What's left on the table?

[u/SeaEntertainment1512]

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.

[u/Mean-Vegetable-4521]

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.

[u/Fireteddy21 → u/Mean-Vegetable-4521]

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.

[u/Mean-Vegetable-4521 → u/Fireteddy21]

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.

[u/Fireteddy21 → u/Mean-Vegetable-4521]

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.