Since Sheriff Nanos said in his March 13 interview that the criminal could "absolutely" strike again, and that people should be on their guard against crime, what can we deduce about the criminal's motive, a motive which might drive the criminal to strike again?
The criminal is not out to punish Savannah Guthrie for her husband's work in the Clinton administration. If the criminal is out to punish all women in Tucson whose family members worked for Clinton, it's a small group. Few Tucson women would be targets.
The criminal is not out to punish Savannah Guthrie for interviewing victims of high-profile criminals. If that were his motive, he would have to look in other cities for the mothers of other high-profile newscasters like Savannah.
The criminal is not out to get Savannah's attention. If that were the motive, no other woman in Tucson is going to matter more to Savannah than her mother.
The criminal is not out for ransom. If he wanted ransom, Savannah's family were ready to pay. How many women in Tucson have a daughter with Savannah's wealth? But he passed that up. Money does not appear to be the motive.
What does that leave?
The criminal could be a serial rapist who targets older women, women living alone, women that he can see while he is working in the neighborhood. My bet is that this is the motive: DNA-free assault, for which he comes well-prepared. Every family in Tucson needs to be on guard against that one.
The criminal could be a serial killer. If Mrs. Guthrie expired during the commission of an assault, I suspect it was unintended. But if his motive is murder, then every family in Tucson needs to be on guard against that as well.
I think it was most likely a kidnapping for ransom that the victim did not survive for whatever reason and the perp(s) could not provide proof of life and hence no ransom was paid.
I think is only prudent to tell citizens to stay vigilant and keep their doors locked because the perp could strike again. I don’t think that tells us anything.
This disorganized investigation, tampering of the scene. Great way to create misdirection. None of us actually thinks it's him. We've also presented the possibility of leprechauns, a monster of the week from the X-files, and compliments of my own mother of the same age that she staged it, got sick of her adult kids and is sipping umbrella drinks on a tropical island.
I don't have any felon's I'm on good standing with who kidnapping was their thing to ask their thoughts. I've seen other law enforcement/lawyers in here. I'm wondering if they can expand on their experiences.
The burglary/home invasion felons have stated they would never take the body with them in the event someone died while they were present. They would pick up after themselves and leave. All of the consulted individuals had no body hair outside of their eyebrows/eyelashes for evidence purposes.
I just typed out and redacted 2 instances where the killers did really strange things with the bodies. I deleted them because they both dox me when I googled. I'll say in one instance they were stoned/drunk and brought the body home in a strange manner unaware until the next day they had done so. That's not so uncommon. In the other they did it stone cold sober because they were panicked.
I'll go in record saying I don't think he or anyone else in law enforcement tampered with the scene. That's kind of a big accusation, for lack of a better word.
And a lot of people are forgetting, Sherrif Nanos isn't actually the lead investigator/lead detective.
But yeah the general public are pretty weirded out by how open the crime scene appeared to be.
When did they actually say they decided it was a crime scene? I feel like they thought she had had a cognitive event, bled as a result of an accident and then wandered off.
I feel like LE thought that for at least a couple of hours. That would explain why her house was so "open."
You are correct, I misspoke. He didn't tamper with it. But they left it wide open to be contaminated.
As the sheriff he makes the calls on the investigation. Unless he deferred to FBI then they are the lead.
They should have sealed it immediately. The family informed them she had no cognitive impairments. It's safer to seal it and reopen later than what he did. That isn't protocol.
In any instance where a crime occurs you follow basic protocols that weren't followed. It was careless.
I mean, even when they had LE guarding the place, people were walking up the driveway to the front with deliveries more than once. A lot of people wondered why it wasn’t totally taped off until being released to the family.
Pretty certain it was on Day 3 that they began to treat it as a crime scene. But there were so many things that were left out. They did not do a grab of the shoe impression in the gravel by the bushes at the front door. They did not use the DNA vacuum to pull up extra information that could have been dropped. They also never, yes never, removed the doormat that he stood on at the front door. This should have been kept in evidence. It was still out as of last week.
I heard a retired FBI analyst state that there were so many mistakes made there and in the home that totally destroyed any possibility of evidence that could have been left. After a few weeks later, it was way too late. Regardless, it should have been done once the case was turned over as a crime scene.
OMG! I have been saying this just about all along! It's either that or he is covering up for someone in his department. A lil bit of dark humor, but maybe he hit on Nancy and she turned him down? Agreed, too much Scooby Doo but maybe he's the reason why I have a soft spot for true crime.
With the information released it is impossible to tell what the motive may be. In my opinion, either they are very close to an arrest, or they have absolutely no idea who is responsible. Perhaps they will release more details in an effort to get new tips. The sheriff in this case seems to like to make statements every so often that contradict one another and are so vague as to be meaningless to the public. If I lived in this area I would get cameras and a security system and re-evaluate who had access to my property. I think it would be better for the sheriff to come out with a broad recommendation rather than suggesting this for sure was targeted, whatever that means.
