Theory Theory - Theories about why - Something else

[Cassie P]

the calmness despite the seriousness of what's going on makes me think he's committed break-ins before.

maybe violent crimes as well. assuming he had just done something to NG a few minutes earlier, one would think he'd be an adrenaline-fueled mess.

Either experienced, or young/immature, perhaps using drugs?

 

[wibbleflea]

Either experienced, or young/immature, perhaps using drugs?

Some personality styles and traits might be relevant, like sociopathy/psychopathy.

 

[Cassie P]

Some personality styles and traits might be relevant, like sociopathy/psychopathy.

Yes sociopaths/psychopaths have no guilt, remorse, empathy. So they could be nonchalant about committing serious crimes.

And the narcissist believes they are the smartest ones in the room. Everyone else is stupid and easily fooled. They are always the star of the show, the rest of us are just props and disposable.

 

[SlimPickens]

In psych theory, criminal behavior is a slice of a person's overall behavior and reflects their normal every day functioning to some extent. A criminal does not grow an entirely new personality at a crime scene.

So we will get glimpses of the person's routine style even if they are disguised or have made behavior modifications.

People have noticed his calm, laid back style which seems at odds with the serious nature of the crime. Some of us with a mental health background have noticed the phallic gun placement, which is of concern.

The interesting thing I have noticed from a number of other comments here is the feeling that something is off about this guy, his appearance, his clothing and behavior. When people are looking at something and say it is off, I usually pay attention.

The other point to consider is that the presentation of Lantana Guy seems at odds with the so far successful nature of the crime and sophistication of the ransom notes.

I agree that the clip itself cannot be used to determine the overall personality of the perpetrator or perpetrators. We can rationally surmise that his calm demeanor when walking around and when confronting the camera obstacle is indicative of an emotional paradox typically assigned to those with pathologies in the vein of psychopathy/sociopathy.

I don't agree that lantana guy's presentation is at all devoid of sophistication. Rather, efficiency and efficacy. The idea that his presentation is clownish or somehow noncriminal-like is more attributable to an observer's bias and naiveté, particularly when his presentation appears to have been exactly the type needed to successfully perpetrate the crime. Movies show criminals dressed like this not for hyperbole or sensationalism, but rather for accuracy of portrayal. After all, art imitates life more than life imitates art.

What is off is not his presentation but rather his gait, which I feel was manipulated with foresight. That is indicative of someone with enough sophistication to anticipate nuanced, rarely considered autonomic movements being used as identifiers and then implementing countermeasures.

What is also off is many folks' presupposition that he didn't already know the camera was there since A) he ducked his head when he entered the porch area with a concealing gesture, and B) he had evidently cased the house and posed for the camera roughly 15 days earlier.

I too am a practicing clinician, though I have no desire to project that here. I only bring it up because you do, and I wanted to acknowledge our alignment in that regard. I've never read too much into Freud's oft-incoherent and mostly debunked babble though. I am cut more from the Beck/Ellis cloth, and feel the gun was where it was because it was either the most reasonable/accessible place for him to put it, or (perhaps) he stems from a culture and/or peer group that utilizes it more than most.

JMO.

 

[Cassie P]

I agree that the clip itself cannot be used to determine the overall personality of the perpetrator or perpetrators. We can rationally surmise that his calm demeanor when walking around and when confronting the camera obstacle is indicative of an emotional paradox typically assigned to those with pathologies in the vein of psychopathy/sociopathy.

1. I am saying we can get some idea of mental status, thought process, typical behavior, emotional state, intellectual level, etc., of perpetrators by looking at the crime scene evidence. They leave their psychological fingerprints there.

Their behavior at the crime scene is just one slice of their typical general functioning. People do not change their entire personality the moment they start committing a crime.

2. Psychopathy/sociopathy is only one explanation for what we are seeing in the video of Lantana Man.

3. He could be young, under 25 years of age. Males do not have fully formed frontal lobes until mid twenties, 25-27. This part of the brain governs decision making, judgement, impulse control, risk assessment, etc.

4. He could have some other cognitive impairment, drugs, alcohol, etc.

5. Certain psychopathologies will give impaired maturation levels. For example narcissistic personalities can have a strong overconfidence, they are the only smart ones in the room. Everyone else is stupid. Also a disdain for others.

