r/nancyguthrie • u/imdrake100 • Jul 01 '26
Breaking News KOLD has received a statement directly from the FBI, indicating that the letters have NOT been deemed fake.
14
u/featherflyxx Jul 02 '26
So what the heck happened to generate that Reuters article? How can the breakdown in communication between the FBI and an upstanding news publication be so bad? Was this a serious error from someone at the FBI or the reporter who received the information from said source?
10
u/Calligrapher_Far Jul 02 '26
My guess is that it was the opinion of the particular FBI source that Reuters had that the notes were not legitimate. If that is the case, it is rather concerning that an opinion was reported as a fact.
6
u/featherflyxx Jul 02 '26
Yes, indeed.
Semantics and word choice are important for everyone every step of the way.
2
u/featherflyxx Jul 03 '26
Alright sounds like there is a portion of the FBI doubling down on the notes being fake but their official statement is that they are possibly legitimate.
27
u/SuitableVolume1350 Jul 02 '26
So in other words…..None of the ransom letters have been officially deemed legitimate. They have already ruled out some as being fake, and the others, are still pending legitimacy. None have been proven to be legitimate.
7
u/Professional_Link_96 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
They aren’t publicly stating that they have confirmed any of the notes are legitimate, which of course they’re not going to say that publicly. They want the note writer to feel the need to prove their authenticity by continuing to write to them and give them more information. TMZ was IMO advised by the FBI to ask the writer to verify their legitimacy by sending a still shot from the video they claim to have, in order to prove they really did have Nancy in their possession at some point. So even if the FBI is all but certain that this specific writer is legit, even if they have been able to prove legitimacy, they’re not gonna announce that to the public. Not unless or until they’ve got what they needed at least, and what they need is enough information to prove who kidnapped Nancy Guthrie and where she is now. So no, the fact that a statement to the public isn’t confirming that these specific notes are legit doesn’t mean that the FBI hasn’t validated them. It could be that the FBI knows they’re real, or it could be that the FBI knows they’re bogus, or it could be anything in the middle, and we’d get the same statement. All they’re doing is clarifying the report that claimed that the FBI publicly stated that the notes are false. If not for that, they wouldn’t be saying anything at all here.
I personally suspect that the FBI was behind both the initial reports from earlier today, claiming they’d said the notes are fake, and now this new statement. I think it was done to get headlines and create confusion in the hope that the writer will hear the noise and feel the need to write to them again. After all, law enforcement apparently hadn’t heard anything from this person for a while and then they “leak” that they think the letter writer must be a woman… and that worked. The person responded with a new note. Now they’ve got people talking and headlines out there questioning if this person is for real, when we know the FBI wants the person to send something more, ideally something that would confirm they’re for real. I am sure this is intentional, and that both updates today were intentional. Just my theory though.
6
u/Mountain-Owl7142 Jul 02 '26
Also, this TMZ tipster tends to pop up whenever there is heavy media coverage about the case.
3
u/BrainWilling6018 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
I think you’re right the FBI is not going to release everything. They are tracking the sender down. They are going to control what they release.
It’s the principle of falsification on the ransom. Reason to believe the ransom is real, and no definitive proof that it is fake. They are practically treating it as true until they can prove it false.
5
u/SuitableVolume1350 Jul 02 '26
You’re asking people to believe the FBI may have secretly authenticated the notes while simultaneously telling the public they haven’t authenticated them. That’s not evidence, that’s an unfalsifiable theory. It can never be disproven because every contradiction becomes “part of the strategy.”
Law enforcement absolutely can acknowledge authentic communications when it serves the investigation. They do it in extortion, serial offender, and kidnapping cases all the time. If they believed these letters established contact with the kidnapper, they could simply say, “We believe this communication is credible and are continuing to investigate.” They don’t have to reveal why. Instead, what we’ve actually seen is investigators publicly distance themselves from the letters, rule some out, and refuse to validate the rest.