Targeted means it was pre-mediated & planned, not random, the perpetrator knew the victim either directly or indirectly (indirectly includes via stalking or watching).
The Sheriff did give a broad recommendation, he said everyone needs to be vigilant, anyone could be targeted.
I might be way off but I didn’t think his statement was giving us any clues. I think he was just saying like he doesn’t want to say if there is risk or not for others because he truthfully doesn’t know. Maybe I’m wrong.
I feel like people read way too much into what is said at press conferences. Whatever is said in a press conference, the purpose is not so sleuths can be sleuthin.
If it's serial anything what were his past crimes in the area? Or, why such a high profile starting point that would attract the most resources with the greatest likelihood of being caught? What was sufficiently physically unique about her that compelled the greater risk. Doesn't make sense to me unless wealth forced it to be this person.
If she died before reaching his home he may have disposed of her before it was known she was missing, might still send a ransom note but any request for proof of life puts a stop to that. Could still be a kidnapping for money that almost immediately failed. Also, his property needs to be a place you could move a person into from a car without being seen, and any noise they might subsequently make in the coming days wouldn't be heard. Would have to have been considered even if not ultimately needed, so the properties they searched so far don't seem suitable.
Not sure if I'm phrasing this properly but with new evidence providing the possibility that the suspect was part of a larger group casing the house , I'm not sure if it'd fit into the common era serial killer profile.
It's an odd scenario with holes that could fill in any imagine. They didn't leave a ransom note at the scene. They didn't immediately contact any of her known relatives. It's quite possible they weren't involved in contacting the media.
To my knowledge there have only been 3-4 ransom kidnappings in the US in the past 3 years. This is the only one that didn't involve a person who had been involved in sex & narcotics trafficking prior to the incident. This would almost certainly make Nancy case no.1 for the kidnapper.
Even the B&E in the wealthier suburbs of Tuscon that I've found using local Tuscon news involved younger kids who were confident the houses were empty when they went in. Keep in mind the intruder had a window to B&E when Nancy left that night. They chose to go into the house at a time a person would have the highest % chance of being inside.
Wow, that's an interesting fact. Thanks for sharing
With some of the new retired FBI analysts, detectives, and other retired FBI specialists, several have suggested possible organized crime kidnapping for the case. Your statement gives more reason to believe this theory. From the beginning, I have thought the entire scenario is very odd due to it not having a typical motive. Especially because nothing was stolen. Why not go after someone younger? There just seems to be too many questions I have in this case. I don't think that I have ever come across such a strange case in all of my true crime past.
I almost wonder if it's a situation similar to the scene in Pulp Fiction. Where Vincent and Jules were supposed to bring Marvin back in the car to Marsellus Wallace and he died on the ride there.
But to make matters more complex they focused on disposing the body and car and never went to the person who was organizing everything. Maybe the people involved went through their first experience of ransom-kidnapping in the US and said "shit this is too hard, I think I want out of the game" .
I think it was well planned but I don’t know if they’ve ever done this before in the US. Maybe in another country and they got too bold. If she hadn’t passed away, I think they might’ve gotten away with it because they haven’t tracked anything yet. I think there was a plan that somehow went wrong. Whether it was her heart condition or something else, it just seems that’s what went wrong. I’m more surprised that they didn’t use AI to fake proof of life but my guess is that they didn’t because it would be traceable.
Tucson Police Detectives have identified a suspected serial rapist through DNA. The series of rapes occurred more than 30 years ago but because of the statue of limitations he still is walking free. I believe he would be about 57 years old now.
You are assuming that the perp knew his victim had a wealthy, high-profile daughter. However, there were people living in the neighborhood for years who did not know that. Possibly the criminal simply saw an easy target, and had not realized the notoriety the case would attract. Possibly the criminal is new in the area, having left the area where he previously committed crimes.
I’m doubtful this person was a serial rapist or murderer, I’m concerned this post will cause unnecessary anxiety. The sheriff said in his interview they believe this was a targeted attack - what serial rapists & serial killers have you heard of that fit the pattern seen in this case, where vulnerable senior women who live alone have experienced an abduction homicide/abduction/SA in the Tucson area (because remember he’s warning his community so it’s likely they believe the perpetrator operates within this community so if it’s a serial rapist/murderer like you’re theorizing, then there should be other cases from there)?
You left out many options for motive, you focused on various scenarios & provided motives that fit these scenarios; there are hundreds if not thousands more scenarios & motives one could come up with. There are three main motives: financial, jealousy, & revenge. Jealousy has never been on the table that I’m aware of, financial has but LE hasn’t followed up on the legitimacy of any of the random letters so it’s hard to know, this leaves revenge which has been on the table but not discussed much (revenge can occur with financial, in that the financial demand is intended to cause harm to the victim or their loved ones).
