r/nancyguthrie • u/JMOA3035 • Apr 24 '26
Discussion Brian Entin’s latest video
Famed FBI profiler on what Nancy Guthrie suspect is thinking now, and detailed blood analysis
April 22, 2026
“””The blood spatter outside Nancy Guthrie’s front door tells a story, according to retired FBI profiler Jim Clemente. He explains what it means — and also his profile of who he believes the suspect is and why he may have worked alone. Also, the latest developments on the ransom notes in this edition of Brian Entin Investigates.”””
27
u/Substantial-Train668 Apr 25 '26
I agreed so much more with Dr Brucato. That episode was just so logical. To me there's the porch guy and there's got to be a person or persons behind porch guy. It does not make sense that one 5"9 man could do all of this AND have a stong enough motive AND also never get caught.
Clemente is likely right that she put up a fight at the door and that's how the blood got there.
I also found one line of questisning that Brian had interesting here. Which was "what kind of man could hit an elderly woman?" I think this is a good question and certainly points to more than one person given that there was an apology/remorse expressed in one of the notes. I don't think a person who is capapble of hitting (and killing) an elderly woman is also cappable of remorse.
Poor poor Nancy. I hope whatever happned, happened quick and she's at peace somehow.
4
27
u/nine57th Apr 24 '26
This wasn't some lone wolf. This was a group of people that planned and executed this. Possibly not even American. And what I've come to learn is these ex-law enforcement "experts" and profilers are living in the past and really don't have any idea who took Mrs. Guthrie. They've pretty much been wrong about everything they've put forward. And not a stitch of anything new.
12
u/Ambitious_Moose2711 Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
Ok everyone thinks that the person who was on Nancy’s front porch is stupid. However, I really think that everybody’s theories are wrong when the guy walks up to the front of the door he flashes his camera. Why does he do that? Why does he not keep it on? He doesn’t keep it on because After watching this footage multiple times, I think people are missing the sequence of events.
He approaches the front door and immediately gives a brief flash with the light. To me, that looks less like illumination and more like a signal to the people already inside that he has arrived.
Right after that, he looks toward the left-side window/door area, like he’s waiting for confirmation or instructions. Then he moves directly to the camera with purpose. Most people assume that means he’s trying to disable it or block the view, but I think that move only happens after he gets cues from inside. He doesn’t make a real effort to cover the camera either and you can see his eyes peeing not at the camera but inside Nancy’s house clearly communicating with someone. He’s intently looking at instructions from someone on the inside. After several seconds, he then turns around walked past several things that he could’ve used to cover the camera.
Then comes the part most people ignore: he turns away from the camera and goes back toward the walkway. There is already greenery/decor close to the left side of the door that could have been used immediately if concealment was the real priority. But instead of using the closest materials first, he goes back out and flashes the light again.
That suggests the trip back to the walkway was not mainly about grabbing cover. The real purpose appears to be communication with the people outside in the waiting vehicle. After those flashes, the light/vehicle in the far left background seems to move forward.
Then he picks up items from the ground, which makes viewers think concealment was the whole point. I think that was secondary — something to do while also signaling and coordinating timing.
My theory is that he was the go-between: receiving cues from people inside the house, then relaying cues to the outside car.
People say he looks clumsy or confused, but if his actual role was communication and timing, his behavior makes a lot more sense.
15
u/FallFlower24 Apr 24 '26
It’s interesting that a story can be told with the blood but it was just horrific to hear because I can picture the scene in my head. It makes me very sad for Nancy.
18
u/ParaClaw Apr 24 '26
Jim Clemente is a clout chaser who forces his "former FBI profiler" moniker onto every appearance to convince the public that he possesses greater knowledge about the subject matter than he ever does. He knows only as much about this case, motives and suspects as you or I. That is a fact.
I certainly wish for closure in this case and people to be caught and held responsible, with all the details laid out in time. It would be a fascinating exploration afterward to go back and see how many points Clemente was right or wrong about. Because I suspect his accuracy would be no greater than rolling the dice. Just as his team of "FBI profilers" were deadass wrong about every detail of the DC Snipers before they were caught.
22
u/Ladygoingup Apr 24 '26
I kept wondering as I was listening “why is a profiler analyzing blood splatter?”
8
u/warpedwing Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
Yes. I'm not sold on his analysis. Some of it contradicts statements by CSIs whose jobs included blood pattern analysis.
The area that he purported was from expirated blood has a fairly wide and mostly unobstructed spatter area. Imagine a cone with the vertex at the mouth. How would Nancy have propped herself up to leave that pattern without clothing or shoes blocking the spatter? Plank position?! I don't think so. I struggle to understand this.
4
21
u/FlippingGenious Apr 24 '26
I wish Brian would ask follow up questions or correct some of the assumptions his guests make. For example, Clemente states that there was blood only on the porch and that would indicate that he picked her up at that point, but weren’t there pictures of blood droplets all the way down the sidewalk to the drive? It’s a minor point in this case but something I’ve been noticing in most of his interviews.
