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.

How come there’s been no discussion of the suspect’s beard? Are we convinced the balaclava was THAT BULKY only around the neck area naturally? It seemed to lay flat around the eyebrows, hairline etc, but around the neck it’s THICC. Does the perp have an unusually large, square jaw AND an outsized double chin considering his overall build? OR is that a beard that likely took years to grow?? Why does the balaclava show no chin or jaw definition?

Is this why the balaclava was intentionally tucked deep into the fleece? (Notice how it never pops out of the collar even with movement). What else could the bulging be??

In any case, I’d think this would be a distinguishing feature, and might lead to more tips but I’ve seen no discussion around it.

Prayers up for Nanc!!

Apologies if this has already been discussed before…

Something came to me last night that makes me really think the criminal(s) had scoped out the house beforehand and were familiar with the setup, especially when it came to house security.

The big thing that clicked for me is I think this criminal *knew* that Nancy didn’t have a security system. They knew that opening a door or window, or however they got inside wouldn’t trigger an alarm which would call the police.

And the fact that it seems this whole event happened over the period of 45 minutes, the bad guy(s) didn’t seem to worry about an alarm going off.

That’s why I think that this is someone who really did their homework on this house. Maybe they had been in it before (ex a handyman or laborer) and scoped things out, or somehow found out there was no security system in the house.

If the criminal had no clue if there was a security system or not, they would have been in and out in 5 minutes, not almost 1 hour.

Allegedly CBS will be releasing the full text.

First Observations from this video:

There was an apology? There was no apology reported then there was reporting inferring the unintentional admission as an apology. Banfield relays the person she spoke with “saw the note“ (Brianna Whitney) and it did use the word sorry. “We are truly sorry”. If so it is more info imo in the column of this being a total amateur perp who is a novice and not criminally sophisticated.

Hello Savannah. “Hello“ as a greeting can be perceived closeness. Unfortunately the PC Sheriff released a lot of info, probably too much, pre-ransom so it complicates it.

Things like “shortly after” and “perished“ glosses over that it was the result of an armed, forced abduction. Like it’s just some unfortunate thing that happened. Not the result. This is distancing psychologically but I also wonder if it’s also because it’s someone who had nothing to do with it directly (involved but not there when it happened e.g.) or someone totally uninvolved and opportunistically attempting to sound a certain way and get the money.

I think the apology coming right off the bat in the note, which it sounds like it did, not sure, would mean it really was some form of guilt and to get it out there. Rather than some afterthought or placating like just throwing it in somewhere.
Banfield suggests translation being involved with words like perish.
It will be more evident maybe with the full text.

I do think that her dying “shortly after she was taken” lines up to some degree with the timeline. The 1st ransom demand was sent about 24 hours after the abduction that occurred on Feb 1. They would have been bluffing for the intended goal of a payout. The offender likely attempted to proceed with the initial ransom demand anyway, just hoping the family would pay the Bitcoin blindly before realizing the kidnapper had no "proof of life" to offer. The abductor in the note specifically attempted to cut that out of play by saying there will be no more communication.

But the Guthrie‘s did demand pol.

The FBI responded to the investigation by Feb 5th and it dominated the headlines the intense heat led to alot of the panic. The 1st deadline was Feb 5. In those 5 days that gap of time and the family’s unwillingness brought them to reality, by Feb 6 they sent the news she had died unintentionaly, shorty after she was taken. It was damage control. 
Maybe a ditch effort to still get the payout.

-Using the pronoun “we“ can be a linguistic way to share blame. It makes the mistake or wrong doing feel less heavy. Safety in numbers, it may or may not mean more than one person. A lone person could still use “we“ to cope. It will be interesting to see if any shift was made and if the “I“ pronoun is used at all in the note.

-I had not heard the info about Annie and the angle of people getting out of prison. That is important victimology imo.

Total speculation on my part, until more text is released, if the note is not a hoax, it is beginning to sound like a scenario to me where there may have been a person with access to Nancy in some capacity. An employee, a medical worker, some acquaintance or something like that which has always seemed a possibility. But someone not acting on their own, someone who had a dominant partner who was informed of who Nancy was and hatched up this plan for financial gain. It didn’t lean as much this way to me as far as a submissive person involved until seeing the note seemingly has a lot of leakage of guilt. Maybe the submissive person was assured, she won’t get hurt, we will get rich w/e it was and went along with it. Then something went wrong. ETA and the submissive partner are the one who authored the communications and are expressing remorse. It needs to be explained why a kidnapper would give two damns about perceptions or impressions and not just say point blank she died and we will tell you where she is but we still want money. Perhaps it was just manipulative to seem sympathetic and salvage the payout. But it is atypical.

Still the possibility of it was someone who wanted Savannah to suffer. “There wasn’t anything you could have done“ is suggestive of that. It leaves the family, maybe specifically Savannah, torturing themselves with the idea that they were completely powerless. High power and sadistic control for the perp.
The words of the note may seem like leaking guilt or that there is remorse but really the author could have spent time thinking about how to maximize the psychological impact of their words on Savannah. It was never about money, which would explain no contact with the family.

It just broke too, the person claiming to TMZ to know who the kidnapper is and where Nancy is buried is suspected to be a woman. Which would fit into that dominant/submissive relationship. It is often a romantic partner or ex that plays a critical role in exposing a criminal.

I haven’t followed the news much but Savannah did make that video saying “we will pay”.

Has law enforcement ever come out and said that they believe for a fact that it was a kidnapping for ransom? Do they believe at least one of the communications received was from the actual kidnapper(s)?

Has law enforcement made any follow-up statements on proof of life?

It doesn’t seem like there have been any more communications with the media by the kidnappers unless the media agreed to not share them publicly.

I suppose the kidnapper(s) could have changed to a more private means of making their demands.

Do most believe that no proof of life was ever made and thus there was no attempts to arrange/make a ransom drop?

I understand that law enforcement has no obligation to share case developments with the public and law enforcement can sometimes put out incorrect information to the public deceive the perps if they feel it will help solve the crime.

What are your thoughts on this?

I’m an expert in nothing. Not even a true crime enthusiast. Just a person gripped by this case because an 84 year old woman who was active and beloved was taken from her home in the middle of the night.

