen. If he is not detected then it’s like he just arrived. It’s likely he has a getaway driver close by but not so close that if police suddenly come flying down the street his car isn’t sitting there parked suspiciously. It’s not like he can hop into a car and take off 2 houses down at 2:30 AM or so when the police are responding to a suspicious man trying to break into a house.

We have also heard about a second motion detection after 2, about 15 minutes or so before Nancy’s pacemaker disconnected from her watch. This could be the kidnapper(s) proceeding to gain entry into the house, meaning they would have only been inside for 10 minutes or less in total, which makes a lot more sense. One restrains her while the other goes and gets the car OR signals the getaway driver that it’s time, which obviously would not be in the driveway to begin with in case their camera test resulted in their presence being detected. So that takes a few minutes, as does getting her into the car, situated, and leaving.

If you take all that into account, we could be talking 5-10 minutes or even less in the house in total. If they were there for 40 minutes they would have cleaned up all the blood drops. Instead, IMO, they got in as quietly as possible after making sure the cameras didn’t wake anyone up, and got her out as quickly as possible, because who knows what little hidden cameras or security items they could miss. Kidnappers act fast. They don’t stick around the scene any longer than needed once the crime is in motion.

Just my theory, but I think it explains this person’s actions. Far from being a bumbling amateur, this was IMO a clever test to see what alerts, if any, would result from the camera before proceeding into the house.

I had the exact same thought about a pre-abduction camera test. Does she wake up upon detection? Does she check her alerts every morning?

But I wonder how the suspect would be so sure that Nancy wasn’t discussing with others a masked man she saw on her Nest cam. Was she active in community discussion groups like Nextdoor?

Or maybe it just didn’t matter. Confidence that the doorbell doesn’t wake Nancy up was good enough for their purposes: a fairly rapid extraction.

 

[SaraSmile]

The only reason I can think for double-masking is if the perp anticipated a possibility that the victim might grab and tear the knit mask of his/her head.

IMO, the under mask did obscure the eyes. I think FBI can still look at eye spacing, shape.

 

[Sessiebo]

Long time reader, but I had to register to share some theories I haven’t seen much here or anywhere else online.

These deal with two main issues: cameras and the timeline (40+ minutes). IMO major possibilities are being overlooked in both cases. When something doesn’t make sense, that usually means we just haven’t found the right explanation yet. IMO the explanation I will offer below makes a lot of seemingly confusing data points fit perfectly.

This is all just my opinion based on things we have heard.

Topic #1: Cameras

First, cameras: IMO this guy WANTED to be seen. In fact, it was a key part of his strategy. Both times, but especially the first time he showed up. As someone who has these types of cameras as part of my home security system and understands them extremely well, it actually makes perfect sense that he would want to trigger them AND appear in the image.

Think of a camera as an early warning system as much as it is a camera. Some people silence them all night and rely on them to provide retroactive evidence of a crime. Others want the alerts to wake them up so they have early warning of danger. Some do both. That makes all the difference in this crime.

One of the underappreciated aspects of Blink, Nest, Ring, and the like is that in addition to being cameras and microphones, they also act as perimeter annunciators. What I mean by that is that it is practically impossible to disable them without first triggering them, which sends an immediate alert to someone’s phone (sometimes multiple people’s phones, depending on the setup). You can rip the camera off the wall and destroy it but it’s already too late: it has served its purpose and alerted the owner, who is possibly now awake and taking any number of actions. The criminal’s element of surprise is gone and their presence is known. That is, unless the homeowner silences alerts at night and just checks in the morning (as most people do because they don’t want to wake up every time a cat walks across their porch in the middle of the night).

In this scenario, he didn’t care about being filmed per se. He’s well disguised anyway and likely assumes he will be filmed somewhere by a camera he missed. IMO his concern was 100% about whether the alerts would wake Nancy up before he got inside and spoil his plan.

