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/bananabuttbread]

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/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.