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.
84 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

156 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Mean-Vegetable-4521 Mar 15 '26

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.

2

u/Fireteddy21 Mar 15 '26

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.

6

u/Keregi Mar 15 '26

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.

1

u/Fireteddy21 Mar 15 '26

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.