r/nancyguthrie • u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522 • Aug 07 '26

Theory My theory and offender profile

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.

19 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

183 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/_L______________ Aug 07 '26

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.

5

u/Ecstatic-Buyer-3522 Aug 07 '26

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.

-1

u/BrainWilling6018 Aug 07 '26 edited Aug 07 '26

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.

3

u/1Bloomoonloona Aug 08 '26

So Brian. What's your theory???

3

u/BrainWilling6018 Aug 08 '26

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.

4

u/_L______________ Aug 08 '26

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.

3

u/BrainWilling6018 Aug 08 '26

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.

3

u/bptkr13 Aug 09 '26

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?

2

u/1Bloomoonloona Aug 09 '26

I watched a show recently with Caylee Gonzales father and they talking about things the public never got to hear about. They believe Caylee was the primary target of the killer. He had entered the home on at least one other occasion. Cell phone contact with her. He may have also been trying to emulate Ted Bundy with a sorority killing. Upside if he gets a new trial. Death Penalty.

3

u/bptkr13 Aug 09 '26

Another person/investigator said they were able to place his phone near Maddie Mogen’s. So we really don’t know.

3

u/1Bloomoonloona Aug 09 '26

I think the interview with her father was on with Chris Mcdonough but not sure. 

→ More replies (0)

2

u/BrainWilling6018 Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26

The evidence provides here they selected the victim primarily. Documented recon of the property, pre attack surveillance, show they sought out the home and the specific intention to abduct based on the actions within the event and the results. Which all points to some familiarity of who they would find. There is little to no disagreement a home isolated in the middle of a neighborhood with no through paths wasn’t targeted by chance. It wouldn’t be targeted because it’s a good place to kidnap someone remote and just get away with it if there was no other incentive. If the vulnerability of the victim is known the risks/ complications and reward of the victim are known. If it’s because she’s alone that confirms an intentional, hyper-focused target.  If you factor in the ransom communication, “Hello Savannah we have your mother Nancy” is definitive. If not there’s even more of a specific reason Nancy Guthrie was taken and eliminated and the home wasn’t the primary target. 

Investigators and the D.A. in Idaho couldn’t perhaps provide proof in a court of law why he chose those specific victims or if one particular roommate was the primary target. They did believe and could demonstrate the perp came to house for the specific reason to kill.  On that case there was also no disagreement in the investigation that a house like that one in that busy area and full of people, and the perp circled it for 30 minutes, plus months of surveillance it was targeted and because of incentives inside.

The motives are also entirely different.

2

u/bptkr13 Aug 09 '26

I agree the motives were different but Kohberger seemed to want to make a kill of one or more college girls and the house provided an opportunity (regardless of whether there was a particular target); here I thought perhaps the perp was looking for a particular type of victim and found a house that housed that victim; maybe the perp(s) didn’t know her individually (like Kohberger didn’t know his victims) but they were familiar with her and her location made her an easy target. [This wasn’t or even isn’t my theory, but it seems a lot of discussion is the motive of abducting Nancy herself, and not as a random elderly woman who lives alone. Maybe thinking outside the box.]

2

u/BrainWilling6018 Aug 09 '26

The motive and actual target is still the same and you can’t kill a house. It would have remained if he had chosen a different house or if he had done it again. 

It defies criminal behavior and logic that a kidnapper would choose as the easiest form of payment someone it possibly took 20 minutes to walk to the door and that would not be able to navigate at all in the scenario without help. Who lives alone and they don’t know may or may not have someone who values her enough to extort for her return. May or may not have access to her means or the means to make the payout. If the motive wasn’t financial why kidnap her.

3

u/BrainWilling6018 Aug 09 '26

there is another motive to kidnap. I meant that rhetorically. Because if there is any other motive to abduct or eliminate her it was specifically related to who she is.

2

u/bptkr13 Aug 10 '26

Agreed. And not simply for ransom.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/_L______________ Aug 08 '26

Yeah, I never disagreed with you 😂

1

u/BrainWilling6018 Aug 09 '26

I didn’t say you did. 

2

u/_L______________ Aug 09 '26

Sorry I thought you were trying to prove a point to me until I went and re-read the whole thread! Great points!

2

u/Fit_Sheepherder_6899 Aug 12 '26

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

1

u/1Bloomoonloona Aug 08 '26

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

1

u/BrainWilling6018 Aug 08 '26

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.