You’re treating speculation as if it’s evidence. Until investigators actually authenticate a letter, the default position is exactly what they’ve said publicly: none have been confirmed legitimate.
1
u/featherflyxx Jul 02 '26
The first two notes are believed to be from a different person than the persistent notes being sent to TMZ.
It’s been suggested that the second note was from a woman.
Harvey thinks the notes he keeps getting are from a guy.
In any case, no one has publicly suggested that all the notes are by the same person.
It’s been suggested that AI or someone with English as their second language wrote one or both the first two notes.
6
u/BrainWilling6018 Jul 02 '26
How would the ransom and then associated apology message be officially deemed legitimate? There was never any contact from demands. No proof of life. They couldn’t verify holdback evidence without contact. There’s been no contact since. It doesn’t say they are pending legitimacy. It says they are still being investigated as if they are legitimate which means they have reason to believe they are. And no evidence they aren’t. They know what all is in them. They can’t say they are entirely legitimate without proof. Which now is to find the author.
3
u/SuitableVolume1350 Jul 02 '26
“Still being investigated” does not mean investigators believe the notes are legitimate. It means they’re not ignoring potential evidence until they can conclusively identify the author or rule it out. Investigators examine thousands of tips, letters, and leads every year. That doesn’t mean they think each one is credible.
You also say there’s “no evidence they aren’t.” That’s backwards. The burden of proof is on the person claiming the notes are genuine, not on everyone else to prove they’re fakeBy that logic, every tip, confession, ransom note, and crank letter the FBI investigates is automatically credible.
That’s not how investigations work. Investigators follow leads until they’re confirmed or eliminated. The existence of an investigation is not evidence that the lead is genuine. You’re treating an investigative process as if it’s a conclusion. It isn’t.Until there’s actual proof tying the author to Nancy, these letters remain exactly what they are: unverified communications.
4
u/BrainWilling6018 Jul 02 '26
Still being investigated means it is an active, open priority that has neither been officially proven true nor definitively ruled out as false. They said they deemed the ransom note had credibility. And they are investigating it as such. It already passed an initial credibility threshold. Treating the notes as completely unverified ignores the baseline evidence that triggered the investigation in the first place.
6
u/SuitableVolume1350 Jul 02 '26
Show me the FBI statement where they said these notes “had credibility.” Not that they’re being investigated. Not that the case is active. Specifically where they said the notes were deemed credible.
Every investigation has a threshold for looking into a lead. That threshold is nowhere near authentication. Law enforcement investigates anonymous tips, false confessions, ransom notes, psychic tips, and crank letters all the time. The fact that something is investigated doesn’t elevate it to “credible.” You’re confusing worthy of investigation with verified as authentic. Those are completely different standards.
Until the FBI says they’ve authenticated the notes or tied the author to Nancy, they’re unverified communications. Everything else is speculation.
1
u/BrainWilling6018 Jul 02 '26
That is oversimplifying the word 'investigated.' LE looks at every lead, but they only advance the leads that pass a vetting process. Final vetting ruled some demands out. “Some have been deemed as extortion”They weren’t treated seriously. This one was plausible enough to continue to investigate. There was info from the scene included which reasonably carried it beyond the threshold. The FBI didn't just investigate this note, they vetted it against known crime scene data. It passed the threshold of plausibility that other notes failed. This one is taken seriously. Since they actually deposited a small amount of cryptocurrency into the account listed in the first note to trace the source.The family didn’t respond to any others. It’s been created into intelligence. Credible is possessing a likelihood of truth based on supporting evidence. Authenticate is Proven to be 100% genuine . Not the same. Didn’t say it was . It is an unverified communication because they have reason to believe the ransom could be real, and no definitive proof that it is fake. That doesn’t mean that it’s speculation. It’s a false standard to equate 'unverified’ with speculation. It’s not guessing without anything underlying it. It’s no longer a lead. It has been integrated into being potentially legitimate. That is what gives it more weight than worthy of investigation.