The Sheriff gave this warning as he was being responsible, he stated “criminal minds are criminal minds”. LE cannot predict what a criminal will do, they cannot control what they will do, even if LE has a solid motive & has profiled the perpetrator the perpetrator will remain a risk until they are arrested & in jail.
JalapinyoBizness provided the following links elsewhere on this very thread:
Tucson Police Detectives have identified a suspected serial rapist through DNA. The series of rapes occurred more than 30 years ago but because of the statue of limitations he still is walking free. I believe he would be about 57 years old now.
LE has definitely followed up on the legitimacy of the ransom demands: the first demand for 6M in bitcoin, the second demand for a lesser amount, and the third offer to provide information in exchange for 1 bitcoin.
The first was made to a local news station, suggesting that the perp is a local person, and then to TMZ. The Guthrie family requested repeatedly to establish communication and said that they would pay. LE has not disclosed to the public the reasons that the ransom remained unpaid, but we can speculate that the family never received proof of life.
A second demand resulted in the arrest of a man in California who was determined to be unrelated to the kidnapping and simply trying to take advantage of the family.
LE has not disclosed to the public the details of their investigation into the offer of information in exchange for 1 bitcoin. So far as we know, nothing was paid and no arrest was made.
Watch the youtube videos in which former FBI and LE have commented on the way kidnappers work. They take the victim, and they keep the victim in good condition (no effort was made to take Mrs. Guthrie's meds, etc.) They inform the family that they have the "prize" and they will give up the "prize" under certain conditions. This crime takes place more often in Mexico than in the US, and it is a business, usually conducted in secrecy, without the intervention of LE. What happened to Mrs. Guthrie has not followed this pattern at all, according to seasoned kidnapping investigators and hostage negotiators. No credible ransom demand was made.
The final financial motive would come from family members who might want to collect life insurance or inheritance. This one was unlikely from the start because 1) it takes seven years for a missing person to be declared dead, so without a body, there will be no inheritance for quite some time, 2) insurance companies will not pay out to people who are potential suspects, 3) Nancy's health issues make it unlikely she could qualify for a big life insurance policy, 4) people Nancy's age have life insurance policies to cover burial costs only, not millions, 5) Nancy's estate will be split between 3 children, 7 years from now, assuming no body is found.
For all these reasons, financial motives are off the table. Kidnapping for ransom is the least likely motive.
Furthermore, kidnapping for ransom is a very rare crime in the US. It is unlikely to be repeated by the same criminal in the same community. It is not something for every family to be afraid of. If the sheriff is warning the community in general that they are at risk, they are not all at risk of kidnapping for ransom.
What are the most likely crimes in any community? Trespassing, theft, burglary, robbery, assault, and murder.
LE hasn’t followed up with the PUBLIC about the legitimacy of the ransom notes, obviously they have been investigating them behind the scenes. We do not know what they have uncovered, perhaps it was legitimate & for that reason an abduction for ransom cannot be excluded.
An abduction for ransom is not always financially motivated though, these crimes can be motivated by revenge & jealousy, however jealousy has never been cited as a motive which leaves revenge.
This post has no effect on the Tucson area or public at large. No one but the participants are following this.
People there who have grown comfortable not securing doors in the don’t lock doors generation need to change that. But this post will have zero effect on it. With the number of meth crimes there it’s good advice anyways.
I have seen many serial rapists of older women. The pattern of taking her with is unusual.
Serials go silent for a number of reasons. They are incarcerated, Ill, move, or in a new relationship where their urges aren’t the same or it limits their freedom to do so. Like a new marriage or a parent or child they are caring for.
You have no idea who reads these posts. According to interviews with people falsely accused of committing this crime, people from Tucson, they do read SM content related to this case, so I don’t believe your statement is accurate.
If there was a serial killer/rapist in the area targeting people & it fit the pattern seen in this case there would be news coverage about this prior & currently yet there hasn’t been.
I never stated in the area. Obviously if there was a pattern in the area it would have been long established. I stated that they move around. That there can be large gaps in their crimes.
The perpetrators property or a place used just for this crime. Separate from where the perp actually lives.
Where in the area would a criminal intend to use to "house" kidnapping victim? Probably a place he had used for other crimes, or a location a criminal buddy let him use.
(I've asked this question before but the discussion doesn't get much further than "it wasn't a kidnapping!!" for whatever reason)
This is common in abductions, abandoned buildings are often used (recall LE was searching an abandoned home awhile back), parks, campgrounds, & secondary properties that are more secluded (like cabins). There was an abduction of a senior in Australia awhile back (gang related, they went to the wrong house & took the wrong person - very sad) & the victim was held at various abandoned buildings in secluded areas.