He needed the element of surprise. An 84 year old woman is definitely going to dial 911 if she is awakened by a break- in in progress. Even if he gets her out before police arrive, the police are now aware of a break-in/kidnapping in progress and will be swarming the entire neighborhood. The criminal might even drive past a responding officer, who will afterwards recall seeing the vehicle leaving the neighborhood as they responded. They might even call it in and have another officer stop that vehicle in case it is the perp. Risk goes way, way up if Nancy wakes up at any point before he gets inside and can stop her from calling 911.

Let’s assume this new timeline of photos is correct: he was there beforehand, likely an earlier date. I have thought since the photos first emerged that they must have been taken on different nights. Most people have focused on the shoes, lack of backpack, lack of holster… but the first thing I noticed was the distinct lack of a shadow (his shadow is clearly visible on the night he wore the backpack and holster, but absent in the photo where he is not wearing them).

This suggests a pitch black night in the earlier timeframe photo, perfect for recon. He wears his same gear that he’ll wear later because he is doing a dry run and wants it to feel as much like the real thing as possible, and he also does not want to be identified. He also wants to appear as menacing as possible for the camera as mentioned above.

He has to know what to expect, if anything, when the camera is triggered. And he would understand that triggering it is unavoidable.

Even if the criminal has a wifi jammer most systems will then alert the owner that all the modules are down. So they’re now awake at a minimum and likely to notice sounds outside or even to look out the windows to investigate, because that is suspicious.

These alerts could very well be loud and wake the person up. The person might then turn lights on in the house, go to live view to see what is going on, or dial 911 or text a family member depending on the circumstances. Or grab a firearm that they have for protection. Maybe all of the above. The criminal has no idea what is going on, if anything at all. Almost all of these systems will send an immediate thumbnail before recording so that even if the camera is disabled before the video is uploaded to the cloud you have an image of whatever set it off on your phone.

IMO this guy is almost posing for the camera on the earlier date. He needs to find out: what happens if the camera alerts AND the image in the thumbnail or on the phone is of a terrifying man in a mask and gloves? Notice he stands far enough away that you can see he looks terrifying but can’t make out much in terms of ID. It’s no good if it alerts and the image is some strange blur or nothing at all, because those of us who have these cameras see that stuff all the time. Cats, rabbits, the wind.. All cause triggers. You’re not raising the alarm so to speak, for every single time it notifies you of motion.

He needs the person inside to see a central casting bad guy so that they will react however they are going to react. That reaction will then be taken into account in whatever plans he has for the actual night of the kidnapping. Thus the need for a 2-part plan.

Now imagine you are 84. Your phone alerts and wakes you up in the middle of the night. You see THAT on your screen. You are almost certainly going to react. You likely dial 911. You turn on lights in the house because you are definitely not going to want to sit in the dark until cops come. You text or call family or neighbors for help right after 911. In short, ruckus ensues.

Or maybe your family also gets the alerts. It’s not yet 2AM on a Saturday. It’s not impossible that someone else also gets the alert who is actually still awake, watching TV, playing video games, whatever. They see that nightmare on grandma’s front door, or mom’s front door. Obviously action will be taken of some type.

So he poses to ensure that he has triggered the camera, then quickly retreats down the street into the brush somewhere to hide. Do lights come on? Do police arrive? Does a dog bark? Is there any activity at all?

Hmm, nothing. Nothing happens at all he notices. So he slinks away into the darkness, confident that the cameras are no real threat. The biggest threat of the cameras is that they wake Nancy up before he can get inside, meaning 911 is called.

So he waits a couple weeks and watches off and on. Are more visible security measures taken? Do new cameras appear?

Now, here’s the thing: he is likely feeling better in terms of not alerting anyone inside based on previous recon. But that could be a one-off. Maybe she silenced her phone that night but not this one. So he needs a quick repeat on the night of.

This is where the timeline comes in.

Topic #2: Timeline on the Night of the Kidnapping

I do not believe at all that he was inside the house for 40+ minutes as we keep hearing almost everywhere. That makes zero sense for a kidnapping, where every moment spent at the scene in contact with the victim= increased risk.

In this scenario I have described he returns a couple of weeks later, fairly confident that the cameras pose no real threat. He likely now assumes Nancy has her phone on silent so that every time a cat or other animal walks by at night she doesn’t wake up.

