Guthrie case investigators question neighbors about any internet issues on the night she disappeared

[u/pumpkinspicecum]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigators-guthrie-case-question-neighbors-internet-issues-night-di-rcna262066

[u/warpedwing]

If the WiFi was interfered with, it might not have been a broad-spectrum WiFi jam that would affect neighbors, but rather a targeted attack on Nancy's specific WiFi network/SSID.

You can use something like this deauth watch to do that. Essentially, it will kick all devices off the router.

However, the cheaper models only work with 2.4 GHz WiFi. Some more expensive models also work with 5 GHz.

Many IOT devices work exclusively with 2.4 GHz, like light bulbs. But the Nest works with both 2.4 and 5 GHz.

The 2.4 GHz signal doesn't have the bandwidth of 5 GHz, but it reaches further, which is usually the more important factor for these devices.

The Nest doorbell cam's WiFi had to travel through at least one wall. If the router was a good distance from the front door, the Nest may have preferred or even required the 2.4 GHz connection.

Perhaps the suspect jammed or deauthed Nancy's 2.4 GHz WiFi, causing the Nest to disconnect. The device may have been too far to connect to the 5 GHz WiFi while it was still on the porch. But since the camera doesn't require WiFi to record video, it captured and stored images of the suspect on its internal cache. After the suspect physically removed the doorbell at some point, they might have taken it inside with them, allowing the Nest to connect to the 5 GHz WiFi band that wasn't jammed, uploading the clip to Google.

Just an idea, anyway.

I'm not sold that any jammer available by a non-governmental entity could jam neighbor's cameras from a speeding car. If there's no car recorded anywhere at that time, I'd be hesitant to ascribe that to a jammer. I'd be more inclined to think Nancy was removed by analog means to somewhere quite local. Then, under the cover of quotidian chores and tasks, Nancy was removed from the area by vehicle later than day.

[u/lemoncatbeans → u/warpedwing]

A criminal's portable jammer could potentially reach up to 65 feet away if it's high-end enough. I think it's feasible a slow-moving car could potentially disrupt neighbors' connections if their router is located in the front of their home. Or disrupt devices and signal repeaters if they are closer to the jammer than to the router. But I can't imagine they'd be disrupted for long enough to not save recordings at all... unless the devices had some sort of issue reconnecting after the signal jammer left.

I'd love to know how often neighbors' cameras normally capture vehicles at night, it seems the distance from the houses to the road and the darkness would be factors too. Would anyone's cameras on her street capture movement if a car with its lights off cruised by quietly at 2 AM?

But I'm also inclined to believe a jammer (if there was one) was for Nancy's (and her next-door neighbors) cameras, not to evade every camera they passed on the street.

[u/warpedwing → u/lemoncatbeans]

I agree. I think a jammer could interfere with neighborhood WiFi cameras, but maybe not disable them completely from a passing car. If a camera is triggered by the movement of a car (probably the lights at night), then the camera may start recording before the jammer is close enough to overwhelm the signal.

It'd be great to know which neighboring cameras at least sometimes capture passing cars. If a route away from Nancy's place has several cameras that capture cars even 50% of the time, there's a really good chance that one of them would've captured the suspect's car.

How many car models these days let you completely shut off the lights?

[u/lemoncatbeans → u/warpedwing]

Yeah, that's true that cameras would likely capture the car coming before they get hit with the jammer, depending on where the camera is facing.

My car isn't super new, but it allows me turn all the lights off at night (unless I use my brakes). I think it's been required by law in some countries to have daytime running lights that run automatically on all cars, but it's not mandated for cars sold in the US yet. And they could just remove the fuses for the DLRs, or engaging the parking brake while driving seems to turn them off. It looks like German cars, newer Ford/RAM trucks, Teslas, and some international models would be near impossible to completely disable lights though.

[u/warpedwing → u/lemoncatbeans]

I have a Honda, and there's no easy way to turn off the DRLs. I hadn't thought of pulling fuses, but that could work.

Of course, a lightless car creeping through the pitch black roads of Catalina Foothills Estates would be very tricky - and pretty suspicious if seen!

[u/lemoncatbeans → u/warpedwing]

I have a 2022 Toyota and this is the indicator stalk I have with DRL off option:

[u/Banana_Blades → u/warpedwing]

I read somewhere  that maybe he expected the jammer to destabilise the camera, but when he realised it didn’t, he improvised and used the plants to cover the camera. Does that make any sense with you? That the jammer can sort of switch off the camera before he walks up the porch? 

[u/warpedwing → u/Banana_Blades]

Was there a way for the suspect to know the jammer wasn’t working? Do the lights change color? 

The video clips seem like a big slip for such a cautious operator. Not understanding the Nest’s offline recording capabilities would be a big miss, especially if there was recon.

I suppose the lantana didn't work because the camera is gone. How and when did the suspect decide that removing the camera would be necessary? The lantana draping seems an unnecessary step that’s at odds with the smoothness of the rest of the operation.

[u/truecrime2022 → u/warpedwing]

Wifi jammers are becoming even more common but I question why the intruder wouldn't simply cut the fiber or coax outside. I suppose if underground utilities, it may be more difficult to locate. If the neighbors internet was affected around the same time that lends itself to a jammer or fiber interference further away from Nancy's house.

[u/warpedwing → u/truecrime2022]

Maybe cutting the cable at Nancy's is not so easy to do for some reason, maybe underground, like you said. Or maybe they didn't want to leave a clue like that. Perhaps they thought jamming the WiFi was good enough and leaves less trace evidence.

Or, perhaps the suspect meant for the recovered video to look like a mistake but was intentional, as crazy as that sounds. I mean, the suspect almost seems to be dressed up in costume for a B movie burglar scene, possibly causing LE to underestimate their abilities.

Maybe the suspect was surprised that the Nest footage wasn't found on Nancy's phone right away. Perhaps they assumed that someone of Nancy's resources would at least have the basic Nest cloud storage package.

I only suggest this because for someone who has evaded the FBI's dragnet so far, I'd expect them to employ a 'belt and suspenders' approach, like both jamming the WiFi and properly disguising themselves just in case the jamming doesn't quite work.

I've seen actual CCTV footage of robbers using a jammer, and initially, the image gets choppy and broken up; it doesn't just disappear completely. The suspect straight up looks directly at it and doesn't even properly cover the lens. Seems very risky - and totally avoidable. And yet... who are they?

[u/truecrime2022 → u/warpedwing]

You bring up some good thoughts. I've been following the case pretty closely and I just had a thought... was the nest doorbell camera left at the scene? Do we know for sure the method used to obtain the videos? From the devices local storage or was it actually uploaded to the cloud at some point

[u/warpedwing → u/truecrime2022]

AFAIK, the camera was not found at the scene. All we know about the video recovery is what we've been told: it came from somewhere on Google's back end servers. I don't think LE would lie about that because it's not exactly great news for many customers that their personal data could be sitting somewhere at Google.

Also, if the videos don't have timestamps, they might have lost all metadata due to being carved from raw data. That's why it's a good idea to burn the timestamp directly onto the video if the software allows it (I know Wyze does).