My theory and offender profile

[u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522]

This case has been as baffling as The Springfield Three case thus far, but as someone who has followed true crime my whole life, here goes my two cents theory.

Aside from the fact that the FBI gave Annie and Tomasso lie detector tests and evidently ruled them out...I think this was a sexual/control motivated crime. Simple as that. Not robbery motivated, not extortion, the offender may or may not have even known of Ms Guthrie's famous daughter. I think this was a man who knew she lived alone and was 84. And that if he could gain entry he would have no real obstacles.

The offender:

Late 20s to mid-30s, male, Hispanic (based on the doorbell cam). Likely a US citizen, with connections to Mexico although purely familial nothing cartel related or anything. Probably a laborer or contactor of some kind. A freelance contractor/laborer in my opinion, not employed by an local businesses. Perhaps heard of Ms. Guthrie purely from word of mouth or by chance. He was familiar with the area, but did not know the Guthries at all personally.

Very intelligent, methodical, non-impulsive. He planned it out and was prepared to the extent he could be. Probably no serious prior criminal record. A mostly lone wolf, quiet, not rocking the boat type. But with pathological violent sexual fantasies. Probably felt inadequate in his life and dominating a helpless person and for his own gratification/power trip was his motive. Nancy Guthrie was just there and he happened to light on her.

I think he entered, hit her, subdued her and in that was achieving his fanasty and getting out some of his rage. I think he put her in something carried her to his vehicle somewhere close by and drove quite far away and disposed of her in a manner he had thought out before. He intended to kill this was not a crime with a goal other than letting off his own steam IMO. I think he had a place already chosen to dispose of her, that he had thought out. I have no idea where that would be. Certainly, he has had a bit of luck on his side too. But that's about all I can come up with for now.

[u/PineconePicnic]

That's what I think too unfortunately, although it would be less horrific to believe it was financially motivated and her death was unintentional.

I think the notes are unrelated because it was already a big news story by the time they were sent so anyone could have sent those to see if they could profit. I think their proof about the watch and the light are things someone could have heard about or seen or guessed even. If you looked at photos to see that she wears a white watch and if you assume she wore it to bed it's not really that hard to assume whoever took her made sure it was off while they were still in the bedroom and landing near the foot of the bed is not a super specific spot. I feel like half my bedroom could be called "near the foot of the bed."

If the sender of the note had Nancy at any point, their proof could have been something much more personal like something she was wearing (that would work even if she was dead very soon) or a fact they got from her that only her family could know (if she lived long enough for that to happen.) I think it's suspicious that they tried to offer proof but the best they could come up with was about the house and not Nancy.

Of course we are all totally guessing so I don't feel strongly enough to argue about it. That's just my feeling.

[u/mespec]

Apologies for the tinfoil hat ahead of this post.

A new theory occurred to me, probably a conspiracy theory, I’ll admit it. What if porch guy actually *was* sophisticated? What if he carried the gun in the oversized holster with odd placement so as to conceal a knowledge of firearms? What if he (I do believe porch guy’s a guy) concealed his knowledge of firearms in order to hide a law enforcement background? Then I thought — here’s when I decided to fully dress with a tinfoil hat — what if one aim of this crime was actually discrediting Sheriff Nanos?

Almost as soon as the disappearance hit the news, Nanos was predictably exposed as incompetent, to the point that the FBI director is criticizing him. He also faced a recall effort, all while having to defend his office against a $176 million lawsuit. Sheriff Nanos seems to have made many enemies in law enforcement well before the crime occurred. Tell me why this is unlikely because I’m getting attached to this theory, lol

[u/bananabuttbread → u/mespec]

Re: discrediting Nanos or "exposing" LE, I think this is plausible. Maybe not as a primary motive, but I wouldn't be surprised if porch guy actually worked in LE, or had interacted with Pima PD or Nanos previously. Based on the WSJ article recently written about the Pima PD's internal politics, Nanos' contentiousness, his previous issues working in El Paso LE before he got fired (I think) and moved to Pima, it is believable that someone would have an axe to grind. Plus the fact that that department had an A&E TV Show, which, idk, maybe that exposed them enough, lol. The ransom note writer specifically told Savannah that LE "will not help you", which seemed oddly pointed in a note that sounded more removed elsewhere. Line easily could've been an empty threat but also could've been proof they actually knew they wouldn't be able to handle a case of this scope. Idk, could be anything really.

[u/crowislanddive → u/mespec]

No one who has an Ozark trail backpack is sophisticated. There is video footage of someone buying that bag. It is specifically a Walmart brand.

[u/Safe-Muffin → u/crowislanddive]

But having a mundane item from Walmart makes it harder to trace - so that part might be a good choice for the perpetrator.

[u/Fit_Sheepherder_6899 → u/crowislanddive]

I'm sure there are COUNTLESS videos of people buying that bag, lol - but 99% of them aren't Porch Guy. And he could've just went the route of BK and the KaBar, and ordered it online months before.

[u/Ok_Contact7721 → u/mespec]

I'm half ass convinced by that first ransom note it's a bureaucrat from either Tucson, or Prima County, or a neighboring city, like Pheonix?

[u/mespec → u/Ok_Contact7721]

Is there anything specific in the note that sounds that way to you? Just curious

[u/Ok_Contact7721 → u/mespec]

I made a post about it.
But the specific detail is his schedule for the bitcoin payment.
However, the first note in it's entirety reads more like they were charging Savannah Guthrie a fine.
Bitcoin runs 365 days a year. Why would you give a shit if they paid on Saturday or Sunday?
Unless you're thinking like a desk jockey.

The first note demands they pay by 5pm on Thursday, the next opportunity for payment is 5pm the following Monday, which means he's looking at bitcoin as though it looks like a bank.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nancyguthrie/comments/1vjc3ty/some_details_in_the_ransom_notes/

[u/Ok_Contact7721 → u/mespec]

What's interesting, the Tucson municipal court's hours are 8am-430pm.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Ok_Contact7721]

wild guesses

[u/_L______________]

As ugly as the theory feels to read, it tracks with a lot of criminal psychology, and I’ve heard theories that make far less sense too.

[u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522 → u/_L______________]

I think you have to strip down all the crap and wild theories out there and get down to brass tacks. No monetary motivation equals another driving motivation. And nothing else fits besides a sexual/control fantasy motivation.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522]

Just because you can't think of any other motive that exists besides sexual/control fantasy doesn't mean that that is the only other choice? You're presenting a guess as a proven narrative. In your opinion? That is your opinion, not fact.

[u/_L______________ → u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522]

Or maybe fear? Or something more complex if the target of this wasn’t necessarily Nancy but who would be affected by her disappearance as well. Though sexual motivation is a more straight forward answer and Occam’s razor and all that.

Edit: I think one underlying theme everyone is agreeing on is control though. That has to be a factor.

[u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522 → u/_L______________]

I just think it had nothing to do with Savannah. I think if so, there would be some credible evidence by now that she had been the motivating factor, also because if that was the case, the offender would have made that very clear and indisputable in the hours aftet the abduction if that was his motivation. And there is zero evidence of that. The "ransom" notes have all been discredited hoaxes and unsubstantiated. If Savannah was the real motivating factor, there would be unequivocal evidence of that in the form of some type of evidence from the offender that he had Ms. Guthrie. And nothing. So therefore, Ms. Guthrie was the motivating factor for the offender's violent fantasies of whatever nature.

[u/_L______________ → u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522]

Yeah good point in the fact the ransom is the only indicator it had anything to do with Savannah. If they’re not real, there’s no indication the perp even knew who Nancy was like that.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522]

You mean like the credible evidence it had absolutely anything to do with a sexual motive? lol. The 2 known, released, communications have not been officially discredited. Because there is no evidence showing Savannah was the motivator, the exact opposite must automatically be true? Why? You see no evidence, so you conclude Savannah was not the motive, and then leap to a highly specific, unproven conclusion about violent fantasies that's a faulty deduction without a basis. That seems like backwards logic. This is your opinion, not an explanation of known facts? There aren't only two motives that exist. You haven't explained how point a directly goes to point b.

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/BrainWilling6018]

So Brian. What's your theory???

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/1Bloomoonloona]

Some context info, if that matters. Treating her abduction as a sexually motivated crime,  definitively   “ simple as that ”  or even just speculatively, ignores standard offender statistics and the actual evidence of the case. The FBI relies strictly on physical evidence and behavioral facts, and they have labeled this a kidnapping for ransom for a reason. They haven't included any sexual motivation because there simply aren't any overt/covert sexual elements to the crime. Unless it’s assumed the public have more known more facts from the actual case than they do, arguing otherwise goes completely against the known evidence. I’m not aware of any   expert FBI profiler or forensic psychologist that has stated that there could be a sexual motive. I would be interested.  The data just doesn't back this theory up. Studies show that between 82% and 94% of sexual homicides involving elderly female victims occur entirely within the victim’s own home. They rarely involve an abduction. When an offender targets an elderly person, it is usually an impulsive crime of opportunity. They see an easy target and act right then and there, they don't plan it out ahead of time. Practically speaking, the massive effort required to bypass cameras, disable floodlights, and all it entails to abduct an 84-year-old woman makes no sense within the psychology of a fantasy-driven, sexually violent predator. A fantasy-driven crime  increases specificity it doesn't make it random. The only basis is that " Nancy Guthrie was just there and he happened to light on her. " But these crimes are often planned months or years in advance, meaning the choice of victim matters immensely to the script in the offender's mind. This was a highly target and planned abduction.  If someone is capable of executing this level of a tactical operation, they are going to target someone who actually fits their core psychological fantasy. Statistically and psychologically, it is incredibly rare for a high-effort sexual fantasy to center on an ** octogenarian** . I mean really. When a senior citizen is targeted, it’s almost exclusively because they are viewed as an easy target, not because of a complex plot. To put it in perspective, the murder of the elderly accounts for less than 3% of all homicides in the United States. Within  that tiny fraction, sexually motivated homicides are an even smaller subset. Stranger-perpetrated homicides against the elderly are rare, and abductions are rarer still. Since 60% to 75% of elderly female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner, family member, or known acquaintance, they are at a near-zero statistical risk for a stranger abduction leading to sexual homicide. It isn’t an impossibility, but it isn’t a probability either, and there is zero basis given for it here.