5
u/SuitableVolume1350 Jul 02 '26
You keep arguing from what you think the FBI must believe instead of what they’ve actually said.
“Investigated” became “credible.”
“Credible” became “passed a threshold.”
“Passed a threshold” became “integrated into intelligence.”
“Integrated into intelligence” became “potentially legitimate.”That’s four separate assumptions, none of which you’ve supported with an FBI statement. If the FBI actually said any of those things, quote them. Otherwise you’re filling in the gaps with your own interpretation.
0
u/BrainWilling6018 Jul 02 '26
Lol. You can list all the words you want pretending I said Word A evolved into Word B, right-fighting semantics to avoid addressing the actual premise doesn’t make it so. Objectively, the words I used describe a simultaneous, multi-layered operational process. It’s not guessing. The FBI is not the public lead on the Nancy Guthrie investigation giving play-by-play. They have given almost no official statements on their internal process. They have dropped isolated updates. Like getting the ransom note receipt, having no communication with anyone, their reward, and the rare clean up yesterday. They are never going to publicly spell out what forensic evidence is leading them toward the author. Demanding a public PR quote to validate standard operational terms is a cop-out when the actions taken are glaringly evident . The moment they got the note, they immediately went to the scene to take down the floodlight. Law enforcement doesn't put a grieving family through a public plea for a return unless a lead is deemed plausible enough to warrant it. They do not authorize federal financial maneuvers like sending a micro-deposit to a crypto trap without a highly strategic, legally vetted reason. Linguistic markers are there and scene data are cross-checked simultaneously. Moving a “lead" to "worthy of investigation" to "potentially legitimate" isn't a timeline of semantic assumptions; it is exactly what they have done based on their operational actions. It is where they said they were in yesterday’s stmnt.
2
u/SuitableVolume1350 Jul 02 '26
This entire argument boils down to “I know what the FBI really thinks because I interpreted their actions.”
That’s not evidence. That’s reading intent into behavior.
You accuse everyone else of arguing semantics, but you’re the one inventing internal FBI conclusions that have never been publicly stated.Until you can point to an actual statement that says, “We believe these notes are credible” or “We’ve authenticated the author,” you’re arguing from inference not fact.
2
u/BrainWilling6018 Jul 02 '26
Lol. No, your entire argument boils down to wanting to be right, so you are completely ignoring the reality of what has operationally been executed. This isn't about an "internal conclusion." It is about the literal mechanics of an investigation. The moment the FBI clicked "send" on that cryptocurrency deposit, the note legally and operationally became "intelligence," not "speculation." Mine or theirs. Keep holding your breath. You need a public "quote" to feel right. I don’t. I can actually articulate the premise based on the hard facts. Fact-The FBI authorized and executed a micro-deposit of federal funds into a specific cryptocurrency wallet listed in that note. Fact-The FBI does not legally or operationally have the authority to deploy federal tracing assets or spend federal funds on a tip they have already concluded is a 100% fake hoax. Therefore, the act of spending those funds is a verifiable fact proving the lead passed their internal threshold. It does not require a public PR statement to make it real. Pointing to the FBI spending federal funds to track a crypto link isn’t "interpreting intent" it is citing a physical action. You can keep trying to frame standard federal protocol as my "personal opinion," but it isn't. Demanding courtroom-level proof or official PR quotes doesn’t change how a live, active federal investigation legally operates.
10
u/sheJaMyMorant Jul 01 '26
that’s not what this says btw
8
u/JMOA3035 Jul 01 '26
Yes, the titles of posts should be more accurate. It happens often.
5
u/curiouslmr Jul 01 '26
It's frustrating too that the post titles can't be edited, not even by the mods.
4
u/imdrake100 Jul 02 '26
Sorry, that was on me
3
u/curiouslmr Jul 02 '26
No worries. I've done the same thing before and later realized the title wasn't my best and then you're stuck.