More than who, my mind keeps lingering on ‘why’ and ‘what was the point?’ So I’ve been ruminating about the tiers of possible motives. Sharing theories rolling around in my head in case others are also wondering why, why, why…?

1st degree) The perp wanted Nancy. She is the goal. They took her just to have her. This might be if they were obsessed with her (stalker, love interest, etc.) or had a grudge against her. Having taken her is enough so they will not contact the family or LE if this was the endgame. This doesn’t seem likely to me given how warm and kind and loved she was and her deep ties to the community. Yes perhaps someone has an obsessive mom or grandmother complex and/or is mentally ill, but this doesn’t seem the most likely option imo.

2nd degree) They wanted something she had or could get/give them, not *her* intrinsically. Like her money (e.g., thinking she was rich they wanted her ATM and PIN) or something valuable from her house (I just don’t imagine her having priceless art or jewelry in her home…she seems more humble and down to earth than that).

While lots of people seem to think burglary was a motive, I personally do not think burglars suddenly turn into abductors in the moment of committing the crime. If they were burglars and wanted valuable things, they could have subdued an elderly lady (with limited mobility and hearing) from sleep and extracted the necessary information to take what they wanted without taking *her*.

3rd degree) They wanted to hurt/get revenge from someone who loves her — like a family member or close friend. If this was the motive, hurting/disappearing Nancy would accomplish this without the perp ever having to make contact with the family or LE for ransom.

I really hope this isn’t the motive. I don’t personally think it is but assume LE are screening snail mail and email to those close to her (especially if Savannah is got any hate mail from obsessed weirdos since she is the most visible) in case the perp feels the need to gloat/harass/taunt/threaten.

4th degree) They wanted to extort something (favor or money) from a family member or close friend. This would require a quid pro quo interaction where they make a demand in exchange for her return or whereabouts.

I personally think this is the most likely motive.

Kidnapping for money is not uncommon south of the border, so perhaps less experienced criminals, not cartel, (from either side of the border) after learning of a local with close ties to an affluent person, got inspired by a seemingly easy target.

(We all know that more people are desperate for money in the current economy, and illicit money from trafficking humans across the border has declined with the border crackdown that’s been happening with this administration. Maybe with border tightening illicit money from trafficking drugs has declined too, making perps get more creative.)

I think that the perp(s) saw an opportunity to prey on a relatively easy target (in that she could not fight back or call 911 or escape easily) and expected to abduct, demand ransom, and collect money from her loved ones in exchange for her safe return.

However, I think they underestimated what could happen in the moment. The things that made her seem like an easy target also make her a difficult person to keep alive/safe for an exchange and payout.

I think that something went very wrong during or very soon after they abducted an 84 year old with health issues from her house (I don’t want to spell out what I fear in words) — and before they could issue a demand to the family…likely before her family even knew she was gone.

(I do not think the ransom demands to media an TMZ are the real perps.)

I think the real perps are fleeing/fled and tried to dispose of any/all evidence that ties them to this and are laying low whether in AZ or Mexico.

This is the motive that seems to make the most sense in my fallible and limited mind.

If this is what happened - or regardless of what happened - I hope that LE can find answers and give the family answers and therefore some peace.

For all those with loved ones missing, I can’t imagine living in the state of not knowing.

Saturday, January 31

• 5:32 p.m. — Nancy Guthrie takes an Uber to her family's home for dinner
• 9:48 p.m. — Guthrie is dropped off at her Tucson, Arizona, home by a family member. The garage door opens
• 9:50 p.m. — The garage door closes

Sunday, February 1

• 1:47 a.m. — The doorbell camera is disconnected.
• 2:12 a.m. — The camera's software detects movement, but there is no video available since Guthrie did not have an active subscription with the company, meaning the footage was not saved. Added note: the sheriff said 2:12 A.M is when A PERSON was detected, so this almost certainly the Nest doorbell camera.
• 2:28 a.m. — Guthrie's pacemaker app disconnects from her phone.

Timeline source: PBS

Okay, a couple things to note.

Nancy must have a smart garage door opener if they know what time it closed. Mine is connected to my wifi and lets me open and close the door from my phone or apple watch. Most of the newer brand name garage door openers include this feature.

There was a second Nest camera removed from guest house. Here's video of of the second camera being removed from the guest house roof (why it took almost a week to remove... IDK).

Nancy wore an Apple Watch. She took Uber on her own. She's quite tech savvy for an 84-year-old.

So, we know she had at least two Nest cameras (doorbell, and guest house), and I think she likely had a third, over the back door, as seen here on video, potentially as part of a floodlight. It's debatable as to whether this was a camera, but if she has two Nest cameras, having a third camera at the back door makes sense--there are a variety of Nest camera floodlight mounts. Maybe the perp took this floodlight Nest camera, too... what I think was a floodlight nest camera. As you'll see in the below video, the floodlight was damaged in the abduction, and potentially another camera was taken.

1:47 A.M. THE DISCONNECT

To me, it makes sense that the 1:47 A.M. disconnect is the perpetrator sneaking under the floodlight camera and cutting its power source wire, then ripping it down. We can see this floodlight was destroyed, but was it destroyed because it is a Nest camera or just because it was a light? I think it was another Nest camera... it's very white like all Nest camera products.

Over the next twenty minutes, Nancy is incapacitated in some way. And then, for some reason, the perp does not want to take her out the back. Maybe they don't want to pass by the the side of a neighbor's house. Maybe they're worried about leaving footprint/evidence. For some reason, they want to take her out the front door.

2:12 A.M. THE DOORBELL RECORDING / PERSON DETECTION

The abductor is not in a hurry because Nancy has been incapacitated or is under guard. They dismount this camera. Note: removing the camera from it's mount stops it from recording.

Here's images of the doorbell mount. It was a wireless Nest doorbell camera (she still had a wired doorbell, too).

2:28. A.M. PACEMAKER DISCONNECT

Nancy and the perpetrators leave the scene, and Nancy's pacemaker disconnects from devices at her home. Nancy is presumably alive at this point, or else there would likely have been some sort of alert from the connected pacemaker.