 

[Cassie P]

I don't agree that lantana guy's presentation is at all devoid of sophistication. Rather, efficiency and efficacy. The idea that his presentation is clownish or somehow noncriminal-like is more attributable to an observer's bias and naiveté, particularly when his presentation appears to have been exactly the type needed to successfully perpetrate the crime. Movies show criminals dressed like this not for hyperbole or sensationalism, but rather for accuracy of portrayal. After all, art imitates life more than life imitates art.

I too am a practicing clinician, though I have no desire to project that here. I only bring it up because you do, and I wanted to acknowledge our alignment in that regard. I've never read too much into Freud's oft-incoherent and mostly debunked babble though. I am cut more from the Beck/Ellis cloth, and feel the gun was where it was because it was either the most reasonable/accessible place for him to put it, or (perhaps) he stems from a culture and/or peer group that utilizes it more than most.

JMO.

I think the fact this guy was dressed up and acted like something he thought criminals should look like was what felt off to others. It was like he based his outfit and behavior on something from movies and TV.

The holster which did not fit the gun correctly and phallic placement was off to some of the folks here with gun training and experience, as well as mental health training.

People who have not studied Freud can notice the odd crotch placement of the gun, an obvious sexual bravado or intimidation.

I disagree with you on the point it was needed to do the job. I don't think it necessary to sexually intimidate an 84 year old with health issues in order to capture her. So this is something from his own psyche. Or his attempt to look like a TV criminal.

Even if it is from his culture or peer group, that is yet another factor to add to the profile.

 

[Ladyotm]

I agree that the clip itself cannot be used to determine the overall personality of the perpetrator or perpetrators. We can rationally surmise that his calm demeanor when walking around and when confronting the camera obstacle is indicative of an emotional paradox typically assigned to those with pathologies in the vein of psychopathy/sociopathy.

I don't agree that lantana guy's presentation is at all devoid of sophistication. Rather, efficiency and efficacy. The idea that his presentation is clownish or somehow noncriminal-like is more attributable to an observer's bias and naiveté, particularly when his presentation appears to have been exactly the type needed to successfully perpetrate the crime. Movies show criminals dressed like this not for hyperbole or sensationalism, but rather for accuracy of portrayal. After all, art imitates life more than life imitates art.

What is off is not his presentation but rather his gait, which I feel was manipulated with foresight. That is indicative of someone with enough sophistication to anticipate nuanced, rarely considered autonomic movements being used as identifiers and then implementing countermeasures.

What is also off is many folks' presupposition that he didn't already know the camera was there since A) he ducked his head when he entered the porch area with a concealing gesture, and B) he had evidently cased the house and posed for the camera roughly 15 days earlier.

I too am a practicing clinician, though I have no desire to project that here. I only bring it up because you do, and I wanted to acknowledge our alignment in that regard. I've never read too much into Freud's oft-incoherent and mostly debunked babble though. I am cut more from the Beck/Ellis cloth, and feel the gun was where it was because it was either the most reasonable/accessible place for him to put it, or (perhaps) he stems from a culture and/or peer group that utilizes it more than most.

JMO.

I know there was discussion that the videos released of the suspect may have been from 2 different days. From your post "he had evidently cased the house and posed for the camera roughly 15 days earlier" is this something law enforcement has said or your theory?

I think it's interesting what you said about how he approached the porch, ducking his head as if he knew the camera was there. My inexpensive camera only records for 15 seconds .

Was this guy familiar with doorbell cameras and expected recording to end quickly? I'm not familiar with the Nest camera system, but could he have expected it to stop recording sooner. He noticed the record light on or the verbal warning was still playing after he felt it should have stopped.

If he cased the house prior and allowed himself to be on camera, could he have been toying with NG? Trying to frighten her, let her know he had been there and was coming for her.

Maybe he's a part of the neighborhood's FB group? He noticed she didn't post about the first time he was creeping around, and he realized she didn't really watch or review the camera.

This makes me lean more into planned and intended the entire time to take her. Perhaps a thrill crime.

 

[Cassie P]

If he cased the house prior and allowed himself to be on camera, could he have been toying with NG? Trying to frighten her, let her know he had been there and was coming for her.

Maybe he's a part of the neighborhood's FB group? He noticed she didn't post about the first time he was creeping around, and he realized she didn't really watch or review the camera.

This makes me lean more into planned and intended the entire time to take her. Perhaps a thrill crime.