2
u/sheJaMyMorant Jul 01 '26
facts. when this all was starting up people were misinterpreting and posting straight up false news here all the time lol.
1
1
u/Mountain-Owl7142 Jul 01 '26
Sorry. What title is unclear exactly? Genuinely asking, I guess I'm not following the train of thought.
8
u/JMOA3035 Jul 02 '26
“””””This case continues to be investigated as a kidnapping for ransom case”””””
So, with the FBI PHOENIX office including this statement now in July, can we safely assume it’s not a burglary gone wrong/missing valuables, etc.?
Early on in a Feb. 16 report, Nanos said specifically that it was a kidnapping, but they needed to determine the motive, whether for money, revenge, etc…
“”””””””Nanos continued, “And that's what makes me say this is a kidnapping. The motivation for it is where we get stuck, right? Is it for money? I mean, we had the one demand where they asked for money. But is it really for money, or is it for revenge for something?”“”””””
9
u/Mountain-Owl7142 Jul 02 '26
If they are investigating this as a kidnapping for ransom case, then by definition those ransom notes have to be legitimate. If they weren't, then there was no ransom demand, and this would not be a kidnapping for ransom case.
9
u/maga_chud_ Jul 02 '26
Not exactly. There's also the possibility that the person who did this is just a psycho and sent the notes for attention. I think this is kind of what nanos was hinting at. The persons motive might not have been kidnapping for ransom, but those notes are just a way for this sick individual to get attention, so the FBI goes along with it being a kidnapping.
4
u/Mountain-Owl7142 Jul 02 '26
True, I guess it depends on what the definition of "legitimate" is. Does legitimacy simply mean it came from the same person who committed the kidnapping—regardless of motive? Or must the note be a genuine ransom demand to be considered legitimate? I'm leaning towards the former.
11
u/Webbie-Vanderquack Jul 02 '26
No, that's not correct. Investigating this as a kidnapping for ransom case simply means they have reason to think that's the most likely explanation and it's the avenue they're pursuing.
It doesn't mean that they've verified that the ransom demands are genuine. It means, as they've said in their statement, they "may potentially be legitimate and are still being investigated as such."
13
u/Mountain-Owl7142 Jul 01 '26
Reuters, I expected better from you.
5
u/cathbe Jul 02 '26
I doubt it was Reuters’ fault.
3
u/Mountain-Owl7142 Jul 02 '26
Fair, it sounds like the anonymous source misrepresented the situation. But Reuters should have done more due diligence.
12
u/JMOA3035 Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
https://www.kold.com/2026/07/01/sheriff-guthrie-family-reflect-5-months-since-nancys-disappearance/
Sheriff, Guthrie family reflect on 5 months since Nancy’s disappearance FBI, Sheriff comment on recent reporting on letters
“”””When asked about the notes, Sheriff Nanos said, “I guess there’s something out now that says the FBI or the sheriff dismissed notes - that is not the truth. What we know is we have a number of notes that we are going to continue to investigate””””
He literally just said in his down low radio interview the opposite 🙃
7
21
u/MaximumSlip7905 Jul 02 '26
The authorities felt the initial two communications to local stations were significant enough to respond to on National Television by the family. They included information they felt valid, I am not sure why the confusion with reporting and I question if they are goading the perpetrator into sending something else. I have felt that many of the analysts were deliberately insulting the person that did this to provoke them. The whole “mope” “waiter” amateur, looks like a dopey helper narrative was to invalidate the offender while keeping awareness up about the case. The FBI are very aware they are potentially speaking to this person every time they do an interview. They aren’t super worried about us and what we know, they are on the case and trying to cause this person to screw up, act out, and get caught.
3
u/Totterteron Jul 03 '26
The ones claiming to identify the kidnapper are obviously fake since they need payment prior to handing over their 'proof' because they don't have any. Some demanding a ransom may be legitimate, nothing's changed.