However, he has to make sure, just in case she woke up the next morning (from the earlier recon) and saw that image and NOW takes more security steps, such as having her alerts on loud enough to wake her up. Maybe a neighbor or someone else is also now getting them as a backup. He doesn’t know, so he goes up to the porch, knowing the camera will activate. Of course he ducks his head just in case (why over expose himself to being filmed?).

This is a test… What will happen?

The lantana also serves a purpose: it looks even more scary/wrong. If anyone is seeing someone do that they are raising the alarm 100% for sure. It escalates from a simple prowler on the porch to likely intent to cause harm.

But nothing happens. He slinks to the shadows again and waits. No lights come on. No cops show up. This could account for a solid 15-20 minutes of that 40 minute timeline we keep hearing about. Again, there is no real rush here. If he is detected he will escape into the pitch black and brush unseen. If he is not detected then it’s like he just arrived. It’s likely he has a getaway driver close by but not so close that if police suddenly come flying down the street his car isn’t sitting there parked suspiciously. It’s not like he can hop into a car and take off 2 houses down at 2:30 AM or so when the police are responding to a suspicious man trying to break into a house.

We have also heard about a second motion detection after 2, about 15 minutes or so before Nancy’s pacemaker disconnected from her watch. This could be the kidnapper(s) proceeding to gain entry into the house, meaning they would have only been inside for 10 minutes or less in total, which makes a lot more sense. One restrains her while the other goes and gets the car OR signals the getaway driver that it’s time, which obviously would not be in the driveway to begin with in case their camera test resulted in their presence being detected. So that takes a few minutes, as does getting her into the car, situated, and leaving.

If you take all that into account, we could be talking 5-10 minutes or even less in the house in total. If they were there for 40 minutes they would have cleaned up all the blood drops. Instead, IMO, they got in as quietly as possible after making sure the cameras didn’t wake anyone up, and got her out as quickly as possible, because who knows what little hidden cameras or security items they could miss. Kidnappers act fast. They don’t stick around the scene any longer than needed once the crime is in motion.

Just my theory, but I think it explains this person’s actions. Far from being a bumbling amateur, this was IMO a clever test to see what alerts, if any, would result from the camera before proceeding into the house.

You have a good theory going, it makes much sense and a nice different perspective on the timeline.

 

[LRinCA]

Did we get clarification on sleuthing KD and LD?

I wanted to share that doing an inmate search on PCSD's website shows that KD is being held without bond according to their site.

Please report/delete if this info is not allowed.

Tricia did speak to this. I went back and tried to find the post. As per usual, initials only and no doxing (addresses). I'm going on memory here so if you search her posts you can get all the details.

On another note, you mentioned a search you did on PCSD's website. Do you know if it's possible to search 911 calls in that area (Tucson)? I keep seeing something referenced on X that I'm quite curious about regarding a 911 call.

 

[VeronicaVaughn]

Tricia did speak to this. I went back and tried to find the post. As per usual, initials only and no doxing (addresses). I'm going on memory here so if you search her posts you can get all the details.

On another note, you mentioned a search you did on PCSD's website. Do you know if it's possible to search 911 calls in that area (Tucson)? I keep seeing something referenced on X that I'm quite curious about regarding a 911 call.

Bbm. Yes, I'm actually looking at a spreadsheet with 57,308 records from the Tucson PD. The report is available on their page and references the calls from the last 45 days. It's a little tricky to navigate as it's broken down by neighborhood. I'm not from the area so I tried searching the spreadsheet on NG's street name but I'm not having any luck. It's a very large file but you can filter it in lots of different ways.

 

[Seni]

Long time reader, but I had to register to share some theories I haven’t seen much here or anywhere else online.

These deal with two main issues: cameras and the timeline (40+ minutes). IMO major possibilities are being overlooked in both cases. When something doesn’t make sense, that usually means we just haven’t found the right explanation yet. IMO the explanation I will offer below makes a lot of seemingly confusing data points fit perfectly.

