Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield

Episode: Chilling New Details About How the Perp Got Inside Nancy Guthrie’s Home | Nancy Guthrie Missing
Date: March 31, 2026

Overview:

In this riveting episode, Ashleigh Banfield dives deep into new, critical details regarding the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie from her home in Tucson, Arizona—58 days into the ongoing investigation. Banfield, drawing on her 36 years of true crime reporting, shares exclusive insights from law enforcement sources, analyzes the evolving crime scene narrative, and hosts a detailed conversation with retired Pima County lieutenant and SWAT commander Bob Krieger. The focus is on how the perpetrator gained entry, the significance of propped open doors and gates using Nancy’s own flower pots, broader law enforcement response, and emerging theories on what happened that night.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Back Door and Entry Details

[00:50–07:30]

• Banfield reveals new, confirmed information from law enforcement: the back doors referenced are actually a single kitchen entry consisting of two doors—a screen door and an inner (heavier) door, both left open.
• Savannah Guthrie’s public statements (“back doors…propped open”) are clarified—the plural "doors" refers to both the screen and main kitchen door at one entrance.
• The less visible kitchen door (perpendicular to the house’s length, left of the patio sofa) is pinpointed as the entry point.
• Notably, both the kitchen screen door and the yard’s back gate were propped open using Nancy’s own flower pots.

“He took her beautiful flower pots… and he used them for his evil fucking plot.” – Ashleigh Banfield [06:07]

Theories on the Perp’s Plan

[07:30–15:45]

• Discussion of why the perpetrator would prop open both the back kitchen door and the back gate; comparisons are made to the Golden State Killer—suggesting a planned rapid escape route.
• Evidence from family: Nancy rarely locked her back doors, making this a known vulnerability.
• Signs of prior stalking: a possible sighting two weeks before the abduction (Jan. 11th) and disabled spotlights.
• The contradiction of having doors propped open at the back but blood found trailing from the front foyer to the driveway, indicating a major deviation from any initial plan.

“Did you know that there was an elderly lady inside all by herself… had you been looking through her windows, making sure you knew how to get through that place in the dark?” – Ashleigh Banfield [08:16]

Law Enforcement Analysis With Lt. Bob Krieger

[18:07–62:33]

On Propped Doors and Gates: Unusual Tactics

[18:07–19:14]

• Krieger finds the use of propped open doors notable but rare in his experience ("definitely a little bit different than traditional things I’ve seen in burglaries").
• Affirms the likelihood that the suspect intended a quick egress but suggests it could also be part of a plan to walk Nancy out discreetly.

“To see something propped open, kind of like this whole investigation has been, it is definitely a little bit different...” – Bob Krieger [18:52]

The Backyard vs. The Front—Speculation on Movement

[20:52–23:30]

• Krieger believes bringing Nancy out the front would be easier, due to rough desert terrain at the back, but acknowledges all options remain on the table, including possible accomplices.

Theories on Execution—Plan Gone Wrong

[23:30–26:21]

• Banfield and Krieger theorize that the original plan (exiting via the back) likely failed because Nancy, due to mobility issues, couldn’t make the distance—thus, the perpetrator adapted, leading her out the front.

“Probably not according to plan…It was that way. However, they decided to take her out of the house was, was, was that way. You know, how there’s so many different options…” – Bob Krieger [24:14]

On Forensic Collection and Family Aftermath

[32:14–42:33]

• The importance of door handles and flower pots for possible DNA evidence is discussed; these were likely swabbed (“Anywhere a hand is likely to go, that’s where you go.” – Krieger [32:43]).
• Protocol around crime scene release and the challenge faced by families returning to homes with potential remnants of the crime (e.g., blood traces); police may advise, but the burden of cleanup typically falls to the family.

“No family should have to clean up a scene, period. And it’s unfortunate that, you know, law enforcement fire, you know, it’s just not part of what we do.” – Bob Krieger [41:13]

Search & Rescue Efforts—Challenges & Friction

[42:40–50:58]

• Banfield questions the sheriff’s decision to rebuff offers from the Cajun Navy and other search volunteers; Krieger explains possible legal issues but ultimately sees no harm in wider searches, especially given the vast, unforgiving desert terrain.
• Delays and limitations in deploying air resources (airplanes/helicopters) are critiqued, attributed partly to internal sheriff’s department decisions.

“To have that [airplane] shelved for even a couple hours because I’m mad at you, that’s an unfortunate decision.” – Bob Krieger [45:27]

Pursuit, Leads, and the Long Road to Resolution

[51:17–54:54]

• Krieger sets expectations: cases like this may take years—not days or weeks—to solve. A flood of leads may overwhelm investigators, and the “crack in the dam” often comes when criminals’ confidantes or cellmates reveal key information.

“Here’s the secret sauce: most bad guys tell on bad guys. That’s how 80% of good crimes are solved.” – Bob Krieger [54:12]

Theories, Ransom, and Closing Thoughts

[57:54–62:33]

• Discussion of the million-dollar reward’s potential to “ring true to somebody eventually” and its importance in enticing tips.
• Krieger suspects the abduction was not random—likely multiple people involved, and something went awry, changing the perpetrator’s plan.
• Reflection on ransom notes: some may have been legitimate, others likely opportunistic scams (“glommed on” by bad actors).
• Confidence remains that the truth will eventually come out, though it may take years.

“It’s just a matter of when. It might be years, but it will be solved… some piece of evidence, some piece of information is going to put the investigators on the right track.” – Bob Krieger [62:02]

Timeline and Noteworthy Quotes

• The Back Door Was Actually Two Doors (screen and kitchen door): [04:00–07:00]
• Flower pots used to prop doors/gate open – an emotional moment: [06:00–08:30]
• Plan vs. Reality for Moving Nancy; Perp Possibly Caught Off Guard by Her Mobility: [14:30–15:45], [23:30–26:21]
• On forensic evidence, gloves, and DNA: [32:14–32:59]
• Police/family cleanup and psychological impact: [36:54–41:13]
• Search coordination, air support drama, and limitations of volunteer searchers: [43:24–50:58]
• Reward and likelihood of inside information solving the case: [55:23–57:54]
• Theory—multiple perps, not a random act, plan went sideways: [58:12–59:19]
• Timeframes for solving and the patience required: [52:39, 62:02]

Memorable Moments & Tone

Ashleigh Banfield’s style throughout is emotionally engaged, irreverent, and analytical, particularly in her indignation at the abuse of Nancy’s personal objects and the frustration at investigative obstacles.

“He took her beautiful flower pots, and he used them for his evil fucking plot.” – Ashleigh Banfield [06:07]

Krieger’s tone is pragmatic and measured, bringing experienced perspective on both the investigation’s progress and its limitations.

Final Takeaways

• This case remains tragically open, with clear evidence the perpetrator stalked, planned, and improvised.
• Propped open doors/gates using flower pots suggest premeditation, but a major improvisation due to Nancy’s limited mobility likely changed everything.
• Forensic and search efforts were extensive but not immune to internal challenges and resource constraints.
• The investigation is expected to continue for months or years, with hope that the million-dollar reward or a mistake among perpetrators will ultimately break the case.

“Not knowing is probably…worse than knowing what happened.” – Bob Krieger [62:33]