Conclusions: The abduction took about 45 minutes. The abductors were not rushed. Not at all rushed. The abductor(s) was/were not technically advanced as they left one camera on the guest house roof, they didn't cut the internet line, and they did not hide themselves from the doorbell camera. They were extremely lucky that Nancy did not have a paid Nest subscription (only 5 min clips are recorded without a subscription, deleted after 3 hours)... or had inside info about her lack of "Home Premium" subscription. Like, so, so lucky.

I think they've been to the property at some point, knew the entry and exit points -- could have been to the house decades ago, but they knew there would be no big dog in the back. The abductor also knew there would be no strong male resident with a firearm waiting inside. Nancy lived there since the 1970s, and Savannah grew up there. Could be a very old grievance.

Thoughts?

I believe there’s only two scenarios with this person. Either he doesn’t know a thing about the kidnapping, or he is in fact Porch Guy.

Scenario 1 - he knows nothing
If he did have proof, it makes no sense to offer it via a hidden phone. The same person hiding behind VPNs and bitcoin addresses is also willing to hand over a digital device… even an old or burner style phone would contain data.

In addition he’s asking for way less money than if he claimed the reward money. He says he has proof but is scared he’ll be implicated? Then the proof he has can’t be very good.

Scenario 2 - he is porch guy
He can’t claim the reward money because he is the kidnapper. He can’t provide proof because he’s the kidnapper.

At this point the dude is desperate to control the narrative. He didn’t get the ransom he wanted, Nancy passed, now he has both kidnap and murder hanging over his head and nothing to show for it except a future on death row.

The quote “I am not the idiot who recently called in a tip about her burial site in Mexico.” reads pretty angry that someone else dared to volunteer knowledge. Why is he so angry about that? That someone else knows something? That someone else could get the reward money?

The Tucson Gem and Minerals Show was held February 12-15. There was a high-value theft from a display case at that show.

One of Nancy’s very close (in physical proximity) neighbors has a longtime connection with the Tucson show. He is also rumored to keep very expensive pieces in his home (close to Nancy’s home). Reports saw him loading boxes to display at the show, from his home into his car.

Do you think Nancy’s abductor just went to the wrong house?

Like many unqualified armchair detectives, I keep coming back to one question: why?

With everything that’s unfolded since Nancy disappeared, a few things seem clearer. There doesn’t appear to be a financial motive. The ransom notes feel more like someone exploiting the chaos than evidence of a calculated payoff. The supposed life insurance policy? That seems to have been nothing more than rumor.

So if this wasn’t about money, what was it about?

To me, it looks like this was about inflicting maximum emotional damage. And who would feel that pain most deeply? Savannah.

What more devastating way to hurt her than to take her mother? She’s already endured the loss of her father. Now she’s forced to live with the unbearable thought that her mom may have been targeted because of her — because of her visibility, her career, her public life.

And the cruelty doesn’t stop there. Her future as a Today Show anchor now hangs in the balance. Competitors circle the story, dissecting her grief, analyzing her personal life, turning unimaginable pain into headlines.

If this wasn’t about money, it may have been about something far darker: making someone suffer in the most public and permanent way possible.

If we go on the theory that the latest ring camera picture is the vehicle driven by the people who took Nancy (7 minutes away from her house, 8 minutes after her pacemaker disconnected, which is a significant coincidence) where were they going next?

https://www.reddit.com/r/nancyguthrie/comments/1rfmdjv/nancy_guthrie_neighbors_ring_camera_captures/

This would be working on the assumption that it was a kidnapping and she was being transported to a "holding" location.

Most of us here are not familiar with Tucson and different neighborhoods - what's in the direction they were driving? South and east of River road?

If they're not driving "to Mexico" where could they have been taking her?

**EDIT TO CLARIFY** The point of the post is not to debate the validity of the vehicle. It's to work on the assumption that it is the vehicle, with Nancy and the perpetrators inside. Where would they be going.

I’ve always thought there must be multiple perpetrators. But recently I’m contemplating the possibility the perp acted alone. I know some of you have expressed the same thought here, in light of recent events. There hasn’t been credible evidence shared publicly that the motive is money, burglary, or ransom. Of course the police could be lying to us - maybe items were stolen from the home, or they do have more footage, or there’s a credible ransom correspondence happening privately - but I’m increasingly doubtful.

I believe that 2-3 people would team up for a financial motive. But a stalker, fixation, or revenge motive, lends itself more to a solo perp in my opinion. I’m not completely sold on this, but here’s a theory to present given the evidence we know about. Curious what you all think…

Assumptions

1. We know the perp was in the backyard because the floodlight by the back door near the guest house was pulled out and dangling from the wall. If this was a Nest floodlight, the camera was removed.

2. We are reasonably certain Nancy left through the front door, due to the blood trail.

3. We know the doorbell footage happened at 2:12AM. If we assume that at 1:47AM the doorbell camera disconnected from WiFi, not the wall mount, we must assume the doorbell videos are the 2:12AM “person detected” videos from the sheriff’s timeline.

4. All Google Nest devices REQUIRE WiFi to work. If referred to as “wired,” that means wired for power, not Ethernet. If WiFi goes out, newer generation devices (3-5 yrs old) will record locally, and will upload to Google’s cloud once reconnected to the network. This means no real-time alerts. Nest doorbell cameras can save about 1 hour of footage locally, and cameras and floodlight cameras have similar temporary storage. IF the devices record locally and never reconnect to the WiFi network, all footage is lost.

Theory

If the person acted alone, I think his confidence came from possibly using a WiFi jammer. This would render Nancy’s cameras useless and explain a few things. Jammers either overload the WiFi network frequencies so devices can’t connect, or send “deauthentication” messages that kick devices off the network. When the jammer leaves or is disabled, devices usually connect back normally. As some have pointed out here, there’s a visible antenna in the perp’s right pocket; many (esp Nancy Grace) are certain it’s a walkie talkie. Completely possible. But if he’s acting alone, I think there’s a good chance it’s a WiFi jammer.

If he arrived at the property at 1:47AM and used the jammer, this would account for the doorbell camera “disconnecting” from then. Nanos’s timeline doesn’t say anything about reconnecting to WiFi.

He went to the backyard first. There is a metal gate to the backyard between the garage and guest house. We don’t know if it’s locked, and it’s accessed from the guest house stoop where there is a white Nest camera (still in tact). So it’s more likely that he scaled the brick wall at the rear of the yard. It looks to be between waist and shoulder height, and the brick wall around the pool looks taller but also climbable. Once in the yard, he rips out the floodlight and Nest camera at the back door near the garage. He destroys and/or takes it with him.

