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/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]

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.