BBM. Then we are getting into a stalking and harassment situation? If the first episode was done deliberately to intimidate and harass NG. If this is the case, there may have been other events as well. And this would not be a business crime like robbery or kidnapping. But personal.

 

[SlimPickens]

1. I am saying we can get some idea of mental status, thought process, typical behavior, emotional state, intellectual level, etc., of perpetrators by looking at the crime scene evidence. They leave their psychological fingerprints there.

Their behavior at the crime scene is just one slice of their typical general functioning. People do not change their entire personality the moment they start committing a crime.

2. Psychopathy/sociopathy is only one explanation for what we are seeing in the video of Lantana Man.

3. He could be young, under 25 years of age. Males do not have fully formed frontal lobes until mid twenties, 25-27. This part of the brain governs decision making, judgement, impulse control, risk assessment, etc.

4. He could have some other cognitive impairment, drugs, alcohol, etc.

5. Certain psychopathologies will give impaired maturation levels. For example narcissistic personalities can have a strong overconfidence, they are the only smart ones in the room. Everyone else is stupid. Also a disdain for others.

We can reasonably deduce the perp's psychopathy by summing the total of :

The video of a man having a paradoxical emotional calm while engaged in a high anxiety, high stress, and imminent violent event

+

The fact that he kidnapped an 84 year old disabled lady from her bed in the middle of the night.

There is no room for nuanced discussion about the pathology of someone who did just those two things, nevermind the far worse things he's likely done since. To be sure, dude's a psychopath whether he's a local yokel from Podunk, AZ or an intelligence officer from an enemy nation.

And psychopaths have the psychopathic gene at birth. They are as deliberate at 35 when they beat someone to death as they are at 12 when they stalk and mutilate someone's pet. It is their nature to be deliberate. To methodically hurt or harm. To be calculating and to lie in wait. To be calm when everyone else is afraid. Further PFC development for them refines their MO - not their impulse control.

JMO.

 

[SlimPickens]

I think the fact this guy was dressed up and acted like something he thought criminals should look like was what felt off to others. It was like he based his outfit and behavior on something from movies and TV.

The holster which did not fit the gun correctly and phallic placement was off to some of the folks here with gun training and experience, as well as mental health training.

People who have not studied Freud can notice the odd crotch placement of the gun, an obvious sexual bravado or intimidation.

I disagree with you on the point it was needed to do the job. I don't think it necessary to sexually intimidate an 84 year old with health issues in order to capture her. So this is something from his own psyche. Or his attempt to look like a TV criminal.

Even if it is from his culture or peer group, that is yet another factor to add to the profile.

A more rational reason for the gun placement (if it is a gun) is because it made it easier to access while wearing bulky clothing and multiple gloves. Most folks with gun training and firearms experience have never shot a gun while wearing all of those things, so how could they possibly offer an opinion as to its efficacy and efficiency where it is located? They could say it looks funny, and that's about all.

People who have studied Freud with any academic rigor have long since moved on from him. He was the father of psychology and that's about it. His musings were just those - musings. No empirical foundation at all and most of his ideas have long since been debunked. Even Jung disavowed him, and rightly so. One or two of his musings have evolved into others' scholarly theories with some degree of merit (i.e. attachment theory), but most of his ideas were derived from cocaine-induced mania and with no subsequent empirical lineage. Feminism and a few other Marxist critiques of men and masculinity have attempted to revive some of his ideas, like the phallic symbolism in which you refer (because it presupposes/confirms their inherent biases), but virtually no one in the present day clinical application of psychology takes Freud's literal nonsense seriously.

I could step up to a lectern and declare that the pineal gland is in fact the antenna to the gods, but that too would be an unfounded musing. And not a very good one at that. Some folks would still believe it though because they want it to be true.

ETA - My apologies for the soap box on Freud. I hope it didn't offend. It certainly wasn't meant to. Just to inform. I just don't feel that anyone should reference him as an authority on human behavior outside of the vices of chronic cocaine abuse.

JMO.

 

[3llecia]

I’m going to come out of left field and bring up a remote theory: SG’s divorce.

In July, 2025 and January this year, there’s two articles published in People where SG is more candid about the divorce, and that she intentionally didn’t discuss the subject much in her book.

My curiosity lead me to wonder whether something legal or personal was going on, and staying quiet was the safe approach. Would it hurt someone’s reputation if she was honest? The book would be the better option than magazine articles to discuss something sensitive, in my opinion. Seemed like she had to address why she didn’t say much in the book.