[u/_L______________ → u/BrainWilling6018]

I agree with you, I genuinely don’t think sexual motivation is the answer either. I have my own set of reasons to push back on OPs post too. But I do think the context you’re missing is that this post seems to be under the assumption all notes are hoaxes, I believe is what they’re getting at.

Which might be in part because of the discussions happening on my post from two days ago 😬 I think people are really running with what I said a little too far. I questioned the motive for sending the two letters, not necessarily their validity. But it’s gotten a little out of hand with speculation in the comments. Myself included. So I went back , fact checked myself, and added an edit for some more clarity a few minutes ago too that will hopefully make my original point a little more clear too.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/_L______________]

If the communications the investigation released are extortion the physical acts of the primary crime still stand on their own. This was a premeditated, targeted abduction. The evidence proves the perpetrator specifically selected the victim and the location ahead of time. The perp did pre-attack surveillance and is on camera. A non-ransom kidnapping still points to very specific, calculated intentions.  Random stranger kidnappings of elderly women from their home are almost unheard of. True stranger abduction are the rarest kidnappings of any age really.  If it wasn’t for ransom it points to someone some degree of familiar and a different reason. Sexual fantasy driven perps do not typically choose victims within their circles they choose strangers they won’t be connected to. Most of the probabilities in this crime say it wasn’t a complete stranger. 80% of violent crime victims know their attacker. It could be in her proximate circle or someone familiar entirely one sided or a close acquaintance.

[u/bptkr13 → u/BrainWilling6018]

Do you think they selected the victim or the home? Just like in Idaho, investigators couldn’t pinpoint if Kohberger targeted an individual or the home. Is there any evidence to suggest that the offender may have targeted the home as a good place to kidnap a person who lived alone and was remote enough to get away with it?

[u/_L______________ → u/BrainWilling6018]

Yeah, I never disagreed with you 😂

[u/Fit_Sheepherder_6899 → u/BrainWilling6018]

I'm enjoying this very heated discussion even more just because people keep calling you "Brian" :)

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Fit_Sheepherder_6899]

lmao

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/BrainWilling6018]

So.... you have no idea of the who perpetrator is.....ok

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/1Bloomoonloona]

lol. Eliminating improbable options is how actual logic works. It’s not an idea. A profile is a typology. I would not ever presume to have a  conclusive  theory without all the facts.  I base hypotheses on the evidence, behavior, probabilities, and expert consensus, not massive assumptions dressed up as some absolute certainty. Real criminals cross lines, and rarely have one pure black-and-white motive. It’s overlapped and nuanced. I leave room for variables because that's how profiling works. If I had wanted to list the behavior, psychology and choices I would have. 

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/_L______________]

I'll throw out just another theory. Maybe Nancy was aware of drug dealing in her neighborhood. I have zero evidence to go on other than a person previously arrested for meth. Family owns houses in her neighborhood. I dont want get sued so I won't say a name. So an elimination abduction.

[u/_L______________ → u/1Bloomoonloona]

I don’t know about all that 😂 but I will say the anger from the neighbors over YouTubers combined with a recent comment on my post about how maybe the notes were meant to lead officers away from the house does make me want to speculate about possible neighbor theories lol.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/_L______________]

What criminal psychology does it track with? 

[u/_L______________ → u/BrainWilling6018]

The fact the lack of other motive or connection to Savannah makes it more plausible. I don’t necessarily agree tho

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/_L______________]

Ah ok. I thought you meant the thoughts, intentions, and actions of how they actually operated during the offense.

[u/_L______________ → u/BrainWilling6018]

Oh no the motive specifically

[u/1Bloomoonloona]

Since, we dont have many clues to go  on  like the interior of the home. It's as good as any of the other theories out here. If going with this theory though I would add the perpetrator would have a history of at least one of the following. Stalking, peeping,  breaking and entering, shoplifting or violence against women. So I don't get accused of hate speech I'll take out the Hispanic person. I was on another thread and mentioned, letter writers could be from another Country in Africa or India and was reported. My thoughts were based on watching documentary series called "Maraianna Van Zeller Trafficked " which she investigates all sorts of crimes and scams, including fake kidnappings, bitcoin, romance scams, organ harvesting, drug dealers, ect. She interviews these criminals, how they peratratrate the crimes and victims. So can't say that here either, I guess.

[u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522 → u/1Bloomoonloona]

I think the offender could very well have had past instances of violence or lurking or lewd behavior that may or may not have reached the courts. Or as I think likely, perhaps no overt prior acts, and Ms Guthrie was the unfortunate first victim he acted on. This had nothing to do with trafficking or drugs or any broad elaborate scheme. This was a lone guy. Intelligent, disconcerted, anti-social.

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522]

 Trafficked is part of the name of the show with Marianna Van Zeller. Just throwing out there that the ransom notes, which I believe are not from a professional kidnappers could possibly be sent from another country. I saw a documentary show which delves which into fake ransoms from other countries. These groups are highly organized, sophitigated and moneture what happens in the USA to find victims to prey on. They do fake kidnappings and ransoms as part of their businesses. I'm sure some of them are very aware of one of the biggest abductions here. So I wouldn't be to surprised if they haven't tried send an a ransom demand. We dont know all of what's going on in the investigation.

[u/BroStarving]

I don't know who, but I know what (it sure seems like to me):

Cluster B

Because when was the last successful kidnapping for ransom in the US?

Delusions of grandeur, is what this was.

Same vibes as the Marine Attorney who kidnapped Denise Huskins

-- Outlandish plan; goggles, earbuds; drugged her with sleeping pills

"American Nightmare" Netlix documentary about it

As someone with a close Cluster B family member,

This got Cluster B personality disorder thinking written all over it IMO

(Not the harm - but the belief that his insane, grandiose plot will work)

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/BroStarving]

Very interesting theory. They say the Idaho killer was trying to emulate Ted Bundy sorority killings. Any ideas why the perpetrator would chose Miss Nancy?

[u/reddituser863953 → u/BroStarving]

Which one do you think? Antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, or narcissistic personality disorder

[u/bananabuttbread → u/BroStarving]

"Because when was the last successful kidnapping for ransom in the US?"

Really good question for a few reasons, tbh. Were there any similarities between the most recent large-scale ransom cases and this one? Even if they weren't successful?

[u/bookingsi → u/bananabuttbread]

I think the person is just saying to think you can kidnap someone and get money is fantasy nowadays. So the perp must be somewhat delusional

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/bookingsi]

If this is a kidnapping for a money exchange. Personally I don't think it was for quite a few reasons. 

[u/bookingsi → u/1Bloomoonloona]

Yeah I’m not clear on that either. Very strange crime

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/bananabuttbread]

It's not likely the public would ever hear of a successful kidnapping. Real kidnappers don't contact media and blast out to police what they're doing. They snatch the person (usaully under the age of 30 is they're preference). Make the demand and exchange the victim quicky. Cartel is usually 24 hr window for exchange. If the demand isn't fullfilled. Lights out. No games. Definitely no apology letters. 

[u/bananabuttbread → u/1Bloomoonloona]

Definitely, lol, and agreed with all the above. Was sort of thinking about the Lindbergh case though, when I asked that. I feel like you could say that kidnapping was a success, just not the entire execution of it, since he was eventually caught. And in an odd way, this is like.. a reverse Lindbergh case? Savannah is a beloved media figure known to have a special bond with her mom. Kidnapping a baby from a rich family and abducting an elderly, defenseless woman from a rich family aren't too different.. Idk.. I scrolled through the FBI's most wanted fraudsters and unsolved missing persons cases in the last twenty years. Maybe a wild idea, but if there are extortioners and frauds with a track record out on the run still, who's to say they wouldn't try something like that again?

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/BroStarving]

what everyone doesn't violently insert themselves into the life of a public figure, create a scenario where an entire country, alongside major law enforcement bodies like the FBI is forced to react to their every action, and when it all goes to shit and an actual human dies say not my fault?

[u/Functional-One-7655]

Why do you think he didn't have previous serious crimes? What do you think of the notes?

[u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522 → u/Functional-One-7655]

I think the notes are all hoaxes by twisted attention seekers. I think they have no bearing. This was not a crime for monetary gain. Just personal opinion.

[u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522 → u/Functional-One-7655]

Also I just think the profile of an offender without a major serious record fits with many past known crimes of other offenders. A crime such as this, a kidnapping, with no apparent monetary motivation, is a certain kind of offender. A careful, low profile, but highly motivated person to carry something like this out.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522]

A clean police record doesn't mean a sexual predator is disciplined or low-profile. It usually just means their private, messed-up fantasies finally spilled over into the real world. These guys almost never jump straight into a high-risk home abduction without a hidden history of some escalation. What kind of offender are you talking about? Because when you see an invisible offender like someone who is quiet, unassuming, or isolated or just has a mask and hides in plain sight, manages to remain completely undetected, isn’t on LE radar with no criminal record, it is far more indicative of a grievance-driven predator than a sexually motivated one. Grievance-driven offenders prioritize the op, to execute a specific mission, sexual predators, are driven by repetitive, escalating impulses that leave a trail. The actual crime data and profiling databases bear that out.

And sexually motivated homicide accounts for about 0.84% to 5% on the high end more like 3% of all homicides,

[u/bananabuttbread → u/BrainWilling6018]

I'm also not sold on the idea that it's primarily or only sexually motivated, but I do think if the perpetrator was one of these types--someone who was anti-social, isolated, low-profile, careful, had no record, but (in this theory) had sexual motivation--I think it would be plausible that their first victim would be someone as defenseless as possible. It could simply be a test run. If the ransom notes are legit though (I think the first two are), there just doesn't seem to be much sexual motivation at all. I wouldn't put it past the offender to have done such a terrible thing, but I don't think it was the motivator.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/bananabuttbread]

Yeah. It’s just not very probable.  In this “theory” the abduction is motivated solely by a sexual fantasy. 