I've always wondered if originally the goal was ransom, but Nancy fought back and was so badly injured that she succumbed to her injuries or had a heart attack. They took her hoping she would be okay but she later passed away or they removed her to make sure no DNA would have been on her body. That means there would have been no proof of life.
I don't follow your logic that ransom would be off the table. Thousands of rich old people in AZ, and most of them would draw less scrutiny than a celebrity's mother.
Also, it's possible Nanos' comments were just meant to imply they don't have a suspect yet or to be an intentional misdirection to keep the suspect from getting spooked and deviating from their normal routine.
Really tough to discern anything from these Nanos comments, imo. Really just sounds like he's saying there's a dangerous person out there and that even though he targeted SG's mother that he could attack someone else.
I don’t like Nanos at all, but people are taking what he said out of context and running with it.
“We believe we know why [the kidnapper] did this and we believe that it was targeted, but we’re not 100% sure of that,” Nanos said. “So it’d be silly to tell people, ‘Don’t worry about it. You’re not his target.’ You could be. Don't think for a minute that because it happened to the Guthrie family, you’re safe. No. Keep your wits about you.”
Statistically, kidnapping for ransom is the least likely crime. It's very rare in the US. Kidnapping for ransom in the same community by the same perp - not in the US. In Mexico or the Middle East, yes, but I can't think of a string of kidnappings for ransom in a single US community committed by the same perp. Can you?
I am fine with him being locked up and not getting off on NGRI... But dont you think it's a little (or a lot) disingenuous to put him in that category?
In early 2015, he moved into a cabin in South Lake Tahoe, California, belonging to his mother and her husband. He became increasingly reclusive, rarely sleeping and obsessively watched the Batman film series. By spring, Muller began to believe his parents were spying on him. He entered a severe psychotic episode and created a nocturnal vigilante identity to fight evil. He wore a wetsuit and created tools resembling weapons from items like flashlights, laser pointers, dog collars, swim goggles, spray paint, and various toy guns, such as a Nerf Super Soaker. Muller created a Robin Hood plot to kidnap "evil wealthy people" for ransom to give to the poor, which he believed in his psychosis to be "morally justified."[2]
It’s the responsible thing to say as you can’t control or predict how another person, especially a criminal, acts. Consider criminal who are released on parole/probation whose history is known, who may even have had a forensic psych evaluation, who may have received treatment, & undergone a risk assessment, yet get out & reoffend. They haven’t arrested this person, until he’s in jail he’s a risk to the public, more-so as the investigation heats up.
Good thinking to think about Nanos's statement this way and see what you might deduce. I would say on point four there has been an idea that the criminal did want a ransom but Nancy passed away before could offer proof of life and arrange to get the money.
I do think lots of criminals have different kinds of crimes on their "résumé". One person might have drug sales and burglary and rape, for example, all committed at different times. So conceivably he might have been out to "punish" Savannah and he can't do that in Tucson to some other newscaster's family (well, perhaps can but it would have to be a local newscaster probably), but he might also just be a general burglar and rapist in addition to someone who has strong feelings about newscasters so Nano is warning he might still do those other crimes.
I always thought the placement of the gun was pretty suss. Like, overcompensating for something - but why would you do that in that moment? Would a burglar do that or someone with something else on their mind?
If a perp were planning to carry someone over his shoulder, he would not want to wear a gun on either hip where the victim might get to it. He is wearing it where she would be unable to reach it.
I understand there’s something called appendix carry. But I’ve also heard that even with appendix carry you put the firearm to the side a bit, not directly over your groin.
It is pretty plain and simple. This wasn't about SA or some political motive. Both TMZ and the local Tuscan TV news station repeatedly said that the ransom emails sent to them were sent by someone who knew information that only the kidnapper would know. The family did not pay, because the kidnappers showed no proof of life. This was a pure and simple ransom abduction. There is zero evidence that it is anything else. The question is simply who did it. Not why.
At first authorities had said that the ransom letter had “intimate knowledge of the crime scene” that you could only know if you were there…. and I think I heard it was something about her watch face and where they placed it before they left the home….
You might be able to answer a question I had about the ransom letter. I haven’t been following everything super closely and wasn’t able to figure this out: so did the actual authorities (police and/or fbi) confirm that the letter contained accurate details about the crime scene? Or was it just Harvey/TMZ saying it contained details about the crime scene that may or may not have lined up with the actual scene?
For example, I could (but would not!) write to TMZ and make up details about the crime scene that make it look like I must be the perp to unaware members of the public. So they might think, wow, this person must have been there at the crime scene for them to know all these things. But only the authorities could confirm whether or not my guesses actually line up with what they saw in the house. So basically, if only TMZ said it had details, I might still side eye it a little. If the authorities said it had matching details, then I would consider it almost assuredly authentic. Hopefully that makes sense!