This is all just my opinion based on things we have heard.

Topic #1: Cameras

First, cameras: IMO this guy WANTED to be seen. In fact, it was a key part of his strategy. Both times, but especially the first time he showed up. As someone who has these types of cameras as part of my home security system and understands them extremely well, it actually makes perfect sense that he would want to trigger them AND appear in the image.

Think of a camera as an early warning system as much as it is a camera. Some people silence them all night and rely on them to provide retroactive evidence of a crime. Others want the alerts to wake them up so they have early warning of danger. Some do both. That makes all the difference in this crime.

One of the underappreciated aspects of Blink, Nest, Ring, and the like is that in addition to being cameras and microphones, they also act as perimeter annunciators. What I mean by that is that it is practically impossible to disable them without first triggering them, which sends an immediate alert to someone’s phone (sometimes multiple people’s phones, depending on the setup). You can rip the camera off the wall and destroy it but it’s already too late: it has served its purpose and alerted the owner, who is possibly now awake and taking any number of actions. The criminal’s element of surprise is gone and their presence is known. That is, unless the homeowner silences alerts at night and just checks in the morning (as most people do because they don’t want to wake up every time a cat walks across their porch in the middle of the night).

In this scenario, he didn’t care about being filmed per se. He’s well disguised anyway and likely assumes he will be filmed somewhere by a camera he missed. IMO his concern was 100% about whether the alerts would wake Nancy up before he got inside and spoil his plan.

He needed the element of surprise. An 84 year old woman is definitely going to dial 911 if she is awakened by a break- in in progress. Even if he gets her out before police arrive, the police are now aware of a break-in/kidnapping in progress and will be swarming the entire neighborhood. The criminal might even drive past a responding officer, who will afterwards recall seeing the vehicle leaving the neighborhood as they responded. They might even call it in and have another officer stop that vehicle in case it is the perp. Risk goes way, way up if Nancy wakes up at any point before he gets inside and can stop her from calling 911.

Let’s assume this new timeline of photos is correct: he was there beforehand, likely an earlier date. I have thought since the photos first emerged that they must have been taken on different nights. Most people have focused on the shoes, lack of backpack, lack of holster… but the first thing I noticed was the distinct lack of a shadow (his shadow is clearly visible on the night he wore the backpack and holster, but absent in the photo where he is not wearing them).

This suggests a pitch black night in the earlier timeframe photo, perfect for recon. He wears his same gear that he’ll wear later because he is doing a dry run and wants it to feel as much like the real thing as possible, and he also does not want to be identified. He also wants to appear as menacing as possible for the camera as mentioned above.

He has to know what to expect, if anything, when the camera is triggered. And he would understand that triggering it is unavoidable.

Even if the criminal has a wifi jammer most systems will then alert the owner that all the modules are down. So they’re now awake at a minimum and likely to notice sounds outside or even to look out the windows to investigate, because that is suspicious.

These alerts could very well be loud and wake the person up. The person might then turn lights on in the house, go to live view to see what is going on, or dial 911 or text a family member depending on the circumstances. Or grab a firearm that they have for protection. Maybe all of the above. The criminal has no idea what is going on, if anything at all. Almost all of these systems will send an immediate thumbnail before recording so that even if the camera is disabled before the video is uploaded to the cloud you have an image of whatever set it off on your phone.

IMO this guy is almost posing for the camera on the earlier date. He needs to find out: what happens if the camera alerts AND the image in the thumbnail or on the phone is of a terrifying man in a mask and gloves? Notice he stands far enough away that you can see he looks terrifying but can’t make out much in terms of ID. It’s no good if it alerts and the image is some strange blur or nothing at all, because those of us who have these cameras see that stuff all the time. Cats, rabbits, the wind.. All cause triggers. You’re not raising the alarm so to speak, for every single time it notifies you of motion.

He needs the person inside to see a central casting bad guy so that they will react however they are going to react. That reaction will then be taken into account in whatever plans he has for the actual night of the kidnapping. Thus the need for a 2-part plan.