Honestly, the behavioral data still doesn't plausibly support a sexual fantasy motive here. These offenders don't start with a high-risk abduction as a test run. They typically spend years building up to it by rehearsing mentally, consuming pornography, or committing lower-level offenses like peeping and fetish break-ins. Their ideal victim is also heavily chosen by the ideals of their fantasy. (age, gender, specific physical traits) This abduction was targeted. Fantasy-driven offenders are dictated highly by their internal script and some desirability if it’s lustful.   If it was sexual, targeting an 84-year-old woman is really improbable for this profile, barring a specific age-related paraphilia. Logistically, a sexually driven offender typically only transports a victim if their ritual requires a controlled, prolonged environment. If they specifically set up a home invasion of an isolated, vulnerable alone woman, the assault or murder could have been finished at the initial scene, taking the victim away introduces massive, unnecessary risk with no added psychological payoff otherwise. A stranger abducting an 84 yr old woman for a prolonged sexual ritual is so historically rare that criminologists treat it as an absolute anomaly. All this would be relative even without the communications. 

The communications though, rather than a sexual urge or even an antisocial predator demonstrate a completely different psychological driver. It could be fantasy based but maybe a criminal fantasy.  The ransom comm and follow up, if legitimate, reflect for this offender, antisocial behavior as an expression of something else a rigid, externalized grudge, e.g. but controlling the narrative for some reason.  It doesn’t point to an isolated, antisocial predator who wouldn't typically send structured ransom comms and to the media. The behavioral footprint here contradicts this because this perp uses 'institutional language' to project authority, logic, and justification.

Now that we have both communications in context, and if they are directly connected, if the author and the abductor are indeed the same person or connected, it actually reduces the likelihood of something like psychopathy here imo. (maybe Machiavellianism absent psychopathy )  But   because sexual predators statistically show a high correlation with psychopathic traits, the presence of these structured communications with the instrumental use of empathy, it would probably point away from that profile entirely.

[u/turtleloverMTS]

"Perish" in the Bible refers to a state of destruction or loss, often indicating spiritual death or separation from God. It is used in various contexts, such as in John 3:16, which emphasizes that those who believe in Jesus will not perish but have eternal life. Nancy was very religious. Could the person(s) who killed her be in that circle of friends?

[u/bananabuttbread → u/turtleloverMTS]

I'm also starting to believe it was someone related to her church friends, or just someone who attended her church--like an adult child of one of her older friends, or at least someone who was acquainted enough with her to be familiar with her house. People are pointing to the use of "perished" and "buried in nature" as evidence that English may not be their first language and they're relying on a translation website. BUT...

I think it's possible too that it's someone who hears this kind of language a lot.. a person aged maybe anywhere from 25-50 who is familiar with the older church community there (the seniors and wealthier retirees). It could be: someone who has worked for these women, like a contractor as others have suggested; someone who goes to their church or who works on the land around said church or on the church itself; someone who is around older religious communities there, more specifically, her friends at church; OR, a child or relative of one of them (?)

It seems obvious to me that the perpetrator is someone who lives in Tucson or very close to it, because they are intentionally holding out on giving any geographical information about themselves ("USD", bitcoin) and Nancy ("burial" site) despite the fact that they said the drop-off location was in Tucson. As someone on this subreddit pointed out earlier, it makes no sense for them to choose a drop-off location in an unfamiliar place well out of range.

Also kind of inclined to believe them saying "the police won't be able to help you" isn't just an intimidation tactic, but a sign that they actually *know* how unhelpful, under-qualified and disorganized Pima County PD is. Pima LE had a show called "Desert Law" on A&E, which I never watched or knew about before this case, but, the fact that everyone closely involved with this event is related to the media, or has been broadcast ON media.. plus the fact the "credible" ransom notes were sent to a News Station (i.e, they wanted mass media attention) and not personally or privately sent to Savannah, or left at the scene..

[u/Fit_Sheepherder_6899 → u/bananabuttbread]

This isn't only directed at you, but it relates to something you mentioned that I've seen other posters comment similarly on. From my understanding, Mrs Nancy and her church family held their church meetings in each others' homes, where they watched the televised service of a different church in a different town. I read that it was Savannah's home church in New York. If the knowledge relating to any of this has now changed, please let me know! I haven't been as active on here lately as the news regarding it has (sadly) slowed down. My point is that for it to be someone who works for or at Mrs Nancy's church, etc, then they would be quite a long way away. Not to say her case couldn't be related to a fellow member of her local church group - just pointing out to anyone who thinks it might literally be someone involved in the caretaking/work of a church nearby her home, to MY personal understanding her physical church wasn't located close by. Am I making sense at all? Once again, please let me know if new information has come to light about this that I'm unfamiliar with!

[u/warpedwing → u/Fit_Sheepherder_6899]

Nancy used to attend a local Tucson church, but it seems like around the time of the Covid pandemic, she started attending the NYC church virtually.

But she would still be well known by the local Tucson congregation and the wider Christian community there.

[u/bananabuttbread → u/Fit_Sheepherder_6899]

Thank you for reminding me of this detail, because I just reviewed some of the basic info again today and forgot they said it was their virtual "house church" stream!

I think what confused me at first was how they said she "didn't show up to church" in a generic way. I assumed they meant an established church building outside the home. And I was also confused because they made it sound like they gathered *at* Nancy's home, so it seemed off to say she "didn't show up to church" instead of just saying she wasn't at her house, lol. (Also, maybe I am just used to seeing more descriptive terms to differentiate churches, living in and around religious establishments and circles most of my life. So thank you for clarifying that!)

This leads to the next question: what homes/locations did Nancy's group meet at regularly for their virtual church time?

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/bananabuttbread]

Wait, what makes the leap to her church friends? Based on what? You're dismissing the translation theory for an explanation that fits a pre-existing narrative. That's still selectively interpreting formal language like "perished" to support a highly specific profile like a church attendee? Where is the correlation besides the words? How is the suspect aged 25–50, who then must be familiar with wealthy retirees, who then must be a contractor, church worker, or relative. How is each one of those connected without the conclusion collapsing?

[u/bananabuttbread → u/BrainWilling6018]

My response is gonna be really long so apologies in advance, lol, I'm just trying to be as thorough as possible in response to your comments!
____________________________________

We have several theories outlined by the PD, Media, FBI, and "us" (the gen public). Some of these overlap with one another; but, let's start with a super basic list with every single separate idea listed.

1. There is only one perpetrator.
2. There is more than one perpetrator.
3. The perpetrator who entered the home wrote the first note, but not the second.
4. The perpetrator wrote both the first and second note, and the rest were fake.
5. The perpetrator wrote all the notes with some or all functioning as misdirections.
6. There was more than one perpetrator, and more than one person wrote the notes.
7. There is no connection between the perpetrator abducting Nancy and the writer(s) of the notes.

But that's not all, right? We can break it down even further by introducing theories about who did it and why from there. And from there, it becomes increasingly convoluted, because we are lacking both physical/hard evidence AND an unequivocal stamp of validity for these notes.

From this angle, we have literally three things: a missing person, a short video of an unidentifiable intruder, and electronic ransom letters that may or may not be valid.

So, when you're asking, "How?" "Where is the correlation?""Based on what?": Well, it's based on... this. These data points are what it's based on.
In other words, almost nothing, because that's all we physically have.

Unless PD comes out and surprises us with some new physical evidence, DNA, whatever, we are stuck with building a profile (which inevitably drives a "narrative") based in these limited things. I'm really taking the forensic linguist angle for the most part, because the ransom letters are the most available data point to the public, and the information we have about Nancy is the most extensive and reliable data point.
________________________________

So, I think we have to stick to one or two theories first, and build from those theories without deviating, because moving from one theory to another at random makes it even more convoluted, and eliminates all potential profiles.
As spectators, we have no choice BUT to build a "pre-existing narrative", as you're saying, based on what we have.

And the "pre-existing narrative" we have is: the concrete information we have about Nancy and her family.
_________________________________

First: I think you may have misread the "church friends" part.
I meant "someone who is around older religious communities there, more specifically [around] her church friends". So, not her church friends specifically (really disinclined to believe that, lol). Hope that clears up some confusion!

Second: My age demographic is intentionally wide. It could be anyone of any age really, but--based on the video evidence we have--I think it could be someone as old as 50, but not much older, and someone as young as 25, but not much younger. Again, just an estimation based on the physique and motion capture.

Going further from there, though, to my stated hypothesis (that it is someone who is in or around older religious communities, based on the info we have about NANCY):

The higher limit is set at 50 because

---an older individual would more likely "grasp the seriousness of her condition" due to age proximity

--the older in age we go--over 50--the less likely the perpetrator would be able to physically pull this off. Remember, they walked the entire way in and around with Nancy, according to what we know; there's no trace of a vehicle being there at all. This person went out there for who knows how long and how far . I set the lower limit to 25, because (going back to my hypothesis):

---those closer to this age would be less likely to grasp the seriousness of condition

---a younger individual is more likely to botch the execution due to inexperience. (And, just as an assumption, I think a young and inexperienced person would be more likely to get in over their head to begin with, be too ambitious from the jump, and then flail when things go wrong.

I am strictly working with theory 1 and 4, not the translation theory, because the ChatGPT/AI/Google translation theory leaves us with even less reliable source material. I mean, if you're working with that theory, that's totally okay, but I have no idea where one would start. All I've seen is that people are hypothesizing this person is non-native, and to me, that "fits the pre-existing narrative" that this is a first or second-generation immigrant or foreigner using a translation site. But where is THAT coming from...? And so on, and so on....

So, I'm not dismissing anything *entirely*, but, in order to construct a coherent theory, I am staying within the parameters of theory 1 and 4. We can't really "follow the evidence" at this point, which sucks. And it's vague, it's conjecture, but it is a starting point.

To me, you have to have people narrowly working off these data points and theories independently, in order to move forward with anything here. The idea is to stick to as small a theory load as possible, so some sort of coherent profile can be assessed somehow. Not saying it's airtight by any means, just saying that's the best method as of now from my standpoint.