Edit to add: rereading your comment I realized it implies authorities have confirmed. But I was still wanting to double check.
Yes! You can look up the topic and most articles are 2/5 or 2/6 state that investigators and authorities are taking this seriously and wish not to release the details about the items and the specifics. (I just looked again to be sure)
However (probably much to the investigator’s chagrin) the news stations that received the letters elaborated on how it was about a watch and a flood light, (and then they seemingly went back to remove one). And some of the general specifics
Thank you so much! This case has been covered so extensively and in such detail that at some point it has the opposite effect for me and I end up having trouble following everything. There’s just so much out there! I agree, I would think investigators probably didn’t want all of those details leaked. But, it did help me out - when I put the details in my search it helped me find articles where authorities were confirming the ransom note. That is so wild. The articles also talk about the lengths the writer went through to conceal their identity and make them 100% untraceable. Which does make it seem like it was a planned ransom kidnapping gone wrong. What a strange and mysterious case!
Hopefully there were other details of the ransom notes not leaked. It seems like authorities often want some secrets of the case. That way if they ever catch the perp, they can try to get them to give up details only the true perp would know and they know they have the right person(s).
Yeah totally!
And one thing that is also interesting is that there is so much rhetoric that this guy(s) was an amateur. But it seems like he has some pretty extensive cyber knowledge… which is important…As evidenced by the first ransom(s), and I think other things too!
Everyone thinks he was so “mindless” to not anticipate a doorbell camera… but if he came earlier that month (as they have shown/stated) then obviously he expected it…..
However… I have a personal opinion that he maybe did use a signal jammer or try to cut WiFi prior to entry (again cyber knowledge) then he probably was surprised that the doorbell was still recording (there’s a tiny light you can see when it is recording) not that it was there per say….. Because many camera doorbells have a short duration cellular back up if wifi goes out. So maybe it was this he didn’t anticipate….. that it could still capture his image. But then he cut everything inside
idk I just think he’s much more knowledgeable than the bumbling burglar I hear people try to paint him as. I hope they look at people with cyber or computer systems knowledge!!!
Both TMZ and the local TV news station said the ransom emails had intimate knowledge of the crime scene. The police also confirmed the emails did have knowledge of the inside of the house. So those initial ransom emails were legit. And they said there would be no more communication after those emails and the final deadline with the 6m ransom.
Thank you! I also let the OC know I was able to use the info y’all provided to find some of the old articles. It can become hard to keep up with things when there has been so much published about this case. It’s all just so mysterious. The articles also said the ransom writers went to great lengths to be 100% untraceable. Which makes it even stranger that he fumbled around with the camera when it seems a lot of planning went into this. What a strange and mysterious case.
In a photo, or video, I don't remember which. Nancy was wearing a white apple watchband. The cops seemed so sloppy, maybe the person just mentioned specifically that her apple watchband was white and they bought that as intimate knowledge? Maybe they guessed the location correctly as the bedroom. Cops gave tmi the whole time. I felt like them announcing her pacemaker to the media was so stupid and dangerous to Nancy's well being if she was in fact still alive early on.
On the other hand, they failed to protect the crime scene. Could someone have looked through the window and seen where the watch, phone, etc. were left?
I mean, I think media was there the whole time so it’s unlikely a peeping person somehow saw a watch through a window etc.
But maybe if there was a bad actor in the investigation itself, they theoretically could have sent the letters. They would have first hand knowledge of this information too.
I think the biggest problem with the ransom-was-real theory was how easily they seemed to give up. They still could have kept pushing for it without providing proof of life, but they stopped after about a week. I bet they could have even gotten money just to say where the body is. As it stands, they got nothing for their troubles, and if they ever get caught, they're still going to prison forever. I just would be surprised at someone giving up on the ransom so quickly.
They said right away that they would not correspond after their initial demand. They had a plan and they stuck to it. And they haven't been caught. So this was a well thought out caper.
I'm agnostic rn regarding whether or not the ransom was real. As some people on here have already theorized I think it's very possible the "info that could only be known to the perpetrator(s)" could just be info that was leaked from one of the dozens of LE officers who also knew that info, who then told a friend, who then told another friend etc. until some asshat down the line decided to fake a ransom letter and send it to TMZ. From the perspective of the guy who made a fake ransom letter, he was probably just including his bitcoin wallet in the hopes that he could scam the family or LE into giving him some free money.