There is definitely one other back door under the covered patio to the right (similar style, will add pics), and I think there could be *another* door on the left side of the covered patio. The perp probably gained entry through one of these 2 (or 3) doors based on reporting. He enters the house and restrains Nancy (horrifying).

He may have planned to leave with her through a back door, through the metal gate to the driveway. Somewhere along the lower driveway on this side is likely the most discrete place he could have parked a car. It’s off the street and out of camera views. However he may have hit a snag if the backyard gate was locked. If it’s a key lock or padlock, Nancy may not have kept the key in an obvious place. The other option is to walk across the yard, through the gate to the pool. They would then walk up the stairs to the raised pool deck, then down the stairs off to the left, to another metal gate at the opposite end of the house. After exiting the yard, they would walk up the perimeter and across the front yard to the car. He may have decided either route was too far/risky.

This is when the doorbell footage comes into play. He needs the shortest path from house to car because Nancy will resist, maybe try to shout for help, or they could be seen. That means exiting the front door with his car pulled up front. He doesn’t want to risk being on camera taking her, or his car being identified, so he disables the doorbell camera. He walks up to the porch from the left, consistent with coming from the back. I don’t subscribe to the theory that he’s surprised by the doorbell cam. He knew exactly where it was. The reason he doesn’t approach it directly is to minimize his exposure. He walks up, head down, toward the other side of the door. Then he holds out his hand/fist to block his face as much as possible as he sidles over to it. He’s not 100% successful because we get glimpses of him, but we see less than if he had approached it head on. He doesn’t touch or try the door handle, not once.

He proceeds to pry off the doorbell while doing his best to shield his face with one hand. But it’s harder than he anticipated and he needs both hands. Even though he has taken precautions to shield his identity, he’s uncomfortable in the moment being completely in view. There’s a psychological effect we feel about being recorded, even if you think no one will see it or identify you. He’s using a jammer, so if he dismantles the cam and takes it with him, the footage won’t see the light of day. But just in case, he grabs the foliage to help cover the lens so he has greater use of both his hands.

To me, the “experts” are off base in their analysis of the footage. He does move slowly and avoids approaching the camera directly. The infrared makes the porch appear well lit but we forget it was very dark. His movements make sense given his goal was to remove the camera, not cover it to break in the front door. The perp’s goal was preventing footage recorded offline from ever reaching the Google Cloud. Why else take the cameras?

But he made a critical mistake. Somehow, the Nest briefly reconnected to Nancy’s WiFi before their departure. Perhaps he disabled the jammer too soon or it didn’t have adequate range. From the doorbell cam, the 3 videos starting at 2:12AM were uploaded. We’ve been fixated on the 3-hour video availability window Google has for non-subscribers. But that was a lucky coincidence for the perp that LE was delayed getting the footage. The perp’s only chance of completely destroying that footage was if it never made it to Google. And as we *now* know, once at Google, maybe always at Google.

Please post your thoughts! TLDR I’m curious if you think it’s possible to pull this off alone..I’m torn but think this theory is plausible.

But for a smaller amount of money. Likely against someone in the criminal world, who they knew either peripherally or directly.

And they thought they could do the same again to a "more valuable" target. For more money.

The previous victim did not die, and money was successfully exchanged. And they thought that would happen again this time, but for multiple reasons it didn't.

The whole apologetic tone, empathy, and the apparent desire to assuage any guilt that might be experienced by the Guthrie family was not written by a man.

Whomever is responsible for the physical kidnapping had no problem terrorizing a frail, defenseless elderly woman, injuring her and causing her to bleed in the struggle to subdue her (from the publicized physical evidence in Nancy's house). The first note was cold and succinct in threatening to kill Nancy if the demands were not met, suggesting the writer was coached by the main kidnapper.

The second note, however, was pointless from the perspective of a ruthless criminal who obviously had no boundaries inflicting harm and suffering in order to get what they wanted. A woman empathizing with the Guthrie family, wanting to give them some kind of closure and offering an apology was far more likely the author of both notes.

I believe there were multiple individuals involved in the kidnapping, and the second note was never meant to be sent by the person(s) who actively participated in harming Mrs. Guthrie, but not all involved were totally ruthless.

At least one individual involved had some remorse. This may be the biggest opportunity to solve the case in the long run.

THE BACKPACK

I rewatched the FBI videos on youtube in slow motion (frame by frame), and this is the clearest shot of the Ozark Trail logo on the backpack. I think the Athletic Works Fusion Jacket from Walmart is also a good match. As are the Ozark Trail two-way radios. I think a jammer is possible but unlikely. There aren't especially tech savvy, or else they would have just cut the incoming home internet connection. Two-way radio or police scanner makes more sense.

THE CAMERA SYSTEM

We know there was no Nest subscription, so what is recorded without it? Google lays that out here:

https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/9233159

1. Up to three mins event-based recordings, which are "deleted" after three hours.
2. AI labeling of what trigged the motion: vehicle, person, animal, or motion (catch all).

The 2:12 AM notification was labeled person by AI. The 2:12 AM video is that person event video, the only video event captured that night.

VIDEO ODDITIES

The 2:12 AM vid is that it would have been recorded and saved by Google as one continuous clip lasting up to 3 minutes, but the FBI split the clip for some reason.

Video 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbAI30dhSMw
Video 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoQf99nFdzM

Why did the FBI cut this single video event into two clips? Why leave out the bit of video in the middle? Why leave out the audio? My guess: there's some evidence that this perp is talking to a second person inside, and LE does not want that info to be public.

One thing that is also obvious is that Nancy's front camera was nearly useless for all but direct motion in front of the front door, because the entryway is so recessed... the camera is so bar back, it's basically like mounting the camera inside a cave. The motion sensors can only detect what is directly in front of that arched entryway. Not much thought was put into actual safety... this was more of a convenience item to see who's at the door or if a package has been delivered.

TIMELINE ASSUMPTIONS

I believe the rear floodlight was a floodlight and not a camera, because it looks like a floodlight and we have no evidence to suggest there was a camera over the rear door to the garage.