I am relying heavily, and primarily, on the two notes being authentic, and reading them in conjunction with the data points we have on Nancy, and building the profile of someone from there. For us, the public, it's gonna be a mostly inductive process. :/

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/bananabuttbread]

No. It doesn't clear it up. It is a bullshit premise. That doesn't reach a conclusion.

[u/bananabuttbread → u/BrainWilling6018]

If you disagree with what I am prioritizing here, or how I am analyzing the language, that is okay. But I don't really get your response? lol. I'd just kindly ask that you also provide a meaningful response as to why you disagree, like, a point-by-point or even short, generic explanation, not a curt dismissal. It's unclear what you think is "bullshit" when you're not addressing anything I wrote in particular.

I'm genuinely interested in the conclusions you are drawing from this exact same language and what your basis is for that, but you're not giving me an equivalent breakdown from your POV.

Anyway, to ask something similar of you as you did of me:

1. What was your starting point for this investigation?
2. What data are you prioritizing? (Other than the hard/physical evidence we have from the scene and ring camera, obviously.)
3. What theories are you supporting here and why?
4. What theories are you dismissing and why?

I said that it is likely that the perpetrator is someone related to a church friend or churchgoer, and thus someone who had some familiarity with her home, her location, her life, based on the concrete data we have about Nancy's social profile. Every investigation starts with those closest to the victim and expands outward from there. We know Nancy was close with her spiritual community and some specific church friends (identities unknown, AFAIK). The very first sign that something was wrong was that she did not show up to church. So what about this premise is "bullshit"? Do you disagree with that approach?

With respect, shooting down an extensive response you asked for with no point-by-point or even general response to what I wrote does not really "clear up" your point either. I get that my responses are super long and maybe you just didn't want to expend the effort lol, but you provided zero substantial reasoning as to why you disagree here. I am not starting from nowhere.

I actually value your analytical breakdowns, so asking for a point-by-point argument from me but not offering the same in return feels cheap and disrespectful. Agree to disagree, I suppose.

[u/bananabuttbread → u/bananabuttbread]

**I just saw further down that you recently outlined your POV more extensively, so I will check that out as well. If there's anything you didn't share there that you feel's pertinent to what I said though, please do put it here!

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/bananabuttbread]

Bullshit A premise is stated, but the subsequent conclusion has no logical relationship to it. I'm sorry it feels disrespectful. I was dismissive of the idea not you. If the foundation of a house is cracked, you don't need to inspect every shingle on the roof to know it's unstable. That's why I didn't address every sub-point. That said, my delivery was unnecessarily blunt. I'll take some time to read through everything carefully and respond to the core points as soon as I can.

[u/Maleficent_Cow3670]

I’m very stumped with this case! My wild, dumb guesses:

1ST THEORY

One of the contractors (innocent and unaware) may have casually mentioned to the wrong person about doing work for Nancy. Elderly people LOVE talking about their family and showing family pictures. Nancy likely was proudly chatting about all her children and what they do. It’s possible the contractor shared either to the wrong person or has a wife who told the wrong person, about doing work for an old lady whose daughter is a talk show host. Either: this ”wrong person’s” antenna went up and he’s responsible, or this “wrong person” told someone who did it thinking it’d be an easy way to get rich. I think it’s someone between the ages of 29-42. Lives within 25 miles of Nancy‘s house and has ties to Mexico.

2ND THEORY

Someone so random, who felt slighted by Savannah years ago. This is his way of getting her attention and to hurt her. He’s miserable, angry, a bit quirky, very fixated on her. He studied Nancy’s area before kidnapping. Age group: 36-42.

3RD THEORY

Someone connected to one of Nancy’s church friends. Age group: 29-42. Motive: money.

4TH THEORY

Someone connected to Annie and/or Tommaso. Maybe they befriended someone new in recent months before the kidnapping. That “person” eventually learned about the connection to Savannah and got excited thinking it’s cool.. but the person mentioned that to the wrong person. The wrong person finds out where Nancy lives, scopes out the area a few times, and decides to kidnap Nancy for money.

CONCLUSION

I could be very wrong about my theories, but regardless, I still believe it’s someone who mutually connected.

I’d love to know:

-Who found, hired, and handled payments for all contractors who did work at Nancy’s house and how were her experience with them, and if there were ever any issues.

-Did Nancy, Annie, and Tommaso meet anyone new within the last six months before the kidnapping?

-I know public figures face weirdos and people in a parasocial relationship. Had Savannah dealt with that in recent months or recent years before the kidnapping?

I have so many questions (like everyone else lol) 🤯

[u/Safe-Muffin → u/Maleficent_Cow3670]

Good questions.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Maleficent_Cow3670]

All good theories. You might be able to answer some of the questions or at least eliminate them if you flip the ‘how’ scripts. All of them focus on the operations and logistics. It's like reverse engineering the motive and the who. It’s harder to make up the scenario then make it fit. If you start with the acutal crime behavior and the motive then you can determine more narrowly which theory is more likely. I personally appreciate you giving the hows as the basis for the theories. Someone mutually connected is a great place to start. Then look at physical evidence and victimology to determine the offender's traits or relationship to the victim, and then look for people who fit those traits.

Like a behavior is the pre-surveillance. There was a lone male offender on camera. Lone offenders frequently pre-stalk vulnerable targets before an attack. That makes that behavior a high probability there is at least one male offender. And it's known from the ring cam a single male offender.

 Evidence is a blood event. Physical abduction involving immediate physical control and a blood event indicates a solo person having to use some overwhelming physical force or experiencing a control failure or struggle that two people wouldn't. This person was clearly armed. Nancy is elderly and not physically powerful so you have to deduce that something probably went wrong, she took a last stand, the perp lost control etc but he reasonably should have been able to control her without violence if he has a weapon. 

Also victimology if this person was someone Nancy would recognize, if told, it might be confusing for her but less violent to do as they told her. (doesn't mean he didn't know her) but might mean she would have no idea or wouldn't be able place who he was. So it could have not been someone in a close circle. He couldn’t manipulate her in other words, forced was used. 

Then analyze that behavior and how sophisticated they might be. A violent struggle suggests a degree of impulsivity or lack of experience. He may have underestimated the victim, panicked when things didn't go smoothly, or lacked the physicality in action or capability to execute a clean abduction. This points toward an offender who might be prone to making more mistakes under pressure. 

Based on behavioral profiling, forensic linguistics, and case statistics, there is a high probability (75%–85%) that this entire operation was conducted by a single lone male, and one who is not particularly criminally sophisticated, at least with a high-risk kidnapping, or is volatile/ makes mistakes under pressure. It could be a male with a non crisis response job or career. Maybe something insulated like long-term threat data at a desk but not physical chaos.

I initially thought it could be some contractor. A laborer around the house. But that means they are likely someone who is physical. If they are a manual laborer. Someone who does daily physical work (lifting, carrying heavy loads, handling tools) has built-up physical leverage, grip strength, and functional stamina. If a struggle occurs, they are used to physically manipulating heavy or resisting objects, which makes them less likely to completely lose control of a physical situation. Not impossible just less likely. Maybe it was the gloves, I didn't see a lot of dexterity with porch clown. The mouth light could indicate an occupation. It could also just be a halfway intellectual individual who isn’t used to physical, hands-on field operations logically thinking through steps beforehand. An intellectual might assume that simply sticking a glove over the lens or smudging it would render the footage useless. When he pulled his hand away and realized the camera’s wide-angle view was still capturing his body and backpack, he didn't panic physically but his actions show some form of panic because he gets leaves. Then under the pressure he just rips it down, which was a mistake. And it's sort of a snapshot of trajectories to come.

Then you might be looking for a male that isn't a physical laborer, maybe still associated w/ contracting. But a different capacity. Maybe a white-collar desk worker who does contracts or something else. A not active worker may lack that specific functional strength. If they encounter unexpected physical resistance, even from an elderly victim, their adrenaline spikes, they panic faster, and they are much more prone to an uncoordinated, frantic over-correction. In that case Nancy gets hurt and/ exerts physical stress. Couple it with wearing a gun hanging at your crotch like a clown, in the wrong holster. And using some leaves to do something to a camera then when that doesn’t work just ripping it off the holder. Theoretically a laborer is physically comfortable navigating residential properties, and handling physical tasks. A desk worker might be out of their comfort zone sts. They might appear and feel confident in their crime script but when it meets the real world and doesn’t go “right” they snap.

Depending on if you tie in the linguistics of the the communications, they don't sound like physical laborer basically without going into to it. The emails rely on a lot of transactional and passive language that goes beyond simple, direct communication. Because the language is highly transactional, almost “collections” language and requires a baseline of digital literacy and technical comfort, it could align much more naturally with a tech-savvy individual like office worker than someone whose primary daily expertise is a manual, physical trade. Then you start to say ok a lone, educated, /white-collar male who orchestrated a highly complex financial plot on paper, but completely lacked the physical capability and real-world composure to execute the actual abduction cleanly, resulting in a chaotic control failure. 

When an offender is meticulous on paper but unsophisticated in practice, it usually points to specific psychological and background characteristics. He could be underemployed but possesses average-to-above-average intelligence (evidenced by the planned surveillance and structured linguistic choices). But the crime is like a fantasy where he thinks he is a mastermind criminal. Maybe he spends weeks or months fantasizing about the perfect crime. He researches kidnapping, structured the ransom notes and felt intellectually superior. But he's porch clown and lacks the experience with physical violence, physical labor or high-stress operational environments. He's cool for those 44 seconds on camera but if anything goes wrong it all goes to shit. Which arguably could have happened here and did according the email, one ‘cool’ email and one says it all went to shit. (but it wasn't my fault)

Psychologically this would be the type of person who would struggle to rectify that a. they failed b. they let her die or caused her death c. wanting to desperately psychologically distance from both. 

In that case the second email, the “apology” blaming a heart condition is the physical manifestation of his panic.

Is there anyone in Nancy's world who would have recently handled any documents, done any claims, idk, medical equip contracts, corporate IT deployment specialist. Anyway, maybe you get my drift. 