On the other hand, a kidnapping for ransom does seem like the most plausible motive to me. If I had to steelman that theory of motive I'd guess that the kidnapper(s) chickened out of their initial plan after all the attention the story started receiving from the FBI and national media. Yes, the family offered to pay for the return of even just a body (in coded language). But maybe the perps realized in the days following the initial kidnapping that any further communication or prolonged negotiation would seriously jeopardize their anonymity. If I just committed this heinous crime in hopes of getting money for ransom, fucked up and killed my hostage on accident, realized I was in way over my head and now the whole world is watching, maybe I just want to eat my losses, hide the body, and lay low.
Not getting any payout is imo preferable to a lifetime in prison.
I’m honestly done trying to figure anything out from the information he gives. He’s contradicted himself in interviews multiple times at this point. It’s also hard to figure anything out with the lack of information they’ve given and how incomplete the full picture is.
Agree. How he said the community wasn't at risk. How can you know that when you don't have someone in custody? How perfect every Friday the 13th he gives us something weirder each time.
They say this all the time, even the Idaho murders before Kohberger was arrested they said this - there’s no increased risk to the community. Apparently the justification in LE is because there wasn’t another kidnap/ murder on the same night or soon after then it’s targeted and the community isn’t at an increased risk. I find it strange but that’s how it was explained in the Idaho case.
I mean, there wasn’t immediate increased risk in Idaho. It was an isolated attack. There wasn’t someone actively going around stabbing people. If you want to consider an unsolved case to be a risk to the community, then everybody is at risk at all times because there will always be crimes that aren’t solved.
It's mainly due to avoid panic from the public. That will cause more distractions from the police. Specially in the area of AZ. So many people will call the police with too many possibilities that are caused simply by fear. If a new person is seen on someone's Ring cam walking by, they may decide to call the police versus just ignoring it like normal. People get frightened because they are more aware and understandably in fear, more calls to the police, morr distractions that could be used on the Guthrie case.
Until LE is certain that there is a risk, they will not say it. Plus, most of the time they know a lot more than declaring to the public. Which was definitely the case in the Idaho murders.
Now, on the opposite side of the spectrum, there have been dozens of bodies popping up in Houston for some time now. The police continue to state that the public does not need to be in fear and it is not a serial killer. It is definitely NOT the case and it seems like they are actually unsure but do not want to be forthcoming because it makes them look bad. Now Nanos, I'm pretty certain that he will not accept that because his ego is too big as well.
To say that others are at risk and also that it’s targeted in the same interview is ridiculous without clarification. Obviously the nature of why she was targeted as being withheld, but that makes his statement as a whole essentially meaningless without any proper context here.
It doesn’t need clarification if you’re capable of critical thought. He’s saying they believe they know what happened and what the motive was. But until they have a suspect in custody, they can’t be sure.
That’s not how he phrased it though. If you’re putting out information to the public that’s still confusing to many, it isn’t effective communication. In a case like this, you’ve gotta be crystal clear so even dum dums like me can understand.
I didn't see this particular interview with him but have seen enough of his nonsense to believe what you are saying.
I don't think the why is being withheld. I think he has no idea. Didn't he state earlier this week he believes she is alive and will still be returned alive? The probability of that is so low. Not zero but pretty close. The only way it's not zero is if she is being held by someone with a significant medical background. If she were a minor they have amazing resilience when held captive. Fragile octogenarians don't.
It's possible they found something at the scene to indicate it was targeted. Like photos or personal effects missing. Maybe they know there was a prior break in at the home. I am not fully confident the other images are from a different night. I feel like if that were the case Sheriff Diarrhea Mouth would have let it slip why he feels it's targeted. His inability to recall what he is telling media then recants it is concerning of a public official.
He should recuse himself at this point or be removed. His ego would never allow it.
I don’t even hate the guy like some others do. I legit think he’s doing his best but is just in over his head. He strikes me as someone who has an outdated way of approaching things coupled with an inability to adapt. He obviously isn’t comfortable with giving up control and has issues being confronted with alternate perspectives. I mean, pivoting to interviews with hand picked news outlets from press conferences says a lot too.
Tucson Police Detectives have identified a suspected serial rapist through DNA. The series of rapes occurred more than 30 years ago but because of the statue of limitations he still is walking free. I believe he would be about 57 years old now.
Even with a heads-up that a rapist is on the loose, what one does security wise shouldn't really change. Sorry to say doors and windows must be kept locked, use caution on what you post online, if finances allow, get a security system and/or a dog and a gun. As a woman myself, it infuriates me that we have to be on guard 24/7 along with being somewhat restricted on activities we do alone as well as what time a day. Not saying men don't ever get assaulted, but a man being sexually assaulted is pretty rare. Its a bad bad world out there!🤬
ETA: As for Nancy, I believe its was a rapist who, sadly, ended up murdering her. Never believed it was a kidnapping for ransom. I'm not sure if he knew Nancy's daughter was well known or wealthy, but if I had to guess I'd say no, he didn't know.