Now imagine you are 84. Your phone alerts and wakes you up in the middle of the night. You see THAT on your screen. You are almost certainly going to react. You likely dial 911. You turn on lights in the house because you are definitely not going to want to sit in the dark until cops come. You text or call family or neighbors for help right after 911. In short, ruckus ensues.

Or maybe your family also gets the alerts. It’s not yet 2AM on a Saturday. It’s not impossible that someone else also gets the alert who is actually still awake, watching TV, playing video games, whatever. They see that nightmare on grandma’s front door, or mom’s front door. Obviously action will be taken of some type.

So he poses to ensure that he has triggered the camera, then quickly retreats down the street into the brush somewhere to hide. Do lights come on? Do police arrive? Does a dog bark? Is there any activity at all?

Hmm, nothing. Nothing happens at all he notices. So he slinks away into the darkness, confident that the cameras are no real threat. The biggest threat of the cameras is that they wake Nancy up before he can get inside, meaning 911 is called.

So he waits a couple weeks and watches off and on. Are more visible security measures taken? Do new cameras appear?

Now, here’s the thing: he is likely feeling better in terms of not alerting anyone inside based on previous recon. But that could be a one-off. Maybe she silenced her phone that night but not this one. So he needs a quick repeat on the night of.

This is where the timeline comes in.

Topic #2: Timeline on the Night of the Kidnapping

I do not believe at all that he was inside the house for 40+ minutes as we keep hearing almost everywhere. That makes zero sense for a kidnapping, where every moment spent at the scene in contact with the victim= increased risk.

In this scenario I have described he returns a couple of weeks later, fairly confident that the cameras pose no real threat. He likely now assumes Nancy has her phone on silent so that every time a cat or other animal walks by at night she doesn’t wake up.

However, he has to make sure, just in case she woke up the next morning (from the earlier recon) and saw that image and NOW takes more security steps, such as having her alerts on loud enough to wake her up. Maybe a neighbor or someone else is also now getting them as a backup. He doesn’t know, so he goes up to the porch, knowing the camera will activate. Of course he ducks his head just in case (why over expose himself to being filmed?).

This is a test… What will happen?

The lantana also serves a purpose: it looks even more scary/wrong. If anyone is seeing someone do that they are raising the alarm 100% for sure. It escalates from a simple prowler on the porch to likely intent to cause harm.

But nothing happens. He slinks to the shadows again and waits. No lights come on. No cops show up. This could account for a solid 15-20 minutes of that 40 minute timeline we keep hearing about. Again, there is no real rush here. If he is detected he will escape into the pitch black and brush unseen. If he is not detected then it’s like he just arrived. It’s likely he has a getaway driver close by but not so close that if police suddenly come flying down the street his car isn’t sitting there parked suspiciously. It’s not like he can hop into a car and take off 2 houses down at 2:30 AM or so when the police are responding to a suspicious man trying to break into a house.

We have also heard about a second motion detection after 2, about 15 minutes or so before Nancy’s pacemaker disconnected from her watch. This could be the kidnapper(s) proceeding to gain entry into the house, meaning they would have only been inside for 10 minutes or less in total, which makes a lot more sense. One restrains her while the other goes and gets the car OR signals the getaway driver that it’s time, which obviously would not be in the driveway to begin with in case their camera test resulted in their presence being detected. So that takes a few minutes, as does getting her into the car, situated, and leaving.

If you take all that into account, we could be talking 5-10 minutes or even less in the house in total. If they were there for 40 minutes they would have cleaned up all the blood drops. Instead, IMO, they got in as quietly as possible after making sure the cameras didn’t wake anyone up, and got her out as quickly as possible, because who knows what little hidden cameras or security items they could miss. Kidnappers act fast. They don’t stick around the scene any longer than needed once the crime is in motion.

Just my theory, but I think it explains this person’s actions. Far from being a bumbling amateur, this was IMO a clever test to see what alerts, if any, would result from the camera before proceeding into the house.

Thank you! Really interesting theory and I like how you link several elements to make good possible sense

 

[stmichael]

They believe...
They are not sure of that...
It is possible that...