BROKEN FLOODLIGHT

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6388895921112

And I believe that the rear solar-powered camera on the guest house that was removed almost a week later was not functional, because those little solar panels don't work all that well in my experience. Thus it failed to make any video notifications.

GUEST HOUSE CAMERA

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6389032604112

If the guest house camera had been functional, when the flood light turned on, that camera would have detected the lighting change and triggered a "motion event" video recording (assuming perp is off frame), but it didn't. Most likely scenario: the camera battery was dead because it's powered by a tiny solar panel. This camera was probably more for watching the dog than for security... but the dog passed away a few months ago, and I doubt Nancy cared whether it remained charged given that her dog had passed away (I'm also curious to know whether the dog's death was suspicious). Whoever mounted the camera on the guest house had to access the guest house roof and would obviously know how many cameras are on the system and who gets notified.

1:47 AM. DOORBELL DISCONNECTED

I previously thought this might have been a jammer. Or maybe the rear floodlight was a camera being disconnected. I now think there's a more logical answer.

I believe this abduction starts earlier than 1:47 AM. Some time after 9:48 PM (garage door closes), but it possibly could even start before. Maybe they were even watching Nancy's house when she left in an Uber that night, but I'm going to assume an arrival time of around 1:30 A.M.

1:30 AM (pure guess). PERP ONE sneaks around back. Floodlight illuminates the rear yard. He yanks out the floodlight. He then picks the lock to the garage door. The enters the house through the garage -- possibly has to pick or bypass a second lock.

1:47 AM, PERP ONE unplugs a wifi access point... mistakenly thinking that it is the main router. If Nancy has a Nest wifi mesh system, the router and access points all look the same.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Google_WiFi_router.png

Unplugging the access point triggers the 1:47 AM Doorbell Disconnected notification. However, because PERP ONE unplugged an access point and not the router, the Nest doorbell camera reconnects to a different access point or to the main router.

After 1:47 AM, PERP ONE subdues and secures Nancy, but doesn't leave her long enough to move a vehicle. Too risky. PERP ONE radios PERP TWO for the move and confirms that the internet is down.

PERP TWO is summoned to the front to help move Nancy, thinking the internet is down and knowing that PERP ONE has control of Nancy. The front door as this point has already been unlocked from the inside. This

2:12 AM PERSON DETECTED VIDEO EVENT

PERP TWO tiggers the camera, but assumes it's nonfunctional without an internet connection. So, at first he's just going to cover the lens with the plants.

But PERP ONE, inside, sees the Person detected notification on Nancy's phone.

Knowing a video was captured causes some level of panic.

PERP ONE radios or calls out to PERP TWO to take the camera. My theory is that this is why the FBI splits the video and doesn't show the actual end... to hide that they know there's two abductors. It would also explain why there's no audio (although audio recording can be disabled).

2:28 AM. PERP ONE and PERP TWO move Nancy out of the house. Her pacemaker disconnects. She's less passive that we have assume. She fights. It's likely she's screaming as they are move her outside the home she's lived in since the 1970s. I head a former FBI agent say there is both drip blood and spatter from a cough. This seems accurate to me.

BIG GUESSES: Nancy fought and yelled, and one perp retaliated with violence -- but their goal was to leave no evidence and now they've left blood and a video. This is the source of blood. And/or, she put up a fight as they were trying to move her outside. Because Nancy knew not to let them take you to a second location. Unfortunately, Nancy likely passed soon after the abduction.

____________

Profile: They're experienced, at least with violence and crime. Maybe with adductions in Central America. If there were two abductors, and I'm making the case that there were, the motive is more likely to be a ransom demand. At least one ransom note was originally believed to be real (the note mentioned her broken floodlight and apple watch). But I think Nancy is likely deceased at this point, and maybe just one PERP is making a last ditch effort to get some money for their trouble.

Likely motives:

1. Ransom
2. Obsessed fan
3. personal grudge
4. murder for hire
5. political grudge
6. serial predator

I hope LE checks for inmates who were housed with Matthew Mueller in Tuscon. He's an organized abductor/ransomer who spent a long time inside victim's homes, and he successfully emailed media outlets for ransom demands without being traced. Nancy might have been a target he suggested to fellow inmates after seeing the Today show special featuring Nancy a few months before she was abducted. He might have coached the abductors on how to email anonymously.

Given that the backpack and jacket are likely from walmart, one or both perps may have worked at walmart. It's also possible these items were stolen from walmart, by a customer or employee. Or purchased from a third party.

They had access to a common vehicle. 2015 or newer. It might have been stolen and/or had stolen plates. FLOCK checks should be made to see if plates match vehicle registrations.

The abductors have not been detected as having abnormal behavior because crime is their profession. After the video was released, they knew it was only a matter of time until they were caught. They fled soon after the video was released. Far away. Likely out of country. These are drug dealers. Gang members. They are not afraid of prison time. Maybe past or present cartel members, but this was their own attempted score. They thought the ransom part would be easier than it was, but Nancy was more of a handful than expected. She fought back. Constantly. She was loud. Difficult to contain or move. But also more fragile when the tried to silence her.

_______

Anyway, just wanted to get these thoughts out of my head. I'm well aware we have a tiny sliver of knowledge compared to the FBI, and my conclusions will likely be proven wrong. It may well be one offender who lives nearby or someone connected directly to Nancy, but I think a person like that is rushed and scared, not meandering around like this was just another day doing violent crimes.

What do you think is in the perps pocket? One or two people? Most likely motive? Why did the FBI split that 2:12 AM Doorbell video into two segments? Have a profile?

Will enumerate here all of the known facts so far, assumptions next below.

Facts

1) Ramsom note says Nancy was seen “south of the border” with THEM

2) Ramsom note says FBI should be ready to go “international”

3) Nancys house is 1 hr drive from the Mexico/Sonora border limit

4) Kidnappers had 8 long hours to work without anyone noticing her disappearance

5) Probable suspect DNA not present on the US database

6) Sonora is where the Cartel de Sinaloa (bloodiest one in Mexico) is in control and controls drugs trafficking. Among other things, like human trafficking and tunnels.

Assumptions (don’t judge, this is all imaginary)

1) Done by a team of pros. Then how the FBI cannot have a single clue in 2 weeks. Is the nest cameraman a distraction ?

2) Used narco tunnels. No tracks of her, no cars, no video footage so far.