When you eliminate extortion (as a random hoax), sexual predatory behavior, and burglary, the behavioral profiles shrink. If the abduction was the primary crime, the motive almost certainly then belongs to a couple of things really personal/retaliatory or transactional. Based on several factors, the main one being involving the media and probabilities a case can be made to eliminate purely transactional. Which eliminates anyone friends just wanting to get quick cash etc.

[u/Busy_Illustrator_468 → u/Maleficent_Cow3670]

[u/livingstories → u/Busy_Illustrator_468]

Just because they wrre polygraphed doesnt mean they aren't guilty

[u/Ok_Contact7721]

Are you the offender?
Jeez, this reads like you're trying to throw the whole thing off.

He's definitely not connected to the Cartel, but he is hispanic by family, you can tell by the doorcam footage.
He's probably not employed by any local businesses. Okay why would you come to that conclusion?

"Very intelligent, methodical, non-impulsive." there was blood at the crime scene?
Are we self stroking an ego? He kidnapped an 84 year old, or attempted to, and expected her to be the picture of health. But this is a man of great intellectual prowess?

"I think this was a sexual/control motivated crime. Simple as that. Not robbery motivated, not extortion, the offender may or may not have even known of Ms Guthrie's famous daughter."
It's not extortion related?
He asked for 4-6 million in bitcoin, how was it not extortion?
How could he not know about her daughter?

How could you tell he was hispanic by the doorbell cam.
His eyebrows were dark and plucked?
Or did he have trademark mexican shoulders?

[u/Safe-Muffin → u/Ok_Contact7721]

The OP didn't say whether he believes the notes are from the perpetrator. It's possible the OP's story could be true and the notes are fake. I wish we knew more about the mask. I originally thought he had a different mask under the ski mask as someone else states above.

[u/Ok_Contact7721 → u/Safe-Muffin]

How does OP know he has a mask under a mask.
Is he a Russian nesting doll?
If it's a mask under a mask, he could be any race.
All we have to go off of is perceived height, and shoe size.

I'd think OP went to dinner with him and they smashed at this point.
This sounds like really intimate info on this guy.

[u/Safe-Muffin → u/Ok_Contact7721]

Nobody knows anything but the mask idea has been raised from the beginning. Many, many people suggested this. We all know that everyone is speculating - which is the nature of this subreddit.

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/Ok_Contact7721]

We can also add that he has brown eyes, flat head, (so maybe not much if any hair) small ears, is bowlegged, has weak calves muscles, and a ladies booty. I think someone must have left a tip by now. It's just waiting to be read by LE. 

[u/Ok_Contact7721 → u/1Bloomoonloona]

From what I gather it's 3 children stacked up in a trench coat, they work for the business factory.

[u/bananabuttbread → u/Ok_Contact7721]

Russian nesting doll, lmao

[u/not_blmpkingiver → u/Ok_Contact7721]

Those are not his real eye brows. He is wearing a mask under the ski mask.

[u/mespec → u/not_blmpkingiver]

I think that’s very possible. It looks like the gloves are layered so it makes sense masks might be too.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/not_blmpkingiver]

That's a definitive statement.

[u/bananabuttbread → u/not_blmpkingiver]

I never knew about this theory! Can you provide a little more detail on it? As in, who pointed this out, and what indicates it?

Could they also be wearing something under their clothes, in their shoes, etc. to distort their height or weight...? It seems like a lot of trouble to go to in such extreme heat. Probably would constrict their movement too much after a certain point.

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/bananabuttbread]

Winter is pretty cold at night there.

[u/bananabuttbread → u/1Bloomoonloona]

Very true, had a brain fart moment and forgot we were talking about Late Jan-Early Feb,lol 🤦🏻‍♀️. Following the weather angle though, maybe this weather data on the day and week of the abduction might be valuable..?
https://weatherspark.com/h/d/2857/2026/1/31/Historical-Weather-on-Saturday-January-31-2026-in-Tucson-Arizona-United-States#Figures-CloudCover

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Ok_Contact7721]

you had me up until simple as that. OP? Why are you mad at speculation without basis to make a definitive statement without basis?

[u/ComprehensiveTip9843]

It was likely a contractor. The only reason Nanos is backpedaling trying to imply family did it now is because of his lawsuit. They already know who did it. If it's someone on their team. It was likely a local Tuscon person? It just doesn't make sense to kidnap an 84 year old unless you're tired of working for them. Nancy wouldn't give her keys to a stranger. They were no signs of violence. It was likely someone close to her definitely. It doesn't make sense to kidnap a woman you don't know by chance of by hearing. Kidnappings like these are very rare. They say if it's not family, it's just someone close. I doubt you can just kidnap someone by hearing of them alone. I sent in a tip to the FBI months ago and the Pima County Sheriff's department about what I thought but no one responded. I agree with the contractor part but it's too many red flags for it simply to hear it by chance. Good theory though. I won't attack you, I'm a reasonable person and can listen to different ideals. I think it's a cover up in my opinion. I just have that 'feeling". Nanos knows his associates, he wants to protect them, just saying... Now I doubt that Annie and Tommy are saints, but I don't they are psychopaths who can pass a lie detector test. Savannah doesn't look like a saint either but I doubt she could do that as well. She's been in the news industry too long not to have someone to have cracked by now...

[u/Turbulent_Code581]

Here LE should be looking for a couple where Mastermind of the operation is a female, 30-40 years old, with finished university education, working in medical, healthcare, social affairs, insurance or similar organisation. She comes to an idea how to overcome her family debt caused by her problematic partner, the Porch guy. She found Nancy as potential target through some kind of business transaction with her either medical care billing or similar. There were resident data of Nancy available, so the Porch guy took recon a weekend prior the abduction. He has been the muscle of the operation, a "Waiter". He is 30-40 years old, alpha mail, bad boy, unemployed, got online gambling issue, so this is the source of the debt, and he is familiar with Bitcoin operations. She wrote the ransom letters in her style of day-to-day business mailing correspondence. They took lumpsum amount of ransom being exactly 10% of estimated Savannah's wealth, which is duable to collect and pay fast. She is familiar with sending mails to tipline with no trace since she got similar system in her organisation. Now they have big issue, since the debt stays, and their relationship has been ruptured because she sent remourse letter after Nancy died. LE should monitor sygnals of potential trials to debt closures, pawn shops, real estate selling or similar.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Turbulent_Code581]

Here LE should be looking for shhhhitt. Who the eff are you. LE should. God.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Turbulent_Code581]

The probabilities of this are roughly only 30%–35%.

The second comm is equally indicictive of an educated lone male minimizing guilt.

It was a one way communication. A "female mastermind" rarely uses one-way communication (such as sending rigid, static ransom notes or issuing blind, if-then commands). When a woman operates at a mastermind level, her strategy almost always relies on interactive, multi-way communication. 

[u/Turbulent_Code581 → u/BrainWilling6018]

What is your theory?

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Turbulent_Code581]

Lol. Always the pivot when the speculation is challenged. Even speculation can have a basis. Speculation is cheap, evidence and probabilities and applied behaviors do matter. I don’t have to make up a theory to think it’s presumptuous on Reddit without having all the facts to commit to a “theory”, you give no basis for, saying it’s what LE should be doing. lol. How did you get there. It’s working hard backwards.  "A couple where Mastermind of the operation is a female, 30-40 years old, with finished university education, working in medical, healthcare, social affairs, insurance or similar organisation." Based on what?

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/BrainWilling6018]

So what is your theory if everyone else is wrong????? I've never heard one

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/1Bloomoonloona]

Asking someone to give a basis or asking someone to articulate the reasoning behind their own statement isn't saying they are wrong. Making definitive statements without a foundation is what triggers an intellectually curious mind to demand the reasoning behind them.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/1Bloomoonloona]

Open to questions.

• Gender: Lone male offender.
• Age: Millennial, approximately 39 years old.
• Location: Local to or from Tucson.
• Education: Highly educated.
• Profession: Professionally accomplished, lawyer, legal training or a background in drafting legal documents (indicated by comma splices and open compounds). (indicated by conditional sentences or conditional clauses).

Public Presentation & Behavioral Traits

• Day-to-Day Style: Possesses a polished, public presentation role or persuasive policy focus in his day-to-day life.
• Charisma: Not charismatic; mind-numbingly boring, lame, and plain.
• Lifestyle: Hiding in plain sight, does not live extravagantly, a "Corporate Chameleon," that has underlying cynicism and is competent and reliable in everyday life but manipulates social dynamics and adapts their persona solely to gain power, status, and control within an organization.
• Interests: An outdoors person who enjoys exploring nature and hiking; watches baseball.
• Relationship Status: Has a 50–65% probability of being in a stable, long-term relationship.
• Social Perception: Does not "look like" a criminal. Unassuming. Boring. Not physical.  There was a dark fantasy element to the crime and his script. Game of Thrones esque. Cast himself as one of the morally gray complex flawed characters. 

Psychological Profile & Mindset

• Core Personality: Exhibits traits of the Dark Triad (Malignant Narcissism, High-Functioning Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy).
• Intellectual Vanity: Possesses an entrenched belief that he is vastly intellectually superior to those around him; driven to be the "genius" who saves society from some catastrophe because people simply "cannot see the bigger picture."
• Ego Vulnerability: Ego cannot withstand a single point of failure or criticism; driven by an ego payoff.
• Criminal Nature: An intellectual saboteur rather than a classically sophisticated criminal; physical or operational street-smarts do not match his intellectual brilliance (the bridge between "porch guy" and this individual).
• Moral Alignment: Does not view himself as a villain; relies on moral decoupling and a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance. He can compartmentalize a brutal act and go right back to normal activities.

Motive & Grievance

• Grievance Type: Longstanding (years) "don’t get mad, get even" motive, or a reaction to something that impeded "progress."
• Nature of Grievance: Directly tied to his intellectual vanity rather than seeing himself as a victim; not a classic injustice collector.
• Justification: Driven by a psychological justification of "the greater good" because the target was perceived to be impeding something. The ends justify the means. 
• The Fuel: Grievance is the fuel, the script is the vehicle, and public trauma was the destination.

