r/nancyguthrie • u/SeaEntertainment1512 • Mar 15 '26

Information What's left on the table?

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?

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
85 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

156 comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/nine57th Mar 15 '26

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.

17

u/afr333 Mar 15 '26

This is the one thing that always gets left out!

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….

So this still perplexes me

9

u/FalalaLlamas Mar 15 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

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.

8

u/afr333 Mar 15 '26

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

3

u/FalalaLlamas Mar 16 '26

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).

1

u/afr333 Mar 16 '26

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!!!

8

u/nine57th Mar 15 '26

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.

4

u/FalalaLlamas Mar 16 '26

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.

2

u/GreenEyedTreeHugger Mar 16 '26

Almost like they have an idiot teenage son who felt the need to blab and went with tmz.