 

[Katrinepa]

Yeah, I didn't like the look of Savannah's eyes in that video/photo where she's wearing the cream colored sweater, which were pinker than a rabbit's and clearly she's been bawling, IMO.

I think the police have been stringing her along giving her false hope because of who she is, and suspect that another police department would have stopped looking days ago and switched to a recovery operation.

None of this seems promising and none of it hints that she is alive, IMO, as if she were, we'd either have (a), progress towards a successful end result; or (b), the police would start letting people in on minor chunks of information that might help us help them.

Nanos can't stop the family from doing what they wish. I'm sure they are getting professional advice from experienced experts. They are trying to be realistic and practical. The word 'closure' is not applicable in any case like this. There is Never closure, but only coming to terms, realizing they have no control, but at least recovery of the body allows them to go through the stages of grief, each in their own way. I'm sure they have already begun the Denial stage, but will still hold onto even a sliver of hope, until they actually have confirmation of death.
Anyone interested in the stages of death everyone goes through can read , "On Death and Dying", by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, the definitive go to for anyone dealing with loss/grief, from any walk of life.
FYI:
The five stages of grief, as described by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, are:

• Denial: Refusing to accept the reality of the loss.
• Anger: Feeling rage or resentment about the loss.
• Bargaining: Trying to negotiate with the person who has died or with the circumstances of the loss.
• Depression: Feeling profound sadness, uncertainty, or regret about the loss.
• Acceptance: Acknowledging the loss and accepting it as part of life.
  
  5
  
  These stages are not linear and can be revisited as the grieving process unfolds. It's important to recognize that these stages are part of a complex emotional response to loss and that there is no right or wrong way to grieve.
  https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=51ed...LXdpdGgtdGhlLWxvc3Mtb2YtYS1sb3ZlZC1vbmU&ntb=1
  My knowledge and experience, having studied, and also personal experiences. I hope this may help someone who needs information. Peace.

 

[joe jones]

I had the exact same thought about a pre-abduction camera test. Does she wake up upon detection? Does she check her alerts every morning?

But I wonder how the suspect would be so sure that Nancy wasn’t discussing with others a masked man she saw on her Nest cam. Was she active in community discussion groups like Nextdoor?

Or maybe it just didn’t matter. Confidence that the doorbell doesn’t wake Nancy up was good enough for their purposes: a fairly rapid extraction.

he didn't know if NG family monitored her nest cam, and if there was an alert then they would have upped her security which would mean he may not have been able to get into her home a second time, plus he had no idea if the first time he camera tested somebody came running out of house shouting to "get off my land" and calling 911, ruining any future plans,

and NG home especially the front was very difficult to surveil, and from the back you would have struggled to see who was in the house or who was coming and going, so IMO the intruder may not have known who was in the house,

 

[Former Reporter]

Would it have been better to have kept the new DNA problem quiet? Should the perpetrator think LE is close to apprehension or give them a false sense of security so they slip up?

IMHO, they may be bluffing. I was re-reading a book about the Jodi Arias case and the detectives interviewed (Picture Perfect by Shanna Hogan) said although they were honing in on Jodi from the beginning, they lied and told Travis Alexander's friends and the public that she was not a suspect to encourage her to make a mistake. JMO

 

[Leilei]

Did we get clarification on sleuthing KD and LD?

I wanted to share that doing an inmate search on PCSD's website shows that KD is being held without bond according to their site.

Please report/delete if this info is not allowed.

I brought Tricia's post forward earlier - 38,663 I believe.
It's allowed with LD initials with some stipulations.
IMO.

 

[Mom of 3]

Long time reader, but I had to register to share some theories I haven’t seen much here or anywhere else online.

These deal with two main issues: cameras and the timeline (40+ minutes). IMO major possibilities are being overlooked in both cases. When something doesn’t make sense, that usually means we just haven’t found the right explanation yet. IMO the explanation I will offer below makes a lot of seemingly confusing data points fit perfectly.

This is all just my opinion based on things we have heard.