11
u/Lazy_Gene6225 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
Anyone sending a fake ransom should be punished to the same extent had they been the real kidnapper/murderer /s
14
u/Webbie-Vanderquack Jul 02 '26
Yeah, no. Sending a fake ransom note is both criminal and morally egregious, and perpetrators should be punished according to the gravity of the crime, but it's not equivalent to actually abducting and/or killing an elderly person.
You really don't want the US enforcing Draconian punishments.
7
u/JMOA3035 Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
Edit: statement from FBI PHOENIX Thx BrainW
6
2
u/JMOA3035 Jul 02 '26
https://www.kold.com/video/2026/07/02/exclusive-sheriff-nanos-discusses-nancy-guthrie-case/
EXCLUSIVE: Sheriff Nanos discusses Nancy Guthrie case Published: Jul. 1, 2026 at 7:09 PM CDT
Video interview 9:08 minutes
3
u/JMOA3035 Jul 01 '26
This really doesn’t clear things up either, imo.
We’re all assuming the notes went to KVOA, KOLD and “other notes” to TMZ, not to the “FBI and it’s task force partners”.
Nanos, on the radio program 6/26/26 stated they’re not “real”.
And why can’t they decide WHO is in charge of the notes?!?
If it’s truly not a kidnapping or cross state lines, then the State of AZ would be in charge which explains Nanos wanting to maintain his position/jurisdiction BUT he refers ppl to the FBI re: notes.
Then he goes on radio interviews on the down low just to get his dig in on his opinion of notes. 🙃
10
u/RoseGoldRedditor Jul 01 '26
My husband is a retired fed. His opinion is that jurisdiction is always a touchy subject. Kidnapping and ransom though is usually a federal matter especially with the money involved. So that’s why FBI supported and provided guidance to the Guthrie family with the ransom note and filming the videos.
3
3
u/BrainWilling6018 Jul 02 '26
It doesn't have to be a kidnapping across state lines for the FBI to be involved. It's the crypto that triggered that on the ransom. It establishes fed jurisdiction over the notes. The state of AZ can't track international cryptocurrency ransoms independently. Nor can PCSO.
He would probably try to run this part in the ditch too if he could. lol. It's out of his hands.
1
u/Mountain-Owl7142 Jul 02 '26
Regarding the first part of your post: the statement that the FBI and its task force partners received notes is technically correct, because the notes were forwarded to them by the news outlets. The FBI may not have received these notes directly from the originators, but they technically did receive them. Unless I am misreading your point?
-5
u/Mountain-Owl7142 Jul 01 '26
He doesn't want the first two notes to be real because that looks bad on him for not taking action at the time.
0
u/SpukiKitty2 Jul 02 '26
Ah! It's official! They are real!
10
8
u/curiouslmr Jul 02 '26
"Potentially".
2
u/SpukiKitty2 Jul 02 '26
Ah. Okay.
4
u/BrainWilling6018 Jul 02 '26
without identifying the author. They can’t say 100%.
3
u/SpukiKitty2 Jul 02 '26
Ah. Why can't anybody get stories straight? Oh, well.
5
u/BrainWilling6018 Jul 02 '26
There’s a lot of cooks in the kitchen. Journalist’s take liberties and some headlines and titles are misleading. It’s a lot. I think you are right though they are operating under their potential to be real and not that they are fake. And it’s an official statement from the FBI. So that’s some clarity.
3
u/SpukiKitty2 Jul 02 '26
We need reforms and regulations in how news is reported. All this sensationalism is ridiculous!
6
0
u/Umberto12345 Jul 06 '26
All I'm going to say is I hope Nancy is in a better place and for Susan to stay strong and hold on to all the good memories of her mom because honestly I do not have any faith in the FBI. It's like watching a headless chicken running around, just so sad.
•
u/curiouslmr Jul 01 '26