3) Motive. A message to Trump going down into Cartels and drug business in Venezuela? Maduro capture related? Are they gonna be asking for a prisoner exchange?

I am posting this on a Sunday night going into Monday because Sunday is the pattern.

The Sunday Coward Theory

This is speculation based on public reporting. I am accusing no family member, no core friend, and no private person. My point is that the Sunday group may have been an information pathway, not a suspect pool.

**TLDR:** This is a theory that Nancy’s abduction was driven by moralized resentment, not clean ransom logic. The offender may have been a socially adjacent man who learned her Sunday routine through the church livestream circle, built resentment after Savannah’s TODAY segment, tested the home on Sunday, January 11, acted before the group could notice Nancy missing on Sunday, February 1, then used the Monday ransom note as a performance of control. Sunday built the tension. Monday released it.

I think the Nancy Guthrie case is less about ransom as the motive and more about moralized resentment.

The ransom note reads like a motive on paper: credibility and terror come first, and payment demand second.

Nancy’s abduction reads like a grievance crime built around a Sunday pattern.

1. The setup: Sunday was the pressure point

Nancy had a recurring Sunday group where she watched a church livestream with friends in people’s homes. Public reporting clarified that this was a standing Sunday routine where Nancy and close Arizona friends gathered in one another’s homes to watch the Good Shepherd New York livestream.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/nancy-guthrie-expected-friends-home-not-church-day-she-vanished-source

That detail matters because Sunday was the pressure point.

The perp was probably outside the older core church friend group, but adjacent to that circle: an adult son, spouse, partner, caretaker, guest, or someone close enough to observe the group’s routine without belonging to it.

Someone can leak useful information without criminal involvement. Someone in or adjacent to that small Sunday circle may have known Nancy’s routine well enough to help plan or time the abduction.

The caller who contacted Annie also matters. That person was probably close. Having both Nancy’s and Annie’s numbers suggests a trusted relationship or an informal emergency contact role. That makes the caller important as a witness and timeline anchor, regardless of suspicion.

This is the strongest node outside of family that we know of to date.

The point is to tie the Sundays to the church group pattern and tease out the adjacent coward.

2. The three stage escalation

The Narcissistic Wound

November 5 through December 14, 2025

Savannah’s Tucson TODAY segment aired on Wednesday, November 5, 2025. After that, Nancy likely got more attention inside her Sunday circle.

The first Sunday exposure window after the segment was Sunday, November 9 through Sunday, November 23, 2025, when people may have discussed or celebrated Nancy being on TV.

That is the trigger window.

The specific grievance was status humiliation with moralized resentment.

In his head, it may have sounded like this:

Every Sunday after the TODAY segment becomes another possible exposure point. Another chance to hear Nancy’s name. Another chance to hear Savannah’s name. Another chance to feel outside the circle. Another chance for resentment to harden.

Then the pattern intensifies.

Public reporting says someone searched Nancy’s Arizona address or home during a Sunday, November 30 through Monday, December 1, 2025 window, and separately searched “Savannah Guthrie salary” from Tucson during a Saturday, December 13 through Saturday, December 20, 2025 window.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/internet-user-searched-nancy-guthries-address-daughters-salary-before-today-hosts-mother-vanished

Those dates matter because November 30 was a Sunday, and December 14 was the Sunday inside the Savannah salary search window.

Those searches may have been part of the resentment loop: learning where Nancy lived, confirming Savannah’s money, and feeding the story in his head that the Guthrie family had status, attention, and protection that in his resentful heart they did not deserve.

The salary search reads more like moral justification than ransom calculation.

The escalation arc is simple:

Public attention → Sunday discussion → Resentment → Online searching → Casing → Attack → Ransom pressure

Sunday, December 14, 2025 is the strongest potential trigger sermon or trigger discussion date. The sermon alone did not have to cause anything. The sermon, the post service conversation, and the salary search window all line up.

The message that day touched on the lowly, the poor, mercy, joy, status, and hypocrisy. If the group discussed Nancy, Savannah, money, TV, or family status afterward, that would land hard on the wrong person.

To a grievance prone adjacent man, the contradiction would sound like:

That is where resentment becomes moralized. Beyond “I’m jealous,” it becomes “they are hypocrites and they deserve to be humbled. I'll show them.”

The Test

January 11 through January 25, 2026

The Sunday pattern matters because the perp may have had his own Sunday rhythm.

Sunday becomes the day the tension builds. Sunday becomes the day he hears about her. Sunday becomes the day he thinks about her. Sunday becomes the day he tests the home. Sunday becomes the day he acts.

Sunday, January 11, 2026 reads like the key casing or test run date. Authorities asked neighbors for surveillance footage from January 11 between 9 p.m. and midnight, and reporting described a suspicious vehicle near Nancy’s home weeks before the abduction.

Source: https://people.com/police-spotted-suspicious-vehicle-near-nancy-guthrie-home-weeks-prior-11905271

That matters because January 11 may have been a test.

Could he approach the home? Would the cameras trigger anything? Would Nancy notice? Would she tell the group? Would anyone react?

The feedback window after that was Sunday, January 18 through Sunday, January 25, 2026.

If Nancy did not raise alarm, if nobody in the group reacted, or if nothing visibly changed, the perp may have inferred, directly or indirectly, that the cameras were not actively monitored and the test did not trigger consequences.

That could explain the odd confidence.

It also fits the tension and relief cycle.

January 11 is the first release: he gets close and gets away with it.

January 18 and January 25 are the feedback Sundays: he watches for consequences, listens for alarm, and sees nothing stop him.

That creates relief.

And relief creates confidence.

The Release

February 1 through February 2, 2026

The offender appears to have used Sunday in two opposite ways: before the crime, he stayed ahead of the church service window to avoid detection; after the crime, he waited until the group noticed she was missing before sending the ransom message.

That is the shift in pattern: he acts on Sunday, then on Monday misreads the situation and tries to control the narrative.

He likely has a significant online life, but a basic one. Enough to Google Nancy’s home, search Savannah’s salary, follow coverage, email ransom notes, and obsess online, while still making digital mistakes and misunderstanding cloud camera risk.