Topic #1: Cameras

First, cameras: IMO this guy WANTED to be seen. In fact, it was a key part of his strategy. Both times, but especially the first time he showed up. As someone who has these types of cameras as part of my home security system and understands them extremely well, it actually makes perfect sense that he would want to trigger them AND appear in the image.

Think of a camera as an early warning system as much as it is a camera. Some people silence them all night and rely on them to provide retroactive evidence of a crime. Others want the alerts to wake them up so they have early warning of danger. Some do both. That makes all the difference in this crime.

One of the underappreciated aspects of Blink, Nest, Ring, and the like is that in addition to being cameras and microphones, they also act as perimeter annunciators. What I mean by that is that it is practically impossible to disable them without first triggering them, which sends an immediate alert to someone’s phone (sometimes multiple people’s phones, depending on the setup). You can rip the camera off the wall and destroy it but it’s already too late: it has served its purpose and alerted the owner, who is possibly now awake and taking any number of actions. The criminal’s element of surprise is gone and their presence is known. That is, unless the homeowner silences alerts at night and just checks in the morning (as most people do because they don’t want to wake up every time a cat walks across their porch in the middle of the night).

In this scenario, he didn’t care about being filmed per se. He’s well disguised anyway and likely assumes he will be filmed somewhere by a camera he missed. IMO his concern was 100% about whether the alerts would wake Nancy up before he got inside and spoil his plan.

He needed the element of surprise. An 84 year old woman is definitely going to dial 911 if she is awakened by a break- in in progress. Even if he gets her out before police arrive, the police are now aware of a break-in/kidnapping in progress and will be swarming the entire neighborhood. The criminal might even drive past a responding officer, who will afterwards recall seeing the vehicle leaving the neighborhood as they responded. They might even call it in and have another officer stop that vehicle in case it is the perp. Risk goes way, way up if Nancy wakes up at any point before he gets inside and can stop her from calling 911.

Let’s assume this new timeline of photos is correct: he was there beforehand, likely an earlier date. I have thought since the photos first emerged that they must have been taken on different nights. Most people have focused on the shoes, lack of backpack, lack of holster… but the first thing I noticed was the distinct lack of a shadow (his shadow is clearly visible on the night he wore the backpack and holster, but absent in the photo where he is not wearing them).

This suggests a pitch black night in the earlier timeframe photo, perfect for recon. He wears his same gear that he’ll wear later because he is doing a dry run and wants it to feel as much like the real thing as possible, and he also does not want to be identified. He also wants to appear as menacing as possible for the camera as mentioned above.

He has to know what to expect, if anything, when the camera is triggered. And he would understand that triggering it is unavoidable.

Even if the criminal has a wifi jammer most systems will then alert the owner that all the modules are down. So they’re now awake at a minimum and likely to notice sounds outside or even to look out the windows to investigate, because that is suspicious.

These alerts could very well be loud and wake the person up. The person might then turn lights on in the house, go to live view to see what is going on, or dial 911 or text a family member depending on the circumstances. Or grab a firearm that they have for protection. Maybe all of the above. The criminal has no idea what is going on, if anything at all. Almost all of these systems will send an immediate thumbnail before recording so that even if the camera is disabled before the video is uploaded to the cloud you have an image of whatever set it off on your phone.

IMO this guy is almost posing for the camera on the earlier date. He needs to find out: what happens if the camera alerts AND the image in the thumbnail or on the phone is of a terrifying man in a mask and gloves? Notice he stands far enough away that you can see he looks terrifying but can’t make out much in terms of ID. It’s no good if it alerts and the image is some strange blur or nothing at all, because those of us who have these cameras see that stuff all the time. Cats, rabbits, the wind.. All cause triggers. You’re not raising the alarm so to speak, for every single time it notifies you of motion.

He needs the person inside to see a central casting bad guy so that they will react however they are going to react. That reaction will then be taken into account in whatever plans he has for the actual night of the kidnapping. Thus the need for a 2-part plan.