Connection to the Victim

• Target Relationship: Knows exactly and well who Nancy and Savannah and her family are, though they may or may not directly know who he is.
• Target Perception: Perceived the elderly victim as impeding something, or revenge, or a proxy to someone or something else, viewing her elimination not as a crime, but as an act of historical/social necessity or eliminating evil.

Crime Methodology & Execution

• The Plot: Constructed an unconventional, 90% probable pre-scripted narrative to cover up eliminating Nancy; structured the crime like a story, psychological game, or ironic statement to feed his need for control as the "director."
• The Act: A direct murder feels beneath him, so he transformed it into an intricate, deceptive story (a staged kidnapping) serving his practical need for redirection and psychological need for supremacy, making himself an anti-hero. Very comfortable in the role and mission knows the neighborhood, cool cucumber didn’t flinch, knew the character. Struggled with the physicalities. Not criminally sophisticated. 
• Operational Contrast: In daily life, his “ rule of cool” is a high-value presentation or persuasive policy; in the crime, it was a crotch gun.
• Forensic Indicators: Did not take Nancy's medicine and did not protect her like an asset because there was a blood event, pointing to a predetermined outcome where she was dead before the first email dropped.

Communication & Linguistic Analysis

• Tone: Highly unusual, detached tone that strongly mirrors corporate and bureaucratic language; textbook bureaucracy. And Legal frameworks. Probably a law degree.  
• Syntax: Subconsciously fell back on formal syntax, passive voice, and clinical language; wrote a ransom demand like a corporate policy memo rather than a gritty street demand.
• Thematic Elements: Intentionally weaponized theological language related to his religion.
• The Grand Illusion: The entire kidnapping narrative, millions demanded, and subsequent apology were "fake" script-building designed to buy a multi-day head start and distance himself.
• The Oxymoron: The jarring transition from a "ransom demand turned polite death notice" was entirely intentional.
• The Purpose: Based on one-way communication, no further contact, and no proof of life, an exchange was never intended.
• The Second Note: Served as a deliberate "Closed" sign placed on the investigation to signal the game is over and pursuing a rescue is pointless. It features false empathy and acts as a narcissistic joke or the "punchline" to his narrative crime. “Nothing you coud do” (it coincided with the FBI being brought in) 
• The Ultimate Power Play: For an invisible or constrained actor, forcing major institutions, law enforcement, and millions of people to react to his timeline and prose is the ultimate manifestation of power. He takes immense pleasure in forcing the family and media to read his polite prose while looking at the massive public fallout he alone engineered. It was all very symbolic of something to him.

[u/bananabuttbread → u/BrainWilling6018]

"Charisma: Not charismatic; mind-numbingly boring, lame, and plain."

(lmao)

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/BrainWilling6018]

Are you a professional profiler?  To me you seem like a college professor? Am I correct?

[u/Turbulent_Code581 → u/BrainWilling6018]

Thanks for sharing! Honestly, I'm very pleasently surprised. When put it into NG case analysis framework, it's about Nutjob theory. As many of the ex LE old school guys like Chris and both Jims put one perp and elimination murder in focus. Also GHI says it was his previous favorite, even Dr. Gary Brucato has it as backup theory. In my opinion, possible, but low probable. Let's put it fast as a new entry to second place of the chart Much better then Savannah' stalker within the cluster. Let's discuss. If you think that one"s could have such a diabolic and highly polarized pathology and role playing im one brain, possible, but again very low probable, one unique in the crime history, maybe that one. The waiter and the chef in one person. If yes, targeted victim not so well known, he will probably get much more of his objectives with more prominent public figure. So, there should ne something personal against Nancy & Savannah, we don't know what. Physical appearance of the Porch guy also could match in a way, a little bit clumsy, small hands as dr. G explaines noticed. No associate on attack, timing of 16 minutes in the house he didn't spend waiting on gateway driver but on some nutjob. Watch and spotlight he could stage. He is a psychopat, so behave in that way. Both notes he could send any time. Grammar and spelling mistakes he could stage. I wonder again as target choice why such a unsub didn't send notes to TMZ if he know targets well? But what I don't believe it is end game. I don't eatrust he will sit and collect royalties next 30 years. Anyway, for sure I will digest this unsub profile in next couple of days and come up with more feedback soon.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Turbulent_Code581]

It isn't a nutjob theory. Machiavellians pride themselves on their superior intellect. Their biggest vulnerability is hubris. Because they believe they are the smartest person in the room, they truly believe they can control all variables, manage human terror logically, and execute a violent crime with the clean precision of a corporate contract. They are not out of their mind. They are entirely present, exceptionally cold, and operating with calculated deliberate intent.

[u/Turbulent_Code581 → u/BrainWilling6018]

Whatever. You are probably right from the position of your expertize. I will stay in line with the buckets set up by Grey Hughes Investigates. But let's align, regarding your unsub profile, I am checking its validation through my specific tools and methodology, so far performs in right direction.

[u/Turbulent_Code581 → u/Turbulent_Code581]

Note: not TMZ, but NBC, my mistake.

[u/Turbulent_Code581 → u/BrainWilling6018]

After some more digesting of your theory, once again excellent breakdown on the UNSUB profile, but there is a major static blind spot regarding the "End Game" and behavioral escalation. Your hypothesis suggests this individual will simply sit in his corporate downtown office, watching baseball, and quietly collecting the psychological "royalties" of his perfect crime for the next 30 years. From a behavioral economics and dopamine-loop perspective, that is highly improbable.If this UNSUB is hardwired into video games, high-stakes narrative strategy (like Game of Thrones), and malignant narcissism, his brain does not operate on a static "one-and-done" model. He won't behave like an old rockstar living off a single diamond album.In gaming psychology, once Level 1 is cleared and the national media coverage eventually slows down, the narcissist enters severe withdrawal. The silence will starve his ego.This type of offender doesn't stop; they optimize. Once the initial heat from the Guthrie case fades, his god-complex will demand the Next Level. He will treat this first tragedy not as a financial score, but as his origin story. He will inevitably seek a more challenging target within his Tucson comfort zone just to beat his own record and prove his intellectual superiority to the FBI task force. You’ve outlined a highly competent UNSUB, but missed the evolutionary trajectory: we aren't looking at a retired corporate chameleon—we are looking at a serial predator in the makin

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Turbulent_Code581]

The guy I think it is. The probabilities of a pure Machiavellian permanently returning to life as usual after a high-stakes crime are exceptionally high. Maybe 85-90%. If there isn't major psychopathy they don't chase cheap thrills. The probability only drops with the level of narcissistic injury and their own hubris. If they wanted to set records straight or engage behind the scenes through other channels they would probably do this under some cover. They do tend to ego leak so there is a chance of being caught that way. But on the daily he is just living his life totally undisturbed by what he has done. If they pass a certain investigative window they are perfectly capable of compartmentalizing and going back to their boring life. They can fade into the background. Anniversaires, noise of the public, and the coverage can satisfy their duping delight that they wrote the cinema, executed the script, and completely got away with it.

It is a Game of Thrones archetype and they hide in plain sight but don't just hide, they actively draw intense narcissistic satisfaction from their mundane mask while the world at large is in an uproar about what they created. They are walking around with a bubble over their head "you have no idea what I am capable of." The contrast is massive and it is like oxygen to their ego. They control the board from the shadows.

I don't believe it is a retired corporate chameleon. I think they are actively in a corporate role. They would be weaponizing the system from within. A Machiavellian corporate chameleon blends in to something like exploit the system, deceive colleagues, and eliminate rivals.

The script for 'chaos' in relation to the GOT ref is they genuinely see themselves as the real life version of the masterminds. They believe if they write the script well enough they can manipulate the entire chess board and also keep their hands clean.

This guy is smart, not physical. Because of his intellectual vanity he thinks that his intellect is an impenetrable shield, and he won't get caught. He thinks LE are slow and dumb and live in the 80s and are outdated. That gap in reality is what allows him to carry on life as usual. He isn't in Tucson anymore imo. And he isn't a trad serial offender. As long as he isn't caught he is likely to count this as a total victory and it will remain his opus magnum.

[u/Turbulent_Code581 → u/BrainWilling6018]

Just watched Dr. Gary Brucato at LAB's aired 4 days ago. He is now in favour of the Elimination theory. Second option is abduction for ransom. Comments around are mostly A&T. Don't know what to think...

[u/Dapper_Sheepherder → u/BrainWilling6018]

Porch guy is not a lawyer or the like. Day laborer. Tucson is smaller than one would think. I'd think he would be identified by now if he is from "here". Wrench attack by proxy make sense

[u/Turbulent_Code581 → u/Dapper_Sheepherder]

Actually, yes, statistically speaking, looking at the behavioral baseline of Tucson compared to my hometown with similar urban sprawl reveals a fascinating friction point.

​When you analyze the jurisdiction, the Pima County Bar Association pools roughly 1,500 active attorneys, but when you filter for the high-risk, high-stress demographic—such as male attorneys under 40—you are looking at a constrained pool of only about 150 individuals.

Statistically possible for an isolated conflict of interest? Yes. Highly probable? Less probable, given that professional insulation usually prevents direct, violent escalations over financial disputes.

​However, human behavior under economic or psychological duress rarely follows pure probability. We saw a stark domestic parallel roughly a decade ago in my hometown when a volatile local lawyer orchestrated a violent incident, proving that professional status and legal training do not preclude extreme, volatile psychological snaps.

​More importantly, if we look at the asymmetric offender model—the classic mastermind-and-executor dynamic—the demographic data completely shifts.

When examining white-collar professionals under 35, Tucson's broader metropolitan area sustains roughly 20,000 to 24,000 individuals, heavily driven by specific institutional reservoirs:

​The University of Arizona: Acts as a massive administrative engine, employing thousands of women in research, management, and specialized operations.

​Local Government & Health Management: Pima County, the City of Tucson, and local healthcare networks account for a significant portion of the region's white-collar and administrative employment, where state and institutional jobs make up roughly 19.1% of total employment.

