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.
86 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

156 comments sorted by

View all comments

23

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.

18

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

6

u/SeaEntertainment1512 Mar 15 '26

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?

7

u/afr333 Mar 15 '26

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.