Now imagine you are 84. Your phone alerts and wakes you up in the middle of the night. You see THAT on your screen. You are almost certainly going to react. You likely dial 911. You turn on lights in the house because you are definitely not going to want to sit in the dark until cops come. You text or call family or neighbors for help right after 911. In short, ruckus ensues.

Or maybe your family also gets the alerts. It’s not yet 2AM on a Saturday. It’s not impossible that someone else also gets the alert who is actually still awake, watching TV, playing video games, whatever. They see that nightmare on grandma’s front door, or mom’s front door. Obviously action will be taken of some type.

So he poses to ensure that he has triggered the camera, then quickly retreats down the street into the brush somewhere to hide. Do lights come on? Do police arrive? Does a dog bark? Is there any activity at all?

Hmm, nothing. Nothing happens at all he notices. So he slinks away into the darkness, confident that the cameras are no real threat. The biggest threat of the cameras is that they wake Nancy up before he can get inside, meaning 911 is called.

So he waits a couple weeks and watches off and on. Are more visible security measures taken? Do new cameras appear?

Now, here’s the thing: he is likely feeling better in terms of not alerting anyone inside based on previous recon. But that could be a one-off. Maybe she silenced her phone that night but not this one. So he needs a quick repeat on the night of.

This is where the timeline comes in.

Topic #2: Timeline on the Night of the Kidnapping

I do not believe at all that he was inside the house for 40+ minutes as we keep hearing almost everywhere. That makes zero sense for a kidnapping, where every moment spent at the scene in contact with the victim= increased risk.

In this scenario I have described he returns a couple of weeks later, fairly confident that the cameras pose no real threat. He likely now assumes Nancy has her phone on silent so that every time a cat or other animal walks by at night she doesn’t wake up.

However, he has to make sure, just in case she woke up the next morning (from the earlier recon) and saw that image and NOW takes more security steps, such as having her alerts on loud enough to wake her up. Maybe a neighbor or someone else is also now getting them as a backup. He doesn’t know, so he goes up to the porch, knowing the camera will activate. Of course he ducks his head just in case (why over expose himself to being filmed?).

This is a test… What will happen?

The lantana also serves a purpose: it looks even more scary/wrong. If anyone is seeing someone do that they are raising the alarm 100% for sure. It escalates from a simple prowler on the porch to likely intent to cause harm.

But nothing happens. He slinks to the shadows again and waits. No lights come on. No cops show up. This could account for a solid 15-20 minutes of that 40 minute timeline we keep hearing about. Again, there is no real rush here. If he is detected he will escape into the pitch black and brush unseen. If he is not detected then it’s like he just arrived. It’s likely he has a getaway driver close by but not so close that if police suddenly come flying down the street his car isn’t sitting there parked suspiciously. It’s not like he can hop into a car and take off 2 houses down at 2:30 AM or so when the police are responding to a suspicious man trying to break into a house.

We have also heard about a second motion detection after 2, about 15 minutes or so before Nancy’s pacemaker disconnected from her watch. This could be the kidnapper(s) proceeding to gain entry into the house, meaning they would have only been inside for 10 minutes or less in total, which makes a lot more sense. One restrains her while the other goes and gets the car OR signals the getaway driver that it’s time, which obviously would not be in the driveway to begin with in case their camera test resulted in their presence being detected. So that takes a few minutes, as does getting her into the car, situated, and leaving.

If you take all that into account, we could be talking 5-10 minutes or even less in the house in total. If they were there for 40 minutes they would have cleaned up all the blood drops. Instead, IMO, they got in as quietly as possible after making sure the cameras didn’t wake anyone up, and got her out as quickly as possible, because who knows what little hidden cameras or security items they could miss. Kidnappers act fast. They don’t stick around the scene any longer than needed once the crime is in motion.

Just my theory, but I think it explains this person’s actions. Far from being a bumbling amateur, this was IMO a clever test to see what alerts, if any, would result from the camera before proceeding into the house.

I think this is probably spot on. I had been having the same thoughts but hadn't had the time to articulate them in this way.

It still doesn't answer the WHY or the question of what they hoped to gain from kidnapping NG, but I think it is a very well thought out plan and process of what happened.