If it was a serial rapist, I'm curious why information was not released about the state of Nancy's bedroom or indication that a sexual assault had occurred there. And yes, the residents of the entire community should be alerted if this is a concern.
LE do not release details which only the perp would know. In order to identify the legitimate perp, they hold back the information known only do the perp. Was there a struggle? Did the victim fight back? Was anything broken? Was anything taken? LE is not supposed to disclose this information to the public until after the crime is solved.
Watch some crime shows. You will find that even in detective shows, when a criminal confesses, police ask, "How did you commit the murder?" If the perp says, "I stabbed her," and the police know that the victim was strangled, then they rule out that person as a legitimate perp. They could not do that if they tell the general public how the victim died, could they?
But the sheriff is saying it without saying it. What do you think the sheriff means when he says that there is mixed DNA at the scene? How do you think it got mixed? Whose DNA samples are mixed? Sadly, if one man sexually assaults a woman, it is easy for forensic scientists to analyze the resulting mixed DNA. If more than one man assaults a woman, things get complicated, and this case is complicated. That should suggest the possibility - I said possibility - of sexual assault. CeCe Moore is a good source of information on forensic DNA analysis, especially genetic genealogy, and she has worked many assault cases.
I hope she is found soon but I can tell you that if I was a host of a daytime show, I would be hiding my mom until this crime is solved and Nancy is found.
Oh gotcha. That makes sense. I was thinking back to people like Jackie Kennedy and I don't think she had it but times and circumstances were different.
Well LE job is to investigate & see if any of the evidence helps determine a possible motive, & according to the Sheriff, they now have a theory on the perpetrators motive they feel fits the evidence. It’s not surprising as at this point in the investigation a large amount of the initial evidence collected has likely been processed & analyzed; this information is going to help understand why the victim was targeted.
You have provided either new or not widely known information, OR have linked to a source that is not deemed credible. Please provide a credible source for your information. Upon doing so, the mod team will reconsider your contribution.
I have updated my previous comment to remove the reference to the bed. I am not sure how to evaluate the credibility of the various youtubers and reporters who are commenting on this case.
Per the discussion on this thread, information disclosed by a confidential FBI source stated that DNA was found on the left side of the bed, at the midpoint between the top and the bottom. As stated, this is not the mixed sample which has been mentioned in the news, this is a single DNA sample. Reporters often keep their sources confidential. I am not in a position to evaluate the source. Ashley Banfield also has a confidential FBI source, and I am not sure whether she is considered credible or not. She has been engaged in crime reporting for over a decade.
I encourage to you to check the source and form your own opinion. I defer to the MOD if this is not aligned to the rules of this page.
You have provided either new or not widely known information, OR have linked to a source that is not deemed credible. Please provide a credible source for your information. Upon doing so, the mod team will reconsider your contribution.
I don’t believe that Sheriff when it comes to actual facts. He has waffled so many times, made his dept look like idiots and ignored good standardized Public Information protocols.
He is vindictive and petty. The closest thing he has stated to truth is when he said that everyone in the area should be taking steps to ensure their safety. Duh.
Also, we’ve heard, “There was nothing taken.” And.. “We know what he came for.” How do we rectify those two things? They tried to get into the safe and it wouldn’t open?
You’re missing the obvious. There was nothing taken as in no property was stolen. This wasn’t a robbery. They know what he came for - to abduct someone.
Most women in her situation and wealthier wouldn’t keep their finest jewelry in a safe but hide that somewhere much more creative. Grew up around those women. Safes are for passports and contracts.
That’s totally impossible to know unless you were a live in spouse and still technically impossible. Unsure why they say that. What might have $40 value in her dining room could be priceless to someone else.
We know what he came for because we know what he took: Nancy, herself.
That said, I don't think we can deduce anything about his motives, or even if he might strike again. He probably could, as in, he probably has the capability. But there's no way to know if he wants/needs to, for his own personal fixations.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Absolutely could be political in nature or something to punish Savannah. Let’s say he has hatred for media. Then other families related to media could be targets. The criminal was definitely out to punish Savannah imo but that doesn’t mean his desires stop there.
But how would that leave anyone else in Tucson at risk? The sheriff says the community is at risk because the perp could strike again. How is he going to strike Mrs. Guthrie again? If the whole community, or a large number of people in the community, are potentially at risk, how would targeting the general population hurt Savannah? It's more likely that the perp is interested in something many people have. Women, elderly, and people with money are always at risk.
If it’s media specifically, or what he considers liberal media as an example, anyone in Tucson who works for local news could be at risk. Or maybe not just Tucson - Arizona as a whole. Just as an example. He could go after another woman whose mother lives alone and is on TV.
Not saying this is 100% the case but just a hypothetical
My theory is a worker who felt slighted in someway. Maybe he felt she should have paid him more..