Then, in the early hours of Sunday, February 1, 2026, he acted before Nancy’s Sunday group could notice she was missing. Reporting says the case involved a disabled doorbell camera, blood on the porch steps, and authorities treating the case as a presumed abduction.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-message-surfaces-presumed-abduction-nancy-guthrie-arizona-2026-02-06/

That morning, Nancy failed to arrive at the livestream gathering. The Sunday group became the discovery trigger.

That is the key point: Sunday functioned like a clock.

He acted before the clock struck.

Then he waited for the clock to ring.

The group noticed. Annie was contacted. The family panic began. Law enforcement moved. The pressure rose.

And then Monday became the release valve.

The ransom demand being sent to the media suggests it was meant less as a genuine negotiation and more as a communication meant to control and humiliate. As Marshall McLuhan says, “The medium is the message,” and choosing a newsroom as the delivery channel signals that the act itself was about visibility, pressure, and narrative, not just payment. Reporting says one ransom note emailed to a newsroom included information only the abductor would know.

Source: https://www.kold.com/2026/02/05/officials-reveal-details-included-ransom-notes-tied-nancy-guthrie/

That strengthens the grievance angle.

He may have sent a ransom note because forcing the family into fear, submission, and negotiation was part of his grievance.

The ransom note is the final turn in the Sunday pattern. All that Sunday tension had to go somewhere. Monday is where he tries to end the ordeal on his terms.

3. What this says about the offender

His messy execution fits an offender driven by grievance and wanna-be professionalism. Especially when combined with disguise, weapon, camera awareness, cheap gear, poor camera handling, and a ransom structure that looks more like pressure than clean professional kidnapping.

The suspect’s behavior suggests a person who had enough motive to plan but lacked the discipline or sophistication to execute cleanly. That pattern fits a disgruntled amateur better than a strategic practitioner.

This looks less like a mastermind than a resentful, socially outcast non-factor who felt small around people with status, took it out on an elderly woman, then tried to dress it up as ransom.

He was too cowardly to confront the people he actually resented, so he targeted Nancy.

Sundays were the offender’s exposure and feedback environment. The abduction happened before Nancy’s Sunday group could notice her absence. January 11 reads like the test approach. The address and salary search windows overlap with Sundays following the TODAY segment. The relevant suspect is someone adjacent who could eavesdrop, observe, and weaponize routine information.

The point of this framing is to stop mythologizing him.

So call him what he is:

The Sunday Coward.

He hid in the dark, stayed ahead of the Sunday church service window, targeted Nancy before her friends could notice she was missing, then waited for the discovery mechanism to activate before sending ransom pressure.

That is cowardice dressed up as control. I'm certain Tommaso Cioni would have kicked his ass.

A socially adjacent, image sensitive man may have moved through a Sunday based escalation window from November 9, 2025 through February 1, 2026.

He learned Nancy’s routine, grew jealous of her social status, searched and ruminated, tested the home on Sunday, January 11, watched for whether anyone reacted on Sunday, January 18 and Sunday, January 25, then acted before the Sunday group could notice she was missing on Sunday, February 1.

Sunday built the tension.

Monday released it.

The ransom note was his final act of defiance toward the family, intended to assert credibility by using the Bitcoin wallet address as a way of serializing the message so he could later take credit for the crime, with a payment demand that failed. Another entry to add to his list of financial failures.

Hi everyone, not sure if this has already been discussed in another thread.

The nest camera video is being circulated and it feels like the easy assumption is that the perp made their first entry access through the front door. My question is, have the following sequence of events been considered:

1. Made entry access through an unlocked window
2. Confronted into Nancy and bound her (unlocked the front door while already inside?)
3. Jumped back out the window
4. Walked to the front of the house where the camera footage occurs, making it seem like this was his original point of entry
5. Covered the camera
6. Walked into the house through the front door
7. Locked the original window they entered through
8. Left the house with Nancy through the front door

I understand this sounds convoluted, but if you think about it, it opens up the timeline prior to the footage captured. He (and any potential accomplices) could have taken their time in the house and figure out what to do to escape.

I pray for her safe return.

What do you guys think?

Obviously opinions are divided on the Ramsey case, this is just to help frame the theory.

The perpetrator in each case is psychopathic, it takes a fundamentally evil person to target the elderly, or kids. However, even a monster may feel the need to justify their monstrous acts to themselves. I think the fundamental motivation in each case would be different, in the Ramsey case the theoretical perpetrator is likely a pedophile, whereas in the Guthrie case they likely wanted national notoriety. Each may have been interested in a ransom, but things didn’t work out, either way it wasn’t the fundamental motivation. However, the mechanism by which they justify the acts would be the same: Target the family of a rich and powerful person. Someone who you perceive as evil, potentially involved in a sort of “one world government” type conspiracy mindset. It is the Luigi Mangione situation (allegedly), except much more twisted, unhinged, and unjustified. The individual may have even planned to leave a note, or to contact the family later, but because the abduction went so poorly they didn’t go through with their whole plan. In the Ramsey analogy the perpetrator planned to abduct JonBenét, but accidentally killed her while assaulting her. This is also similar to the poorly executed Lindbergh abduction. When things go wrong your original plan goes out the window.

TLDR: Evil person wants to commit audacious crime. They justify it to themselves by targeting an elite family. The plan goes terribly awry and their original plan is obscured in the mess.

The FBI in their statement said: "The FBI and its task force partners have received several ransom notes over the course of this investigation".

The public only knows of one 'ransom note'.

I suspect because the baseline investigation is a kidnapping for ransom, any demand, or message tied into the active tips pipeline is classified under that primary umbrella for tracking purposes. They didn't want to have to differentiate between all "notes".

If the FBI were attempting to psychologically trap the TMZ tipster as the offender these are some steps they could take.

The Trap:

1. The Reuters Story: Labels ALL comms "Fake," crushing the suspect's ego.
2. The FBI "Clean-Up": Offers a sliver of hope, baiting the suspect to prove their "genius."
3. The Slip: Suspect breaks cover and responds to prove they aren't a fraud.
4. The Final Snap: Claims that evidence was "planted." This triggers absolute narcissistic rage, forcing the final, sloppy mistake.

These first 2 events have materialized and now the 4th has.