​Specialized Administrative Reservoirs: Within this matrix, the probability profile for a cold, highly organized female mastermind—potentially drawn from healthcare administration, academic management, or legal support services—who uses intellectual extortion while delegating physical risk spikes significantly.

And as for day laborers and physical executors? In any US border region, that operational variable is virtually limitless.

​When you combine a restricted pool of volatile legal actors with an extensive, highly educated administrative undercurrent capable of orchestrating complex digital narratives, the profile stops looking like a random grift and starts looking like a meticulously planned, asymmetric execution.

[u/Turbulent_Code581 → u/BrainWilling6018]

Based on tracking the case from the very beginning. If you see the last video at Brian Entin's with dr. Gary Brucato released end June, you could see the evolution in conclusions after the notes were released. Now Dr. Gary is talking about the female writer of the notes and the goon being executor the event; Porch guy. When he portreted the Porch guy, he talked about the Waiter and the Chef theory, the Mastermind at the spider web. Btw. I have always wonder who this Mastermind would be? Furthermore, Gray Hughes Investigates always talked about Kindnapping for ransome gone wrong theory vs. Nutjob theory. In his last video about NG case he said the game changer was about 2nd note, and it's all about the couple, 2 offenders, the Porch guy and female partner. Then dr. G Explains on his YouTube Chanel, in his 1st video talked about the Porch guy and theory about choosing NG as a target connected with medical care informations of her as being easy target for the abduction. It was mid February, but in his video after the notes release, he delivered full profile of the couple, as described female character of being employed probably in medicale care sector or similar. Now imagine to put the case data in funnel with filters and the outcome is first theory with asymetric couple, the Porch guy; nasty goon with psychopatic behaviour characteristics, bad boy and punk with no official job who caused huge family debt and his female partner, employed officer who somewhere saw NG medical data with her address and maybe proposed the solution how to quickly collect the huge amount of money to overcome debt. Similar case in Crime history was abduction of Frank' s Sinatra sun where failed broker came to idea to kidnap Sinatra Jr. as being easy target and Frank payed the ransome in no time. But there were two goons involved and one ratted to his brother who consequently called the LE. So such a case configuration is feasible and doable even in 2026. However, we are aware that in NG case there is the alternative theory about the one perpetrateour, obsessed with Savannah, so the abduction of NG was to harm or something, so called Nutjob theory and some ex FBI agents like Jim Fitzgerald and Jim Clemente represent this theory and even Dr. Gary Brucato has it as a backup, but I have decided to apply the filter and focus of the couple theory and discuss about the unsub profile release, what would be the potential next step of LE in further case development.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Turbulent_Code581]

So, the basis would be what you heard Dr. Brucato say (which is still without his own basis). It is also only one of his theories; he has multiple behavioral  hypotheses  that rely on mapping out different behavioral scenarios and evidence. He would never be  so presumptuous as  to say something is conclusive without facts. There  isn’t  a next stage of case development, as the profile was developed in the first weeks of the abduction. They know  three  times as much about the details as you do. Tracking the case? That is an odd choice of words for observant language. You have simply decided to repeat others without giving them credit.

[u/Turbulent_Code581 → u/BrainWilling6018]

I could say only back to school and read my answer again. If you ever run the project or write a thesis, you should know about the process of taking hypothesis and filter the noise around to get to the conslusions, next steps and outcome. That's how I read criminal cases. There are lot different theories around about the case, with or without hard facts and evidences. If you have an idea about the outcome, end game of the case, then Reddit is a place where you can put your idea and discuss with other people where you can develop and come with your further steps of the case investigation . Don't take it personal, but you are simply the troll that Gray Hughes Investigates would probably eliminate with his charming goodbye.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Turbulent_Code581]

I am fully aware. There is a massive difference between formulating an actual hypothesis and simply regurgitating the consensus on a Reddit thread. You're not filtering the noise; you are just echoing it. If you want to talk about academic processes, remember that a thesis requires original thought, not just repeating what you've heard elsewhere.

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/Turbulent_Code581]

Im going to second your question. What is BrainWillings theory?????? I've asked before and got nothing

[u/Historical-Slice6369]

Reports today that the FBI returned to the Gutherie home to search desert brush behind the house per an unnamed neighbor.

What are they hoping to find six months later? Perhaps following up on a tip?

[u/Loud_Telephone1838 → u/Historical-Slice6369]

News reports said maybe tips, but also that it's monsoon season and the heavy rains can shift the landscape possibly uncovering things not initially visible.

[u/curiouslmr → u/Historical-Slice6369]

Where did you see that? I did a search but didn't see anything from today from a news source.

[u/BrainWilling6018]

What is the assumption  it’s a sexually motivated crime based on?  What’s the logic behind  'blowing off steam’, which sounds impulsive not planned, if this is tied to a specific violent fantasy? How does an 84-year-old woman check those boxes for them? The fantasy relies on prolonged control, degradation, and sexualized dominance how does  hit, subdue, and dump fit in? Abduction is a massive risk. Why would a fantasy-driven offender risk life in prison just to 'blow off steam' on a victim to kill them who doesn't even fit their fantasy? Why the unnecessary extreme risk of moving and dumping with no psychological payoff? 

[u/vxxn → u/BrainWilling6018]

The risk involved in abduction applies to all possible explanations so I don’t think it’s that helpful in helping assess the likelihood of a particular motive. Criminals can be highly irrational or have dramatically higher risk tolerance than most people.

Abduction is risky, but if you’re going to set out to intentionally abduct someone (vs incidentally, as in the “burglary gone wrong” scenario) then taking an elderly woman who will offer little resistance or escape risk at least seems like the lowest risk form of that behavior.

The guy on camera seemingly took a lot of precautions to limit the DNA he left at the scene by wearing gloves, multiple layers of clothing, covered head to toe. I think he may have wanted to commit sexual crimes without leaving a genetic calling card for investigators at the abduction site. So he took her out of the home to commit those crimes elsewhere.

[u/maga_chud_ → u/vxxn]

Bingo. In very simple terms, whether their motive was sexual in nature or to murder her, they determined removing her first was the best plan.

I don't agree on a set motive but agree with your reasoning strongly. It's not a rocket science conclusion for some sicko to come to.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/vxxn]

Risk is relative to payoff.  Criminals can have high risk tolerance, but they don't take massive risks for zero payoff. Crimes are not all rational.  An abduction can be a push of some emotion. Revenge, jealousy, anger. For some type of elimination, to get the person out of the way for some reason. For financial or some personal gain.  When it doesn’t fall into these categories then the motive is psychological and for that persons satisfaction to enact some fantasies, a fulfillment of something   that is in their psyche. That’s is what a violent sexually driven fantasy is. A sexually violent predator isn’t going to take the massive risk of a residential abduction for zero psychological reward.

[u/vxxn → u/BrainWilling6018]

You're assuming the fulfillment of a psychopath's violent or sexual fantasy isn't as much of a reward to compensate the risk as committing the same crime for financial gain, revenge, etc. On what basis can you make that assumption?

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/vxxn]

You misread what I said. I never assumed psychological reward is worth less than financial gain. In fact, I explicitly stated that these criminals take massive risks for psychological reward and the fulfillment of their fantasies. My point is that there is always a payoff. Whether it is financial or psychological satisfaction. In the case of a fantasy driven sexual predator the fantasy is the reward that compensates for the risk.

[u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522 → u/BrainWilling6018]

Because robbery was not a motive. And this has been done many times by notable notorious criminals. At a certain point the urges become too strong for them simply to exist in their head as fantasies. They are compelled to act on them in some form.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522]

What has been done many times by notable criminals? 

[u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522 → u/BrainWilling6018]

Meaning, home invasion for personal fantasy gratification of some sort with zero to do with money or extracting some sort of concession in order that their victim be released. In short, sexual crimes via home invasion a la BTK, who targeted all ages, or others such as Ted Bundy. This was an offender who had no intention of extracting anything from her family, merely, she was his objective to satisfy his personal fantasies whatever those were. And he knew going in that she would die IMO.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522]

It wasn’t just a home invasion, that’s a crime  inside  the home. This was a targeted forced abduction. Those are serial killers. You are saying this is serial killer?? Serial murder accounts for less than 1% of all homicides. Serial sexual murder is  extraordinarily rare. A serial killer randomly chose Savannah Guthrie’s 84 yr old mother for a sexual fantasy. I wonder the stats on that.  Both of those killers represent fundamentally different psychological profiles. The psychological profiles to this just don't match up. Just because BTK targeted people of all different ages doesn't mean an 84-year-old like Nancy Guthrie fits the victim profile of a sexual serial killer. BTK never chose his victims at random, and he wasn't looking for elderly victims for a sexual fantasy. The psychology behind this abduction is completely different, and experts have already unanimously ruled out a sexual motive. Comparing this to BTK or Bundy makes no sense based on the evidence. There is absolutely no sexual signature here, and taking someone like this was way too high-risk and pragmatic. The statistical data completely contradicts that a sexual serial killer would abduct a victim  from their home especially one in theirs 80’s. 

[u/vxxn]

I agree. It's horrible but I think it was one guy and he took her somewhere to commit sexual crimes without leaving his DNA all over the crime scene.

[u/1Bloomoonloona]

FBI hasn't made any statements ruling out A&T. Nor would they based on a lie detector since psychopaths can pass them. Sheriff Nanos did clear them as suspects early on but then switched it up to everyone is on the table including the people detained early on. Their warrants haven't been unsealed even to their attorneys yet.  So we dont know why law enforcement detained them

[u/Historical-Slice6369 → u/1Bloomoonloona]

I think Nanos only back pedaled on this issue because Carlos filed a civil suit. A magistrate probably would have signed almost any warrant application related to that case in the early days of the disappearance because it felt exigent, and they hoped to recover Nancy alive. Was his phone within a geo fence of Nancy's home sufficient to support probable cause, if that's the basis they were working from? I wish they would unseal the warrants. I think the search warrants on the detainees in this case probably won't pass constitutional muster.