Then, my next question is why speak about a divorce from 2009 twice (6 months apart) in a publication known for friendly/PR/puff celebrity pieces? It’s not covered in the book, so it’s not giving me an impression that she was spruiking this topic for sales.

Instead, maybe circumstances shifted and she wanted a platform to put her version of events out there now? Was she feeling compelled to speak up? She seems to have strong convictions, and she definitely didn’t trash her ex husband in the coverage. She was speaking about her own emotional difficulties with divorce.

Why I find it a bit compelling is that the latest article was published a week before the kidnapping.

Plenty of reasons why this is just a silly unfounded theory, and I am definitely being speculative. I work in media though, a lot of work goes into controlling optics and cultivating narratives.

My bias is working in the industry, but my skill is reading between the lines. What’s not said can really say a lot more than what is said, sometimes.

I know the main family aren’t suspects. The timing and topic are really what make me curious. The fact that this could be targeted. The fact it could be revenge (at this moment in time). It’s far less “outlandish” than kidnapping for ransom, or cartels taking her to Mexico.

I saw those People articles during the first week of the disappearance, and honestly I expected something to completely eliminate this idea from my head by now.

 

[SlimPickens]

I’m going to come out of left field and bring up a remote theory: SG’s divorce.

In July, 2025 and January this year, there’s two articles published in People where SG is more candid about the divorce, and that she intentionally didn’t discuss the subject much in her book.

My curiosity lead me to wonder whether something legal or personal was going on, and staying quiet was the safe approach. Would it hurt someone’s reputation if she was honest? The book would be the better option than magazine articles to discuss something sensitive, in my opinion. Seemed like she had to address why she didn’t say much in the book.

Then, my next question is why speak about a divorce from 2009 twice (6 months apart) in a publication known for friendly/PR/puff celebrity pieces? It’s not covered in the book, so it’s not giving me an impression that she was spruiking this topic for sales.

Instead, maybe circumstances shifted and she wanted a platform to put her version of events out there now? Was she feeling compelled to speak up? She seems to have strong convictions, and she definitely didn’t trash her ex husband in the coverage. She was speaking about her own emotional difficulties with divorce.

Why I find it a bit compelling is that the latest article was published a week before the kidnapping.

Plenty of reasons why this is just a silly unfounded theory, and I am definitely being speculative. I work in media though, a lot of work goes into controlling optics and cultivating narratives.

My bias is working in the industry, but my skill is reading between the lines. What’s not said can really say a lot more than what is said, sometimes.

I know the main family aren’t suspects. The timing and topic are really what make me curious. The fact that this could be targeted. The fact it could be revenge (at this moment in time). It’s far less “outlandish” than kidnapping for ransom, or cartels taking her to Mexico.

I saw those People articles during the first week of the disappearance, and honestly I expected something to completely eliminate this idea from my head by now.

Interesting theory! I imagine a specific (but atypical) demand like 6 million dollars could reference what someone might think they are owed.

JMO.

 

[Napoli]

Theories change from time to time but at the moment I'm thinking:

Premeditated, meticulously planned, and complex kidnapping for ransom that was initially misread and dismissed by local law enforcement, which costed them brief but valuable time (and perhaps even Nancy's life). Committed by a professional or professionals who may or may not be in or from this country, and perhaps not even in the one to our south.

JMO.

BBM Bolded part YES! Not a professional, though. IMO. Deeply disturbed/delusional sociopath or some other diagnosis who is good at his "craft".. that is, he has been dodging feelings of unworthiness or something akin to it all his life. Has learned to adapt and fit in. Deep thinker. Ruminator. OCD. Can fly under the radar and keeps his unwanted and bizarre thoughts to himself. Reaches tipping point. Sg was the love/hate fixation. Ng was just collateral damage. JMO

 

[Napoli]

BBM.
Why do you think he didn't care if people saw him, but didn't want people to see NG?

Embarrassed! A bloody NG was the part of the plot that went sideways. He didnt want to hurt and bloody an old lady.. He wanted SG's attention. An injured NG really was collateral damage.

I dont think he wanted to be seen on the ring camera but that was the cost of "doing his deed" and he was well covered and disguised. He adapted by hiding the lens on the doorbell with the lantana. jmo.