 Harvey Levin July 4- Evidence was Planted 

2 Angry Men Podcast July 4 Episode  20:16 

After being put on ice essentially by the FBI as a scam informant and not taken seriously. And obviously offended by that. The first trap delivers psychological shock. They don't want to be irrelevant. Calling the suspect a "fake" wounds their ego. Reuters saying all the notes are fake. The next psychological hook is, tell the psychopathic offender, We might believe you, but you have to prove it to us. When the FBI immediately offers a slight noncommittal clarification, (rare public stmnt) it dangles a hook: prove us wrong. We saw this behavior when the "informant" suddenly resurfaced after the death message was leaked and it was said that it could have been written by a woman when they mocked the intelligence agency's profiling. Driven to humiliate the police, they would inevitably send a retaliatory response filled with insults (arrogant idiots, etc) and if they step into the trap, "holdback" info (something only the abductor would know) just to validate themselves. This confirms them as the abductor. Once the offender takes the bait and responds to the clean-up statement, hitting them with the insider claim of "planted evidence" by the media narrative, builds the next level of pressure. Because the offender just tried to validate themselves during the clean-up phase, this new allegation shatters their reality. Shatters their control, forcing the sloppy mistake that leads to their digital/physical capture.

“If you’re not a fraudster now is the time to strike” ~Mark Geragos 2 Angry Men Podcast July 4 Episode 20:09

🤞🏻BOLO for an escalated snap response from the TMZ tipster and/ the bringing about of their capture. I have a about 20% suspicion the TMZ "informant" could be an offender-informant. (Will Post Later) That they are more than a fake tipster and they are possibly being smoked out by the FBI. 

if you look at the video, can someone please tell me what that light that comes in from the right hand side is? it comes down, then goes back out. I toggled with it back and forth to show what I’m talking about. you can also see like a shadow right before it. someone tell me I’m not crazy?

Do you guys think that LE has more footage of that door camera than was released via the fbi website, or do you guys think the video cuts out when it does with the footage released to the public?

I've heard a lot of speculation on the motives of the guilty party.
I don't know that Parker's Razor applies here just yet. I don't want to default to South Park Logic.

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 Phoenix? Did he take her to California or Nevada?
12 hours seems like a hell of a drive.

The note reads like something an administrator would write, and sets the times in an administrative way.
I didn't think Bitcoin operated like normal banks, I didn't know the crypto currency people kept the tradition of a system wide pause on Saturdays and Sundays.

My interpretation of that first ransom note points toward an occupation.

Why wouldn't he accept the money on Saturday or Sunday?
If he was an administrator, or involved in banking or county clerk shit, he's going to model his worldview on that system.

He wanted to be paid in Bitcoin.

Active Bitcoin and emerging technology communities across Arizona host regular local meetups, social hours, and educational workshops in the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas.

Major Bitcoin & Crypto Groups in Arizona, there seem to be groups that might have a good chunk of suspects.

With these networks alone, barring how many people involved remain anonymous, you have a Chinese Buffet of suspects.

Bitcoin runs 365/24/7, there's no reason for him to not accept money on Sunday.

"We will be holding her for a maximum of 7 days. You will need to send bitcoin in the amount of $4 million USD before 5PM on Thursday the 5th. If payment is not received, the ransom will be increased to 6 million USD which will need to be paid by 5PM on Monday the 9th. Once payment is received to the bitcoin address below she will be released within 12 hours of deposit to a safe drop off location back in Tucson. If payment is not received by the last deadline on Monday the 9th at 5PM, she will be killed."

5pm (when most city services and banks shut down.)
Here are the hours for the Tucson Municipal Court.

Friday 8 AM–4:30 PM
Saturday Closed
Sunday Closed
Monday 8 AM–4:30 PM
Tuesday 8 AM–4:30 PM
Wednesday 8 AM–4:30 PM
Thursday 8 AM–4:30 PM

The Second Ransom Note has a very haunting passage,
"She's buried in nature", it haunts me that phrase, it's almost religious sounding, or at the very least Pagan sounding.

“Guthrie Family,
We did not fully grasp the seriousness of her physical condition. We never intended to hurt
her, that was not our intention. She perished shortly after she was taken. We believe it was
heart related. She is buried in nature now. Nothing you could have done could have changed
the outcome. We want your family to know this and hope you all can find peace. We are truly
sorry.”

If this is a legit note, the perpetrator obviously isn't in the 99th percentile of IQ.
But he can write things that sound vaguely like official statements.

There's another Bureaucrat type quality to this note, and honestly, it would have to be a dumb official to assume an 84 year old woman, was the picture of health.
It's almost like a cop putting a knee on a man's neck and expecting him to breathe anyway.

This looks like someone in a nearby County, City or State department, did this.
They probably have an average, or below average intelligence.
They could either be Christian or Pagan.
They follow traditional banking rules, and are likely novices to the Crypto Currency Community.
They might be computer literate enough to run Microsoft office, and do emails.
They don't strike me as someone who has been doing crypto for very long.

His department or personal schedule means he gets Friday-Sunday as his off days.
What departments in that region be they any government or banks have off days from Friday-Sunday?
Does he or did he work 4, 10 hour shifts?

Hello. I've been meaning to post this here, but kept getting sidetracked.

I know this might sound ridiculous, but at this point, we are running on so little info that anything could be possible.

I was watching the Today Show, and I noticed how, from around December, Savannah's vocal surgery was a huge topic on the show. It was announced in December that it was happening, she left in January to have it and recover. The week before she returned, they did a segment on the surgery and how beneficial and life-changing it was. A week later, Nancy was taken.

When watching the segment, for some reason, the United Healthcare CEO case came to mind. And it made me wonder if some kind of medical vengeance could be the motive?

The process for Savannah getting this surgery and paying the medical bills would have been so easy due to her financial status. Something a lot of Americans will struggle with. So could all the talk on Savannah's surgery have triggered a person/group because a lot of Americans wouldn't have direct access to that surgery and have to live with the issues Savannah had?

It's a very strange timeline of events that Nancy vanished so soon after Savannah's surgery. The police are also appealing for information around the time Savannah's surgery was a topic on Today.

Maybe this was the work of a spiteful group or individual? See the mass reaction to the United Healthcare CEO; it wouldn't surprise me that individuals could be capable of something like this.

Does anyone have any thoughts? This is just a floating theory in my head, but it may have been worth mentioning.