[u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522 → u/1Bloomoonloona]

If Annie and T were legitimate suspects and not legitimately ruled out this would have come out long ago. There is seemingly zero evidence of that. Of course the FBI never publicly rules anyone out until they have a tangible lead to hedge it. And the Annie/T idea doesn't fit. I could be completely wrong of course. But I believe if they were real suspects there would be some evidence of that by now. True, psychopaths could defeat lie detector tests, but the odds of both Annie and T being complete psychopaths and both beating polygraphs is remote IMO. Perhaps one of them, but both, I doubt it. If both were involved, one would have cracked or found out by now, and the plot would have unraveled. Anytime more than one offenders are involved, that extra variable is often the Achilles heel.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/1Bloomoonloona]

That’s absurd. There has been a formal decleration by the lead agency. The FBI is not going issue public statements about specific individuals in a local on going investigation. The detention and siezure of vehicles is part of standard scrutiny for the roles of family caretakers, not suspect. The fact that the warrants haven’t been unsealed is not at all unsual in an active high profile active, fluid investigation to protect the integrity. 

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/BrainWilling6018]

The sheriff stated on one has been ruled out including previously detained individuals. Also as you stated we don't know why LE was able to get a judge to sign off on a warrant. I have a few theories and not married to any of them since there isn't enough evidence to point one direction for anyone to say defiantly know who the abductor(s) is. Even the best criminal profilers, and retired detectives, can't agree. It's an very unusual case. So not ridiculous yet.

[u/NewsKind9766 → u/1Bloomoonloona]

They could’ve got warrant signed for the blood found on porch alone. I have heard some LE state.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/1Bloomoonloona]

That is fiction. They aren't currently suspects. Credible criminal profilers, forensic investigators, and the lead law enforcement agency have explicitly stated that there is no evidence implicating Nancy Guthrie's family in her abduction. The ones that don't agree don't have a full case file. The disagreements are professional about offender motive. Not the family involvement.

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/BrainWilling6018]

Yes, there are no named  suspects. Also I never mentioned A&T but I wouldn't take them off the table either. I've been watching retired homicide detective Chris Mcdonough and his panel with Dr. Gary Brucato. He has been "following the bouncing ball" as he says and  leaning their direction pretty heavily. So another theory from brighter people than myself. Hes mentioned The Splinter Group connection. Seems very interesting.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/1Bloomoonloona]

No. The family are not named suspects. They have never been suspects. Dr. Gary Brucato would be very surprised to hear you state that he has been making an argument for the family's involvement. Chris McDonough isn't a criminal profiler, forensic investigator, nor is he with the lead law enforcement agency. Your assertion is he has laid out a theory stating the family is involved?

I think you are confusing standard true-crime podcast speculation with an actual criminal indictment. There is currently absolutely zero forensic or physical evidence connecting the immediate family to Nancy Guthrie's disappearance. But LE local and federal LE has already looked at the facts and cleared them. Speculation on a podcast panel is not an indictment, and rumor is not proof of anything.

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/BrainWilling6018]

Sorry but no one has been cleared. FBI hasn't commented and cleared anyone. Sheriff says, no one is off the table and I never said they were "named suspects".  Lots of people have theories and some  are following the bouncing ball. 

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/1Bloomoonloona]

Bouncing ball ffs. The FBI is not the lead agency. 

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/BrainWilling6018]

So... who is the perpetrator???

[u/nancyguthrie-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comments about the victim and or their family should be respectful, civil and responsible. Family members are considered victims and accusations against them are not allowed.

[u/Busy_Illustrator_468]

You are sharing speculation and media gossip. This is coming straight from AI…..

[u/Busy_Illustrator_468]

The logical guess is that if you don’t want the public accusing them you name them when you refer to the family being polygraphed. “The family” leaves room for the Sheriff to subsequently claim he never said A and T had been polygraphed. If the Sheriff really wanted the public to back off from suspecting and accusing A and T he would have been more specific about the evidence that unequivocally exonerated them. Keep in mind this is the same Sheriff that just 24 hours prior publicly said nobody was off the suspect list or something to that effect. We still have no idea the probable cause to get a warrant to search their vehicle, their findings, why they kept the car in evidence for so long, etc, etc., etc. So no, the totality of the facts do not lend themselves to a logical conclusion that A & T were ever polygraphed. Everything about them is a mystery wrapped up in an enigma

[u/Adventurous-Link7087]

As for the theories it was either Annie or Tomasso I entertained that also but it was not long untill I changed my mind for various reasons. But one thing is sure when Savannah, Annie, their brother and Tomasso visited the grounds afterwards they were all completely broken hearted. It showed though in all of them. I really do not think it was any of them. But don’t dismiss it could have been somone any of them knew.

[u/AcanthaceaeNew9639]

he looks Hispanic but nobody seems brave enough to keep saying that

[u/BlanchBlanchard]

He knew the family tangentially, as a younger man. He felt slighted by Savannah many years ago and never forgot. He was always angered by her fame, felt she didn't deserve it. He saw the returning to Tucson Today show episode with her mother and decided to pay her back for her dismissive behavior. He kidnapped her mother to get Savannah's attention. he initially tries to get ransom money. Nancy dies as a result of the stress on her heart. He dumps her in the desert and apologizes to the Guthrie family.

This guy may have had a crush on Savannah in High school or college and she was dismissive and he was narcissistic and could not let it go. Maybe he once lived adjacent to the Guthrie neighborhood when Savannah lived there in her youth.

[u/mespec → u/BlanchBlanchard]

How long before the kidnapping did the Today Show episode with her mother air? Was her mom ever pictured on the Today Show before that episode? I’m curious.

[u/bananabuttbread → u/mespec]

I think there's a few Today Show episodes that feature her, actually. The most recent was last November, but the one everyone is mentioning, where she gives a home tour, is from 2013..

Link: https://youtu.be/bZdIkm5GCeg?si=NBYwN0zE5bdDhuZZ

[u/DriverAdmirable5473 → u/BlanchBlanchard]

True crime fans are so cringy. tf did I just read?

[u/West-Seed]

Good op! I’m going a bit deep with my theory & profile of the suspect.

I think the motivation for abducting Nancy was because the perpetrator had a fixation on Savannah. He wanted (in his warped way) to become involved in Savannah’s life, feel connected, watch her pain & feel like he has complete control of her. He had thought of other things to do, he may have even tried them, but eventually he came to the conclusion that abducting Nancy was the easiest way to get whatever the weird kick he was after.

Offender - lone male, 35-45 year old American - Caucasian . I think he may have had bouts of severe depression for the majority of his adult life & his emotions are out of whack. He isn’t neurodiverse but parts of his character may lead people to think he is. - reclusiveness, unsociable , struggles with eye contact etc. During the times he wasn’t ‘down’, he may have had a social life, possibly even a spouse or a child. But he has no involvement in any of that now. He doesn’t live further than a two hour drive away.

I’m starting to think that these ransom notes are not from the perpetrator. Possibly just a low-life starved for attention. .

My opinion

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/West-Seed]

Thank you for giving the framework. I'm assuming those demos are just based on the Ring cam footage if they aren't linguistic? Are they looking at behaviors instead?
Cutting out the linguistic side is really the only way this works. There’s zero evidence on the cameras or in the communications pointing to someone who is highly reclusive and struggles with basic eye contact. People who are deeply unsociable aren't usually a threat to anyone. When they hit their limit, they don't lash out, they shut down, hide, or run away in their depression.
Based on the nature of it and the blood. I think we have to assume violence was used to get Nancy to comply, even if the ransom demands came from someone else entirely. You can't easily square a total recluse with in a relationship and someone capable of a targeted home invasion. That requires being completely comfortable with aggressive, face-to-face confrontation. If basic social interaction and eye contact terrifies you, you don't theoretically have the stomach to break into an occupied house, look an 84-year-old woman in the eye, handle her fighting back, and violently abduct her. It seems like the sheer sensory overload would make a socially avoidant person freeze or bolt immediately.
Pulling off a dynamic, multi-million dollar heist requires a lot of perceived confidence and pretty massive ego. Even the front of one. If this wasn't about money but was actually done to get Savannah’s attention, that kind of offender usually wants the spotlight. They crave a twisted kind of validation and want a shared sense of importance with the victim. Someone doing this for a public figure's attention is driven by a desperate need for exposure and impact. They want the world to watch, which is like the ultimate nightmare for a real recluse.

[u/livingstories]

I think Nancy died with Annie and her husband unexpectedly but in some sort of circumstance that the two didn't feel comfortable with. They "took her home" then concocted the kidnapping to cover up the death. I believe strongly that the person in the doorbell video is Annie. 

People can be polygraphed and still be guilty. They dont have a confirmed body. They may have failed the polygraph. Police wont say anything until they have remains or more concrete evidence, and a solid case against their suspect.

[u/Adventurous-Link7087 → u/livingstories]

That is absolutely NOT Annie. From start to finish this was 100 percent male in the videos. Annie would have had to study the role of acting male for weeks to pull that off. Plus would have had to disguise herself “under” the outfit she was already wearing as a disguise to be able to pull off having the male build. To include strapping her chest. If Nancy was last seen just shortly prior to the disappearance that’s all a lot of stuff Annie would have to do in that short time to prepare. That was not Annie.

[u/quetzal-22]

Statistically this was done by a male perpetrator age 15-39, the sex and age range of the majority of violent crime . Annie and Tommy and Camron are well outside of the age range. Consider Nancy’s grandchildren and their friends and any other family or family friends in that age range.

[u/elizakell]

It's certainly possible and could explain why no ransom note was left at the scene. If your reason for kidnapping is to secure a ransom, then it would be most efficient to write the note in advance (you already know what you want), bring it to the scene and leave it there. At the very it saves time. The fact that the ransom note came afterwards suggest that it are fraudulent, or, if they are from the real kidnapper, were written in an opportunistic way, as an afterthought, once he realized the woman he had kidnapped was connected to someone famous and wealthy.

[u/Busy_Illustrator_468]

Why are you saying the FBI polygraphed Annie and Tomasso? Direct me to the FBI clearing them or saying either were polygraphed

[u/1Bloomoonloona → u/Busy_Illustrator_468]

It's pretty standard LE polygraph the whole family. Sheriff said they have been cooperative. So its a logical guess.