 

[Napoli]

Does someone have a deep dark secret? Even though i think this was a stalker..could this have been in fact extortion? just a thought imo

 

[Warwick1991]

When I was thinking about what might have happened to NG, I thought of Ted Bundy. Although he attacked younger females, some of his methods may be relevant to what happened at NG's house.

Bundy attacked women at home in a number of crimes. He acted alone. He carried them away himself in his own car, and disposed of them in remote locations. Some of his victims have never been found. Sexual assaults of various types were his part of his methodology. He also went back to the disposal sites.

At the beginning of his criminal career, when he was a young teen, he was thought to be responsible for kidnapping and murder of 8 year old Ann Marie Burr, in Tacoma, WA. Bundy lived in the same neighborhood. Ann Marie Burr was never found.

I speculate that NG might have been the victim of a psychopath like Bundy, acting alone, who lives in her neighborhood or is familiar with it for unknown reasons. There was an attempted assault in the neighborhood that could have been done by the same person. The suspect could be searching for victims in the neighborhood, and familiarized himself with female residents and their routines.

It may have nothing to do with SG, and be a situation where a neighborhood with low lighting levels, substantial cover from vegetation, and a victim unable to fight back were important factors.

In this situation, attempts to collect ransom would be by an opportunist, and unrelated to what happened to NG.

LE may know if there was more than one perpetrator from DNA, and if the ransom notes reflected unique factors known only to the perpetrator.

Just speculation, but I think it could be a lone perpetrator, and that the ransom demand was a separate crime by someone who wasn't involved in removing NG from her home.

 

[diggndeeperstill]

No practicing clinician here- but I tend to agree that the gun was placed where it was to either lead others to believe it was a type of perp based on local “style” or just convenience. I’m also not convinced it’s a real gun. Could be an air soft gun.

I also don’t see dumb criminal here. I see a guy that picked those flowers and immediately straightened them to put behind the camera and slide it off.

I see a guy that carefully planned to wear/purchase every single item with no identifying brands/logos present. I’d go so far as to say he didn’t buy them all together or we’d have an arrest by now.

Nobody talks about how the glove when it looks like it is hitting the camera is really moving with no force at all, there’s no wind up, no quick movement, nothing to make me think it startled him greatly.

I do wonder if there is more video, and if so why it’s not being shared.

 

[Napoli]

Nancy Guthrie update: Ex-FBI agent suggests theory for possible motive

"Someone that was either upset with something Savannah Guthrie had done, or had some obsession with her," the former agent said.

www.newsweek.com

Carrying this over from the main board! I hope they pursue my favorite theory! moo

 

[SaraSmile]

I definitely don't think this guy is some kind of sophisticated professional hitman. I mean, surely to goodness a professional would, at the very least, buy a holster that actually fits his gun?

If Lantana Man was hired to do the job, I think it was much more low-key - someone has a grudge, grudge-holder has a friend, friend has another friend, who knows a guy, etc.

Ok, I’ll jump in here. NG saw something she shouldn’t have.

I’m with you, low key person, local, yes, maybe even hired( drug case). These people know what to do to avoid detection.
I’m thinking it’s something very local, and connected specifically to NG, she saw something she shouldn’t have, and needed to be gone, so that she would not talk. I know mostly the person is shot, body not taken.

It could have been workers at NG’s house, had drugs in the trunk for their “moonlighting job”.
NG walked by, looked into the trunk, briefly. Maybe she said something, “ is that drugs?” Worker closed trunk, laughed said “No!”. He faulted himself, because he had forgotten to get the drugs out of the trunk earlier. Careless. Later, he got paranoid, told his drug partner. They hatched a plan so that NG would be gone.

Another similar idea, local teens, young adults, NG had met in neighborhood or church friend’s grandchildren.
They had good grades, had gotten into college, good career track. NG was downtown shopping, she ran into these kids, saw them stealing or doing drugs, she told them “that’s illegal, your grandmother would be ashamed of you!”. NG drove away. The kids talked about it, they didn’t want their college, career path to change. They hatched a plan so that NG would be gone.

In these cases, it was just removing NG so that she would not talk, took body so no evidence.
Maybe something as simple as that.

Just an idea.

 

[Chimera]

It's difficult to believe we're this far into the case and still nothing.
My main working theory is someone in the family was targeted and imo it could have been the one who was most visible to the public, i.e., Savannah herself ?
Still unsure as to the 'whys'.
The entire family didn't seem to have any enemies at all, that we know of ?
Jmo.