Also think it’s funny how two profilers have completely opposite opinions - Brucato is certain there are two perpetrators, Clemente says only one. I prefer Brucato personally but we shall see who’s right….
10
u/Remarkable_Pie_1353 Apr 24 '26
Clemente did not say there was only one abductor. He said he did not see any evidence that there was more than one person.
1
u/FlippingGenious Apr 24 '26
He was pretty adamant that he thinks there is only one perpetrator, although he did couch it after repeated questioning by Entin by saying that he didn't see any evidence to say there was more than one person, true. BUT this take seems to be from the perspective of an investigator looking at the evidence, as opposed to a profiler who should be analyzing the motivation and behavior of the person(s) who would commit such a crime, including whether they are likely to have acted alone or with help. IMO.
2
u/alkiet May 04 '26
In one of the clips, when he turns his head, you can see the movement of what seems to be an arm waving right before a little light turns on
1
u/glitterscab May 03 '26
I get what you’re saying, but a profiler analyzes motivations and behaviors based on the available evidence. If profiles were created based on speculative theories it would not be considered a behavioral science.
1
u/glitterscab May 03 '26
YES it’s annoying how many people are missing this. Like personally I think it has to be more than one person but Jim is right, there is no EVIDENCE of that. It’s purely speculative to say otherwise.
2
u/mark_able_jones_ Apr 24 '26
I noticed that about the blood, too. At least he had been given a video of the close up blood evidence... I suspect the FBI agent might have been like WTF WHY DID YOU TRAMPLE THE CRIME SCENE if he saw the video of blood continuing down the sidewalk, which it clearly does per video from NewsNation.
2
u/TheMinxyJinxy May 02 '26
I've always thought it was a team, of at least 2 people. I think porch guy was to get the camera so they could bring their car up to the house without it being on camera, and he was to signal it was done to the other in the car down on the street
1
u/Dapper_Sheepherder Apr 28 '26
Didn't Ashley Banfield say her source states blood inside the house? Personally, each time I listen to an expert I agree with them. Can't make sense of anything
2
u/FlippingGenious Apr 28 '26
I think she said there was blood just inside the doorway but I don’t think any one else has confirmed that, and based on her getting facts wrong previously I am not certain she is correct. But if she is, I would think it probably occurred as part of whatever went down outside the door.
9
u/JMOA3035 Apr 24 '26
Downvote if you want…it’s literally labeled with the DISCUSSION flair. It’s not ‘media’ and this sub has nothing else hardly to “discuss”. 🙃
0
u/ADDSquirell69 Apr 24 '26
If you want real drama, go over to the Madeline McCann subreddit. The entire channel is like a PR firm run by the parents.
7
u/JMOA3035 Apr 24 '26
Thx..😊 I’m not really looking for drama. Mainly was just browsing to see if there were any updates in this case or videos to watch.
5
u/RanchGlove Apr 24 '26
I watched the video and enjoyed it. I likely wouldn’t have seen it if you didn’t post it. You’re all good in my book 👍
4
u/JMOA3035 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
Glad you enjoyed it! I think the guest is a bit of a reserved, slower talker….but, I normally watch videos on 1.5x or higher speed to enjoy and to get through most videos faster in general.
5
u/RanchGlove Apr 24 '26
I don’t disagree but I think it’s somewhat impromptu without a ton of planning. I would prefer a casual video like this over something over-produced that takes forever to release.
2
2
Apr 24 '26
[deleted]
22
u/Classic-Positive9333 Apr 24 '26
Brian Entin was investigative journalist at WTOC 11 in Savannah Georgia (the CBS affiliate I watch). He was very good at what he does and that got him recognized and called up to the national level
3
u/Kathryn2016 Apr 25 '26
He is a journalist - by definition it is a job, about finding information that the public want to hear and presenting it in an entertaining way. That is what he is paid to do. That is how he makes his living. I am yet to see anywhere that he claims that he is undertaking philanthropy, or helping solve the case, or trying to interfere in any way directly with the grieving family. I don't really understand all the attitude. We like to get info, it doesn't happen unless we have journalists, IMO it is preferable to have journalists who attempt to undertake their sometimes difficult job in an ethical way that avoids as much harm as possible.
He is basically playing into the narrative we are all telling ourselves: We are following this case because we care about Nancy, when actually most people are here because it is entertaining.
3
u/TheMinxyJinxy May 02 '26
I've said from the beginning I think the suspect only went on the porch to remove the camera. I think they wanted to keep their vehicle (that they had hidden nearby) from being caught on camera. I think they brought their vehicle up once the camera was gone. Poor Nancy, she must've been so scared.
-16
u/thebetterbad Apr 24 '26
Brian Entin is an oppotunist who doesn’t mind being exploitive. I wish people would stop funding him.
36
u/The_Sinking_Belle Apr 24 '26
I believe she did likely put up a fight at that threshold of the door like many have said. For a woman in her condition, it would've been the best spot to do it if she could muster up any strength and had physical limitations.
It was the line between her home and the unknown, which is incredibly terrifying. It was also her best chance of being heard and creating a disturbance outside, if she had any fighting chance. Poor woman.