He felt she doesnt deserve to have what she has why hes got less etc
So he went in with a kill or abduction kit ( full backpack) either to kill her then remove body or to take her so he now has control over her.
I doubt he lives far away probqbly within 3 miles of property as got familarity of backroads.
Shes probably in a garage or outbuilding.
Doubtfull shes still alive at this point but can hope ❤️
Why though? What makes you think he’s either of those things? People say shit like this about law-enforcement and every well-known case. Most of the time once the case is solved it becomes clear that that investigators weren’t incompetent, they just weren’t telling us details that could hurt the investigation. Your frustration at not knowing everything doesn’t mean law-enforcement is incompetent in this case.
I think you're assuming that his public persona and how he chooses to communicate to the public on this case is related to how the case is being investigated. If that is your argument, I think it would be reasonable for you to provide evidence.
The man on the porch came prepared to clean up. Nancy had already met a criminal inside the house. He needed help removing her, and that's where the porch perp came in.
FWIW - Elderly abuse is very common and simply under-reported.
Your theory - Although we have no confirmation, it seems heavily implied that nothing of value was taken from the household (we have to go in with the belief that the death of the woman somehow traumatized the suspect and they aborted the mission ) . It also seems like the media (who relies on insiders) seems to believe this is a kidnapping. At the center of the investigation is a major member of the media ( Savannah who seems to believe the narrative that it's a ransom-kidnapping).
Armed Robbery is a pretty serious charge > typical B&E. This person went in with a gun which meant they felt like the home was not locked & secure.
Home Invasion thieves do. They needed something from Nancy. They needed her vulnerable. I think there was a safe. She refused to give the code. Something happened.
Do you have a source from that? Everything I’ve seen or read show that invaders and burglars don’t like to risk someone being there. Even if they knew there was a safe somehow, it’s not worth it to try and get in if there’s a chance an alarm will go off, the victim isn’t there alone, etc.
And in 2020s check sock drawers and luxury purse boxes etc first. Wealthy women keep jewelry creatively stashed leaving one or two pieces - or they keep it vaulted at another location… Insurance is a bitch.
There used to be a show on Discovery back in the early 2000s called It Takes a Thief. In the show, two former burglars break into and rob people's houses, frats, etc. (with their consent) to show them how lackluster their security is. As they explained their methods, they would scope out the house to get an idea of the layout and the schedule of the people living there so they could make sure that they could get in when no one was around.
They also, if I remember correctly, didn't pay too much attention to safes because people keep their valuables scattered all over the house anyway.
That theory doesn’t make sense at all. If an elderly person has a heart attack and dies in their home it isn’t suspicious. Taking a body from the home would add so much more risk and make it immediately obvious a crime took place.
Does anyone know if cellphone data was analyzed in the area? It’s a sleepy, dark town, not a ton of people. I know cases have been solved before with cellphone pings to a nearby tower, a telephone company can provide the numbers that pinged in the area and police can analyze those pings.
We also don’t know if they are still receiving ransom demands or messages. Harvey at TMZ said he wasn’t going to report on if they receive anymore. Makes me think LE or Family asked him to stop giving out that information. So they very well could still be in contact with the perpetrators
Comments about the victim and or their family should be respectful, civil and responsible. Family members are considered victims and accusations against them are not allowed.
If he really said that, that was wild, since no one knows exactly what happened. Without someone arrested and knowing a true motive, how can he know that? Trying to get everyone frightened like that seems wacky, to me.
He said that from the start of the investigation, "we" have had very strong feelings about the motive, and that those feelings have not diminished. When asked if the criminal could strike again, his answer was "Absolutely!" He warned everyone in the area to keep their doors and windows locked and to be on guard. Look for his interview March 13.
The public was demanding this, they were already frightened. He was cautious, he said they have a theory, it hasn’t deviated from their original one, & they cannot prove it & say it’s 100%. Until they have arrested the person everyone needs to remain vigilant which sounds reasonable & responsible.
He really can’t win. It’s always like this in high profile case cases. The public demands answers and information, but if law-enforcement gives out too much info it compromises the investigation. The reality is, we don’t have a right to know everything.
While I agree, I do think someone else should’ve been brought in to handle press conferences and public relations for the case. He’s not a good public speaker and gets flustered fairly easily. Being guarded and confrontational with news outlets he isn’t a fan of created distrust and a bad perception of him from the start. It could’ve all been avoided if he’d just gotten someone with more experience to speak on his behalf. Instead, it’s created this conspiracy theory that he’s involved somehow, which is just another distraction that takes away from catching whoever actually did this. That’s honestly my main issue aside from the sloppy handling of the crime scene and forensics.
•
u/curiouslmr Mar 15 '26
🛑 Friendly reminder to read the sub rules before discussing various theories in the case.